Editorial: Pensions for the Dead. (1908)

Editorial from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Liberal mountain has been long in labour, and has nearly been delivered of Old Age Pensions. We say nearly, advisedly; for the Government, with shocking callousness regarding the welfare of its poor, emaciated little mouse, has determined to sever it from the Budget, in which it would be protected from the wicked lords, and to embody it in a separate Bill; thus deliberately and of malice aforethought placing it at the mercy of those whom the Liberals never tire of denouncing as enemies and wreckers of all Liberal measures. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer has pledged himself to this course, and the mouse may yet fail to see the light of day.

Nevertheless, we confess to no anxiety on the matter. We have no desire to claim that our influence is visible in the result. Reforms are the gifts of capitalism, and are only granted to the workers in vain endeavours to stay their advance to power. And we are convinced that to get anything vital to their happiness the working class must take it themselves. To do that the workers must be supreme in the State, and then, of necessity, it becomes a question, not of reform, but of social reconstruction.

The Liberal “Old Age” proposal is, then, but a sop to keep the workers quiet—but such a paltry sop. The “Old Age” part is prominent enough, but surely a microscope is needed to discover the pension.

Five shillings a week when you are seventy, should you be so unfortunate as to live as long. A problematic five shillings a week at seventy— that is, of course, if you have been a good boy ; if you haven’t within five years been convicted of vagrancy, desertion, or “serious” crime; if you are not in receipt of poor relief; if your income is not more than ten shillings a week, and so on—while married couples living together are to be punished for their foolishness by having their pensions reduced to 3/9 per head.

Five shillings a week as a bribe to the worker to keep out of the workhouse, where it would cost at least 18/- to keep him. Five shillings a week as a premium on low wages to those few ancient toilers who, by some miracle, are still able to work a little. Such are the promises of the “Workers’ Budget.”

The pensioners are, indeed, condemned to live—or endeavour to live—upon a total income that in no case can exceed fifteen shillings a week. In the vast majority of cases they must die slowly upon considerably less. Happy Veterans ! Not that they are likely to be numerous. Precautions have been taken to avoid that contingency. Besides, the average working man is scrapped, as a profit producing machine for the capitalist, a score of years before the pension is to bless him. He will thus have a score or more of years in which to purify his body by fasting preparatory to entering the heaven which a generous capitalism is to provide for its worn-out beasts of burden. Truly, the workers have not words wherewith to express their thanks ! Kaiser Wilhelm, having taken the initiative in the conference of the Western European nations in the matter of promoting measures of social reform as an antidote to Socialism, must feel contempt for stingy, shop-keeping, British Liberalism, whose cheeseparing policy, he might say, would ruin all. Social reform in Liberal England limps painfully behind that of despotic Germany, and it is significant of the worth of mere social reform that the German wage-slave is, on the whole, not one whit better off than his British confrere. The enactment of social reform, in fact, cannot keep pace with the progressive crushing of the wage worker under the iron heel of Capital. 

The hardships of British and German workers—of workers the world over—flow from their exploitation, and must continue until this ends. And to the conquest of Society soon or late the workers must bend their Titanic strength, for there is no help but in themselves, and no hope but in Socialism.

Kaiser and the German 'Socialists' (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an article in the “Daily Express” (28.9.15) entitled “Kaiser and the Socialists,” reference is is made to the Kaisers’ conquest of the Socialist (so-called) leader of Karlsruhe, one Fendrich, who has been serving with the Kaiser’s legions. It seems Fendrich has written his war experiences for the Imperial benefit. An interview resulted and the royal personage shook Fendrich by the hand and thanked him. The scribe says regarding Wilhelm’s persuasive way :

“He has already convinced men like Scheidemann, Haase, Franck, and all other governmental Socialists. Fendrich is only one more. He will get the Iron Cross. Dr. Sudekum, the Socialist leader, got it.”

Yes ! And when the International working class cease letting their brains out on hire, all the ruddy lot will get it—where the chopper hit the chicken. Meanwhile we hourly expect some similar royal greatness to be thrust upon us.

B. B. B.

Blogger's Note:

The Workers' Liberty website carries a 1915 article on Anton Fendrich, which was originally published in the San Francisco Call, and which was reprinted in James Connolly's Workers' Republic on the 4th December 1915.

The Fruits of Anarchy. (1915)

From the November 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Curious effects of divergent interests.

When a period of trade activity has been unusually protracted, the inevitable crisis invariably startles the economists of the ruling class in the midst of ruminations on their good fortune, or genius, in having at last overcome trade epidemics. As with the trade crisis, so with war comes as a bolt from the blue, shattering theories, exposing contradictions, dissipating hopes, and falsifying prophecies.

Anarchy in Interests Produces—

Conflicting interests must always produce conflicting ideas. A survey of prevailing ideas will consequently give some notion of the underlying anarchy of capitalist interests and conditions.

One group of idealists we can afford to leave to their own shallow cogitations. Those who argue that without war to develop and ennoble—and kill off the fittest—the human race is certain to degenerate. They are backed up by the “war traders” for obvious reasons. Opposed to them are the humanitarians, the anti-militarists, and the peace-loving bourgeois traders, whose ships, heavily insured, are on every sea. These traders, always fearing for their markets, express vehemently their belief in arbitration and their suspicions of diplomatists generally. In the interest of trade Andrew Carnegie subscribes two millions to finance a peace tribunal. At the same time armament firms subsidise the Press and frighten the ignorant with scares, bribe high-placed officials through their agents in all parts of the world, cater for every nation or province that happens to lie inflicted with agitators, whose business it is to keep alive feuds and magnify every action of a neighbouring-State into a sinister threat against the cherished freedom of the people.

Anarchy in Ideas.

The following quotation from the “Daily News and Leader” (15.7.14) presents quite typically the attitude taken up (in peace times) by the peace-mongers :

“If there is not soon a world-wide movement against the tyranny of war and of all the infamies associated with it, it will not be for lack of lessons. Wherever we turn, to France or Russia, Germany or Japan, Italy or our own country, the evidence accumulates of the burden which the war-traders put upon the backs of the people. Their business has no relation to patriotism. It is cosmopolitan in its operations and soulless in its motive. It works upon the fears and hates of ignorant people, uses the Press as the instrument of its purposes and makes tools of the diplomatists and the statesmen, many of whom are financially interested in its success. In Russia, in France, and now in Japan we have seen how it can buy up the very services and make lackeys of the generals and admirals of army and navy. Its maleficient influence overshadows the democracy of every land and until we have found a way of uprooting the whole evil system there will be no real progress made towards peace or an enduring civilisation.”

