Have pity on them (1947)

From the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

At times the many-sided interplay of World Affairs presents a confused and complex character that does not permit of ready and facile interpretation. To admit that often we are only wise after the event is not necessarily a confession of a lack of one’s powers of perception or a deficiency in native intelligence.

It may also be that in this process of becoming wise after the event there are some who take longer than most. It may even be that there are others who never become wise about events at all.

Which brings us to Mr. Clynes’ article, “When Crisis comes to the Cabinet.” (News of the World, l4/9//47.) Mr. Clynes also sketches there what, for him, were apparently the essential features of the 1931 economic crisis. That crisis happened sixteen years ago, a fair period you will agree for cogitation and reflection on what it was all about. After reading Mr. Clynes’ article we can only conclude that sixteen years has not been long enough for him to have become really wise after the event.

Mr. Clynes, who was Home Secretary in the 1929-31 Labour Government, says that during crises he has been behind “closed doors.” He means 10, Downing Street, of course. With such qualifications he offers the newspaper’s readers “a picture of what happens.”

Perhaps the ”negative” of the picture has remained in “the dark-room” of Mr. Clynes’ memory too long. For, to use a slightly technical term, the picture is sadly lacking in definition and detail. Instead of a clear-cut impression of the real political significance of the events produced by and associated with, the 1931 crisis there is merely a confused blur of disconnected incidents and trivial political minutiae. Thus we get a presentation of “day by day Cabinet meetings, of men with white strained faces, going painfully over one scheme after another to meet a frightening situation.” Of strained nerves and tempers. The sudden bitter enmity of life-long friends. A broken-hearted and bewildered Cabinet deserted by their leader, Ramsey MacDonald, and so on. Touching, no doubt, but scarcely enlightening as a piece of political history.

Neither does any word issue from the lips of the chief characters in the picture to indicate in the slightest what the real nature of the Cabinet Crisis was. Indeed, so far as the understanding of events being gathered from what at the time was said, its significance apparently is to be found in what was not said. For Mr. Clynes’ tells us that not only was MacDonald reticent to the Cabinet concerning a visit to him in the early crisis days by the private secretary of King-George V, but, moreover, he refused to disclose to them what had passed between the King and himself at a Buckingham Palace interview. One could comment that MacDonald’s preference for a silent part in “the picture ” was indeed a rare choice for perhaps the most garrulous politician of the age.

In spite of the apparently crucial importance which Mr. Clynes rather obscurely attaches to MacDonald’s silence in the matter of the crisis, we could assure him—if that were needed—that whatever passed between King and Premier in the crisis talk would not have materially affected the nature of the 1931 economic crisis or the main trend of events which resulted from it.

The fact that MacDonald refused to spill the beans on what was said is open to the more charitable suggestion that so far as any concrete proposals about the handling of the crisis was concerned he had no beans to spill. It may even be that he didn’t discuss the crisis with the King at all. After all it is Secret History and our guess might be as good as anybody’s in the matter.

Mr. Clynes does, however, inform us that MacDonald and the Cabinet had agreed on matters which it seemed were regarded as unalterable; although about the question of what these matters were, Mr. Clynes himself is highly reticent. Albeit MacDonald altered the unalterable by the simple device of continuing his Premiership with the aid of the Tories instead of that of the Labour Party.

Mr. Clynes, anxious perhaps to cushion any criticism of his party’s failure to effectively deal with the problems of Capitalism in so far as they affect the workers’ interests, assures us that Ministers are fallible human beings. We, of course, have never said anything to the contrary. To which he further adds a somewhat tearful, spare a kind thought for the poor politician plea, by exhorting us “in our own worry and uncertainty to have Pity on them.”

It would seem that only at Election Times does the cloak of Papal infallibility fall upon the shoulders of political spokesmen. Only then, with much fingering of their political rosaries, do they proclaim with almost divine assurance to the electorate that “They are the Way, the Truth and the Light.” Only then does isome leader take on the role of a political Moses whose mission it is to lead the workers into “The Promised Land.”

It is only when political parties have become the Government of the country that they discover they are liable to be the prey of the mysterious and malignant economic visitations popularly known as “Blizzards,” “Catastrophes” and “Disasters” and for whose coming they assume no responsibility or claim any real control. It is these things which it seems set to nought their good intentions and bring to dust their political programmes and promises. In this manner do “our statesmen” translate the economic contradictions of Capitalism into librettos for the eternal political theme of the struggle between the Forces of Good and The Powers of Darkness.

Mr. Clynes tells us that Ministers “are, perhaps, family men each with domestic worries and as deeply involved as the rest of us in the common disaster which threatens our common citizenship.” No doubt this touching spectacle of the domestic worries of Ministers, such as paying the rent, meeting the milk bill or the uncertainty of the next meal, getting all mixed up with the affairs of State, is a sombre reminder of the price that has to be paid for “Democracy.” Whether the Fascist Dictatorship can be explained by the fact that Hitler was a bachelor up to the last few days of life and presumably had no family responsibilities, might engage the attention of those “psychological gentry” who are always trying to explain social and economic events by processes which have nothing to do with them. Nevertheless both Goebbels and Goering were family men and for that matter, so was Mussolini.

Doubtless, the raising of families by our Ministers is a worthy and human concession to the democratic notions of our age, but what precisely its connection is with the objective cause of the economic crises of Capitalism, Mr. Clynes fails to explain.

Mr. Clynes then tells us that “as the result of an half-an hour’s angry disagreement we were going out into the desert deprived of four-figure salaries, secure positions, the confidence of bewildered supporters and indeed of any political future for which we had painfully given our working lives.” This, indeed, must have been the supreme moment “When Crisis comes to the Cabinet.” In view of all this it will not perhaps come as a surprise when he informs us that among the varying emotions experienced by some of his colleagues, avarice was one of them.

And if the gentle reader impatiently asks what has all this to do with the political and economic events of the 1931 period, we can only say that it is Mr. Clynes’ article on the crisis and not ours.

Nevertheless Mr. Clynes does make some attempt to more realistically portray how the crisis came to Britain. For instance we are informed that foreign countries’ confidence in Great Britain was shaken—a not altogether unknown phenomenon in this country’s history. As a result of this lack of confidence “shipload after shipload of gold was loaded at the docks and passed overseas.” “At every bank queues of people tried to draw out silver and notes. Business almost stopped.” Again, £10,000,000 in gold was withdrawn and the Bank of England was by an emergency Act relieved of the necessity to pay out gold on demand. To remove any possible misapprehension these shiploads, of gold were not the nest-eggs of the working class becoming an article of export. Neither were the bank queues those of workers trying to draw out their “savings” as a preliminary to departing to sunny climes. The “going off the Gold Standard” in this country was of no vital concern to the workers because they had never been on it. Indeed the only standard the working class have ever been on in the present system is, a “Copper” one and that will remain their money evaluation as a class, whatever financial arrangements the capitalist class come to in times of crisis.

For Mr. Clynes, however, the cessation of the normal functions of The Bank of England indicated that “Britain shivered on the verge of catastrophe”.

To cap it all that other great working class institution, The Stock Exchange, closed down temporarily. However, those other working class institutions, the Labour Exchange and the Public Assistance Committee, were very much open and marked by a continuous and feverish activity.

“Then,” says Mr. Clynes, continuing his crisis theme, “for no apparent reason confidence returned.” “At mid-day Treasury officials felt a degree of terror. By the afternoon speculators were buying instead of selling . . . the tide had turned … a great crisis was weathered.” Such a description of the nature of the crisis strongly suggests a marked affinity with that vague and unaccountable phenomenon called an Act of God.

At a less sensational level we could offer the somewhat more accountable explanation, that the year 1931 was witnessing one of those familiar trade cycles which Capitalism is periodically subject to. Also the fact of going off the Gold Standard was merely an effect—not a cause of the crisis. Capitalists all over the world, faced with glutted markets and unsaleable stocks, were not only anxious to cut their commitments but were demanding gold as the means of payment in any transaction that occurred. Other Capitalists and their financial institutions were busily trying to call in loans, in view of the slump. Faced then, with the catastrophic decline of international trade it was inevit able that the creditors of British Capitalism should seek bullion as the only means for liquidating debts incurred. Thus a heavy drain on the Bank of England’s gold reserves was an automatic consequence of the conditions brought about by general and chronic “overproduction.”

