The Salvation Army and the Working Class III. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part II.

The Social Scheme.

 The indirect features of the scheme must not be such as to produce injury to the persons whom we seek to benefit.

While assisting one class of the community, it must not seriously interfere with the interests of another. In raising one section of the fallen, we must not thereby endanger the safety of those who with difficulty are keeping on their feet. . . . It is no use conferring six pennyworth of benefit on a man if, at the same time, we do him a shillings worth of harm.

—”In Darkest England,” page 81.

The Book that Made a Stir.

General Booth, when launching onto a sea of controversy his now celebrated book : “In Darkest England and the Way Out,” told his readers that, from calculations he had made himself and from the figures supplied by various authorities on the subject, in these islands fully one-tenth of the population was hopelessly submerged. Hopelessly that is, so far as all previous efforts on their behalf were concerned. This section of the people he nicknamed with his cant phrase “the submerged tenth.”

The purpose of his book was to arouse the public interest in these “lost ones,” and to obtain financial support for the starting of his “social scheme.”

We were shown at great length how hopelessly inadequate to cope with the evils of want and destitution had been the efforts of well-meaning reformers who worked in connection with various “charitable” agencies.

“It is no use trying to bale out the ocean with a pint pot,” said he (“In Darkess England,” page 253). What was wanted, we were told, was an all-embracing plan. “This scheme changes the circumstances of those whose poverty is caused by their misfortune. To begin with it finds work for the unemployed. This is the chief need.”

The Legion of the Lost.

The way in which our octogenarian professor of philanthropy proposed to go to work may best be set forth in his own words :

“The Social Problem presents itself before us whenever a hungry, dirty and ragged man stands at our door asking if we can give him a crust or a job. That is the social question, what are you to do with that man? He has no money in his pocket, all that he can pawn he has pawned long ago, his stomach is as empty as his purse, and the whole of the clothes upon his back, even if sold on the best terms, would not fetch a shilling. . . He asks for work, which he will set to even on his empty stomach and in his ragged uniform, if so be that you will give him something for it, but his hands are idle, for no one employs him. What are you to do with that man ? . . . To deal with this man is the problem of the unemployed. To deal with him effectively you must deal with him immediately, you must provide him in some way or other with food, and shelter, and warmth. Next you must find him something to do, something that will test the reality of his desire to work. This test must be more or less temporary, and should be of such a nature as to prepare him for making a permanent livelihood. Then, having trained him, you must provide him wherewithal to start life afresh. All these things I propose to do. My Scheme divides itself into three sections, each of which is indispensable for the success of the whole. In this three-fold organisation lies the open secret of the solution of the Social Problem.

The Scheme I have to offer consists in the formation of these people into self-helping and self-sustaining communities, each being a kind of cooperative society, or patriarchal family, etc. 

These communities we will call, for want of a better term, Colonies. 

There will be

(1) The City Colony,

(2) The Farm Colony,

(3) The Over-Sea Colony.”

(Before proceeding to our dissection of results we have troubled to quote Booth at some length, in order that those of our readers to whom ”Darkest England” is inaccessible may gain a clear and definite idea as to what his main object was when he set out to conquer “the powers of evil” and bring about “a new heaven and a new earth.”)

The “City” Colony.

By the phrase “City Colony” was meant a number of institutions which were to act as “Harbours of Refuge.” Into these havens were to be gathered all who had been “ship-wrecked.” Food and shelter were to be provided in return for work. Employment found for him, the mariner wrecked on life’s stormy sea was to be rescued and “reformed.” He was then to be restored to the joyful bosom of his happy family, or (in case the wild happy family were not having any) he was to be passed on to the Colony of the second class.

The second stage in this new Pilgrim’s Progress was intended to work out as follows :

Farms for the Famished.

The Salvation Army would buy land near some great city (the neighbourhood of London being chosen for the first experiment). Buildings would be erected and a farm stocked. The “wretched outcast” having passed through the refining fires of the city shelter and workshop, was then to be dumped down into a real live farm—there to be taught the whole art of husbandry.

In fine a regular “Garden City” would arise wherein our friend the W.O. would work out his economic and moral salvation.

Just here we may note a significant remark of the General’s when discussing the prospects of this portion of his scheme. (“In Darkest England,” page 249.)

“As the scheme progresses, it is not irrational to expect that Government, or some of the varied Local authorities will assist in the working out of a plan which, in so marked a manner, will relieve the rates and taxes of the country”.

(The last passage was not originally italicised.) 

In our examination of the actual, every-day working of this famous scheme, we shall have occasion to again refer to this pious hope that the “authorities” would patronise the concern. He then goes on to say: “From the Farm, as from the City . . . large numbers would be restored to friends up and down the country. Some would find employment in their own callings” (thereby pushing others out and lowering the rate of wages), “others would settle in cottages on a small piece of land that we should provide, or on Co-operative Farms which we intend to promote ; while the great bulk, after trial and training, would be passed on to the Foreign Settlement, which would constitute our third class, viz., the Over Sea Colony.”

As the last-named section of the Scheme has up to the present failed to materialise, we shall not let it worry us.

The Return of the “Golden Age.”

The Scheme, in its entirety, was, in the General’s own words :

“To draw up these poor outcasts, reforming them, and creating in them habits of industry, honesty, and truth . . . forwarding from the City to the Country, and there continuing the process of regeneration, and then pouring them forth on to the virgin soils that await their coming in other lands . . . Why not ?”

And Echo—after twenty years of scheming and planning, with money poured out like water ; after twenty years of “food and shelter depots,” Elevators, City and Farm Colonies, et hoc genus omne ; after twenty years of bluff and brag in the capitalist Press, self-denial weeks and special collections—shouts across this awful waste of time, “WHY NOT?”

The Answer.

The answer must be because the whole “Darkest England” Scheme from top to bottom has proved a gigantic fraud and failure. In our detailed examination of the actual working of the Scheme, reviewing the various divisions in their due order as set forth by Booth in his Vade-mecum, much damning evidence in support of our statement will come to light.

At the base of the “Social Scheme” were to be the food and shelter depots of the City Colony.

It was proposed to establish in connection with every Food and Shelter depot a workshop or labour-yard (ominous term) in which any person who came destitute and starving would be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the 4d. needed for his bed and board.

The Salvation Army’s official figures for 1908 tell us that nearly six million meals were supplied at cheap food depots, and over two million cheap lodgings for the homeless were provided.

Specious and Misleading Advertisements.

