The Commune of Paris. (1911)

From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

France was at war with Prussia. On September 4th, 1870, Paris proclaimed the Republic. A similar proclamation immediately followed throughout France.

The real leaders of the working class were in the Bonapartist prisons, and Thiers, one of the foremost men in the Bonapartist regime, was allowed to act as their statesman, and Trochu as their general, on the one condition that they held these posts for the sole purpose of

NATIONAL DEFENCE ONLY

against the Prussian invaders.

Now Paris armed its workers to defend itself against the Prussians, but here a difficulty presented itself to the capitalist class. If the workmen of Paris should gain a victory over the invader, they would undoubtedly take the Government of the town into their own hands—a thing most undesirable to the master class—and as the Manifesto of the International puts it, “In this conflict between duty and class interest the Government, of National Defence did not hesitate one moment to turn into a Government of National Defection.”

Thiers and Trochu, playing the game of the capitalist class, did all in their power to assist in the fall of Paris. From the first Trochu admitted that Paris could not stand a seige, yet Thiers, Trochu, Favre, and the rest, of the so-called Government of National Defence, had bombastic and lying manifestoes issued, declaring that “the Government of Paris will never capitulate,” “Jules Favre, the Foreign Minister, will not cede an inch of our territory nor a stone of our fortresses.” But Favre admitted in a letter to Garnbetta, that they were defending Paris

AGAINST THE WORKERS,

and not against the Prussian army.

Documentary evidence has since been produced which plainly shows that, amongst those in command, it was well understood that Paris should capitulate, and on January 28th, 1871, the Government of National Defence fully exposed the treacherous game it was playing by assuming the title, with the permission of Bismark, of “The Government of France.”

When the Commune was established a good deal of evidence of the treachery was discovered, to regain which, says a manifesto of the Commune, “these men would not recoil from battering Paris into a heap of ruins washed by a sea of blood.” This prognostication proved to be absolutely correct.

Paris was invested, and five months later the gates were thrown open to the beseigers. The National Guard (consisting chiefly of workmen) had been provided with armaments by public subscription, and their weapons therefore were their own property. As such they were recognised and

EXEMPTED IN THE GENERAL SURRENDER.

On the eve of the capitulation the Government took no precautions to safeguard these weapons, but cunningly left them where they would be most likely to fall into the hands of the enemy. The National Guards had elected a Central Committee, and they had the guns removed to Montmartre, out of the reach of the Prussians.

Prior to this Thiers had travelled Europe in an endeavour to “barter the republic for a crown.” The great obstacle in the way of the restoration of the monarchy was armed Paris, the stronghold of the republicans, and “Paris armed was the Revolution armed.” This in itself explains why the guns of the National Guard were left to be captured by the Prussians. This move having failed, the question that presented itself to the arch-traitors, Thiers & Co., was how to disarm the Parisian workers. So, under the pretext that “the artillery of the National Guard belonged to the State,” Thiers ordered them to deliver it to the Government.

The National Guards refused to comply, and, thwarted in their trickery, the National Assembly sent regular troops in the night to take the 250 pieces of ordnance from Montmartre. This was nearly successfully accomplished, but, with astonishing lack of foresight, no means of transport were provided, and the delay which ensued enabled the citizens—men, women, and children–to surround the guns and fraternise with the soldiers. General Lecompte ordered his men to

FIRE UPON THE PEOPLE.

Four times the order wan given, but when they did fire it was to dispatch Lecompte himself.

So sure were the Government of success that they had beforehand printed their bulletin of victory, and Thiers held ready the placards announcing his measure of coup d’etat; but now these had to be replaced by an announcement that he had resolved to leave the National Guard in possession of their arms, with which, he said, he felt sure they would rally round the Government against the rebels. “Out of 300,000 National Guards,” says the Manifesto of the International, “only 300 responded to this summons. . . The glorious working men’s revolution of the 18th of March took undisputed sway of Paris. The Central Committee was its provisional Government.”

If the Government blundered in the attempt to seize the guns, an even worse blunder was committed by the revolutionaries in allowing the National Assembly to escape when they had them at their mercy. Instead of arresting them they allowed them to march to Versailles, which town they made their headquarters. And here, with the assistance of the Prussians, who released the prisoners of war on condition that

THEY FOUGHT AGAINST THE COMMUNARDS,

they were enabled to get together an army.

On the 18th March the Central Committee issued a manifesto which said : “The Proletarians of Paris, amidst the failure and treason of the ruling class, have understood that the hour has struck for them to save the situation by taking into their own hands the direction of Public affairs. They have understood that it is their imperious duty and their absolute right to render themselves masters of their own destinies by seizing upon the Governmental power.”

The Commune was proclaimed, and its officials, elected by universal suffrage, were the acknowledged representatives of the working class. The police were converted into the responsible and revocable agents of the Commune, as were all the other officials. All services were rendered for workmen’s wages. “The vested interests and the representation allowances of the dignitaries of State disappeared along with those dignitaries themselves.” The Church was disestablished. All Educational institutions were thrown open free to all. The Post Office, placed under the direction of a workman named Theisz, raised the salaries of all its employees and reduced their hours. Night work in bakehouses was abolished. A labour exchange was established which recommended the return of pledges to all necessitous persons, and the suppression of the pawnshops, as the Commune intended to give guarantees of support to workmen out of employment. All offices appear to have been most ably administered, except the War Department, which made a series of blunders. But with the Versailles army being reinforced by Bismark,

PARIS WAS DOOMED.

Sunday, the 21st of May, saw the Communards gathered in the Tulleries Gardens at a concert held in aid of the widows and orphans of the National Guards slain in the defence of Paris. A similar concert was to take place the following Sunday, but already the Versailles troops were in the city, having entered by the gate of St. Cloud without opposition. And in a few hours black smoke was pouring over Paris from her blazing buildings, and her gutters ran with the blood of her workers.

Consternation reigned among the Communards when the news was announced, and the sitting of the Commune then in progress—the last as it proved—was soon afterwards dissolved. The one thing that now seemed to occupy the minds of all was how to defend their own particular quarters. Barricades were erected at all points, men, women and children assisting in the work—but all was hopeless endeavour. One by one the barricades were battered down and their defenders butchered.

Hundreds were taken prisoners by the Versailles Government. The “London Daily News” said that General Gallifet ordered hundreds of

MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN

out of a column and had them shot down without even the pretence of a trial. The correspondent of the same journal says : “It was not a good thing on that day to be noticeably taller, dirtier, cleaner, older, or uglier than one’s neighbours. One individual in particular struct me as probably owing his speedy release from the ills of this world to his having a broken nose. Over a hundred being thus chosen, a firing party was told off and the column resumed its march, leaving them behind. A few minutes afterwards a dropping fire in our rear commenced, and continued for a quarter of an hour. It was the execution of these summarily-convicted wretches.”

No great care was taken to see that life was extinct before the bodies were buried. Owing to groans issuing from the spot where burials had taken place exhumations were sometimes made, only to reveal the fact that the wounded had been buried alive. The Paris correspondent of the “Evening Standard” says in that paper on June 8th, 1871 : “That many wounded have been buried alive I have not the slightest doubt. One case I can vouch for. When Brunel was shot with his mistress on the 24th ult. in the courtyard of a house in the Place Vendome, the bodies lay there until the afternoon of the 27th. “When the burial party came to remove the corpses they found

THE WOMAN STILL LIVING

and took her to an ambulance. Though she had received four bullets she is now out of danger.”

