How to be independent. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the General Election came the L.C.C. elections. The Labour Party and I.L.P. ran candidates in eight constituencies, but it is not true to say contested, as in only one of the eight did they run a full ticket.

As is well known, each constituency has two seats, yet the “Independent” Labour Party ran only one man in each of seven districts. Why ? Because they knew their position was hopeless without the help of the progressives (Liberals). They ran two candidates at Woolwich only, where the Progressives had none. Even then they lost.

In Bermondsey and Kennington where the Progressives ran two official candidates, the I.L.Peers were defeated. In Bow and Bromley, North Lambeth, and Poplar the one-and-one idea was followed with the result that Lansbury, F. Smith and Ensor were elected. And Mr. Robert Williams claims these as Socialist victories and calls the three a “Socialist group” !

Another I.L.P. member—C. L. Jesson—followed the example of the Fabians and ran as a Progressive in Walworth, and was returned.

Evidently the I.L.P. idea of “independence” embraces bargains and joint candidatures with their supposed enemies. These are their boasted “glorious victories,” the fruits of their superior tactics and ability. But the workers may be sure that the “Independents” will support the Proressives every whit as heartily at Spring Gardens as the Labour Party does the Liberals at Westminster, and for the same reason—their seats are the gift of the capitalists.

Jack Fitzgerald

Jottings. (1915)

The Jottings Column from the October issue of the Socialist Standard

It must not be thought that because the “Daily Herald” failed, mainly because it did not know or understand the working-class position, that George Lansbury has given up. Oh, no ! Within the pages of its successor, “The Herald,” he still advances a strange and mysterious dogma. Listen to this :

“Last week I said I wished Arthur Henderson would come out of the Government and against the conscriptionists, set the true ideal of national service by all for the good of all . . . . Whether or no Henderson comes into the wilderness and puts himself at the head of the working class in their march toward the promised land that march will go forward, for out of this present time of trouble and difficulty it is the only road which will lead the nations of the world to safety.”

The pure insolence of young Arthur putting himself at the head of the working-class army is rather in the nature of “coming it.” You must really wait, Arthur, my boy, until we’ve selected you. We must kick a bit about the reference, too, to “the promised land.” We seem to have heard the phrase before. But let Georgie make it clear. In the course of the same discourse he says:

“We need at this moment a spiritual awakening, bidding us all cease our strife for money, for fame, or for power.”

There, there, now ! That’s good, for is it not “light in our darkness,” and does it not prove that “Capital” will probably be forestalled by — the Holy Bible.

* * *

“Profit” Sharing

On Sept. 16th, 1915, the following letter appeared in the columns of the “Daily Express,” written presumably by a City business man. We must compliment this good gentleman on his very correct deduction at the outset, but crave his indulgence at having to severely “strafe'” him regarding his remedy.

A Challenge.

To the Editor of the “Daily Express.”

Sir,—More than a year of the greatest trial and danger that Britain has ever known has not only failed to still the strife between capital and labour, but would even appear, on the contrary, to have widened the breach between them, and if this eternal question is not promptly, carefully, and cleverly handled it is hound to affect disastrously the improved social conditions to which we all look forward when the victory of the Allies shall have brought the great war to an end. 

With a view, therefore, to making an effort towards grappling with this question in a practical manner, may I be allowed to use the medium of the widely read columns of your newspaper to issue this challenge to all or any of the responsible representatives of both capital and labour to state as frankly, briefly, and definitely as possible, through this same medium, their objections to the introduction of a system of profit-sharing into every trade, business, or industry in which it can possibly be instituted.

E. Gordon Bigginson. 

Copthall-buildings, E..C.

I suppose we scarcely come within the gentleman's description of the “responsible representatives of labour,” but anyhow, we’ll have a shot at dispelling his acrobatic remedial notion. Briefly, we object to co-partnership because it is a complete snare and altogether useless as a means of “stilling strife.” Co-partnership or any other form of so-called profit-sharing in almost every instance means extra profit for the “boss.” As anything extra in wages earned by the co-partners is purely money paid for extra work done, it becomes quite obvious that the master class does not share his profits with his co-partners. As the basis of all “profit”-sharing schemes is the intensification of labour’s production—as witness the introduction of professional “sloggers” as instructors—does the gentleman still miss the objective, i.e., that the displacing of many workers owing to the increased output means increased dividends for the ordinary shareholders ? If the remaining workers earn, say, an average of two shillings more per week, who pockets the wages of the labourers displaced, save for the little that is necessary to woo those who, by doing their work, force them out of employment ? Thus while the workmen still engaged receive a wee bit extra in return for a big bit extra, the big balance always, by some wise dispensation of providence, finds its way into the master’s pocket. Will the writer of the letter see how the scheme works at Port Sunlight, The South Metropolitan Gas Co., and many other such works and engage the confidence of the “heads” there. The remedy for an evil will certainly never be gained by increasisg the evil. Understand this, my boy, there are ten thousand ways of missing the bulls-eye but only one way to hit it.

* * *

The following is from the Bristol Congress and is worthy of a place in anybody’s cutting-book :

“To a resolution expressing approval of the Labour Party’s action in assisting recruiting, the National Union of Clerks tabled an amendment regretting that they had not first secured from the Government guarantees of adequate provision for disabled soldiers. This “huckstering” spirit was hotly denounced by several speakers.” – Daily Mail,” 10.9.15.

The report that the assembled Congress received a telegram from the disabled trade unionists offering profuse thanks for services rendered is grossly exaggerated. Some people have all the luck while gratitude pays all our debts. Needless to add the amendment was lost.

* * *

The attached cutting was something in the nature of a smack in the eye for the dear Congress delegates. It reads :

A SOCIALIST MANIFESTO

.

The Socialist National Defence Committee, the members of which include Mr. H. G. Wells, Mr. Robert Blatchford, Mr. John Hodge, M.P., the acting Chairman of the Labour Party, and Mr. Charles Duncan, M.P., has issued a manifesto to the members of the congress. In it they say :

“In this hour of supreme national peril, when the independence of the people is brutally and the established public law and liberties of Europe are ruthlessly violated, a handful of PSEUDO-SOCIALISTS in this country are breaking the national solidarity and weakening the national efforts in face of the enemy ; it has become a duty for TRUE BRITISH SOCIALISTS to expose and repudiate the errors of these dreamers.”

Having explained so lucidly what is the duly of “true British Socialists,” the “true British Socialists” proceed to perform that duty. They accomplish the painful task of exposure and repudiation with surprising cheerfulness, proceeding upon the true British lines of the true British bulldog. They say :

“Some of them are extreme pacifists, some are aliens by both blood or sentiment, and ALL OF THEM ARE CONSCIOUSLY OR UNCONSCIOUSLY THE AGENTS OF GERMAN KAISERDOM, and traitors to the IMPERISHABLE IDEALS OK LIBERTY AND DEMOCRACY which have united free Britain, independent Belgium, and Republican France in an indissoluble and glorious alliance.”

One seems to see in that hooligan jibe “alien” the moving finger of Blatchford, the “true British Socialist who once publicly announced (in the “Clarion”) his antipathy toward Spaniards. Could any other hand so carefully have drawn that fine distinction between “German.” Kaiserdom and all other kinds of Kaiserdom ? or so cunningly have obscured the fact that, even he could not find a term that would serve to bring autocratic Russia into that “indissoluble and glorious alliance” which had been created by the “imperishable ideals of liberty and democracy” ? Yet it was easy enough. What was wrong with “Holy” Russia ? That should have appealed to the author of “God and My Neighbour,” and in the matter of veracity it would have matched the rest. And “lest we forget,” congratulations are due to two such eminent literateurs as Wells and Blatchford on the production of that gem, “aliens by both blood or sentiment.” And then again the reference to “pseudo-Socialists” and “true British Socialists” is indeed delightful. Fancy referring to Ben Tillett as an agent of German Kaiserdom, after all he has done, too. This is too bad, and the Tower Hiller has our deepest sympathy. Never mind, the truth about some men is never known until after they are dead, and even then you cannot find it on their tombstones. All the signatories to the manifesto are expected to figure in the next Birthday honours lists.