Judging from the advertisements which appear under the “Army’s” aegis daily in the papers—of which the subjoined taken from the Westminster Gazette is a fair sample—anyone not in the know would naturally imagine that the 6,000 poor referred to had only to present themselves in all their abject misery at a Shelter, and lo and behold—they would be welcomed with open arms.

“STARVATION AND MISERY

are found on every hand among the Poor and Outcast by the Officers of the SALVATION ARMY who live among them, and are qualified to help them in the most economical and able manner. PRAY SEND HELP for so needy a work. £150,000 annually needed for the Army’s Central Funds alone. Over 6,000 Poor sleep in the Homes nightly. 170 Branches of Social and Relief work; are in operation.

Please address cheques (crossed “Bank of England, Law Courts Branch”) to GENERAL BOOTH, 101, Queen Victoria-street, London. Balance-sheets forwarded.”

In reality nothing of the kind takes place. “I was a stranger and ye took me in.” Yes, but there’s an if. The tune they play at the door is “The Absent Minded Beggar” with its haunting refrain of “Pay ! Pay ! Pay !” There is no work test applied at these “poor men’s hostels,” and the “crowd of hungry, desperate wretches, without even a penny in their pouch, demanding food and shelter”—over whose woes twenty long years ago William the saintly waxed so tearfully eloquent—unless they can furnish the needful coin of the realm, are met with that sternest of all arguments on a winter’s night, a closed door !

Fritz.

(To be continued)

The Patriarch and the mote. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

Wilfred.

How to be independent. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

Jack Fitzgerald

Correspondence: Oath of Allegiance. (1910)

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

Oath of Allegiance.

R. Von Berg (Queen’s Park).—The oath of allegiance to the King required of M.P.s would not prevent a Socialist M.P. taking his seat

Correspondence: Reply to James Fletcher. (1910)

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

Reply to James Fletcher.

The Social-Democratic Party in Germany occupies a similar position to the party similarly named here. Its programme (the Erfuter Program) consists of the theoretical part, based on the teachings of Marx—the Materialist Conception of History, the Surplus Value theory and the Class Struggle—and the practical, consisting of reforms and palliatives ; and we allege that the whole existence of the German S.D.P. has been spent in the advocacy of those reforms, to the detriment of Socialist propaganda. In the early days of our party we held the erroneous view—still entertained by the S.L.P. of Gt. Britain and America—that the German workers must obtain certain reforms because the revolution from feudalism to capitalism was not complete. But we found that conditions there make a Socialist Party quite as possible as here. A small number of members of the German S.D.P. take up our position and work for the formation of a straight party. As to our use of the expression “our German comrades,” it were a sorry state of affairs were we not in a position to so express ourselves, while Bebel’s action in 1906 speaks for itself.

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.

S.D.P. Befogged. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some weeks past a discussion has been carried on in the columns of our contemporary, “Justice,” a periodical which presumably claims,to be a Socialist journal, on the above question. The mere fact of such a subject being debated is sufficient to prove that the publication referred to is not an organ of Socialist thought, and that the party for which it speaks does not understand the principles of Socialism.

We find in the discussion under consideration, many and various policies advocated ; but even the slightest study of the records of the S.D.P. will reveal the fact that politically they are all at sixes and sevens. And to this the obvious fact that after thirty years of political existence they do not know what to do with the chief weapon for working-class emancipation, and we see that so far are they from being Socialists, that they are still floundering in the morass of Capitalist philosophy.

The use of the vote is no problem to Socialists, because their whole thought and action is based on the recognition of the class struggle. By this term is meant the struggle that must exist when, in society, one section own all the means of wealth production, while the other section, owning nothing but the energy in their bodies, have to sell their energy to obtain a living. Between these two sections—capitalists and workers— a bitter war rages.

The class struggle—of which the foregoing is an explanation—forms a part of the basis of Socialist principles, and anyone rejecting the same either does not understand those principles, or is deliberately misleading the working class. In either case he is of no use to the proletariat.

Of such is the kingdom of the I.L.P. and the S.D.P., with which latter body I am, for the time being, more immediately concerned.

The first significant note in this controversy was struck by Mr. T. Stanley Mercer, in “Justice” (Feb. 5th, 1910); who put the question : “Is there any possible means of finding out definitely the actual policies pursued by the I.L.P. and S.D.P. ?”

He says when he first joined the I.L.P. there was no greater authority than himself on the “ways and objects of the Party” (a large order to start with, as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald & Co., must have been lesser lights by comparison), but as months grew into years he felt less and less certain of his position, etc.

The mere possibility of asking the query with which Mr. Mercer opens his letter is sufficient to show that these parties do not act according to Socialist principles, but that their actions are governed by the exigencies of vote and seat capturing at any price.

Mr. Mercer further says “I think the worst shock I have had was . . . when an I.L.P. member, on having his position challenged, retorted, ‘You’re trying to obscure the constitutional issue by dragging the red herring of Socialism before the members of the I.L.P.’ ! ”

These are the people who are going to emancipate the workers some day—perhaps.

No, so far from accomplishing that will they be, that they will only lead the workers into the Desert of Reform, and so make them the more secure victims for capitalist exploitation.

Now for the S.D.P.

Mr. J. Maclean, writing in “Justice” for Feb. 12th, 1910, deals with local affairs at Pollokshaws (Glasgow). He says amongst other things: “If we had no candidate we always issued a manifesto, supplemented by public meetings, to advise the voters which candidate to reject.” He also says : “Encouraged by our success in local elections, we thought it expedient to experiment with the General Election by adopting similar tactics, although not with the unanimous consent of the branch.”

So there are some members, at least, who see the light.

Socialist policy should at no time be governed by expediency for “experiments” or otherwise, “but should at all times be decided by principle and principle alone.

I suppose that Maclean and others like him would say : “Of two evils choose the lesser.” But Liberalism and Toryism both stand for the same thing—Capitalism, and working class exploitation —and voting for one in preference to the other will not alter the fact that they are both the enemy.

But the gem of the whole matter is the contribution by Mr. H. Quelch, editor of the “official organ of the Social-Democracy,” whatever that may mean.

Dealing with a complaint by Maclean in the previous issue, where that gentleman said : “Had a special conference been convened, or had the E.C. given a definitely clear lead, there might have been the possibility of united action,” Quelch says : “there is not yet among the general body of our members, and still less among sympathisers, a clear conception of what political action should mean for Social-Democrats.” (Italics are ours.)

That is, in common parlance, “they dunno where they are.”

Nothing more unkind than this has yet been said of them even by any member of the S.P.G.B.

Socialists, on the other hand, have got that “clear conception,” the lack of which amongst the Social Democrats is so deeply deplored by Mr. Quelch.

