Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (Part 2) (1910)

Pamphlet Review from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser, S.D.P.)

(Continued from the previous issue.)

Something Less than Socialism.

The first objection, says Mr. Fairchild, “to the adoption of a programme of proposals to palliate or diminish the evils of capitalism, is the doctrine that anything less than the realisation of complete Socialism would be valueless to the working-class.” He goes on to declare that

“The argument that Socialism only can remove the artificial inequalities of to-day, restore the social produce to the social workers, and abolish all forms of actual poverty is perverted. That argument is held to mean that the condition of the workers is a fixture, and that poverty cannot be diminished under the capitalist state.”

This statement is untrue. The so-called impossibilists do not pervert the argument to any such meaning. On the contrary, so far are they from regarding the condition of the workers as a fixture, that they continually point out that it is ever becoming worse—a verity the reform champion himself subscribes to when he says (p. 4) “In all capitalist countries the share of the total wealth production taken by the working class is falling.”

The “Social-Democracy,” ill-grounded in social science, and, therefore, groping like blind Samson for that which they cannot see, imagine that they have their arms about the pillars of capitalist society when they grasp their “palliative programme.” But they cry “palliation” without knowing what palliation is, and think they have palliated the system when they have helped to do that which the system forces the capitalists to undertake in their own interests.

Out of such ignorance as this comes the puerile statement that “the system has been palliated to provide magnificence and great wealth for the few.” Magnificence and great wealth for the few, however, were inherent in the system, and not provided by any imaginable “palliation” Mr. Fairchild can instance. And when the term “palliation” can be applied to such opposites as the depression of the multitude in order to “provide magnificence and great wealth for the few,” and, the wrenching from these few, of the means of lessening the misery of the toiling many, then it behoves us to look to our anchors, lest we drag and drift on to the rocks of lunatic chaos.

What, after all, is a palliative ? In sociology, surely, some betterment of the social conditions, given or obtained apart from the decree of economic law and the necessities of the social system.

Thus, trade union effort to advance wages is not palliative effort, but simply the exercise of that power of resistance necessary to arrive at and assert the value of labour power. The law of exchange in accordance with which wages are determined by the cost of production of labour-power, presupposes resistance on both sides of the market. The same resistance between buyer and seller exists in all commodity exchange. It takes the place of that theoretically presumed exact knowledge of values, which no buyer or seller ever yet possessed. The man has not been born who could trace the cost of production (in units of socially necessary labour time) of two commodities through all its intricities and say of them “in such and such quantities these goods are equivalent values.” The question of values must be referred to the competitive market, where the appeal is to force and the only gauge the mean of prices over extended periods.

Similarly, as the struggle for higher wages is not a palliative straggle, since it is a necessary and presupposed part and parcel of the wages system, so there are many measures of a seemingly ameliorative nature, which, since they are necessary to the continued working of the capitalist system itself, are not in any sane sense palliatives.

What possibility, for instance, would there be of the existence in a state of profit-producing efficiency, of several millions of persons within the London area, under the sanitary conditions of the middle ages ? In these days when gardens are on the roofs, and tube underlies tube in the bowels of the earth, surface area is far too valuable for open sewers and cesspools. The night-soil man has become an impossible person, and the earth closet an insupportable expense. In addition, black plagues (and consequent scarcity of labour-power) and high profits do not go well together. Capitalism, and not the sentimental tear of the palliator, demanded cheaper and more efficient sanitary arrangements, and that demand was met by, among other things, that “liberal water supply” and “modern drainage” which the S.D.P. champion (pp. 4-5) declares have “modified the original structure of the capitalist system in the interest of the workers,” (!) and are, therefore, palliatives.

The poultry farmer who runs ten to twelve hens to the acre need not worry greatly about sanitary arrangements for his stock, but when he multiplies the number of birds by four or five, he immediately has to face and deal with the problem of sanitation. To say, however, that he does so for the hens’ sake is ridiculous. Yet it is a parallel case with the claim that modern drainage and the liberal water supply are palliatives of the capitalist system.

They are nothing of the sort. They are necessities of the capitalist system, without which the process of profit production would be hampered at every turn. They are perpetuators, not palliators, of capitalism. Is it imaginable, highly developed capitalist transport, expressed in the latest phrase—motor haulage—on the old feudal bridal paths, or even the roads and bridges that were good enough for our grandfathers’ stage-coaches ? Is it thinkable, the modern industrial and business world with the illiterate working class of the “hungry forties ?”

We all know that the constant wail of representative British manufacturers is that German education has been allowed to get so far in advance of English, and one of their number who recently said “I do not fear Germany’s competition, but I fear her technical schools,” spoke volumes as to the motive underlying the educational palliative.

Again, during the last 35 years the birth rate has steadily fallen from 36 to 26, to the horror of the patriotic pulpit and the uneasiness of the exploiting class—who can see only less honey from fewer bees. But with fewer births has come the desire to keep more of the children alive, and so we find “the amenities of the worker’s lives” (as our author puts it) by the provision of municipal sterilised milk supplies, maternal training, free meals for school children, and such “palliatives.”

The truth is that the gradual development of the productive system demands and necessitates an unceasing adaptation of social conditions, but these are not palliatives of the system, but the mere adjustment to the needs of an industrial machinery whose one motive force is the production of the greatest possible profit. They leave the workers’ position untouched. These “amenities of the workers’ lives” have not kept pace with their steady degradation. The “liberal water supply” of the water company may not altogether compensate for the loss of the sweet air that moved about the well, nor could the site of the Thames Embankment have been, as a low-lying muddy waste, a picture of more utter and hopeless despair, than now when it offers its proud, granite bosom to be the dreary, comfortless bed of scores upon scores of poor wretches that once were men, and women—and children.

