50 Years Ago: Plimsoll Line (1962)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Samuel Plimsoll hated Toryism, but the depth of his hatred of Liberal government was shown when he said in the House of Commons on May 14, 1873:

“I am a Liberal of the Liberals. I have supported Liberal measures ever since I came into this House, but it has been borne into my mind that the interest of the working classes, when at issue between themselves and capitalists, are safer with the Conservatives than with the Liberals.”

Thirty-one years after the load line was lowered; thirty-one years after the Plimsoll Mark was established, David Lloyd George became President of the Board of Trade, and he wiped out the labours of Plimsoll by issuing new regulations raising the load line. The Plimsoll line—the charter of the seamen—was dead. In its place was substituted the Lloyd George load line.

*

On Saturday, September 21st, the Board of Trade enquiry into the loss of the North Briton was held at Cardiff. The magistrate who presided over it summed up thus:

“For some time before the vessel foundered, and when her condition was hopeless, the crew—those 20 brave men of that brave class, the British Mercantile Marine—stood together on the deck with their pipes in their mouths, silently, calmly, dauntlessly facing death. Without a murmur or a cry they perished in the sea. Their lives were sacrificed to the 130 tons of additional freight.” 

He pointed out that:

“According to law she was not overladen, but the Court is satisfied that consistent with safety the loading was excessive,” and “the primary cause of her loss.”

The Court put the Board of Trade the following question for urgent consideration:

“Do the disasters to vessels that have occurred since March 1906, when the rules for assigning a ship’s freeboard were revised, and whereby numerous vessels had their freeboard reduced, call for further immediate revision of such rules?”

[From the editorial, 'Lloyd George's permit to murder', Socialist Standard, October 1912.]

50 Years Ago: Land Tax (1962)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

At a time when the toilers are engaged in a bitter struggle with the employers, the Liberals are busy diverting attention to the “wicked landlords” and their “unearned increment.” The dockers being “done down” by a Devonport, are told to tax land values. The miners, vainly seeking 5s. a day, are urged to support the Single Tax idea. The railway men, cursing Conciliation, are advised to levy the ducal landlords.

The Land Tax campaign serves the Liberal manufacturers well. Labour unrest is exploited to turn the minds of the workers away from the real question to the old bogey of taxing land. The policy of smothering men’s bitter feelings against the Devonports, Thomas’s, and Hugh Bells, has, however, a more palpable and material driving force behind it. Hence we note from the Liberal Press that a wealthy and influential committee has been formed to boom the Land Tax campaign.

Mr. Joseph Fels, the well-known soap manufacturer, has contributed £30,000, and many others have given largely. Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, the Liberal pottery manufacturer, is one of the leading spirits in the movement.

Hirelings are sent about the country at great expense, preaching the virtues of the Single Tax.

But why this enormous expenditure? Why this outcry about taxation? Once the worker grasps the true facts of the question of taxation, the campaign and its real meaning become plain. The upkeep of this system of society calls for hundreds of millions a year to support the services that must be run to ensure the safety of our masters.

The cost of the Army. Navy, Police, and bureaucracy is ever rising, and the manufacturers and business men—chiefly organised in the Liberal party—are crying out about their heavy burden of taxation. Wishing to divide the cost of those forces and institutions necessary to keep the workers down, they propose to tax land or land values. The landowners, on the other hand, have no desire to be taxed further, hence their bitter wail.

This time honoured squabble as to who should pay is but one between robbers over the cost of the robbery.

[From the article, 'The Lying Land Campaign: The Socialist View' by Adolph Kohn, the Socialist Standard, September 1912.]

How the Workers are Butchered on the Rand. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

Putumayo is not such ancient history that one person here and there, with an exceptional memory for grisly tales of barbarity and suffering, can with an effort recall something of the facts of that interesting case. The present writer endeavoured to show that the wave of indignation which swept over the land, from the Cabinet Ministers in our immaculate Parliament to the poet (!) (now deceased) who once stirred the nation’s soul with a deathless poem calling upon the British bulldogs to “Hurry Up for Pity Sake !” (the merit of which poem was handsomely acknowledged by it being printed on red cotton handkerchieves and sold at a price within the means of all who had a nose to wipe thereon) might well have been let loose over equally deserving happenings very much nearer home.

That statement did not meet with universal approval. It seemed incredible to some that those smart, jovial, silk-hatted gentlemen who rush to and fro between Park Lane and Throgmorton Street, and who carry so gracefully the knighthoods and honours heaped upon them by the Liberal Government, could ever be guilty, could even fall under suspicion of being guilty, of any such atrocities as those with which those strange-named servants of a British company turned the peaceful Putumayo into a river of blood and tears in a “Devil’s Paradise.”

Recent happenings in South Africa, however, in which British miners, and British soldiers, and British (!) capitalists, and British knights, and the highest of high officers of the British Crown, are concerned, show clearly enough that in all essentials, the “cultured” ones of our Western civilisation are quite aa capable, given the materials, as any Portuguese half-breed in the pay of British capital, of creating a “Devil’s Paradise” of their own, with British blood and brawn, on the soil of the British Empire.

All the humbug of that sly old servant of Satan, W. E. Gladstone, who covered his machinations in the interests of the ruling class with a slime of “moral” cant, in which the “wrongs” of the Balkan people quivering under the spiked and envenomed heel of “Abdul the Damned” were in particular made to be a mat, jealously guarded and preserved, for him to clean his begrimed boots on, has been, it seems, bequeathed in trust and with compound interest, to the Liberal party. While they are busy fulminating against the “White Slave Trader” at home, they are, with brutal cynicism, crowning the blood-reeking fortunes of South African millionaires with titles. So that the political funds of the “Great Liberal Party” may benefit, they make murder respectable by covering it with the cloak of knighthood. 

