The General Election: Our Manifesto to the Workers. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS,

Once again the various political parties are seeking your support in a General Election. The Liberal Government, who are appealing to you to retain them in office, were boasting in January last of their “great victory” at the polls. They pointed to the anti-Lords majority of 120 as a proof of their clear mandate and sufficient backing to abolish the Lords’ veto. Yet within a few months of this “great victory”, they are again asking you to return them for the same purpose.

Hardly had the Liberals been elected when Mr. Asquith admitted that he had not got the “guarantees” without which he promised at Albert Hall  he would not hold office.

The history of the Liberal party shows that the House of Lords has nothing to fear from them. Besides acting as a trysting place for their financial supporters, it does duty as an excuse for their broken promises and procrastination. They have raised the bogey election-cry of “Down with the House of Lords!” ever since the rejection of their 1832 Reform Bill, but though in power a dozen times since then with large majorities, they have not once joined issue with the peers. Instead of “ending or mending”, they have been extending, the Second Chamber. A far greater number of peers were created in the 19th century by the Liberals than by the Tories, and they are well ahead, with a total of 40, in the 20th century. In fact, the necessity of rewarding with peerages the great contributors to the party’s funds is, doubtless, one of the reasons for the Dissolution.

After indulging in the most violent denunciation of the Lords the Liberals arranged to patch up their quarrel by holding a conference, which, after five months existence, has been abandoned “for the present” – to use Mr. Asquith’s phrase. During these months a truce was called and we told not to disturb the little game of coddem evidently being played by the wily “eight”. The Government, if returned again, obviously intend to continue the sham-fight ’til the Coronation, when we may expect another General Election – or another conference.

Although the Liberals admit that the reform in the composition of the House of Lords means strengthening it against the people, the preamble to the Government Veto Bill states that “it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”. This Bill gives the Lords power to reject every bill twice. Even one of their own members has admitted the hypocrisy of his party. Writing to the Daily Chronicle (June 20th) the Hon. J. Martin, Liberal M. P. for St. Pancras, said: “The Government have changed front several times on the House of Lords question, and on account of their wobbling since the Election, I have no hesitation in saying that I have no confidence whatever in them.” During the Dissolution debate (18.11.10) he said: “I do not believe the Government are in earnest in their fight against the Lords. With a majority of a hundred members like myself to stand by them, I do not believe there was any need for a dissolution.”

All this goes to show how fraudulent the Liberals are; but even were they sincere on this question of the Upper Chamber it would not concern you, fellow-workers. Mere political changes do not affect your economic condition. The Liberals say that there is not such a reactionary Second Chamber abroad as the British, yet you know that poverty and unemployment abound there as here.

The poverty and insecurity from which you suffer has its roots, not in political forms, but in the class ownership of the means of life. No reform, whether of Tariffs, Franchise, or Poor Law, can touch the cause; consequently the effects persist though social reforms are continually passed.

Even Lloyd George confessed, in his City Temple speech (17.10.10), that “before we succeed in remedying one evil, fresh ones crop up. We are hopelessly in error”. That is a very significant admission. But the very reforms that fail to touch the evils they are supposed to remedy are, the “wicked Lords” notwithstanding, being made the issues by the Liberals at the present election.

Very Old Age Pensions for those on the verge of the grave (adopted because they are cheaper than Poor Law relief); Labour Exchanges (organised to smash strikes and reduce wages); a specious promise to qualify the legal effects of the Osborne judgment (a sop to catch the votes of the trades unions): these are the futilities with which the Liberals mock the care-worn wage-slaves of capitalism.

The Labour Party, as we have continually pointed out, is merely a wing of the Liberal party. It is composed of job-hunters who, like Shackleton, are seeking office in Liberal administrations. Said their chairman in the House of Commons (18.11.10): “It was because the Labour Party believed the solution of the House of Lords question would be a step forward that  they supported the Government”.

Your masters are seeking your suffrages in this election because upon their control of the political machine their supremacy depends. Liberal and Tory alike are out for the maintenance of this system, which means for you a continuation of your slavery. While pretending to be in deadly enmity, they are united as one against you when you try to better your lot. They combine in Masters’ Federations and try to starve you into submission by locking you out when you seek to make your wages cover the increased cost of living – as in Lancashire. They bring the armed forces into your midst to bludgeon you and menace your very lives – as in South Wales. Through their political supremacy your masters control these forces of repression, and if you are to change the conditions under which you work and live, you must fight to get control of the machinery of Government.

In that fight you cannot take sides with any section of the capitalist class, because it is to their interest to maintain this system which means luxury and idleness for them. Neither can you support those parties which, like the Labour Party and the Social-Democratic Party, are parties of compromise and reform. (The latter of these organisations has, in its election manifesto, advised the workers to stultify themselves by voting for the Tories. Their only candidate is a champion of “a strong navy”!) Your interests, being opposed to those of the capitalists, must lead you to ally yourself with a working-class political party waging an uncompromising battle against all the forces ranged in opposition to your class.

Your emancipation can only be achieved by converting the instruments of production from the property of the few (who use them to exploit you) into the common property of society, so that they can be used to produce the requirements of life in abundance for all; in a word, Socialism must be established.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only party in this country that consistently works for this end: and as the realisation of Socialism depends upon the conversion of the workers, your place is within its ranks, striving to bring your fellow-workers into line, helping to hasten the day when the fratricidal warfare of capitalism is supplanted by the fraternal co-operation that Socialism alone can ensure.

Pending the time when the workers rally in greater numbers to the Socialist Party, and so enable it to take its proper place in electoral contests as the only working-class political party in this country, it has no candidates in the field. Hence all candidates before you at this election, whether they be openly and avowedly capitalist, or slink at the heels of the Liberals under the title of I.L.P., S.D.P., Labour or Socialist, stand for the maintenance of capitalism, and from the position we have outlined your duty is plain.

ABSTAIN FROM VOTING

on this occasion, and, lest the enemy impersonate you, go to the ballot-box and inscribe “SOCIALISM!” upon your voting paper. Above all, the work that lies before you is to enlist the support of your fellows in the fight for Socialism, for that alone can deliver you from the misery which to-day you endure.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Walthamstow. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Walthamstow electorate had two capitalist candidates to choose from. Of course, it was left to the S.P.G.B. to point out this aspect of the situation. During the week preceding the election the Party members held meetings practically every evening, all of which were very largely attended and attentively followed. A leaflet, brief but to the point, was distributed throughout the division, pointing out that Liberal and Tory were equally the enemies of the working class, and advising the latter to abstain from voting, and to write “Socialism” across their ballot papers.

