Aphorisms of Socialism [II.] (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Being an explanation of the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B.

Aphorism II.

In society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.

We saw, in considering our first aphorism, that society is divided into two classes – a class of sellers of labour-power and a class of buyers of labour-power. This division was seen to arise from the class-ownership of the means of life – those who do not possess being compelled to sell their labour-power to those who do.

This sale and purchase of labour-power resolves those who possess into non-producers and those who do not possess into producers.

Hence we have, in the terms of our second aphorism, a class “who possess but do not produce,” and a class “who produce but do not possess.”

The proposition is that between these two classes in society there is an antagonism of interests manifesting itself as a class struggle.

The very nature of selling and buying presupposes opposing interests. While sales, in the long run, are exchanges of equal values, individually they are not necessarily so. A given class or grade of goods may at one time be selling above, and at another time below, its value. In these cases the sales are not exchanges of equal values. But eventually the high and the low prices cancel each other, and so the result is arrived at that sales, in the long run, are exchanges of equal values.

The reason, if course, of this fluctuation of prices, is that their adjustment is left to the forces of competition.

It is clear that, since commodities, as such, are insensate, and have no will power to fight their own battles, it is in reality their owners who must stand in opposition to one another. It is they who resist the forces of competition when those forces are against them, and use them to their utmost capacity when they are in their favour.

It is only by this continual struggle of buyers and sellers against one another – the former to buy as cheaply as they can, the latter to sell for the highest possible figure – that prices rise and fall. Without this struggle we cannot imagine prices falling when goods are plentiful by comparison with demand, and rising when the reverse condition obtains.

This struggle, presupposed by the competitive exchange of goods which we call buying and selling, can only arise out of opposing and conflicting interests. Therefore the sale presupposes the struggle ; the struggle presupposes antagonism of interests.

Without the last, then we cannot have the first, and where the first (buying and selling) is found, there antagonism of interests must inevitably exist.

So when we show that society is divided into two classes, one of which has no means of livelihood other than selling its labour-power to the other, we have no option but to conclude that there is antagonism of interests between those classes.

Let us look at it another way. The struggle is over the possession of the product of the workers’ toil. Whatever this product may amount to, and whatever form it may take, this fact concerning it remains constant : the more of it that is taken by the producer the less there remains for the non-producer, and the larger the portion taken by the non-producer the smaller must be the amount remaining for the producer.

In such case neither side can prosecute its own interest without detriment to the interest of the other, and hence again we find that “in society there is an antagonism of interests between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess.”

In the case of buyers and sellers of ordinary commodities, that is, of the products of labour, this antagonism of interests cannot manifest itself as a class struggle, because there is no class distinction between buyers and sellers as buyers and sellers. That which draws the class line between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess is not the fact that the one does not produce and the other does, or that the one buys labour-power and the other sells it. It is the fact that the one possesses the means of life and the other does not.

As a matter of fact, buyers and sellers in the ordinary commodities market cannot be separated into classes as such, for every buyer becomes a seller in his turn. So the antagonistic interests, here, can only manifest themselves in a series of struggles between individuals or groups of individuals.

On the other hand, in the labour market the buyers and sellers are only such because of the class distinction. There, buyers and sellers are by this very fact separate classes. The seller only becomes a buyer by becoming a possessor and so passing into the other class, and the buyer only becomes a seller by becoming dispossessed and so being precipitated into the propertyless class. And this changing about is comparatively rare in the latter case and extremely rare in the former.

In these circumstances, then, whatever may be the differences between individual workers as competitors for the sale of labour-power, and between non-producers as competitors in the purchase of labour-power, the two classes, as long as they exist as such, must always be opposed to each other as buyers and sellers.

The breach between the individuals of the same class may to some extent be closed, for it is largely a superficial breach. It has been said that the more one class takes of the product of labour the less falls to the lot of the other class. This means that class interests must be antagonistic. Between individuals of the same class, no such thing is true. One worker does not necessarily get less because another gets more, nor does the increased share of one capitalist necessarily leave less for another. The capitalist does not ordinarily increase his wealth by taking away from his fellow capitalist, but by subtracting from the worker.

The sectional interests, therefore, differ from class interests in this, that though they are often antagonistic, they are not fundamentally so. The class interests, on the contrary, are fundamental and must inevitably clash.

As further urging the point, it is recognised among both classes that the conflicting interests of sections may be reconciled to some extent by substituting combination for competition. Hence we have rings, trusts, combines, mergers and associations on the capitalists’ side, and trade unions on the workers’ side.

The conflict of sectional interests, then, since these interests are sectional, can only manifest itself as sectional struggles; but the antagonism of class interests must, from its class nature, exhibit itself in the form of a struggle between the classes.

This class struggle is not fought out with the same degree of consciousness at all times, for which reason it does not at all times wear the same aspect. In the earlier days of the capitalist system its nature was masked. There did not exist the same clear line of distinction between the two classes. Men were unconscious of the secrets of capitalist production, and therefore could not realise the irreconcilable antagonism of interests between the classes in society.

The reasons for this are many, but they all have one foot upon the same stone : the stage of development of the means and instruments for producing wealth.

Thus these means and instruments had not then reached the giant proportions and stupendous costliness which forbid the worker ever hoping to become possessors of them and so lifting themselves into the class above. Such uprising on the part of individual workers was in the early days of capitalism so common an occurrence as to largely obscure the class struggle, and it is quite conceivable that men could not easily discern a class barrier which was so easily surmounted, or regard as a class apart that circle which was every day being invaded by members of their own class.

Again, there were not such extremes of riches and poverty to impress the incongruity of the wealth distribution on the minds of the victims of a vicious system. The productivity of labour was comparatively low, and for that reason the share taken by the producer and the non-producer respectively was not as glaringly disproportionate as to compel thought.

And still again, the development of the system had not yet reached that level at which it sets the owner of the productive wealth free from any participation in their operation. The rise and development of joint stock companies have had the effect of largely banishing the owners of the means of production from the arena of production. Their personal command over their productive wealth has given place to personal command over their stocks and shares. They are so far removed from production that they cannot possibly be supposed to have a hand in it. But the earlier capitalists, from their closer connection with industrial operations, never appeared to stand in the position of superfluities. Their co-operation seemed to be a necessary part of the productive operation, and therefore the share they took of the product did not appear as surplus-value plundered from the workers, but as wealth which the masters had assisted in producing.

These things prevented the working class from realising that they were the producers of all wealth, that the capitalist class were parasitic, existing upon the robbery of the workers, and that there was an irreconcilable antagonism of interest between the two classes and therefore a class struggle. So the struggle was fought out without any great conscious direction.

But the development of the means and instruments of production, and the consequent and attendant development of the methods of production, have stripped the capitalist system of most of its secrets. Men cannot let go unchallenged for ever a system in which an astounding increase in the productivity of human energy accompanies the appalling poverty of those who carry on production. Men cannot observe without thinking the growing detachment from industry, the heaping wealth and luxury, the increasing idleness and uselessness, of those who own the means whereby they live. Men cannot witness without rising knowledge of the class division, the strengthening of the barrier which shuts them ever more completely out from the circle of luxury, leisure and comfort which increasingly mock their poverty and insecurity and the hopeless futility of all their weary labour. Men cannot see the forces of competition harrying all into combinations and organisations, but always, always, organisations and combinations of masters and men apart, of masters and men opposed — men cannot see without a dawning of light, a conception of the class struggle, a strengthening of class feeling, and the birth and uprising of a new understanding and principle to guide and direct the class struggle. In other words, the development of the capitalist system itself gathers up all the scattered, inarticulate forces fighting a ragged battle which they only half understand, and welds them into a solid army prosecuting an ordered struggle for a clear and definite purpose – the industrial development, in short, makes the Socialist and the Socialist movement.

