Cuttings and critiques. (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Mr. Ritzema, J.P., of Blackburn, recently delivered himself of a scheme to “Nationalise and suppress the Liquor Traffic.” So impressed is he with his scheme that he has had it printed, and the Socialist Standard has received a copy. Let me say at once that I also am impressed by the scheme—in spite of the fact that it was first launched upon a long-suffering public from Paradise Church, Blackburn.

#    #    #    #

The background having been laid on with the brush of a Stiggins, incorporating the usual denunciations of drink as a greater curse than war, pestilence and famine, the cause of 80% of crime. 50% of lunacy, pauperism, etc, Mr. Ritzema talks of buying out the brewers at about 300 millions, imposing a tax of 20s. in the £ upon all intoxicants, selling them at cost to the town and county councils—who will provide public-houses and managers out of their own funds, 9-l0ths of the cost of which, and the loss on the sale of liquor, the Government would refund. Of the profits stockholders would receive 4%, and 2% would be set aside to redeem the capital. This would leave large sums for social work, such as “finding immediate work for the unemployed,” the drink traffic would be gradually extinguished under the benign influences at work, the money diverted from beer would buy the workers bread and boots, trade would be stimulated, lunacy, crime, and pauperism almost obliterated, the churches saved, and a sober, educated, and intelligent democracy would be evolved.

#    #    #    #

A beautiful scheme, savouring of the scheme for old age pensions to commence 20 or 30 years after the potential pensioner is a box of cold meat. The poverty of the proletarian is due to his exploitation at the source of production, and from that exploitation all things flow. The investigations of Chas. Booth, the Tory, show 75% of drunkenness to be due to poverty and its inseparable conditions. It is the degradation wrought by poverty that expresses itself in alcoholic excess, and the righteous Ritzema, living under the normal conditions of the lower paid worker, might find the atmosphere of Paradise Church less congenial than the mild excitement of the “Pig and Whistle.”

#    #    #    #

These morality-mongers prefer to potter with effects; yet this question must strike the stupidest in the face, if drunkenness exists why is it? What answer has the blue-ribboned army to that? It is, they say, when they are not dumb, due to the opportunities that exist for drinking. Oh, blind and sons of the blind! Abolish drink tomorrow—what then ? Happiness, they say, prosperity, joy in living. Yet the most abstemious, thrifty, careful living people in the world are the most poverty-stricken—the people of India.

#    #    #    #

No ! it won’t do. If the conditions of existence drive people into deplorable excess, that excess, that craving for excitement, for some break in the hideous monotony of their existence, must manifest itself somehow. Close all the public-houses—have you then exhausted all the media through which the craving will express itself ? No !

#    #    #    #

I wish I had space to deal with Mr. Ritzema’s little scheme. It would be interesting to try and discover how his blue horror fades to a lighter blue when it is dispensed by town council managers rather than rubicund Boniface, and how the craving for drink is to languish and die out when the liquor is served in pewters engraved with the council’s arms, and how the deep damnation of the whole business is reconciled with the payment of the authors of it (the brewers) and its continued existence under the management of a government that regards it as an. unspeakably reprehensible thing, more accursed than war, plague, or pestilence.

#    #    #    #

At the recent bye-election for Montrose Burghs a Mr. Joseph Burgess sought election, claiming to stand for Independent Labour and Socialism. In the first paragraph of his address he said, “If I have the honour to secure your suffrages I shall consider it my first duty, as the representative of all classes and industries, to do all that lies within the power of a Parliamentary representative to advance the general interests of all the Burghs and their citizens.”

#    #    #    #

By “all classes” Mr. Burgess really meant all sections of the only two classes there are—the master class and the working class. He was therefore admittedly prepared to go to the Commons to represent the master class—the landlords, employers, financiers, lawyers, the officials of the army and the civil forces!