This caused consternation in the enemy’s camp, particularly among the psuedo-Socialists. The Executive Council of the Social-Democratic Party published a manifesto (passed by the local branch by a majority of about four after two or three special meetings had been held) calling upon the working class to vote Tory. “Treachery and lying” said these fine judges of treachery and lying, “are even worse than arrogance and brutality.” Even so, but in their case the deeper dye of the first named obnoxious qualities does not cover up the persistent stain of arrogance and brutality. Said the manifesto further: “Fellow Workers, both the capitalist factions are your enemies. . . . Vote, therefore, against Simon.” The logic of the “therefore” is, of course, irresistible, and doubtless it constrained multitudes to vote for Johnson, one of “the Tories who, during their 17 years tenure of power proved themselves quite as indifferent to the welfare of the people at home … as Liberals and Radicals.” (Justice. 29.l0.10.)

One thing, at least, the S.D.P. succeeded in doing during the election, that is, in showing again what an anti-working-class party they are.

Their decision to vote Tory was probably the result of the discussion in Justice a few months back on what they should do with their votes.

The I.L.P. also issued a manifesto urging the workers to vote against the Liberal on the ground that he refused to give a definite promise that he and the Liberal party would work for the reversal of the Osborne judgment. This was distinctly funny, for, as the Tory papers pointed out at the time, Mr. Johnson, the Tory candidate, had stated very clearly that he upheld the Osborne judgment. That a large number of the workers saw through the I.L.P. trickery is certain, particularly in view of the fact that only ten months previously the same party were shouting themselves hoarse advising the electors to vote for Simon !

However, if figures count for anything, the combined efforts of the I.L.P. and S.D.P. had little other result than to expose their own weakness, for the Liberal increased his majority by 571 votes, while the total poll was 2,677 less than at the General Election.

J. T. B.

Editorial: Sold Again! (1910)

Editorial from the July 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the General Election was being fought we pointed out again and again that the struggle over the Lords’ Veto was nothing but a sham fight. On Parliament assembling complete proof of the truth of this contention was given by Mr. Asquith (“treacherously,” the Labour Leader said) refusing to deal with the House of Lords as the first item of business (“treachery” in which the Labour Party assisted).

Pressure from the Irish Party and a few of the left wing of the Liberal party forced the reluctant Government to bring forward the Veto, concerning which a series of resolutions was passed by the House of Commons.

All this, of course, was very annoying and very awkward for the managers of the Liberal party, who found themselves in a deuce of a quandary, and had no relish for the task they were forced to handle in some way. How to get out of the difficulty was a question that worried them sorely.

In the midst of their perplexity relief came to them suddenly and from an unexpected quarter. The King died. It is indeed an ill wind that blows no good to anybody. With his accustomed thoughtfulness, his quite remarkable faculty for doing the right thing at the right moment. King Edward had provided a splendid pretext for abandoning the sham hostilities against the Lords. In a few hours the capitalist press had so completely engineered the public feeding, that to have remained true to election pledges would have been accounted sacrilege ranking with the sin against the Holy Ghost.

So, when Caesar, having assuaged his grief in sack doth and ashes, had led his flunkey home again, the bitter enemies buried the axe under the turf of national mourning, reached across the grave of the dead monarch as it were, and shook hands.

Edward the Peacemaker !

So the Veto is dodged and the working class providentially (it is important to observe the finger of God in it all) add again.

Acting upon (as the Press glibly puts it) “instructions received from very high quarters” (himself in all probability) Mr. Asquith proceeds to arrange a conference with the Opposition (!) leaders for the purpose of deciding how they will clip the wings of the intolerant Lords without in any way reducing their power of flight.

A lovely farce! But who shall say it will not play its part ? Of course, as far as we, who have never attached any importance to the question of the Lords’ Veto, quite apart from the matter of the sincerity or otherwise of the pronouncements of the other political parties regarding it as far, we repeat, as we are concerned, there is no cause for complaint; but it is interesting to note how deplorably easy it is to bluff the workers into the belief that such an event as the death of a king is a sufficient reason for throwing overboard the chief plank upon which the election was fought.

And, as far as the capitalist Press can influence the working class, such tactics will prevail. But even now we may almost put a term to the period when the workers allow others to do all their thinking for them. The lying Liberals and canting Conservatives may win this time and the workers be sold again and yet again, but every day has its lesson for the workers. Thus the horror of Whitehaven is a counterblast to the “mourning” mummeries for the official head of British capitalism that all the canting hypocritical letters of “sympathy” from titled persons cannot belittle. So year by year the light grows stronger, and the number who can see things in their true perspective grows greater, and the whirligig of time, with his innumerable lessons of experience, sweeps us on, much more rapidly, perhaps, than even the most far-seeing of the master class imagine, toward the period when the working class will conquer the powers of Government for themselves, and enter into possession of the world as they make it, to be “sold’’ no more.

Editorial: Our Position. (1910)

Editorial from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, during the last General Election, took up the only attitude the working class, conscious of its own position, can assume, viz., contemptuous indifference for the intrigues of its masters for political power, with a determination of pushing the working-class point of view forward as the only one interesting it.

The capitalist class in selecting those questions upon which to summon its supporters among the workers to rally, necessarily has to choose from among those making the widest appeal, and the explanation of the “democratic” tendency imparted to modem electioneering is that the working class has to bulk largely in the programme in order to be persuaded to lend its polling strength to this or that set of the masters’ political servants. The Election of this year was eminently typical of this in placing so far to the front the question of those constitutional changes alleged to be designed for the safeguarding of the privileges of the “democracy" on the one side, and the more direct appeal to sections of workers on behalf of fiscal changes ostensibly designed for the purpose of improving trade and mitigating, if not solving, the particularly working-class question of unemployment on the other.

The utterly fraudulent nature of the first position is clear from the arguments put forward by the Peers themselves and their apologists in the Commons. The virtual rejection of the Budget was not effected directly by the Lords as a right, but was done in the name of democracy by referring it to the ultimate tribunal— the people; since when, those who support this action have been protesting that it never was, or will be, the intention of the Lords to stand between the definitely expressed will of the people and its legislative outcome. The very fact that they should have seen fit to cloak their action under the guise of democracy makes it abundantly clear that they recognise the undoubted power of the “people,” as represented in the Commons, to legislate in their own way at their own pleasure. The “Constitutional outrage,” therefore, that was put forward sufficiently successfully to invoke the support of the S.D.P. in shouting “Down with the House of Lords,” has no terror for the Socialist desiring to give expression to his readiness for the economic change he seeks, because he knows that, no matter how often you refer the question of Socialism to a Socialist working class, the vote will necessarily be “for” every time, and any such delay but strengthens his hand when the Peers give way. Which is not to say they will give way as readily on so vital a matter to their interests as Socialism, as they will on such an issue as the Budget, but the alleged “outrage,” so far as their defence has been carried, specifically maintains the final decision to rest with the people themselves. More than that no Socialist requires. It is not conceivable that Socialism can be forced on an unwilling or unready working class, who, when converted, can under existing political conditions—“outrage” as well —say so.

