Two Basic Ideas. (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

The ruling idea in society to-day is accumulation. Production for the sake of further production.

Everything is subordinated to this great end. New machines are invented, new methods devised and introduced so that wealth may be produced in still greater abundance. Brains, muscles, lives and honours (!) are all thrown into the melting-pot in the feverish rush to produce and accumulate.

The scientist spends his life enquiring into and systematising the laws of nature, and the fruits of his industry is applied to the stimulation of commercial development. All discoveries of the laws of nature become levers to increase wealth production.

With the introduction of the machine came the almost complete extinction of a workman's pride in his work. The machine did everything and man became only the feeder, the slave, that jumped here and there according to the requirements of the colossus.

Instead of lightening the labour of the worker, machinery has intensified his toil. It has brought him to work at all hours, and kept him working at full pressure all the time. For it has provided the unemployed.

In times gone by men produced the vast bulk of the wealth, but the coming of the machine harnessed the whole family—men, wives, and children—in the process of wealth production. The oft-repeated phrase, "the sanctity of the family hearth," is a myth circulated by the scribblers and henchmen of our masters.

At all costs the rush and hurry of production must be kept up. A breakdown in machinery is the only thing that permits a suspension of the process, from the point of view of our employers. When an accident occurs in a mill or factory, involving the injury or death of workmen, do the works close down temporarily for consideration of the catastrophe that extinguished for ever the trials and troubles of certain workpeople? The injured are (sometimes!) taken away to the infirmary, but the work goes ahead as before — machinery must not be idle for a single moment longer than is absolutely essential, as idle machines lessen the amount of wealth produced, and hence the amount of profit. In modern production workers' lives are of no account. The death of one workman but leaves a vacancy for another to fill, and there are always plenty at the factory gate to fill any vacancy that occurs.

Now what is the reason for this fever to produce and accumulate? What is the reason at the bottom that gives the stimulus to the industrial rush ?

The answer is given in the reports in the Press relating to dividends. Here you find so much per cent. dividend distributed by various concerns. These dividends are titles to certain proportions of the wealth produced. These dividends go into the pockets of a certain class. Broadly speaking, the greater the amount of wealth produced, the greater is the quantity available for distribution to the dividend holders.

The people entitled to dividends are those who invest money in a concern. Do the workers invest ? Of course not. The worker receives in the form of wages only what will keep him in varying degrees of comfort—or poverty, to enable him to continue working and reproduce his kind.

The people who draw the dividends are those who by ownership and control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth reap the fruit of the workers' toil, viz., the capitalists.

In spite of the profusion of wealth resulting from the application of machinery to production, there is, as a notorious Welshman once said, "a greater poverty in the aggregate in the land to-day than there has ever been." The rich grow richer and the poor poorer. The greater the wealth the greater and more widespread the poverty. The poor are the wealth-producers— the working class. The rich are the wealth owners and idlers—the capitalist class. The workers are poor because the capitalists own the wealth produced.

We read in reports of the business at the Coal Enquiry that certain individuals draw hundreds of thousands a year in Royalties—for what? For working? No ! They haven't soiled their hands in that vulgar pursuit all their lives. They drew the royalties because they chanced to be the offspring of certain landowners. In other words, because they were born into the charmed circle of the capitalist class.

As wealth is privately owned to-day, then the greater the accumulation of wealth the more luxury and splendour there will be for the private owners—the capitalists. This is the cause of the ceaseless whirr of the machine; this is the reason accumulation is the prevailing idea or aim throughout Capitalism.

The ruling idea of the system advocated by the Socialist is production for the sake of consumptiou; production organised to satisfy the requirements of all the members of society. Instead of aiming at "an immense accumulation of commodities," the Socialist aims at an immense accumulation of comfort and happiness distributed over the whole of society.

In the existing state of things there is social production but individual appropriation. The Socialist would abolish this contradiction and substitute Social appropriation of the Social products.

Under Capitalism the laws of nature have been harnessed to industry. Steam, gas, and electricity have shown their capacities as prime movers. The transmitting mechanism and the tool have been developed to a marvellous pitch of perfection. The development in the co-operation and division of labour have reached a point where each need only perform a simple function in the vast and complicated mechanism of production.

Capitalism has shown us that wealth can be produced in abundance with a comparatively small expenditure of time and energy on the part of each of us. It has, therefore, performed its historic mission and signed its death warrant. It remains for us to profit by the lesson it has taught.

An organism must adapt itself to its environment or perish; the same is true of a given state of Society. Capitalism cannot control the forces it has brought into being, therefore it must perish, and a new society will arise out of its ruins. The various commercial crises that occur at intervals due to the breakdown of the gigantic system of credit; the increasing vastness of each succeeding war; the multitude of varying devices that fail to assuage the seething mass of (largely blind) discontent; and the many other incidents of common knowledge, all show that Capitalism is steadily staggering to the breaking-point.

So long as the vast capacities of modern production are under the control of one class, and are used for the aggrandisement of that class alone, we will have the strange spectacle of poverty ia the midst of plenty—a society of wealthy idlers and poverty-stricken workers.

We must, therefore, take advantage of the lesson Capitalism teaches, organise for its overthrow and the introduction of Socialism if we would abolish poverty for ever. The means lie ready to our hand provided by the capitalists themselves — the capture of the political machinery which sustains the capitalists in their privileged position.

Gilmac.

By The Way. (1919)

The By The Way column from the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

But a short while ago the agents of the master class were busily engaged informing the inhabitants of this isle of the "perilous" condition of "our" troops in Russia.

Now it would appear from what one sees and hears that the average man at that time was somewhat disinterested about the internal condition of Russia. It seemed to him a scrap between the Bolsheviks and those who would restore the monarchy ; and consequently he did not rush to embark for Russia to preserve law and order and, incidentally, of course, allied interests. Consequently a good "stunt" was the desideratum to act as a fillip for recruiting. What better idea could the wily ones hit upon than that "our" troops were in peril? This, together with special engagement fees, it was hoped would secure the men. And so it came to pass that whilst trade unionists and other bodies were "protesting" against British intervention in Russia, the authorities were quietly shipping the men away. The plea of the masters for men to extricate their "comrades" was successful. We must now adopt the Asquithian policy of "wait and see" whether "our" troops will be withdrawn when rescued from the ''perilous" condition, or, having whetted the appetite for another campaign, like Oliver Twist, they will ask for more.

--0--

How beautifully staged was the departure of these troops who were so nobly setting sail to act as rescuers of those in "peril," including in a special sense, British and French bondholders! Picture papers gave us a glimpse of the stirring send-off accorded to the men, and the penny-a-liners also entered into the spirit of the thing. Let me quote a passage-—

  "A magnificent public send off was given at Southampton last evening to a contingent of troops bound for North Russia. It was the first occasion during the war on which civilians were permitted to witness the departure. The Mayor addressed the men just before they sailed, bidding them God-speed and good luck.
The transport was named the Tzar. . . A band played "Auld Lang Syne" as the transport cast off.
Nearly 2,090 men embarked at Newcastle yesterday on the troopship Czaritza.
Many of the men carried miniature flags in the muzzles of their rifles, and on |the carriages bringing them to Newcastle were chalked waggish inscriptions, such as 'The Trotsky Stormers," First Stop Russia," "The Old Red Army," and" Who fears the Bolshies?" —"Daily News," May I3th, 1919.