B. B. B.

Notes by the Way: The Housing Problem Solved Again. (1933)

The Notes by the Way Column from the December 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Housing Problem Solved Again.

The housing problem has been solved at least half a dozen times since the end of the war. At any rate, each Government in turn has confidently announced that it was in process of being solved. The present Government is relying on its own slum-clearance schemes plus the activities of private builders and the building societies. Sir Paul Latham, who is Conservative M.P. for Scarborough and a member of the London County Council, writing in the Evening Standard (October 23rd, 1933), says that the present rate of dealing with unsatisfactory housing conditions, even the increased rate which is being urged by the Act of the Ministry of Health,

will do little in the lifetime of our generation to solve the housing problem in London.

The Architects' Journal, “After an exceedingly careful and detailed investigation," states that 1,400,000 houses are needed to abolish overcrowding (quoted in Evening Standard, November 17th, 1933).

Other authoritative statements quoted by the Evening Standard (November 17th, 1933) are the following: —

On the basis of the houses condemned in Manchester there must be a million slum dwellings in the country (Sir E. Simon).

Of the million slum dwellings which are estimated to have been in existence in 1918 only 20,000, equivalent to 2%, have been demolished and replaced by new buildings. In the last 60 years only 200,000 slum dwellers have been rehoused.

There are houses which were condemned 40 years ago and are still standing and being used. 

#    #    #    #

The Cause of War.

Mr. A. A. Baumann, who writes for the Evening Standard over the initials A. A. B., is known as an old, crusted Conservative, who often shocks a more mealy mouthed generation by his crude statement of his principles. On October 4th, 1933, he dropped a brick by a candid statement about war. He said: —

It is the lust of money, and nothing else, that provokes and protracts modem war . . . the cause of all wars is lust for money.

The late Lord Brentford, when he was plain Mr. Joynson-Hicks, was equally candid. He said: —

We conquered India as the outlet for the goods of Great Britain. We conquered India by the sword, and by the sword we should hold it (quoted by A. G. Gardiner in Daily News, October 17th, 1925).

It is interesting to notice how the Liberal Manchester Guardian managed to convey precisely the same idea as the Tory Joynson-Hicks, but without his bluntness:—

There are two chief reasons why a self-regarding England may hesitate to relax her control over India. . . . The second is that Great Britain finds in India her best market, and that she has a thousand millions of capital invested there. (Manchester Guardian, December 30th, 1929.)

A last comment on the Great War is provided by Mr. A. G. Gardiner. Writing in the Star (October 11th, 1933), he discovers that the Kaiser was really quite a democrat: —

“Even under the Kaiser there was freedom of the Press, freedom of organisation, and a freely elected Parliament. . . ."

Those who have long memories will recall that Mr. Gardiner, in 1914, was Editor of the Daily News, and in that capacity was one of those who backed up the war on the plea of guarding English civil liberties against being reduced by a victorious Germany to the state of suppression supposed to exist in that country.

Now, 15 years after the war to end Prussianism, Mr. Gardiner discovers that Hitlerism is the real evil, and that the Kaiser was not so bad after all.

#    #    #    #

Arms and the Workers.

When Communist advocates of armed revolt were asked from what source the workers would obtain arms, dark hints were sometimes thrown out indicating that Russia would oblige. Incredible as it may seem, this has at last been partly realised, for the Russian Government has made a gift of five bombing planes to the neighbouring State, Turkey, as a little memento on the 10th anniversary of the Turkish Republic. (See Daily Herald, October 27th, 1933.)

The promise is, however, only partly fulfilled, for the planes have been given, not to the Turkish workers, but to the capitalist Government. 

#    #    #    #

Woman in a Sack.—40 Years of Progress.

Mr. George Lansbury related recently (see Daily Herald, October 23rd) how it was he first became converted to what he calls Socialism. He was making a canvass of the Devons Road area of Bow for the voting register when the door of one house was opened by a poor woman dressed in a sack, in which three holes had been cut for head and arms.

That must be nearly 40 years ago—40 years of reforms introduced by the Liberals, Tories and Labour Party, 40 years which might have been devoted by Mr. Lansbury to working for Socialism but for the fact that he decided instead to follow the line of trying to get “something now."

Yet he admits that, touring the same district recently, he “Was horrified to see the conditions in which the people are still living."

Even the sack is not entirely gone, for two weeks later the Daily Herald published a letter in which a correspondent, who signed himself “ Disillusioned," said that he had just seen “ The huddled form of a woman, covered by a dirty piece of sacking," sleeping out on a seat near Buckingham Palace.

The writer was disillusioned about the “peace" which has followed the war. He could, with equal justification, have been disillusioned about the 40 years spent in vain trying to patch up the evils of capitalism bit by bit. The Rev. William Dick, of Trinity Church, Poplar, says that there are, to his knowledge, hundreds of families in the East End hungry—“They have absolutely no food in the house." He claims that in Poplar alone (where there has long been a Labour Council) “40,000 people are living on the poverty line or are in actual want " (Daily Herald, November 3rd, 1933).

#    #    #    #

How Reforms Divide the Workers.

Of all the political errors which have hampered the growth of Socialism there is hardly any so ill-founded as the idea that the way to unite the workers is to get together a list of non-Socialist demands, relating to so-called practical, every-day questions. The truth is that each such demand provokes opposition among one section of the workers while eliciting approval from another.

The Daily Herald (November 4th) provides an example. Mr. Alfred Barnes, Labour ex-M.P. for East Ham South, speaking at Enfield on November 3rd, said: —

“. . . a few years ago the Tories asserted that Socialism meant the bureaucratic State—industry being directed from Whitehall by well-paid officials, and initiative disappearing.

“That was just what they were doing themselves—Electricity Commissioners, London Transport Board, Milk and Bacon Boards. . . .

“All these represented the regulation of industry from Whitehall by well-paid officials in a desperate effort to bolster up capitalism.”

Now quite apart from Mr. Barnes' criticism of these Boards as being an effort to bolster up capitalism, there is the important point that while one body of workers inside the Labour Party accept his view, another body of workers inside the Labour Party are actively pressing for the multiplication of such boards. Indeed, it was Mr. Herbert Morrison who, as Minister of Transport in the Labour Government, introduced the London Passenger Transport Bill.

By one of those curious coincidences that sometimes happen even in the most judiciously sub-edited Labour papers, Mr. Barnes' speech attacking Mr. Herbert Morrison’s London Passenger Transport Board was published in the Daily Herald immediately below the report of a speech by Mr. Morrison.