“In order to gain that clear conception,” says Mr. Quelch, “it is necessary for it to be understood . First that we mean what we say when we declare that from our point of view there is absolutely nothing, fundamentally, to choose between the two parties—Liberal and Tory” (that, it seems), is why Quelch & Co, are so frequently angling for Liberal—or Tory for that matter—support and votes) ; “second, that politics are not an end, but a means—not a question of principle at all, but of tactics,” etc.

Now bearing in mind the premises laid down at the beginning of this article, I cannot believe that Quelch does not understand the position, therefore in view of this brilliant utterance, I am forced to the conclusion that he is deliberately obscuring the issue in order to confuse the working class.

This idea is further borne out on a perusal of the remainder of Quelch’s illuminating (?) quota to the discussion. He says that to abstain, from voting or to mark or spoil ballot papers “is not political action but inaction. Absolute abstention is simply disfranchisement; it is to withdraw ourselves from the political arena altogether, and leave it entirely free to our capitalist enemies for the continuance of their petty, superficial faction fight. Abstention pure and simple is to make ourselves as a party a negligible quantity, no matter how strong numerically we may become,” and more to the same effect. He also says : “except for tactical purposes, there is absolutely no reason. . . why a Social Democrat should . . . vote for either Liberal or Tory.” Expediency again ! It is not a matter of principle at all, but of seats at any price.

But let us go back a little—where is the need for Socialists to take part in the “faction fights” of their masters, even for “tactical purposes” ?

Mr. Quelch goes on : “Accepting the first principle that I have submitted an essential to a clear understanding of our position in politics —that there is nothing fundamentally to choose between Liberal and Tory—the policy of abstention, where there is no Socialist to vote for, is from the point of view of principle, the only possible policy to adopt.” Yet he negates this by wanting us to abandon “the only possible policy” in order to vote Liberal or Tory “for purely tactical reasons.” However, he shows the mental tangle he has got into by saying “If there really is no fundamental difference for us between the two parties, then obviously we cannot vote for the Liberal as being the lesser of two evils. To do so is to admit that after all there is a difference, and one to the advantage, in our estimation, of the Liberal.”

Mr. Quelch sees the danger of this policy, because “it follows, as naturally as night follows day, that the good ‘practical’ Socialist had much better vote Liberal, even where there is a Socialist candidate, rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

Now let us see where Mr. Quelch has landed himself.

(1) He admits that there is no fundamental difference between Mr. Liberal and Mr. Tory. This means that in voting for either we are supporting our natural and historic enemy. (2) But to abstain means self-effacement, politically, and therefore we must support one section of the enemy against the other, “for purely tactical reasons.” Yet to do so is to admit that there is a difference,” etc., etc. At the same time “this is a most dangerous policy” because it will cause those, “good ‘practical’ Socialists to vote Liberal rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

But we find later on that Quelch is quite willing to enter the capitalist “faction fight”—”to use our organisation in every possible constituency to defeat the Liberal and to destroy the Liberal Party—not because that Party is any worse or any better than the Tory ; but because it is the party which stands in our way, which saps our strength,” and so on.

Mr. Quelch says that “At the Annual Conference held at Edinburgh in 1898, he proposed a resolution to the effect that the organised vote of the Social-Democratic Party in Great Britain should be directed solidly to the extinction of Liberal candidatures by the vote being cast steadily on the Tory side up to and through the General Election.” The resolution goes on to give instructions as to the means of its being carried out; but with characteristic Social-Democratic duplicity it provides for exceptions “where the candidate belongs to the extreme Radical Left, and is prepared to work with us,” etc., etc.

Mr. Quelch and the average S.D.P.er cannot see that the nearer some other body may appear to be to them, the more dangerous that other body will probably be. But Quelch’s eloquence was not sufficient to carry his resolution, for after considerable opposition the following was carried :

“That this Conference in view of the growing tendency of the capitalists and landlords to unite against the interests of the people, instructs the E.C. to use its influence to throw the Socialist vote against the Liberal and Tory candidates indifferently, as may seem to the greatest advantage of the Socialist cause, except——”

They must have the usual exception.

Now they admit of no fundamental difference between the sections of the political expressions of capitalism. They further recognise that this admission means that it is dangerous to support either political faction, yet they are prepared to support one against the other, except where that other is a representative of those who are prepared “to act with us for the realisation of immediate practical measures,” and so on ad nauseam.

Oh ! but I forget! This course is adopted for “purely tactical reasons.” As if that makes any difference. The tactical advantage—if any—is much more likely to be on the other side than on theirs ; for they stand to gain greater tactical advantage by being in constant opposition to all capitalist parties than by supporting at one time and opposing at another.

This can easily be confirmed by reference to the famous Albert Hall speech of butcher Asquith, in which the Irish party, having adopted a policy of hostility to the Liberal party, are promised Home Rule. The Suffragettes, having consistently opposed the Liberals, are promised votes for women ; but the Labour Party are promised—nothing.

In the recent election we find Social Democrats fishing for Liberal support (vide Northampton). Not getting it, they opposed the Liberals with a second candidate. Elsewhere they had no settled policy. Thus in Battersea we find them supporting the Tory against Burns (just the reverse of what they did in 1900).

Mr. Frank Colebrook, writing in “Justice” for Jan. 22nd, 1910, advocates the claims of the Liberals to S.D.P. support in view of the great constitutional crisis. In the same journal dated Feb. 5th Mr. Stanley Briggs reports a resolution of protest passed by his branch against Colebrook’s letter in the previous issue. In the issue for Feb. 26th Mr. Colebrook made some attempt to defend his action in voting Liberal, pleading the “purely tactical reasons” beloved of Quelch. Neither tactics nor any other consideration would allow members of the S.P.G.B. to use their votes in conflict with the Party’s constitution, for we are governed not by expediency but by principles.

E. W. Spackman puts forward in “Justice” (12.3.10) a novel proposition. That is to “put up candidates in every constituency where a branch of the S.D.P. exists at every election. …Not having the cash to pay the returning officer’s fees, he will not be allowed to go to the poll. Nevertheless, so far as we are concerned, the candidature could be proceeded with.” The writer then goes on to press for payment of Members, etc., so ruining a proposition that had the promise of a sound foundation by introducing the eternal, vote-catching reform.

Mr. Quelch is continually denying any compromise or bargain of any shape or form with the Liberal Party, but “M.G.” puts the position very neatly in “Justice” for March 29th, when he says : “There are, of course, in the English language, other expressions for this than ‘arrangement with one of the orthodox parties,’ as used in my letter (“Justice,” March 5th, 1910), but in such an important question preciseness is very desirable.” That is very true, and it is the hope of some, at least, of that desired preciseness being attained, that has inspired this long article.