But enough. Let us no longer dwell upon the terrible atrocities perpetrated by the party of “Order.”

All the powers of the lying Press were directed against the Communards. All the terrible deeds enacted by the agents of the capitalist class were laid at the door of the Communards themselves. Yet the only crime that could be truly brought against them was that they had been far too lenient toward their enemies.

While the Versailles Government were massacring their prisoners wholesale, the workers were treating theirs with respect, and not until thousands of their comrades were slaughtered did they retaliate.

Then, acting in accordance with recognised principles of warfare, they took a few of their hostages, including Archbishop Darboy, Judge Bonjeau, Jackers (a high financier), and some gendarmes, and had them shot. Thiers could have saved the life of the prelate, for he, with four others, was offered in exchange for one of the Communards, but the ogre refused.

And what a cry was raised by the capitalist Press over the execution of the archbishop ! Ten thousand proletarians could be butchered in cold blood, and with every detail of barbarity—men, women, and children—without a protest being raised, but an Archbishop ! And to think he had been shot by the working class, too ! Yet the man who was responsible for his death was Thiers, the bloodthirsty gourmand of the capitalist class.

Incendiarism is another charge brought against the Communards. But the buildings of Paris were burned by both sides. The workers used this as a means of covering their retreat, a resource recognised as

LEGITIMATE IN WARFARE.

For over twelve months the slaughter of the prisoners continued, until the total reached the appalling number of 30,000.

Many are the lessons taught us by the Paris Commune. Remembering the price paid for those lessons let us not forget them.

We have seen two sections of the capitalist class at war with each other join hands immediately the working class rise against one section, and together turn to crush them.

The revolution of the 18th March 1871 was a failure from the first, as all such local or national uprisings must be. The capitalist class is international, and all its force will be brought to bear to crush any uprising if necessary. The working class must organise like the master class—internationally. Remember the significant words of Professor Thorold Rogers: “They [the masters] are an organisation, and the workers are too apt to be a mob.”

Fellow workers, be no longer a mob. Get to understand your true historic mission. Organise with the wage-slaves the world over, with one object in view—

THE EMANCIPATION OF YOUR CLASS

by the establishment of Socialism.

H. A. Young

Shall We Work Harder? (1909)

From the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. H. Lever, M.P., writing in the Anti-Socialist says,

“The more consideration I give to the aims and objects of the Socialists the more I am confirmed in my opinion that Socialism cannot possibly achieve social betterment and increased social happiness.

“Whatever poverty we have to-day is entirely due to the fact that the world is not producing sufficient commodities to satisfy the world’s requirements. Not until we have a greater production of all that goes to make for social well-being shall we have a more even distribution of social well-being and comforts and less poverty.”

Now to see if poverty is due to an insufficiency of wealth to meet the world’s requirements.

Mr. Chiozza Money informs us in his “Riches and Poverty” that the annual aggregate income of the United Kingdom amounts to, roughly, £1,700,000,000 or £40 per head of the population, or, assuming that each family on the average consists of five persons, £200 per family.

But is the annual income so distributed that each family receives £200 per annum, or a proportionate sum according to its number ? The answer is obvious to any member of the working class. About half the wealth produced (and corresponding income), or £830,000,000, is taken by about 1 million persons, each with an income of over £160 or, again assuming that each of these persons is the head of a family of live we get 5 million people, while the other half, or £880,000,000, is taken by 38 million persons, all of whom are in receipt of less than £160 per family yearly. But if we extend our investigation a little further we shall find that 1,250,000 persons enjoy an aggregate annual income of £585,000,000. At one end of the social ladder we have ”one third of our population living on the verge of hunger,” while at the other end we have 250,000 persons, or with their dependents, 1,250,000 persons, enjoying an aggregate income of about £450 per head or £2,250 per family.

Yet Mr. “Millionaire” Lever informs us that he is of the opinion that we must first increase the amount of material wealth before we can “achieve increased social betterment.” 

Increase the means of wealth production to any extent you like and it can be shown that the workers would be where they are to-day—in poverty. (An instance is recorded in our issue of March last under the heading “A Cutting Cutting” where a surplus of textile products provided a splendid opportunity for a lock-out of the operatives and a little more starvation.) The introduction of new and cheaper methods of production, and therefore, means of producing wealth in greater abundance, to-day only results in the throwing out of employment many of the workers engaged in the particular industry in which the new methods are introduced, an increase in the army of the unemployed, greater poverty and misery for the workers. True, a reduction in the time necessary for the production of the necessaries of life means the cheapening of the cost of living ; but a fall in the cost of living results in the cheapening of the production and maintenance of the worker. The continued and enhanced competition of the workers for jobs soon reduces wages to the new cost of subsistence, while a decrease in wages results in the increased exploitation of the worker, a greater amount of surplus-value or profit for the employers, and an even greater disparity between the two classes. So then, while the means of production and distribution remain in the hands of a small section of the community, any new inventions that may arise to lessen the time necessary for the production of wealth only results in increased affluence and luxury for the few while the great bulk of the people remain in a perpetual state of poverty.

Not until the whole of the means and implements of production and distribution are owned and controlled by, and in the interest of, the entire community, will the great mass of the people enjoy the advantages that accrue from an improvement in the means of wealth production. Then, and not until then, will every new invention be hailed as an advantage to all, either to reduce the collective labour of the community or to increase the comforts and opportunities of its members.

If then, it is possible to produce sufficient wealth to satisfy the requirements of the whole community under the present wasteful competitive system, how much more within the bounds of possibility will it be under a system where competition for existence will be entirely eliminated and where industry will be so organised that only that labour which is absolutely necessary for the production of wealth will be expended, where the large army of people now engaged in the advertising trade, as travellers, policemen, soldiers, man-‘o-warsmen, workhouse officials, flunkeys, judges, lawyers, clerks, priests, and a host of others would be employed in useful, productive labour. These trades and professions arise out of and are necessary under a system based upon the private monopoly of the means of life, and will disappear with their transformation from private to social property.

Mr. Lever continues “The natural order of social progress must inevitably be first to produce material comfort, followed by intellectual, moral and social advancement.” It is something for a member of the capitalist class to recognise the necessity for satisfying the material wants and requirements of the community before any improvement in the intellectual and moral status of the people can be effected. When the means of decent living are assured to all, then and only then will the great mass of the people be elevated from the physical, intellectual and moral enslavement in which they are enveloped to-day. The means of life can only be assured to the whole of society by the demolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This can be achieved when the workers get to understand their true class position, see the necessity for the change and determine to emancipate themselves from the slavery in which they exist to-day, brush aside the idea that “Socialism will not come in our time,” and realise the fact that as soon as the workers, who outnumber the other class by about eight to one, understand and determine to have Socialism, they will get it. As the late Lord Salisbury once said, “Nothing can go against the voice of the people.”

So then, join the S.P.G.B. immediately you understand and agree with its principles, and make one more pillar in the foundation of the Socialist Republic.

H. A. Young

Correspondence: Could the workers capture the House of Commons? (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Could the workers capture the House of Commons?

Dear Comrade,—Are we justified in assuming that the working class, being the majority of the electors, could return a majority of Socialists to the House of Commons ? I am at present rather dubious on this point, having seen some figures in the “Daily Mail Year Book” for 1908, which seem to disprove the contention that the working class have the power to elect a Socialist majority. For instance, Kilkenny has 1,584 electors and returns one M.P. while Wandsworth has 34,461 and only returns one M.P. The Romford Division of Essex returns but one M.P. and has an electorate numbering 47,614, and Newcastle, with 37,417 voters returns two M.P’s.

