The Position in Lancashire. (1909)

From the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

When dealing with the condition of any section of the working class the primary question always is, what are their wages? What is their cost of living ? A Government enquiry was commenced in October 1906 into various matters dealing with the wages of, and the prices paid by, the working class in Burnley, and the result was .published in the Burnley Gazette of February 12 1908. Compared with London prices, which are taken as 100, the prices index number for Burnley for all commodities was 95. The index number of rent and prices combined in Burnley was 87 compared with 100 in London. Taking the London rate of wages as 100, the Burnley index number for the building trades was 85, in the engineering the same, in the printing it was 81, in the furnishing trades 81. In the cotton trades the earnings of the male and female weavers are the same—for a four loom weaver it is given as from 22s. to 28s. per week. This, it must be remembered, is when working full time and when work is of good quality. It is absurd to claim these figures as a fair indication of the average wage of the weavers. In the Manchester Guardian of July 29th, 1908 it was stated in a special article that “If we go back for 34 or 35 years it will be seen that rates of wages are no higher to-day in the textile trades (including operative cotton spinners and weavers and jute and linen operatives) than they were in 1874.” Another fact worthy of note was thus stated by Mr. Philip Snowden in a speech in the House of Commons on January 30th, 1908, “In the most important of our industries, particularly in the textile trades, the actual number of persons employed was less than it was at some former decade.” The recent blue book “Public Health and Social Conditions,” gives the number employed in the textile trades in 1851 and 1901 as 1,671,681 and 1,301,685 respectively. Every fundamental industry wherein machinery is well established shows the same feature; this in spite of the much larger amount of raw material handled.

The wages received by the male workers are thus really inadequate to rear a family upon a “civilised” standard. Often a whole family are to be found working in the mills—man and wife, and children full and half time. Pretty fairy tales are in circulation in “middle-class” circles anent the earnings of these families when all are merrily working. One would imagine that the Income Tax assessors are missing a fertile source of revenue. But, alas, this state of financial felicity is temporary: the children marry and set up wigwams of their own, and pass through the old struggle and suffering.

Our readers know well the wage conditions in those trades where the wives of the workers work side by side with men. And for years the proportion of women to men workers has been steadily increasing. Many of the older mills are terrible from a hygenie point of view; the clouds of artificially formed vapour floating in the air do not add to their salubrity. And women toiling in such holes to within a few weeks of child-birth does not tend to produce a race of Spartans, even with the help of municipal milk depots, lady inspectors, and, let us say also, state feeding of children. We cannot wonder that such districts are notorious for their enormous infantile death-rate. Baden Powell’s boy scouts, in this part of the country at any rate, would not make ideal advertisements for a beef extract. Imagine the long ten hours of toil, every day producing miles of shoddy, adulterated cottons, every yard of which is a replica of every other yard ; stuff which would be disdainfully refused, often, by our slum proletariat, and intended ultimately for a far distant market. And our women folk up North have been so perverted by spending half their living hours under such noxious and tense conditions that it is said many of them actually prefer it to the alternative of domestic drudgery. Perhaps under capitalism there is little to choose twixt the two desolations.

There is, I understand, a legend in existence, well believed, holding that in the Lancashire textile towns a large number of the workers own the houses wherein they live. Now it is certain that to only a very small proportion does this apply. A certain number of houses are purchased by the workers with the aid of money borrowed from building and co-operative societies. It is well known that in very many cases married women, where possible, go to work in the mills to help eke out the earnings of the husband. In some instances the attempt is made to lay aside the money earned by the women folk to purchase a house through the co-operative or other societies. This money earned by the women—at an inculcalable injury to health it is sure—is the creator of some miniature working-class fortunes. The hoards are made at this cost; many of the married women actually take out their children at five o’clock in the morning to a pseudo-mother to be nursed until the cessation of work. And when man and wife return “home” after the day’s toil they find a dreary, cold home, and are face to face with that amount of household work which all know to be in itself sufficient to tax the powers of any normal woman. Anti-Socialists and others propagate tales of working-class wealth as expressed in building societies, co-operative societies, penny banks, house property, and so on. But fancy a tradesman calculating his financial position by overlooking his assets alone ! What about working-class liabilities ? I imagine it would be a fairly safe assumption to regard the assets in house property of the Lancashire textile workers as heavily balanced by their liabilities in the form of doctors’ bills, credit drapers’ accounts, money lenders debts, mortgages and other accounts owing to—the capitalist class.