I remember reading somewhat similar vapourings nearly five years ago. Then it was "Non-Stop-Berlin" chalked on the army paraphernalia. In those days the Russians were gallant fighters, fighting with "us" for truth and righteousness, and the "Times" military correspondent told us daily of the mighty movement of the "Russian steam roller," and how it would be in Berlin by Xmas, 1914.

--0--

I should have thought that those people who possessed the directive ability and large business brains which are peculiar to the Lloyd Georgian Government would not have permitted so incongruous a thing to happen as the jollification afforded by the departure of troops for a new campaign and a statement in the House on the same day regarding the peace celebrations. It is decidedly a rotten joke. In the self-same paper that records the previous extract appears the following:

"Mr. Bonar Law told the House of Commons yesterday that the Government proposed shortly to make a statement of their views on the whole question of the peace celebrations. Whether it would be possible to hold them at Whitsuntide depended on the events of the next few days.
  Asked whether it was proposed to celebrate peace while half Europe was still fighting, he replied that, personally, if a treaty were concluded with our chief enemy, he thought it would be a subject for rejoicing. The Government were considering the suggestion that Marshal Foch should be invited to be present."

--0--

An interesting item: "Mr. C. B. Stanton the Labour member, hoped for the resumption of the pre-war Royal garden parties, where their Majesties met members of the House of Commons and leading men and women from all classes—"Daily News," May 16th, 1919.

--0--

After the "horrors" of the "Germ-Hun" and the "Bolsheviks" come the_massacres of the Jews by the Poles. An item of news from a New York correspondent stated that one hundred thousand Jews participated in a protest last night in Madison Square Garden and neighbouring streets against the Polish pogroms.

"Mr. Charles E. Hughes, who was the principal speaker, declared that he had verified the reports of Jewish massacres by the Poles and found them true. His denunciation of the anti-Semitic attacks by the new nation, which owes its being to the benevolence of the Great Powers, created a profound impression." —"Daily Express," May 2yd, 1919.

What will the self-righteous "Big Four" say now?

--0--

It does seem paradoxical that it should be necessary for the men who have been fighting the "country's" battles (I prefer to call them the capitalists' battles) to have to range themselves inside various organisations, all purporting to be in existence for the purpose of assisting discharged and demobilised soldiers to obtain what is due to them from a grateful country.

Likewise almost every capitalist rag has its bureau, or correspondence column, to explain to the unwary who have been enmashed in things military how to obtain some grant, or gratuity, or pension, etc., which seems to have been overlooked or diverted to the wrong channel, and also to explain when a pledge is not a pledge, and for other kindred Purposes.

I frequently read these agonising questions and answers, and am compelled to agree that the gentleman seeking Parliamentary honours was correct when he addressed his audience as "hard-headed sons of toil." Hard-headed they must be to tolerate the insults hurled at them and the miserable treatment meted out to them ty those whose vile interests they have been defending.

The following, by a "Service correspondent," is typical of many of the items tbat appear from time to time:

PROBLEM OF THE DISABLED.

It is a crying shame and disgrace to see the huge number of crippled, maimed, and smashed men lined up any day outside the Labour Exchanges. Many of these unfortunates are obviously unfit for labour of any sort, but owing to their ridiculously inadequate pensions they are forced to hunt the streets looking for jobs. Those men have come back broken in the country's wars and are the first claim to be met by the State. Employers who were among the first to wave the flag and induce their staffs to enlist now seem among the last to play the game to the returned crocks. The right to live or work must be demanded and secured, and if the disabled man is unfitted for the labour market then adequate pension has got to be made without delay to see that he shall spend the rest of his career in comfort and decency."

—"Daily Herald," May 22nd 1919.

The pitiful lack of understanding displayed by these folk of each and every phase of capitalist activity is amazing. Through apathy and indifference to the things that really matter—working-class education and the way out of the wages system—they were easy prey five years ago to the tricksters who were leading them to the shambles. So, used to looking at things through capitalist spectacles, they turned and vilified other workers who presented a different point of view. Now, at long last, they are learning the bitter truth by experience. The songs and sayings of nearly five years ago—"We don't want to lose you, but we think you ought to go." "What do you lack, Sonny?" and similar piffle—have now been relegated to the limbo of forgotten things. The bald facts now stand out clear and plain for all to see: they have served the masters' purpose and, like the orange that has been sucked dry, they are flung out into the highways as of no further use.

Perhaps ere long these maimed and physically wrecked members of the working class will see the need for studying their place in society and join with us in the attempt to usher in the dawn of a better day.

--0--

I am glad to observe that the War Office is not devoid of humour. How's this?—"Some conscientious objectors are informed on their discharge papers that if they attempt to join the Army again they will be liable to two year's hard labour."—"Daily News," May 20th, 1919.

--0--

A dinner took place a short while ago in connection with the Industrial League, when a number of employers met a gathering of labour leaders and shop stewards and evidently discussed low they could more efficiently exploit the workers. On this occasion Mr. Clynes delivered himself of the following gem :

  "Trade unionism is now twice as strong in numbers as when the war began, and several times stronger in point of authority and power of insistence on its demands. They did not recede one inch from the right of the organised worker to use his organised power: but they had no right as poor people to rob the rich of what was theirs, as the rich had no right to rob the poor of what belonged to them. Changes sought must be through democratic institutions."

—"Daily News," April 26th, 1919.

Exactly, Mr. Clynes. We seek a change from the private ownership in the means of living to common ownership by democratic action, that is, by a majority of the workers first understanding the need for a change, and, secondly, organising with the Socialist Party to effect it. But with regard to "poor people robbing the rich," well, sir, it is a physical impossibility. The poor are poor simply because they are robbed of what they produce by the class you, sir, so ably defend.

--0--

The discussion on the "peace terms" makes interesting reading. The following titbit from a special correspondent is distinctly good. He says :

"There is a good deal here to provide food for reflection. What was once called annexation is now termed "acceptance of a mandate under the League of Nations." The two things may be practically identical, or they may be—as they should be—poles apart." —" Daily News," May 20th, 1919. 

As the Allies all desire some plums the arrangement for "mandates" seems to be an eminently suitable one.

--0--

In the early days of the war we were constantly being told that "we" (the capitalist class of this country) were unprepared for war. To use the vulgar vernacular, the Germans done the dirty on us. To those who were not mentally asleep this sort of thing had little effect. They knew it was not true. Plenty of evidence has since come to light to prove this point. But more especially do I notice the following from Lord French's book on the war, published in the "Daily Telegraph" (April 29th) :


"The British and French General Staffs had for some years been in close secret consultation with one another on this subject. (The point of concentration for the British forces on their arrival in France.) The area of concentration for the British forces had been fixed on the left flank of the French, and the actual detraining stations of the various units were all laid down in terrain lying between Maubeuge and Le Cateau. The headquarters of the Army were fixed at the latter place."

The Scout.

Capitalism's Saviours. (1919)

Pamphlet Review from the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Drift To Revolution." Issued for the Cities Committee of the Sociological Society by Headley Bros., Oxford St.

