The Patriarch and the mote. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hyndman on compromise ought to be funny. The “International Socialist Review” for February provides the interesting combination. Come, let us guffaw together.

It is a long article and contains the usual verbal hydrogen which bulks so largely and weighs so little; the usual Hyndmanic hysteria and verbal stage-strutting in which the patriarch delights. The smile comes in when one reflects on the little omissions that appear to have been made. As instance : “In order to make sure of retaining their seats in the House of Commons at the General Election, both the Labour Party and the I.L.P. have come to terms with the Liberals in a manner which must shake all confidence in them in the future.” This, of course, is all very horrible, and no doubt deserves all the vituperation of which Mr. Hyndman is capable, but we do not observe any reference to Herbert Burrows’ letter to the Daily Chronicle asking for Liberal support. We agree that “when a body of men returned to Parliament to represent Labour interests exclusively and independently, enter upon a whole series of bargaining with the national and local organisers of one of the great capitalist factions they do an amount of mischief to the whole movement which they do not comprehend ; “but we must confess our inability to discover the remotest difference between that action and the slimy evolution of Quelch and the S.D.P. at Northampton. The Liberals of the boot metropolis are not decidedly differentiated from the Liberals of the rest of this country. On what grounds shall we exclude the Northampton attempted deal from the “whole series of bargainings” ? Logic supplies no answer other than the thoroughly patent fact that the S.D.P. and the I.L.P. differ in nothing but their initials. And even this difference is got over locally by selecting another set, such as L.R.C., T. & L.C., or what not, under cover of which intrigue, chicanery and political poltroonery receive different values. The pure and spotless S.D.P. as a party, tire not in their denunciation of the foul and rotten Labour Party, but no objection is raised to segments of the pure and unspotted former alliancing with the specked and flyblown latter, also in segments.

Without going over ground already covered in our columns we would like to contrast the ponderous piffle of the patriarch with actual recent events. “‘No compromise’ must be our motto and our policy from the first and all through,” he says. Then please explain Camborne, Haggerston, Northampton, etc. “Let us take all we can get, but never let us sink our principles, or lower our flag, for any consideration whatever.” Contrast this with Quelch’s reply to a questioner: “If we cannot get anything better than the Budget, I shall vote for the Budget.” Supplement the latter with Hyndman’s “a Budget which I do not hesitate to declare is as outrageous a fraud upon the people of the United Kingdom as any swindle which even the Liberals have as yet perpetrated—and that is saying a great deal.” Quite interesting, isn’t it? Says Hyndman : “No Socialist can admit the right of the House of Lords to throw out the House of Commons’ Budget, however bad it may be in principle and application.” And again (same article): “I look with sadness, not unmingled with contempt, on the manner in which the Socialists of the Labour Party have surrendered to the capitalist Liberals on the Budget, on the House of Lords and on the General Election.” And so on.

There is quite a touch of sadness in the sentence where he looks back, at the age of sixty-eight, over his thirty years of Socialist effort, and realises that he will not see its fruition in the Co-operative Commonwealth. But does Mr. Hyndman think it will be brought nearer by the advocacy of more Dreadnoughts and the adoption of a modification of conscription, as suggested by himself and jingo Blatchford at Burnley. We who are nearer twenty-eight can join in deploring the non-imminence of the Socialist Republic, but the tears of regret do not blind us to the fact that every year of the S.D.P.’s further existence puts the Revolution back ten. And we are out to smash you. We are young, most of us of the S.P.G.B., but we are awake. We were born slaves, we are slaves now, but we are not going to die slaves if we can help it. Life is very rapid. A little twink of time and we are no more. The sweets of life are very meagre and Capitalism has the larger hand. Capitalism has got to go. The S.D.P. by its program of patches, immediate demands and general piffle, stands, wittingly or no, for its continuance. So the S.D.P. must go too. Every year we knock off its life brings Socialism and sunshine ten years nearer. Says Hyndman in concluding : “It is for us to take care that we hand on the torch of revolutionary Social Democracy … to those who shall in turn take up the splendid task from us.” There are signs, however, that this curiously named fire-brand will burn itself out even before Hyndman & Co. relinquish it, and then perhaps the path may be the more clearly seen in the absence of its reeking smoke and uncertain flicker.

Wilfred.

How to be independent. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the General Election came the L.C.C. elections. The Labour Party and I.L.P. ran candidates in eight constituencies, but it is not true to say contested, as in only one of the eight did they run a full ticket.

As is well known, each constituency has two seats, yet the “Independent” Labour Party ran only one man in each of seven districts. Why ? Because they knew their position was hopeless without the help of the progressives (Liberals). They ran two candidates at Woolwich only, where the Progressives had none. Even then they lost.

In Bermondsey and Kennington where the Progressives ran two official candidates, the I.L.Peers were defeated. In Bow and Bromley, North Lambeth, and Poplar the one-and-one idea was followed with the result that Lansbury, F. Smith and Ensor were elected. And Mr. Robert Williams claims these as Socialist victories and calls the three a “Socialist group” !

Another I.L.P. member—C. L. Jesson—followed the example of the Fabians and ran as a Progressive in Walworth, and was returned.

Evidently the I.L.P. idea of “independence” embraces bargains and joint candidatures with their supposed enemies. These are their boasted “glorious victories,” the fruits of their superior tactics and ability. But the workers may be sure that the “Independents” will support the Proressives every whit as heartily at Spring Gardens as the Labour Party does the Liberals at Westminster, and for the same reason—their seats are the gift of the capitalists.

Jack Fitzgerald

Labour Leaders and Their Prey At the Portsmouth Conference. (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Riddle Answered.

“Why does Russell Smart ?” asks our contributor, WILFRED, in the February issue of this journal. We may answer “because he is not smart enough to obtain a place with the “smart set” who are so successfully running the rank and file of the Labour Party into the Morass of Liberalism. And at no period of their career have they been so successful as at the last conference of their Party, held at Portsmouth.

The first smart move was to hold a “preliminary” conference on Unemployment and the Incidence of Taxation. This was so thin a swindle that one is surprised that some of the opposition office-hunters did not protest against it. But perhaps they thought the precedent might be useful—to themselves—in the future. By having a preliminary, and academic, discussion on the principle of unemployment, the “smart set” were able to completely closure any discussion of their policy on the matter when it arose at the conference proper. This was certainly a score for them. Moreover, while throwing a sop to certain sections of their Party by declaring that “Free Trade does not solve the unemployed problem,” they were so assiduous in backing up their Liberal political masters that the Daily News (30.1.09) could say that the conference “gave a good deal of its time to a defence of Free Trade and an assault upon Tariff Reform.” Mr. Fred Knee wanted the reference to Free Trade deleted and was supported by Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., who, however, said that “a Free Trade country was better for Labour than a Protectionist country!” The obvious and crushing retort to this “facing both ways” statement came from a fellow Gas-worker, Mr. Clynes, who asked “Why take the words out, then?” Even Mr. Thorne might have noticed the beautiful “possibilist” position he was occupying, but running with the hare and hunting with the hounds requires smart men, and Thorne is hardly among the smartest.

This Abode of Purity.

Mr. Keir Hardie made the brilliant statement that “we have mischief enough to contend with already, without introducing that element of corruption into our political system which Protection never fails to bring.”

Oh ! shades of Warren Hastings and the South African War, hide your ugly heads ! In this time of purity and innocence there is no place for you. What if the apostle of Free Trade, John Bright, did say “adulteration is a legitimate form of competition”? are we not as white as the driven snow compared with those foul countries where Protection—and corruption—reign supreme ?

For instance, the following resolution was passed by the conference :

“That there shall be created a National Department of Labour, presided over by a Minister of State, who shall have a seat in the Cabinet.”

For what purpose? Even the promoters of this resolution do not pretend that the creation of such an office can increase the amount of work or employment at present existing. Of itself it can do nothing for the workless toiler vainly seeking employment. Then why such an office? The answer is plain—to provide one of the “smart set” with a well-paid job. And note, not only well paid, but with Cabinet rank, so as to provide, almost with certainty, a pension when retiring from the toils of office.

