The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club, May 26th, with Comrade Gifford in the chair Comrade Fitzgerald moved :

“Under term of reference No. 1

That as under capitalism the workers sell their labour power—inseparable from themselves—as an article of merchandise, and being subject to the same economic laws which prevail in other commodity markets, it is necessary for the workers to debate the fluctuations in price with the employers. Organised action being more advantageous than individual action, be it—

Resolved that the S P G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is a necessity under capitalism, to prevent the workers being continuously driven to sell their labour power below its value.

Under term of reference No. 2

That as the establishment of Socialism will mean ”the administration of things instead of the government of people,” as Engels said, and as the administration of the various detail processes of wealth production can only be carried on effectively by those possessing the requisite technical knowledge being organised for that purpose, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

If term No. 3 be considered

That as the position of the workers in modern Society is one of a propertyless class in opposition to the propertied capitalist class, the form of organisation adopted in the economic field must of necessity be based upon this class position as a first principle, while, for the reasons given under resolution No. 2, the chief detail unit of organisation must be the trade or occupation, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that the form of organisation must have a class basis as first principle and the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation ; other sub-divisions, either geographical or economic, to be arranged as circumstances demand.

Under term of reference No. 4

That as the economic arm is required to act in conjunction with the political arm to establish Socialism, and as the only form of organisation which is in harmony with the political basis of Socialism is the one given above, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. urges forward the propaganda of the economic position laid down in conjunction with its political propaganda both inside and outside the present unions with the object of establishing the Socialist Trade Union required for this work.”

The mover said it was not necessary to spend much time here discussing the class basis, as we all realised that it was the lack of class-consciousness which kept the workers divided. The chief detail of organisation must be the trade or occupation because only those in a given trade knew the actual conditions, as was shown in the late strike of Daily News compositors. Moreover the other sub-divisions must depend on circumstances. The Leeds Fire Clay Co. in one district employed workers in several distinct industries, such as coal mining, clay working, building and stone quarrying, while the L.C.C. employed building operatives, tramway men, steamboat employees, clerks and draughtsmen. These were instances where the geographical sub-division was necessary, and where the industrial sub-division would be useless. The firm of David Allen & Sons was an example where the industrial sub-division would be suitable, all their employees being in the same industry.

An amendment was moved by Phillips and Kent to delete words from “while” to “occupation,” and all words after “class basis.”

Kent said to enter into detail questions was premature.

Killick said the question of detail was not essential; Fitzgerald should have made that clear.

Leigh said the question of geographical position did not affect industrialism at all. Are not the clay workers divided into various trades ?

T. W. Allen said Fitzgerald’s illustration could be applied to the building industry. The Socialist parties had failed to unite the revolutionary working class. The I.W.W. would unite the various parties. It was common sense to say the workers will recognise the political position when they are in an economic organisation.

Neumann opposed the I.W.W.

The meeting then adjourned.

_____________

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club June 9th, T. A.Jackson continued the discussion on Kent’s amendment.

Jackson said the object of the amendment was stated to be that the movers did not think the particulars entered into in the resolution were necessary. Leigh and Allen had urged that the details should remain in, since they favoured an industrial form of organisation. But neither Leigh nor Allen knew what they meant by industrial organisation. With regard to the objection of Phillips and Kent, he (Jackson) thought it was necssary to give the details. We had recognised that an economic organisation would be necessary. The question Fitzgerald had considered was how far an economic organisation could be made to take on its proper function of supplementing the work of the Socialist Party in accomplishing the revolution. Under certain circumstances it might be necessary to organise on geographical lines, under others it would be necessary to federate the organisations, but those questions would have to be decided at the particular time when action was necessary.

Let us assume that capitalism was tending to that stage of monopoly when industry could be divided into thirteen different trusts. Even then it would be difficult to postulate what the form of organisation should be. To those who said the economic organisation should be industrial he would point out that even the I.W.W. made provision for certain governing bodies called district councils—purely geographical divisions. When a strike took place and a portion of the workers went on strike it would depend on the understanding of the workers of the class position as to the action the remainder would take. He did not think it advisable therefore, to adopt any a priori scheme of specialisation. The question of federation could only come upon the agenda when a large number of the workers were sufficiently class conscious to perfect their organisation for the revolution.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 5.

Anderson moved the deletion of all the words after “position” down to and including “occupation.” The amendment was seconded by Pearson.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 3.

Fitzgerald in reply to the resolution said Killick had said he did not think it was well to go too much into details in the matter. But we should lay down the broad lines upon which we intended to travel. On a previous occasion he had read out extracts from the I.W.W. convention which showed the position of that party. But T. W. Allen had said that it was yet to be shown that the I.W.W. was not a sound economic organisation. Therefore he had brought along some more extracts dealing with the subject. What he had said about the W.F. of M. in Colorado supporting capitalistic candidates was still further supported by T. J. Hagerty of Butte, Montana. A resolution was proposed to the Executive that the members should not be allowed to support any capitalist candidate or party. Clemensic pointed out that that would put many of the members of the W.F. of M. in a very funny position, because some of them were members of the Republican Party. Hagerty said :

”It is true that back in the State of Montana we have a peculiar condition of things. Some five or six years ago I attended a convention of the State labour movement in the city of Helena, in September, 1890. . . . After the party had been organised the capitalist parties commenced to lay plans to seize upon it. We found the Amalgamated Mining Company on one side and Senator Clark and F. E. Heinze upon the other, at war. There was an opportunity that we could not miss. We seized upon the opportunity. Clark wanted to become a United States Senator, and F. A. Heinze wanted something else, and we knew it. I maintain that we did not go to them, but compelled them to come to us, but nevertheless there was a capitalist combination with a labor party, and hence it became capitalistic. We went to the polls and united our movement to theirs. Twelve men went to the legislative body from that county. In the division we got six of the twelve. We got the sheriff of the county, the coroner, and others. I was nominated for the office of county Commissioner and was elected.” (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Chicago.—Page 272.)

Some said that the W.F. of M., the backbone of the I.W.W., had in it a portion of the Republican Party in Butte, showing how class-unconscious those members were. When the I.W.W. was formed they sent over to what they called the various industrial organisations in France, and Trautmann got a very fine letter from the General Confederation of Labour in France. Here was the reply of the French organisation :

“Our Committee took with pleasure, notice of your Manifesto and call. It is happy at the constitution of your organisation and it hopes that your federative group, which, itself planted upon the field of the class struggle, will have at heart the necessity of conducting the battle upon that field where all equivocation vanishes; upon the economic field.

It is not for us to meddle in your internal organisation : it is for you to constitute yourselves according to the lay of the land where you are called upon to struggle. Nevertheless, allow us to observe that the French economic organisations have had cause only to congratulate themselves for having eliminated from their midst all discussions and questions concerning electoral and governmental parliamentarism. In fact, we hold that the political opinions of a workman are secondary to his class interests. Consequently whatever may be the opinion of a workingman upon that head his interests are ever supreme and, upon the field of interests, in the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, all opinions can blend into one.”—E. Pouget, Secretaire adjoint. (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Page 289.)