The “Tariff Reform” nostrum requires little demolishing. If all that were claimed for it by its advocates were taken as granted—increased business included—the position of the workers would still manifest the same relative position of poverty amid the increasing wealth they produce, and would still demand the same solution—ownership of the instruments they use.

That Socialist objective is the only thing that matters to us who are Socialists. Its achievement is possible whenever the bulk of our fellows are of like opinion, howsoever the political or other barriers are arranged by our opponents, the capitalist class; and its achievement is not possible while we have a minority, under any conceivable political or social circumstances. To produce that majority is the immediate object of the Socialist, by which time the movements of our rulers may have created a position entirely different from the present one in its political aspect. But in those movements we can have no part: they concern them, not us. We know that the economic position of our class is incapable of any essential improvement within the limits of capitalism, and are therefore out for its abolition, and we refuse to stay our hand from that work for anything any section of the masters like to propose for our temporary benefit economically, or for the alleged purpose of facilitating our movement politically. It is thus we make ourselves Socialists in the present, and it is thus we shall win Socialism in the future.

The present political situation makes more than ever necessary the Party which alone in this country is emphasising the need for conscious working-class action along political lines for the realisation of Socialism—the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Election Notes. (1910)

From the February 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The meet important feature of the election of 1910 was the circulation of our Manifesto. It was the largest free distribution of literature we have yet undertaken, and Press notices from most unexpected quarters amply prove that it has found its way into many and far distant parts of the country. That we have succeeded in preventing some, at least, of the working class from being side-tracked into the sham fights of the masters is shown by the increasing number who, having gone to the poll, wrote SOCIALISM across their paper. The appearance of these intelligently "spoilt’" papers at Haggerston caused Mr. Herbert Burrows to look glum, while it told the astute politician something it would be well for Mr. Burrows and bis kind to endeavour to understand.

#    #    #    #

Another feature, and that also a gratifying one, was the large number of meetings we were able to hold—these being attended, even in very bad weather, by large and attentive audiences. Where opponents took our platform they readily (and always favourably) contrasted our meetings with the political hooliganism of those of other parties.

Again, in heckling candidates and their supporters and in issuing challenges to debate, our comrades lost no opportunity for steady, serious educative propaganda, and have the satisfaction of winning all along the line.

#    #    #    #

With the enemy it was different, however, and perhaps it falls to the Social-Democratic Party to provide the most illogical, as well as the most tragic, feature of the campaign. The former is found in their trying to work with the Liberals at Northampton (see front page) and in helping the Tories at Battersea while opposing both elsewhere, as at Burnley. The latter is found in their excuse for abject failure, when they say :

  It is useless to disguise the fact that we have lost. Moral victories do not count in this unequal game; unfortunately tactless blunders do: and we should have done much better in at least three of the seats contested if what we regard as distinct errors of judgment had not been committed at critical moments in the campaign. The hysterical desire of some of our comrades to correct the slightest inaccuracy on the part of a candidate or his Supporters is also a ridiculous but effective weapon in the enemy's hands. (Justice, 22.1.10. Italics ours.)

This, however, but serves to show that Mr. Hyndman was right when he described his followers as being “destitute of political aptitude." They are evidently likewise destitute of a knowledge of Socialist principles.

#    #    #    #

The above is almost equalled by the "Independent" Labour Party in their attempt to explain away their candidate's defeat at East Bristol. Says the Labour Leader (28.1.10) : "Had the election taken place on the 15th instead of the 17th we could have won, but the intervention of Sunday permitted the Unionist gains to strengthen the electors’ adherence to their old party's traditions." As the Liberal majority over the “Labour" man was 4,549, it would seem that the 15 Unionist gains had frightened 4,549 Labour stalwarts! ! !

#    #    #    #

In the deluge of "cold, calculated frigids" inseparable from a contest where the master class strive with each other for the votes of the working class, it is difficult to make a selection, but for sheer, unadulterated egotism and political mendacity the palm may fairly be given to Mr. Lloyd George. Angling for voles in Wales this gentleman declared : "The first thing I am going to do is this. I am going to cleanse the land of poverty and want." (Morning Leader, 18.1.10.) As a demagogue he has out-Hunnabled Hunnable, but to an intelligent audience his statement simply carried the essence of refined insult. 

#    #    #    #

A feature of this election, showing the scarcely veiled contempt the Liberals have for their “Labour" allies, is seen in the return of Mr. Spencer L. Hughes for Stockport. This gentleman had previously entered the field to spoil the chances of Mr. P. Curran, a “Labour" man, at Jarrow bye-election (1907) and similarly at Bermondsey (1909) against Mr. Salter, another “Labour” man, and now as a reward (or as a gauge of his abilities) he is found a “safe seat" at Stockport, but — the irony of it — he had this time to run with a “Labour" man. When the result was known he declared : “My colleague and I kept 'Down with the Lords’ and 'Free Trade' to the front." Had Mr. Wardle of the Labour Party, the colleague in question, been anything more than a Liberal he would not have forgotten Jarrow and Bermondsey but would have resented association with this Liberal hack as an insult to organised Labour. Doubtless, however, four years environment "doing odd jobs in the Liberal workshop " has lowered (as Mr. Curran himself would say) the moral outlook of this Laboural M.P.

#    #    #    #

“Motor cars lent by Lord Llangattock and Lady St. Heller conveyed five working-men voters from Raglan, Monmouthshire to Walthamstow, a distance of nearly 200 miles by road." (Evening News, 26.1.10.)

Comment it needless.

#    #    #    #

Says Reynolds' Newspaper (16.1.10): “Seeing that statements have been made to the effect that Mr. W. Thorne is a Labour plutocrat, it is as well to give his salary as organising secretary of the Gasworkers Union, it is £3 a week. In Parliamentary allowances he has about another £3 a week. The problem is how it is done on the Money." Of course, the above sum is not all, but even at £6 a week the problem really is what the workers get for it; and there is little doubt that there are many even on the staff of Reynolds' who would willingly take the job on at a lower figure, to say nothing of many of the unemployed who would make a much better job of it at half the price.

#    #    #    #

Our Tottenham comrades are to be congratulated on having so far cornered Mr. P. Alden, M.P. as to get him to accept a challenge to debate publicly the claims of the Liberal Party to the confidence of the workers. More particularly so as in his constituency there are two branches of the Independent Labour Party and these are severely split over the support given by their members to this gentleman — who is ready to defend the Liberal Party in debate against a Socialist.