This is not corruption. Oh no! it is the purest of purity, and all for the benefit of the workers. It is almost marvellous that, with so many ardent persons striving might and main for the workers’ benefit, not only is their position unimproved, but is even worse, as Mr. Keir Hardie himself showed when giving the figures of wealth and wages. He said, “Compared with 1901 wages in 1908 were down £26,000 a week or £1,300,000 a year. While working-class wages had fallen to this extent, the earnings (!) of those who paid income tax had, during the same period, increased by £147,000,000.” Yet Mr. Keir Hardie is never tired of denouncing the “dogmatic Marxists” when they state facts exactly paralleled by his statement quoted above. Certainly people of a particular character require good memories such as this may be tabulated against them.

Little Steps in Treachery.

The support of Liberalism was carried a step further in the discussion on the Incidence of Taxation. As Frederick Engels said, this is a matter of absorbing interest to the bourgeoisie, but of little moment to the proletariat. Therefore the “Labour Leaders” discussed it at length. Mr. Snowden said “Four-fifths of the duties raised from Customs and Excise were paid by the wage-earning classes.” The wage-earning “classes” were quite ignorant of. ever being in possession of such vast wealth, or they would have gone yachting in the Mediterranean or otherwise have “seen a bit of life,” instead of squandering their substance in taxes. Then the good Liberal stalking-horse, “Taxation of Land Values” was trotted out, giving Mr G. Barnes an opportunity to air his profound knowledge and statesmanship. “We get to the bottom of all monopolies by taxing the land,” he said. This hoary old chestnut has so alluring an appearance to most working men that a detailed treatment of the point may well form the subject of a future article. All we need say here is that no shifting of the incidence of taxation, has the slightest material effect against the fact that the workers are wage-slaves, and while deprived of every means of living, except by the sale of their energies and abilities on the labour market, are completely at the mercy and control of the capitalist class. But the value of such agitation by the leaders of the Labour Party is shown by the articles in the Daily News referred to above, where it is stated that “the opinions of the conference differ little, if at all, upon practical politics from those of the vast mass of progressives in these islands.” Exactly what we have always stated in reference to these proposals.

The Tyranny of “Seats.”

Then the “regular” business of the conference began. The chairman’s speech is not of sufficient importance for specific treatment, so we may take up the other points.

One of the first troubles to arise was on the action of the Executive Committee at the Dundee bye-election, where the said Executive had refused to support Mr. Stuart, of the Postmen’s Federation, against Mr. Winston Churchill. Even the most “thick and thin” of the Labour Party’s supporters would never dream of calling Mr. Stuart “extreme,” or “dangerous.” On the contrary, he is one of the “sanest” and “safest” men in their ranks. Then why this refusal of support ? Let the prophets speak. Mr. Stuart said “The Executive were accused of selling the Party to the Liberals. He would prefer to say that the Executive had not sense enough to sell them: it gave them away.”

To say that the Executive “had not sense enough to sell” the Party was more than any self-respecting Executive could stand. Mr. J. R. MacDonald and Mr. Alex Wilkie stepped into the deadly breach and proved that the Executive had sense enough to sell the Party. “The Executive,” said the former, “had never decided that the second seats in double-membered constituencies should not be fought, but they recognised that to try for both seats might result in losing the one held ” (italics ours). And why ? For the simple reason that the single seat is held by the support and permission of the Liberals, who would not allow the second seat to be contested by a “Labour” candidate. What better example than Leicester—Mr. MacDonald’s own constituency—need be given ?

Mr Wilkie Indulges in Prophecy.

Mr. Wilkie declared that “nothing short of an earthquake could win both these seats for Labour.” Of course, he meant the political earthquake that will occur just as soon as the rank and file grasp the main principles of Socialism and apply that knowledge to their actions. Then indeed Mr. Wilkie and his clique will be thrown off their political pins, and be buried beneath the debris of fallen capitalism. But for the present they are safe in their bargain, for to confirm the free hand they have always given themselves in this matter, the Executive had resolved that “it would be no violation of our Constitution if our members were to take part in Free Trade League meetings,” and this was approved by the conference. The rule of not identifying themselves with Tory or Liberal party is therefore thrown overboard in favour of Liberal Free Traders, and the “smart set” are triumphant.

Then interest centred around the resolution moved by Ben Tillett that “no member or candidate run under the auspices of the Labour Party shall appear or support any measure upon the same platform as members of the capitalist political parties.” This had reference to the Licensing Bill, and to the canting, snuffling hypocrisies of the slimy nonconformist Labour M.P.s of the Henderson type. To anyone acquainted with Tillett’s career it was easy to see that he laid himself open to a crushing rejoinder. His own dirty work in advocating emigration to Australia as a cure for unemployment, on behalf and in the pay of the New South Wales capitalists, should be sufficient to expose his double-dealing. Instead, however, of attacking him from this stand-point—no doubt because it was a case of pot and kettle—they preferred to fall back upon the old dodge of personalities. Quoting from Tillett’s pamphlet Mr. Henderson said “Is it helping the Party when Mr. Shackleton, Mr. Snowden and myself are described as ‘ toadies,’ ‘ sheer hypocrites,’ ‘ cruel hoaxers,’ ‘ Press flunkeys to Asquith,’ ‘ blackleg priests’, and so on ? . . . We will respect our manhood rather than be dictated to by men like Mr. Tillett.”

Evidently the sting of Tillett’s remarks lay in their truth, or surely, in respect for their manhood they would have demanded the substantiation or withdrawal of the statements. They did neither—knowing substantiation was easy. Mr. Shackleton said “No member of the Party to his knowledge had ever appeared on a Tory or Liberal platform except Mr. Tillett himself.” The exception is badly taken. Numerous instances are given in past issues of the SOCIALIST STANDARD, and on p. 13, 3rd edition of our Party Manifesto is given proof of Mr. Shackleton—along with Crooks arid Henderson —appearing on the Liberal platform in support of Mr. Benn at Devonport. Some people should have long memories, but no doubt Mr. Shackleton felt just as capable of bluffing his way out of this difficulty as he had done over the question of his opposition to the abolition of the half-time system for children in the mills and factories.

Some mild amusement furnished by G. B. Shaw completed the performance given once more by these capitalist agents, which may well be entitled “Leading the Workers into the Liberal Trap.” Never was our opposition to and exposure of these unblushing frauds more fully justified than by the shameless effrontery of the old gang of axe-grinders and Labour exploiting politicians at the Portsmouth conference. Only by the propaganda of Socialism among the rank and file of the trade unions will they be made capable of understanding their position as wage slaves, and the consequent necessity for the abolition of capitalism, and not of patching it up, as advocated with monotonous persistence by the misleaders we have been dealing with. Having arrived at this understanding, the workers will recognise that their political power must be put to an infinitely better use than that of providing fat jobs for nimble-tongued tricksters, shepherds put over them by their wily masters—the achievement of their own emancipation, to wit. Then the workers will at once wrench themselves free from the strangle-hold of these Labour garroters, and hurl them to perdition together with that system of labour-exploitation of which they are part and parcel.

Jack Fitzgerald

Jottings. (1912)

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

The Dean of Lincoln (Dr. Fry), speaking at Kennington recently, gave utterance to the following characteristic remark : “I wake in the morning with a joy I have not known for years to think that we may, in a few weeks, have the Cross over St. Sophia and Constantinople.” Which means, to give it its true interpretation, that if there are any pickings to be had, they mean, vulture like, to be among the first at the feast, brazenly disregarding the fact that the history of Christianity is bloodier even than that of the Turks.

* * *

It is interesting to note with what alacrity the wealthy class have protested against the flogging clause in the White Slave Traffic Bill. One would suppose that they were actuated by motives of honest indignation against a survival of Middle Age methods of torture. To the Socialist, however, the reason is quite clear. For is not this the class from which the “White Slavers” draw most of their clientele ? And are they not responsible in a double sense, inasmuch as it is due to the exploitation of labour by this class that the degradation of women exists, thus making “white slavery” possible.

* * *

According to news from Paris, a lady has been seen in the Champs Elysees, accompanied by her dog, which was wearing india-rubber boots laced high up the legs, ear protectors, goggles to shield the eyes from cold and mud, and a Raglan overcoat lined with, thick flannel, and provided with a pocket from which projected a tiny handkerchief with a monogram on it, with which to wipe its dear little nose.

In order to more fully appreciate the above I cite another instance of riotous extravagance taken from the same paper (“The London Budget,” 27.10.12).

