"We Must Produce Cheaper". (1918)

From the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

The New "Patriotic" Stunt.

To-day, the subject of greatest interest and importance to our masters, next to the successful prosecution of the war, is how to increase production—how to reach the maximum of wealth output with the smallest possible expenditure in wages.

Much has been done during the war, by dilution and the abolition of privileges, toward this end, but the capitalist looks forward to the piping times of peace, when the supply of labour-power will exceed the demand, for a fuller realisation of his avaricious dreams.

The question as to how it will affect the workers does not concern him ; first, because he is a capitalist and therefore only interested in profits, and secondly because he keeps an army of unscrupulous journalists whose business it is to persuade the workers that whatever is beneficial to the class that own the means of wealth production, must be beneficial to society as a whole, and therefore to the working class.

To prove, however, that an increase in production, side by side with a reduced wages bill, will improve conditions for the working class, would seem an impossible task; nevertheless, the economic quack, relying on the workers' ignorance of economics, proceeds to demonstrate it. One writer who advocates shorter hours of labour as a means to increased production says that after the war—

"We shall need the greatest possible output and the most economical production, consistent with health, to enable us to get the most trade and re-establish our position and profitably employ all our people."

Other writers lay even greater stress on the last suggestion, claiming that industry is run by the capitalists as much to give employment as to obtain profits. Hence we find an economic quack measuring a capitalist's usefulness to society by the number of "hands" he employs.

It is perfectly true that the capitalists of every concern have a keen desire to employ more and more workers, but there is a proviso—markets must be assured in order that the surplus-value produced by the additional workers can be realised in profits on the same scale. For that reason only, and only in that sense, is the capitalist interested in giving employment to the workers (ignoring, of course, for the moment, his inborn antipathy to work himself). He employs the workers when by doing so he obtains profits. In the past, when new machines and methods have enabled him to increase output while at the same time reducing the number of his workers, he has never objected on the score that unemployment would be intensified. Neither has he hesitated to advertise extensively among the nations of the earth for workers with which to flood the labour market, long before the wage-slaves who were "his own countrymen" were absorbed. In short, the record of the capitalist class speaks for itself. Ever since the days when our peasant forefathers were driven off the land in order that they might be available for the forerunners of the modern capitalists in the towns, up to the present day, it has been one of the chief concerns of our masters to have a substantial margin of unemployed, and for two reasons. First, to keep down wages, and second, to be called upon in case of a sudden expansion in trade.

There is another side to the question, however. The capitalists of every land want "the greatest possible output, the most economical production, and the most trade." They know that the world market is limited, that within a certain period, say one year, the world's population can only absorb a limited amount of wealth, and that goods or wealth produced beyond this amount will be left on the owners' hands. The same applies to those goods whose owners, for some reason, fail to place them on the market at the prices ruling there. Hence the need for the most economical production, in other words, for the maximum of labour-power in exchange for a minimum wage. "Consistent with health" is capitalist irony, because the workers' health is never studied except for the purpose of increasing their productive power.

The other side peeps out in the sentence "to enable us to get the most trade." The workers of each country must submit to 'the most economical production" in order to assure to their masters "the most trade." Thus they enter into a new form of warfare against the workers of other countries in the interests of their masters. And when the capitalists of one nation succeed in obtaining the "most trade," and their workers demand higher wages, because the masters can afford to pay them, these same masters reward them with the sack, and entice the workers of other lands to fill their jobs. Where, then, do the workers of the world come in, whether they win for their masters markets or wars?

The capitalist group of every nation will point to their own prosperity as evidence that employment is good, when they deem it necessary to gloss over the unemployed army—that instrument of coercion against their workers. They boast that there is no sentiment in business, and an unemployed army is necessary to their business. In the past they have—except in a few rare instances, chiefly occupational—always been blessed with a solid margin; the future is full of promise for them, and we can rely on them to make the most of their opportunities in order to coerce the workers into the economic war.

