A New Cure for an Old Disease. (1914)

Book Review from the March 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Great Scourge and How to End it,” by Christabel Pankhurst, (LL.B. London : E. Pankhurst, Lincoln’s Inn House, Kingsway.)

The average person in the street, if sounded upon, the agitation conducted by the "Peths" and the "Panks" would be found to entertain the idea that the end and object of it all is the obtaining of Parliamentary suffrage for women. To be told that the vote for women is anything but an end in itself; that the agitation for the vote is but a part of a wide feminist movement, would cause these inestimable persons considerable surprise. For this the propaganda is no doubt to be blamed. At any rate, Miss Christabel Pankhurst's book, "The Great Scourge and How to End it," will do little to dispel the idea, for from cover to cover it bears the obvious impress of having been produced, not with the object of contributing to the suppression of the "Great Scourge," but for the purpose of providing another peg whereon to hang the lying legend : "Votes for Women."

For the purposes of this review Miss Pankhurst's book may be divided into two portions— her facts, and her "arguments." Regarding the former, our author tells us that "men's favourite method of arguing against women is to deny their statements of fact." Thus is the present scribe disarmed on the very point of denying the "statement of fact" set forth in the words (p. 77): "as the Bible tells us, the sins of the fathers are visited in the form of syphilitic maladies upon their children and their children's children." If it were not that it would be "so like a man," I would have suggested that when the Lord promised to "visit, the sins of the fathers upon the children," he did not, according to the Bible, indicate syphilis as the means.

However, I am not going to deny Miss Pankhurst's statements of fact. On the contrary, I cheerfully admit that they are gruesome enough to be worth the price of the book. But then the "arguments" fully justify one in demanding one's shilling back.

The "Great Scourge," of course, is sexual disease, concerning the widespread prevalence of which Miss Pankhurst adduces much authoritative evidence. But when she says in the introduction, "in the following pages will be found a proposed cure for the great evil in question," one knows from experience what to expect. In the Suffragist eye the cure for every ill is "Votes for Women" (occasionally in conjunction with something else just about as pertinent).

"The cause of sexual disease," says Miss Pankhurst (p. 13), "is the subjection of women," and (p. 21) "the only cure is Votes for Women." In between these two statements she manages, very incautiously, to squeeze another, which makes it a very easy matter to tumble the whole sophistic fabric of her argument about her ears. The statement is (p. 19) referring to the sufferings of women due to sexual disease, "so long as the subjection of women endures and is confirmed by law and custom, so long will the race be injured and degraded." To show, then, that the enfranchisement of women of itself will make no difference to their position of subjection (to use Miss Pankhurst's term without admitting any special subjection of women), is to dispose of the author's argument that "Votes for Women " is a cure for the evils she embraces within the title of the "Great Scourge."

Let us take, first of all, Miss Pankhurst's statement on page VIII (Introduction) : "Votes for Women will strike at the Great Scourge in many ways. When they are citizens women will have the power to secure the enactment of laws for their protection, and to strengthen their economic position." The arguments on pages 116-117 give to the latter portion of this statement the meaning that the vote is necessary to enable women to work for wages, and will have the effect of enabling them to do so. The claim on page 22 that "the weapon of the vote will enable them [women] to break down existing barriers to honest livelihood" confirms this view. Other passages in the book also show that it is contended that the enfranchisement of women is going to give them such a measure of economic freedom as will obviate the need for any of them to resort to prostitution. Out of a bewildering jumble this appears to be the way of the cure of the "Great Scourge."

Now this is sheer nonsense. Nobody but the Suffragist requires to be told that, as far as it can materially affect the question of prostitution, wage-slavery is open to women to-day. In one or two directions, aspirants to which are hardly the women whom economic pressure forces into selling themselves upon the streets (the law and professional politics may be instanced) women are debarred by law. All other careers, such as they are, are legally open to women, hence, whatever the reason they fail to establish themselves in certain avocations filled exclusively by men, it is not due to any legal barrier, and for that reason is not to be affected by votes for women.