“An old soldier with the best of characters complained to the Westminster magistrate that everything he possessed, except a small bundle, had been taken from him for a balance of 5s. under a hire-purchase agreement and 3s. 6d. for a week’s rent, which he was unable to pay through being out of work. He showed receipts covering a period of two years for instalments amounting to £12 11s. paid for goods priced under the agreement at £12 16s.” After this who wouldn’t prefer a dog’s life ?

* * *

A circular has been going the rounds of late, issued by that confused set of scaremongers known as the Anti-Socialist Union. It is a wild appeal for “help and support,” promising that “neither the names of members nor subscriptions are published without permission.” In the course of the appeal (which is anonymous, as usual) it states that “predatory Socialism” is rampant in the House of Commons. According to the “antis” there were 40 Socialists in Parliament in 1911, and since 1897 the National Debt had risen from £545,171,525 to £733,072,610, ostensibly due to their advent in the House.

This is certainly news to me, yet I would be satisfied if the A.S.U. would furnish the name of one Socialist in Parliament, now or any other time. This sort of stuff may do to frighten the commercial and business class to whom these leeches make their appeal, but to the Socialist it is laughable.

* * *

Here is another sample : “One of the first principles of Socialism is the repudiation of the National Debt. That is why Socialists show no concern at the rapid piling up of the nation’s liabilities.” This is both right and wrong. It is wrong in so far that Socialists do not repudiate the National Debt, for the simple reason that it makes no difference to the workers of this country whether the nation has a big National Debt or none at all. The workers’ condition remains the same. They don’t make the debt, and they don’t pay the debt. Therefore the Socialist doesn’t concern himself with the National Debt, even to the extent of repudiating it. It is right in that the Socialists have no concern with the nation’s liabilities. The liabilities are not theirs, be they piled as high as that beautiful place they tell us about. On the other hand, having regard to the fact that Socialism will not be established except as a world-wide system, all national debts, liabilities, Anti-Socialist Unions, and other capitalist institutions will automatically become defunct. Meanwhile, spread the light !

* * *

Keir Hardie, “the famous British Socialist” (according to the Americans), has recently returned from a lecturing tour in that land “flowing with milk and honey.” Asked by an interviewer how he became a Socialist, Hardie (it is reported) answered : “I can’t just say how my own life turned me to Socialism, I think I got my first ideas from reading Robert Burns and Thomas Carlyle. Then came the New Testament.” Good heavens ! I have several times wondered where he got it from !

It seems that Hardie’s services had been requisitioned to give a fillip to the S.P. of America (an organisation similar to the I.L.P.), since Roosevelt had stolen all their platform, and left with them no distinguishing principles upon which to fight. It had been suggested to the party that Hyndman be asked to perform, but the offer was declined on the score of expense. Instead, Hardie was booked at £10 a lecture !—at least, so grumbles “Justice.” It would be very interesting to know what Hyndman’s figure would have been, seeing that Hardie was considered to be a cheap substitute at £10 a time.

Considering he addressed 43 meetings it cannot be said that he did badly, and yet it certainly was indiscreet of him to tell the interviewer that “the commonsense of humanity is bound to manifest itself sometime.”

Whilst agreeing that this is probable, yet, it seems to me, if its manifestation depends upon the dissemination of Carlyle and the New Testament at £10 a dose, then it is a very long way off indeed. Happily, however, there are teachers of Socialism in the field.

* * *

The Executive of the Labour Party has been wroth with Mr. J. G. Hancock, M.P., because he announced his intention of attending the meetings of the Mid Derby Liberal Association and reporting to them his work in Parliament. The Executive does not see how he can square this attitude with his pledge to support the Labour Party ‘s constitution.

To me there appears to be no difficulty whatever. Events have proved that the Liberal Party stands for all that the Labour Party stands for. Besides, was not Mr. Hancock congratulated years ago by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George on his former successful campaigns in Mid-Derby ? Why was he not pulled up before ? Simply because the Labour Party has known all along that Mr. Hancock was a Liberal. He has never disguised the fact. Again, did not Mr. Ramsay MacDonald himself say that Socialism was to be approached, “not by a broad, ready-made road, but through morass, through forests, up hill and down dale, round this corner and that” ? (Oxford, 13.10.11.)

Numerous instances could be cited where Labour M.P.’s have admitted their identity with the Liberal Party. So why blame a member if he elects to go “round this corner and that” ?

* * *

If those who support a Labour policy are desirous of doing a little house-cleaning, they have set themselves a huge task, for upon observation we find the same treachery throughout the movement. On the occasion of the conference of the freedom of the City of Liverpool upon Lord Derby, we find Mr. “Jim” Sexton present on the platform in spite of the resolution passed by his Trades Council, forbidding members to take part in the ceremony. Not satisfied with this, he needs must inform his audience that he “regarded it as a very considerable privilege to be there.” I can quite believe it, and hope Lord Derby will duly appreciate his services. “A small section of the community,” said Sexton, “have expressed, their disapproval, and whilst I do not doubt their sincerity, I cannot appreciate their motives.”

After this is there any doubt as to which class Mr. Sexton is serving ? Of course, nothing will happen. The only difference is that on this occasion a Tory was supported, whereas it is usually the right thing to support a Liberal.

As Mr. W. C. Anderson, the Chairman of the I.L.P., says in the Liberal “Daily Citizen” (13.10.12): “Some would argue that the Labour Party must prove its independence of the Liberals by voting against the Government, even when the Government are supporting some useful (!) reform. But that is not independence: it is much nearer being an advanced stage of political lunacy. On a number of political questions—Lords’ Veto, Plural Votes, and Home Rule—the Liberals are certainly more advanced than the Tories. On all such questions Labour will go into the same lobby with the Liberals without the slightest sacrifice of independence.” Which is quite true. It would be difficult indeed for them to sacrifice something which, for them, does not exist.

At Manchester last month, during the municipal elections, both Labour and B.S.P. candidates signified their willingness, if elected, “to work for the unification of Rates” and “the transference of Rates from property to site values,” for which they were promised the support “by word, deed and vote” of the League of Young Liberals. These are issues, be it noted that are of no import to the workers, but are intended solely to benefit one section of the capitalist class by shifting the rates burden onto the shoulders of another section, incidentally using the worker as a mug in order to accomplish it.

* * *

According to Lady Aberconway, there are “only two ways for a woman of the upper classes to obtain money ; one by inheriting from the dead, and the other by begging from the living.” I venture to affirm that this is not quite correct. There are three ways of getting a living : by working for it, by begging, and by stealing. Knowing that the “upper” class neither work nor beg for their living, there is no other conclusion left us than that they get it by stealing—from the workers.

* * *

Robert Blatchford has recanted on the question of compulsory military service, of which he was such a strenuous advocate. He admits that “universal military service under the control of the ruling ‘classes’ would result in slavery : it would undoubtedly lead to the enslavement of the workers.” (“Clarion,” 1.11.12.) Which is an admission on the part of R.B. that his position, after all his protestations to the contrary, was the wrong one. It has taken him a long time to find it out, which, in itself betrays the fact that he has not devoted much time to the study of Socialism. Seemingly it requires concrete instances, such as the employment of troops as blacklegs in the recent strikes, to force home to him the absurdity of his position. The point is, what becomes now of his “Britain for the British,” seeing that one position conditions the other ?

Tom Sala

Jottings. (1908)

The Jottings Column from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

D. J. Shackleton, M.P., speaking at Leeds on Oct. 24th, ’08, on unemployment, said of the Labour Party, “It should always be remembered that they were the smaller party, and what they could get out of the ‘House’ would be by persuasion and force of argument.” And yet later in the same speech he stated “I take it that Mr. Asquith means help apart from the Poor Law. If he does not we are not going to have it” (“it” being Asquith’s remedy for unemployment). Fancy the party of persuasion having or not having as it chooses ! “If we can only get Parliament to see the reasonableness of our demand, I, for one, will be quite pleased to see the Government get on doing the good work with regard to temperance reform and other matters that they are doing.” Mr. Shackleton doesn’t seem to realise that what appears reasonable to profit-mongers in Parliament will not be to the workers’ interest. Further, were it in the workers’ interest and there was no force behind the demand they can ignore it. Mr. Guy Wilson, at West Hull, quoted Mr. Shackleton as showing that the Liberal Party were favourable to Labour, and now he has given one of the parties whose interests he is to strictly abstain from promoting, another testimonial. He is reported as saying “We are not anxious to do anything to hamper the Government, but they are not doing all we could expect of them.” There’s where he makes a mistake. If he viewed these matters from a class conscious stand-point he would see that they do all one can expect of them from the workers’ point of view, and that is “nothing.”