Coming from a committee within a society advertising itself in such dignined and ambitious terms, we naturally expect to find in "The Drift to Revolution" a work of at least some little scientific pretension. But those who read it in this expectation will be disappointed. For throughout its fifty pages of discussion and lofty idealism there is not one scientific or essential fact worth recording. The authors view the drama of life as spectators, free from bias, and only concerned with their science. Nevertheless this does not prevent them, after emphasising the "drift to revolution," from offering advice to the ruling class on the best means to stem or turn it.

This action at once places them in their true category. Their title implies that they are out for scientific research ; their conclusions prove them to be just one more instrument to falsify a science that in its development and progress threatens the social order in which the capitalist class have wealth and power.

The real interest of the working class is the possession of that knowledge in sociology, economics, and politics that will enable them to apply the revolutionary principle and establish society on a basis of production for use. All such knowledge points to this as the conclusion of the class struggle. But this involves the elimination from society of the class that lives by exploitation ; hence sociological societies that interpret the science on their behalf.

Sociology was revolutionised by Karl Marx. His twin discoveries, the ''Materialistic Conception of History" and the surplus value contained in commodities, gave to the working class the basis of a critical analysis of the capitalist system. He developed this basis till the system was laid bare and exposed to the full as a ruthless system of intensive slavery and exploitation. His chief works, together with those of Engels and L. H. Morgan, are the highest expression of sociological knowledge, and because of their conclusions, that point to the necessity for the working-class to triumph over capitalism, should have been made the target of every defender of the capitalist system. But the champions of capitalism, although possessing the will and the wish, have yet failed to discover anything that is not in accordance with science.

The "Cities Committee" provides a good illustration of the usual methods of Marx's critics. After describing the manner in which they imagined he worked out and arrived at his conclusions (which, by the way, they never once pass under review), they first eulogise him as a German prophet of the Bolshevik regime. Next they picture him as a contemporary and compatriot of Bismarck, remarking, without producing a shred of evidence, that both, Marx and Bismarck, had a common faith in the cult of the State. They conclude by relegating him to a position somewhere beneath themselves in the realms of understanding. "He saw, but not with complete understanding," they say. "His mind was too severely handicapped. The embitterment of poverty does not conduce to clarity of insight. . . . The abstractions of Richardo and the metaphysics of Hegel, reared in the British Museum library . . . ensures a progeny of fallacies." Not one of which fallacies, again by the way, do the committee place on record.

This bumptious committee with the fraudulent name does not approach a single question scientifically or even seriously. There are whole pages devoted to what they term sabotage. Because the bricklayer proclaims 500 bricks a day's work in opposition to the master's demand for 1,000, that is sabotage; and the bricklayer is in the same galley with the trusts that restrict output in a falling market to keep up prices, or buy and suppress inventions and processes that would scrap their plants.

Whether he is or not matters nothing. The essential fact is ignored. The worker sells his labour power. The capitalist buys it and claims the right to work it to its fullest capacity. The question for the worker is, what is the extent of his power to do so ?

The committee failed to detect the antagonism between the buyer and the seller of labour power, and consequently failed to see the impossibility of reconciliation. Instead, they followed up the reasoning of the bricklayer to the point where this attempt to put a limit to the extent of exploitation resulted in a reduction of the work per day by one half, and a rise in wages of 100 per cent.

Had they taken the trouble to investigate the facts they would have found that their theorising never reached that far, and could not have ended there if it had. They would have discovered, if they had investigated, that the bricklayer never even reached the first stage in their journey, that of successfully limiting the output for a working day. Long before they reached that far the masters showed that they had full control of the situation. Bricklayers were made in shoals: American methods of building were introduced that simplified and cheapened, and in a few years the bricklayers were forced to submit to a bondage more tyrannical and exacting than anything in the annals of the trade. The war gave them a brief respite because they were in demand for the building of munition factories and aerodromes. But that work having ceased, they are once more at the mercy of the masters, who demand everywhere, as they do in all trades, that the day's output shall only be limited by the physical powers of the worker.

The committee reach the climax of absurdity when they describe "bearing" or "selling short" on the Stock Exchange as sabotage. It surely needs but little knowledge in economics to see that all such operations are merely gambling moves, whereby wealth changes hands. They have no effect whatever on actual production—or even on prices, when the average of a cycle of fluctuations is taken.

On the war their logic is a curiosity. On page 35 they say that "sabotage practised covertly by men of business, advocated openly by extremists of labour, applied deliberately by suffragettes, was one the major forces that made for war," and that "The popular verdict fixes the guilt on tbe Central Empires for the preparation and proximate causes." On page 37 we are told that "the hell's broth on which the world has lately been supping had many cooks to prepare it. . . . The culprits are the conventional parties and their insurgent counter-parties. These are the Liberals, Imperialists and Financiers on the one side, and the Radicals, Socialists and Anarchists on the other." And on page 42 they say, "On one side the party of order sees a way of escape through a 'good' war, capable of uniting the whole nation against the common foe."

It is scarcely necessary to point out the disparity between these statements. First of all it is sabotage and the Central Powers ; next it is the conflict between the so-called progressive forces and the party of Order; and lastly it (the war) was the only means of escape from revolution open to the party of Order, i.e., the capitalist class.

But with all their talk of sabotage they are totally blind to the fact that it is a natural fruit of the capitalist system. Profit being the motive for production, restriction of output to force up prices, and the excessive waste entailed in extensive advertising are explained. The wholesale destruction of wealth in the world war is explained likewise, as a conflict between capitalist groups over markets in which to realise their profits.

Having expressed their detestation of pre-war conditions and postulated the futility of social reform, the committee proceed to outline the remedy, or alternatives with which society-—or, to speak more correctly, the capitalist class— were, and are still, faced.

"To escape alike the Scylla of War and the Charybdis of Revolution by boldly steering for a peace which contains within itself the 'moral equivalents of war.' We have to find the formula of a peace that is not the negative thing, the mere war-peace of the Victorian era, but is, something positive, charged to complete the process of conversion begun in war, by carrying the ferment of idealism on into a peace war, a 'holy' war, constructive, evocatory, militant, yet also campaigning ruthlessly against diseases, poverties, ignorances, follies, vices, crimes."

The "process of conversion," etc., refers to the co-ordination of Liberals, Imperialists, and Financiers for the purpose of "organising the nation for war," who, the committee claim, "given the opportunity of high public endeavour, compose into a workman-like trio of real political efficiency." Then high purpose must be carried over to win the peace, says the committee, and further :

"During the war there was an impulse to place the energies of the warring societies at the disposal of their chemists, physicists, engineers, and chartered accountants. These, together with rural and town planners, educationists, economists, experts in health, intellectuals and administrators, should be entrusted with the conduct of the campaign against poverty. While poets, singers, musicians, artists and writers should work up the necessary enthusiasm."

Briefly, the Liberals, Imperialists, and Financiers, i.e.. the active section of the ruling class, will hand over to, and assist the sociological experts in a holy war against poverty. The aesthetics, intellectuals, and the clergy will work up the enthusiasm and "evoke a spiritual activity," and the result is to be Eutopia— which is the opposite of Utopia because it is "here and now."

