Letter: The Socialist Party and Reforms. (1911)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party and Reforms.

[To The Editor.]

Forest Gate, Essex.

Sir,—Recognising your Party’s hostility toward reforms, and being, for the most part, in sympathy with your standpoint in this respect, I still remain without any knowledge as to how such reforms as the following can be considered as being detrimental to working-class interest, and some comment on the matter may, therefore, elucidate your unswerving attitude in regard to any reform whatsoever:

(1) Educational reform (already conceded).

(2) Male suffrage (ditto)

(3) The feeding of school children, from the point of view that it is impossible for children to be effectively educated unless well fed. If they are well fed, therefore, it would follow that as a result of their education they would better understand their position in life than they would if they were ill-fed and mal-educated. Therefore why oppose this reform ?

(4) Secular education— the advantages of which need no comment.—Yours, etc.,

L. A. Bostock

 

Reply:

The S.P.G.B., as distinguished from every other organisation in this country, is the party with Socialism, and nothing but Socialism, as its object. It is, consequently, not to be side-tracked into raising mere hostility to reform or the reverse—into equal importance with its object. Its guiding principle is not hostility to reforms but hostility to capitalism ; and since its aim is Socialism its whole policy in regard to reforms is dictated solely by the exigencies of the class struggle for Socialism, and must continue to he so dictated, whatever changes in the conditions of the fight may intervene.

Wherever needful for its object the Party must, therefore, make use of, ignore, or resist, any reform as determined by the particular circumstances. Consequently it cannot seek support for or advocate any policy of reform or anti-reform, for such must always be sacrificed upon occasion for its object, while such policies might—as seen in other organisations—attract those who do not accept the object of the Party, thus weakening its definite aim. All such matters are considered by it as worthy of attention only in so far as they bear distinctly on the question of working-class emancipation.

This subordination of all means to one end, and of all issues to the supreme one of the conquest of the State for Socialism, is the only logical policy for the Socialist Party. Without it, indeed, the party could not be Socialist.

Mr. Bostock is, therefore, completely in error in assuming that in showing the unsatisfactory nature of reforms in themselves, and their utter futility as solutions of what is called the “Social Problem,” the S.P.G.B. is necessarily hostile toward all reforms, and considers them as being in every case inevitably “detrimental to working-class interest.”

Even were the capitalists omniscient and of one opinion on. every point, it would still remain a fact that they are compelled by economic development to weaken their stronghold. Our enemies are forced, as it were, to dig their own graves, and it is by no means our policy to prevent them doing so. We should, indeed, be traitors to our cause did we not endeavour to make it profit by every mistake and every point of weakness of the enemy. There is danger only in allowing any consideration whatever to influence the policy of the party other than its object and the conditions of the struggle necessary to its attainment. Socialists, in short, must beware of being scared or cajoled either to the right or the left of the scientific way to Socialism.

With regard to the reforms enumerated by our correspondent, our attitude results inevitably from the position outlined above. All of them have been dealt with in these columns. Let us, however, briefly notice them here.

(1) The Education Acts were not motived (despite declarations to the contrary) by any wish on the part of the ruling class as a whole to benefit the workers, but to benefit themselves and to obtain cheap and efficient wage workers. It should be noted that the paltry measures of working-class “education” now in force stop short even of this despicable ideal. Therefore the Socialist has certainly no feeling whatever of gratitude toward his exploiters when he takes the fullest advantage of this reform for the furtherance of the workers’ cause.

(2) Male suffrage does not exist. We take the greatest useful advantage of the present property suffrage, and would not consider Adult Suffrage “detrimental to working-class interest.” Socialism is the interest of the many, not of the few ; its method, therefore, is that of democracy. But since Socialism is greater than all means, we would not bargain with our enemies, or bate one jot or tittle of our object or principles for any extension of the franchise, much less for a more promise. We have, moreover, seen the dismal folly of supporting an individual or a party that is utterly opposed to us on every vital point because of some minor point of utility. The grain of good is overwhelmed by a flood of harm.

(3) We do not oppose, and never have opposed, the feeding of school children. We have adversely criticised certain proposals for State maintenance, which would mean the taking of children from their parents to be reared in barracks by the State, pithed with anti-working-class ideas, and given the mentality of the flunkey. We have further pointed out the economic effects of such a measure on the labour market, where feeding here, is often counterbalanced by more misery there, and where, owing to the worsening trend of economic pressure, every attempt short of Socialism to stem the tide of increasing working-class poverty must fail. And we have pointed the inevitable Socialist moral.

It is, further, a fallacy to assume that the class-consciousness of the worker has any definite relation to the amount of food he gets. The flunkeys are probably the best fed and the least class-conscious. The slum-proletariat is the worst fed, and is hardly more class-conscious than the wage-slaves of flunkeydom. We rely neither on feeding nor on starving, but upon ripening economic conditions, together with sound Socialist propaganda.

(4) As to Secular Education under Capitalism, it may well prove a mare’s nest. Its advantages may possibly be non-existent. Only when religion has lost its efficacy as a working-class drug will it be abandoned by the ruling class in the schools. But what will take its place ? A scientific curriculum ! Or superstition in even worse forms, such as cunningly devised capitalist ethics, or a deadlier patriotism ? Hence the peculiar wisdom of the classic phrase “Wait and see! ”

Reforms usually take away with the left hand what they offer with the right, and the last state of the reformed is often worse than, his first. There is a vast difference between the vague proposal and the final measure. The latter may in its own. cunning clauses more than neutralise the grain of good originally proposed. Let the capitalist class, therefore, take entire responsibility for its handiwork. Our lack of enthusiasm and severely critical attitude toward all reforms of whatever colour is, inconsequence, fully justified. Not only do we regard them as mere minor and relatively insignificant incidents in the class war, but we know them to be, in the main, fraudulent in themselves.

SOCIALISM can no more come by an accumulation of reforms than a new and up-to-date boiler can result from an accumulation of patches on an ancient one. It presupposes the conquest of. political power by the Socialist working class —the SOCIAL REVOLUTION.

A program of reforms is not only superfluous, Its existence proves that the party possessing it has taken reform for its object instead of Socialism. It is, moreover, a fraud upon the toilers, for until they are supreme their party can pass no reforms —these are grants by the capitalist class, to be considered only in so far as they can be made use of for the cause—and when the working class is triumphant reforms will be entirely redundant, for Socialism will be here.

W.

Letters: Socialism or Reform? Two Letters on Tactics. (1907)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor the Socialist Standard.

Dear Sir,—I saw the July number of your journal in the local public library and straightway sat down to read it. What struck me most was your vigorous hostility towards the Labor Party. Being an ardent Socialist myself I would much rather the Labor Party in Parliament was Socialist, but if this was so I cannot see how they could have acted any different if a start was to be made at all in bettering the lot of the poorer working class. Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists, and as the time is very far distant when the people will decide that it is only by Socialism that Society will become a healthy organism it becomes necessary for us to adopt seasonable methods. It surely cannot be urged that to try and obtain immediate relief for those who feel the crushing burden of poverty the most is travelling in a wrong direction.