To sum up, Socialists should give their votes to none but Socialist candidates, or if there is no such candidate in their constituency, they should mark their ballot papers by writing “Socialism” across them. This is not self-disfranchisement, as Quelch says, but is a practical demand for a candidate to be put up for that constituency.

To do anything else is to support the exploiting class and so enable them to live by the exploitation of the workers. Socialists should be governed by principle alone. Let Quelch and his fellow reformers and job-hunters flounder in the bogs of “tactics” and expediency if they will—they will surely become engulfed.

Hutch.

Blogger's Note:

This may be the first mention of John Maclean in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Tariff Reform, Free Trade or No Trade? The fiscal fraud exposed. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Why and the Wherefore

The increase in the number of working men rallying to the cry of Tariff Reform”, and the near prospect of another General Election during which that cry will be greatly heard, are the reasons that the “fiscal question” is again dealt with in these columns.

The enormous extent of unemployment and misery amongst the workers after a glorious 60 years of “Free Trade” provides “Tariff Reform” with a ready audience to receive its plausible policy.

Why is “Tariff Reform” advocated by various sections of the capitalist class?

The answer is found if we recall that “Free Trade” was adopted when Great Britain was the chief manufacturing nation of the world, but economic development has brought countries, then mainly agricultural, into competition with her for the world market. Certain sections of the capitalist class, therefore, are feeling the effect, and see in Tariff Reform, a policy for keeping their trade with the profits it brings.

To achieve this they are, by means of their “Tariff Reform League,” baiting for working-class support, by saying that Tariff Reform means the end of unemployment and poverty.

Great Britain, they say, is the only Free Trade country. Every other country has “Tariff Walls”. And they point to the conditions in these countries to show the effect of Tariff Reform. But if we examine the conditions in these other countries, we find the facts offer us little inducement to favour Tariff Reform.

Is Great Britain solitary in possessing a working class suffering from poverty and unemployment?

Look at Spain, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Austria – countries whose conditions compel the admission that the workers are no better placed than here.

What of France? Mr. Harry Marks, the Tory M.P. for Thanet, gave in the House of Commons (April 28th, 1909), some interesting details of French wages. Tailoring: the men average 4 francs (3s. 4d.) per day; homeworkers get. 1s. 3d. to 1s. 8d. for a day of 12 hours. Lace trade: men, 4 francs 75 cents (about 4s. 1d.) per day; women 2 francs (about 1s. 8d,) per day. Cardboard box trade: men 3s. 1d per day; women 1s. 3d. for a day of 12 hours.

The Fraud of Tariff Reform

When the Trade Boards Bill was before Parliament recently, Tariff Reformers declared that it was useless while goods made under sweating conditions abroad were imported into England, thereby naively showing the fraud of Tariff Reform claims.

But America and Germany are the “trump cards” of the Tariff Reformer.

Of American unemployment this may be said: The only States that officially collect and publish figures are New York and Massachusetts. This latter State, after official enquiry issued a return showing in March 1908, 16.18 per cent. and on December 31st, 1908, 10.98 per cent of trade unionists unemployed.

The Department of Labor of the State of New York reports in the September 1908 Bulletin 30.2 per cent, and in the September 1909 edition states that 17.5 per cent of the trade unionists reporting were unemployed. The New York correspondent of the Daily Telegraph reports in that paper (April 27th, 1908) that after very careful enquiries he put down the number of unemployed in the U.S.A. at 3 millions as a moderate estimate.

The same paper for January 21st 1909 states:

  “In New York this morning 3,000 men applied for work at clearing away snow, and as only 1,000 were needed, the applicants fought among themselves until the police reserves arrived.”

In the Land of the Millionaires

Mr. Sam Gompers, speaking for the American Federation of Labour at Washington, February 10th 1909, and basing his remarks upon branch reports, said: “I am sure it is not an exaggeration to say that there are now in this country and have been with very little variation since October 1907, nearly 2 million wage-earners unemployed.”

The Times (October 2nd, 1908) said: “Economic laws have tended to assert their sway until the total number of unemployed, entirely or in part, in the whole country, cannot be less than 3 to 4 millions.”

The conditions of life for the workers were recently illustrated by the struggle at the works of the Steel Trust at Pittsburgh and the tramworker’s strike in Philadelphia.

We will now quote from a book written by a prominent Tariff Reform journalist and politician (the Tariff Reform candidate at Leicester at the recent election) after personal investigation into the industrial life of America. (America at Work, 1903, by John Foster Fraser.)

Regarding poverty he says:

  “I went into some of the poorer districts. I have seen our slums in English towns, foul and loathsome, but never quite as bad as I saw in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh slums are dreadful ; the houses wheezy, unsteady, filthy. In one street I saw a lake stretched half across the way of little else than sewage. The men were pale, worn, not well set up and they were all anxious faced.
  “Chicago has its poor and plenty of them.
  “Life is hard, many workmen go to the wall.
  “Mr. Davies, the chief factory inspector of  Illinois State said ‘I can take you to places where life is just a struggle, where if you gave a cent banana to a family of five it would be the greatest treat that they have had for weeks’. In the sweatshops the places were wretched, furniture was lacking, the finger of poverty was there.”

Wages in America

As to wages he points out that:

  “After working out calculations, based on the increased cost of living, I am convinced that the American shopworker is no better off financially than the English.
  “The ruck or the girls” (in departmental stores) “get badly paid, as low frequently as 10s. 6d. per week, and this in a city where living is twice as expensive as in London.
  “The average wage for all Chicago – poor women who get a penny for sewing trousers and managers of firms who get £20,000 a year – is about 38s. per week.
  “The skilled workman is not required. What is required is, firstly, the man who can devise fresh labour-saving machinery, secondly, the labourer who will do one little routine thing year after year, and do it expeditiously.
  “Wages can only be reckoned by their purchasing power. Therefore while the American workingman earns more than the Briton he has to work harder, and he has to pay more for the necessaries of life, in the case of rent about 3 times as much.
   “I find taking America as a whole, that on the last ten years, wages are on the decrease while the cost of food is on the increase.”