Alex Anderson

General Election: Manifesto of The Socialist Party. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS,

Unlike the usual election manifesto, this is addressed to those who have not a vote as well as to those who have. Its object is to gain, not your vote, but your understanding. You think, perhaps, that the choice now before you is only between the various candidates clamouring for your support. But there is, as we shall show, another alternative that follows logically and inevitably from the position of the working class. And since a knowledge of this position is essential to intelligent political action, we shall deal briefly with it first, and ask you in consequence to give it a moment’s attention.

WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

It is your lot to toil for a master while you can, and to starve quietly when you cannot. When you are in work to-day, you toil harder, and produce enormously more than ever before, — yet your wage barely suffices for your maintenance. Unemployment, with all the misery it entails upon you and those dependent upon you, dogs your footsteps. Of the total produce of your labour an increasing portion goes to an idle class, while, though you make all the good things, you are forced to consume the cheapest rubbish. Why is this?

Are you poor because there is not abundance of the necessaries of life? Is it because the means of producing them are insufficient, or because there are not willing hands to labour? No. There are hosts of willing labourers. And the instruments of labour become every day more perfect and more productive. Surely, then, with marvellous labour-saving machines and huge waste-saving combines, there should be increased wealth and leisure for all. Why, then, is it that wealth and leisure are only for a class, while poverty and arduous toil are the lot of the producers ?

You have noticed that when a labour-saving machine is introduced into a factory to-day, men are thrown out of work to starve. The toil and insecurity of those who remain in employ are increased, while only the owner of that machine reaps the benefit. Clearly, however, if those who produce owned the machine, the result would be entirely different; there would be shorter hours of labour and higher remuneration for them. It is, consequently, not the machine that injures us, but the ownership of it by the non-producer. Because the workers do not own and control the land and industrial machinery they are the hirelings of those who do own these things, and must sell their bodily energy to them. Thus the propertyless are compelled to cede to the capitalist class the whole product of their labour over and above their maintenance. That is why, so long as class ownership continues, greater poverty for the working class will accompany the increasing wealth and productivity of society.

The abolition of unemployment and the brightening of the workers’ lives can. consequently, only come with the abolition of wage-slavery and of class ownership in the instruments of production. The means for producing wealth must be restored to the workers; and this, to-day, can only be done collectively. This collective ownership and democratic control of industry scientifically organised is SOCIALISM.

And while there is admittedly no other remedy for unemployment and poverty, there is also no way to Socialism except by means of the conquest of political power by a Socialist working class. Your rulers expend huge sums to retain their control of Government in order to maintain and extend their exploitation. And in advancing to the conquest of the political machinery, we shall, consequently, always find the capitalist class our implacable enemy. As in the past, each side will struggle for its interests as it understands them, and the interests of the working class being diametrically opposed to those of all the capitalists, no quarter can be expected or given. Any alliance or compromise with capitalists in the political struggle can only be a working class surrender. Hence the supreme importance of adhering consistently to the fundamental Socialist principle of the CLASS STRUGGLE. For it is only when the wealth-producers control political power— only when the workers are victorious — that the work of transforming the means of production from ruthless instruments of profit for a few into the means of healthy life for all, can begin.

In the light of these facts let us examine the political parties which are begging for your support during the present election, taking first

THE TORY PARTY.

Tariff Reform, say the Conservatives, is just what you need. It will relieve the admittedly terrible unemployed evil, will improve the lot of the worker and increase his wages. These and similar Tory statements can only be described as “frigid and calculated lies.’" The position of the worker as outlined above holds good of every capitalist country, whether it has Protection or Free Trade. Poverty and unemployment are rife, and tend to increase, despite temporary fluctuations, under both fiscal systems. In every country the wage of the worker has a direct relation to his cost of subsistence, but none whatever to the presence or absence of tariff walls. Tariffs, at most, benefit one set of capitalists at the expense of another, but the toilers are wage slaves exploited to the utmost all the time. The 'Tories, indeed, are frankly our enemies; they stand for the present system of robbery in all its ugliness. 'Their antagonism to working-class aims has been proclaimed from the house tops, and by supporting them the working man stultifies himself and sets a seal on his slavery. Let us now turn to

THE LIBERAL PARTY.

Equally with the Tories they stand for capitalism, and make no secret of their hostility to Socialism As Dr. Macnamara said, “Radicalism is irrevocably opposed to the principles on which Socialism is based.” [1] Mr. Asquith, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Churchill have been equally definite. Take the present Budget over which so much bother is being made. The increased expenditure is due, above all, to huge armaments for the protection of capitalist interests and property. It is a Budget of exploitation. Its disputed taxes have been advocated by Tories, and are in operation in other countries with no benefit to the workers. The only valid grounds for the Tory objections are the exigencies of party politics, and the possibility that the new sources of revenue may postpone the necessity for a tax on imports.

Mr. Lloyd George rightly summed up the overdone Tory opposition and showed what the Budget really is when he said [2]

   When I come along and say to the landlord: “Here, the State wants money to protect you and your property —your land —your mansion —your rights —your privileges: we want money to protect you; you must pay ,£15 out of £150 —they say Robber!"

And do they intend to abolish the House of Lords? Mr. Asquith said: [3]

   You will be told that the issue lies between government by two chambers and government by a single chamber. That is not the case. I myself, and I believe a large majority of the Liberal party are in favour of what is called a bi-cameral system.

Thus the Liberals do not intend, and, indeed, never have intended, to abolish the House of Lords. That institution is regarded by the capitalist class as a great bulwark of the “rights of property," and any reform of the Upper House, put forward by the Lords themselves, the Tories, or the Liberals, can only result in strengthening it against the people. The Liberal party would, moreover, be impossible without the Lords as a foil. It is their perpetual election cry and universal excuse for broken promises. Indeed, while pretending to protest against usurpation, the Liberals have deliberately canceled new privileges. After saying that to dissolve at the dictation of the Lords would be to capitulate, they have deliberately capitulated. Instead of making use of the undoubted rights of the Commons, or using the power which Lord Courtney [4] has shown that the Government possesses over the Lords, the Liberals have given the Upper House the powerful precedents and privileges of rejecting a Budget and compelling a dissolution; precedents which even the ultimate passing of the present finance bill will neither destroy nor weaken. Even the Church Times was moved to remark that “There is only one true description of the situation—ministers have capitulated to the House of Lords." [5] It is seemingly part of a great conspiracy to strengthen the Upper Chamber and humbug the people. There is every reason, therefore, why your attitude toward Liberal candidates should be one of uncompromising hostility.

But we have not quite finished with the Liberal party. There is still a section of it which claims our attention. We refer to

THE LABOUR PARTY.

