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

The case of Philip Snowden, M.P. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour member for Blackburn, like others who came to the front at the general election, strives to add to his income, (a paltry £200 a year with an extra £25 now and again) by lecturing at high fees, and by writing articles to suit the purposes of the millionaire proprietors of the trustified Press.

In the course of his peregrinations he has run up against members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in our last number we briefly recorded that our Manchester comrades had forwarded to Mr. Snowden particulars of compacts made between I.L.P. candidates and Liberals, with special reference to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. James Parker.

Mr. Philip Snowden replied as follows : 

(Copy). 

10, Baron’s Court Road,

West Kensington, W.

Jan. 23, ’08.

Dear Sir,—There is nothing at all in all you say which gives any proof of an alliance or understanding. Your extracts simply prove what everybody knows, namely, that in the absence of a second Liberal the Liberal electors voted against the Tory.—Yrs very truly,

(Signed) Philip Snowden.

Now what do we say ?

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was adopted as the Labour candidate for Leicester, at a meeting held at the Temperance Hall on Jan. 5th, 1906. In the course of his speech he said that the trade union section, and that practically comprehended the whole of the movement, said that in connection with this election they must vote so that all votes in the House of Commons they could influence would be cast in favour of the upsetting of the Taff Vale judgment. They said the danger of Protection to the wage earners was so great and so pressing that they must fight and kill Protection, and so, after full discussion, their local Labour Representation Committee came to the decision, and he was empowered to communicate it to them that night, that on no account was it going to ask them to plump on Monday week (cheers), and their Trades Council came to the decision the other night to advise every working man, and everybody who was influenced by the Labour movement, to use both their votes, to give one to Mr. Broadhurst and the other to himself (loud cheers).

Councillor Hill proposed the resolution in support and asked every Progressive elector to use his two votes solid for progress and the advancement of Labour.

Alderman Wood, president of the Liberal Association, seconded. He said that his friends had decided not only to run one candidate, but they were going to take off their coats and work not only for the return of their candidate, but also of their good friend, Mr. MacDonald. Let them all work hard and vote for both the Progressive candidates, and then he should be confident of the result.”

Mr. Snowden may find a full report of this meeting in the Leicester Daily Post of January 6th, 1906, headed—

THE BOROUGH ELECTION.

LABOUR CAMPAIGN OPEN.

BRILLIANT SPEECH BY MR. J. R. MACDONALD.

UNITY WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY.

PROTECTION MUST BE KILLED.

Undoubtedly it was a brilliant speech, from a Liberal point of view.

The Leicester correspondent of the London Daily News, on January 15th, 1906, said, “Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. MacDonald, although on separate platforms, are urging that electors should not plump, but allocate their votes to the two Progressives.” Only by accident, of course, Mr. Snowden, there was no “understanding.”

In the Leicester Daily Post for January 16th, 1906, further speeches may be found. The polling took place on the previous day. The following is a reprint from the article “Labour at the Polls” which appeared in the Socialist Standard, March, 1906 :—

“After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, as shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood,” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties— Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to Industry—they had, upon those specific and definite points, cooperated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things going from bad to worse.”

If no alliance existed, no “understanding” was arrived at, when these two parties—Liberal and Labour—”co-operated for the purpose of killing the late Government,” we have yet to learn what an alliance or “understanding” is.

With regard to Halifax, we said in March 1906:—

“At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).”

And Mr. Snowden says that Mr. M. J. Blatchford’s words do not prove the existence of any alliance or undertaking ! What would prove it to Mr. Snowden?

In November last we referred to Mr. Parker as having “made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election,” and Mr. Parker wrote to us to dispute a certain statement made concerning him in the same article, but did not deny the truth of this particular one. But Mr. Snowden rushes in where Mr. Parker feared to tread.

The member for Blackburn says that what happened was that, in the absence of a second Liberal, the Liberal electors voted against the Tory ! But if the votes polled were merely anti-Tory votes, what becomes of Mr. Bruce Glasier’s arithmetic in the Labour Leader of April 26th last ?

In the Smethwick Telephone for February 8th, appeared a column, which doubtless also saw the light in many another local journal, headed: “From Labour’s Standpoint, by Philip Snowden, M.P.,” in the course of which he says:—

“There is one great omission in the King’s Speech. There is no reference to the question of unemployment. It is amazing that a Government professing the zeal for Social Reform which carried this Government into power should ignore the acuteness and urgency of this matter. . . . The appointment of Mr. John Burns to the control of the department responsible for this work, a man who had himself known the want of food through unemployment, strengthened the hope that a sympathetic treatment of the problem would be adopted.”

Is Mr. Snowden simple or is he merely playing the game ? We must incline to the latter view. What Socialist could expect a capitalist Government to recognise “the acuteness and urgency of the matter of unemployment” from the viewpoint of the unemployed ? A reserve army of labour is necessary to capitalism ; the problem therefore will only become acute and urgent when that reserve army, assisted by those in employment, becomes dangerous, and that period, thanks largely to the tactics of Mr. Snowden and his friends, is a long way off. What Socialist regarded the appointment of Mr. John Burns as any promise of sympathetic treatment of the problem ? His appointment was a clever, very clever move of the Liberals. Burns understands Socialism, and was appointed as a foil. The Labour members are either envious of Burns or afraid of him,—probably both. He knows that their precious Unemployment Bill is a fraud, and has probably told them so, has sneeringly pointed out to them, say behind the Speaker’s chair, that if they are Socialists they cannot support their own Bill, with its monstrosity of a penal clause. Mr. Snowden complains that in the debate on the Labour Party’s amendment to the Address, John Burns—

“adopted an offensive attitude from the first. He had no justification for such a course. He followed almost immediately after myself and I had taken special pains to be friendly and sympathetic, and to recognise and admit the difficulties of his position.”

As if John Burns wants the sympathy of Mr. Snowden and his friends ! Of course his attitude was offensive, and it will be until the Labour Party make up their mind (if they have one) to fight him and the master class whose interests he so ably serves. Mr. Snowden continued :—

“A Labour Party in Parliament which remained quiet while men and women and children were starving outside would merit the condemnation of the country.”

Heavens! think of it ! All the time that there has been a Labour Party in the House, men, women, and children have been starving outside. And the Labour Party has been quiet, damnably quiet. It has boasted of its “sensibility, respectability, and adaptability” ; its fighting men have taken a turn on the terrace when they wanted to say that wicked word “damn” ; it has moved the adjournment of the House to draw attention to the shooting of natives in Natal, but behaved with Christlike meekness over the shooting of workers at Belfast; it has boasted of its connection with the Nonconformist humbugs and canted in P.S.A. pulpits, appealing for charity for the Hemsworth colliers (who have now been locked out for 171 weeks) when it should have been denouncing these people for supporting a system and a government which make such things possible ; it has expressed its gratification at the references in the King’s Speech to the Congo and Macedonia when it should have been raising hell over the condition of the people here at home; it has attended Royal Garden Parties and told funny tales concerning the working “classes” to “Docks” when it should have been organising the workers for the Social Revolution.

The Labour Party does “merit the condemnation of the country” !

