Obituary: Billy Iles (1966)

Obituary from the February 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Billy Iles

In December a group of members attended a crematorium in Guildford, Surrey, to say a last and sad farewell to an old comrade, O. C. Iles, who had been ill for some time with cancer.

Billy Iles, as he was always known to us, joined the Party in 1911 and was active for years in London as a writer, speaker and doing the routine work at Head Office, until his work finally took him to Liverpool.

He was called up during the First World War but refused to join the army. He managed to keep out of trouble during the war, although he never left London, by taking various jobs on night work at Covent Garden, as a milkman, and the like. He lodged for a time with a woman member, Mrs. Chilton, along with other members "on the run"; later with another member in a flat over Head Office until the war was over. In those days we used to collect the Socialist Standard in loose sheets from the printer and folded them ourselves. Billy Iles made many trips to the printer for this purpose and spent many nights folding so that the "S.S." could be out on time.

After the war times were somewhat turbulent and meetings were inclined to be noisy. On one Bank Holiday Billy cycled all night up to Hanley in the Potteries, to hold a meeting during the coal strike in 1921.

During the twenties he was secretary to the Editorial Committee and wrote articles over the initials O.C.I.

Owing to the fact that he lived out of London we did not see much of him during late years, but his optimism and steadfast support continued all through the years and he sent many useful organisational suggestions to Head Office.

The present writer will always remember Billy as a lively and humorous companion on many cycling trips in years gone by.

His illness was a heavy burden to his wife as he only went into hospital during his last few days. To his wife, daughter and brother we send our sincere sympathy.

And so has passed away another of the diminishing group of members, who now only number a handful, who actively pressed forward the Party's principles before and during the years of the First World War.

Gilmac.

100 Years of Reforms (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are indebted to “The Economist” December 30th, 1944, for the opportunity we are taking of quoting, somewhat more fully than is customary with quotations. The article which appeared in the above issue was called “Condition of the People.” We feel the editor of this shilling weekly (beyond the reading range of the average worker), will not begrudge us the liberty we are taking of so freely quoting from its columns. Our plea, in justification, being to draw attention to their review, their comments.

Now for the quotations with our few brief comments by the way.

“A hundred years ago a young and ardent revolutionary, Friedrich Engels, wrote a book on ‘The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844.’ In the closing days of this year, it seems appropriate to attempt a review, however sketchy, of working class conditions in 1944…..

Indeed, to draw any detailed comparison between conditions in 1844 and 1944 would be a waste of time, since there can be no comparison between two incomparables. When Engels wrote his book the total population of the British Isles was less than 20 millions. People lived and worked under primitive barbarous conditions, herded together like cattle in their tenements, they were illiterate, half starved, filthy and diseased. The only relaxations were liquor, horse play and sex. Typhus and the yellow fever spread through the infested dwellings, but the toll of life was no matter because workers were plentiful and cheap.

“. . . . The infantile mortality rate was as high as 155 per thousand . . the average expectation of life in the labouring class in Liverpool was only 15 years. Not for nothing were the 1840’s known as the hungry forties. . . . There are still dark satanic mills in Lancashire and the West Riding. London still has its East End, Glasgow its Gorbals, and Manchester its Ancoats.”

Just one comment may be made here : —

Despite the amenities of life which the more fortunate workers of our day were able, before the war, to experience compared with a hundred years ago, the war years, notwithstanding their fuller employment and purchasing potentialities, find the workers, nevertheless thwarted in a variety of ways, from enjoying a higher standard of living. A few obvious factors may be mentioned; the rationing and coupon system (restricting purchases to bare necessities), black marketing racketeers, which the Government are incapable of controlling, theirs being an unconventional way of buying and selling, with the profit motive the one and only objective —i.e., Capitalism. The “black market” therefore, rules on the luxury or “extra comforts” line.

On top of all this is the aggravated misery of average home life occasioned by the bomb, black out, plus overcrowding which housing shortage causes.

Astutely, the ruling class have also fostered, on a gigantic scale, “national savings,” thereby encouraging the workers to “deny for the sweet by and by.”

