Artists and and “Fighting Age”. A Socialist’s Comments. (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Many of the artists, like Mr. Edgar Bundy, Mr. A. T. Nowell, Mr. J. R. K. Duff, and Mr. Wynne Apperley, continue their work as though they had never heard of the war which is now raging. If an artist is not of the fighting age it is difficult to suggest anything better for him to do.”—A. J. Finberg in “The Star.”

The above gem of reflection has been carefully preserved ever since it was culled from “The Star” for its unconscious humour and its twisted philosophy. It evoked laughter then, and has since. In an unguarded moment the critic has unwittingly revealed himself, and incidentally, the working of the mind of many others. Let us examine it from the point of view thus expressed, and then from a Socialist’s.

The art critic is evidently rather surprised, and slightly shocked. “What would happen if everyone stayed at home, like you?” (as the hoardings had it) is the question he mentally asks. The artists “continue their work as though they had never heard of the war which is now raging. If an artist is not of the fighting age it is difficult to suggest anything better for him to do.”

Evidently the main idea in Mr. Fineberg’s mind is, “Get on with the War !” If you are an artist of the “fighting age” then GO he would say ; he thinks the paramount purpose is the prosecution of the war. But if you are not of the “fighting age,” Mr. Finberg finds it difficult to suggest to the artists anything better than the pursuit of their art. Ye gods !—it is difficult. A very little frankness goeth a very long way. Let us see the logical effect of this argument.

Evidently, at the present juncture, when central Europe has been turned into a series of vast cemeteries through millions of peaceful workers, having been compelled by their masters to maim and destroy each other, the all-important thing in pro-war people’s minds is the continuance of War ! Like Lloyd George, they want to win the war ! But “there are some more concerned about ending the war than about winning it.” (Lloyd George at Queen’s Hall, Aug. 4, 1917). Yes, there certainly are ; and what is of supreme importance, there are some very much more concerned with preventing future wars by abolishing root and branch the present system that produces them than with winning this one.

The great motto for the workers should be “Let us mind our own business” ! Had the workers of Europe “continued their work” when their masters—the war-creating class—declared war, and told their rulers “To hell with you and your wars: go fight it amongst yourselves” ! then, truly, there would have been no war. It would have been stayed at the onset by “the men who stayed at home.”

Oh for class conscious solidarity of the workers, with the one aim of capturing political power, and with one goal : International Socialism ! Lacking those they have become the dupes and pawns of those who exploit and oppress then. Cajoled, deceived and driven like sheep, they have confused their own interests with their masters’. So Europe finds itself to-day in a sanguinary welter of racial hate and fratricide, with smiling fields turned into a desolate arena by the most hellish warfare the world has ever seen.

The demand for men of “fighting age” has been colossal. The glory of young manhood, its health and vigour, has been incessantly sought by the master class. The peremptory call for men to destroy their capitalist-made enemies has been enormous. All the fine qualities, and abilities to do things worth doing, have been spurned as of no worth: to be a soldier was the all in all. The world will never know what men of talent, of genius, who probably would have contributed their quota in the realms of Art and Literature, Poetry and Science, have, through their masters’ orgy of futile organised slaughter, been crushed and destroyed in the ruthless progress of the “Great War.” It is indeed a tragedy for the individuals and for Humanity also. Militarism is in truth the valet of capitalism ! Everything has been subjugated to the needs of capitalism’s brute force. “No sacrifice,” they told us, was “too great when honour and liberty were at stake.” The “honour” and “liberty” of plutocratic thieves ! Many of the men above “fighting age” have also “done their bit,” for have they not goaded others to go ? Have not some of them sat on Tribunals and “administered” the Military Service Act ?

Where also should we have been if all the art critics had joined up? The artists, free from their attentions would be at a loss, and the Press would find it somewhat difficult to fill its columns with stereotyped art-jargon in their absence, and the art-gallery proprietors would not have their shows boomed quite so much.

To a Socialist it is pleasant to know that certain artists “continue their work as though they had never heard of the war which is now raging.” The spirit of Art and that of the Warrior are frankly antagonistic. One is creative and contemplative ; the other is destructive, and thinks in terms of force. When Socialism becomes the established system of society, then, and not till then, will the workers of the world have abundant opportunity to do the work they wish, and as a “labour of love,” no matter what it be, whether expressing themselves in poetry, prose, or paint, or shaping their dreams of beauty in metal or in the marble of Carrara, or in seeking by scientific research to alleviate human pain. Then war will be a thing of the uncivilised past. Men will work for the World’s Commonwealth. Men of “fighting age” will not be considered from as potential warriors, but will be considered from the view-point of usefulness to humanity !

That is the crux of the position. “Warriors”! is all the cry to-day—”Men, Money and Munitions”! “Men, and yet more men”!—production for ultimate destructive purposes.

All this, workers, is the outcome of this system of producing for private profit. Every thing goes into the melting pot when the capitalists’ interests are at stake. No matter what your abilities are or your skill in any sphere of work, when capital calls you to fight in its own hellish wars you have to respond, and if necessary, make “the supreme sacrifice”—your very life !

Workers, organise class-consciously for the capture of the political machine and the establishment of Socialism to end these things once and for all.

Yours is the power and the ultimate victory ! The emancipation of mankind from the thraldom of the present system of wage slavery will result.

You desire peace ? You wish to abolish warfare? You as a class can alone end it for ever by your concerted efforts: by establishing INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM under which the means of the world’s wealth-production will be in the hands of and controlled by the Workers of the World, for the benefit of the multitudes of all nations.

G.

By the Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

As everyone knows, our masters declared war in 1914 in order to uphold tbe cause of “right” against “might,” and to “put an end to militarism.” Have not the Daily Distresses and the Scaley Crocodiles told us so ? Those of us who have managed to survive until the year of disgrace 1917 know how successful our rulers have been in the before-mentioned noble ideals. With our pedigree and birth hanging up in the workshop and factory, and the voluminous documents we have to carry about with us in order that we may have the “liberty ” to walk about, we cannot but rejoice to think that the employing class have engaged in such a lofty task as the “ending of militarism.”

If further information on this subject was required plenty is at hand. The “right” against “might” theory has been seen in the bamboozling methods obtaining in the early days of recruiting right down to the passing of the unfit under the system of conscription. How “might” has prevailed against “right” is to be found in the violation of pledges to the “Widows’ Sons,” the agreement that youths under 19 should not be sent to the front, and so on.

Having thus touched on the subject of “right,” I come now to the question of “truth.” Recently Mr. Macpherson gave evidence before the Select Committee on the Military Service Act (Review of Exemptions), and in the course of the examination he endeavoured to draw a distinction between a “secret” and a “confidential” document. How “militarism” has triumphed here may be gathered from the following :

“Mr. Shortt, K.C., reminded him [Macpherson] that in January he had told the House that no secret instructions had been issued with regard to rejections, and he replied that he had done so on more than one occasion.

Asked whether he had made inquiry as to the issue of such instruction without his knowledge before that time he answered : “Yes. Any question affecting recruiting would be taken from the Blue Book circulated among the members by the Department of the War Office called C. 2. It would be sent to the Director of Recruiting, and I am compelled to rely upon any information I get from that Department.

The Chairman : You now know of the secret instructions sent out by Sir A. Keogh in 1916?—”I heard of that for the first time since this Committee has been sitting, and never saw the letter except in print. It would not come before anyone on the civil side of the War Office. It was sent out by Sir A. Keogh, acting, no doubt, on instruction.”

In answer to Mr. Pringle, who asked if he had been deceived, he said it was not a question of being deceived or misled. He gave the answer he received.

Mr. Shortt, KC.: “If you had known that this document existed, would you have given the same answer?”—He admitted that he would not.

It all depended upon the view the military authorities took. They distinguished between a “secret” document and a “confidential” one. His mind did not go to the niceties of these documents, but in military circles there was a great distinction . . .

