Silly Rivalry. (1932)

From the June 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On May Day some demonstrators marched on the Japanese Embassy and were bludgeoned by the police. The Communists said that it was their stunt, and the l.L.P. journal, Forward, told the Communists how silly it was.

“The whole case against Communism might be summed up in the final feature of the day. This was the march against the Japanese Embassy….. The forces of police, foot and mounted, were overwhelming, and all that happened was a disgraceful scrimmage, cruel batonings, broken heads and several arrests.” (Forward, May 7th.)

Now read what the New Leader, the other l.L.P. organ, says :—

“The United Column…..was well over 1½ miles in length and very impressive. (This) is a piquant comment on the efforts of the Communist Party speakers to represent themselves the bold and true leaders as distinguished from the faint-hearted l.L.P. The small group which, after the police charges finally did break through to the offices of the Japanese Embassy, consisted almost exclusively of I.L.Pers and was led by one of the most prominent of the Divisional I.L.P. Propagandists.”

The I.L.P., like boastful schoolboys, thus present themselves to the Communists with the challenge : “We dare you to think of a stunt so damned silly that we won’t do it, too.”

Here and There: The Church in Spain (1937)

The Here and There column from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Church in Spain

Among a series of excellent articles on Spain in the Manchester Guardian one deals with the function of the Catholic Church in Spain and its attitude towards the Civil War. The correspondent, who spent a year in Spain, says: —

The burnings were often carried out by the villagers without any instructions from outside— indeed, they were often as spontaneous and, seemingly, as natural throughout Spain as the seizure of land was in the South of Spain. . . .

But, generally speaking, the war on the churches seems to have been a popular, spontaneous movement. And even when a gang arrived from outside the villagers, would, as a rule, stand round passively and look on while petrol was poured on the altar and set alight and the priest was dragged from his hiding- place.

In a country where the majority of the people have been, and still are, Catholics this indifference to the fate of the clergy needs some explaining. Read on: —

A Materialist Church.

Genuinely Christian priests have been killed. Much fine art has been destroyed and some of the finest music in the world been silenced. But the problem of the Church in Spain has another aspect. It was a Church more permeated by materialism than any other in Europe. It was largely—though by no means entirely—a commercial enterprise. It was the biggest landowner in a country of big landowners. It had a vast, and sometimes even a commanding, share in various industrial and commercial interests. A Church that identifies itself too closely with a temporal order is in danger of sharing the destiny of that order. And if a Church throws its weight on the side either of revolution or of counter-revolution, it will survive with the one or perish with the other.

The Spanish clergy has used Catholic teaching to influence Spanish workers to assist in maintaining the landowning and capitalist interests of the Spanish Church. They have failed and millions of Spanish Catholics are now the bitter enemies of the Catholic Church. The Jesuit boast that Catholic teaching until the age of seven years immunises the mind for life from heretical influences is a patent myth. The dominating influence in class struggles is class interest. The class interest of the Spanish workers, or what appears to them to be their class interest, dominates the influence of religious superstition. In many thousands of cases the open struggle with the Catholic Church will be sufficient to destroy its influence entirely. The position surprises many people with exaggerated ideas about the power of religion. The attitude of the Spanish worker to the Catholic Church is no less a logical expression of material interest than the attitude of the angry Spanish peasant who hung the image of St. Anthony upside down in a well after a failure of his crops. (An instance quoted by the Guardian correspondent, which can be paralleled by many stories from countries where there is a large Catholic peasantry.)

The Catholic Church is lined up with the landowning class behind Franco in a desperate fight to retain its ownership and feudal privileges. That is its chief interest in the struggle; and its resources are at the disposal of Franco. Many churches have become arsenals and many priests have discarded the cassock for the rifle. It is a ruthless and bitter class struggle in which life and property inevitably are destroyed.

If Catholic priests were murdered by angry Spanish peasants they have the reactionary and callous attitude of the Catholic Church to thank.

Whatever the outcome of the immediate struggle in Spain the hypocrisy and charlatanry of the Catholic Church there has dealt a blow to its moral influence which will not be rebuilt so easily as the walls of its churches.

Civilising Spain

The Irish Brigade, raised by General O’ Duffy to fight on behalf of Franco in Spain, has returned to Ireland without having done much fighting. The Manchester Guardian (June 23rd, 1937) quotes from the Irish Times and the Irish Press an account by the volunteers of what they saw in Spain.

We saw General Franco’s army executing “Reds” each morning in massed groups. They machine-gunned the condemned people, beginning at their ankles and directing the fire up along their bodies. The “ Reds,” in their last moments, lifted their clenched fists in the Communist salute, snouting “Viva Madrid !” This was in Caceres. It was in this town that the brigade spent most of their time.

That “great gentleman” and Catholic, Franco, will find a place in history with those murderers of the Paris Communards, the French ruling class. 

Marx—by Mr. Woodburn

Mr. Arthur Woodburn, secretary of the Scottish Labour Party, N.C.L.C. lecturer, and exponent of finance and economics, arch-squarer of the circles in Labour Party policy, says in the June Plebs: —

When individuals deny the obvious and proved fact that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party there is no point in arguing with them. . . . No one can join the Labour Party without proclaiming himself a Socialist.

It is, perhaps, too much to expect an Oracle to argue, but does he need to? Surely an "obvious and proved fact” should speak for itself? The “obvious and proved fact” that prominent members of the Labour Party have openly repudiated being Socialists and that the Labour Party is a Socialist Party does, however, appear to require explanation. Would you oblige, Mr. Woodburn? And would you also mention where evidence can be found for the statement that Marx agreed that 

It was quite conceivable that the capitalists would be bought out if they were paid very well if (as an exception, and England at that time was an exception) circumstances so developed that the capitalist would be obliged to submit and proceed in a cultured and organised manner towards Socialism on terms of compensation, 

and where

Elsewhere Marx said that "Under certain conditions the workers will not by any means refuse to buy out the bourgeoisie.”

There may be “not much point in arguing,” but, really, Mr. Woodburn, we would like to know.


The "New Leader” and “ The Socialist Standard"

In an article, “A Communist Leader and the Right to Strike,” which appeared in the July The Socialist Standard, it was stated that: “No reference has appeared, or—to be pedantically correct—has been noticed,” in Labour and Communist newspapers to the Bedwas Agreement signed by Mr. Arthur Horner. We learn now that such reference had been made. John Alpin, industrial editor of the New Leader, writes to say that it carried a critical analysis of the agreement and that a reply to that analysis by a member of the South Wales Miners’ Federation was dealt with point by point. Rather disagreeably, he says that he “would have assumed that the S.P.G.B. . . . would have read the columns of the New Leader each week.” We make the correction suggested by Mr. Alpin, if such it can be called, gladly. The number of weekly and monthly journals published by working-class organisations is numerous, and when writing is a voluntary task and journals unobtainable through the usual channels it is quite easy to miss an issue of any particular journal. The New Leader could help to avoid the recurrence of such “errors.” We suggest it put us on its exchange list. We put this suggestion to several journals, including the New Leader, a few years ago. Many agreed, even where the price is much higher than The Socialist Standard and publication more frequent: the New Leader declined. Perhaps, Mr. Alpin, you would do something to adjust the matter?

The Indian Workers and their Exploiters

Congress, India’s Nationalist Party, has climbed down from its earlier attitude of refusing to form governments in the six Provinces where it obtained majorities in the recent elections. In the resolution embodying the decision to form Governments, the draft of which, according to the Daily Herald, is attributed to Gandhi, it is said: —

The proper description of the existing relationship between the British Government and the people of India is that of exploiter and exploited, and hence they have a different outlook upon almost everything of vital importance.

Having admitted that exploiters and exploited must have a different outlook, Mr. Gandhi ignores the obvious, that exploited Indians can have no harmony of outlook with the Nationalist exploiters of their own race. To say, as he has said, that the Indian princes, landowners and capitalists can be persuaded to be “trustees” for the Indian masses, dodges the issue. The British capitalists would claim “trusteeship” for millions of Colonial masses throughout the world with nothing more to support it than the pious hypocrisy which cloaks their real interests. The practice of capitalism does not reveal the capitalist class to be any less the robbers because the class they exploit happen to speak the same language. The Indian workers have yet a painful road to travel before they acquire the understanding necessary for their emancipation. 