Already in the mad race for markets we are told that—

"The old slack methods have given way to something approaching American hustle. Supervision is more strict, rest times have been reduced, furnaces are bigger and hotter, machines run faster, tools and appliances are heavier and need more strength and nerve for their manipulation, shops are more noisy and crowded, dusty and hot, materials are harder to work, labour is more fatiguing and hazardous."

But, like everything parasitic, the capitalist is insatiable. The concerns in which his capital is invested must either beat their competitors in the race for cheaper production or go under. And concerns do go under almost daily, their share of the market being taken up by their competitors, while the workers they have employed swell the unemployed army until they can be "profitably employed" by other capitalists.

Capitalist governments have for years made promises to deal with unemployment—they have even made pretence of doing something—but the evil has grown. One government gave us Labour Exchange—to find jobs for the unemployed, they said —but all these institutions did was to save the capitalist time and money in his search for the workers he needed. The latest suggestion is that hours of labour should be reduced, but those who advance it claim that a reduction in hours would result in greater production. Coming from those who plead that the workers should be more fully employed, this suggestion is a curiosity in logic.

But the richest contribution to the whole discussion has been made by the "Committee on Adult Education." They say:

"Industry exists for man, and not man for industry. The world seems to have been carried on in the opposite principle, and it will be no easy task to alter it."

Rich in irony is this utterance when we get behind the camouflage of assumed innocence, for the committee know that industry is run for their class, that they, as a class, own the nature-given material of the earth, that the dispossessed workers of the world, owning nothing but their energy, are forced by hunger to sell even that as a commodity. They know that the factory with its raw material and machinery absorbs the commodity labour-power, and out of the union comes surplus-value to be realised in profits. To them the working-class is god-given—a class to work for them while they luxuriate in idleness.

Industry will only exist for man when man controls industry, To-day the workers cannot control industry because the means of wealth-production are owned by the capitalist class, and their ownership is defended, through their Parliament, by armed forces.

Until the working-class control industry, industry will exist for the capitalist class, as it exists to-day. And the working-class can only control industry when they own the means of wealth-production. Ownership of the means of wealth-production is the basis of capitalist domination; their ownership, however, is maintained politically, and until their political power is broken, or acquired by the working-class, the latter cannot take possession of the means of wealth-production. Before industry—or production and distribution—can exist for man, therefore, the working-class must organise as a Socialist Party; second, secure control of the political machine; third, take possession of the means of wealth-production; and fourth, establish society on a Socialist basis by arranging for the democratic control of production and distribution by the whole of the people.

F. Foan

Editorial: By Request. (1918)

Editorial from the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received copies of letters that have passed between the Socialist Labour Press, of 50, Renfrew Street, Glasgow, and Mr. G. N. Barnes on the subject of the closing down of that press, and have been asked for some comment on the matter.

Briefly, the facts are as follows. Over three months ago the police raided the premises of the Socialist Labour Press, dismantled the machinery, confiscated necessary parts of it, and so effectually prevented the carrying on of the firm’s printing business, the chief part of which was the printing of the “Socialist.”

After protests in certain official quarters, Mr. Barnes was written to. His two replies show first an ignorance of the case, and second, inaccurate information resulting from his inquiries. On these points the S.L.P. answers completely disprove Barnes’ assertions that the “identity had been concealed” of the persons responsible for certain publications printed by the Socialist Labour Press. Two out of the three men had been prosecuted, though in one case the prosecution was dropped, while the police had paid visits to the house and held interviews with the third person. Such inaccuracies and mis-statements are common with Ministers and officials, and simply show that Barnes is no exception to the rule.

There is, however, one assumption upon which both Mr. Barnes and the S.L.P. agree. This is the notion that government by a ruling class can be other than “despotic” in dealing with its slaves. Thus Mr. Barnes in his first letter says: —

  I must say that your statement as to a despotic Government preventing free expression of opinion on the part of working-class movements doesn't carry conviction.

And in the second letter he states:—

  There is no question of the Government preventing free expression of opinion on the part of working-class movements
  The Government merely took the only course open to it to check the activities of persons who were working against the interests of the Nation.