These are the new materials and forces in the scheme that is seriously put forward as an alternative to "another 'good' war" on the one hand, or revolution the other.

The committee's observations and reasoning are false from the very outset. The various sections of the ruling class in all the belligerent countries, it is now apparent, far from co-ordinating in the common interest, only entered the war to safeguard or extend their commerce and territory, and only pooled their energies and resources because their class—or group— interests were assailed. They placed their class interests, for the time being, above individual interests, as they invariably do when those interests are threatened, either by rival groups of capitalists or by the workers,

As the working class have no share or interest in commerce or territory, whatever happened, they stood neither to gain or lose, but remained wage-slaves as before. All that the ruling class did toward winning the war—and the chief thing they did was to force the workers into the conflict—they did with the sole object of achieving and consolidating their position as the dominant group among the capitalists of the world. They acted during the war as they acted during the peace, in their class interest, but, if possible, with the exercise of greater brutality and hypocrisy.

The three groups, Liberals, Imperialists, and Financiers, constitute the old gang we knew in pre-war days. They still have the power— through the control of the political machinery —and still rely on poverty to drive the workers into their workshops. Consequently to abolish poverty would be to undermine their own position as a dominant class.

The committee have already shown how the "aesthetics, educationists," etc., are dependent on and under the control of the ruling class, either by convention or through the State. We may, therefore, leave them out of consideration. All the professions are too busy—like the rest of the workers—earning salaries and fees to start an independent movement of their own, unless it is in their own interest along the lines suggested by Bernard Shaw.

The committee's alternative, consequently, resolves itself into a flimsy idealism with no substance. It simply camouflages the fact that the old gang retains supreme power over the working class, and the basis of the system is left untouched.

If the Sociological Society were what they pretend to be—coldly analytical and unprejudiced—instead of collecting all the confusing details and non-essentials that appear on the surface, to fling in the eyes of the workers as dust to blind them, they would have brushed them aside, and laying bare the fundamental basis of existing society, the class ownership of the means of wealth production and the merchandise nature of human labour power, would have discovered in that basis the real cause of poverty. The remedy, to establish society on a basis of common ownership and democratic control, would then be apparent.

F. Foan

What The Labour Party Stands For. (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party is often accused by members of the Labour Party of being dogmatic, and to this charge we invariably reply that the truth cannot be dogmatic. It is, therefore, up to them to show wherein our principles and the propaganda founded on those principles, are false or inaccurate.

But we do not stop there by any means. The utterances of the Labour Party are everywhere and at all times loose, confusing, and utterly false or unscientific. They violently detest being pinned down to exact definitions: it either reveals their ignorance or exposes the fraudulent character of their general propaganda. Hence their hatred of the party which give facts, figures, and evidence for all the principles and opinions they hold, and define accurately every economic and political term they use.

The official organ of the Independent Labour Party, the "Labour Leader," is chiefly concerned in interesting the workers in capitalist politics from a supposedly labour standpoint. Its leading articles criticise or offer advice to the Government on questions of taxation, trade, unemployment, and so forth. Claiming, as the membership do, to understand Socialism, it should be quite obvious to them that these questions are but parts of the entire capitalist machinery of exploitation, and as such should claim their attention not as things to be modified, or palliated, or suffered in any form or degree, but as things to be abolished together with the iniquitous social system to which they belong.

On the question of taxation the Labour Party do no more than help the Liberals — who, generally speaking, represent the manufacturing interests—in their efforts to shift the burden of taxation on to the shoulders of the landowning section of the master class—whose interests, generally speaking, are looked after by the Tory Party. The Labour Party protest against taxes on food, and as the manufacturer knows very well that cheap food for the working class means the payment of lower wages by him, and knows also that taxes on food are paid by him through higher wages, he blesses the Labour Party, and out of sheer gratitude for services rendered, and with an eye to securing similar services in the future, helps its leading lights to seats in the House of Commons. Not understanding, or not daring to show, where and how the robbery of the working class takes place—i.e., in the mines, mills, factories, workshops and the like by the expropriation of the product of their toil—the Labour Party uses the question of the taxes as a stunt to gain their political ambitions.

The same with trade. The British Labour Party, loyal to the British capitalist, stands valiantly up for British trade, and offers advice to the Government on the best means of securing advantages over other nations for the capture of a larger slice of the world's market. How does this affect the working class? Not at all, because their real interests are not connected with the nationality of their masters, or even the country in which they are enslaved. The workers go where work is—they have to—and emigration goes on continuously during periods of good and bad trade.

True, when trade is prosperous more workers are employed and wages may rule slightly higher, but as no policy adopted by the master class can maintain trade at a high level of prosperity, both capitalists and workers have to submit to the fluctuations in trade that recur periodically.

Whether the balance of trade swing from East to West or from North to South, all that the worker gets from the process, after all the higgling and shuffling, after all the treaties, tariffs, and wars fought for commerce, is a bare living wage.

On the question of unemployment the Labour Party adopts an attitude of protest against the donation scheme, calling upon the Government to provide useful work for the unemployed, even if they have to establish national workshops. They are moved not so much because of the needs of the workers (some of whom Mr. Clynes says are malingering) but because it would be bettes to produce at a loss than to have "this dead weight of expenditure." Their concern is all for the taxpayer—the capitalist—and their only thought for the worker is that he should be kept profitably employed, i.e., exploited to his full capacity.

What the Labour Party never tell the workers is that the wealth of society—produced by them alone as far as the human factor is concerned— is appropriated by the capitalist class, and that the wages the workers receive are the price of their labour-power, determined by its cost of production. Competition for jobs prevents wages rising above the cost of living, and all the wealth the workers produce above their total wages is stolen from them by the master class.

The Labour Party never proclaim this robbery of the working class, nor the vital need for Socialism as the only way to stop the robbery. Sometimes they call themselves Socialists and sometimes they publish pamphlets professing to make Socialism clear, but which, purposely or inadvertently, only add to the confusion already existing on this most vital of all questions affecting the welfare of the working class.

The "Labour Leader" for the 8th of May last contained within its pages an article which professed to answer the questions—"What is Socialism? How and when is it coming ?" In reply we are first informed that "Socialism means the public ownership of the means of life," next we told that "Socialism insists that the community shall own and control the means of life," then again they tell us that "Socialists only insist on the public ownership of capital in order to effect a fairer and juster private ownership of wealth," next "Socialism means complete adult suffrage for all men and women, free from any property qualifications," etc., then "Socialism stands for the great moral principle of "each for all and all for each," and finally, there is the Object of the party as stated in the Constitution:

  "To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service."

Let the average worker, after his day's grind in the factory, workshop, or office, try to build up or sort out a tangible meaning or definition of Socialism out of this jig-saw puzzle of conflicting statements. It is but one instance of many. The propaganda of the Labour Party is everywhere just as unscientific, confusing, and contradictory. On topical subjects its attitude is Liberal; on Socialism non-committal or misleading.

Let the reader comnare the above quotations with the Object and Principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and he should at once perceive why we oppose the Labour Party.