More Russian Puzzles

The Russian Government’s purge of "Trotskyites,” “diversionists,” ”wreckers” and “spies” continues, apparently, unabated. As must obviously happen, no amount of bias or coloured phraseology can obscure the contradictions which obtrude through the evidence against the “traitors."

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Herald (June 29th, T 937) gives the number executed for spying in the Far Eastern Province of Khabarovsk as 133 to the end of April, and quotes the Russian newspaper Izvestia, that “the spies were able to persuade railway workers’ to sell them uniforms." The reason why workers, who, according to Russian and Communist claims, are well paid, should want to sell their uniforms, is left to the imagination of the reader who is keen enough to notice the contradiction.

Another report from the same correspondent (July 3rd, 1937) states that a notorious spy, who had been run to earth, succeeded in organising "a gang of ex-priests, monks, kulaks and discontented young people'' (Our italics.) Perhaps a Communist friend could explain that “discontent" of young people.

Many of the “honourable Communists" who helped to draft the Constitution have since become victims of the purge, including Tukhachensky, Gamarnik, Uborevich, Yakir and Chervyakoff, who are dead, and Goloded and Postysheff, who are disgraced.

The Moscow correspondent of the Daily Telegraph (June 29th, 1937) refers to the purge among industrial leaders whose production figures have fallen, and quotes from Pravda an attack on the woman Communist President of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Society, who. it is alleged, spent £600 on clothes suitable for her to wear to meet foreigners, when sent on an official trip abroad. The reward of Socialist competition?

Yet another report comments on the arrest of a “Trotskyist bandit,” Doletski, head of the Tass News Agency, which supplies the bulk of all news to Soviet papers. He is ”accused of having suppressed news about wreckers in industry and having over-emphasised news of successes." (Daily Herald, July 8th, 1937.)

Suppression of news inimical to its interests is inevitable where there is political dictatorship and a host of minor dictators in their own particular spheres. No regime claiming to represent working-class interests, which has a sound basis, need repress news or criticism. Socialist principles have nothing to lose and everything to gain from free and open discussion. Under dictatorship even the mildest criticism of the regime, or opposition on questions of policy, must result in intrigue against the Government and take insurrectionary forms.

Where there is dictatorship by a person or a clique, who decide what is right for the majority, it is inevitable that discontent and inequality arise. When discontent becomes widespread a scramble takes place to place culpability on the shoulders of others. Socialist interests can only thrive under the free and open conditions of democracy. 

Harry Waite

Cutlets. With S.P. Sauce. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Home Rule looms large in that vital organ, the public eye. Whether the Bill will kill the Pope or whether the Germans will land at Belfast are questions that agitate the minds of patriotic Britishers. Of course, the Labour Party cannot be left out, and Mr. Ramsay MacDonald gave the Home Rule Bill his sanction and blessing. In view of this, the following extract from the “Labour Leader” of November 10th last, will not be out of place.

In an article entitled “Liberalism and Progress” the writer, Mr. H. Dubery, lets fall this brilliant gem :

“What is ‘the pathway of progress ‘from the Socialist standpoint’ ? ‘The test I bring to every measure introduced in the House of Commons,’ recently said one of our leaders, ‘is this. Will this Bill on the whole increase that share of national wealth and comfort that goes to the working class ? If it does that by even a fractional amount, I will support it. If it does not, then it is to me a non-essential.’

“Taking this statement as a test, let us apply it … to the Home Rule Bill. we shall see that when the smoke of battle has cleared and the horrible din has subsided, not one working man will be a whit the better off, nor will the nation be a step further along the true ‘pathway of progress.’ ”

Yet the Labour Party, whose organ is this self-same “Labour Leader,” support the Home Rule Bill. They are playing the same game of chasing the Will-o’-the-wisp, of leading the workers “up the garden.”

* * *

Mr. A. Henderson, M.P., the P S.A.-tin bethel-monger, speaking at a Brotherhood meeting on April 13th, remarked that Christianity had failed to arrest the masses. From the masters’ point of view it hasn’t : it still does its dirty work well. But one of the leading clerical lights, the Bishop of the Falkland Isles, thinks that its sphere is not large enough, and urges the necessity of a fund to extend the movement in South America.

In an appeal that is being widely circulated among the frauds of Christendom the Bishop says : “The Bishop of the Falkland Islands” Fund. For religious, educational, and medical work in Western South America, which must be carried out before the opening of the Panama Canal in 1913. The future success of British influence depends upon the answer to this appeal.”

The appeal has the support of Lord Northcliffe, the well-known Salvation Army field-officer, and from the accompanying explanation we gather the following extracts :

“The Chairman of the London Chamber of Commerce represents the business men of the capital of the Empire. He asked to be convinced as to the use of the £100,000 for which the Bishop asks. The case was put before him, and at a Mansion House meeting he said : ‘This is the finest commercial investment the traders of this country could make.'”

“The Archbishop of Canterbury writes : ‘I am impressed and interested by the Appeal which the Bishop of the Falkland Islands is now making, and earnestly hope that he may elicit a really adequate response from those who have financial and other interests in South America, and especially on its Western coastline. The conditions are unique, the possibilities are immense, and the Bishop, in addition to his personal gifts as a religious teacher, is eminently well qualified to arrange and control the work wisely. I very cordially wish him God-speed.'”

“The Archbishop of York writes : ‘The cause for which the Bishop of the Falkland Islands appeals is one which ought specially to commend itself to all who care for the welfare of our own people in the vast territory entrusted to his care. I trust that the very large number of persons in this country who have personal interests in that part of the world will be ready to acknowledge its claim.'”

And so Christianity continues, propped up by interested men, supported by the capitalist class as a means whereby they can keep the chains of wage-slavery bound more tightly around you. The position laid down in our pamphlet “Socialism and Religion” has yet to be shaken, and the worthy bishop, in his blindness, comes and amply substantiates that position. Christianity closely reflects modern capitalist interests. We are out to slay capitalism. Look to it that the end is speedily brought about.

* * *

Amidst the turmoil and strife of the last coal strike at least one idea was prominently heralded as the means of salvation for the working class (and let it be quietly known—for the master class). I refer to the “dark horse” known as Co-partnership.

To those who have freely imbibed at the fountain of Co-partnery the following document will serve as a kind of “digestive tablet.”

“SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS CO.”

“TO ALL CO-PARTNERS.”

“We now know the cost of the coal strike to this Company, and it has been very heavy. A very big price has to be paid (the larger part going out of the country) for coal purchased abroad in substitution for that undelivered to us by reason of the unfortunate disagreement between the owners and men. But our obligations to our consumers could not be set aside at any cost. To have done so would have in some respects irretrievably damaged our business, and as a result seriously harmed the employees who are our partners in it.

“My object in issuing this statement is to urge that all Co-partners will try by special endeavour to replace the lost tens of thousands by zealous working, and scrupulous economy in the materials used in our undertaking. Much has been accomplished, more can be, to avoid waste either of Time or Stores, and I feel sure I shall not ask in vain for the help of all our employees in the very anxious time through which we are passing.

Charles Carpenter, Chairman

April 24th, 1912.”

There is Co-partnership !

Profits are shared,—oh ! yes, and the workman may get a problematical increase (although in comparison with the wealth produced he is poorer), but when it comes to losses, well, one class of Co-partners share that, and that class is called the Working Class, alias “the Great Unwashed.” In spite of the use of the plural (“our” and “we”), when losses are incurred you must “try by special endeavour to replace them by zealous working.”

Co-partnership is merely a narcotic for the working class, to imbue them with the idea that they have an interest in the business, and under its influence they are speeded up, made to economise in materials, and all the sooner driven onto the scrap-heap. No, Socialism is the only hope, and Co-partnership is only—a hope.

