"Spreading the word . . . " (2004)

Book Review from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fellowship is Life by Denis Pye, Clarion Publishing, £4.95.

This is a very fine history of what was a probably an unnecessary organisation, based on what was a very nasty journal indeed. In this slim, but well illustrated and superbly presented volume, Pye gives an excellent account of the background and development of the Clarion Cycling Club and its one-time companions in the Clarion movement. The book is a very useful addition to the field of Labour history as a history of The Clarion and its associated organisations has never before been written.

   

The Clarion, or ‘The Perisher’ as was colloquially known, was a very popular ‘socialist’ journal, established in 1891 and flourishing prior to the 1914-18 war. Its popularity was mainly a product of its humorous appeal – initially the journal was little more than the equivalent of a modern university ragmag. While there can be no objection to an injection of comedy, such a magazine should have formed no basis for further organisation. Later on The Clarion became something of a forum for the various contemporary brands of ‘socialist’ (the Socialist Party however seems to have been barred – see the Socialist Standard of November and December 1906). So far as it held political opinions of its own, its ‘socialism’ was pretty poor stuff: Blatchford, the magazine’s guru, defined his “new religion” as being “To love one another as brothers and sisters and to love the earth as the mother of all.” The Clarion combined such ILP-ish, wishy-washy sentimentality with a love of militarism (the greeting of the Clarionettes, “Boots”, and its response “Spurs”, was straight from the barrack-room) and nationalism (one of Blatchford’s books being Britain for the British). Given the lack of ideological clarity it is unsurprising that The Clarion was one of the Left’s most vociferous supporters of the First World War. Although this was initially a rather popular stance, the bloody pointlessness of the not-so-Great War cut the magazine’s feet from under it. The Clarion died a natural and not overly premature death in 1932.

   

It was survived, however, by the Clarion Cycling Club. The original aim of this organisation, like the contemporary Clarion vans (described in Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists), was to sell the paper and thus ‘spread the word’. But the main purpose of the CCC came to be a social one. This was true also of the wide range of other Clarion-related groups. And the range was indeed wide including clubhouses, choirs, amateur dramatic societies, camera clubs and even a café. The social focus was probably inevitable given the vague nature of Clarion ‘socialism’. All this became even more important after 1918 when paper-selling activities were downgraded (to give them their due the majority of Clarionettes did not approve of the paper’s attitude to the war and mostly dropped it thereafter). During the interwar period the Clarion groups became working class social clubs, whose political standpoint, so far as one existed, was Left Labour. The Clarion Cycle Club survives today in much the same fashion (although it must be said that nostalgia is also an attractive factor).

   

Traditionally membership of the Clarion Cycle Club was banned to Socialist Party members, because the political content of the CCC, although marginal, was definitely reformist in nature. While our own Party has always had social activities (and these are important – we are human beings not daleks), these are entirely secondary to propagandising for socialism. From a political point of view mixing with non-socialists in non-sectarian clubs brings opportunities to ‘spread the word’ on a personal level (sometimes far more effective than formal propaganda).

   

Fellowship is Life is a reminder of how much time and effort were spent on what was an entirely unworthy journal. But such are the ways of reformism.

Kaz.

Copies of the book (£4.95 inc. P&P) are available from Clarion Publishing, 34 Temple Road, Halliwell, Bolton, BL1 3LT.KS

Revolution. The Problem of the Out of Work. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Strange Inversion.

The free born wage-worker of to-day has a heaven that is peculiar to himself and his age and which speaks volumes for the wretchedness of his position. It is his paradise to be exploited, regularly—to have plenty of work—while his hell is to have none. And, truly, the hell is genuine enough ! Use, however, becomes second nature, and many a worker is so inured to his position that he accepts his lot uncomplainingly, or even with a certain smug satisfaction, so long as he is in work, his “manly” breast swells with pride when he hears the politicians talk of “honest toil,” and he grasps with humble gratitude the few mouldy crumbs that are flung to him out of the heap of good things he has created. So might the chattel slave have been proud of his chains, grateful for the offal thrown to him, and jealously appreciative of the dignity of his toil and his right to do it.

Modern times, however, differ somewhat in that the society of to-day cannot feed its slaves. Its slaves go begging for a master and yet are turned empty away. Thus in a period that is heir to the discoveries of the ages, and that possesses means multiplied a thousand-fold for producing all the good things of life, and wherein labour-saving devices have reached a perfection hitherto undreamed of, there exists, nevertheless, among the very class whose labour made this abundance possible, a mass of poverty and suffering that makes the famines of olden time trivial by comparison.

And this is caused, not by scarcity, as of old, but by sheer plenty ! The producers are but the hirelings of those who own field, factory, and workshop, and these leave no stone unturned in their feverish anxiety to find means, by improved combination and machinery, of reducing the number of wage-slaves they need hire. Hence the unemployed—a permanent and growing feature of capitalist society.

No Hope in the Master Class.

During the coming winter, indeed, the question of unemployment may be expected to reach an acuteness never before equalled. And what will the master class do ? Will they solve the unemployed problem ? Only fools think so, for the master class themselves confess that it is, to them, insoluble. They neither can nor will solve this riddle of the Sphinx. A capitalist system without unemployed would be impossible, and our masters know it.

Economic development under capitalism, however, makes the out-of-work army grow rapidly to huge dimensions and become in fact a serious menace to the security of the class that rules. Indeed, the indifference of the ruling class and the needs of the unemployed make disturbance the only resource of the latter in their endeavour to get an immediate plate of soup or crust of bread to prolong their pitiable existence. Yet, by appealing to the class in power to do something what will they get ? What but promises and then more promises ? What but paltry relief works that do not relieve and votes of sums of money that may not be spent ? Works that can wait no longer for execution will be said to be put in hand to “help the unemployed.” If a City alderman, having worn out seat of his trousers with constant dining, buys a new pair, it will also, presumably, be for the sake of the unemployed, just as tramway works that have been delayed until they can be delayed no longer are started ostensibly “to relieve the unemployed.” And so the fraud goes on.

The Treachery of the ‘Labour’ Members.

Meanwhile the unemployed, as though their misfortunes were not great enough, continue to have their misery exploited by reform organisations and fresh editions and emulators of John Burns. For whatever else the recent Grayson episode may have emphasised, it made once more abundantly clear that the “Labour”, members are prepared—even anxious—to range themselves on the side of Labour’s enemies when it suits their book to do so—although whether this will be apparent to those who pay the piper is, unfortunately, still very dubious. But so many things have happened that it would seem must come to those who have pinned their faith to these Labour misleaders as direct blows, full between the eyes, and yet have been practically unnoticed, that there is little immediate hope that this last instance will have much greater effect. The Parliamentary group rely for their present maintenance upon working-class ignorance, and knowing how abysmal that ignorance is, feel safe in taking action the results of which must overwhelm them and render further misleading impossible directly the working class have anything like an adequate appreciation of their class interests. Just as recent bye-elections have been significant of nothing so much as of the desperate concern of the “Labour” members to hang on to the coat-tails of Liberalism outside the House, lest the security of their seats and their £200 a year be imperilled, so the Grayson incident made it clear that the methods to be pursued inside are those that will not embarrass the Government, and may result in recognition and advancement, if not to the elevation of a seat in the Cabinet, at any rate to the comfort and security of some minor official job that will remove them from the risk of the loss of their £200 a year consequent upon working-class enlightenment.

We Warned the Working Class.

Of course, to us this was apparent from the very inception of the Labour Representation Committee and we said so. The “half-baked” and the semi-enlightened then preferred to call us very much the sort of name some of them are now applying to the opponents of Grayson. If, however, incidents similar to those referred to have the effect of opening a few eyes to the actual and potential power for working-class evil resident in this precious “Labour” Group, it will be some sort of satisfaction. They have now reached a stage where, as we have said, it seems almost incredible that any man could be left who failed to see just what the Parliamentary “Labour” leaders are after and where they are leading. The attitude of the S.P.G.B. is more than vindicated.

Let there be no misunderstanding as to our view of Grayson’s action. Grayson is a man who has no very clear idea of where he stands upon questions of economics, who certainly does not understand the Socialist position, and who cannot, therefore, be accepted as in any adequate sense a representative of Socialism. He is, we should say, a product of Clarionism, Clarionism being compact of sentiment and snobbery, with a strong infusion of capitalist “progressive” ideas and a mild dash of Socialist thought —a queer compound that a staff consisting of little girls and old women serve up for the gratification of the elect weekly.