Edgar Hardcastle

Random Notes. (1907)

From the May 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bernard Shaw has a three column article in the Clarion upon “the moral of the L.C.C. elections,” one column and a half of which is devoted to his showing, mainly on the evidence of the return of Sidney Webb and Frank Smith, that the results of those elections do not spell defeat for Socialism. The other column and a half is mainly devoted to supporting the contention of Robert Blatchford, that the results of the elections do spell defeat for Socialism ! And yet we are urged by the quidnunc and the cognoscente to believe that Shaw is not merely the farceur he has been represented, but, on the contrary, is a desperately earnest person.

o o o

The Tribune (April 1st) quotes this from the report of the Executive of the S.D.F. to their annual conference :—

“It is necessary here to call attention to the conduct of Mr. John Burns, who, as President of the Local Government Board, has now gone back entirely upon his former opinions, and the most hypocritical employer of sweated labour, with a predilection for conventional Sunday-school morality, might well envy the power of glib pharisaical cant which the “man with the red flag” can now always bring to bear upon the unemployed question.”

o o o

and this is the S.D.F. conception of correct tactics on the unemployed question :—

“This conference further calls upon the Government at once to amend the existing Unemployed Workmen Act to such an extent as to provide useful and remunerative work for unemployed men, and to make sufficient grants from the Imperial Exchequer to local authorities to enable them to give employment to all citizens in need of it.”

o o o

And then reflect that Burns is at the head of the Governmental department which must deal with the call “to provide useful and remunerative work,” etc. And that the Government is, according to the S.D.F., representative of capitalist interests. And that, also according to the S.D.F., capitalist interests absolutely rely upon continued labour redundancy. So, we will call upon the capitalist Government to put into operation the pharisaical cant of their obedient servant, the ex-“man with the red flag,” in order that the unemployed upon whom capitalist interests depend, may obtain the work that the capitalist Government cannot provide !

o o o

Sweet, isn’t it ? Likely to have an exceedingly enlightening effect upon the working class the S.D.F. allege they are educating—what? Don’t tell the unemployed that the capitalist Government can do nothing for them. That would be the truth, of course, but it wouldn’t be good “tactics.” Therefore we will lead them to suppose that the Government can do something for them, and we will call upon the Government to do that something which they cannot ! So will our reputation as practical politicians grow.

o o o

May the beneficent fates turn the hungry eyes of the uneducated working-class unemployed away from such tactic-struck educators. And may the same beneficent fates turn the brains of those well-intentioned S.D.F. rank-and-filers in order that they may see their own stupidity in following with such pathetic fidelity the fatuous leading of their purblind—or is it pharisaical—captains. We offer the beneficent fates aforementioned, the columns of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD as a medium for the expression of their powers. Indeed, the S.D.F. man may rightly regard these columns as the instrument which the fates are using to divert his path from that abyss of political impotence toward which his unthinking steps are being urged by the tactical grotesques he hails as leaders. If he will not so regard these columns, he must needs gang his ain gait (I hope that’s good Scots) and suffer the penalty which “baffle-headedness” always invokes. And he may count himself a fortunate fellow if he awakes from his somnambulistic perambulations before he finds himself up to his neck in a slough of despond, being pelted by the objurgatory brickbats of a long-suffering working class.

o o o

At the annual dinner of the athletic club of Messrs. J. Lyons & Go’s employees, the chairman (Mr. Isidore Gluckstein) in responding to the vote of thanks to the directors of the Company for the support they had given the club, remarked that they were pleased to encourage athletics among their staff because “outdoor sports not only bettered a man physically but enabled him to do his indoor work all the better.” So. Scratch the benevolent director and you find the hungry capitalist. It is good for the men that they should be physically robust. It is also good business for the employer. And the greatest of these (to the employer) is the good business.

o o o

The Paris Herald reports the death, in Pittsburg, of John Brislin, the inventor of modern rolling mill machinery. John was a boyhood friend of Andrew Carnegie, and John thought, when, in conjunction with Anton Vinnac, he perfected his patent, that his old pal, Andrew, who was in the steel business, would see him through all right. Instead of which, John and Anton had to take action against the Carnegie Steel Company for stealing and working their patent. They estimated their invention to be worth 40,000,000 dollars. Andrew’s company offered them 100,000 dollars. They refused and the States District Court gave a verdict in their favour. Then old pal Andrew’s company took the case to the Federal Court of Appeal which, being a court of commercial justice and Andrew’s company easily having the most money, naturally reversed the order of the lower court. Having no more money to fight, Anton died of grief and John lost his eyesight and Andrew by the grace of God and the poverty of his old pal, waxed fat upon the invention that didn’t belong to him and began to make a name as a philanthropist and library purveyor. Recently John received a letter from Andrew in which Andrew seems to have held out some hope that Jobn might expect some justice soon and John was so shocked that he died of heart failure.

o o o

Under Socialism of course, it will be impossible for genius to reap the reward due to it. It is only under capitalism that genius can hope to secure adequate recognition. All the same I don’t marvel that John died.

o o o

“There is no other movement in the world, unless perhaps the Christian Church, which numbers among its professed followers so many who fail to understand or appreciate, the meaning and application of its fundamental teachings, as does Socialism in England. This is the more remarkable as the points in dispute are scientific facts, capable of the fullest and most complete demonstration.”

E. J. Lamel in “Justice,” 6.4.07.

Many a true word spoken even in Justice. We entirely agree with Mr. Lamel, but cannot allow the exception which he makes in favour of the S.D.F., to which he belongs.

o o o

Our objection to the S.D.F. is quite as strong as Mr. Lamel’s objection to the pseudo-Socialists who will have none of the S.D.F. because that organisation refuses “to accept an anaemic, milk-and-water ‘Socialism’ as the genuine, full-blooded article.” And our objection to the S.D.F. is for very much the same reason. S.D.F. “Socialism” is anaemic and milk-and-water as Mr. Lamel will find if he will peruse fairly the statement of the position set out in the Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain (price Id.)

o o o

It is curious, too, to find a writer like Mr. Lamel, who seems to pose as an exponent of the scientific view, making reference to the private ownership of land and capital, as though the common ownership of capital, like the common ownership of land, was conceivable. He speaks of the predictions of Marx with the air of one who has Marx at his finger-tips. But if he really knew his Marx he would not confuse (as he appears to do) capital with wealth.

o o o

Nor would he fall into the error common among those unscientific persons whom he so vigorously trounces, that the working class which “suffered the most” in prosecuting the South African War, “now has, directly or indirectly, to pay the piper.” As a matter of fact the working class temporarily benefited by the industrial incentive which the war gave. And if it is true, as Mr. Lamel states (a statement in which the “scientific Socialist” will concur), that the working class “has to rely for its livelihood upon the proceeds of its labour” (read labour-power) “sold as a ware,” it will be interesting to know how the working class can ”pay the piper,” having regard to the fact, accepted by all “scientific Socialists,” that competition for work reduces the average working-class return to a bare subsistence level.

o o o

These points are urged, not with a view of scoring off Mr. Lamel’s ignorance, but rather with the idea of suggesting to Mr. Lamel and those who stand with him, that just as the S.P.G.B. has been at pains to establish itself on what Mr. Lamel may regard as the minutiae of Marxian economics, so it has been at pains to discover the error of the pseudo-Socialist Parties in order that it might, by dissociating itself from such error, and the confusion which it must inevitably work, present a clear issue to the working class.

o o o

This clear issue is absolutely necessary to enable the working class to begin to build up that organisation upon which it must rely in the struggle of the future. That is essential to class-conscious action—the only action that can effect working-class emancipation. Wherefore, to Mr. Lamel and all those whose desire it is to do all that men may to forward the revolution, we throw out the challenge to show us wherein our position is unsound. Failing that—and in the three years of our existence it has not been done once—we insist that the S.P.G.B. is the only Party of the workers, and that in it all Socialists (the term connotes a scientific appreciation of all the facts of the economic situation and needs no qualification) should be organised for the purpose of giving effective assistance in the working-class struggle for freedom.

o o o

At the meeting of the London Central Unemployed Committee (April 5th)—

“Mr. Lansbury said he thought it was time the Body seriously considered their position. THEY HAD FOOLED THE UNEMPLOYED LAST WINTER. They had the amusing spectacle of Parliament voting £200,000 and setting up in London elaborate and costly machinery, and yet they had not been able to spend that money in providing work.