(which includes the so-called Independent Labour Party). The Labour M.P.s cannot be completely separated from the Liberals in politics, for their political independence is non-existent. “My Budget," says Mr. Lloyd George. “My Budget," says Mr. Philip Snowden. [6] They are "whole heartedly" for the capitalists’ Budget. And it is amusing to find them trying to assure the murmuring rank and file that no understanding with the Liberals exists, in face of the withdrawal of “Labour" men in favour of Liberals, and of Liberals in favour of “Labour" men. One does not. of course, expect to find a written compact. It might become awkward evidence while, as the Times says. “With friends who understand each other so well it is unnecessary.” [7] Quite so. The compromise of the last General Election, in fact, is being repeated on a more complete scale.

The legislatively impotent “Labour” members claim as theirs measures passed by the Liberal majority, and are now engaged in booming the bogus agitation over the Lords and the Budget, and in rallying the workers once more to the support of the Liberal section of the exploiting class.

That there is no Socialism in the “Labour” group is proven by the welcome given them by the anti-Socialist Liberals. Mr. Churchill said: [8]

   Don't let there be any division in our ranks at this juncture. I know that the Lords and their backers are counting on divisions between Liberal and Labour But I think they are likely to be a little bit mistaken.

Several of the newer candidates have been speaking plainly of the pressure brought to bear on them to force them to retire in favour of the Liberals. Mr. Vernon Hartshorn made a vigorous protest. He said : [9]

  I would have gone on in spite of this, but I have been reluctantly compelled, from circumstances of a very personal kind, to conclude that the whole machinery of the Labour Party throughout the country is under the control of the Liberals, and as the latter did not approve of a fight in Mid-Glamorgan, the former are left with no option but to submit to their masters, and I am left with no option but to surrender.

Of such is the “Independence” of the “Labour” Party. The workers pay the piper and their misters call the tune!

There is, however, another organisation, which need not be given a distinct heading We refer to the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This organisation talks of the Class Struggle, but denies it by its every political act. and does not otherwise differ from the “Labour” Party, which it jealously emulates. One of their number. Mr. Will Thorne, was elected in 1906 as a “Labour” member under the auspices of the Labour Party, and is a candidate now under similar conditions. In the present instance the political worthlessness of the S.D.P. may be gauged by the fact that in their official organ, while they denounce the campaign against the Lords as a mere "stage fight,” and assert that the “ Liberals do not wish to abolish the veto of the Lords,” on another page they publish as leading article “A Plea for Unity,” in which they say : [10]

   We are inclined to accede to the claim of ministerial journals and politicians that in the present contest we should be content to waive every other consideration and make the question of the House of Lords the supreme issue, and therefore avoid on this occasion all division of the forces which might be arrayed against the House of Lords. We are all for showing an undivided front against them.

And they conclude this touching appeal by suggesting to the Liberals that they refrain from opposing their candidates and help to get them returned. If the S.D.P. has not “got on” it is not because it has any principles that stand in the way. It “waives every other consideration," including every vestige of Socialist principle, in order to get into Parliament, and offers to aid the Liberals in what it confesses to be a bogus agitation.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

It is evident that from your standpoint as wage-workers none of the foregoing parties is worthy of your support. Not by voting for any of them could you strike a blow for your class. Indeed, from the position laid down it is obvious that the only party you should support must be in direct contrast with these parties. Your party should be democratic. It should have Socialism as its programme and the Class Struggle as its guiding principle. Its candidates should be controlled by the rank and file. It should devote its energies to converting the workers to Socialism, and to organising them for the conquest of political power for its realisation. It should never compromise with capitalist parties, and should refuse to barter away the workers’ salvation for crumbs that profit not. 'That is the party that you should support, and for its candidates alone could you logically vote. Only one party answers to that description in this country—the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN. But since the ground must be well tilled before the good harvest can be reaped, that party is putting no candidates forward during the present election. Even the poverty which impedes the activity of the working- class party is in itself only a reflex of the present unreadiness of the electorate. Therefore the principles of Socialism must be more widely propagated and the workers more fully organised, before candidates of the Socialist Party can usefully enter the Parliamentary arena. And if you agree that your position is as we have outlined it; if you realise that your policy must be distinct from and hostile to all capitalist politics, and that Socialism alone can help your class, then it is your duty to join the Socialist Party and take a democratic share in its work; thus advancing the day—not far distant—when it will place its own candidates— your candidates—in the Parliamentary field to wage uncompromisingly the fight for Socialism. But until you can thus vote for yourselves and strike a blow against exploitation, it is clearly your duty to ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.

To do otherwise would be to-stultify yourselves and to support the system that crushes you. Go to the ballot box by all means, but only to write Socialism across your voting paper; for if you cannot vote now for what you want, it is folly to vote for what you do not want. The vote, like the razor, is an instrument for a purpose. If you cannot for the moment use it to your advantage, it is madness to cut your throat. And by voting for your enemies, for traitors and charlatans, you are surely cutting your throat.

Above all, however, whether you have a vote or not, realise how much depends upon you and how much remains to be done. A vote, even for a candidate of the Socialist Party, is of no value unless it expresses a Socialist consciousness. Understanding must precede action, for Socialism is impossible until the workers become class-conscious Socialists. There is, therefore, work for you to do. There are outlets for your energy infinitely more profitable to your class than voting for the defenders of exploitation. The army of Socialism must be recruited, and your place is within the ranks of the organisation of your class, taking your part in the battle for the emancipation of your fellows from wage-slavery.

                                             THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF 

                                     THE  SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

NOTES
[1] Daily Chronicle, Oct. 21.
[2] Carnavon (italics are ours).
[3] Albert Hall, Dec. 10.
[4] House of Lords, Nov. 30.
[5] Quoted Daily Chronicle, Dec. 6.
[6] Portsmouth Dec. 3.
[7] Dec. 9.
[8] Crewe, Dec. 9.
[9] Quoted Daily Mail, Dec. 8.
[10] Justice, Dec. 11 (italics are ours).

The Quarrel 'Twixt Mr. A. And Mr. B. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other’s neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had ‘Dum' embroidered on his collar, and the other ‘Dee.’ ‘I suppose they’ve each got ‘Tweedle’ round at the back of the collar,’ she said to herself.  . . .
  “Of course you agree to have a battle?’ Tweedledum said in a calmer tone.
  “ ‘I suppose so,’ the other sulkily replied.’’

At the present juncture, now that the nerve-shattering crisis has at last arrived, it may be as well to think for awhile in what way working-class interests will be affected by the result of the present electoral struggle. The gauntlet has been thrown down by Mr. A. on behalf of his party, and has been eagerly taken up by the astute Mr. B. The leaders and their immediate followers are endeavouring to arouse the rank and file to a sense of the solemnity of the occasion. We are in the throes of a life or death conflict, the like of which has not been known for centuries. So we are told, at least. Yet, strange as it may seem, some few of us appear to care very little about this momentous issue. Whisperings have even emanated from certain sceptical quarters that the battle is not altogether genuine, that the Champion of Nonconformity and the Knight of Philosophic Doubt are not such implacable enemies as they pretend.