Those who do not know how, and at what cost of working class suffering and misery, these South African fortunes have been amassed, are invited to think over the scanty particulars reproduced from a Press which, under a system, fails to suppress much that they would for the simple reason that sensation (and advertisements) is their life’s blood.

“‘However healthy a Transvaal rock-drill man may appear to be on his return to this country,’ Dr. Haldane told the Departmental Committee on Industrial Diseases in 1907, ‘he will probably be dead within a year or two.'” (“Pall Mall Gazette,” 7.7.13.)

“The death rate of one section of the men who mine the gold—the machine men or rock drillers—is over 230 per thousand from one disease—miner’s phthisis—alone. Such a death rate from a single occupational disease must be unparalleled in the whole industrial world. It can only be compared with King Leopold’s Congo Free State.

“Speaking before a representative meeting of mining engineers in Johannesburgh in September last Mr. Koetze, the Government mining engineer, said : ‘Sooner or later every worker underground in these mines will contract miner’s phthisis.’

“The practical result of commissions of inquiry have been recommendations that water be used to keep down the dust which causes the disease. These recommendations have been urged upon the mineowners, in each case with the same result—utter callousness and neglect.”

These extracts were written by Dr. G. L. Ugmara, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., and were reproduced in the “Morning Leader” for December 2, 1911.

“No less than 10,000 people die in these mines every.” (Mr. Merriman.)

“Miners’ phthisis is said to be due to the inhalation of fine dust which arises not merely from rock-drilling without the accompaniment of water, but also from the blasting operations with explosives. Last year more than 1,000 of 3,000 men examined by the Medical Commission were found to have phthisis. No rock-driller could work in the mines for sixteen years and escape it. Death took place as a rule before the age of forty. Here is a table which showed at that time how inevitable is the doom of any man who undertakes this work :—

Years of service Percentage of men affected

    2½ 25

    4½ 55

    6½ 70

   10½ 80

   13½ 90

   16½ 100 ” 

“Daily News.”

“Then all the miners and the population know that the mine owners are responsible in the same way for the death among the Kaffirs, which Mr. Sauer, the Minister for Native Affairs, has characterised, as regards the natives from tropical countries, as little short of murder. There was no need for any limitation in the phrase. The probability is that over 100,000 natives have been killed in the mines since the war.” (Mr. R. L. Outhwaite, M.P., in “Reynolds’s,” 6.7.13.)

There can be no escape from such a mass of evidence supplied by the capitalists’ own tools and fellows. Ten thousand victims in a year ! It would take a continent of Putumayos to equal this stupendous crime. When the war was raging we were told that they were “painting the map red,” but never in those days of open and avowed slaughter were such libations of blood poured out to the “Imperial idea” as have been run out, as from a vast broken cask, every year since, to satisfy the blood-thirsty vampires of Park Lane, in the ultra-respectable West End of London.

It is the story of Whitehaven retold in more callous letters. There miners were hurled to death because it would cost their safe and comfortable masters something to ventilate the mine in accordance with the first clause of their own Mines Act. On the Rand thousands of working-class lives are thrown away annually because it would absorb some of the knighted owners’ profits to spray with water in the process of rock-drilling, and to allow time for the dust to settle after a “blast” before the men returned to the “face.” It is the story of rubber retold, on a scale more in keeping with the dignity of the yellow commodity.

It cannot be pleaded that this wholesale murder of black and white is the work of a few of the capitalists alone. It is aided and connived at by the whole master class as such. How the British Government imposed a “hut tax” upon the natives whose land they had stolen, and sent a military force to enforce the payment of the paltry sums that could never pay the expense of collecting them, in order to drive the blacks into the mines to earn the money in which alone the taxes were payable, may not be entirely forgotten by some who do not especially treasure the memory of these curious incidents. It reads and looks and smells remarkably like some of the means resorted to by the “brigands” who cost virtuous England the price of a special commission and a House of Commons inquiry. Ten thousand victims a year ! Oh, the stinking hypocrisy of the howl that greeted the revelation of the Peruvian atrocities !

The war which was engineered in order that the mine owners might squeeze another four million pounds profit per annum out of the writhing and quivering carcasses of their white and black slaves was the work of a Tory administration, but it was reserved for a Liberal Government to make the Transvaal a “self-governing” colony, in order that they might be able to say when miners were to be butchered on the Rand : “We cannot interfere.” Strange, is it not, that when the Outlanders were supposed to be writhing in agony under the indignity of being without the franchise, the fact that they were under a foreign Government did not prevent the full armed might of the British Empire being used to “see them righted,” but now that these miners are being massacred in cold blood by troops provided and paid by the British Government, under the direction of a high officer of the British Crown, on soil painted red” with the blood of ten thousand British soldiers, nothing can be done because the Transvaal is a self-governing British colony !

I say nothing about the lives lost in the so-called rioting. Where life is held so cheap it seems little enough to make a bother about. But whose estimate of working-class life is it that counts ten thousand workers lives as of less importance than the cost of providing safe conditions for the mining of 40 million pounds worth of gold ? Think of that great army of workers—men of your own class—who must march to death to produce one year’s output of gold from South African mines. Ten thousand of them, black and white. For every million pounds 250 lives. We have been nurtured on grim and haunting pictures of the unspeakable Arab slave-caravans, but was ever anything more appalling enacted in all Africa than is enacted by these silk-hatted brigands of Park Lane, West ?