From a product of this sort of food nothing great can be expected, but Grayson took up a position on the unemployed question in the House that, at any rate, compelled attention and translated into action a protest against the callous indifference of capitalism to the growing volume of misery that capitalism had created, and the flacid, supine, “respectability” and “statesmanship” of the pseudo-Labour Group. With one accord these “Labour” gentlemen ranged themselves on the side of capitalism. Let that be included as a count in the indictment that in the name of the working class we bring against them.

What’s Bred In the Bone.

And now, lest their treachery be too palpable, they hasten to explain that the Government were on the point of saying something, and they wanted to hear what it was before taking action. If the something had been unsatisfactory they proposed etc., etc. The same old story. The same contemptible lie, or the same hopeless, helpless stupidity—whichever they like. First they do not know the forms of the House. We were to wait until they had time to familiarise themselves, and then we should see something. Then—give the Government a chance. Let us wait to see what it would do. If it did not do anything . . . ! Then again, let us see what Burns would make of his opportunity. If nothing came of it we . . . ! And so on.

Not even sufficient originality to invent a new lie or a decent excuse. They either knew that the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s jackal, Burns, would not do anything if they waited till the last trump, or the whole record of the Liberal Party was a closed book to them, or they had not even a glimmer of that essential antagonism of interest of which the Liberal Party is a political expression on the side of capitalism. In short, and not to put too fine a point on it, they were either damned fools or doubly damned knaves.

Now we have our Pete Currans who were cursing the forms of the House and praying for something to break them up, our Will Thornes who are forever mouthing “revolution” and the absurdity of awaiting the Government’s convenience, our Jowetts who are always ready to make scenes if necessary, our Phillip Snowdens—the Daily Mail’s fierce and bitter iconoclasts, and the rest of them turning to sneer at the theatricality (it may have been that, of course) of Grayson, and protesting that they could not be led by boys who indulge in expensive suppers and so on—banal puerilities given off in the hope that that which cannot be justified may be obscured.

Well, since the Grayson outbreak the Government has spoken, and the unemployed know that, except for an additional £100,000, they are where they were last year. Burns is to administer the fund as before—a wholly grotesque sum in the hands of a wholly fraudulent (from a working-class point of view) administrator. In addition, the necessity of the unemployed is to be used as a means, if possible, of making up Haldane’s special army reserve that would otherwise, in all probability, have failed to materialise. Indeed, the Liberal Party are full of sympathy for “the honest workman starving through no fault of his own.” We don’t think.

Keir Hardie, on behalf of the “Labour” Group, made certain dark references to what they would do if the Government’s proposal was unsatisfactory. The “Labour” Group’s action (at the time of writing) takes the form of an amendment expressing dissatisfaction !

One other notable thing the present agitation has emphasised that can only be very briefly referred to, viz., the impotence of the “one step at a time” or “something now” “Socialist,” directly his “evolutionary not revolutionary” theory is put to the test. The people, the women and children, are starving. They want something now. What is the use of preaching Socialism to them ?—before they get that they must die of want. And so they proceed to get the “something now” by asking Governments who, by their very nature, cannot prevent starvation and do not even pretend to try, to take action. And the Governments take “action,” and have been taking “action,” and the starving people continue to starve, and the children continue to cry, and the unemployed army grows and grows, until—until we have reached the stage of crisis where the honest adherents to the “something now” policy, in desperation of ever getting their “something now,” throw in their lot with those who advocate riot and pillage as the only means by which food may be obtained immediately ; the only means by which fear may be stricken into the hearts of the capitalist class. Overboard goes “evolution” (their brand), and in its place they preach—anarchy. They break up their stepping-stones to use them as missiles.

Well, to the extent to which this change of attitude represents the demolition of the quasi-intellectual posture, it is good. But we have to point out that to preach pillage is to bring trained, armed, and well fed men against untrained, unarmed, and starving men. The.result harmful to the latter, although not necessarily more disastrous than the process of starvation they are at present undergoing, while the menace of a desperate crowd threatening to, or actually, running amok, invariably has quite a notable effect in stimulating the flow of doles.

While we cannot speak for God, as Cardinal Manning claimed to do, we agree that Manning was quite right in affirming that a starving man was entitled to take food—notwithstanding that, as Curtis Bennet, the magistrate, pointed out to the ferocious Will Thorne, M.P. (who mildly allowed himself to be bound over not to be naughty again), it was bad “law.” If anyone knows of any alternative for a hungry man, woman, or child other than that of getting food by some means or other (any means being justified) or starving, we have still to hear of it.

The point is, then, that only out of fear for their own position and possessions can the “something now” be obtained from the capitalist class. And that fear is struck more surely and far deeper by the fact of a working class, understanding their class interests, consciously organising for the overthrow of the capitalist system in its entirety, than by any conglomeration of unorganised human atoms blindly struggling for food with no idea beyond their immediate requirements. These last can be dealt with and their agitation “scotched” by judicious sops, or, in the last resort, by the use of the police and soldiery. The former cannot be so easily put off the scent. It will have to rain sops like manna before any hope of check can be entertained.

Now, is it not high time that the working class—in work or out of work, realised the futility of expecting those who live by working-class exploitation to seriously grapple with a problem the solution of which would spell their extinction as a class ? Instead of useless parading and futile tinkering with effects, is it not clear that the problem must be attacked at its root ? Its root is in the system of capitalism, and as an evil to the workers it can end only when capitalism ends—when the means of living are owned and used by the democratic community of those who labour.

That, however, will not be accomplished by those whose source of life is profits, but will and can only be brought about by the conquest of the powers of government by the working class for that object. This is the only way to deal with the unemployed problem, for what avails it to waste time on effects if the source of the misery pours unchecked an increasing flood upon us ? The task before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, but to organise the workers for the overthrow of that class so they (the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle-cry of the workers’ party is not “The Right to Work,” but “The Right to the Product of Our Labour,” and that right waits only upon their might. That is the really revolutionary way.

And you, reader, have a duty as a worker to yourself and to your fellows—it is to join the political party of your class. If unemployment is to cease to be your scourge, if you in common with your fellows are to have your lot made brighter, if you and those dear to you are to have the means of health and happiness secured, you must take your place in the ranks, for the deliverance of the workers from wage-slavery can come from none others than the workers themselves.

The party of the working class is the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which works democratically and consistently for the end of unemployed misery, and declines to exploit the wretchedness of the unemployed by parading them in futile appeal to the robber class. Your duty is to join it, for your only hope lies in the democratic organisation of your class for Socialism, since through working-class victory only can class oppression cease and the toiler come at last by his own.

Blogger's Note:

". . . the recent Grayson episode . . ." is a reference to an incident in the House of Commons, which took place on the 31st October 1908. According to the Victor Grayson page over at Spartacus Educational:

On Tuesday, 31st October, 1908, Grayson stood up in the House of Commons and shouted out: "I wish to move the adjournment of the House so that it can deal with the unemployment question... people are starving in the streets." When he refused to sit down he was escorted from the Commons. As he left he turned to Labour members and shouted: "You are traitors! Traitors to your class."

The Pillory. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. John Burns at Tynemouth, 14.10.08 (Daily News report) said in reference to the Tariff Reformer’s allegation that under Free Trade England was a country of vanishing trades, “If that was true (which he denied) it was unpatriotic to allege it.” Burns’s conception of patriotism is, then, a readiness to lie with all the heart, and soul, and strength, when circumstances require it. Burns is a patriot—for £2,000 a year!

* * *

David Cummings, of the Boilermakers, has gone the way of Isaac Mitchell, of the General Federation. They both have jobs under the Board of Trade, and the capitalist class will doubtless find them eager to justify their salaries. It is better so. In the ranks of the workers they were worse than useless. The workers know now where they are—and why. George Barnes is said to be in the running for a similar job. He also will be better there—if he goes. At present he denies it. But these denials are generally to be taken cum grano salis. If George doesn’t go it will probably be due to the fact that he hasn’t a biblical name. Men with biblical names seem in much greater request, witness John, Isaac, and David. Now if George had been named Barrabas——

* * *

A. S. Headingly, of the S.D.P., is advertised in the St. Louis Labor (3.10.08) as open to speak in the large cities of America at 15 dollars a time. It is not stated whether his address will consist of exhortations to the workers to keep their finger-nails clean and see that the crease in their pants is always in perfect alignment, or whether he will take as his subject “the application of soap below the collar line and its relation to the Revolution.” These grave questions will doubtless be duly considered as usual, notwithstanding that the lecturer’s fee is so low.