In the covering letter accompanying the copies of the correspondence, the secretary of the S.L.P. states:—

  Quite apart from the fact that we are at a great disadvantage, and suffering considerable loss . . . the Principle of a Free Press is at stake.

That Mr. Barnes should take up the attitude given above is quite understandable. He is a member of the working class who has been given a position and a salary to mislead and deceive the workers with the stale lies about “Freedom,” “Democracy,” “Liberty,” and the rest.

But the S.L.P. claims to be clear and sound in its knowledge of the slave position of the working class. Anyone armed with this knowledge would easily understand that the slaves of society are completely under the control of the master class, whose rule is only modified by the needs of the system as it develops and the benefit to be derived from a smooth working of production, often obtained by giving certain concessions to deluded workers. But the ruling class have the decision in their hands whenever they fancy their interests will be served by any particular action.

“Freedom of Speech,” “Free Press,” “Freedom of Assembly,” etc., are hypocritical phrases successfully used to muddle working-class minds. Under capitalism there is not, nor has there ever been, any of these things.

Before the war meetings could only beheld either by direct permission or on the sufferance of the police. Whenever the authorities, or even subordinate officials, wished, the meetings were stopped, and the Commissioner of Police could legally refuse to give any reason for his action. Printers’ offices could be, and were, raided and publications suppressed at the discretion of the authorities. After the raid other action—such as prosecution on some legal point—might be taken, but this was not necessary, and often was not done.

When the war started the passing of the Defence of the Realm Act brought these powers to a focus and enabled action to be taken rapidly and without the formalities that had been usual in certain cases. The so-called great English charter of personal liberty—the Habeas Corpus Act—is overridden by it, and scores of men and women have been arrested, thrown into jail and left there, without trial and even without any charge being preferred against them, and inquiries are met with the curt answer —when one is given—that it is under D.O.R.A. Often they will refuse to state under which regulation even the action is being taken.

This vast engine of power is at the disposal not only of the Government and Ministers, but also of a large number of lesser officials who can use it in any case they wish.

With this simple glaring fact before us, how shallow and foolish it sounds to claim that there is any “Principle of a Free Press” or “Freedom of Speech ” for the wage-slaves! They have them not and never have had. The S.L.P. claim to the contrary gives large support to the mouth-pieces of the master class—from G. N. Barnes and Sam Gompers to the “Daily Mail” and “Daily News”— that we are a “Free People” fighting to make the world “Safe for Democracy.”

The reasons for this misunderstanding is to be found in the ignorance and incorrect conception of the S.L.P. in the matters of political and economic power and organisation. They have glorified the latter and belittled the former in spite of the facts around them.

Never have, modern wage slaves been so favourably placed for fighting by economic methods as during this war. The demand for labour-power has for exceeded the available supply; the orders given firms have been extremely urgent, and in most cases prices have been whatever the capitalists liked to ask. With no unemployed army outside the factory gates, and therefore no blacklegs available, the “economic power” of the masters has been reduced to its lowest limits under the system, yet they have won every battle they decided to fight.

The Clyde engineers were beaten and their leaders deported. The Barrow engineers were defeated. The Coventry engineers and the air-craft workers lost their struggle. The more general strike of the engineers throughout the country was a failure. The Clyde shipwrights were driven back in about a week, and the London air-craft strike failed to save Rock, the shop-steward.

How came the masters to win so easily under conditions so vastly favourable to the workers? By their “economic power” or “organisation” ? No! It was by their control of POLITICAL POWER, and that alone, that they were able to dictate to their slaves the terms: “Either work on our conditions or face death in the firing line.” It was by their control of the political machinery that they extended and consolidated their power in the form of D.O.R.A.

While the masters have this control it is quite misleading to urge the workers to fight for the “Principle of a Free Press” or “Freedom of Speech.” No such principles exist under this system.