The “Economist” continues : —

“But whatever the improvement in health and nutrition, the problem of the rich and the poor, the inequalities of wealth have not been eliminated. Disraeli’s ‘Two Nations,’ still exist. The most recent estimate of the distribution of property, that of Mr. H. Campion, shows that in 1936, out of a total of 16-17 thousand millions of private property …. approximately 85 per cent. was held by 1.8 million persons, or 7 per cent. of the total adult population. Moreover, three quarters of the adult population possessed less than £100 worth of property and 1.5 per cent. of the adult population had property of £10,000 and over. These estimates show that whatever levelling up at the bottom may have taken place and however the relative share of the middle classes in property may have increased, the property structure of Society has not altered fundamentally. (italics ours).

“Mr. R. Titmuss in his “Birth, Poverty and Wealth,” showed that before the War, the infant mortality rate among middle and professional classes was 33 per 1,000 live births, compared with 77 among unskilled labourers.. The class divisions are even sharper in Education. The calculation that only 2 per cent. of the population go to public schools, yet 57 per cent. of the members of Parliament come from the public schools is a striking illustration of the existence of privilege.”

The “Economist” quoting from “Birth, Poverty and Wealth” ibid :—”unsatisfactory sites of homes and villages, insufficient supplies of water, unsatisfactory provision for drainage, grossly inadequate provision for the removal of refuse, widespread absence of decent sanitary conveniences, the persistence of the unspeakably filthy privy midden in many of the mining areas, gross overcrowding and huddling the sexes together in the congested industrial towns and villages, occupation of one roomed houses by large families, groups of lightless and unventilated houses in the older burghs clotted masses of slums in the great cities.”

As the “Economist” says, “the above is not a passage from Engels, it is an extract from the report of a ‘Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland in 1917’ quoted in the 1944 report of the Scottish. Housing advisory Council, with the comment that: ‘these evils have been only slightly mitigated by housebuilding between the two wars.’

“. . . . 40,500 houses in Scotland still have no independent water closets and no sanitary conveniences of any kind. Conditions in Scottish mining areas, according to the recent report on the Scottish coalfields ‘can only be described as deplorable.’ The facts disclosed by the evacuation survey ‘Our Towns’ in 1943 can only be understood against the demoralising background of slum conditions. Public opinion was understandably appalled at the descriptions, unemotionally related by trained social workers, of the dirty and verminous children ridden with scabies and other skin diseases, with disgusting sleeping and feeding habits, of the negligence and fecklessness of their parents. It showed how ignorance and folly were exploited by all kinds of money lenders, clothing clubs, insurance touts, quack doctors and vendors of patent medicines …. they belong to the ‘submerged tenth’ the ranks of the unemployables and the ‘irreducible minimum.’”

The “Economist” concludes on a note of appeal to authority, the Government, to be progressive in a policy of social reform. The “Economist” puts it like this, to quote again from their article : —

“‘Progress’ said Herbert Spencer, ‘is not an accident? It is, or should be, conscious policy, and that policy should be directed towards raising the level of the lowest paid. . . . The year 1945 which should bring the end of the War, will provide an unparalleled opportunity for progress towards these aims . . . reforms in education, health, housing and social insurance . . . family allowances. . . . Whatsoever Government is returned to power it will be committed to this programme of social reform.”

Concluding and summing up the “Economist” says :—

“But to say that there has been progress since 1844 is not enough, the question is whether the advances in social conditions have been commensurate with technical and scientific progress of the nations productive capacity, and the answer, on all the evidence can only be in the negative.” (italics ours).

The above quotations should be a reminder to the working class in their political struggle for emancipation from Capitalist exploitation. A hundred years of reforms, in which Conservative, Liberal and Labour have played their part in advocating, not forgetting the “revolutionary” reforms of the Communist Party.

The Socialist Party again reminds the working class that so long as the means of life remain the private property of the capitalist ruling class, they must remain enslaved to that class. It is the function of the defenders of private property to advocate and institute reforms, thereby prolonging the privilege of the capitalist and their apologetic professional political decoys. Likewise, it is equally necessary for the working class party, the Socialist Party, to be uncompromisingly hostile to, and independent of all other political parties. Because we are convinced of this truth, we are confident, that the workers will join with us in the task we have in hand. That task is the establishment of Socialism—the common ownership of the means of production and distribution—a revolutionary objective, to avert which capitalism will offer every reform under the sun. For such reasons the Socialist Party need not waste time in their advocacy.