If a small Socialist party were in Parliament and preached nothing but the doctrines of collective ownership of the land and machinery of production nothing at all would be done towards mitigating existing evils, in fact, if I understand you rightly, nothing else matters, and until the Socialist Government comes along let things go on as they are, as, for instance: working 12 hours a day for £1 a week, children attending school half starved, taxes on food, and the glorious prospect that, at some future time you may occupy a place in the workhouse when a pension of about 10/- a week would obviate it.

It must be admitted that remedies for this lamentable state of affairs are very pressing and I for one think it far better and safer to climb the ladder of progress rather than try and leap to the top, which, perhaps, may be very good exercise but accomplishes nothing.

Yours faithfully,

V. Wilson.

_____________

Uncompromising consistency.

Dear Sir,— Since I heard a very interesting lecture by Mr. Anderson in Finsbury Park, I have (now and again) been considering the policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, and although I have thought myself an out-and-out Socialist for some years, I cannot altogether agree with your doctrines.

I do not love compromises, but I have grown more and more convinced that inconsistent compromises are among the necessary evils of existence.

Nothing in nature is absolute, and it seems impossible that any social or political action can take place that is entirely free from compromise, because no two people could entirely agree as to what is absolutely the best way to promote human welfare.

Then it is, theoretically, impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions, unless the party of progress were the stronger. Progress seems to me to be the resultant of the action of different forces which are to some extent inclined towards one another.

This may appear mere fantastic theory to you, at first sight, but really it is merely a way of illustrating a conclusion I had already reached by considering actual experiences.

Another point: the supporting of “palliative” measures. It seems to me that there are cases when it is the obvious duty of every Socialist, and indeed of every kind of humanitarian, to do all they can for such measures. Would it be your policy to refuse to support a measure (on the grounds that it delays the ultimate triumph of Socialism) to better the condition of half-starved children ? It seems to me that if you refused to support such measures, because Socialism might be the ultimate gainer by your opposition, you would be offering blood sacrifices to an idea, and so making an idol of Socialism. Of course I do not believe that, in actual fact, you would oppose measures that might be to the obvious present advantage of the workers as a whole ; but then why pretend that it is possible to be uncompromisingly consistent ?

Finally, you must not think that I think that The Socialist Party of Great Britain is doing harm ; I think it is doing a great deal of good ; but only as one of many forces working towards Socialism

—Leonard J. Simons.

_____________

Reply:

With each of our correspondents we find ourselves at least in partial agreement. Thus, for instance, we agree with Mr. Wilson that “Socialism is utterly impossible until the people become Socialists” and therefore

We are making Socialists.

We also agree with Mr. Simons that “Progress” (given the identity of our conceptions of progress) “is the resultant of different forces which are inclined towards one another,” and that “it is impossible for any progress to result from two forces acting in directly opposed directions unless the party of progress were the stronger.” Precisely. As The Socialist Party we take our stand upon the essential minimum upon which the real interests of all wage-workers are united or inclined towards each other, but these united interests are at the same time directly opposed to those of the capitalist class. Hence on Mr. Simons’ own showing no progress can possibly result from any attempt at compromise between two forces in direct antagonism, and that the workers’ only hope is to become, as indeed they must, the stronger party. Compromises are, therefore, not only inconsistent—they are utterly futile.

Both correspondents tacitly admit that the evils that cry for palliation are the effects of capitalist exploitation and that in reality Socialism alone is the remedy, yet both, curiously enough, consider reform nostrums of greater importance than Socialism. And this attitude we believe is the result of allowing generous sentiment to usurp the place of reason. Knowledge and reason are of far greater importance than sentimental impulse, and the kindest intentions result in the greatest harm where they override truth and logic.

The whole working class (so named because they do the work for which they get a grudging subsistence) have to produce thrice the amount of wealth they get in wages. Millions of men in this country toil for less than a pound a week. Thousands of women have to slave for wages insuflicient to purchase food alone; and many thousands eagerly hunt for employment without success ; while as a result of this

Ruthless Exploitation

thousands of children go to school and millions of men and women go to work insufficiently clothed and insufficiently fed. We know this and we are working to end it. Now who is going about it the better way ?

We are asked to practically withdraw our energies from what is admittedly the only thing that can put an end to the evils it is sought to palliate and to devote ourselves to inducing the capitalist class to provide meals for school-children and old age pensions. In other words we, and the workers generally, are urged to confine ourselves to begging the ruling class to treat certain of its victims more gently rather than that the workers organise and concentrate upon taking the power to make victims away from the ruling class. But so long as the people confine themselves to crumb begging and do not threaten his supremacy, what more does the capitalist demand ?

The class that lives by profit controls the state administratively, judicially and politically, and it is incontestable that any measure of so-called reform that is granted will only go to serve the interests of the ruling class. Thus any miserable measure that may be passed for the feeding of school children would be passed whether we supported or not, while it could only result in paltry soup kitchens for a few—nothing adequate in any sense—and would be used as an instrument for beating down wages. It is indeed futile to oppose such a measure, and no part of our policy, but it is equally futile to abandon work for the removal of the cause in favour of a thing that would not decrease the sum total of working class misery. We seek to own and control collectively the product of our labour, so that our children should not be degraded as profit-producing larvae, but nourished and clothed as they should be.

The old age pension scheme of Mr. Barnes, M.P., Labour misleader, would give the few workers so unfortunate as to survive the age of 65 a pension of 5s. per week, which could only operate as a bribe to encourage them to starve slowly outside rather than enter the workhouse, where they would be better off. Indeed, whatever paltry pension may ultimately be granted will be to relieve poor rates of the growing burden of the workers who are discharged in favour of younger men, and will also operate like the pensions of soldiers, police, etc., as

A Premium on the Acceptance of Low Wages.

as many workers know to their cost.

Any genuine reform that takes a bite out of capitalist interests (and no reform can be genuine that does not) can only be obtained in opposition to the capitalist class by the workers capturing political power. Thus to obtain even reforms would require what is essentially a revolution. But the working class cannot be united upon a measure that can only doubtfully benefit a small number of them ; while the number of evil effects of capitalism is so vast that scarcely any two workers can be united upon all the innumerable palliatives called for, and as to which are the most pressing. By having their attention directed to effects only the efforts of the workers are made mutually antagonistic, and are scattered and nullified by being directed to all points of the compass upon the myriad effects of capitalism, instead of being focussed on the cause.

For the workers to do anything in their interests they must first obtain the power to do it; the next step, therefore, upon which all workers can be united is the capture of political power for the inauguration of industrial democracy. Whether for genuine reform or for Socialism the substitution of working class control for capitalist control—the revolution—is essential, and it alone can stop what is admittedly the cause of misery and poverty—the exploitation of the workers for profit—and can convert the machinery of production from the means of profit for a handful into the means of life and happiness for a people.

To put, as is done in many instances, a long list of “palliatives” before the workers not only excites division and scatters the workers’ energies, but leaves the cause of evil unchecked, confines the workers’ attention to

Fruitless Efforts at Reform

within the present system, serves capitalist interests and starves and hinders the only forward movement, thus postponing indefinitely both the removal of the cause and the healing of the wounds.

The workers, we believe, can only be united upon broad and elementary fundamental principles, since even transitional measures are conditional on working-class supremacy and can only be determined by the state of industry and the needs of democracy at the revolution. These principles are given in our Declaration of Principles and may be resumed briefly as:—

Firstly : that the poverty and slavery of the workers and all that flows therefrom is due to their robbery by the class owning the means of production and distribution.