Mr. Shortt, K.C., said that in case the Committee had more military witnesses, they would like to know what the military people called “secret” and “confidential” documents. To my lay mind the term “secret document” would certainly cover this letter.—”Daily News,” August l0th, 1917.”

The sublime ignorance of the Under Secretary for War on this and kindred subjects is truly amazing, and the endeavour to hide by such a shuffle the mean and despicable attempts of his department to obtain recruits shows how arrogant militarism has become.

* * *

In spite of all the big talk that we have heard since the beginning of the war in connection with the discharged soldiers and sailors and a grateful country’s treatment of them, signs are not wanting that large numbers are being left to “go the same way home.” Once again the soothsayers are wrong. From a news item I learn as followeth : “A national disgrace: 21 discharged fighting men in Portsmouth Workhouse.”

“It was reported yesterday to the Portsmouth Guardians that there were 21 discharged men from the Army and Navy in the Workhouse as casuals. Eleven had been discharged from the services as medically unfit.

It was considered a national discredit that such things should exist. One speaker said that men discharged as medically unfit were left to roam about the country. It was also stated that there were men back from the front discharged with pensions of 4s. and 5s. a week only.

Manchester Guardians yesterday protested in the strongest possible manner against the scandal and disgrace of pauperising sailors and soldiers who have lost their reason on active service. The Government were pressed to provide for such men without bringing them into contact with the Poor Law.”—”Daily Chronicle,” August 23rd, 1917.

One is now reminded of the poster which was lavishly displayed two years or so ago, depicting the cottage standing in its own grounds with, the words “Isn’t this worth fighting for ?” At this juncture it seems to be a case of ” What do you lack, Sonny ?”

* * *

From another source there is to hand a case slightly different in detail, but illustrating the same fact that when a man is no longer of fighting value it does not matter to our benevolent bosses what becomes of him and his family. This case stands out more prominently than some for the reason that the man had many years’ service to justify a claim for considerate treatment. However, let me quote :

“’S.B.’, an ex-corporal in the R.G.A., who had served 14 years when the war broke out, writes:

I volunteered for the front in September, 1914, and was sent across for the defence of Antwerp. Later on I fought near Ypres, and was striken with malaria, which I originally contracted in India in 1905. I was invalided home, and became instructor at my depot until 1916, when I had to report sick.

Last August I was discharged medically unfit. I had been removed from hospital totally disabled on a pension of 4s. 8d. a week, with a wife and four children. After eight months the pension was increased to 9s. and 4s. 6d. for the children, or 13s 6d. in all. I am still in bed, and am still applying to Chelsea for the total disablement pension. Last Tuesday they asked for my record, though I have written them every week for a year. As one of the “first hundred thousand,” I think I deserved better treatment.”—”Daily News,” August l0th, 1917.

How’s this for generosity ? Six people committing suicide on 13s. 6d, a week ! Verily the workers are a long-suffering lot. When will they arise from their slumbers and proceed to end this hellish system of capitalism with all the evils that arise therefrom ?

* * *

A newspaper correspondent writing from the front a few days ago gave a description of the fighting which had just taken place. He wrote : “This area north-west of Lens has already seen some of the bloodiest struggles of this war, but none perhaps so bloody as it saw this morning.”—(Perry Robinson in the “Daily News,” 22.8.17.) Of course, the usual reference to the heaps of German dead appeared, though what satisfaction this can be to those who, by a geographical accident, were born on British soil, and have lost a relative, none but the arm-chair prosecutors of the war can appreciate.

* * *

The pantomime performance of the Labour Party would indeed be a fit subject for hilarity were it not for the seriousness of the workers’ position, which is supposed to reside in their keeping. As in the days before the war the Labour Party, or at least a portion of that party, move amendments or resolutions, as the case may be, and then vote against them. Recently the Corn Production Bill was before the House, and embodied in it was a proposal of 25s. a week wages for agricultural workers. Some of the Labour members moved an amendment to increase the wage to 30s., yet, strange to say, another member of that party, Mr. G. H. Roberts, who has just been rewarded for faithful service to the capitalist government, voted against the 30s. amendment. One wonders whether the agricultural workers of Norfolk will keep their eyes on “their” member in future.

The Scout.

The Armed Nation. (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The jingo spirit—commonly known as patriotism—always latent in the bosom of the unthinking worker, ready to be fanned to flame by the wiles of the pressman or orator, the strains of a brass band or sight of a bright uniform, the verse of the poet or the doggerel song of the music-hall artiste, is being aroused for the purpose of saving Secretary Haldane’s “Territorial Forces” scheme.

The beatific unanimity with which all sections of the capitalist platform and Press, from the belted earl to the sainted layman, from the Daily News to the Daily Mail, unite in the good work of persuading the propertyless that their interest, is to defend the propertied and their property—”on the cheap”—is touching in the extreme.

There is one spot of green in the wilderness, however, one oasis in the desert, and that is—the S.D.P. Through the mouths of Harry Quelch, H. M. Hyndman, Will Thorne, Sergt.-Mjr. R. Edmonson, and the columns of our “revolutionary” contemporary, Justice, we are given to understand that there is one alternative between Haldane and conscription, and that is the citizen army, as embodied in a Bill to be promoted by that sole result of 26 years of S.D.P. wirepulling, intrigue and compromise—Will Thorne, M.P.

Between the downright Tory idea of conscription, and the Liberal idea of voluntarism, there is now this difference—the first stands for open coercion, the second for insidious compulsion, as witness Haldane’s high appreciation of the “patriotic spirit” displayed by Rothschild in connection with the Alliance Assurance Company, which has adopted a rule requiring all clerks entering the service to join the Territorial Forces. But when this Bill of Bill’s is examined it is difficult to determine which it approaches the nearer.

There is a pamphlet written by the latest star turn of the S.D.P., Sergt.-Mjr. Edmonson, entitled “The National Citizen Force Bill of Mr. Will Thorue, M.P. : An Appreciation and Explanation.” The writer’s knowledge of army matters is assuredly greater than his knowledge of economics, or his service in the army was, even from a military point of view, a lamentable waste. From amidst a fanfare of trumpets and a dazzling array of ”credentials” at the beginning we gather that a standing army is “an expensive toy for the ruling class.” From the working-class point of view this is a matter of no concern, but no doubt the capitalist class are grateful for the information, and will act upon it. Well, the Sergt.-Mjr. has examined Will Thorne’s Bill, and has failed to put his finger “on any bad or doubtful points it may contain.” That’s unequivocal ! But maybe others can succeed where the gallant soldier fails.

The first clause, which proposes that, subject to certain exemptions, every man “shall be liable to military training” appears to leave room for revision—out of existence. The worker has no property to defend, therefore military training to fit him for defending that which he has not is rather superfluous—but where would Bill’s Bill be then ? This same clause “gives Ireland a chance of proving its patriotism,” and “enables Irish youth to take up arms in defence of the United Kingdom.” The Irish working man who thinks enough of the United Kingdom to put himself out to defend it must be a psychological phenomenon.

The information regarding the composition of the Administrative Council, in clause 2, is interesting, but as borough councillors and the like will not necessarily be altered to suit, this does not carry far.

We now “come to the more serious parts of the Bill,” but don’t be alarmed, ye braves ! as long as “we succeed in viewing it in an intelligent, patriotic light,” and make up our minds that “if a foreign foe attack us,” every male worthy the name of man would do all in his power to drive that foe “back from where he came,” our glorious Empire, of which we workers hold so large a share, will be safe.

And now for the call to the “aristocracy of labour.” “Trades-Unionist, you have something to defend and you know it.” So let your bosoms swell with pride, ye proud Britons, for ye have something to defend—the Sergeant says so.

The 6th clause is illuminating. “One of the duties of the National Citizen Force will be the protection of railways and rolling stock,” the other “chief duties,” presumably, will be the protection of the rest of the property of the capitalist class. That amongst other conditions should, according to the writer, “meet with universal approval.” Surely so ! Millions of working men and women have held railway stocks—or tickets—therefore every man must approve of a condition which gives him scope for the defence of his seat—or standing-room —in a third-class cattle truck.