Jack Kent

A Look Round. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. H. Broughton, a Tariff Reform Lecturer, was publicly challenged by a member of the Social Democratic Federation on December 1st to debate with Mr. Herbert Burrows, S.D.F. Mr. Burrows, however, declined to debate as he has “much more important work to do than of debating with every Tom, Dick and Harry who gets up at the corner of the street,” etc., etc.

* * *

At present Mr. Burrows’ “important work” is to raise a memorial to the late editor of Reynold’s Newspaper, who assisted to side-track the working class by founding the National Democratic League !

* * *

Lecturing at Swadlincote on January 7th the Rev. Conrad Noel said that the ideal of the Church Socialist League was an industry in which there would be no drones and no slaves, where the people would have their liberties and be paid an adequate wage.

* * *

Mr. J. J. Kermode, M.I. Mech. E., states that if the Lusitania were fitted for burning oil fuel she would require only 27 men in the stokeholds, as compared with the 312 necessary with coal. She would be able to carry 4,000 tons more cargo and at least 250 additional passengers.

* * *

And the displaced stokers ? Oh, they don’t count, of course, under capitalism.

* * *

Renter’s Correspondent at Johannesburg telegraphed on January 4th that Messrs. Eckstein are installing 200 Gordon drills. Twenty-five, worked by four whites and 25 natives, were to be started at the Crown Deep Mine in a few days. A native working a Gordon drill in five hours achieved results equal to the average day’s work of 15 coolies or natives. The success of the drills will have a far-reaching result on the labour problem.

* * *

West Ham’s poverty is, perhaps, mainly due to causes over which the public bodies have had little control, admits the Daily Telegraph in its review of the book issued by Messrs. Dent by Mr. E. G. Howarth and Miss Mona Wilson.

* * *

According to this volume, West Ham’s population in 1851 was only 18,817, to-day it is over 300,000. This population is, to an extent which is quite without parallel elsewhere, composed of more or less casual labourers and their families. Nearly all its industries are run on unskilled labour, or skilled labour which boys can easily acquire, and the consequence is that the percentage of hands under twenty-one years of age is very large. When these boys grow up and ask for men’s wages they are turned away, and a new generation of boys is taken on. All this tends to swell the number of casuals.

* * *

In almost every casual labourer’s home the woman has at some time or other to earn money and become the breadwinner ; in fact, she is often more continuously employed than her husband. But such work as she can get is usually shockingly underpaid, and involves cruelly long hours ; and the people who have it to give take advantage of the crowds of hunger-driven applicants and beat down the price to starvation point. Instances of this are given in the volume.

* * *

Rents, we are told, are about the same as in 1888, but rates have almost doubled. It is the lower rents that have risen most, because the poorest people are forced to compete against one another for the cheapest houses, and up goes the price to a height that is positively infamous !

* * *

The authors, of course, have no remedy. It is only the Socialists who have. End the competitive system, abolish private ownership in the means of production and distribution of wealth. Revolution and Revolution alone will suffice.

* * *

The report of the first year’s working of “General” Booth’s Anti-Suicide Bureau must have been unpleasant reading to the teetotal fanatics who trace suicide and everything else to alcohol. Out of the 1,125 cases dealt with only 121 were due to “drink, drugs, and disease,” whilst 609 had their origin in “financial embarrassment or hopeless poverty,” 236 were attributed to “accidents, sickness, and other misfortunes,” 105 to “melancholia, proceeding from loneliness and other causes,” and 54 to “crimes such as embezzlement, forgery and the like.”

* * *

Under the auspices of the Burton I.L.P. Mr O. A. McBrine declared at the Horninglow Schools on January 8th that the General Post Office and the Corporation Tramways are examples of Socialism as far as it can be carried out at the present time. Perhaps Mr. McBrine will read the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B. on the last page of this paper, and then explain wherein either of the capitalist concerns he referred to fulfil any of the conditions necessary to Socialism.

* * *

“Why Manufacturers move to Letchwortb. (Garden City)” is the title of a four page circular issued by the Garden City Company. In the circular appears the following illuminative paragraph, which substantiates the view so often expressed in these pages :

EXTRACT FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT OF A PRINTING BUSINESS.

“The change to larger and altogether commodious premises has been of immense benefit to all concerned. The brighter outlook and keener air of Letchworth (Garden City) has a marked effect upon the health, spirits, and enthusiasm of the workers, and the business of the Society undoubtedly feels the effect in the increased out-put and improved work. Indeed, the results of the four months working since the removal, give us cause to anticipate the future with every confidence of far more success than we have hitherto experienced.”

* * *

“The relations now existing between the railway companies and the Board of Trade are of a more friendly character than they have ever been before. This is a striking commentary on the oft repeated wild assertion that the Government is not friendly to capital. It would be difficult to find a President of the Board of Trade who had done more for the protection of capital. The railway companies did a very good thing for themselves in accepting the proposals made by Mr. Lloyd George at the time of the labour dispute.”—Daily Chronicle.

* * *

If the companies “did a very good thing for themselves” where, it may be asked, do the railwaymen come in ?

* * *

“What is it that makes men cry out against society and turn to Socialism for help ? Undoubtedly, poverty, with all the misery it entails, is the chief reason. Look at the conditions in which many poor of our great cities live : insanitary houses, more dilapidated and filthy than pigsties, huddled together in gloomy streets on which the sun shines only to make horrors more apparent. There, scourged by terrible diseases, they pass the term of their existence. If they are fortunate they can earn just enough to buy food, and a few moments of oblivion at the gin shop at the corner. But they are never sure even of the common necessaries of life ; more than ten millions—a quarter of our population—are always, through the insecurity of employment, on the verge of starvation. How, then, can it be expected that men and women living under these conditions, without a hope in the world, will be satisfied with our system of society.”—Standard

* * *

Speaking at the National Liberal Club on January 28th of the present year, Mr. Winston Churchill referred to the Trade Unions of Great Britain as great social bulwarks, and as an indispensable counterpoise and a natural corrective to a highly competitive system.

J. Kay

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

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Look Round. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to “Bradstreet’s” there were 964 business failures in America in October, with assets 124 million dollars and liabilities 139 million dollars. In October, 1893, the failures were 1,753 with assets 36 million dollars and liabilities 55 million dollars. Thus in 1893 the average liabilities per failure were 31,375 dollars and in 1907 they were 144,200 dollars. But of the latter twenty failures account for 114 million dollars, leaving only 25 million dollars for the remaining 944.

* * *

The S.D.F., I.L.P., and the Labour Party were well represented in the signatures to the Memorial, relating to the employment of barmaids, submitted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer last month. They included Miss Margaret Bondfield, Rev. R. J. Campbell, A. H. Gill, M.P., A. Henderson, M.P., J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., and D. J. Shackleton, M.P. The memorialists claim that from the advertisements in the trade papers it is evident that the great majority of barmaids are engaged on account of their attractiveness to men customers, whilst the record of the magistrates and other courts gives convincing statistical proof that the career of the disproportionate number of barmaids ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery and frequently suicide.