Secondly : that to remove the ills under which they labour the workers must themselves own and use collectively the means of producing wealth.

Thirdly : that the workers cannot use or own the political and industrial machinery in their interests or gain any real advantage until they capture the supremacy, therefore the essential step is the revolutionary step, the

Control of Society by the Working Class

organised as a class party for Socialism. Upon such essentials the workers as a whole can be united, for all who live by labour stand to gain.

The alternative before us is not, then, as Mr. Wilson would have it, between climbing a ladder and jumping to the top, no metaphor was ever more unfortunate ; but the alternative is between marching surely and always toward Socialism as we are doing toward the only remedy by the only road—or marching, as are the reformers, in circles within capitalism with much shouting and capitalist applause but no advance whatever.

Finally, even regarding such inadequate and restricted measures of alleviation that may be possible within the capitalist system, and even supposing the ruling class could be induced to grant them, we direct attention to the following incontrovertible proposition: That the only effective way to induce the ruling class to attempt to palliate the evils of their system is to organise the workers for the overthrow of that system.

F. C. Watts

Why social reform is useless. (1914)

From the September 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has all along claimed that the only solution for the social diseases rampant in capitalist society is Socialism. The professional “Socialists” of the B.S.P. and I.L.P. type, whilst claiming the same in a somewhat misty and hazy manner, seek always to put some pet scheme of social reform before the working class. They are not alone, however, in their schemes of reform, for the capitalist class are well in the front as far as reform is concerned. The consequence of this being that some reformers who are able to hold their situations cling more tightly to the governing class, whilst others not so fortunate have jumped to the other end and have become anarchists, or what is the same, syndicalists.

Reform, to-day, chiefly through the activities of the politicians of the master class, has become very popular with the mass, many regarding it as eventually being capable of removing the anomalies of existing society.

Let us, therefore, see what reform has already accomplished for the workers; we shall then have an idea what to expect from the effects of reform in the future.

Before examining these reforms, however, let us, very briefly, look upon those people who are especially interested in social reform.

First of all there is the sentimentalist, who, without any reason at all, is always wailing about the afflicted and poverty-stricken, so much so that he is absolutely blinded by his own tears from seeing the true state of affairs. Then there is the petty bourgeois reformer, the small capitalist, who at times may describe himself as a “Socialist,” but is always showing his fear of Socialism, for in his ignorance he believes that Socialists will confiscate what little property he may have—it may be his wedding ring or in some cases his house. Then again, we have the professional politician whose business it is to pander to the “mob.” In his cunning way he will invent all sorts of nostrums for the people, who, through their ignorance, are led to believe now one set of politicians, now another set, never realising that they are being hoodwinked by them all.

How these humbugs have been using the Home Rule for Ireland red herring to befool the mass is at once a comedy and a tragedy. And yet people will go on believing, in their simplicity, that the so-called leaders of the opposition and the Government are serious in their manoeuvres. They cannot see that it is merely a means to keep the workers divided and ignorant of their true social status.

The many reforms one might mention, instead of benefiting, injure the workers. One of the pet reforms of the sentimentalists is the “feeding of the school children.” Now, every sane man and woman wishes to see children fed ; but we cannot afford to allow sentiment to get the better of our reason. We know that those who possess children wish to feed their children by their own effort. State grants merely make, in most cases, subservient wage-slaves of those who receive them, thus making the work of the Socialist more difficult.

But what of the economic effect of such a measure ? Why, a woman who has children to look after, by paying a small sum of money to “farm” out her youngest child whilst her elder children are being fed at school, is enabled to .go to the factory or mill and be exploited at a low wage as married women are known to be.

The Old Age Pension scheme is another Act that has benefited the capitalists immensely. For whereas it costs to maintain a pauper something like fourteen shillings a week, they manage to get the aged State pauper to exist on five shillings. The Compensation Act seems on the face of it to be of much value to the worker. By being crippled or maimed they are sometimes able to get a certain sum of money as compensation. It may be true that in individual cases the Act has had some advantage for the worker. But it is hardly necessary to-day to repeat the facts of “too old at forty,” or a man with a slight injury not engaged, or if engaged, then at a lower rate of pay. The Compensation Act is a very good Act—for the capitalists.

We shall not talk of the Labour Exchanges, for even the over liberal-labour M.P.’s who at the inception of the bill claimed it to be Messiah itself, are now calling them “blackleg institutions.”

The Insurance Act again, compels the workers to submit to be mulcted of a certain sum of money so that they may keep going a lot of well-paid officials who are to ticket and number them and keep them in their respective grades.

The “Health” Insurance Act is a direct affront to the workers. It says it can prevent sickness ; it can do no such thing. Disease is bred by the conditions under which the workers must toil and live ; only Socialism can ensure healthy working and living conditions. Those who supported the “Health” Insurance Act avow by their action that they are the direct enemies of the working class.

Then there is the class of reformers who advocate the nationalising and municipalising of private enterprises, such as the railways, trams, etc. Here, again, we find that where national undertakings are in existence the lot of the workers engaged in those concerns is very little, if any, better than the wage-slaves in private firms. We know how the postal employees fare in the hands of a capitalistic government ; how the municipal workers of Leeds, Blackburn, and Dublin have been treated by unscrupulous and tyrannical corporations.

It is the very nature of capital, whether it be organised on national, local, or private basis, to oppress and exploit the workers. Only when it suits the capitalist class—who now have the mastery in these matters—will municipal or national enterprises be undertaken, and then only for their benefit.

“But,” say some ignorant persons, “it cannot be denied that these undertakings are able to cut down rates and taxes.” By such talk are they able persuade the workers that public enterprise is a benefit—because it saves rates and taxes. Before taxes are levied a person must receive, an income of no less than £160 a year; and in so far as the worker comes within the Health Insurance Act., i.e., receives less than £160 per year, he is not liable to pay taxes. “But he pays rates ?” shrieks our reformer. “For he certainly lives in a house—poor one though it be.” Here again our reformer is wrong : the workmen pays merely a rental for his house, the rent going up or down according to the demand for and supply of houses within a given area. The rents of the workers are not affected by the rising and lowering of the rates, which proves that it does not concern the working class, but only the property owners.

“But,” the reformer will say, ” if he does not pay taxes directly, he certainly pays indirectly, on his tea, tobacco, etc.” Again our social reformer errs ; for the worker is not robbed in the sphere of exchange. It is in the domain of production where the robbery of the workers is carried on. The latter, although producing all the wealth of society, are only allowed to buy a small portion of the wealth which they produce. Receiving a wage, the price of his labour power, he is not able to buy up all that he has produced. Therefore the concern of the working class is not that tobacco, or tea, or any commodity is dear, but that the major portion of what they produce is filched from them. It would make precious little difference to the working class as a whole, if all articles were cheapened in price if in like proportion their money wages dropped, or vice versa, their money wages rose while prices rose in the same proportion. The working class have never had the power, nor can they have such power under capitalism, of dictating their terms to the master class. Which proves that it is not the price of an article that matters, but the control by the workers of their own working conditions which Socialism alone can give, which matters.

Of late we have had the land taxers, with Lloyd George at their head, trying to revive an old nostrum. What villains these landed gentry are ! Certainly no one can say a wrong word against the people Lloyd George represents—for is he not the heaven anointed “Messiah,” himself ! Yes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the landlords are sucking the blood of the farm labourers and workers in general, but it is a mere flea-bite to the outrageous plunder and spoliation of your masters, the capitalists.