“Our own country” is not excepted in this sweeping statement. The Prime Minister, when confronted with figures relating to the operations of armament firms abroad, said he dared say the figures were correct, but he knew of no sufficient reason for instituting an enquiry. Shortly after two of the largest British firms entered into a contract with the Turkish Government to carry out extensive works at Constantinople that meant the virtual re-modelling of the Turkish navy, while just before the outbreak of the war, according to a prominent war correspondent, “the British Admiralty was lending missions of naval officers to Greece and Turkey, to hasten in co-operation with the contracting syndicates the preparation of their war forces.” The same writer added : “There is not a feud, or the possibility of a feud, but these tradesmen are at hand to egg on the rival adventurers, and to ‘equip’ them with the latest instruments of the science and art of wholesale homicide.”

Circumstances, you know, Alter Cases.

The peace-mongers forget their former denunciations when their country is involved in war. The “business” of the war traders has a close “relation to patriotism” when the “latest instruments of the science and art of wholesale homicide” must be placed in the hands of the workers to defend capitalist interest. The cry is then “Pile up the munitions ; more elbow room to the war traders.” They forget what they have said—but they cannot unsay it.

Before the war it had become almost a platitude that great wars of conquest, religious wars, etc., were things of the past ; that to-day commerce and industry dictated the policies of the different nations. Since the war every capitalist hack has been busy denying the economic cause—even while crying : “Capture the enemy’s trade”—repeating again and again that the struggle is between “militarism and democracy.”

“Prussian militarism” has become an everyday phrase. Exactly what is meant by it has never yet been clearly explained. According to some supporters of the so-called voluntary system, it is synonymous with conscription ; others affect to see difference between the French and German forms. One fact beyond dispute is that the capitalist class of every country maintain armed forces up to the strength they deem necessary to cope with their enemies within and without ; and it is even more certain that the capitalists of no country hesitate to use them when their interests are at stake. The methods may be slightly different, but the object is always the same—to retain possession or ownership of the means of life.

Relatives are Best Apart.

For instance, the Kaiser, according to Benjamin Kidd (in the “Daily News and Leader,” 7.9.15), appeals directly to his conscripts, saying :

“In view of the present Socialist agitation, it may come to pass that I shall command you to shoot down your own relatives, your brothers, your sons, or parents, which God forbid, but even this you must obey without a murmur.”

while Mr. Asquith, in the House of Commons says, in answer to a question (I quote the “Daily Chronicle.” 24.3.14).

“I think it is a very good rule, where the military force is called in to render assistance to the civil power, in exceptional cases, both as regards officers and men, so far as you can do it, to avoid the employment of those who are locally connected by personal, domestic, or social ties.”

In peace time every increase in armaments raises the war discussion anew and furnishes fresh evidence in the shape of contradictions, confessions, and absurdities. Ten days before the declaration of war the United Methodist Conference passed a resolution “protesting against the ominous growth of armaments.” One rev. delegate declared that

“the war spirit was not in the heart of King George, the Kaiser, the House of Commons, the Reichstag, or in the hearts of the British or German people. It was in the brain of a few irresponsible journalists, who were obsessed with a dastardly kind of Imperialism. He hated strikes, but would be glad to see a strike of the great democratic forces of Europe as a protest against this wicked, inhuman, and sinful waste of money.”

Note how these despicable followers of the mythical Christ are concerned for their masters’ money—a fraction of which comes to them in the shape of livings. One would almost imagine it was of greater importance in their estimation than human life did one not remember that personal ambition overshadows everything else in the mind of the up-to-date Gospel hawker.

Notoriety being their goal, it does not always follow that popular ideas must be applauded ; sometimes the reverse will bring a freak Non-conformist within the circle of the lime-light. At present it is almost criminal to denounce war, even in theory yet the president of the Churchmen’s Union at Rugby goes even further and denounces scientists for their share in it—possibly on principle, because he recognises the antagonism between science and religion. He

“deplored the employment of the latest discoveries of science and the newest inventions of civilisation not in the service of mankind, but to kill, burn, and torture. Men of science and learning had been bribed by the rulers of nations to prostitute their powers to the invention of horrible instruments for the wholesale killing, poisoning, and torture of brave men.”

Parson’s Filthy Job.

Obviously this is a case of the pot reflecting on the sooty condition of the kettle. The priest is equally susceptible to capitalist bribery with the scientist, and just as ready to furbish old superstitions or manustitions or manufacture new ones, to the detriment of the working class, as the scientist is to invent or improve instruments for the perpetration of wholesale murder.

So much for the irresponsibles. There are writers and politicians, however, that are considered authoritative ; but we shall be disappointed if we expect to find their utterances free from similar contradictions and absurdities. Mr. Norman Angell in “The Great Illusion,” we are told by a contemporary,

“Lays down the principle, which he enforces by references to recent history, that in the case of a great war the victor suffers more in the long run than the vanquished. . . . Moreover, because also of this interdependence of our credit-built finance, the confiscation by an invader of private property . . . would so react upon the finance of the invader’s country as to make the damage to the invader resulting from the confiscation exceed in value the property confiscated. So that Germany’s success in conquest would be a demonstration of the complete economic futility of conquest. . . . For allied reasons, in our day, the exaction of tribute from a conquered people has become an economic impossibility.”

In November 1910 Mr. Asquith, speaking on the subject of international relations, furnished the occasion for a Press discussion in which prominent leader writers expressed similar views to those of Mr. Angell. The “Aberdeen Evening Gazette” (11.11.10) said :

“If Germany beat us, she could not destroy our trade : she could not seize any of our colonies or annex any of our territories. She could not exact a ‘thousand million’ indemnity, because credit is now an international business, and to impair British credit would be to shake her own. If Germany smashed us she would smash her own best customer, and her own people would pay the penalty.”

The ”Times” (11.11.10) said:

“They move, as he says, in a vicious circle. They arm because they distrust one another, and they dis-trust one another because they are armed. It is a chronic malady, the cure of which Mr. Asquith is optimist enough to hope for through the growth of a more genial spirit among the nations. A more potent agency will perhaps be the increasing complexity of international relations, which makes it difficult for one nation to damage another without almost equally damaging itself.”