Fellow workers, very guarded must be the language of the revolutionary who would criticise those who engineered a great war in order to grab the mines, who have butchered you on a hundred shambles from Peterloo and Featherstone to Llanelly and the Rand, who waste your lives by raising the loadline of ships, and by refusing to adopt automatic couplings on the railways, who murder you by thousands for the mere cost of ventilating coal mines at home and spraying the dust in the mines of South Africa. To speak too plainly of these things is to ask to be sent to prison, for those who set so little store on your lives have taken every cunning care to so hedge about their victims with laws and armed force that they must die almost unheard. Hence much must be left to the reader’s imagination. But attention is directed to that clause in our Declaration of Principles which declares that the “armed forces of the nation exist only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers”. Its contradiction, in the face of every military action since the war, from Sir George White’s (the “hero” of Ladysmith) smashing of the coal porters’ strike at Gibraltar to the latest gun-boat demonstration at Leith and cold-blooded butchery in the streets of Johannesburgh, is here challenged. It cannot be seriously and truthfully contradicted.

If this is true, then it is true also that the hope of the workers lies in obtaining control of those armed forces by capturing political power.

That is the way out—the Socialist way. First to deprive the murder class of political control by ceasing to elect them and their Labour allies to Parliament—electing Socialists instead—then by expropriating them and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth. There is no other way.

A. E. Jacomb

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.

Correspondence: "No more “honest workers” ; no more idle loafers, but a race of MEN." (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the Editor.]

Strange as it may seem, I, one of the army of workers, the class which is the only useful class, am classed as above. And I am unemployed ; I can find no man who will give me work to do, that I may earn sufficient to keep the life within me. I can work ; I like to work ; I can’t get it.

Not alone, however. I take up the daily papers ; I read of the great things a Liberal Government is doing for the class I belong to.

I read of their latest benefaction, an institution in each town where we unemployed men and women may go and register our names and qualifications, so that intending employers may look over the books and pick out the suitable ones. And I read that in every place where such exchanges have been opened, a struggling mob of masterless beings have fought to have their names placed on the lists—4,000 in Manchester on the opening day, many more in London, from every industrial centre there comes word of hundreds of men like myself, wanting a master and finding none.

I see it is the beginning of a brighter day for English workers ; that honest workers at last have found their chance. A minister of Christ speaking last week said in a short time all loafers and idlers will be known by name throughout England, and that this was desirable to the honest man willing to do a day’s work. I am one of those honest men. but I have been more fortunate than others in having a roof over my head and plenty to eat while I hunted for the elusive job.

But I ask myself what inducement has any man to remain one of these honest workers, when he has worked so hard as to nearly break down in health, helped also by the knowledge that another waited for his place when he failed. Some day he is told that his services are no longer required, as business is slack. In vain he looks for a job ; he sees the same thing is common all around ; men who have worked their best are flung out to the cold at another’s whim. What is there in honest labor? A fortune for the lazy man who owns the job, starvation for the poor wretch who is bought to work the job.

I also see where a progressive muck-raker (literary) has discovered that by going about the thing properly, double the money made by a casual labourer can be made by artistic begging.

But the man who does that is a loafer ; the man who begs for work an honest working man, much lauded by the clergy and other intellectual prostitutes. Both beg for the same thing—a living. The one starves but is praised for his virtues ; the other lives and is cursed for his vices.

The dawn of a brighter day will come, methinks, when the other slaves discover as I have done, that we are mere bundles of merchandise, bought and sold in the market for the price of subsistence, though in ourselves having the power to create many times more wealth that we never get.

The reason we starve is because, bur wages equalling only a small portion of the wealth we create, we are unable to buy it all back. The remedy is to dispossess our masters of the power they hold by government to-day, and remove ourselves from the category of merchandise, make ourselves men, by the simple act of getting control of the forces of Nature and using them for the benefit of all instead of for a class of parasites.

There can be no unemployed then—all can supply their needs whenever they choose to do so. No more “honest workers” ; no more idle loafers, but a race of MEN.

F. S. F.

The queer side. (1911)

From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under a capitalist regime one is either exploiter or exploited ; there is ever a gulf between the two sections of society, and that gulf widens as the system developes. The affairs of every-day life give the lie to those who, from ignorance or interest, promulgate the idea of the identity of interest between robber and robbed.

* * *

“Before an audience of 10,000 sightseers and guarded by a band of 300 police, Lord Deceis has been married to Miss V. Gould, heiress of Mr. G. Gould . . Lord Deceis is 45 years of age, his bride 18. . . A cake costing £200 was imported for the purpose from Scotland. . . . The bride wore a dress of white satin embroidered with silver . . and a rope of diamonds.”

* * *

“That the worst of slums may exist even in fashionable Folkestone was proved at an inquest on the body of an old woman, of 72 named Mary Sellars. The evidence proved that she died under the most terrible conditions of suffering and neglect. ‘In a small attic 8 ft. x 10 ft., which contained as furniture an iron bedstead, an old chair and a pail,’ said the coroner’s officer, ‘he found the deceased, in the midst of the squalor, lying naked save for the protection of a pair of trousers, an old skirt and a coat thrown over her.’ The deceased had suffered from pleurisy and peritonitis, and had not had any food for hours before death.

“The husband was a corporation labourer earning 18s. a week. The coroner censured him severely, and the jury returned a verdict that ‘Death was due to natural causes.’ ”

* * *

The above cuttings are from the same issue of Reynold’s Newspaper (12.2.11). The first refers to a marriage of members of the capitalist class—people who have never performed a necessary function in the production of the wealth they waste. The latter records the death of one of the exploited—a member of the class that produce the wealth that loafers such as Lord Deceis may roam the world in luxury and comfort, and that the daughters of millionaires may purchase titles.

Such is the evidence of the “identity of interest.” Wealth produced by one class whose members starve, and owned by another class whose members squander.

* * *

“Death was due to natural causes.” It is, of course, natural for a person to die under such conditions, but are the conditions natural ?

It was natural for a policeman to die after receiving a bullet in a vital part, but the twelve “good men and true” returned a different verdict. But then the policeman was a defender of private property, while the woman was only a worn-out toiler. More evidence of the “identity of interest.”