So the class struggle, as time goes on, assumes a different aspect, in strict correspondence with the changing visage of capitalism. When the capitalist class stood as revolutionaries before the capitalist system, their victory was essential to further progress, and therefore was good for the race in the long run. But immediately they had overthrown the reactionary system of the period and established a new system, that system in its turn, and the class who ruled under it, became reactionary.

And as this reactionary character has become more pronounced, as the system and the class have become a greater clog to progress and more fruitful of social injury, so the character of the class struggle has become more revolutionary. While the fight for the possession of the wealth produced under the system is not less bitterly maintained, the class struggle finds its highest expression in the movement for the overthrow of the capitalist system of society, with its antagonism of interests, and the emancipation of the working class from thraldom.

This, then, is the true meaning of our statement that there exists a class struggle in society. It is a struggle on the one side to maintain and on the other side to abolish a social system.

A. E. Jacomb

Nods to the Blind . . . . (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 15th of the present month that famous scientific scheme of exploitation known as the National Insurance Act will come into operation. Most of its objections having been “overcome,” it only remains to apply the “technical adjustments,” then will the much-to-be-envied working class enjoy the fruits of “one of the greatest Socialistic measures that has ever been placed before the House,” as one Labour faker has it.

As to who will ultimately benefit by this “Socialistic” measure, it needs very little analysing to show. It will be the employing class and not the workers. In fact this is admitted, as one will find on reading the daily papers. Here is an instance. At the annual meeting of Messrs. Wilkins, fruit growers and preservers, Tiptree Heath, Essex, held in April, the announcement was made that the firm had decided to pay the whole of the contributions of the workpeople under the National Insurance Act. It was stated that this action would cost the firm £300 a year, but the directors considered they would be well repaid by the increased efficiency of their employees !

Both the I.L.P. and the Labour Party claim credit for having forced this “Socialistic” piece of legislation. If these parties are anxious to take the credit for having helped to impose a fraudulent Act upon the working class, then, I say, by all means let ’em have it !

* * *

At the time of writing these notes the transport workers’ strike is in a very precarious condition. As one followed the various phases one could not help being struck by the pitiful helplessness of the whole thing. The sudden order to “down tools” ; the hasty joining together of forces ; the procession of 100,000 men to demonstrate the “omnipotent power” of the workers ; the impassioned harangues of the “leaders” ; the negotiation that led to nothing ; the intervention of the Government; the stinging rebuff by the masters ; the final surrender of the strike leaders by offering to provide a monetary guarantee of their good behaviour if only they were permitted to return to work: all these go to show the utter futility of the versatile tactics of Tillett & Co. So long as the workers both inside and outside of the unions are led by the nose from one position to another and back again, so long will it spell disaster for them. Having regard to the increasing strength of the employers’ combinations, it follows that the workers will have to take a clearer and more comprehensive view of their position.

* * *

Sir E. Clarke was compelled to admit during the course of the negotiations that, whereas the men had broken agreements on two points—apparently through a misunderstanding—the masters had deliberately broken agreements on five points, and made a profit out of it !

He might have added that the masters will continue to make agreements, and break them as fast as they are made.

* * *

The hostility of the master class is directed against trade unionism, not because of its present ineffective policy, but because of the ultimate possibility of it becoming politically enlightened through the permeation in its ranks of class-conscious, revolutionary Socialism. The master class are already class conscious—that is, conscious of the interest of their class—and they will resist to the utmost any encroachment upon their privileges. Hence their fierce endeavour to crush all attempts at working-class organisation. Such attitude is exemplified in a speech, made by Dr. Harrison, J.P., at Garstang (5.6.12). In dealing with the Transport Workers strike he is reported to have said :

“I would use the police to the utmost limit and if they were not enough I would employ the armed forces of the Crown to shoot down the peaceful picketers like dogs ” !

There is a brutal frankness about it which should not be lost upon the workers. It is not surprising as it is typical of the class whose representative and mouthpiece he is. All the same it is useful in that it helps to point out what the S.P.G.B. has consistently pointed out for years,—that there can be no compromise or conciliation between the two classes—that it is war to the death.

* * *

Replying to Mr. H. G. Wells apropos of his article on “What Labour Wants” (quoted “Daily News” 5.6.12.), Mr. John Ward, MP remarks: “I am bound to say that I have never in all my experience met with any evidence of jealousy on the part of the working classes in reference to the employment (!) of the wealthy. All the elaborate pictures of envy, hatred, and uncharitableness are practically the outcome of the imagination. In their special way the working people get as much pleasure out of life as the wealthier classes.”

Of course they do ! The pleasure is all theirs, John. And believe me, they haven’t a bit of thought for the rich. Look what ingratitude they show when the rich come along and offer to share their profits with them, or take them into partnership. It really isn’t good enough John, and I’m glad you’ve had the courage to speak your mind. Look at the fun they’ve been having just lately—going on strike, fighting inoffensive bobbies, upsetting the equilibrium of trade, in fact, playing the very devil generally. Of course, it’s all a part of their pleasure “in their special way.” When they are not having fun of this description I suppose they are busy with motor-cars, their yachting trips and their racing stables, which they quite overlook the cares and responsibilities that the unfortunate rich are compelled to undergo. You see, John, the question of what to do with their income is such a serious one, they haven’t time to spare a thought for anyone but themselves. Selfishness, of course. But the time is coming, John, when the rich will be relieved of their “employment” and its consequent anxieties and responsibilities, and given a rest. In fact, I believe the need for them will be abolished altogether. So you can console yourself, John, with the thought that their woes will soon be over. I can assure you they’ll get all that’s coming to them.

* * *

An amusing feature of the recent bye-election in the Holmfirth Division was the similarity of the election addresses of the Liberal and the Labour candidates—both standing for practically the same thing. Amusement gives way to disgust, however, when we reflect that the Labour candidate was ostensibly there in the interest of the working class. But experience of this type of political representation only shows that it is the Liberals that they really represent and whose interests they serve.

Some of the items included in the programs were Home Rule, Free Trade, Welsh Disestablishment, no taxes on foodstuffs, Adult Suffrage and Nationalisation of Mines—none of which can affect the worker’s position, except, perhaps, to make it worse.

Unfortunately it is still possible to capture a large portion of the working-class vote by the dissemination of this labour-faking rubbish. Spread the light !

* * *

Owing to the monopoly by about two companies of the petrol supply of this country the price of petrol has risen 50 per cent. in twelve months, with the result that the small dealers and consumers are in a state of “unrest.” Various schemes have been suggested in order to prevent the big robbers from taking too much plunder. The “Autocar” suggests the question of petrol production “is now a matter of national importance and should therefore be undertaken by the nation.” The “Daily Mail” (11.6.12) says : “Even if it meant going into production, refining, transport, and distribution is not the great body of motorists rich enough to do this for its own profit ?”