* * *

We have been requested to announce that “on Oct. 12th the Rev. Ernest J. B. Kirtlan, B.A., B.D., late chaplain of H.M. Prison, Wormwood Scrubs, member of Fabian Society, and lecturer for the S.D.P., will speak in connection with the anniversary of the South London Wesleyan Mission. Subject: ‘Fag-Ends.'” The combination of qualifications and the occasion, not less than the importance of the subject, have impelled us to comply. We are sorry that the address will have been delivered some weeks before we can publish the news to the world, but we have done what we could.

* * *

Act 1. Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., introduces a Bill to provide for a citizen army.

Act 2. The S.D.P. issue a pamphlet explaining what Mr. Thorne means. (This was laudable and eminently necessary.)

Act 3. Has not yet been constructed. It might properly take the form of an explanatory pamphlet on the S.D.P. explanation of Mr. Thorne’s Bill.

* * *

Mr. A. E. Wachter is, I understand, a well-known Clarion Scout in his own neighbourhood. He writes to the Sunday Chronicle to enlighten a “middle-class father of eight,” who seems to have alleged that the working “classes” do not pay rates. Mr. Wachter says the working “classes” do pay rates. Mr. Wachter should read THE SOCIALIST STANDARD regularly. It would save him making exhibitions of ignorance. The working class does not pay rates; and there is only one working class. To refer to working classes is absurd.

* * *

“He did not care tuppence ior the abstract opinion of any man who did not come into his trade union and plant down his little bit of money and do his little bit of work.” (G. N. Barnes, M.P., Salford, 4.9.08.) The value of a man’s views is in proportion to the regularity with which he planks down his little bit of money in the union. Mr. Barnes is refreshingly frank.

* * *

At the Sanitary Inspectors’ Conference at Liverpool on the 9th, Sir J. Crichton-Browne said that if Mrs. Hemans were alive she would have to add another verse to her well-known poem in eulogy of tenement buildings. It would probably run, he said, thus—

The tenements of England, piled tier on tier on high.

Stand not by brooks, in verdant nooks, that rest and glad the eye,

But they rest fair, in sun and air, are clean and free from croup,

And safely there the weary sleep, and the sickly cease to droop.

If this is humour it is of the type that requires labelling. If it is not perhaps the least unkind remark one could make would be that Sir J. C. Browne’s poetry is at least as good as his facts; to which might be added that while the poet may properly claim licence for his fanciful figments, the scientist must make his appeal on more solid ground.

At random. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“May I say there is a good deal of nonsense talked about capital ?” Thus Lloyd-George at Swansea. And at once adds more “nonsense.” As thus: “The greatest capitalist in this country is Nature.” The implication that all wealth is capital should commend itself to Clarion Vanner (by the grace of Blatchford) Hick.

* * *

This product of what he himself described as the “stately cloisters of Oxford,” told a motley gathering of I.L.P’ers, S.D.P’ers, etc. in Peckham that capital was “wealth used to produce more wealth.” He affected to be much concerned when a member of the S.P.G.B. referred to him as a “catspaw of the capitalist class,” and cried aloud for proof of the charge, hastily adding, at the same time, that no Socialist would be allowed on the platform in opposition.

* * *

Cumulative and damnatory evidence could be given until further orders, that this brand of political quack is effectually doing the work of the master class in several directions, but the mere fact that one of the high-priests of Capital and the Vanner should be engaged in confusing the mind of the worker on vital points is sufficiently significant of itself.

* * *

Nothing suits the game of the capitalist class better than to point to the worker’s pick, his shovel, his dinner-pail, to apostrophise his mental qualities, his endurance, his etc., etc., and call them “capital.” For why ? It BLURS THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

* * *

“Capital does not consist in the fact that stored-up labour is used by living labour as a means to further production. Capitalism presupposes the existence of a class which possesses nothing but labour-power. It is the lordship of realised labour over living labour that transforms stored-up labour into capital”—Author of pamphlet, “Karl Marx.”

* * *

Kautsky, in the second section of his brilliant work, “Das Erfurter Programm,” (issued by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in pamphlet form as “The Working Class,” price one penny, honestly and correctly translated into English.) has pointed out that modern capitalism has developed a sorry type of proletarian—-the educated wage-slave. The death of Churton Collins, a distinguished scholar and acknowledged authority on Shakesperian lore, is one of frequently occurring incidents which emphasises his miserable position who must prostitute his intellect to make a living, and hire out his commodity—education—to the highest bidder. The professor, dying by his own hand, was fearful as to the future maintenance of his children.

* * *

Meantime, a correspondent of the Daily News is suggesting that, to meet unemployment of teachers in London, the L.C.C. shall “reduce present salaries,” and prevent teachers doing both day and evening work !

* * *

The Review of Reviews is concerned about “The Winter Feeding of Starving Children.” (It is not going to let the S.D.P. monopolise that pitch.) In the September issue, p. 295, it says “It would be well if other firms were to follow Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s example by a systematic endeavour to educate the public in the general principles of the scientific feeding of children.” On p. 303 is a long advertisement crying up the wares of the above named firm. The Review of Reviews “invites the aid of ‘helpers.'” Helpers for what? Who said “alliances” ?

* * *

From the same source we learn that it has been ascertained that the children “could be fed excellently well at a penny a meal, with a extra halfpenny for dinner.”

* * *

Crouch low, you discontented dogs ! Listen to the I.L.P. “Socialist,” Liberal Stead at elbow, telling you the master class can provide sumptious meals for your poor little kiddies at a penny a head, with a extra half-penny chucked in for dinner. Then, begone ! run to your houses, fall upon your knees, pray to the tuppenny gods to intermit the plague that needs must light on “your” country for the ingratitude displayed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in denouncing such a sorry combination of mouthing knaves and tricksters.

* * *

F. H. Rose, in the Clarion of 18.9.08 writes, with regard to the cotton dispute, “The masters bribe away the best and most knowing of the operators’ officials by giving them better jobs and bigger salaries. It is a ghastly business. Yet if I were to say what every employer knows, I should be charged with ‘giving the game away.'”

* * *

Judged by his own words, F. H. Rose is a traitor to his own class. A deliberate charge is made against unions’ officials which, unfortunately, is no doubt only too true. What plea can he bring forward to justify his silence or the matter ? If fears for endangering his own chances as union official and “Labour” member, why take the pains to emblazon abroad his cowardice ?

* * *

A significant cutting from John Bull. We pray you, note, aye, nota bene ! “Just as the franchise is the political specific for revolution, nationalisation of the public services is the antidote to Socialism.” Instead of which, that egregious political combination which is neither “independent” in action, nor “labour” in spirit, and which exists as a “party” only by grace of anonymous donors (see Manifesto p. 3) and middle-class “sympathisers,” at its last Annual Conference passed the following resolution : “That in the opinion of this Conference the time is ripe for the nationalisation of railways, and that our representatives be asked to urge forward a measure to that effect in Parliament.”

* * *

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that pensions in Germany had not only raised the standard of life, but had had “the important result of improving the quality of the workman.” Exactly. Read “Bountiful Bournville” in last month’s issue of this paper in connection with this statement. Further comment would be what the Book of Common Prayer simply and beautifully calls “supererogatory.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian recently wrote “Mr. Hudson repudiated any alliance with the Liberals, but he had heard the good news which Manchester sent on the first night of the election in the not uncongenial atmosphere of the Liberal Club. Being called on for a speech, he said he most earnestly desired to see Mr. Cairns (Liberal) in as well as himself.”

* * *

Mr. Hudson is a “Labour” M.P. The “Constitution and Organisation” section of the Manifesto of the “Labour” Party contains the following : “Candidates and members must abstain strictly from promoting the interests of any Party not eligible for affiliation.” Is the Liberal Party ”eligible for affiliation” ? Verily, in the words of their own Chairman at the Belfast Conference, “The Labour Party were a queer party and they are a queer party.”

* * *

At a “Socialist” demonstration recently, J. R. Clynes, another “Labour” M.P., and I.L.P’er to boot, said “The unemployed are a waste to the country. Would it not be better to enable a man to work for his maintenance and something over for the country.”

* * *

“Something over” = profit.