They had registered the unemployed, investigated their birth, and “inquested” them up and down London, and the result had been that a petty few thousand had received a few weeks’ employment. He protested against the way in which things were being managed and against the man at the head of affairs and the whole of his wretched department.

He protested against the return of £90,000 to the Treasury and against the man who was doing it. The Liberal Government was fooling the unemployed.”

o o o

And this is the organisation brought into existence by the Government measure for which the S.D.F. claimed credit ! This is the abortion which was hailed by “Labour” members, (and those who want to be “Labour” members,) as something very like a revolution. For the first time, we were told, Parliament had recognised its duty towards the out-of-work. For the first time the legislature had admitted its moral obligation—and so on. We pointed out at the time that the thing was a fraud—must be a fraud and could not by any chance be any other. And now Lansbury comes along to say that the unemployed has been “inquested” and “fooled” and that practically nothing had been done or could be done,

o o o

What now ? Well, if the unemployed are not sick to death of the dreary business ; if they are content to believe that their self-styled representatives in the House are doing everything needful or possible ; if they can still manage to find spiritual sustenance from the faith that is in them—faith in others doing what they require—if these things still are, then the next step will be the step that was taken last. And it will be productive of the same result. But if the unemployed recognise the futility of starving and insist for themselves upon the right to the things which are life, then, although the unemployed problem will not be solved, they will not be hungry.

o o o

There is no solution for the unemployed problem short of Socialism. The working class sooner or later must recognise that and organise accordingly for the overthrow of capitalist domination. But in the meantime? Well, in the meantime they will get the equivalent of nothing unless they evince a determination to refuse to starve quietly—unless, in short, they constitute themselves a menace to the peace of mind of the master class. We are no advocates of rioting because an unarmed mob versus a well disciplined, well armed force means immediate defeat for the rioters. The most powerful menace to official complacency is the growth of a class-conscious working-class organisation. Given that and a refusal to be satisfied with promises or with anything short of the extirpation of capitalism, and doles will come tumbling down as manna from heaven. Take the doles in your stride but do not allow them to divert you from your purpose a hair’s breadth. Concentrate upon THE WORLD for the working class and, as the scriptures have it, all other things shall be added unto you.

Alegra.

Editorial: Pills for Earthquakes. (1906)

Editorial from the August 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The President of the Local Government Board has made his long promised and (by some) eagerly anticipated statement upon unemployment and what the great democratic, progressive, etc., etc., etc. Liberal Government proposed as a solution for that vexatious problem. The introductory speech was, we understand, masterly. Probably. But it would require a speech a thousand times more masterly than the President is capable of, to obscure to even a poorly equipped mind, the real nature of the proposal made. The Liberal Party desire to burke discussion of the problem of unemployment. The Liberal Party will not because they cannot (although they must not, of course, admit that) take any more adequate steps in the matter than their predecessors in office. But the Liberal Party desire political kudos, because the Liberal Party require the support of the working class. Therefore, the Liberal Party must make a show of doing something so that the people may be deceived. That is where the President of the Local Government Board comes in. He has been hired to help make the show and deceive the people. That is his speciality ; his forte. Nobody with any political knowledge worth talking about questions that to-day. So the President makes a masterly speech. The Conservative Government were no use. They could not deal with the unemployed problem. They passed a stupid bill on the subject, which had been practically useless. Now, the Liberal Government of which I, the President, am a not unimportant member (loud “Labour” cheers) are up a different street. They know how to deal with the unemployed problem. But they do not propose dealing with it yet. They have not sufficient data to work upon. It would be highly dangerous if by any ill-advised step, the outcome of undoubted and overpowering sympathy with the genuine unemployed, the sturdy independence of the working man were sapped or Labour was rendered less instead of, as it should be, more fluid. Of course the Government recognised how hard was the struggle against starvation, and it was therefore proposed to make a great grant of money from the national exchequer, in order that the useless act of the Conservative Government might have a better chance of showing how really useless it is, while the Liberal Government are collecting more information upon which presently they will be able to proceed with certainty. The grant will be distributed under my own presidential direction, and I will guarantee that nothing will be wasted. This, aided by working-class thrift and temperance—especially temperance (Hear hear, from Mr. Crooks) should enable the unemployed to tide over next winter (sotto voce—or die in the attempt). The amount of the great grant would be £200,000 (Ministerial shrieks of delight) although I trust it will not be necessary to spend all that sum—and so on.

£200,000 to tide the unemployed over the winter ! Was ever such a palpable fraud perpetuated by any government ? Could any government have succeeded in foisting it upon a starving people without the assistance of a decoy like the President of the Local Government Board ? Indeed, the President is earning his salary well. He is giving good value for money. £200,000 to tide the unemployed over the winter ! All of them ! And Mr. Lansbury says a larger sum could easily be consumed in Poplar ! And the “Labour” group in Parliament puts up Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald to welcome the proposals, while Mr. Crooks is absolutely delighted, and says so. A fraud ! a palpable, bare-faced fraud ! Just the sort of fraud we expected. The Liberal Party can do nothing, but they must make a demonstration of doing something to save their face. And this is the something—this pill for an earthquake—expressly and obviously designed to put the whole matter off for a year. A fraud connived at by a “Labour” minister and condoned by a “Labour” Party. The working class have been gulled often in the past. It seems well-nigh incredible that they can be gulled this time.

A Little Talk About Our Innards. (1932)

From the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

How often has it been said, “The Hour brings forth the Man.” This vivid truism, exemplified equally in the decline and fall of the Roman Empire and the productions of Laurel and Hardy, is again given point by recent world happenings. Out of a maelstrom of chaos, out of the cataclysmic roar of a world falling to ruin comes a firm, strong voice. It is the voice, calm, clear and courageous, of one who peers through the surging mists of doom, and discerns with supernatural clarity—the Way Out. Students of political science will have gathered by now, that all indications point to Mr. George Lansbury. They are quite right. The Hour has produced the Man. How wonderful are the ways of Providence !

A short while ago, we, in our ignorance, informed a long-suffering world that “Capitalism will not Collapse.” We charged a penny for some 16 pages of our reasons. We might have saved our energy. In the columns of the August Bow and Bromley Citizen, Mr. Lansbury says Capitalism is at the end of its tether. Civilisation is dying, he said. The economic plight of Central Europe, the upheaval in Germany, the failure of the Disarmament Conference, the tariff war against the Irish Free State in the cause of what is known as punctilio, and the persecution in India, cause him to despair. He asks us to “couple” with these, unemployment at home, the mean Means Test inflicted by the Tory Government (but, George, you forget to say that it is the same test as that applied by the Labour Government for Poor Law purposes), and the driving down into the pit of destitution of myriads of aged and infirm. And then we come to the prophetic utterance:

“Men and women in every walk of life are asking what can be done. I reply, not in the words of economists or Socialists, but in the words of Him who spoke as never man spoke before :—

‘Let him who is greatest be the least. Seek the Kingdom of God which is within you. Seek not your own, learn of Him that the law of life is service, and that it is not the will of the Father that the least of His little ones should perish.’

And learn, also, that on one occasion when He was angry, He took whips and thrashed the money lords, the usurers, the devourer of widows’ houses, out of the Temple.”

So there you are; everyone now knows what to do. As George so truly says: men and women are asking what can be done.