The only way to obtain these “Freedoms” is the Socialist way. That is by organising to take control of the political powers for the purpose of entering into possession of the means of life—the land and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

In this greatest of all class struggles the workers are quite correct in seizing every vantage point and every opportunity for spreading their propaganda and organisation; but they will be utterly mistaken and will only add to their own confusion by confounding these necessary detail struggles with the central object of the battle, or raising them into “Principles” that have no existence in reality.

It is above all necessary to keep clear the great central fact that the workers are wage-slaves to the master class, that therefore they are existing in slave conditions, and that they will only obtain their freedom by capturing political power for the purpose of abolishing their slavery.

Society and Morals. Part XI. Morals and Socialism. (1918)

From the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part X.

Part XI. Morals and Socialism

The need for the efficient organisation of the Socialist movement has enforced, as a part of its moral principles, a stern "party discipline." Faced by innumerable obstacles, surrounded and attacked by every agency of the ruling class, the butt of misrepresentation, the hunting-ground of the would-be demagogue, self-seeking "leader" and agent provocateur, the revolutionary organisation can only maintain its integrity unsullied and its vitality unweakened by being democratic in constitution, definite in principles, self-critical, and by the rigorous exclusion of non-revolutionary elements. The Socialist must be loyal to his party organisation and vigorous in its defence. He holds as despicable traitors those who, while affirming their adherence to Socialist principles by mouth, deny those principles by acting in contradiction to their implications.

Owing to the cosmopolitan nature of capitalism, the economic and social status of the workers is fundamentally the same the world over. They have the same problems to face in every country, like interests to satisfy, and a common enemy to combat. Evidently, therefore, proletarian revolutionary morality is of international application.

This "Internationalism" of the Socialist movement is in direct antagonism to that national sentiment which is fostered by the bourgeoisie under the name of "patriotism." Despite cosmopolitan finance, the growth of world trade, and the fact that the capitalist class is internationally solid when faced with the opposition of the proletariat, the politics of the bourgeoisie have always been predominantly "national" in character. This has been so because, during the evolution of the bourgeoisie, their class power became consolidated into numerous national governments which could not expand in power territorially for the purpose of enabling the acquisition of further economic advantages and resources without sooner or later coming into conflict. With the rise of Imperialism this "national antagonism" became exceedingly acute and, as we have seen, "patriotism" received a still greater moral significance by reason of its being the prime mental agent in the satisfaction of the imperialist needs of the capitalist class.

But the class-conscious worker sees that "nationalism" is a snare in the path towards emancipation. Not only does it serve to cloud the class issue within the nation, but it also hinders the workers of the world from recognising and acting up to their unity of interest. To the Socialist, therefore, national pride, like racial aloofness, is a contemptible and pernicious prejudice which it is highly immoral for any Socialist to uphold or give way to.

What significance has the "fatherland" or the "glory of Empire" for the wage-slave whose only guarantee of livelihood rests on his ability to sell his labour-power ? None! save that it receives from political superstitions inculcated and carefully nurtured by agents of the dominant class. "Workers of all lands unite!" will inevitably be the watchword of the latter-day revolutionary.

For that organ of oppression and of capitalist protection and attack—militarism—together with closely-allied phenomenon—"war"'—through which are sacrificed millions of workers on the altar of Profit, the Socialist cannot possibly have anything but the liveliest hatred. He never fails to unveil their hideous reality to his fellow-workers. Nevertheless, being a stern realist, he does not allow himself to be led into the delusion, so fervently held to by idealistic pacifists, that the use of force itself is futile and unjustifiable. The use of force is never an end in itself but always a means to an end. History shows that, whilst force has frequently served as a means of subjection and a preserver of enslavement, it has also been indispensable to any movement of revolt on the part of the oppressed.

"Strife" is likewise considered by many so-called "advanced thinkers" to be in itself immoral, and by these the Socialist doctrine of the class-war is discredited and disliked. As we have seen, however, Socialist principles are not deductions from any "absolute ideals," but have been arrived at by a study of the actual evolution of human society ; and such a study shows that class-struggles have been, and that inevitably, the medium of social progress. The proletarian revolutionary movement, therefore, clearly recognises the necessity of a consciously organised struggle against the forces of opposition and reaction, together with the vital importance of acquiring that social and political power by the use of which alone it can institute social control of the means of life.