* * *

“The B.S.P. Babes” have been at it again. In spite of their frequent protestations of the similar nature of Liberal and Tory, they still play the game of voting “agen the Government.” The following is culled from “Justice” of May 25th, 1912 :

“At South Hackney the Liberals in their panic have rushed the election so as to prevent a three-cornered contest. In that, unfortunately, they have succeeded ; but we hope every Socialist and Labour elector in the division will vote Tory and so deal a blow at the present Government.”

Poor old B.S.P. ! Just as a burglar does not become honest by calling himself King George, so the S.D.P. has not become Socialist by changing its name. That work has still to be done, and we are the Party to do it.

* * *

After a week of revelry, of riotous living, of gay feasting, of nautical cake-walks, and of splashing saucy mermaids, the Sea-King has now returned from seeking his fleet. It is quite possible, nay, probable, judging by the newspaper reports, that he is now able to tell the difference between an aeroplane and a battleship.

* * *

Of interest to race-goers. Just as “White Star” did not come home in the “Two Thousand Guineas,” so the King of Denmark did not come home in the Monarchy Stakes. He was unknown to the police, which is strange for a Royal scion.

A. L. Cox

Reflections. (1906)

From the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A letter in Justice from one whose identity is hidden, reads, “I am one of about 12 Socialists who have decided to study Socialism. We all favour the S.D.F. programme and want to start an S.D.F. Branch here.” Twelve “Socialists” who haven’t studied Socialism want to join the S.D.F. When those twelve “Socialists have studied Socialism and have discovered that they are Socialists, they will not want to join the S.D.F. They will want to join a Socialist Party. At present, as they have not studied Socialism, they cannot claim to be Socialists. Nevertheless, they may, without incongruity join the S.D.F., because the S.D.F. isn’t a Socialist organisation.

o o o

In addition to this, “one of twelve,” there appears to be quite a number of other members of the S.D.F. who want to study Socialism. They write asking for economic classes. Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime.

o o o

Does any one know what has become of the Justice crusade against motor-cars ? There was a time only a few short months ago, when readers of that Journal were urged to walk the roads with loaded pistols in one pocket and bags of calthrops in the other. The calthrops were to spread in the path of the rushing motor. If this did not have the effect of bursting the tyres, the pistol was to be used. If the shot missed the tyre and hit the occupant, so much the better. Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship, however, pistols and calthrops and even tin-tacks are, apparently, taboo ; which may, of course, be only a coincidence, although if political action reflects economic conditions (Socialists who have not studied Socialism may not understand this) there may be something more in it.

o o o

Somebody must have told Justice I was to refer to the foregoing, or it must have been conveyed to Clerkenwell by some telepathic process. Anyhow, it had hardly been written when our contemporary erupted in the same place again. From which it may be inferred that the notorious red motor has followed the “mere drawerful of jewels” to the sale room. If it hasn’t her ladyship must proceed with caution. Otherwise it may occur that she will drive unwittingly into a trap laid by the wily S.D.Fers, out under the inspiration of Mr. Quelch, to treat all motorists in the Swiss fashion (which we understand to be something drastic). Imagine the excitement if, while touring with, say, Bill Thorne, the Countess was to be potted by her own comrades !

o o o

Mention of Bill reminds me that since the day when he achieved fame by making his debut as M.P. at St. Stephens in a very large hat of the uncompromising “Alpine or Trilby” variety, he has dropped almost completely out of sight. This need not necessarily be reckoned against him for unrighteousness. Bill is a big man, and it must have meant a real effort on his part to obscure himself. Moreover, he may have profited by the horrible examples which some of his fellow members of the “Labour” Party in their endeavours to impress their statesmanship upon the House, have succeeded in making of themselves. However that may be, I am sure he has disappointed many of his friends, who expected him to do great things as the only M.P. the S.D.F. can allege connection with. And really the acquisition of a large hat and a readiness to write advertisements for books on the hire purchase system, are not much to show as the result of several months labours.

o o o

This advertisement writing, by the way, does not appear to be regarded favourably by the Labour Leader. The organ of the l.L.P. waxes indignant with those “Labour” members who have lent their photographs and their strong approbation to the firm who are widely advertising the sale of books by easy payments. The Labour Leader does not approve of such action and expresses its disapproval in no mild manner. We fear, however, the Labour Members assailed will not be greatly impressed, seeing that the Labour Leader has itself accepted advertisements from the same firm for the same set of books (as well as from other firms for other commodities), and seeing that its columns have for months contained a puff for a certain musical instrument from Mr. Keir Hardie. The I.L.P. organ should shew cause why the Labour Leader paper may augment its income by advertisements and why the “Labour” leader person may not do the same thing for the same reason. And it must shew wherein a musical instrument puff by Keir Hardie differs from a book puff by Will Thorne. If it does not, Mr. Thorne may fairly dismiss its criticism as, to put it, mildly cant.

o o o

This question of how to raise the financial wind seems, on the surface, to strike “Labour” journals and leaders in different ways. I say on the surface because it is fairly clear that at bottom there is no difference at all. Justice for example is quite frankly unconcerned as to the source of its income. “Get it,” it says, “honestly if you can, of course—but get it.” And Justice is far from satisfied with the success of its endeavours up to the present. The £500 realised by the sale of the Countess’s jewels was very nice and very welcome. But a donation of £1,000 would be better. Justice is sure that the S.D.F. can give better value for the money than any other organisation afloat; which may or may not be true. At any rate, its S.D.F. will have to manage better than they did at Camborne, if they want to inspire persons with thousands of pounds to spare, to donate large sums to its treasury. Large sums are never given without conditions, and when the donor requires those conditions to be kept dark it is unpleasant, to say the least of it, to discover that the recipient of the largess does not possess “political aptitude” sufficient to keep inquisitive noses from scenting the game.

Observer.

Blogger's Notes:

• "Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime. . . " This is a reference to Jack Fitzgerald, a founder member of the SPGB, who was expelled from the SDF for, amongst others, holding economic classes.
• "Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship . . . " is a reference to the Countess of Warwick who had recently joined the SDF, and was quite the celebrity catch for the SDF at the time.

The Pillory. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

While all other parties regard election campaigns as a nuisance . . we revolutionary Social Democrats enjoy the opportunity of fighting the enemies of the proletariat.

Justice, 13.1.06.

We should never have thought of contesting (the Southampton Election) but for the undertaking voluntarily made by the Liberals with the Trades Council only to run one Candidate.

Justice, 20.1.06.

So that if the undertaking had not been made, the S.D.F. would have denied themselves the enjoyment of fighting the Liberal enemy of the proletariat. There’s self-sacrifice for you !

“Williams and Gribble fought well and Jack in particular was gaining in popularity every day. . . So far as the calculations of those who are supposed to be excellent judges of elections went our chances were exceedingly favourable.”

Yet—

“Something went wrong with the works of the voting machine however, and just at the critical time a considerable portion of our people must have given their favours to the Liberals.”

Northampton S.D.F. Rept. Justice, 20.1.06.

The popularity of picturesque personalities is a poor thing to build up a working-class party upon. Anyhow, it was not strong enough to prevent a considerable portion of our people from falling from grace. Moral.—Build always upon the rock of Socialism and your people will never fail you.

“To us the chief value of the present contest is educational ; and that is why our interest is virtually centered in the small band of uncompromising avowed Socialists. . . . It is because of our deep-seated and long held conviction of the utter hopelessness of anything short of open and implacable warfare against party and privilege and capitalism that . .. . we repeat our advice to our friends to vote solid for the Socialist Candidate and to abstain from voting where no Independent Labour or Socialist candidate is standing.”

Clarion, 12.1.06.

Anything short of open and implacable warfare against capitalism is utterly hopeless. Therefore, we should abstain from voting except for Independent Labour Candidates. Yet not one of the independent Labour Candidates is either an avowed uncompromising Socialist or at open and implacable war with Capitalism. Therefore, they are utterly hopeless. Dear ! dear! And this is a clarion call.

“London, long-suffering, patient London, has made a wonderfully clean sweep of its ruck of ground landlords, contractors, gas and water shareholders, electric trust candidates and municipal reactionaries generally.”

S.D.S., Labour Leader, 19.1.06.