No, Mr. Palliator, the position of the worker is not a fixture. Their exploitation increases, their unemployment increases, their insecurity and anxious misery increases, in spite of those “amenities of the workers’ lives,” “a liberal water supply, modern drainage, and the extension of public open spaces.”

The position of the Socialist Party is, not that the condition of the workers is a fixture, but that it is constantly being adjusted to the requirements of the capitalist system, and that this adjustment is not palliation of working-class conditions. For the working class, they hold, there is no palliation—there is only emancipation. This is why “something less than Socialism” would be valueless to the proletariat.

The Distribution of Wealth.

In the brief confines of this chapter we are treated to several curious statements. We are are told, for instance, that “the productive capacity of labour is subject to continuous change. It will rise or fall with every application of knowledge to industrial functions.” This piece of owlish wisdom, of course, flies in the face of all experience, and it would be interesting to learn when the application of knowledge causes the productive capacity of human energy to fall.

In one breath our author declares that the “proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is not “fixed by economic or political laws,” and prescribes a political law for the fixing of a minimum wage !

The Socialist Party holds, not that “the proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is fixed by economic or political laws, but that, in capitalist society, the “return to labour” is determined by the cost of producing labour-power.

This is an economic law. It operates through competition. Therefore, if the statement of the law is true, the only way to increase the “return to labour” is either by raising the cost of producing labour-power or by restricting competition.

If the reformer started out to induce the people to “waste their substance in riotous living,” to become more drunken and to burn a loaf for every one they ate, he would be derided for his pains, but he would be logical. He would be trying to raise the “return to labour” by increasing the cost of producing labour-power which governs it. But to propose to raise the cost of producing labour by increasing that which it determines (wages in the long run) is madness.

If, on the other hand, the reformer aspired to so completely organise the workers for resistance in the economic field that competition was effectually strangled, again, in spite of the hopeless magnitude of his task, he would be logical. He would be trying to defeat the economic law of exchange by eliminating the mainspring of its operation—competition.

Now the law as stated above is a law of capitalism—not of other social systems. Capitalism presupposes and hangs upon competition. To eliminate competition in the labour market (of all markets) is to eliminate capitalism. Hence every force of the existing system is arrayed against any attempt to tamper with the freedom of competition. But our would-be palliators, who say that labour’s share of the wealth produced is not fixed by economic or political laws, are going to tilt against the windmill. They are going to match a political law against an economic law. They are going to set up their Minimum Wage Act against the whole world of masters interested in paying the least possible wages they can, and the whole seething mass of hunger-driven workers, striving for employment at any wage.

Later Mr. Fairchild gives us “a little history.” Let us have little history now.

The Black Plague in the 14th century made labour-power very scarce. The Statute of Labourers was enacted to prevent the payment or reception of higher wages than had ruled prior to the outbreak. What was the result ? Many on both sides were imprisoned, but labour was not made one whit more redundant. Hence the labourers continued to get the best of the competitive straggle, and wages rose 50 or even 100%. So we have it on record that complaint was continually made in Parliament that the Statute of Labourers was utterly inoperative (see “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” Thorold Rogers, p. 226 on).

If wages could not be kept down by law then, when labourers were not free, as they are now, to seek other masters, and when the masters, who controlled the political power, were interested in supporting the law and keeping them down, how much less can the law enforce a minimum wage now, when the masters, controlling the political power, are interested in evading such a law, and the workers themselves are forced by the awful competition for work, to cast every artificial barrier to their degradation into oblivion ?

A. E. Jacomb

(To be Continued.)

Islington Branch (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Though the spelling is different in the advert, I'm pretty sure the SLP speaker, 'Budgeon', was Frank Budgen. I suggest that you click on Budgen's wiki page. He was an interesting man who lived a full life.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For more information on some of the SPGB speakers listed above, click on these posts for more background.

• December 1910
• December 1912

Refuted by Himself. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Translated from Le Socialisme by F. C. Watts

We have an erudite Minister of Agriculture. If you doubt it spend a half-penny on the Journal Official of 16th of March last. You will find therein, spread over thirty-nine columns, a speech delivered by M. Ruau, on the 14th of March 1909, at the Musée Social under the auspices of the French National Federation of Friendly Societies (Fédération Nationale de la Mutualité Française). You will not repent of your extravagance because there is something in the speech that will amuse you. In the first place notice at the foot of each page, the reference to the numerous books the author has made use of. There Marx’s Capital is quoted a dozen times, Kautsky’s Agrarian Question is also referred to; as is Frederick Engels, Vandervelde and David. It is quite a Socialist Library. In the text of the speech you will at each step come across the same names, and also those of Gatti, Jaurès, and others, including even our Limoges Congress, not to speak of the Congresses of the French Parti Ouvrier.

What an honour!

The fact is that the speech is entirely designed to “demonstrate” (against the Socialists) that capitalist concentration does not operate at all in agricultural property, and that “the present state of small property is flourishing”, and that even “with regard to the future growth there is reason to believe in an increase in its vitality”.