This nostrum, if put into practice, will certainly relieve capitalists of a burden. But will it help the workers ? These professional diddlers claim it will by opening up new land and industries. By such means, it is asserted, will the unemployed be absorbed and wages, as a consequence, raised.

Yes, but the land taxer has never looked into the nature of capital. The capitalist reformer looks to this scheme as being a means to increase profits. Seeking the support of the workers, he leads them to believe that wages will also rise. History shows that although profits have risen enormously, real wages have fallen. And this has come about through capital becoming greater by inventions of machinery and the speeding up of the workers.

This has been going on all along and taxation of land values will in no way disturb that process. Thus while land taxation will benefit the members of the commercial class, (who own little land), by easing their burden of taxation, it in no way guarantees to the workers better living conditions.

Having then examined the most popular and so-called beneficial reforms, we find their ill effects far outweigh what can be said in their favour. And naturally so. For the fact is that reforms which are enacted by a capitalist government are used generally for the benefit of the master class. They touch only the externals, and never the internal or foundation of society. So long as the basis of capitalist society remains, so long will the social diseases, that are a result of that basis, remain.

The whole foundation of capitalism must be removed for Socialism to take its place, for not till then will society be relieved of the social cancer that affects it to-day. Mere talk that reform may benefit under certain imaginary conditions that may arise in the future is futile. We as Socialists know that we cannot afford to deal with fantastical side issues ; for we are convinced that Socialism is the only means for the emancipation of the working class. Therefore, we must ever be advocating Socialism before the working class so that they may be prepared for the change in society.

“But,” say some reformers notably of the I.L.P. and B.S.P. type, “we cannot afford to wait so long, and besides, we are legislating Socialism step by step until we shall have secured the lot.” Our misguided reformer cannot see that it is not Socialism that is evolving, but capitalism. Day by day, as capitalism becomes more and more powerful, the workers’ position in, society becomes increasingly deplorable. The capitalists (who legislate—not the workers) will not legislate themselves out of power gradually despite the talk of some crazy people about “revolutionary reform,” rather will they seek to increase their power.

Only by the working class themselves taking conscious revolutionary political action will the fight be finished and their victory assured. By the workers taking such action, the capitalists, in their attempt to save their power, will dole out reforms in plenty, but the working class politically and intellectually organised will not be hood-winked as they are to-day. They will, through their political supremacy, abolish private ownership of the means of life, and institute social ownership for social use. Then and only then will society be freed from the glaring anomalies that exist to-day, viz., luxury and idleness on the one hand ; poverty and slavery on the other.

L. Marks

Municipal Election Notes. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.P.G.B. ran 12 candidates, 9 in Battersea and 3 in Wandsworth.

o o o

The Battersea results were, Latchmere Ward : Craske 117, Moody 117, Money 113 ; Winstanley Ward: Blewitt 57, Roe 49, Witcher 45 ; Church Ward: Greenham 93, Fawcett 88, Hunt 77.

o o o

The Wandsworth poll (Tooting Ward) was, Barker 94, MacManus 77, Dumenil 59. Of these 50 were plumpers, voting solidly for our candidates alone.

o o o

All the candidates fought on the Election Manifesto of the Party published in our October issue, a few of which were distributed in each ward. They had no program of ear-tickling, side-tracking, vote-catching “palliatives” and did no canvassing. The candidates were practically unknown and had not climbed into popularity on the backs of the working class, by posing as “leaders” of unemployed deputations, “right to live” councils, and similar confusionist conglomerations.

o o o

The defeat of the “Progressive” and Labour candidates in London was undoubtedly due to the fact that the promises they had so profusely made had not been carried out. The unemployed problem is still with us, slums are being created at a faster rate than they are being destroyed, the shopkeeper is being pressed more heavily each day between the trusts and the rising rates, and so the pendulum swung round.

o o o

Keir Hardie is reported to have said he regretted the defeat of the Progressives. Progressives are simply Liberals, and Mr. Hardie regrets their defeat ! Why did the I.L.P. help to secure it by running candidates?

o o o

The “Progressive and Labour” candidates in Battersea ran under the auspices of the Battersea Trades and Labour Council, which consists of various trade union branches, Liberal associations, Radical clubs, etc. Many of the T.U. branches are also affiliated to the L.R.C., and therefore, while working with the Liberals, subscribe with the ostensible object of fighting them.

o o o

In 1903, out of the 36 members elected to the Woolwich Council 28 were Labour candidates. This year only 13 Labour candidates secured seats. The Labour Party thus lose their control of the Council. As 72 per cent. of the electors voted it is obvious that the men who voted for the Labour Party at the last election and sent Will Crooks to the House of Commons have now voted for the Moderates. Why ? Because they have no guiding principle to work upon and Crooks, Hardie & Co. have been too much concerned about getting in to endeavour to implant it. Hardie says that the Labour Party have lost at Woolwich because of the Arsenal dismissals, but if the Labour Party had not given the electors to understand that these dismissals would cease and the unemployed problem would be solved if only the workers voted “labour” there would have been no disappointment and no reversal of the position. But you cannot ensure the continued confidence of the working class unless you play the game straight. There is no cure for the evils of capitalism except the abolition of capitalism. Tell the people that at all times and under all conditions, and, although it may take somewhat longer to gain their confidence and support, you will retain it when you have gained it.

o o o

Mr. George Belt, recently the paid organiser of the S.D.F. in Scotland, contested the Starch Green Ward of Hammersmith. He did not run as a Socialist, but under the auspices of the L.R.C. “Labour” was writ large all over his election address. He suppressed his membership of the S.D.F. and described himself as of the “Federated Builders’ Labourers.” But then, of course, it is one thing to be paid by the S.D.F., and another to be seeking the moral and financial support of trade unionists. This is a glaring instance of what the Pearson Paralyser called “The Fraud of Socialism,” but, as a matter of fact, it was only the Fraud of George Belt.

o o o

Our old friend, Free Maintenance, received a very severe twisting at the hands of S.D.F. candidates. Belt made no reference to it. Fulham S.D.F. candidates declared for State Maintenance, as did also those of Battersea, Islington, and parts of West Ham. Rogers and Wilkinson at Southend whittled it down to “The provision of at least one good meal daily to all scholars.” The Southwark men favoured free meals to all destitute children attending the public schools, whilst in Camberwell State Maintenance was boldly advocated. In Lewisham, however, it got back to “Free Meals for Necessitous Children.” It is quite evident that these people have not made up their minds about their beloved palliatives.

o o o

At Northampton the S.D.F. ran 6 candidates, but only one (J. Gribble) was successful. W. Pitts lost his seat. Gribble is their only representative now. Their total poll was 2,912. Last year it was 3,221 in the same wards,

o o o

After the poll A. G. Slinn said that the more revolutionary the candidate, the more disagreeable he was to the capitalists, the more likely was success. No man was more hated by the opposition than Gribble, yet he had been elected by a majority that struck terror into the hearts of the capitalists,

o o o

This was a little unkind to the other candidates.