The reward of toil in after years is thus indicated:

  “It is a life of strained nerves. It explained many of the grey hairs I saw on boyish heads. It explained why I saw hardly any grey beards. Where are your elderly workmen? I asked a Philadelphia manufacturer, once, twice, three times. At the third time he said, ‘Have a smoke and we’ll take a car ride along to the cemetery.’
  “Practically every railway company refuse to engage a new man if he is over 35 years of age.
  “The British working man may think these conditions frightfully hard. So they are. If a man falls out of work say at the age of 38, his chances of getting work are practically gone.
  “The American working man is soon played out, that is why you seldom see an old man in big industrial concerns.
   “Employers, if trade unions are in their way, set about to smash them.
  “The American employer can often snap his fingers at his men because if there is any trouble others can be brought in.”

Bleeding the Children

Regarding child labour be says:

  “Of recent years the New England manufacturer has been hit hard by the great cotton industry — due to the introduction of Northern capital — which has sprung up in the South, in Georgia and in North and South Carolina. The labour  is cheap — men only get about 23s. a week of 66 or 70 hours. In some places there are no regulations as to the age of child workers, and little ones of 8 or 10 are to be found by the hundred in the Southern mills working these long hours for 5s. per week. Child labour is one of the blackest spots on American industrial life.
  “There are 40,000 boys employed about the anthracite mines, i.e., one in four of the total employees, and thousands or them are obviously under 14 and 12. The employer evades responsibility by getting an affidavit from the parents that the child has passed the legal age, and the parents, eager for an extra half dollar a week, lie readily. Children of 12 are to be found in a Pennsylvania mine, a cruel thing.
  “I had a long talk with Mr. Davies about the employment of children. He told me that there were lots of children under 12 working in Chicago. When I refused to believe him he took me to his office and brought out report after report of inspectors who had found children of 12 earning their poor 4 shillings a week amid the horrors of Chicago slaughterhouses. The law of Illinois State is that employers shall not knowingly employ children under 14. Some of the pork-packing firms repudiate responsibility by flaunting the signed declaration in Mr. Davies’ face. But Mr. Davies told me of the cases of boys obviously under the age of 14 that had been enquired into by the inspectors, quite 98 per cent. were found to be under age.”

The extracts that we have given above can be supplemented, but enough have been given. Before leaving the case of America it may be as well to state that unemployment in America is said by Tariff Reformers to be due to extensive immigration, but this claim recoils on those who make it, because the majority of the immigrants come from lands where Tariff Reform exists.

Germany is the pet illustration of the Tariff Reformer. We saw by means of the Berlin Sweating Exhibition in 1906, the terrible struggle for existence there. The official Income Tax returns of Prussia show that out of a population of 38 millions 21 millions have an income of less than 17s. 3d. per week per family.

Official returns state that there are 33 unemployed colonies in Germany. In December 1908 the Official Labour Gazette showed that the applicants for work at the Labour Bureaux were more than four to each vacancy.

The Daily Telegraph (17th Feb, ’09) states that the census taken by the “Free Trade Unions” showed 101,300 unemployed in Greater Berlin. This was done by a house-to-house visitation. This paper also points out that in November 1908 the Berlin municipality called upon the unemployed to report themselves on the 17th and they report that 40,000 did so.

The “protectionist” Morning Post (20th January, 1908) says:

  “The unemployed question can and undoubtedly must be discussed in part at least, without reference to fiscal policy, because it results in part at least, from causes unaffected by tariffs or their absence. Unemployment is found in the United Kingdom under Free Trade, and it has not been banished from other nations by their tariffs. Germany is the classic home of experiments for dealing with the unemployed – by labour colonies, labour registries, vagrancy laws and relief works. German official reports recognise a problem indistinguishable in character for those we are familiar with here”.

After this comparative survey a more scientific examination is necessary.

The same issue of the Morning Post says:

  “The universality of unemployment makes it necessary to look for its explanation not only to the differences but to the common features of the industrial systems of all countries.

  “In so far as unemployment is an incident of modern industry it is an incident of individualistic industry. Nor is there any difficulty in showing how individualism in industry leads necessarily to unemployment or the constant fear of unemployment. So long as the workman depends upon a private employer whose business fluctuates or may cease altogether, so long as competition exists to produce strenuous fits of over-production followed by stagnation, so long as whole trades may be revolutionised or destroyed by new inventions, — the constant possibility and the occasional realisation of unemployment must remain. If the solution of the unemployment problem means the guaranteeing of absolute continuity of employment to every man at all times at his own or something like his own trade, it does mean nothing less than the ending of industrial competition and the superseding of the private capitalist by a single universal employer.”

We are constantly told that “the one thing needful” for us is “more work,” to obtain which the commerce of the capitalist class must be increased. Thus trying to get the worker to identify his interests with his master’s. But unemployment by itself is not the plight of the worker. If unemployment was the real trouble then the capitalist class would fare badly. Though unemployed, they live sumptuously. This illustrates that the real trouble is the lack of the necessaries of life already produced by the workers but owned by the masters through their possession of the instruments of production, the workers being only allowed to use these on condition of parting with the wealth they produce. The ever increasing amount of wealth produced by the working class and the attempt of each employing unit to sell to as large a number of buyers as possible, alongside of the increasing insufficiency of the workers’ wages to enable them to buy back their product, causes industrial crises, which we see are the result of the workers having done too much work

It is also erroneous for the Tariff Reformer and Free Traders to claim that an increase of trade means more employment in that trade. Dozens of trades could be named where the output has increased although the number employed is less or the same as with a smaller output.

This is accomplished by means of wages-saving devices, more perfected machinery, the splitting up of processes and speeding up; also by the merging of several plants under one control, thus eliminating waste and duplication. The Daily Mail’s Special Commissioner into the “Problem of No Work”, said (6.10.08):

  “Constantly, too, I have had labor-saving machinery indicated to me as cause of much unemployment. . . Almost everywhere the tendency is to employ fewer hands and to require less technical ability. I heard an echo of this at Fulham. Local gasworks have been turning men off for some time past. Coke can now be broken and retorts can now be emptied by machinery. Men with 20 and 30 years’ reference from the Gas Co. have been applying to the Distress Committee for a few days’ digging or dirt shovelling. Anything that will give them a chance to earn something. It is the same with a very large number of men following trades connected with the Building”.

The policy of Free Trade and Tariff Reform both show their fallacy and they go to pieces in face of this fact, that no alteration of fiscal methods can prevent the use of the mightiest industrial weapon (the machine) that the capitalist has in rendering workers relatively superfluous, cheap, submissive, and in drawing into the vicious circle of modern factory life, the woman and the child. The very development of capitalism itself – whether tariffs exist or not – extends and intensifies this process.

