Surprising indeed! (1910)

From the October 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

OFFICIAL CONFESSION THAT THE LABOUR EXCHANGE IS A BLACK-LEGGING INSTITUTION.

The following from the Daily News of Sept. 10 so completely substantiates the worst we have said of the Labour Exchanges that we are constrained to publish the whole item.

 

“SURPRISING LETTER.”

 

“Bradford Labour Exchange and trade disputes. 

(From Our Own Correspondent)

Bradford, Thursday Night

“At to-day’s meeting of the Bradford Trades Council the following letter, issued to employers in Bradford and marked ‘Private and confidential,’ was read :

“‘Dear Sir,— Since the Labour Exchange opened on Feb. 1st, 1910, there have been two disputes in the woolcombing industry. During the progress of both unfortunate occurrences some employers applied to the Labour Exchange for men, and in both instances we were prepared to help them all we could in accordance with the regulations of the Labour Exchanges Act. May I appeal to you that, as matters have now resumed their normal course, that I may be favoured with your orders for men, women, boys and girls ?

“It seems to me there will be work-people whom it will be beneficial for you to get from us, and seeing that we are prepared to help your trade during troublesome times, I believe some reciprocation of our efforts may be shown by you giving instructions to your foremen to apply to us for labour now that trade has resumed the normal course. I may state that we have all kinds of textile workers registered here, and many other classes of workers. If you care to avail yourself of this genuine offer to help you, I should be glad to place the entire services of the Labour Exchanges at your disposal.—Secretary.’

“The letter was not discussed.”

————————————–

It seems the good I.L.P’ers and trade unionists of Bradford were too dumbfounded to even talk about it. These much-lauded institutions that (through the enumeration and classification of the unemployed) were laying the foundations of the Socialist Commonwealth, according to the very practical statesmen of the I.L.P., turn out to be what we have always said they were. “One of the measures that may engage the attention of Parliament is that concerning Labour Bureaux—which again is typical of the true Liberal policy of serving the masters. Labour exchanges, when controlled by the Government, directly or indirectly, become recruiting offices for blacklegs.” So ran the warning to the working class in our issue of March, 1909. No gift of prophesy was required to perceive what would be the upshot of this “palliative.” Merely a little of the much despised “Socialist theorising” based upon the facts of capitalist society—that was all.

What then, were the facts bearing upon the creation of and administration of Labour Ex­changes ? Are they not that working folks in order to live are compelled to sell themselves piecemeal ; and may only do this when non-workers—capitalists—can make a profit on the deal ? That further, the workers seek the highest possible wages and their employers the highest possible profits, and as a consequence, share a relation of now subdued, now open hostility ? That through the Liberal and Tory parties, and their general control of Government, the employers effectively control these agencies for the sale and purchase of labour-power ?

Our bit of theorising, the correctness of which is amply proved by the above cited news item (without detailing the cases we have previously published), simply consists, then, of the “one and one make two” calculation that, with the purchasers of labour-power in control, the Exchanges must inevitably be used in the interest of these and against the interest of the sellers—the wage-workers. The whole thing is simple enough, and one must be blinded indeed by the love of popularity or by capitalist claptrap, if one does not see through it. Here are a staff of managers and clerks anxious to keep their jobs and consequently forced to do the bidding of and seek to ingratiate themselves with the powerful ones of the earth—with those who have the dispensing or withholding of jobs and favours. What wonder, then, that they do all that they can to assist the employer when he is abandoned by his workpeople ? What wonder then that they hunt up blacklegs and strike-smashers and act as procurers for the masters ? 

The employers make their little calculation too. Say they to themselves, “If hands register at the Labour Exchanges it is because they have a difficulty in getting employment. These people are in a bad way and only too glad of a job below the rate of wages prevalent. We’ll pay these people accordingly.” And they do, too ! as many poor, struggling working men and women have found to their cost.

True, as Mr. D. J. Shackleton pointed out at the Trades Union Congress, you can’t expect the Exchanges to be run to deal with 11 million workers as though they were seeking the best possible conditions for 2 million trade unionists. Well, hardly ! no more than you can expect the average labour (mis)leader to explain honestly the workman’s position when he is virtually pleading for strike-breaking agencies founded by and administered for the exploiting class—when he is defending his place and pelf.