They did not, however, get that sort of reply from all the organisations on the continent. Another organisation in Denmark made the following reply:

“As to our own opinion on the economic organisation we, here in Denmark, take the absolute and decided stand that the same must be built—as so well expressed in your Manifesto—upon the recognition of the class struggle in Society. But how that can be accomplished if the unions—as you again proclaim in the Manifesto—will abstain from co-operation with any political party, even with that one which indulges solely in the politics of the working class, we cannot understand. We are of the opinion that everywhere, when needed, the economic organisation and the Social Democratic party must work hand in hand, in order to promote the interests of the working class where the interests of the toilers have to be taken care of. We hold that the passage in your Manifesto where it reads “without affiliation with any political party” has only been inserted to manifest the complete neutrality of the union.” —(Page 290-1.)

The I.W.W. started out with the statement that the present trade unions don’t organise the unorganised. Now in the first place we could point to the experience of other organisations to prove that this was all right in theory, but with the exception of the Gasworkers’ Union when Aveling was organising it, not one organisation had yet organised the unorganised. The I.W.W. was devoting all its attention to try and capture the already organised workers. Again E. J. B. Allen himself had only found a platform for the statement of his position inside a trade union, the O.B.S.

One of the arguments used by the I.W.W. was that the present trade unions built a Chinese Wall round the union. He (Fitzgerald) belonged to what was called a pure and simple organisation. Now the initiation fee of the I.W.W. was two-thirds greater than that of his organisation. Again, in the O.B.S. he could run six months without paying dues, but the I.W.W. members could only run 60 days. Again the I.W.W. made no provision for seeing to its members when they were out of work. Leigh seemed quite lost as to the base given by the speaker as to the formation of the organisation. He had given the case of the Leeds Fire Clay Co. with various industries working together. True those workers were split up into industries, but the point was that there were all these workers working together in one geographical division, under one roof, so to speak. T. W. Allen said it was a credit to the I.W.W. to discuss for two-and-a-half days the meaning of the industrial sub-division. But the Committee had said at the very beginning that they had laid what they had called the industrial principle, and it was no use discussing it any longer because it was going to be railroaded through. As regards the credit due to discussion, the men who favoured the I.W.W. position had laid it down when they first met that “academic discussion would not be allowed.”

A man who refused to recognise political action was not a true revolutionary. Now if he did not declare himself how could it be known that he was a member of the revolutionary working class? So much for the I.W.W. uniting various “Socialist” parties. We did not attempt to reconcile irreconcilable interests, but attempted to form a sound organisation of the working class.

Again, merely being in an economic organisation would not make the workers recognise their position any quicker. Marx pointed out we could learn lessons from countries more advanced, and one of the lessons we could learn was to profit by their mistakes. We take lessons wherever we can get them, but don’t think that what took place in countries more advanced was necessarily right. It often happened that when a strike took place there appeared to be worse conditions when they went back, whereas really they had a slightly better position.

The resolution was carried by 13 to 3.

Fitzgerald, in moving his fourth clause, said for the time being we could do nothing more than be propagandists. How were we going to build up that Socialist economic organisation required ? We should act as Socialist propagandists at every place and time. Seeing that we were at present unable to form an economic organisation we should carry on our propaganda and point out the importance of the political organisation to capture that which would determine the real battle, while pointing out the necessity of the economic and political organisations working together. In this country no real, solid, attempt had been made to convert men inside trade unions. Writing in the Socialist Standard not long ago, E. J. B. Allen said the question of carrying on propaganda inside the trade unions had hardly been attempted, yet in a letter to the Peckham Branch he said that long and bitter experience had proved the futility of trying to change the trade unions. He (Fitzgerald) thought it would be easier to get the trade unions to throw off their old form than to get men to come out and form any new body.

Jackson seconded the resolution and said all we could do was to endeavour to create that class consciousness without which a sound economic organisation could not exist. He would like to point out that this position made it clear that we were to propagate this principle, and point out to the workers that they had got to understand their economic organisation could proceed to use the means of production whilst they were controlled and after they had been taken by the political party. De Leon had said in the address on Preamble of the I.W.W., “It is not a political organisation as the Preamble indicates and I shall prove—that can ‘take and hold’ the land and the capital and the fulness thereof. That—as the Preamble proclaims and I shall prove —is the function reserved for the economic organisation of the working class.”

Anderson said he disagreed with the importance that even in this resolution was being given to the economic side of the question. If we viewed the international concentration of capital all this organisation was proved not only futile but dangerous. We must go on propagating our Socialist principles. We could only teach one great point that the overthrow of capitalism must be the work of the class-conscious workers themselves. If we were going to say we should change the trade unions in the meantime, we must defend those organisations at present—if not we should be pledging ourselves to change in the future an organisation that might disappear in the interim. Why not point out that all economic organisation was futile against the attacks of international capital. Let us carry on our propaganda, and when we have a class-conscious working class we can decide on the most expedient way of establishing the Socialist Republic.

Neumann said Anderson knew full well that those who had been the founders of scientific Socialism had not written in the strain he had spoken in. They had pointed out that the workers should use every means in their power to at least resist the encroachments of the capitalist class. The full teaching of Socialism was not only to teach the working class to go for the transformation of Society, but to form a class-conscious organisation to resist the encroachment of the capitalist class inch by inch. We could not for one moment say that economic organisation under present Society was not just as necessary as political. The resolution showed that we were in favour of economic organisation, but that that organisation should be on Socialist lines.

He wished to either have added to the resolution, or if the mover was not willing to accept the addition to move the following addition :

“And as all organisations, economic as well as political, on a basis other than laid down by the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B., are unsound from the standpoint of our Party ;

Be it further resolved that the S.P.G.B. is compelled to oppose the formation of any organisation of the workers the membership of which is open to non-Socialists.”

We wanted to show that the Socialist trade union should not only be Socialist in name but Socialist in character.

Fitzgerald not accepting the addition, Neumann moved it as an amendment.

The amendment not being seconded, fell through.

W. G. Killick said as the workers became politically revolutionary so they would alter the form of their economic organisations.

Barker said it was just a question of what was the best method of making the workers class-conscious. He believed the best method was by a political organisation. As soon as they became class-conscious they would understand their position perfectly well. Recognising that even trade unions were useful to keep the workers from being driven on the down grade, we could not prevent our members belonging to trade unions.

J. Crump said Anderson seemed to have misconstrued the purport of the resolution. When we had made the workers Socialists the existing trade unions would also become Socialist trade unions. We were not out for the establishment of Socialist trade unions in particular, but for the propagation of Socialist principles.

Pearson said we were told to go inside our unions and prepare to transform them. To do this he thought was absolutely useless.

Neumann moved the deletion of the words “both inside and outside the present trade unions.”

The amendment not being seconded fell through.

Fitzgerald in reply said that at one of the previous meetings it was urged that economic organisation was more important than political, and it had been said that Engels supported that view. Here was what Engels, in his “Socialism Utopian and Scientific,” said:

“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.”