_____________

Messrs. Brunner, Mond, & Co., Northwich, have not, according to Mr. F. W. Brock, a director, considered the financial effect of putting their employees on short time (and short wages) in order that work may be found for some of the unemployed in and around Northwich.

The scheme is on similar lines to one mentioned by J. T. McPherson, M.P., in the Eight Hours Bill debate, 18.3.08. The members of the union this gentleman is connected with alleged to be getting so much in wages for a twelve hour day on the North-East Coast and West of Scotland that a proposal had been made to the employers to allow three shifts of eight hours each instead of two shifts of twelve hours each per day. By this method it was hoped to employ 1,200 additional men, and, even though the steel smelters were willing to sacrifice one third of the wages they received the employers declined to entertain the proposal. It would be interesting to know what the wages were at the time the suggestion was made. I should have thought that so many unemployed in an industry would tend to lower wages. In the Northwich arrangement it is calculated that work will be found for 250 additional men, while the same wages bill as at present will be paid. This means speeding up. And as work is to go on day and night, it is obvious that the financial side has not been considered at all. It never is ! The dividend is 5 per cent. below the corresponding period last year. Possibly this has something to do with the new move.

_____________

If open confession be good for the soul, Councillor J. E. Sutton, a Manchester “labour” leader, must now sleep easy o’nights. Speaking in support of “Labour” Councillor Billam at Bradford, Manchester, during the municipal contests, he stated, “The Labour Party are willing to compromise if the other parties would allow them one representative in every ward. That would give them thirty representatives instead of the eleven which it had taken them fourteen years of hard work to secure.”

There are about, 124 representatives on the Manchester City Council, therefore, Councillor J. E. Sutton thinks Labour’s share is about one-fourth the total. Any attempt to break through such an arrangement by endeavouring to secure more seats on the council would mean the loss of some of the original thirty. The workers of Bradford, Manchester would do well to read tho following.

“An honest man may take a knave’s advice,

But idiots only may be cozened twice :

Once warned is well bewared.”

                                Dryden. “The Cock and the Fox.”

_____________

At the Hull Conference of the Labour Party Mr. Grayson stated that he believed in palliatives with all his heart; now he tells us that “war has been declared. The decks are cleared. The people know their friends and I am hopeful. I am out for Socialism, and will be content with nothing less.” (Daily Dispatch, 17.10.08.) At a meeting held at the Huddersfield Town Hall on 31.10.08, Mr. Grayson said, “Robert Blatchford and I have been considering, and we have come to the conclusion that while the squabble goes on the people must be fed. There is nobody else will feed them, and we in the Socialist movement must. We are going to say to the classes who say it cannot be done, ‘put down as much as you can and we will feed them.’ If they refuse to put it down we shall be able to turn round on them and say, ‘You contemptible cads, we applied constitutional and peaceful means—we shall now resort to other means.’ You must be ready for the other means.” —Manchester Guardian, 2.11.08.

Socialism, to Mr. Grayson, would appear to mean charity ; failing charity being forthcoming he would resort to other means, presumably Anarchy, not Socialism, surely, because that might well be brought about by constitutional methods, via the ballot box, that is given voters educated to a sense of their class mission. Belfort Bax in “Socialism: What it is and what it is not,” tells us “No! emphatically, alms giving, whether good or bad, right or wrong, under existing conditions, not only is not Socialism, but has nothing to do with Socialism.

But, of course, Bax is an “esoteric rambler” vide Grayson, in his debate with Hicks.

_____________

The Liberal politicians are as much at sea as the Labour misleaders. This possibly arises from their actions in Parliament being similar. C. F. G. Masterman (whom J. Hunter Watts supported), speaking at Tottenham on October 29th said that “If the Right to Work Bill had been passed, however, in the crude form in which it was presented to Parliament, it would have been as difficult for them to provide work as at the present time.” And yet he “voted some time ago for the Right to Work Bill.”

_____________

W. Thorne, in backing the Unemployed Bill of the Labour Party whilst knowing it was of no use as a solution of the problem, was in the same position as Masterman in voting for a measure he knew was of no use.

JAYBEE.

Blogger's Note:

My educated guess is that 'JAYBEE.' was the pen-name for Manchester Branch's Jim Brough, who had written other Jottings columns under his own name.

Revolution. The Problem of the Out of Work. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Strange Inversion.

The free born wage-worker of to-day has a heaven that is peculiar to himself and his age and which speaks volumes for the wretchedness of his position. It is his paradise to be exploited, regularly—to have plenty of work—while his hell is to have none. And, truly, the hell is genuine enough ! Use, however, becomes second nature, and many a worker is so inured to his position that he accepts his lot uncomplainingly, or even with a certain smug satisfaction, so long as he is in work, his “manly” breast swells with pride when he hears the politicians talk of “honest toil,” and he grasps with humble gratitude the few mouldy crumbs that are flung to him out of the heap of good things he has created. So might the chattel slave have been proud of his chains, grateful for the offal thrown to him, and jealously appreciative of the dignity of his toil and his right to do it.

Modern times, however, differ somewhat in that the society of to-day cannot feed its slaves. Its slaves go begging for a master and yet are turned empty away. Thus in a period that is heir to the discoveries of the ages, and that possesses means multiplied a thousand-fold for producing all the good things of life, and wherein labour-saving devices have reached a perfection hitherto undreamed of, there exists, nevertheless, among the very class whose labour made this abundance possible, a mass of poverty and suffering that makes the famines of olden time trivial by comparison.

And this is caused, not by scarcity, as of old, but by sheer plenty ! The producers are but the hirelings of those who own field, factory, and workshop, and these leave no stone unturned in their feverish anxiety to find means, by improved combination and machinery, of reducing the number of wage-slaves they need hire. Hence the unemployed—a permanent and growing feature of capitalist society.

No Hope in the Master Class.

During the coming winter, indeed, the question of unemployment may be expected to reach an acuteness never before equalled. And what will the master class do ? Will they solve the unemployed problem ? Only fools think so, for the master class themselves confess that it is, to them, insoluble. They neither can nor will solve this riddle of the Sphinx. A capitalist system without unemployed would be impossible, and our masters know it.

Economic development under capitalism, however, makes the out-of-work army grow rapidly to huge dimensions and become in fact a serious menace to the security of the class that rules. Indeed, the indifference of the ruling class and the needs of the unemployed make disturbance the only resource of the latter in their endeavour to get an immediate plate of soup or crust of bread to prolong their pitiable existence. Yet, by appealing to the class in power to do something what will they get ? What but promises and then more promises ? What but paltry relief works that do not relieve and votes of sums of money that may not be spent ? Works that can wait no longer for execution will be said to be put in hand to “help the unemployed.” If a City alderman, having worn out seat of his trousers with constant dining, buys a new pair, it will also, presumably, be for the sake of the unemployed, just as tramway works that have been delayed until they can be delayed no longer are started ostensibly “to relieve the unemployed.” And so the fraud goes on.

The Treachery of the ‘Labour’ Members.

Meanwhile the unemployed, as though their misfortunes were not great enough, continue to have their misery exploited by reform organisations and fresh editions and emulators of John Burns. For whatever else the recent Grayson episode may have emphasised, it made once more abundantly clear that the “Labour”, members are prepared—even anxious—to range themselves on the side of Labour’s enemies when it suits their book to do so—although whether this will be apparent to those who pay the piper is, unfortunately, still very dubious. But so many things have happened that it would seem must come to those who have pinned their faith to these Labour misleaders as direct blows, full between the eyes, and yet have been practically unnoticed, that there is little immediate hope that this last instance will have much greater effect. The Parliamentary group rely for their present maintenance upon working-class ignorance, and knowing how abysmal that ignorance is, feel safe in taking action the results of which must overwhelm them and render further misleading impossible directly the working class have anything like an adequate appreciation of their class interests. Just as recent bye-elections have been significant of nothing so much as of the desperate concern of the “Labour” members to hang on to the coat-tails of Liberalism outside the House, lest the security of their seats and their £200 a year be imperilled, so the Grayson incident made it clear that the methods to be pursued inside are those that will not embarrass the Government, and may result in recognition and advancement, if not to the elevation of a seat in the Cabinet, at any rate to the comfort and security of some minor official job that will remove them from the risk of the loss of their £200 a year consequent upon working-class enlightenment.