* * *

A writer in the same paper says “Pauperism is the question of the hour. . . The public mind is aroused to the importance of the subject and measures heroic are advocated in order to strike at the root of the evil.” He also quotes Dr. Chalmers as having said “It is thus, then, by a sort of festering and spreading operation, the sphere of destitution is constantly widening in every parish where the benevolence of love has been superseded by the benevolence of law. The following might be given as an example of the benevolence of love.

* * *

The Evening Times, reporting an interview with a Mr. Mumford, chairman of the Paddington Works Committee, quoted that gentleman as follows :

“These figures might be given as an approximate estimate of the numbers of willing to work “out of works” in the building trade :

Painters 3,823

Plasterers 297

Bricklayers 847

Carpenters 597

Navvies 1,269

Labourers 5,254

“It is a simple proposition in the economy of labour to suggest that housewives get their houses in order early this season in order to give work to the painter and others, and to save the extra money they will have to pay when the men are in demand for the Coronation week.”

* * *

The usual form of “benevolence.” Get the work done now, primarily in the interest of the poor unemployed workman, but incidentally—quite incidentally of course—to save money. That means that the same amount of work will be spread over a longer period at a reduced cost. It means that, in the long run, less wages will be paid. That appears to me to be a good method of increasing poverty—but then, of course, the more poverty there is the greater scope for the “benevolence of love,” for this particular sentiment, like appetite, “glows by what it feeds on.”

* * *

The other brand of benevolence can be witnessed in the spectacle of the kind Liberal Government endeavouring to persuade the aged pauper to leave the workhouse and starve outside on five bob a week. According to a writer in the London Quarterly Review, the cost of London indoor paupers, including all charges, amounts to £34 15s. 11¾d. per head per annum. The benevolence of the law offers them £13, and that fierce democrat, Lloyd George, swells his manly buzzum and talks about “sweeping poverty from every hearth.”

* * *

The fringe of the evil is not touched by such reform, much less does it “strike at the root.” The cause, as Lloyd George admits, “lies deep down in the social system,” where also that antagonism of interest finds its root—in the ownership by a class of the means of life. It is indeed questionable whether George & Co. could do anything if they desired to, as all things work to the interest of those who own.

* * *

A contributor to the Nineteenth Century Magazine (Jan., 1911) says that the introduction of State maintenance means that the husband gives the wife less for housekeeping because the children are now provided for by the benevolence of the State. True, and the unemployed worker will reduce the price of the said husband’s labour-power by the amount so saved in order to obtain a job, and so in a short space of time the average wage will suffer a depreciation equal to the diminution of the burden placed upon it.

Nor does it necessarily follow that money wages will drop. The cost of living of the working class is continually on the increase. The Board of Trade Labour Gazette (January, 1911) shows a steady increase in the price of necessaries. The price of food in 1909 reached a point that has net been recorded since 1884. So, even did money wages remain stationary, the workers’ condition would be worsened. The same official return for Feb., 1911 shows a fall in the total wages bill of £49 per week, while the number of unemployed has increased.

The interest of the ruling class is to rule and to keep a subject class as cheaply as possible and all such alterations will be toward that end.

The interest of the working class is not to be ruled, but to shake from their backs those social parasites who keep them poor and insult them by talking twaddle and endeavouring to prove what is obviously untrue, that these tinkering reforms and proposals are introduced “in the interests of the masses.”

Twel.

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

Editorial: Much Ado About Nothing. (1909)

Editorial from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

We refer, of course, to Mr. Asquith’s speech of the eleventh of December, at a dinner given in commemoration of a Liberal defeat. “We are met,” said the Premier on that auspicious occasion, “to celebrate a failure.” The Lords had inconsiderately slaughtered a Liberal licensing bill, and sour-faced Nonconformity had in consequence been cheated of its sop. Weeks had been spent by the Commons in dreary talk in the passing of that measure, and tons of unreadable printed matter had been issued, but this had not prevented it going the way it had been expected it would, and perhaps intended it should, go—apparently to the relief of the majority outside. The bill, indeed, was utterly worthless to the workers, and quite hopeless in the promotion of temperance : its only function seems to have been to square the electoral account for nonconformist and teetotal support.

The collapse of the so-called Education Bill, added to the violent death of the licensing measure, had depressed the Liberal party and made many of its supporters discontented, and it became incumbent on Mr. Asquith to give a rallying cry to decaying Liberalism, and revive the drooping fortunes of his party. And to the accompaniment of loud and prolonged cheering the anxiously awaited pronouncement was made public. “I invite the Liberal Party from tonight,” said the hero of Featherstone, “to treat the veto of the House of Lords as the dominating issue in politics.” Hardly inspiring, this, as a rallying cry, even if it were not mere sound and fury, signifying nothing. Indeed, what did the Premier propose to do to make his dominating issue a reality ? Was the party to go to the country forthwith upon the issue and fight the Lords ? No, quoth Mr. Asquith, that would be to admit the right of the Lords “to dictate both the occassion and the date of a dissolution.” So the Liberals were going to be brave—and to submit. The hollowness of Liberalism hardly needed further demonstration. “Down with the Lords” is again to be its empty rallying cry ; and although the House of Lords, has not yet gone to Jericho, still its walls are expected to crumble at a shout, for certainly the Liberals are prepared to do nothing more.