For remember that Mr. Shackleton, like the rest of the Labour M.P.s, “Socialist” or otherwise, owes his seat in Parliament to the Liberal support he gets—and earns and pays for by-leading the workers to slaughter.

Fellow workers, how much more of this devilish game are you going to stand ?

J. H.

Trade Unionism, Wherin it Fails, and How it can be Rendered Effective. (1905)

From the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many are the discussions that have taken place on this subject between Socialists and non-Soeialists alike. The question is, does Trade Unionism as we know it in Great Britain, help or hinder the development of the workers into class-conscious Socialists ?

The answer undoubtedly is that it materially hinders it. It does not necessarily follow that because any Trade Union or body of Trade Unionists elect a supposed Socialist to an official position that Union has progressed in a Socialist direction. On the contrary, it is generally because this particular individual has swallowed those Socialist principles he may have understood, or because it is hoped his election to office may close his mouth and cause him to refrain from the fearless advocacy of Socialism within the Union and the exposure of the unsound position in which Unionism stands today that he is elected. It is then, not the capacity for securing jobs that is the test of Socialist activity, but the number of Union members who understand the root principles— economic, political, and historical—of Socialism, and are prepared to take action consistent with that knowledge.

Let us briefly examine what has come to be known as

“PURE AND SIMPLE” TRADE UNIONISM

with the object of seeing whether Socialists can honestly support it.

Socialism implies a knowledge of the class war which is being waged between the working-class on the one hand and the capitalist-class on the other, a war which can only be fought out by labour organised in a proper manner.The “pure and simple” Unions do not organise workers for that struggle.

Paradoxical as this may seem, it is nevertheless the fact. In evidence let us take what is generally considered the wealthiest and most powerful union in the country the Amalgamated Society of Engineers.

In the Annual Report of this Union for 1904 we find an increase of 703 members. This is the smallest increase since the days of the eight hours strike, a significant fact in view of the development in recent years of the motor industry. Mr. Geo. Barnes, the general secretary of the A.S.E.—fairly well known to readers of this journal as one of the many “labour leaders” who delight in rendering assistance to the capitalist-class wherever possible emphasises this significance and urges upon existing members the importance of securing fresh members. But as the report shows, 4,517 have been excluded from membership ! These are men who, by the aid of improved machinery, continually being introduced, can do work that previously only highly trained men could do. They can work for less money, and the A.S.E. excludes them therefore. All over London this spectacle of a Union working its own destruction by the

MANUFACTURE OF POTENTIAL BLACKLEGS

can be observed, while at the same time in the shops of Harland and Wolff of Belfast, A.S.E. members themselves act as blacklegs to the electrical workers by working under price, and this after having refused to undertake the organisation of the electrical workers, who are really engaged in a branch of the engineering industry !

In the slate club (or coffin club) side of this Union impending disaster is again apparent. It returns a monthly average of 5,427 unemployed members, 2,444 in sick benefit, while 4,696 are superannuated. Altogether a total of 12,567 members drawing upon the financial resources of the Society. On the year’s working the average income per member is shown to be £3 15s. 9½d. against an average expenditure of £3 16s. 1d. !

The case of the Operative Bricklayers’ Society is not more inspiring. During last year they lost 2,333 members, and the returns of the preceding three years show decreases also. The amount expended in strikes and lockouts for 1904 was £5,105 5s. 11½d. in excess of the previous year, while sick, funeral, and superannuation funds all have increases on the expenditure side. The jealous eye with which the bricklayers regard the masons, plasterers, and even the labourers, and the disputes which the Unions of these trades have engaged in, do not compel the conclusion that the O.B.S. is desirous that all workers in the trade should be in their Union, but even if it could secure the additional membership for which it is asking, on its present base it could not escape bankruptcy unless subscriptions were raised considerably. An appreciable increase of subscription, however, would inevitably result in the withdrawal of many existing members through sheer inability to pay, and the last condition of the Union, therefore, would be as bad as the first.

A further instance of how

PRESENT TRADE UNIONISM DISORGANISES

the workers can be found in the six organisations which the builders’ labourers consider necessary in London. These, together with the three other unskilled workers organisations also existing, necessitate the payment in the London district alone, in salaries, rent, etc., of eight times the amount that would otherwise be sufficient. In addition, of course, an enormous quantity of quite unnecessary work is caused, and much jealousy and strife engendered. Attempts at amalgamation have, it is true, been made, but without result, the officials of existing Unions being in the nature of things opposed to alterations that would affect them detrimentally, although Mr. Davenport, the general secretary of the United Order of General Labourers—the Union that opposed federation about three years ago—has fathered a scheme of his own. However, as the principle plank in his platform seemed to be the appointment of himself to the post of secretary at £3 10s. per week, the idea was not taken up with enthusiasm.