Capitalist society, under Free Trade or Tariff Reform, cannot assure an existence to the makers of its wealth. The private ownership of the instruments, together with the results, of production, has shown that if social development is to proceed, Socialism must be instituted, i.e. a system of society wherein all those who labour shall jointly possess and use those things which are necessary to satisfy the wants of all.

Both Free Trade and Tariff Reform involve the sale by the worker and the purchase by the capitalist of value creating energy – the source of the wealth of capitalist society.

Economic development has made trade an anachronism, and the next step in social evolution, that is Socialism, means a system where trade “free” or “protected”, is rendered impossible by the fact of the common ownership of the means of wealth production.

Socialism therefore — a society wherein we have the free and equal association of the wealth producers, operating the means of production they commonly own, making everything for use and for use alone — is the next stage in social progress. Onward! Speed the day!

Adolph Kohn

Editorial: Our Position. (1910)

Editorial from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, during the last General Election, took up the only attitude the working class, conscious of its own position, can assume, viz., contemptuous indifference for the intrigues of its masters for political power, with a determination of pushing the working-class point of view forward as the only one interesting it.

The capitalist class in selecting those questions upon which to summon its supporters among the workers to rally, necessarily has to choose from among those making the widest appeal, and the explanation of the “democratic” tendency imparted to modem electioneering is that the working class has to bulk largely in the programme in order to be persuaded to lend its polling strength to this or that set of the masters’ political servants. The Election of this year was eminently typical of this in placing so far to the front the question of those constitutional changes alleged to be designed for the safeguarding of the privileges of the “democracy" on the one side, and the more direct appeal to sections of workers on behalf of fiscal changes ostensibly designed for the purpose of improving trade and mitigating, if not solving, the particularly working-class question of unemployment on the other.

The utterly fraudulent nature of the first position is clear from the arguments put forward by the Peers themselves and their apologists in the Commons. The virtual rejection of the Budget was not effected directly by the Lords as a right, but was done in the name of democracy by referring it to the ultimate tribunal— the people; since when, those who support this action have been protesting that it never was, or will be, the intention of the Lords to stand between the definitely expressed will of the people and its legislative outcome. The very fact that they should have seen fit to cloak their action under the guise of democracy makes it abundantly clear that they recognise the undoubted power of the “people,” as represented in the Commons, to legislate in their own way at their own pleasure. The “Constitutional outrage,” therefore, that was put forward sufficiently successfully to invoke the support of the S.D.P. in shouting “Down with the House of Lords,” has no terror for the Socialist desiring to give expression to his readiness for the economic change he seeks, because he knows that, no matter how often you refer the question of Socialism to a Socialist working class, the vote will necessarily be “for” every time, and any such delay but strengthens his hand when the Peers give way. Which is not to say they will give way as readily on so vital a matter to their interests as Socialism, as they will on such an issue as the Budget, but the alleged “outrage,” so far as their defence has been carried, specifically maintains the final decision to rest with the people themselves. More than that no Socialist requires. It is not conceivable that Socialism can be forced on an unwilling or unready working class, who, when converted, can under existing political conditions—“outrage” as well —say so.

The “Tariff Reform” nostrum requires little demolishing. If all that were claimed for it by its advocates were taken as granted—increased business included—the position of the workers would still manifest the same relative position of poverty amid the increasing wealth they produce, and would still demand the same solution—ownership of the instruments they use.

That Socialist objective is the only thing that matters to us who are Socialists. Its achievement is possible whenever the bulk of our fellows are of like opinion, howsoever the political or other barriers are arranged by our opponents, the capitalist class; and its achievement is not possible while we have a minority, under any conceivable political or social circumstances. To produce that majority is the immediate object of the Socialist, by which time the movements of our rulers may have created a position entirely different from the present one in its political aspect. But in those movements we can have no part: they concern them, not us. We know that the economic position of our class is incapable of any essential improvement within the limits of capitalism, and are therefore out for its abolition, and we refuse to stay our hand from that work for anything any section of the masters like to propose for our temporary benefit economically, or for the alleged purpose of facilitating our movement politically. It is thus we make ourselves Socialists in the present, and it is thus we shall win Socialism in the future.

The present political situation makes more than ever necessary the Party which alone in this country is emphasising the need for conscious working-class action along political lines for the realisation of Socialism—the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Our Sixth Annual Conference. (1910)

Party News from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sixth Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was held at Fairfax Hall, Harringay, N., on Friday and Saturday, March 25th and 26th.

Comrade R. H. Kent (Stoke Newington) was elected to the chair. The Credentials Committee reported 39 Delegates present, representing 18 Branches.

The Report of the retiring Executive Committee was very gratifying. It recorded an encouraging advance in all directions. A good number of new members had been enrolled during the year, and new branches had been formed—at East Ham and Walthamstow. The financial outlook had greatly improved, enabling more effective work to be done. The circulation of the Party Organ had made marked progress, while there had been a very gratifying increase in the number of contributors.

50,000 copies of the Election Manifesto had been issued, with very good results. A pamphlet on “Socialism and Religion” had been completed and was now in the Press.

Numerous debates had been held throughout the year, and the Party’s position had been placed before many other organisations.

Three branches had contested local elections, making good use of the opportunity for a vigorous propaganda.

The Treasurer’s report confirmed the E.C. in financial matters, and showed a substantial balance in hand, while the report of the Organiser was particularly satisfactory, both regarding the past year and the prospects for that to come. In the provinces in particular the outlook was much brighter.

The “Items for Discussion” brought forward a number of members and delegates in a debate of high merit. Many young members took part, adding no mean contribution to the important and interesting discussion that followed.

Space does not permit me to report, even briefly, the points raised, but the calibre of our younger speakers assures me that our speakers list will be very greatly augmented in the near future.

The Conference was adjourned on the Friday evening to make way for the Annual Social, which was an unqualified success in all respects, and in attendance eclipsed all others. 

W. Knight

Jottings. (1910)

The Jottings Column from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. J. E. Sutton is one of the “Labour” M P.s who was pledged to abstain from identifying himself with any party not affiliated to the Labour Party. This is how he did it.

The Manchester Guardian (8.1.10) reported a “Remarkable meeting at Ardwick,” where in answer to a question Mr. Sutton said :

“Mr. Zimmerman had magnanimously retired on his own initiative to give the Labour candidate a far better chance than he would have had in a three cornered contest.” (Loud cheers.)

“The Chairman, Mr. T. Lowth, added that Mr. Zimmerman's very graceful action in retiring would materially benefit the Labour chances. He was quite sure that it was Mr. Zimmerman’s desire that all Liberals in the division should work and vote for Mr. Sutton. Mr. Zimmerman had helped them in many a straggle and would help them again.