o o o

Matters were somewhat complicated in Islington. The S.D.F. branches decided to run their candidates ”on their own,” apart from any other bodies. Two of their members, however, C. Cook and R. E. Jupp, were invited to run under the auspices of the Islington Trades Council, and after consultation with the E.C. of the S.D.F., accepted the invitation. They were expelled by the Islington branches of the S.D.F. and promptly joined another. There will be developments.

o o o

These two candidates were not only endorsed by the E.C. of the S.D.F., but were supported by such tried, trusted and true Revolutionists as W. T. Wilson, M.P., C. W. Bowerman, M.P., W. Steadman, M.P., A. Henderson, M.P., J. E. Gregory, and others. And still they did not win !

o o o

The Stratford S.D.F. ran J. A. Bassett in Park Ward, and J. Andrews in Broadway. Separate and greatly differing election addresses were issued by each. Andrews advocated the provision of free meals as is done in Paris, and Bassett was in favour of Free Meals, and, when necessary, of Free Clothing.

o o o

In South West Ham Ben Cunningham ran as a Socialist, but the S.D.F. refused to support him. J. Jones, A. Hayday, and other S.D.F. men backed a local official (a non-Socialist) of a powerful and wealthy trade union against him. Explanations, votes of censure, alarums and excursions are in the air !

o o o

One of the chief concerns of the I.L.P. candidates in East Ham was the cheaper burial of the dead. Said they, “The making of personal profits out of the dead is certainly anything but ethical. Our dead should be interred as cheaply as possible, and any profits accruing to go to the community.” So cheer up ! we’ll soon be dead ! and if only a sufficient number of us die quickly, why, look how the rates could be reduced !

o o o

Justice points out that its members in Burnley, who ran under the auspices of the L.R.C. all ran as avowed Socialists. It is somewhat amusing when a body, claiming to be Socialist has to draw attention to the fact that certain of its members ran as “avowed Socialists.”

Jack Kent

Socialist Sonnet No. 148: Free School Meals (2024)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Free School Meals

Empty bellies leave young minds malnourished,

A famine of learning that’s all too rife,

Starving children of their chances for life,

Who might well, properly fed, have flourished.

Free school meals then? Except, nothing is free

For this world in which all necessities

Have a price, and hunger is a dis-ease

Caused not by a lack of food, but money.

Capital, driven by insatiable greed,

Will not, shall not finance gratuitous fare

If it can’t claw back the cost from elsewhere,

Driven to meet profit’s demands, not need.

For now, only air is an oddity,

Not made and sold as a commodity.

 D. A.

Correspondence. (1905)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Correspondents MUST be brief.

Communications must be authenticated by name and address of writer and written on one side of the paper only.

The writers ONLY are responsible for the views expressed.

___________

Larkfield, Chilbolton, 

Stockbridge,

24.8.05.

Sirs,

I am obliged by your reply to my “useful letter.” As the combined intellectual product of a whole editorial committee it is, to say the least, extremely disappointing. Confusion, as you remark, unfortunately does exist. On page 6 you say that “Whether the Social Commonwealth will arise depends upon whether sufficient of the working-class have been made Socialists and have been class-consciously organised.” On page 3, however, we are told that “Socialism is the goal of the conscious and unconscious efforts of humanity.” Your remark that I evidently imagine “that Socialism will come upon the workers unawares ‘like a thief in the night.'” should be addressed to some of your own members ! Socialist organisations are part of the social evolution. Not so the S.P.G.B ! It has no part nor lot in the affairs of contemporary society. It is a party of evolutionists standing outside the evolutionary movement. Your public representatives—charitably assuming that you ever get any—will “fight for working-class interests” by holding aloof from the administration; your guardians of the poor for instance would not trouble to secure, say, the maximum amount of out-relief for the aged poor, but will allow anti-working-class interests full freedom. Reforms will then be given to the workers for being so good as to elect such non-interfering representatives.

I appear to have aroused old associations with those familiar Lunatic Asylum Sanity Tests; “strangely muddled” as I am said to be, I cannot understand, however, how manipulating the tap can be shown to affect the root cause “of the stream flowing through the pipe.” Free Maintenance would screw that tap down pretty hard, but the S.P.G.B. whilst utterly impotent to deal with the source, obstructs and abuses those screwing down the tap !

The S.P.G.B. attacks Free Maintenance because it would provide the capitalist with more efficient wage-slaves ! I say, therefore, that the S.P.G.B. must logically oppose every social re-arrangement or invention that will benefit capitalists in any degree, If such re-arrangement, &c , could be shewn to make the worker more efficient ! We need go no further than the same month’s issue of your journal for proof. On page 3 one of your teachers tells us that “pure food would even do the worker harm by making him more efficient, &c. !”

The strait jacket in which S.P.G.B.-ism immures its adherents should be fairly obvious from this.

A party that tells the worker that pure food will do him harm, and also advises him to oppose any means for getting the best possible terms in life for his children in the meantime is not I venture to assert likely to gain the support of people whose experience of life does not include Lunatic Asylum Tests for Sanity. Whether you have “nailed a common misapprehension of your position” upon that post or not, you have certainly drawn a pretty picture of social evolution and socialist thought and activity as understood by the S.P.G.B.. 

Yours, &c.,

G. Foster

Reply:

It was, perhaps, unavoidable that the editorial note to our correspondent’s previous letter should be “extremely disappointing” to him. It is significant, also, that he has failed to meet the main arguments in that note. We shall, however, spend a few moments putting Mr. Foster right on several points raised in the above letter.

On page 3 “Economicus” urged his readers to “join the S.P.G.B. and work uncompromisingly towards the goal of the conscious and unconscious efforts of humanity.” Now friend Foster actually takes this sentence to mean that Socialism will come without the conscious efforts of the working-class ! Our correspondent is apparently unaware that the organisation of capitalists into Trusts, &c., albeit not consciously directed towards Socialism, has, nevertheless, the effect of opening the eyes of the toilers, and making an increasing number class-conscious workers for Socialism.

After saying that Socialist organisations are part of social evolution, and immediately contradicting himself, our critic adds that S.P.G.B. representatives “will fight for working-class interests by holding aloof from administration,” presumably ignorant of the fact that the Socialists Party exists for the purpose of organising the workers for the control of administration. “Your guardians of the poor,” continues Mr. Foster, “would not trouble to secure the maximum of out-relief for the aged poor.” This is absolutely false, for, since the powers of local bodies are limited by Parliament, pending the capture of Parliamentary power, a genuine Socialist majority on such local bodies would secure, not only to the aged poor but to all workers, the utmost benefits that it were in the power of the local administration to confer. Whilst, until the Socialists have the majority, they must continue the fight for the control of administration, fighting for and taking all along the line (always however, as uncompromising Socialists) such palliative measures as the majority may give.

The sore point with our friend appears to be that we would not accept office under a capitalist majority, that we will not support capitalism or capitalist candidates; in short that we will not barter our Socialism for some hopeless promise of reform. It is indeed a curious idea that genuine working-class representatives can at the same time be the paid servants of a capitalist majority ! And presumably our correspondent thinks the capitalist class will give the workers, if not Socialism, at least some wonderful palliative as a reward for their faithful support of capitalist candidates, parties and interests !