The chameleon like “Daily Herald” refers to it editorially as “the latest trend towards Socialism,” but to me it seems only to show that when the interests of one section of the buccaneering class are threatened by another, they are prepared to adopt co-operation, nationalisation, or any other proposition providing only that it pays.

* * *

In the biography of the late King Edward by Sir Sidney See, just issued, there occurs the following passage:

“King Edward cannot be credited with the greatness that comes of Statesmanship and makes for the moulding of history. Neither the Constitutional checks on his power nor his discursive tastes and training left him much opportunity for influencing political affairs. No originating faculty can be assigned to him. For the most part he stood with Constitutional correctness aloof from the political arena at home. On questions involving large principles he held no very definite views. He preferred things to remain as they were. … A man of the world he lacked the intellectual equipment of a thinker, and showed on occasion an unwillingness to exert his mental powers.”

Yet this is the person whom Blatchford—on the occasion of his eulogy of King Edward VII. (“Clarion” 20.5.10)—had in mind when he said the nation needed a man !

* * *

At the recent conference of the Church Socialist League at Bristol a delegate defined Socialism as “the economics of God” ! Shade of Marx ! I always did think their policy was of the “Ignis fatuus” order !

Father Bernard Vaughan laments that under Socialism “there wouldn’t be enough money to go round.” The inference, of course, being that under the present beautiful system there is enough to go round. Well, I daresay there is, but it doesn’t go round. It doesn’t get the chance. The robbers are there first. Hence the priests and other parasites.

* * *

F. E. Smith, K.C., in the June number of the “Oxford and Cambridge Review,” bluntly admits that he has never believed that Tariff Reform would remedy present day evils. Neither have we.

Tom Sala

Asked & Answered: Two false statements and a conundrum. (1912)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Two false statements and a conundrum.

[To the editor.]

Nottingham, May 21, 1912.

Sir,—Arising out of your reply to my question in the last issue, there is just one point I should be pleased if you will make clear.

In the article entitled “The Socialist and Trade Unionism” the writer clearly shows that the functions of the political and economic organisations are distinct and separate.

Now according to your Declaration of Principles the S.P.G.B. is a purely political party, since the aim is the expropriation of the capitalist class from political power in order to establish Socialism.

I should like to know how by merely taking economic action it constitutes it an economic organisation ?

L. Shearstone.

Reply:

The writer of the article you refer to tried to make clear that the functions of the present economic organisations—the trade unions—and the political organisation of the workers—the Socialist Party—are different. That he failed to make this clear is probably due to the fact that he developed what he calls his “style” by studying a burr-walnut piano case in foggy weather. But try and get the sentence with which we explain his intention well soaked in and fast dyed.

What you say about our Declaration of Principles seems to indicate that you have been studying it in foggy weather, so there’s a pair of you. The aim of the S.P.G.B. is its Object, and its Object is clearly stated above the principles. Do you mind reading it, Mr. Shearstone ? Thank you. Now if, as you seem to think, the character of an organisation is determined by its aim or object, have you still the “neck” to say that a party with such an essentially economic object is a “purely” political party ?

With regard to the question with which you close your communication, you must explain yourself more fully. Since we buried our tame thought-reader we have been rather at a loss in dealing with whydiddles.

Editorial Committee.

Asked & Answered: More questions about our position. (1912)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

More questions about our position.

E. J. Higgins (Philadelphia) asks the following questions arising out of our answers to his questions in our May issue.

(1) —“Wherein is the wideness and advantage for revolutionary purposes of the platform of Parliament? Are you assuming that the capitalist Press would publish your speeches?

(Answer.) We know that the Press to-day is carried on for profit and for profit only ; and if anything furthers the sale of their papers they will publish it. We know from past experience how sensational they consider speeches of revolutionists and the prominence they give them, hoping, very often, to frighten the non-Socialist workers by accentuating the “extreme” nature of the speeches published. But if they were to change their tactics and engage in a conspiracy of silence, we should win all the same. The fact that no reference to Socialist members’ speeches appeared would sooner or later raise in the minds of the exploited the question : “Why this silence?” The very silence itself would be eloquent and cause workers to seek for themselves in the proletarian Press the speeches delivered, thus bringing more toilers into our camp. The danger of silence would soon alter our masters’ tactics, though, of course, whichever way they turned they would be but marching toward their graves. In fact, by reporting the speeches delivered in opposition to our members they could not help referring to our point of view.

(2) “Do you hold that the State which so long as the workers are disorganised on the industrial field must fulfil its real function as an engine of repression—do you hold that your ‘advance guard’ will be able to turn an engine of repression into an engine of emancipation? ‘Will the capitalists let you do this?”

(Answer.) The implication that the repressive functions of the State cease with economic organisation is opposed to history and every-day experience. Organise how and to what extent you like and the repression continues. We claim that the political machinery can be used by the toilers to control the armed forces and thereby give the workers power to enter into the ownership of the land, factories, railways, etc. The point as to whether our masters will allow the toilers to do it begs the question of their power to stop it.

The masters depend upon the political power put into their hands by the votes of the workers, and when the flux of time, with its influence upon the toilers’ minds, puts into power the working class through its delegates, then the masters face defeat, for the power over the supplies for and the movements of the armed force passes into the hands of the working class. You may say that the masters ere this will destroy constitutional government, but when they do that they commit suicide. Under the naked despotism and barbaric rule of governments without a Parliament and a Constitution, the smooth working of trade and commerce is impossible. Mexico is a good example of this.

(3) “Is it your opinion that the capitalists are looking for pretexts to make the State fulfil its function as an engine of repression; that they are concerned with our method of expropriating them and will not bother so long as we are doing the expropriating ‘peacefully,’ or as the little pope of the S.L.P. would say, in a ‘civilised manner’ ?”

(Answer.) Socialism can only come by the consent of the working class, that is, at least a majority of them. If we neglect the present institutions and fly off to “violence” we do provide our masters with arguments whereby they can retain the support of our fellows. By showing that we refuse to try the Constitutional means first we are branded as “Terrorists” in the minds of the toilers. Thus the coming of Socialism is retarded. If, on the other hand, we are willing to try political action, then the blame is upon our masters should they attempt to repudiate and destroy their own machinery of government. Not only do they outrage those who sympathise with our aims but all others of our class as well. Hence.—Nemesis !

Adolph Kohn

Editorial: The “Reform Bill”. (1912)

Editorial from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

After long years of promise the Liberal Party have drawn up a Suffrage Reform Bill. With a long sham fight about “Home Rule” and “Welsh Disestablishment” in front of them, the measure seems to have had its last and first reading.

Although a majority of the Liberal Members of Parliament have “won” their seats by reason of their sympathy (real or feigned) with “Woman Suffrage”, that proposition is left entirely out of the Bill! Many of the Liberal employer M.P.’s are now opposing female franchise on the grounds of “unfitness”, calmly ignoring the fact of the millions who are “fit” enough to make huge fortunes for Liberal masters in the factories and mills. But such hypocrisy is in keeping with Liberal traditions!

The fraud of the Bill, though, is plainly shown in its fancy franchise for men. According to Mr. McKenna himself in his introductory speech, the total number of males over 21 in the United Kingdom is 12,032,000. The number of voters at present is 7,409,986, and of the 4½ millions would remain he computes that about half will be entitled to vote.

The measure stipulates for an eight month’s residential or occupational qualification – that is, you must be at an address from December 25th to August 1st.