“The main part of their (the Liberals’ and Tories’) business is to mislead the people. They find out what questions are most likely to excite the prejudices and appeal to the passions of the mob and then play upon them. . . They are bound to be found out, but they are buoyed up with the hope that when that time comes some other question will arise. If not then the worst that can befall is the defeat of their party, and their rents and profits and legal fees mill be quite as secure us before”.

J.K.H., Labour Leader, 12.1.06.

One of the faults of the young men who write for the “Labour Leader” is that they think their own contributions are the only things of value in the paper and never read the other fellows’ stuff. Now if S.D.S. had but read J.K.H. the week previously when J.K.H. for some unexplained cause happened to be writing sense, he might have avoided making such a dismal exhibition of himself.

The significant feature of the elections so far is the big vote polled by Socialist and Labour candidates who were run independent of both capitalist factions.

ELECTION RESULT.

Camborne.

Dunn (L) 4,614

Hewitt (C) 2,384

J. JONES (S.D.F.) 109

Why this falling off in the big vote? Is it because the Camborne Candidature was not independent of both Capitalist factions ? Is it because it was dependent upon one of the Capitalist Factions ? Who said Tory gold?

Blogger's Notes:

Like the previous month's column (also titled 'The Pillory'), the  "formatting of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard neatly puts the contradictory statements side by side (see below) to give the full impact of the ILP/SDF opportunism and double talk. Sadly, I can't do the same on the blog and, as you can see, the quality of the scan isn't the best anyway."

Also, the ILP newspaper, the Labour Leader, which is mentioned in the piece, is labelled under 'New Leader' on the blog. That's 'cos the newspaper went through a number of name changes in its history . . . Labour Leader . . .  New Leader . . . Socialist Leader . . . and, finally, back to Labour Leader again when the ILP rejoined the Labour Party in the mid-1970s.

Finally, my educated guess is that the 'SDS', the ILP columnist quoted in the Labour Leader, was 'S. D. Shallard'. I'd never heard of him before now, but I was able to hunt him down via a quick look through David Howell's history of the early ILP. Another source mentions that Shallard originally had plans for a career in the Church, but "after a spell of employment in the Woolwich Arsenal had become a professional journalist and socialist lecturer". Beyond that there is little info about him on the internet.

Points for Propagandists. (1930)

From the September 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over-production and want.

The followers of Malthus and the Secularists who still talk of over-population are completely refuted by the universal facts of modern industry. The command of man over nature in producing a food supply has increased so rapidly that there is a widespread demand to limit production.

Agriculture lagged behind industry so long in increased production that whilst industrial products declined in price, the products of agriculture tended to rise. The application of machinery to farming and the adoption of large scale methods on the land has now reached such a pitch and so lowered prices that the agriculturist is crying out. Prominent owners express their joy that the crop in South America is poor this year. Such is the pass to which production for sale and profit has brought us.

The Sunday Express (June 29th) tells us that 2 million acres of wheat and maize land will go out of cultivation next season and that Brazilians are burning coffee because they cannot sell. The meat combines of S. America have been practising restriction of production, we are told by the same paper. They also inform us that in spite of “real efforts” to restrict the production of petroleum in U.S.A. it increased there by 14 million metric tons. The total world increase this year, compared to last, is 23 million metric tons. The Shell Oil Co., however, is not in bankruptcy, but was able to report a profit balance of 6 million pounds and pay 25% dividend this year.

Economic development proceeds alongside the efforts to limit production, as the recent advances in the oil refineries show. The News of the World (June 29th) reports that a new process for doubling the yield of motor spirit from crude oil by the use of hydrogen is being developed. The German Chemical Trust and the Standard Oil Co., and the Royal Dutch Co. jointly control the process, in order to control output and extract all possible profits by gently but firmly killing that noble spirit of competition which used to be praised as “the life of trade.”

The increase of productive power along with the vast increase of wealth which cannot find a market has led the author of “The Case for Capitalism”—Mr. Hartley Withers, to make the following confession :

“This spectacle of universal plenty along with universal distress, is very far from creditable to the alleged enlightenment and civilisation which we are now supposed to enjoy. People who have worked for us have worked so well that they cannot make a living, and yet we are none of us getting nearly as much benefit as we should out of the consequent cheapness of things (“Sunday Dispatch,” 6th June).

Let society own the tools and produce for use !

* * *

Is Socialism a religion? 

“There is a conventional assumption that Socialism is opposed to religion. The assumption comes from orthodox camps on both sides. With all the being born of 40 years of active Socialist life I would like to shake it as a terrier proverbially shakes a rat.”

The angry author of these words is Mrs. Bruce Glasier, in the I.L.P. paper, the New Leader (June 13th). She shows the “harmony” between Socialism and Religion by robbing Religion of its accepted meaning, and defining it as “the spirit of the whole.” Karl Marx and Lenin are both religious types, according to her.

She does not attempt to show that Socialism is in accord with religion, as commonly and correctly understood. She leaves completely alone the conflict between the materialist basis of Socialism and the superstitions and supernatural character of religion. The community spirit is common alike to religion and Socialism, Mrs. Glasier informs us.

Socialism, however, is the object of a militant movement recognising the class struggle in modern society. The Socialist realises also that religion as we know it, is an instrument of the ruling class to divert attention from the real world and the real work to be done.

This I.L.P. pioneer has a conception of religion as confused as her idea of Socialism—”the economics of the Lord’s Prayer.” Why not the Sociology of Baptism ?

* * *

Children's Allowances and the I.L.P.

The I.L.P. state on the front page of the New Leader (June 27th) that employers will not be able to deduct children’s allowances from wages, as they will be paid like pensions through the Post Office. Such childish simplicity and evasion may suit these reformers. It is not necessary for the employers to inquire if their workers are getting children’s allowances, but the general receipt of such payments will act as a basis for compiling the average family cost of living. In a fiercely competitive labour market there will be little difficulty in employers making the workers accept the revised wages. Lord MacMillan, in making his report on woollen wage reductions, pointed out that social services such as pensions, insurance, etc., should be taken into consideration in fixing present-day-wages. It has been a regular policy for years to engage pensioned men who can live on less wages.

Children’s allowance experience in Australia give the lie to the I.L.P.

In another issue (July 11th) the New Leader tells us that during strikes the children’s allowances will assist the workers to win, as the children will no longer go hungry on account of the strike. Such is simple faith. During recent strikes it has been noted how difficult it has been for the strikers to get poor law relief for the children. During the General Strike (1926) the Press stated that plans were being made to attack the bank accounts of the Trade Unions to prevent strike pay being issued. And if children’s allowances were passed by a capitalist government they would control its administration and these allowances could be suspended when it suited the governing body if the interests of the employers were at stake.

It is not surprising that such a body of misleaders as the I.L.P. should have their discussions of party policy in private as they announce to take place at their Summer School at Welwyn (New Leader, July 11th). More secret diplomacy !

* * *

How government ownership works.

The One Big Union of Canada has sent a representative to the Privy Council here to appeal against the decision of the Government-owned railway of Canada—The Canadian National. This national railway has adopted a policy pushed by the American Federation of Labor, known as the B. & O. Plan, called so because it was first initiated by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in the U.S.A. It has led to the promotion of many safe and servile company unions there.

The masters needed a scheme to kill any militant union activity and also to increase output while silencing workers’ complaints. The B. & O. Plan is a brand of efficiency systems which pretends to make for profit sharing and fosters “co-operation” between master and man. A pliable tool was found in the American Federation of Labor Unions, which was given special privileges to enlist membership and to smooth the path for the adoption of the masters’ plans. The One Big Union complain that the American Union has been given sole recognition, with the result that either dismissal or joining the American Federation has been forced on the men.

Speeding-up and spying on each other, which is the common feature of co-partnership systems, has become the rule. The O.B.U. complain that J. H. Thomas is at the head of the “forceful” union they are fighting. They are applying to the Privy Council for the right of assembly and freedom to join a union of their choice.

So much for Government ownership or nationalisation, the aim of Labour Parties. The One Big Union has to face the fact that business, nationally or privately owned, is carried on for profit, and concentration of industry collectively in investors’ hands—called national ownership—simply provides a more, powerful force against the workers.