Mr. Foster falls foul of, and, as he says, fails to understand, our illustration of the futility of bailing out effects whilst the cause remains unchecked. Our illustration forcibly put the fact (which our correspondent makes no attempt to disprove) that the cause of working-class misery is capitalist exploitation, and we showed that our critic “would have us withdraw our energies from the abolition of the cause of degeneration in order to make futile attempts to bail out effects whilst the tap of capitalist exploitation is still flooding us.” Yet Mr. Foster says, “that Free Maintenance would screw that tap down pretty hard.”

Whatever its worshippers have claimed for Free Maintenance, it has remained for Mr. Foster to make the absurd claim that it would stop capitalist exploitation.

But what would Free Maintenance do for the workers? It would, it is true, if obtained, enable healthier and more children to grow into adolescence, but its good effects would counteracted whilst capitalism endured, because it would increase the already oversupply of labourers, and by making each labourer more efficient would enable the masters to employ fewer men; so intensifying the misery of the adult workers by increasing the unemployed and decreasing wages. We therefore point out to the worker that the increase of efficiency cannot lighten the load of working class misery, because, under capitalism, every virtue of the worker is turned as a weapon of offence against him. Neither in promoting nor still less in discouraging efficiency lies the workers salvation, the abolition of capitalism is the workers' only hope.

We do not, then, oppose Free Maintenance, but we show that it would, not materially improve the workers’ lot; whilst, if the energy required to obtain an adequate system of Free Maintenance were directed at the root of the evil, such measures would be rendered unnecessary. Mr. Foster’s premise that we oppose Free Maintenance and greater efficiency, being false, his conclusions consequently fall to the ground.

Mr. Foster places in quotation marks, and attributes to “Economicus” the sentence “Pure food would even do the worker harm.” “Economicus” did not say this, he pointed out that municipalization while perhaps ensuring purer food substance to the worker, would not enhance his power of purchasing those substances, and would even do him harm, inasmuch as it made him a more efficient worker, and enabled fewer of him to turn out the same quantity of commodities, thus accentuating the unemployed evil.” Which, of course, is perfectly true. Such dubious conduct on the part of Mr, Foster we can only attribute to the fact, evident from his many references to the matter, that he writes obsessed by visions of strait-jackets.

It is further absurdly untrue that this party “advises the worker to oppose any means for getting the best terms in life for his children.” Our mission is precisely to show the worker the best means for getting the best in life for himself and his children.

The S.P.G.B. working at the organisation and education of the workers for the removal of the cause of the growing misery, is abused by those who, in practice, consider tinkering with effects more important than the removal of the cause.

Editorial Committee.

A Look Round. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to a memorandum prepared by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, there were in existence at the end of 1903, 1,166 trade unions, with a total membership of 1,902,308, as compared with 1,190 unions with 1,924,809 members at the end of 1902, a decrease in membership of 22,501. The number of women and girls included as members in 1903 was 119,416, as compared with 122,210 at the end of 1902, a decrease of 2.3 per cent. The decline was chiefly in the cotton trade unions and followed upon a period of unsettled employment in the cotton trade.

The total funds in hand for the 100 principal trade unions were £4,550,000, about £4 per member. The amount paid in unemployed benefit shewed an increase of £80,000.

* * *

The acuteness of the unemployed problem in West Ham has caused much discussion in the Press, and a few days before Xmas various “Relief” funds were opened. Vague references to “revolutions” and “riots” have been indulged in, but surely no one expects that starving men or physical deteriorates could sustain any organised revolutionary effort. The advice of Will Thorne, who “asked the men to behave themselves as they walked through the borough, and so show the governing classes that they knew how to conduct themselves although they were poor,” has been followed, although what on earth men who have already lost what little they ever had, including, in many cases, the franchise (through accepting Poor Law Relief) have to gain by “behaving themselves,” is very difficult to understand!

* * *

In this connection the letter of Councillor McAllen (S.D.F.) which appeared in the morning papers is interesting. He said “Alarm is felt by the local authorities that the seriousness of the distress may precipitate a crisis, which would be attended with deplorable results. This must be avoided at all hazards!” We again ask what have the unemployed to lose, and what results could be more deplorable to them than those which have already overtaken them ? One would imagine that these Revolutionary Social-Democrats, who preach peace where there is no peace, hold a brief for the propertied class.

* * *

During the agitation, various leaders of the capitalist political party have been deputised by Jack Jones, A. Hayday, Salmon and others. As we have already pointed out, we do not agree with holding any parleys with either section of the workers’ enemies. In the first place, the issue is confused and the workers are led to believe that the social problem can be dealt with otherwise than by the overthrow of capitalist domination, and in the second place, if the capitalist politicians are asked to do certain things, and they reply favorably, those who ask them are morally bound to support them in their efforts. As Herbert Gladstone retorted, in reply to interruptions by J. J. Terrett and others, as to why the Liberals do not do this, that, or the other,

“If you want the Liberal Party to do these things, then help them to win elections and thus place them in a position to do them.”

* * *

Herein lies one of the chief causes of the disagreement between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and others claiming to be Socialists. We would just as soon expect that burglars and pickpockets would organise themselves for the purpose of devising and carrying out means for the protection of the public against burglary and pocket-picking as we would expect the capitalist-class to carry measures for dealing with the unemployed problem. We tell the workers that there can be no solution except by the establishment of the Socialist Republic; that the capitalist politicians, whether labelled Liberal or Conservative, desire to maintain the capitalist State, in which a reserve army of unemployed is a necessity, and under no circumstances will we beg and pray them, or appeal to them—our class enemies—to do something which we know they will not do. The workers must accomplish their own emancipation, organised as a Socialist Party, independent of and hostile to all other parties. That emancipation will never be obtained otherwise.

* * *

What can be said of professing Socialists, claiming to believe in the class-war and all that that belief involves, delivering speeches like the following:

“Perhaps it was best to have a friend in both parties. If they succeeded in getting one Liberal leader and one Tory to do something in the matter they would have succeeded in making the guestion a national one, and probably from both sides of the House they would get sufficient support to carry out some scheme.” ? The most charitable view is that the speaker (Jack Jones) allowed his feelings to get the better of his Socialist convictions, owing to the extraordinary amount of distress existing in the district.

* * *

As is usual just previous to a General Election, the Liberal papers are endeavouring to show how much superior would be the government by that capitalist faction to that of the Conservatives. But in doing so they have to give away their own case so far as the alleged prosperity of the country, due to Free Trade, is concerned. In a recent speech Mr. Birrell declared

“We long to see the energy of our party directed towards an honest attempt to do, at all events, something to solve the problems of poverty and suffering. This world will never be a Utopia, but we want to make it a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.”

And in commenting on this, a Liberal writer adds:

“And who is there of human instincts, whatever his political leanings, that does not sympathise with those millions whose life is a dreary struggle, whose steps are dogged by chronic want, whose children cry for food and warmth, and cry in vain. England, the richest country in the world, counts millions of these. Poor, struggling millions! Surely the social and economic system is out of joint that allows the few to amass unmeasured wealth while the very bread of life is wanting to thousands who would earn it if they could. We speak not of the idle, improvident and intemperate, but of the honest, industrious and independent poor; these latter even are counted by millions, and their lot is hard indeed.”