Of course, it may be argued that the enfranchisement of women will enable them to secure such reforms in the customary matrimonial arrangements as will set married women free for the labour market. Indeed, this line of argument is foreshadowed on page 115, where our author tells us that "a great bulwark of sex subjection" (which we have already been told is the cause of prostitution), is that "a married woman must derive her livelihood from her husband—must eat out of his hand, as it were."

Unfortunately for the success of this argument, it cannot be denied thnt prostitution by no means depends for its votaries upon married women. On the contrary, the ranks of the "unfortunate class" are composed for the most part of women who have never had the opportunity of eating out of a husband's hand. They have needed no women's franchise to make them "economically independent" (in Miss Pankhurst's sense of the term). The labour market has been as freely open to them as to men. They have had the same prerogative that male wage-workers have—the prerogative of selling their labour power when there is a demand for it.

Women, both married and unmarried, have not had to wait for votes for women in order to achieve this "economic freedom." It has been thrust upon them by the development of the capitalist system of production. It is therefore absurd to claim that Votes for Women are going to abolish prostitution by "breaking down the barrier to honest livelihood." That barrier, as far almost as it can be broken down under the conditions resolutely clung to by the eminently capitalistic W.S.P.U., is so broken down. The law stands in the way in the case of but one or two professions which, if they loom large with importance in the eyes of certain ambitious, axe-grinding "blue-stockings," can hardly affect the general conditions which drive women into the horrors of prostitution.

As a matter of fact, nothing has contributed more largely to the increase of prostitution than the widespread entry of women into industry. Household service, at all events, yielded a fairly secure subsistence, and the woman who did "eat from her husband's hand," had not, so long as she could do so, to take the desperate step of an unemployed and despairing bread-winner. But when the development of machinery dragged girls and women into the factory (which in Miss Pankhurst's view was giving them economic independence), it placed not only their labour-power, but also their sexual attributes, at the service and disposal of the master class.

It has been admitted by "captains of industry" that prostitution is a pillar of their system. It has been admitted that the low wages they pay their female workers are rendered possible only by the latter laying their virtue on the altar of their employers' balance sheet—by them selling their bodies in order that they may get strength to do their employers' work. This is what the so-called economic independence of women has done for the race. That it is humiliating for a married woman to ''eat out of her husband's hand" may be granted. No doubt it comes especially hard to those "spiritually developed" women Miss Pankhurst is so fond of babbling about, who think they need but opportunity to shine in the legislature, the bar, or the pulpit. But speaking of the bulk of women, is it less humiliating to bring even their sex attributes into competition with the labour-power of their fathers, brothers, and husbands ?

The claim that to "break down the barriers to honest livelihood," (meaning to throw open to women every avenue of gaining a living) gives women "economic independence," is rubbish. The proof of this lies in the fact that the barriers are imaginary. The world of industry is open to women, and they find it so little to their liking that they are glad to seek refuge from it in marriage. Just as men who must sell their labour-power must necessarily be in a position of dependence, so also must the women of the same class be economically dependent so long as class distinctions exist. Votes for Women cannot alter this fact, any more than votes for men have altered it in their case. Talk to the miner, driven into the death-trap pit for four or five shillings a day, about his economic independence, or to the locked-out carman or the striking teacher, or the unemployed worker in any trade, and see what the reply will be.

Miss Pankhurst shows her bias when she says (p. 44): "where women are economically dependent upon men, they more readily become the victims of vice." This is utterly false. The truth is that it is where women become more directly dependent upon capitalist exploitation that they more readily become the victims of vice. This exploitation is carried on by the capitalist class —by women as well as men. The hollowness and hypocrisy of all this frothy bluster about curing the ''Great Scourge" are clearly shown by this incontestable fact. For the W.S.P.U. is essentially a rich women's organisation. We know, therefore, that it has no intention of finding a cure for prostitution, since the only cure lies through the overthrow of the class these rich women belong to and the establishment of Socialism.