He used the word “state” there, but there was no ambiguity or lack of clearness, for he went on to say with reference to the word “state” :

“But in doing this, it abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organisation of the particular class which was pro tempore the exploiting class, an organisation for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and therefore, especially for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The State was the official representative of Society as a whole ; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented, for the time being, Society as a whole ; in ancient times, the State of slave-owing citizens ; in the middle ages the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie.”

The phrase ”the political . . . state property ” was italicised. Anderson said the capitalists were organised internationally in such a way as to render economic organisation unnecessary. Marx pointed out in “Value, Price and Profit” that if the workers were not prepared to debate the price of their labour day by day in the labour market, they would not be fit material for a future revolution. Economic organisation would have its place all the while under capitalism. With regard to the “capturing” of the trade unionists, that was the old theory of the I.L.P. playing to the rank and file and patting them on the back. We were going to carry on the work of propaganda for Socialism in the trade unions in an open and above-board manner. Boring from within by the S.D.F. had been very erratic. In the main it had consisted of going in and mentioning Socialism only when there was no danger. It was not a question of capturing the trade unions but of educating the workers inside as well as outside. So long as a member of a union had the evidence for every statement he made and fought openly there would be little danger of his being thrown out.

The resolution was carried by 19 to 4.

Motion by Neumann and Carter to rescind Kent’s resolution passed at previous meeting.

Neumann said his reason for re-moving the rescindment was that it was not declaring war on the unions so long as we allowed our members to remain in the trade unions. Again how could a Socialist organisation permit itself to be controlled by another organisation ? We should be as one body.

Carter concurred.

The resolution for the rescindmeut was lost by 14 to 12.

Anderson moved the following resolution :

“That only by political organisation can the workers emancipate themselves.”

Anderson said ever since any one of us became Socialist the question had been, not whether or not we were fighting the trade unions, but how we were to fight them. Trade unionism was concerned with palliating capitalism.

Betts seconded the resolution.

Neumann opposed the resolution, saying that it said something contrary to fact, viz., that the working class could fight the capitalist class without fighting them on the economic field.

The adjournment was moved and defeated.

Anderson, in reply, said just as we told the workers in the trade unions they may fight against a reduction but nevertheless they would ultimately have to suffer reductions, we could point out to them that by political action they could overthrow the capitalist system.

The resolution was lost by 15 to 5.

[Conclusion.]

All “Socialists” Now. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the last issue I gave a few examples of the many brands of “Socialism” made up to suit the political complexions of the various class (and no class) organisations whose members are anxious not to be out of touch with the fashion. As indicative of the growth of the fashion, I notice that in addition to Shaw’s “Socialist” plays at the Court Theatre, the Stage Society recently put on that “Socialist” drama, “The Weavers” ; also Nelly Neil, the principal character in the musical comedy of that name, is a “Socialist.” At the Haymarket in the curtain raiser “Her Grace the Reformer” we have another “Socialist” as the leading part. That well-known “Socialist” mummer, Mr. Jas. Welch is shortly to appear in a new role, while a “Socialist” lady sustains the chief feminine interest in “The Bondman,” the author of which is that well-known “Socialist,” Mr. Hall Caine.

o o o

In good truth we are all “Socialists” now and we, who for so many years were as voices crying in the wilderness, ought to be overjoyed to know that we are now “the thing don’t you know.” We have been “taken up.” We bask in the smiles of the queens of “Society” and count the peerage and the stage (which perhaps are not quite the same thing—yet) among our “comrades.” In such circumstances it ill becomes a man to cavil. And yet it seems somewhat incumbent upon me to suggest that there is some little possibility of the undiscriminative failing to locate the wood for the obscuring trees. There are so many “Socialists” to contend with that the wayfaring man is in imminent danger of missing the Socialism he is searching for.

o o o

And probably that is one at least of the ideas lying behind some of this seeming enthusiasm for the “Socialist” cult. With so many brands of “Socialism” on the market and so many “Socialist” connoisseurs of those brands, it is no easy matter for the common workman to distinguish between the true and the false. The effect upon his mind must be of a confusion worse confounded. And it becomes an increasingly difficult thing to keep the class line clearly defined while there is, apparently, so much sympathy for working-class ideals existing among the representatives of the class whose interests (according to the exponents of the class struggle) are in such diametrical opposition to the interests of the workers.

o o o

There may easily, therefore, be more in this matter than meets the eye. Undoubtedly it is a concern for one’s own material interests that lies at the root of all our actions, however unconscious we may be of it. And with the pressure of economic conditions ever tending to impel the working class toward action in their own protection, it becomes obvious to the capitalist class that the workers, upon whose labour they maintain their useless and luxurious lives, must soon awaken to the real causes of poverty. With this awakening must surely come the downfall of capitalism. Wherefore—the dust of a simulated sympathy is stirred into a cloud in the hope that the attention of the workers may be diverted from the real issue.

o o o

The more reason for us to renew our efforts to combat the work and influence of the agents of capitalism in whatever guise they come. The more reason for us to shout our message from the house-tops; to persistently give emphatic voice to our warnings ; to stand always pointing the way along which our class must march to their emancipation. Of one thing we are certain : economic development cannot be retarded. And because that is so the confusing work of the representatives of capitalism, however successful it may be to-day, cannot endure. Sooner or later capitalism must definitely and irrevocably take its stand in naked antagonism to the workers. It is our business to do that which other organisations professing Socialism have not done, viz., to insist upon Socialism as the only hope of our class ; to show in what Socialism essentially consists ; to make clear and keep clear the class division; to demonstrate the real meaning of most of the sympathetic protestations of what are actually anti-working class bodies; in fine, to make of our education work an insistence upon essentials and the clearance of non-essentials to the end that the time may be hastened when capitalism shall shed its pretences and stand out for what it is. It will do that when it finds itself without the power to hoodwink or cajole, when its Carnegies and Burnses can no longer be relied upon to deceive or delude—when, that is, the working class have understood their position and their power. And just as surely as capitalism finds itself in that condition and is obliged to decide that the time has come when it must organise its forces openly and avowedly against the army of the workers, will the workers be on the eve of their emancipation. There is no doubt of the issue of the contest.. Nothing can prevent the defeat and extermination of capitalism; nothing can prevent the victory and development of Labour. We may hasten or retard the day of final struggle but we cannot affect the result, just as we cannot prevent the ultimate dawn of the day itself. But because we can hasten it by marching straight and speaking true and calling things by their right names we have come together to do it. Wherefore The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Alegra.

Fabian Notes. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts.”

(H. Snell speaking for the Fabian Society.)

* * *

So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their “Socialism” is government by bureau, and “naturally” (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. “Naturally” they want the plums. “Naturally” they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing.