All the evidence, therefore, points to the fact that the existence of the Unions grows more and more precarious owing to the inability of Trade Unionists to appreciate the requirements of industrial warfare. Assailed on the one hand by capitalism, and on the other by the competition of the ever increasing number of men whom the Unions will not admit, they cannot in their present form survive. The question therefore arises:—

CAN THE UNIONS BE OF SERVICE

to the working-class ?

The answer is undoubtedly yes. But their object must be the organisation of the working-class, not a select two millions out of an adult working-class population of sixteen millions as at present. All the members of the trade, whether they can pay dues or not, whether they be unemployed or not, must be taken in. Otherwise the Union will, as previously pointed out, be creating its own blacklegs. Moreover, organisation must involve the closest of associations between members of allied trades, otherwise, as happened in the case of the Operative Bricklayers’ Society—which records 67 disputes to maintain trade customs, and four actions against reductions in wages during last year—we have the effect of any action nullified by the workers in allied trades remaining at work while the strike is in progress. The workers must be organised on a class war basis, that is, on the principle that there is and can only be, hostility between labour and capital. They must be organised to fight, not to form committees after the manner of the Bricklayers’ Society for “closer union” with the employers—surely as absurd a proceeding in view of the fact that this Society expended about £6,000 last year in struggles against the encroachments of these same employers, as it is possible to conceive.

The position of Socialist Trade Unionists is clear. They should, it seems to me, endeavour to effect the

SOUND ECONOMIC ORGANISATION

of the workers by systematic propaganda of Socialism inside existing Unions—a work which, it must be remembered, has, hitherto, never been seriously undertaken, in the result should it be found that the “pure and simple” element, aided and abetted by Trade Union leaders, many of whom are interested in maintaining the present sectionalism among the workers, and are, as can easily be demonstrated, consciously playing the capitalists’ game, are too recalcitrant for satisfactory progress to be made, there will be no other alternative left than that of forming separate Socialist Trade Unions and crushing the existing Unions from the outside.

Trade Unions will play an important part, perhaps the most important, in the overthrow of the capitalist-class and system. The political party of the workers,—the S.P.G.B—while building up the political side, bears in mind the fact that both are essential. As we get nearer and nearer to the time when there will be a Socialist majority on the administrative bodies, particularly the executive of the nation, the capitalist-class will not sit quietly and watch themselves legislated out of existence. When we

REMEMBER FEATHERSTONE

Hull, Michelstown and Grimsby it stands to reason that they will oppose by all the means in their power the attempt of the class-conscious workers to capture the State machinery in working-class interests, and undoubtedly if the Trade Unions have not achieved their highest purpose—capacity and readiness for the organisation of production and the carrying on of industry—they will, when the Socialist working-class have secured their majority, endeavour to effect a counter revolution by closing down all works of importance.

Therefore it is all important that the economic organisations of the working-class should be as sound as their political organisations. Neither can be sound unless founded upon a clear recognition of the causes underlying and

THE REMEDY FOR PRESENT CONDITIONS.

Well grounded upon knowledge and thoroughly organised, the working-class, in the day when they have attained to the position of the dominant class in the legislature, need have no fear of any measures the capitalist-class may take in their endeavours to secure themselves a longer lease of life. They will be able to take over and work the industries of the country which the capitalist system itself is even now rapidly ripening for the change in face of any difficulties capitalism may attempt to thrown in the way, and so usher in the Socialist Republic.

E. J. B. Allen

A Look Round. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

An appeal to the possessors of this world’s goods and chattels has been issued, signed by a peculiar collection of side-trackers, amongst them the Countess of Kinnoul, the Hon Claude Hay, Mrs. Clara Hendin, and Mr. George Lansbury. These good people have discovered that the employment of working-class mothers to the detriment of their children is an evil. Do they therefore propose to abolish the capitalist system which produces the evil ?—to stir up the mothers and other members of the working-class to revolt, so that they can establish the Co-operative Commonwealth and properly provide for all, grown-ups as well as children ? No, my friends, As the appeal states, they are “Social Reformers.” The aristocratic and middle-class of them desire to show the working-class how the hearts of the upper-class beat in sympathy for the sufferings of the lower-class, and how much they are willing to do to brighten the lives of the poor. As usual, they have been cute enough to secure the help of some members of the working-class, and as soon as the funds come in Model Day Nurseries will be established.