To explain a capitalist crisis of “overproduction” in terms of financial panics and stringency is like attempting to explain Delirium Tremens by the patient’s shudders and shivers. Although Mr. Clynes tells us “that the crisis in money was passed” a few incidental features of the crisis, like nearly 3,000,000 unemployed, economy cuts, falling wages, distressed and devastated areas and the general intensification of poverty, remained for some years. Such crisis events, however, are not the best kind of reminiscences to keep for one’s political old age. Neither perhaps do they constitute the best form of Sunday afternoon reading for the working-class readers of the News of the World.

We have, of course, on other occasions dealt with some of Mr. Clynes economic fallacies, as far back as 1919 and as recently as the June Socialist Standard of this year. Undoubtedly Mr. Clynes’ consistent propaganda in “more production” campaigns has revealed him as an untiring advocate of harder work for other people.

But Capitalism is a profit-motive economy and it is profit anticipation which not only determines how wealth is produced but in the final analysis how much is to be produced. Thus with every increase in wealth-producing efficiency a greater quantity of goods are enabled to be thrown on to the market. Workers’ wages constituting but a fraction of the wealth they produce, it is insufficient to absorb the ever greater amount of the goods turned out by them. In the case of the Capitalists their effective ability to consume the products of labour is fixed by the limits of their personal and physical capacities. Hence a greater portion of their “surpluses” tend to go into greater investments of those industries which turn out productive goods,. The contradiction between the expanding forces of production and the limited class income distribution inherent in Capitalism is thus intensified. It is this which finally leads to glutted markets. Effective demand ceases, or to put it another way, a condition is reached where no purchasers can be found. Profit anticipation then declines or disappears. Production is, then curtailed; plants close down; workers are dismissed and all the familiar conditions of a slump make their appearance.

Thus Mr. Clynes’ sovereign remedies—greater productive output on the part of the worker—for dealing with unemployment and low wages, provide the very means for bringing about in a shorter time those very conditions which he seeks to obviate.

It would appear that Mr. Clynes has been so busy during his life, assisting or seeking to assist in the administration of Capitalism that he has never had time to acquaint himself with a few simple facts about the system he has, helped to run. Thus do “Practical Politics” keep our statesmen, so far as the understanding of this present system is concerned, in a perpetual economic “Egyptian Darkness.”

Should we then include Mr. Clynes among those politicians he asks us “to have pity on?”

Ted Wilmott

At random. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“May I say there is a good deal of nonsense talked about capital ?” Thus Lloyd-George at Swansea. And at once adds more “nonsense.” As thus: “The greatest capitalist in this country is Nature.” The implication that all wealth is capital should commend itself to Clarion Vanner (by the grace of Blatchford) Hick.

* * *

This product of what he himself described as the “stately cloisters of Oxford,” told a motley gathering of I.L.P’ers, S.D.P’ers, etc. in Peckham that capital was “wealth used to produce more wealth.” He affected to be much concerned when a member of the S.P.G.B. referred to him as a “catspaw of the capitalist class,” and cried aloud for proof of the charge, hastily adding, at the same time, that no Socialist would be allowed on the platform in opposition.

* * *

Cumulative and damnatory evidence could be given until further orders, that this brand of political quack is effectually doing the work of the master class in several directions, but the mere fact that one of the high-priests of Capital and the Vanner should be engaged in confusing the mind of the worker on vital points is sufficiently significant of itself.

* * *

Nothing suits the game of the capitalist class better than to point to the worker’s pick, his shovel, his dinner-pail, to apostrophise his mental qualities, his endurance, his etc., etc., and call them “capital.” For why ? It BLURS THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

* * *

“Capital does not consist in the fact that stored-up labour is used by living labour as a means to further production. Capitalism presupposes the existence of a class which possesses nothing but labour-power. It is the lordship of realised labour over living labour that transforms stored-up labour into capital”—Author of pamphlet, “Karl Marx.”

* * *

Kautsky, in the second section of his brilliant work, “Das Erfurter Programm,” (issued by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in pamphlet form as “The Working Class,” price one penny, honestly and correctly translated into English.) has pointed out that modern capitalism has developed a sorry type of proletarian—-the educated wage-slave. The death of Churton Collins, a distinguished scholar and acknowledged authority on Shakesperian lore, is one of frequently occurring incidents which emphasises his miserable position who must prostitute his intellect to make a living, and hire out his commodity—education—to the highest bidder. The professor, dying by his own hand, was fearful as to the future maintenance of his children.

* * *

Meantime, a correspondent of the Daily News is suggesting that, to meet unemployment of teachers in London, the L.C.C. shall “reduce present salaries,” and prevent teachers doing both day and evening work !

* * *

The Review of Reviews is concerned about “The Winter Feeding of Starving Children.” (It is not going to let the S.D.P. monopolise that pitch.) In the September issue, p. 295, it says “It would be well if other firms were to follow Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s example by a systematic endeavour to educate the public in the general principles of the scientific feeding of children.” On p. 303 is a long advertisement crying up the wares of the above named firm. The Review of Reviews “invites the aid of ‘helpers.'” Helpers for what? Who said “alliances” ?

* * *

From the same source we learn that it has been ascertained that the children “could be fed excellently well at a penny a meal, with a extra halfpenny for dinner.”

* * *

Crouch low, you discontented dogs ! Listen to the I.L.P. “Socialist,” Liberal Stead at elbow, telling you the master class can provide sumptious meals for your poor little kiddies at a penny a head, with a extra half-penny chucked in for dinner. Then, begone ! run to your houses, fall upon your knees, pray to the tuppenny gods to intermit the plague that needs must light on “your” country for the ingratitude displayed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in denouncing such a sorry combination of mouthing knaves and tricksters.

* * *

F. H. Rose, in the Clarion of 18.9.08 writes, with regard to the cotton dispute, “The masters bribe away the best and most knowing of the operators’ officials by giving them better jobs and bigger salaries. It is a ghastly business. Yet if I were to say what every employer knows, I should be charged with ‘giving the game away.'”

* * *

Judged by his own words, F. H. Rose is a traitor to his own class. A deliberate charge is made against unions’ officials which, unfortunately, is no doubt only too true. What plea can he bring forward to justify his silence or the matter ? If fears for endangering his own chances as union official and “Labour” member, why take the pains to emblazon abroad his cowardice ?

* * *

A significant cutting from John Bull. We pray you, note, aye, nota bene ! “Just as the franchise is the political specific for revolution, nationalisation of the public services is the antidote to Socialism.” Instead of which, that egregious political combination which is neither “independent” in action, nor “labour” in spirit, and which exists as a “party” only by grace of anonymous donors (see Manifesto p. 3) and middle-class “sympathisers,” at its last Annual Conference passed the following resolution : “That in the opinion of this Conference the time is ripe for the nationalisation of railways, and that our representatives be asked to urge forward a measure to that effect in Parliament.”

* * *

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that pensions in Germany had not only raised the standard of life, but had had “the important result of improving the quality of the workman.” Exactly. Read “Bountiful Bournville” in last month’s issue of this paper in connection with this statement. Further comment would be what the Book of Common Prayer simply and beautifully calls “supererogatory.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian recently wrote “Mr. Hudson repudiated any alliance with the Liberals, but he had heard the good news which Manchester sent on the first night of the election in the not uncongenial atmosphere of the Liberal Club. Being called on for a speech, he said he most earnestly desired to see Mr. Cairns (Liberal) in as well as himself.”