* * *

Observe ! After fifty years of Free Trade, at the end of “a century of amazing progress” during which our wealth has increased from £140 to £303 per head of the population, our “honest, industrious and independent poor are counted by millions.” “Here is an opportunity for Liberalism” proceeds the scribe. Yes, an opportunity to make this world “a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.” Only that and nothing more ! Capitalism is Hell for the workers. There is only one way by which they can get out of it, and that is by organising for the Revolution, by joining the Party of the Revolution, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

* * *

In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with the same matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best-known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence.

* * *

There comes into force this year an agreement between the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the London and North Western Railway Companies, which they have entered into for fifty years. It is hoped that the co-operation which will give place to the competition hitherto existing between the two companies will result in a large reduction of expenses. Many trains will cease to run but there will be no inconvenience either to passengers or traders.

There will also be a general reorganisation in the goods departments, from which in some towns in Yorkshire a saving of £2,000 a year is expected.

* * *

This arrangement will no doubt throw a number of workers out of employment and the financial advantages will be secured by the shareholders. Such is capitalist co-operation—a step towards trustification. Under Socialism the more efficient organisation of any public service would benefit the whole community.

* * *

The Ups and Downs of a Poor Palliative would make an interesting article, if one had time to write up all the material connected with the S.D.F. proposal, which starting with the “One good meal a day free” advocated by H. Quelch, E. Sansom and others at the 1888 London School Board Election, gradually developed into Complete State Maintenance for all children. But recently many members of the S.D.F., so possessed have they become by the spirit of mere reform and the desire to win elections, have even gone back upon the crude proposals of 1888. At recent elections, Martin Judge (West Ham) advocated “Free Food for Starving Children,” and A. C. Bannington (Coventry) running under the auspices of the Trades and Labour Council, advocated “Free wholesome meals for all school children who need them.” And at the recent meeting at Canning Town, presided over by Will Thorne, the resolution moved by the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F.) was not in favour of State Maintenance, but merely

“That, with the view of checking the physical deterioration amongst our population, the Government should, in accordance with the demands of the Trade Union Congress, grant to the education authorities the power necessary to provide food for children attending State-supported schools.”

Ex-Alderman Hayday seconded this resolution and other members of the S.D.F. present included Jack Jones. Thus we see Trade Union officials watering down the S.D.F. proposals to meet the wishes of the Unions.

* * *

At a recent meeting of the Reading Debating Society, J. F. Hodgson (S.D.F) moved

“That this House would welcome the introduction by Government of a measure providing funds for the supply of free meals to school children.”

This was supported by Messrs. Mackay, Leaver and Quelch, and carried. There’s progress for you !

* * *

In looking through the programme of A. C. Bannington, referred to above, we find the following:

“Unskilled men to receive not less than 25s. per week,”

and in looking through the programme and rules of the Organisation to which we believe Bannington still belongs, we find that a minimum wage of 30s. is demanded as an immediate reform, and that a candidate’s programme must be previously sanctioned (together with his election address) by the local Branch and by the Executive Council. But when some folks get the election fever, programmes and rules go by the board.

Jack Kent

Propaganda Paragraphs (1935)

From the December 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Profits Before Children's Lives

The Evening News (November 9th) reports a protest by the Council of the College of Preceptors because the London Transport Board has partially withdrawn the privilege of cheap fares for school-children attending Board of Education approved schools and independent schools.

  The Council points out that, in consequence of the withdrawal of the privileges, there has been a big increase in the number of children going to school on bicycles.

So the children must travel on bicycles, which everyone knows is highly dangerous under modern traffic conditions, because the London Transport Board puts dividends to shareholders before children's lives, and because the working-class parents cannot afford to pay full fares.

Here we see not only the iniquity of capitalism, but also the uselessness of trying to patch it up and refashion it. For the London Transport Board was initiated by a Labour Government, when Mr. Herbert Morrison was Minister of Transport, and completed by the National Government.

There is nothing to do with capitalism except to abolish it. Transport services will then be run for the use of the community, and lives will not be endangered for the sake of private interest.

#    #    #    #

The Crime of Being Poor 

The Problem of Wives Separated from their Husbands

According to The Times (November 9th) every year 20,000 people are sent to jail because of inability to pay fines, or keep up payments for wife or child maintenance, or pay rates. The evil has caused so much outcry that the Government is trying to lessen the number of imprisonments. Justices are empowered and advised in future to impose imprisonment less frequently. Even so, the practice is not to be abolished. As The Times puts it: “For some offenders . . . who have no means to pay imprisonment may be necessary as the only alternative penalty appropriate to the offence." In other words, the rich will continue to escape jail because they have money, and the poor will still be imprisoned for the crime of poverty.

The stupid callousness of capitalism, and the futility of trying to reform it are brought home by the Government's attitude towards working-class husbands and wives in cases of maintenance. In the past husbands without means have been ordered to pay, and because they cannot pay have been sent to jail, where they are, of course, unable to earn anything at all. The wife gets nothing. The Government, after years and years of deep cogitation by highly-paid lawyers, has solved the problem. In future, such men are not to be jailed, and the Courts are to refrain from letting their sympathy with the wife lead them to order big payments from the poverty-stricken husband. So far so good. But surely the real problem is that here you have husbands and wives, living in an age when wealth production is easier than ever before, unable to find enough to keep themselves, let alone each other. But the all-wise law cannot be bothered with such trumpery things as the life and happiness of human beings, so we have The Times interpreting the new attitude of the Government in the following phrases: —

    There is nothing the Court can do to help the woman where the man’s resources have no margin beyond what is necessary for his subsistence. If he can only pay a small sum, which is insufficient for the woman's needs, that is not a reason for ordering the payment of a higher amount.

In a sane world, a Socialist world, these stupid problems will not exist. Women will not be dependent for their livelihood on men, and then we shall not need to have too-clever lawyers mocking the victims of poverty with nonsensical solutions to a problem only Socialism can solve. The relationship of men and women will cease to be poisoned by poverty or by economic dependence.

#    #    #    #

State Maintenance of Children

One of the reforms long advocated in this and other countries is the provision of free meals for the children of poor parents. Thirty or forty years ago the Social Democratic Federation and Newcastle Labour Electoral organisation were among the many advocates of such proposals. The S.D.F. asked for “ free maintenance for the children in all Board schools," and the Newcastle organisation wanted “free compulsory education: Boards to have power to provide free meals for the children." It may be said that to some extent their demands have been met, for under the Education Acts local education authorities have power to provide meals. In 1933, out of 5,000,000 children at elementary schools, about 400,000 were provided with meals, and of this 400,000 about 269,000 received meals free of cost.

An alternative scheme is the system of “family allowances," that is, special payments made to parents in respect of the maintenance of dependent children. Schemes of this kind are in operation in France, Australia and several other countries.

What is the Socialist attitude towards these proposals? While we sympathise with the motive which is in the minds of some of the advocates (but not of all) of raising the workers' standard of life, that must not be allowed to blind us to the emptiness of all such schemes. We must not forget that we live under capitalism, and that the kind of child maintenance which the capitalists and their Governments will consent to introduce is not at all the kind desired by some of the more simple-minded enthusiasts who ask for this reform. Miss Eleanor Rathbone, who is a leading propagandist for family allowances, makes no secret of the fact that her intention is nothing more than to spread the poverty of the working class more evenly. She does not intend that the workers' standard of living shall be raised by the grant of allowances. The money to be paid to the families with children is to be collected from the working class unmarried men and women. In other words, the wages of one section of the workers are to be reduced in order to pay allowances to another section.