Let us imagine an election to have taken place. A Conservative is returned for Kilkenny with 1,000 votes, and a Socialist is returned for Romford Division with 30,000 votes. We see here one Conservative and one Socialist returned, but the Conservative vote is only one-thirtieth that of the Socialist.

I should certainly think that the majority of the voters in divisions with a large electorate are proletarian, as it is only the workers who are found crowded together, while those divisions with a small electorate, which I believe are usually country divisions, would be mostly bourgeois.

In 1886 the Unionists were in a minority of 65,000 votes, yet they had a majority of 104 seats. We find a similar thing in Germany. The Social Democrats polled 3,251,000 votes and obtained 43 seats, while the Centre Party obtained 105 seats and polled only 2,247,000 votes.

I have written this letter in the hope that it may produce a discussion that will dispel these doubts from my mind.—Yours fraternally,

H. A. Young.

Dec. 8th, 1907.

Islington Branch Report. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reorganised in October, 1906, the Islington Branch has made steady progress. Our propaganda meetings have been the means of converting, among others, several members of the I.L.P. to Socialism, who have therefore resigned that body and joined the Socialist Party. The meetings, both at Highbury Corner and Finsbury Park, have well attended. the Socialist Standard sells well here, and we are always sure of a good collection. Several debates have taken place in Finsbury Park, the most notable of which were those with Fred Bramley, late of the Clarion Van, and Mr. Byland, of the Constitutional League. A report of the former appeared in the Party organ, while the latter was given a column in the Islington Gazette. We are now trying to arrange a debate with the Islington Branch of the S.D.F. on the question of “The palliative position of the S.D.F. v. the non palliative position of the S P.G.B.” Finishing up a very successful open air propaganda season, we looked about for a means of carrying on our work indoors, and finally succeeded in obtaining a hall, described by the local press as “the cosy, well lighted, well warmed, cheery-looking Grovedale Hall,” situated in Grovedale Road, Elthorne Road, Upper Holloway, close to Highgate tram terminus. Here we shall continue our work of converting the proletariat of Islington to Socialism. A debate has been arranged with a member of the Islington Borough Council, particulars of which we give from the Islington Post: “The first of a series of meetings to be held under the auspices of the Socialist Party of Great Britain will be the much talked of debate between Councillor Thomas Henry Dey and Mr. A. Anderson, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which will take place in Grovedale Hall on Thursday, February 6th. The Chair will be taken by Alderman T. Wakelin Saint at 8 p.m. Councillor Dey will open for half an hour, and take the affirmative on the question “Would Socialism be detrimental to the interest of the people?” Mr. Anderson will have half an hour to reply. Councillor Dey will have another twenty minutes and his opponent twenty minutes, then a final ten minutes each. Admission will be free to all.” Several debates have taken place from the enemy’s platform on “Christianity v. Socialism,” and on one occasion, in spite of 8 degrees of frost, the audience numbered several hundreds.

Islington, like most other districts, has its poverty problem, and in Pentonville it is most acute. In this district a Children’s Care Committee has been formed “for the relief of children suffering from want of food.” Four schools alone: White Lion St., Risinghill St., Ann St., and Winchester St., have 4,836 children on their roll. The statement of an official in the Pentonville Branch of the Salvation Army that “In spite of all our efforts poverty in Pentonville is increasing,” proves once more that chartity cannot cope with the problem. Neither can any other palliative of capitalism. If you desire to know the only solution come to Grovedale Hall on Thursday evenings.

H. A. Young

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For February. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fifty Years of “Progress”. (1909)

From the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Socialist Examination of a Capitalist Statement.

Flights of Fancy.

The Daily Chronicle could scarcely find words to give expression to its admiration of the Blue Book recently published by the Local Government Board, wherein, we are told, the great prosperity of the worker since the introduction of Free Trade, is clearly shown. Wages have risen, prices have fallen, and that great social sore, pauperism, has decreased. In fact, after a perusal of the figures we are almost led to believe that within the next few years all the social evils that now afflict us will have been entirely eliminated, almost, that is, unless we happen to be in possession of further facts and figures.

We are informed by the Daily Chronicle that since 1849 the percentage of paupers to the population has decreased.

Now the total number of persons in receipt of poor relief during the year 1906-7 was 2,076,316. Every day during the year, taking the average, 25.1 per thousand of the population were in receipt of relief. While there has been a decrease since 1850 in the number of outdoor paupers, the number of indoor paupers has almost doubled. When referring to this question the Press were very careful to avoid giving an explanation of the decrease of outdoor pauperism. The cause was fully explained by “F. C. W.” in the issue of March ’06 Socialist Standard, wherein he says

“The Poor Law was further strengthened by the Amendment Act of 1844, but it was not (says the “Encyclopedia Britannica”) until 1867 that the local administration bodies took the matter up with much enthusiasm. The Pauper Inmate Act of 1871, and the Casual Poor Act of 1882, made conditions of relief more onerous by increasing the compulsory stay of vagrants and by other means. Ashcroft and Preston Thomas say in their work ‘The English Poor Law System’ p. 285, ‘The marked increase of indoor paupers (accompanied of course by a still more marked decrease of outdoor paupers until recently) is due to the movement beginning about 1865 in favour of the workhouse principle. It is clear that in the case of this class of paupers (able-bodied adults) it was mainly by the rigid enforcement of the workhouse test that this improvement was secured.’ ”

The Return to Naked Fact.

There are now many other ways by which the workhouses are being relieved, such as, for instance, the Church Army and Salvation Army Homes, and Dr. Barnado’s Homes (which boast of having 8,000 children always under its care) and the rest of the 1,800 charitable institutions dispensing funds to the amount of ten million pounds per annum.

When the Pauper Inmate Act and the Casual Poor Act had been in operation some time, there was another large increase in pauperism. The “Twelfth Abstract of Labour Statistics” issued by the Board of Trade states that

“on every day throughout the year 1892 the average number of persons in receipt of poor relief was 953,719, this number rising steadily each year with but very slight fluctuation to 1,103,724 in 1906, being an increase not only in the number but also relatively to the increase of population.”

If the Majority Report of the Poor Law Commission is adopted and the suggested alterations in the Poor Law are enacted, then we shall again be told that pauperism is decreasing, while as a matter of fact the relief of the poor will have been transferred from public institutions to private charity, which we are told can be so developed and organised that out-door relief will become unnecessary.

Turning from the question of pauperism our attention is diverted to “the record of rising wages under Free Trade,” as the Daily Chronicle has it.

Two sides to the story.

Now it is true that there has been an increase in the rate of money wages, but that is no criterion of an actual rise in wages or of an increase in the purchasing power of the wages received. Turning again to the “Twelfth Abstract of Labour Statistics” we find that since 1895 (the first year for which comparative tables are given) the increase in the retail prices of the necessaries of life, apart from the increase of house rent, which is by far the most important factor in the expenditure of the workers, has kept pace with the increase in the rate of wages, which is in many cases based upon the price paid per hour. But the same publication informs us that the number of hours worked per week have been greatly reduced, to say nothing of the increase of unemployment. So when we take all the facts into consideration we find instead of an increase in wages we have an absolute decrease.