If the Liberals were in earnest even about this question of suffrage they could quite easily have given a vote to every man instead of leaving 2½ millions out in the cold. The long residential conditions in these days of a drifting working class, make it result that those who, because of deepening destitution, need a voice most are deprived of a vote.

Another typically peculiar Liberal decision is that their Reform Bill only applies to Parliamentary elections, not to those concerning local bodies.

The bill is essentially and undisputably a mere shop window affair. It is drawn up and announced for the specific purpose of enabling its authors, the Liberal party, to win bye-elections. The prevailing “labour unrest” and the only-to-be-expected, but nevertheless dirty and despicable part played therein by the Government is slowly but surely making many working men to doubt their so-called Liberal friends, and this latest Liberal fraud is brought in in order to make a fresh show of democracy – and this in spite of the fact that the rich man, in accordance with the capitalist commandment, is always more sure of his vote than is his “poor brother”.

The suffrage for women, too, seems to have been left out of this Government measure in the hope that will help to keep the fires of controversy burning – and perhaps to sufficient effect as to cremate the Bill.

One way or another we are no deeply interested parties. We know that Socialism includes democracy, and can only come when a majority of the working class voice their will and desire in favour of it. But this Bill does not provide the democracy which is to be such a vital part of Socialism. Already Liberals and Tories alike have spoken about all kinds of amendments making even more fanciful the paltry provisions of the measure. We have seen very often the difference between the first appearance and the final form of Government Bills. The Shop Act was boomed as a sixty hour Bill, but when Liberal and Tory shopowners had completed their dirty work the sixty hour clause was as dead as a “Labour” leader’s conscience, and instead it provided that those under eighteen could not be employed more than seventy-four hours a week. Those over that age could be worked as many hours as the profit-grinders desired!

To us as Socialists the vote itself is not the thing. Millions of working men have had the vote for forty years, but lacking knowledge of how to use it in their own interest, they have steadily voted their masters into power; voted the continuance of the system that keeps them poor.

We know that there are enough working-class voters to-day to defeat the capitalist class – but it wants intelligence behind the vote. Our work, therefore, is to convert the workers from supporters of capitalism into fighters for Socialism. And as the vote is extended by our masters, pushed by the development of their system, so, too, our work will still be needed, for the workers, voters and non-voters alike, to-day are against Socialism.

We are not advocating reform, whether Reform Bills or Adult Suffrage. We want to enlist a membership for Socialism, to build up a party of men and women who realise Socialism to be their only hope. When the Revolutionists are strong enough to elect one of themselves to Parliament, then he will have behind him a solid body of men and women who mean Revolution. He will voice their interests, expose the bunkum bills of the workers’ enemies, and drive home the Socialist position upon every question that arises. He will occupy his seat wholly as a fighter for Socialism, and will regard all his activities from the standpoint of their helpfulness to the speeding of Socialism.

Hence, although we are necessarily and without any qualification democrats, we do not, and never have, and never will, support such swindles upon the working class as the Liberal Reform Bill.

Not Taking Any, Thanks! (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following, we think, sufficiently explains itself

MALATESTA RELEASE COMMITTEE.

London, W., June 14, 1912.

Dear Comrade,—At a meeting of the above on the 13th inst., it was unanimously agreed that your party should be asked to send a delegate to join and co-operate with us, in order that this committee should be as representative as possible of all those who are in sympathy with the objects of this committee.

We are resolved to carry on this agitation on a wider scale and are assured of the support of prominent men, including M.P.’s and other influential people.

Awaiting your favourable reply,

Yours fraternally, 

(Signed) J. F. Tanner, Hon. Sec.

#    #    #    #

Mr. J. F. Tanner.

MALATESTA RELEASE COMMITTEE.

Sir, –Your letter inviting the Socialist Party of Great Britain to send a Delegate to co-operate with your committee was duly placed before my Executive, who instructed me to inform you that The Socialist Party declines to join with working-class enemies for any purpose whatever, and that therefore your invitation is declined.

Your Mr. Malatesta, if a victim at all, is but a victim of the system both he and you do your best to maintain by the spreading of confusion in the minds of the working class. Your whining for mercy, therefore, savours even more of the hypocrite than of the coward, while your “Demand” for release is grotesque.

That your committee should have entertained the idea (even for a moment) that the Socialist Party could be seduced from its allegiance to the working-class by the glamour of temporarily associating with “prominent men including M.P.’s and other influential people” shows not only how woefully you have miscalculated the moral strength and integrity of the Socialist Party, but also the cant, humbug, and mental debasement of the ultra-revolutionists—the Anarchists—the anti-political giants who yet can be got to glory in the prospect of associating with “M.P.’s and other influential people.”

In the interests of the working class we decline your invitation and say “Down with Anarchy ! Long live Socialism !”

On behalf of the Executive of

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

C. L. Cox, Gen. Sec. pro. tem.

Jottings. (1912)

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

Councillor W. C. Anderson, presiding over the I.L.P. conference at Merthyr Tydfil, is reported to have said : ‘‘Social justice is not compatible with private ownership of land and industrial capital "

Seeing that capital is the exploiting form of wealth, and that the capitalist is capital personified, I should like to know from Mr Anderson how that ‘‘social justice” he prates of is going to come about by the exploiting form of wealth merely changing ownership and not being abolished. There is “industrial capital” under State ownership (the only form of ownership in which it can exist other than private ownership) in the State railways of various countries Mr. Anderson may have heard of, even if he has never visited. Let him give us an instance where the workers have obtained “social justice," and I will show that his conception of “social justice” includes exploitation.

#    #    #    #

Mr. J. Burgess (Bradford) said at the same conference that there was “nothing in the Parliamentary Report of the Party to show that the I.L.P. was a Socialist organisation.”

I wonder what Mr. Burgess wanted? Did be want the Parliamentary Report to lie by stating something that was not and is not true? For shame, Mr. Burgess!

#    #    #    #

Mr. George Lansbury passed through a fit of paralysing candour at the I.L.P. conference. He said: -

  “When the vote on the Akbar incident was taken the Labour whips were running about scooping their members up for fear anything should happen to the Government. I, for one, have always felt ashamed of the vote I gave on that occasion.”

Mr. Lansbury, like the old bird he is in the game of spoof, is wide enough to appreciate the value of the sack-cloth and ashes dodge among such a conglomeration of sentimentalists as the I.L.P. But the old what-d’yer-call-him has the brazen effrontery to call himself a Socialist, which essentially implies internationalism. Then how’s this, from the report of the Parliamentary proceedings of May 21st ?

Mr. A. Shirley Benn (U , Plymouth) “thought the time had come when the great shipping industry should have one Government department devoting all its attention to maritime affairs. He would like to see every ship flying the British flag manned with British officers.”
Mr. Lansbury: “ And men.”

More sack-cloth and ashes for Mr. Lansbury.

#    #    #    #

The mission of the B.S.P., as outlined in their organ, “Justice,” June 1st, 1912, and defined at their recent conference, is “to give political voice and vision to the blind and inarticulate discontent of the workers ; to bring their political organisation at least abreast of their industrial, so that they will not continue to vote into power the very men whose class greed they are continually forced to strike against."

The italics are mine.

It was only provisionally, then, that they advised the workers to vote for the Liberals at the St. Rollox and East Northants bye-elections.