* * *

Mr. Hudson is a “Labour” M.P. The “Constitution and Organisation” section of the Manifesto of the “Labour” Party contains the following : “Candidates and members must abstain strictly from promoting the interests of any Party not eligible for affiliation.” Is the Liberal Party ”eligible for affiliation” ? Verily, in the words of their own Chairman at the Belfast Conference, “The Labour Party were a queer party and they are a queer party.”

* * *

At a “Socialist” demonstration recently, J. R. Clynes, another “Labour” M.P., and I.L.P’er to boot, said “The unemployed are a waste to the country. Would it not be better to enable a man to work for his maintenance and something over for the country.”

* * *

“Something over” = profit.

“The country” = the capitalist class.

* * *

In spite of protestations to the contrary, the “Labour” Group is out to maintain the present system. Its actions speak louder than its words, which, Heaven knows, should be loud enough to wake the somnolent wage-slave to a recognition of the real position.

* * *

“Radical Socialism,” “I.L.P. Socialism,” “Labour Socialism”—in short “Bourgeois Socialism”—all were summed up fifty years ago in the most luminous little working-class work ever penned (the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”).

“Free Trade—for the benefit of the working class, Protective duties—for the benefit of the working class, Prison reform—for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism. It can be summed up in a phrase the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.”

Augustus Snellgrove

Letter: I.L.P. Compacts in Manchester. (1908)

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

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,—A copy of the Socialist Standard for April, containing Mr. J. Brough’s second letter, has just been put into my hands. There are one or two points arising out of the same that I would, with your consent, like to discuss. In the first place I wish to draw the attention of your readers to the manner in which Mr. Brough, like all equivocators, seeks to evade the real issue by constantly changing his position. At the open-air meeting I addressed in July, ’07, Mr. Brough charged the I.L.P. with having formed a compact with the Liberal Party. This I denied at the time. In his first letter (Socialist Standard, Feb., ’08), the charge is reduced to one of complicity—the L.R.C. being the guilty body, the I.L.P. merely a party to the act. That he is totally unable to justify either one charge or the other is made perfectly clear by Mr. Brough’s second letter. The “compact” is discreetly dropped. (A tacit acknowledgment, by the way, of the “veracity of my denial.”) Forced to abandon one position, Mr. Brough takes up another. He now tries to patch up his case by pointing out that certain I.L.P.’ers (acting on their own initiative, as they must have done on the evidence cited by Mr. Brough from the Daily News, Jan. 11, ’06), voted Liberal. This I submit is not the point in dispute. I never undertook to answer for the action of individual members of the I.L.P. But I can, and do, truthfully say that neither the I.L.P. nor the L.R.C. did as Mr. Brough asserted in his first letter—that is, entered in “a compact, a mutual agreement, or contract,” with the Liberal Party.

The “compact” is a figment of Mr. Brough’s fancy. And one that he now wisely, and for him conveniently, ignores. He has failed to substantiate his charge. And his climb down is so obvious, so unmistakable, that I would have left the matter to the intelligence of your readers had not Mr. Brough made himself responsible for another gross and deliberate lie.

He says : “I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say ‘It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.'”

Mr. Brough knows as well as I do that he never heard me say anything of the kind. The remarks he distorts and tries to twist were made by me in answer to a question from Mr. Brough re the attitude of the L.R.C. towards Victor Grayson. In the course of my reply I said that it did not matter whether Grayson had got into Parliament with, or without, the aid of the L.R.C., so long as he had got there. In this case, as in so many others, Mr. Brough puts into words something they do not contain. Not that I am surprised at Mr. Brough resorting to tricks of this kind. They are characteristic of the man. Were he to be deprived of this his occupation would be gone

.—Yours, etc.,

Tom Swan.

Reply:

Dear Comrade,—If Mr. Swan replies somewhat rudely, the reason is probably to be sought in that he hopes by his wild and whirling words to hide the poverty of his case.

At the Editor’s request I simply resume the facts.

In the first place the contention re compacts has obviously not been dropped, for indeed none of the evidence has been rebutted by Mr. Swan.

Contributory evidence has been given, not from one source alone, but from many sources ; and the evidence in proof of arrangements with Manchester Liberals to which the I.L.P., being prime movers in the L.R.C. there, were incontestably parties, is overwhelming.

Again I ask, if there was no arrangement with the Liberals, why did the secretary of the Manchester and Salford L.R.C. state in a letter to the Clarion that “The introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidatures in S.W. and N.E. Manchester” ? If the I.L.P. were not parties to this why were they, as they stated in the Clarion, unable to promote any candidate in E. Manchester “on account of their affiliation to the L.R.C.” ? These facts have already been given, and why has not Mr. Swan, if there is any other explanation than that of an understanding with the Liberals, given a reason for them ?

Further, Mr. Swan’s bare denial is totally insufficient to dispose of the evidence from the Manchester Courier of Dec. 16th last, that—

“Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew.”

And did not Mr. Clynes, M.P., himself say upon his victory (Daily News, 15/1/06) that “the victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism” ? This and other evidence has already been given. Is it necessary to give more?

The Daily Chronicle, 1/1/06, in an article on “Triangular Contests” said:—

“A settlement [between Liberals and Labour men] has been arrived at in many of the great centres of population—in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Preston, Wolverhampton, Sunderland Stockport, Leicester, Huddersfield and a number of other towns.”

Again, the Daily News, 15/1/06, said :—

“At Halifax, again, Mr. Whitley’s wise arrangement with Labour has produced an ideal result in his return with Mr. Parker at his side and nearly 4,000 votes in front of the Tory candidate. Here there is an object lesson in the right use of great and in the main harmonious powers. The same moral applies to North-East and South-West Manchester, where it is clear that the Labour candidate had the whole Liberal Party at his back.”

And so we might go on.

With regard to the answer to a question put to Mr. Swan at a meeting, it is again Mr. Swan who is lying. The question was not put by me, but by W. L. Brown, of 39, Buckingham Street, Moss Side, Manchester, of whom I have made enquiries, and he writes : “Mr. Swan had said that ‘the return of V. Grayson for Colne Valley had done more to put the fear of God in the capitalist party than any other event during the last thirty years ! I asked how it was that the return of K. Hardie, P. Snowden, and J. R. MacDonald and others had not filled the capitalist with fear also ; were they not Socialists ? Mr. Swan replied, ‘Damn it, man, you’re only quibbling. Of course they are Socialists ; everybody knows they are Socialists. It does not matter under what banner they get to Parliament as long as they get there.'” It will be seen that this agrees substantially with my version, while it flatly contradicts the assertions of Mr. Swan on that matter.

In his first letter Mr. Swan gratuitously accused the S.P.G.B. of being a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties; up to the present he has not substantiated his statement, nor can he do so. His statement, if I may be pardoned the use of his own lurid language, is “a gross and deliberate lie” ; while evidence has repeatedly been given in these columns, and in the Manifesto of the Party, proving that the I.L.P., which he champions, is in practice a “mere adjunct” of the Liberal Party.

For the rest I am prepared to leave the case upon the evidence already given, which evidence Mr. Swan has yet to meet.

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

Correspondence: A deliberate lie? (1908)

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

TO THE EDITOR.

33, Albany Street, Beswick, M/c. 

Feb. 5, 08.

Dear Sir,—Mr. J. Brough issues, through the February No. of your paper, a direct challenge to me, and one it may be worth while to accept. I shall perhaps be able to throw some light on the methods of the S.P.G.B.

The author of this challenge ends his letter by asking “What has Mr. Swan to say now ?” Exactly what I said before. The statement that a compact was entered into by the local L.R.C. and the Liberals at the last general election is a deliberate lie ? It was a lie, when Mr. Brough first made it, and it is a lie still. In addition I would like to point out that apart from the Courier extract, concerning which I will have something to say later, Mr. Brough has not brought forward one scrap of evidence in support of his charge. The letters from the Clarion will not bear the construction he has placed upon them. He has read into them something they do not contain.

