The Patriarch and the mote. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hyndman on compromise ought to be funny. The “International Socialist Review” for February provides the interesting combination. Come, let us guffaw together.

It is a long article and contains the usual verbal hydrogen which bulks so largely and weighs so little; the usual Hyndmanic hysteria and verbal stage-strutting in which the patriarch delights. The smile comes in when one reflects on the little omissions that appear to have been made. As instance : “In order to make sure of retaining their seats in the House of Commons at the General Election, both the Labour Party and the I.L.P. have come to terms with the Liberals in a manner which must shake all confidence in them in the future.” This, of course, is all very horrible, and no doubt deserves all the vituperation of which Mr. Hyndman is capable, but we do not observe any reference to Herbert Burrows’ letter to the Daily Chronicle asking for Liberal support. We agree that “when a body of men returned to Parliament to represent Labour interests exclusively and independently, enter upon a whole series of bargaining with the national and local organisers of one of the great capitalist factions they do an amount of mischief to the whole movement which they do not comprehend ; “but we must confess our inability to discover the remotest difference between that action and the slimy evolution of Quelch and the S.D.P. at Northampton. The Liberals of the boot metropolis are not decidedly differentiated from the Liberals of the rest of this country. On what grounds shall we exclude the Northampton attempted deal from the “whole series of bargainings” ? Logic supplies no answer other than the thoroughly patent fact that the S.D.P. and the I.L.P. differ in nothing but their initials. And even this difference is got over locally by selecting another set, such as L.R.C., T. & L.C., or what not, under cover of which intrigue, chicanery and political poltroonery receive different values. The pure and spotless S.D.P. as a party, tire not in their denunciation of the foul and rotten Labour Party, but no objection is raised to segments of the pure and unspotted former alliancing with the specked and flyblown latter, also in segments.

Without going over ground already covered in our columns we would like to contrast the ponderous piffle of the patriarch with actual recent events. “‘No compromise’ must be our motto and our policy from the first and all through,” he says. Then please explain Camborne, Haggerston, Northampton, etc. “Let us take all we can get, but never let us sink our principles, or lower our flag, for any consideration whatever.” Contrast this with Quelch’s reply to a questioner: “If we cannot get anything better than the Budget, I shall vote for the Budget.” Supplement the latter with Hyndman’s “a Budget which I do not hesitate to declare is as outrageous a fraud upon the people of the United Kingdom as any swindle which even the Liberals have as yet perpetrated—and that is saying a great deal.” Quite interesting, isn’t it? Says Hyndman : “No Socialist can admit the right of the House of Lords to throw out the House of Commons’ Budget, however bad it may be in principle and application.” And again (same article): “I look with sadness, not unmingled with contempt, on the manner in which the Socialists of the Labour Party have surrendered to the capitalist Liberals on the Budget, on the House of Lords and on the General Election.” And so on.

There is quite a touch of sadness in the sentence where he looks back, at the age of sixty-eight, over his thirty years of Socialist effort, and realises that he will not see its fruition in the Co-operative Commonwealth. But does Mr. Hyndman think it will be brought nearer by the advocacy of more Dreadnoughts and the adoption of a modification of conscription, as suggested by himself and jingo Blatchford at Burnley. We who are nearer twenty-eight can join in deploring the non-imminence of the Socialist Republic, but the tears of regret do not blind us to the fact that every year of the S.D.P.’s further existence puts the Revolution back ten. And we are out to smash you. We are young, most of us of the S.P.G.B., but we are awake. We were born slaves, we are slaves now, but we are not going to die slaves if we can help it. Life is very rapid. A little twink of time and we are no more. The sweets of life are very meagre and Capitalism has the larger hand. Capitalism has got to go. The S.D.P. by its program of patches, immediate demands and general piffle, stands, wittingly or no, for its continuance. So the S.D.P. must go too. Every year we knock off its life brings Socialism and sunshine ten years nearer. Says Hyndman in concluding : “It is for us to take care that we hand on the torch of revolutionary Social Democracy … to those who shall in turn take up the splendid task from us.” There are signs, however, that this curiously named fire-brand will burn itself out even before Hyndman & Co. relinquish it, and then perhaps the path may be the more clearly seen in the absence of its reeking smoke and uncertain flicker.

Wilfred.

The Town and Country Planning Bill (1947)

From the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

“A man will no longer be able to buy farmland at £200 an acre in the hope of reselling it as a factory site at £600 an acre. True, it will be worth more as a factory site—but the State, through a Central Land Board, will collect all or most of the difference” (Daily Herald, 8/1/47).

Thus the Labour Government carries out a longstanding demand made in the interests of the industrial capitalist. H. M. Hyndman, in his “Economics of Socialism,” dealt with this. After reviewing the Ricardian theory of rent and the many objections which present themselves to that theory, he wrote: —

“It seems, therefore, that a wider definition of the rent of land under Capitalism is needed than that, given by Ricardo, and the following is suggested: Rent of land is that portion of the total net revenue which is paid to the landlord for the use of plots of land after the average profit on the capital embarked in developing such land has been deducted.”

On the question of confiscating rent he pointed out that it “would not affect the position of the working portion of the community unless the money so obtained were devoted to giving them more amusement, to providing them with better surroundings and the like. . . . In fact, the attack upon competitive rents is merely a capitalist attack. That class sees a considerable income going off to a set of people who take no part in the direct exploitation of labour; and its representatives are naturally anxious to stop this leakage, as they consider it, and to reduce their own taxation for public purposes by appropriating rent to the service of the State. That is all very well for them.”

On this point Marx says: —

“We can understand such economists as Mill, Cherbulliez, Hilditch, and others, demanding that rent should be used for the remission of taxation. That is only the frank expression of the hate which the industrial capitalist feels for the landed proprietor, who appears to him as a useless incumbrance, a superfluity in the otherwise harmonious whole of bourgeois production.” (“Poverty of Philosophy,” Kerr edition, 1920. Page 176.)

“Rent,” says Marx, “results from the social relations in which exploitation is carried on. It cannot result from the nature, more or less fixed, more or less durable, of land. Rent proceeds from society and not from the soil.” (P. 180.)

(The above quotations are used by H. Quelch in his Introduction to Marx’s “Poverty of Philosophy,” Kerr edition, 1920.)

Horatio.

Jottings. (1912)

The Jottings Column from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Dean of Lincoln (Dr. Fry), speaking at Kennington recently, gave utterance to the following characteristic remark : “I wake in the morning with a joy I have not known for years to think that we may, in a few weeks, have the Cross over St. Sophia and Constantinople.” Which means, to give it its true interpretation, that if there are any pickings to be had, they mean, vulture like, to be among the first at the feast, brazenly disregarding the fact that the history of Christianity is bloodier even than that of the Turks.

* * *

It is interesting to note with what alacrity the wealthy class have protested against the flogging clause in the White Slave Traffic Bill. One would suppose that they were actuated by motives of honest indignation against a survival of Middle Age methods of torture. To the Socialist, however, the reason is quite clear. For is not this the class from which the “White Slavers” draw most of their clientele ? And are they not responsible in a double sense, inasmuch as it is due to the exploitation of labour by this class that the degradation of women exists, thus making “white slavery” possible.