* * *

Now, if public houses are such demoralising and terrible places as these people would have us believe, why do not they take up a logical position and advocate their immediate suppression ? And why do they suggest that the wives and daughters of publicans should be permitted to continue to work in “surroundings which carry with them special dangers and temptations” ? Do they consider the publican has a right of private property in his wife and daughters so inviolable that he is to be permitted to employ them in a career that “ends in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” ?

* * *

But the memorialists would even permit barmaids now employed to continue in what they consider such vile surroundings provided they have a licence from the Government. They would “protect the young girls of the nation” but those who have already entered upon this horrible career are to be permitted to go down to their end “in drunkenness, immorality, misery, and frequently suicide” if they have taken out a licence !

* * *

The Government is to place it on record that public houses are places where no decent woman should work. The publican’s wife and daughters are not to count. I suppose the worst surroundings are too good for them, according to the ideas of the memorialists. Licences are therefore to be granted to other men’s wives and daughters, and no doubt the fortunate holder of such a badge of slavery will be regarded as one who has either proved herself able to withstand the temptations of the world, the flesh, and the devil, or is so low and depraved that it does not matter what happens to her.

* * *

No one denies that the barmaid’s lot could be improved, particularly in regard to her hours of labour, but in many respects it is vastly superior to that of other women workers. As a rule, she gets plenty of food and good food, which is more than can be said of the girls employed in such highly respectable occupations as millinery and dressmaking, often working for nothing and usually for only a few shillings a week. If they live at home the financial effort required for clothing prevents them from being otherwise than semi-starved all the time, and many of them exist in a condition of chronic anaemia which in due course has its effect upon their offspring. If they “live in”—well, Miss Bondfield, who wishes to abolish the barmaids, being an official of the Shop Assistants Union, has time after time denounced the system. And it is said that there are large establishments in the shopping centres of London where the girls who live in are allowed to stay out all night, provided they pay a fine of ten shillings in the morning. Such a system cannot be charged against the publicans. And as to the alleged immorality, it must be admitted that there is nothing drives women on the streets so much as inability to obtain food and clothing for themselves and their dependents. The barmaid, at any rate, is secured against this.

* * *

Again, the atmosphere of thousands of coffee shops is much more immoral than the bar of a public house is ever likely to be, and the girls employed have no protection. Customers may use vile language concerning the food (as it is called) supplied in these places, and this language the waitress has to listen to. A remonstrance on her part to her employer would probably result in her getting “the sack,” as the competition is too keen, and the profits too small, particularly in the poorer districts, for the “guvner” to be able to afford to quarrel with his customers. But if a customer in a wicked public house uses vile language to a barmaid and the manager or proprietor overhears or it is reported to him, the culprit is either warned, or put out and sometimes forbidden the house altogether. And the conditions of the girls in these coffee shops, as to hours, wages, and food, are certainly much inferior to those of the majority of barmaids.

* * *

Of course the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., through their members who signed the memorial, are being made the tools of the most bigoted section of that nonconformist conscience which they have so often denounced. These pharasaical humbugs really wish to prohibit the sale of alcoholic liquors, but lack the courage to openly declare themselves.

* * *

According to the Daily Chronicle’s Rome correspondent between 50,000 and 60,000 Neapolitans have formed a passive resistance movement, and for six months have refused to pay rent or quit their tenements. The Government are taking the usual course. Controlling, as they do, the armed forces of the nation, which armed forces they will continue to control so long as they are politically dominant, they are using those forces against the workers. In the early part of December ten thousand troops from various cities had been despatched to reinforce the Naples Garrison preparatory to evicting the working-class families concerned.

* * *

Once more “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes” has been demonstrated, this time by a Mr. Moreton Frewen. He says that the total accumulated capital in the country is estimated at £9,000,000,000, which invested at 3½ per cent. would bring in about 5d. a day per person. The total income from all sources Mr. Frewen estimates at £1,500,000,000 annually, equal to about 14s. per head per week. “Thus,” says our oracle, “the Socialist ideal of happiness would result in every individual in the country being possessed of a revenue of 16s. 11d. per week.” And Mr. Frewen adds that this would not be “a very prosperous state of affairs.”

* * *

16s. 11d. per head per week, says Mr. Frewen, will be the income under Socialism. It is computed that the average family consists of five persons, so that each family would receive £4 4s. 7d. per week. But it is known that the working class have larger families than the well-to-do section of the population, and the amount would therefore be increased for working-class families. And this “would not be a very prosperous state of affairs” !

* * *

Well, if Socialism really meant dividing up what is known as the National Income, it would mean the trebling, at least, of the income of the mass of the working class. Chas. Booth has shown that 1,250,000 of the population of London are in receipt of a wage of one guinea or less per week per family, and in commenting on the Railway dispute the Daily Telegraph pointed out that, in the event of a strike, an enormous number of men would be willing to blackleg at £1 per week. “Twenty shillings a week is no luxurious wage we admit,” said the Daily Telegraph, “but it is better, alas, than many thousands of workmen in both, town and country can secure.” So that the “prosperity” of the working class under capitalism is represented by one-sixth or less of what, according to Mr, Frewen, they would receive under Socialism, And this proves “the impracticability of the Socialist schemes ” !

* * *

It is not surprising that opponents get the idea that Socialism merely means the equalisation of income or wages when those professing: to be Socialists endeavour to popularise the same idea. Recently I heard a Mr. Dean, on the I.L.P. platform in East Ham, inform a questioner that “of course, it would be quite possible for anyone to save up his money under Socialism, if he preferred not to spend the wages paid to him each week by the State. But he would not be able to employ anyone else with the money so saved. He would be a capitalist, but unable to use his capital.” And after delivering himself of this he read the titles of pamphlets which he advised the audience to buy and study, some of which explained that the wages system would be abolished with the abolition of the capitalist system and the establishment of Socialism.

* * *

This misconception of Socialism arises largely out of the advocacy of palliatives by both the I.L.P. and the S.D.F. So obscured is the issue, even to members of these bodies, by their talk of the “right to work,” “better wages for the working class,” “free maintenance for children” etc., that they appear unable to conceive of any system where the hooter shall not sound the time for commencing and leaving work, and where the people shall not be the wage-receiving slaves of the machine industry that they are to-day. They would merely “humanise” the conditions of employment.

J. Kay

Mr. James Parker, M.P. and the “Socialist Standard”. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our November issue we printed two articles, headed respectively, “A Travesty of Socialism” and “Labour Members and Child Slavery,” in which the utterances of the Labour Member for Halifax were criticised. In the first he was accused of talking twaddle and calling it Socialism, thus proving that he was either ignorant or fraudulent. To that accusation he makes no reply. The second article dealt with a speech he had delivered at Burton-on-Trent on October 7th, and concluded as follows: “Thus Mr. Parker, having thrown over ‘political independence’ and made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election, now shows himself prepared to throw over anything else that may endanger his seat. We wish the I.L.P. joy of these ‘political job hunters.’ ”

Mr. Parker has sent us a letter which is printed below:—

Abercoynan.

1/12/07. 