Mr. Brough bases his case upon the fact that the L.R.C. and the East Manchester I.L.P. declared that a candidate in East Manchester would damage Clynes in North East, and Kelley in South West Manchester. That such was their opinion has never been denied, but has been freely and frequently admitted. Such an admission, however, is not tantamount to an acknowledgement that a compact was made by the L.R.C. and the Liberal Party. To assert that it is, to quote Mr. Brough, to “use words for a purpose different from that in which words are generally understood.”

Mr. Brough explains very carefully what is meant by the word “compact,” and thereby places himself at my mercy. A “compact” is a mutual agreement, or contract, etc., etc. Very good. Now a compact is only possible when there are two, or more, parties to it, and can only be arrived at as the result, the outcome, of certain verbal or written communications. If there is no communication there can be no compact. That either verbal or written communications passed, between the L.R.C. and the Liberals I emphatically deny. And if I am speaking the truth Mr. Brough’s precious “compact ” falls demolished about his ears.

But why waste ink? Mr. Brough may test the truth, or untruth, of my words quite easily. The Trades Union connected with his occupation sends several delegates to the L.R.C., one of whom is upon the executive of that body. Let Mr. Brough, through these delegates, have the question brought up ; let him demand the facts. I will undertake to back up his efforts. And if, after this course has been adopted, it can be proved that I have tried to mislead Mr. Brough, I promise to publicly apologise to him for having done so. This is a perfectly fair proposition, and a reasonable one. Let Mr. Brough act upon it.

Now a few words in reference to the extract from the Manchester Courier. If what I have stated above is true, it follows that the statement contained in this extract is as false as that made by Mr. Brough. They are both to the same effect ; they stand or fall together. The fact is the Courier man knows no more, and he could not know less, about the matter under discussion than Mr. Brough himself. And I submit that a Socialist who goes to the Tory or Liberal Press for information concerning other Socialists, and uses this information without ever trying to verify it is playing very low indeed. Tories and Liberals alike are interested in circulating lies about us. And if you repeat these lies you are doing their work whether you are paid for it or not.

Mind you, I do not dispute the right of Mr. Brough, or anyone else, to criticise me, or the organisation to which I belong. But criticism to be of any value must be prompted by a desire to see truth prevail, not by stupid pugnacity; it must be based upon fact, not wild assumption; and must be the outcome of knowledge, not of ignorance. If the S.P.G.B. will confine itself to criticism of the former, and leave the latter kind to our mutual foes it will fulfil a useful function ; if it does not it will remain a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties.

—Yours etc.,

Tom Swan.

Blogger's Note:

Jim Brough replied to Mr. Swan's letter in the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

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

I.L.P. compacts in Manchester.

Comrade,—On November 20th Mr. T. Swan of the I.L.P. asserted in debate with J. Marsh (S.P.G.B.), that a member of the S.P.G.B. had stated that the I.L.P. had been parties to a compromise with the Liberals during the General Election ; but this statement was a deliberate lie, as no such compact had taken place. If, he added, the S.P.G.B. were proved locally to have made a statement that could not be verified, of what value were the statements made in their Manifesto and elsewhere ?

Now for the facts upon which the charge was made. On the 28th July, 1907, Swan was announced to debate with Kitson, on “Socialism versus Anarchism.” Wishing to know something more of the Anarchist position, I went to the meeting place, but found Swan holding forth, Kitson having failed to turn up.

At the conclusion of Swan’s address questions were asked for. After I spoke of the compromise referred to above. Swan denied that it had appeared in the Clarion, and, as I spoke then only from memory of 18 month’s previously, I let it pass. After, however, it was referred to by Swan on Nov. 20th, I bought the Clarions for the last three months of 1905 and found “The Clarion Post Bag ” for Nov. 10th, 1905, contained the following :—

”EAST MANCHESTER,  

To the Editor of the Clarion. 

Dear Sir,—Your article in Clarion of October 27 re Socialist candidate for East Manchester Parliamentary Division, was considered by our executive committee at their meeting on November 2, and I was instructed to inform you that the above committee was created by the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council for the purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates in Manchester and Salford at the next General Election.

The committee is representative in character, consisting of trade unions and branches of the Independent Labour Party, and the constituencies they have selected to be contested are South-West and North-East Manchester Divisions.

Our candidates, Mr. G. D. Kelley and Mr. J. R. Clynes, have been before the constituents some time, their prospects of success are excellent, and they have received the endorsement of the National Labour Representation Committee.

Our executive committee are strongly of the opinion that the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidates in S. W. and N.E. Manchester Divisions, and would tend to upset the cordial relations at present existing between the trade unions and Socialist organisations for independent political action, which has taken many years to bring about.

In view of these circumstances, they feel it would be a mistaken policy for the Clarion to put forward a Socialist candidate for East Manchester, and one which they, as the representative body of the Labour and Socialist bodies in the district, appointed for the specific purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates, could not countenance. 

Yours sincerely,

J. Nuttall

Secretary, M/c & Salford Lbr. Rpn. Committee, 29, York Street, Broughton, Salford.”

J. Butterworth, of 7, Royal Street, Ardwick, Secretary of the Ardwick I.L.P.,had a letter in the same issue of the Clarion in which he states in reply to A. M. Thompson’s “I wait now to hear from the constituency,” (Nov. 3/05), that “I or someone else may have something definite to say upon the matter,” “in the course of a few days.” What that “something definite” was we gather from the Clarion of Dec. 1st, 1905, when there appeared the following in a letter, dated November 27th, 1905 :—

“The following resolution was moved by Councillor Fox and seconded by Councillor Sutton:—

That this meeting of the members of East Manchester branches of the I.L.P. cannot consent to the candidature of Bramley without the consent of the M/c and Salford L.R.C. After discussion, the following amendment was moved by Comrade Hunt (of the Bradford branch), and seconded by Comrade Jones (of the Ardwick branch) :—

‘That we, members of the Ardwick and Bradford branches of the I.L.P., although, on account of our affiliation with the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester, cannot withhold our consent to the promotion of the candidature of F. Bramley for the division by the Clarion Board.’ ”

In explanation, A. M. Thompson said “The resolution conveyed in this letter shows misunderstanding of the situation. No candidature is, or can be, promoted by the Clarion Board.”

F. W. Jowett, in the Clarion for December 15th, 1905, points out that “There is one thing, however, which is beyond doubt, and that is the duty of our members in constituencies where a candidate is being run by any of the organisations affiliated to the L.R.C., as an L.R.C. candidate. The cohesion of the Labour movement largely depends upon the thoroughness with which the sections in each constituency concerned unite on the man in the field, to whatever section he may belong.”

Now, I maintain that the I.L.P. as a party affiliated to the L.R.C. are, as a matter of moral obligation, compelled to agree to any arrangement the L.R.C. may arrive (or connive) at. That they did act loyally to their L.R.C. confederates is shown by the words “we, on account of our affiliation to the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester” (their “consent” without support would have been useless to Bramley, as a candidate). Therefore it was a mere pious resolution. Had they supported Bramley they would have been false to their L.R.C. friends, because “the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in M/c would seriously damage the good prospects” of Kelley and Clynes in S.W. & N.E. Divisions. (vide Sec. Nuttall of the L.R.C.) They were, on this showing, as members of the L.R.C., parties to the compact I spoke of.

Perhaps Mr. Swan may use words for a purpose different to that in which words are generally understood. But a compact is “a mutual agreement or contract, a treaty, a league, a confederacy.” (Nuttall). That there was an agreement was made further evident when I saw in the Clarion for December 22nd, 1905 a letter signed “Unification,” in which occurs the following:—

“That there is a great possible danger in the confusion of the word “Labour” with the Liberal Party will be obvious to most people when we read such statements as appeared in a Manchester evening paper—that a certain Labour candidate saw eye to eye with the Liberals on nine points out of ten, and it would, therefore, not be policy to bring out a Liberal candidate and thus create a three-cornered fight. The ambiguity of the term is proving a valuable asset to the Liberal Party ; but when we learn that the L.R.C. are averse to sanctioning the candidature of a Socialist for East Manchester, on the grounds that the Liberals would then contest the two Manchester divisions, where Labour candidates are nominated, we can certainly excuse the outsiders if they consider the Labour Party as a Liberal wing. What other complexion can be placed on such a help-me-and-I’ll-help-you policy ? ”

And furthermore, in the Manchester Courier of December 16th last the following appears :—

“LABOUR AND WEST SALFORD 

Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew. The Labour Party’s love of Liberalism has not been improved in the last two years, and after the success of its own candidates in Manchester last year a renewal of the arrangement which gave the Liberals six candidates to Labour’s two is not likely.”