* * *

And as soon as possible after they are in working order, and mothers are relieved of the cost of providing for their children during the day time, the wily capitalist will seize the opportunity to reduce the wages of the women.

* * *

Well, we suppose the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. can assist the employing-class to “humanise” the conditions of capitalism, if they wish. We prefer to devote our energies to changing the system. That is why we claim to be the only revolutionary party in this country.

* * *

“We cannot find much to say for a Bill which looks suspiciously like a quack remedy for the present industrial disease.”

* * *

Thus the Tory People about the Government’s Unemployed Bill, which Keir Hardie and other Labour “Leaders” are so anxious that the House shall pass. It is this thing which Hardie must know is a quack remedy that he advises the Unemployed not to endanger by marching on London !

* * *

The “tactics” question has reached an acute stage in America, in connection with the Spring elections in Milwaukee. According to Wilshire’s Magazine, the Socialist Party there, upon a referendum vote, has decided not to contest these elections, as has hitherto been its custom. Victor Berger, recently their candidate for Mayor, explains that it is merely a judicial election, and doesn’t count for much ; and anyway the party can, by casting its vote for one of the old party candidates defeat one of the other old party candidates, a man who is strongly “anti-Socialist.”

* * *

In comment the Editor of Wilshire’s writes :— “Inasmuch as I had supposed that all non-Socialist party candidates look alike to us Socialists, all in our eyes being ‘anti-Socialist,’ I hardly see the logic of Mr. Berger’s position. When the fall elections come round Mr. Berger may have trouble leading all of his Milwaukee flock back out of the old party ranks into the fold of Socialism. His tactics are most dangerous and are calculated to destroy the solidarity of our Socialist political movement.”

* * *

Well said, Mr. Wilshire. It is precisely because we of the S.P.G.B. take up a similar position that we are denounced by the would-be political wire-pullers of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. as “Ishmaelites,” “Impossiblists,” etc. But we hold that “straight” tactics are best, at all times. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

* * *

After Mr. Berger’s reply, however, Mr. Wilshire says:— “There may be no objection to Socialists voting for capitalist candidates when the Socialist Party has no nominee” ! We admit that “may” is different to “can,” but surely, in the comments quoted above, Mr. Wilshire has given the best possible reasons why such a course should not be pursued. And so we “hardly see the logic” of Mr. Wilshire’s position.

* * *

“Socialists demand the abolition of the system of competition and the private ownership in its entirety, and are in politics to voice this demand, and not merely to get through any particular reform, even if that reform is so good and soundly Socialistic as municipal control of street railways. The Goddess lost the race by stooping to pick up the golden apple. The apple was good and beautiful enough, but it was not worth the losing of the race. This is the Socialist position regarding municipal ownership, the referendum, and other side issues. All good enough in their way, but not good enough for us to break up our Party and let go of Socialism to chase after them.”—Wilshire’s Magazine.

* * *

At the Annual Dinner of the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce last month, Mr. Hugh Montgomery (Conservative candidate) proposed the toast of “The Houses of Parliament,” and coupled with it the name of Mr. Will Crooks, M.P. In reply Mr. Crooks said that in the House of Commons there was a comradeship which was comparatively unknown in any other gathering elsewhere. In the tea room could be seen the Prime Minister chatting with the humble “Labour” member. The labour members were very much like the Chamber of Commerce, they “looked after the interests of the whole community.” And so on, only more so. And this is the man whom the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. delight to support.

* * *

Mr. J. R. Clynes, Organising Secretary of the Gasworkers’ Union, has publicly denied the statement made in the Executive Report of the S.D.F., submitted to the Annual Conference at Northampton, that W. Thorne, at South West Ham, is one of the Parliamentary candidates for whom the S.D.F. is financially responsible. He states that Thorne is a candidate promoted by the Gas-workers’ Union, which makes itself responsible, the members paying a quarterly contribution to a Parliamentary Fund, on conditions similar to the other candidates endorsed by the L.R.C.