F. Foan

Small Mercies. (1919)

Party News from the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

We present below our ninth list of donations to our Thousand Pound Fund, and candidly we are ashamed of it. Any of the bosses agents who may happen to have his eye glued to that acknowledgment list may very truly report to his bosses that they need have no fear of Socialism and the Socialists yet. An "ism" that is only six pounds a month strong has got to do a lot of growing before it can overthrow the capitalist system. Anyway, the great falling-off of the subscriptions to the fund brings us up against a very serious situation, and those to whom our propaganda means anything may just as well understand the facts.

The fact is, of course, we really must have a better response to our appeal. It must be remembered that the war has been ripening a magnificent harvest for us. Are we to gather it, or is it to run to waste? We cannot garner it without means. We must have books and leaflets printed, and we must send our missionaries out into the highways and byeways. We ask you to find the money.

And you can also, if you like, come along and help to spend it. We shall be very glad to share the work with you. Now, you who do so much for your masters, can't you do a little for yourselves?

Nationalisation. Its Futility Exposed. (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Freak Show.

Due, in part at any rate, to the demand of the Miners' Federation for the nationalisation of the mines, there has grown up lately an extension of the old demands for nationalising various properties and industries. The old unsupported assertions are trotted out with all the acclamation attaching to new discoveries, while a new organisation has been added to the list of those advocating these policies.

By far the most favourite subject for nationalisation has been the "land." Prominent among the organisations having the nationalisation of the land for their object are the Land Nationalisation Society, which proposes a form of purchase of the land, and the Society for the taxation of Land values, which advocates the the taxation of Land Values ultimately up to 20s. in the £. Now a new organisation has been formed called "The Commonwealth League," having for its object—

   "The Foundation of a Commonwealth based on the establishment of the common right to the land by the payment by each landholder of the economic rent, which is the commercial value of the site he holds."

By the Company They Keep.

As there is no practical difference between taxing land values and calling upon the landholders to pay "economic rent" to the State, it is somewhat curious that the two prominent Liberals who are respectively President and Secretary of the new league—Mr. R. C. Lambert and Mr. R. L. Outhwaite—should have formed the new organisation. Moreover, in their paper, The Commonweal, they are full of praise for the Independent Labour Party and the resolution that body's Conference passed at Huddersfield at Easter, that "demands the socialisation of the land as the very foundation of the co-operative commonwealth, and calls upon the Government to make it the permanent and inalienable possession of the community."

An Awkward Question.

The stupidity and ignorance of demanding the "socialisation" of the land while leaving the capitalist system in existence generally is only equalled by the crazy clause calling upon a capitalist government to make the land the possession of the whole community, although, be it said, these things are quite in accord with the confusionist and misleading policy of the I.L.P. Yet if the founders of the Commonwealth League are so strongly in favour of the attitude adopted by the I.L.P. why did they start a new organisation ? Why did they not join the I.L.P. straight away ? Or do they wish to add to the confusion already existing ?

In any case the proposals are worth examining again as many workers believe that the taxation of land values, or the taking of the "economic rent" by the State will benefit their class It sounds very plausible to say that as the land is "the gift of nature it should belong to the community," and many are led to believe that the proposals mentioned would bring about the desired result. Let us examine the matter a little closer.

The Truth Revealed.

Both "economic rent" and "land values" mean the same thing in the proposals of the above-mentioned organisations, though the spokesmen of the Commonwealth League nowhere define their phrase "economic rent." A simple illustration will help one to understand the principle behind this phrase.

When the War Office decided to take over a certain tract of agricultural land at Cippenham, near Slough, for the erection thereon of a motor repair depot, some agricultural experts objected to the action because, they said, the land was the most fertile in the district, while nearer London was land of practically no agricultural value that the War Office could have taken. The decision of the War Office to retain the land at Cippenham is strong evidence that the experts were right, but what was meant by their objection ?

Simply this. That if the same amount of labour-power, machinery, seed, etc., were used upon equal areas of these two pieces of land— say upon an acre of each—the resulting crops the resulting crops would not be equal in quantity or even in quality. If we suppose that under these conditions the land at Cippenham would yield 30 bushels of wheat to the acre, while the other land would only yield 20 bushels, then the Cippenham land would be said to have yielded an "economic rent" of 10 bushels per acre. The same principle applies if the land is required for other purposes—as sites for factories, business offices, or dwelling houses. Thus it is easily seen that a site close to a railway, a river, or a canal will, other things remaining equal, be more suitable and economical for a manufacturer to erect his works upon than a site that would require a large amount of road haulage to and from the works. The saving effected by building the works on the former site would represent the "economic rent" of that site. The "Land Values" that it is proposed to tax are exactly the same portions of wealth covered by the term "economic rent." To put the matter in a phrase, "The economic rent of any piece of land is the difference between the natural properties of that piece, either in fertility or situation, and that of the poorest piece in demand."

How is the amount of this difference arrived at? By competition. To quote the words of one of the Commonwealth League's leaflets, 

  "He [the landholder] will pay what another would be willing to pay for the privilege of using the piece of common property he holds." —"The Vision and the Realisation."

We are told that this method "will throw the land open for all." Quite true—if we add who are able to pay for it, as it will be the highest bidder who will hold the land, exactly as he does now. When a large estate in the country is up for sale it is not the landless agricultural labourer who bids for it. Nor when a town site is sold, as that of Lord Berkeley, it is not a slum-dwelling worker who buys it, but a Sir Marcus Samuel.

In other words, no one will be allowed access to the land under the Commonwealth League's method unless they can pay the market price for its use, under the name of "economic rent."

This is just the situation that prevails to-day, as there is plenty of land available for those able to pay the market price for it. But, it will be objected, at present this price goes into the pockets of private individuals, whereas under the League's scheme it would go into the "common fund." Yes, but what common fund? To this the answer is: The fund required to meet the social expenses of the community. But how are these met now? By the rates and taxes. Thus the final result of the appropriation of "economic rent" or "land values" is to reduce the amount paid for rates and taxes from other sources.

As a class the workers are not concerned with taxation under capitalism. Out of the total wealth, which they produce by applying their labour power to the materials given by nature, they receive on an average about enough to keep them in the working condition that the masters' interests demand. Obviously they have no margin left over out of which to pay either taxes or economic rent. It is thus clear that it is the masters who must pay these expenses in the form of rates and taxes, and it is they who would obtain any benefit that might result from the application of "economic rent" to these expenses.

The method might not please the section of the master class who are solely, or mainly, landholders, but it would undoubtedly be beneficial to the industrial or commercial capitalists, and is really the ideal capitalist form of taxation.

We see, therefore, that the claims of the Commonwealth League with reference to the great benefits and freedoms that will flow to the working class by the taking over by the State of "economic rent" is a sheer figment of the imagination, while the real object lying behind their project—so strongly supported by the I.L.P.—is to shift as much as possible of the burden of taxation on to the shoulders of the landlords, whom the industrial capitalists often look upon as being merely "sleeping partners." So far as the workers are concerned it is another "red herring."

We may deal with other forms of nationalisation in a future article.