Again, it is essential to remember that the working class depend for their living on their wages, and wages are dependent on the cost of living. If the Government relieves working-class families of the cost of feeding their children the effect would be that wages would tend to fall correspondingly. This was the result in Vienna when the Government reduced rents to a very low level. Also, under the last Labour Government in Great Britain, a committee set up by the Government recommended lower wages for wool workers because the workers are now relieved of the cost of providing for themselves during unemployment, sickness and old age. What little benefit the workers had gained through unemployment and health insurance and old age pensions was to be knocked off their wages.

That is capitalism, and while it endures all reform measures will be wrecked against the hard rocks of the capitalist basis of society.

The Socialist remedy is of quite a different character. Under Socialism, not only children, but all persons will have their necessities of life provided freely from the common stock, which it will be the task of the whole working population to produce in co-operation. It will appear, then, the height of absurdity and cruelty that in our day children should actually be punished with undernourishment and inadequate clothing and shelter for the crime of having poor parents.

Edgar Hardcastle

School dinners and the class struggle (2003)

From the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party does not oppose reformism because it is against improvements in workers' lives lest they dampen their revolutionary ardour; nor, because it thinks that decadent capitalism simply cannot deliver on any reforms; but because our continued existence as propertyless wage slaves undermines whatever attempts we make to control and better our lives through reforms. Any fortune – whether in the form of money payments or subsidised services – that falls into our laps becomes an opportunity for those that live off our labour to lower their costs, and increase their profits. So long as there is a class divided society, it becomes impossible for us to enact measures to benefit the whole community.

A clear illustration of this consequence of class-divided society is the current proposal from the ultra-reformists in the (so-called) Scottish Socialist Party to introduce universal free school dinners. A more noble aspiration could scarcely be imagined – an attempt to eradicate poor diets and consequent poor health of children, in a cheap (they say £175 million) and efficient way, without the stench of means testing or qualification. By providing food, for all, through schools, they say, they could avoid the costs associated with administering most types of welfare, and it is fraud-proof and there is no way of transferring the benefit received to third parties.

It has the added advantage of being an age-old demand, one that "Old" Labour types have long held in high regard. With all this going for it, Socialists should have no complaints, surely? Socialists, however, point to the continuing condition of our class as wage-slaves, and affirm that whatever the gains from free school dinners, the wages system will take away in another form with another hand.

The reason why lies in the very form of wage slavery. We are, collectively, compelled to sell our capacity to work – our labour power – in order to get access to those things which we need in order to live as members of our community – our food, clothes, housing, transportation and the like. The value of this labour power is the cost of maintaining and reproducing our capacity to work – and this entails the cost of keeping and rearing the next generation of workers, our children.

This value is not found by some chemical process of deciding what we need to have to keep ourselves and our families, but is instead found through the struggle between ourselves and our employers, as they try to drive our wages as low as possible, and we try to prevent this or push up the price they pay us. It is not driven by the living costs of any one individual, but by the general costs of living in society.

These general costs of living form a pressure on wages, which can force them upwards, as can the level of class consciousness and understanding of the workers; whereas counter-acting forces, such as the availability of a particular type of labour, general unemployment and the use of state power, combine to create downwards pressures on wages. All of which is to say that our wages are set by class struggle. This is a continuous struggle in which every gain has to be defended, and in which there is no relenting.

If the price of one of our necessities of life falls, this will be reflected by a decrease in the upwards pressure on wages. Without a corresponding relenting in the downward forces on wages, our real wages would begin to dwindle towards a new level (either through direct wage cuts, or by allowing inflation – that is a decrease in the value of money – to eat away at our spending power). Free school dinners would be an example of this process in action.

Those workers with children would be relieved of the cost of providing those meals to their children. This would result in a decline in the monetary cost of maintaining themselves and their family, and thus a decrease in the upwards pressure on wages. The typical wage would then tend to fall towards something nearer to living costs of those of a childless worker. This would thus benefit the employing class, both through cutting the overall direct cost of wages, but also through ending the situation in which childless workers were paid unnecessarily from the point of view of the employers.

The employer could be prevented from gaining from this process by an increase in taxation – whether nominally on the workers' wages or directly on employers' profits; this would serve to cream off the difference between the old and the new prices of labour power. In this way, the free school dinners scheme could be made to pay for itself. This would, though, merely represent a redistribution of poverty for the working class, the intervention by the state into the labour market to ensure a more efficient allocation of the workers' ration, so that children get a protected share.

Indeed, there could be a strong capitalist motive for having free school dinners. Efficiency savings through only paying the wages that are actually needed by their workers could increase their profits (especially as the majority of workers do not have children of school age). As could ensuring a healthier future generation of workers, able to work harder and cost less in terms of medical care. All of which, of course, would be subject to the ongoing profitability of the capitalist system and its current need for labour. The costs of the dinners would have to be watched closely, managers constantly pressured to keep the costs of food provided to a bare minimum.

The SSP proponents of this scheme observe that their draft bill will include provisions on nutritional content. This does not mean that the ongoing pressure will disappear. King Canute passed the well drafted Tides' Direction (Reversal) Act over a thousand years ago, to little noticeable effect. The statute books are littered with Health and Safety legislation that goes ignored and unenforced because the political will and resources are not there to counteract the profit needs of the capitalists to encroach on their provisions.

That is, assuming such a Bill would pass unamended. The SSP only have six members of the Scottish parliament, and their current strategy is to apply moral pressure to Labour and Liberal MSPs to vote for their bill; in the course of which, small amendments here and there from the more openly capitalist parties, on whose support it will depend, could well rob it even of its nominal stringency. Such amendments would be simple capitulations to the reality that the ultimate determinant of policy is the ongoing profitability of capital.

If the free school meals were deemed to be too expensive relative to the benefits and profits accruing to the capitalist class, then heavy political pressure would be added to the situation to reform the scheme. Were a Scottish Parliament to make a fight of it, then capitalists would use their capacity to disinvest in Scotland, as they would anywhere else, to go in search of better profits. That is, the limit of any reforms we could win for ourselves on the basis of the capitalist system will always be circumscribed by the need to keep the capitalist system functioning.

Of course, the SSP could fight to form an executive outright and use control of the political machinery to resist the encroachment of capital trying to claw back any costs of running the school dinners scheme. The net result of that, though, is that after going to all that time and effort, they would simply have succeeded in resuming the class struggle as before, only in the domain of the state, rather than in the workplace. Further, they would have gone to all that effort to fight for the crumbs, when by the very same means they could have put an end to the capitalist system itself.

Our objection to reformism is, then, that by ignoring the essence of class, it throws blood, sweat and tears into battles that will be undermined by the workings of the wages system. All that effort, skill, energy, all those tools could be turned against class society, to create a society of common interest where we can make changes for our common mutual benefit. So long as class exists, any gains will be partial and fleeting, subject to the ongoing struggle.

Socialists understand well the urge to do something now, to make a change. That makes us all the more determined, however, to get the message across, to gather our fellows to clear away the barrier of the wages system, so that we can begin to build a truly human society, in which children aren't given a share in a wage-slave's ration – whether at home or at school – but instead receive all the food they need without having to pay. In the face of such potential, why waste time fighting for half measures?

Pik Smeet