This, then, is the position. The majority of Lancashire workers do not, and never expect to, own their houses. A minority attempt to, and after a few years’ struggle (wife working at mill, etc.) give up the fight in disgust. Another minority, with the help of luck and the gift of the “money sense,” sometimes even manage to get hold of a few houses, rise out of their class, and become object lessons in thrift and parsimony to the rest of the proletariat. But “one swallow does not make a summer,” and the fact that a few lucky, financially acute working men rise out of their class is no more a proof that the whole working class as a class could so be saved than the fact that a few Roman slaves were manumitted was a proof that Roman chattel slavery would be abolished in that manner.

The co-operative society is natural to Lancashire. It is its stronghold and if anywhere it has benefited the workers, Lancashire should be that place. When these societies originated they had only the small grocer possessed of little capital to fight, and a certain progress was made. But now the company shops are in the field, and it remains to be seen whether the co-operatives can survive in competion with these monster concerns. It would be of interest if some of the co-operative leaders would give us their ideas as to the origin of the precious “divi.” It is extracted, of course, from the unpaid labour of the shopmen, but co-operators seem vague as to its source. Many experiments in co-partnership have been made in Lancashire, and the village of Haggate, near Burnley, is the stock example of successful thrift, providence and foresight. Though a few working men have risen out of their class, the majority are really unable to rise above the economic, mental and moral limits which capitalism has created. The Wholesale Co-operative Society had a turnover of ten millions in 1895 ; at the end of the next decade, 1905, it was twenty millions. So that even if the movement were economically sound it is not keeping pace at all with the development of capitalism.

Lancashire is looked upon as a stronghold of trade unionism, and most of the large towns boast a trades council. These councils have not the least influence upon working-class conditions, and do not make the difference of a pipeful of tobacco to the worker. They will send a resolution on the housing question to the local M.P., pass a vigorous one condemning the Russian atrocities, then the painters will propose resolutions condemning the park-keepers for painting railings to occupy their time during the winter months. It is all petty and ephemeral. “Practical” politics and so-called bread-and-buttter questions tax the energies of the Lancashire trades councils.

Certainly the cotton operatives possess leaders ! Some of them are credited with the possession of “Socialistic” ideas, but

“Lo, there are many ways and many traps

And many guides, and which of them is lord ?

For verily Mahomet has the sword,

And he may have the truth—perhaps ! Perhaps !”

So speaks the Oriental poet. Substitute for “Mahomet” “the capitalist” and the truth is out. Justly do we honour pioneers ! We see so many obsequious camp-followers, so many fakirs negotiating and arbitrating and conciliating, so many “leaders” merely reflecting the opinions of orthodoxy and only too ready to become “revolutionaries” when it pays them, that it is not surprising what an amount of inert opposition the S.P.G.B. has to face. Our Shackletons and Gills are typical of the minor “leaders” in the textile world ; as Meredith put it, “unimpressionable English, who won’t believe in the existence of aims that don’t drop on the ground before your eyes, and squat and stare at you.” Such men are really illiterate. Their education has been a continued accretion of ill-digested, ephemeral facts collided with in everyday life. They are mediocre and pious, that is, they hold certain theological views by virtue of hereditary and environmental influences ; they are temperance agitators because Bill Jones was a drunkard and ill-treated his family ; they are Liberals because Chapel folks are Liberals and Churchmen are Conservatives. Their religion, politics and ethics have a common source in capitalist literature and capitalist journalism. The textile union leaders, then, are hopeless. As Mr. Pickwick said : “It is always best on those occasions to do what the mob do.” “But suppose there are two mobs ?” suggested Mr. Snodgrass. “Shout with the largest,” replied Mr. Pickwick. Our textile leaders are Mr. Pickwick glorified. As we say, they know on which side their bread is buttered.

The only Socialism the bulk of the Lancashire people know of is that of the I.L.P. and S.D.P. —pseudo-Socialism. I.L.P. is, of course, a synonym for Labourism in Lancashire as in other parts of Great Britain. It is safe to assert that every Labour M.P. sent from a Lancashire constituency was elected by Liberal votes. At this moment the S.D.P. in Shackleton’s constituency are threatening opposition because he is shaky in regard to some of their reforms. Not because he is not a Socialist, forsooth ! No. If he would but shout at capitalists as whited sepulchres and advocate state maintenance he would be as acceptable as Irving, and blessed by them. There is no question but the S.D.P. in Lancashire is swamped by the Labour Party ; a reform party outflanked by another reform party, but one asking for fewer reforms. Simply that and nothing more. Politically the Lancashire artizan must be converted from Labourism; industrially he must be converted from the sick-aud-burial-society, thrifty, provident kind of industrial organisation dubbed Trade Unionism.