* * *

As we pointed out in our November issue, W. Thorne, acting upon the instructions of his Trade Union paymasters, has signed the constitution of the L.R.C., and is running as a “Labour” candidate accordingly. But the S.D.F. still claim him as “their” candidate (and they are quite welcome to him as far as we are concerned) and mislead their members into believing that he is running as a “definitely avowed Social-Democrat” as required by the Rules of the S.D.F. Pie-crust !

* * *

It will be remembered that a few issues ago we drew attention to the illogical position of the S.D.F. in opposing Mr. Masterman at North West Ham in face of the fact that at Dulwich Mr. J. Hunter Watts had voted for him and urged the local S.D.F. to do likewise. We contended that the reasons which were given for opposing Dr. Rutherfoord Harris by supporting Masterman could be urged against Ernest Gray at West Ham. Last month Dr. Rutherfoord Harris addressed a crowded meeting of his constituents at the Denmark Hill Schools, and his principal supporter upon the platform was Mr. Ernest Gray ! Are our S.D.F. friends still unrepentant?

* * *

An interesting article on “James Farley, Strike-Breaker” has appeared in the Times. Not many years ago, it says, the need of a job constrained Farley to join the crowd of “blacklegs” in a strike at Brooklyn. After this was over, he devised a scheme for keeping in touch with “blacklegs,” and it is said that he has today on his books nearly 40,000 names. He perfects his arrangements for breaking a strike to such a degree that, at the moment when the employees of the elevated and underground railways of New York came out on strike recently, Farley had on the spot a man to fill nearly every deserted post, and within three days it was generally recognised that the strikers were beaten. Farley is considered to be a very wealthy man now, as the result of his operations, and. we fear he will amass much more wealth before the workmen of America recognise the futility of the Strike, as now understood, and make up their minds to strike at the ballot box—not merely for shorter hours and higher wages, but for the abolition of the wage system by the substitution of public for private ownership, democratic for class control, and production for use for production for profit.

* * *

In the article referred to the Times says that “labour troubles in Chicago mean war.” And they mean war everywhere. A war in which the employing class are ever ready to use the maxim gun and the magazine rifle, the gatling and the gunboat, and, in fact, all the death-dealing forces of Christian Civilization against the men, women, and children of the working-class. And while even the Times admits that this war exists, the leaders of the I.L.P., when it suits them, deny it.

* * *

The Co-operative Small Holdings Society has issued an appeal for funds to enable it to carry on its work. Now it is indisputable that the land must play a very vital part when the reorganisation of our economic system is under consideration, but evidently this society, to quote a phrase used by Sir William Harcourt concerning the Liberal Party, “has no revolutionary schemes.” It appears to be merely desirous of establishing the labourer, as such, more firmly on the soil, because “it is proved that in the few districts where allotments and Small Holdings are numerous, farmers have less difficulty in securing labourers.” It therefore proposes “to supply a ladder whereby the agricultural labourer or artizen may rise from the cultivation of a small allotment to the occupation of a holding capable of contributing materially to the support of himself and his family.”

* * *

It will be noticed that the Society does not aim at providing a Holding which will be capable of entirely supporting the holder, and the position seems to work out somewhat in this way. The provision of allotments and small holdings on a large scale will enable landowners to obtain more for their land than otherwise and secure the presence of a large supply of labour in districts where at present it is scarce. The Holdings will not suffice for the sustenance of the holder and his family, therefore, he must sell his labour-power to the farmer. But his holding will partly sustain him, so that he can accept a lower wage. But if he has to work for the farmer he can only labour on his own holding either before commencing his wage labour or after finishing it for the day. The nett result to him therefore is that his hours of labour are greatly increased, his rate of wages is decreased, to the advantage of the farmer. This being so, it is clear that Allotments and Small Holdings offer no solution of the agricultural problem. We shall return to this matter, but cannot refrain from asking why, amongst others, the names of Joseph Hyder, Percy Alden, J. R. MacDonald, and Fred Maddison appear in the list of supporters of the Society. Why should they strive to increase the landlord’s rent, the farmer’s surplus-value, and the labourer’s hours ?

* * *

At a Conference held on Saturday last at the Passmore Edward’s Settlement to consider the Unemployed Bill, Mr. J. Hunter Watts represented the S.D.F. He characterised the Bill as a wretched one, but it was better than none, and for that reason he hoped it would be passed.