* * *

According to news from Paris, a lady has been seen in the Champs Elysees, accompanied by her dog, which was wearing india-rubber boots laced high up the legs, ear protectors, goggles to shield the eyes from cold and mud, and a Raglan overcoat lined with, thick flannel, and provided with a pocket from which projected a tiny handkerchief with a monogram on it, with which to wipe its dear little nose.

In order to more fully appreciate the above I cite another instance of riotous extravagance taken from the same paper (“The London Budget,” 27.10.12).

“An old soldier with the best of characters complained to the Westminster magistrate that everything he possessed, except a small bundle, had been taken from him for a balance of 5s. under a hire-purchase agreement and 3s. 6d. for a week’s rent, which he was unable to pay through being out of work. He showed receipts covering a period of two years for instalments amounting to £12 11s. paid for goods priced under the agreement at £12 16s.” After this who wouldn’t prefer a dog’s life ?

* * *

A circular has been going the rounds of late, issued by that confused set of scaremongers known as the Anti-Socialist Union. It is a wild appeal for “help and support,” promising that “neither the names of members nor subscriptions are published without permission.” In the course of the appeal (which is anonymous, as usual) it states that “predatory Socialism” is rampant in the House of Commons. According to the “antis” there were 40 Socialists in Parliament in 1911, and since 1897 the National Debt had risen from £545,171,525 to £733,072,610, ostensibly due to their advent in the House.

This is certainly news to me, yet I would be satisfied if the A.S.U. would furnish the name of one Socialist in Parliament, now or any other time. This sort of stuff may do to frighten the commercial and business class to whom these leeches make their appeal, but to the Socialist it is laughable.

* * *

Here is another sample : “One of the first principles of Socialism is the repudiation of the National Debt. That is why Socialists show no concern at the rapid piling up of the nation’s liabilities.” This is both right and wrong. It is wrong in so far that Socialists do not repudiate the National Debt, for the simple reason that it makes no difference to the workers of this country whether the nation has a big National Debt or none at all. The workers’ condition remains the same. They don’t make the debt, and they don’t pay the debt. Therefore the Socialist doesn’t concern himself with the National Debt, even to the extent of repudiating it. It is right in that the Socialists have no concern with the nation’s liabilities. The liabilities are not theirs, be they piled as high as that beautiful place they tell us about. On the other hand, having regard to the fact that Socialism will not be established except as a world-wide system, all national debts, liabilities, Anti-Socialist Unions, and other capitalist institutions will automatically become defunct. Meanwhile, spread the light !

* * *

Keir Hardie, “the famous British Socialist” (according to the Americans), has recently returned from a lecturing tour in that land “flowing with milk and honey.” Asked by an interviewer how he became a Socialist, Hardie (it is reported) answered : “I can’t just say how my own life turned me to Socialism, I think I got my first ideas from reading Robert Burns and Thomas Carlyle. Then came the New Testament.” Good heavens ! I have several times wondered where he got it from !

It seems that Hardie’s services had been requisitioned to give a fillip to the S.P. of America (an organisation similar to the I.L.P.), since Roosevelt had stolen all their platform, and left with them no distinguishing principles upon which to fight. It had been suggested to the party that Hyndman be asked to perform, but the offer was declined on the score of expense. Instead, Hardie was booked at £10 a lecture !—at least, so grumbles “Justice.” It would be very interesting to know what Hyndman’s figure would have been, seeing that Hardie was considered to be a cheap substitute at £10 a time.

Considering he addressed 43 meetings it cannot be said that he did badly, and yet it certainly was indiscreet of him to tell the interviewer that “the commonsense of humanity is bound to manifest itself sometime.”

Whilst agreeing that this is probable, yet, it seems to me, if its manifestation depends upon the dissemination of Carlyle and the New Testament at £10 a dose, then it is a very long way off indeed. Happily, however, there are teachers of Socialism in the field.

* * *

The Executive of the Labour Party has been wroth with Mr. J. G. Hancock, M.P., because he announced his intention of attending the meetings of the Mid Derby Liberal Association and reporting to them his work in Parliament. The Executive does not see how he can square this attitude with his pledge to support the Labour Party ‘s constitution.

To me there appears to be no difficulty whatever. Events have proved that the Liberal Party stands for all that the Labour Party stands for. Besides, was not Mr. Hancock congratulated years ago by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George on his former successful campaigns in Mid-Derby ? Why was he not pulled up before ? Simply because the Labour Party has known all along that Mr. Hancock was a Liberal. He has never disguised the fact. Again, did not Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself say that Socialism was to be approached, “not by a broad, ready-made road, but through morass, through forests, up hill and down dale, round this corner and that” ? (Oxford, 13.10.11.)

Numerous instances could be cited where Labour M.P.’s have admitted their identity with the Liberal Party. So why blame a member if he elects to go “round this corner and that” ?

* * *

If those who support a Labour policy are desirous of doing a little house-cleaning, they have set themselves a huge task, for upon observation we find the same treachery throughout the movement. On the occasion of the conference of the freedom of the City of Liverpool upon Lord Derby, we find Mr. “Jim” Sexton present on the platform in spite of the resolution passed by his Trades Council, forbidding members to take part in the ceremony. Not satisfied with this, he needs must inform his audience that he “regarded it as a very considerable privilege to be there.” I can quite believe it, and hope Lord Derby will duly appreciate his services. “A small section of the community,” said Sexton, “have expressed, their disapproval, and whilst I do not doubt their sincerity, I cannot appreciate their motives.”

After this is there any doubt as to which class Mr. Sexton is serving ? Of course, nothing will happen. The only difference is that on this occasion a Tory was supported, whereas it is usually the right thing to support a Liberal.

As Mr. W. C. Anderson, the Chairman of the I.L.P., says in the Liberal “Daily Citizen” (13.10.12): “Some would argue that the Labour Party must prove its independence of the Liberals by voting against the Government, even when the Government are supporting some useful (!) reform. But that is not independence: it is much nearer being an advanced stage of political lunacy. On a number of political questions—Lords’ Veto, Plural Votes, and Home Rule—the Liberals are certainly more advanced than the Tories. On all such questions Labour will go into the same lobby with the Liberals without the slightest sacrifice of independence.” Which is quite true. It would be difficult indeed for them to sacrifice something which, for them, does not exist.

At Manchester last month, during the municipal elections, both Labour and B.S.P. candidates signified their willingness, if elected, “to work for the unification of Rates” and “the transference of Rates from property to site values,” for which they were promised the support “by word, deed and vote” of the League of Young Liberals. These are issues, be it noted that are of no import to the workers, but are intended solely to benefit one section of the capitalist class by shifting the rates burden onto the shoulders of another section, incidentally using the worker as a mug in order to accomplish it.

* * *

According to Lady Aberconway, there are “only two ways for a woman of the upper classes to obtain money ; one by inheriting from the dead, and the other by begging from the living.” I venture to affirm that this is not quite correct. There are three ways of getting a living : by working for it, by begging, and by stealing. Knowing that the “upper” class neither work nor beg for their living, there is no other conclusion left us than that they get it by stealing—from the workers.