“The Rev. J. E. Roberts, who was received with great enthusiasm, said : ‘This is the first time that I have stood on a Labour platform, and I am here as a Liberal.’—(Applause.) . .

‘I do hope that every Liberal in this division will work strenuously and earnestly to return Mr. Sutton to Parliament for this division. The fact is that we are both fighting for our very lives. Liberalism and Labour are fighting for their political existence, and it is not a time for us to be considering chiefly the things to divide, but it is a time for us to be working shoulder to shoulder together.’ (Applause).”

The Rev. Roberts also gave utterance to the following gem:

“Tariff ‘Reform’ meant more money for the rich and more poverty for the poor. Anything that meant more money for the rich and more poverty for the poor was immoral.”

Seeing that under Free Trade we have had “more money for the rich and more poverty for the poor,” the Rev. gentleman is evidently between the devil and the deep sea. Another deduction from the above extracts is that seeing Mr. Sutton was so completely identified with and supported by the Liberal Party, the latter must be affiliated to the Labour Party, as it would be more than we dare do to suggest that Mr. Sutton broke the constitution of the last named fragment of an organisation.

#    #    #    #

On the Mid-Glamorgan result the Manchester Guardian of April 2nd last says :

  “It is plain from recent results that Labour members owe their election in very many eases to effective Liberal support. The knowledge that this is so, and that their votes are needed to ensure the safe return of most Labour members, imposes on Liberals a serious responsibility. . . . Tact is required on both sides, and the eve of the issue of a writ is a bad time for settling differences and employing the necessary give and take—things which should have been one long before when no contest was imminent. The Chief Liberal Whip has done well, therefore, in at once calling a meeting of Welsh Liberal members representing mining constituencies to consider the situation and, if possible, prevent the split in Glamorgan and the exasperation such a conflict must tend to engender from spreading further. The same assuaging and preventing action might well be taken in other parts of the country. The interests of Liberalism and Labour in all its various political expressions were never more completely one than now, and it would be suicidal were they not to join forces against the common foe.”

Evidently the shadow of a General Election calls for a disciplining of the “local" men on either side, and the Liberal Whip’s action in Wales is a straw showing the direction of the political wind — an indication of the even closer (if such a thing be possible) drawing together of the two wings of the Liberal Party.

J. B. F.

As Good As His Masters. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

“An officer of the Church Army tells a story of a famous pickpocket who became a convert at a mission meeting, and decided to live straight in the future. He resolved to make a start by contributing to the collection, and being broke, solved the difficulty by picking the pocket of the individual next to him, putting the results in the plate. The logic of the proceeding is a little curious, but in no way affected his desire to live an honest life.”

What an example of the current morality and logic of the capitalist regime as a whole—with the difference that it is by no means due solely to simple mindedness, but mostly from cunning and class interest that the master class so act. Take, for instance, the charitable donations that the master so generously (!) bestows upon hungry and shivering members of the working class. Where does he get them from if not from the workers themselves? In the factories and workshops he grinds us and drives us, keeping us, by the aid of the unemployed (who constitute an evil he dares not if he could remove) down to a wretched subsistence, enfeebling us in body and mind, while he waxes fat on our product. Then, having assured his comfortable economic future, he decides to reform, to be and do good in a way that he feels he ought to according to the station of life to which it has pleased his almighty and merciful God to call him. So with flourish of trumpets and many words, he donates a few thousand pounds to a society for rescuing fallen women maybe, ignoring the fact that he got his millions at the cost of these women becoming what they are. Perhaps it is to the "waifs and strays” he will turn with his cursed charity: the same thing applies. It is the present system of producing for profit on a basis of private ownership of the means of life, with proletarian (propertyless) labour that causes our streets to swarm with waifs and strays. All attempts by various organisations to cope with the evil have not lessened it one atom.

The narrator of the incident describes the logic as a little curious. This is a peculiarity logic has when it becomes mixed up with religion. In fact it is frequently so curious as to be better described as irrational. But its peculiarities sometimes have a good effect, arousing a curiosity that to the persistent enquirer will be of great value, as it will assuredly lead him to a recognition of the fallacy of believing anything that has no rational sanction, and as a logical sequence he will find himself in the course of time in the ranks of the S.P.G.B., striving to realise our motto: “The World for the Workers.”

Criticus.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For May (1910)

Party News from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Modern Socialism. (1910)

Book Review from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Modern Socialism" 3rd edition, by R C K. Ensor. (Harper Brothers)

If a writer on modern biology were to begin by stating that the basis of that subject, in its modern aspect, was laid by Darwin and Wallace, and then devoted the larger portion of his space to the anti-Darwinians’ statements and writings as an exposition of modern biology, he would be denounced on all hands as one quite unfit for the task he had set himself to perform.

It is just such a position as this that Mr. Ensor occupies with regard to modern Socialism.

In the Introduction to the first edition (1907) he says of Marx, Engels and Lassalle :

 “Their ideas made an epoch, because with them two decisive qualities first come to the front in Socialism—the scientific and the political.” (Page XXXII.)

Without troubling to question the inclusion of Lassalle in the list, the above statement would be accepted as correct by all Socialists. Then it follows that a correct exposition of modern Socialism can be given by a survey of the statements of Marx and Engels, or their followers, and by no other method.

Yet in the volume under notice, apart from a couple of articles on the general view of Socialism and excluding the various programmes at the end of the book, over 190 pages are given to the views of the avowed anti-Marxians—S. and B. Webb, Millerand, Vollmar, David, Jaurès, Hervé, Sarraute, Vandervelde, Anseele, Keir Hardie, John Burns, and the Fabian Society— while only 55 are given to the views of Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Bebel and Kautsky.

Lest any Fabian or ‘practical’ Labour Party advocate should find fault with Mr. Ensor for devoting so much space as given above to the so-called Marxian section, let us hasten to point out first that the only statement of Marx’s is taken from the Communist Manifesto, and consists of the list of reforms at the end of Section II! When it is remembered that as long ago as 1872 Marx and Engels declared in a new preface that this portion in particular had become obsolete, Mr Ensor’s object begins to peep through.

Secondly, on page XXXVI of the introduction to the first edition we are told :

  “It seemed desirable in this volume to give some excerpts from one of the many general discussions between revolutionaries and reformists, which have occurred in the great European parties. For this purpose the Millerand debate at the Bordeaux Congress of the French Socialist party has been chosen.”

And how is this purpose carried out? By devoting 21 pages to the discussion, of which 4 are given to Millerand, 13 to Jaurès, 3 to Sarraute and 1 to Hervé. All these are reformers and anti-Marxians, while no Marxian speech is given at all?