I do not know to which of his subordinates M. Ruau (having to deliver a speech) gave the order to make the discourse he read. But I know that he must be a good practical joker. He took it for granted that his chief, happy to find himself at the head of all those quotations from books which he had never read, and perhaps never opened, would not notice anything wrong. And he has amused himself by causing his chief to give in support of his statements, arguments which prove exactly the opposite of his assertions. His joke has succeeded, and doubtless he laughed up his sleeve to know that his minister, with all the “side” and self-sufficiency of a man sure of his facts, had “found” that the number of small proprietors does not diminish, by reading to his astounded hearers the following statistics:

An enquiry in July 1908, made by the Ministry of Finances, gave as 5,505,464 the total number of agricultural proprietors, which is thus split up according to the area exploited:

           1908

            Very small property (less than one hectare)                    2,087,851

            Small property (1 to 10 hectares)                                       2,523,713

            Medium property (10 to 40 hectares)                                   745,862

            Great property (40 to 100 hectares)                                      118,497

            Very great property (100 hectares upwards)                          29,541



            The corresponding figures for 1892 are

            Very small property                                                           2,235,405

            Small property                                                                   2,617,557

            Medium property                                                                  711,118

            Great property                                                                       105,391

            Very great property                                                                 32,280

  This comparison appears to show that small property has increased sensibly by 2,845 exploitations, as much to the detriment of ‘very small’ property as to that of the ‘medium’ and ‘great’, and that the ‘very great’ property has slightly increased by 2,739 exploitations, to the detriment of ‘great’ and perhaps a little, very little, at the expense of the ‘medium’. The development of ‘very great’ property noticeable from 1882 to 1892 has stopped in order to give place to that of ‘small’ property: the slight increase in ‘very great’ property will have continued, but this time it clearly appears that the movement does not touch ‘small’ property at all.
  The most reliable statistics tend therefore to prove that there exists no movement toward the absorption of small rural property.”

All this beautiful reasoning had but one misfortune, for without taking the trouble to find a pencil and work it out, it is seen at a glance that the 2,523,713 of 1908 are less (and not more) than the 2,617,558 of 1892. Consequently instead of “increasing” from 1892 to 1908, “small” property has “diminished sensibly by 93,245 exploitations”.

That is what the Minister of Agriculture has been pompously giving forth at the Musée Social.

It is true that a friend, a little better at arithmetic, has apparently warned him that he was giving arms against himself. A week after he sought to retrace his steps by giving (Journal Officiel of 22nd of March) a so-called erratum of his speech, which, so far from confirming, still refutes his thesis.

M. Ruau, in that erratum, recognises that 93,000 exploitations less is a decrease. But, says he, there is only question here of the element “number”; if we consider the superficial area “the facts change entirely”.

Let us see, then. The minister gives us now, as the figures of “very small” property (sterile and uncultivated land not included) super,

            for 1892   1,243,200 hectares

            for 1908   1,228,597 hectares

As figures regarding the superficial area of “small” property

            for 1892    10,383,300 hectares

            for 1908    11,559,342 hectares

And he cries triumphantly:

  “Thus ‘very small’ property has diminished by 14,603 hectares, apparently to the profit of ‘small’ property; ‘small’ property has increased by 1,176,042 hectares.”

But, excuse me! In the first place and in passing, if the “small” property increases to the detriment of “very small”, it will be because, always weak, the plots of land nevertheless are being concentrated. This would already be the contrary of what M. Ruau affirms.

And as for the principal point of his argument it hasn’t a leg to stand on. If there are 93,000 less proprietors in possession of one million hectares more land, it is therefore (just the contrary of his assertions) that the “small” exploitations increase in area, and that consequently there is still concentration.

Each “small” proprietor instead of possessing an average of 3.9 hectares as in 1892, owns 4.5 in 1908.

Fewer proprietors to more land owned, that is what is put forward as proof that agricultural concentration is a Socialist fiction.

And that’s what comes of accepting the role of simpler reader of a lucubration that one doesn’t understand.

Bracke

General Election: Manifesto of The Socialist Party. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS,

Unlike the usual election manifesto, this is addressed to those who have not a vote as well as to those who have. Its object is to gain, not your vote, but your understanding. You think, perhaps, that the choice now before you is only between the various candidates clamouring for your support. But there is, as we shall show, another alternative that follows logically and inevitably from the position of the working class. And since a knowledge of this position is essential to intelligent political action, we shall deal briefly with it first, and ask you in consequence to give it a moment’s attention.

WHAT IS YOUR POSITION?

It is your lot to toil for a master while you can, and to starve quietly when you cannot. When you are in work to-day, you toil harder, and produce enormously more than ever before, — yet your wage barely suffices for your maintenance. Unemployment, with all the misery it entails upon you and those dependent upon you, dogs your footsteps. Of the total produce of your labour an increasing portion goes to an idle class, while, though you make all the good things, you are forced to consume the cheapest rubbish. Why is this?

Are you poor because there is not abundance of the necessaries of life? Is it because the means of producing them are insufficient, or because there are not willing hands to labour? No. There are hosts of willing labourers. And the instruments of labour become every day more perfect and more productive. Surely, then, with marvellous labour-saving machines and huge waste-saving combines, there should be increased wealth and leisure for all. Why, then, is it that wealth and leisure are only for a class, while poverty and arduous toil are the lot of the producers ?

You have noticed that when a labour-saving machine is introduced into a factory to-day, men are thrown out of work to starve. The toil and insecurity of those who remain in employ are increased, while only the owner of that machine reaps the benefit. Clearly, however, if those who produce owned the machine, the result would be entirely different; there would be shorter hours of labour and higher remuneration for them. It is, consequently, not the machine that injures us, but the ownership of it by the non-producer. Because the workers do not own and control the land and industrial machinery they are the hirelings of those who do own these things, and must sell their bodily energy to them. Thus the propertyless are compelled to cede to the capitalist class the whole product of their labour over and above their maintenance. That is why, so long as class ownership continues, greater poverty for the working class will accompany the increasing wealth and productivity of society.