* * *

Robert Blatchford has recanted on the question of compulsory military service, of which he was such a strenuous advocate. He admits that “universal military service under the control of the ruling ‘classes’ would result in slavery : it would undoubtedly lead to the enslavement of the workers.” (“Clarion,” 1.11.12.) Which is an admission on the part of R.B. that his position, after all his protestations to the contrary, was the wrong one. It has taken him a long time to find it out, which, in itself betrays the fact that he has not devoted much time to the study of Socialism. Seemingly it requires concrete instances, such as the employment of troops as blacklegs in the recent strikes, to force home to him the absurdity of his position. The point is, what becomes now of his “Britain for the British,” seeing that one position conditions the other ?

Tom Sala

Socialism V. Religion. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr H. M. Hyndman, having been badly mangled (by his brother Rothstein and others) on the German war scare issue which, in conjunction with brother Blatchford, he was good enough to offer the general Press as an excellent subject for a silly season discussion, has broken out in a fresh place. We have now to beware of the Roman Catholic Church. Protestantism has been played out “by the growth of popular science and freethought,” but apparently the same growth is playing in the power of the Pope, or the religious organisation the Pope is the figurehead of. Really, H. M. H. has mistaken his vocation. He should be where positive genius for “scare heads” would be appreciated. He is the silly season writer par excellence. He can provide an acceptable substitute for the great gooseberry every time.

Clericalism, high church, low church, Roman church, “Labour” church, and tin Bethelism of any calibre, are all in the ruck of reaction. Their power for evil depends, so far as we are concerned, upon the measure of working-class ignorance prevailing. Given that change in social conditions that will free men economically, the religious forms and influences which have been built up and maintained upon economic subjection, must go. Our business, therefore, is to direct the working-class mind toward that change of social conditions.

But does not the influence of the churches tell against our efforts ? It does where it can, of course, but its effect is not one to be troubled about, and very far indeed from being strong enough to warrant our departure from the course mapped out for us. The forces that affect the stomach are on our side. The armies of mankind move upon their stomachs. A starving man, offered the bread that perishes or the water of life, grabs at the bread every time—naturally.

The evolution of industry creates the starving man. We show him the way by which alone he may find the full satisfaction of his needs. The churches pretend to show him the way to heaven. The hollowness of the pretence may not appeal to him. The emptiness of the offer does. Hence the dilemma of the churches and their efforts to compromise on blankets and coal tickets. But it won’t do. The futility of charitable schemes and the offence of charitable schemes are alike too palpable. The Socialist alone holds the field. He alone can show the reason for the starving man. He alone can show the starving man the road to the ever full dinner pail.

Therefore we need not trouble about the churches. If they get too near our path we may give them a passing thump with the club of our argument. We can do that in our stride. As for concentrating upon the iniquity of “the Holy Catholic Church,” or turning out of our path to engage it, that is sheer Hyndmaniacal nonsense. The Holy Catholic Church may go hang. When we have nothing more important to do it might well be possible to amuse ourselves by crumpling it up. But we have a long way to go before we can afford the time.

Alegra.

The Forum. Some Open Discussions. (1908)

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

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

Some common objections to the S.P.G.B.

Rufus (Isleworth) writes to suggest that we should cease from “vilifying the S.D.P. or I.L.P.” If these are wrong he thinks they should be let go their own way. The main difference, he submits, between the S.P.G.B. and the other parties is one of method. He asks if it is not possible for some common ground of action for all “progressive forces” to be found, and hopes that THE SOCIALIST STANDARD will be “kept for Socialism, the one grand hope of us workmen. The policy of washing one’s dirty linen in public is very questionable.” “Rufus” will find in back numbers of this paper, answers to all his points. In the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (one penny) he will find our attitude completely erudicated. “Rufus” and anyone else concerned is heartily recommended to read that pamphlet. No one has been able to touch its argument so far. No one can dispute its evidence. However, we will briefly reply to his points here. Where have we “vilified” the said Parties? Is it vilification to criticise and denounce their wrong-doing, if that wrong-doing is calculated to mislead the working class, and to that extent delay the organisation of the workers on class-conscious lines— the necessary preliminary to Socialism ? That is the limit of our vilification—if that is what “Rufus” means by the word. We should be traitors to our class if we failed to do that. We would “let them go their own way” quite readily if they did not take a section of the working class with them. Because they do, and because their way is the wrong way, and does not lead to their professed objective (only sometimes professed, by the way) viz., Socialism, we must, being Socialists, endeavour to arrest them. The difference between our Party and those other parties is a difference of principle. THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, says “Rufus” should be kept for Socialism. Agreed. As also must the Socialist Party, or it ceases to be the Socialist Party. If the Socialist Party occupied nine-tenths of its time in the advocacy of something which was not Socialism, could it be a Socialist party—particularly when the nine-tenths of its work had no necessary connection with Socialism, and consisted of proposals that capitalist parties were largely prepared, when necessary, to endorse ? Would a capitalist party endorse a proposal that materially affected its interests ? If not, can any of those proposals be seriously regarded as of material benefit to the working class, seeing that the interests of the capitalist class are always in direct opposition to the interests of the working class? If “Rufus” answers these questions in the negative, as we think upon careful reflection he must, he has the key to the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The principle of the differences between us and the other parties consists in our recognition of the necessity firstly, secondly, and lastly, of organising the working class upon the basis of their class interests—of preaching and explaining Socialism, and that alone, to them as “the one grand hope,” and of pointing out that nothing else matters. To the extent to which the other parties press upon the attention of the workers the things that do not matter, they are diverting their attention from Socialism—the only thing that does matter. They are dividing the working-class forces. They are not organising the working class upon the basis of class interests. They are asking the workers to concentrate upon demands that the capitalist class is quite prepared to concede under pressure—demands that in large measure the capitalist class of other countries have conceded with no material advantage to the workers. Hyndman himself, no less, has admitted the futility of these demands—obviously futile when the capitalist class are ready to give them ; for if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the capitalist class will not give anything that cuts into their profits.

That is the principle. All the other parties are reform parties. They advocate the things that are futile. Therefore we denounce their futilities and urge the workers to rally to the Socialist Party.

And that answers the question as to the common ground for all “progressive” parties to work upon. If Socialism, as “Rufus” admits, is the only hope, then the only common ground for “progressive parties” is the ground occupied by the Socialist Party. Ergo the only progressive party is the Socialist Party. The only Socialist Party is the S.P.G.B.

As to the objection to the washing of dirty linen in public, “Rufus” does not seem to see that the objection implies the existence of the dirty linen. “Rufus” thinks that anyhow it should be washed in private. That might be all right if the working class knew it for dirty linen. They do not—unfortunately. Therefore by cleansing it in public we show it is dirty.

Hyndman as confusionist. (1908)

A Short Story from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

He of this sketch was a fine specimen of the men from Erin’s Isle. He had the physique of a Fitzsimmons and the latent brain capacity of a Mirabeau. As you looked at the great eye-orbits, big forehead, and strong chin, you found yourself speculating as to the big things a man like this will do in a community that lays itself out to grow men, instead of mere labour-commodities for capitalist profit.

“Oi’ve listened to Hyndman,” he said in his fine Irish brogue, “from that No. 3 platform yonder, and I’m jiggered if oi aint quite flabbergasted. Hyndman, look you, on the platform with that strange mixture. Bless me if ’tisn’t enough to confuse a St. Patrick.”

“Indeed,” I said.