* * *

“Naturally” these producers will be unable of themselves to administer their own affairs. Because “naturally” such delicately intricate work as will “naturally” be involved in the manipulation of affairs of state, “naturally” demands a special type of mind, specially trained. And obviously, not to say “naturally” the working class qua working class,— the working class that is to say per se,—do not possess such necessary and entirely essential qualities. They must “naturally” look for their administrators, therefore, among the cultured class who, “naturally” endowed with imperial qualities have consecrated their lives to their development and with infinite pains have, rendered themselves fit to enter into the holy of holies from which will issue those inspired directions and words of good counsel without which the labourers in the vineyards (and other places) will be as sheep without a shepherd, as little children stumbling in the dark.

* * *

The members of the Fabian Society having quite clearly all the special equipment necessary, therefore quite “naturally” desire that the working class shall acclaim them the saviours of Society and signify implicit confidence in their capacity by unhesitatingly conceding them the right to govern.

* * *

But I think, I say I think, it will not work out quite like that. I think, mark, I think that there will be some little hesitancy before the working class admit the necessity for the creation of a bureaucratic staff, or a star chamber, or a holy of holies even to such fierce democrats as the Fabian Society. I think it not unlikely that the working class will look somewhat dubiously upon a method of government such as they have been somewhat painfully familiar with for several generations and may even conclude that, on the whole, they would prefer to try something else—a method, for example, by which they themselves would be the dictatorial authority expressing their requirements through administrators who would be mere delegates with their instructions in their pockets. The intellectual equipment of administrators in these circumstances need not necessarily be exceptional.

* * *

Of course the Fabian Society will unanimously agree that such a hypothesis is entirely grotesque. And as the Fabian Society are experts in the grotesque their view may quite properly be given the consideration it so well merits. But as this is my funeral, they need not distress themselves too severely even if I persist in pressing the probability of their super-excellent services being in small demand, and proceed to submit that their idea of government under Socialism is likely to be regarded as antiquated and fitting only to the conditions which obtained in the nightmare days of capitalism. However preposterous it may seem to them, I think it quite possible that as there will be no interests to administer except the interests of the working class, the present geographical unit of alleged representation, based as it is upon the private ownership of the means of life, will be superseded by representation of labour departments. The honourable member for East Loamshire will give way to Citizen Smith, the delegate of the Gasworkers and General Labourers’ Federation or some such labour organisation. As, so far as I have been able to observe, the Fabian Society’s idea of the government of the future rests upon the continuance of the present bureaucratic forms, such an alteration would tend to have the effect of knocking the Fabian Society’s heaven-sent powers somewhat acock.

* * *

Let me submit with becoming humility that the Labour organisations of the future being composed of moderately intelligent men (such intelligence being necessarily antecedent to the Socialist State) might understand almost, if not quite, as well as a Fabian expert—I am charitably assuming that the Fabian expert is not knocked acock as aforesaid—what they required for their own comfort and happiness and might (it’s a most outrageous proposition) even be in a better position than the inspired governmental Shavian to decide upon such changes in the machinery and methods of industry in their own department as would facilitate production and ensure them greater leisure and less arduous labour. And their conferences would instruct their delegate accordingly.

* * *

It’s an interesting subject and my vagrom speculations could, I am sure, be extended to cover several more columns at least. But the exigencies of space and pressure of many matters force me to an immediate closure. I will only add that in all my anticipations of the probable outworkings of the Socialist Society of tomorrow I can, without allowing my imagination to riot, easily conceive that there will be no overpowering necessity for any legislative holy of holies or for any administrative caste, or for any bureau of inspired experts. And however natural the longing of the “culchawed” Fabian may be for the seat of authority and the halo of beneficent superiority, it may well chance that he will not be appreciated at anything like his own estimated worth, and it may even happen in that event, that he will find himself in the unhappy position of being obliged to devote himself to the acquisition of some information likely to make of him a useful member of Society. I would therefore respectfully advise him to start trying to pick up the rudiments of a helpful calling—say woodchopping—lest the revolution overtake him while he is still endeavouring to articulate his vain regrets—his very vain regrets.

A. James

Editorial: London County Council, Ltd. (1907)

Editorial from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Independent Labour Party, who have long supported the Liberals and Progressives on the L.C.C., have issued a manifesto on the coming elections, and have in consequence been repudiated by their friends. It is rather unkind, after the way in which the I.L.P. have worked for and supported the L.C.C. capitalist majority, for the latter, in fear of the prospective Progressive rout, to turn upon and rend their faithful allies. But so it is. The Progressive organ, The Daily Chronicle, in a leading article on the “I.L.P. Bogey,” insists in regard to their manifesto that “the document in question is issued by the I.L.P. on its own account. The Progressive Party have nothing to do with it whatever.” The Progressive organ dismisses the I.L.P. municipal milk proposal as “unnecessary, impracticable and undesirable.” It also says: “One of the Progressive leaders, Sir Edwin Cornwall, happens to be a large coal merchant, and he has very naturally been asked what he thinks of the proposal to municipalise the coal supply of London. He thinks it sheer nonsense, and so, we imagine, will all Progressives.” Moreover it adds that “the County Council has, for the most part, no power to do the things which the manifesto talks about. A whole series of Acts of Parliament would be required to make them possible, and there is no likelihood that the series will be forthcoming.” All of which, to say the least, is base ingratitude toward the I.L.P. For what do the proposals amount to ? Merely the extension of milk and water municipalisation—the substitution of municipal capitalism for private capitalism in certain industries—that is all. Until the working class controls, nationally and locally, the municipal services that are undertaken will only be used for the benefit of the master class, and the L.C.C. policy has been no exception to this rule. The interest of the workers has ever been sacrificed to the interest of the propertied class. Indeed, the L.C.C., far from being a model employer, is noticeably inferior to a vast number of private firms in the treatment of its workmen. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Progressives is as plain as is the futiliy of the policy of the Independent Labour Party, which mistakes municipal and state capitalism for Socialism.

The Quintessence of Socialism.

There are quite a number of people in this country who call themselves Socialists because they believe in the municipalisation or nationalisation of various things. And these good people appear to be oblivious of the fact that the very essence of Socialism is the control of wealth production and distribution by the wealth producers. It is obvious that it a number of thieves are banded together they are not likely to seek less booty, or seek it less effectively, than when isolated ; so, therefore, the capitalist class, who control the national and local administrative bodies, are not likely to seek less profit, or to seek it less effectively, when their businesses come under their collective control than when they control them individually. The end and aim of a capitalist is profit, whether it comes as interest on Metropolitan Water Board bonds or as dividend on shares in the A.B.C.; and the ruling class will not, indeed, undertake municipal or national services at all unless their interests are thereby served and their general profits increased. An industry taken over by the capitalist State, though it may be also of advantage, in other respects, means that more wealth is thereby to be wrung from the workers. The sweating in government factories, the low wages in the Post Office that enable over £4,000,000 to go in relief of capitalist taxation, are an earnest of what State capitalism means. Nationalised industries can only become Socialistic, and can only be of real benefit to the workers, when the working class has obtained control of the administrative machinery. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the political movement of the workers place itself firmly on the basis of the class struggle. Indeed, all who do not recognise this fact, whatever they may call themselves, are emphatically not Socialists, for mere nationalisation, we repeat, is not Socialism at all.