All the wild words of the Suffragists about the "Great Scourge" being a "women's question" strike mocking echoes from this solid fact. To judge from the vapourings of the Suffragists one would imagine that all social ills are the outcome of male control of society, and that all that is needed to abolish every social evil—at least as far as they affect women and children— is that women shall have the vote. According to these mentally lop-sided cranks all the goodwill, all the tenderness, all the humanity, are resident in the female breast. If one did not know that women of the capitalist class spurned with their dainty shoes the living entrails of the disembowelled heroines of the working class, as they lay on the .pavements of the Paris boulevards in the red days after the Commune!

Just as the men of the master class would run all the risks inseparable from prostitution, even were they multiplied ten-fold, rather than abolish them in the only way in which they can be abolished—that is, at the cost of their social domination—so also would the women of the capitalist class—who are the financial bulwarks of the W.S.P.U.

To sum up, it is a lie to say that the "Great Scourge" is a woman's question : it is a class question ; it is a lie to say that sexual disease is due to the subjection of women : it is due to the subjection of the working class ; it is a lie to say that women's franchise can cure the "Great Scourge" : only the emancipation of the working claas can do that.

A. E. Jacomb

Progress in Peckham. (1914)

Party News from the March 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Peckham Brunch celebrated the first anniversary of its taking over the premises in Albert Road by holding a social on Sunday, Jan 10. This event, which was held at the branch premises, and was the first of its kind ever attempted by the branch, was a great success.

Although not marked by any events of outstanding importance, the past twelve months have witnessed sound and steady progress of Socialism in Peckham. The constant propaganda on Peckham Triangle; the opening up of new ground at Pepys Road, New Cross, at Hanover Park, Rye Lane, at Asylum Rd, New Cross, and at Father Red Cap, Camberwell, has resulted in a steady increase in membership and record sales of literature.

At one of our outdoor meetings a local Liberal challenged our comrade Joy to debate It appears, however, that this must have been done in the heat of the moment, for when we got into communication with him be declined to accept any title to the debate which would allow our representative to place the position of the Socialist Party before the audience. 'This, of course, made the debate impossible from our point of view.

With the advent of winter we recommenced our indoor meetings at our Albert Road Hall on Saturday evenings. An economic class is also being held— on Friday evenings. Friends and opponents in the district are cordially invited to these meetings, at which good discussions take place, while those agreeing with our principles and policy should at once join with us. In Peckham, as elsewhere, there is a mass of working class superstition, ignorance, and confusion to be cleared up. and to accomplish this needs the organised efforts of all who realise that the way to emancipation lies through Socialism.

Branch Scribe.

Jottings. (1914)

The Jottings column from the March 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the whole of the Labour Party Conference, which lasted four days, the word “Socialism” was only mentioned once; that was when Mr. Bruce Glasier said they did not intend to discuss it!

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald told an interviewer on his return from India that the Conference “would be a record one as far as common sense was concerned.” Io the light of after events this can be taken as a reflection on the delegates. Mr. MacDonald told them to vote this way, and that—and they did !

* * *

One contemporary (“Modern Society”) wants to know: “Why did Mr. Ramsay MacDonald return from the Commission in India six weeks before the rest of the Commission left Bombay for home?” Well now, isn’t it obvious? Who could imagine a Labour Party Conference without Mr. MacDonald? What use is a ship without a rudder?

* * *

Speaking at Glasgow on the Sunday succeeding the Conference, he asked his audience "to realise that class feeling would not achieve Socialism. Class feeling was the mark of capitalism, not Socialism. Socialism united all classes and lifted them up to a common level of humanity.” (“Daily Citizen,” 2.2.14).

You will notice how he lets himself go on the question of Socialism outside the Conference, at which all reference to the subject was carefully avoided.

I wonder how many “classes” Mr. MacDonald thinks there are in society ? So far, Socialists have only discovered two—the working dan and the non-working class. Socialism would not “unite” these two—there can be no unity between the robber and the robbed—but would abolish the conditions which create a non-working class, thus compelling them to take part in the work of useful production or—starve. Socialism offers no other alternative. Socialism implies one class—the workers—not a combination of “classes.”