Jack Fitzgerald

The Socialist Party of America. (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of America was always one of the most weird travesties of a Socialist organisation, among the many such, affiliated to the late “International.” A confusion of elements, seemingly as distant as the poles, found a haven in the S.P of A. Booze reformers, Municipalist and Nationalisation cranks, anti-corruptionists, trust-busters, Anarchists of the I. W. W.—all were held in its “embracing unity."' Its many journals—mostly privately owned— advocated a multitude of doctrines often directly contradictory. The really Socialist elements—before the war, at any rate, were few and were powerless in the organisation.

As was to be expected, the war split asunder the S.P. of A., as it did most of the pseudo-Socialist parties of the world. A pro-war and an anti-war section appeared, the latter again being divided into pacifists and revolutionists. Of course, many who were “pacifist” for the first two years became “pro-war” when the United States became a belligerent.

For over four years little news of the American labour movement has reached us here, but now, by piecing together that which is filtering through we are able to make a partial estimate of what these four years of world-ferment have done towards generating a true Socialist tendency.

Still Opportunist.

Despite the fact that certain of the most notorious traitors to the working-class movement in the U.S.—Spargo, Russell, and others—together with a considerable patriotic element, left tbe party when tbe American Government declared war, tbe S.P. of A. is still dominated by reformism, and tbe majority of its members have as yet no real grip of Socialist principles. Its anti-war attitude was not consistently maintained. and where manifest was grounded, not on a clear understanding of internationalism, but, like that of the I.L.P. here, upon Liberal “pacifism,”

The discipline, as well as the “principles” of the party mar be judged horn the fact that its “lone Congressman," Meyer London, who has not only adopted an anti-Socialist attitude on practically every matter before Congress, bat has, while in office, repeatedly ignored, in the most contemptuous manner, the decisions and instructions of his own party, was re-nominated as party candidate in the recent elections.

The “Left Wing.”

Nevertheless the collapse of the late opportunist “International” together with the militaristic brutality of their “democratic” government appear to have done much, in conjunction with the spread of revolutionary education, to open the eyes of a growing section of the Party to the glaring defects in its policy and organisation. This so-called left wing is not by any means a united or nationally organised movement. The size of the country makes independent propaganda on a national basis extremely difficult. The “new outlook” has developed independently in several localities and, in accordance with local influences both of social environment and propaganda, has taken on different forms. The constitution of the Party, which admits of each State division forming its own platform, by fostering a concentration upon the State organisation, has hindered the formation, by sections with like views, of a common programme throughout the Party.

“Left Wing” factions are in practical control of the Party machinery in the States of Washington, Minnesota, Ohio, and Michigan, and in the city of Philadelphia. Journals expounding the different views of various groups were started usually by a few individuals, and later were in several cases adopted or endorsed by Locals and State Parties. They include the “Socialist News” (Cleveland, Ohio), “Revolutionary Age,” (Boston), “Class Struggle” (N.Y. City), and “The Proletarian” (Detroit, Mich.)

The variety and confusion of ideas represented by this movement of revolt against the official attitude of the Party may be estimated from the statement of one who ought to know, Karl Dannenberg, who, in his “Radical Review” (Oct.-Dec., 1918) says, “Amongst the left-wingers we will find reform-repudiating Socialists, Mass Actionists, Direct Actionists with Syndicalist tendencies, Socialist Industrial Unionists, American Bolshevists aspiring for an American Red Guard, even moderate reformers and, of course, the customary chronic kickers.” Such a conglomeration, if united in a separate party, would, it is obvious, form one in no way superior to the old body.

The fact is that in the so-called Left Wing there are not one but many currents, in numerous respects antagonistic. Much more Marxian educational work requires to be done before a sound, strong Socialist Party emerges from the present confusion. Nevertheless the fact that a considerable and growing section of the S.P. of A. have seen the folly of the old opportunist tactics is gratifying, and evidence is not wanting that in several quarters the need is strongly felt for disciplined organisation and for Socialist political action, revolutionary and uncompromising.

One of the most hopeful signs is that most, if not all, of the L.W. groups have definitely decided against the advocacy of palliatives and reforms—a stand which the S.P.G.B. was the first to take at its inception fifteen years ago. The Socialist Party of Michigan (incorporated in the S P. of A.) claim to have held this position since 1914. The S.P. Of Ohio have adopted as their “complete platform’’and “only demand,” “The World for the Workers.”

“Mass Action.”

A considerable section of the “Left-Wing,” including those responsible for and endorsing the “Revolutionary Age” and the “Class Struggle,” are advocates of what they call Mass Action as a means of achieving the Revolution.

The exponents of this policy avoid definite criticism because of the indefiniteness of their proposals. Louis C. Fraina, editor of the two journals named above, tells us in his book “Revolutionary Socialism,” “Mass action is the instinctive action of the proletariat, gradually developing more conscious and organised forms and definite purposes.” Delightfully explicit! So Fraina and his school are going to rely upon the instincts of the working class to achieve Socialism. This is so much better than relying upon their reason and knowledge, for, whereas the latter needs developing by the tedious method of education, the former only requires directing. Quite the Hyndman touch !

Fraina, of course, does not explain it quite like this, but such is the logical outcome of his statement. The use of the term “instinctive” to explain the actions of social groups is objectionable; particularly the absurd statement that the proletariat are “instinctively revolutionary.” If there is one thing the workers would appear, to the superficial observer, to have a rooted, natural predisposition for it is capitalism. In a future article I may be allowed to enlarge on this.

The fact is, as the reader may have guessed, that the term “Mass Action” is a shibboleth used to cover a multitude of different forms of activity and as a convenient means of shelving the “problem” of Socialist tactics. Street meetings, demonstrations, strikes, insurrections, all those are forms of “Mass Action” as “soon as they acquire political significance,” say the exponents of the doctrine. What are we to understand by “political significance?” If the Government suppresses a strike this strike is obviously of political significance, even though the strikers had no conscious political end in view. The gate is open for the most un-revolutionary, palliating activity to be included in these “new revolutionary tactics." There is a division of opinion among the Mass Actionists as to whether parliamentary action can be Mass Action or not, even though it is obviously so on the above definition, for an election is mass demonstration of political significance.”

The whole conception is loose and capable of all manner of interpretations. Such confusion is just what it is essential to avoid in Socialist propaganda. “The Proletarian” (March 1919) hits the nail on the head when it says : “Is it [Mass Action] just our old friend Direct Action come back with a new suit of clothes on? We will do well to enquire into the meaning of the phrase before accepting it. At present it seems to be a rallying cry for all the elements who have repudiated the old parliamentarism. But we have had rallying cries before as a substitute for education, and they have only proved to be a snare and a delusion.”

A New York Programme.

Only two “official” declarations of principles and policy by the above-mentioned groups have been received by the.present writer.. Of. these one is that adopted by a convention of the I.W. section of the New York locals on Feb. 16th this year. This group has a central committee which represents about twenty sections in the State of New York. It endorses the “Revolutionary Age,” published in Boston, and is now merged with the original “Mass Action”group, the “Socialist Propaganda League.”

The programme opens well:

1. We stand for a uniform declaration of principles in all party platforms, both local and national, and the abolition of all social reform planks now contained in them.
2. The party must teach, propagate, and agitate exclusively for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism through a Proletarian Dictatorship.
3. The Socialist candidates elected to office shall adhere strictly to the above provisions.