After further elucidations the information is to hand that the labourer is worthy of his hire. That is a truism ; but when the Sergt. Mjr. informs his reader that “the soldier is very much a labourer,” that is a statement needing a great deal of qualification. The soldier performing no function necessary in an organised system of production and distribution, living, as he does, on the labour of others to whom he renders no compensating service, is to be numbered amongst the parasitic section of the community, however true it may be that he is recruited from the ranks of the working class.

There is apparently so much difference between the “free services of free men” and the “servile obedience” accorded by the rank and file to officers under the old regime, that under the proposed scheme, refusal to accord “free service” on the part of the “free men” is to be rewarded by as much as one year’s hard labour. The method of appointing officers under the Bill is by a ballot of the men, but no one shall be appointed who has not the approval of the Central Administrative Board. Consequently, the men may choose their officer, and the Board may exclude him by the conditions they impose. Staff officers shall be appointed by officers. These two rules strike our friend as democratic, and he opines that they will abolish “distinctions of class.” Proof as to how that or any other clause in the Bill can accomplish any such result is not forthcoming.

Will Thorne is thanked for his endeavours in the following terms. “Thank you, Mr. Thorne, for your brave and patriotic attempt to knock the present military law on the head in time of peace.” As to whether it would have been more or less patriotic in time of war we are not informed.

Clause 23 (and last) deals with the saving to be effected by the reduction of permanent expenses, and this is stated by the writer to be “a most important clause for the taxpayer . . . as well as from the democratic point of view.”

Now it is easy to understand the confusion of thought which has characterised the whole pamphlet. The “General” has tried to square the Bill with the interests of the working class and those of the capitalist class, seemingly in utter ignorance of the diametric opposition of those two class interests, and, naturally, he has fallen between the two stools.

The concluding paragraphs painfully accentuate this confusion, as the working class is alluded to as the “working classes” and “the masses,” and the capitalist class as “the classes” and the “dominant class,” all within one paragraph.

The tit-bit of all is the affirmation that “the National Citizen Force is the only salvation of labour.” This, coupled with a remark in an article in Justice, of February 6th, entitled “War Inevitable” by the same writer, to the following effect, is immense. “However, we are of opinion that he (the working man) would not be adverse to training under civil law, . . . but this would be too democratic for a capitalist Government to try.” If the leaders of the S.D.P. have any sense of the ridiculous they will retire, and thus remove a factor which is potent for the production of confusion in the working-class mind.

It is evident that if the citizen army is the only “salvation of labour,” Socialism cannot be so as well, therefore the S.D.P. can dispense with its affected object. Also, if it is “too democratic for a capitalist Government to try,” why does the S.D.P. accord its support to Will Thorne, and sanction the appearance of articles on the subject in Justice ?

The “War Inevitable” lucubration did not, as might have been supposed, consist of exclusive information in the possession of the T.C.P. or the writer. It was the heading of a full-page criticism of a sensational novel by one Alan H. Burgoyne, entitled “The War Inevitable,” which title, minus the article, figured in large type on the contents bills of that issue of Justice, for the obvious purpose of stimulating sales, in the typical catchpenny style of “yellow” journalism. Such enterprise should cause the Clarion and the Daily Mail to look to their laurels.

There are some curious examples of erudition in the article, amongst them being a statement that wars are sometimes set on foot for the purpose of diverting the workers from the real issue, and incidentally, of “killing off a few thousands.” This cannot be described as anything but balderdash ! The capitalist class have no need to resort to such catastrophic measures for diverting the workers : old age pensions are cheaper and more convenient, and as to ”killing off a few thousands,” from the point of view of that section of the community, the more the merrier. Besides, wars are expensive, and must imply, for a time, an excess of wages to the wage-earning class. This is not the policy of the wage-paying class—elimination of waste, not the opposite, is recognised as more to the point, as witness the growth of trusts.

Thus may one occupy the anomalous position of having as an objective, the extinction of waste, and yet of recognising that in society as at present constituted, the more waste the less want. War is instigated through the economic interests of the capitalist class of one nation or group of nations clashing with those of another. It may be engineered, partly, by a group of financiers interested in the production of stores and munitions of war,—instance, Boer War—but this alone would not be sufficient.

The working class has to clearly understand that the taking up of arms against other nations means the straining of the bond between the workers of the respective countries. The foundation of Socialism, which must rest upon the international solidarity of Labour, cannot be built up on citizen armies, neither can it have part or parcel with any scheme of armed nations.

Let there be no misapprehension on the subject of the “Armed Nation,” be it called by that or any other name. Armed forces are maintained for the purpose of holding the property and position of the robber against the robbed.

When the workers are able to dictate to the master class as to whether, or upon what terms, they shall serve in the army, then will the Social Revolution be at hand ; until that day Socialists must concentrate upon Socialism, and leave soup-kitchens and army reforms to those who, no matter what their protestations, are in the enemy’s camp.

D.W.F.

Tiny Tips (2026)

The Tiny Tips column from the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

A youth panel at the conference examined how Germany’s political establishment is pressuring young people into the armed forces not only through direct reforms, but also through policies that attack livelihoods. The situation imposed onto young workers and students today amounts to ‘economic blackmail’ for those without wealthy families to support them, argued Max Radtke of the trade union ver.di…The reintroduction of conscription should be understood as a question of class interests, added David Christner of Junge Linke (Young Left). He emphasized the need for a sharper analysis of ‘who is being sent to kill and die, and for whose interests’, saying that the political imperative at this point is to develop a ‘practical alternative to repression and militarization’. 

[peoples dispatch]

How Does Yoga Alleviate Child Poverty in India? Yoga classes can offer several benefits, particularly for children living in poverty. They: 1. Provide mindfulness and resilience. These sessions provide a break from daily life, where minds are taken off of hardship outside. Students gradually develop inner strength and willpower that they can take home with them. 2. Build a community. Children feel safe making friends and coming out of their shells. They will feel less alone and it makes the day-to-day that little bit easier. 3. Improve physical health. By building physical strength, students are less likely to contract illnesses and injuries, thereby increasing attendance at school and reducing stress on health care systems. 

[The Borgen Project]

Wide-scale desertions and 2 million draft-dodgers are among a raft of challenges facing Ukraine’s military. 

[AP]

People are now openly confronting the authorities, with a few lucky ones escaping conscription. Sadly, other videos show men being forced into vehicles by recruiters or beaten to death. This past summer, József Sebestyén, a Hungarian from Transcarpathia, died during his forced conscription. The Ukrainian authorities tried by all means to cover up his case. In the video, recorded in Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, a crowd of civilians surrounds a police car in which a man has been placed. In the recording, people can be heard protesting, standing in front of the car, and preventing the vehicle from leaving the scene. Ukrainians are fed up with war and even more fed up with having to see their loved ones die for it. They are now openly speaking out against family members, friends, and neighbors being dragged away.

[ZeroHedge]

. . . one of Beckert’s more arresting contentions is that for most human beings, through most of history, the idea of working full-time, not for their own provisions but for cash, was utterly alien: the proletariat almost always had to be forced into being. Sometimes this involved slavery or indentured labour, but just as often it was accomplished by undermining the traditional basis for subsistence production. By enclosing, for example, common lands in Georgian England, or indeed through more recent restrictions on access to the plains of Ethiopia or the forests of Indonesia. 

[Prospect]

(These links are provided for information and don’t necessarily represent our point of view.)

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the August 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The continued absorption of the men of military age has had the effect of bringing in its train a greater demand for children and women to take the place of those workers who are thus removed from agricultural and industrial pursuits, in order that the latter may be trained in the art of scientific slaughter.

During the past month or so much has been said and written with regard to the employment of children and the question of education. Just recently, in the House of Commons, Mr. Arthur Henderson (Labour [!] M.P.), speaking as President of the Board of Education on the Education Vote, let fall the following remarks :

“The question of child-labour had excited much apprehension. . . . The Board had impressed local authorities to make full inquiries into the cases of children employed in agriculture. The Board would regard it as a very grave misfortune if large numbers of children were employed at an early age.