The Daily News makes a very poor attempt to minimise the extent of the unemployed problem by attributing the great increase during 1908 to the engineering and ship-building disputes, and this in spite of the fact that the Board of Trade and Labour Gazette tells us in every issue, that persons on strike or locked out, sick or superannuated, are excluded from the figures.

The health of the workers is the next subject that confronts us. We are reminded that the number of cases arising from such diseases as enteric fever, diptheria, small-pox, etc., have been greatly reduced, in fact some of them have actually been stamped out. If, then, there has been such a large decrease in this class of disease, we must ask the reason for the alarm of the friendly societies at the “enormous increase in the number of applicants for sick pay.”

Unemployment brings Sickness–

The Evening News of June 3rd asks “Are modern conditions of life undermining the general health of the working people of this country ? Mere warnings of medical men,” it continues, “unsupported by statistics, do not count as evidence, but the testimony of the great friendly societies which are in close and constant touch with the workers is a more weighty matter.”

On this question Mr. J. Luther Green, president of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, says,

“The matter is most serious and is causing the greatest concern to all friendly societies. . . . The causes of the alarming increase in sickness liabilities are probably to be found in the changed industrial conditions, the constancy of the evil of unemployment, the operation of the Compensation Act, and the increased pace and pressure of life. . . Distress arising from unemployment has been especially noticeable during the past year. Cases have come under the notice of the committee where the sickness has been solely the result of unemployment. Distress is followed by privation and health must of necessity be impaired.”

It appears that while the membership of the above society has increased, since 1903, 12½ per cent., the number of claims for sick pay has increased 24 per cent., and the amount paid in sick benefit by over 33 per cent., in spite of the adoption of more stringent methods to eliminate the fraudulent “invalids.”

But the Hearts of Oak is only one of the many benefit societies, so we must take a broader view of the subject. Reviewing the returns of the 14 leading benefit societies we find an almost corresponding increase in sickness, and we agree with the president of the H.O.O. that the great increase is due to insufficient nourishment and the increased pace and pressure on the life of the worker. Every worker knows that the pace and pressure in the factories, workshops and offices is far greater to-day than it was even a few years ago, while the age at which he is thrown upon the industrial scrap-heap, when his vitality and energy have degenerated, is earlier; and so witnesses the record, in the Blue Book, of the great decrease in the number of persons employed over the age of 65.

Employment Wounds and Death.

With the speeding up of machinery and increasing pressure upon the worker grows the the increase of sickness, insanity and the “accidents” upon the industrial field, the number of the latter in 1907 reaching the enormous total of 160,731, being almost double the figure for 1898. The number of fatal “accidents” rose from 3,810 in 1898 to 4,453 in 1907, and the number of non-fatal accidents increased from 79,633 in the former year to 156,278 in the latter ! a total far in excess of the combined British and Boer casualties in the late South African war.

The increasing development of capitalism renders it far more difficult for the worker to raise himself from the ranks of the wage-slaves until now it has become almost an impossibility even in individual cases.

The increase in unemployment and the longer period the worker is in the labour market, makes life ever more insecure. While in employment he is compelled, where possible, to deprive himself and family of many of the necessaries of life in order to accumulate a little to tide over the ever-expected period of “out-o’-work,” an attempt that more often than not ends in failure. 

In conclusion, then, and taking into consideration all the facts attending the position of the workers, we can safely say that instead of enjoying greater prosperity, their position in society continues on the downward grade, Liberal and Tory reformers notwithstanding. And so their only hope is in the complete change, the Revolution, i.e., Socialism.

H. A. Young

Correspondence: The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

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

[To the Editor of the Socialist Standard]

Sir, —Re your article in the February Socialist Standard : “The Late Islington Dispute,” wherein you make a statement that no delegate had instructions to vote “Islington’s expulsion,” which is not true, as I was present at the Tottenham Branch meeting, when the delegates got instructions to vote for the expulsion of Islington.

W. Innes.

Reply:

[Though it was evident that Mr. Innes was entirely in error, it was decided, in order that not the slightest doubt might remain, to request the secretary of the Tottenham Branch to forward a copy of all minutes containing instructions to delegates to the quarterly delegate meeting in question. These Comrade Lobb has sent and they make it abundantly clear that there is no truth in Mr. Innes’ allegation. The following is a copy of the Tottenham secretary’s letter:

Dear Comrade,—Re yours of Feb. 24th. The following is a copy of minutes from the minute book of the Tottenham Branch, dated respectively the 9th and 23rd of July, 1906:—

July 9th—”H. A. Young and E. Stevens were appointed delegates to Quarterly Delegate Meeting.

July 23rd—”Secretary read re Bexley Heath and Islington Branches. After considerable discussion, Kauter proposed and Dye seconded, ‘That delegates defend the action of the E.C. and condemn the action of the Islington Branch.’ Resolution carried. Young and Stevens being unable to attend, Rich and Stowe were appointed, and credentials handed to Stowe.”

The subject under discussion was the stopping of propaganda meetings of the Islington Branch and the instructions given were to condemn same and support the action of the E.C. re Bexley Branch.

Yours fraternally,

T. W. Lobb.

As was stated in the February issue of this journal, “no delegate of any branch had instructions to vote Islington’s expulsion.” The minutes in question are open to the inspection of Mr. Innes upon application.]

Blogger's Notes:

'R. Innes' might be a typo. A 'William Innes' was a member of Tottenham Branch — joining the SPGB in 1905 — and records state that he did resign from the SPGB, but it doesn't give the exact date. We just have to presume it was in the aftermath of the Islington Branch dispute.

Economics in brief. (1913)

From the April 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The science which, treats of the production and distribution of wealth is termed political economy, and has been described as the “dismal science”—which name the contradictions and confusion of the orthodox economists render not inapplicable. To study these economists is like studying astronomy without a knowledge of gravity. But just as astronomy was brought out of chaos by that discovery which enabled us to understand the movements of the heavenly bodies, so about fifty years ago political economy was placed on a firm foundation by Karl Marx, the founder of scientific Socialism.

In his work “Capital” Marx brought to light certain facts which the orthodox economists could not accept without admitting truths which quite upset their teachings. And the dissemination by the university professors of the Marxian teaching that the capitalists live upon the exploitation of the workers would surely have resulted in their removal from their posts, just as Prof. Thorold Rogers was deprived of an office “for tracing certain social mischiefs to their origin.”

Many of the older economists made no fundamental distinction between modern production and that of former epochs. But to Marx the production of wealth under capitalist society differs from all previous production in that the wealth under former systems was produced primarily or solely for use, while under modern conditions it is produced for the purpose of exchange. But this is not all, for no one to-day enters into the production of commodities, as goods created for exchange are termed, simply for the purpose of exchanging them for other commodities. And to understand the motive for which industry is carried on we must for a moment glance at the modern manufacturer and see why he is a manufacturer.

He starts out with a certain sum of money with which he purchases his plant, raw material, and other things essential to his particular line of business, and the finished commodities are exchanged for money. But if the object aimed at is achieved, then not only the original sum of money is returned, but an excess also. It matters not what class of goods is produced, how many or what quality, unless this surplus appears at the close of the cycle, the manufacturer is said to have failed.

The question then arises, how does this excess of wealth come about ? It is obvious that it does not arise in the process of exchange, for what one capitalist would gain another would lose. We must therefore look elsewhere for this source of profit.