“You see,” he proceeded, “according to Hyndman’s point of view (if I understand him aright, and I think I do), it’s no more use to go on talking against drink and gambling and sweating, and low wages and high prices, and pauperism and lunacy, and physical deterioration and starving children, than it is to go on picking maggots off a piece of rotten meat or killing-cockroaches in a damp cellar. As soon as you’ve done for one lot of maggots you’ve got another, and as soon as you’ve settled one lot of cockroaches there’s another arrived. It’s the meat that’s wrong. It’s the damp cellar that’s wrong. And so Hyndman says it’s capitalism that’s wrong, and so long as you have capitalism you must have drink and gambling and sweating, and lunatics and starving children, and slums and unimployed- and more on ’em every day ! ‘

“Well, I’ll leave it to you,” I said, “as to how nearly that describes Hyndman’s position. But, anyhow, I think it’s the truth, don’t you ? ”

“Yes. And Hyndman thinks that too. For instance, he says he spoke in this town twenty-five years ago, and they were then demanding the same little pottering political reforms that they are demanding still, and they are further off from getting them than ever. And the capitalists are taking more of the wealth every year. And the conditions of the workers are going worse every year. And the unemployed are increasing every year. And long spells of bad trade follow short spells of good trade quicker and quicker, so that for sure you may correctly say ’tis bad trade all the time. That’s what Hyndman says ! ”

“Well?” “So that it means that things for the workers go from bad to worse, and that so long as there’s these capitalists on your back, and they sucking like leeches by what they call their capital, there can’t be no improvement for the worker—no progress—no reform.”

“It looks like it, doesn’t it ?”

“Sure, it does. Because, as these capitalists get more capital, they must suck Labour more, and there’s no preventing them, so long’s there’s the system. They can laugh at all your reforms. And so long as they’ve their system they’ll have their full pound of flesh. And that’s what oi’ve heard Hyndman say.” .

“Well, what’s your difficulty ?”

“Just this : If Hyndman believes that before we can have any betterment we must organise ourselves, and go for the overthrow of the system, what does he want to be on the platform with these Labour fellows, who are simply helping the capitalists to mend the system., They don’t mean abolishing capitalism; they simply mean making it a little better. They’ve never examined the system—devil a bit have they. There was one fellow there who talked a lot about temperance, and he seemed to think all you’ve got to do is to make the people teetotal, as if that’s any good so long as there’s capitalism. Then he was followed by a woman who seemed possessed with the holy desire to get the half-time kiddies out of the factory, though how that would advantage the kiddies if they had to come home to an empty table, and how the capitalist was to be made to keep the table full, were matters she was not very clear about. Then another suggested that the capitalist might feed the children through the capitalist State. But if the capitalist does anything for us through his State, I reckon he’ll secure his pound of flesh by buying our labour-power cheaper in return. Then there were other pills for earthquakes. One man seemed to think that an eight-hour day would absorb the unemployed. Another was big on municipal and state capitalism, and he seemed to think that if you could only get the capitalist to rob the worker in a collective way, through the municipality and the capitalist state, instead of in the old way, through his private, factory, that this was going to advantage the worker. The fool ! The post-office here, and the state railways elsewhere, ought to teach him that these things can make no difference to the wage-worker. In fact, so long as the worker is a wage-worker, and the capitalist buys him as he buys anything else, and so long as there’s plenty of unemployed making his price his mere living, whether the state buys him or the master buys him it’ll be all the same.”

“Yes,” I replied, “if you get anything in the way of reform for the worker, so long as there’s capitalism, you simply make him a cheaper commodity for the capitalist, and the capitalist sucks it back again.”

“That’s so,” said my Irishman, “and Hyndman sees that. And I want to know what he wants on the platform with these reforming Johnnies. If Hyndman believes that the system is wrong, then why doesn’t he help you chaps to draw the working class away from all this political reform-mongering which, mind your he himself admits has brought us nothing during the last twenty-five years ? Why doesn’t he educate and organise the working class, to prepare for the overthrow of capitalism, and leave the capitalists and these reform fools to mend their system—if they can ?”

“Looks like a new form of the great game of how not to do it, don’t you think so ?” I said.

“How ? Which way ?” he demanded.

“Well, hearing Hyndman keeps them from understanding what the other chaps mean ; and then hearing the other chaps keeps them from understanding what Hyndman means, and so at the end it keeps them much where they were, Hyndman’s presence and talk makes the great British Public believe that this trade union and Labour gang are a very revolutionary lot, and the presence of the good, solid, practical, level-headed gentlemen on the same platform with Hyndman, makes the same B. P. believe that Hyndman and the S.D.P. are quite judicious politicians, after all.”

“Well, but all this is confusing the workers!” roared my friend.

“Or educating them,” I suggested.

“Educating, be d——d (his language got very strong). I say it’s confusing them !”

“Well, well,” I said, “both words mean much. the same thing applied to the wage-slaves. The educated of the other class don’t lecture the working class to stimulate and enlighten them, but to chloroform and confuse them.”

“Be gorra, and it seems so,” he said. Then after a short silence, still meditating on the issue, he exclaimed—

“Can a man be both a reformer and a revolutionist ? ”

“No.” I said, “But he can pose as both until the people find him out and force him into one camp or the other.”

“And is Hyndman posing as both ?”

“Well, there are the facts. What do they say ? ”

“They say he is. He’s preaching revolution, and he’s on a reform platform. But what is he at heart ? Is he a revolutionist ? ”

“No, I don’t think so. Hyndman’s desire has always been to be the big man, with the big following, who could show the capitalists how to run their system in a proper, up-to-date, scientific way, don’t you know.”

“It looks like it.”

“Well, take the facts. Lately, Hyndman has been pointing out to the British capitalists, their danger of having a war with the German capitalists. Now what revolutionist cares a tinker’s anathema about who the British capitalist goes to war with. Certainly, if the German capitalists invaded England tomorrow they might lay rough hands on the property of the English capitalists, but they could take nothing from the English wage-slaves, seeing that the English capitalists have cleaned them out too well already. So that no evil can happen to the workers from any invasion, and no capitalist war is worth their thought. And yet here is Hyndman writing yards of this stuff in conjunction with that other fool, Blatchford, in working-class papers, and trying to get the workers interested in it. Then again, Hyndman has written a lot in Justice lately about “Capitalist Secret Diplomacy.” Now why should the worker waste one thought upon “Capitalist Secret Diplomacy” ? Surely our business ought to he to cultivate opportunities to oust the capitalist.”

“No, it’s no use our watching the capitalists, how they play the game to filch the wealth they first steal from us, from each other; we must organise ourselves to stop the robbery at the root.”

“I say, old man, when are you going to join the Socialist Party of Great Britain ?”

“Oi’m watching you,” he replied, “but oi must be careful. Life is short, and oi can’t afford to waste any more of mine with reformers.”

“Well,” I said, “if you think there’s danger, come in and help to keep us straight.”

“That’s a thought oi have,” he replied, “oi attend your meetings, buy your STANDARD, and drop my penny in the hat.”