He expressed his gratitude to the Board of Agriculture for their co-operation with the Board of Education, yet in spite of their efforts the number of children engaged in agriculture had nearly doubled. It showed that by-laws were being relaxed without proper care and enquiry.”—”Daily Chronicle,” July 19, 1916.

If one was able to shut one’s eyes to the fact that the speaker was a Labour Member (and consequently was in the House of Commons supposedly in the interest of the working-class) it would be very easy to view the observations recorded above as an apology by an ordinary capitalist politician for jeopardising the education of this country’s future wage-slaves. But stay a moment ! Is not this hon. gentleman identified with the party who used to advocate “the raising of the age of child labour with a view to its ultimate extinction” ?

Another speaker who joined in the discussion said that he believes the President’s estimate of the number of children of school age employed in agriculture was far below the mark, and further suggested that the grant, or a large part of it, should be withdrawn from local authorities if they yielded to popular clamour and for the benefit of farmers robbed the children of their “birthright.”

* * *

We of the Socialist Party have, in season and out of season, insisted that the question of education is one which primarily concerns our masters. They do not educate the children because they desire them to become more intelligent, but because of the increasing development in the modern means of production and the higher education of the wage-slaves of other lands. This point has been referred to on many occasions by Lord Haldane, and even quite recently he emphasised the need of a far higher system of technical education. Therefore, if our masters desire to retain their supremacy as a commercial nation, they will see to it that the future wage-slaves shall be trained accordingly, and hence the grave concern of a small but intelligent section of the capitalist class at the invasion that is taking place in the ranks of the children of school age. Further confirmation of this is to be found also in Mr. Henderson’s speech, wherein he stated that

“The war has also brought home to us that our national prosperity and security demanded greater concentration of intelligence on problems of industry, commerce and public administration. He was glad to say that the Department had not failed to prepare for a re-conquest of the ground they had lost, but had taken steps to go much further than before after the war was over.”

* * *

Whilst I am on this topic there is one item which, perhaps, would not be amiss. It was recently stated in the Press that there were “cases of children attending school who were too sleepy to be taught owing to working early and late.” This was mentioned at the Frome (Somerset) School Attendance Sub-Committee meeting. The report continues :

“One boy of 11 milked seven cows night and morning and then went to school. He started work at five o’clock and had reached Standard II. The Chairman said he knew of a case where the teachers complained that children engaged on farm work were too tired to do anything when they got to school.”—”Daily News,” June 27, 1916.

One can understand the position of the teacher who has to impart information and instruction to children whose mental and physical energies have been sapped ere they reach the classroom. This evil is, of course, not confined to war time only ; it is an inevitable consequence of capitalist society, but to-day it is more pronounced. Here is a glorious opportunity for the idlers of modern society those who heretofore have never done anything useful in the community to do what they are so fond of prating about, work of “national importance.” Will THEY do it ?

To the teachers, parents, and members of the working class we send out our gospel of salvation. Study the position of your class ; realize that you are many and the drones are few ; help to speed the day when the exploitation of yourselves and your children shall be relegated to the past ; and join with us of the Socialist Party to assist the ushering in of a new society, wherein “poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.”

* * *

For some time past we have heard a lot of talk about what our patriotic bosses are doing for those who hare “done their bit.” We have grown accustomed to hearing that after this war “our heroes” are not to sell matches and bananas for a living, but at long last they are going to receive recognition of tasks achieved and duty done. Without here touching on the subject of pensions (which, is engaging a large amount of attention in the Press), I will pass on to an advertisement which caught my eye in the “Daily Chronicle” of July 21st. Here it is :

Army or Navy men wanted who have done their bitt; bring discharge papers; salary 28s. per week to start with . . .

There’s generosity for you ; 28s. a week for those who have “done their bit.” The Lord only knows what the remuneration would be for those outside the condition above stipulated.”

* * *

Our right reverend father in God the Archbishop of Canterbury, recently wrote to the Prime Minister with regard to the plea of the World’s Evangelical Alliance that the second anniversary of the outbreak of war be made a national day of prayer by Order in Council. The reply of Mr. Asquith was a materialistic one, for he and many others, though giving lip-service to orthodox religion, place more reliance in shot and shell than in the efficacy of a day devoted to national prayer. Which reminds one that another gentleman in days gone by was once alleged to have said: “You may pray to God, but keep your powder dry.” However, let me quote :

“I have received your letter. … I am not prepared to recommend that Friday, August 4, be proclaimed a day of national penitence and prayer. I must point out that Monday and Tuesday, August 7 and 8, are declared Bank Holidays.

The suggested Proclamation would enforce a stoppage of work throughout the country on the previous Friday, and would not, I think, conduce to the result which is desired.

I think that the community will readily respond to the proposal that services should be held on that day in churches of all denominations throughout the country, and I believe it to be more in accordance with general thought and feeling that the State should not intervene in the manner suggested.”

—”Daily Chronicle,” July 1, 1916.

* * *

We have from time to time commented upon the £. s. d. point of view of obtaining recruits for the Army. The following is decidedly frank and honest:

“In granting exemption to a farm hand, aged 30, with nine children, the Ramsbury (Wilts.) Tribunal expressed the opinion that it would be cheaper to keep him at home.”—”Daily Mail,” June 34, 1916.

* * *

During the period immediately following the passing of the Compulsory Military Service Bill for single men, there were many outbursts in the House with regard to the methods of roping in potential recruits. Reference was made to the destruction of medical certificates of rejection and those who held them were forced to undergo further examination. Such were the methods used then and ultimately condemned by Mr. Tennant when he could no longer maintain a policy of official ignorance on the matter. Despite all promises of reformation, and the period of time which has since elapsed, we find the following condemnation of the methods adopted by the military authorities :

“Improper treatment of men who have been sent to Warley for medical examination was made the subject of a strong protest to the War Office yesterday by the Ilford Tribunal.

It was stated that the men were asked by the medical authorities to sign a blank card which would be sealed up afterwards and sent to the military authorities. This the men refused to do, and they informed the Tribunal of the fact.

Mr. Middlemas, the military representative, took exception to the treatment of these men and said it was scandalous, and he himself had written a strong letter of protest.”—”Daily Chronicle,” July 21, 1916.

* * *

Much ink and paper has been used to present in lurid terms the “awful frightfulness” of the German. But lo and behold ! in due course come pen pictures of the “frightfulness” of the ruling class of Britain and her Dominions. We have in time of peace heard a great deal about the “master mind” and the “directive ability” of our bosses, and with microscope in hand we have set out to discover these qualities which it is alleged belong to our masters. I have in mind the “gamble” of the Dardanelles and the Meso­potamia campaign particularly at the moment, though numerous other items might be mentioned. That the question is a serious one may be gathered from the fact that the Lords, spiritual and temporal, appear to have been the first to publicly discuss it. Now for the indictment :

“The Duke of Somerset said he had an opportunity that morning of reading three or four very long letters from officers who had been serving in Meso­potamia. He could assure their lordships that the cruelties our men must have suffered through the utter incompetence of the authorities, both in India and at home, were simply disgraceful. They knew what the Belgians suffered and they knew also what our own men suffered when taken prisoners by the Germans at the beginning of the war. But our men were suffering very much worse than they had ever suffered through the brutality of the way in which things had been managed in Mesopotamia. What they had suffered was perfectly indescribable.

He would give one or two instances, in one case a thousand wounded were sent down in a ship with one medical officer and one orderly to look after the whole of them. They were all mixed up together—­officers, British soldiers, and native soldiers. There were men with dysentery and men with shattered limbs all in the same ship, and there was not a bit of morphia or a drop of chloroform. One officer who was sent down wounded never had his wound dressed from the time he was picked up until he got to Bombay.

‘Who is to blame God knows,’ he added. ‘There must be somebody to blame here, and, as for India, I think the officer in command of the troops there must be terribly to blame.'”—”Daily Telegraph,” July 14, 1916.