Whilst it is true that class feeling is the mark of capitalism, Mr. MacDonald has no right to condemn it as if it was something repugnant. It is the duty of Socialists to foster and direct it. Class action is necessary in order to achieve Socialism, but class feeling, born of class-consciousness, is the first essential. But Mr. MacDonald doesn’t think so.

* * *

  “I have been in Spain: once. I was there a night and a day, because I could not get a train to take me away sooner. I shall never go again. I prefer the niggers in the West Indies to the Spaniards. I think black devils are less loathsome than those of lighter hue.” (Robert Blatchford, “Clarion,” 23.1.14.)

  

  “I claim that men should not be classified as good and bad, but as fortunate and unfortunate; that they should be pitied and not blamed; helped instead of being punished. I base this claim upon the self-evident and undeniable feet that man has no part in the creation of his own nature.” (Robert Blatchford in “Not Guilty," page 10.) With his usual consistency! 

* * *

Christ as the saviour of mankind looks like getting left since Lloyd George took the field in his self-appointed task of redeeming mankind. In his speeches at Swindon and Bedford, the accounts he gave of the lot of the poor were so heartrending that one was tempted to express the fear that the country would not be able to stand another dose of the same kind without being washed away in a flood of compassionate tears, generated by the soul-stirring, heart-searching, and blood curdling oratory of the Liberal Messiah. Anyway, he chanced it—and to some purpose. And, if report speaks true, he hasn’t finished yet.

  Whether his visit to Glasgow immediately following the Labour Party Conference was only a coincidence I leave an open question. Certain it is that interest in the one quickly fell flat when it became known that the saviour was due in their midst. He said nothing new, of course. In describing the rotten conditions of this country he reiterated only what has been stated before and sniffed at. Liberals have constantly denied what Mr. Lloyd George is now hysterically affirming. Said he:

 “Take our cities, the great cities of a great Empire. Right in the heart of them everywhere you have ugly quagmires of human misery, seething, rottening, at last fermenting. We pass them by every day on the way to our comfortable homes. We forget Divine justice never passes by a great wrong, and you can hear, carried by the breezes from the north, the south, the east, and the west, ominous rumblings. The chariots of retribution are drawing nigh. How long will all these injustices last for myriads of men, women, and children created in the image of God—how long? I believe it is coming to an end." (Cheers.)

 So do we—but it won't be in the shape of a “Divine justice" personified in Lloyd George. When Socialists have pointed out the same facts (without the sloppy trimmings), they have been scoffed and jeered at as “agitators, humbugs, and discontents.” But coming from the lips of a Cabinet Minister on the platform of St. Andrew’s Hall—oh! what a difference!

  Apart from the disgusting spectacle of hew easy it is to gull and deceive these poor fools in order to capture support for another lease of robbery—it may yet possess an element of good. The awakening will be all the ruder! “It’s an ill wind that blows nobody any good.” Yet I wonder how many of his audience remembered his words at Limehouse—“Deception is always a pretty contemptible vice, but to deceive the poor is the meanest of all crimes.”

  One thing: the Labour Party wont thank him for queering their pitch!

* * *

 In the course of a discussion at a meeting of the Carnarvon Town Council on the County Council’s proposed by-laws for regulating vehicular traffic. Sir John Roberts pointed out that some of the vehicles now used as motor-’buses were only ’bus bodies put on the chassis of old motor-cars never intended to carry on their axles the enormous weight of passengers which these ’buses carried.

 It is a common-place enough saying that human life is cheap—so common-place in fact that, although the sacrifice of human life is increasingly evident every day, it passes with the majority as something that is inevitable —something that is part of the order of things. Investigation usually reveals the fact that most disasters are caused through cheapness, both of material and labour, while experience shows the acquisition of profits to be the prime incentive.

  

Only the working-class as a rule travel by motor-’bus, so perhaps that explains the callous disregard of possible accidents shown in their construction.

* * *

  Mr. Henry Ford, of the Ford Motor Co., of Detroit, has recently announced that he is prepared to divide his profits with his employees. He intends to reduce the working day from nine hours to eight, without reduction of pay. Indeed, the pay is to be increased—from 11/6 to £1 a day for all employees over the age of twenty-two. On the face of it, this looks like philanthropy with a vengeance, bat Mr. Ford has another name for it—good business.