The wealth used in modern society for the purpose of obtaining profit we call capital, and its owners capitalists. When the commodities of the industrial capitalist are produced they are placed upon the market for exchange, and the amount of other commodities he will receive for them does not depend upon his “will,” but upon conditions beyond his control. Once on the market his goods come face to face with other commodities of similar nature, and if our capitalist asks for his articles more than the average usually given, he will not sell them. Therefore he has to accept the average that society will give. Should, however, the market become overstocked, as it does periodically owing to the anarchical nature of present-day production, then each capitalist, in order to dispose of his particular commodity, will accept less than usual, while if, on the other hand, there is a greater demand for those articles they will ask and obtain more than the average.

Now these fluctuations take place round a certain point, but if a modification in the process of production takes place, then that point shifts. For instance, according to Babbage (“Economy of Manufacture”) the price of a sheet of plate glass 50″ x 30″ was in 1771 £24 2s. 4d., and in 1832 £6 12s. 10d., while small sheets (for a reason to be explained later) rose in price. The fall in price was due to the adoption of improved methods in producing largesheets, which reduced the time necessary to accomplish the operation.

We see, then, that the reduction in the time necessary for the production of a commodity results in a fall in its value, therefore what determines the value of a commodity is the time needed to produce it–not the time taken by the individual, but the average time taken to produce that particular line of commodities.

Commodities taking on the average the same time to produce will be equal in exchange, e.g., if A takes on the average 10 hours to produce and B also takes 10 hours, then they will both possess the same exchange value—one will exchange for the other. But if the time necessary for the production of B falls to 5 hours, then A will exchange for 2 Bs.

The direct exchange of one commodity for another without the intervention of any intermediary is a very primitive form of exchange and is known as barter. In primitive communities, where exchange takes place on a very small scale, where articles are produced primarily for use, and only the surplus is exchanged, barter is the common practice, but later an intermediary comes between the goods exchanged. This we term the medium of exchange, and many things have been used at different times for this purpose, such as salt, cattle, shells, copper, silver and gold. But this medium is not a thing outside the world of commodities. It is in itself a commodity whose value is known to society, and which will be accepted by all those desiring an exchange.

In modern society gold is used as the medium of exchange, having been selected as being convenient, portable, fairly constant in value, and as containing great value in small bulk.

When we say that a certain commodity is worth £1 we do but express the fact that the same quantity of human labour measured by time has been expended on the average in the production of each, and we say that the £1 is the price of this commodity.

But let us look a little farther. We will say that a gun is equal in value to £1, that is to say they each represent the same amount of human labour time. If the time necessary for the production of the gun falls by half, it is obvious that on our theory it will be worth only 10s. But now let us assume that no alteration takes place in the value of the gun, while the time necessary to produce the £1 falls by half, £2 would now be required to equal the value of the gun. Although no alteration has taken place in the value of the gun, its price has risen through a fall in the value of gold.

A fall in prices is generally looked for on the introduction of quicker methods of producing a commodity, but our second case seems to be in comprehensible to most people, and all sorts of theories are put forward to explain a general rise in prices.

It was the fall in the value of the medium of exchange that explains the increased price of the small sheets of glass referred to above, and the fact that the price of the larger sheets fell informs us that the fall in their value was greater than the fall in the value of the coin.

So far we have presumed that the owner of the commodities was their producer. Such an assumption might have sufficed in the handicraft system, where the producer owned the tools he used and the goods he produced. But under capitalist production the basis of our analysis is incomplete. We must therefore follow our capitalist into business again.

We said he starts out with a certain sum of money which we call his capital, with which he purchases his plant and raw material. This is termed constant capital, because its value does not alter during the process of production. It is true the plant deteriorates in value, as does also the quantity of the raw material, as production proceeds, but its value is not lost, but transferred to the finished commodities.

Obviously the constant capital cannot create even the smallest amount of value, for no matter how long it was left it would remain inoperative, and there would be no increase in value until another factor was introduced.

The manufacturer, therefore, has to have more capital with which to obtain this other factor in order to set this machinery in operation, and as the modern methods of production are far too vast for the owner to operate them by himself, even if he desired to do so, he has to seek the aid of others.

The capitalist purchases, not the worker, but his energies, his power to labour, and what the worker receives in return for this labour power we call wages.

Now there is a constant struggle going on amongst the workers for the jobs, which prevents wages rising, on the average, above a certain point. The large army of unemployed, the necessary adjunct of capitalist society, in their eagerness to obtain work, are prepared to accept a wage just sufficient to cover their cost of subsistence. The result is that those who are in employment have to accept the same or give way to those who will. Thus competition keepa wages, on the average, at the subsistence level. In other words, wages are governed by the cost of living.

The capitalist, then, has to purchase the requisite labour-power to operate his tools of production. And when this labour-power is expended in the production of useful articles a further value is created.

Now the value the workers create does not depend upon the wages they receive, which, we have seen, is determined by the cost of living. Hence it does not matter how much value they create, their wages remain the same. And it is obvious that if they do not create a value at least equal to that they receive in wages the manufacturer’s capital would soon become exhausted. But if this was all that could be obtained there would be no inducement for the capitalist to enter into business at all. The workers must, therefore, produce a value greater than their wages in order to ensure their continued employment.

This “surplus value,” as the excess of value over and above their wages created by the workers is called, increases with the increase in the productivity of labour. The more the workers produce the more goes into the pocket of the capitalist. And as the wages of the former are determined before ever they commence work, they will be unaffected by any alteration in the amount of value they create.

The appropriation of the surplus value by the capitalist is his sole motive for entering into production. But he is not able to retain the whole of this surplus value for himself : he has to make certain payments in the form of rent and interest.

We have said that the values of commodities are determined by the average amount of human labour time necessary to produce them. Equal quantities of labour time will, on the average, produce equal values. We have said further that the constant portion of capital does not create value, and therefore does not create surplus value.

Now the production of some commodities necessitates the use of a larger proportion of constant capital in proportion to the amount of labour employed. If all commodities were sold at their value it would mean that those capitals containing a larger percentage of constant capital would obtain less surplus value than those containing a smaller percentage.

For example, a certain capital, say £1,500, is composed of constant capital £1,000 and variable capital (that portion used for the payment of wages) £500, and the labour employed creates a value of £1,000. The total value of the product will be composed of constant capital £1,000 plus £1,000 created by the workers, making a total value of £2,000. The cost in money to the capitalist of producing the commodities will have been £1,500, leaving a surplus value of £500, or, roughly, 33 per cent. on the outlay.

Now we will take another illustration. Another capitalist also commences business with £1,500 of which he spends only £500 in constant capital and £1,000 in the purchase of labour power. Equal quantities of labour power produce equal values, hence the value of the product will be composed of £500 constant capital plus £2,000 created by the workers, making a total value of £2,500. The cost price to the capitalist will have been the same as in the previous illustration, viz., £1,500. The surplus in this instance will be at the rate of just over 66 per cent. on the outlay.

Now when analysing the capitalist mode of production we have always to remember that it presupposes competition in all its ramifications. And if all commodities were sold at their value capital would be withdrawn from those spheres of production which necessitated a large percentage of constant capital and invested in those which needed a smaller percentage. The withdrawal of capital and the consequent reduction in the competition in one sphere would allow of an increase in the prices of the commodities while in that sphere in which the influx of capital took place the increased competition would force down prices, thus causing an increase of profit in one sphere and a decrease in the other.