The abolition of unemployment and the brightening of the workers’ lives can. consequently, only come with the abolition of wage-slavery and of class ownership in the instruments of production. The means for producing wealth must be restored to the workers; and this, to-day, can only be done collectively. This collective ownership and democratic control of industry scientifically organised is SOCIALISM.

And while there is admittedly no other remedy for unemployment and poverty, there is also no way to Socialism except by means of the conquest of political power by a Socialist working class. Your rulers expend huge sums to retain their control of Government in order to maintain and extend their exploitation. And in advancing to the conquest of the political machinery, we shall, consequently, always find the capitalist class our implacable enemy. As in the past, each side will struggle for its interests as it understands them, and the interests of the working class being diametrically opposed to those of all the capitalists, no quarter can be expected or given. Any alliance or compromise with capitalists in the political struggle can only be a working class surrender. Hence the supreme importance of adhering consistently to the fundamental Socialist principle of the CLASS STRUGGLE. For it is only when the wealth-producers control political power— only when the workers are victorious — that the work of transforming the means of production from ruthless instruments of profit for a few into the means of healthy life for all, can begin.

In the light of these facts let us examine the political parties which are begging for your support during the present election, taking first

THE TORY PARTY.

Tariff Reform, say the Conservatives, is just what you need. It will relieve the admittedly terrible unemployed evil, will improve the lot of the worker and increase his wages. These and similar Tory statements can only be described as “frigid and calculated lies.’" The position of the worker as outlined above holds good of every capitalist country, whether it has Protection or Free Trade. Poverty and unemployment are rife, and tend to increase, despite temporary fluctuations, under both fiscal systems. In every country the wage of the worker has a direct relation to his cost of subsistence, but none whatever to the presence or absence of tariff walls. Tariffs, at most, benefit one set of capitalists at the expense of another, but the toilers are wage slaves exploited to the utmost all the time. The 'Tories, indeed, are frankly our enemies; they stand for the present system of robbery in all its ugliness. 'Their antagonism to working-class aims has been proclaimed from the house tops, and by supporting them the working man stultifies himself and sets a seal on his slavery. Let us now turn to

THE LIBERAL PARTY.

Equally with the Tories they stand for capitalism, and make no secret of their hostility to Socialism As Dr. Macnamara said, “Radicalism is irrevocably opposed to the principles on which Socialism is based.” [1] Mr. Asquith, Mr. Ure, and Mr. Churchill have been equally definite. Take the present Budget over which so much bother is being made. The increased expenditure is due, above all, to huge armaments for the protection of capitalist interests and property. It is a Budget of exploitation. Its disputed taxes have been advocated by Tories, and are in operation in other countries with no benefit to the workers. The only valid grounds for the Tory objections are the exigencies of party politics, and the possibility that the new sources of revenue may postpone the necessity for a tax on imports.

Mr. Lloyd George rightly summed up the overdone Tory opposition and showed what the Budget really is when he said [2]

   When I come along and say to the landlord: “Here, the State wants money to protect you and your property —your land —your mansion —your rights —your privileges: we want money to protect you; you must pay ,£15 out of £150 —they say Robber!"

And do they intend to abolish the House of Lords? Mr. Asquith said: [3]

   You will be told that the issue lies between government by two chambers and government by a single chamber. That is not the case. I myself, and I believe a large majority of the Liberal party are in favour of what is called a bi-cameral system.

Thus the Liberals do not intend, and, indeed, never have intended, to abolish the House of Lords. That institution is regarded by the capitalist class as a great bulwark of the “rights of property," and any reform of the Upper House, put forward by the Lords themselves, the Tories, or the Liberals, can only result in strengthening it against the people. The Liberal party would, moreover, be impossible without the Lords as a foil. It is their perpetual election cry and universal excuse for broken promises. Indeed, while pretending to protest against usurpation, the Liberals have deliberately canceled new privileges. After saying that to dissolve at the dictation of the Lords would be to capitulate, they have deliberately capitulated. Instead of making use of the undoubted rights of the Commons, or using the power which Lord Courtney [4] has shown that the Government possesses over the Lords, the Liberals have given the Upper House the powerful precedents and privileges of rejecting a Budget and compelling a dissolution; precedents which even the ultimate passing of the present finance bill will neither destroy nor weaken. Even the Church Times was moved to remark that “There is only one true description of the situation—ministers have capitulated to the House of Lords." [5] It is seemingly part of a great conspiracy to strengthen the Upper Chamber and humbug the people. There is every reason, therefore, why your attitude toward Liberal candidates should be one of uncompromising hostility.

But we have not quite finished with the Liberal party. There is still a section of it which claims our attention. We refer to

THE LABOUR PARTY.

(which includes the so-called Independent Labour Party). The Labour M.P.s cannot be completely separated from the Liberals in politics, for their political independence is non-existent. “My Budget," says Mr. Lloyd George. “My Budget," says Mr. Philip Snowden. [6] They are "whole heartedly" for the capitalists’ Budget. And it is amusing to find them trying to assure the murmuring rank and file that no understanding with the Liberals exists, in face of the withdrawal of “Labour" men in favour of Liberals, and of Liberals in favour of “Labour" men. One does not. of course, expect to find a written compact. It might become awkward evidence while, as the Times says. “With friends who understand each other so well it is unnecessary.” [7] Quite so. The compromise of the last General Election, in fact, is being repeated on a more complete scale.