It then goes on to endorse “revolutionary industrial unionism” and demands a party-owned Press, the repudiation of the old “International,” and the affiliation to that recently formed in Moscow about which so little is really known in this country.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, no form of industrial organisation can be revolutionary at the present stage of the mental development of the working class, and at the same time be strong enough in numbers to function effectively in the immediate struggles of the workers on the industrial field. A union cannot be correctly described as revolutionary unless the majority of its members are conscious revolutionists. As Socialist education is the only deliberate means of hastening the formation of the latter, it is a waste of valuable time to advocate now the formation of revolutionary unions before the ground has been adequately prepared, as the New York Left Wing suggest doing.

In addition to this positive error the programme commits an error of omission in failing to point out the necessity for political action in order to obtain control of the armed force of the State. The programme bears a strong family resemblance to that of the American S.L.P., the mistakes of which have at last been partly realised by its British namesake.

“Good Stuff" in Michigan.

The platform of the Socialist Party in Michigan is a much more satisfactory declaration. I append it in full:

   We, the Socialist Party of Michigan, in Convention assembled at Grand Rapids, February 24th 1919, reaffirm our allegiance to the uncompromising principles of international Socialism.
   We declare that the capitalist system has outgrown its historic function and become utterly incapable of meeting the problems now confronting society.
     In spite of the multiplicity of labour-saving machinery and the improved methods of industry, the position of the workers becomes ever more insecure, and the class straggle between the exploited. and the exploiters becomes ever more acute. The boasted prosperity of this nation is only for the owners of the means of production and distribution; to the proletariat it means only hardship and misery.
     It is the capitalist system that is responsible for the increasing burden of armaments, wars, poverty, slums, child labour, much of the crime and insanity, disease, and the commercialised prostitution. These being some of the manifestations of the present mode of production they can only be eliminated by the removal of the cause—the capitalist system. The method adopted by the Socialist Party of Michigan for the abolition of the present social order is that of political action.
  The politics of the working class are comprised within the confines of the class struggle; and conversely the class struggle is necessarily waged on the political field.
   By this statement we do not imply that the political action of the working class is always confined within the bounds of parliamentary procedure; nor that the means employed in waging the class struggle must everywhere be the same. Political action we define as any action taken by the exploited against the exploiters to obtain control of the powers of State; or by the master class to retain control, using these powers to secure the means of life.
  The Socialist Party of Michigan, recognises the full significance of working-class organisation for the capture of the political State, and we call upon the workers in this State to unite with us to the end that we may socialise and democratically manage the means of production and distribution, and eliminate for all time the exploitation of the working class.

The basic principles outlined in the above declaration are essentially correct, though there are in it one or two errors in detail and faulty statements.

Exception must be taken to the reference in par. 4 to the “burden of armaments.” The growing cost of armaments does not decrease either the price or the value of labour power. The wages of the workers are not appreciably affected. The expense of armaments is borne by the propertied class, and by some of these it is certainly considered a burden. It is also true that, viewed from the standpoint of an “ideal” distribution of production armaments are a sheer waste of labour; but so, from this point of view, is more than half the activity of the workers. The statement shows signs of improperly digested economics, and it is calculated to sidetrack the workers into the reformist camp.

The fifth paragraph, though well-intentioned, is weak. The “politics of the working class” are mainly Liberal and Tory or Republican and Democrat, and. if “within the confines of the class struggle” at all, are on the side of the capitalists. It is hardly true to say that the class struggle is “necessarily waged on the political field.” It will culminate, be decided, and largely end there, although it may partly revert to the economic field if the capitalists resist the process of expropriation upon the Socialist workers achieving political supremacy.

The Convention at which the above platform was adopted, and at which the Socialist element was dominant, took steps to eliminate reformist elements from within the party, in Michigan, or at all events to suppress their activities, by amending the State constitution as follows:

   “Any member, Local, or Branch of a Local, advocating legislative reforms or support organisations formed for the purpose of advocating such reforms, shall be expelled from the Socialist Party. The State Executive Committee is authorised to revoke the charter of any Local that does not conform to this amendment.”

An attitude upon religion identical with that of the S.P.G.B was adopted and enforced by the constitution of the following clause: “It shall be the duty of all agitators and organisers, upon all occasions, to avail themselves of the opportunity of explaining religion on the basis of the materialist conception of history as a social phenomenon.” The Convention unanimously endorsed as its literary expression “The Proletarian,” though that paper as yet remains in private hands.

A resolution was carried condemning the national E C. and demanding the convening of a special national conference of the party to determine the vital and urgent matters of principles and policy. That this attempt to reconstitute the entire party upon sound lines will fail is a foregone conclusion. Probably the authors have no very great hopes in this direction. What will be the attitude of its Michigan organisation if the national party adheres to the old opportunist tactics? Probably, almost certainly, the question of separation will arise. To one over here it would seem that secession would be followed by unity with the already existing Workers’ Socialist Party of the United States, the principles and tactics of which are closely similar to those of the Michigan body, and which has its centre in the same locality—Detroit.

In conclusion, let me state that there is every reason to believe that not the least of the factors which hare contributed to the forward movement in Michigan and, to a lesser extent, elsewhere in the U.S.A. has been the far-reaching educational influence of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

R.W. Housley

The War to End War. (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since August 1914 the assertion has been continually cropping up in the most unlikely places that the “ Great War” was being fought in order to prevent, for all time, the possibility of such a disaster ever again overtaking the world. The workers of every country engaged in the struggle were urged to come in and do their bit, so that when the strife was over and one side or the other emerged victorious a reign of perpetual peace should be inaugurated.

Papers and people of the sentimental type, such, for instance, as the “Daily News” and Harold Begbie, were particularly vehement in their repeated declarations that the war that has been devastating Europe for the past five years was, must and should be the last, or as some of them put it, the very last war.

A great many people believed it. Undoubtedly many men joined the Army and fought and died in the belief that they were acting in the best possible way to prevent the recurrence of such an overwhelming catastrophe. They were inflamed with what is so often, and so erroneously, considered the noble idea of self-sacrifice, were willing to go through a course of brutal and degrading training in the art (!) of warfare, allowed themselves to be sent abroad to kill and be killed at the command of their superior officers, thinking that they were thereby helping to make future generations safe from the horrors of militarism. They were most of them quite sincere in the matter. Mixed with the contempt one cannot help but feel for their wrong-headed and foolish idea of patriotic self-sacrifice, we may perhaps spare a little leaven of pity for the waste of what was in its inception a not altogether ignoble impulse.

The utter foolishness of this idea of the late war having as one of its results the ending of all warfare, can be seen at once if we consider the world situation to-day.