This competition is continually going on between the different capitals seeking investment, reducing the price of commodities in some spheres of production below their value and in other spheres raising the price above their value, at the same time and through this process bringing about an average rate of profit through out society.

The fact that there is a tendency to the formation of an average rate of profit in society resulting in commodities being sold at prices varying from their value does not in the least alter the Marxian theory of value as explained in the first volume of “Capital.” And although there is a deviation of price from the value of individual commodities, yet the total value of the commodities of society will equal the sum of their prices.

The point in political economy that is of paramount importance to the working class is the fact that they are robbed of the wealth they create over and above the cost of their subsistence. This robbery takes place because a certain class of people are allowed to own all the means for producing and distributing wealth—the land, mines, railways, factories, machinery, etc.

We of the Socialist Party, recognising this, are organising to wrest the means of life from the hands of these people and make them common property. When this is accomplished, then for the first time since the dawn of chattel slavery the exploitation of human labour-power will cease. Each member of the community capable of assisting in the production and distribution of wealth will be expected to perform his share of the necessary labour, and the wealth that is created will be the common property of the whole people.

The system of society based upon such a property condition we call Socialism.

H. A. Young

Islington Branch Report. (1907)

Party News from the June 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sunday, May 5th, the 89th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx, proving a favourable opportunity, we opened our season by setting up our platform in the midst of a number of orators of all shades of opinion. In front was an open-air Sunday School; close by a Christian Evidence man denounced the Secularists, while adjacent a Secularist denounced the Christians. A Free-Trader disputed with a Protectionist whether the workers were better off under Liberal or Tory rule, and mystified the audience. Comrade Anderson pointed out the true inwardness of the situation to an attentive gathering, and finished amidst applause. We sold 70 STANDARDS, and had a good collection. Altogether a promising start. We hope, by the time this report appears, to have started our Wednesday night propaganda meetings at Highbury Corner.

H. A. Young

The Ethics of Commercialism. (1912)

From the February 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

In spite of the numerous laws that have been passed prohibiting the sale of adulterated foodstuffs, the number of prosecutions each year is enormous. And yet the total cases detected by the inspectors is insignificant compared with the actual amount of adulteration.

Avoiding detection seems to have been reduced to a fine art, especially in some branches of industry — the dairy trade, for example.

The official figures show that of the total number of samples of milk taken, over 12 per cent. have been found to be adulterated. But adulteration today is carried to such perfection that many of the samples taken cannot be proved to have been tampered with.

Take, for example, the case of the London dairyman who, when brought into court charged with selling adulterated milk, had finally to admit that he had systematically “doctored” his commodity for the last three and a half years. Yet dozens of samples had been taken from him by the Council and passed as genuine new milk.

Now milk, before it can be assumed to be adulterated, must contain less than 3 per cent. of fat, which is the amount prescribed in the milk regulations of the Board of Agriculture. This is, as is well known by the authorities, a very low percentage, and there are very few cows indeed that would give such a poor quality of milk. But unless the samples prove upon analysis to be below this “standard,” the authorities cannot prosecute.

So the cute and unscrupulous dairyman takes advantage with impunity of this margin between the standard allowed and the actual quality given by the cow, and reduces all his milk to the artificial line of demarcation.

Because of the difficulty of detection the method usually adopted is that of adding separated milk. The lactometer (an instrument for testing milk by its specific gravity) is placed in the churn of milk and the “sep” added until the lactometer indicates that the legal limit has been reached.

Hundreds of samples of such milk can he taken and analysed, and passed as new milk. It is only when the dairyman “overdoses” it that he is prosecuted, and even then, often enough, unless it is a very flagrant case, no action is taken.

After the dairyman has been fined several times his name gets very odorous in the district. and it frequently becomes necessary to find a new name for the firm. Many instances of this could be given, but one, which developed into a rather amusing case, will suffice.

A short time ago a North London firm was fined £100 for the above method of fraud, and the customers hearing of it, naturally began to transfer their custom to other dairymen. In an endeavour to avert this the name of the firm was changed, and shortly after the old firm was summoned for the old offence, but under the new name, and were fined only £5 because this was the first offence!

Another dairyman had a novel device for selling margarine as butter. As he was of the opinion that the inspector would not ask the carrier when on the round for a sample, he considered it safe to work off the margarine on the unsuspecting “round” customers. But the officer eventually got a clue, so another innovation was tried.

The “butter" was wrapped in ordinary unstamped paper, and then placed in a bag labelled “margarine.” If the inspector or a “suspected” person asked for half a pound of butter they were told that it was margarine, and shown the stamp. But when the regular customer was supplied the bag bearing the magic legend was removed, and they were handed the unstamped packet. And the very existence of the law and the inspectors helped to lull their suspicions and render the deception more complete and easy.

And so the game goes on. There is a continual struggle going on between the fraudulent trader, who seeks the aid of science in his nefarious business, and the inspector, who has to be a veritable Sherlock Holmes if he is to be successful in catching his prey. Every new method of detection, every fresh trap to catch the culprit, only results in the discovery of other means of defeating the law.

Some of our critics think that they have discovered in the laws relating to adulteration, a flaw in our contention that the capitalist class legislate in their own interests. They assert that the laws are diametrically opposed to the interests of the ruling class.

Such an idea is entirely erroneous We cannot look upon the wealthy class as one homogeneous whole in all matters of detail, although we can, in a broad sense, when considering the interest of the working class as opposed to that section of society.

The wealthy class function in society in s two fold capacity, i.e. as capitalists and as purchasers of commodities for personal consumption. It is in the latter capacity that the capitalist generally views the laws directed against adulteration and seeks to protect himself from the unscrupulous trader. But even as a capitalist and an employer be knows that these laws are an advantage to him; for if his wage slaves are getting inferior food he is getting an inferior quality of labour power. Therefore he is not getting full value for his money, for after all, the wages ha pays are only the equivalent of the food, clothing, and shelter supplied to the labourer, and necessary to enable him to reproduce his efficiency. Indirectly, the capitalist purchases the food, clothing, and shelter for the worker when he hands him his wages, so he himself is affected by any fluctuation in its quality or price.

This has been admitted, unwittingly no doubt, by the European and American statesmen, large companies, and even Governments who have raised the nominal or money wages of their employees because of the increase in the cost of living.

These laws, again, aim at protecting the capitalist from “unfair" competition Take again as an example the dairy trade. During last summer the exceedingly dry weather was responsible for a shortage in the supply of milk which resulted in a rapid increase in the wholesale price.

This affected the small men far more than the larger retail firms. The latter are usually cow-keepers. and are therefore not affected by the price, but only inconvenienced, perhaps, by a little shortage. But the small traders, who depend upon the wholesale firms for their supply, had to pay such a price that it left them no margin of profit. In many districts they could not even raise the price to their customers, for the larger firms, after consultation among themselves agreed not to do so — no doubt with a view to crushing out their small opponents.

This proved to be a great incentive to adulteration by the small men, as many of the local papers will testify. But still many of these petty traders were exterminated through inability to make the business pay. In some cases, after holding out to the last, they endeavoured to sell out to their larger competitors; but the latter were often too 'cute to purchase, knowing full well that their rivals would have to retire from the field, and that they would then get their businesses for nothing. And they did so, eventually, while their one time competitors were reduced to the ranks of the unemployed.

No wonder John Bright once referred to adulteration as a legitimate form of competition.