The municipalising or nationalising ideas of many of the workers in Canadian Unions has been given a nasty blow, which should make them sec the need for political action for Socialism.

Adolph Kohn

“Labour” Fails, Why Not Try Socialism? (1929)

From the December 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Had the Labour Government been prepared with schemes dealing effectively with unemployment they could not have set the stage and billed Mr. Thomas’ performance with greater assurance than they did for the drab fiasco that resulted.

All parties criticise his schemes for their inadequacy. His own party were not the least dissatisfied and critical. The “New Leader” pretended to see in his refusal to call himself a Socialist the real cause of his failure. That journal said (8th November) :

“The fault is not his entirely. Upon the Cabinet itself rests a very considerable measure of responsibility. Where, for instance, is the National Economic Committee of which such a great feature was made in “Labour and the Nation”? Where is the Employment and Development Board which was to take a lead in scientifically developing the National estate? Where are there signs of the harnessing to the State of the great Civil Servants who had such invaluable experience of mobilising the nation’s resources during the war?

But provided all this is remedied, Mr. Thomas must still fail unless he tackles the problem far more fundamentally than there is any indication of his doing at present.”

Because unemployment is fundamentally necessary to capitalism it must of necessity be dealt with fundamentally. Because it is the working-class that suffers from unemployment, only that class can deal with it fundamentally.

Because Mr. Thomas has no mandate from the workers to interfere with the basis of capitalism he can only attempt to palliate the evil. What is the difference between him and his friends of the “New Leader“? Merely a difference in the kind and the number of reforms.

Mr. Thomas, in order to pose as the friend of the unemployed, provides work for some of them out of the arrears of his predecessors in office. A system of fast and heavy motor traffic has been allowed to grow up on roads totally unsuited for it. The ever-mounting total of casualties has already forced Governments to act, but in a sluggish and inadequate fashion. Mr. Thomas has made a virtue of necessity; more than half the work he is so ingeniously (?) providing would have been done years ago but that capitalists and capitalist governments lack foresight and directive ability—the very qualities they boast of possessing.

“Mr. Thomas,” says the “New Leader,” “during the next few months may put some 50,000 people into employment— but at the same time rationalisation is putting others out of employment with increasing rapidity. Poor Mr. Thomas is like a man pouring water into a pail without a bottom.”

This is putting it mildly. Labour-saving machinery, new methods and rationalisation are all utilised in Mr. Thomas’ schemes, as well as the world over. Their effect is such that all the reforms conceived by the I.L.P., plus the good will of the capitalists—if that were possible—could not prevent unemployment increasing. What of other reforms? A Minimum Wage ! Capitalists will always pay that and no more without compulsion. Increase the Dole ! Then it is still a dole and must remain inadequate. Children’s Allowances ! On top of present wages ? Not at all likely while capitalists pay wages. These and many other reforms advocated by the I.L.P. have been exposed in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

Careful examination by the workers would prove their worthlessness. Those who advocate them do so with the ultimate object of doing what Mr. Thomas is doing : pouring water into a pail with no bottom, for a Minister’s salary and a place in the limelight.

The “Daily News” (14/11/29), commenting on Mr. Thomas’ failure, says :

“What the vast mass of the electors are thinking about all the time, however they may vote and however they may pray, is how they are to get work, how they are to keep it, or how they are to bear the burdens, which in one form or another the existence of a vast army of unemployed people imposes upon them.”

What is the natural deduction? That the vast mass of the workers are deeply concerned in a solution of unemployment. Not merely in some temporary expedient that will tide them over a winter, or bring the figures back to pre-war level. The need of the capitalist class is a normal army of unemployed, to drive their wage-slaves in the mad race for markets through the cheapening of commodities. The need of the workers is release from the nightmare of unemployment and assurance of the necessaries of life.

Capitalism in its competitive struggle shortens the labour-time required to produce all commodities; with the twin results of increasing unemployment and perpetual surfeiting of markets.

But unemployment is only one of the evils of modern society. Alongside it is a shortage, throughout the working-class, of all those things necessary to human well-being : houses, clothes, pure food, time and opportunities for recreation and enjoyment, etc.

This is the greatest contradiction in the history of human society. The vast mass of the people are in perpetual anxiety about their necessaries of life, or actually deprived of them. Yet millions all over the world are forced to remain idle and unprovided for when their labour, applied to the nature-given materials, could more than supply all needs.

It is no wonder that Mr. Thomas has failed. No one man, no government can remove, or even permanently remedy, unemployment. The problem is an indication of the underlying poverty and insecurity of the whole working-class. All are affected. The call for a conference of parties can only result in more water being poured into a pail without a bottom.

As all are affected, all must interest themselves. The need is great. It is for a working-class movement, intelligent, organized, and consciously directed towards controlling governmental powers, that the means of life may be owned by the people and controlled by them. Only by this means can unemployment be removed and only by the work ing class can it be achieved.

F. Foan

The Rise and Fall of Mussolini (1943)

From the August 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most of the accounts of Mussolini, by himself, by his friends, and by his enemies are a compound of myth and misrepresentation. Many of those who now denounce him as a monster of cruelty and treachery used not to regard him in that light.

Mr. Churchill was reported to have said in 1927 : —

“If I had been an Italian, I am sure that I should have been wholeheartedly with you from start to finish in your triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism.” (Times, January 21st, 1927.)

And did not the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain say in the House of Commons (May 2nd, 1938) : —

“To-day there is a new Italy, an Italy which, under the stimulus of the personality of Signor Mussolini, is showing new vigour, in which there is apparent new vision and new efficiency in administration and in the measures which they are taking to improve the conditions of their people.”

We may also recall the, unbounded enthusiasm for Mussolini and Hitler displayed by Lord Rothermere in his Daily Mail when he was backing Mosley’s Blackshirts and urging young British men and women to emulate the “spirit of patriotic pride and service which has transformed Germany and Italy.” (Daily Mail, January 15th, 1934).

Even the New Leader, organ of the I.L.P., was not quite sure in 1922 whether the workers should support Mussolini or not. In the issue dated November 10th, 1922, an article from an Italian correspondent was published urging cooperation with the Fascists in the national reconstruction of Italy. The Editor, while not associating himself with the idea, did not feel able to reject it out of hand. He doubted the feasibility of the idea, but said:

“Only events can test our correspondent’s optimistic reading of its (Fascism’s) new spirit.”

It is only necessary to recall these now-forgotten enthusiasms and aberrations to perceive the fallacy of the argument that those German and Italian workers who swallowed the absurd and brutal doctrines of their leaders must be punished and kept under, in order to save the world from further dictatorships and aggressions. If it is a crime for the workers to be taken in by the demagogy of a Hitler or a Mussolini, what of the illustrious statesmen and public men who were taken in too?

One myth about Mussolini, still held by many who denounce him, is that he was the creator of modern Italy, the inspired and dynamic leader who moulded events to his will and took power by a brilliant and forcible “march on Rome” in October, 1922. Mr. Bernard Shaw is an outstanding believer in the “great man” myth. If it were true that the great man could so mould events to his will, why the undignified and craven exit from power? Mussolini’s path to power was not through any bold and godlike master-stroke, but through the connivance and desire of those who had control of the political machine, in Italy in 1922. Is it not related how General Badoglio offered at the time to “scatter this Blackshirt rabble with a whiff of grapeshot,” only to be ordered by the King of Italy to let the rabble take office. Mussolini’s exit has been like his entry, for, according to the Daily Telegraph (July 27th, 1943), this giant among men resigned because, after a meeting of the Fascist Grand Council lasting ten hours he was voted down by 19 voles to 7!