What has Mr. Swan to say now?—Yours fraternally,

J. Brough

P.S.—As I did not join the S.P.G.B. Until 28th August, 1907, the statement Mr. Swan dubbed a “deliberate lie” was not made by “a member of the S.P.G.B.,” but that, of course, ia a minor point.

A Young Man in a Hurry. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. J. R. Clynes, M.P., is certainly a “young man in a hurry.” During the Kirkdale Election he declared that the Labour Party would have been well worth creating if in the next ten years they did nothing more than settle the question of old age pensions. So there you are, you “too old at forty” wage slaves, you “scrapped” merchandise, (“scrapped” because the Workmen’s Compensation Act, for the passing of which Mr. Clynes and his Labour Party friends claim such credit, has decided your employers only to run risks with young and active men), give them time (ten years) and this precious, enthusiastic, impatient, impulsive Labour Party will settle the question, of old age pensions. And how will they “settle” it? Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., as a member of the S.D.F. is pledged to “free and adequate State pensions or provision for aged and disabled workers,” but what constitutes an “aged” worker is not stated. As members of the I.L.P., Mr. Thorne’s fellow-officials of the Gasworkers’ Union, Messrs. Clynes and Pete Curran are pledged to “State pensions for every person over 50 years of age, and adequate provision for all widows, orphans, sick, and disabled persons.” But as members of the “Labour Party” all three are restricted to “five shillings” (a whole five shillings, accompanied by a tract warning the recipients not to waste it in riotous living) per week to all workers over 65 years of age. And as Messrs. Clynes & Co. speak, not as members of the I.L.P. or S.D.F., but of the Labour Party, it is on the five shillings a week basis that they will settle the old age problem and they want ten years to do it! These be stirring times !

Editorial: Once a Liberal always a Liberal. (1908)

Editorial from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Mr. MacDonald, who is certainly practical enough in Parliament, has been represented as a somewhat bitter critic of the present Government. I believe it to be a fact that he considers he has a grievance against the newspapers for the way they have ignored his repeated efforts to do justice to the Government’s good works.” 

Manchester Guardian’s London Correspondent, Jan. 9th, 1908.

Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald’s political career has been an interesting one. Just previous to the general election of 1895 he was straining every nerve to induce the Liberal Executive to adopt him as one of their official candidates for Southampton. Had they done so and he had secured election, it is highly improbable that he would ever have been heard of as an “Independent” Labour man, provided always that the Liberal moneybags had recognised his “statesmanship” and seen to it that his political advancement was not retarded. But the official Liberals of Southampton would have none of him, and so, like many another job-hunter, he became “converted,” and being anxious to enter Parliament, at once pushed himself forward as the “Independent Labour” candidate for the borough. At the last general election he secured the coveted membership of the House of Commons, sinking all the principles of political independence which the I.L.P. claim to have as their basis of operations, by making a compact with the Liberals of Leicester. That he is still, for all practical purposes, a Liberal, is shown by his remarks to a Daily News interviewer on January 8th. That interview, as the D.N. editor pointed out, was “an interesting evidence of the substantial identity of the immediate aims of Liberalism and Labour.” Now the immediate aims of Liberalism are to maintain and, if possible, strengthen the economic supremacy of the master class over the working class. It is for that that they enter into politics, and as the immediate aims of the Labour Party are substantially identical (for the accuracy of the D.N’s comment cannot be questioned) we are once more justified in our criticism of the Labour Party as upholders of capitalism. Moreover, Mr. MacDonald declared, “you can find Socialists in both the big political parties.” Why, then, does not the Labour member for Leicester denounce them ? They must be either ignorant, or dishonest. But it is clear that in Mr. MacDonald’s opinion Socialism is only a general term signifying a desire to reform, not to change the basis of Society, for he added “the people get Socialism from Tory as well as from Liberal Ministers” ! Will the chairman of the Independent Labour Party take the object of that party (fearful and wonderful as it is) and explain how, if that is his idea of Socialism, the people are getting it from Tory as well as from Liberal Ministers ?

Reform or Socialism?

There is one aspect of the editorial comments in the Daily News which deserves very careful consideration on the part of those who claim to be Socialists, but yet advocate reforms. It is idle to deny that many do so quite honestly, believing that there is little hope of the workers organising for Socialism until their conditions are vastly improved, and they must therefore ask, or appeal, or “demand” these reforms of their masters. The Daily News welcomes the pressure of the Labour Party in the direction of a generous scheme of old age pensions, as it can only be salutary, and will certainly come with equal conviction and energy from the Left Wing of Liberalism itself. The same thing, it adds, is true of the problem of unemployment. In its opinion, a niggardly scheme of pensions, and, above all, one which attempted to set up any discrimination on the basis of merit, would do more than anything else to disillusionise those workmen who trust the sympathies and goodwill of Liberalism. It might drive them to Tariff Reform, more probably it would convert them to Socialism. And so, as Mr. Cadbury’s journal does not wish workmen to be converted to Socialism, it hopes the Government will pass something which, in the name of Socialism, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his party advocate. The Daily News knows, of course, that Old Age Pensions, whether carried out according to the plan of the Labour Party or otherwise, are in no sense of the word Socialism. They, therefore, do not father the twaddle of the I.L.P. chairman about getting Socialism from Tory as well as Liberal Ministers. As Mr. A.J.Balfour declared recently, Social Reform is the antidote to Socialism. It is therefore illogical for Socialists to advocate reforms. These will, of course, be passed into law by the master class whenever the exigencies of the political situation demand that operation. And as the working-class show they are becoming Socialists, the passing of reforms will be expedited by the capitalists. The only work then with which Socialists have to deal is the education of the workers to the principles of Socialism, for the spread of that education alone will secure, not only an amelioration of present conditions, but the complete change from capitalism to Socialism, which is necessary before freedom and general well-being can be possible for all mankind.

What’s in the Wind.

Not only is Mr. J. R. MacDonald anxious to show how very little Liberalism has to fear from Labourism, but other Labour members are going about the country proclaiming that they are not Socialists, and evidently endeavouring to conciliate the Liberals. At Hulme Town Hall on November 28, Mr. G. D. Kelley, M.P. explained that he did not wish to see the Government wrecked by the introduction of an unacceptable Licensing Bill. But, from the workers’ point of view, Liberals and Tories are but two names adopted by the one enemy, and it matters not to them which section of the enemy is in power or thrown out. Moreover, if the Labour Party’s view is the correct one, and the next general election will see a large increase in their ranks in the House of Commons, it would suit their purpose better if the Government were wrecked at once, no matter on what. At the conclusion of the meeting Mr. Kelley was asked if he were a Socialist and replied in the negative. Hence his solicitude for the Liberal Government. Mr. H. Nuttall, Liberal M.P., mentioned at Heaton Mersey on December 20th that Mr. Clynes, M.P., had expressed himself in a way as to a practical working policy that he fully agreed with, and, commenting on this, the Manchester Weekly Chronicle pointed out that since Mr. Nuttalls speech Mr. Clynes, speaking at Hulme, said Socialism was a long way off, and they had to work for immediate reforms. Again we ask “what’s in the wind ?” Is it that the Labour members, anticipating an early general election, and fearing the Liberals will decline to renew the compacts by which so many Labour men became Labour members, fearing the Liberals will force them to fight three-cornered contests, are striving to conciliate the Liberals as much as possible, with a view to preventing such a (to them) dire catastrophe as is here foreshadowed ?