The “Westminster Gazette” (11.11.10) said :

“Trade is a great pacificator, and the international credit on which trade rests is a thing to which war is abhorrent. The fear of breaking the peace and the difficulty of breaking it grows with the growth of armaments. And at the same time the subconscious conviction that the whole collective process is a kind of insanity must gradually project itself into the conscious proceedings of civilised nations.”

These quotations are by no means isolated. In recent years similar opinions have been repeated so often that they should be familiar to every newspaper reader. But note the change since the outbreak of war. Every possible evil, from economic, annihilation to wholesale slaughter, has been flung at the heads of the workers to frighten thorn into the recruiting office or the munition factory. When the international capitalist class saw no immediate cause for quarrelling, their scribes told us our trade could not be destroyed by Germany, nor could our colonies or territory be annexed. A war indemnity could not be exacted by Germany because it would shake her own credit. Yet Britain’s credit is to be shaken by this very action, according to every responsible newspaper, while the self-appointed “Adviser-in-Chief to the British Nation”—Mr. Horatio Bottomley—says that “we shall need an army of occupation to mind the German capital whilst the war indemnity is being paid.”

Many writers have uttered grave warnings on the horrors of war, and have suggested remedies that were almost laughable—if the subject were not so tragic. Mr. Egmont Hake, in the “Daily Telegraph” of September 6, 1892, prophesied that

“We shall have battles raging for days over extensive grounds, hurried and disorderly retreats, desperate pursuits, and consequently, miles of country strewn with carcases and corpses. Should we wonder if to this tragedy Nemesis were to add her epilogue —pest.”

and the remedy is, “a liberal support of our hospitals” !

Professor Gardiner says :

“It should not be impossible to build upon the basis of the international comity of savants a society of men pledged to use their powers and discoveries not for destruction, but for saving life, not for promoting, but for moderating friction between nations.”

Benjamin Kidd told us in “Social Evolution” that the Christian religion was responsible for an ever-growing altruism and humanitarianism in the “Western civilisations.” He is, perhaps, surprised at the calmness with which these peoples regard the slaughter going on to-day, though, he admits his theory is falsified and that altruism is useless as a force to avert war, when he suggests that the Allies should “declare the United States of. Europe”—and, one might add, arm in preparation for war with the United States of America, or some other combination of powers in competition with them for the world’s markets.

But about the most outrageous thing that has been said on the war question is the reply given to those workers who asked what is their stake in the country. “Their wages.” Those wages that for “millions of the workers do not suffice to replace the energy used up in their daily toil.” The wages system is the most complete and tyrannical form of slavery evolved during centuries of class domination. Wage slavery squeezes every ounce of energy out of the workers and scraps them, condemns men, women, and children to degrading poverty and continual anxiety and, as “John Bull” says, “the sordid atmosphere of the office and the workshop.”

This is the worker’s stake in every land—if he seeks diligently and has the luck to find a master. But if he has knowledge concerning the position he will detest the wages system, and if he has wisdom in addition to knowledge he will work for its abolition and the establishment of Socialism. The nationality of his master in the meantime will not count with him : all members of the master class alike are to him parasites that live by his labour and drive him into the factory with the whip of unemployment and hunger, to be exploited.

F. Foan

Notes by the Way: The Hunt is Up—Profiteers on the Run (1941)

The Notes by the Way Column from the August 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Hunt is Up—Profiteers on the Run

Someday, someone who has the time and the interest will make a study of the way capitalism has corrupted thought and expression and debased language to such an extent that millions of people are incapable of making plain statements of fact and words rarely mean what they should mean. Most people know, in a general way, that the claims made for advertised goods are mostly false and irrelevant, yet always thousands of people will be taken in by the extravagant claims made for some new product or by a newly-phrased puff for an old one. Look at the description employers are allowed to give to the pay and conditions of their employees, the “high wages and bonuses,” the welfare services and the “good promotion prospects” and promise of security for the “right man”; yet, still under the Servants Characters Act of 1792, workers who use false references to get one of these falsely advertised jobs may be proceeded against. Read the tricky, deceitful language used by professional politicians, whose skill lies in gaining confidence and votes not in a truthful statement of the nature of the problems before the electorate. Notice the traditionally evasive and obscuring habits of expression of the majority of religious preachers and writers. They are probably the worst offenders, because they are so utterly dependent on the favour of the rich and powerful in their church, and even lack the robustness of the politician and journalist who, though similarly dependent, have the confidence that comes from the knowledge that they have behind them the backing of their own party or paper within well understood limits.

The hall-mark of expression under capitalism is that everything is twisted and blunted. The golden rule is that, all plain, unqualified statements of condemnation of anti-social conduct are sure to hit some individual or group among the propertied and influential and must therefore be avoided, or toned down, or clearly directed only against some sub-division of the evil doers. Thus all politicians declare themselves in favour of the abolition of “undeserved” poverty, but not, of course, of poverty itself—as if “deserts” had anything to do with the poverty of the working class. All denounce the “profiteer,” but not the profit-maker, though nobody knows what “profiteering” means if it does not mean the lauded capitalist aim of making as much profit as possible. All parsons and guardians of morality are agreed that lying and deceit are to be condemned; except, of course, for purposes of waging war or diplomacy, or to attract buyers for goods, or induce workers to vote for capitalism at elections; in short, except for nearly all the normal activities of capitalist life.

At the moment the hunt is up again for “profiteers,” and the News Chronicle blandly announces (July 25th, 1941) that “the days of the profiteers in clothing and other necessities of life are numbered.”

The News Chronicle does not care to recall that the profiteer was killed times without number, finally and forever, in the last war and in each and every year since 1918 up to 1939, and that when this war broke out it was universally agreed by the newspapers that there would not be, and could not be, any such person in this war.

The latest, and really the last, antidote for profiteers, according to the News Chronicle, lies in “thirty-four Board of Trade inspectors,” who are going “to track them down.”

They must forgive us if we smile at the spectacle of the 34 Board of Trade rabbits out hunting down the capitalist stoats. The advice of Socialists to the working class is to forget these whimsical side-shows and get on with the real work of ending capitalism.

A “Socialist” Councillor Hates Working-Class Ingratitude

According to the Evening News (July 24th, 1941) the Erith Council have decided to serve notices to quit on 20 tenants of Council houses in arrears with their rent. The report continues : —

“Councillor T. C. Pannell, leader of the Socialist Party, said these houses were not let at economic rents. Some of them were the cheapest in the town. Some people thought that because the Socialist Party was in power they could do what they liked.