The truth is that Mussolini and his Fascist Party had outlived its popularity under the stress of economic hardship and military defeat, and could no longer fulfil the prime function of those who take on the job of harnessing the exploited working class to the capitalist State in the interest of the exploiting class. Discontent had grown and the workers would not go on believing and obeying the leaders in whom they had once placed their trust. Long ago it was admitted by leading Fascist journals that things were in a bad way. The Fascist Party, which they admitted had “become an enormous, top-heavy organisation with a rigid bureaucracy” (Manchester Guardian, September 3rd, 1941), was no longer able to serve its purpose. Mussolini and his Fascists did not mould events, but were the astute exploiters of events which moulded them. In particular, they gained their opportunity to rise to office (and to the luscious fruits of office) because capitalism in Italy after the last war could not solve its own problems or satisfy the mass of the population. Their later policies were similarly dictated by the contradictions of capitalism. As Sir George Paish, the economist, pointed, out, it was the world-crisis of capitalism which determined Italy’s aggressive foreign policy. Writing in 1935. he said:

“If the difficulty between Italy and Abyssinia is to be settled, is it not essential to discover its real cause and remove it? Clearly its cause is similar to that which induced Italy to attack Abyssinia in 1896. At that time the world was suffering from a severe economic and financial crisis, and the distress of Italy caused her statesmen to seek relief in a policy of conquest. The world to-day is suffering from a crisis more severe than 40 years ago, and Italy is in even greater distress than she was then. In consequence, Italy desires a colony to give her a market for her products, to which her people can emigrate, and from which she can obtain food, raw material and gold.” (Times, August 31st. 1935.)

Crises, wars and dictatorships are possible only because of the lasting inability of capitalism to meet the needs of the population of the world. The remedy is not to seek new inspired leaders or new ways of managing capitalism. but to abolish the capitalist system from the face of the earth.

Are We “Proud” of our Class? (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

A controversy is raging in the columns of the “New Leader” on the burning question of Keir Hardie’s famous Cloth Cap. Two rival theories clash, one, that the hat (variety doubtful) originally intended to grace his temples was inadvertently left at home; the other theory, stoutly maintained by a relative, is that the rock of offence to a scandalised House was in the nature of a grand gesture, a proletarian signal of defiance of the “Here stands a Post” pattern.

There is an alternative explanation. The ostentatious adoption of a badge of social inferiority savours at best of theatricality and at worst of inverted vanity. The man who could publicly announce “My experience of the Labour movement in all its phases is second to that of no other man alive in England” (5/5/1910, at Browning Settlement) was hardly a model of modesty. His insistence on the importance of the text, “Come unto me all ye that labour,” was subconsciously an exaltation of his one-story Cap into the Triple Tiara of Labour’s Pope. Hardie’s mental outlook was typical of the Labour leader; the last war revealed the Hodges and the Barnes for what they were worth to the working class movement. Will the present war undeceive the worker ? The ruling clique has hired abler men from the workers’ ranks than in 1914, and a decisive Allied victory will probably effectually blur recollection of their slaps in the face to factory, field and mine worker. There is a faint hope that some of the latter will remember the solid backing their Trade Union bosses have accorded the “Go To It”-ers. The Chairman of the T.U.C. Conference kicks off with a hymn of praise to Churchill.

Much sentimental nonsense goes around in Labour circles about “pride” in belonging to the working class. The informed Socialist finds no reason for “pride” in his quite involuntary membership of that class. A consoling satisfaction, perhaps, is the reflection that his class is the sole instrument which can eventually deliver the world from the horrors of capitalism. An aspect of this “pride” business is the blether summed up in the word “Proletcult.” Broadly speaking, the ruling class in any given society and age dictate “culture,” and until comparatively recent times has alone been able to command the means for expression of that culture, whether in song or verse, in marble or paint on rostrurn, pulpit or stage. In “democratic” Athens an Aeschylus owed his just fame to a rich citizen. Virgil’s genius was hired by the astutest politician of his age to act as his propaganda minister and literary high priest. The black specks of sycophancy which tarnish the glory of a Shakespeare in later ages were the product of a fundamentally similar social basis and resultant outlook; (“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed”).

Attempts have been made by the Cloth Hat Brigade of critics to exhibit ballads and “folk-songs” as emanating from the “great heart of the people” ; the simplicity of diction deceives. The “artiness” of the best ballads is hard to beat. As to “folk-songs,” the genuine articles to-day are the products of the music hall, and these can hardly be ranked as high art.

Hobbes dismissed the life of the savage as “poor, nasty, brutish and short”—an accurate description of the life of a huge mass of the working class, and under conditions which amply justify the description, what kind of “culture” can arise? The lewd dance, jazz, dreary tom-tom “spirituals”—these are some of the contributions to modern “culture” by which ages of negro slavery revenges itself on society. Augustus banished his daughter for a way of life contracted in a Rome saturated by the worst vices of gladiator and slave.

True, modern capitalism has evolved a section of relatively better placed “black-coated” workers, and the more far-seeing of the governing class have made it possible by scholarships to utilise the abilities of this section. But pay piper, call tune. How they dance to the tune !

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has never boasted of its proletarian origin and membership; it is so “proud” of its class that it is out for its abolition. “Spite of the gloomy days made for our searching,” there are glimmers of sunshine. In the party itself, there is a growing spirit of sober hope. We shall continue to pursue our immediate task—political education, never swerving from our adherence to the principle of delegation of executive work and abhorence of leadership; in short, to the principles of Socialism and all that Socialism implies.

Augustus Snellgrove

Soviet Socialism (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the saddest things in the whole business of Soviet Russia is the recurring note in the organ of the I.L.P. (“New Leader “) that in economics the Russians have “achieved Socialism.” The Socialist Party of Great Britain can understand the fluffy minded Brockways and the worshippers of Saint Hardie talking such rubbish, but it defies the McNairs and the Ridleys to substantiate the statement. They must know better.

Augustus Snellgrove

Dishonest I.L.P. Journalism. (1928)

From the April 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Elsewhere in this issue appears a review of “A History of English Socialism,” written by G. Benson, and published by the New Leader, Ltd. The book in question contains the untrue statement that our organisation assisted in the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The book was reviewed in the New Leader on December 9th, 1927, and the reviewer laid special stress on the “direct honesty of statement” and the “proof of wide reading and hard-earned knowledge” possessed by the author, Mr. G. Benson. When we called attention to the incorrect and damaging statement about ourselves we were definitely promised by the Acting Editor of the New Leader that a correction would be published in the New Leader.

This promise was made in writing in a letter dated 18th January, 1928, but the following week the General Manager of the New Leader wrote refusing to insert the correction on the flimsy pretence that the matter “has nothing to do with the New Leader as an organ, but concerns the New Leader, Ltd., its controlling company.”

Then on February 2nd, two months after the publication of the book and the review in the New Leader, the General Manager, a Mr. L. A. Plummer, informed us that a correction slip containing the bare statement that “The words and ‘and the Socialist Party of Great Britain’ are here inserted in error,” would be sent out with copies sold in the future.

We naturally protested that large numbers of copies were already in circulation and it was not unreasonable to ask that the New Leader, which had strongly urged the value of the book to its readers, should take the step it had promised and publish a correction. The attempted distinction between the New Leader and the New Leader, Ltd., is in keeping with the I.L.P.’s past record of subtle propaganda methods ; are we to understand from this that the I.L.P. has in fact no control over the proprietors of what purports to be its own official organ?

Members of the I.L.P. will, we trust, notice the fact that whereas our columns, like our platform and our meetings, are open to all our opponents, it is not possible for us to obtain the retraction of a grossly untrue and damaging statement in the New Leader.

Editorial Committee

Editorial: The Socialist Party and the Labour Party. A comparison. (1927)

Editorial from the June 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are often told by supporters of the Labour Party that we are out of touch with the workers. That we do not participate in or encourage them in their daily struggles on the industrial field, nor support them in their efforts to gain legislative reforms.

To test the truth of this, it is necessary to examine the nature and constitution of the two parties : The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Labour Party. The first is composed of working men and women who have realised the slave position of their class, and are organising on carefully defined principles with a definite object clearly stated. The principles and objects are logically evolved from ascertained facts patent to everyone, but so clearly worded that they cannot be misunderstood. As it is a condition of membership that the worker shall understand and endorse the principles, every member is in a position to participate intelligently in a movement that is really democratic. In other words, the members control the activities of the party.

The Labour Party is the opposite of this in character and constitution. True, it is composed mainly of working-class men and women; but few of them understand how completely they are enslaved by the wages system ; or the necessity for its abolition. Beyond the understood practice of electing leaders to Parliament, and the non-Socialist objects of nationalising industries, nothing is clearly defined. This lack of principles and socialist objective, permits a wide freedom of action to ambitious schemers for power. The result is confusion, not only in the minds of the rank and file, but also among the leaders themselves.