Editorial: A Confession of Impotence. (1907)

Editorial from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Confession of Impotence.

Speaking for the S.D.F. at N.E. Manchester on September 28th, Mr. J. R, Clynes, M.P., thus delivered himself amid, we read, loud S.D.F. cheers:—

“The Labour Party in Parliament were doing their best. He thought they should be delegates to carry out the will of the people who sent them there. They only represented a small minority of the workers and could not speak for the whole of the workers. They were told to kick up a row and make themselves a nuisance like the Irish Party. But the Irish Party had nearly the whole of Ireland behind them.”

That comes of being a fierce democrat and the bosom chum of an implacable revolutionary like Bill Thorne. Having fulfilled the first of their desires and “got in” on programmes that, whatever else they may have been, were distinctly not Socialist; and having discovered that being in on such terms they were, as we said they would and must be, impotent, the LABOUR—socialist members now seek to placate the wrath of any of their “advanced” friends by pointing out that they couldn’t kick up a row because, dont y’see, they haven’t the whole people behind them. As unflinching democrats, it was their business first and foremost (after “getting in”) to carry out the will of the people by whose votes they were returned, and as these votes were not given for Socialism, naturally they (the elected persons) couldn’t act as Socialists or preach Socialism.

The thing is as plain as can be. We can’t, they say, run on a Socialist programme because the people, the sovereign people (two hundred sovereigns to be precise), are not Socialists and wouldn’t elect us ; we can’t voice Socialism when we are elected because we must represent the views of our constituents. Of course Socialism is the only thing that materially matters to the workers (“I believe and recognise the class war,” says Clynes), and when the people are Socialists we shall—my word ! how we shall go for the capitalists, and what a row we shall kick up. But until then——And so on, and so on.

____________

Exploiters of Sentiment.

Well, what is the use of Clynes & Co. from a Socialist point of view at all ? And what is the use of the S.D.F. “Socialists” in Manchester who cheered Clynes and moved him votes of thanks ? If Clynes is prepared, as in common with other members of the Labour Group who claim to be Socialists he certainly is, to subordinate Socialism, the admittedly only hope of the workers, to the chance of “getting in,” what use is he from a working-class standpoint ? He may claim that he did not know how impotent his precious “Labour” party would be. He may have been, as many professing Socialists are, under the impression that the great thing is to “get in,” and then use your position as a sounding board for your principles—play the political fraud, deceive the electorate, prepare the way for a Socialism that is impossible without an educated working class by deliberately hoodwinking that class ! We have set our faces against this, the fairly common practice of the S.D.F., I.L.P. and other pseudo-Socialist parties, and earned for ourselves by our denunciations, the epithet “impossiblists.” But this damnable doctrine of doing evil that good may come was, and is yet, widely held, and Clynes may have been innoculated with it.

Assume that he was an honest fool then as against a worse assumption, and went in with high hopes of better work possible under the changed conditions only to find he was tied hand and foot and delivered bound to the “Labour Party.” Assuming that, what would his position be provided he remained honest ? What action would he take ? Surely he would risk his salary, break with the “Labour” Party and its restrictions, and shout his Socialism from the Parliamentary housetop. Such action would not, of course, purge the evil of his election, but it would be evidence of honest stupidity.

But what it instead of this he swallowed his aspirations, pocketed his wages and came along with the explanation that, after all you cannot work in advance of your electorate ? Well, in that case you would know to a very nice exactitude what the price of that man was.

Mark ! this is the case of a man who started into office foolish but honest. But suppose the best of evidence existed to show that he had no delusions as to his powers when he “got in” ; that knowing all the time that Socialism was the only thing that mattered to the workers, he deliberately whittled his policy and submerged his principles until he made himself acceptable to the ignorance of a number of electors sufficiently large for his purposes ; what would then be said when that man came along to explain his impotence on the ground of the ignorance of the electorate ? What would we call a man who, while occupying the standing of a leader in professing Socialist circles, deliberately got himself elected on a non-Socialist programme that rendered him entirely useless to the working class, and who then came to his professing Socialist supporters to explain that he was useless because he had been elected on a non-Socialist ticket ?

Think it over, my friends of North East Manchester and elsewhere, remembering the speech of J. R, Clynes, M.P. And do not forget the loud cheers of his S.D.F. supporters. They at any rate are prepared to be parties to the same game again—if the Manchester S.P.G.B. does not interfere. However, as there is a branch of the S.P.G.B. in Manchester now, the local confusionists can rely upon the interference, as we can rely upon our comrades making that interference effective.

Pillars of the State, (1931)

From the December 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

or

We all go the same way home.

During the great fight to secure seats in the House of Commons, the superficial observer might have been misled into thinking that a tremendous gulf separated the rival factions. Upon closer examination the differences are seen to be of quite minor proportions and mainly concerning details, but there exists a curious unanimity of purpose. Whilst the National crowd claim to have a monopoly of patriotism and national interests, and predicted dire results in the event of a Labour Government being returned, this was hotly disputed by the Labour Party, who themselves claim to be just as patriotic and considerate of National Interests as their opponents.

The victory rested with those who had the most megaphones, and made the strongest appeal to working-class political inexperience.

The Church (of course) was on the side of Sanity, and the Bishop of London (a follower of the Prince of Peace, who urged the workers to shed their blood in the masters’ interests in the shambles of 1914 to 1918) again did his little bit for his masters when addressing his Diocesan Conference, predicting as a “solemn truth” that “If the verdict of the country goes wrong the pound will fall to five shilling’s in twenty-four hours, one shilling within a week, and one penny in a month.” Note the dogmatic exactness with which he prophesies the decline.

Cardinal Bourne, whilst differing from the Bishop of London on questions of Theology is on the same side when it comes to a question of serving the masters’ interests. Speaking at a meeting at the Victoria Palace, London, he said,

“It was the duty of Catholics to promote national peace, and most of them rejoiced that for the time being there was a weakening in the country of that rigid adherence to party which had been the cause of so many evils in the past. It was part of their duty to exorcise all that was evil in party spirit, and make its service as much as possible for the good of the nation. They had also to work for social peace. Nothing in the nature of class war might be fostered or encouraged by Catholics.” (“Eccles Journal,” October 30th.)

Dear, dear ! Whether they were really perturbed at the possibility of the return of a Labour Government we don’t know; but they needn’t have been alarmed.

Let us call the spokesmen of the Labour Party to give evidence against themselves. In an interview with the “Manchester Evening Chronicle” (Oct. 28-31), Mr. Clynes said,

“My conviction is that the Labour Party has stood as the most effective bulwark between revolution and a deep underlying discontent with economic and industrial conditions. The destruction for the time being of the Parliamentary Labour Party may well release forces for dissatisfaction which may assume the most ugly forms in the absence of the political power which the Labour Party welded.”

While Mr. Henderson in the “Daily Herald” (Oct. 29-31) referred to “Labour as the only bulwark against reaction and revolution.”

These are not merely individual views but are representative of the official party attitude as is shown by the “Daily Herald” leader (Oct. 30th),

“The Labour Party in Opposition, as in office, will do its duty to the Nation. The Government’s proposals will be carefully considered and judged purely and simply on their merits. Where they are considered to be wise, just, and designed for the advantage of the Nation they will be cordially approved, and every aid will be given in carrying them out.”

The term “National Interests” is generally construed as meaning the interests of the whole of the people. Let us see. In society as at present constituted there is a class which owns the means of wealth production and distribution, and draw their incomes simply because of this ownership.

On the other hand there is another class which constitutes the majority, who, because of the fact that they do not own the means of wealth production are compelled to work for those who do, on terms dictated by the owners. Between these two classes there is a diametrical opposition of interests, so that there can exist no national interests in the generally understood sense. National interests, upon examination, are found to be ruling class interests, and all parties standing for national interests are obviously supporters of the existing order no matter what labels they impudently give themselves. To quote the “Daily Herald” again (Nov. 3rd), while claiming that their object is Socialism, they define it as “a common-sense plan for the rationalisation of the system in which we live.”