“The country” = the capitalist class.

* * *

In spite of protestations to the contrary, the “Labour” Group is out to maintain the present system. Its actions speak louder than its words, which, Heaven knows, should be loud enough to wake the somnolent wage-slave to a recognition of the real position.

* * *

“Radical Socialism,” “I.L.P. Socialism,” “Labour Socialism”—in short “Bourgeois Socialism”—all were summed up fifty years ago in the most luminous little working-class work ever penned (the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”).

“Free Trade—for the benefit of the working class, Protective duties—for the benefit of the working class, Prison reform—for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism. It can be summed up in a phrase the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.”

Augustus Snellgrove

At Random. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Mr. Burrows ought to be in Parliament; he is much the sanest of the Party to which he belongs.” (W. T. Stead, Review of Reviews, August, 1908.

* * *

After this handsome certificate of comparative “sanity” from one of the most notorious tin gods of Nonconformist-Liberalism, the suave gentleman who plays “Socialism” on a cracked pipe in an impossible key to the tune of “Reform,” should experience no trouble in making one of those “compacts” with the master-class which the Social Democratic Party would never endorse.

* * *

What, never ? Well; hardly ever ! See Manifesto of the S.P.G.B., pp. 1, 9, and 10.

* * *

The “humanity” of individual members of the governing class often throws a lurid light on the all-essential conception of class-consciousness. We learn from the Correspondent of the Daily News that “President, Faillères and M. Clemenceau have stubborn objections to capital punishment.”

* * *

Whether a criminal shall take his last look through the “little window,” or be immured in prison, has little, or very remote, bearing on the interests of the gentlemen in question as members of the governing class. Quite otherwise with a strike. The sabred right of the capitalist to exercise his unfettered “freedom” in brutal exploitation is challenged. The genial Fallières and the clement Clemenceau have no hesitation then in shooting.

* * *

“Stubborn objections to capital punishment” en masse, in the interests of the employers, have as little existence with Fallières and Clemenceau. as with Asquith and Burns.

* * *

When will the worker fully grasp the fatal significance of the armed forces of the nation to himself ? “Hard times” are in store during the coming winter. Sharp reminders of the real moaning of such forces may serve to help even fatuous fools of the Blatchford type to see that preservation of “our” country is the function of the army and navy only on the clear recognition of the fact that “our” is synonymous with the class that hold and control the instruments of production.

* * *

The worker is fatherland-less. Stripped of all claim to any advantages which he may have formerly enjoyed from the use of land, the appeal to save “our” country from foreign conquest by the Editor of the Clarion, is on a par with his strenuous begging for funds to finance “our” Vans—which belong, as you please are solely controlled by—spite the feeble Clarionese kickers—the Editor of the Clarion

* * *

As thus : “MY method is soon told. I look out for good men. When I find one, I give thanks. I put him into the right place. I give him a free hand.”

“Alderman E. R. Hartley will be appointed Van Organiser.—Clarion (recent issue).

* * *

Inimitable style, Nunquam’s ! ! My very dear friends of the Clarion brand of “Reform,” DO YOU READ “YOUR” ORGAN?

* * *

Listen to the tale of woe ! The Class Teacher this time. “Pious professional protests, pious professional tears have all been in vain. In some cases we (the teachers’ unions) are actually progressing backwards.”

“One gets sick unto death of it all: we are singing and making merry while the ship is sinking.”

* * *

The “dearth” of teachers has come to a most brutal, beastly, unseemly end. The poor pedagogue is actually being brought face to face with “iron laws of supply and demand.” But—soft ! We will take heed unto ourselves, we will take counsel of the miner, we will learn wisdom from the bricklayer, and the gasworker. We “will reduce the number of possible blacklegs.”

* * *

Why, damme ! if it comes to that, “we will adopt strike principles.”

* * *

Ay ! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the Counter-Jumpers’ Champion, noise it not abroad in the Dustmen’s Herald—we will bow our heads, and admit “uncertificated teachers” to the Union what time we declare that “with the ‘supplementary ‘ teachers we have no cause in common.”

* * *

“No cause in common.” Fools and blind ! Compelled to sell your pitiful commodity, a shoddy education, at a rate which compels you too oft to occupy your “leisure” time in petty trading, in divers pursuits which a false pride and an eye to income tax compels you to hide, you have yet to learn that you have a “cause in common” with your class, the working class.

* * *

Meanwhile, the President of your Union is discovering that there is a “great sense of unity” among teachers in the wonderful German Empire.

* * *

A comrade from Manchester, who modestly hides his individuality under the weird title of “Jaybee,” writes: —

“The futility of endeavouring to put a stop to industrial operations by such a method as the general strike, was shown during the recent strike in Paris ; Mr. Clemenceau, the Premier, said he would be able to place at the disposal of the directors, military engineers to take the place of the men in supply stations if they went on strike.”

* * *

“Further, he was prepared to supply TROOPS TO GUARD THE MAINS.”

* * *

A striking commentary on the soundness of the position taken up by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, viz: that, whilst fully recognising the necessity of organisation on the industrial plane, the seizure of the political machinery (including the armed forces of the nation) by the worker, is absolutely essential to working-class emancipation.

* * *

“Direct action,” however thickly veiled with high-seeming Socialist phrases, is Anarchy, and he who would persuade the worker to “drive out Beelzebub with Beelzebub” is working present woe, and hindering future weal in a way that is the more tragic, in so far as a genuine desire to serve his class often dominates the misguided devotee to an ancient and obsolete faith.

A. Reginald

By The Way. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“But for Blatchford’s valiant roaring there would have been no I.L.P. to-day, no Old Age Pensions, and no ‘Socialistic Budget,'” says A. M. Thompson in the Clarion in the course of an attack on Wells of the swelled head. It is not everyone who would have boasted of these things. Many, indeed, are ready to blame the ignorance of the worker and the wiles of the capitalist for the existence of these frauds. But one never knows. Perhaps we misunderstand the Clarion. It may be that its phenomenal modesty and excessive zeal for fair play have induced it to take all the blame upon itself. Or it may be that the echoes of ignorance that compose the Clarion staff are under the illusion that they are giants of intellect and therefore the great moving forces of the “movement” which they do not even understand. Evidently Mr. Wells is not the only sufferer from “swelled head.”

The Fraud of Municipal Bakeries. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reply to R. B. Suthers.

“Bread and Bunkum” is the title of an article in which Mr. R. B. Suthers draws, in the Clarion, a harrowing, soul-rending picture of the last gasp of the petty shop-keeper, particularly the master baker (perhaps the most pious, unctuous, psalm-grinding, callous sweater civilisation has produced) who is now being crushed by the newest thing in trusts—the Bread Trust.

Mr. Suthers, out of the fulness of his heart, is moved to prescribe a remedy. What is this precious remedy ? None other than municipalisation, which he imagines is Socialism. He says :

“The only question for the small baker is, ‘Am I to be abolished by the Trust or by Socialism ?’ Allow me to put the problem from a Socialist point of view. Here is a community in which bread is a necessity to life. So much bread is required every day. The question is how to make bread in the cheapest and most expeditious manner. It is plain that in a large town it would be cheaper and more efficient to have one or more large bakeries from which bread could be delivered in motor cars direct to the customers, rather than have a number of small shops with a little hand cart or slow horsed cart each overlapping the district of half-a-dozen others. Local depots might be necessary, but they need not be so numerous nor so large as under the wasteful system of to-day.”

If I thought Socialism was anything so monstrous as this glorified capitalism I would fight it for all I was worth.

I have been a victim of this Manchester god of “cheapness” and “expedition” for over twenty years, and during that time have seen many journeymen bakers broken on the wheel of “cheapness,” “expedition,” and “efficiency.” I would ask Mr. Suthers to quit for a while his beloved rate-saving, middle-class view point, and look at the matter from the position as it affects the working class, the only class that matters, or is worth consideration in any way.

Assume that the rate-savers decide to municipalise the bread supply (it won’t be decided by master bakers, Mr. Suthers) what happens ? To ensure expedition and efficiency, cheapness, and other Manchesterisms, it will be necessary to have the newest and most down-to-date machinery operated in the most scientific manner and the latest manner is this: A large bakery is erected on scientific principles, that is, the interior of the structure is divided into two bakeries, exact duplicates, each with its gear of flour sifters, sack shakers, dough mixers, dividers, moulders, provers, ovens and storing racks, with one clock for the use of both. No partition divides them, so that the gangs of nearly naked, emaciated slaves work in full view of each other, each driven by an enslaved slave-driver

.