It cannot be denied that there exist powerful constitutional weapons against the Lords which the Liberals could use were they sincere, but wherever capitalist interests are endangered Liberal and Tory have two minds with but a single thought, two hearts that beat as one. In view of working-class unrest, does not the second chamber offer a possible barrier to working-class advance should other obstacles not suffice ? And does not this account for the tenderness with which the Lords are treated by the Liberals, and partly, also, for the enormous number of peers which the latter create ? Not, however, that we are enamoured of a reform of the House of Lords, for the reform of a rotten institution simply serves to perpetuate that institution, and a House of Lords reformed would undoubtedly be a House of Lords strengthened as a weapon against the workers. Nevertheless the fatuity of Liberalism in this respect, as in regard to their projected Land Tax, cannot escape recognition. The fiscal reform of the Liberals, indeed, is at least as futile as the fiscal reform of the Tories, as far as working-class interests are concerned. So, also, with that other measure which collapsed of its own weakness—the “Education” Bill. There, also, we have an example of Liberal futility. Though called an Education Bill, this measure had nothing whatever to do with the improvement of education, but was solely a faction squabble between sections of the capitalist interest as to which particular brand of Christianity should be forced down the throats of the children. In other words, since the particular form of superstition to be taught is but the outward and visible sign of the interests of one section or other of the ruling class, so the squabble over religious education was really to decide which section of the ruling class the children were to be taught to look to for guidance. To capitalist parties this religious squabble may be vital. Mr. Hill, “Labour” M.P., may claim that “the Bible is still his best book,” and that he believes “in simple Bible teaching.” But from the working-class point of view the fact remains that the worker’s interest is foreign to all this Labour cum-Liberal twaddle.

Moreover, the Liberal-Labour bankruptcy on the question of unemployment could hardly be made clearer. Along with the boasted avalanche of Liberal measures—all conceived in the interest of the ruling class —the position of the worker has been steadily growing worse. Statistics convey a quite inadequate idea of the extent of dumb suffering and poverty that exists among the workers from this cause. Mr. William Redmond, M.P., is moved to remark in Reynold’s that “there is no part of the world where the contrasts between luxurious wealth and miserable poverty are so marked as in England, and particularly in London.” And he further adds,

“We have in Ireland suffering and unemployment enough. But the humblest labourer in his cottage in the country is to be envied in comparison with the workman in the great cities who finds himself without employment. Bit by bit the little articles of the home are sacrificed. The pawnshop stretches forth the only hand of assistance often to be found. The home goes, and there is nothing left but the streets. Far preferable is the lot of the poorest dweller is the countryside to this.

England has been glorified because of her great industrial progress, her mighty factories, and her great hives of industry. But when the depression of trade brings with it the discharge of workmen and the hopelessness which that entails, it is futile to talk of the glory of England’s progress. She then presents a spectacle which is unparalleled in the history of the world, of the most boundless wealth on the one hand, and the direst poverty on the other.”

But to these sufferings of the working class the Liberals, like the Tories, are cynically indifferent, and are, in fact, only likely to move when the workers start acting for themselves. So bad is the state of affairs, indeed, that the Labour Party, that docile tail of the Liberal bow-wow, is even moved by the callousness of the Government to murmur a faint protest. We quote from the daily paper of December 12th.

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., secretary of the Labour Party, speaking at Coventry last night, said deliberately (according to the Central News Agency) that unless the Government turned over a new leaf and observed more sympathy, initiative, and determination in dealing with the serious problems of unemployment it would find the Labour Party before long in violent conflict with it.”

Things must be bad indeed, when the Labour Party threatens to be in conflict with the Government ! In fact, we cannot believe that it will ever come to that. The faithfulness to the Government that has hitherto characterised the “Labour” members is not likely to be disturbed. As we have been reminded on more than one occasion, they find their seats too comfortable.

For the working class, however, groaning under their increasing burden of misery, only the policy of hostility can be of use. They must, as distinct from the Labour Party, find themselves all the time in violent opposition to the capitalist Government. They must democratically champion their own interests against all sections of the capitalist party, and realise to the full that the rallying cries and faction fights of Liberals versus Tories are in very truth rightly said to be “much ado about nothing.” Indeed, if the workers are not prepared to take a stand with their comrades in the Socialist Party and fight their own battles, then there is no power can save them from the deepening misery that threatens.

The General Election: Our Manifesto to the Workers. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS,

Once again the various political parties are seeking your support in a General Election. The Liberal Government, who are appealing to you to retain them in office, were boasting in January last of their “great victory” at the polls. They pointed to the anti-Lords majority of 120 as a proof of their clear mandate and sufficient backing to abolish the Lords’ veto. Yet within a few months of this “great victory”, they are again asking you to return them for the same purpose.

Hardly had the Liberals been elected when Mr. Asquith admitted that he had not got the “guarantees” without which he promised at Albert Hall  he would not hold office.

The history of the Liberal party shows that the House of Lords has nothing to fear from them. Besides acting as a trysting place for their financial supporters, it does duty as an excuse for their broken promises and procrastination. They have raised the bogey election-cry of “Down with the House of Lords!” ever since the rejection of their 1832 Reform Bill, but though in power a dozen times since then with large majorities, they have not once joined issue with the peers. Instead of “ending or mending”, they have been extending, the Second Chamber. A far greater number of peers were created in the 19th century by the Liberals than by the Tories, and they are well ahead, with a total of 40, in the 20th century. In fact, the necessity of rewarding with peerages the great contributors to the party’s funds is, doubtless, one of the reasons for the Dissolution.

After indulging in the most violent denunciation of the Lords the Liberals arranged to patch up their quarrel by holding a conference, which, after five months existence, has been abandoned “for the present” – to use Mr. Asquith’s phrase. During these months a truce was called and we told not to disturb the little game of coddem evidently being played by the wily “eight”. The Government, if returned again, obviously intend to continue the sham-fight ’til the Coronation, when we may expect another General Election – or another conference.