John Tamlyn

The Pillory. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The speakers at the Burnley labour demonstration of August 2nd included Dan Irving and H. M. Hyndman of the S.D.P., and S. Walsh, M.P., of the “Labour” Party. The resolution unanimously passed commenced “This meeting heartily supports the Labour Party in Parliament and urges them to press forward in demanding from the Government such reforms as the provision of work for the unemployed, a general eight hours day, adult suffrage,” etc., etc. (the usual list).

o o o

The Labour Party in Parliament which these prominent members of the S.D.P. “heartily support,” is the same Labour Party that the S.D.P. has been heartily denouncing (when it has suited its purpose) for months. The reforms which Hyndman urged the Labour Party to push forward are the reforms that Hyndman has said are useless. “As long” said Hyndman at this very meeting “as they had wages paid by one class to another, there would be poverty, degradation, and slavery, and the only remedy was Socialism.” The wage system will last while capitalism lasts and with all the palliatives pressed for realised, there will still be, given capitalism, poverty, degradation, and slavery.

o o o

And we who take action consistent with this knowledge, preaching Socialism only and exposing the fraud of attempted palliation, are the “impossibilists.” “How long, O Lord, how long ?”

o o o

“Being in the House of Commons did not tend toward a man’s moral or intellectual improvement.” (Pete Curran, Tottenham, 19.7.08). This is sad. Apparently Pete is called upon to choose between moral and intellectual stagnation and £200 a year. Up to now he has not evinced an overpowering determination to relinquish the pieces.

o o o

“I question whether I am equal intellectually to what I was years ago.” (Curran again. Same speech). Why question ?

o o o

Challenged by a S.P.G.B. representative in Manchester to take the platform and defend his Party’s position, John Lackland, S.D.P., replied “What is the use? Your position is unanswerable.” The next move is obviously with John Lackland.

o o o

Lord Weardale, Liberal, the one time Philip Stanhope, Liberal candidate for Burnley, in whose favour Mr. Hyndman, S.D.P., withdrew his own candidature, was in the chair at the Barnard Castle Labour and Progressive Association’s Annual Demonstration (20.6.08). He was supported by Messrs. Arthur Henderson and Ramsay MacDonald, Chairman and Secretary respectively of the Labour Party. Mr. MacDonald dealt with the work of the Labour Party and spoke of the great advance in the honesty of British politics to-day.

Manchester Guardian, 22.6.08.

o o o

Honesty in politics according to Ramsay MacDonald, seems to require further definition.

o o o

Will Thorne, M.P. (Finsbury Park, 19.7.08), appealed for larger labour representation in the House of Commons, where, at present, not more than 200 members were sincere. The test is, then, sincerity. It doesn’t matter so much whether they are capitalists or not, so long as they are sincere. William is usually rich !

o o o

It was of the highest importance, not only to the workers, but also to the great commercial classes, that the objects of the Association (The British Association for Labour Legislation) should be forwarded. . . . If a feeling of discontent was allowed to grow in the minds of the workers, if their demands were left unsatisfied to go on steadily increasing, the commercial classes must be exposed to danger.—Arthur Henderson, M.P., reported Manchester Guardian, 1.6.08.

o o o

Such solicitude for the commercial classes from the Chairman of the Labour Party is very touching. It is also significant. The feeling of discontent in the minds of the working class must not be allowed to grow lest injury comes to the commercial classes. Does the position of Arthur Henderson require further elucidation ?

o o o

The majority of the people were ready to accept any excuse that the upper classes put before them for doing nothing. One of the greatest pieces of humbug that was put before them was the Licensing Bill. What he disliked about it was the utter humbug which Mr. Harcourt, for instance, talked at Rawtenstall. He said that if the money spent on drink were put into industry the condition of the people would be improved. That Mr. Harcourt knew to be a lie.—H. M. Hyndman, Burnley, 2.8.08.

o o o

The candidature of J. F. Green, S.D.P. Executive, was withdrawn from the Rossendale Valley (Mr. L. Harcourt’s constituency) without consultation with the Rossendale branches of the S.D.P. The reply of the S.D.P. Executive to the protests of the local men was that Mr. L. Harcourt was the only member of the Government who had improved his position (from the S.D.P. point of view). He was a good chap and the S.D.P. had plenty of worse men to oppose. Mr. Hyndman appears to be of opinion that in addition to being a good chap, Mr. Harcourt is a good liar and a good humbug. Consistency is a jewel indeed !

o o o

The advance guard of Liberalism and Radicalism were moving forward on every road to social progress.—Winston Churchill, Dundee, 26.6.08.

Cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you after many days. That was the Government policy.—Winston Churchill. (Same speech.)

So, really, that advance guard is only moving forward to cast its bread upon the waters in the hope that it will return to them after many days as social reform. The advance guard had much better eat its bread if it has any. It will be more satisfactory in the long run. And it is a long run to the end of those many days. But what an inspiriting policy !

o o o

At a public farewell to a local publicist, Mr. Rentle of the Social-Democratic Party, said (Reading Standard, 1.8.08) “Mr. Jones (the publicist) was going with his family to a land that was not under the merciless heel of the capitalist (New Zealand). They hoped he would carry into that land the red flag of Socialism, and plant it firmly and deeply, and drive into the minds of the workers there that Socialism was their only hope.” The usual S.D.P. confusion. The Socialist movement is the revolt of the workers under the merciless heel of capitalism. No merciless heel, no Socialism, and no red flag necessary. A thinking cap is not a bad fitment for one who would be a working-class representative. Mr. Rentle should secure one as soon as may be.

o o o

The Post Office is a working example of Socialism without democracy. It is better than capitalism because neither the Postmaster General or the officials whose mouthpiece he is work for personal gain—but it is not what we want it to be by any means.—F. Jowett, M.P., Clarion, 24.7.08.

o o o

Socialism without democracy ! P.O. Officials who do not work for gain !! Lord ! Lord ! Why persecutest thou me with baffle-headed labour “leaders.”

DEVILSHOOF.

By the Way. (1915)

The By The Way Column from the August 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent issue of the “Daily Dispatch” a writer deals at some length with the M.P.’s who had the temerity to vote against the National Registration Bill. He says :

“It was a motley group which challenged a division on the Registration Bill last night, and its composition furnishes an interesting indication of the character of the opposition which the National Government will have to meet. . . . There were gathered together ‘all who were discontented,’ and it was a quaint collection of disappointed ex-ministers, radical purists, cranks and anti-British Socialists.”

The writer goes on to describe this “motley group” as “Strange Bed-fellows,” and makes the mistake of calling these labour fakers Socialists. Moreover, this gentleman overlooks another contributor to the same paper, Mr. H. M. Hyndman—the “Revolutionary Socialist”—holding the same views as avowedly capitalist writers to the ‘”Dispatch.” And what of the Liberal and Tory coalition with a mingling of Labourites !

Perhaps it would not be amiss in the circumstances to take a peep at the division list to which the “Dispatch” scribbler refers. We find that the ‘”Socialists” spoken of includes Messrs. W. C. Anderson, C. W. Bowerman, J. F. Jowett, J. R. MacDonald, P. Snowden, and J. H. Thomas. The remainder of that hotch potch known as the Labour Party voted for the Bill ! If the “Dispatch” derives any satisfaction from their reference to these “strange bedfellows,” it at least gives us the opportunity of repudiating the claim of these latter to the title they usurp whenever and wherever it suits their purpose to do so—the claim that they are Socialists. A careful study of the antics of those gentry in and out of the House of Commons will suffice to prove their worthlessness to the working class.

* * *

Lord Kitchener, in big speech at the Guildhall on July 9th, made a passing reference to the object of the National Register. He delivered himself as follows :

“When registration was completed they ‘would be able to note men between nineteen and forty not required for munitions and other necessary purposes, and therefore available, if physically fit, for the firing line. Steps would then be taken to approach them with a view to enlistment, unmarried men to be preferred.” “Reynold’s,” 11.7.15.