Conclusion and Summary.

With the emancipation of the workers achieved through economic socialisation human society will enter upon a new phase of its existence. With the forces of production democratically used by and for society, economic exploitation will become impossible and class distinctions a thing of the past. Then the prevailing ethical code will no longer represent, as it has done for so many centuries, the interests merely of a minority of the community. As in the far back savage and barbaric communism the social organism will be a harmonious structure in which the welfare of each and every member is conditional upon the well-being of the society as a whole.

But whereas the morality of tribal society was narrow because the groups were small and exclusive, the communism of the future will be embracing, and probably as wide as the human race itself. Thus the "brotherhood of man," often dreamt about but never achieved, will become a living reality. Grounded upon the world-wide inter-dependence of economic processes, such a ''world'' society will leave as little room for national and racial antagonisms as for those of class.

Moreover the elaborate political machinery which to-day is necessary to enforce the most vital tenets of the capitalistic code will be rendered functionless and obsolete, because the incentive to act in a manner menacing to the social system will have diminished to insignificance. Free from drudgery and emancipated from the miseries or even possibility of material poverty, having access to every avenue of knowledge and art, the men and women of the future will also witness the reconciliation between egoism and altruism, because through economic democracy the merging of the interests of the individual in that of the whole community will have been for the first time rendered completely possible.

The writer has in this series of essays attempted to give a brief account of the changes which have taken place in human society with especial emphasis upon the co-relative changes in the opinions of men as to which modes of conduct and principles of living were good and which were bad in the moral sense. In thus epitomising the results arrived at by the wide researches of many historians and sociologists, many points, even important ones, have necessarily been omitted. The outstanding features of each epoch have alone been dealt with. But as an introduction to an immense subject, rendered in simple language, to members of the working class, its purpose will have been served if it succeeds in dissipating, even in a slight degree, those superstitions prevalent in the minds of so many workers, that what is "right or wrong" always has been and always will be, and that social phenomena, such as the division into classes and the wages system are anything more than temporary and relatively short-lived products of changes in the material conditions under which men have lived.

This last point is important, for a wider appreciation of the truth of the "materialist conception of history" is a necessary factor in achieving that supreme aim towards which the writer has made this humble contribution —the emancipation of the proletariat.

Let us now, in conclusion, recall to the reader's mind some of the essential facts set forth in this rather disconnected series of essays. First, the nature of morality was discussed, and it was seen to consist of certain opinions regarding conduct and the principles which underlie it. These opinions are forced upon men by the social life which they lead. The impulse to moral activity was seen to be based upon certain instinctive sociable feelings which antedate the existence of man himself, and are to be found among all the higher animals which live in organised communities. Then it was shown that the evolution of the artificial appliances and processes which, among animals, man alone has been able to use in maintaining existence, is the root cause of the changes in the form of his social aggregations.

Following these changes in greater detail from the rudest organisations of savagery to the capitalist civilisation of our own day it was seen that, along with changing needs and interests, went a corresponding development in outlook, in men's notions of good and evil, right and wrong. Parricide, cannibalism, incest, and group-marriage, once normal and moral, through the pressure of economic change became immoral. Maternal "law" makes way for the dominance of the patriarch. Polygamy, then normal, is later superseded by monogamy. Chattel slavery becomes the basis of society, and its many horrors are upheld by the moral law until, at a later date, having become obsolete, it is declared anathema. Serfdom passes through the same phases.

Wage-labour and "free contract" become lauded to the skies, and along with the "rights of capital''' are declared the only just and moral basis of society. Competition is now the "life of industry," and free trade, according to the cant of Liberalism, the ''hope of humanity." Imperialism dashes this hope to the ground and substitutes the patriot's answer to the call of empire as the virtue par excellence. Only by the clear-eyed workers for the proletarian revolution is the veil torn from these hypocritical shibboleths revealing naked the profit-hunger of capital, of the bourgeois interests.