A Nation of Serfs.

Another aspect of the matter that is not often taken note of is the restriction of political liberty which often goes with the nationalisation of a branch of industry. Lord Selborne’s circular (which has been endorsed by Lord Elgin) is a case in point—the railway servants in the Transvaal being forbidden to take active part in the elections there. Railway men in this country who have clamoured for nationalisation, have profound misgivings when they see the Liberal Government cripple the political activity of government railway workers. Mr. Winston Churchill has been approached by them on the matter, but he is inexorable and has said : “It has long been held to be undesirable that regular government servants should conspicuously take sides in party politics, and in consequence the railway servants in both the neighbouring self-governing colonies of Natal and the Cape are expressly forbidden to do so.” Prominent members of the present government have in the past expressed themselves strongly against the exercise of the vote by municipal employees and civil servants. This is, indeed, no new policy. The postal servants have long been expressly forbidden to take active part in politics. Supporters of the existing regime can, indeed, be brutally frank on this matter when it suits them. In a letter to the Daily Chronicle recently, Mr. Arnold White said in praise of the Government, that it had shown that efficiency was not incompatible with economy by its naval policy in abandoning obsolete dockyards, etc., and in “discharging redundant workmen who use their votes to get higher pay.”

The italics are ours.

Though government servants are not, as yet, deprived of the vote, its value is seriously lessened by the restriction of political action. The significance of this matter may be judged from a consideration of its probable effect on the political movement of the working class if all were government servants and forbidden to take sides in political affairs. The political organisation of the workers would be rendered practically impossible, their emancipation would be retarded, and the movement driven underground. The mere nationalisation of an industry gives the ruling class greater power over the workers, and, to take the railways as an example, instead of nationalisation bringing the workers a step near to the control of industry, it is likely to find them with their political wings clipped, and even more at the mercy of capitalism than before. Instead of helping to strengthen the chains which bind them, the workers should at last realise the futility of anything short of working-class supremacy.

Important Notice. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Next month's issue will contain an article on the Labour Party Conference in Belfast; an interesting letter on "Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B." and a reply by "Economics"; a report of a Debate held last month at Plumstead between E. J. B. Allen (S.L.P.) and our Comrade J. Fitzgerald, etc.

Help the Cause of Socialism by subscribing to the Socialist Standard. See terms on p. 44.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Street Betting Act was a great victory for Reform, according to the Daily News, which suppresses starting prices but not Stock Exchange quotations.

* * *

The first result has been to intensify the unemployed problem. Men who had been living by “making a book,” acting as touts, etc., have taken to legitimate business, and workmen have been discharged to make room for them. Reynold’s Newspaper says that prominent police officials openly express the opinion that rigid administration of the Act will have a distinct tendency to increase breaches of the law in other directions as an enormous number of persons have been suddenly compelled to find some new means of livelihood.

* * *

What are they going to do ? The Daily News knows that it is impossible for every one to get permanent employment to-day, that a large section of the community must prey upon the others. And if by Acts of Parliament or acts of God certain of them are suddenly deprived of their usual means of livelihood, they must seek a living elsewhere.

* * *

Perhaps the Daily News will permit “L.G.C.M.” to explain how these bookmakers, touts, runners, watchers, and all others connected with street betting can get an honest living in view of the indisputable fact that so many already find it impossible to do so.

* * *

If all drunkards became teetotallers, all pickpockets and burglars reformed, all corner-boys turned over a new leaf, all tramps became enthusiastic for “honest” toil, what a happy land England would be ! Would it, my Christian friends ? Think what it would mean if all these folk entered the labour market and competed for “honest work,” a labour market already so overstocked that many of the largest and strongest Trade Unions find their resources taxed to the uttermost, owing to the heavy and increasing demands upon their Unemployment Funds.

* * *

The Rev. C. F. Aked, who has been “called” from the Pembroke Baptist Chapel, Liverpool, to J. D. Rockefeller’s Fifth Avenue Church, New York, says that he has received hundreds of begging letters and wonders whether people take him for a fool. If it be true that he is giving up £l,500 for £5,000 a year, his wonderment seems somewhat unnecessary.

* * *

Rockefeller did not take him for a fool, but for a tool. The Trust Magnates can foresee the approaching struggle between the “have-nots” and the millionaire holders of aggregated capital. They will endeavour to delay it by every possible means. In this they will be assisted by “advanced” clergymen, who will accept, the slaveholders’ dollars to preach patience and peace to the wage slaves.

* * *

The first number of the Voice of Labour says that “the Labour movement, organised, federated, largely international, holds in its hands, even more than it deems, the forces that, shall fashion the future . . . That is why the politician, Socialist, Labour, and Liberal, promises so much to gain its votes.” This is on page 1. On page 7 it says “When the people find that, the Socialists and Anarchists are not what the Press depicts ” &c.

* * *

We note that “the Editor is not necessarily in agreement with, nor does he hold himself responsible for, signed articles,” and the article on page 7 is signed. According to it the Socialists are not what the Press (i.e, the Voice of Labour) depicts.

* * *

We freely admit that there are some calling themselves Socialists who have promised and do promise all sorts of impossible “reforms” to gain working-class votes. We have charged them with misleading the working class and adding to working-class confusion, and we have given evidence in proof of our charges. But we claim that these people have no right to call themselves Socialists, and we have always held that the workers will not be emancipated until they emancipate themselves. Surely our friends of the Voice of Labour know whether they are Socialists or Anarchists ?

* * *

The Conservative Press are doing their utmost to convey the impression that Progressivism and Socialism are one. They are as wide asunder as the Poles. But there is certainly some justification for this in view of the municipal this and municipal that which members of the Labour Party, S.D.F., I.L.P., and Fabian Society devote their time to advocating. And now, according to Justice, we have Councillor J. Jones (S.D.F.), opposing Mr. B. Sansome in a debate on “That the Progressive and Socialist Policy on Municipal affairs is harmful to the Community and especially to the Working Class.”

* * *

Councillor John Jones opposes the proposition that the Progressive Municipal Policy is harmful to the working class. Why then, does the S.D.F. declare itself in opposition to Progressives, and appeal for funds to enable it to put forward candidates when its candidatures may result in Progressive seats going to the Municipal Reformers and an alternative policy to that of the Progressives and Socialists being pursued ?

* * *

Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., has been interviewed for the Trades and Labour Gazette. “I cannot tell you,” he says, “when I became a Socialist.” Neither can we. “In trade unionism I am known as a Socialist “; he adds, “my municipal work has been done with Socialist ideals before me ; and when I entered the House of Commons it was as a Labour man and a Socialist.” (note which is first). “My constituents sent me there as such. My fellow members know me as a Socialist, at least I think they do. In a short time I hope so to manage things that there will be no doubt about it.” !