Dear Sir,—I have just seen a copy of Socialist Standard for November. The words I used at Burton-on-Trent were the very opposite of those you quote. If you get the other paper (I forget the name) published in Burton-on-Trent, you will find that the words I used in reference to child labour were these : “Speaking for myself, I would never seek to hold any seat in Parliament if it were necessary for me to support half-time labour to hold it,” If you care to look up my record in this matter you will find no man in the Socialist movement has spoken out more strongly against half-time employment of children. Not only is this true, but I think you will find if you get the paper who were represented at the meeting you refer to by a reporter and I think the paper you quote from had no reporter present, you will find that my speech went the “whole hog” for the proper feeding, training and education by the State.

Yours truly,

Mr. James Parker, M.P.

A copy of Mr. Parker’s letter was submitted to the Editor of the Burton Daily Mail, and he has sent us the following communication :—

Horninglow Street, 

Burton-on-Trent. 

Dec. 12, 1907.

R. H. Kent, Esq., London.

Dear Sir,—I find on enquiry that Mr. Parker, was not properly reported in our issue of Oct. 8th. Our reporter was present, but he did not get Mr. Parker’s reply to the question accurately. What I understand the hon. member did say was that “members of the I.L.P., as a Party, would take up the attitude of getting the age limit raised if they had the opportunity.” I am sorry that our Reporter’s carelessness has caused so much controversy.—

Yours faithfully,

Arthur E. Brown, 

Editor & Manager.

We apologise to Mr. Parker and of course withdraw our criticism in so far as it was based upon the incorrect report sent to us. We have obtained the “other paper” but do not find the words Mr. Parker claims to have used. It reports that he said Socialists would like to get the State to look after their human needs. They wanted a doctor in the schools to deal with the ailments affecting the children, such as bad eyesight, defective hearing, and to see that all were properly nourished. He also advocated one good meal in school each day. To-day they spent a few millions on education and about ten times as much on armaments, but when they became a wise nation and a Socialist nation the figures would be reversed.

We have taken these words from the Burton Evening Gazette and must express our inability to understand Mr. Parker’s conception of a Socialism which would require a “few millions spent on armaments.” The coming of Socialism will mean the triumph of the wealth-producers over their exploiters. As the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. fully explains, “in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to be emancipated,” and the emancipation of this class “will involve the abolition of all class distinctions and class privileges and free humanity from oppression of every kind.” Whence, then, will arise the necessity to spend a few millions on armaments ?

It will be noticed that Mr. Parker does not deny that he won his seat by making a compact with the Liberals. Of course he is not the only I.L.P. leader who has done so, particulars of several of these compacts being given in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto. With regard to his claim that he “went the ‘whole hog’ for the proper feeding, training and education by the State,” if one who believes that children should be fed, and trained, and educated by the “State” is a “whole hogger” we are glad we are not “whole hoggers.” The mother, for whom a State institution, however beneficent and well-equipped, can never be a substitute, is the proper person to feed and care for her children, and it is because we know that Socialism alone will make it possible for mothers to properly feed, and train, and educate their offspring that we are Revolutionists.

Jack Kent

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sunday evenings at Battersea Branch. (1907)

Party News from the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Kirkdale was Fought. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

They were not responsible for the Kirkdale contest being fought upon Socialism, said Philip Snowden, M.P., at Smethwick on September 28, at an I.L.P. demonstration. No one can accuse the I.L.P. of a desire to fight upon Socialism. And the speeches delivered by Mr. Hill’s supporters prove that every effort was made on their side to turn the contest on anything and everything but Socialism. Mr. McPherson, M.P. (Preston), claimed that the Labour men in the House of Commons contained an exceptional proportion of P.S.A. workers and teetotalers. Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P., asserted that they “would not confiscate the land or rob the landlords, but they would soon be in a position to say to the privileged classes ‘So far and no farther,'” a sentiment which met with loud applause. Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., appealed to them as “Ye Christian Men !” and asked them to vote for Mr. Hill because “Christ died to adjust social inequalities.” Mr. J. Seddon, M.P., referred to “the notorious fact that almost every member of the Labour Party belonged either to the Established Church or to one of the great bodies of nonconformity.” Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., stated that the Labour Party contained more religiously inclined persons, and took the pulpit oftener on Sunday than any other section of politicians. What was the real issue, he asked, involved in the contest ? It was this: that the electors would declare whether there was endorsement on all of the substantial points of the Government policy. A victory for Labour would show how the people stood, for this Government or against it. The conclusion arrived at would be, that if the Labour Party were defeated it would prove that there was a weakening of the Liberal trend. The Rev. E. F. Forrest (vicar of Pemberton) of the Church Socialist League, wanted Society shaken to its foundations so that “employers and employed might fraternise and class distinctions be abolished.” Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., declared that Tariff Reform was the real crux of the election, and that its adoption would bring about the ruin of the port of Liverpool. Mr. T. F. Richards, M.P., eulogised John Burns. It was just like some working men, he said, to haul down one of their own class. If it was possible for an engineer to be President of the L.G.B., why should not the democracy fill other high offices of State? (Which of the “high offices” is Richards after ?) Mrs. Cobden Sanderson (daughter of Richard Cobden), said if her father were alive he would be with her upon that platform. She pleaded for a Free Trade policy and accepted every word of the address of John Hill, “as the aspiration of a true Liberal !” And Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald explained that the Labour Party did not make Socialism a test for its candidates. We can, therefore, quite agree with Mr. Snowden that they were not responsible for the Kirkdale election being fought upon Socialism.

Jack Kent

A Look Round. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in the Sportsman for October 14th, “Vigilant,” oppressed by a dread that “Sport would go by the board were the Socialists ever to take charge,” says that what is wanted is that men with big incomes not derived from land should come into the swim and assist the projected movement. It is really, he says, an insurance proposal, if they would only understand.

* * *

The “insurance proposal” emanates from Epsom. It is “a practical scheme for not merely opposing the pernicious doctrines of Socialism, but with further suggestions for providing agricultural employment and enabling the labourers to share in profits.”

* * *

Why should “Vigilant” be afraid that “sport” will be non-existent under Socialism ? In the old English definitions sport was a game, pastime, or amusement, a play, a diversion, a merry-making, a frolic. The word was also used to describe collectively such out-of-door recreations as grown men indulged in, more especially hunting, fishing, racing, shooting, and the like. It was likewise a comprehensive term embracing all forms of athletics and games of skill in which prizes were competed for. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that, under Socialism, sport will be taboo. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will flourish as it has never done before.

* * *

Of course, sport has been prostituted under capitalism, like most other things. “Sports” (mainly of the Hebrew persuasion) have entered the arena and have fastened themselves on to sport for profit-making purposes. They regard sport as a legitimate Tom Tiddler’s ground, and speculate in it in the same way as the jobber makes a “book” on stocks or the Mincing Lane merchant speculates on the price of petroleum months ahead. These gentry will be unable to play the game under Socialism, and will not need to, because Socialism will provide enough and to spare for all—will establish the Right to Live. The only condition will be that those who desire to live shall recognise and fulfil their obligation to do their share of the necessary work, and as this will be reduced to a minimum and will be joyous and health-giving ; as all will have leisure and opportunity for mental and physical development of the highest order, sport, in its truest sense, will no longer be prostituted, but will form part and parcel of the daily life of the people.