Perhaps, it all becomes a question of the point of view. The human race, as a whole, has developed, in a more or less perfect degree, the sense of sight. But very few of its members dare face, clear-eyed, the naked truth. Most men, fearful of blindness, and therefore, maybe, wise in their generation, prefer to examine all things through the blurred and smoky glasses of ignorance and prejudice. If the writer were a Liberal or Tory democrat, or, worse still, if he were a member of the I.L.P., he might imagine that the result of the 1910 General Election would change, for the better or worse, his present unenviable position in society. But not belonging to either of the hybrid political types above mentioned, be entirely fails to see how the workers as a class ever have been, or ever can be, affected by the results of the various struggles for political supremacy which take place periodically between certain sections of the capitalist class. Liberals, Tories and Labour men are alike thundering from their platforms their party cries. “Down with the House of Lords!’’ “Tariff Reform forever!’’ “Long live the Budget! ” and so on. Perhaps some of these “leaders of the people” will give us a little information as to whether, for example, the abolition of the House of Lords will change those huddled backed wrecks of humanity, to be seen any night reposing on the Embankment seats, back into men and women; or whether Tariff Reform will stamp out anthrax from among the Bradford wool-combers; or whether even such a munificient measure as “the People’s Budget” will enable the people to live as human beings should live rather than to rot and seethe in the hell of modern industrialism.

All over the country at the present moment the workers are listening, open-mouthed and credulous, to the specious promises of Mr. A. and Mr. B. and their lieutenants. Mr. A. is telling us in his usual lawyer like phraseology, that steps must he taken to see that never again shall the House of Commons be subjected to the indignities to which it has been forced to submit; while the metaphysical Mr. B. is explaining how Tariff Reform is not Protection, but only an attenuated form of Free Trade. In a week or two we members of the working-class will be registering our votes for one or other of our respective candidates. We shall make our choice for many and varied reasons. One of us will vote in a certain way because the candidate has a pretty wife; another because "well, he might do something or other for us if we give the chap another chance." We shall vote for any and every reason except for the one reason that really matters. What a tragic farce it all is! The working-class voters of the country hold in their hands the absolute power to free themselves from the misery and poverty in which they live and by which they are surrounded. And yet, time after time, election after election, they follow the political will-o’-the-wisps dancing before their eyes, to find themselves at the end sinking deeper in the slough of Capitalism, almost without hope of ever altering their condition.

There may be certain critical apologists for Parliamentary procedure, who, on reading the above, will insist that we Socialists have no business to interfere with the freedom of the working class to vote. They will complain, perhaps, that we only listen to Liberal and Tory politicians in order to jeer at them, and that while we are quite at liberty to abstain from voting for any but Socialist candidates, we have no right to attempt to persuade others to do likewise. Well, business or no business, right or no right, we shall continue our tactics, we shall advise our fellow-workers to vote for no one bat a Socialist. It is our class—the working class— that in every case puts these charlatans, these sham knights of a grail they have defiled, into political power. That is the irony and the pity of it. Whether—by means of the working-daw vote, be it remembered—the Liberals or the Tories are returned as a body, the conditions under which the workers exist will not be improved one whit. Unemployment, misery, poverty, intellectual and bodily degradation, will increase year by year whether Mr. A. or. Mr. B. is the titular leader of the House of Commons. Not until the workers understand their own position in society and in Nature will there be any chance of an improvement in their condition. Only when this knowledge dawns upon them, when, as a consequence, they join themselves together into a conscious political force to seize political power, in order to use that power in their own interests, will they be enabled, as a result of so doing, to stand erect, free men and free women, reaping and garnering for themselves the world-wide harvest of their mental and physical labour.

F. J. Webb

Editorial: Workers Elect - What? (1911)

Editorial from the January 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The excitement is over and the “most momentous question of modem times” is decided—for the second time. The fatuousness of the whole proceeding save from the point of view of those concerned to throw dust and gain time is indicated by the fact that the returns are almost identical with those of eleven months previously.

Of course, those fiends of darkness, the Lords, have been again soundly thrashed, and this time the road to the Liberal "Earthly Paradise” is to be unbarred. True, the noble creature whom Providence has granted the privilege of empire, the monopoly of work, and a big dinner once a year, has not betrayed that intense interest the occasion would seem to call for. But the wily ones know how to move him, and have judiciously prodded him to the polls — and for what ?

To place Britain at the mercy of the foreigner say some. To end or mend the Lords say others.

To bind his fetters tighter; to give his exploiters another lease of life; to check Socialism (Mr. Lloyd George—vide speech)—thus only can the Socialist answer.

The first have succeeded in roping in a large proportion of working cattle, but the wicked foreigner and his Radical allies are still at large.

The Liberals, on the other hand, are jubilant They have, in a measure, succeeded. True, they are still dependent upon factions to keep them in office, but they have what they asked for: a large majority to do things to the House of Lords. With this cry and a few minor promises they are returned fairly secure in office.

All these good people, Liberal, Conservative or what not, are quite honourable gentlemen, of course, imbued with a love of “British fair-play.” Consider, for instance, the way in which the spokesmen of both parties handle that old "Clarion” wheeze, the Referendum. The Tories with a great show of democracy, proposed to put the more momentous measures to a vote of the electors. Trust the people! was their election cry. The Liberals, however, the "People’s Party,” denounced it as unsound, impracticable, and revolutionary. The vaunted democracy of the latter is exposed in their attitude on this matter, while the sincerity of the Tories may be gauged from the fact that no sooner was it evident that they could not win than Mr. A. Chamberlain repudiated this extravagant “trust” in the people.

However, we are faced with a situation where the “People” are to come into their own. There are to be all kinds of democratic reforms, destined, it seems, to keep the Liberal party in power indefinitely. Some of these, they say, will have to be deferred ’til 1913—or, we suggest, 2013, so rapid is the age. But if the deluded proletarians will but examine the whole list,— "limitation of the Lords' veto," unemployment assurance, payment of members, and the rest — they will see that when all are enacted (if ever they are) their poverty-stricken, driven-beast existence will remain intact. "Down with the House of Lords” is even better as a vote-catcher than the more precise and much milder Asquithian phrase, and, as a trick to obscure the fact that a clean sweep of the House of Commons is required to make any real betterment in the condition of the workers possible, it speaks volumes for their devilish cunning, if not for their ingenuity.

No, friends, it is not because there is a Lords’ veto that we are in poverty and misery; it is because the means of livelihood are private property. Hence it is the whole social system, with its property basis, that we have to attack. And our line of attack is not through the Lords, but by working-class organisation —and through the Commons.