Adulteration is the outcome of competition and the desire for profit, and it is therefore inherent in the capitalist system. And no matter what number or manner of laws are passed against it, it will continue as long as the system continues.

When food and clothing are produced for use and not for profit, adulteration will disappear along with the huge army of inspectors who at present try to exterminate the adulterator, and signally and ignominiously fail to do so.

H. A. Young

Things You Should Know. (1912)

From the February 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some of our opponents are either moat superficial readers or given to deliberately misrepresenting statements that have appeared in the Socialist Standard by selecting a particular paragraph from an article which, taken by itself, has the appearance of being contradictory to our Declaration of Principles, while they conveniently ignore the remainder of the article, which would invariably put a very different complexion on the paragraph in question.

One such dishonestly selected passage is being perambulated before our supporters and others, who am misled simply because they have not the whole article before them.

The paragraph appears in the September 1911 issue of this journal, in an article under heading “Strikers Struck : How the Railway Servants were Betrayed.” It is as follows:

  "What was the position? The Companies had bluffed and failed. They were surprised at the effectiveness of the strike. The Government had bluffed and failed. They had thrown the whole military might of the nation against the strikers, and the only result had been to demonstrate the weakness of their position. The crude incapacity of their leader, whose traditional remedy for every difficult situation is butchery, had got them into a blind alley. They had not another move left.”

Our opponents the Industrialists and Anarchists, are now declaring that this is an admission of the superior power of the workers on the industrial field as compared with the political field. But where had the Government bluffed and failed? In what way had they demonstrated the weakness of their position? Our crafty antagonist does not tell you that, although the article explains it.

But possibly the present reader has the issue in question at hand, in which case, if he will turn to the fifth page, and the third column thereof, he will find the answer to the question about half way down the column.

But for the benefit of those who are unable to peruse the original article, I cull the following from it:

  "Let the workers learn from this the futility of General Strike tactics. The recent case was not a General Strike in any sense of the word. The Government's mistake was in taking measures called for by a General Strike. But in the chaos, and brutality, and bloodshed, and suffering, ay, and failure, of those few hours is a great lesson for the working class. The shade of anarchy, the spectre of starvation, in the adjacent background, did not threaten the masters, but brooded over the workers. On them was to fall all the horrors of the situation. Just because the issue was not worth either the launching or the bloody suppression of a General Strike, the railwaymen’s strike was good for more than it brought them; but where the issue from the workers’ standpoint is worth a General Strike, it is from the capitalists' standpoint worth crushing out in a Niagara of blood.
  “That the master class will always have ample powers at their command for this purpose while they hold the political machinery they will make sure, and that they will use them the thirty thousand victims of the Commune massacres warn us. And again the need for wresting the control of the armed forces from them by political action, by voting Socialists and Socialists only, into Parliament, is demonstrated.”

But to further insure against misunderstanding I commend the whole article to the careful perusal of the reader.

#    #    #    #

A rather remarkable speech was delivered by Baron de Forest in the Commons debate on international diplomacy — remarkable for the truth it contained. For truth is quite foreign to the average Liberal when it (as it usually does) rebounds to his detriment. He is reported (by “Reynolds’s Newspaper") to have said :

  “These [wars] were generally entirely international and cosmopolitan, and in no way did their gain affect the citizens of any one country. ‘In every country,’ he continued, ‘the machinery of the State, the naval and military powers of the State, are employed to secure privileges which are beneficial only to the few, and which in the majority of cases are actually harmful to most of the people, and have to be maintained first by money and then by lives in the last resource. Everywhere, if you erect privileges, you necessarily create a cause of strife. The interests of the privileged citizens of one nation clash with the interests of the privileged citizens of another.
  “At once there is an appeal to national prejudice. Each nation is persuaded that its national interests are in danger, and the masses of the two people of the two nations, who have really no interest in the quarrel, are hurled at each other’s throats for the sake of men they have less in common with than they have with one another, and who only try to exploit them in war as in many cases they exploit them in peace. A great many people in the constituencies outside are beginning to realise that this is so. They are beginning to see that these international differences are not between nation and nation, but are between individuals who are only using the nations for their own ends.” 

How’s that, Blatchford ?

Between the working class of all countries there exists an identity of interests which is diametrically opposed to the interests of the capitalist class of each and every country.

But what have our Liberal opponents to say now? They have most emphatically denied that “the machinery of the State, the naval and military powers of the State are employed to secure privileges which are beneficial only to a few” (capitalists). When thieves tall out the truth is sometimes told.

But do we, because we are conscious of the fact that the machinery of the State is employed for the benefit of the capitalist class, do we abjure political action? By no means; for to quote our Declaration of Principles,

  “As the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist clam of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organise, consciously and politically, for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.” 

There is some excuse for the bold baron speaking the truth, for we are told that this was his maiden speech. But if he continues in this strain his career in the Liberal party will be of short duration.

#    #    #    #

The Anarchist conception of the realisation of the Social Revolution is exemplified in the following :

  “The fatal defect in the reasoning of the S.P.G.B. is their apparent inability to comprehend the conditions of electioneering and Parliamentary tactics, and the environment of bourgeois politics generally. The leaders of the party could only act similarly to the men they criticise had they to take their places, or they would be obliged to leave the Parliamentary arena in disgust and defiance. Of course, that method results in compromise, shuffling on matters of principle, and other unsatisfactory consequences; even in many instances, betrayal of the workers' interests. Without tactics of this kind the State cannot be ‘captured ’— and then the State captures the miracle workers instead.”

So then, these are the tactics we must adopt. Possibly this explains why the Anarchist at times drops his antagonism to political action and runs as a Progressive or Labour candidate.

The suggestion that it is impossible for the Socialist to be elected to Parliament without adopting the present-day “electioneering” tactics, with the inevitable result of compromise, shuffling of principle, and betrayal of working-class interests, implies that it is futile to attempt to educate the workers to a true conception of their class position. The Anarchist, therefore, imagines the Social Revolution will be accomplished by a non class-conscious proletariat following certain leaders.

The education of the workers may be a tedious process, but it is none the less essential for the achievement of our object.

H. A. Young

The Need For Action. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are quite a number of people claiming to agree with the principles of Socialism who imagine that all that is necessary for the cause is to understand something of the subject, to get some idea of the future state of society, and then patiently wait for the day of emancipation to arrive.

Some are of the opinion that it is quite unnecessary to preach Socialism, believing that the purely economic conditions alone will suffice to convert the working class to our doctrines. They arrive at this erroneous conclusion from the fact that the material conditions ultimately determine the ideas prevalent in society.

But economic conditions produced the electric railway and had each individual been left to discover that by stepping on to the “live" rail be would have been electrocuted the acquisition of his knowledge would undoubtedly have proved most disastrous to him. We therefore propagate the knowledge we have already acquired and so warn people of the dangers of electricity.

The present writer recently heard one who claims to be a Socialist lecturing under the auspices of the Secular Society, of whose principles be is a prominent platform exponent. He drew attention to the fact, that an enormous amount of time and energy was being wasted in the discussion of religion, and claimed that if only people would discontinue these religious controversies they would have all that time to devote to other things. He referred to what he termed an "old chestnut” that was often put to him by Socialists: Why did he waste his time and energy lecturing for the Secular Society?- for even if the working class got the god idea out of their beads, and rejected religion as worthless, they would still have the masterclass to contend with, and the social evils confronting them; and they claimed he should devote his time to the propaganda of Socialism.