* * *

“Dardanelles Treaty. Russia promised both sides of the Straits,” are headlines which recently appeared in the “Daily Chronicle” (19.7.10) over a short announcement with regard to the return of the Russian Parliamentary delegates to Russia. The item of news goes on to state that “the most interesting statement was made by Professor Miliukoff, the former Liberal leader, who, according to the Russkoe Slovo, said :

“The most important question in which we were interested was the problem of the Dardanelles. An agreement has been made between Russia and her allies according to which we are promised both sides of the Straits.”

Who said we are fighting on behalf of Belgium ?

The Scout.

By The Way. (1917)

The By The Way Column from the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The points of view expressed in the papers by those who sit in authority over us are indeed illuminating. On the subject of “alien enemies” some queer things are said. While there are some who advocate the internment of all such persons, others are prepared to let them be at large so long as they can be employed and as a result of this “an Englishman would be released to fight.”

In this connection I recently read that a chairman of a Tribunal asked a baker who raised the question of the difficulty of obtaining labour why he did not employ Germans. The applicant replied by asking whether it was advisable, and said that if the public knew it they would raid the shop. Then with profound wisdom the chairman delivered himself of the following :

“I think it is short-sighted on the part of the public. If a German were employed an Englishman would be released to fight.”—”Evening News,” July 12th, 1917.

* * *

The General Federation of Trade Unions announces a conference to consider the question of soldiers’ and sailors’ pay. “One of the demands is that the minimum net allowance of any British Soldier as from July 1 shall be 3s. per day ; and also that the Government provides and pays from July 1 1917, all allotments to wives and other dependents.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Presumably the General Federation regards 3s. per day as being the trade union rate of wages for one body of workers going forth to slaughter other workers with whom they have no quarrel, whom they have never even met, at the behest and in the interest of their lords and masters. What Lloyd George thinks of this “audacity” I wait to see.

* * *

Mr. F. G. Kellaway, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Munitions, addressed a meeting of the allied engineering trades at Luton a short time ago on the subject of dilution of labour. He also referred to the recent strike and the causes which led up to this event. Deploring the fact that there was a deep-rooted suspicion in the minds of many trade unionists that dilution on private work, once introduced, would not be got rid of, but would remain as a regular practice after the termination of hostilities, he went on to say :

“The proceedings in the House of Commons on the Dilution Bill were not fully reported in the Press, so that the Government’s case for the Bill was only imperfectly brought before the men.

In this connection, I would say that the Government has, in many respects, suffered from the limitations which the shortage of paper has placed on the space which the Press is able to devote to these large questions. I have for a long time held the opinion that the paper shortage has been a serious handicap to the Government in keeping the country fully informed of the considerations which guide their policy.”—”Daily Telegraph,” July 9th, 1917.

Now really this is all swank. The Press and the censor make a studious practice of giving as little space as possible to these questions affecting the conditions of labour of large numbers of workers. In this very issue of the “Daily Telegraph,” which is typical of many others, there are 47½ columns devoted to advertising matter, 2½ columns relating to the money market and market reports, and 34 columns of general information ; therefore out of a total of 84 columns no less than 50 are utilised for advertising purposes. Shortage of paper, forsooth ! Next please.

* * *

A month or two since there appeared in our journal an article dealing with two plays (“Ghosts” and “Damaged Goods”) which were then running at London theatres. The why and the wherefore was then fully dealt with. I return to the subject to quote the following :

“It is a sign of the times that there are now running in London two plays which deal with the subject of venereal disease. Even four years ago such a thing would have seemed impossible, and thirty-six years ago, when “Ghosts” was received with a storm of violent abuse, few could have foreseen how public opinion would change towards it. The reason is mainly to be found in the propaganda world which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Venereal Diseases.”— “British Medical Journal,” June 6th, 1917.

* * *

From recent happenings in the House one is reminded of the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon performances and the heart-to-heart talks for men at the local tin Bethel. In the early part of July Mr. Bonar Law made a statement with regard to his duties as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said : “A statement of his that he did not think it was his business to spend his time in trying to save £100 here and £100 there had been held up as very reprehensible, but at a time when we were spending millions daily the functions of a Chancellor of the Exchequer were much better exercised in trying to get a good system of expenditure and in getting the right men to carry out that system than in trying to cut down £100 here and there. . . .

“He certainly would not have taken up the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer if he had not thought he was capable of performing its duties. He had no object in doing so on any other terms.

In the first place he was not fond of work. (Laughter.) For the last twenty-five years at least he had never done any which he could either persuade or pay somebody else to do for him.”

— “Daily Telegraph,” July 7th, 1917.

There’s candour for you. It calls to mind the wag who said that “only fools and horses work.” Working men run the boats and Bonar pockets “divi.” When will we awake from our slumber ?

* * *

On the question of freights and food Mr. Bonar Law made a more significant admission. While he told his audience that he “was really ashamed to make the confession,” and he “thought it was disgraceful that in a time of war any class should be able to make the profits he would describe,” I have not observed that he has endeavoured to obtain absolution by giving these ertra profits to the Lord’s poor, or even to the “heroes broken in our war.” However, it’s never too late to spend—or to buy war loan. Mr. Law continued :

“The sum of money he had invested was £8,100 and, at 5 per cent,. interest that would produce £405 a year. For the year 1915, instead of £405, he received £3,624, and in 1916 he received £3,847. That was not the whole story. One of the steamers in which he was interested had been sold or sunk— he was not sure which. (Laughter.) In that ship he had £200, and after the very handsome dividends he had received he received in liquidation a cheque for a little over £1,000. There was another shipping company in which he had invested £350, and the other day he had received a letter from the owners saying that they were going to make a division of the surplus capital. For the £350 which he had invested he had received a cheque for £1,005.”

—”Daily News,” July 4th, 1917.

This quotation is rather lengthy, but to condense it would be to spoil it. Our masters and their hirelings glibly talk, about “equality o! sacrifice,” and the while are enriching themselves enormously whilst increased hardships are the lot of the majority of the workers. Think it over.

* * *

During the debate on an amendment on the new Franchise Bill Mr. Harold Smith objected to conscientious objectors having a vote. Though he admitted that in the majority of instances the objectors were genuine, a significant admission, although somewhat late—still he would not give them the vote. Another M.P. interrupting

“Asked the hon. member why he was not serving as he was of military age. 

That is a matter for which I shall answer to my own conscience, replied Mr. Harold Smith.”

—”Daily News,” June 27th, 1917.

So you see there is still some unconscious humour left in the world. One conscientious objector (the “Scout,” for instance) is so much beneath the contempt of the patriot (Mr. Harold Smith, for example) that he may not even have a vote to cast for or against another conscientious objector (again it might be Mr. Harold Smith) taking a seat in the House of Commons.

* * *

In the early days of the war the drink question loomed large in many speeches that were then made by the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George. For every shortcoming of the Government and lack of essential materials wherewith to wage war our old friend “Bung” was blamed. The workers in very truth, according to the Welsh Messiah, were sodden in drink, even as Mr. Philip Snowden had declared some time before. Said the Welsh Rarebit: “Drink is doing more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together.” Then he was prepared to take a pledge of abstinence from the strong drink that was raging, and the newspaper editors, in their usual fawning manner, dished tip a large announcement that the King had also banned alcoholic liquor from the Royal Household. Now a different tale is told. It is inexpedient to deal too drastically with this question.

On this interesting theme, I notice there is another gentleman who is greatly concerned about the workers’ thirst for malt food in liquid form. One, Will Thorne, recently returned from a trip to Russia, has written to the King with regard to the shortage of beer. From a bright, brief, and brotherly reply I notice that Bill has been informed by the King’s Secretary that—

“The question of the shortage of beer, especially during the summer months, is one which demands careful and prompt consideration. I am passing your letter to Lord Rhondda, and adding that the matter is one which the King hopes will be dealt with in a considerate manner.”