* * *

And so, although he became attached to the S.D.F. in 1884, and is still a member, he has a doubt whether his fellow M.P.’s know him as a Socialist ! But it will, he hopes, be all right in a short time, when he manages things differently.

* * *

Mr. Winston Churchill has written, “My dear Bell,” meaning Richard of that ilk, Labour Leader and Liberal M.P. for Derby, defending the action of the Liberal Government in prohibiting the Servants of the Central South African Railways from taking an active part in political agitation. He thinks it right that “prominent political activities should be denied to them, so long as they continue, as Government Servants, to draw Government pay,” and approves of the circular issued by Lord Elgin. The Daily Chronicle considers that Lord Elgin “has acted very properly.”

* * *

What a howl of execration went up from Liberals when it was suggested that certain Tory employers here had endeavoured to deny “prominent political rights” to their employees. But now that the Liberals are in office their dictum is that government employment must carry with it political disabilities. And Mr. Bell, as a good Liberal, will continue to support his Party, even tho’ they prove their readiness, when opportunity offers, to do that which the ordinary capitalist does not attempt to do, viz., control their wage slaves out of working hours.

* * *

In the Journeymen Bakers’ Magazine appears a portrait and interview with Mr. Alexander Wilkie, M.P., General Secretary, Associated Shipwrights’ Society. Asked what books had exercised the greatest influence on his life, he replied, “the Bible and the poetry of Robert Burns.” “When all is said and done” he added, “I fall back upon the Bible and Burns, and I am of opinion that a man cannot build his life upon a more stable foundation.”

* * *

At the December meeting of the London Trades Council a resolution was moved protesting against the sentence passed upon Stoker Moody, and Mr. Quelch moved to add the words “and demands the abolition of courts-martial in times of peace.” He did this, he said, with a view to civilising the Services and breaking the rule of caste. From which it would appear that he believes in courts-martial but only in times of capitalist war, not when the capitalist class are pleased to be at peace with each other and are not ordering the working class to risk their lives in the interests of their masters. And does Mr. Quelch really think that the capitalists will abolish courts-martial because he may persuade the L.T.C. to pass a resolution “demanding” it ?

* * *

Later, Mr. Quelch moved : “That this Council condemns the encouragement of ‘jingoism’ given by the surreptitious introduction of rifle practice into our elementary schools as part of the ordinary curriculum, and calls for the abolition of the standing army as being dangerous, unnecessary, and unconstitutional; this Council being further of opinion that all the military requirements of the nation would be met by the adequate training of all citizens in early manhood to the use of arms, thus constituting the whole manhood of the nation a citizen force for the national defence, and free from the burden and charges of the present military organisation.”

* * *

The italics are ours. What is the nation, and what is national defence ? The nation to-day is the propertied class, in whose interests wars are carried on. Preparing for the national defence means preparing to defend the property and interests of the propertied class of Great Britain against the interests of the propertied class of another country. Should Socialists encourage the working class to believe that they have national interests that must be defended ?

* * *

Mr. Quelch claimed that he was the first to use the phrase in this country the “armed nation.” He said that Mr. Haldane hoped to get his “armed nation” on the voluntary system. But the voluntary system had broken down. He was opposed to teaching children the use of firearms, in the way in which it was being introduced, because he believed it was intended to encourage a love of militarism and to bolster up the voluntary system. What they wanted was universal training—every man drilled and armed as a soldier, but remaining a citizen, as in Switzerland. . . . This was not conscription … it was the antidote to conscription, to militarism, and to jingoism, and so on.

* * *

From which a very clear idea of Mr. Quelch’s position can be obtained. He would civilise the Services, i.e., offer greater inducements to the working class to become “food for powder” in the interests of the capitalist class and their property ; he objects to the surreptitious introduction of rifle practice into elementary schools—he would do it openly and above board, then it would not encourage jingoism ; he is opposed to voluntary effort, and would make it compulsory for every citizen to be drilled and trained in the use of arms ; this compulsion is not conscription, certainly not, “only ignorant or untruthful persons so describe it” ; he would foster the idea of nationalism, and would have the working class compelled, by their masters, to make adequate preparation to defend the national (capitalists’) interests against those of some other national capitalists.

* * *

I could understand Mr. Quelch advocating that as a workman becomes class-conscious he should take steps to prepare for the defence of the international working class against the international capitalist class, that he should not pin his faith to one method of attacking and ultimately vanquishing his exploiters, but it is beyond my comprehension how a professing Socialist can advocate a narrow and working-class dividing nationalism. In opposition to his attitude we say : “Workers of all countries unite ; you have nothing to lose but your chains—you have the the world to gain.”

J. Kay

The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statement by the E.C.

R.B. (Goodmayes.)—The matter stands thus—A number of members of the Islington Branch were found guilty, by a party vote, of action detrimental to the interests of the organisation and injurious to the cause of Socialism, and they were expelled therefore. They now refuse, we understand, to accept the Party’s decision, and still pose as members of the Islington Branch. This is ludicrous enough, but when at the same time that they are asserting their membership, they proclaim to the world that the Party is rotten and corrupt, the matter becomes sheer farce. We regret exceedingly that our late comrades should place themselves in so deplorably ridiculous a position, but that is their business, not ours. Our business is to warn everybody concerned against the false pretence they make of membership of the S.P.G.B.

The above paragraph which, in answer to a correspondent, appeared in the Socialist Standard of December, 1906, caused several other enquiries to reach this office, and in reply to them we publish the following statement in accordance with the notice which appeared in the January issue. The facts of the case are as follows : A certain branch—the members of which have since been expelled and the branch dissolved—submitted a certain resolution to an annual conference of the Party. The resolution after being discussed was defeated. A vote of the Party was afterwards taken as to whether the conference was in order in discussing the matter at all. The Party vote ruled the conference out of order, and this decision was submitted to and accepted by every branch of the Party. The Islington Branch was not content to leave the matter thus ; it first of all requested a formal withdrawal of the resolution in question. The E.C. answered that as the branch concerned had accepted the finding of the Party vote it was unnecessary to proceed any further in the matter. The Islington Branch was not satisfied with this, however, but instead of requesting the E.C. to take a vote of the Party as to whether the branch in question should be asked to rescind the resolution complained of, or endeavouring to obtain the support of five other branches to compel the E.C. to do so— both of which alternatives were open to it within the constitution of the Party—the Islington Branch, because the E.C. would not insist on “the removal of the said resolution from the books of the branch concerned” (which would have involved the falsification of the branch’s records), accused the E.C. of criminal neglect, and forthwith stopped all propaganda work, thus violating the Party’s rules, which reserve to the E.C. the supervision of the work of the Party. It then proceeded to endeavour to depose the E.C., but signally failed to get the necessary support from the Party membership. 

The E.C. meantime could do nothing but place the matter before the Party. Our rules do not allow our E.C. to expel any member or any branch, but provide for the Party members settling all disputes themselves.