The legislatively impotent “Labour” members claim as theirs measures passed by the Liberal majority, and are now engaged in booming the bogus agitation over the Lords and the Budget, and in rallying the workers once more to the support of the Liberal section of the exploiting class.

That there is no Socialism in the “Labour” group is proven by the welcome given them by the anti-Socialist Liberals. Mr. Churchill said: [8]

   Don't let there be any division in our ranks at this juncture. I know that the Lords and their backers are counting on divisions between Liberal and Labour But I think they are likely to be a little bit mistaken.

Several of the newer candidates have been speaking plainly of the pressure brought to bear on them to force them to retire in favour of the Liberals. Mr. Vernon Hartshorn made a vigorous protest. He said : [9]

  I would have gone on in spite of this, but I have been reluctantly compelled, from circumstances of a very personal kind, to conclude that the whole machinery of the Labour Party throughout the country is under the control of the Liberals, and as the latter did not approve of a fight in Mid-Glamorgan, the former are left with no option but to submit to their masters, and I am left with no option but to surrender.

Of such is the “Independence” of the “Labour” Party. The workers pay the piper and their misters call the tune!

There is, however, another organisation, which need not be given a distinct heading We refer to the SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY. This organisation talks of the Class Struggle, but denies it by its every political act. and does not otherwise differ from the “Labour” Party, which it jealously emulates. One of their number. Mr. Will Thorne, was elected in 1906 as a “Labour” member under the auspices of the Labour Party, and is a candidate now under similar conditions. In the present instance the political worthlessness of the S.D.P. may be gauged by the fact that in their official organ, while they denounce the campaign against the Lords as a mere "stage fight,” and assert that the “ Liberals do not wish to abolish the veto of the Lords,” on another page they publish as leading article “A Plea for Unity,” in which they say : [10]

   We are inclined to accede to the claim of ministerial journals and politicians that in the present contest we should be content to waive every other consideration and make the question of the House of Lords the supreme issue, and therefore avoid on this occasion all division of the forces which might be arrayed against the House of Lords. We are all for showing an undivided front against them.

And they conclude this touching appeal by suggesting to the Liberals that they refrain from opposing their candidates and help to get them returned. If the S.D.P. has not “got on” it is not because it has any principles that stand in the way. It “waives every other consideration," including every vestige of Socialist principle, in order to get into Parliament, and offers to aid the Liberals in what it confesses to be a bogus agitation.

WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

It is evident that from your standpoint as wage-workers none of the foregoing parties is worthy of your support. Not by voting for any of them could you strike a blow for your class. Indeed, from the position laid down it is obvious that the only party you should support must be in direct contrast with these parties. Your party should be democratic. It should have Socialism as its programme and the Class Struggle as its guiding principle. Its candidates should be controlled by the rank and file. It should devote its energies to converting the workers to Socialism, and to organising them for the conquest of political power for its realisation. It should never compromise with capitalist parties, and should refuse to barter away the workers’ salvation for crumbs that profit not. 'That is the party that you should support, and for its candidates alone could you logically vote. Only one party answers to that description in this country—the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN. But since the ground must be well tilled before the good harvest can be reaped, that party is putting no candidates forward during the present election. Even the poverty which impedes the activity of the working- class party is in itself only a reflex of the present unreadiness of the electorate. Therefore the principles of Socialism must be more widely propagated and the workers more fully organised, before candidates of the Socialist Party can usefully enter the Parliamentary arena. And if you agree that your position is as we have outlined it; if you realise that your policy must be distinct from and hostile to all capitalist politics, and that Socialism alone can help your class, then it is your duty to join the Socialist Party and take a democratic share in its work; thus advancing the day—not far distant—when it will place its own candidates— your candidates—in the Parliamentary field to wage uncompromisingly the fight for Socialism. But until you can thus vote for yourselves and strike a blow against exploitation, it is clearly your duty to ABSTAIN FROM VOTING.

To do otherwise would be to-stultify yourselves and to support the system that crushes you. Go to the ballot box by all means, but only to write Socialism across your voting paper; for if you cannot vote now for what you want, it is folly to vote for what you do not want. The vote, like the razor, is an instrument for a purpose. If you cannot for the moment use it to your advantage, it is madness to cut your throat. And by voting for your enemies, for traitors and charlatans, you are surely cutting your throat.

Above all, however, whether you have a vote or not, realise how much depends upon you and how much remains to be done. A vote, even for a candidate of the Socialist Party, is of no value unless it expresses a Socialist consciousness. Understanding must precede action, for Socialism is impossible until the workers become class-conscious Socialists. There is, therefore, work for you to do. There are outlets for your energy infinitely more profitable to your class than voting for the defenders of exploitation. The army of Socialism must be recruited, and your place is within the ranks of the organisation of your class, taking your part in the battle for the emancipation of your fellows from wage-slavery.

                                             THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF 

                                     THE  SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

NOTES
[1] Daily Chronicle, Oct. 21.
[2] Carnavon (italics are ours).
[3] Albert Hall, Dec. 10.
[4] House of Lords, Nov. 30.
[5] Quoted Daily Chronicle, Dec. 6.
[6] Portsmouth Dec. 3.
[7] Dec. 9.
[8] Crewe, Dec. 9.
[9] Quoted Daily Mail, Dec. 8.
[10] Justice, Dec. 11 (italics are ours).