#    #    #    #

In his next paragraph he said, “all textile trade questions would find in me a zealous and intelligent Parliamentary advocate,” and in the following, “I believe I could be helpful to all who are therein concerned, whether they be employers or operatives.” So here you have an “Independent Labour Socialist” candidate endeavouring to convince the employing class that he could be of great assistance to them. Apparently Mr. Burgess is far from accepting the impossibility of serving two masters faithfully. How he can serve the interests of the masters without opposing or neglecting the necessarily conflicting interests of the workers Mr. Burgess does not say.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Burgess would, further, nationalise all forms of industrial capital, evidently thinking it better for the workers to be exploited by Government departments than by individual capitalists or joint-stock companies. It is the same to us whether we are robbed by the Post Office, or the L.C.C. Tramway Department, or by Sir Clifton Robinson, or the National Telephone Co. It is a matter of complete indifference to us that the distraint for rent is levied in the name of some local teetotaller or Bible basher, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or a Government Land Department. Capital is wealth used for the exploitation of labour. We do not wish to nationalise that exploitation, but to abolish it.

#    #    #    #

Mr. J. W. Benson is the Parliamentary candidate for Pudsey Division, “at the unanimous invitation of the branches of the Pudsey Division I.L.P.” He claims that he is “an earnest student of the cause of poverty” and “convinced that Socialism is the only real and permanent remedy”; that “bad trade, unemployment, and poverty at present exist under a Free Trade policy, and therefore Free Trade is no remedy for these evils.” After this avowal one would expect (not knowing these I.L.P. chaps) that Mr. Benson would point out that Socialists took no part in the fiscal controvacy, being concerned only with the abolition of poverty, through Socialism, “the only real and permanent remedy.” Not so Mr. Benson. “I am in favour,” he says, “of the continuation of Free Trade.” So there you are. The evils of bad trade, unemployment and poverty exist under Free Trade, therefore let us have some more Free Trade. Let us hoodwink the workers into believing that it matters to them whether they are robbed by Protectionist crows or Free Trade kites. Such is I.L.P’ism.

#    #    #    #

In this respect, however, the I.L.P’s vis-a-vis, the Social-Democratic Party, has nothing to shout about. In a pamphlet written by its secretary on “Social-Democracy and the Zollverein” it pointed out that the great danger was that the working class might be induced to take sides. Agreed. And yet every S.D.P. candidate, from H. M. Hyndman downwards, has endeavoured to induce them to take sides, by declaring for Free Trade as against Protection. Take its very latest wild-cat candidature, in North-West Manchester. On the front page Dan Irving declared for “no tariff barriers to make dearer the food of the people,” although in the body of his address he described the Tariff Reform agitation as “a sham, political warfare on the fiscal arrangements of the country,” after which he said, “as a Social-Democrat I am in favour of Free Trade.”

#    #    #    #

Dan’s address was funny in other respects. “Whatever party may be in power,” he said, “I shall always be found giving my support to any measure which makes for the benefit of the people,” and then, in his concluding paragraph, “Workers, remember that in all times of industrial struggle” (which, of course, means every minute of day) “the members of the master class use the power you give them in Parliament and on public authorities to compel you to submit to their will.” And it is suggested by this “worker for the Labour Movement for twenty-four years” that the master class, possessing and using the power of compelling the workers to submit to their will, will introduce measures which make “for the benefit of the people”! Really, these fellows must be abysmal idiots or—— (missing word. Suggestions invited.)

#    #    #    #

“Do not the working class pay the rates and taxes ?” is a question asked in the “Catechism of Socialism,” and Messrs. E. Belfort Bax and H. Quelch, both of the S.D.P., answer “No.” The worker, they add, has “nothing wherewith to pay taxes, and whether these be high or low, and whoever has to pay them directly, his position remains the same.” Generally speaking, they say further, the reduction of rates is of no benefit to the working class, and to devote the proceeds of municipal undertakings to the reduction of rates is simply to use them as means for making profit for the propertied class. After which Mr. Dan Irving, in his election address, “in the interests of Labour and Socialism,” declared for the “Nationalisation of Education and Poor Rates so that the financially strong may help to bear the burdens of the weak.” Very ‘OT—what ?

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Lorebrun, member of the Liberal Cabinet, said at a dinner at the Newcastle Gladstone Club on May 29th, that “The Conservatives represent the constant apprehension that change will do harm to vested interests. YOU WILL FIND, IF YOU LOOK BACK, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VESTED INTEREST INJURED BY ANY REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED IN OUR DAY. You need never be afraid that things will go too fast in this country. In the last fifty years there has been an unparalleled advance in industrial progress and in the material domain of human effort, but nothing of the kind in the least degree corresponding has been done in regard to the improvement of the condition of the people.”