John A. Dawson

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. A. D. Steel-Maitland and Miss Rose Squire were appointed to investigate the relationship of industrial and sanitary conditions to pauperism. Their report to the Poor Law Commission is issued as a Blue Book. Their summing up gives the following conditions as being contributory to pauperism in the order given.

1. Casual and Irregular Employment.

2. Bad Housing Conditions.

3. Seasonal Fluctuations in Trade.

4. Unhealthy Trades and Insanitary Conditions of Work Places.

5. Earnings Habitually Below what are required for Healthy Subsistence.

6. Dangerous Trades.

7. Excessive Hours of Work.

Regarding cause 2 the investigators say ”These contribute to pauperism through disease and demoralisation. They are important causes of Pauperism, but less so than the first.”

The Socialist is well aware that the bad housing conditions are consequent upon (or effects of) the irregular employment under existing conditions. Shortness of wages compels the wage worker to accept a slum dwelling.

Some of the slums are the result of “improvements,” it is pointed out.

“Improvements in towns, accompanying the increase of wealth, by the demolition of badly built quarters, the erection of palaces for banks, warehouses, etc., the widening of streets for business traffic, for the carriages of luxury, and for the introduction of tramways, etc., drive the poor into worse and more crowded hiding places.”—” Capital,” Vol. I, p. 674.

This shows clearly that the palliative of better housing does not palliate the real evil of the present system at all, but this by the way.

* * *

With reference to No. 7, “Excessive Hours of Work,” the comment of the investigators is “We have been unable to trace any connection between long hours of work and pauperism.”

Whilst, however, they cannot trace “any connection between long hours of work and pauperism,” they tell us that drink is one of the principal causes of pauperism, but for the most part it is the effect of causes such as dangerous and unhealthy conditions of work, excessive hours, low wages and bad housing. So showing drink to be a cause of pauperism and excessive hours to be a cause of drinking habits, these blind tools of capitalist hypocrits cannot (?) trace any connection between long hours and pauperism.

* * *

The June issue of the Pioneer, the organ of the “Labour and Socialist” movement in Burnley and edited from the S.D.P. club in that town, contains an article on the Budget by Robinson Graham.

The sixpenny super-tax is hailed gladly by the writer of the article. He goes on to say “we Socialists (!) are determined that the working class shall be reminded that this Liberal tax is a tax which has been advocated by Socialists on the platform and in the Press since the inception of the Socialist movement.” Again, “the Government has merely embodied the public wish formed by the Socialist agitator.” Quite unconsciously Mr. Graham belittles the “Socialist” effort alluded to above and points out that “ten Budgets like this one would make little or no difference to the lives of the working classes.”

As the item advocated since the inception of the “Socialist” movement is contained in the Budget, those “Socialists” who advocated it stand condemned, on their own admission, for side-tracking the workers, in so far as time has been wasted on a useless measure.

There is some sound advice in the concluding paragraph of Mr. Graham’s article, which the workers of Burnley and elsewhere (and Mr. Graham himself) should take to heart. They are urged to “direct their attention to ways and means of overthrowing the capitalist system which makes poverty the common experience of the great majority of our people,” and since it is admitted that the Liberal Government have brought in this Budget with a view “to restoring the confidence of the British workmen” in themselves, it should be a lesson to the workers to fight shy of even S.D.P. agitation for super-taxes and the like, which can be used for the restoration of confidence in a capitalist Government.r

Socialism is the only remedy, and that alone, for our social evils. Super-taxes will not make any alteration whatever in the basis of society, in fact, they presuppose exploitation in order that the taxes may be levied and realised.

Those who, claiming to be working-class leaders, direct working-class political activity against anything except the capitalist system must be swept away.

* * *

We are informed by the Baker’s Record, that the S.D.P. have convened a meeting to consider the food supply of the nation, at which they propose to put forward a resolution urging the Government to purchase large reserve stores of corn with money invested in the Post Office Savings Bank. This all very fine as an example of revolutionary daring, but it isn’t to be supposed that the capitalist class are going to put up for ever with the revolutionary (!) plots that are hatched at Mooney’s bar. One of these fine days the S.D.P. will find itself suppressed, unless some particularly funny turn so excites the hilarity of the police as to prevent them executing their duty. Moreover, they are in for a “rough-and-tumble” with the I.L.P., for I hear that the latter have long ago ear-marked “the money in the Post Office Savings Bank” for the capitalists to buy themselves out with.