Simply marvellous, isn’t it ? Doubtless the question of munitions and ship-building, and kindred problems, have all been satisfactorily solved ere this, and once again we can all join in singing praises to “Beer, beer, glorious beer.”

* * *

In our Declaration of Principles we state that “In society . . . there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.” Addressing an assembly at the Aldwych Club recently, Lord Leverhulme, of soap fame, put forward a plea for shorter working hours, advocating a six-hour day and a system of co-partnership. Whether he had been reading the Socialist Standard I cannot say, but at least the truth of the extract quoted above is accepted by him. He informed his hearers that :

“There was no possibility of reconciling the opposing claims of capital and labour. They must be fused. Co-partnership was the solution.”

And again—

“Machinery should be worked twelve hours a day, by two six-hour shifts of workers. Output of material would be increased, and, at the same time, the wear and tear of the human body would be lessened.”—”Daily News,” July 11th, 1917.

One is tempted to ask whether, in those firms where these “opposing claims” are “fused,” the workers carry home as much of the swag as the owners of the factory and the plant necessary for the production of the commodity, and if not why not. And further, if there is any guaranteed continuity of employment. The reply, of course, is obviously in the negative. A study of the co-partnership snare reveals the fact that the wage-slave, no matter what the conditions are which surround his employment, is robbed of his product, and that co-partnery contains all the evils inherent in the capitalist system. The solution of the “opposing claims” is by a triumphant working class obtaining political power and converting these privately owned but socially manipulated means of wealth production into the common property of society for the good of all.

* * *

The trip of a princess to Southend a short while ago has brought to light a good illustration of official ignorance. It will be remembered that on the occasion of this joy ride rumour asserted that a fleet of aeroplanes accompanied the train. At a meeting of munition workers at Plumstead the statement was made in a question addressed to Dr. Addison, asking him if such was the case. He then replied that—

“The question has been considered by the Cabinet and there is not a word of truth in the statement.”

The question was then transferred to the House of Commons. Mr. Macpherson replying stated that “there was not an escort by any aeroplanes of the R.F.C.” Then came a letter from the private Secretary of the Queen to the Mayor of Southend with the significant admission that “Her Royal Highness . . . was greatly interested in the fleet of aeroplanes which escorted the special train during the latter part of the journey.” Finally Mr. Macpherson made another statement in the House on the subject, when he said:

“In a reply he gave on Wednesday he said that no R.F.C. aeroplanes escorted Princess Mary on her visit to Southend, but this answer, he regretted to say, was incorrect. It was given after the usual reference to the R.F.C. and Home Defence Corps. Neither of their authorities was able to find any foundation for the story at the moment.” 

“Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Such are the specimens of official replies of the win-the-war government.

* * *

The case of an objector to military service “who was confined in a pit 12 feet below the level of the ground for eleven days and nights in Cleethorpe's Camp and for four days of that time was obliged to stand ankle deep in mud and water,” was recently brought to the notice of the Under Secretary for War. At first the right hon. gentleman was not aware of such a trivial happening as this and would have to make enquiries. Eventually this was done and we read :

“Mr. Macpherson replied that he regretted to say the allegations made were substantially correct. The case arose in the first place because the man was not given the option of a trial by court-martial, but was dealt with summarily by the commanding officer ; and, secondly, because having been awarded detention, he was not committed to a detention Barracks in accordance with the regular practice. . . . The Army Council took a grave view of the action of the authorities responsible and were considering what further action in the matter should be taken.”—”Daily News,” July 20th, 1917.

Now in the light of the foregoing who would not agree that “Kind, kind, and gentle are we” in our treatment of those with whom we disagree ? Even Stanton would have them put out of existence more speedily by having them shot !

* * *

The “Daily News,” in a leaderette of the same date asks : “What evidence does the War Office possess that this ‘irregularity’ is isolated, and that other conscientious objectors in other camps are not being similarly tortured ? In the second place, it would be interesting to hear what punishment has been inflicted on the officers who ordered, sanctioned, or tolerated this abominable cruelty. Military punishments are notoriously severe. What have they amounted to in this case ? The answer will show how far the War Office are sincere in their professed efforts to put down brutalities of this description.”

* * *

The revolting story of the Mesopotamian campaign, brought to light as the result of the work of the commission appointed to enquire into this ghastly military tragedy, emphasised once again the callousness engendered by militarism. To apportion blame to a few individuals is to tinker with the subject. Everyone who shouts for the war stands condemned, jointly and individually, and must shoulder his or her part of the responsibility. No wonder Lloyd George wanted the matter hushed up and says “Get on with the war.”

* * *

The capitulation of Lord Derby before the Select Committee on the Re-examination of rejected men is an admission of the truth of the allegations laid at the door of the War Office with regard to the methods of the military and the medical boards in taking up the halt, the lame and the blind. The transfer of power to a civilian body looks all right on the face of it, but is it merely a case of the doctor discarding a khaki uniform for a civilian garb ?

* * *

A leading article appearing in the “Weekly Dispatch,” June 10th, 1917, dealt at great length with the questions of peace and reconstruction. After pointing out that during the war there had been equality of sacrifice in regard to the risk of loss of life and limb, the writer went on to say that when the demobilisation takes place it would not be on such a large scale as many people now believed. He continued :

“For instance, 5,000,000 soldiers and sailors will not be at once thrown upon the labour market, nor will 3,500,000 munition workers at once lose their employment. The terms of peace may be such as to make it essential for us to maintain large armies and munition factories for many years to come.”

What, then, becomes of the oft-repeated phrase about this being the “war to end war” ? And further, what is to be said of those who are still advocating the “knock-out” blow.

The article goes on to speak of the war which we Socialists are engaged in—the class war. It says :

“We have two separate and distinct wars in progress—one which the-whole nation is waging, and one which has been going on for some years and not one whit less bitter—the war that has been and is still going on is between the employer and employed. 

If we are to be ready for the world peace one day to come, to be ready once more to take up the challenge of the rest of the world, and once more to enter into the great battle for trade, then the peace between the employer and employed must be signed before the peace between the nations now at war.

Let us be under no delusion; there WILL be a temporary lack of employment while we are putting our house in order; there will be a shortage of food for months after the war, as the various governments will require as many ships as are now b«ing used to take back the men to their different destinations; and as for prices, a man must be indeed an optimist if he believes that the cost of essentials will for many years, if ever, return to the 1914 level.”

Here, then, is a frank confession from an inspired source of the benefits held out to the mass of the people for giving their support to capitalist society—hard work for some, unemployment for many others, and semi-starvation for all. Join then with us for its abolition, and institute in its place social co-operation.

* * *

How the satellites of the win-the-war government carry on their recruiting methods is indeed a sorry spectacle. The harrying of the unfit, the halt, the maimed, and the blind is now quite a commonplace feature of militarism (English variety). In spite of all their protestations that such things have been magnified, and that, like the small boys caught sneaking the apples, “we won’t do it again, sir,” many accounts are yet to hand of these outrages on a long-suffering public. A recent one describes the case of a cripple called up for service. It states :

“A farce and an abuse of the process of the court” were the terms in which Mr. Bingley, the magistrate at Marylebone, described the action of the authorities in summoning Horace Ingram as an absentee under the Military Service Act.

It was stated that Ingram had been an invalid from birth, suffered from curvature of the spine, had lain for three years on a steel frame, and was wearing a steel plate in his mouth to enable him to speak properly.

It was a monstrous thing and a great shame, said the magistrate in dismissing the charge, to put such a case in the hands of the police, and the military authorities had not the courtesy to attend in support of the charge.”— “Lloyds Weekly News,” Aug. 5th, 1917.

The fourth year of war finds our masters still in a state of chaos and hard put to it to find sufficient cannon fodder to prosecute the “war of liberty.” When will the Government comb out their friends in the House and the others who have recently discovered that they are engaged in work of national importance ? Hush ! Is it only the working class they want slaughtered ?

The Scout.