Councillor T. Mantle, chairman of the Housing Committee, said:—”I am amazed at the unscrupulous and unprincipled way in which some of these tenants have dealt with us. Tenants have lied to me and taken advantage of me. Some are in good work, and get high wages. If they will not pay in these circumstances, they will not pay at all.”

It is hardly necessary to have to explain that it is not the Socialist Party in control at Erith, but the Labour Party, and probably the two Councillors mentioned are guiltless of having claimed to be Socialists, but they certainly must share responsibility with the rest of the Labour Party for the common misconception which regards Labourism as Socialism.

But see what happens ? Possibly some tenants have absorbed a vague idea that under Socialism, while they could not expect to do just what they liked if that meant looking after themselves regardless of others, they could expect that under Socialism they would have no rent to pay. Further, they may have heard the Labour Party propaganda, which represents Labourism as an approach to Socialism by degrees. What could be more natural than that they should interpret this as paying less and less rent until it reached zero.

Altogether it seems that Labourism in trying to administer capitalism at Erith has got in a bit of a mess. Socialists will not be surprised.

The Archbishop Speaks and Heaven Alone Knows What he Means

The following report is from The Times (July 3rd, 1941): —

“The Archbishop of York, Dr. Temple, in a broadcast last night, gave this four-point definition of Christian social principles :—

Property is necessary to fullness of personal life, and this is its justification.

The life of every individual is within the fellowship of the community, and property divorced from all social function or service forfeits that justification.

The mere lending of money should not be a means of acquiring control over another man or his activities, and the interest payable, if any, should be proportioned to the service rendered, not to the relative strength and weakness of the parties to the transaction.

Commerce should be an exchange at fair prices for the benefit of both parties and of the community generally—not a rivalry in which each seeks to buy cheap and to sell dear.”

The Archbishop’s admirers will say that this is an admirable statement of Christian social policy, bold but not Utopian, sympathetic without being sentimental, progressive, but statesmanlike. They will all interpret it to mean what suits their interests and outlook. None of them will be able to say what exactly it means in practice. Property, says Dr. Temple, is necessary to fullness of personal life; but what property and whose property? Socialists are all in favour of everybody having possessions in personal articles needed for comfort and convenience, but this cannot be until the capitalist class are deprived of their ownership and control of the means of production and distribution. The Archbishop is silent on this point, except that the third point (about the payment of interest) makes it clear that he does not see the necessity to abolish investment. As for fullness of personal life, how is the ownership of shares in dozens of companies necessary to the fullness of life of the capitalist investor ? How does Dr. Temple square it with the workers’ objection to being exploited ?

He denounces the “mere lending of money” (what is “mere” lending as distinct from lending?) if it means acquiring control over another man or his activities. But how can there be investment without such control over the activities of the workers ?

He also wants commerce on the basis of “an exchange at fair prices,” but what are fair prices? Prices which do not allow for any payment of rent, interest and profit as a property income to property owners? But the capitalists (and the administrators of Church funds) will soon tell him that they are not at all interested in commerce except for the purpose of such reaping where they have not sown.

In short, why does not Dr. Temple tell us plainly where he stands. Is he for capitalism or against it? Or just sitting on the fence making friendly (and empty) gestures to the workers on one side of it?

Helping Russia !

The Prime Minister has said that everyone in this country is anxious to help Russia. Roosevelt has said the same of U.S.A. It appears from the report below that a number of people are more concerned about helping themselves.

“Entry of Russia into the war is causing excitement in the London tin market, where prices bounded up £2 7s. 6d. yesterday, making a gain of £4 12s. 6d. a ton in two days.

Arrangements are being made, I understand, for Russia to buy considerable quantities of tin in the East.

At the end of 1938 she had built up substantial stocks, but it is believed that her purchases since then have been small.

Prospect that Russia will buy metals and other materials in the United States, is also accelerating the price rise in that country.”—(Daily Express, July 5th, 1941.)

The Ignorant, Selfish Workers

A Dr. Leslie Housden, of the National Association of Maternity and Child Welfare Centres, told the Evening Standard (July 4th, 1941) that she “would like an assurance to be given that parents will be taught how to spend family allowances for the benefit of their children.”

“The standard of living in poorer families depends greatly upon the ability of the mother to shop and housekeep properly,” she said.

In a recent address Dr. Housden remarked:—”You cannot turn ignorant, lazy, selfish men and women into cherishers of childhood by giving them money.”

This arose out of an announcement that a Treasury Committee are investigating how much family allowances will cost the Government.

The whole thing is an illustration of the typical condescension of the ruling class towards the workers. As the Bible does not exactly say: “To him that hath shall be given, and to him and her that hath not shall come a spate of impertinent advice from well-meaning busybodies.”

Are the workers ignorant ? They learned what they know at capitalist provided schools. Are they lazy and selfish ? If so, who robbed them of initiative and incentive and taught them that the way of life is to look after number one ? And what right have the rich and well-to-do to argue that the receipt of an income sufficient to buy the bare necessities of life should be dependent on the possession of all the social virtues : What about the ignorant, lazy, selfish property owners ?

In passing, we are expectantly awaiting the appointment of another Treasury Committee to find out what, in poverty, blood and tears, the capitalist system has cost to the human race.

In and Out the Barrack Window

We all know how the Communists have been in the war and out again, and are now in full support once more. The former Editor of the Daily Worker, Mr. William Rust, in a letter to the News Chronicle (July 7th) has said that he and Professor Haldane “are quite prepared to give personal assurances to the Government …. that the Daily Worker, if allowed to reappear, will vigorously campaign in the factories in order to achieve the maximum production for victory and to bring about the widest possible unity in the fight to defeat and crush the Nazis.”

It seems that the Communists have their opposite numbers, men who are also in and out, but contrariwise. A Catholic, Fascist, conscientious objector recently told the Tribunal that he was at first opposed to the war (that will presumably have been in the early days when the Communists supported it). Then he became a supporter of the war when France collapsed and invasion of this country seemed to be imminent (that will have been when the Communists were opposing the war). Now, he says, he is a conscientious objector, and quoted from a Papal Encyclical that a Catholic could not collaborate with Communism (at this stage, Russia being invaded, the Communists are in again.).

It all comes of trying to wage war in accordance with ideologies.

Mothers’ Sons who became World Conquerors

When the Kaiser died the newspapers dug out the old story that he had a withered arm and was disliked by his mother and this embittered him and led him to dream dreams of world conquest. We seem to have read that Hitler was his mother’s darling, and this spoiled him and made him dream dreams of world conquest. It is all very puzzling. The only sure conclusion appears to be that the result will be the same however mothers treat their sons. Perhaps, after all, this explanation of war is a trifle inadequate.