We Warned the Working Class.

Of course, to us this was apparent from the very inception of the Labour Representation Committee and we said so. The “half-baked” and the semi-enlightened then preferred to call us very much the sort of name some of them are now applying to the opponents of Grayson. If, however, incidents similar to those referred to have the effect of opening a few eyes to the actual and potential power for working-class evil resident in this precious “Labour” Group, it will be some sort of satisfaction. They have now reached a stage where, as we have said, it seems almost incredible that any man could be left who failed to see just what the Parliamentary “Labour” leaders are after and where they are leading. The attitude of the S.P.G.B. is more than vindicated.

Let there be no misunderstanding as to our view of Grayson’s action. Grayson is a man who has no very clear idea of where he stands upon questions of economics, who certainly does not understand the Socialist position, and who cannot, therefore, be accepted as in any adequate sense a representative of Socialism. He is, we should say, a product of Clarionism, Clarionism being compact of sentiment and snobbery, with a strong infusion of capitalist “progressive” ideas and a mild dash of Socialist thought —a queer compound that a staff consisting of little girls and old women serve up for the gratification of the elect weekly.

From a product of this sort of food nothing great can be expected, but Grayson took up a position on the unemployed question in the House that, at any rate, compelled attention and translated into action a protest against the callous indifference of capitalism to the growing volume of misery that capitalism had created, and the flacid, supine, “respectability” and “statesmanship” of the pseudo-Labour Group. With one accord these “Labour” gentlemen ranged themselves on the side of capitalism. Let that be included as a count in the indictment that in the name of the working class we bring against them.

What’s Bred In the Bone.

And now, lest their treachery be too palpable, they hasten to explain that the Government were on the point of saying something, and they wanted to hear what it was before taking action. If the something had been unsatisfactory they proposed etc., etc. The same old story. The same contemptible lie, or the same hopeless, helpless stupidity—whichever they like. First they do not know the forms of the House. We were to wait until they had time to familiarise themselves, and then we should see something. Then—give the Government a chance. Let us wait to see what it would do. If it did not do anything . . . ! Then again, let us see what Burns would make of his opportunity. If nothing came of it we . . . ! And so on.

Not even sufficient originality to invent a new lie or a decent excuse. They either knew that the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s jackal, Burns, would not do anything if they waited till the last trump, or the whole record of the Liberal Party was a closed book to them, or they had not even a glimmer of that essential antagonism of interest of which the Liberal Party is a political expression on the side of capitalism. In short, and not to put too fine a point on it, they were either damned fools or doubly damned knaves.

Now we have our Pete Currans who were cursing the forms of the House and praying for something to break them up, our Will Thornes who are forever mouthing “revolution” and the absurdity of awaiting the Government’s convenience, our Jowetts who are always ready to make scenes if necessary, our Phillip Snowdens—the Daily Mail’s fierce and bitter iconoclasts, and the rest of them turning to sneer at the theatricality (it may have been that, of course) of Grayson, and protesting that they could not be led by boys who indulge in expensive suppers and so on—banal puerilities given off in the hope that that which cannot be justified may be obscured.

Well, since the Grayson outbreak the Government has spoken, and the unemployed know that, except for an additional £100,000, they are where they were last year. Burns is to administer the fund as before—a wholly grotesque sum in the hands of a wholly fraudulent (from a working-class point of view) administrator. In addition, the necessity of the unemployed is to be used as a means, if possible, of making up Haldane’s special army reserve that would otherwise, in all probability, have failed to materialise. Indeed, the Liberal Party are full of sympathy for “the honest workman starving through no fault of his own.” We don’t think.

Keir Hardie, on behalf of the “Labour” Group, made certain dark references to what they would do if the Government’s proposal was unsatisfactory. The “Labour” Group’s action (at the time of writing) takes the form of an amendment expressing dissatisfaction !

One other notable thing the present agitation has emphasised that can only be very briefly referred to, viz., the impotence of the “one step at a time” or “something now” “Socialist,” directly his “evolutionary not revolutionary” theory is put to the test. The people, the women and children, are starving. They want something now. What is the use of preaching Socialism to them ?—before they get that they must die of want. And so they proceed to get the “something now” by asking Governments who, by their very nature, cannot prevent starvation and do not even pretend to try, to take action. And the Governments take “action,” and have been taking “action,” and the starving people continue to starve, and the children continue to cry, and the unemployed army grows and grows, until—until we have reached the stage of crisis where the honest adherents to the “something now” policy, in desperation of ever getting their “something now,” throw in their lot with those who advocate riot and pillage as the only means by which food may be obtained immediately ; the only means by which fear may be stricken into the hearts of the capitalist class. Overboard goes “evolution” (their brand), and in its place they preach—anarchy. They break up their stepping-stones to use them as missiles.

Well, to the extent to which this change of attitude represents the demolition of the quasi-intellectual posture, it is good. But we have to point out that to preach pillage is to bring trained, armed, and well fed men against untrained, unarmed, and starving men. The.result harmful to the latter, although not necessarily more disastrous than the process of starvation they are at present undergoing, while the menace of a desperate crowd threatening to, or actually, running amok, invariably has quite a notable effect in stimulating the flow of doles.

While we cannot speak for God, as Cardinal Manning claimed to do, we agree that Manning was quite right in affirming that a starving man was entitled to take food—notwithstanding that, as Curtis Bennet, the magistrate, pointed out to the ferocious Will Thorne, M.P. (who mildly allowed himself to be bound over not to be naughty again), it was bad “law.” If anyone knows of any alternative for a hungry man, woman, or child other than that of getting food by some means or other (any means being justified) or starving, we have still to hear of it.

The point is, then, that only out of fear for their own position and possessions can the “something now” be obtained from the capitalist class. And that fear is struck more surely and far deeper by the fact of a working class, understanding their class interests, consciously organising for the overthrow of the capitalist system in its entirety, than by any conglomeration of unorganised human atoms blindly struggling for food with no idea beyond their immediate requirements. These last can be dealt with and their agitation “scotched” by judicious sops, or, in the last resort, by the use of the police and soldiery. The former cannot be so easily put off the scent. It will have to rain sops like manna before any hope of check can be entertained.

Now, is it not high time that the working class—in work or out of work, realised the futility of expecting those who live by working-class exploitation to seriously grapple with a problem the solution of which would spell their extinction as a class ? Instead of useless parading and futile tinkering with effects, is it not clear that the problem must be attacked at its root ? Its root is in the system of capitalism, and as an evil to the workers it can end only when capitalism ends—when the means of living are owned and used by the democratic community of those who labour.

That, however, will not be accomplished by those whose source of life is profits, but will and can only be brought about by the conquest of the powers of government by the working class for that object. This is the only way to deal with the unemployed problem, for what avails it to waste time on effects if the source of the misery pours unchecked an increasing flood upon us ? The task before us is not to appeal to the capitalist class to do something, but to organise the workers for the overthrow of that class so they (the workers) may do something for themselves. The battle-cry of the workers’ party is not “The Right to Work,” but “The Right to the Product of Our Labour,” and that right waits only upon their might. That is the really revolutionary way.

And you, reader, have a duty as a worker to yourself and to your fellows—it is to join the political party of your class. If unemployment is to cease to be your scourge, if you in common with your fellows are to have your lot made brighter, if you and those dear to you are to have the means of health and happiness secured, you must take your place in the ranks, for the deliverance of the workers from wage-slavery can come from none others than the workers themselves.

The party of the working class is the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which works democratically and consistently for the end of unemployed misery, and declines to exploit the wretchedness of the unemployed by parading them in futile appeal to the robber class. Your duty is to join it, for your only hope lies in the democratic organisation of your class for Socialism, since through working-class victory only can class oppression cease and the toiler come at last by his own.

Blogger's Note:

". . . the recent Grayson episode . . ." is a reference to an incident in the House of Commons, which took place on the 31st October 1908. According to the Victor Grayson page over at Spartacus Educational:

On Tuesday, 31st October, 1908, Grayson stood up in the House of Commons and shouted out: "I wish to move the adjournment of the House so that it can deal with the unemployment question... people are starving in the streets." When he refused to sit down he was escorted from the Commons. As he left he turned to Labour members and shouted: "You are traitors! Traitors to your class."