JAYBEE.

Literary Curiosities No. 4—Dan Irving’s Election Address. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It should be recorded that this document was sent out with Irving’s compliments as a directly personal communication and appeal.

_______________

MUNICIPAL ELECTION—GANNOW WARD

Thursday, Nov. 1st, 1906.

TO THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ELECTORS IN THE WARD.

Committee Room, 47, Hargher Street,

Burnley, Oct. 29th, 1906.

Dear Sir or Madam,

For obvious reasons business and professional people do not care to disclose their intentions as to voting at elections. We, therefore, do not propose that our canvassers shall call upon you in the ordinary manner to solicit your vote on behalf of our Candidate.

We do, however, ask for your favourable consideration of our Candidate’s address, believing you will find that the proposals contained therein are such as would be beneficial to the whole community. The public record of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, is one, we contend, of good service done in the public interest, and such as has indeed won admiration and respect from many of his political opponents, and proves his capacity and fitness to serve the Ward as its representative on the Town Council.

Our efforts to bring about better conditions for the wage-earning classes are not at all inconsistent with the best interests of the class to which you belong. Higher wages, better education and increased leisure tends to a higher standard of living, increases the needs, and supplies the means whereby the working-classes purchase more from the Tradespeople and utilize to an ever-increasing degree the services of the Professional Classes.

It is to your interest that the working-classes should be well-to-do. As ratepayers, too, our interests coincide with your own. In our judgment, any expenditure tending to promote the health and general well-being of the community, is expenditure from which all alike reap benefit. Extravagant and unnecessary expenditure is not to our advantage any more than to your own, and our representatives have always shown by their votes that they are opposed to the expenditure of public money for which we get an inadequate return in public good.

We know that, in the main, your class have hitherto opposed the aspirations of the organised Labour movement. We are of opinion that this is largely owing either to misconceptions, or that you have not really thought out what the effect of our proposals would be. A careful and kindly consideration of these would, we are convinced, bring you to see that your own best interests are bound up in the general well-being of all.

We, therefore, ask for your vote and influence on behalf of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, on Thursday, November 1st, and trust our appeal to your human rather than your class interests will not be in vain.

Yours truly,

THE L.R.C. COMMITTEE FOR GANNOW WARD

The Dispute in the Textile Trades (1932)

From the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

In January, 1931, the Textile employers declared a lock-out over wages and the attempt to secure the introduction of the more-looms-to-a-weaver system. The workers put up a stronger resistance than the employers had anticipated (all the stronger because the trade union members resolutely refused to give their officials power to negotiate), and on February 16th the lock-out was withdrawn. The employers continued to press this year for wage reductions and more looms—and on July 25th a strike began at Burnley, followed on August 29th by a general stoppage of work by the weavers. After a dispute lasting for a month, work was resumed on September 28th, most of the strikers being taken on again. The terms were a heavy defeat for the workers; wages are reduced by about eight-and-a-half per cent. (1s. 8½d. in the £), the more-looms system is to be introduced as soon as a Conciliation Committee is appointed, which is expected to be within two months, and the provision for reinstating strikers is most unsatisfactory. The Employers’ central organisation is merely bound “to recommend its local associations strongly to persuade all their members to offer employment as speedily as possible to all operatives who have been displaced.” How unsatisfactory this is will be seen from the fact that one of the questions at issue in the general dispute was the employers’ refusal to reinstate strikers already out at Burnley.

Part of the weakness of the textile workers is plainly due to disunity and faulty organisation. The Weavers’ Amalgamation consists at present of 36 district associations, each of which has complete autonomy and can act independently of the others. One of the results of the strike failure is a renewed move to form the 36 associations into one centralised union. On the other hand, the Nelson Weavers’ Association is balloting on s proposal to withdraw from the amalgamation because of dissatisfaction with the settlement, and at Burnley a new local union has been formed in opposition to the Burnley Weavers’ Association, which is also a local organisation. The new union is stressing the principles (embodied in its rules) that “no strike will be initiated or ended without members meeting” and “members’ decision in any dispute shall be final” (Manchester Guardian, October 17th). One of the provisional officials said that the members thought it would be easier to form a new body than to reform the old, and that considerable support is being given among the weavers.