Why they did not hang the Kaiser

Two versions : —

“Wilhelm II. ruled Germany for 30 years, and he fled to Holland with all Europe crying, “Hang the Kaiser.” But the Dutch would not hand him over for trial.”—(Evening Standard, June 4th, 1941.)

The Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941) reproduced from Mr. Winston Churchill’s works his account of the matter, and in it he delicately hints, without, however, committing himself one way or the other, that “the subterranean intrigues of old-world secret diplomacy” may have conveyed to the Dutch Government that nobody proposed to do anything to the Dutch Government to compel them to hand him over.

You draw your own conclusions, bearing in mind that at the time there were rumours that before the Allied Governments asked Holland to hand over the Kaiser they had informed the Dutch that the request was not intended to be taken seriously.

Have what you like ; if you can pay for it

In the Sunday Dispatch (June 8th, 1941), Mr. F. C. Hooper, “one of the biggest business men in the Midlands and North,” wrote a strongly worded denunciation of “the cranks who want to change Britain.” His main argument was that things were not at all bad in this country before the war. “Generally speaking,” he wrote, “life in this country was on a higher standard of material enjoyment and well-being than in any other country in the world.”

The first of his reasons for his belief was: —

“We were free and unfettered. We could go where we liked, live where we liked, and, within our means, do what we liked.”

It all depends, of course, on those three little words, “within our means.” Paupers may dine at the Ritz, spend half the year holidaying abroad, or live like biggest noises in the Midlands, if it is within their means, but, although Mr. Hooper goes on to say that “most people did do what they liked,” he does not go so far as to say that these things of anything like them were within the means of the great majority. He does not express an opinion on the point whether the under-nourished third of the whole population liked their enforced condition.

We will not argue about his claim that generally speaking things were even worse in other parts of the capitalist world. We doubt if Mr. Hooper would happily accept a suggestion that he give up his wealth and become a labourer merely because some other labourers in Timbuctoo would still be worse off.

The following, from the Sunday Express of the same day, throws more light on the claim made by Mr. Hooper.

“There is more money in the West End than ever before,” said a man who knows the inside story of the ration racket. “Everything is got from some ramp or another.”

“You can have what you like, if you are ready to pay the right price. It may be a cask of butter, a side of bacon, or a chest of tea. Whatever it is, the ‘boys’ can get it.

“The goods are either stolen (gangs are operating around the docks) or got through bribery. I know one hotel under manager who was offered a fat sum if he could hand over £500 worth of butter. He turned it down flat; others are not always so honest.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Right Again. (1918)

From the December 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

A little while since President Wilson, in this the mouth-piece of the Allies, was screaming for the German people to arise and overthrow their rulers. There would be no negotiation with the Hohenzollerns, he declared ; the Kaiser and his gang would have to go. Every available means was exploited in order to induce the working class of Germany to solve the difficulties of the Allies by plunging into revolution.

We said, however, at the time, that should the workers of the Central Empires take their cue from Mr. Wilson and attempt to take into their own hands control of public affairs, the armies of the Allies would be used to crush down the rising and restore security to capitalist interests.

What has happened ? After the signing of the Armistice a wave of revolution appeared to threaten 
the existence of German capitalism. Immediately the American President announced that no food
 would be sent to Germany unless the people were quiet. So we were not far out, nor did we have to 
wait long for events to prove the correctness of our statement. If the Allied Armies are not called on
to restore capitalist domination in Germany it will only be because the capitalists of the world have
found sufficient the more cunning scheme of starving into submission the revolutionaries who have served their purpose.

Jacko.

By The Way. (1919)

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

That the war has indeed been a good thing to the capitalist is overwhelmingly shown by even a most cursory perusal of the daily Press. A glance at any company meeting notice, or a study of the Excess Profits Tax, will tell the same tale—swollen profits. Another instance recently afforded I append here. The Secretary of the Grocers' Federation, addressing a special meeting of the Grocery and Provision Trade Section of the Balham, Tooting and District Traders Assn. Said :

  The Food Controller had been the grocers' real friend for the last four or five years, in enabling them to dispose of all their surplus stock, much of which the public would not look at prior to the war, but which during the last year or two they gladly bought.
That was one of the good things that the war had accomplished. It had been a veritable spring cleaning for them, and in other ways, such as the extra halfpenny profit on cheese, lard, and margarine, the Food Controller had done the grocers good service, as it meant that nearly nine millions sterling had been given to the trade during the year.—"Daily News," Feb. 24, 1919.

The good work done by the Food Controller (from Lord Devonport to the latest Labour occupant of the office) for the benefit of the capitalist is here testified to by one who is an interested party. Truly they who pay the piper cali the tune.

--0--

In spite of the nonsense frequently indulged in by "labour leaders" and others during the past few years, that there is no such thing as a CLASS war, strange to say, signs are not wanting to show that this ever-pressing fact becomes clearer to those who have eyes to see. Recently Lord Claud Hamilton presided at the annual meeting of the G.E.Ry. Judging by the remarks he then made and the applause with which they were received, it is abundantly clear that he and those who listened to him are in no way mistaken about the matter. Enter Lord Claud—

  What had happened during the last nine months? One concession following upon another on the part of the Government: concessions not to reasoned argument, not in reply to private grievances, not in the interests of justice and fair play, but to brute force. (Hear, hear.) Brute force in any shape was contrary to the instincts of the British nation. (Applause.)
We have disposed of it on the Continent. We are surely not going to allow it—fostered by those who have not risked their lives nor suffered the unspeakable miseries of trench life—to raise its obnoxious head at home (Hear, hear.)
The time is arriving when the Government must take off the velvet gloves which they have worn too long. (Hear, hear)"—"Evening Standard." Feb., 1919.

So there you are, fellow wage-slave, it's up to you. He (Lord Claud) realises the bitter fight between the haves and the have-nots. Think it over. Then join the ranks of the workers who are organised for the war against capitalist oppression.

--0--

A few days before the House of Commons adjourned for the Easter recess a motion was introduced by the Labour Party having for its object the provision of

  Pensions adequate for a healthy and useful life to be paid to all widows with children or mothers whose breadwinner has become incapacitated, such pension to be provided by the State.