We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain have answered “capture political power, so that you can own your means of living.” The Labour Party, whose leader is Mr. Lansbury, answered, “the most important thing is to get something now.” After a quarter of a century’s getting something now, Mr. Lansbury now replies with: Seek not your own … “Seek the Kingdom of God, which is within you.”

It is really too brilliant. What balm, after more than two years of Labour Government: “Seek not your own. Seek the Kingdom of God. It’s inside you.” Most of the unemployed would swap it for a steak and kidney pudding, any time.

The bit about the whipping of the usurers and money lords is interesting. Mr. Lansbury has not always been in favour of giving the usurers a walloping. When the usurers who had invested in War Loan engaged in the operation known as Conversion, two months back, Mr. Lansbury gladly lent them a hand. On that occasion the readers of the Bow and Bromley Citizen were spared the tripe and treacle of our Right Hon. friend. On July 14th he was accorded the publicity of the B.B.C., and millions of listeners heard him say:

“I am speaking to you on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Commons and myself. . . . We are glad to be able to give our support to the War Loan Conversion scheme recently launched by the Government.”

Then came the usual bowl of greasy platitudes, followed by George’s inevitable appeal to:

“turn once again to Him who taught as no other man has taught, and start individually and nationally ordering our lives on His appeal, and seek first the Kingdom of God, which He also said is within you.”

George seems somewhat muddled, but doubtless he could explain himself. Seek first the Kingdom of God, and to save a protracted search he indicates its precise position—within you. Then, keeping in mind what Christ thought of usurers on a former occasion, carefully order your usurious investments in War Loan—the price of slaughter—so that you will continue to draw interest, or money for nothing.

Pretty dreadful, isn’t it ! The Listener of July 20th reprinted his wonderful effort, so that posterity may better know the kind of Man whom Fate threw up at this great hour of crisis.

W. T. Hopley

Answers to Correspondents. (1905)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

T.H.S. (Redruth).—The reply of Councillor J. Jones at the Meeting in the Camborne Division referred to is entirely misleading. The question put to him appears to have been to this effect: Was Mr. Lee, the secretary of the S.D.F., shown at the Shoreditch Conference of that body to have deliberately deceived the membership in connection with a certain matter of importance (the circumstances attending the withdrawal of Geo, Lansbury as S.D.F. candidate for Bow and Bromley to wit). If Mr. Jones replied “that is a lie,” Mr. Jones is himself only just within the confines of the truth. The actual fact is that Mr. Lee was shown to have been guilty of a fabrication at the 1902 Conference of the S.D.F. and at the Shoreditch Conference in the following year he admitted the truth of the accusation levelled against him and announced that he would be prepared to lie again in the interests of his organization. That is why we asked in the issue of the Socialist Standard quoted from at Mr. Jones’ meeting, whether Mr. Lee’s indignant repudiation of the charge that the officials of his organization had accepted Tory gold on certain terms, was to be regarded as the utterance of strict truth or whether this was another occasion on which he felt himself justified in lying in the interests of his party. Mr. Jones will not be silly enough to deny the accuracy of this statement because Mr. Lee’s confession was made in open Conference within the hearing of several score of delegates and others, including Mr. Jones himself.

R. Walmer (Stepney).—You must not expect too much from “Reynolds.” It is a Liberal newspaper although it angles for working-class support by the somewhat virulent championship of what it calls “Democracy.” Of course it isn’t democracy at all but simply capitalist radicalism or unofficial Liberalism. As you are doubtless aware, a capitalist state can swallow all the political reforms so strenuously advocated by “Reynolds” without discomfort and has done so. Certainly the working-class have not profited and will not. Capitalism has nothing to fear from “Reynolds.” On the contrary, it is all to the advantage of Capitalism that it should continue to exist because the paper is a powerful aid to working-class sectionalism and confusion. Regret we cannot find room for your letter. The S.S. is a small paper at present and we cannot hope to publish all communications received.

Penko Petrov (Tambol).—We have only received one card from you, and replied by letter on March 13 to your queries respecting the Countess of Warwick and the British Socialist Movement. If you have since sent us a letter it has miscarried. We are glad to learn of the successful Five-days Congress of the Bulgarian Socialists.

G. Foster (Stockbridge).—Letter too late for this issue. Sorry you are in difficulties, but that is doubtless due to your endeavour to weigh half-sentences. Only by taking the whole of the article, and considering all the arguments adduced can you get a fair idea of the writer’s meaning. Your random selections can hardly be called fair quotation, we suggest.

Blogger's Notes:

With regards to the business involving Jack Jones and the SDF in Cornwall, please see the article, 'The Truth about Camborne', from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard. Please check out the editorial, 'A Challenge', from this month's issue of the Socialist Standard.

A Socialist Searchlight: No More Class War (1930)

From the September 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

No More Class War

“During the last twenty-five years, he said, thousands of rich people had come to see that the host thing they could do in life was to share in the great task of improving conditions of the community. 

The time, he believed, was not far distant when rich and poor would co-operate in serving the community.”

No, it was not Mr. Churchill who said that, but Mr. George Lansbury, at Rotherham (“Daily Herald,” July 21st).

This First Commissioner of Works, and Christian Evangelist, visited Russia a few years ago, and in his book, “What I Saw in Russia,” grew lyrical over “the achievements of Russia,” compared with the miserable efforts of Capitalism at home.

Although the rich have been helping’ the poor so much here, there are faint rumours that for many years past the employers have been busy reducing wages and smashing strikes. The kind-hearted employers who are going to co-operate with the poor, are still very active in keeping a system going which produces poverty for the worker and profits for the idler. What better evidence do you want than Lans-bury’s speech, to prove how the Labour Party serve Capitalism? Don’t struggle, but love each other. Lansbury used to say at the Mission that only the love of Christ could save us, but now the rich have taken on Christ’s work. That is what has made Bow and Bromley such a paradise.

* * *

The Bankers’ Friends

Labour in office shows how it practices continuity in capitalist policy “The Times” complimented “Labour” on effecting’ such a close relation between finance and industry when they got the Banks to agree to rationalize the factories. The Bankers, with Labour’s approval, formed the National Industrial Development Co., Ltd. Montagu Norman, of the Bank of England ; Sir Guy Granet, Railway Director, and of Higginson & Co., World Financiers; Baron Schroeder, famous in the Ruhr Steel Combines, and of Schroeder’s, the New York Bankers; Peacock, of Baring Brothers; and Wagg, the Finance Merchant—these became the directors of the new concern to buy up and rationalize the profitable industries. Once Labour screamed about the Bankers’ power ! That was only when out of office. Now they have earned the affection of “finance” by encouraging Bankers’ control over production more than ever.

While “Labour” cried out that their schemes were being shelved because local bodies were sabotaging them, they appointed a Public Loans Board to advise what loans should be made to local authorities. They appointed the same board of Bankers the Conservatives had selected five years before. Then a few backbenchers objected to Lord Hunsdon being on it, because he said the miners should be starved into surrender in 1926. The Labour Government have drawn fulsome praise from the poisonous Newspaper Press by squashing their own members and getting Lord Hunsdon reappointed with Liberal and Tory support in Parliament.

Yet there are still workers who tell us that Labour is opposed to the Capitalists ! Let them learn from such practices as the above how well the Labour servants obey their masters. When the workers become Socialist, and control the Parliaments for Socialism the Labour politicians will be able to seek solace with their friends, the Bankers, and they can take the Mace with them to where people want entertainment, instead of a sane social system.

* * *

The Confessions of a Clyde "Red.

    “The only time in my life that I have allied myself with the enemies of the workers has been since I came to the House of Commons, and that is by the order of the Labour Government. Almost every time I go into the Division Lobby I join such tried and trusted friends of the Labour Party as Lloyd George, his daughter, Sir Herbert Samuel, etc. They are keeping the Labour Party in office on condition that the workers and the Labour Party programme are deserted.”