A still further cause of weakness is the failure of the textile workers as a whole to act together. Emboldened by their victory over the weavers the employers then pressed their demand for reductions of pay of the spinners. At first the employers declared that on no consideration whatever would, they agree to a smaller reduction than 1s. 8½d. in the £ (the figure accepted by the weavers in their settlement).

The unions had already agreed (Manchester Guardian, October 19th) to accept a reduction of 9¾d. in the £, and when a lock-out was threatened for Monday, October 24th, a settlement was reached on the basis of a reduction of 1s. 6½d in the £.

One lesson of these disputes is obvious. The workers cannot hope to put up the maximum resistance that conditions will allow if they are hopelessly divided, giving the employers the opportunity of depleting their funds by sectional disputes and defeating them piecemeal.

Edgar Hardcastle

Nemesis ! (1905)

From the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Municipal Elections are doubtless dealt with elsewhere. I am not therefore concerned here with their results generally, but an incident arising out of the Burnley contest merits, I think, a special word.

Burnley is a town where the S.D.F. claims a considerable following. It is regarded somewhat in the light of an S.D.F. stronghold—as S.D.F. strongholds go. And Mr. Daniel Irving is the strong man of this S.D.F. stronghold—as S.D.F. strong men go. He has sat on the Board of Guardians; on the School Board; on the Town Council. He is therefore a prominent citizen and in the past has doubtlessly worked strenuously for working-class interests—according to his lights.

Yet he has failed to retain his seat on the Town Council. In the recent elections he was defeated. The S.D.F. strongman of the S.D.F. stronghold has failed to maintain his position. Mr. Councillor Irving of yesterday is Mr. Ex-Councillor Irving of to-day.

This is remarkable. It seems to require some explanation.

The S.D.F. appear to recognise the importance of the catastrophe. One of their captains has fallen, and he has fallen on a most unlikely field. He has been vanquished in his own ward. In the ward that would know him best.

Why is this ? Is it because the ward knows him best that he has been defeated ? Or what’?

The S.D.F. sees the difficulty and Mr. Hyndman. their leader, writes to the Press to explain.

This is the explanation of Mr. Hyndiuan: Mr. Irving has been defeated by a “dirty dodge” of the Burnley Liberals. The Liberals knew they would be defeated—these loathsome Liberals. And so they entered into a binding compact with the Tories. Together they defeated Irving. And Mr. Hyndman says that the moral is “Let Socialists do Liberals all the harm they possibly can on every occasion.”

Now I do not know how other Socialists regard this explanation, but to me it reads uncommonly like—may I say drivel ? Drivel seems the only word. And Mr. Hyndman ought to know better. Because no one has insisted more often than he that Liberals and Tories are equally the enemies of the Socialist; that they are equally the enemies of the working-class because they both represent capitalist interests. Mr. Irving has said the same thing. Innumerable times. And of course it is true.

That being so, why talk of a “dirty dodge ?” Why is it a dirty dodge ? Why is it a dodge at all ? What is more natural than that representatives of the same interest should work together ?

Besides, Mr. Hyndman says that all Mr. Irving required was a straight fight with the enemy. Well, hasn’t he had a straight fight ? If not why not ? Will Mr. Hyndman please be clear.

Or is the suggestion that, it was not a straight fight because Mr. Irving expected the Tories to support him ? Did he ? if so, what is the matter with Mr. Irving’s Socialism ? Did Mr. Hyndman expect it ? If so, he must be as devoid of political aptitude as he alleged the S.D.F. were. If not, why the wail about “dirty dodges” ?

Mr. Hyndman’s explanation requires explaining. I suggest he can do better than this if he will. He really need not be so thin. He knows something of the local position. He is himself Parliamentary candidate for Burnley and should know. He is a prominent member of the S.D.F. which is another reason, why he should know.

Unless he don’t want to know.

He should know that there are compacts other than those between Liberals and Tories in Burnley. Really dirty compacts. Compacts between Socialists (or men masquerading as such) and Liberals. He should know because he has himself been a party to such a compact !

Has he forgotten the compact entered into with the official Liberal candidate as a result of which his (Hyndman’s) candidature was withdrawn in favour of the Liberal ? Was this a clean compact ?

Again, has Mr. Hyndman never heard of the dissatisfaction (to use a mild word) caused by the Irving tactics in connection with the Burnley School Board elections of a few years ago ? Has he never heard of an arrangement or compact being made with the Progressives (read Liberals) on that occasion ? And has he never heard of the more recent arrangements that found expression in the joint candidature of Irving and a crowd of pseudo-labour men on, a joint programme constructed to meet the requirements of the least progressive (read most re-actionary) of the crowd ?