Some discussion ensued, and then Mr. Shortt pointed out what this involved, namely: It means that any widow with children, however rich she may be, or any wife of a husband who cannot work, even though she is extremely well off, would have the pension.

Now this may pass for serious criticism in the House, but to me the point has no substance whatever. In the first place the pension proposed to be paid to widows with children "adequate for a healthy and useful life" would and should preclude those "rich" widows whom Mr. Shortt had in mind. If they are "rich" then they have the wherewithal to obtain those social amenities which go to make up a healthy life. And regarding the other part of the qualification, i.e., "useful," then up to the present I am unaware of any evidence existing that the rich are useful.

--0--

Concerning the remainder, referred to as "any wife of a husband who cannot work, even though she is extremely well off," then in this case also the resolution is sufficiently clear, for no pension is necessary to that section of the community Mr. Shortt describes as "extremely well off," to ensure them the means of obtaining the essentials of life.

--0--

The financial aspect of the case was also mentioned, and it is distinctly good, coming from a member of a government that has been spending very close upon eight million pounds a day in the butchery of the world's working class. It was as follows : "One has to take into consideration the amount of money which the State possesses." Now all this chatter in the House is mere camouflage. The Government had no intention of favourably considering the resolution, notwithstanding all the flowery talk of making England "a land fit for heroes," and other meaningless phrases. In conclusion, let me quote from a paper which is an avowed supporter of the Government, and from which source the previous extracts are taken—

  . . . the House has done what it has often done before when dealing with a subject which requires big thinking and real courage. It has talked it out. Fearful to vote for such a big reform, and yet not willing to be charged with voting against it, the issue has been dodged."—"Reynolds's," April 13th, 1919.

--0--

A little more than a month ago an important event took place—that is, for the leisured class. While the "sporting" members of the working class were studying the noon papers and endeavouring to find some winners, those who toil not neither do they spin were assembling to witness the Victory Grand National. I read that the attendance was a record one, and the Commander-in-Chief of the British Navy, together with the Earl of Derby, Lord Sefton, Lord Lonsdale, and a host of other titled people, were there to celebrate the event. But a short time ago we were being told by the Leverhulmes that in the new world after the war all would have to take part in the process of wealth production, and thereby make good the deficiency caused by the war. Pardon my inquisitiveness, but when are these people going to commence? 

--0--

"The 'New York Times' correspondent in Washington states that Major-General Graves, who is in command of the United States forces in Siberia, has sent a report to the War Department, in which he states that the reason for not assisting the Japanese at Habarovik was that the Japanese shot woman and children and also that he did not recognise the Russians in this fight as the real enemy.

"When General March was questioned on the subject he said the Chief of Staff had nothing to say at present."—Central News. — "Daily News," April 17th, 1919.

--0--

When Lloyd George addressed the National Industrial Conference at the Central Hall, Westminster on the 27th of February last on the subject of Labour Unrest, he stated that one of the factors contributing to unrest was the high cost of living. He then went on to say—

  We will get back gradually. I do not say that you will get back soon or for some years to the condition of living that you had before the war; but within the next few week there will be a reduction in the cost of some of the essential necessities of life. By the summer I hope that the cost of living in a working man's household will have gone down by about 4s. a week in the cost of certain necessities. By the end of March you will have achieved about half of that"—"Daily News," February 28th, 1919.

We have now reached the period when, according to Lloyd George, we should be about two shillings a week to the good. From enquiries which I have made it would appear that this is another to be added to the long list of unredeemed pledges.

--0--

Five months after the signing of the armistice find the newspaper folk waxing eloquent on "Shall the Ex-Kaiser Hang ?" To-day he is reprieved ; to-morrow he is to be tried. Personally I do not think he will suffer the death penalty. It would be establishing a horrible precedent. And one never knows what might follow. The conflicting statements made concerning this august person will be illustrated by the following items of news :—

  "Paris. Wednesday.—It is understood that the "Big Four" have decided to eliminate the idea of the capital punishment of the Kaiser, but they will provide some means of bringing him under the control of the Allies.
In addition there will be a strong indictment pointing out the responsibility of his leaders."—"Globe," 10.4.1919. 

  "Paris. Tuesday.—The Paris edition of the "Chicago Tribune," under a page-wide heading "Kaiser to be Tried for War Crimes," declares it is in a position to state that the Kaiser and other Germans will be tried before a tribunal formed by the League of Nations for violating treaties and for crimes committed during the war.
It states that the report of the Responsibilities Commission specifically indicts the Kaiser, the Crown Prince, Hindenburg, Ludendorff, Tirpitz, and others, and that it is believed the death penalty will be inflicted upon the German leaders responsible for cruelties and crimes committed during the war."—"Daily News," 16.4.1919.

The Scout.

Germany’s First Round (1938)

From the May 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The art of lying is one of the chief characteristics of capitalism everywhere. The main task is to present the lie in such a manner as to make it appear to be true. This, unfortunately, is easy. The working class, from childhood onwards, are trained in such manner best calculated to make it difficult for them to separate truth from falsehood. This deception is aided by the reformist movement. Clear evidence of this can be seen to-day. The capitalist' class cleverly conceal their real aims behind lofty phrases, so that to-day we hear from all quarters the words and slogans, "Peace,” “Democracy,” "Collective Security,” etc.

With these war-cries capitalism is stampeding the masses into a war atmosphere. This is made necessary by the time factor. Twenty years has not been sufficient to destroy the memories of the last world war. The Communist frothblowers, the Labour Party and their allies, having misled the workers by fallacious teaching for years, can only echo capitalism’s subtle catchwords. The Socialist has no need to do this, for he knows the cause of war and is not sidetracked.

Germany enters the arena once again to do this time (if possible) what she failed to do last time. German capitalism was rather late on the scene, and found it difficult to build up a gigantic empire in competition with Britain and France—who had got there! It is doubtful if Germany sought to challenge the world at once, but so it turned out. Factors outside Germany helped her considerably. The Franco-Russian alliance, the Entente Cordiale, the Morocco crisis, were all used by German capitalism to frighten the masses into the belief that a plot existed to encircle Germany. Militarism, the weapon of capitalists, became, in the case of Germany, its highest expression, a logical corollary of the gigantic task confronting her capitalist class. This task was not to bribe, cajole or bully a Mad Mullah, but to win a world empire in the teeth of and in competition with powerful hostile States at her door. Geographically, Germany was a land power, and her easiest way was Eastern. This reflected itself in the policy known as the “Drang Nach Osten,”—the turning to the East. It expressed itself in the grandiose project of the “Berlin to Bagdad” railway, which, if brought to fruition, would have enabled German exports to reach the Far East and India five days quicker than by the Suez Canal route, thus placing Germany in a position of great advantage.