* * *

“I write” adds “Vigilant,” because “I know how racing would suffer under socialistic schemes.” But he knows nothing about it. There is no reason at all why racing should not exist under Socialism, but it will not be subverted to suit the purposes of men on the make, who regard it to-day, not from the point of view of sport, but as a means whereby the “ready” may be transferred from others’ pockets into theirs.

* * *

What should be noticed in particular is the appeal to the sporting fraternity to join with the opponents of Socialism in their efforts to fight Socialism by palliating capitalism. When the S.P.G.B. has pointed out to misguided members of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. that as palliatives tend to perpetuate capitalism they should not be advocated by Socialists ; that the master class would vie with each other to pass laws “to improve the condition of the working class” when they really believed the latter were accepting the principles of Socialism, its members have been denounced as “wreckers,” ”impossiblists,” etc., whereas, as a matter of fact, it is the advocate of palliatives, the striver after reforms, who is the real impossiblist, and is side-tracking the working-class movement. Now that this position is being proved by the defenders of capitalism, is it too much to hope that the aforementioned misguided S.D.F. and I.L.P. members will be honest enough and brave enough to “come out from among them” and join the only Socialist party in this country,—the S.P.G.B. ?

* * *

The apologies of the “palliators” are amusing. A prominent member of the I.L.P. recently took the platform in Manchester in opposition to an S.P.G.B. lecturer and asserted that owing to their lack of education and to their chronic underfeeding and bad housing the working class cannot understand Socialism and it is therefore necessary to work for palliatives in order to fit them to understand it. That, of course, was an admission that one of the charges brought against the I.L.P. by the S.P.G.B., viz., that it does not preach Socialism, is justified. But as the I.L.P. does not preach Socialism, how can it know whether the working class can understand it or not ?

* * *

Moreover, if it is necessary to give the working class better conditions so that they may understand and accept Socialism, districts such as Port Sunlight and Bournville should be hotbeds of Socialist agitation. But are they ? It is just as illogical to assert that revolutionists can only be made out of a well-fed people as it is to say that they can only be made out of a starving people.

* * *

“Education and an empty belly are the raw materials of revolution” writes “Vanoc” in the Referee for to-day (Oct. 20th). I think this as near to the truth as one can get because education is put first. It is not imperative that the individual should have both the education and the empty belly. It cannot be questioned that an increasing number of the wage-earners, amongst the rising generation in particular, are seizing every opportunity to widen their mental outlook, as is evidenced by the enormous demand for scientific (which, of course, includes economic) and classical literature now prevalent, and by their attendance at public meetings, lectures, and debates. (There is a lesson here which the publicans might learn with advantage, as some few have already done, instead of wasting their time bewailing the emptiness of their unattractive, seatless, sawdust-floored horse-boxes, and cursing the clubs). The wage-earners are therefore obtaining education of the real kind, and capitalist development, with its facilities for disseminating information relative to industrial conditions all over the world, and its production of empty bellies in increasing numbers, is doing the rest. Education is enabling the wage-workers who are in employment to recognise that a very slender partition separates them from their “empty-belly” confreres.

* * *

When a sufficient number have educated themselves, when a mental revolution has been accomplished, the way will have been prepared for the social revolution that shall end the struggle for existence between man and man, and relieve human beings of the fear that oppresses the majority of them under capitalism, viz, that at any moment they may be, through no fault of their own, thrown on to the industrial scrap heap or forced into that flotsam and jetsam of humanity which one can observe running to seed day by day.

* * *

The secretary of the Liberty and Property Defence League writes to the Press from 25, Victoria Street, Westminster, that twelve months ago the League published a sixpenny volume of papers entitled “Socialism : Its Fallacies and Dangers” in which every phase of Socialism— economic, social, and political—is discussed by writers who have made the subject the study of their lives. They have two new pamphlets in the Press: “The Socialist Spectre” and “The Impossibility of Socialism.”

* * *

What a lot of noise over a spook and a thing that cannot be ! But, as the poet says :

“Such tricks hath strong imagination,

That, if it would apprehend some joy,

It comprehends some bringer of that joy;

Or, in the night, imagining some fear,

How easy is a bush supposed a bear” !

* * *

Speaking at a meeting of Liberal Registration Agents at Aberdare on October 1st, Mr. D. A. Thomas, M.P., suggested that if the I.L.P. would help the Welsh nonconformists in their fight for religious liberty (whatever that is), he would help them to oppose candidates “of the Whig or neo-Tory type who attempted to sail under the Liberal flag.” In view of Keir Hardie’s tactics when he contested Merthyr and the facility with which I.L.P. atheists became Christians during the Kirkdale election, the deal proposed by Mr. Thomas should appeal to them “in once.”

* * *

At a meeting held at Manchester on October 5th, under the auspices of the Ancoats Healthy Homes Society, Mr. J. Grime said the Medical Officer of Health had reported that during the past two or three years no other part of the city had improved so much as Ancoats (possibly no other part needed it so much). Where the people lived and worked, he said, were the important parts of the city to be cared for.

* * *

That’s a good capitalist dictum, and one in which Sir John Gorst, among others, firmly believes. He supports the S.D.F. agitation for free meals in order to make more efficient profit producing workers.

* * *

Commenting on Mr. Keir Hardie’s visit to Bengal, the Statesman (India) says the fact that Mr. Hardie was the guest of the Maharajah of Mymensingh disposes of the suggestion that he has been guilty of anything serious. Apparently, the Statesman thinks that a man will not speak ill of you after having fed at your expense. Is the same view held by English Liberal and Tory M.P.’s who invite Labour members to banquets ?

* * *

Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the S.D.F., will contest the Parliamentary division of Haggerston at the next election providing the present Liberal member is not a candidate. Thus the S.D.F. again shows that while it professes to be equally opposed to Liberal and Tory, it really believes there is a difference between the two, a difference in favour of the Liberal, whom it therefore refuses to oppose.

* * *

“It is a good thing for employers,” said the Daily Chronicle on October 9th, “that Labour should be organised, for organisation tends to promote a higher sense of responsibility. That truth is so obvious that in France the Socialists for whom M. Hervé and M. Jaurès speak, deprecate the formation of strong trade unions on the ground that by their very strength and wealth they operate as a restraint on rashness, and tend always to be pacific.”

* * *

The last stage of democratic evolution has generally been a conflict between the Haves and Have Nots, and to this goal democracy seems to be moving slowly in England, in France, and in the United States.—Daily Mail, Oct. 5th.

* * *

What the country wants is a more proportionate representation of organised labour—not a revolution.—Mr. GRAYSON, M.P., at Liverpool, Oct. 6th.

* * *

The pioneers of the co-operative movement, in trying to reconcile capital and labour, were dealing with the root cause of social evils and inequalities.—Mr. SNOWDEN, M.P., at Birmingham, Sept. 28th.

* * *

A teetotaler is an infinitely better man than even a moderate drinker, physically, morally, and intellectually.—Mr. H. QUELCH at Luton, October 2nd.