Editorial: Newcastle. (1908)

Editorial from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hartley’s programme in the Newcastle election had one advantage over Burrows’ in Haggerston. It was rather less windy. But it was not more sensible because of that. Said Hartley, “First, last, and all the time I am a Socialist; knowing that Socialism is the only hope of the workers, and the only escape from your present difficulties.”

That was good enough for us. But Hartley continued, “The first and most important question is that of unemployment. I am in favour of public provision of useful work for the unemployed at not less than trades union rates of wages.” And there the fatuous baffle-headedness of the reformer came in.

The fact is that you cannot have “public provision of useful work for the unemployed “at trade union or any other rate of wages, while the capitalist is in control. The unemployed are an inevitability under capitalism, and a necessity. Socialism alone will solve the unemployed problem, and then the question of wages will not arise.

What, then, was Hartley’s duty if “first, last and all the time” he was a Socialist ? Clearly to emphasise the fact that “the first and most important question” must remain unanswered until the workers answered it themselves by securing control of the means of life ; and that if they wanted something now they simply couldn’t have it, except to the extent that by organisation they gave unequivocal expression to their determination to be after nothing less than Socialism. To that extent they would find the capitalist class prepared to make concessions in the way of work for the unemployed and other forms of doles.

___________

The old, old Folly.

In unimportant matters such as womans' Suffrage, the Quelches and Hartleys and the rest of the “whole hoggers” point out against the “limited” Suffragettes that the measure of the demand for votes will be the measure of the concessions made; that even if the “limited” Bill was a good thing, the best method to secure it was to set up a fight for the complete measure. The governing class was bound to make as large a deduction from the total demand as possible, so that in asking for the lot and backing it up with organised determination, there was far more likelihood of getting approximately the total of the ”limited” measure than if the sum of the demand was no more than the “limited” measure embraces.

Yet when it comes to the vastly more important question of the unemployed, we have the same Quelch-Hartleys falling back upon the despised methods of the “limited” suffragists, and for the purposes of their pose as practical politicians, disguising the cold and brutal facts of the unemployed problem lest they lose votes thereby (what other explanation fits the circumstances than this ?) what time they talk of half loaves and other pseudo-remedial piffle, to meet immediate requirements.

They are more preposterous than the “limited” suffragists. The “limited” Bill, even the adult suffrage measure, may easily be obtained under present conditions—a very certain indication of the unimportance of both. But Hartley knows that this half loaf of his for the immediate consumption of the unemployed, cannot be secured at all under present conditions. Either he knows this or it is time he left the platform and did a little reading. Why then does he put this in the forefront of his programme ? The only answer that occurs is that he knows his audience will probably not take the trouble to worry the thing out for themselves, and that while they are content to take his word for it, the thing looks feasible and within the range of “practical” politics. In other words Hartley, like Burrows, trades upon ignorance to capture votes. If he has any other explanation to offer we shall be glad to hear of it.

___________

Another Sale.

The Newcastle election, however, did one good thing. It set in the strongest relief the fact that we have emphasised for years—and been sneered at for our pains. The “Labour” Party has sold itself, lock, stock, and barrel, to the Liberalism it professes to stand absolutely independent of. Even Joseph Burgess, to whose work the present position is admittedly largely due, breaks out in vehement protest against the “unholy compact between Liberalism and Labour” which has resulted in the Star Chamber (consisting of Henderson and MacDonald), which directs the “Labour” Party, frankly declining to contest Newcastle against the Liberal for fear of imperilling Hudson’s seat, and invoking reprisals in other double-barrelled constituencies, from which the “Labour” member obtains his seat by collaboration with the Liberals.

Well, Burgess and the rest of them may howl. The murder was out for us long ago. The particulars we published in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD immediately following the general election left no sort of misapprehension as to the position, in the minds of anyone capable of weighing evidence. To-day the “Labour” Party stands confessed as a pitiable appendage of capitalist Liberalism, worse than useless from a working-class point of view, and only concerned to save the worthless carcasses of the members from being cast into the outer darkness that lies beyond the walls of St. Stephens, where there is weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, because of the lost two hundred dirty pieces of gold (as Burns, the capitalist tout and working-class harpy, once unkindly called them) and all the kudos and the potentialities thereof, that attach to the position of a member of Parliament.

__________

How Long?

Just how long the trade unions will be prepared to find the money to keep this wretched gang in position is a moot point. It will depend, of course, absolutely upon the spread of Socialist thought amongst the union workers. Our part is to propagate the principles of Socialism on every available opportunity, to the end that a Socialist group under the direction and control of Socialist constituencies, shall appear for the first time in the Parliament to displace the alleged Labour group, put an end to the sham divisions between Liberal and Conservative capitalists, force them all into one camp in open antagonism to working-class interests (they will go soon enough when faced with direct issues) and give expression to the proletarian revolt without by ceaseless, irreconcilable struggle within until the capture of political power has been accomplished in the name of the workers of the world.

The guarantee that the shameless sale of working-class interests which it is now obvious to anybody the “Labour” group has been party to, cannot be repeated by a Socialist group, consists in the fact that a Socialist member of Parliament is unthinkable apart from a Socialist constituency. A Socialist constituency instructs its Parliamentary delegate, and removes him incontinently if he departs from his instructions. He is, and must remain, servant, never master, never anything else than delegate. Given a Socialist constituency, therefore, “deals” are impossible. Without the Socialist constituency, the Socialist member is impossible.

Well, comrades, let us get at it. The barometer of our success will be the rise of the storm of indignation which the awakening workers will direct against the Parliamentary “Labour” misleaders who have gone over to the enemy, as well as against that band of hope— the misleaders who are still awaiting the chance of “getting in”—who have aided and abetted the treachery.

___________

The Price of a “Labour” Member.

Arising out of the Newcastle discussion, Mr. Frank Rose (Clarion, Oct 2), replying to the charge that the “Labour” members are more concerned with the safety of their own seats than with the “bigger, bolder, and better policy” which he (Rose) would like to see adopted, says “Why should they not look after their seats ? . . . The critical Simon Pures who have not got seats to lose might act differently if they had seats. On the other hand, they might not. I want a bigger, bolder, and better policy, but I do not expect one for a farthing a week.”

This is as frank as we shall get it. If those who pay the wages of the “Labour” members want better value they must pay a bigger price. You cannot expect a big, bold policy on £200 a year. Presumably, Rose would have taken the exact opposite of the action the Executive of the Labour Party took, but you cannot get big, bold action like that for the present price paid. All you can expect is that the “Labour” members shall look after their seats and their paltry £200 a year. The £200 a year is clearly due to them for the worry and trouble they are caused in keeping those seats !

A very big, bold gospel; a very precious gospel, this. Now if we had said that the “Labour” members were primarily after their salaries and were prepared to sell out their convictions as to the necessity for a big, bold policy, because they only received a paltry £4 a week and required £5 or more before they would move further than they do move, what in the way of base calumniators should we have been according to Rose & Co. ? And yet that is, in effect, precisely what Rose would have us understand in this connection. Well, Frank Rose is in the running for a job at the regulation salary. He holds that a bigger, bolder policy is necessary. He holds that the workers can’t have that policy at the price. So, presumably, he will, if he gets the job, go in for the policy that is useless—even as the other “Labour” members.

What other attitude should he adopt ? It would certainly seem to us as “impossibilists” and “vulgar persons,” that the only action possible to a man holding Rose’s views is to retire from candidature altogether or until such time as the money, upon which alone a big and useful policy can be pursued, is forthcoming. But then Mr. Rose is not a Simon Pure.

However, for the present the workers are to understand that they must raise their members’ screw if they want anything more than a receipt: for the money, or, although the alternative does not seem to strike Mr. Rose, they may sack their present employees and get representatives instead of job-hunters. When they understand they surely will. Meanwhile their leaders do not intend to show them the way to the bigger, bolder and better policy. They are not paid to !

Blogger's Note:

For more background on the aforementioned Haggerston bye-election, the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard covered it in some detail. 