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor has blown the gaff. No wonder that only one newspaper gave a full report of his speech. But what the frank Chancellor admits is undoubtedly true. No Socialist expects the master class to legislate against its own interests, and as we see, they do not so legislate. Hence the position of the S.P.G.B. Before the workers can get anything from the master class they must be able to take it. Therefore the work before us is to educate and organise the workers in these truths for the political supremacy of the workers. Then, and then only will the wealth producers find their burden lightened.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Ben Tillett, in an eulogy of the work of Tom Mann in Australia, writes, “the present leaders of the Labour Parties (of Australia) are blind to the revolutionary work going on apace and the trend of capitalism, falling back upon worn-out political shibboleths, fiscal fooling, sectarianism and religious intolerance and with the usual clap-trap of temperance opponents.” Well, Ben, what fooling, fiscal or other, beats your own fooling as emigration tout in England for the Australian Capitalist ? Was that fooling or something worse ?

#    #    #    #

The local Branch, S.D.P. indulges in Justice (6/6/08) in a great chuckle because they were able, by lying low and saying nothing, to secure that their nomination for the Leigh Union Board of Guardians should be the only one, so getting their man returned unopposed. They rejoice in beating Liberals and Tories at their own game, “and Lees is inside the board room, where we have not the least doubt that he will make his presence felt.” A victory for Socialism indeed—of the S.D.P. brand ! The educational effect on the workers locally must be stupendous !

Alegra.

The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.

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

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

_______________

MUNICIPAL ELECTION—GANNOW WARD

Thursday, Nov. 1st, 1906.

TO THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ELECTORS IN THE WARD.

Committee Room, 47, Hargher Street,

Burnley, Oct. 29th, 1906.

Dear Sir or Madam,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

THE L.R.C. COMMITTEE FOR GANNOW WARD

Election Items. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Northampton Branch of the S.D.F. ran two candidates with the object of securing a solid vote.

* * * *

The Southampton Branch of the S.D.F. complain of “the mean trick of the Liberals in bringing out a second candidate in order to defeat us.”

* * * *

The Southend Branch of the S.D.F. issued a ” No Vote ” manifesto.

* * * *

The Plymouth Branch of the S.D.F. supported the Liberal Candidate (vide Daily News).

* * * *

The Stratford S.D.F. issued an “abstain from voting” manifesto and endeavoured to hold a meeting, but were broken up by Masterman’s supporters.

* * * *

J. J. Terrett held meetings in Stratford Grove in favour of the Liberals and made collections for the S.D.F. war chest.

* * * *

Dan Irving and Geo. Belt both signed the L.R.C. declaration and then the L.R.C. declined to adopt them.

* * * *

The S.D.F. delegates at the Amsterdam Congress gave as their reason for not affiliating to the L.R.C., that the L.R.C. refused to allow its candidates to run as “Socialists.”

* * * *

Geo. Belt, the S.D.F. “Labor” candidate for Hammersmith, issued a leaflet denouncing the Liberals for refusing to “arbitrate” as to who had the greater right to be the candidate, and expressing his willingness and desire to “arbitrate.”

* * * *

“Justice” describes Liberals as “liars” “thieves” etc., and it is with “liars” and “thieves” that they would arbitrate.

* * * *

John Burns is at a loss to decide whether his success was due to the manifesto against him issued by the Battersea S.D.F., or to the telegram wishing him success which the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F. member) sent, and which was read at Burns’s meeting at the Latchmere Baths on Wednesday, January 10th.

* * * *

John Burns returned the Countess’s compliments by telegraphing to the Camborne Liberals, “The Socialist have bitterly opposed me.”

* * * *

The Camborne Liberals got their own back by “taking it out” of Will Thorne.

The Countess then tripped over on her motor car to sympathise with “poor Will,” and stayed at Upton Park “quite twenty minutes.”