A few moments' glance at a map of Europe will show the direction the railway would have to take. The following figures will indicate the growth of German capitalism, which necessitated it doing as Mussolini recently .said, in reference to the capitalism he serves: ”Expand or Explode.” In 1885, in Germany, 4 million tons of pig-iron were smelted; in 1913 it had risen to 15 million tons. In 1891 the output of coal was 73 million tons; in 1913 it had reached 185 millions. In 1913 she was second in the world's steamship tonnage (12 per cent.). Her export trade had reached, in 1914, no less than £500,000,000. In the first years of the present century the Kaiser declared, “Our future lies upon the water.” This observation was only made after the Kiel Canal had been completed some four years, and provided a direct German route from the Baltic to the North Sea, and signified a great addition to her naval might. The Kaiser’s telegram to Kruger caused a British squadron to be mobilised in the North Sea, and the capitalist class of Germany seized upon this for their speeches at home on “Being prepared.”

The commercial rivalry in the Eastern end of Europe was becoming bitterly keen, with Germany becoming the dominant power in Turkey. The Deutsche Bank became the real power behind the railway construction in Turkey. It operated through a syndicate known as the Anatolian Railway Co.

In 1898 the Kaiser visited Turkey and Palestine and, like all ”advance agents” seeking to advertise their wares or boost their show, he became “all things to all men,” anticipating his less ”royal” successor, Herr Hitler. Lying and hypocrisy being twin features of capitalism and its henchmen, it is not surprising to read, "At Jerusalem the Kaiser figured as the Christian knight errant, but at Damascus as the champion of the Moslem creed.” He was a successful bag-man, obtaining concessions for railways, etc., which enabled him to pose as an ally of a reviving Islam. British capitalism was being methodically undermined in Persia and the Middle East. It could not last long! It did not! It was settled in 1914-18! Was it? We shall see next month in a further article.

Lew.

50 Years Ago: Decline of the German Social Democratic Party (1983)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Long before the war the British ruling class learned how to incorporate radical politicians and labour leaders in the parties of capitalism. The German capitalists in 1918 jettisoned the Kaiser for a similar end. Fifty per cent of the German voters had registered their disillusionment and war-weariness by voting for the reform programmes of the Social Democratic Party German capitalism thereupon "digested” the SDP and watched it stabilise German capitalism in the troubled post-war years. The military and civil associates of the Imperial Kaiser humbled themselves to the upstart labour leaders because they had to have someone who could control the workers and keep them loyal to the fundamentals of capitalism. So, for fourteen years, the Social Democrats, either in coalition or in ‘‘friendly opposition” worked out their policy of bargaining for reforms as price of their support. The outcome was inevitable. They have shared the fate that has always overtaken "Labour" politicians and parties when they accept responsibility for the administration of capitalism. Discontent with the effects of capitalism cannot for ever be stifled by Labour promises of better times or apologetic assurances that things might be worse. The membership and influence of the SDP declined year by year until it has shrunk to a third of its former size. Part of the loss was picked up by the Communist Party, but in the meantime a new group has arisen, led by Hitler. At the election on March 5th he received 17,266,000 votes (43.9 per cent), and his allies, the Nationalists, received 3,132,000 (8 per cent), giving him a clear majority. The Social Democrats received 7,176,000 (18.3 per cent) and the Communists 4.845,000 (12.1 per cent).

(From an editorial “The Rise of Hitler — A Warning to the Workers”. Socialist Standard, April 1933.)

Gentlemen All (1941)

From the July 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ex-Kaiser Wilhelm is dead; Press dogs, who in pre-war days whined at the demise of any minor princeling, gave vent to a few feeble yaps. Imperial Caesar, dead and turned to clay, failed to elicit the funereal modulation affected by throaty B.B.C. announcers; a dead Derby winner (steed, not jockey) would have been accorded less shabby obituaries.

Rich instruction herein for the thoughtful:

“He is every inch a king" ;"He stands for peace.” Thus, A. G. Gardiner, editor of the Daily News in 1909. A. J. Cummings, noted contributor to the same organ, to-day can only feebly bleat about the disadvantages suffered by Queen Victoria’s pet grandson, due to a hard-faced mother and a withered arm. Imagine the splash head-lines and sickening adulation which the News Chronicle and an A. J. Cummings would have indulged in had not the first Great War pitilessly torn the martial cloak from Sidney Low’s “great gentleman” (Contemporary Review, July, 1907), and revealed the Imperial blighter for the barren-spirited nonentity he was.

Biographies on the whole reveal the author to the same extent as autobiographies conceal him; the popular type of “history” indulges in numerous small “character sketches.”  “. . . . He was a perfect gentleman.” Believe it or not, this is the considered opinion of the Right Honourable H. A. L. Fisher on “Bloody Nick.” You may find it recorded on p. 113 of the single volume edition of “A History of Europe.” The degenerate Russian moron had been dead 18 years when the Right Honourable and Christian Liberal “statesman” awarded him full marks in the “gentlemanly” line. If H. A. L. Fisher was not in possession of facts forming the minimum requirement for historical record, why did he foist on an uncritical public his preposterously feeble “history”? Bertrand Russell’s excursion into history (“Freedom and Organisation, 1814-1914”), written two years previous to Fisher’s work, exasperatingly obscurantist on the economic field, does at any rate aim at presentation of salient and pertinent fact; he points out that Fisher’s “perfect gentleman" refused the appeal of an admiral for the mitigation of the death sentence on a boy who had attempted to assassinate a ferocious bureaucrat.

In any case, a little reflection should bring home to the reader of history the futility of “character” sketching, especially of the specific “appreciation” kind. An amusing collection of wildly differing appraisements could be compiled. Even in the matter of personal appearance incredible divergences of opinion occur. Bernard Shaw’s “handsome” Russian Dictator is about as different from David Low’s “pock-marked” Georgian as words and pen could make him (see New Statesman, week ending June 7th, 1941).

Fletcher Moulton was an acute Shakesperean critic. In the “New Shakespeare Society Transactions, 1886,” he characterised Henry the Fifth as a “perfect man and national hero.” David Somervell, to-day, in his little “Europe Throughout the Ages” (p. 41), roundly labels him “our own stupid military hero.” Page after page of glowing tribute by Macaulay to his Orange hero and saint must be compared with a note on William the Third in the chapter on “Primary Accumulation,” in Vol. I of Marx’s “Capital,” and Compton Mackenzie’s frank revelation in p. 82 of hisvery readable “Literature in My Time.”