#    #    #    #

According to “Justice” (1.6.12) Mr. H. M. Hyndman, in his presidential address to the B.S.P. conference said:

 “Though the British Socialist Party was a definitely revolutionary organisation, he took it there was not a single delegate there but would hold up both hands and use his best energies to secure forthwith the Free Maintenance of Children, the Co-operative Organisation of Unemployed Labour, the Minimum Wage in all industries, and the Eight Hours Law, for which Socialists have agitated continually for a full generation. Such measures properly used were stepping stones to peaceful revolution.”

Here I might say that to properly use the measures presupposes possession of political power by the working class, which dispenses with their necessity. But the above extract was uttered on the Saturday morning; hear him now on the Monday evening, as reported by the “Manchester Guardian ” (28.5.12.):

  “The capitalist parties seemed to have pretty nearly exhausted the possibilities of blundering. There was not a measure before the country, from either of the political parties to-day, which, if carried into effect to morrow, would benefit the men, women and children of this country to any appreciable degree.”

There you are, Hyndman on Saturday and Hyndman on Monday. Which is the Hyndman and which the behindman, eh ? Why, me little man, yer pays yer money and yer takes yer choice. It’s the same H. M. H., only he has such a bad memory.

#    #    #    #

It has been stated previously by Socialists and is here repeated, that Capitalism knows no national boundaries, that labour is the source of all value, and that to economise in labour-power with as great or greater output is the very acme of efficiency.

That has been stated by opponents of the existing system of production for profit. Hear now a witness for the defence, an upholder of the present capitalist system. Sir Alfred Mond is the witness, and on the matter of establishing better relations betwixt Germany and England he delivered himself thus in "Nord und Sued”:

   “In all countries the great world of commerce knows no national bounds and tolerates no interference with its labour by such limitations. The cohesion of the various parts of the business world is more one by industries than by nationalities. The relations between the captains of industry of all countries are getting more friendly every day, and exhibit a growing mutual respect and inclination to co operate on a labour-saving basis.” (Italics mine.)

That phrase “captains of industry” seems familiar—or at least its definition does. It is alluded to by Karl Marx in the XIII. chapter of “Capital” thus:

  “It is not because he is a leader in industry that a man is a capitalist. The leadership of industry is an attribute of capital, just as in feudal times the functions of general and judge were attributes of landed property.”

Stand down, Mond, the Socialist case has been well upheld by you.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Andrew Carnegie in his rectorial address to the Aberdeen University students said: “Youths should have a decisive voice, if possible, in the selection of their future occupation.”

There is another thing he might have advised them to do, viz, choose their own parents. If they did what large families the Carnegies, Rockefellers, Goulds, and Morgans would have! Why, no poor man could have any children at all, unless some foolish young man chose a labourer on 16s. a week to be his father.

#    #    #    #

The question of leaders and their actions commented upon and replied to in the last issue of the “S.S.” recalls to mind the case of Mr. Havelock Wilson (Seamen’s Union). This leader stood as candidate at South Shields bye-election in 1910. He then spoke against the action of the Board of Trade in raising the load-line of British ships and thus imperiling to a greater degree than formerly seamen’s lives and permitting an increased tonnage to be carried in the same ships. That was as candidate for Parliament. But the evidence given on June 11th, 1912, before the Commissioner of Wrecks (Lord Mersey) by Mr. A. M. Carlisle was to the effect that Mr. Wilson had signed the report of the Board of Trade Advisory Committee of 1911. This report’s recommendations would have involved the “Titanic” carrying even fewer lifeboats than she did. And of such is the kingdom of labour leaders.

#    #    #    #

Methought the enquiry being held in London under Lord Mersey was to investigate the circumstauces of the lose of the “Titanic” and to fix the responsibility for the disaster. It appears not to be so, however, judging from the following passage, taken from the evidence given on June 6th:

Mr. Sanderson (White Star manager): "I understand that the purpose of this commission is to find out how we are to reduce those risks (i.e., incidental to sea travel) to an absolute minimum.” Lord Mersey : “That is quite true.”

 #    #    #    #

All our judicial and semi judicial enquiries are above suspicion of being impartial. The “Titanic” enquiry shows this to great advantage in the following comment of Lord Mersey : 

Lord Mersey (to Mr. Harbinson, counsel for third class passengers, who had asked whether the captain in handing in a Marconigram to Mr. Ismay was inviting an expression of opinion as to what the vessel’s speed should be):—“When you come to address the Court—if ever you do—I don’t know whether we shall ever reach the time to make your speech—you may make such a comment to me, but at present yon must confine yourself to facts.”

Even the third class passengers’ counsel can make a speech commenting upon a steamship director—if there’s time!

J. B.

The Summer of Our Discontent. (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the parasitic pandemonium known as the Loudon Season is with us, and London is overflowing with wealthy and titled savages with their painted and bejewelled squaws. In the morning those who are able to shake off the effects of the previous night’s debauch may be seen taking a canter in Rotten Row, in order to prepare themselves for the revels of the day and the orgies of the coming night. And so they go on till Ascot, Goodwood, Eton and Harrow, and Henley are past—and then to the moors to recoup.

All this is so well known to the average working man and woman as to be scarcely worth the mentioning by a Socialist were it not for the fact that the crowding of the great metropolis by these savages veneered and French polished, is an additional source of misery and anxiety to thousands of men, women and children of the working class. While thousands are harder driven, sweated, and over worked in ministering to the whims and fancies of these idle, good-for-nothings, thousands of others are thrown out of employment throughout the whole of June and July as a result of it.

Notable among the last are the men engaged in the building trade, especially the painters and decorators. Woe betide the luckless skib who finds himself in London after Whitsuntide without a job, for little short of a miracle will save him two months fruitless search. Indeed, these summer months are often worse than the dead of winter for the painter. Thousands of unthinking people are totally at a loss to understand this. Yet the explanation is very simple.

During the early spring the wealthy have been away at their country residences whilst the painter has been busy cleansing and renovating the London haunts of these lice of the social system, and now their return to town makes the painter workless for two mouths. His only chance is to get away into the country.

But this must be speedily done, or the luckless wight will find himself crowded out.

Unionist or non-unionist it makes no difference. Though he does right to organise to keep up the price of his labour power, all the trade-union organisation in the world is powerless to create an efficient demand for his commodity. In the words of Mr. Haldane, when deputations from Enfield and Woolwich waited upon him to remind him of the promise he gave before the election that discharges should not take place below a certain minimum : “If the work is not there for you we cannot create it.”

Though as a rule the painter is very slow to recognise economic law, he, nevertheless, conforms to it, and seeing there is no demand for his services in London, he betakes himself to where he thinks there is a chance of a job. But there is little certainty about it, as he finds to his cost. Hence he is forced to lower the price of his commodity.

Suppose he goes to Bournemouth. The trade union rate there is 7½d., but our friend takes less by reason of the good old Free Trade fact that his cost of living has gone up. For he has his railway fare to pay, and probably two homes to keep. This goes to show that these annual migrations of workers increase the profits of the master class, while the workmen sacrifice their home comforts and at the same time get a lower wage.

If these were the only circumstances in which the painter's wages can be reduced it might pass, but let us look closer and see what reason he has got to support the capitalist system.