Thus writes the Labour M.P. for Shettleston (“Forward,” August 2nd). He was, however, the official Labour candidate, and stood for the official Labour Party Programme. He was attacked during the election by another Labourite, Mr. C. Diamond, who has been on three occasions official Labour candidate, and who stated that he has supported the Labour Party because it is not committed to Socialism.

The Party that the Member for Shettleston—McGovern—stands for, is not out for the working class. Read his own words: –

 “There is no danger of chasing away the Liberal votes, as they have all joined us at Westminster. The Labour Cabinet coddle them too much to drive them away, and are more concerned about them than about the working class.”

He became the official Labour Candidate—because it’s the best way to get elected. “Getting in” —that’s the game, even if it means going into the Lobby to vote against the programme he ran on.

The little conflict between the “wings” has now been settled at a joint meeting of the Labour Party and I.L.P., and the following terms were agreed upon: –

1. That the I.L.P. accepts the Labour Party Annual Conference as the supreme authority of the organised political movement of the workers.
2. That the I.L.P. wishes to remain in affiliation with the Labour Party. (Forward, Aug. 2.)

So, now Lloyd George, the I.L.P., and the Labour Party may continue their united front—in the same Lobby.

C.

Blogger's Note:

The Confessions of A Clyde 'Red' had previously appeared on the blog as a separate piece. I'm guessing I cherry picked it at the time 'cos it was about John McGovern and because of the location of his parliamentary constituency.

Illuminations. (1905)

From the May 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

[By the flashlight man.]

I have just been reading “Reynolds” for Easter Sunday! Goodness knows, the outlook was bleak and desolate enough as it was, with the cold, and the wind, and the rain, but after reading W.M.T.’s advertisement sheet I fairly shivered.

o o o

H. M. Hyndman had a letter in it, in which he declared that “when, if ever, the Radicals really do re-discover their root, and are ready to strive in earnest to bring about even these minor reforms of our political and educational machinery, then they will find that, though this is not Socialism by any means, the Socialists would give them their most vigorous support.”

o o o

Speak for yourself, Mr. Hyndman, or at any rate only for that S.D.F. which you recently declared was “wholly destitute of political aptitude.” If, in the present instance, it does not repudiate you as its mouthpiece, it will prove how just was your condemnation.

o o o

What a vast difference between H.M.H’s. minimum program now and that of the S.D.F. at the General Election of 1895, when it “adjured” the electors “not to give a vote even by accident to any candidate who does not …. declare in favour of the ownership of the railways, the factories, the mines and the land by the whole people to be worked co-operatively for the benefit of every man, woman, and cliild in the entire community ” !

o o o

It was at that election that the Reading branch of the S.D.F. issued a manifesto to the people of Reading, urging them “to refuse to cast their votes for either of the candidates of the capitalist-class, whether ticketed Tory or Radical” !

o o o

But a change has come o’er the spirit of the dream !

o o o

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds that the policy of the Reading S.D.F. in 1895 is the only sound policy for the Socialist working-class to-day.

o o o

“It is not true that the S.D.F. has ever declared that Liberalism must be smashed at all hazards ” says “Justice” of April 15th.

o o o

“Justice” for July 13th, 1895, had a leading article with the title “Clear The Way.” It contained the following:—”We have to go on— victory or defeat—until we have completely smashed the Liberal Party and convinced its working-class supporters that it is hopeless, and then they will come over to us in shoals and we shall have all our friends by our side and all our enemies in front” !

o o o

In the manifesto to which I have referred above appeared these words :—”For our part, friends and fellow citizens, we rejoice at the overthrow of the meanest and most hypocritical faction that ever played fast and loose with the welfare of a people. Let it be our duty to convert the defeat of the Liberal Government into a final rout for the capitalist Liberal Party.”

o o o

In the same year the S.D.F. Conference was held at Birmingham, and in his opening address the President said : “Never again, let us hope, will the Liberal Party know the sweets of office and betray the people’s trust. That party has been utterly routed, horse, foot, and artillery; and it is now our duty, and it will be our pleasure, to exterminate them altogether” !

o o o

” For truth is precious and divine,

Too rich a pearl for carnal swine.”

o o o

“H. Quelch has never declared himself in favour of the use of the bomb” says “Justice ” of April 15th last!

o o o

Ah, me! there are

“Deposited upon the silent shore

Of memory, images and precious thoughts

That shall not die, and cannot be destroyed.”

o o o

“We must adopt any and every means.to realise Social-Democracy. I am in favour of any means, from the ballot-box to the bomb, from political action to assassination.”—H. Quelch at the S.D.F. Conference at Birmingham, 1901 !

o o o

“I have decided not to stand for Bow again. I do so for many reasons, chief of which is, I don’t agree with the policy of fighting independently, but had I the time, and were I in good health, and my business not so exacting, I should have a real good try to get the S.D.F. round to my view.”—George Lansbury to the S.D.F. Executive, Feb. 23rd, 1902.

o o o

“The denial that ‘such a letter’ had been received was perfectly accurate and made in good faith by both Quelch and Lee,” says “Justice” of April 15th, 1905.

o o o

The “denial” was made at the S.D.F. Conference at Blackburn in March, 1902. At the following Conference (Shoreditch, 1903) H. W. Lee admitted receipt of the letter, but had not thought it politic to do so at the previous Conference, and declared that under similar circumstances, for the sake of the organisation, he would follow a similar course !

o o o

“Dare to be true, nothing can need a lie;

A fault which needs it most grows two thereby.”

o o o

The “Watford Critic,” the Organ of the Labour Church, is conducted by F. H. Gorle (S.D.F.) According to it, “Mr. Chiozza Money’s articles in the daily papers have shewn him to be a Socialist” ! ! !

o o o

This has almost extinguished my illuminator !

o o o

“It often happened that the manners of the members of the S.D.F. were far from attractive. If those who preached Socialism were men who could be respected, the men they wished to influence would be much more likely to listen to their opinions.”—A. S. Headingley at S.D.F. Conference, 1904.

o o o

“I call him a damnable, scandalous scoundrel,” (Leaning towards the Alderman and shouting excitedly): “You rotten, whisky-drinking swine ! You dirty, scandalous, old swine ! I’ll pull your whiskers”!— Recent speech by Mr. McAllen, S.D.F. Councillor for West Ham

o o o

“Our views have been placed before the chief authorities, before Parliament, and before the Nation; they are influencing the present attempt in dealing with the unemployed question, and we shall perhaps see, when the long-delayed legislation is proceeded with, that some, at least, of our influence may be traced in the measure.” Social Democrat, April 15th.

o o o

“As to the Unemployed Bill, it is precisely what we had been led to expect, and therefore occasions no disappointment. It is utterly inadequate for the problem with which it deals, and is really an attempt to do nothing while making a show of doing something.”

“Justice,” April 22nd.

o o o

But what about “our influence” ?

o o o

Don’t enumerate your poultry before your eggs are incubated. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, at any rate, has never misled the working-class by inducing them to think that anything but capitalist legislation can come from capitalist governments.

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1927)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Correspondent Answered.

We give below a letter from “Student” and our replies to his four questions : —

Oct. 6th, 1927.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

17, Mount Pleasant, 

London, W.C.1.