At the stroke of the clock the two gangs begin their mad race against time and efficient, untiring machinery. An industrial policeman, called the General Foreman, who is not necessarily a baker, clad in snow white cap and overalls, Stalks majestically from gang to gang, book in hand, recording by the common clock the time each gang takes to finish its “rounds,” not that the most “expeditious” may be decorated with a “Crown of Wild Olive,” but that the laggards may be called upon to render an account of their stewardship in that capitalist hell of “cheapness, expedition, and efficiency,” and the misfits weeded out and “scrapped.” This mode of procedure brings out the tigrish instincts of the ganger, who is especially selected for his ability to drive and bully, and who is always on his trial, and can only retain his job by keeping time with his “opposite” or by running past him, consequently the “hand ” who slows down or does not hear a shouted order is “woke up” with a torrent of foul abuse and indecent oaths. The hawk-eyed “Pinkerton” looks on and makes a note. Such is a modern bakery !

In one of these efficient infernos I wot of, the most happy human machine is a big and powerful deaf mute, who works by watching the others. He never complains, nor does he hear the ganger’s live and modern English, nor “the roaring loom of time,” as typified by bread-making machinery. Yet he is sometimes pitied as being afflicted !

In a factory of this description the output per man engaged averages about twenty-two sacks of flour per week: in handicraft bakery it averages about twelve sacks. It is obvious, therefore, that as the industry becomes either trustified or municipalised, a large number of bakers will be thrown on the streets, and the market is already overcrowded with this class of merchandise, as a visit to the factory gates at 11 p.m. will testify. After that hour the poor devils who have failed to secure a night’s job may be seen tramping, Christ knows where, while their brilliantly lighted municipal trams, only half filled, glide past them. Perhaps by tramping through the slush and rain in broken boots they can meditate the better on the advantages of municipalising the trams, which Mr. Suthers with ghastly irony, told us a time ago now belongs to all the people. Mr. Suthers does not say what municipalisation will do for these, or for the “outed” master bakers, the redundant carmen, the superfluous shop-girls, millers’ travellers, shop fitters, and a host of others who will go into the ranks of the unemployed, and in the fulness of time become unemployables, wastrels with drooping lips and slouching gait, fit material for the casual ward and the lunatic asylum, if no worse fate awaits them.

Mr. Suthers, in his tender solicitude for the small master (the ever-starving journeymen seem to be an entirely negligible quantity) asks : “Will the trust buy him out ?” and answers : “No ! the trust will freeze him out.” “Will the trust,” he goes on, “find the starving shopkeepers work ? Will it ?” No, Mr. Suthers, it will not, neither will the municipality buy him out, though, certainly, he may secure a job by the influence of his co-religionists on the council. If he be a Freemason he may even become a “Pinkerton.”

Mr. Suthers concludes by asking “Why then should we not organise this business of making bread, and put an end for ever to the degrading condition and struggle for existence between rival bakeries ?” And my answer is because it would be better to eliminate all the “business” out of industry absolutely, and make bread to be eaten, not to lower rates. Municipalities go into business to make profit only, like any other capitalist concern. It does not signify whether the owners absorb the profits in the shape of “reduced prices” or lower rates. If the working class is enabled to buy cheap bread the operation of the “Iron Law of Wages” will secure all the advantage for the capitalists, as it did in the days of the saintly Bright, when the corn laws were repealed. Capital is always the same in its effect on the working class, whether manipulated by an individual capitalist, joint-stock enterprise, municipality or government, and with each step in concentration the working class gets relatively less and the master class gets richer, more corrupt and more bestial, as recent events in Berlin and elsewhere show.

Why should all the bread be made in factories, anyhow ? In a Socialist community the housewife would have the facilities, if she so wished, to make bread and pastries for herself, her mate and her children, and to suit their individual palates. The essence of Socialism is freedom, and if a woman prefers to develope her individuality by making pure and wholesome food she will be at liberty to do so. All healthy humans must expend their energies in some manner, and why not in cooking—who shall say them nay ?

The damnable idea of being marshalled and drilled, or numbered and docketted, like any other merchandise, in a state of glorified capitalism is not the Socialist’s ideal, but its antithesis, no matter what the capitalists and their protagonists, the pseudo-Socialists, choose to name it. We don’t want to be driven to the gate of the municipal or other factory to hustle and elbow our fellows out of the way so that we may catch the official’s eye in the mad and sordid scramble for mere belly food, for a mere animal subsistence, to be thrown on the social scrap-heap the moment we cease to be “expeditious,” there to rot out a living death, the mental agony prolonged by being kept on the brink of Kingdom Come by a “George Barnes” pension, previously deducted from our competition wage. With the advent of Socialism the whole of the capitalist State and its superstructure will collapse, with its cant of living wages, its Brotherhoods of Man, and the rest of its nauseous humbug.

Socialism will enable us to co-operate with our fellows for the production and distribution of all the necessaries and comforts of life, and to further bring under control the forces of nature for the common weal. Then and then only will the humanities have a chance. Then we shall live, stand erect and be men and women. Away with all forms of capitalism ! Speed the Social Revolution !

W. Watts

Blogger's Note:

A number of R. B. Suthers' books are available over at Archive.org.

A Clarion Vanner Takes the Socialist Platform. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Sunday, September 15th, while Comrade Fitzgerald was speaking at our Finsbury Park meeting, a member of the audience asked “was it a fact that the Clarion Van speakers had instructions from the London Van Committee to refuse to answer questions put by members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain ?” He put the question, he said, because he was informed that a Clarion Vanner was in the audience, and he wished to give him the opportunity to deny the allegation if he could do so. The questioner was, further, anxious to know why the Clarion Van Committee would not allow their speakers questions from the Socialists. Thereupon Mr. Fred Bramley, late Clarion Van speaker, asked for the platform and his request was, of course, acceded to.

Mr. Bramley said he had never refused to answer questions from anyone, and had always preached the principles of unadulterated Socialism. By Socialism he meant the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Nationalisation or municipalisation were not Socialism, but simply exploitation in another form. He then asked for questions from members of the S.P.G.B., and upon it being pointed out to him that he was not there to ask for questions, but to deny, if he could, the statement that Clarion Van speakers were instructed to refuse to answer questions from Socialists, Mr. Bramley replied that he held the platform, and all the ordinary rules of procedure went by the board.

Comrade Fitzgerald then pointed out that Mr. Gavan Duffy admitted, at Wood Green, that he had received instructions from the Clarion Van Committee not to accept questions from Socialists. Fitzgerald also stated that questions had been refused at Clapham and Wimbledon, and. also by Mr. Hartley at Willesden, and he drew Mr. Bramley’s attention to the fact that Mr. Howard, of the Clarion Van Committee, had openly stated from our platform in Finsbury Park that Mr. Gavan Duffy was not to blame, as he was only acting under instructions from the Van Committee. Our comrade then dealt with Mr. Bramley’s definition of Socialism, and showed the unsoundness of the phrase “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange ” ; the means of exchange being money, which is only necessary under a system of private ownership. Under Socialism, production being no longer carried on for exchange, and the products being owned collectively by the whole of the people, the means of exchange will become superfluous, yet he (Mr. Bramley) talked of socialising it. The Clarion advocated nationalisation and municipalisation, and was therefore a misleading organ, contrary to the principles of Socialism. Moreover, the success of the Clarion Vanners depended upon the number of Clarions sold at the meetings, and seeing that the Clarion advocated nationalisation and municipalisation, Mr. Bramley could not but admit that he assisted in anti-Socialist propaganda. If it was not a personal question why was he not now a Clarion Vanner, seeing that they were advertising for speakers.