The trade union rate in London is 9d. per hour, but does he get it? Not a bit of it! Everyone in the trade knows that the period in the year over which men are employed has been decreasing for some years until to-day he is a lucky man who gets seven or eight months work in the year. Nominally wages are 9d. Actually they are about 4½d. by reason of the ever-decreasing period of time over which the men are employed. So notorious has this state of things become that when seeking apartments the wives of the men in many instances are compelled to conceal the occupation of their husbands, since to tell the truth would result in refusal of shelter.

The machine, in spite of many attempts, has failed to work the havoc in this trade that it has in many, but where the machine has failed the clock has succeeded. Scamping methods and the insidious inducements held out to the men in charge by the masters, quicken the pace. Preparative work is a thing of the past; pumice, once so prominent in the trade, is now only brought on the job from force of habit, and is seldom used.

Thus it is not necessary for the master class to attack a standard rate of wages in order to reduce wages. This can be done quite as effectively by other means.

One of the saddest features of the whole sad business is the position of the older men. Craftsmen of the old school, their skill, acquired by years of patient toil, is to-day worth as little to them as their indentures are.

For years they jogged along fairly comfortably, until the Taff Vale and Quinn v. Leathern decision, when many of the unions went in for political action. This paved the way to pelf and place for a gang of the vilest traitors that ever worked their nefarious ends on an unsuspecting body of workers. One of the first acts of treachery perpetrated by these jackals of the capitalist class was their support of the Workmen’s Compensation Bill. This rascally measure had the effect of killing two birds with one stone. The masters could not insure the old men and therefore would not employ them, and being so much out of work the veterans soon dropped behind in their contributions, and the unions got rid of them.

The Workmen’s Compensation Act has done all that the Liberal politicians and their friends the “Labour” men ever intended it should do. It lined the pockets of the lawyers, filled to overflowing the coffers of the insurance companies, and relieved the employers of their final shred of responsibility, making them more careless than ever of the lives of their wage slaves.

It is sad to reflect, after a century of trade union effort, that the worker is to day in a worse plight, compared with the vast increase in wealth production, than at any period of industrial history. It is sad to reflect that all the valiant fights trade unionism has made, many of them stamped out in blood and tears, have ended in martyrdom, never in victory. The whole course has been movement in a circle. Its only consistency is that of adhering to the principle on which the trade union movement was founded—the principle of acceptance of and acquiescence in the present social system.

Emancipation lies not this way. When the men of the painting trade realise their position in society, as portion of a subject class whose interest is opposed at all points to that of the master class, they will organise along with their fellows upon the political field, in the Socialist Party—the only party that stands for human emancipation.

Socialism is a means to put an end to the third and final form in which the principle of subjection can be enshrined and only when the working class are organised to this end can they be said to be in a position to labour for their emancipation.

F. G. Thompson

Correspondence. We oppose sweet reason to Gorle and Wormwood. (1912)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To The Editor]

Watford. May 14th, 1912. 

Sir,— I read with amusement the crude, ill-mannered observations under the above heading in your last issue. It would be hopeless to attempt to reason with the self satisfied person who wrote them. I only write to give those of your readers who have a sense of justice and an ear for reason an opportunity of appreciating what your “activities” represent.

The statement that in Watford “every year as these elections come round a new organisation (sic) is brought into being” is not true.

The statement that “the first thing done by the B.S.P. was to allow its secretary and another member to be run by an organisation that did not ask what political opinion any of the candidates held” is silly deceit. The organisation in question is the Trades and Labour Council. The candidates were run jointly by it and the local branches of the B.S.P.

The statement that the above Council consists of “men of all other shades of political faith except Socialists” is a wilful and pitiful lie. The writer of the notes knows that many active Socialists are of it, and he knows also that their electoral contests are run on strictly class lines. Despite all his vituperative abuse he admits that the capitalists brought candidates out against us and “beat this mob who would drag the cause of the workers in the mire.” For cant and concentrated piffle the last phrase would be difficult to beat.

The statement that “Socialism was never mentioned in their addresses, never put forward at one of their meetings," is absurd. A more bare-faced calumny has surely never appeared even in your columns. Socialism was put forward at all the meetings and in the addresses of the avowed Socialist candidates, and though the fourth candidate did not call himself a Socialist, his address and his speeches were Socialist in tone and in effect.

Your Watford Pharisee goes on: “No, advocating Socialism is the work of Socialists and only those. That is why it was left for us to do. We did it, and in doing it exposed these freaks and popularity seekers, much to their discomfort.” Your correspondent is in error. Those of us who considered the “exposure” at all were sorry for its perpetration and nothing more.

We were opposed by the capitalists, as he himself points out, and yet he and his friends can find nothing better to do than to help the capitalists by telling lies about and throwing mud at us. That is how they “advocate” Socialism and actually, in so far as they have any influence, hinder Socialism.

Imagine the idiocy of thinking you are advocating Socialism by referring to these, whom the capitalist class recognise as Socialists and do all they can to keep off Councils, etc.; who are in touch with, and members of, the working-class organisations ; imagine, I say, the folly of describing such as a “mob,” “freaks,” and “popularity seekers.”

Having had a longer and more active experience of public life than any member of your Watford Branch, I can assure them that they are quite welcome to all the popularity any of my comrades or myself have got or are likely to get.

Really, Sir, such utterances as those of your correspondent can only be paralleled by the drivel poured out by the Anti-Socialist Union lecturers. All of which drives me to one of two conclusions. These two conclusions are that you are either consciously or unconsciously working for the capitalist class.

It is beside the question to say that our methods are wrong, to call us a mob, freaks, and popularity seekers. We are in and of the trade unions against the employing class on the industrial plane. We are against the capitalist class on the electoral plane. We are for the abolition of the wage system and the establishment of Social-Democracy. If, then, you are against us you are for the capitalist class.

Consciously or unconsciously you are blacklegging for the capitalists against Socialism.

Yours truly,

Fred. H. Gorle.

Reply:

The above letter well illustrates Mr. Gorle's anarchistic methods. Neither the B.S.P. nor any of the organisations concerned in the late election has authorised him to write it. He charges us with making false statements, and makes some complimentary remarks about, us. The latter nerd not he dealt with.

As Mr. Gorle has not brought forward any evidence to rebut our statements we can only assume he is following the example of the lawyer who endorsed counsel's brief : “No case: abuse opponent.” Lest Mr. Gorle should want to use the sane retort to us re our use of the words “mob” and “freak,” we would refer him to the “Century Dictionary,” where he will find the word “mob” (Latin—for our critic’s benefit—mobile vulgus) defined as “a promiscuous aggregation of people; an incoherent crowd,” and “freak” as “ a curious result of real or apparent vagary.” The multifarious bodies which support (or are run by) Mr. Gorle are very much of so incoherent crowd, as is manifested by a perusal of the various election leaflets they have issued from time to time; and the results of their actions cannot fail to appear freakish to class conscious workers.

Mr. Gorle says our statement that “every year as these elections come round a new organisation is brought into being” is not true. He gives no evidence, so we will.