• The Entente and its allies are fighting the Hungarian revolutionarists.
• The Entente and the reactionary Russian party are fighting both the Bolsheviks and the Poles.
• The German Government are fighting the German Spartacists.
• The Bulgarian Government is fighting the Bulgarian revolutionists.
• The Italians and the Jugo-Slavs are on the verge of a conflict (if such has not already started).
• The Greeks are calling up their 1920 class of recruits, to be ready for anticipated happenings in the Balkan States.
• New Zealand is alarmed at what it considers to be the aims of the Japanese to dominate the Pacific.
• There are rebellions and riots, accompanied by wholesale executions and repressions, in India and Egypt.
• Ireland is only kept from an outbreak by the menace of machine-guns and tanks.
• There are strike-riots in Australia and in America.
• Conflicts, with many casualties resulting, have taken place between the French authorities and the French trade unions.
• England is nominally the most peaceful, but even here there is an undercurrent of discontent among all sections of the populace, which may at any moment break through the sheep-like docility of the British working man.

Perpetual peace has not even started to be yet awhile.

Anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of economics knows how futile are the expectations as to a capitalist war, waged all capitalist States, resulting in a cessation of by armed conflict While capitalism lasts; while certain groups of capitalists struggle among themselves for, the possession of the most-favoured—from the profit-making standpoint—portions of the earth; while you have such groups intriguing one against the other for the possession of the world markets, you must inevitably have a condition of things that leads eventually to war. There comes a time when neither of the rival groups will give way: then comes a deadlock and an appeal to their respective governments, leading up to appeals to the credulous working man in the various countries to join up and fight “the war to end war,” “the war of liberty,” “the war to make the world safe for democracy,” “the war for the rights of small nationalities,” and the war for all the other catch-phrases with which we have become familiar during the last few years.

The way to end war is by the detraction of the root-cause of war, that is by the destruction of the capitalist system itself. There can be no escape from the spectacle of bloodshed, rapine, and horror while capitalism lasts.

The Socialist, from his inception as Socialist, has for his part been waging a war more bitter and deadly even than that which has reddened the plains and fouled the air of Europe. His war is the age-long struggle of the dispossessed against the owners of the world’s wealth. This is the last and greatest war, the waging and winning of which stand as beacons of hope in this dark age of death and destruction.

To his comrades in the fight the writer sends a message of courage and endurance; to the non-Socialist members of his class (his future comrades) he voices an appeal for a patient and intelligent examination of the principles of Socialism; to both he reiterates his assurance of the final speedy emancipation of his class from the thralldom of capitalism to the new-born freedom of the Socialist Commonwealth.

F. J. Webb

'Song of the Wage-Slaves' (1919)

From the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

We grow in might and numbers as we mix from every clime,
And march beneath our Standard scorning fear or blows of Time:
     Our cause is universal, and to burst Man's bonds we meet:
     The Workers' war for freedom can n'er end in their defeat? 

We fill the world with riches by our work of mind and hands,
Yet we are ground in bondage by the Lords of Wealth and Lands.
    Our pay is but a pittance: we're machines to grind out wealth
    To make the rich men richer while we're robbed of peace and health. 

Life's best gifts are denied us; from our wage-slave's hell we rise,
To smash the bloody system built on greed and fraud and lies!
      'Mid great wealth some are starving who can't sell themselves for bread;
      Their days are dumb with darkness, while their hearts to joy are dead.

          We'll cease to bear some burdens that have weighed us down for years—
          The manacles of slavery ever wet with blood and tears;
              Nor wage wars for our masters when they lust for power and gold:
              We'll end it all for ever! And the world in peace we'll hold.

           The earth shall be for workers!—not for thieves and parasites!

           Who turn it to Inferno by their strife for spurious rights.

               We'll trample down all fetters; we shall wing to heights unknown

               And attain to Life Resplendent when we make the world our own!

Graham May

Editorial: Bobby's Discretion. (1919)

Editorial from the June 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

So, the bobbies have funked it. We are not, for the present, at all events, to be treated to the comic spectacle of strike processions of bluebottles being shepherded through the streets by their own blacklegs, the "specials." The world has lost an entertainment.

Of course, we are not blind to the difficulties of the policemen's situation. Their bosses had got the strangle-hold on them. By the simple expedient of stopping sixpence in the pound of their wages, confiscating their fees for the service of summons, and in other dubious ways, the capitalists provide a pensions fund at poor Booby's expense. The loss of this pension, together with the "sack," is the first threat the bosses hold over the bobbies' heads. Bobby is a man with no other trade in his hands in the vast majority of cases. So the threat of losing a regular job has special terrors for him. In addition, the loss of his pension—a pension designed, as most pensions are, to get a disciplinary grip upon the subject which probably no other expedient possible in a "free country" could afford, is a prospect requiring a quite uncommon type of mind to withstand.

The bosses, of course, played the game for all it was worth. They said they were flooded with applications from soldiers and ex-soldiers to take the policemen's jobs. They also talked loudly but vaguely about the arrangements that were being made to meet Buttons' grievances. It was the old, old game of bribe some and threaten others—the game played from the beginning to the end of the recruiting for the war—the game played to kill the demobilisation trouble after the Armistice. As, in the earlier case, the single and the young were promised jobs and preferment if they enlisted, and the married and the older ones were threatened that they would have to go if they did shove the others in; as, later, the older men were promised early demobilisation if they kept quiet, and detention till the last if they did not, while the younger men were soothed with extra money, so the older policemen were threatened more particularly with the loss of all that was so nearly won, while the younger men were soothed with promised improvements in the longer road before them.

Meanwhile the policemen played their cards just about as badly as they could. They have climbed down under threats—than which hardly anything could more completely have exposed their weakness and fear. Added to this they have climbed down before their bosses had committed themselves to the vaguely talked-of concessions, and in face of this confession of funk and weakness those concessions are going to shrivel up considerably. The bosses have found out all they wanted to know—that the reward they are offering their bulldogs is sufficient to secure their allegiance to their odious duties. If they dare not decline those duties for themselves they can never dare to decline to perform them for others. So, when labour troubles come Bobby will not, the masters are assured, be a trade unionist, and they have secured this, thanks to their cunning, at about the lowest possible price.

The Daily Chronicle in its issue of June 2 tries to point out to the policemen why the Government can never recognise the Police Union, and, as usual, it reveals only half the truth. "The police exist," our contemporary says, "to support the State. That is what they are for. . . They cannot strike and agitate, or even become public politicians, without ceasing to be policemen." Which is true enough as far as it goes, but does not dispose of the not unimportant fact that the policeman is so essentially a member of the exploited class that he cannot get his admitted grievances redressed until he threatens to cease to be a policeman.

The more important matter, however, is the statement that a policeman is only such to support the State. The complement of this half truth is, of course, that the State is only an instrument for keeping the workers in subjection. Directly this position is realised it becomes obvious how far the police are from getting recognition for any police union that could possibly link them with the unions of the industrial world. The position of police force affiliated with the industrial trade unions would indeed be a tragic one in a time of strife. This the bosses have sense enough to perceive, if the underlings have not. And it is for this reason rather than that they are afraid of being dictated to by the men that the Government will never recognise the Police Union.

It was probably a lie that the police authorities are inundated with blackleg applications from soldiers, but the capitalists have a deep pocket, and, as long as their control of the instrument of the State lasts will have no serious difficulty in obtaining men who will carry out their behests. It is simply a question of the price.

The only thing that can deliver the policeman—as the rest of us— from the tyranny of his tormentors is for the working class to assume control of the State, and to use its forces, including the police, to abolish capitalism and establish the Socialist Commonwealth.