With those he did not agree and claimed to be doing good work for humanity by trying to eliminate the god idea from the minds of the people, thus preventing them from wasting their time in religious controversies, and leaving them time and energy for social improvements.

That the people who are now devoting so much time and energy in discussing these trivial religious questions are wasting their time is quite true. But simply showing people that they are on the wrong road does not necessarily put them on the right one. If there were only two roads from which to choose, then the position would not be difficult. But, unfortunately, there are many paths that may be taken, yet only one that leads in the right direction; and the chances are very remote that our mental traveller will immediately alight on the right road, while dozens of political cul de sacs may be traversed and examined before our seeker after social salvation is fully convinced that the only way is in the path of Socialism. How many become weary in their search, and abandon the task in despair!

It behoves us, then, and all those who understand Socialism, to point the way and do our utmost to guide the seeker after true freedom along the path which we know to he right, for surely there is no better way of proving to people that they are wasting their time and energy plodding the wrong road than by convincing them that another is the only way.

Let us all, then, try and do SOMETHING, no matter how small that something may be, to enlighten our fellow workers. Everyone who understands Socialism can do something. If unable to address a meeting, take the chair, write an article for the official organ or publicly sell literature at propaganda meetings, then other means are open to him. He may know of some friend who has never read a copy of the Socialist Standard; let him, then, hand him a copy and extract from him a promise to read it; or he could leave a copy where it would be likely to be read. He may be in a position to assist financially, to quietly or openly distribute leaflets or handbills, or to advertise the useful pamphlets when opportunity affords.

There is not a single Socialist but could do something to assist in making another convert; and if this view was generally adopted and practised, then the membership of the organisation would be speedily doubled.

Let us try.

H. A. Young

Tottenham Branch report. (1906)

Party News from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Like our comrades of West Ham reported in last month's Socialist Standard, we are neither dead nor asleep. We have held our propaganda meetings every Sunday morning and evening all through the Winter at West Green Corner, with very gratifying results. Our Comrade Anderson upholding the position of the Party against all comers, from the defenders of Total Abstinence to Universal Perpetualism, as well as the other usual "political" opponents, all of whom have alike had to depart, defeated.

The Branch membership is growing and the sale of The Socialist Standard is steadily increasing, over 100 copies having now been sold at one meeting.

A few weeks ago a meeting supposed to be in aid of the Hemsworth Miners (who had been locked out some 87 weeks) was held at our station. Three local Councillors were to speak, and when the chairman had opened the meeting one of them proceeded to address the crowd. But instead of speaking of, or on behalf of, the miners, he (presumably from force of habit) talked about himself and his activity or want of it on the local Education Committee.

Realising the trick, we planted our platform some little distance away, and very soon the people were around it, listening and applauding as our speaker showed how the poverty of the miners of Hemsworth and elsewhere, inevitable under capitalism, could be cured, but only by Socialism.

The attempt of the local parish pump politicians to take advantage of the sufferings of those people to advertise their own peculiar brand of "progressive labourism'' met with signal disaster, and, losing their entire audience, all they could do was to come and ask us for a collection for them. This was refused, but they were invited to send a statement of their case with any request to our Head Office, where, we assured them, it would be generously considered - but nothing more has been heard of them.

Under the auspices of the North London District Council we have started our Thursday night meetings at St. Ann's Road, and have met with that kind of opposition we had thought was a thing of the past, a section of the shopocracy of the neighbourhood engineering the trouble. One night one of them displayed his intelligence and skill by walking round and round the meeting blowing a penny trumpet. As this, however, did not succeed in spoiling our meeting, a professional cornet player was brought up and a chorus of half-a-dozen assisted him in making an infernal row. Some thought they were singing; nevertheless our meeting went on, and although at our last one an even more dirty attack was tried we held our ground, and finishing up with three rousing cheers for Free Speech, we assured all interested that we would be there again next Thursday, and we will.

H. A. Young

Notes From Islington. (1909)

From the December 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Islington is indubitably the home of labour quacks: all sorts and conditions of men eager to secure a seat on the Borough Council were put forward by the different organisations.

Besides the "Municipal Reformers" and "Progressives" with the usual programmes and disputes between them as to whether the rates had or had not been reduced 1¾d, in the £, we had what is known as the Progressive Labour Party, which s the local decoy duck for the Liberal Party. One of its most prominent members was once in the I.L.P., but as that organisation was always supporting the Liberal Party, he concluded, so he tell us. that the only logical attitude an I.L.P.'er could adopt was to leave that body and join the Liberals. Then there was the Islington Labour Party, the I.L.P. and the S.D.P. In the Upper Holloway Ward the last two ran conjointly, the latter issuing leaflets explaining that the rates and taxes did not affect the workers and the former leaflets advocating a half rate on empty houses. At a meeting in the Caledonian Road Baths, convened by the I.L.P. and Islington Labour Party, a speaker advocated a 5% tax on London ground rents to "ease the rates for the people." At the same meeting Mr. Keir Hardie said he "still clung to his faith in Jesus Christ" and "they must in God's name work and vote for labour candidates." The Islington Labour Party agreed to withdraw from St. Peter's Ward (in which the S.D.P. had six candidates) on condition that the latter abstained from contesting the Highbury Ward. So anxious were the Islington Labour Party to secure a seat on the Council that one of their prominent members—Mr. Copeland—asked the Liberals to allocate half the number of seats declared vacant to the Labour Party.

It was left to the Islington Branch S.P.G.B. to inculcate into the minds of the workers the principles of Socialism. We arranged a week's mission to place before the working class the Socialist position, and urged them to abstain from voting. The first night two good meetings were held, but rain prevented further meetings until Friday, when we had a fine meeting at Highbury Corner. It was on Saturday evening the strength of the Party in the neighbourhood was felt. Just prior to opening our meeting at Highbury Corner the Islington Labour Party arrived with band and banners. Several speeches were made from a cart, but not a single educational sentence was uttered. Nothing but sentimental twaddle was heard. After about fifteen minutes they departed, amid cries of "labour fakers," "labour bleeders." Commencing our meeting about 8, we had from the outset an audience of several hundreds, who listened to our speakers with marked attention. Presently we were disturbed by the arrival of a van containing the Progressive Labour Party's candidates, one of whom instructed the driver to drive right into our audience. Some of the comrades immediately seized the horse and backed the van, and the P.L.P. candidate came very near being precipitated in a most undignified manner into the gutter. Ten minutes convinced them that Highbury Corner that evening was no place for them, and as they were about to leave us in possession of that spot, one of their candidates, Mr. Roberts, again gave instructions to drive right on to our platform. But our audience, by this time numbering about a thousand, seized the van, and but for the timely interference of the police the result might have been disastrous to the P.L.P. candidate. Vociferous cheers were given for Socialism.

A good collection was taken and about 70 Socialist Standards disposed of. 

Our indoor propaganda meetings have been even more successful than we dared anticipate, the hall being packed on each occasion, and undoubtedly they will prove a means of enlarging our ever-increasing membership.

On November 6th the Social and Dance in aid of the Party Organ Guarantee Fund was held, and once again success was ours. The array of talent with which the audience were delighted was the best we have ever had, and as a result of the evening;s entertainment the Fund will be augmented by about £3. Three hundred copies of the November issue of the "S.S. have been disposed of this month.

H. A. Young