Editorial: Tillett and Dublin. (1914)

Editorial from the January 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tillett and Dublin.

The “Daily Herald” has been left in the charge of Ben Tillett whilst George Lansbury has gone to the States (hunting for fresh finance, no doubt), and the paper has been full of denunciation of the trade union leaders. Ben Tillett, true to his reputation, has played two parts. One in the “Herald,” of Suffragettism and Sabotage, and another at the Conference of Labour leaders on Dublin. Sitting alongside the other misleaders of Labour he moved:

   “That this Conference deplores and condemns the unfair attacks made by men inside the Trade Union movement upon British Trade Union officials; it affirms its confidence in those officials who have been so unjustly assailed and its belief in their ability to negotiate an honourable settlement if assured of the effective support of all who are concerned in the Dublin dispute.”

Some of the rebels (!) are murmuring : “One damned leader in place of another!"

The painting trade is rather slack just now, otherwise Ben might have been in great demand as a whitewasher — look at the experience he has, had. Ask Bottomley.


Birds of a Feather.

Whilst Ben was defending Havelock Wilson, J. E Williams and others, some of whom Larkin accuses of “foul” and black conspiracy, it may be recalled that he is quite willing to sit with them as one of the governors of Ruskin College. Since Ben became one of the bosses, "Justice.” (of Ben’s party) has been silent about that organisation. Some day, no doubt, the “rebel” readers of the “Daily Herald” will realise how they were duped.

When the Omnibus trusts slaves were betrayed was it because of the advertising contract with the paper? Did the large advertising bill of Lipton’s overweight margarine cause the editor to practically ignore the supplying of rotten food for consumption by East End children? The paper just mentioned the fine.

Once upon a time the “Herald” bitterly attacked the Prudential. but shortly afterwards a four column advertisement appeared. Now that there is great unrest amongst the Prudential's slaves no mention of it is made in this “Labour” paper. Can Ben explain?


Socialist (!) Unity.

The International Socialist Bureau has convened meetings for the purpose of uniting the Independent Labour Party and the British Socialist Party. For our part we cannot see why they should not unite. Two parties composed of such similar anti Socialist elements should have linked up long ere this. Mr. H. M. Hyndman and Mr. Robert Blatchford will undoubtedly find many supporters for their “large Navy” proposals among the ranks of the Labour leaders. The condition of unity is that the B.S.P. shall join the Labour Party. That would be a very good thing from our point of view, for it would totally destroy the last tottering claim of the former organisation to be a Socialist body. The way would then be clearer for us of the Socialist Party, and therefore clearer and easier for the working class to follow to their historic goal — Socialism. '

The B.S.P’s advice to the workers to vote Tory has now been officially adopted by the I.LP , and Mr. Keir Hardie gloats over the help the Linlithgow branch recently afforded to the Tory candidate. This is sufficient for the day, of course, and no doubt when the Labour Party has scooped the B.S.P., and as the time for a General election draws nearer, the Liberal dog will rehabilitate itself in the estimation of its unified tail, even unto that most recalcitrant hair, H.M.H. provided, of course, that his services to the cause of anti-Socialist unity are properly rewarded by adoption for a safe Liberal constituency.

The Landlord's Paradise.

The sale of the Covent Garden estate by the Duke of Bedford for several million pounds to the well-known financial magnate and Tory M.P., Mr. Mallaby Deeley, disposes of all the Liberals’ claims as to bringing the land back to the people. So harmless are Lloyd George's taxes, and so empty his vote-catching vapourings, that this astute financial prince laughs at the very idea of the danger to property, and calmly ventures millions upon its stability—a safe enough guide for anybody.

But besides showing the utter fraud of the Liberal Land Campaign in a peculiarly convincing manner, the stupendous transaction is interesting for that it records the passing of the aristocratic property-owner as each, and the rising of the commercial king.

The Red Revolutionists (1914)

From the January 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

They have got a "Socialist" Government in power at the local Parliament down Thornton Heath way. The Prime Minister is a Mr. E. S. Evans of the I.L.P. This gentleman at the last General Election spoke for the Liberal candidate, as no Labour man was running. This, as will be readily guessed, supplies the key to the position. It might be expected that the King's Speech, as presented by such a government as would be scraped together by a Socialist (!) of this type, would be in no vital principle different from one that King George himself, with Queen Mary at his elbow to keep him from losing himself in the abstract speculation as to what the contents of the ink-bottle would taste like, might draft if the business had not been taken out of his hands.

The "revolutionary" Cabinet state in their "King's Speech" that: "Widespread dissatisfaction with the working of the Insurance Act serves to show that philanthropic intentions are of less value than the careful application of scientific knowledge." Great Scot! Liberal legislation based on "philanthropic intentions"! This is what blindness to the class struggle brings one to. When the Liberals apply with quite uncanny care, more scientific knowledge than there is room for in the fat heads of these I.L.P. wights, to the task of giving the workers 4d. for 9d., the latter think they meant to give 9d. for 4d., and say that they have failed because their "hearts" were better than their "heads."

Is it out of the plenitude of their I.L.P. experience, though, that they assert that the "funds at the disposal of political organisations are a prolific source of corruption"?

Nothing more revolutionary than "nationalised production of armaments" is even hinted at in the speech and it might have been quite epoch marking in its way. The Secretary for Home Affairs, Scotland and Ireland is a Mr. T. Irving, who left the I.L.P. because it wasn't revolutionary enough. This gentleman ran for the local Council last November, and a leaflet he issued then bore the proposal that, inserted in the Speech, would have made the walls of capitalism quake. It is "Grow your own vegetables."

A. E. Jacomb