Dear Comrades,

I am in agreement and have been for a number of years with the Object and Principles of the S.P.G.B., and have been preaching same, yet I must say that I do not agree with actions, statements, and attitude of certain members of the S.P.G.B. which I, like many others, maintain are detrimental to progress to the object of Socialism as stated by the S.P.G.B. I write to ascertain from you your answer to the following questions :—

1. If a person believe there to be a Supreme Being or Living God; or believe in the statements supposed to have been made by the supposed Christ, would such a person be allowed to join or remain a member of the S.P.G.B.?
2. If a person be a member, an active member, of a local unemployed organisation, originated and supported by members of the Tory Party and Fascists, would such person be allowed to join or remain a member of the S.P.G.B.?
3. Is there in your opinion an organisation which does function that is strictly Non-Political: whether it does state so or not?
4. Would you say that nationalisation is, or is not, a step in the right direction toward Socialism?

Thanking you in anticipation for your reply through the ” Standard ” or otherwise.—Yours fraternally,

A Student.

Reply.

(1) Applicants for membership of the Socialist Party are required to demonstrate only that they accept our Declaration of Principles and will adhere to our rules (except, of course, that they must show that they understand what they are signing). But acceptance of Socialism involves acceptance of certain views as to the evolution of society ; there is, therefore, no place in our ranks for those whose “beliefs” prevent them from working confidently for the establishment of Socialism. Belief in a “Supreme Being” possessing and using the power to mould men and things arbitrarily to a “Divine Will ” cuts across our scientific view of the necessity of moulding society ourselves in accordance with our definite views of working-class interests. To show that this is not an exaggerated precaution, we need only consider an amazing document which bears the signature of A. J. Cook, Ben Tillett, George Lansbury, R. Coppock and others. This is the Proclamation of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, issued on April 25th, 1926, for the celebration of ” Industrial Sunday.”

The signatories declare that:

“In attaching our names to this manifesto of the Industrial Christian Fellowship, we proclaim our belief in the Gospel of Christ as the final truth concerning the relationship of men one with another. It is our conviction that statesmanship will fail, and political programmes will prove futile as a solvent of social troubles, unless they embody the spirit and practice of Christ.”

There is much more of this kind of stuff, including an appeal “to our fellow-citizens of all classes” to remedy the evils of the modern world.

Now we offer membership to those who accept our solution of the economic problem of the working class; we cannot offer it to those who pin their faith to Christ, or the “Christian spirit,” or the works of a “Supreme Being,” and who by so doing explicitly or implicitly reject all “political programmes,” including our own. Neither we nor they would benefit from the encouragement such a course would give to the confusion of a double and conflicting allegiance.

(2) and (3) We cannot answer such a question without particulars of the organisation referred to. Members are frequently compelled, in order to work at their trade, to join trade unions founded and dominated by liberals, labourites, and other anti-socialists. We can only say in general that members may not belong to other political parties. Whether a particular organisation is political, or whether for other reasons we consider it undesirable for members to join it, must be decided on the merits of each case.

(4) Nationalisation, or State Capitalism, in this country is emphatically not a step in the right direction. In a backward country like Russia, faced with the need to go through Capitalism before Socialism is a practical possibility, State Capitalism may be a step in the right direction, in that it may hasten capitalist development and enable it to proceed without certain of the worst excesses which competitive capitalism exhibited in this country in the early days.

Editorial Committee.

A Look Round. (1904)

From the December 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those nose-poking busybodies who constitute the Charity Organisation Society have recently employed themselves enquiring into the question of other people’s unemployment and have issued an exhaustive report on the matter. They have discovered that pauperism and vagrancy are increasing continuously and that there is a large, unskilled, unorganised mass, many of whom are unemployable, if that word can be taken to mean that they have come to dislike long periods of continuous labour, and are often, in bodily strength and temperament, unfit for it.

* * *

At first sight this looked as if the C.O.S. were indulging in the prevailing fashion and attacking the “smart set,” but as probably some of the Society belong to that set they would hardly cry “stinking fish.” The report contains a number of recommendations which may be summed up in more committees, more classification, better organisation of charity and a further enquiry and report. And if all these recommendations are adopted the unemployed problem will be untouched because the cause of the unemployment lies deeper than these people have ever poked. When it is solved by the only way, a reorganisation of our industrial system, well-fed unemployed like the members of the C.O.S. will find circumstances somewhat altered.

* * *

Charity, whether organised or unorganised, exists because some folk have more than they need and others need more than they have. In a country where labour applied to natural objects can produce more than sufficient for everybody, such a state is unnecessary as well as unjust. In the Socialist Society, where industry is organised for the benefit of all, where all perform their share of the necessary labour and where all enjoy without stint the results of the organised effort of the whole community, neither want nor charity need to exist. But the perpetuation of the capitalist system and not the establishment of the Socialist Society is the object of the charity-mongers.

* * *

In a note appended to the report George Lansbury, who was a member of the Committee of Enquiry, dissents from it, mainly on questions of principle, such as the reasons which have led to increased pauperism in places like Poplar and West Ham. He agrees with what is said as a statement of reasons which have operated to accentuate the evil, but does not agree that we have created the evil. He is of opinion that this lies far deeper in our individual life than any question of Poor-Law administration. This is veering round with a vengeance, for a man who has been a Socialist Parliamentary candidate and thus has publicly associated himself with the materialist philosophy.

* * *

Much attention is being given just now to the Poplar Labour Colony at Laindon, Essex, which is claimed by its promoters to most nearly approach to a solution of the unemployed problem. The colony consists of some hundred acres of land which were presented to the Poplar Guardians at a peppercorn rent for an experimental period of three years by Mr. Fels, with the option of buying it at the price he paid, viz., £2,125. Work has been going on for three months, during which time two reservoirs have been constructed and are almost ready for use, living quarters have been erected, and nearly the whole of the farm colony prepared for cultivation. When it is added that the colonist, of course, is not supposed to make a resting place of the farm, but will, when sufficiently trained in agricultural duties, be passed on to some other employer, where he will be able to make a fresh start in life, it will easily be recognised how far from the solution the experiment is.

* * *

From the point of view of those of the submerged who are taken from the gutter and taught to become competent agricultural workers some good is done, but as soon as they become such they enter into competition with other workers, and if they are to secure employment it can only be by driving others, less competent perhaps, into the gutter to require treatment by the Guardians in the same manner. Obviously such a scheme provides no solution of the problem—it merely raises one section of the community at the expense of another.

* * *

In dealing with this problem last month, attention was drawn to the effect of the introduction of machinery, involving a greater and greater output with the aid of fewer men. Machines are introduced to effect a saving, usually in the wages bill. Last month’s number of the “Decorator” published a description of the paint-dipping plant recently installed at Woolwich Arsenal. Ammunition and other waggons are dipped bodily into tanks containing paint, which is kept agitated by means of revolving screws, and may be given three coats in one day, as the paint dries very quickly. The saving effected is very great and is likely to be extended to other industries.

* * *

The Liberals have every reason to be satisfied with the good work which W. Crooks is doing for them, and they must laugh in their sleeves when they recollect that he is paid £200 a year by the L.R.C. to represent “Independent” Labour. Last month he presided at a bazaar organised by the Boro’ of Woolwich Labour Representation Association, and in his opening address declared that Earl Carrington was one of the best friends of Labour, and a democratic member of the House of Lords. The workers of Woolwich were under more than an ordinary obligation to his lordship. If every lord who possessed land as Lord Carrington did were as good and kindly as he it would be an excellent thing for the country.

* * *

So that apparently, in Crooks’ view, landlordism is all right if the landlords are good and kindly, and no objection may be raised to the House of Lords provided the members are “democrats” and will condescend to place the workers under more than an ordinary obligation by opening bazaars for them !