Spurning the ideals, the threadbare theories and canting morality of decadent capitalism, the Socialist formulates his own code of morality upon those principles and ideals which flow from the logic of Marxism. Socialist morality is revolutionary because its ideal is the overthrow of bourgeois society and the institution of communism; it is critical because it ruthlessly analyses all the manifold institutions, opinions and motives supported by and themselves in turn supporting existing society ; it is scientific because based upon the findings of sociology ; it is a fighting morality because it promotes the class-war and provides the discipline and fervour necessary for the revolutionary struggle; it is proletarian because the Socialist movement draws its vitality and strength from the working class who, alone in modern society, are fitted by their mode and condition of life to accept the Socialist Ideal.

R. W. Housley

The End.

Mr. Hughes Day By Day. (1918)

From the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Glasgow on Wednesday. In Britain, before the war, conditions were sordid and depressing — millions on the verge of starvation, living on the brink of a dreadful abyss.

At Aberdeen on Thursday. In Britain, before the war, the spark of divine fire had been choked by the ashes of prosperity.

"Daily News," 2.9.1918.

Blogger's Note:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the Mr. Hughes quoted above was the Australian Prime Minister, Billy Hughes, who was in Britain at the time this issue of the Standard was produced. There was no comparable British politician (or military figure, for that matter) with the surname  of Hughes in this period who could have been quoted in the Socialist Standard , with the understanding that the readership would know who it was simply by mentioning him by his surname. And what with him speaking in Glasgow and in Aberdeen on consecutive nights it suggests that Mr. Hughes was undertaking a national speaking tour. Socialist Standard readers would have had a particular interest in Hughes because he was an Australian variant of the 'Labour Fakir', though, by 1918, he was no longer faking it.

The Little Tambourine. (1918)

Party News from the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

We publish below our fourth list of subscribers to our £1,000 Fund. Did we start off with too much of a sprint, or how is it that we have got winded before a quarter of the distance has been covered. When some four months ago the mantle of Old Moore dropped upon our shoulders, we showed that certain events looming in the distance made very urgent a fighting fund. Our prophecy seems now nearer fulfilment than even we expected then, yet our fund falls a long way short of what we asked for. We earnestly and hopefully appeal to all the comrades and readers of/ this paper to do all that is required to reach the total we have aimed at, and even to double it, while there is yet time.

Mr. Long says our heroes died for German Colonies. (1918)

From the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been frequently told by those in authority over us that this war is not a war of conquest, but a war of right against might in order to make the world safe for democracy. This being so one is at a loss to understand why Mr. Walter Long, when addressing the Colonial Pressmen on the subject of the German Colonies, should have delivered himself of these words:

  I am here to-night to say that if these territories are returned to Germany the sacrifice of our heroes will have been made in vain. The spirits of those men will come from their graves and rebuke you if the Pen is so cowardly as to give back what the Sword has won.— “Daily News,” Sept. 27th, 1918.

After all is said and done it would appear to be a case of ‘‘Let him take who has the power and let him keep who can.” In other words, the endorsement of the gospel of might.

S. T.

By The Way. (1918)

The By The Way column from the November 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Lloyd George in his Manchester speech once again crossed the t’s and dotted the i’s of the Socialist propagandist. It was in dealing with the lessons of the war that the Prime Minister told his hearers that “the State must take a more constant and more intelligent interest in the health and fitness of the people.” Why this interest was to be manifested was in order to maintain the Empire, and because the war and the need for fighters had shown what a pitiable caricature capitalist society had reduced its wage slaves to. The speaker went on to say— '

I asked the Minister of National Service how many more men could we have put into the fighting ranks if the health of this country had been properly looked after. I staggered at the reply. It was a considered reply. It was, “At least one million.” . . .  Here we are combing out the essential industries . . . and yet you had a million men who, if the State had taken proper care of the fitness of the people, would have been available for the war. . . . I solemnly warn my fellow-countrymen that you cannot maintain an A1 Empire with a C3 population. Unless this lesson is learned war is vain.—“Daily News,” Sept. 13th, 1918.