Mr. Bramiey, replying, said the questions were not on Socialism. The reason he was not now a Clarion Vanner was a personal one. It was a suggestion of impure motives, he said, to say that the success of a Clarion Vanner depended upon the number of Clarions sold, but it is noticeable that he did not deny the statement. Mr. Bramley still insisted upon having questions upon the principles of Socialism. He was asked if he advised the workers to avoid the I.L.P., S.D.F. etc., as non-Socialist organisations, and to join the S.P.G.B. and replied that he preached the principle of Socialism and left the people to judge for themselves as to which political party to join. Did he advise the workers to avoid the Liberal and Tory parties was the next question given to the ex-Vanner, and the answer being in the affirmative, Bramley was then called upon to explain why he did not preach Socialism and advise the workers to avoid the I.L.P. and S.D.F. as supporters of capitalism. The cases were not parallel, be declared, but he could not show wherein the divergence lay. Mr. Bramley, in answer to a question, said that he believed organisation to be necessary for the attainment of Socialism, and explained his inconsistency in advising the workers to join such anti-Socialist organisations as the S.D.F., and the I.L.P. by saying that he did not agree that they were anti-Socialist. Nevertheless he had to admit that we were the only pure organisation. He agreed that an organisation advocating the support of capitalism was acting contrary to the principles of Socialism, and to the interest of the working class. Having denied that the I.L.P. supported capitalism, Mr. Bramley was asked whether Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, and Mr. Fred Jowett at Bradford supported capitalism when they entered into a compact with the Liberals. Amidst roars of laughter he attempted to repudiate the action of these individuals as not representing the policy of the I.L.P., which, he said, was settled at their Annual Conference. Asked was he not aware that Mr. Keir Hardie at the York Conference of the I.L.P. admitted that this policy had been followed with the object of keeping out the Tories, he answered that he was not aware of this fact. Mr. Bramley was then shown a leading article in the Labour Leader stating that the I.L.P. supported the Liberal candidate at Bury, and he could not deny that as this had never been repudiated it stood as their policy. Was the I.L.P. a Socialist organisation was then submitted, and elicited the reply that it was an organisation that would fulfil a need for a considerable time. (Oh, oh ! from the crowd). The questioner refused to accept this answer and he was then told that the I.L.P. is a Socialist organisation, and amidst interruption and laughter Mr. Bramley said that he had been a member of it for twelve years.

The ex-Vanner was now called upon to show how we can socialise capital. “I cannot tell you,” he said, “the socialisation of capital is an impossibility.” Asked now why he was a member of an organisation the object of which was an impossibility, he denied that the object of the I.L.P. was to socialise capital, and asserted that it was “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” He was then informed that a perusal of the I.L.P. literature would show him that the object of the I.L.P. was “socialisation of land and capital,” so that he was a member of an organisation yet at the same time ignorant of its object. Mr. Bramley had by this time had enough of it and he religuished a platform that for him had proved a pillory.

THE CHIEL.

The Kirkdale Bye-Election. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blatchford Eats his Words.

Appeals to “Socialists” to close up their ranks and help in every possible way to return Mr. J.. Hill to Parliament are falling fast and furious and the usual reasons are being advanced by those whose policy is changed as often as is demanded by the necessity to maintain the circulation of their newspapers, secure the attendance of the public in large numbers at their meetings or to bring themselves into prominence as “leaders” of the working class. Mr. Robert Blatchford, who for weeks in the columns of the Clarion has been explaining “Why the Labour Party is no good,” now urges all, Socialists and Labour men alike, to help to swell the ranks of the “useless” Labour Party by returning a candidate who will be as useless as the best of them. In the Clarion Election Supplement Mr. Blatchford eats his own words and declares that “the workers need a strong and United Labour Party” because “two ominous words, ‘Conscription’ and ‘Protection’ are being freely bandied about, and attacks, open or covert, are being made upon Trade Unionism and Education,” and further, “The Liberal Party may be a better Party than the the Tory Party, but the best Party for Labour is a Labour Party.” And this whilst the ink is hardly dry on his utterances on the failure of the Labour Party and his declarations that only a Socialist Party will do ! But then, Robert Blatchford is a journalist and also writes romances.

The S.D.F. Position.

Edward Hartley, too, calls us “To Arms ! To Arms !” He also, in Justice and elsewhere, has been asserting the necessity for a Socialist party, but like Blatchford and others, is not honest enough to admit that it exists in The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Hill should be helped because he “is not only the secretary of a strong and well-organised trade union (!) but a good Socialist who has advocated his principles for years.” But, Hartley adds, “Even if he were not a Socialist, but only a Trade Unionist who would stand firm on the principle of independence in political action, he would be better than the best candidate who could be selected as either Liberal or Tory.” We hope our friends who tell us they believe in our policy of hostility to all other parties, but who remain in the S.D.F. because they also believe that to be an uncompromising Socialist organisation, will note its willingness to support non-Socialists and even anti-Socialists under the conditions stated by Mr. Hartley.

The Liberal Attitude.

Mr. Hartley says also that the Liberals find the Tory candidate so acceptable that there is to be no Liberal candidate, but on the other hand, it may be that the Liberals find Mr. Hill so acceptable that they prefer to leave the field open to him. After all, if at the General Election they were willing to assist “independent” candidates, like Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Mr. T. F. Richards, Mr. Jas. Parker, Mr. G. J. Wardle and others into the House of Commons, why should they fight the Labour candidate now that they have discovered how “sensible, respectable and adaptable” the Labour members are ? As the Daily News admitted, when commenting on Mr. Gill’s address at the Trade Union Congress “no Liberal who is in earnest about his creed . . . can do anything but rejoice in the strength of a party at once so sincere and so reasonable.” And judging by his election address, no Liberal need fear the return of Mr. John Hill for the Kirkdale division. (Since the above was written the Kirkdale Liberal Divsional Council have passed a resolution urging the Liberal electors to vote for Mr. Hill.)

Mr. Hill’s Program.

The Labour Leader prints certain portions of Mr. Hill’s election address, and even from these it can be seen how far he is in conflict with the programs of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. Amongst other things Mr. Hill says :—

Aliens' Bill.

I deeply regret that through lack of employment at home British Workers are forced to go to other countries as “Blacklegs,” or stay at home and starve. I am in favour of a Bill to give Protection to British Workers by the prohibition of Aliens being imported to take the place of men on strike, or to undercut or displace British Worker.

Education.

As a Nonconformist, I believe in simple Bible study—the Bible is still my best book: at the same time, Bible lessons should only be given to children at their parents’ desire, as every parent should have the fullest opportunity to teach his child his own faith. I believe that religion thrives best and retains its sincerity without State interference.

Temperance.

As a total abstainer, I am in favour of the people of every town or parish having the fullest direct veto on the renewal of old licences or the granting of new ones. The common people ought to have the right to say whether or not temptation shall be beside their homes and amongst their children.

Franchise.

I am in favour of Adult Suffrage. Meantime, I would support the agitation for the extension of the franchise to women on the same basis as it now is, or may be, extended to men. I also favour the Bill giving married women the right to vote on their husband’s qualifications.

In conclusion.

As I am opposed to the present commercial system of production for profit, I would advocate in Parliament the Nationalisation of the production, distribution, and exchange of the common necessities of life. The enormous and ever increasing trade and wealth of the country is only tending to make the poor poorer, and rich richer and creating a luxurious, idle class on the one hand, and a starving unemployed class on the other. It is only by a more scientific system of society, a more just division of the products of labour, a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work, that the workers shall be emancipated.

And it is on utterances such as these that the Clarion, the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Trade Unions unite ! Such unity proves our case against them in regard to political action.

Mr. Hill’s Hotch Potch.

So far as we know Mr. Hill is the first “Labour” candidate to advocate the exclusion of aliens, and to adopt the Tariff Reformers’ position that the low wages and lack of employment of the working class here are due to the admission of aliens. Evidently Mr. Hill is one of the “working-men Tariff Reform missionaries” that Mr. C. Arthur Pearson threatens shall take the field against Socialism. The paragraph concerning “Education” conflicts with the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, the program of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., and again typifies the latitude allowed to “Labour” candidates for vote catching purposes, and proves conclusively how the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. will ignore their own programs in order to be “in the swim.” Both these two bodies, also, are pledged to public ownership and control of the drink traffic, a “reform” which Mr. Hill does not support. His reference to “the common people” is an insult to the working class, and his plea for a more just division of the products of labour is an admission that the present system is just and all Mr. Hill wants is to make it more so !

The Only Way.