Every question that is dragged to the front in Parliament and Press is responsible for differences among the Labour leaders. Right and Left Wings, and sometimes a centre as well, take up different attitudes, neither of which is in accord with an analysis of the case from the working-class viewpoint.

This confusion, as can readily be seen, is due to the absence of any clearly-defined basis, outlining the position and objective of the organisation.

The lack of unity among the leaders, however, does not prevent them from lecturing the workers on the need for unity among themselves. The contradictory and useless reforms advocated from time to time by innumerable leaders, and would-be leaders, form the basis of Labour action—a foundation of shifting sands on which the workers are exhorted to erect and maintain a united organisation.

Contrast this confusion with the attitude of the Socialist Party. Questions that agitate the public are always analysed from the standpoint that the workers are a slave-class—that there can be no identity of interests between them and the class that owns the means of life and enslaves them. If the questions involve capitalist interests only, we refuse to take up sides, but always point out their unimportance for the worker. The clearly-defined position laid down in the Party’s principles enables every member to analyse any question prominently before the public, or any reform advocated by politicians.

The Labour Party encourages the workers to struggle for reforms within the present system. The Socialist Party tells the workers that capitalism is the capitalists’ own system, and if the latter want it to last, it is their business to patch it up. Obviously they will endeavour to make working-class conditions more endurable in proportion as a genuine working-class party develops and threatens their system.

How far the leaders of the Labour Party are out of touch with the workers can easily be seen by a study of their activities in Parliament. Most of the debates in which they take part have no bearing on working-class conditions, and are not of the slightest interest to the workers. Parliament for the leaders is merely a hunting-ground for prominence and positions.

The pamphlets and periodicals of the Labour Party have never explained Socialism to the workers. “The New Leader,” the official organ of the I.L.P., is a mixture of sentimentalism, hero-worship and quite orthodox comments on current capitalist politics. Its tone is of the intellectuals. Insignificant ideas magnified by ostentatious phraseology constitute one of its chief assets—its fantastic ideas of reform, and its ultra dignified philosophy on social questions carry no message which the average worker can understand; it would indeed be surprising if he could.

The current number of the “New Leader” (13/5/27), page 7, contains an article typical of many, in its use of high-sounding, but almost meaningless phrases. Statement number one is as follows :—

“Socialism is a dynamic force, too great to be confined in one mould of organisation, and too vital for us to see its ultimate effects.”

How enlightening this must be to the worker who is trying to understand Socialism; but how puzzled the same reader will be when he reads, a little lower :—

“Family endowment is fundamental Socialism, and without it I doubt whether any industrial order can produce a Socialist Commonwealth ; but family endowment may take more forms than one.”

But the reader who imagines that Socialism will end class struggles, will be more confused still when he reads :—

“Our trade unions must not be weaker in a commonwealth ; they must be stronger and more dignified.”

The same reader’s confusion must end in despair when he reads the concluding paragraph :—

“I have crowded a big picture on a small canvas, and perhaps have raised more questions than can easily be answered; but I am sure that we must look forward, not to any final form of social organisation, but to a progressive and developing social organism.”

In other words, capitalism will continue, with occasional, but gentle modifications calculated not to disturb the ruling class or their agents.

In the same number of the “New Leader” is an article entitled “The Psychology of Socialism and Crime,” in which the following passage occurs :—

“Millions in our days suffer from the sense of inferiority. They are largely unconscious of it because the sense of inferiority is so painful that, whenever it is excited, the mind instantly imagines some kind of superiority, in order to compensate for it. That hides it from the sufferer himself : and to others also it often gives the opposite impression, as it puts him all the more upon his dignity. In fact, he is likely to appear uppish and conceited, precisely because his soul is falling to pieces with diffidence, and the despair of ever being anyone’s equal.”

By the manner in which the I.L.P. leaders endeavour to hide the poverty of their ideas under pompous phraseology, they must be badly afflicted with the “inferiority complex.”

The lesson of the coal dispute. (1927)

From the January 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Mr. Cook has failed to learn. 

The dispute in the coal industry has prompted many writers to indulge in their favourite practice of pointing a lesson. Mr. A. J. Cook, as the chief representative of the miners, tells us in the New Leader, 26.11.1926, what is “The real lesson of the coal war,” “The lesson which the working class must, and will, draw from the greatest industrial upheaval in our history.”

Mr. Cook emphasises again and again the bitter hostility that exists between the Capitalist-class and the working-class. His first reference is to arbitration and conciliation.

“It seems to me that anyone who can suppose that the workers can to-day obtain either a living wage or tolerable conditions in industry by these means must be quite ignorant of the national and international facts of present-day capitalist industry.”

A realization of this fact during the dispute might have saved much time wasted, and dignity lost, searching for a basis of agreement. It should, moreover, be apparent that every attempt to reason concessions out of employers must, in the face of this antagonism be futile. Nothing has ever been won for the workers by conferences between employers and Labour leaders. The deciding factor is always power. If the workers are unable to damage Capitalist interests by withholding their labour-power, the oratory of their leaders cannot save them from defeat. What that defeat means for the working-class Mr. Cook informs us next:

“The growing intensity of our industrial disputes, waged now not to gain new privileges for the workers, but in desperate attempts to preserve old gains, proves conclusively what we, as Socialists, have long been saying. Keir Hardie himself summed up the lesson in his famous phrase, “You must either end capitalism or capitalism will end you.” We are now face to face with the fact that we can only end capitalism by creating and constructing a new social order. That is the historic mission of the working-class movement.”

Mr. Cook then outlines certain facts connected with Capitalist methods and development which he finds only lead him to the same conclusion : the clash of interests between the Capitalist-class and the working-class. He says :

“If this analysis of the present condition of capitalism is sound, then clearly there can be no identity of interest in present circumstances between the owners of capital and the workers.”

Mr. Cook arrives at this conclusion by means of a quite unnecessary recital of recent Capitalist developments, “overcapitalization, the return to the gold standard, the burden of war debts, the scarcity of markets and etc.” He fails to see that it is not in the development but in the nature of Capitalism that the source of class antagonism lies. Ownership of the means of wealth production by the Capitalist-class, and the merchandise character of human labour-power; the basic principles of Capitalist society, make harmonious relations between the two classes impossible.

A further process of reasoning brings Mr. Cook to the conclusion “that Capitalism can only exist with a permanent unemployed system connected with every industry,” and the further conclusion contained in the following :

“At the same time, every attempt to introduce new methods of production which increase output means that yet another consignment of workers is thrown on the industrial scrap heap. Next, as a result of facing economic facts,”

Mr. Cook says :

“Surely no one can now doubt that the object of the Government and the Capitalist Press— those twin brothers of oppression—is to smash the whole Trade Union and Labour Movement, and that they will be satisfied with nothing less.”

From these facts and conclusions we are asked to learn that :

“The lesson of this struggle is that Socialism is the only hope of the worker, his wife and his child; that we must equip ourselves for the control of industry; that, if we would accomplish our great purpose in our own day, we must start now.”

It will not be out of place here to summarise Mr. Cook’s most important conclusions :

1. The futility of arbitration and conciliation.
2. That there is no identity of interests between Capitalists and workers.
3. That new methods which increase output mean increased unemployment.
4. That the Capitalist Government is determined to smash the workers’ organisations.
5. That Socialism is the only hope of the workers.

These conclusions are now in a convenient form for reference. Mr. Cook in his subsequent remarks forgets that he has written them. We shall see how he throws them overboard in a few sentences.

Nos. 1, 2 and 4 go by the board in a single sentence :

“I appeal not only to workers but to every thinking man and woman in the country, no matter their class, to realise the gravity of the choice that lies before us.”

How is it possible for Mr. Cook to think, at one and the same time, that the Capitalists are determined to smash the workers’ organizations, and yet are capable of being influenced by a statement of the consequences?

If the interests of the two classes are opposed, how can the Capitalists be expected to respond to appeals for unity of thought with the workers?