An I.L.P. “belief”. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Independent Labour Party believes that the war was caused by the breakdown of class government in Europe. The peoples had no voice in policy before the war, and when they suddenly found themselves faced with “enemies” they had to fight.”

This statement contained in No. 1 Leaflet “The I.L.P. and the War” is not supported by facts or evidence of any kind ; it is merely a belief. Though whether the word “believes” applies to the first sentence only, or to the whole paragraph, it is impossible to say, nor does it matter much. The first sentence, expressing the belief that the war was caused by the breakdown of class government in Europe, if it is truly the belief of the I.L.P., is by far the most important statement, not only in this paragraph, but in the whole leaflet.

The writers fail to justify their belief. The master-class would ridicule it, and the Socialist would laugh at their self-inflicted credulity. What would be the attitude of the capitalist politicians ? First they would deny the existence of class government. Secondly they would claim that government was vested in the representatives of the people, was therefore democratic ; that government had not broken down, nor was it in the slightest danger of doing so. If the I.L.P. never anticipated this attitude it is politically sightless. If the capitalist position—so often expressed by its agents and spokesmen—was present in the collective mind of the I.L.P., they should not have been satisfied with the mere expression of a belief ; they should have shown in definite and unmistakable language that, in spite of capitalist boasting of the democratic nature of their system, class government exists. Moreover, they should have justified their statement that it had broken down.

They have done none of these things, it is, therefore, left to the Socialist to show the absurdity of their beliefs. In no country of Europe was there any government, at the outbreak of war, that showed signs of collapse. In every country of Europe—and the world—there was poverty and suffering, always on the increase, among the working class. There was discontent everywhere, but the suffering and discontent of the workers does not in itself mean the breakdown of capitalist government, on the contrary, it is proof of its power—and confidence in itself—to exploit and subjugate. At the outbreak of war, we are constantly being told, the Central Powers were organized and equipped for the struggle. That is to say, the working class of those countries were fully controlled and disciplined by the governing class. Obviously, class government had not broken down in those countries, but, on the contrary, had reached a high degree of perfection. In those allied countries where conscription was in vogue the military authorities, at the instigation of those who controlled the political machinery, gave orders for mobilisation and were obeyed almost to the last man. In this country the process was slower but just as sure. Everyone knows how the masters co-operated with their representatives in Parliament by “releasing” men fit for active service. But it is not everyone who knows how dexterously Mr. Asquith and his government, on behalf of the capitalist class of this country, engineered towards conscription. Had he been satisfied with having achieved his object and not boasted of his political dexterity, the workers would have been left to think that the Government had simply blundered from one pledge to another until conscription was accomplished, as much to their own surprise as other people’s. But the competition for ministerial portfolios often compels Ministers—however modest they may wish to be thought—to construe their actions in such a way as to gain them credit for acumen and foresight. Thus Mr. Asquith claimed that his government, by devious methods, had gained “compulsion by consent,” in the following utterance:

“Next, in the earlier stages of the war more men came in than we could effectively train and equip, and it was not until the beginning of last Autumn that the shortage of men, actual or prospective, became a serious problem. Compulsion, whatever may be said of its abstract merits or demerits, is alien to British traditions—(cheers)—and its introduction would have been viewed with the greatest suspicion in the absence of a proved case of absolute necessity by the vast bulk of Liberals, by a large body of Conservatives, and by practically the whole of organised labour. (Cheers.) I have consistently maintained ever since the recruiting problem became urgent that compulsion could only be practicable and made effective when at each stage of the road it was accompanied by general consent. That is exactly what has happened. Everyone who knows anything of our political life must be aware that such measures as have been passed by enormous majorities in Parliament this spring would even a year ago have encountered the most strenuous opposition, with most dubious prospects of survival.”

Whether this boast is true, or whether such a complexion had been given to a series of blunders, or whether the Government was dragged or forced along the road to conscription by the governing class, the result was the same and was never in doubt. The ruling class with their agents preserved their authority and achieved the same degree of power over the working class here, as the Allied and Central Governments exercised at the commencement. Clearly class government had not broken down in this country.

But possibly the I.L.P. intellect will object that these facts only apply to the period of the war, and that the outbreak of war placed the Government once more on their feet, or braced them for the struggle. But they cannot take this attitude in view of the concluding sentence in the paragraph quoted. “The peoples had no voice in policy before the war.” Quite so. The Government conducted the business of the ruling class in utter disregard and contempt for the working class, until they called upon them to defend “their” country—their country, who’s?-and the credulous—or should it be shuffling and treacherous ?—I.L.P. babble about the people who “suddenly found themselves faced with enemies they had to fight.” Had the people—that is the working class—understood their class position they never would have waited for the master class to choose enemies for them. But thanks to the I.L.P. and the rest of the parties and organisations that serve the master class, the workers have had but little chance of learning who are their real enemies. Had the workers of every country understood the nature of capitalist society and their own slave position, the governing class in each country would never have succeeded in persuading them that the workers of other lands could be their enemies. There is no possible ground of antagonism between the wage-slaves of one capitalist State and another. The antagonism that exists is entirely between the different groups of the governing class. When these groups fell out they knew that the workers under their control and domination could be relied upon to do the fighting in their interest. Had they entertained any doubts as to the docility of their wage slaves they would have hesitated before plunging into war. A working class really antagonistic to its rulers would use such an occasion to further its own object : they would face the enemy their experience pointed to ; not the enemies of their enemy.

Once again the real Socialist position must be emphasised. The I.L.P. complain that “the peoples had no voice in policy before the war.” Would there be any difference if they had? Without knowledge the workers can be led to support any policy that happens to be in the capitalist interest. We have seen the workers in the past—plastic as clay in the potter’s hands—led to conflict against those who are “their allies” to-day ; or fighting on the side of those who are designated as their enemies, and through all the sanguinary wars engendered by capitalist production and distribution they have remained a slave class under the domination of those, for whom they fought. Before wars can cease the workers must gain the knowledge that will enable them to prosecute the class war to a successful conclusion ; until that time arrives their lot must be to work the factory machine, or the machine gun, at the instigation and in the interest of the governing class.

F. Foan

Sheer cussedness. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

It may be remembered that the commander of the American forces in France assured us, in a speech upon the occasion of the welcoming of some part of the American fighting forces on this side of the sprat puddle, that the men in America are “simply crazy” to be over here and in the game. And now comes full confirmation in the following, presented to us by “Lloyd’s Newspaper” August 5th :

ARMED RESISTANCE BY U.S. CONSCRIPTS EXPECTED

“It is estimated that more than 75 per cent. of the drafted are claiming exemption.

It is reported to the Department of Justice that armed resistance to the draft is in the highest degree likely.”

You see Americans have such a high example of veracity in George Washington that the truth bubbles from them spontaneously, like wisdom from Lloyd George.

——-0——-

This gentleman has the wisdom faculty of Solomon after he (Sol.) had subjected himself to a long dieting of serpents. Only this week he has been at it again, and the acumen of one particular statement of his reaches about the limit of human profundity. He is reported as having told the gaping world that “No one in in Britain, France, Italy, or Russia, or even in Germany or Austria has any idea how near to the summit of our hopes we may be.”

Not only in what was said is the speaker’s quality revealed, but even more so in what was left unsaid. One has but to add three little words, clearly enough suggested, to the statement in order to complete its immortal value, and launch one on a train of thought of peculiar depth and richness. Those words are : “or may not.”

That, of course, is the whole message which the Welsh Christ gave us in a moment of five-thousand a year inspiration—a sermon on the mount, since he was using a mountaineering analogy. “We do not know, nor does anybody else, how near or how far away from victory we may be.” True. The Prussian does not know how near or how far from a terrible licking he is. True again. Translated into the language of the people for the people, “Nobody don’t know nuthink.” Loud Jaws has told us so.