* * *

Oh! what a falling off is here ! It is not merely a case of half a loaf being better than no bread, but even of the distant prospect of a crumb being better than half a loaf. Which shows how easy it is to tread the downward path when once a start is made.

* * *

Speaking at the Town Hall, East Ham, yesterday week, H. Quelch stated that he had no sympathy with the working man because at one time he voted Conservative and at another Liberal. Well, this is precisely what the S.D.F. has advised him to do at different times

J. Kay

Editorial: Bobby's Discretion. (1919)

Editorial from the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

So, the bobbies have funked it. We are not, for the present, at all events, to be treated to the comic spectacle of strike processions of bluebottles being shepherded through the streets by their own blacklegs, the "specials." The world has lost an entertainment.

Of course, we are not blind to the difficulties of the policemen's situation. Their bosses had got the strangle-hold on them. By the simple expedient of stopping sixpence in the pound of their wages, confiscating their fees for the service of summons, and in other dubious ways, the capitalists provide a pensions fund at poor Booby's expense. The loss of this pension, together with the "sack," is the first threat the bosses hold over the bobbies' heads. Bobby is a man with no other trade in his hands in the vast majority of cases. So the threat of losing a regular job has special terrors for him. In addition, the loss of his pension—a pension designed, as most pensions are, to get a disciplinary grip upon the subject which probably no other expedient possible in a "free country" could afford, is a prospect requiring a quite uncommon type of mind to withstand.

The bosses, of course, played the game for all it was worth. They said they were flooded with applications from soldiers and ex-soldiers to take the policemen's jobs. They also talked loudly but vaguely about the arrangements that were being made to meet Buttons' grievances. It was the old, old game of bribe some and threaten others—the game played from the beginning to the end of the recruiting for the war—the game played to kill the demobilisation trouble after the Armistice. As, in the earlier case, the single and the young were promised jobs and preferment if they enlisted, and the married and the older ones were threatened that they would have to go if they did shove the others in; as, later, the older men were promised early demobilisation if they kept quiet, and detention till the last if they did not, while the younger men were soothed with extra money, so the older policemen were threatened more particularly with the loss of all that was so nearly won, while the younger men were soothed with promised improvements in the longer road before them.

Meanwhile the policemen played their cards just about as badly as they could. They have climbed down under threats—than which hardly anything could more completely have exposed their weakness and fear. Added to this they have climbed down before their bosses had committed themselves to the vaguely talked-of concessions, and in face of this confession of funk and weakness those concessions are going to shrivel up considerably. The bosses have found out all they wanted to know—that the reward they are offering their bulldogs is sufficient to secure their allegiance to their odious duties. If they dare not decline those duties for themselves they can never dare to decline to perform them for others. So, when labour troubles come Bobby will not, the masters are assured, be a trade unionist, and they have secured this, thanks to their cunning, at about the lowest possible price.

The Daily Chronicle in its issue of June 2 tries to point out to the policemen why the Government can never recognise the Police Union, and, as usual, it reveals only half the truth. "The police exist," our contemporary says, "to support the State. That is what they are for. . . They cannot strike and agitate, or even become public politicians, without ceasing to be policemen." Which is true enough as far as it goes, but does not dispose of the not unimportant fact that the policeman is so essentially a member of the exploited class that he cannot get his admitted grievances redressed until he threatens to cease to be a policeman.

The more important matter, however, is the statement that a policeman is only such to support the State. The complement of this half truth is, of course, that the State is only an instrument for keeping the workers in subjection. Directly this position is realised it becomes obvious how far the police are from getting recognition for any police union that could possibly link them with the unions of the industrial world. The position of police force affiliated with the industrial trade unions would indeed be a tragic one in a time of strife. This the bosses have sense enough to perceive, if the underlings have not. And it is for this reason rather than that they are afraid of being dictated to by the men that the Government will never recognise the Police Union.

It was probably a lie that the police authorities are inundated with blackleg applications from soldiers, but the capitalists have a deep pocket, and, as long as their control of the instrument of the State lasts will have no serious difficulty in obtaining men who will carry out their behests. It is simply a question of the price.

The only thing that can deliver the policeman—as the rest of us— from the tyranny of his tormentors is for the working class to assume control of the State, and to use its forces, including the police, to abolish capitalism and establish the Socialist Commonwealth.