No. 3 is next discarded in the most shameless manner. Still connecting the two classes as thinking men and women, he says :

“Cannot they realise what the I.L.P. has grasped—that a living wage and reorganised industry must go together, and that these two are the only hope of our country.”

The italics are not ours. Throughout the pages of “The Living Wage” the I.L.P. insists that new machinery, better organization, standardization and mass production are necessary to the “living wage.” Mr. Cook gives them his blessing in the same column in which he declares that such methods mean yet another consignment of workers thrown on the industrial scrap-heap. ”These two—a living wage and reorganised industry—are the only hope of our country,” he says, yet only a few lines above he had written, “Socialism is the only hope of the worker.” In that contradiction No. 5 went by the board; yet so eager was Mr. Cook “to start now” that he ruled Socialism out in the next paragraph to which he asserted its paramount importance :

“We must make every city, town and village ring with our first and most urgent demand—the nationalisation of the mines.”

Nationalisation of the mines is a question for those Capitalists who are dependent on the mineowners for supplies of coal. Neither the miners nor the working-class as a whole would be any nearer Socialism as a consequence, either of its achievement or its advocacy. The first step in that direction is one of knowledge. Not with nationalisation, but with the knowledge of Socialism must “every city, town and village be made to ring” before we can truthfully say we are well on the road to Socialism.

F. Foan

Editorial: The Fallacies of Opportunism. (1926)

Editorial from the May 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

Opportunism has been the grave of many a movement that commenced blessed with the brightest hopes. It has an old and disastrous history in the annals of the working class, and yet it flourishes still, alluring with bright but treacherous promises myriads of workers whose energy and enthusiasm is wasted on fleeting and harmful objects instead of being directed towards the abolition of wage slavery.

Opportunism takes two main roads, one the road that is very, very long but has flowers to be picked by the way; the other the road along which emancipation is to come like a thief in the night—ushered in by a handful of “leaders” behind the backs of the people.

But the wayside flowers wither rapidly, and in like manner the “benefits” that are obtained with much labour and misery wither and become burdens in a very short time. Such are Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, and the like.

The quick road is full of pitfalls and quagmires, and the travellers along it are brought to ruin by the ignorance of the masses, the duplicity of the leaders, and the power of the masters. Along this road secrecy is one of the watchwords, and one after another secret movements have collapsed through betrayal by some of those taking part.

There was one secret movement, however, nearly 100 years ago, which, from one point of view, worked out in an ideal manner until it came to the final plunge—and then its very secrecy sealed its doom. This was the Barbès insurrection in France in 1839. So well was the secret kept that the main body of those taking part knew neither the leaders nor the plan of action until the day appointed for the rising, and when the leaders turned up nobody recognised them and squabbles and disorganisation resulted.

The opportunist brings his panaceas on to the historical stage then bows and vanishes, only to return again with a fresh one or an old one in a new dress. One by one these panaceas fail to accomplish their purpose and are cast aside.

The question arises, how is it that people are so ready to try false paths when the real remedy for their troubles is so simple and lies ready to hand ? There are two principal reasons. First, leadership offers rich prizes to those who covet an easy life, and inflates the vanity of those who seek popular applause. Secondly, when someone offers to do the work and relieve others of the thinking and worrying those others are inclined to support the saviour.

Many of those who profess a desire for a change in the social system and contend that they aim at the same object as we do, yet fall out with us for our methods as being either “unpractical” or “too long.”

We urge that the workers must first understand before they act—understand Socialism before any attempt is made to introduce it.

The difference in method leads to a fundamental difference in propaganda We are all the time engaged in disseminating knowledge of society, in the past and present, among our fellow workers, whilst the opportunists are a great part of the time engaged in disseminating rallying cries, enthusiastic phrases, and heaping abuse upon great men who occasionally play them false.

The results of the opportunists’ methods are plain to be seen by those who care to study history. The Co-operative, the Labour Party, the Industrial Unionist Movement, and the Communist Movement, to name only four, are illustrations to the point. The first two have been netted by the Capitalists, the second is dead, and the third is truly “evolutionary”—in a state of constant change !

The “evolution” of the Reformists becomes more interesting as time passes. After years spent impressing upon the workers the necessity of achieving “something now” and not worrying about “the dim and distant future,” events seem to be bringing the I.L.P. up with a jerk, if the editorial columns of the “New Leader” are anything to go by.

The Editorial of 12th February, commenting on Snowden’s recent speech, runs as follows :—

“Sir John Simon, in his reply, narrowed down our case to ‘gas and water Socialism.’ To gas and water one may add electricity and even, as Mr. Churchill once proposed, the railways. Such changes, conceived in this spirit, would leave the fabric of Capitalism intact, and even the nationalisation of the land would be no more than the last blow at Feudalism.” (Italics ours.)

Well! Well ! So all the pother was simply about seeing the back seams of feudalism’s breeches !

The step by step “evolutionary” method of reaching Socialism has not been a success. Brailsford already made that admission by inference in an article entitled “Socialism in our Generation” in the “New Leader” on January 1st, 1926. The article opens up with the suggestion that the I.L.P. are turning over a new leaf. The opening is so interesting that we cannot refrain from quoting it at length :—

“From its earliest days the Socialist movement has drafted its programme in two chapters. In the first it set out demands attainable here and now. In the second it states its ultimate aim. The first chapter varied, as time went on, with the circumstances of each country : sometimes stress was laid on the Parliamentary vote ; sometimes on the Eight Hours’ Day ; or, again, upon reforms in education and housing, or on the needs of the unemployed. This was the “practical” minimum programme. The second chapter was much less modest: it called for nothing less than the ending of the capitalist system, and the public ownership of all the means of production and distribution.

There were good reasons for this division. Every Labour movement grew as it showed tangible results. It had to interest men and women who cared nothing for theories and Utopias. It could not ignore the needs and wrongs of the moment for the sake of the distant transformation. But the method has its evils : when once you have separated the two chapters it is not easy to bring them together again. You draw a line, you print your Chapter II, in bold capital letters, and straightway you have jumped from the humdrum world of Parliamentary debates and general elections into the millennium. As the pioneers passed away and the second generation of experienced Parliamentarians took their place, the consequences became everywhere apparent. More and more it is the detail of the “practical” programme which absorbs us ; the faith in a hazy, Utopia survives, but the will to realise it is no longer the driving force. Strangers who watch our movement often liken it to a “religion.” The analogy is dangerously true. We have our week-day creed and our Sunday visions. We make ourselves at home in the City of Destruction, and from time to time, with warm hearts, and uplifted eyes, we sing of the New Jerusalem.”

Surely the above is a damaging admission from the side of the “practical” men if ever there was one ! While picking the withering flowers they have forgotten the object they set out to seek. Verily out of their own mouths are they convicted !

If they did but forget the object it were bad enough, but they did worse and it is their leaders who furnish us with the information.

We have already had occasion to comment upon the South African Labour Party, but a little further comment will do no harm, and will illustrate how the “practical” programme of Labour Parties leads them to take action diametrically opposed to the interests of the workers.

“The Bill which enforces the “colour bar” in all the industries of South Africa has passed its third reading in the Lower House. It applies to Indians and to Kaffirs, though not to half-castes. It reserves to men of the white races every skilled or semi-skilled trade, and in effect forbids a native to manage a machine. His place henceforth is fixed by law as a mere labourer. He may contrive to educate himself, but the law forbids him to use his sharpened intelligence in the preserves of the white man. 

This Bill, one of the most inhuman in the records of the white race, represents the joint policy of the more Conservative Boers and the South African Labour Party. It aims at preserving the wage standards of white labour against native and Indian competition. (New Leader, 12/2/26.)

Such is the way of the opportunist. To the class conscious Revolutionist the workers of the world are one as against the International Capitalist Class, whatever be the race, the colour, or the creed.

The many workers who support the opportunist parties must eventually come to the conclusion that short cuts and “practical” programmes are worthless. If they would emancipate themselves from the present sordid struggle for bread then they must accept and struggle for the Socialist solution to their troubles, which involves the avoidance of both the shambles and the sheepfold.