Scissors & Paste. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

When we are doing good work for our class the enemy is loudest in abuse of our conduct. Indeed, the only condition upon which the capitalists will speak well of us is that we cease to do battle with them and so desert our cause. Therefore we take a pardonable pride in the hostility which our propaganda provokes in the ranks of the exploiters, for we know it is the highest compliment they can pay us. This, however, is by no means the attitude of those “respectable and adaptable” citizens, the “Labour” M.P.’s. The ruling class speaks well of them. They are, in fact, so beloved of the Liberal enemy that he will, an far as possible, avoid the calamity (to him) of keeping them out of Parliament.

Thus the Daily Chronicle says (18.11.09),

“It is interesting to note that in Woolwich and Deptford the Liberals have apparently decided not to put forward a candidate in opposition to Mr. Will Crooks and Mr. C. W. Bowerman. . . . If, as we understand, Mr. Bowerman will be opposed only by a Tory, or two Tories (there is a split in the opposition camp), there is more than ordinary significance in the letter which Mr. A. J. Pease, chief Liberal Whip, addressed to Sir Henry Havelock Allen. In this letter Mr. Pease suggested, as we stated yesterday, that, ’Liberals should, so far as they could, respect the seats of the Labour Representation Committee’s candidates, and the Labour party in return should respect the Liberal seats.’ ”

The Chronicle man, as was natural, set out immediately in quest of the other party to this suggested understanding; and tracked the chairman of the Labour group to earth, only to find him as wily as the fabled fox. As the newspaper states:

“Mr. Arthur Henderson, chairman of the Labour party in the House, was seen yesterday by a ‘Daily Chronicle’ representative, but he explained that, as he had not had time to read Mr. Pease’s letter, and was, besides, hurrying off to Portsmouth, he could not express any opinion on the subject.”

Of course the chairman of the House of Commons Labour Party “could not express any opinion.” Was he going to let the cat out of the bag ? “Keep it dark, for goodness sake? Don’t make a fuss over it or the game will be up!’’ was in all probability his muttered comment. And so the game will be up, we may add, when the rank and file understand the game that is being played.

Notice also how the Chronicle fawns on such men as Mr. Snowden. This is how it speaks of him in its issue for November 3rd.

“SOCIALIST MEMBER’S TRIUMPH.

  “These three were all good speeches, but they were overtopped by the fourth, Mr. Philip Snowden’s. His ascetic face lit up by the light of intellect is a familiar feature on the Labour benches. While be has often spoken effectively in the House be has never before won the triumphant success that be achieved tonight. He is heart and soul for the Budget—not, mark, because it is Socialism, but only because it marks a very moderate step forward on the long road of social amelioration.
 “An entranced House listened with every faculty on the stretch as this thoughtful Socialist expounded his creed. On the Government Bench Mr. Asquith sat with eyes fastened on the speaker, and Mr. Balfour, a nearer neighbour, turning round so as to catch every word, was another absorbed listener. The Budget is called revolutionary. It is nothing of the kind, said Mr. Snowden. It is not a revolution but a preventive of revolution. (Loud Liberal cheers.) It means not Socialism but Social Reform. He developed with great ability the distinction between the one thing and the other. In this connection he quoted the definition given by Mr. Balfour in a speech delivered in Birmingham in November, 1907."

Thus does Mr. Snowden proclaim himself the enemy of Socialism. But in order to throw his followers off the scent, he goes on to cunningly confuse capitalist development (which is toward more intense exploitation.and historically makes Socialism necessary while it precedes it) with the development of Socialist society. This dodge enables him to delude the ignorant into believing that he is working for Socialism while in reality be is helping the capitalists. He further says:

  “So far from the Budget being a revolution, it is such a slight movement in the wheel as to be almost imperceptible.”

Its imperceptibility is evidently its greatest virtue. “He is heart and soul for the Budget” because, apparently, it is not Socialism, and because so far from being akin to revolution, it is its very antithesis!

No wonder that Mr. C. F. G. Masterman, M.P. could say in The Nation (24.8.08) that

  "The accession of strength came with the realisation of the mildness of the Labour Party. Here were no wild revolutionists, harbingers of an uprising of the lower orders, determined to break up the recognised courtesies and hypocrisies of England’s benevolent plutocracy. Instead there was a mixture of old-fashioned trade unionists, with a sprinkling of well behaved and pleasant Socialists; more punctilious about the forms of the House than the oldest members; more eager in making a bargain with the Government and proving themselves agreeable supporters than the most truculent of the Radicals opposite.”

Let the toilers ponder this capitalist praise of the Labour Party, and they will find it convincing evidence of the utter worthlessness of Labourism to the working class; evidence, moreover, that is being confirmed by the daily conduct of the Labour members both in and out of the House of Commons.

F. C. Watts

The Quarrel 'Twixt Mr. A. And Mr. B. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “They were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other’s neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had ‘Dum' embroidered on his collar, and the other ‘Dee.’ ‘I suppose they’ve each got ‘Tweedle’ round at the back of the collar,’ she said to herself.  . . .
  “Of course you agree to have a battle?’ Tweedledum said in a calmer tone.
  “ ‘I suppose so,’ the other sulkily replied.’’

At the present juncture, now that the nerve-shattering crisis has at last arrived, it may be as well to think for awhile in what way working-class interests will be affected by the result of the present electoral struggle. The gauntlet has been thrown down by Mr. A. on behalf of his party, and has been eagerly taken up by the astute Mr. B. The leaders and their immediate followers are endeavouring to arouse the rank and file to a sense of the solemnity of the occasion. We are in the throes of a life or death conflict, the like of which has not been known for centuries. So we are told, at least. Yet, strange as it may seem, some few of us appear to care very little about this momentous issue. Whisperings have even emanated from certain sceptical quarters that the battle is not altogether genuine, that the Champion of Nonconformity and the Knight of Philosophic Doubt are not such implacable enemies as they pretend.