"'Should Socialists Affiliate With The Labour Party?'" (1913)

From the September 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

A debate upon the above subject was held at the King and Queen Assembly Rooms at Brighton on 25th July.

A local celebrity, Mr. Winchester, took the chair, and introduced what he called “the two gladiators” to the audience. Mr. J. Ingham (I.L.P.) took the affirmative, and Mr. J. Fitzgerald (S.P.G.B.) the negative.

In opening the debate MR. INGHAM said the subject was not what was Socialism, nor even whether the legislation supported by the Labour Party leads to Socialism, but whether Socialists should affiliate with that party with all its shortcomings.

For the sake of clearness, the speaker went on to say, it would be as well to state that Socialism implied three changes—economic change, political change, and mental change. That was the theory or aspiration of Socialism. In practice it meant the revolt of the masses; but this revolt must have power behind it, and this power was both economic and political.

The power behind the vote was the power of nomination, which the working class have only had in late years.

As far as the capitalist class were concerned the S.P.G.B. or I.L.P. or B.S.P. didn't matter much, and the only menace to the rulers in society today were the Labour Party. They were demanding the right to manage affairs for themselves. It might be true that they were not doing this in the best way from the standpoint of the Socialist, and he aid not uphold the part played by the Labour Party in the House of Commons, but they represented the social consciousness of the the unions, who laid down the policy of the party.

The Labour Party consisted of the I.L P. and the Fabians—who formed the intellectual Socialist wing—and the mass of the organised workers. In all historic movements the intellectuality followed, it did not lead, the movement.

The question the Socialist had to face was, should he help the movement of the organised workers—the Labour Party—by being inside, or should he play the part of the so-called intellectual and stand outside on a mountain criticising and carping at their actions. Despite all their shilly-shallying and support of the Government the Socialist should be inside, doing his best to help it and to help it to take the right road.

The Revolution would be carried out by the workers becoming class-conscious and taking hold of political power to overthrow their rulers. In this connection he would point out that there had never been a traitor in the House of Commons. Every member there represented the views of those who sent him there. No member of the Labour Party could represent others than those who sent him to Parliament.

Intellectual Socialists should be inside of the Labour Party, guiding it by getting hold of the reins for that purpose. (Bell rang.)

MR. FITZGERALD said one fault he had to find with his opponent’s definition of Socialism was the order in which the changes were placed. Before the working class could carry through the political change having for its object the change in the ownership of the means of life, there would have to be a change in their understanding of the situation and a determination to alter it. Hence the mental change must precede the political and economic changes involved in the establishment of Socialism.

His opponent had said that the revolt must have power behind it. Exactly. But what power? What must it consist of? To answer the question it would be necessary to examine the power in the hands of, and used by, the present rulers. The working class to-day were in want and misery because they had no access to the means of life except by permission of the master class. How did the master class retain their possession of those things? Leaving out the various secondary agencies, the essential force came to the front when any big dispute occurred, as a railway strike, a miners’ or a transport strike. Then the army and navy and the judicial machinery were used, rapidly and ruthlessly, against the workers.

These forces received their instructions from the War Office, Naval Office, Home Office, etc., but the officials in the departments were appointed by the House of Commons, and this was done without any reference to the Hones of Lords, showing the character of the Labour Party’s campaign against that institution.

Hence the capitalists must have control of Parliament for the purpose of using the armed forces for the preservation of their property. To get this control they must be voted into Parliament.

The people possessing the majority of the votes were the members of the working class. Hence the political promises, the election red-herrings, and the buying of the “leaders” of the working class when elections were on. The capitalists clearly saw the importance of political power, and spent millions to obtain it.

Where did the Labour Party stand in this connection? They acted as decoy ducks to the capitalist class. From their first formation to the present day they had refused to lay down any principles or policy in the interest of the wording class. The Socialist Party’s Manifesto gave numerous instances and proofs of their treachery, but one or two cases having a particular bearing on his opponent’s statement would be useful.

In 1906 a group of nearly 40 “Labour” leaders were returned to Parliament with the help of the Liberal Party. So much were they really part of the Liberal party that when, a little later, a by-election took place at Leicester, the Labour Party dared not contest the second seat. The same thing occurred at Newcastle, but it was left for the January 1910 general election to completely pull the veil away. A short time previously the Labour Party had received an immense addition to its membership and leaders by the affiliation of the Miners’ Federation, yet after the election they had only about 43 seats. This result by itself was a collapse of the Labour Party, but worse than this had happened. His opponent had said “those who nominate control," and had stated that the members of the Labour Party had nominated their representatives. At the 1910 general election the nominations of the rank and file were withdrawn by the score at the orders of the Executive acting on the instructions of the Liberal Party. Again, the election had been fought by Liberal and “Labour” Parties on the Veto of the House of Lords and the Budget. When the election was over Mr. Asquith announced that the Veto question would be deferred until after the Budget had been taken. A paper called the “Labour Leader” described Mr. Asquith’s action as one of treachery to his constituents. When the matter was first voted upon the Labour Party voted for the Government. They therefore were equally as guilty of treachery as Mr. Asquith.

In March 1910 the Labour Party moved an amendment on the Army Estimates over the wages of Government employees, and when it was voted upon about 22 were absent and 15 of the remainder voted against their own amendment to save the Government.

The fact that the Labour Party had lost every three cornered contest—as well as several others—in the January election, showed how completely dependent upon the Liberals they were.

While the working class accepted “leaders” they would always be misled. It showed that they had not yet reached that stage of class consciousness that was necessary for their emancipation. When they became Socialists they would abolish “leaders” and “leadership,” and keep control and power in their own hands.

Mr. INGHAM in his second speech said it appeared to him that the philosophy of the , S.P.G.B. had changed since the issuing of their pamphlet on “Socialism and Religion” according to Mr. Fitzgerald’s statements. There they laid down the materialist conception of history as their basis, while his opponent took up the idealist position. He was beginning to believe the S.P.G.B. had no intellectuality.

The working class must be free mentally from the influence of their rulers, but every class who had revolted had leaders. His opponent had stated that the S.P. were going to take control of the army and navy when they had a majority in Parliament. Did they think the capitalists would let them? Without organised labour outside political power would be useless. Men always had had and always would have leaders. It would not be by teaching but by economic pressure that the change would be brought about, and the mass would follow leaders at the period of change. Bat ae they would nominate these leaders they would control them. TheTories controlled those they nominated. Mr. Lloyd George was controlled by his nominators, who forced him to introduce measures that threatened his political career.