Although the Liberals admit that the reform in the composition of the House of Lords means strengthening it against the people, the preamble to the Government Veto Bill states that “it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”. This Bill gives the Lords power to reject every bill twice. Even one of their own members has admitted the hypocrisy of his party. Writing to the Daily Chronicle (June 20th) the Hon. J. Martin, Liberal M. P. for St. Pancras, said: “The Government have changed front several times on the House of Lords question, and on account of their wobbling since the Election, I have no hesitation in saying that I have no confidence whatever in them.” During the Dissolution debate (18.11.10) he said: “I do not believe the Government are in earnest in their fight against the Lords. With a majority of a hundred members like myself to stand by them, I do not believe there was any need for a dissolution.”

All this goes to show how fraudulent the Liberals are; but even were they sincere on this question of the Upper Chamber it would not concern you, fellow-workers. Mere political changes do not affect your economic condition. The Liberals say that there is not such a reactionary Second Chamber abroad as the British, yet you know that poverty and unemployment abound there as here.

The poverty and insecurity from which you suffer has its roots, not in political forms, but in the class ownership of the means of life. No reform, whether of Tariffs, Franchise, or Poor Law, can touch the cause; consequently the effects persist though social reforms are continually passed.

Even Lloyd George confessed, in his City Temple speech (17.10.10), that “before we succeed in remedying one evil, fresh ones crop up. We are hopelessly in error”. That is a very significant admission. But the very reforms that fail to touch the evils they are supposed to remedy are, the “wicked Lords” notwithstanding, being made the issues by the Liberals at the present election.

Very Old Age Pensions for those on the verge of the grave (adopted because they are cheaper than Poor Law relief); Labour Exchanges (organised to smash strikes and reduce wages); a specious promise to qualify the legal effects of the Osborne judgment (a sop to catch the votes of the trades unions): these are the futilities with which the Liberals mock the care-worn wage-slaves of capitalism.

The Labour Party, as we have continually pointed out, is merely a wing of the Liberal party. It is composed of job-hunters who, like Shackleton, are seeking office in Liberal administrations. Said their chairman in the House of Commons (18.11.10): “It was because the Labour Party believed the solution of the House of Lords question would be a step forward that  they supported the Government”.

Your masters are seeking your suffrages in this election because upon their control of the political machine their supremacy depends. Liberal and Tory alike are out for the maintenance of this system, which means for you a continuation of your slavery. While pretending to be in deadly enmity, they are united as one against you when you try to better your lot. They combine in Masters’ Federations and try to starve you into submission by locking you out when you seek to make your wages cover the increased cost of living – as in Lancashire. They bring the armed forces into your midst to bludgeon you and menace your very lives – as in South Wales. Through their political supremacy your masters control these forces of repression, and if you are to change the conditions under which you work and live, you must fight to get control of the machinery of Government.

In that fight you cannot take sides with any section of the capitalist class, because it is to their interest to maintain this system which means luxury and idleness for them. Neither can you support those parties which, like the Labour Party and the Social-Democratic Party, are parties of compromise and reform. (The latter of these organisations has, in its election manifesto, advised the workers to stultify themselves by voting for the Tories. Their only candidate is a champion of “a strong navy”!) Your interests, being opposed to those of the capitalists, must lead you to ally yourself with a working-class political party waging an uncompromising battle against all the forces ranged in opposition to your class.

Your emancipation can only be achieved by converting the instruments of production from the property of the few (who use them to exploit you) into the common property of society, so that they can be used to produce the requirements of life in abundance for all; in a word, Socialism must be established.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only party in this country that consistently works for this end: and as the realisation of Socialism depends upon the conversion of the workers, your place is within its ranks, striving to bring your fellow-workers into line, helping to hasten the day when the fratricidal warfare of capitalism is supplanted by the fraternal co-operation that Socialism alone can ensure.

Pending the time when the workers rally in greater numbers to the Socialist Party, and so enable it to take its proper place in electoral contests as the only working-class political party in this country, it has no candidates in the field. Hence all candidates before you at this election, whether they be openly and avowedly capitalist, or slink at the heels of the Liberals under the title of I.L.P., S.D.P., Labour or Socialist, stand for the maintenance of capitalism, and from the position we have outlined your duty is plain.

ABSTAIN FROM VOTING

on this occasion, and, lest the enemy impersonate you, go to the ballot-box and inscribe “SOCIALISM!” upon your voting paper. Above all, the work that lies before you is to enlist the support of your fellows in the fight for Socialism, for that alone can deliver you from the misery which to-day you endure.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

Bounty babies. (1912)

From the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Smiling mothers everywhere, clasping their new arrivals as though they hadn’t a care in the world. Thus the highly coloured posters picture the thirty bob benefit, the “endowment of motherhood,” under the “People’s Insurance Act.”

In the black hells of mining villages, midst the smoky and dirt-ridden factory towns, and around the death-stricken courts and alleys of dockland—there faces you this poster. In foul St. Helens, in Dante’s Dowlais, in unprintable Canning Town—there is this cynical caricature displayed.

Mark the pink and glowing faces of the wives of workingmen, the mothers of the working class. There is no deathly pallor there, no line of sorrow or privation, no mark of haunting worry and anxiety. No, all these are wiped out by the hand that was going to “banish poverty from every hearth” in three years.

Provided they have paid in sufficient to clear administration charges, the doctor’s “eight and six,” the sanatorium’s cost, the druggist’s demands, the approved society’s levy, etc., and if they have enough then left, the mother is to get thirty bob ! But to win this she must do without sickness benefit for two weeks before and four weeks after confinement. The medical benefit also is withdrawn when the “thirty pieces of silver” come. The doctor is not supplied. He must be paid out of the money. So must the midwife, and all the other expenses. It is open to the approved society to provide these and pocket your thirty pieces. If the mother seeks the portals of the lying-in hospital, they get her money. If the child is still born, then it is a case for the referees, lawyers, medicos, etc. These are the joys that await the woman who presents her “marriage lines” to the commissioners and her babe to a grateful country.