  

  It would appear that the Ford Co. were going to be cleaned out of their profits, but that word “good business” gives us furiously to think.

  Hitherto the Ford Co. have paid low wages — and made big profits; now it is proposed to pay big wages and—lose profits ? Not on your life! Let me show you how it is done.

  Ford intends to increase his profits, and to do this he is figuring on getting absolutely the pick of the labour market by his “generous” offer. From the increased staff of 22,000 who will be employed he is expecting to get increased efficiency in every part of the trade. This means that he will specialize on each job. The very fact that an increased wage and a dividend are to be the outcome of their activity, will spur his employees to greater efforts than ever; even to competing with each other inside the shop, for the laggard is to be eliminated. It is expected that under this system the worker, being a “partner,” will boost it for all he is worth, and turn out more and better work than under the former system. Formerly the record for assembling a car stood at twenty six minutes. This is now going to be beaten — indeed, has been beaten, at their works in Manchester (Eng.)

  

Perhaps the following may be interesting:

  “In a little clear space in the centre of the assembling department, a bare frame lay surrounded by wheels, springs, axles, and, in fact, every article required for a complete motor car. A few yards further on, supported on wooden trestles, was a black enamelled four seated body. A horn screeched. Eight men hurried forward , and commenced to work furiously, but in absolute silence. Barely a minute had passed, but the front wheels (with tyres already attached) were on and the springs firmly fixed, while the back of the frame rested on two large jacks. The engine was next lifted into place. Two minutes later it was tightly bolted and the rear wheels and driving gear were in position. Seven minutes passed and the chassis stood on the ground complete in every detail. The body was lifted on, the wind screen fixed, running boards, mud-guards attached, and at the end of eleven minutes the car stood ready. With a cargo of six excited men the car was driven out of the factory and round the works. Later she was thoroughly tested with a good run into the country. The speed with which the whole assembling work was carried out was a revelation to all present, and was only possible with the perfect organisation which exists in the erecting of a Lord car from the beginning to the end. This perfect organisation of labour, it is claimed, is the only thing to account for the low price of the Lord car considering its power and general efficiency.” (Daily Mail," 24.1.14.)

“Perfect organisation of labour” ; that is the secret! Though each individual may get more wages than ever he got before, the fact will remain that he will have to work harder and still harder—or get out. By specializing and employing only highly skilled workers; by eliminating the slowest of these and speeding the rest up to a higher standard of skill and rapidity, Lord claims that the cost of the labour power will actually he less than before.

 Another point. Having regard to the fact that 10,000 men clamoured for jobs in one day at Detroit, what is to prevent this factor from operating against those who are “fortunate" enough to retain their jobs, by lowering the price of labour-power?

* * *

Parliament had hardly settled down to “business" when the Labour Party defined its position by once more saving the Government. The circumstances were exactly the same as have happened before—voting against their own amendment when the Tories tried to force it to a division. Readers will be familiar with the details, as great publicity has been the outcome. I only mention it because it is the sequel to a statement made by Mr. Macdonald on his return from India. Referring to the support they had offered the Liberals last session on the question of Churchill’s extravagance, and which was ignored, he remarked to an interviewer of the “Daily Citizen," “We can afford to let bygones be bygones, however, if they (the Liberals) will support us this session."

Not that we expect them to do anything else than support the Liberals; but unfortunately there are thousands of workers in this country who are deluded into supporting them, fondly believing that they are getting independent representation when such is not the case. Significant were the words of Mr. Philip Snowden at the Labour Party Conference. “So long as they had Labour members returned by Liberal votes, as nine-tenths of the Labour members were, they had no right to expect independent action from them in the House of Commons. It is clearly evident that there was no labour member in the House who did not know that he was dependent for his seat in that House on the good-will of those who belonged to the other political parties.”

Which is a damning admission, for it shows they possess a programme which can cater for all shades of opinion—except Socialist.

Tom Sala