If he has heard ; if he does not forget I mean to say, his explanation is drivel and I fear somewhat dishonest drivel at that. If he has not heard, or if he does forget he should be less hasty with his explanations and more ready to first of all make sure of his ground.

I put it to Mr. Hyndman that no man can claim to represent working-class interests who coquettes with the representatives (conscious or otherwise) of anti-working-class interests. But. indeed, that is unnecessary because Mr. Hyndman admits it.

I put it to him that only a Socialist can represent working-class interests. If he does not agree, why does he represent himself a Socialist ? And why does he urge Socialist candidatures against what are called Labour-Progressive candidates ? If he does agree he will admit that no tactician or coquette such as Mr. Irving has been can hope to build up a working-class party consciously organised on distinctive class lines.

He will concede that by such methods only confusion can be wrought in working-class minds. And he will agree that a confused working-class mind will translate itself into political action opposed to working-class interests—by the return of Liberals and Tories to political power against the Socialist.

That being so I suggest to Mr. Hyndman that Mr. Irving was defeated because he should never have been elected. That is to say his previous election was secured by votes which were not given by conscious working-class voters—he was not elected as a Socialist but upon some subsidiary issue. Or if he was elected by class-conscious voters he has dissatisfied them—which indeed is not surprising—by his methods since. They have rejected him because his Socialism is not satisfactory.

In the first place it is clear the Socialist position was not adequately defined at the election. Or. which amounts to the same thing, that the subsidiary issue predominated over the Socialist issue. Which means that the educational work which should have preceded the election was not adequately performed. In the second case the occasion is one not for a white-washing but for a condemnation.

I commend the choice to Mr. Hyndman’s consideration. And I think upon reflection he will admit that the whole ground is fairly covered by the one word I have set at the head of this article—Nemesis !

A. James

Editorial: Life’s a riot (2001)

Editorial from the August 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the summers of 1981 and 1985 inner-city areas across Britain erupted in an orgy of violence and destruction as mass rioting returned for the first time in decades. In St Paul’s in Bristol, in Brixton, Toxteth, Moss Side and Handsworth, dispossessed and frustrated black and white youths looted shops, attacked the police and burnt down buildings in a sequence of events that shook the Thatcher government. Home Secretary William Whitelaw toured the battle-strewn streets like the Queen Mother during the blitz, only even less popular than she’d been. Michael Heseltine was despatched by Thatcher to Liverpool (when the two of them were still on speaking terms) to sort out a regeneration package for the city and for the riot-torn Upper Parliament Street area. It was a mini-renunciation of her free-market idealism – and was brought about by the sort of pragmatic attempt to buy off social discontent more typically associated with reformers of the centre-left.

The far left at the time – somewhat stronger in those days and certainly taken more seriously than now – liked to call the riots ‘uprisings’. It was wishful thinking of the type they are specialists in, as the disturbances in question did not have quite that sort of focussed, political dimension to them. They were in fact the directionless expression of frustration and bewilderment at rising mass unemployment, inner-city poverty and the type of crushing boredom associated with social decay rather than the stirrings of a potential revolutionary vanguard.

Fifteen, twenty years later, and the riots are back. In truth, of course, they never entirely went away. As violent crime has risen so has serious disorder in towns and cities across Britain. What is most noticeable about the most recent spate of riots though is the numbers of youths involved and the magnitude of the destruction caused. It is the sheer scale of events in Oldham, Burnley, Bradford and elsewhere that immediately leads to direct comparisons with the riots of the eighties.

There is another obvious comparison with the riots of the past too: “race”. In 1981 and 1985 the majority of those taking part in the disturbances were black youths from inner-city areas with large black populations. The rioters were not first generation blacks, but second and third generation, born and brought up in the UK but even more powerless and disenfranchised from mainstream social, economic and political life than the bulk of the rest of the working class. Theirs was a rebellion against the police who harassed and intimidated them and implicitly against a culture that still insisted on seeing them as outsiders.

This time around the rioters have been second and third generation UK Asians feeling the same sort of social exclusion and powerlessness felt by black youths in Britain before them and typically residing in some of the most deprived council wards in the country. Their rebelliousness has been given an added dimension by the intimidating presence of fascist and racist organisations – particularly the British National Party – in towns and cities where they are most heavily concentrated. If there was relatively little involvement by far-right groups in the riots of twenty years ago, the same could certainly not be said this time, with the provocative and violent activities of fascist gangs being the catalyst for some of the most serious events, most notably in Burnley and Bradford.