Mr. Gorle became Councillor Gorle in April, 1905. Before that period there had been formed in Watford no fewer than seven organisations claiming to represent the workers independently of the avowed capitalist organisations. He was supported at his election by one of these organisations. In 1906 four candidates of the same brand were run and backed by five organisations (including one resurrected—the S.D.F.). At the general election for the same year the Socialist (?) and Labour Party was first and last heard of: issued a manifesto, and then died. In 1907, owing to the apathy of the other organisations (which were supposed to be alive) the S.D.F. and two other organisations ran four candidates, but not on the same election address. In 1908 two candidates (including Mr. Gorle) were backed by the Trades and Labour Council, with the support, of other organisations being claimed although those organisations were not named. In 1909 three candidates were run by five organisations, including another new one—the Watford Socialist (!) Society. In 1910 one candidate was run—a member of the S D.P. (another new organisation previously known as the S.D.F., which apparently discarded its old name when changing the object of the party). In 1911 three candidates, all members of the same organisation, ran on different programmes. They were supported by three organisations, one the W.S.S., which had been resurrected for that purpose. (The secretary had stated that he bad been trying to get a quorum for some while in order to wind up affairs.) During 1911 a branch of the S.D.P. was formed, according to its most prominent member, as a protest against the actions of the W.S.S. The Executive of the S.D.P. only sanctioned the formation of this branch subject to the consent of the W.S.S., whose secretary had been quorum hunting in order to put up the shutters. (See “S.D.P. News,” August, 1911.) In 1912 four candidates were run, two of the B S.P. (another new organisation), one l.L.P, and one Labour, and they were all supported by the same organisations.

So we have had during the last twelve years eleven different organisations (manipulated in the main by Gorle and Co.), excluding various resurrections which would bring the number up to fourteen.

So much for our critic’s first charge of false statement.

The charge of “silly deceit” can be dealt with by giving a quotation from a leaflet sent out by the Trade and Labour Council and signed by their secretary. Speaking on religion and politics it states: "No declaration of their opinions on these subjects is asked of our nominees, whom we support because we are convinced of their suitability for the positions to which they seek election." This quotation also disproves the statement that they fight elections ‘on class lines'.

With regard to the “Active Socialists" of the T. & L.C. we know them. Some of them have as much claim to be called Socialists as have Sir William Bull or Councillor F. H. Gorle; others are neither active nor Socialists, or they would cease to be parties to such business as is shown in our report and this note

As to Socialism being put forward in the addresses, the word is not mentioned on the B.S.P. man’s address, and no Socialist position is laid down. On the I.L.P. member's address the word appears once: “I maintain that the ethics of Socialism are identical with those of Christianity." No Socialist position is put forward whatever. With regard to the Labour candidate's address, which Mr Gorle describes as Socialist in tone and effect, we would point out that the avowed capitalist candidate ran on a similar list of so-called reforms, therefore it would appear (according to Mr. Gorle) that the capitalist candidate’s address was Socialist in tone and effect. Our critic, in his remark, strange as it may seem, appears to agree “in tone and effect ” with our statement that there is no difference from the worker's point of view between the alleged Labour and the avowed capitalist candidates. (Were you not rather hasty, Mr. Gorle, when you penned that remark as to tone and effect?) As to our opponent’s statement about bare-faced calumny, we would remind him that truth is not calumny although it may be libel.

Their methods were nothing but popularity seeking by vote-catching devices, and for the office of councillor. The one reference to Socialism (!) and Christianity quoted above speaks volumes.

We knew it is considered blasphemous to speak disrespectfully of the god of the Christians, but the god of the Watford Labour Church and other similar local movements (Mr. Gorle) considers it ill mannered for us to speak the truth about him.

If anyone still doubts the truth of our statements, let him apply to the secretary of the Watford Branch of the S P.G.B. We have documents issued by Gorle & Co. to back up all our statements.

With reference to Mr. Gorle’s final charge—that we are blacklegging for the capitalists against Socialism, would he have the courage to make that charge against the S.P.G.B. in a public debate ?

Branch Reporter.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July (1912)

Party News from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

War and Why (The Cause and the Remedy). (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ethics or Pelf ?

“But what they killed each other for I could not quite make out” says Jasper in one of our school poems.

And some leading lights of the capitalist class have lately been investigating a similar problem by enquiring—or pretending to enquire—into the ill-feeling existing between England and Germany. In considering the “forces that make for Peace” Lord Weardale quotes from Mr. Norman Angell that “it is perhaps necessary to divert ourselves from those broad ethical principles which the champions of international peace have hitherto used, perhaps too specifically, as their main line of argument, and insist with greater emphasis on the economic considerations.” (Manchester Guardian, 10.6 12.)

Those “broad ethical principles,” however, seem to have been having a rather bad time of it. For instance, in the same journal for May 30th appears the following:

  It seems that Lord Haldane, a few weeks ago, approached the Rural Dean of Willesden with the request that he would ascertain what would be the opinion of his Rurideconal Chapter of an offer to appoint a Church of England chaplain, with certain pay and allowances, in return for each hundred men whom the Church could persuade to enlist. Apparently the offer was well received by the clergy, and the condensed report that I saw of the discussion does not reveal a single dissentient.

Surely the great regard for “economic considerations” shown here by the followers of the “Prince of Peace” should satisfy even Mr. Angell.

But the latter says that wars do not pay; that not even the winner gains by the fight! Against this Mr. T. Lough, M.P., says when describing the animosities between England and Germany:

   A further factor was soon added, in the shape of the interests of the capitalists engaged in the construction of warships and war material. Supported by immense financial resources, this particular branch of industry has taken to inciting international feelings of mistrust and hatred.
  Should international peace be established their orders would fall off and their dividends would disappear.

The Internationalism of Capital.

Mr. Lough, as a wealthy capitalist, should be a better authority than Mr. Angell as to what “pays” and when. A more general statement is made by Sir Alfred Mond in this discussion:

  In all countries the great world of commerce knows no national bounds and tolerates no interference with its labour by such limitations.

Exactly. White men or black, Chinese or Britisher, all are fish for the capitalist net, and as the wealthy Liberal says, “no interference” is tolerated that hampers the robbery of the workers, wherever they may happen to have been born.

“The relations between the captains of industry of all countries,” continues Mr. Mond, “are getting more friendly every day, and exhibit a growing mutual respect and inclination to cooperate on a labour-saving basis.” (Manchester Guardian, 10.6.12.) An awkward admission, this, for the stupid Anarchist who argues against the concentration of capital, and the revisionist of the I.L.P. and Fabian type, who tries to maintain that Marx’s analysis was in error.

Even more specific was Professor Ludwig Stein, who says we are to prepare “by means of a détente between England and Germany, an understanding between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente which would allow us Europeans to act as allies in the work of partition of our planet in the Far East, instead of destroying each other as enemies. There are at present such great things at stake that our little jealousies and political feuds must sink to a quantité négligeable in face of the necessity to assert and secure the Imperialism of our civilisation, the world dominion of our system of culture.”

Whose is “our civilisation,” “our system of culture”? Not the working-class’s for the spokesmen are all representatives of the employers—the capitalist class.

Tankee You for Noting.

And what a “civilisation” and “culture” is their’s! One where-in growing misery and insecurity of life for the working class accompanies increasing powers to produce wealth, increasing wealth produced. Paralysing paradox where one sees misery in the midst of plenty and want where wealth abounds. And this is to be extended to the Far East, for the workers there to enjoy. Should they resist then the “great world of commerce” will tolerate no “such limitations" but will batter down that resistance with the 13.5’s, the machine guns, and the magazine rifles.