The Liberal frauds even boast that one million mothers of the working class are going to be made happy with this thirty bob every year. It is a significant comment upon the prevailing social system that in the richest country in the world one million mothers stand in need of a thirty-shilling dole to enable them to bring their babies into the world. Think who it is that require this assistance. It is the wives of the workers, not of the idlers ; the toiling wives, not the won’t-work women, who need it—and who have to pay for it.

I have sometimes wondered what the result would be if an official called with a “maternity” benefit upon a parasitic partner—say Mrs. John Jacob Astor, the “Titanic” heroine, who brought the three-million-pound baby into the world, or Mrs. Vanderbilt, who gave birth to a millionaire child at Wimbledon lately. The idler’s wife would collapse with horror at the bare suggestion that she stood in need of such humiliating aid, and the footman would do things which hurt.

One million workers’ babies need bounties ! One million veteran and broken toilers need pensions for the December of their days. Thus confesses the Government. If the babes only knew ! If they live through the strife and struggle of the dozen years of childhood, what lies beyond ? They have to serve the sentence of close on sixty years hard labour—sixty years of servitude passed upon them by the owners, the robbers, of the world’s wealth.

Not only hard labour at bench, or machine, but hard labour in the weary, heart-breaking, never-ceasing round of visits to the slave exchange, the factories and workshops, begging a job.

There is the incentive. After sixty years of back-breaking toil they will stand in dire need of a pensioner’s dole. But the babies do not know, go they live on.

No, not all of them. Only some of the toilers’ children escape the clutches of Death. The Registrar General in bis report tells us that in the mining towns of Durham, in the Rhondda Valley, in the cotton-weaving town of Burnley, in the pottery town of Longton, and in many other places, 200 out of every 1,000 children born are done with life before they are one year old. What is being done to stop tbis murder ? Precious little, even in the face of the steadily falling birth-rate. As Father Ring and otbers have shown, as lying in hospitals have reported, the children of the transport workers died off like flies at the time of the strike because their mothers were starved by the callous scoundrels who own and control the means of life.

In textile factories, in dressmakers’ and tailors’ workshops, in pottery bakehouses, in chainmaking sheds, in jute mills and matchmakers’ mortuaries, there sweat the mothers of the toilers’ race. In creches, in nurseries, in open streets and blindalleys, and in locked rooms their loved ones must be left while they mint millions for the parasites and their pets. No wonder Lancashire doctors report that in time of strikes and lock-outs the early days are marked by declining infant mortality and illness. This is because the mothers are set free to look after their little ones. True, as in East London,, when the dispute lasts long all this improvement is wiped out by the starvation that inevitably ensues.

The children of Carthage were sacrificed to Moloch, but the quick death of these was merciful, for all its seeming barbarity, by comparison with the lingering torture of the starved mites of the modern workers. The newspapers are full of sickening stories from the “homes” where the babies are brought to die. The present Tooting case, where five infants died within a week, is an example.

Again, the Southwark Coroner pointed out on November 12 that 600 children are burnt to death every year in England—mainly the tragedy of flannelette ! Flannel is not for the infants of the working class.

After infancy, school, for a meagre and begrudged apology for education, rushed through in the shortest possible space of time. The Board of Education tells us that of those fourteen years of age only 36 per cent. are at day school—the rest are at work !

The masters, however, want, the children before they are fourteen. The Interdepartmental Committee on the Partial Exemption of School Children (1909) said (vide Report): “It was most strongly represented to us by millowners round Bradford and Halifax that any restriction, on the supply is liable to cause inconvenience to employers.” The half-time system meets the masters’ demands in that it is cheap and the children are docile.

Ever since 1900 the number of half-timers has steadily risen. It rose from 74,000 in that year to 78,000 in 1903, 80,000 in 1904, 82,000 in 1906, 85,000 in 1908. At twelve years of age the boys and girls are busy in the heated sheds and mills, grinding out profits for those who own. Although the Board of Education states that over 60 per cent. of the children attending school are defective in health, Mr. W. Sykes, of the Teachers’ Union, stated that in 24 years’ experience he had never known a child rejected, as physically unfit, although some of them were not robust enough to be employed in the playground. (Before the Board of Education, Nov, . 4, 1907.)

What is the lot of the children working half-time at twelve years ? The Committee referred to told the Government that “their progress is retarded, if not absolutely brought to a standstill. The children come to school tired and sleepy. . . . They are unable to pay proper attention to their school work. The boy . . . loses a large part of his education . . at a time when the value of education ought to become greater to children.”

They tell us that “the results of several statistical investigations made in more than one half-time town indicate distinctly that the weight and chest measurement, and sometimes the height, of half-time children, are less than half those of full-time children in the same place and of the same age.”

What shall you think, then, of the Labour Party members who try to keep the little ones in the mills to be murdered ? Mr. Shackleton, before he got his present job, supported with might and main the maintenance of the half-time system, and his fellow Labour members resented any attack upon this masters’ man. Now Mr. W. A. Gill, a shining light of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, opposes the abolition of the half-time system. In the half-time debate on April 26, 1912, he said he “agreed with those who believed that in letting them (the children) go to school half the day and be trained to work during the other half, they were doing what was best for their children.” One almost fancies one can hear the bosses telling him to say it.

Bad as half-time is for children of twelve and thirteen, the labour leaders have done their best to force the children into the mills and fields full time at those ages. In short, they have helped the murderers of the children in their nefarious work, and, like Shackleton, they will get jobs.

In May, 1906, Sir John Brunner, the millionaire chemical-factory owner, introduced into Parliament a Bill “to amend the Education Act.” This Bill bore the names of its backers, Mr. Will Crooks, of the Labour Party, and also Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, its secretary.

While Mr. MacDonald’s party were “pledged” to fight for the raising of the school age, he fought to lower it. Whilst twelve and thirteen were the earliest ages for partial exemption from day school, he tried to make them the statutory ages for total exemption !—conditional always, upon their being driven to night school to have their tired brains racked with education.