Evidently Mr. Ensor’s idea of excerpts from a discussion is to give one side and ignore the other.

Similarly with regard to agriculture and peasant proprietorship. On page XLI it is stated that “the nearest approach to a volte-face which Socialists have attempted since Marx has been in relation to Agrarianism . .  . Marx thought that the advantage of concentrating capital would be felt in agriculture as in other industries; but in spite of a temporary confirmation of this view by the mammoth farms which sprang up in Western America, it now appears very doubtful.”

Yet the very article chosen to defend this view by the “most brilliant, up to date and elastic exponent . . .  M Vandervelde,’’ proves up to the hilt the correctness of Marx’s view by showing how the number of peasant proprietors in Belgium had been reduced to “barely a few thousands, who can still painfully, by a hard toil, by a real exploitation of themselves and their families make the two ends meet. The rest have fallen into the proletariate, or cultivate for someone else's profit , and this diminution of cultivating ownership in consequence of insufficient capital, of partition due to the laws of inheritance, of the ever-growing aggravation of fiscal and military charges, is to be found indicated in the official statistics.” Page 206 (Italics ours )

Far from being a real description of modern Socialism, the book has been written to defend the job-hunting bargains of the I.L.P. and Labour Party under the guise of showing how the Continental “Socialists" do the same thing, and thereby to justify the actions of these who claim to be Socialists here. This is shown not only by the great preponderance of space given to the Reformists, but also by the fact that though two editions of the work have been published since a party based on Marxian principles was formed in this country in 1904—the Socialist Party of Great Britain—no reference to it is made anywhere in the book. The old I.L.P. absurdity that Socialism means the Socialisation of capital is again trotted out. Capital being the instrument of exploitation, to talk of ‘‘Socialising" it is a contradiction in terms. The statement in the preface to the third edition that "the second piece by M. Millerand and the piece by Mr. Burns might not have been chosen today after the final secession of their authors from the ranks of regular Socialism” (sic) merely expresses the chagrin felt by the Labour Party managers at the success of Burns in making an individual bargain with the Liberals.

At the head of Burns’ article is a note saying "after 1895 he drew closer to the Liberal Party." This is utterly incorrect. As shown in the Socialist Standard for January 1906, Burns openly avowed his full adhesion to the Liberal Party in 1893, when, in the House of Commons, he defended Asquith over the shooting of the miners at Featherstone. Yet when the Labour Group was first formed in Parliament after the establishment of the Labour Representation Committee, John Bums was made its first chairman. It was not going over to the Liberals that was s crime from the Labour Party's standpoint —that was the game they were playing themselves and in which they were successful in 1906 —but the individual bargaining was the sin.

As a collection of the views of various reformers, at home and abroad, the book has a certain value; as an exposition of modern Socialism it is entirely misleading, while the confusion existing in the mind of the author is shown by the following gem: "Socialism is essentially an appeal (!) on behalf of the interests of one class, the proletarians, against what the other, the capitalists, conceive to be theirs. Socialists can either emphasize this contrast, the Class War, and rely wholly on conscious proletarian support, or they can take the line rather of reconciling the opposition in a higher unity, the Solidarity of Classes, pleading with the capitalists that they have misconceived their interest and that the true interest of all the community is that of the workers.” (Page XXXV.)

It was probably due to this mental condition that Mr. Ensor, when running as Labour candidate for Poplar at the late L.C.C. elections, advised the workers, on bis programme, to vote for the other capitalist candidate—Sir John McDougall.

Jack Fitzgerald

Christian Socialism. (1910)

Book Review from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Is Socialism Atheism? A Prejudiced Answer” by James Adderley, of the Church Socialist League. 1d. (Frank Palmer.)

The value of this apology for the brain-softening affliction known as “Christian Socialism” may be gathered from a few quotations.

“Socialism," says Mr. Adderley, “whatever it may have meant in days gone by, now means the Movement going on in all civilised countries towards a gradual change in the social system by which the State (that is the whole community, rich and poor alike) shall eventually own and control collectively for the common benefit the land and capital which is now, for the most part, owned and controlled individually for private profit.”

To know whether Socialism is Atheism it is obviously necessary to know, first of all, what Socialism is, and Mr. Adderley fails, consequently, at the very outset. His definition describes State Capitalism. His ideal is a nation organised into a kind of huge post office. “The poor ye have always with you,” Christ is reported to have said, and his faithful minister sees “rich and poor alike” even in the state of society he conceives as his ideal.

Starting with such a false definition of Socialism, the rest of Mr. Adderley’s pamphlet is wasted labour as far as his argument is concerned, but it is so typical of the mentality of the “Christian Socialist” that it may detain us a little longer. The very phraseology is of a piece with the rest —“ Movement going on . . .  rich and poor alike . . . shall eventually . . .  for the most part.”

His definition of Atheism is equally precise.

“A Christian who says he believes in God but manages his business without regard to honesty or justice or mercy is practically an Atheist. A man who says he does not believe in God but tries to be honest and just and merciful is less of an Atheist than the other. . . . Socialism, if it makes for justice, mercy, brotherhood, etc.,” [only one “etc,” Mr. Printer.] “cannot be called Godless or Atheist even if its professors say that they do not believe in religion,” and so on.

We do not, of course, disagree with everything Mr. Adderley says. We agree, for example, that

 “The Labour Party in Parliament consists to a great extent of rather puritanically minded, unorthodox Christians.” (Page 11.)

He also states that Mr. Keir Hardie himself said in his (Mr. Adderley's) hearing some 15 years ago: “Send me to Parliament for the sake of those for whom Christ died.” We understand that Mr. Hardie’s meaning was, of course, “ For Christ’s sake send me to Parliament!”

How little knowledge Mr. Adderley has of “human nature,” Socialism, or of sociology in general may be seen from the conclusion of his pamphlet:

“ ‘This is a dream: it is against human nature,’ says the Anti-Socialist.
“I grant you it is a dream. I grant you it is against human nature as we know it.
“ ‘Human nature’ is a tough nut to crack. But my religion impels me to believe that it can be redeemed and changed by the power of Him who came to save mankind.”

To the understanding mind Mr. Adderley's brochure is yet another demonstration of the incompatibility of Socialism with Christianity, in spite of the fact that it contains no discussion of the question worthy the name. Its title, indeed, is unjustified. It could have been entitled, with a much greater degree of justification, “From Nebulae to Balderdash.” Perhaps it is not yet too late. I offer the suggestion for what it is worth.

F. C. Watts