Ignoramuses like Mr. Norman Angell will talk about putting aside “broad ethical principles”—as though they had ever been really concerned with these—and insisting upon “economic considerations” as though they had ever been absent or were not the fundamental cause of all modern wars.

To serve the economic interests of capitalism the war drum will be sounded by the “atheistic” Blatchford and the “religious” rural dean, while the capitalist class control power. The forces of war will be used to crush less—capitalistically—developed nations, or, if necessary, to wipe them out of existence.

But, after all, this is but the secondary use of the fighting forces. “The great world of commerce” will not only not “tolerate” any limitation by nationality; it will not tolerate any limitation by members of the same nation. Inside every nation is a far more important division than that separating nation from nation.

The Class Line.

The division between the wealth producers—the working class—and the wealth-owners—the capitalist class, is one concerning the very means of life themselves. True, the working class have failed to understand this yet. But their strikes and struggles over the question of living tends to show them more clearly every day how they are dominated in society.

In the Transport Workers’ Strike Committee’s first manifesto protest was made against the use of soldiers and policemen to accommodate the employers. The Daily News for June 15th states that two hundred seamen and firemen belonging to the French Navy were going to man the Atlantic liner “Provence” in place of the men on strike. Sir George White used the military to unship coal at Gibraltar when the men went out on strike shortly after the South African War.

This is the fact that explains the utter farce and failure of all the “Peace Conferences” and “Disarmament” movements. The real and primary use of the war forces is to keep the workers a slave class to the employers, to drive strikers back to work, to shoot them down when sacred “property” is in danger, and even to run the services should the capitalists decide it to be necessary.

This force is placed under the control of the capitalist class by the working class voting them into possession of political power. The very men on strike to-day in the docks cheer the local capitalist representative, Sir John Bethell, although he is a member of the party in power.

They are backed up in this suicidal stupidity by their “leaders” and the parties they belong to. Tillett and the B.S.P., Gosling and the Labour Party, all act as powerful allies of the capitalist class by encouraging and advising their poor dupes to place political power, with all its accompanying command of the forces of repression and blacklegism, in the hands of the masters.

What must be Done.

The Socialist on the other hand, points out and explains the war existing in society—the class war—wherever capitalism has taken root; he shows how the workers place this terrible power in the grasp of their most bitter and pitiless enemies, and draws the only conclusion open to intelligent men—that is that the workers must conquer political power for themselves, and so wrench from their oppressors once and forever that weapon which is turned against them, no matter whether Liberals or Tories are in power, whenever they seek to obtain better conditions. Only then be will the cause of wars—class and market—be abolished. Only then will the worker enjoy what he produces, and have comfort, luxury and happiness at his service.

Jack Fitzgerald

The I.L.P. in Conference. (1912

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The report of the I.L.P. Conference of 1912 is introduced with a triumphant leading article, in which we are informed that “not once was there wrangling or discussion. ” The reason, of course, is not far to seek. Those who would have raised dissension had taken themselves elsewhere. The successful “ Labour ” M.P.’s have, for the time, got rid of their discontented rivals, who have a long road to travel for Parliamentary jobs, in their new party, the B.S P. The Conference was free, as Mr. Keir Hardie put it, to “guide the wavering steps of the working class movement along the pathway that leads to freedom.” The stirring speeches, intense enthusiasm, fervid pleas for freedom, scorching denunciations of diplomats and financiers,” were vented ad lib.

Such things things tickle the ears of the idealists.

The message of the I.L.P. to the workers in 1912 was a re-hash of the old confusion. Mr. P. Snowden contributed his share. “He re-emphasised the revolutionary movement, though he ridiculed the fear of the wealthy classes.” “A revolution,” he explained, “ is a very common and ordinary thing. Every time a wheel turns round we have a revolution.” It would be interesting to know haw many I.L.P. revolutions will be necessary before we get Socialism.

Indignant protests were levelled at the Government over the Tom Mann and Malatesta affairs, while the Malecka business was deemed of sufficient importance to necessitate the “threat to break off diplomatic relations between Russia and Great Britain.”

Having passed a resolution to that effect, they followed it with another against “militarism in all its forms.” Sufficiently pugnacious to “ loose the dogs of war” because one woman had been imprisoned. they wore at the same time “ the strongest advocates of peace the world over.”

In the Socialist Standard evidence has been adduced lime and again of the compromising tactics of the I.L.P. Time and again have they themselves admitted that their members' subscriptions would not suffice to contest more than two constituencies. Suffragette capitalist gold and ''wise arrangements with the Liberals" we have always said, secures them seats in Parliament. It is well to remind the reader of our attitude toward them, and their own admission that “those who pay the piper call the tune.” Their discussion and vote on the Bradford resolution confirms all we have said of their sham independence.

That resolution is itself the strongest, possible indictment of the Party. It resuscitates the burning question of the “fourth clause," which by their votes they again repudiated. That they should ever discuss the advisability of “ignoring consequences and voting steadfastly on the merits of every question” is an admission that they have been afraid to do so. Their speeches show what they fear.

Lansbury said : “Every question that comes up for discussion in the House has to be discussed with its probable effect upon the fortune of the Government in mind.” Snowden’s “fighting instinct inclined him to support the resolution, but his common sense, judgment, and experience would induce him to vote for the amendment. . . . Politics meant compromise.” Keir Hardie tried to reconcile their oft asserted independence with the stern necessity of rejecting the resolution, and wound up with this transparent bluff: “The great test of a party's independence was not in the vote on some trumpery measure before the House, but in the amendments moved to the King’s Speech. On every occasion the Labour Party had pressed a Right to Work amendment to a division.”

Really, their audacity almost takes one’s breath away. This is the great test of their independence: moving amendments to the King’s Speech which have no chance of success and would not be moved if they had, and moreover would not improve the lot of the working class if they were successful.

The reforms that have done service so long were brought out once more, shown to be fallacies, and then seriously recommended to the Government, and adopted as planks in their platform. A minimum wage resolution, for instance, was passed, although it was clearly shown that its effect would be keener competition, the selection of the most efficient, the introduction of new machinery and increase of unemployed.

Bearing in mind the number of converts the I.L.P. gather from the professional and well-to-do “classes,” one naturally looks for resolutions on nationalisation, because it extends the Civil Service and finds jobs for would-be aristocrats of Labour and Fabian experts. Mr. Lloyd George quite recently declared nationalisation of mines to be a business proposal. He has the opportunity of “killing two birds with one stone”; giving satisfaction to his I.L.P. allies and at the same time doing a good stroke of business for the class he represents, by nationalising land, mines, and railways

Similar absurdities and contradictions could be traced in almost every paragraph of this report. It requires no deep or profound knowledge. The average man with an average supply of common sense and an inclination to think, could not be led into the Liberal left wing with such palpable rubbish. Any man with common sense would realise that none of the problems of life are to be solved with sentiment; that in the study of Socialism, as with all studies, we only accept what is self evident. The mesmeric influence exercised by I.L.P. leaders merely inflames and excites the minds of their followers. The way to lean Socialism is not by studying capitalist politics and trying to adapt them to working-class needs. To learn Socialism we study Socialism, not something else. Members of the working class have to commence with the elementary lessons the basic principles of Socialism, before they can understand capitalism and how to get rid of it. These basic principles the I.L.P. use their very utmost endeavours to obscure and hide from the working class. The reason and the moral are equally obvious.

F. Foan