We opened with the blessings of childhood, but the blessings belong to those who do the children in—to the Penruddocks and the Wilesmiths ; to the Abkar Reformatory rulers and the Tooting philanthropists, the thoughtful factory owners and the rural lordlings. The blessings will fall upon the children when, through the triumph of Socialism, the power of property over human existence has gone for ever.

Adolph Kohn

Editorial: The Personal Service Committee. (1908)

Editorial from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again the axiom is illustrated that the master class will do anything for the workers—except get off their backs. The newest illustration is the attempt at promotion, by personal visitation, of “friendship” between rich and poor in an endeavour to soften the increasingly apparent antagonism between those who live by robbery and the victims. This “Personal Service” committee includes representatives of the families of Asquith, Balfour, Gladstone, Cadbury and Lyttleton, while Lords Norfolk, Salisbury, and Wolverhampton are of the number, together with Mr. Arthur Henderson, leader of the Labour Party, who once again may be known by the company he keeps.

In their letter of appeal the committee say that if a sufficient number come forward “many families in poor circumstances might be tided over the coming winter, who, if left to themselves would inevitably fall below the poverty line.” But they also say in the course of the same appeal that the cases for visitation will be selected through the Charity Organisation Society and the Unemployed Distress Committees, and this practically guarantees that all those dealt with shall be already far below the poverty line ; so that the committee’s statement in this respect is simple a piece of unctious humbug.

In the Daily Mail H. Hamilton Fyfe warmly praises the idea, and attempts, with little success, to make a distinction between the new scheme and the old insulting district visitors’ coal-ticket distribution. He further accuses the “working classes” of inelasticity, unadaptability, and “ignorance or mistrust of the little things that make all the difference to life,” and suggests that “most of those who come off badly in the struggle for existence are lacking either in bodily strength or in mental equipment.” The workers, forsooth, are poor because they are inferior in bodily strength or in mental equipment to the parasites that social conditions compel them to keep in luxury ! And the worker, able and willing to supply his needs by his labour, but denied the opportunity by the profit system, is to be advised and lectured on his unadaptability and ignorance by useless, jewelled parasites who owe their wealth and position to the fortune of birth and class rule, and who know nothing of working conditions, being totally incapable of supplying their own needs, or even of dressing themselves in many cases ! One can imagine the sullen rage that must rise within the intelligent but impoverished worker under the torture of such stupid advice and degrading charity from the class that lives by his robbery.

Indeed, if the truly terrible distress from which the working class are now suffering were the result of what is usually called a natural calamity, such as an earthquake, there might be some excuse for such a movement. But the distress of unemployment is not a natural calamity in that sense ; it is a preventable disease. Moreover, the names of the Personal Service Committee are emphatically representative of those who have, in the interests of the master class, set themselves determinedly against the only possible remedy, and have championed the system of robbery that manufactures the unemployed and their distress. They stand, indeed, for those who decline to do even that which is within their power toward ending the possibility of this preventable and unmerited misery. Such an appeal as that of the committee, therefore, can in plain English, only be characterised as damnable hypocrisy.

Not being prepared to be just, some of the master class profess a willingness to be charitable. Feeling that there is danger to their profits and their security in the growing feeling of hostility between rich and poor, they make a pretence of friendship, endeavouring to tranquillise their victims and prevent them taking steps that may endanger the position of the capitalist class. It is not love, but fear, that makes the ruling class loosen its purse strings, as experience has repeatedly shown. And the dainty, jewelled dames who may soon find a hobby in insulting visits, stupid advice and priggish charity, would readily, as has happened in the past, applaud police and soldiery in their brutal batonning and slaughter of the workers the moment the latter, driven to desperation, took their fate into their own hands. The name of Asquith would once again find congenial association ; and charity and humbug, having failed in their purpose, would be cast aside by the master class in favour of a frank reliance on coercion by means of the armed forces of the nation. There can, indeed, be no conciliation in the great class antagonism. All pretence at friendship between the two armies in the modern struggle is sheer hypocrisy. This we know, and all history is its confirmation, that the working class, in the ending of their misery, must rely, first and last, upon themselves.

Editorial: Out-Heroding Herod. (1908)

Editorial from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the little scene in the “House” on Nov. 12, it can hardly be argued that the workers have gained even a more sympathetic administration of capitalism by the advent of the workman Cabinet Minister. After Mr. Asquith, who has no reputation for kindliness toward the workers, had promised the removal of certain restrictions in the dispensation of relief, the L.G.B. order, instead of instructing such removal, made it a voluntary action by the authority. Taxed with this in the “House,” Mr. Burns replied that he had adopted the best way of carrying out the Prime Minister’s promise. Mr. Asquith, however, disagreed, and the order is to be replaced by one incorporating the removal of the disability of having received Poor Law Relief within a specified time. Mr. Burns had better be careful. Already dissatisfaction is being expressed in high Liberal circles owing to his not playing the game carefully enough, and if he assumes a callous, unsympathetic attitude toward an unemployed problem which compels even the Premier to affect commiseration, he will have to give place to one who will smile and frown with his master, and shed tears to order. A few more examples like that under notice will blow the gaff on Liberal hypocrisy completely. Burns’ special function in the Cabinet was to conciliate working-class demands for independent representation and to show that the Liberal Party was so concerned to have the voice of Labour in its counsels as to obviate the necessity for separate representation.

To realise that the “short, square built man in the straw hat” who talked himself hoarse on behalf of the dockers in 1889 and the man who is out-Heroding Herod in the cruel, callous administration of relief to the unfortunates of capitalism are the same John Burns is difficult, and shows how complete a control over their representatives must the workers exercise before their convictions can be made to prevail.

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.