Dynamite. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jeering at the claims of the Tariff Reformer as the possessor of a nostrum that will alleviate poverty, Burns, at Tynemouth, 14.10,08 (Daily News report) said “I am not a prophet, but I suggest this : If Protection were in existence, it would never see one hard summer because the people would perish.” So. The people who under Free Trade have so great an advantage over the miserable wretches who are forced to exist under Protection, are so strong, so virile, so well nourished after their generations of prosperity, that they would perish in one summer of Protection that the miserable weaklings of Protection manage, somehow, to pull through years of. No, we should not describe Burns as a prophet. A much shorter word will suffice. He doesn’t seem to have sense enough to know when he is giving the game away. Verily, if his salary is to be preserved to him the Lord must make quick and violent incision in him, for he is indeed raw.

* * *

“In Newcastle Mr. Hudson (Labour) was hand in glove with the Liberal candidate at the last (general) election. He was entertained at the Liberal Club less than 36 hours before the election, and he urged his supporters to split their votes between the Liberal and himself, which was very loyally done.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 13.9.08.

* * *

“Mr. Hudson says that he is not going to take a hand in the contest and his attitude is the outcome of his loyalty to the Labour Party. Newcastle is a strong one-man seat for Labour. Two Labour candidates mean that both would be defeated at the next general election.” 

Sunday Chronicle, 20.9.08.

* * *

“The Independent Parliamentary Labour Party which boasts of its independence of either of the old political parties, has refrained from putting up a candidate at Newcastle because Mr. Hudson, the “Labour” member for the double-seated constituency, believes he cannot be independent of the Liberal vote at the next election ; or, at any rate, the leaders of his party believe that . . . Conservatives can afford to smile at the sight of Labour kow-towing to the Liberals who make helots of some state servants.” — Evening Chronicle, 18.9.08.

* * *

“Forty-six deaths from starvation in the county of London for 1907.” 

Home Office White Paper.

* * *

The Registrar General’s analysis of the 1901 census recently published shows that general labourers in industrial centres have an average mortality more than twice as high as the average for all workers, while the mortality among clergymen is less than half the average.

* * *

“The time is fast approaching when the real struggle will be between the man who wields hammer and chisel and the man who holds the cash-box—Capital versus Labour, if you like. Whig and Tory must give place to these.” 

The Business Man’s Magazine.

Whig and Tory know this already. The Business Man’s Magazine’s writer’s point is merely that Whig and Tory will soon be forced to drop the present pretence of political partizanship in the general interest and come out in what the draper would call “fast colours.”

* * *

Since the law came into operation that closed public houses in Scotland all day on Sunday and early on Saturday, the proportion of charges of drunkenness and disorderliness per 1,000 of the population of Glasgow has increased from 17.7 in 1904 to 27.7 in 1907 according to the official figures supplied by the Chief Constable of Glasgow. In 1904 there were 13,850 charges; 1905, 15,263 charges ; 1906, 20,458 charges ; and in 1907, 22,314. This is how the facts support the argument of the temperance crank that the absense of facilities for drinking prevents drinking being indulged in.

* * *

From 1896 to 1905 the total deaths from all classes of accidents in connection with mines in the United Kingdom was 10,202. (Blue Book.)

* * *

The latest report of the General Board of Commissioners states that since 1858 lunacy in Scotland has increased by 202 per cent. as against a population increase of 58 per cent. On the 1st January last the total number of insane person in Scotland was 17,908.

* * *

“According to the Board of Trade ‘Labour Gazette,’ returns from 268 trade unions, having a net membership of 648,585, showed 8.9 per cent. of the net membership as unemployed. According to the report of the New York State Labor Department, out of a total of 387,450 trade unionists reported on, 138,131, or 35.7 per cent., were unemployed on 31 March. The New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph stated, on 27 April, on the authority of Mr. Herman Robinson, general organiser of the American Federation of Labor, that at least 40 per cent. of the trade unionists of the city of New York were unemployed on 1 April.” 

Morning Leader, 5.10.08.

At random. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“May I say there is a good deal of nonsense talked about capital ?” Thus Lloyd-George at Swansea. And at once adds more “nonsense.” As thus: “The greatest capitalist in this country is Nature.” The implication that all wealth is capital should commend itself to Clarion Vanner (by the grace of Blatchford) Hick.

* * *

This product of what he himself described as the “stately cloisters of Oxford,” told a motley gathering of I.L.P’ers, S.D.P’ers, etc. in Peckham that capital was “wealth used to produce more wealth.” He affected to be much concerned when a member of the S.P.G.B. referred to him as a “catspaw of the capitalist class,” and cried aloud for proof of the charge, hastily adding, at the same time, that no Socialist would be allowed on the platform in opposition.

* * *

Cumulative and damnatory evidence could be given until further orders, that this brand of political quack is effectually doing the work of the master class in several directions, but the mere fact that one of the high-priests of Capital and the Vanner should be engaged in confusing the mind of the worker on vital points is sufficiently significant of itself.

* * *

Nothing suits the game of the capitalist class better than to point to the worker’s pick, his shovel, his dinner-pail, to apostrophise his mental qualities, his endurance, his etc., etc., and call them “capital.” For why ? It BLURS THE CLASS STRUGGLE.

* * *

“Capital does not consist in the fact that stored-up labour is used by living labour as a means to further production. Capitalism presupposes the existence of a class which possesses nothing but labour-power. It is the lordship of realised labour over living labour that transforms stored-up labour into capital”—Author of pamphlet, “Karl Marx.”

* * *

Kautsky, in the second section of his brilliant work, “Das Erfurter Programm,” (issued by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in pamphlet form as “The Working Class,” price one penny, honestly and correctly translated into English.) has pointed out that modern capitalism has developed a sorry type of proletarian—-the educated wage-slave. The death of Churton Collins, a distinguished scholar and acknowledged authority on Shakesperian lore, is one of frequently occurring incidents which emphasises his miserable position who must prostitute his intellect to make a living, and hire out his commodity—education—to the highest bidder. The professor, dying by his own hand, was fearful as to the future maintenance of his children.

* * *

Meantime, a correspondent of the Daily News is suggesting that, to meet unemployment of teachers in London, the L.C.C. shall “reduce present salaries,” and prevent teachers doing both day and evening work !

* * *

The Review of Reviews is concerned about “The Winter Feeding of Starving Children.” (It is not going to let the S.D.P. monopolise that pitch.) In the September issue, p. 295, it says “It would be well if other firms were to follow Messrs. Allen & Hanbury’s example by a systematic endeavour to educate the public in the general principles of the scientific feeding of children.” On p. 303 is a long advertisement crying up the wares of the above named firm. The Review of Reviews “invites the aid of ‘helpers.'” Helpers for what? Who said “alliances” ?

* * *

From the same source we learn that it has been ascertained that the children “could be fed excellently well at a penny a meal, with a extra halfpenny for dinner.”

* * *

Crouch low, you discontented dogs ! Listen to the I.L.P. “Socialist,” Liberal Stead at elbow, telling you the master class can provide sumptious meals for your poor little kiddies at a penny a head, with a extra half-penny chucked in for dinner. Then, begone ! run to your houses, fall upon your knees, pray to the tuppenny gods to intermit the plague that needs must light on “your” country for the ingratitude displayed by the Socialist Party of Great Britain in denouncing such a sorry combination of mouthing knaves and tricksters.

* * *

F. H. Rose, in the Clarion of 18.9.08 writes, with regard to the cotton dispute, “The masters bribe away the best and most knowing of the operators’ officials by giving them better jobs and bigger salaries. It is a ghastly business. Yet if I were to say what every employer knows, I should be charged with ‘giving the game away.'”

* * *

Judged by his own words, F. H. Rose is a traitor to his own class. A deliberate charge is made against unions’ officials which, unfortunately, is no doubt only too true. What plea can he bring forward to justify his silence or the matter ? If fears for endangering his own chances as union official and “Labour” member, why take the pains to emblazon abroad his cowardice ?

* * *

A significant cutting from John Bull. We pray you, note, aye, nota bene ! “Just as the franchise is the political specific for revolution, nationalisation of the public services is the antidote to Socialism.” Instead of which, that egregious political combination which is neither “independent” in action, nor “labour” in spirit, and which exists as a “party” only by grace of anonymous donors (see Manifesto p. 3) and middle-class “sympathisers,” at its last Annual Conference passed the following resolution : “That in the opinion of this Conference the time is ripe for the nationalisation of railways, and that our representatives be asked to urge forward a measure to that effect in Parliament.”