* * *

Of course his lordship was smart enough to rise to the occasion and to play the game. He returned his most grateful thanks for having been allowed to open the bazaar, which he believed was entirely run and entirely stocked by the free gifts of that great industrial class which it was his pride and his privilege to remember his own family originally sprung from. It is rumoured that he added “and have lived on ever since and will continue to do as long as you will allow us” but the loud and prolonged applause, ably led by Mr. Crooks, prevented this from being heard by the assembled sturdy sons of Labour.

* * *

Since the bazaar Crooks has been the chief speaker at a Free Trade meeting at Stratford Town Hall, where the chair was taken by C. F. G. Masterman, who was such a persona grata with some S.D.F. members when he recently contested Dulwich that they canvassed for him. He is at present the Liberal candidate for North West Ham. The Liberal wirepullers, with their usual astuteness, are trotting him round the constituency in a “non-political” capacity. A few days previous to this meeting he took part in an Education conference and lectured to the members of Grove Congregational Church Literary Society. Doubtless he will shortly be present at the annual distribution of the Coal and Clothing Club, send his best wishes to the annual sale of work of the Dorcas Society, and look in for a few moments at the concert of the amalgamated athletic clubs of the district, for thus are elections fought and won.

* * *

At the Free Trade meeting Councillor Anarchist Leggatt occupied a seat on the platform, together with A. E. Jacobs (I.L.P.), and letters were read from W. Thorne (Labour Candidate for South West Ham) and C. Boardman (Liberal and Passive Resister), regretting their inability to take part in the meeting. Truly a strange gathering ! After the speeches Crooks proposed a resolution pledging those present at the meeting to oppose any candidate at the next election who does not guarantee to maintain the policy of Free Trade. Now, if such candidates are to be opposed, their opponents, provided that they pledge themselves to maintain the policy of Free Trade, must be supported. Thus the Liberals adroitly lead Labour members and candidates to admit that there is a difference between capitalist candidates—a difference in favour of Free Traders as against Protectionists, a difference in favour of the kites as against the crows. It is regrettable that members of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. fall so easily into this trap.

* * *

In the September quarter’s report of the Gas-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union, W. Thorne hopes that when the general election takes place Union members in all parts of he country will recognise the absolute necessity of working for and voting in favour of men of their own class. That way lies disaster! From a Socialist point of view the fact that a candidate is or has been a member of the working-class is not of itself sufficient. Nothing is to be gained by voting for a candidate, whatever his class, who does not understand the principles of Socialism, and who is not prepared to go to the House of Commons as a rebel, determined, by every means in his power, to seek the overthrow of the capitalist-class. The average labour leader who attaches himself to a section of the capitalist political party serves the interests of that party and not those of the working-class.

* * *

Socialists well understand the motives that prompt benevolent plutocrats to build model villages, erect sanitary and even palatial factories and workshops, admit their employees to a share of the profits, and other little dodges of a similar character. It is because they are sufficiently far-sighted to recognise that it pays. The latest is the introduction by Messrs. J. Lyons & Co., of the gramophone. This is now kept going whilst the workers grind coffee, pack tea, etc. A representative of the firm thinks that instead of detracting the girls from their work it gives them a fillip. Soldiers, he says, march better to music, so why should not workers work better ?

* * *

There is every reason why the necessary labour should be performed under healthy and enjoyable conditions, but such are at present adopted only to enable the capitalist class to obtain greater results in a given time out of the workers.

* * *

W. C. Steadman, who is advertised in the “Finsbury Free Press” as the “adopted Liberal, Radical and Labour Candidate for Central Finsbury,” pursues the even tenor of his way and plays his part exceedingly well as a decoy-duck for the Liberals. Last month he presided at a meeting held at Stepney Meeting House to hear an address from Mr. Durham Stokes, the Liberal Candidate. On the platform were Earl Beauchamp, B. S. Strauss, Liberal candidate for Mile End, and J. W. Benn, Liberal candidate for St. Georges. We would ask our friends who urge the workers to vote for men of their own class, without insisting that they shall be Socialists, whether they consider that Steadman is acting as a friend of his class whilst he is playing the game of the capitalists in this manner ?

* * *

An arbitration case has just been concluded between the Liverpool Corporation and Sunlight Soap Lever. Some years ago Mr. Lever purchased 2,200 acres of land at Horwich, adjacent to the Rivington Watershed, the property of the Liverpool Corporation, for £60,000. Mr. Lever gave 400 acres of the land to Bolton, his native place, for a public park, and for the remainder, which the Liverpool Corporation require for public works, he demanded £400,000. The Corporation offered to pay £40,000. Mr. Lever displayed his “public spirit” by refusing and putting Liverpool Ratepayers to the expense of an arbitration, as the result of which the price fixed to be paid to him is £138,449. In this manner our “model employer” builds up his reputation for good works, and by his own hard work (?) becomes enriched. For of such is the kingdom of capitalism.

Jack Kent

Greatness and Crime (1941)

From the February 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

A significant passage in Mr. Churchill’s Italian message has been uniformly ignored. Denouncing Mussolini as a “criminal,” he nevertheless conceded that he “is a great man.” A more illuminating exhibition of the outlook of public men could hardly have been recorded in so few words.

Look through Carlyle’s gallery of “heroes”—Mahomet, Frederick “the Great,” and, in a minor order of “greatness,” Governor Eyre, of Jamaica: “Women were stripped and scourged with all the delight which a savage village population might have felt in torturing witches. . . .” (“History of Our Own Times,” by Justin McCarthy. Vol. 3, p. 273.)

Holland Rose, preceptor of ‘Varsity youth and Newnham beauty, wrote a “Life of Napoleon.” On page 204 (single volume edition) we read : “Considered from the military point of view, the massacre at Jaffa is perhaps defensible.” Murderer (of D’Enghien), petty cheat, repulsive amorist, all are duly recorded by Holland Rose; but the “true man” (read “great man” in light of general tone of the Life) is revealed when his hero points to the stars, and stuns his doubting servants with the priceless irrelevance (“Who Made All That?” (p. 186).

One of the most amazingly brazen associations of greatness and crime is made by Mary Bell (“A Short History of the Papacy”). The reference is to the Borgian Pope, Alexander VI, who probably vies with an earlier John XXII, in the commission of gaudy and unnameable crimes. “If we exonerate him from the deepest guilt, he must also forfeit the admiration which we cannot withhold from daring criminality” (p. 297). Mary’s hero falls a wee bit short, however. “His Vatican orgies lacked the inspired touch of splendid sin.”

From Mary to George Lansbury. “I think history will record Herr Hitler as one of the great men of our time” (“My Quest for Peace”), quoted by Daily Herald, April 26th, 1938. But then Lansbury was among the “Labour” crowd who stated that they derived their caricature of “Socialism” from the Bible.

One of the more open and visible signs of the capitalist system is gangsterdom, and its “great men” within the prescribed limits of criminality the system legalises cannot escape the fundamental Al Capone mark. A system based upon varying degrees of exploitation of men, women, and children breeds its own system of values. True, there have always been poets and dreamers, Isaiahs and Shelleys, who have genuinely, passionately urged an ethic transcending the system, beating ineffectual angelic wings in an unresponsive void.

Socialism alone can create an entirely new outlook. Complete social freedom alone can create an unaffacted, indissoluble brotherhood. Shelley’s noble aspiration, expressed in “I wish no living thing to suffer pain,” will be implemented, as far as the cessation of “Man’s inhumanity to man” is concerned.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, despised and neglected to-day, knows that its message is even now helping to speed the day. It has no use for great men, it has no “leaders,” its simple philosophy, based upon the impregnable facts of history and its economic causation, looks to the day when genial kindliness will govern social relations.

Peter Gog.