The E.C., therefore, under the only rule of the Party’s constitution governing disputes between E.C. and branches, (Rule XIX) placed the matter in the hands of the Party. In accordance with this Rule the case came on for hearing at the next Delegate Meeting of the Party. Islington was officially represented by its own delegate, and six of its members were present. No delegate of any branch had instructions to vote for Islington’s expulsion, but when the case for the E.C. was heard and Islington’s delegate would not even try to defend the branch’s actions, and when the six members who were present were asked to speak either for their branch, or on their own behalf, and further when one of them (Mr. Lehane) was told that he was the prime mover in, and cause of, all the trouble, and was challenged to deny it and defend himself and his branch, and when he and the others were unable to say a single word in defence either of themselves or their branch, or in support of the charges they had made against the E.C., the delegates present took their silence as evidence of their having no defence, and as an insult to the whole Party.

Acting under rule XXII, the only rule in the Party’s constitution governing Delegate Meetings, the delegates proposed a resolution calling for a vote of the Party as to whether the members of the Islington Branch supporting its attitude should be expelled the Party. Every delegate present voted for this except the Islington delegate. The resolution was submitted to the Party vote and an overwhelming majority voted for expulsion.

The E.C., therefore, had to declare them expelled the Party.

Even this did not satisfy them, and. refusing to accept the majority vote of the Party, they proceeded to “expose” the Party to the general public, and. while declaring the Party to be rotten and corrupt, etc.. still claimed and boasted of membership in it.

Two pamphlets, compiled by Mr. Lehane, have been issued to expose the “rottenness” of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. These pamphlets carry their own refutation, and as we have no intention of lowering the tone of the Socialist Standard—a tone Mr. Lehane was justly proud of when he was in the Party—to the level of the “Political Comic Cuts” or the “Penny Prevaricator,” nor any desire to insult the intelligence of our readers, we respectfully decline to treat seriously the garbage served up in those productions. This much only need we add : Mr. Lehane was for a considerable time our general secretary. In office he proved a good servant to a party which, however, could not and cannot tolerate a master, good, bad or indifferent. Being, however, in that position, Mr. Lehane knew the Party thoroughly from its very centre, and therefore we can only accept the weakness of his “exposure” as a glowing-testimony to our strength. The whole dispute was as unfortunate as it was unnecessary, and we have no wish to prolong the agony or embitter personal feelings in the matter. It has, however, proved that the membership of the S.P.G.B., much though it may appreciate and love its public champions, loves the Principles of Socialism more, and that hero worship, or on the other hand, personalities, can have no place in its propaganda.

Knowing this, we are confident that many of those with whom we have had so recently to differ will soon be with us again, fighting in the ranks where all are fighters but none are leaders.

Correspondence: Is Society an Organism? (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the Editor of the Socialist Standard].

The question of the organic nature of Society is only of interest to us, as Socialists, in so far as it throws light on Socialist policy ; and it is to be regretted that Mr. Wright has not, in his letter in the January number, discussed the subject from this point of view. Indeed, he ignores the bulk of the evidence brought forward on this matter, and confines himself to some word-twisting on one or two relatively unimportant points; the discussion, therefore, becomes to a large extent unprofitable. I cannot, however, refrain from joining issue with him on the few points he does raise.

Let me, in the first place, assure Mr. Wright that I had no intention of questioning his good faith when I alluded to him as being professedly revolutionary. I intended to convey that, in my opinion, his ideas on the nature of Society are not consistent with his revolutionary views. This opinion I still hold, while disclaiming any unkind intentions which my words may have appeared to show.

In his main argument Mr. Wright has shifted ground. He said in his first letter: “Reminding you that human society must be as complex and contain the same organic parts as its individual members, I will ask, to where in Society canyon point and say : ‘There are the brains of Society, there are the lungs of Society, there is the heart of Society, and so on.” Clearly the argument here is not that Society may differ from, or be more complex than, its organic unit, but that it must be, as a whole, alike in structure and alike in functions; an identity that he makes to extend even to motherhood and childbirth ! The fallacy of this was shown by taking Mr. Wright’s own analogy of the human body, where the organic unit—the cell—is not the same either in structure or function as the human body as a whole, for new combinations produce new conditions and results. Just as the organisation and differentiation of innumerable cells produce, in the human being, an entity vastly different from the individual cell, so the necessary and involuntary organisation of men in Society produces a social organism very different from the individual human being. Mr. Wright, however, now endeavours to make it appear that his argument was, that Society, to be an organism, should be at least as complex as its organic unit. But he surely wastes his time in arguing that the human body, since it contains cells, is at least as complex as those cells ; for precisely the same is true of Society which is composed of human beings. It is, indeed, mere tautology, and no argument against the organic nature of Society at all. I must, indeed, decline to credit Mr. Wright with having originally intended anything so childish. The whole trend of his first argument was that Society, to be an organism, must be a huge human being, with brains, heart and lungs, going through childbirth and motherhood, the absurdity of which is seen in that by the same reasoning the human body to be an organism should be only one huge cell, and propagate by fission.

My statement that “though the highest types of human society may be indefinite as compared with the human body, yet they are much more definite than many low forms of organic life,” is quite correct, for though even according to Mr. Wright’s reasoning Society cannot be less complex than individual human beings since it contains them, nevertheless Society as a whole does not reproduce the same definiteness and rigidity of outline as does the human body.

In like manner many of the Protozoa (Cenobia) consist of mere aggregations of cells with scarcely a trace of specialisation, and the individual Protozoa, as an entity, is much less constant and definite in form and size than are the regular and definite cells of which it is composed.

The tenour of Mr. Wright’s argument, may be further seen in the following from his second letter. He says : “If a man is subject to certain conditions, surely it follows that his individual cells are subject to the same conditions. Society, therefore, can have no conditions apart from its component cells.” Since Society, like any other organism, is but the combination of its component cells, it follows that Mr. Wright is gravely informing us that “Society can have no conditions apart from Society,” which is very thoughtful of him. Had this been all he intended to convey he doubtless would not have written, but the matter is so worded as to give colour to the absurdity that underlies his whole argument, and which has already been dealt with: to wit, that Society must, as a whole, be the same in the distribution of its parts and in its functions, as the individual unit or cell.

Mr. Wright disagrees with my illustration of the hive bees because the drones do not own and control the means of production and distribution. My analogy, however, was sound, and clearly illustrated my point; though, it is true, the bees do not possess the vote ! The drones, like our capitalist class, live upon others labour, and at one period of their existence both were necessary to the advance of their respective social organisms ; and the drones, like our present capitalist class, outlive their usefulness and must be driven out.

To admit that the hive of bees or colony of ants are social organisms, and at the same time deny the organic nature of human Society would be inconsistent, and Mr. Wright, though careful to say that he does not positively deny that Society is an organism, would, apparently, embrace any absurdity rather than admit that it is ; so the fact that the hive of bees is a social organism is consequently not recognised.

The denial of the organic nature of Society usually arises from Utopianism and an unscientific view of sociology ; it arises from a conception that men are entirely free agents, and that Society as a whole is a voluntary social contract. A very important part of our work consists in pointing out that Society is not a piece of architecture thrown up according to preconceived human plans, but an organism that developes and grows according to discoverable laws; and that human ideas are in their origin the result or reflex of social life and growth; while the intellectual movements of mankind are in reality secondary to, and evidences of adaptation to, great and irresistible economic changes.