* * *

The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that pensions in Germany had not only raised the standard of life, but had had “the important result of improving the quality of the workman.” Exactly. Read “Bountiful Bournville” in last month’s issue of this paper in connection with this statement. Further comment would be what the Book of Common Prayer simply and beautifully calls “supererogatory.”

* * *

The Manchester Guardian recently wrote “Mr. Hudson repudiated any alliance with the Liberals, but he had heard the good news which Manchester sent on the first night of the election in the not uncongenial atmosphere of the Liberal Club. Being called on for a speech, he said he most earnestly desired to see Mr. Cairns (Liberal) in as well as himself.”

* * *

Mr. Hudson is a “Labour” M.P. The “Constitution and Organisation” section of the Manifesto of the “Labour” Party contains the following : “Candidates and members must abstain strictly from promoting the interests of any Party not eligible for affiliation.” Is the Liberal Party ”eligible for affiliation” ? Verily, in the words of their own Chairman at the Belfast Conference, “The Labour Party were a queer party and they are a queer party.”

* * *

At a “Socialist” demonstration recently, J. R. Clynes, another “Labour” M.P., and I.L.P’er to boot, said “The unemployed are a waste to the country. Would it not be better to enable a man to work for his maintenance and something over for the country.”

* * *

“Something over” = profit.

“The country” = the capitalist class.

* * *

In spite of protestations to the contrary, the “Labour” Group is out to maintain the present system. Its actions speak louder than its words, which, Heaven knows, should be loud enough to wake the somnolent wage-slave to a recognition of the real position.

* * *

“Radical Socialism,” “I.L.P. Socialism,” “Labour Socialism”—in short “Bourgeois Socialism”—all were summed up fifty years ago in the most luminous little working-class work ever penned (the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”).

“Free Trade—for the benefit of the working class, Protective duties—for the benefit of the working class, Prison reform—for the benefit of the working class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of bourgeois Socialism. It can be summed up in a phrase the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working class.”

Augustus Snellgrove

The Trade Union Congress. (1908)

 

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress opened at Nottingham with a notable address from the chairman. Let the Daily News speak :—

”Mr. Shackleton’s address was largely occupied with the great social problems of the country at large—the drink question, the education question, the care of old age, and even dangers in foreign policy. On all of these joints he took a strong and definitely Liberal position.”

And that’s all that requires to be said for it. Mr. Shackleton made it quite clear that he had not a glimmer of an idea of the working-class position in relation to any of the questions touched upon. Either that, or he was concerned to obscure his knowledge. Mr. Shackleton, we are constantly informed, is the “strong man” of the Labour movement. He is. His strength lies in the definitely Liberal, and therefore pro-capitalist, and therefore anti-working-class, position he may be relied upon to occupy.

For example :

Mr. Shackleton thought the fact that Trade Unions’ returns shewed 8.2 per cent. of skilled workers unemployed in July of this year as compared with 3.7 last year, was one—calling “for the serious consideration of the Government” ! He affirmed that “the great political and social measure of the Session was undoubtedly the Licensing Bill” ; that the great question which is on everybody’s lips is what will the House of Lords do “when the Bill came before it” ; and that “Labour was prepared to fight the Lords on the Drink evil.”

But—

“The outstanding feature of a notable speech was the appeal to the Government to convene in London an international conference on labour.

He cited the precedent set by the German Emperor eighteen years ago. Since then the spread of the international character of the labour movement had been the most striking feature in the Trade Union world, and the time had come for another conference.”—Daily News.

Verily a strong man. A man head and shoulders above all the hosts of Israel. He would refer the unemployed problem to a government of capitalists who depend upon the maintenance of the unemployed problem. His most important Bill of the Session is the Licensing Bill which doesn’t matter a brass farthing to the working class. And the scintillating darling of his genius for statesmanship is an 18 years old proposal of that earnest and far-sighted labour leader, the German Emperor of that day, for an international conference on labour, to “include representatives of the European and United States (capitalist) Governments” who are opposed by the nature of their interests to the interests of the working class !

Evidently the fraternal delegates from America were impressed. “When Mr. Shackleton was in America,” said Mr. Creamer, “he described Mr. Gompers as a, ‘grand old man.’ I cannot do better than describe Mr. Shackleton as a ‘grand young man.'” Mr. Creamer doubtless meant that Mr. Shackleton was following in Mr. Gompers’ footsteps. Those who know Mr. Gompers as the chief labour lieutenant of the capitalist class in America, and know the work of Mr. Shackleton in England, will doubtless agree that Mr. Creamer “could do no better” in the way of accurate description. Mr. Gompers is at present actively engaged in assisting Mr. Bryan, capitalist candidate for the Presidency.

The same Mr. J. J. Creamer in the course of his address said: “In the Southern States the movement against child labour was growing and he hoped ultimately that all children and married women would be excluded from the mills.” He continued: “I want to congratulate this Congress . . . particularly on its president” (Mr. Shackleton). It is not recorded that Mr. Shackleton, the champion of child labour in mills, blushed noticeably. This is a real test of greatness !

With such a brilliant lead from such a brilliant leader the Congress settled down to its work, and notwithstanding the difficulties of the position, managed to follow the line marked out for it, with wonderful restraint, if not lamb-like docility. There was a full week of dull and stodgy talking, only lightened here and there by the contributions of such advanced thinkers as Mr. Harvey, M.P. Speaking on the motion that the Congress do all in its power to restrict Sunday labour, in the future, to the narrowest possible limits, this worthy person said : “Working men are not wholly free from blame. They are too much inclined to ask for Sunday excursions. I believe that the strength of our family and national life lies in the keeping of the Divine commandments.”

These selfish, luxury-loving working men, spending their substance in riotous living, and rushing about the four corners of the globe on a Sunday, instead of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy ! But who is this cheerful Harvey and who let him out of the museum of Mediaevialities ?

Once or twice proceedings threatened to grow stormy, as when somebody wanted a public enquiry into the methods of the Salvation Army’s “elevator” work, but as the Salvation Army is the one institution we cannot do without (according to Mr. MacDonald); the organisation upon which the “Labour” Party in the House relies for its information on working-class affairs, “the tumult and the shouting” died down into an agreement to leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Committee.

Against this one organisation that the “Labour” Party cannot do without, shameless and unblushing sweating, undercutting and black-legging, have been alleged and proven to the satisfaction of most men outside the Salvation Army’s own ranks. (In the ranks, probably, lying to the glory of God, is pardonable and permissible). The Parliamentary Committee will “deal” with this ; but the supply of blacklegs through other agencies, to fill the places of Continental workers on strike, is a matter reflecting upon the international credit of an imperial race—and so forth.

With these occasional breaks in the monotony everything went through “swimmingly,” and everybody appears to have been satisfied. Sheaves of resolutions were disposed of in a “business-like” way by talking on them for an hour or so and finally referring them to the Government who won’t do anything, or to the Parliamentary Committee who can’t. This, of course, is of no great consequence, as nine-tenths of the resolutions didn’t matter, and those that did the delegates seemed quite incapable of handling.

Such, incapacity is quite understandable when it is remembered that the delegates are, unfortunately, representatives of constituencies of ignorance. While that ignorance persists, we shall have the mortification of witnessing our own class annually wasting its money and its strength in Congress meetings, that do nothing quite as well as they demonstrate to the world of capitalism that the day when the profit-monger shall fear for his hoard is not yet.

For ourselves, there is nothing we can do except that which we have consistently done from our inception until now,—point out the futility of anything less than Socialism and urge the necessity for working-class organisation in industry as in politics, for the establishment of Socialism. That is the message our men have to carry to they who sit in darkness inside and outside Trade Unions—anywhere in fact where the workers do most congregate. In order to do it we must expose fraud or foolery, even though it is expressed through the workers’ most revered leaders.

That is a thankless task for which we shall probably continue to reap for some time more kicks than ha’pence. But as there is no other party in the country to do it, and as it must be done, we are not deterred by present contumely or indifference. Sooner or later the policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must win. We are in the Party that cannot lose ; working for the cause that cannot fail. If the workers or their leaders don’t like the truth we cannot help it. Children don’t like medicine, but when their case gets parlous they have to take it. The truth about the present Trade Union Congress is that it is a ghastly farce, a waste of time and money, and only of advantage to the delegates who, through it, get an annual junket at the workers’ expense.

Alegra.