In Burnley it was alleged by elements of the white working class that Asian areas in the town had received preferential treatment from the local council and other agencies responsible for handing out regeneration monies. In Bradford local white youths complained that Asians were treated with “kid gloves” by the police, for fear the police be labelled as racists.

Viewpoints such as these are rarely the product of genuinely held grievances. Asians in Burnley live in the same type of slums by and large as many white workers do in the town; and in Bradford claims of harassment by the police are far more likely to be made by Asian youths than white youths. Instead, these ideas are in essence the product of a situation where the existing poor fear being made even poorer through the close presence of even more of their number. If the ‘new poor’ in question have a different colour, different religion and different culture from the majority, the suspicion and distrust is all the easier to justify.

One thing is certain: whatever the precise causes, the rioting that has been taking place is unlikely to get either the Asian or white youths involved very far (unless a police cell for the night is the extent of their ambitions). If New Labour do what Thatcher did and throw a little money in the direction of the affected areas as a token gesture, that will be something (as it was in Liverpool); but the laws of the market dictate that just as one hand gives so the other takes away – probably in the form of lost investment and business shut downs (again as happened in Liverpool).

Tony Benn has said that rioting is the oldest form of social protest and in that he may well be right. But there is no point in white and Asian youths protesting about the other’s allegedly preferential treatment and conducting running battles in front of the TV crews each evening. Any meaningful action has to be democratic and organised and based on the recognition that white and Asian youths have far more in common than they have that divides them. They would both do well to recognise that as the poor and excluded they are kept poor because the rich are rich. For it is only then that they can formulate actions based on where there interests truthfully lie – and in fundamental opposition to those who have really gained from keeping them in their subject, inferior position all along.

An S.D.P. Curio. (1909)

From the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A surprising discovery has been recently made in an old, old Roman camp at Elslack, near Skipton. It was a volume shaped like an exercise book, made of that inferior kind of paper which stamped it at once as reminiscent of the twentieth century. In some strange way it had become mingled with the potteries and coins of the old camp, perhaps left there by some twentieth century explorer. A thorough examination proved it to be an old minute book belonging to the Burnleigh Branch of the Social Democratic Party, and as luckily a specialist in things historical is now investigating the wobbling and bewildering policy of this one time well-known party it will perchance be of valuable historical interest. I write a few extracts culled at random from this mysterious volume.

The Secretary, Mr. I. Dirving, read the minutes of previous meeting. Twenty-five members present. Queetons were invited on the minutes. Tertullian inquired about the antics of Mominsen, who had recently joined the Tariff Reformers (these being one of the side-tracking sects of that time). Was it true that this Mominsen had been cheekily saying that ha had as much right to advocate Tariff Reform as a palliative as other Socialists had Free Imports? Another member remarked that Mominsen was gulling the workers by a deliberate distortion of the word “palliative,” for was not Socialism itself a palliative?

Arising out of the minutes Euselrius enquired as to the truth in the report of a member mentioned having tried to form a suicide club, consisting of those members of the branch who were Conscious Pessimists,and uttered in unison an amount of commonplace pseudo-philosophic pessimism anent the impossibility of cultivating the working class—not including in the phrase “working class,” of coarse, the members named. He was informed that the allegation was an S.P.G.B. calumny, and that one S.P.G.B. firebrand in particular was persistently commenting on the alleged indifference of certain S.D.Peers because they had, after a few years’ experience of reform agitation been “fed up” with it. Many other members of the branch had also been charged by the same clique with holding a foolish fatalism and with being like those Eastern philosophers mentioned by Gibbon who “sat motionless year after year absorbed in the contemplation of their own navels.”

Celsus questioned about members of the branch sitting on the directive board of the Co operative Society, whether the Society was a revolutionary body, and could members improve working-class conditions by being on the picnic or library committees of the society. He was told that fine work had been done by our members, that margarine was being bought shillings a cwt cheaper owing to the exertions of one of our members, and that Mr. H. G. Wells' great work, “New Worlds for Old," had been placed on the library shelves.

Origen asked the secretary if they could not obtain more uniformity in their speakers, that one week the speaker would condemn palliatives and the four following weeks perhaps the lecturers would speak of reforms with laudation. It was pointed out that the action of a certain organisation made it imperative that occasionally we have speakers who would put the straight position, but it would be seen to at election times that the more extreme men were silenced in some way.