Perhaps, it all becomes a question of the point of view. The human race, as a whole, has developed, in a more or less perfect degree, the sense of sight. But very few of its members dare face, clear-eyed, the naked truth. Most men, fearful of blindness, and therefore, maybe, wise in their generation, prefer to examine all things through the blurred and smoky glasses of ignorance and prejudice. If the writer were a Liberal or Tory democrat, or, worse still, if he were a member of the I.L.P., he might imagine that the result of the 1910 General Election would change, for the better or worse, his present unenviable position in society. But not belonging to either of the hybrid political types above mentioned, be entirely fails to see how the workers as a class ever have been, or ever can be, affected by the results of the various struggles for political supremacy which take place periodically between certain sections of the capitalist class. Liberals, Tories and Labour men are alike thundering from their platforms their party cries. “Down with the House of Lords!’’ “Tariff Reform forever!’’ “Long live the Budget! ” and so on. Perhaps some of these “leaders of the people” will give us a little information as to whether, for example, the abolition of the House of Lords will change those huddled backed wrecks of humanity, to be seen any night reposing on the Embankment seats, back into men and women; or whether Tariff Reform will stamp out anthrax from among the Bradford wool-combers; or whether even such a munificient measure as “the People’s Budget” will enable the people to live as human beings should live rather than to rot and seethe in the hell of modern industrialism.

All over the country at the present moment the workers are listening, open-mouthed and credulous, to the specious promises of Mr. A. and Mr. B. and their lieutenants. Mr. A. is telling us in his usual lawyer like phraseology, that steps must he taken to see that never again shall the House of Commons be subjected to the indignities to which it has been forced to submit; while the metaphysical Mr. B. is explaining how Tariff Reform is not Protection, but only an attenuated form of Free Trade. In a week or two we members of the working-class will be registering our votes for one or other of our respective candidates. We shall make our choice for many and varied reasons. One of us will vote in a certain way because the candidate has a pretty wife; another because "well, he might do something or other for us if we give the chap another chance." We shall vote for any and every reason except for the one reason that really matters. What a tragic farce it all is! The working-class voters of the country hold in their hands the absolute power to free themselves from the misery and poverty in which they live and by which they are surrounded. And yet, time after time, election after election, they follow the political will-o’-the-wisps dancing before their eyes, to find themselves at the end sinking deeper in the slough of Capitalism, almost without hope of ever altering their condition.

There may be certain critical apologists for Parliamentary procedure, who, on reading the above, will insist that we Socialists have no business to interfere with the freedom of the working class to vote. They will complain, perhaps, that we only listen to Liberal and Tory politicians in order to jeer at them, and that while we are quite at liberty to abstain from voting for any but Socialist candidates, we have no right to attempt to persuade others to do likewise. Well, business or no business, right or no right, we shall continue our tactics, we shall advise our fellow-workers to vote for no one bat a Socialist. It is our class—the working class— that in every case puts these charlatans, these sham knights of a grail they have defiled, into political power. That is the irony and the pity of it. Whether—by means of the working-daw vote, be it remembered—the Liberals or the Tories are returned as a body, the conditions under which the workers exist will not be improved one whit. Unemployment, misery, poverty, intellectual and bodily degradation, will increase year by year whether Mr. A. or. Mr. B. is the titular leader of the House of Commons. Not until the workers understand their own position in society and in Nature will there be any chance of an improvement in their condition. Only when this knowledge dawns upon them, when, as a consequence, they join themselves together into a conscious political force to seize political power, in order to use that power in their own interests, will they be enabled, as a result of so doing, to stand erect, free men and free women, reaping and garnering for themselves the world-wide harvest of their mental and physical labour.

F. J. Webb

The John Bull League. (1910)

From the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF.

Our attention baa been drawn to the John Bull League and an opinion asked upon it. The principle guide we have to this organisation is the inaugural address delivered by its president, Mr. Horatio Bottomley, at the Albert Hall on October 21st, 1909. Before we criticise the speech and its contents, we may admit that the form in which the matter was presented is of the first order, with its rotundity of phrase and flashes of wit that easily explain the popularity of the person and emphasise the necessity for challenging the political and social position of the body. With regard to the matter, however, we can safely say that the vapid eclecticism that borrows phrases and ideas from all and sundry; that extracts suitable titbits from any and every philosophy and emasculates them by extracting, must be purely abortive when applied to questions of an economic and social nature, if the modern theory of the organic nature of society be admitted. The John Bull League, therefore, in tilting at windmills in the shape of abuses and ignoring essentials, undermines that practical understanding of present day social conditions which must precede the acceptance of the Socialist solution.

The stated object of the League is the stamping out of cant and self-righteousness, and the introduction of common-sense business methods into the government of the country. Much stress is laid throughout the speech on the “business methods" which matters in Parliamentary matters is the touchstone by which everything is tried. “What would a common sense board of directors do?” seems to be the question that has to be asked on every thing that comes before Parliament ; just as some people would ask on every question, “ what would Jesus do?" Now, the desirability of the standard depends entirely on the point of view. The object of the most common-sense business man is to make his business pay; that is, to increase profits. That object does not necessarily fit in with the point of view of the workers in that business, indeed, their object will be the increase of their wages, which will diminish profits. And this capitalist point of view is very strongly hinted at in its fullest significance in the peroration which is given in full, as follows: "I do not know how you read the signs of the times. For myself, I think that this country of ours, this Empire of ours, is entering upon a critical period. 1 think her sway is in the balance. The European nations are thinking what they dare not speak. Demos—the great god of the people—is shaking off his chains, and hungry men and women, conscious only of their sufferings and unable to understand the complicated phenomena of our communal life, are asking why they starve in the midst of plenty. And all the time, the professional politician prattles his party platitudes, and the ponderous professor prates about "political principles." Ladies and gentlemen, do you see the clouds gathering?- do you see the ‘trail of the curling winds’?— do you hear the distant rumbling? If you do, join the John Bull League." So! our country is in a critical condition; the people are rising and asking awkward questions; the professional politicians are not alive to the danger; if you are, join us. That appeal is not to the people who are awakening, but who do not understand, with the intention of enlightening them; it is an appeal to those who have to wake up and resist the demands of those who have not.