——-0——-

Talking of analogies, Mr. Lloyd George supplies us with a notable one. Some years ago he raised the water line of ships, and converted dry ships into wet ships. Now he has raised the water line of beer, incidentally converting dry sailors into wet ones. And, if he wants to complete the analogy, he has but to claim that just as he “with a stroke of the pen,” as was said at the time, added millions of tons to the carrying capacity of the mercantile marine, so, with a stroke of the pump-handle, he has considerably increased the carrying capacity of the mercantile mariner—or any other.

And this cuss is wondering whether Lloyd has got his money in breweries or water companies—or both.

The Cuss.

In Peace as in War. (1917)

From the August 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the capitalist class plunged the workers into the vortex of war the toilers took up the capitalist cry of “down with German Militarism.” It was easy for our masters to see what willing tools their wealth producers would be, and they organised and engineered, with the aid of the labour leaders, various schemes to entrap the workers for cannon fodder. For a short period thousands flocked to the recruiting offices, but with an alarming falling oft of willing targets, other means had to be adopted to “induce” them to join. Article after article in newspapers began to tell gruesome tales of the horrible brutality of the German soldiers and what it would mean to the workers here if they only landed on these shores. But finding this failed to appeal to their patriotism, the employers were urged to dispense with the young men in their employ and so force them into the army. Many other snares they tried signally failed, and having in view their determination to introduce the Military Service Acts and so make them law they, without disclosing their real intentions, compelled every man and woman to register and so clear the way of all obstacles for the administration of the aforementioned Acts. Wedged in between the employers’ action and conscription was the “Derby Volunteer” attestation, but in spite of all their hypocritical promises, lying and deceit, thousands of men still refused to be coerced into the army. In order to successfully bind the military chains around the married men the single men were called slackers and shirkers. The insults and innuendoes were swallowed, the single men were roped in, shortly to be followed by their married brethren.

Side by side with the stupendous slaughter of the workers on the battle-fields of Europe the cry of the workers of both sexes at home grows louder and louder. The intensified pace of exploitation hurls its victims in greater numbers on the heaps of human wreckage, some to linger with cruel tenacity to life in spite of their mangled bodies, others becoming an easy prey to the ravages of consumption and other fatal diseases. Here and there workers in different industries have feebly struggled against the encroachments of the masters when they have seen their hard fought-for trade-union rules and regulations gradually being smashed ; but taking them on the whole they have acquiesced in the worsening of their economic conditions. The rise in prices of the necessaries of life have become a common-place feature, the while wages have miserably failed to keep in touch with it. Hence the workers’ position gradually becomes worse in spite of all statements to the contrary.

The working class as yet do not comprehend their real relation to the capitalist class in modern society ; do not understand that by virtue of the fact that the capitalist class own and control the means and instruments of wealth production they take the wealth produced and hand back in the form of wages just sufficient to keep their slaves efficient. On the one hand there is always the struggle between the producers and non-producers concerning the price of workers’ labour-power ; on the other a struggle between the various sections of the international capitalist class for the disposing on the world’s markets of the wealth filched from the workers.

All economic wealth is the result of human energy applied to natural objects, and as it is only the working class who spend their energy by applying it to the natural objects, it follows that they are responsible for all wealth in existence. When the capitalist hires the worker he purchases the one commodity (labour-power) which has the unique quality of returning to the capitalist all the value he pays in wages and a surplus value in addition—hence his profits. The machinery and instruments of production and the raw materials being owned and controlled by the master class, involves the ownership and control of the wealth when produced. It is this private ownership that is responsible for the class struggle, responsible for the clashing of interests among the international capitalist cfess for the available markets of the world for the disposal of their commodities, that is the source of ALL modern wars. With the ever-growing productivity of the means of wealth production the world’s markets are choked with commodities. There is not room for all the struggling capitalists. Someone must be got out of the way. The forces behind each powerful combination are put into play until one or the other are economically and militarily crushed.

A favourite theme of articles in the Press to-day is that the end of this war will bring permanent peace. We are out to disillusion our fellow-workers on this lie ; to point out to them that while the private properly basis of society obtains, wars must inevitably occur. The workers must always haggle over the price of their labour-power ; the capitalists of the world must fight against each other for the world’s markets for the sale of the wealth stolen from the workers. Hence, whether the ghastly slaughter continues or not, the workers will—unless they organise to change the basis of society—be continually faced with the brutal struggle for existence, and gradually see their standard of subsistence get lower and lower.

As yet but few understand the cause of the awful manifestations of modern society. Thousands are groping in the dark for a way out of the morass, and it is to them the Socialist explains the remedy. We claim that if the workers are intelligent enough to manipulate the machinery of wealth production and distribution on behalf of their masters, they are intelligent enough to manipulate that machinery for themselves and to own and control the wealth when produced.

We urge our fellow-workers to study their position, endeavour to realise their relations with the masters, to understand that the capitalist class control the destinies of the workers of the world by their control of political power ; that every time they vote for the masters’ nominees they give the political power to those masters.

While we recognise the need of the workers to always fight the capitalist over the price of their labour-power, we would nevertheless fail in our duty if we did not point out that this struggle is powerless to alter the antagonism between the producers and non-producers. The workers must understand that their organisations—political and economic—must be grounded on class lines, having for their object the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of a system of society based upon the social ownership and control of the means of wealth production, in short—Socialism.

Only by recognising and embracing those principles can the workers eradicate from their midst such frightful carnage as is now raging in Europe, and abolish the painful destruction of the world’s toilers in “peace” and in war. Not only does the Socialist vehemently protest against the wholesale slaughter of his fellow-workers in this capitalist war, he with equal vehemence proclaims his hostility to the systematic murder of his fellows in the production of wealth to maintain the human race in the “piping times of peace,” where thousands are done to death yearly in the mines, on the railways and in factories, heaping up huge profits for our masters. It needs no comment of ours now to narrate the horrors of explosions in the coal-mines where gas has been known to be present to make it dangerous to work many months before, nor is it necessary for us to draw your attention to the Board of Trade figures in reference to the maimed and murdered recorded on the railroads each year, the men who have lost their lives in ships overloaded since the raising of the load-line by Lloyd-George.

To-day in the munition factories men and women are done to death, battered bruised, to say nothing of those who have contracted diseases of the most awful character in the production of explosives. The same toll of useful lives is taken in the greed for profits as in pre-war days ; the numbers in the mines, mills and railroads reaching an appalling figure. Whether in this capitalist war or in the class war always with us while the present system obtains, the same cruel murderous manifestations can be seen. Those who produce the sustenance and comforts of life are butchered, or exist in poverty and misery, while those who do not produce live in affluence and luxury. The only war that should interest you is the—CLASS WAR.

Farmer’s Boy

50 Years Ago: Conscription (1962)

The 50 Years Ago column from the December 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

The question as to whether or not conscription will, in the near future, become a necessity, appears to be once again very much “in the air." Lord Roberts, in the course of a recent speech, during which he implied the failure, and foreshadowed the disintegration, of the Territorial force, advocated more strenuously than ever his pet notion of universal military service. In this advocacy he is, of course, acting quite logically —more logically, indeed, than those “lovers of peace” (chiefly to be found among the Liberals and Labourists) who, while upholding and using all their efforts to maintain the present capitalist social system, at the same time deprecate what is, in reality, quite in accordance, morally and politically, with the development of capitalism.

*

To a man such as Lord Roberts, who has managed to make a fortune and win a title through professional soldiering, military service will, of course, seem all that is desirable. But what the devil is the poor drudge of capitalism, the wage slave, to get out of it? A fortune and a title? Hardly! At what should be the best portion of his life — his early manhood — he would be taken, numbered like a convict or a beast of burden at a cattle show, herded with his fellow beasts in compounds, trained and drilled and bullied and brow-beaten, taught to walk upright and to handle a rifle, taught to shoot sufficiently straight to kill and maim certain of his fellows (whom he has never seen before and with whom he has no quarrel), coming out of the Army at the end of his term with all the virtues of an efficient, non-thinking, non-questioning wage-slave, with all the initiative and all the self-confidence knocked out of him. Truly a delightful prospect!

[From the Socialist Standard, December 1912.]