The sober historian, bent on presenting the deep, main economic currents, will be content to leave the bewildering complexes, vaguely denominated “character” to the novelist and playwright (the film producer of historical “characters” has produced the reduction ad absurdum in this line). Heaven only knows the practically insuperable difficulty of getting “character” across the footlights. Supreme masters of stagecraft, Shakespeare and Ibsen, leave each thoughtful auditor with his own particular image of Hamlet or of Peer Gynt.

In many respects, Marx’s “18th Brumaire” is a model of historical monograph, but it is open to question whether the few mordant strokes of personal detail of its shabby hero do not constitute just the tiny fly of impatience in the otherwise pure ointment of historical presentation.

What can we say of Churchill’s estimate of Hitler in his broadcast last year (May 16th) to the Italian people. “ . . . . He is a great man,” followed by “There stands the criminal ”; the Prime Minister was never more revealing of the general outlook of the governing class. “Greatness" and criminality, if not equated, are at any rate not regarded as incompatible. Let there be no mistake. The present conflict, in spite of a superficial jettisoning of jingoism and lip-service to “Democracy,” has not altered the mental horizon of the capitalist class. The new found touching discovery of “brotherhood” between Bethnal Green and Mayfair is too late and too closely connected with the desperate struggle to save the sweets derived from the exploitation of labour from foreign appropriations to be convincing. There are not lacking signs that with all the powerful assistance rendered by oily-tongued religious pepmongers, with the servile acquiescence or hungry Labour leaders, the game played in 1914-18 will not be so successful after this war.

Hitlerism is more or less the British capitalists’ Frankenstein monster vaguely shaping in the slime of a brutal Imperialism, emerging in clearer outline after Versailles, and rising now to full stature in all its foulness to confront the astounded author of its being—a new Miltonic episode of Sin and Death!

Augustus Snellgrove

So They Say: Prime Minister of Mirth (1973)

The So They Say Column from the September 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Prime Minister of Mirth

William Hazlitt wrote that the cause of laughter was “the difference between what things are and what they ought to be”. In that case, capitalist politics should be uproarious and Ministers hardly able to speak through their merriment.

On 29th July the News of the World had a headline We’ve never had it so good — Heath. The report began:

  You’ve never had it so good. That was the message Mr. Heath gave the country yesterday as he told of soaring standards of living and new prosperity being created at a record rate.

And ended:

  About two million people with special needs, like the chronically sick and disabled, the very old, widows between 40 and 50 and low-wage families with children, were being helped for the first time.

This remarkable paradox is found in practically all policy statements by the governing parties. If they have provided prosperity, why must they keep legislating for poverty? Heath’s audience must have rolled in the aisles as he said, in effect: Your ailment has been cured by us and, what is more, we are going to treat it. On 1st August the Evening Standard reported that the Inner London Education Authority provides 69,000 free meals to “children from poor homes”. Surely that should read “children from prosperous homes” if we are to keep to the spirit of the thing?


There it is. Gone

The chancellor of the Exchequer must be in fits, too. On 28th July The Guardian reported Barber still pledges growth. He said :

  To secure rising prosperity for the British people we have to sustain an expanding economy.

A week later, on 4th August, The Guardian summarized and quoted a report by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee:

  In other words hardly any of the direct benefits of economic growth over the next year are likely to go to the ordinary person. If the committee is right — and it has the guidance of Wynne Godley, a distinguished former Treasury forecaster — this could make the enforcement of Stage Three very much harder.

The Arabian Nights has an apt phrase for hilarity: “They laughed so much they fell over on their bottoms.” That is probably what will happen to Mr. Barber.


Help for the Aged

However, the financial page of The Guardian on 28th July showed that some of “the very old” with “special needs” are to get a share of “rising prosperity”. An article called “The Sharp edge of Taxation” invited sympathy for company directors:

  In spite of the popular, puritan prejudice, the directors and executives of any company enjoy very few tax concessions of any kind . . . Entertainment is no longer deductible, unless you are fattening up foreigners for an export killing.

The Government has come to the aid of these tragic figures:

  To end on a happier note: until now, the Inland Revenue would not approve any pension scheme for controlling directors. These are directors receiving more than 5 per cent of the shares of a company which is controlled by its directors . . . However, the current Finance Bill will largely lift this qualification so that most controlling directors will be better placed than sole traders or partners who have to provide for their retirement out of their own pocket.

Treasure on Earth

One road to prosperity has always been religion. Not for the simple believers, but for the promoters. If church collection plates are not laden these days, there is still plenty of money made through Christianity. Robert Stigwood Ltd., the company which owns the rights of the Jesus Christ Superstar musical, have announced a pre-tax profit of £1,250,000 for last year and expect this year to be better still. An interim dividend of 5.5 per cent. (7.5 per cent. gross) has been declared.

There is no addendum to remind shareholders that all this may make it hard for them to get into the kingdom of Heaven.


Sweet William

The Sunday People on 29th July reported the foundation of a new organization.

  A group of Englishmen — including a civil servant and a stockbroker — have set out to convince us that Kaiser Bill was really a good bloke . . .  He was, in fact, a fine, honourable and great man. That is the view of members of the newly-formed Kaiser Wilhelm II Society.

The Kaiser was, of course, the Hitler of the 1914-18 war: the militaristic villain “responsible” for the bloodbath, who was going to be hanged at the end of it.

The Society will find ample material in British papers and magazines prior to 1914. The Kaiser was a cousin of the British royal family. The weekly Sketch on 22nd November 1899 had two full-page portraits of him as “Her Majesty’s and England’s Welcome Guest”. It wrote of “tremendous energy and personal magnetism . . . ready courtesy and tact . . .  his real intimates are Englishmen”, etc., and told how as a baby he had “beautiful white soft skin and a very dear face”.

What research shows is not the Kaiser’s qualities but the cynicism of the press, which transforms heroes into monsters and back again to serve the interests of capitalism.


Explain or Re-punctuate

“Lord Diamond . . . denied that it was nationalisation by the back door. ‘It isn’t nationalisation is it, because it is not going to the nation and isn’t by the back door, it is by the front door.’ (Details, page 7)” — The Guardian, 27th July.

Robert Barltrop