J. Kay

Editorial: God and the Labour Party. (1907)

Editorial from the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“One above sees all” is only a variation of the saying, “onlookers see most of the game.” Whether or no the truth of either can be demonstrated, it is certain that those not immediately concerned can get plenty of amusement out of the antics of all sections of politicians who are now claiming God as their “guide, philosopher, and friend.” Mr. G. H. Roberts, Labour M.P. for Norwich, visited the Burton Town Hall on October 21st and “in language rich in proverbial philosophy advanced the aims and objects of the Labour Party.” He had long claimed, he said, that, given an equal opportunity, there was no reason why the workman should not take his place by the side of the wealthy representative in the House of Commons ! He did not explain how the workmen could possibly have an equal opportunity with the wealthy. It would have been difficult, of course. Neither did he suggest that the workers should supplant all the wealthy representatives with a view to depriving them of their power to exploit ? No ! his “rich proverbial philosophy” finds expression in a desire for a “fair representation of all classes” in the House of Commons. He contended that the Labour movement was not only a sound political movement but it was “the greatest religious factor they had at the present time.” The Labour Party believed in the love of God and the brotherhood of man. They wanted the word of God to live in their industrial and human activities. And much more to the same effect. The only inference to be drawn from all this is that during all these years of working-class exploitation, Almighty God has been asleep or has been “winking the other eye” while those who believe in him and his “Love” and his “Word” have been fighting and maiming, and killing and enslaving each other. In the year 50 A.D., it is said, James, the Brother of Jesus, called upon the rich men to weep and howl for the miseries that were to come upon them ! “Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days . . . Behold, the hire of the labourers, who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth.” . . “And the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord.” Despite this denunciation, the exploiters have continued to carry on business at the old stand, improving their methods, securing more power, and appropriating more wealth. So that it would seem that the Lord has been on their side. And now that the workers are slowly beginning to see the justice of Socialism, the masters who have “made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field,” finding they cannot argue, that they cannot oppose Socialism by other means, are endeavouring to play upon the ignorant passions, prejudices and fears of the people. They know how true were the words that Louis XIV. wrote to the King of Tonquin on January 10th, 1681: “For this God is … above all, the most useful in giving to Kings unlimited power over peoples.” And the “Socialist” members of the House of Commons should know it also. But instead of boldly and honestly facing the position, instead of avowing on the platform the opinions they hold in private, instead of standing by the scientific position that neither capitalism nor Socialism, as such, has anything to do with speculative opinions as to the existence or non-existence of a god or of gods, good or devilish ; they are, for vote-catching purposes, mouthing such twaddle as that which fell from their lips during the Kirkdale election and is quoted above. Let the people, instead of wasting time claiming God for their side, in answer to the exploiters who claim him for theirs, “leave tears and praying,” gird up their loins, harden their hearts, and strengthen their hands preparatory to engaging in the final struggle for the overthrow of class supremacy, a struggle that can only succeed when undertaken by a determined and intelligent proletariat.

J.K.

The Kirkdale Bye-Election. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blatchford Eats his Words.

Appeals to “Socialists” to close up their ranks and help in every possible way to return Mr. J.. Hill to Parliament are falling fast and furious and the usual reasons are being advanced by those whose policy is changed as often as is demanded by the necessity to maintain the circulation of their newspapers, secure the attendance of the public in large numbers at their meetings or to bring themselves into prominence as “leaders” of the working class. Mr. Robert Blatchford, who for weeks in the columns of the Clarion has been explaining “Why the Labour Party is no good,” now urges all, Socialists and Labour men alike, to help to swell the ranks of the “useless” Labour Party by returning a candidate who will be as useless as the best of them. In the Clarion Election Supplement Mr. Blatchford eats his own words and declares that “the workers need a strong and United Labour Party” because “two ominous words, ‘Conscription’ and ‘Protection’ are being freely bandied about, and attacks, open or covert, are being made upon Trade Unionism and Education,” and further, “The Liberal Party may be a better Party than the the Tory Party, but the best Party for Labour is a Labour Party.” And this whilst the ink is hardly dry on his utterances on the failure of the Labour Party and his declarations that only a Socialist Party will do ! But then, Robert Blatchford is a journalist and also writes romances.

The S.D.F. Position.

Edward Hartley, too, calls us “To Arms ! To Arms !” He also, in Justice and elsewhere, has been asserting the necessity for a Socialist party, but like Blatchford and others, is not honest enough to admit that it exists in The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Hill should be helped because he “is not only the secretary of a strong and well-organised trade union (!) but a good Socialist who has advocated his principles for years.” But, Hartley adds, “Even if he were not a Socialist, but only a Trade Unionist who would stand firm on the principle of independence in political action, he would be better than the best candidate who could be selected as either Liberal or Tory.” We hope our friends who tell us they believe in our policy of hostility to all other parties, but who remain in the S.D.F. because they also believe that to be an uncompromising Socialist organisation, will note its willingness to support non-Socialists and even anti-Socialists under the conditions stated by Mr. Hartley.

The Liberal Attitude.

Mr. Hartley says also that the Liberals find the Tory candidate so acceptable that there is to be no Liberal candidate, but on the other hand, it may be that the Liberals find Mr. Hill so acceptable that they prefer to leave the field open to him. After all, if at the General Election they were willing to assist “independent” candidates, like Mr. Ramsay McDonald, Mr. T. F. Richards, Mr. Jas. Parker, Mr. G. J. Wardle and others into the House of Commons, why should they fight the Labour candidate now that they have discovered how “sensible, respectable and adaptable” the Labour members are ? As the Daily News admitted, when commenting on Mr. Gill’s address at the Trade Union Congress “no Liberal who is in earnest about his creed . . . can do anything but rejoice in the strength of a party at once so sincere and so reasonable.” And judging by his election address, no Liberal need fear the return of Mr. John Hill for the Kirkdale division. (Since the above was written the Kirkdale Liberal Divsional Council have passed a resolution urging the Liberal electors to vote for Mr. Hill.)

Mr. Hill’s Program.

The Labour Leader prints certain portions of Mr. Hill’s election address, and even from these it can be seen how far he is in conflict with the programs of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. Amongst other things Mr. Hill says :—

Aliens' Bill.

I deeply regret that through lack of employment at home British Workers are forced to go to other countries as “Blacklegs,” or stay at home and starve. I am in favour of a Bill to give Protection to British Workers by the prohibition of Aliens being imported to take the place of men on strike, or to undercut or displace British Worker.

Education.

As a Nonconformist, I believe in simple Bible study—the Bible is still my best book: at the same time, Bible lessons should only be given to children at their parents’ desire, as every parent should have the fullest opportunity to teach his child his own faith. I believe that religion thrives best and retains its sincerity without State interference.

Temperance.

As a total abstainer, I am in favour of the people of every town or parish having the fullest direct veto on the renewal of old licences or the granting of new ones. The common people ought to have the right to say whether or not temptation shall be beside their homes and amongst their children.

Franchise.

I am in favour of Adult Suffrage. Meantime, I would support the agitation for the extension of the franchise to women on the same basis as it now is, or may be, extended to men. I also favour the Bill giving married women the right to vote on their husband’s qualifications.

In conclusion.