There is one course for the workers of Kirkdale to adopt, although the result will be announced before these lines are in print,—Abstain from voting. A candidate who will pander to all sections, as Mr. Hill, with the support of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Clarion, is doing, proving thereby that he holds to no guiding principle beyond the personal desire to add the much coveted letters M.P. to his name, or, if we acquit him of this, showing conclusively that he does not comprehend the working-class position, is worse than useless to his class, and can only fall a victim, as the others have done, to the flattery and the hospitality of the master-class representatives. To serve the working class a candidate must stand as a rebel, be prepared to act as a rebel if elected, and to take all the consequences of such action. Prating about “a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work” after two thousand years of wars, barbarities, faction fights and other loving pleasantries which Christ’s followers indulge in, may be a good card to play in Liverpool and the appeal no doubt goes straight to the heart of atheists like Robert Blatchford, and the leaders of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. But neither by looking up to Christs nor down to devils, neither by appealing to politicians nor by relying upon “leaders” will the workers secure their emancipation. Only by realising that they are slaves, that there is no hope for them while Capitalism exists, that their emancipation can only be secured by abolishing, not palliating, the capitalist system and by organising themselves to take for themselves possession and control of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, will their historic mission be fulfilled. As voting for Mr. Hill would not assist them, but make the existing confusion worse confounded, we trust that the result will show that large numbers of the workers of Kirkdale have declined to vote for either of the candidates before them. But we confess we are not hopeful. The Social Revolution must be preceded by a mental revolution. Much deep study must be undertaken before the mental revolution is accomplished, and until then the workers will fall an easy prey to Labour Misleaders like Mr. Hill and his supporters.

Jack Kent

“If Mr. Hill is defeated,” says the Labour Leader of September 27th, “he will not be defeated on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of our Socialist purposes or faith.” And, it may be added, if Mr. Hill is successful he will not be successful on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of the Socialist purpose or faith.

Justice, however, declares it to be a “Socialist” fight. The contest, they say, is “one between Socialism and anti-Socialism.” “The fight is distinctly one for and against Socialism, and if Mr. Hill wins it will unquestionably be a Socialist victory.” In view of the candidate’s program, which Justice admits might be “more pronouncedly Socialist,” these words must have come as a severe shock to those S.D.F. members who assert that their organisation is “stiffening.” It is more flabby than ever.

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Third Annual Conference will be held on Good Friday and Saturday, March 29th and 30th respectively, at the Communist Club, commencing each day at 10 a.m.

* * *

On Good Friday evening a Social and Dance will be held. Admission by programme, to be obtained from branch secretaries or direct from Head Office.

* * *

Enquiries have been made as to whether membership of Clarion Cycling Clubs is compatible with membership of the S.P.G.B. Were the clubs merely social there would, of course, be no difficulty about the matter, but in point of fact one of the rules of the N.C.C.C. adopted last year at Warwick, specifies “The propagation of principles of Socialism as advocated by the CLARION.”

* * *

The “Principles of Socialism as advocated by the Clarion” are the principles of rate-saving municipal capitalism, and state industry on the lines of the Post Office; the transference of capital and the function of the capitalist from the individual to the Public Body.

* * *

A member of the S.P.G.B. would, then, clearly be wrong in joining a Clarion Cycling Club.

* * *

In some walks of life a man is compelled by economic necessity to become a member of an organisation which devotes a small portion of its funds to a political policy as a side line. But there are plenty of purely social clubs, and the member of the S.P.G.B. consequently finds that he need not support a club that is run to advertise a confusionist journal and to propagate an “ism” that is inimical to his class, while in so far as the cycle can be used as an auxiliary to political activity the S.P.G.B. wheelers fill the bill.

* * *

The economic and speakers’ classes meet every Thursday evening at the Head Office.

* * *

Our comrades, “the two revolutionaries,” are pushing the sale of the Party Organ in the Northern industrial centres, thus performing services to the organisation that will, no doubt, be of material service to us in our endeavour to enlarge the scope of our political activities.

_____________

Now that the propaganda season is upon us comrades should throw redoubled vigour into the work of pushing the sale of the Party Organ and other Party literature. No more effective work can be performed for Socialism.

Clarion modesty. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent is advised by the Clarion (11.1.07.) to study Shakespeare, Milton, Blatchford, and the Bible. Congratulations to Shakespeare, Milton and the authors of the Bible upon the latest addition to the ranks of the immortals.

The Clarion on its defence. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Clarion has been “hit in the place where it lives” by the protest against its unfairness which was printed in the last issue of the Socialist Standard. At any rate it devotes quite a space to a rather ill-humoured repudiation of the charge, in the course of which it says:

1) That my letter would have occupied a column and therefore was virtually in the waste paper basket before it arrived.

2) That my article contained “spiteful abuse” of the Clarion’s “poor old Editor” who knew nothing of the matter in dispute.

3) That I stated the Clarion was filled with “piffle.”

To which I beg leave to make rejoinder as follows:—

(1) My letter was intended to outline and justify the position of the S.P.G.B. which had been criticised in two previous numbers of the Clarion. I thought this was a rather important matter. If a Party is contributing to working-class confusion, maintaining working-class ignorance and therefore delaying working-class emancipation, it is, I submit, an important thing from a Socialist point of view, to combat the work of that Party. I thought so, anyhow, and the Clarion says it thinks so too—sometimes.

The S.P.G.B. came into existence to combat the confusing effect of the work of professing Socialist organisations and to preach Socialism. The Clarion, which says it agrees with the position the S.P.G.B. alone upholds, refuses to print a letter from the S.P.G.B. because it would occupy a column. Mark. The case of the S.P.G.B., whose position the Clarion says it agrees with, has never been stated through the Clarion. We haven’t had a line. All the other Parties which,—if our contention is upheld as we say we can uphold it—the Clarion is supposed to be against, have pages !

This, however, may not be taken as a sign of a wonderful magnanimity on the part of the Clarion toward those with whom it is in disagreement. It agrees with our position all right, but it also agrees with the position of those we are fighting ! Rum? Not at all ! Just Clarionese.

Now accepting this basis, Clarion’s, it may not unnaturally be expected, I think, that as we are agreed with as much as the other chaps who are opposed to us, we should get as good a show in the Clarion as they. They have had pages. We have had the exact equivalent of nothing. We didn’t ask for pages. I only asked, it appears, so great was my moderation, for a column, and I only asked for that because we had been dragged into the Clarion without our knowledge or consent. I confess I expected to get the space necessary in the circumstances, particularly as it is an infraction of one of the few canons of honour journalism can boast of to print an attack and exclude the reply.

But—dear me ! no, says the Clarionesi Dangle. No code of honour of any newspaper in the world and certainly not the Clarion’ would stand the strain of any reply of over 250 words unless—-ah ! unless your reply will sell Clarions. If you are “Tess of the Suffragettes” for example, well,—”come and welcome, sinner, come.” even though the Clarion’s editor thinks the women’s agitation childish and silly. Or if you are an ecclesiastical dignitary, (Bishops preferred)—come again, even though your arguments are ”piffle” in three column efforts capable of being “smashed like an egg” by the Clarion’s fighting editor. Come one, come all—-if you can sell Clarions. But don’t expect to get in against the sellers of Clarions. You may be the very embodiment of all the virtues ; you may have the message that will set the people free, but if you are obscure and insignificant or if you are useless as a seller of Clarions—outside ! Perish everything—bar Clarions.

Well. I don’t sell Clarion. The Party on whose behalf I write don’t sell Clarion. My letter wouldn’t have sold any. Beside, it hit against the men of the Parties that do sell Clarion. It might have had a bad effect upon sales. Therefore, and so far as I can see only therefore, I am a “stodge-spinner” and am waste-papered.

All right. I don’t mind but—oh ! what a fall is here, my countrymen. What a descent from Olympian profession to Stygian practice. Poor old Clarion. Poor old Dangle.

(2) Wherein did my article contain “spiteful abuse” of Blatchford or anybody else ? Answer Dangle or withdraw. And please—I couldn’t help it if Blatchford didn’t see or hear of my letter. He is still Editor, isn’t he ? And—Dangle ! It occurs to me, speaking of Blatchford, that if he had had the same cause for writing that I had, and particularly if he had had the same case that I have, he would have run his article in weekly 4 column instalments over a period of six months at least, and yes, and then published it in book form ! You know he would.

(3) I stated the Clarion was filled with “piffle”? I? I said nothing of the sort. What I did say was that Blatchford would have called columns of what appeared “piffle.” If Dangle doesn’t believe it he should ask Blatchford himself.

Just another word. My friend Dangle appears to be absorbing some of the methods of the Yellow Editors whom he delights to pillory. He publishes sufficient of my statement to convey a false impression. He inferentially imputes certain beliefs to me which I do not hold, in order that he may have excuse for pouring out the vials of his strongest mixture of caustic and iron upon my head. His references to the flatulency of his correspondents, while doubtless intended to be scathing, are in exceedingly poor taste and if Dangle had been less hasty would probably never have been passed.