* * *

Mr. H. M. Hyndman, the “father of English Socialism,” recently contributed an article to the “Daily Dispatch” (7.7,15) on the subject of “National Registration and National Liberty,” in which he endeavoured to show how the first will safeguard the last. Throughout the article we find him mouthing the usual capitalist prattle, such as “many valuable ships of war have been sunk, and our mercantile marine is suffering from systematic piracy.” A little admonition is dealt out to “our rulers, who for months on end refused to recognise that we “were face to face with relentless enemies organised for the purpose of crushing our allies and ourselves.” He goes on to say that “such organisation, prepared and matured during at least forty years, can only be successfully encountered and overcome by equal organisation voluntarily accepted,” and “whatever may be urged against certain clauses of the War Munitions Act, no such criticism can be fairly levelled at a measure whose object is to put directly at the national disposal the whole of the power of the nation as represented by its entire population for work or for war.”

Doubtless the phrase “national disposal” should read the disposal of the master class, in whose interest the war is being waged, as the working class were not consulted in the signing of any treaties beforehand or the reasons for entering the war. Not a word do we find about “secret diplomacy” which led to war and used to be his pet hobby horse.

Mr. Hyndman further informs us that “nothing for which the masses of our people have ever striven is more important than that they and all of us should win in this tremendous war against the ruthless military caste—happily the last left on the planet (!)—that menaces the rights and freedom of mankind.” And again: “If the Kaiser succeeds in his great endeavour to dominate Europe what chance have we English, or any other nationality, of working out freely and peaceably our own economic and social salvation ?” So Socialism depends upon the whim of the Kaiser, eh ? It depends not on economic circumstance but on dynastic circumstance—according to this blind leader of the blind.

In conclusion he adds that it is “our duty to marshal our entire forces … to ensure safety for ourselves and security for our allies. If for the purpose of achieving this result we are all obliged to submit ourselves to national discipline . . . then the temporary sacrifice of personal liberty will be well rewarded in the end.” Mr. Hyndman at the same time points out that ‘this suppression of our individual liberty” should be “duly safeguarded against bureaucratic tyranny.” But who can guarantee this ?

Doubtless these outpourings will obtain for this “oldest Social-Democrat in Great Britain” the “well done, thou good and faithful servant !” of the masters. (Italics mine.)

* * *

A series of questions were recently asked in the House of Commons touching the matter of whether it was not possible to grant the troops in the new armies facilities for visiting their homes for the purpose of bidding good-bye to their families. It was said that:

“The fare from Salisbury to Lancashire and Yorkshire was a sum beyond the means of many of these men to spare out of their pay ; and whether the Government would undertake that all who obtained leave before going abroad should be enabled to visit their homes free of cost ?”

And it was further asked :

“Whether the War Office would bear in mind that many of these men gave up remunerative posts in order to join the Army, and that their being prevented from seeing their relatives before going abroad through not being able to pay the fare would be a great hardship ?”

The official reply was that the question was being considered.

The remunerative nature of the positions that have been given up may be judged from the fact that those who have given them up have no reserve funds to pay their own railway fare home ; and on the other hand, what is to be said of the measliness of the country they are going to protect, that refuses to let them travel over the “Statized”‘ (temporarily) railways free ? Such paltry niggardness before the “happy warriors” have saved their masters’ bacon augurs well for the open-handed generosity of a traditionally “grateful country” when the maimed and battered remnants of “glorious humanity” are brought home after the struggle.

* * *

The Suffragettes are doing their best to keep their movement before the public. These people, who only a short time ago were busily engaged window smashing, church burning, and picture ripping, are now hailed as law-abiding citizens, whose services are to be used in order to free men from productive processes so that the latter may be driven into the trenches. These ladies, as they took very great care that all the world should know, recently organised a procession to send a deputation to Mr, Lloyd George to “demand the right to serve.” We are told that in the procession “peeresses walked shoulder to shoulder with shop girls and factory lasses.” The ulterior object is seen in the wording of a telegram received later by Mrs. Pankhurst from Mr. Hall Caine. It was given in the “Observer” (18.7.5) as follows :

“After to-day’s thrilling patriotic procession the Women’s Cause will triumph as surely as the sun will rise and the sea will flow.”

* * *

In all our (masters’) newspapers we are told to economise. Government organisations like the Parliamentary War Savings Committee take up the tale with all manner of blandishments. And now along comes Canon (I believe) H. D. Rawnsley pointing out that there is plenty of accommodation in the Lake District for holiday makers. He writes :

“It has come to my knowledge that some who were intending to come to the Lake District for their holiday have been put off by hearing that, in consequence of the war, the holiday makers who would otherwise have gone to the Continent or to the East Coast have thronged the district, and that accommodation is not to be had. I wish to give an emphatic contradiction to the rumour.”—(“Manchester Guardian,” 16.7.15.)

With Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and other great patriots urging Plunger Sniff the dustman and Sooty Sam the chimney sweep to economy, it is surely doing a disservice to the State on the part of Mr. Rawnsley to try to tempt them to find in the English Lake District a substitute for the lost charms of the Riviera and the pleasures of shove-ha’penny at Monte Carlo. For shame, sir ! You will not let our corduroy prodigals come to the rescue of their bleeding country through “retrenchment and reform” even when they want to.

* * *

At a time like the present, when we are hearing so much about our “liberty,” perhaps a few “rules” from a certain motor works would not come amiss. After having affixed his number and name on the front page the new wage-slave is informed that :

“Each employee must personally register in the time clock when he commences and ceases work.

“Employees ringing in late will be paid from the nearest half hour following the time rung in, and must begin work at once on entering the shop.

“The bell will ring in the morning, and after the luncheon hour two minutes before the time to commence work, so that all employees may have a chance to reach their respective places before the starting bell rings, when everyone must be in his place with his overalls on ready for work. Just entering the building on starting time will not be satisfactory.

“Receiving visitors, lunching, eating or reading is not permitted during working hours,

“Smoking or lighting cigars, pipes, etc., is absolutely prohibited.”

I will not not extend the list any further, sufficient being quoted to discover the need for a microscope to reveal our much-vaunted liberty.

The Scout.

The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.

A Look Round. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the “impossiblists” ?

* * *

At the Central Hall of the Social Democratic Federation Mr. Herbert Burrows has been tearing up the Programme of the S.D.F., pointing out that it contains contradictory proposals and also wants boiling down. Many of the changes demanded should not be included in the list of immediate reforms and others are not Socialist at all ! Moreover, he entirely disbelieves in the establishment of a National Citizen Force. The S.D.F., then, which claims to be out to unite the working class, has not yet even united itself upon the means to be employed to unite them.

* * *

An elevating sight was witnessed last month. Mr. H. M. Hyndman publicly trounced his “comrade” Will Thorne, M.P. On January 31st at the Holborn Town Hall Mr. Hyndman declared that it was an absolute disgrace that the Labour Party in the House of Commons took no more vigorous action in the Unemployed Debate. John Burns should have been denounced as a traitor of the foulest and most loathsome type. Someone should have got up on the floor of the House and insulted him.