Now, I submit that this is a pretty strong indictment of capitalism. Strange, is it not, that it should require a world war to bring home to our rulers the truth of our contention of the indifference, even to the point of callousness, in the treatment meted out to the workers in the piping times of peace by the master class? Mate, it’s up to you! Is capitalism worth fighting for? Think it over!

* * *

Next our glib-tongued orator turned his attention to unpacking a box of red herrings, termed in these days reconstruction. The question of housing reform was an essential feature in improving the health of the people; healthier conditions of workshops, and wages which will sustain life in full vigour; more attention to be paid to the schools, encouragement of production and national assistance: all these things are offered as tempting baits to the unwary to lure them into further support of capitalist apologists. Coming to close grips with this specious thing, he adds—

  Let us have it when the nation is riding the chariot of a high purpose ere it comes down to the dusty road. That is the time to reconstruct, that is the time to build —when there is the spirit of fraternity throughout the land, when there is no longer rich and poor, one party or other, but one people, one spirit, one purpose, one soul—to lift our native land, not merely above the menace of a foreign foe, but above the wretchedness, the squalor, the horror, the misery which so many men and women and children who live on the hearthstones of this old land have been enduring. I have been amongst the people and I know it, and I want to see this thing righted after the war.

All these things are offered to the credulous if they will but bow down and worship him. But let us pause for a moment and ask if he will really “deliver the goods.” What of the promises made years ago? What of the land campaign, the 1909 budget, the easier and pleasanter road, the road through fields of waving corn, and the benefits to be conferred on long-suffering humanity by the insurance act. Long years of office and a total inability to deliver the goods in the past emboldens me to say that these fine words are but empty vapourings.

* * *

In these days when shortage of shipping is a continual cry, the following announcement is illuminating,—from South Africa this time—

  A boat arrived here the other day with motors and racehorses for Solly Joel, but no mails or anything of any use to the general community. No ships can be found for wheat, wool, hides, and a thousand and one things that are wanted at home in England, but a ship can be easily spared for Solly Joel's racehorses, motors, etc.—“Daily News,” Aug. 28th, 1918.

Cheerful news this for those who “spot” winners and “back” horses. But what matters it for those who lack the necessaries of life so long as we maintain this glorious form of sport ?

* * *

More business ability! Recently Mr. J. M. Hogge, M.P., was speaking at Liverpool, where he read the following letter received by a discharged soldier—

   The Minister of Pensions has decided to continue your pension at the rate of 22s. 9d. a week from July 31,1918, till January 31,1919, then at the rate of 19s 6d. for life, at the expiration of which you will again be medically examined with a view to consideration of your claim for further pension.

Funny, isn’t it? Evidently the age of miracles is not yet passed.

* * *

Whilst so many people are busily employed with the mote in the German’s eye regardless of the beam in their own it is interesting to read President Wilson’s Proclamation condemning manifestations of the mob spirit. I read:

  There have been many lynchings, and every one of them has been a blow at the heart of ordered law and humane justice.
  No man who loves America, no man who really cares for her fame and honour and character, or who is truly loyal to her institutions, can justify mob action while the courts of justice are open and the Governments of the States and nations are ready to do their duty.
  We are at this very moment fighting lawless passion. Germany has outlawed herself among the nations because she has disregarded the sacred obligations of law and has made lynchers of her armies. Lynchers emulate her disgraceful example.
   I say plainly that every American who takes part in the action of a mob, or who gives it any sort of countenance, is no son of this great democracy, but its betrayer. “Star,” Sept. 3rd, 1918.

In this “land of the free” we are also acquainted with the mob spirit. One has only to call to mind recent happenings at Plumstead Common and Abbey Wood. And we have no recollection of seeing any condemnation of such tactics by those who are alleged to be the custodians of the rights of small nations.

The Scout.