In short, my dear Dangle, you have in this matter adopted the methods that are cheap and nasty. And I am astonished !

A. J. M.Gray

The “Clarion” and the S.P.G.B. (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Clarion poses as an exceedingly fair paper. It will allow the other side a show. It will even appoint an editor from the other side to supervise the contributions of champions of that side. This is very fair play. It is magnanimity. It removes all suspicion of partial editing by an opponent of the other side. It encouraged me to write to the Clarion.

I did not ask for a special editor. I asked for a hearing. I trusted the Clarion to give me that—the Clarion being an exceedingly fair paper.

It arose in this way. The Clarion’s vanner, Bramley, had reported on his work at Tottenham, and had referred to the local S.P.G.B. as particularly vigorous. This did not appear to suit the humour of the Tottenham I.L.P. In the next issue a Mr. Pedley, of the Tottenham I.L.P., wrote disparagingly of the local S.P.G.B. Therefore I asked the Editor of the Clarion to allow me a word.

The Editor had been complaining that some Socialists didn’t preach Socialism ; that they wasted time on things that didn’t matter ; that they were not using their opportunities to dispel working-class ignorance. I thought the Editor would be glad to know of a party that preached Socialism only, that never wasted its time on things that didn’t matter ; that used all its opportunities to dispel working-class ignorance.

Besides, the Party had been attacked by a Tottenham I.L.P’er. That alone, I thought, would have given me a claim to a hearing the Clarion being a fair paper. So I wrote.

"The Editor replied, “Sorry, no room.”

Now if the Editor wanted to dispel working-class ignorance through the Clarion, and wanted to keep out as much as possible of that matter which would not dispel working-class ignorance, but rather increase it, the reply “no room” was not true. There was plenty of room, and it was filled with what the Editor himself would be obliged to confess was piffle from the point of view of one endeavouring to dispel working-class ignorance. From that point of view, I submit, my letter was of far more importance.

Why then was the letter not published ? I hope I am not unfair, but I can only conclude that the Clarion is more concerned with increasing its circulation than with increasing enlightenment. Its fairness is, therefore, only extended to those who can help sell the paper. Its magnanimity is for those who, in addition to helping sell the paper, haven’t got a case—those whose arguments the Clarion Editor boasts he can “smash like an egg.” All the evidence points that way, anyhow.

The S.P.G.B. is a small party. It wouldn’t sell many Clarions even if its spokesman did get a show. The I.L.P, is a large party. It can sell a lot of Clarions. Therefore I.L.P. must have a hearing.

Of course, the Clarion can do what it likes in such cases. Its staff have got to live. And they must sell Clarions therefore. But I hope the Clarion will not again parade its fairness.

My letter was headed :

SOCIALISM AT TOTTENHAM.

and read as follows :

Sir,—Mr. Pedley, of the Tottenham I.L.P., has written to correct Vanner Bramley. I write to correct Mr. Pedley. The bone of contention is the S.P.G.B. I am a member of that party and know that in his references to us he is wrong. Perhaps he won’t believe it but he is.

The S.P.G.B, does not exist, to blackguard Mr. Pedley’s leading men. It exists to do precisely what Mr. Pedley says he desires it should do. It devotes itself entirely to preaching Socialism.

In your last issue Robert Blatchford writes : “Some years of more or less strenuous or casual thinking and observation have convinced me the great enemy is ignorance.”

That is our conclusion also. The question we have to consider is how best we may combat ignorance.

Mr. Pedley’s belief is that the I.L.P. is doing the work best. I conclude so from the fact that he belongs to it.

The S.D.F. member holds his organisation to be the best.

We think that both S.D.F. and I.L.P. are confusing elements whose work contributes to that working-class ignorance which we all profess to desire dispelled. Therefore we exist as a separate organisation.

Which of the parties mentioned is justified ?

We are all concerned with the realisation of Socialism. We all agree that Socialism is the only way for the workers. We all want Socialism as quickly as possible.

Therefore the question of the best method of dispelling working-class ignorance as the necessary preliminary to the realisation of Socialism is the question for first consideration.

We are prepared to vindicate our position as against S.D.F or I.L.P. in public discussion before the working class we seek to enlighten. If I.L.P. or S.D.F. can shew us we are wrong we are quite ready to vacate our platform and go over.

I know of no better way of proving our sincerity. Does Mr. Pedley ?

Let me in a few words outline the position. We want to dispel working-class ignorance. We want the working class to understand why Socialism is the only remedy for poverty and insecurity and misery. Therefore we prove the unalterable antagonism of interest between working class and capitalist class under present conditions and the futility of anything short of Socialism to materially affect working-class unhappiness.

If we prove to the working class the conflict of interest between them and the capitalist class, we make clear the uselessness of the appeal to capitalist representatives which so many professing Socialists encourage.

If we prove the futility of anything short of Socialism to affect the workers as a class, we prevent waste of working-class energy upon palliative programmes. We prevent the inevitable disappointment that comes when, palliatives realised, the position of the working class remains the same. We prevent the apathy bred of that disappointment.

We hold, therefore, that the duty of a Socialist party is to preach Socialism only. We hold that the only justification for the existence of a Socialist party is in its propaganda of the insufficieny of anything less than Socialism. We hold that it exists because the reform parties which preceded it, and which still exist, are not good enough.

And because Socialism only is sufficient we hold that any professing Socialist who enlists working-class energies in useless and wasteful and disappointing palliative movements, not only vacates his Socialist position, but is, unconsciously perhaps, working harm to the working class. The workers of harm to the working class are working-class enemies.

We hold and prove the S.D.F. and I.L.P. to be such parties. In producing our evidence it is inevitable that we make personal references. Mr. Pedley objects to these personal references because they embody adverse criticism of his leaders. He wouldn’t mind if they were criticisms of the Balfours and Chamberlains. Why ? Because the B’s and C’s are working-class enemies. But we hold that the men who, ostensibly engaged in the interests of the working class, confuse working-class thought by association with capitalist representatives in movements for the realisation of objects that don’t matter, are greater working-class enemies than the B’s and C’s.

The S.D.F. and I.L.P. agree as to this when the individual on the rack is a man like Burns. Yet their own leaders are doing precisely the same thing and doing it, moreover, with the sanction and approval of the members of their organisations. The arrangement between Liberalism and the I.L.P. at Leicester which resulted in Ramsay MacDonald’s return and Ramsay MacDonald’s association’ with Brunner in the House is one ease in point. The support of Masterman (Liberal) by Hunter Watts (S.D.F.), of Percy Alden (Liberal) by Will Thorne (S.D.F.), the relegation of Socialism to a secondary or even lower position or its obliteration altogether, by L.R.C. candidates, are others. Any number of further instances are set out in our Manifesto.

For taking a consistent line; for making our actions square with our propaganda, we are, if you please, dubbed by Mr. Pedley’s Gilbertian leaders “impossiblists,” placed without the pale !

I suggest it would be better for our objectors to listen to our “vigorous ” speakers at Tottenham and elsewhere. It would be fairer to read our literature and discuss debatable points with us. So, we may arrive at the truth, which I am quite sure will discover us to Mr. Pedley and his friends as not quite the “impossiblists” he seems to imagine we are. And it may be that he will find that, so far from our refusing to do “practical” work (a blessed word that “practical”) we are, in preaching Socialism only—which is quite as easy of understanding to the working class as the dubious benefits of the Second Ballot, Payment of Members, and the rest of the pottering futilities beloved of the one-step-at-a-time-and-the-smaller-the-better “Socialists”—doing the only thing we can do, the only thing that matters, the only thing that can produce satisfactory results.

If Mr. Pedley can suggest anything more “practical” from a Socialist’s point of view, he can let our “vigorous” Tottenham comrades know. They will be glad to hear from him.

And finally,—it is not a great point but as Mr. Pedley has inferentially introduced it, it may as well be referred to—if the membership of the Tottenham S.D.F. is lumped together wilt the Tottenham I.L.P., the result would still require multiplication before it would approximate to the strength of the Tottenham S.P.G.B. We are a small organisation, but unfortunately for Mr. Pedley’s irony, we happen to be strong at Tottenham. —Yours etc.,

A. J. M. Gray