Having sorted out the object of the League, we may turn briefly to the statement of position regarding the larger questions that already divide the opinion of the country into more or less antagonistic camps. The position is carefully chosen in each case to appeal to as large a section of opinion as possible obviously. Take religion. On the negative side we are treated to a warm criticism of those who thrive on Foreign Missionary Societies and the like, we are told, coining to the positive side, "its church will be broad enough to embrace all mankind . . . It embraces all mankind, tolerating, respecting, and honouring their faith . . . It will know no sect, no dogma, no distinctions: it will rest upon the corner-stones of the four quarters of the world and it will be roofed over with the illimitable domain of heaven.” If anything could be more ambiguous than that, kindly refer us to it.

Politically, the party system is condemned, and business methods sought to be introduced in place. The anomalies of the present electoral methods are dwelt upon and proportional representation delicately hinted at. The House of Lords are very gently criticised, while the necessity for a second chamber is laid stress upon, and a suggestion made for a body, partly hereditary, partly appointed. The Crown is eulogised: The League looking upon the King as “our most valuable national asset—our best statesman, and, by a long way, our finest ambassador.”

And so on, almost without end. Throughout the whole speech, there is no hint of the underlying problem of poverty, no glimpse of a way to social and economic freedom for the working class. Quite the contrary, they are urged to send their masters to rule over them in Parliament on the same principles adopted in the workshop—the principles on which capitalist business is run. As though all capitalist government were not carried on for the capitalist class by the capitalist class to the exploitation and degradation of the working class, notwithstanding official incapacity, corruption or expediency, and as though the workers stood to gain anything by such a proceeding! When the working-class members of the John Bull League —if such exist—get down to think about the things that matter, they will discover that the greatest abuse they can find in modern society is the outgrowth —exaggerated, it may be — of some established principle consistent with the capitalist basis of society, and that the real cure in each case lies in the alteration of the basis from capitalism to Socialism. 

Dick Kent

Editorial: Blatchford, War and Socialism. (1910)

Editorial from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Upon the cue of the General Election, the Conservative party has acquired the services of (for the moment) a most useful journalistic hack. We refer to Mr. Robert Blatchford, the idol of the multi-coloured conglomeration, the Clarionettes. An able writer or speaker who will (for a consideration) beat the big drum of "the country in danger," "the peril of invasion," etc, is sure of a large hearing in the present state of mind of the working class. This the Tories well appreciate, and their object in giving "Nunquam's" German War Scare and pro Conscription twaddle such enormous advertisement through their perhaps most widely read organ, the "Daily Mail," and elsewhere must be patent to all.

Meanwhile Socialists have an account to settle with Blatchford. This man has for many years taught in gentle phrases what millions have in all confidence mistaken for Socialism.

He gained the confidence and affection of thousands — only to betray them. For to invite the British workers to arm themselves to fight their German fellows—to ask them to give "the question of national defence" "precedence of every other question"—in a word, to ask them to drop Socialism, is nothing less than betrayal. However, the betrayed have not been without warning. Since its inception the Socialist Party of Great Britain has frequently demonstrated Blatchford's worthlessness as a teacher of Socialism, and his culpability in misleading the workers. So in passing we may perhaps be allowed the mixed consolation afforded by the reflection that their idol's flagrant jingo and anti-Socialist attitude will, for some "Clarion" worshippers at least, have the effect of breaking their mental bonds and set them to reconsider their position.

Blatchford appeals to "the evidence of facts." But what facts? The facts that most nearly concern this and every other capitalist-dominated country? By no means. Had he dealt with the facts of working-class misery and enslavement—the hideous facts of the capitalism his pen is to-day helping to perpetuate—his screed would not have been printed in the "Daily Mail" nor in any other capitalist daily. Not by helping the toilers but by their betrayal could he gain prominence in immense type, and for many days in succession, on the placard of a great capitalist paper.

The fact is the the working millions are impoverished and subjugated, whether under the Kaiser and his German Rothschilds et al, or under Edward and his English Rothschilds & Co., and consequently have no business to offer their blood and interest for the war service of either set of bloodsuckers. This is unwittingly suggested for the British workers by Blatchford himself when he says: "I got back from Germany and I saw the wretchedness and squalor of the Borough and Bermondsey and the rest of London's underworld. You don't see anything like that in Germany and I thought to myself "Is this how we are preparing to fight for the existence of our empire? What use will these ragged, famished spectres be?" (Italics ours.) Indeed, this language invites the reflection that if such is the case, conquest by Germany might, then, mean an improvement here.

So, then, in view of the simple facts we must invite our readers to do all they can to counteract the evil works of capitalism's ally, Robert Blatchford. We invite them to join the Socialist Party of Great Britain and this help render impotent all the misleaders and their pay-masters, and bring nearer the day when a people's dreams shall no more be haunted by fear of famine, rapine, and the shambles.