* * *

How very Hyndmaniac ! And yet since Burns became a “traitor,” the S.D.F., with Mr. Hyndman’s consent and largely upon his advice, supported his candidature for Parliament, and prominent members canvassed for him.

* * *

W. Thorne is a member of the Labour Party in the House, and also a member of the S.D.F. He is therefore included in Mr. Hyndman’s public condemnation. Verily, the “father of English Social Democracy” gives it “hot” to some of his offspring at times.

* * *

Hyndman is most unfair to Thorne. He knows his position and the extent to which he is bound to his Union. The S.D.F. would have been more manly had they expelled Thorne years ago for breaking their rules by supporting Liberal candidates, as he has done on so many occasions. It would have been better for the S.D.F. and also for Thorne. Instead of which they have assisted him into an untenable position and now publicly denounce him for his inaction.

* * *

Thorne is no doubt doing his best. On February 13th he brought in a Bill defining luggage on railways with regard to bicycles. Thus the revolution proceeds apace.

* * *

Mr. H. Quelch, too, who will vigorously denounce the writer of the above pars when he reads them, who is always protesting against this policy of “pin pricks,” who will “go for” the Wigan branch of the S.D.F. at the forthcoming annual conference with all the vehemence and vituperation at his command (and that’s not a little), when they urge, if permitted by the Conference, the deletion of the palliatives from the S.D.F. programme, has also been distinguishing himself recently.

* * *

In the Daily Express for January 30th he had an article on Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., with whom he associates and co-operates at various conferences and congresses. For that attack on the chairman of the I.L.P. he received, I suppose, four or five guineas. He, therefore, is quite willing to become a capitalist hack in pursuance of his desire to discredit one whose success (by means quite as creditable as those employed by many S.D.F. aspirants for political honours) has made him green with envy.

* * *

In the House of Commons on January 29th Mr. A. Henderson opened his remarks on the King’s Speech by saying that the Labour Party welcomed most heartily the references to the policy of the Government in regard to Macedonia and the Congo Free State. It is, of course, most important from the capitalist point of view that as much attention as possible should be diverted from evils here to troubles thousands of miles away.

* * *

On the following day Mr. Ramsay MacDonald declared that the existing machinery for dealing with unemployment is very simple and the Act establishing it, for which Mr. Walter Long was responsible, was one of the most courageous pieces of statesmanship seen in our generation ! Mr. Pete Curran followed and asked the Government and all parties in the House to prevent the possibility of revolution in this country !

* * *

There is no possibility of revolution so long as the workers are content to be represented by the Hendersons, the MacDonalds and the Currans, and the Liberals and Conservatives are fully aware of it.

* * *

Mr. A. Henderson has been elected to the committee of the Nonconformist members of the House of Commons. His election is another proof of the value of the Labour Party pledge to abstain from identifying themselves with any section of the Liberal or Conservative Parties.

* * *

Whenever it has to define a policy on social and economic questions the Labour Party is forced by the logic of circumstances to proceed on Socialist lines, say the Executive of the S.D.F. in a circular appealing for more money. From this we gather that the Labour Party’s Unemployed Bill, with its Penal Clause, is, in the opinion of the S.D.F. on Socialist lines. No wonder it’s a difficult job to convert the workers to Socialism.

* * *

Mr. E. R. Pease, in The International, makes a similar remarkable statement. The particular measures the Labour Party introduces, he says, and the proposals it makes are without exception Socialist !

* * *

“Bold advocacy might win the middle classes to see that their interests are in no way injured by a policy of social justice and humane reform.”—Daily News.

* * *

In his “Report on Sanatoria for Consumption and Certain Other Aspects of the Tuberculosis Question” issued on January 23rd by the Local Government Board, Dr. H. Timbrell Bulstrode says that whilst the prevalence of consumption is contributed to by many causes, poverty stands out prominently above all others. “Although” he says, “it is a matter for dispute which elements of poverty are mainly operative, there is much evidence in support of the view that poverty as a whole, with all that it comprises and implies, may be regarded as one of the most, if not the most, potent predisposing causes of the malady. Poverty acts in many ways ; it may, for instance, diminish resistance of the individual to the disease by promoting overcrowding of persons, semi-starvation, lack of sunlight, of ventilation, and of cleanliness; it may induce occupational predisposition, and increase opportunities for infection.”

* * *

“Where are your hospitals?” demands the thoughtless opponent of the Socialist speaker. But they are not ours. They belong to the capitalist system to which they are necessary. They will not be required under Socialism, because the poverty and the risks of employment common to capitalism will have disappeared.

* * *

In opening his campaign at South Leeds on February 3rd Mr. Fox, in reply to a question, said that he didn’t agree that capitalism is the root of poverty, but he did agree that Socialism is the only real remedy!

* * *

Giving evidence before the Factory Commission at Cawnpore (India) on January 18th, Mr. Francis Horsman, of the Cawnpore Cotton Mill said they had worked twelve hours a day for the past year, as compared with thirteen hours previously, and the gross production was just as good. In other words, with the shorter hours each operative produced more per hour than previously.

J. Kay

Manifesto To the Proposed International Congress. (1917)

From the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

To the proposed International Congress

COMRADES,—

Residing as we do under the control of the “democratic” British Government, we are not permitted to send Delegates to the Congress to state our views, present our case, and defend our policy, as we so strongly wished. All the more is this to be regretted as our organisation is the only one in the British Isles that takes its stand upon a definite and avowed Marxian basis and follows a policy logically deduced from that basis.

We hold that the Working Class must march to its emancipation from wage-slavery and the domination of the Capitalist Class, by the conquest of political power. In the British Isles the means wherewith to accomplish this are already in the hands of the workers, as, despite certain anomalies in our franchise, the workers have the overwhelming majority of the votes at their disposal when an election takes place. Hence the great, immediate, and pressing work requiring to be done is the education of the Working Class to an understanding of Socialism—to a realisation of their slavery and the method of their emancipation.

The Working Class are slaves to the Capitalist Class. While the Workers produce all existing wealth by applying their labour-power to the materials provided by Nature, this wealth, and the instruments necessary for its production, along with the great storehouse of Nature’s materials -the earth- are owned and controlled by the Master Class under a system of private ownership that necessitates the selling of the bulk of the products upon the markets. But while powers of production increase by leaps and bounds, the markets grow but slowly. Hence the struggles between the various groups of Capitalists for the control of these markets and the routes thereto so that they may dispose of the commodities the wage-slaves have produced. Practically all the wars of the last three centuries, from the struggle against the Dutch and Portuguese in India to the present colossal carnage which is devastating the whole world, have had their essential causes rooted in the demands of the various groups of Capitalists to control these markets and routes.

The Workers’ share of these conflicts has been to slaughter each other in their Masters’ interests, to find a grave if killed, or be offered the degrading and comfortless shelter of the workhouse if disabled or maimed. The hardship, misery, want, and suffering following these wars fall always upon the Working Class. Thousands of cripples and tens of thousands of men with constitutions ruined by military service will feel the horrors of the struggle for existence with tenfold bitterness after the war. In the midst of the conflict the Pensions Minister, Mr. G.N. Barnes – a member of the ILP and of the “Labour Party”, and “Labour” Member of Parliament for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow – has admitted that over 100,000 men have been discharged from the British Army as medically unfit for Service without allowance or pension of any kind. To soothe the ruffled feelings of these unfortunate victims of capitalist brutality this so-called representative of the Workers said:

“It has been claimed that these men should be put on pension . . . . inasmuch as the doctors have passed them in . . . . I want to say that they will not get it while I am in the office.”—Official Report, col. 254, March 6th, 1917.