The Socialist Party of Great Britain represents the interests of the working class, as opposed to the interests of the capitalist class, and does not pander to popular prejudice in order to secure seats in Parliament, or to get a following. Its constant aim is to get the workers to realise the necessity of a revolutionary change in the basis of Society and ending the present “system in which we live.”

The Labour Party is lined up along with the Liberals and Tories in defence of capitalism, and is an obstruction in the path of the workers in their struggle for emancipation ; an obstruction to be kicked out of the way. The I.L.P. members in a belated attempt to justify their title have decided not to sit with the Labour members on the grounds that: “Our experience with the Labour Party and the Labour Movement in recent years, has been such that we cannot possibly put our political actions under their control until we have some evidence that there is a general return to Socialist principles.” (“Daily Herald,” Nov. 4th). It would be interesting to know what were the Socialist principles once held by the Labour Party, and at what date Maxton’s peculiar crowd think they deserted them.

The I.L.P.s claim to be Socialist is just as impertinent as that of the Labour Party, and its principal achievement is that it gave to the Labour Party, Ramsay MacDonald and Philip Snowden.

Out of the election results, one thing is made evident. If, in the event of another war, the workers are stampeded into support of it, the Labour leaders will again do their bit for their masters as recruiting sergeants.

Fellow-workers, why dally longer with these cheap-jack vendors of political shoddy; with reforms that do not reform ; with palliatives that do not palliate? Why support parties that are bulwarks of the present system when that system can only exist by keeping you in a subject position? Why follow leaders who are hoping to receive decorations from the enemy for services rendered—to the enemy?

The three “traitors” are no more and no less subservient to capitalism than the present leader has in the past proved himself to be. Organise along with us in the Socialist Party for the purpose of establishing Socialism, and leave these leaders without a following, when they can no longer be a danger to you nor useful to the capitalist class.

J. L.

Capitalism Cannot Cure Unemployment(1945)

From the August 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you vote for the Tories, the Liberals, the Labour Party or any Party which is prepared to continue the capitalist system, you are voting for unemployment, along with the rest of the ills of capitalism.

It is an insult to your intelligence to ask you to believe that any of these Parties can cure unemployment. If they could, why haven’t they done so before?

Except during wars there never has been a time when there was not unemployment, and every time capitalism lurches into one of its periodic industrial crises, unemployment mounts to staggering proportions.

Under the Liberal and Tory Governments which were in office during the nineteenth century, unemployment was continuous and at times of crisis it got worse. They always promised to abolish unemployment, but all they ever did (and that very tardily) was to make mean provision through Unemployment Insurance Acts to prevent the unemployed from starving.

Unemployment increased after the last war. It will increase again after this war.

HERE ARE THE FIGURES

Here are official figures of unemployment under various governments after the last war.

In 1921, under Lloyd George’s Tory-Liberal Coalition Government, unemployment rose to over 2,500,000. Nearly one in four of the insured workers were out of work.

In January, 1924, under MacDonald’s Labour Government, unemployment was 1,374,206.

Under the Tory Government in January, 1928, it was 1,260,503.

Under the Second Labour Government, in January, 1931, it rose to 2,662,842.

In January, 1933, under the National Government, it was 2,955,448.

PLENTY OF WORK AFTER THE WAR

The spokesmen of the capitalist parties tell you there won’t be unemployment because of the need to repair the destruction caused by the war. They told you the same after the last war.

Speaking about the period after the present war, Mr. A. S. Comyns Carr, K.C., made the following pronouncement: —

“He believed that the problem of post-war unemployment did not exist. On the contrary, the problem of employment after the war was going to be how to find enough people to do the work.” (Speech reported in the Times, March 8th, 1943.)

Exactly the same fallacious promise was made after the last war by Mr .J. R. Clynes, one of the Labour leaders, who was a Minister in the Lloyd George war-time Coalition Government. He said : —

“If there ever was a risk of over-production, causing unemployment, there is none now. For at least a dozen years there must be conditions of shortage which, with the best energy and effort, cannot be removed. We are in arrears. We need have no fear of the supply exceeding the demands.”—(Reynolds Newspaper, November 30th, 1919.)

At the time Mr. Clynes made his statement, unemployment was 500,000. By the middle of 1921, less than, two years later, it was over 2,000,000. Then it declined but remained well over 1,000,000 until the crisis of 1931 when it slumped to record levels.

This will happen again if the working class continues to vote for the candidates of the capitalist parties.

WHY UNEMPLOYMENT

Under capitalism, goods are not produced solely for use (as they will be when you decide to vote for Socialism). They are produced for profit. If the manufacturer cannot make a profit, he curtails production or else he tries to cut his costs by reducing wages or installing “labour-saving” machinery. Either way the result is the same—unemployment. The capitalists of all countries are always striving to capture markets from each other. It is impossible for them all to sell their products at a profit because the wages received by the workers are not sufficient to buy the great quantities of goods produced by modern mass-production methods.

RAISING WAGES IS NO SOLUTION

The Labour Party claims that higher wages is the solution (though when they were in office in 1931 they cut the wages of government employees and allowed employers generally to do the same). The Tory Lord Beaverbrook now puts forward the same empty policy. His newspaper, the Sunday Express, May 27th, 1945, reports him as follows: —

“His policy for the abolition of unemployment was to raise the standard of living in every country in the world by international agreement, so as to increase the consumption of goods.”

In the first place, there is not the slightest possibility of effective international agreement to raise wages. Even the Allied Governments, within a week of the ending of the war with Germany, were demonstrating their inability to agree with each other on all sorts of problems about European governments and frontiers. Even if they did put their signatures to some pions declaration, it could never he enforced. Every worker knows that in times of bad trade many employers are able to force individual workers to accept less than agreed rates of wages, even in industries such as agriculture where the minimum is supposed to lie enforced by law. In face of an international agreement to enforce higher wages, some countries would simply ignore it and employers everywhere would protest that they could not afford it. International agreement to reduce wages is a much more likely eventuality.

Note, too, that Lord Beaverbrook, who for years opposed any kind of international agreements and backed his policy of Empire isolation, now talks of international action !

But the basic fallacy of the whole policy is that agreements about wages leave untouched a major cause of unemployment, the introduction of labour-saving machinery. At all times, employers are scheming to get the same output with fewer workers, by introducing new machinery and more efficient methods. During the war this has been enormously speeded up. Coal, cotton and agriculture are three of many industries in which new machinery and methods are going to displace hundreds of thousands of workers. It is estimated that “British agriculture should have no difficulty in producing half as much again as it did before the war with a substantially smaller labour force paid at twice the pre-war rates.”—Manchester Guardian, May 15th, 1945.

How will international wage agreements find work for these armies of redundant workers?

SOCIALISM THE ONLY REMEDY

Capitalism cannot exist without unemployment, without the exploitaion of the workers and without trade rivalry with foreign capitalists. Capitalism will go on producing unemployment, crises and wars. It makes no difference whether the Government which administers capitalism is Tory, Liberal, Labour, Common Wealth or Communist. Only Socialism will solve the problem. Through the international action of the working class of all lands capitalism must be abolished and Socialism established in its place. Then the means of production will be owned and democratically controlled by the whole community. Production for profit, trade rivalry and unemployment will be no more. Goods will be produced by the co-operative efforts of all the able-bodied population and will be available freely to meet the needs of all.

Increased production will result not in unemployment, but in increased consumption and greater leisure.