As I am opposed to the present commercial system of production for profit, I would advocate in Parliament the Nationalisation of the production, distribution, and exchange of the common necessities of life. The enormous and ever increasing trade and wealth of the country is only tending to make the poor poorer, and rich richer and creating a luxurious, idle class on the one hand, and a starving unemployed class on the other. It is only by a more scientific system of society, a more just division of the products of labour, a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work, that the workers shall be emancipated.

And it is on utterances such as these that the Clarion, the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Trade Unions unite ! Such unity proves our case against them in regard to political action.

Mr. Hill’s Hotch Potch.

So far as we know Mr. Hill is the first “Labour” candidate to advocate the exclusion of aliens, and to adopt the Tariff Reformers’ position that the low wages and lack of employment of the working class here are due to the admission of aliens. Evidently Mr. Hill is one of the “working-men Tariff Reform missionaries” that Mr. C. Arthur Pearson threatens shall take the field against Socialism. The paragraph concerning “Education” conflicts with the resolution of the Trade Union Congress, the program of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., and again typifies the latitude allowed to “Labour” candidates for vote catching purposes, and proves conclusively how the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. will ignore their own programs in order to be “in the swim.” Both these two bodies, also, are pledged to public ownership and control of the drink traffic, a “reform” which Mr. Hill does not support. His reference to “the common people” is an insult to the working class, and his plea for a more just division of the products of labour is an admission that the present system is just and all Mr. Hill wants is to make it more so !

The Only Way.

There is one course for the workers of Kirkdale to adopt, although the result will be announced before these lines are in print,—Abstain from voting. A candidate who will pander to all sections, as Mr. Hill, with the support of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the Clarion, is doing, proving thereby that he holds to no guiding principle beyond the personal desire to add the much coveted letters M.P. to his name, or, if we acquit him of this, showing conclusively that he does not comprehend the working-class position, is worse than useless to his class, and can only fall a victim, as the others have done, to the flattery and the hospitality of the master-class representatives. To serve the working class a candidate must stand as a rebel, be prepared to act as a rebel if elected, and to take all the consequences of such action. Prating about “a system based on the ethics of Christ’s teaching and work” after two thousand years of wars, barbarities, faction fights and other loving pleasantries which Christ’s followers indulge in, may be a good card to play in Liverpool and the appeal no doubt goes straight to the heart of atheists like Robert Blatchford, and the leaders of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. But neither by looking up to Christs nor down to devils, neither by appealing to politicians nor by relying upon “leaders” will the workers secure their emancipation. Only by realising that they are slaves, that there is no hope for them while Capitalism exists, that their emancipation can only be secured by abolishing, not palliating, the capitalist system and by organising themselves to take for themselves possession and control of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, will their historic mission be fulfilled. As voting for Mr. Hill would not assist them, but make the existing confusion worse confounded, we trust that the result will show that large numbers of the workers of Kirkdale have declined to vote for either of the candidates before them. But we confess we are not hopeful. The Social Revolution must be preceded by a mental revolution. Much deep study must be undertaken before the mental revolution is accomplished, and until then the workers will fall an easy prey to Labour Misleaders like Mr. Hill and his supporters.

Jack Kent

“If Mr. Hill is defeated,” says the Labour Leader of September 27th, “he will not be defeated on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of our Socialist purposes or faith.” And, it may be added, if Mr. Hill is successful he will not be successful on account of his Socialism, but on account of the identification of Socialism with views which form no part of the Socialist purpose or faith.

Justice, however, declares it to be a “Socialist” fight. The contest, they say, is “one between Socialism and anti-Socialism.” “The fight is distinctly one for and against Socialism, and if Mr. Hill wins it will unquestionably be a Socialist victory.” In view of the candidate’s program, which Justice admits might be “more pronouncedly Socialist,” these words must have come as a severe shock to those S.D.F. members who assert that their organisation is “stiffening.” It is more flabby than ever.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fact that Victor Grayson fought Colne Valley without the sanction of the Labour Party has upset several members of that “sensible, respectable, and adaptable” collection of odds and ends. Writing in the A.S.E. Journal for August, Mr. G. N. Barnes says that “each section should endeavour to fall in line with due regard to the general situation. Otherwise there may be more or less irregular candidatures leading to friction and a breaking up of the solidarity which has so far characterised the Labour Party. If Socialists, for instance, are going to run candidates ‘on their own’ without regard to the feelings of the Trade Unionist section, and, as in this case, without consulting the party as a whole, then Trade Unionists may be disposed to return the compliment.”

***

Mr. Barnes’ reference to “solidarity” is amusing. Even the Daily News for September 3rd wrote concerning it: “Its members are but loosely joined together : in its small aggregation it comprehends the extremes of opinion. Today they are often seen walking into different lobbies in Parliament.”

***

The following report appeared in the Times of August 27th:—

” The ‘Survivors of the all-night sittings’ of August 19 and 20 dined together at the House of Commons last night, among those present being Mr. Whitely, Mr. J. A. Pease, Mr. Herbert Lewis, the Master of Elibank, Mr. Fuller, Captain Norton, and Mr. Whitley (Liberal Whips), Mr. H. W. Forster and Mr. Pike Pease (Unionist Whips), and Messrs. Burns, Cavendish, Hobhouse, T. W. Russell, Ainsworth, G. Baring, W. Benn, Bowerman, Carr-Gomm, Clough, C. H. Corbett, Courthope, C. Duncan, Dunn, Fenwick, Gill, Goddard, C. L. Harmsworth, Haworth, A. Henderson, Henry, Higham, Illingworth, MacVeagh, Manfield, Markham, Nicholls, John O’Connor, Pearce, C. E. Price, Rainey, T. F. Richards, Silcock, A. Stanley, Whitehead, and W. T. Wilson. The menu for the occasion was something in the nature of a novelty, among the dishes being ‘Consommé Tortue à la Banbury,’ ‘Harengs aux Baleines Ecossais. Sauce Wason,’ ‘Gelée Lloyd-George,’ ‘Harcourts Verts petite culture,’ ‘Grouse de Hampstead Heath (Tué par M. Whiteley et Sir Hood),” ‘Pèches Anglaises sucrées, sans impôot (Garanties par M. Jean Burns),’ ‘Moelles pain dore du Sud Afrique à la Chinois,’ ‘Dessert de 45 héros,’ and ‘Gâteau (Gagne par M. Jeremie McVeagh).’ The wines were described as ‘Moselle Piesporter Cuvée Caisse Fermée Minisère de Finance. Ad Hoc.” ‘Champagne Cuvée Dorsdors’ and ‘ Porte ! Porte ! Dow’s 1878.’ The concluding line on the menu was ‘Prorogation—Le Roi le veult.'”

***

Subject to correction, the “Survivors” named Bowerman, Duncan, Gill, Henderson, and T. F. Richards are “Labour” members. Who paid ?

***

Lord William Cecil is recording, in the columns of the Times, the impressions of his recent visit to China, where he went with the object of seeing the Christian missions at work in that portion of the Far East. What he has to say is far from reassuring says the Church Times. He found only too convincing proof of the tendency among European residents in China to sink to the lower moral standard of the Orientals. Foreseeing a time when China, like Japan, will enter into close relation and intercourse with the West, he dreads a Yellow Peril no less serious than the peril of aggression, which he believes to be imaginary. The Yellow Peril he fears is that of moral contamination for Europe, through the adoption of Chinese morals and ideas.