Snowden and Macdonald occupied the position of himself (Mr. Ingham) and the S.P.G.B, fifteen years ago, while men like Broadhurst then took up the attitude of Macdonald & Co. to day. Despite this, Labour politics must lead to Socialism and the future laid with the trade unions.

If the majority were with him at the Conferences the clique would soon be turned out. So long as the working class thought a clique represents their interests they would support them. It was because they thought the Liberal clique thus represented them that they supported them to day.

MR. FITZGERALD said that his opponent clearly contradicted himself, and in parts admitted the correctness of the policy of the Socialist Party.

If the workers must be free mentally from the influence of their rulers, obviously a mental change was the first requisite. With reference to the point of the lack of intellectuality on the part of the S.P.G.B., what he (Mr. Fitzgerald) had said was that the S.P. contained no “intellectuals” of the type condemned by his opponent. To try and twist this into an admission of "lack of intellectuality ” was both cheap and childish.

With regard to leaders, it was, perhaps, a trifle elementary, but as his opponent had introduced the point he must deal with it.

Under any system of organisation various activities had to be delegated to different individuals, but this delegation of function did not necessarily mean a sheep-like following, or the placing of power in the hands of the delegates. Thus in the Socialist Party certain members were delegated as speakers, some as writers, others as organisers, etc. But each and all were under the control of, and obeyed the directions of, the membership. The position of Mr. Ingham was similar to that of Keir Hardie, who stated that mankind was a herd who followed leaders, and that that was "the purest form of democracy” ! That, of course, was the sort of following the clique who run the Labour Party wanted, so that they could make their bargains with the Liberals for posts and positions a la Shackleton, Cummings, Mitchell, and others.

His opponent's statements on the army and navy showed how little he understood the power of the ruling class. They controlled these forces because they possessed the political machinery. When this machinery was wrested from them by the working class, how could the capitalists prevent the workers controlling those forces? He had dealt with these matters in his first speech and his opponent had not shown a single point to be wrong.

His opponent’s next statement showed how completely he was misled by the Anarchist rubbish re-labelled Syndicalism, that an economic organisation can destroy capitalism. No matter what the form of organisation or how complete its membership, such a combination of unarmed men would obviously he powerless against the armed forces while the capitalists had political power.

Macdonald and Snowdeu may have occupied a position fifteen years ago similar to that of his opponent to-day, but neither then nor now did they take up the attitude of the Socialist Party — i e., the Socialist attitude.

If his opponent agreed that he must get a majority on his side to get his views adopted, he was admitting the correctness of the policy of the Socialist Party, for this was their position.

MR. INGHAM in his last speech said that delegation of function was exactly the position of the Labour Party. To take up a position of delegate of the organised workers one must be in their ranks, not outside. The Macdonald crowd would be pushed aside by those inside the Labour Party, not by those outside. While they (the S.P.) remained outside their organisation, criticising and fault-finding, they antagonised the workers and had no influence upon them.

By economic pressure, not by intelligence, the workers would be forced to take control. The great trade unions were endeavouring to express themselves upon society, and would change with the growing consciousness of the workers. Thus the railway unions formed their great combination from inside; it was not formed by any men outside. The economic pressure would force the workers to realise the necessity for the Revolution, and the Socialists should be inside, aiding this development and bringing to a realisation the Socialist hopes and aspirations.

MR. FITZGERALD denied that the Labour Party adopted the policy of delegation of function that he had described. Their policy was one of delegation of power —and this made ail the difference. If a position outside the Labour Party would antagonise the workers, then opposition to the Liberals would antagonise a still larger number, as the working-class following of the Liberal Party was much greater than that of the Labour Party. And actually what his opponent was defending was Socialists joining the Liberal Party, for as he (the speaker) had shown them in his previous speeches, the Labour Party was but a portion of the Liberal Party.

Take the question of nomination continually insisted upon by his opponent. The rank and file could, within certain limits, make nominations, but they did not control them. As shown in mass in Jan. and Dec., 1910, as shown in various bye elections, the Liberal party controlled them, and at their instructions scores of nominations were swept aside. The support of the Government, even against their own amendments, coupled with these facts, showed that the liberal managers held the Labour Party in their grip, and dictated the policy as well as selected the candidates to be put forward. Hence his opponent's whole plea was for Socialists to join the Liberal Party.

The Socialist knew the majority of the workers were still below the stage of mental development necessary for the revolution, but experience showed that the most effective method was to fight all the enemies of working class interests, i.e., Socialism, to add to the education, and so shorten the time required for the establishment of Socialism.

Editorial: After the Election (1910)

Editorial from the February 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The General Election is over, and once again the workers have placed the powers of the State within the anxious grasp of the master class. Deluded by the Babel of lies and false issues, the hirelings have again embraced the yoke of wage-slavery. Some voted Liberal—or Labour (same thing)—to keep the "food-taxer" out, while others voted Tory to keep the "Foreigner" out; between then they succeeded in keeping those grand old institutions, the British Empire and the workhouse.

Amongst the Labourites and pseudo-Socialists, compromise and election dodgery have been well to the fore, as indeed was inevitable. We give elsewhere some instances of the game and there are more to follow. The ludicrous posture of the Social-Democratic Party consequent upon the contemptuous rejection of its overtures for alliance ("joining hands," they call it) by the Liberals, have disgusted many of its members, while the pandering to ignorance and the, for the time being, popular, which marked the utterances of its candidates and their prominent supporters, evidently had, in many cases, the opposite effect to that intended. Its own members were dismayed and it polled badly. The "hysterical error of judgement" to which we draw attention under "Election Notes," can have no other meaning. And withal the utter failure of the time-honoured S.D.P. policy even as regards electoral support should go far to convince erstwhile adherents of that organisation of its impotence for ought else than confusion and injury to the cause of Socialism. We fear that after this the good old S.D.P. may not very long survive to "see that the Liberals do not lower the flag", the Union Jack of old England, we presume (happily there are still papa Blatchford and the Boy Scouts).

Also the Labour Party has but slight ground for congratulation, for, as the "Labour Leader" has it, "it has lost proportionately most heavily." The protecting partner, the Liberal Party, has lost ground and with its protege.

The hypocritical pretence of independence is to-day seen through by many who helped form the Labour Party, and so the ground is being cleared for the growth of the genuine Socialist Party - the party of revolution.

The S.P.G.B. has made its influence widely felt during the election by distributing its "Election Manifesto" in different districts over the country. From widely separated constituencies comes the gratifying news that its recommendations to ABSTAIN FROM VOTING—because there were no Socialist candidates in the field—has been followed; the voting papers being "spoilt" by having "Socialism" written across them. Our action has been well appreciated, and will redound to the strength of the Party. Let those who know the day must come when we shall be in a position to put Socialist candidates in the field now join the Socialist Party of Great Britain, for that is the way of success and emancipation.