F. C. Watts

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

Random Notes. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Right to Live Council” which, I am authoritatively informed, has no connection with the “Right to Work” Council, nor with any other of the countless myriads of organisations all existing to affirm the right of somebody to do something (or someone) has issued a Declaration of Principles of an exceedingly noteworthy Character. I do not know the author but if I had the pleasure of his acquaintance I should certainly felicitate him upon the very scholarly way he has followed paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word for word, the Declaration of Principles which The Socialist Party of Great Britain drew up at its inception and which appears in every issue of this journal.

o o o

I do not accept the suggestion of unblushing plagiarism which accompanied the manifesto when it reached me, preferring to regard it as a remarkable manifestation of the working of imitative subconsciousness which, as is well known, frequently erupts in a manner calculated to induce the belief (in the uncultured only) that the medium had (if it is a literary “case”) lifted his matter “entire.” That this was not so in the instance of the “Right to Live Council” will be at once apparent to the discriminative from the fact that here and there, subconscious coherency seems to desert the medium, and, flung back upon his own resources, he is forced to fill in the breaks with transparently original matter. It is unfortunate perhaps that the original matter makes hash (colloquially, I believe, “Pork” or “Tripe”) of the whole document, but as we are not considering it as a contribution to the intellectual wealth of nations, but rather as a curious psychological study, that point need not be greatly laboured. “The Right to Live Council” (at one shilling per councillor) has arrived, and if it only plays the triangle in the “Labour” Band it is, I suppose, doing as well as the pianist who constituted the orchestra of a certain mining camp theatre and who was protected by a large placarded appeal to the chivalry of the audience in these terms—”Please do not shoot the pianist. He is doing his best” !

o o o

“The object of Socialism was to harmonise these conflicting interests of Capital and Labour.” Of course. If there is no class war these interests can be harmonised—easily. But as there is a class war, as witness the "conflicting interests” of Capital and Labour,” the “silver-tongued orator” of the I.L.P. is talking nonsense. If I.L.P. speakers paid less attention to the thing they speak with and more attention to the things they speak, there would not be so much occasion to deride the stupidity of their utterances as at present there is. I must add that the orator in this case was Philip Snowden, M.P., speaking at the Earlsmead Council’s School as reported in the Tottenham Wednesday Herald for November 28th, 1906.

o o o

“Municipal Socialism.” The Bushey Urban District Council has unanimously decided to increase the wages of their scavengers from 11/- to 14/- per week. This rise from comparative comfort to absolute luxury may well be regarded by all real friends of progress with profound misapprehension. It is notorious that a sudden access of wealth invariably has demoralising effects which find expression too often in riotous debauchery and this fact coupled with the knowledge that it is the ratepayers’ money which the Bushey Council are pouring out with such a lavish hand, will, we fear, place a weapon at the disposal of the enemies of municipalism which they may use to the disadvantage of the revolutionary spirits on this revolutionary public authority. The Bushey Council should proceed with greater circumspection so that they may escape the charge of extravagance and the opprobrium that attaches to action possibly product of licentiousness and thriftlessness in the scavengers as well as dissatisfaction and unrest among those whose lot has not been cast in such easy places.

Blogger's Notes:

• An unsigned article but, if I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest this piece was written by A. J. M. Gray. It's very reminiscent of his style.
• Some details about the “Right to Live Council” can be found at the following link.
• One of the reasons I think Gray is the unsigned author of this article is because he was a member of the Watford Branch of the SPGB, and the Bushey mentioned in the piece is only two or three miles from Watford.

Clarion modesty. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

Answers to Correspondents. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

G. A. A.—Letter with enclosure duly to hand and contents noted. Sorry we cannot hope to find room for publication.

"Baker" (Bromley)—Thanks. We are always glad to receive trade union statistics and other T. U. information.

T. Gibson (Chelmsford)—Your suggestion to hand and receiving consideration.

Editorial: For Christ's Sake. (1907)

Editorial from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is a bare statement of the experiences of a man who, out of work and with a wife and four children to support, applied, with a letter from a local clergyman, to one of the Church Army Depots, for work. The man lives at South Tottenham. He delivered his letter at No. 8a. Hornsey-st., Holloway-rd., at 8 a.m. on December 4th. With five others he was told to apply at 9 a.m. and was then given a cross cut saw and started by a Church Army Officer at cutting a heap of old, damp wood full of nails. The men worked in pairs; the wood was of all shapes and sizes but had to be cut into pieces 5½ inches in length. After working from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. without food (although a dinner time was allowed between 1 and 2) our correspondent and his mate had cut 274 lbs. between them. For this he received 10½d. less than 1½d. per hour! It is not suggested that his mate worked harder or better or had more to shew for his efforts, but his mate received 2/6. Another pair who cut between them in the same time 180 lbs received 2/6 and 6d. respectively. The third pair, who had cut about 175 lbs received 6d. and 5½d.

Thinking himself rather hardly used in the circumstances our correspondent addressed the chief secretary of the Church Army and received a reply from W. W. Jemmett, who said : "We regret to hear that you are dissatisfied, but it should not be necessary for us to explain to every man why some other applicant should be placed on special work under special conditions.” He concludes: “The half-crown a day rate of pay is not the usual scale.”

On the face of it there is here shewn a discrimination which resembles the peace of the God the Church Army are alleged to serve, in that it passeth all understanding. In very special circumstances a man may get 2/6 a day for one day, which is remuneration at the rate of 3½d. per hour. This, to put it mildly, is not munificent. Even in the rare contingency of the recipient receiving it as a regular rate of pay for six days a week, there is not a great chance of exercising thrift, of putting by for a rainy day, after the wants of a wife and four children are attended to—not to mention the unimportant wants of the rent collector. Divide the total by four, however, and it becomes at once apparent that the Church Army holds to the belief that the day when the hunger-cravings of thousands could be satisfied with two small loaves and five small fishes is by no means past. Ten pence, ten whole pence, a day [is] a clear rise of nine pence upon the wage of the biblical labourers who engaged themselves to work in the vineyards. What possibilities of saving are here. Why not accept the letter of holy writ in this connection and reduce the scale of remuneration to the vineyard labourers’ figure? It would then be possible to employ ten men where to-day only one can be employed. The “right to work” would have been conceded. The unemployed problem would be solved!

But what if we dispense with the hypothesis of miraculous properties in Church Army pennies? What if the purchasing power of Church Army money is no more than the filthy lucre of common usage? In that case we can only say that if there is an organisation existing anywhere which has succeeded in “grinding the faces of the poor " to better purpose we have yet to hear of it, and we say this fairly cognisant of the workings of that other religious Army which has so successfully combined the business of the salvation of souls with the damnation of bodies.

We may return to the matter again, but meantime, perhaps the Church Army would like a word.