To meet this Lord William thinks that every effort should be made to make known the religion of Christ to the Chinese ! But a knowledge of this religion has not prevented the Europeans from falling !

***

The correspondence in the Church Times on Socialism was brought to a close on September 15th with a letter from Mr. Harry Phillips, writing from the Church House, Westminster, He “was once a member of the I.L.P., but is not now,” as he “can no longer support Labour when it declares for secular education !”

***

In the course of his letter Mr. Phillips says : “Under the rule of a strong Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, there was more poverty, more suffering, and greater want of employment, than at any other period during the history of West Ham, and had it not been for the generous subscriptions of strong individualists and capitalists like Mr. Dewar, and others, the suffering would have been a great deal worse ; it was exactly the same at Poplar. I am not now alluding to the bribery and corruption of a few men, none of whom were Labour men, nor am I in any sense attacking any Socialist members of the Town Council, but the administration during the Socialist regime instead of reducing poverty, intensified it. Rates and rent went up enormously, and unemployment and suffering increased.”

***

Now, even a Christian Socialist might try to tell the truth sometimes ! There never has been a Socialist majority on the West Ham Town Council, and far from rates and rent going up enormously, it is a well-known fact that in West Ham and in districts further East rents have fallen considerably, although rates have risen. As we have repeatedly shown, a rise in rates is not always followed by a rise in rents, but, on the other hand, rents often fall concurrently with rising rates. The landlords always secure the full amount that competition for house accommodation will permit them to exact, irrespective of rates. And very often high rates mean low assessments, and low rates high assessments.

***

In their efforts to capture the working class for Christ the parsons are ably assisted by some of the Labour Misleaders. Mr. G. J. Wardle, M.P., speaking at Brixham Congregational Church on Aug. 25 delivered himself as follows:

“There were thousands of men who had to work hard from week to week, and yet at the end there was nothing for them but the workhouse and a pauper’s grave. Every working-man who was discontented with the present conditions was so because he knew that life to him was not what it ought to be and what it might be. Under a system of industry in, which they could see the Divine hand, he knew that there would not only be security of tenure, but no unreasonably long hours and small wages, whilst he would have those comforts which health demanded.”

***

Mr. Wardle, apparently, has no conception of a time when the working man shall cease to be such, as distinguished from the non-working section of the community. No, all that is wanted is “fixity of tenure” (which apparently means that the workman’s nose is to be fixed to the grindstone) and not unreasonably long hours or unreasonably small wages. These of course are very vague terms, suitable to the occasion. And what reason has Mr. Wardle for suggesting that the Divine hand (whatever that may be) is not to be seen in the present system of industry ?

***

At the annual demonstration of the Blaina district of the South Wales Miners’ Federation on August 26th dissatisfaction was expressed at the action of Mr. T. Richards, Labour M.P. for West Monmouth, in supporting Liberal candidates. Mr. Richards, in reply, said that he went to support the Liberal candidate at Bristol at the request of a Labour Leader (whom he did not name) and he was not sorry that he had helped to return Mr. Robinson, the Liberal member for Breconshire. Loud cheers greeted his speech, after which Mr. W. Crooks, M.P., addressed the meeting, no doubt on the “solidarity” of the Labour Party.

***

At a Primrose League demonstration Lord Londonderry spoke of the great and growing danger of Socialism to the State. He said :

“There is £152,000,000 in the Post Office Savings Bank, the savings of ten million persons, for the Socialists to take. A million and three-quarter persons have put nearly £53,000,000 in trustee savings banks. Some £68,000,000 has been placed by workmen in building societies, and there is some £50,000,000 invested in industrial and provident societies, co-operative and friendly societies, and trade union benefit funds, while small holders hold some £20,000,000 worth of Government stock.

“All these are workmen’s savings, and they are all to be confiscated by the Socialists, all to be shared by the thriftless, all to be looted by the ‘have nots’ at the expense of those who have something.”

***

These figures make a total of £343,000,000, and as we showed last month, there is only about £100,000,000 of money in the Kingdom, so that even under Capitalism these “workmen” would be in a bad way if they wanted to withdraw their savings in a hurry. It is unfortunate that his Lordship did not give the numbers of all these various kinds of thrifty workmen. But according to him the depositors in the P.O. and Trustee savings banks number 11,750,000 “workmen.” The Industrial and Provident Societies have about 2,250,000 members and the Trade Unionists number about 2,000,000. Exclusive, then, of the Building Societies, at least 16,000,000 ‘workmen’ have deposited all these savings. But the workers only number about 13,000,000, or, with their dependents, 33,000,000. And of these, according to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, 13,000,000 are always on the verge of hunger !

***

The sums mentioned by his Lordship do not represent the savings of the working class. Take the P.O. for example. The commercial and trading class know, what the working class, as a rule, do not, viz., that deposits are unattachable, that is, that in event of a bankruptcy, deed of composition, or any other circumstance, the creditors of a depositor in the P.O. Savings Bank cannot touch his or her deposit. Hence many of these wide-awake folk deposit up to the limit (£200) as a sort of provision against a “rainy day.”

***

The working class (S.D.F. resolutions notwithstanding) have nothing to lose but their chains. This also applies to many members of the “respectable classes,” the clerks and shop assistants, and many of their chains are “duds,” as watch snatchers have sometimes found, to their chagrin.

***

The S.D.F. is continually passing resolutions, and sending them to various representatives of the master class and the latest is a “stunner.”

***

Thus saith the S.D.F. Executive : “That this meeting of the Executive Committee of the S.D.F. enters its emphatic protest against the invitation given by King Edward VII on behalf of the British nation to the German Kaiser, and declares its intention to make this protest publicly effective upon his visit in London if necessary, seeing that the presence of a reactionary militarist such as the Kaiser is in no wise welcome among a free and self-respecting people.”

***

The issue of Justice which contained this resolution contained also “A Practical Suggestion for Socialist Unity” by E. R. Hartley, from which it was apparent that E.R.H. desires “Socialist” Unity in order to send to Parliament “someone who shall speak with confidence and authority.” This “someone” is “H. M. Hyndman.” E.R.H. waxes enthusiastic. “Hyndman, the economist, the educated gentleman, the polished and scholarly traveller, . . . Hyndman, with his sublime capacity for magnificent indiscretions” and so on. Evidently the resolution quoted above is one of Hyndman’s “magnificent indiscretions.”

***

Consider the position. In its literature and on its platforms, the S.D.F. declare that the people of this country are slaves. Mr. Hyndman has gone further and has denounced all those who are not class-conscious Socialists as “slaves and curs indeed.” Now, slaves and curs cannot be “free and self-respecting.” The S.D.F. Executive have allowed their jingoism to get the better of their Socialism, and in pursuit of their policy of currying favour with the jingo and “patriotic” section of the master class, of which the advocacy of compulsory military training forms a part, have thrown their Socialism overboard again, and declared what they know is a lie, viz., that the people of this country are “free and self respecting.”

J. Kay.