No matter which group of the Masters win the struggle, the Workers remain enslaved. The division of interests is not between the peoples of the world, but between the classes — the Master Class and the Working Class. Not, therefore, in their fellow Workers abroad, but in the Master Class at home and abroad, are the working-class enemies found.

What interest have the Workers, then, in either starting or carrying on war for their masters? Absolutely none.

Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow Workers. All those who on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist.

Moreover, where the Working Class have the necessary means —the franchise— for their emancipation within their grasp it is clearly an anti-Socialist and treacherous act to urge them to use those means for the purpose of placing political power in the hands of the masters. The flimsy excuses so often used to cover up such acts of treachery to the Working Class merely add evidence to support the truth of this statement.

Applying these tests of real understanding of Socialist principle and correct action to the organisations in this country claiming to be Socialist, we find all of them except the Socialist Party of Great Britain failing to stand that test. The Fabian Society, with Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. Sidney Webb at its head, merely wishes for an extension of the Civil Service system under the control of a bureaucracy, and is opposed to the Workers being emancipated from their slavery. In addition to supporting the carrying on of the war, both the society and its individual members readily support the return of Liberal Capitalists to Parliament.

The so-called Independent Labour Party is ready at all times to make political bargains with the Capitalists and to urge the Workers to place power in the hands of the masters. Thus Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. Philip Snowden at Blackburn, Mr. F. Jowett at Bradford, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, Mr. G.H. Roberts at Norwich, Mr. G.N. Barnes at Glasgow, and Mr. Clynes at N.E. Manchester all owe their seats in Parliament to bargains made with the Liberals, in return for which they gave their support to Liberals in these and other constituencies. While protesting — in some forms — against the war, and now urging “Peace by negotiation”, the ILP allowed its members like Mr. Parker and Mr. Clynes to assist in the recruiting campaign.

In a letter sent to his constituency on 11th September, 1914, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said:

“I want the serious men of the trade unions, the brotherhoods and similar movements, to face their duty. To such it is enough to say ‘England has need of you’ and to say it in the right way.

“They will gather to her aid; they will protect her.” Daily Chronicle, September 9th, 1914.

In the Merthyr Pioneer for 27th November, 1914, the late Mr. Keir Hardie, another ILP Member of Parliament, said:

“I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting. I know too well all there is at stake.”

How is all this different from assisting in carrying on the war? How clearly it shows the treachery of the ILP leaders and Members of Parliament!

Moreover, the ILP has allowed its members to accept office in a Capitalist government without making any protest or repudiation. It is true that their 1917 Conference passed a resolution dissociating the organisation from Mr. Parker’s action in taking a Government office, but not only is Mr. Parker allowed to remain a member of the ILP, but no protest at all is made when other members, as Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Roberts, accept office under similar conditions. While protesting against German Social-Democrats voting war credits in the Reichstag, ILP members have steadily voted for war credits here.

The claim of the ILP to be a Socialist organisation is fully repudiated by the actions of its members, of which the above are but examples.

The British Socialist Party has been just as ready — if with less success — to try and enter into arrangements with the Capitalist parties for seats and offices. At General Elections they have shown their impartiality by advising the Workers to vote for Capitalist candidates of the Tory brand in some constituencies — as South Hackney, Norfolk, etc. — and for Capitalist candidates of the Liberal type in other constituencies. The one MP who until recently was a member of the BSP — Mr. W. Thorne owes his seat to the Liberals and Tories in West Ham combining to make him a present of that constituency. In the early days of the war he, with Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Hunter Watts, and others, took a prominent part in the recruiting campaign, calling upon the Workers of Great Britain to take up arms for the slaughter of their fellow Workers on the Continent, although Mr. Hyndman admitted that whichever side won the Workers would not benefit a single jot. Just lately Mr. W. Thorne has returned from a trip to Russia, taken, along with Mr. O’Grady and Mr. W. Sanders, on behalf of the British Capitalists, to persuade the Russian Workers to continue the war on the Eastern side.

In the ranks of the BSP a division of opinion has developed, resulting, after a struggle between the two sections, in the secession of the defenders of the war – Hyndman, Hunter Watts, Lee, Irving, and the rest — and the formation by the secessionists, of the National Socialist Party. The absurdity of the title is balanced by the merit it has of showing how completely pro-Capitalist and anti-Socialist these individuals are.

The BSP has now joined hands with the ILP in a so-called peace propaganda, but the confusion and double-dealing lying behind this movement is shown most glaringly by the fact that both these organisations remain affiliated to the Labour Party that has whole-heartedly supported the war from its inception.

One of the rewards given for this support was the appointment of Mr. J. Hodge, “Labour” Member for Gorton, as Labour Minister. Within a week of his appointment he tried to show his utility to the masters by threatening to use the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act against the Boilermakers of Birkenhead, who were protesting against the rotten conditions imposed upon them by the employers.

The organisation calling itself the Socialist Labour Party has never understood how the Workers are enslaved, and for years has propagated what it calls Industrial Unionism as the method of emancipation. Its attempts to reconcile this position with its claim to be a political party has led to such confusion in its ranks that when the war broke out it was divided as to whether it should support or oppose it.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN alone takes up the Socialist position here. At the beginning of the war we pointed out the essential factors forming its cause which we have given above, and we have steadily and consistently pressed this view by all the means in our power, and maintained it upon all occasions without change or deviation. Thus we said in the first issue of our official organ to be published after Britain’s entry into the war (Sept. 1914):

“THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN . . . whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands, who are being used as food for cannon abroad while suffering and starvation are the lot of their fellows at home.

“Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity . . .”

While in the February 1915 issue we said:

“We . . . declare again that there was nothing in the conditions of any country which justified Socialists voluntarily supporting either side in the war, and record our condemnation of such action as a betrayal of Socialist principles arising from lack of political knowledge and unsound political organisation.”

So, with our own hands clean and our every action in accord with the CLASS struggle and the solidarity of the interest of the Working Class the world over, we bring before the international proletariat our DEMAND FOR PEACE without any change of attitude or re-adjustment of policy. We stand for PEACE without reference to terms, since the fruits of Capitalist war are the Masters’, and only the pains and penalties thereof the Workers’.

The grim humour of the claim that Britain is fighting to “crush Prussian Militarism” is clearly shown by the fact that a Bill is being passed through the liberty-loving, democratic British Parliament establishing “Militarism” in a far worse form than either the present Prussian or the late Russian rulers ever attempted. Men who have crossed the seas because they refuse to accept military service are to be forced into the army of the “allied” country they may be in or brought back to serve in the army here!

To the Socialists of other countries we extend our fraternal greetings. As soon as conditions will permit us to do so we shall endeavour to join forces with our Comrades for the purpose of establishing a Socialist International Congress where Socialist policies shall be decided, where misleaders and tricksters who use the name and fame of Socialism will be exposed and denounced, where the message of Socialism will be sent forth to the toilers of all countries in clear and unmistakable terms, where the gage of battle against the Capitalist Class will be thrown down to the clarion call:

“WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS; YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.”

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

193 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1

20th June 1917