* * * *

If the Stratford S.D.F. deserved to be publicly reprimanded and apologised for, as was done by Councillor J. Jones at Stratford Town Hall, for engaging Mr. E. E. Hunter, a once expelled member of the S.D.F. to do “dirty political work” for them, what punishment is deserved by Councillor Jack Jones for engaging Mr. J. J. Terrett, a thrice expelled member of the S.D.F., to do his “dirty political” work at Camborne ?

Nemesis ! (1905)

From the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

This is remarkable. It seems to require some explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless he don’t want to know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. James

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

From the October 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here the manuscript ends.

John A. Dawson

Waste Paper and Old Tin. (1909)

From the November 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

John A. Dawson

Dirty Political Work. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lest we forget Mr. H. M. Hyndman's reference to his organisation as being “wholly destitute of political aptitude” he and other prominent members of the S.D.F make a point of reminding us of the fact.

Last month we dealt with Mr Hyndman's description of a certain political compact as a “dirty dodge" although he and his friends have been guilty of similar dodges. which they have termed " tactics."

Now we have Cllr. Jack Jones standing up for "clean” politics and publicly denouncing and apologising for his fellow members of the S.D.F. for indulging in “political dirty work," to wit, moving an amendment at a public meeting called in support of a Literal candidate!

Once the S.D.F. would have considered that it was part of their legitimate work to oppose all Literals and Conservatives, but not now!

Mr. Jack Jones is doubtless well qualified to speak of “political dirty work!” Is he not the S.D.F. candidate for Camborne, opposing a Liberal candidate with money supplied by some person or persons unknown to the said Mr. Jones, as be himself has publicly admitted?

The scene of this latest exhibition of S.D.F. unity was laid at Stratford Town Hall, at a public meeting in support of the candidature of Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, Liberal, who when he last contested an election (Dulwich) was supported by Mr. J. Hunter Watts, of the S.D.F. Executive, the I.L.P. and by the local Trades Council. Early in the evening the chairman had promised to accept an amendment, and at the proper time Cllr. McAllen and a Mr. Ernest E. Hunter, whom the Stratford S.D.F. had invited for the purpose, mounted the platform to submit it. Mr. Hunter’s right to speak, he not being an elector, was challenged, and an uproar ensued. Then Cllr. Jack Jones mounted the platform and pointing to Mr. Hunter said: — "I have to apologise for the movement I belong to. I never thought they would have stooped so low as to try and get expelled members of our organisation to do dirty work at political meetings. If my Stratford comrades cannot find somebody better to do their dirty work then they bad better leave it alone.”

We are not here concerned with the quarrel between Mr. Jones and the Stratford S.D.F., but we emphasise this point, that, according to the protege of the mysterious rich man who is financing bis Camborne candidature, to move a Socialist amendment is to do “political dirty work!”

How circumstances alter cases !

When Cllr. Jack Jones, Mr. H. Quelch and other prominent members of the S.D.F. supported the recent Parliamentary candidature of Mr. J. J. Terrett, at Stratford Town Hall, without the sanction of the S.D.F. Executive, as required by the rules, was that clean or dirty political work ?

When John Burns, whom the S.D.F. now denounce as a traitor, an apostate, and the like, last stood for Battersea, was he any the less a Liberal, a traitor to the working class. an apostate, than he is now? Had not the S.D.F. previously declared that Bums was a "self seeker and a traitor to the cause of the people” and that he was “firmly caught in the nets of the Liberal Party”? When therefore the S.D.F. Executive not only instructed their Battersea branch to support Burns but permitted Cllr. Jack Jones to go to Battersea to canvass for him, was that clean or dirty political work ?

When the S.D.F. Executive gave permission to one of their number, Mr. Daniel Irving, to sign the L.R.C. Declaration, a few months after the S.D.F. Annual Conference had decided not to rejoin the L.R.C., was that clean or dirty political work ?

When six branches of the S.D.F. recently demanded that the Executive should poll the organisation as to whether W. Thorne should be repudiated as an S.D.F. candidate, because he had signed the L.R.C. Declaration at the request of the Gas Workers" Union, which is paying his expenses, and is consequently running as a "Labour" candidate, and the S.D.F. Executive broke the rules by refusing to take the poll, was that clean or dirty political work?

Jack Kent