Arising from the correspondence a member said it was sad to think the Sunday morning discussion class was to be abandoned, and what was the reason? Answered that the previous year had seen a successful choir and cycling club, but that for some incomprehensible reason the discussion class had been a complete fiasco. Besides, a discussion class attracted a certain sententious type of individual not possessed of the sweet reasonableness of the choir members. They saw the dilemma. The wreckers or blackleg Socialists would attend and argue indefinitely, while their own members were apathetic toward politics. It had, however, been definitely decided to form a class for the study of botany; a dart club was also to be originated. He believed, said the secretary, their comrades at Sarle Hyke boasted the finest dart team in the Kingdom.

Augustine questioned on the matter of Socialist councillor Harry Lee Henry being on the committee of the Guild of Help, an organisation formed for the economic distribution of alms. The secretary said that the Guild of Help was a non-party organisation, witness the fact that both Liberal and Tory were connected with it. The larger a material platform, remarked the chairman, the more it would accommodate, but the larger a mental platform the smaller the number it would hold. As an organisation they must be tolerant so as to attract all and sundry to the fold.

Epictetus said: arising from this point, had their candidates come to any agreement on the reform question? It was answered that one was opposed to secular education, another to compulsory evening schools, another to proportional representation, but they had united on the common ground of a complete abolition of the smoke nuisance, and incidentally on the question of Socialism.

Lucian asked could they not amalgamate with the I.L P. in the town and thus prevent confusion in the minds of the workers. They had a common aim, Socialism, and agreed on the desirability of working with the trade union forces. Why not present a united front to the enemy? Answer: the S.D.P. as an organisation refused to join the National Labour Party, but locally individual branches had a free hand. Just as a general on the field of battle must adapt his tactics in different parts of the field to varying requirements, must sometimes practice contradictory tactics at one and the same time, may both be traitor and patriot, cautious tactician and daring fighter; just as in logic a thing can both be and not be—

Here the manuscript ends.

John A. Dawson

Waste Paper and Old Tin. (1909)

From the November 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Capitalism, with all its attendant evils of poverty and distress, is doomed. The dawn of the Cooperative Commonwealth is even now at hand: be it yours to vote and work to hasten the noontide of the happier day it promises for us all. .  .  . I have, as you know; always stood as a Socialist, in favour of a definite programme and policy on Socialist lines, because I am convinced that by the realisation of Socialism alone can the many injustices and inequalities of social and industrial life be redressed."

The above is culled from the election address of Mr. Dan Irving, issued this November to the electors of Burnley. It is the theoretical, the word-stuff specifically coined to catch flats. Now for the real—and the anti-climax.

The "Burnley Express” of October 9th contained a report of a Council meeting, the star turns “Socialist” councillors Irving and Lees being present. A question of vital importance to the worker was under discussion, not one of your puny palliatives, but a knotty administrative, collective ownership, municipal enterprise problem. “To institute a system of collecting waste paper and cardboard, apart from other refuse, from tradesmen; and also to recommend the purchase of a tin-crushing machine” (to smash with lightning celerity dilapidated salmon tins). Harry Lees mentioned paper collecting systems at Bury and said that this method kept the streets tidy and the tips sightly; and the tin-crushing machine took up very little room and would cost but £100. and the saleable value of the tins would be increased four or fivefold. Liberal councillor Race suggested that the tins might after all be crushed by the steam roller, but ridiculous! responded Lees, who pointed out that Nelson (which boasts a Labour council and mayor) made a profit of £25 a year by tin crushing. Dan Irving submitted that if they collected waste paper from shops less would get into the streets. But by a vote of 18 to 8 it was decided that a tin-crushing machine was not required, and another example of municipal "Socialism” was ruthlessly crushed in the bud. £25 profit in a year! Could it not have been used to lower the rates, or to cover the expenses of a deputation to Guernsey to investigate the market building scheme?

And this is what the Social Democratic movement in Burnley has culminated in. Men and women who have been in the thick of the fight, who have been victimised by ruthless employers and compelled to seek fresh fields and pastures new, or have given gratuitously time and energy to street corner agitation and converse with their mates in the workshop, those who have canvassed and paid and worked and borne obloquy—all receive their reward in such laughable and petty administration. Those who have worked and remain S.D.Pers, those who have worked and ratted, those who have worked and tired.—we ask one and all, is this what you have worked for? If not, come outside and join the only Socialist organisation in Great Britain.

John A. Dawson