The Note Book. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s come at last ! I knew it would if we only kept at it long enough. When you call a man say, a thief, and prove it, he has no reply except perhaps “you’re another.” When we say a Party has sold out to the capitalist class and prove it, there is no reply possible except perhaps “so have you.” After Camborne it is therefore not surprising that we should hear from the S.D.F. that we are financed by the capitalist class. The allegation comes from Bradford. I understand it’s quite a common sort of charge against us there in the S.D.F. branch. Deponent sayeth that this paper is run by a wealthy American gent (name and extent of financial resources unknown) who pours his wealth into our party exchequer to the end that we may break up the Socialist movement in this country. We are, it seems, bold bad persons of no delicacy, and we are also, at last, discovered—in Bradford.

o o o

It’s such a pretty story that I am fain to withhold my hand from writing that which will burst it. Yet must I. Therefore be it known to all men that, like so much of the information that cometh out of the S.D.F., this story is entirely untrue. Unlike the S.D.F. this Party’s Treasurer is not allowed to issue all-embracing items of expenditure such as “Ink and Sundries £50,” or similar statements. He must give to all the membership a full detailed return of income and expenditure. These returns, supplied quarterly and annually, can be inspected by arrangement with any of our Branch secretaries, or through the Head Office. That should, I think, dispose of our American millionaire. Will the S.D.F. allow the same inspection of their books ? or the I.L.P.? or any other party claiming to represent the working class as against the capitalist class ?

o o o

Speaking for the S.D.F. at Tottenham, on Sunday, June 25th, Mr. Whitlock of the Stratford Branch, said “I would not have crossed my doorstep to vote for Will Thorne at the last election.” Referring to an interview he had had the previous week with Mr. H. M. Hyndman he said “Mr. Hyndman declared himself utterly disgusted with the present Executive Committee of the S.D.F.” Here’s a pretty kettle of fish !

Mr. Hyndman utterly disgusted with his Executive and Mr. Whitlock utterly disgusted with Mr. Thorne. It’s a great Party !

o o o

“Socialists don’t desire to get into Parliament quickly : they desire to make Socialists. And they can make Socialists best by teaching Socialism, not by masquerading as ‘Labour’ men.” This is not an extract from a back number of the Socialist Standard—it is from the “Answers to Correspondents” column of the Clarion, of all papers in the world ! And the Clarion is a thick-and-thin supporter of the gentlemen masquerading as “Labour” men, and says that what the workers want is more of ’em ! Well! Well ! If consistency is a jewel the Clarion men must have realised on theirs very early in their career, if, indeed, they ever had it.

o o o

In reply to a question put to him in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. John Burns said it was not true that he stated in 1886 that there were five millions of people in England on the verge of starvation. We fear that John Burns’ memory, like most other official memories, has grown very short. Speaking from the Old Bailey Dock when on trial for conspiracy on April 9th, 1886, Mr. Burns said, “I say we cannot have in England as we have to-day, five millions living on the verge of pauperism, without gross discontent.” This speech was published at the time in pamphlet form, and was sold widely. It has been sold by Burns’ supporters and by Burns himself. A copy of it, unless I am very mistaken, is at the present time among Mr. Burns’ collection. I have never heard of Burns repudiating the accuracy of his reported remarks before. It is only now, when it is brought up in evidence against his official view of the poverty problem that he denies it. Which brings us to this : either Burns was disseminating a falsehood then or he is disseminating a falsehood now. On the evidence of the supporters of the Party he belongs to, like Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Rowntree, the statement made at the Old Bailey must have been well within the mark. Therefore it is now that Mr. Burns is fabricating

o o o

The question referred to was asked, I observe, by Mr. Will Thorne and Mr. Thorne is a regular reader of this paper, as I happen to know. And in this paper for May we reproduced extracts from Burns’ speech in the Dock. The source of Mr. Thorne’s information, therefore, is clearly the Socialist Standard ; and not a bad source either. I commend Mr. Thorne’s example to the other “Labour” members. A regular and careful perusal of the Socialist Standard would, I am sure, do them a world of good. The terms, gentlemen, are 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.

o o o

When Mr. Burns denied the accuracy of Mr. Thorne’s statement, Mr.Thorne replied that he had the evidence in his pocket. A thousand pities Mr. Burns did not challenge its production.

o o o

I observe that the S.D.F. have endeavoured to secure kudos from the incident by reprinting the speech referred to. We published a few extracts only in order to effect a sharp contrast between the Burns of the eighties and the Burns of to-day. The possibility of reproducing the whole speech was discussed by us several months ago but, although we could see that it would find a ready sale, the idea was rejected because there would be no propagandist value in the document by itself. Like most of Burns’ speeches (in this respect at any rate the gentleman has consistency) it was largely wind and bombast. Apart from their educational possibilities we have no concern with the publication of pamphlets. Because it had no educational possibilities we rejected the Burns’ speech pamphlet. For the same reason, apparently, the S.D.F. seized upon it. They are very welcome.

o o o

Mr, Thorne has, it seems, nearly arrived at the conclusion that if anything is to be done in the matter of the unemployed, they will have to do it themselves. “They,” I presume, means the “Labour” members. William must have been very muddle headed if he thought the Government was ever likely to do more than the exact equivalent of nothing. And William must be still more muddle-headed if he thinks the “Labour” members can do anything worth talking about. If William wants reasons and has preserved his back numbers of the Socialist Standard, he will find any number of them have already appeared in our columns. If he wants any more, a note to the Editorial address will receive prompt attention,

o o o

On the authority of The Labour Record, this—”while Parliament sits in the sweltering heat of these summer days discussing dogma, trifling about tittles and often failing to take occasion by the hand, J. R. Clynes, the Labour representative for North East Manchester, sits quiet, emotionless, imperturbable, noting everything and forgetting nothing ! Someday he will arouse himself—and then !” Lor ! Someday he will arouse himself. Note that, impatience ! Someday—and then? Well, frankly, I don’t know what then ; but I conclude, there’s a good time coming boys when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. We may wipe away all tears from our eyes—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. And we shall have a time—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. But why, oh, why! does he sit quiet, emotionless, imperturbable ? Why doesn’t he arouse himself?

o o o

Quoth the Daily News in adverse criticism of that prince of political judges Sir William Grantham (whose judicial calm and serenity by the way, appears to find highest expression in speech husky with emotion and watered with the bitterest of tears !)—”We do not complain of the Bodmin decision as it stands by itself. The serious part of the business is that the election at Bodmin should be declared void while the elections at Yarmouth and Maidstone are allowed to stand.” The naiveté is charming. The serious part of the business, the part that really matters is that two Conservatives retain their seats while the poor Liberal loses his. If now, it had been two Liberals who had maintained their positions and a Conservative who had failed, it wouldn’t have been nearly so serious a matter. Indeed, there would have been nothing at all calling for comment except, perhaps, the skilful discrimination and the even-handed justice of the be-wigged and very learned exponent of law on the Bench. As it is, the really serious part of the business to the Liberal Daily News is that all three Liberals have failed—two in their efforts to unseat their opponents and one in his effort to himself remain seated !

o o o

In the matter of the Daily News—can anyone tell me why its “Life and Labour” column now appears only about once a week ? Was the writer too out-spoken, giving offence to too many good Liberals and true ; or has the need for the maintenance of the fiction which the Daily News was so assiduous in disseminating about the time of the General Election, that the Liberal Party is the Party of the workers, the Party of Progress and industrial reform, etc., etc., ad nauseam, now ceased to exist ? Many of those who take in, and are taken in by, the Daily News, incline to the first view. I accept the second. The good Liberals and true, don’t mind the “Life and Labour” column fillips so long as the writer is always careful to muddle the real issue of the irreconcilable antagonism existing between working-class interests and the interests of that section of capitalism represented in the Liberal Party.

o o o

It is time the good Liberals aforesaid could always rely upon the good Liberals in the editorial and sub-editorial chairs deleting anything particularly objectionable, but I don’t think there would have ever been serious occasion for their intervention. Those who are familiar with the writings of the “Life and Labour” column man know how adroitly he can steer himself out of the danger zone while leaving in the mind of the casual reader the impression that he has faced the whole problem and arrived at the only conclusion. They know too that it is inconceivable that a man can get so near the truth without seeing it, and they know, therefore, that the writer referred to can be relied upon to say just enough and no more. It may consequently be fairly concluded that the Daily News does not now think it necessary to particularly emphasize the fiction mentioned. When the time comes again, as it surely will, the “Life and Labour” column or its equivalent will surely reappear as a regular feature.