Billy Iles

To Our Readers in Reading. (1929)

From the November 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Toilers and moilers who live in Reading you have every reason for getting thoroughly infuriated. It is unfortunate that one of your shopkeepers should have been so mysteriously murdered. It has made your town notorious for a while.

For this notoriety you are primarily indebted to the stunt press, ever ready to seize upon tragedy as a means to increase the profits of their shareholders.

What have you to say, however, to the way in which that respectable sheet, the Times, describes your behaviour when the news came out that Mr. Drew, the actor and suspect, was acquitted? Let us quote their comment : —

“An unbalanced rabble has also treated him as a hero. To observers at a distance, as no doubt to the more judicious citizens of Reading, this exhibition of popular hysteria on so serious an occasion as an inquest on a murder must be thoroughly repugnant.” (Times, Oct. 11th, 1929.)

We regret that it is difficult for us to influence your behaviour—the subscribers to our official organ, the Socialist Standard, being relatively small. In this respect the Times will probably share our complaint, comparing its sales with those of the penny papers. We can call to mind, however, that in August, 1914, a Serbian prince was murdered. The whole of the organised rabble on this occasion tumbled over themselves in their attempts to make heroes and corpses of every mother’s son throughout the world. Several, no doubt, came from Reading.

You were not even consulted about the honour which was then thrust upon you.

The history of that colossal tragedy may well be brought to mind.

That the joyless nature of existence which the working class are forced to lead under Capitalism should make them so regardless of murdering one another in Capitalist wars, is also to be regretted. Such conduct, however, is explained by the conditions of Capitalist society, with its permanent unemployment, its poverty, its monotonous drudgery and insecurity of life. To many workers in 1914 war appeared almost as a relief. It could not, they thought, be much worse than the ills they knew. The part which the Capitalist Press plays in time of war is too well known.

For them—the Times among the number —no act was too low in vile cunning; no scheme too diabolical and murderous to secure the approbation of those whose business it is to send “dumb heroes up the line to death.”

We Socialists in 1914 did not join the Times in its support of that mad, murderous slaughter. We did not ask that the world should be made a graveyard to satisfy the money lusts of the class which the Times champions.

Then as now, we appeal to you to try and catch the inspiration of our message. At present men and women are hardened and embittered by the needless competition for employment which is an essential feature of Capitalism. They are, moreover, when Capitalist interests demand it, perfected in the arts of mass murder. Then, finally, they are denounced by their masters’ Press because they exhibit in 1929 some of the qualities which the Times found so laudable fifteen years ago.

In contrast with the preaching of the Times, consistent only in the respect that it always serves Capitalism, we offer the message that you should organise with us for Socialism, a system of society in which production would be carried on co-operatively in the interests of the whole of society, not for the profit of a few, as it is to-day.

Billy Iles

Politics International, National or Local? (1929)

From the November 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

On which of these three fronts should the revolutionary party of the workers concentrate their efforts ? This question is a common one at Socialist meetings.

Our reply is, that conditions must always determine policy. The Socialist Party can go no faster than the desires and understanding of the workers. Our mission is to extend that understanding along all three fronts. But which should be given preference? comes the follow-up question. The answer is that our activities will be guided by the resources at our disposal. At present these resources are small. There are hardly any districts in London, for example, where Socialists are in sufficient numbers to make possible at present the election of Socialists at Local Council elections.

Certainly if it were now the case that any district or locality displayed a sufficient desire for Socialism and candidates were elected, our propaganda would be broadcasted from a “louder sounding-board.”

This in itself is of considerable value in making more widely known the general principles of Socialism. It is to propaganda on a wide and scattered front—here and abroad, wherever our word penetrates, that our energies are devoted.

Unlike the Communist Party, dominated by the rulers of Russia, we do not think that the workers will rally to our side merely because we call upon then to do so. If in the future history of Socialist Politics one geographical area becomes stronger than another in its desire for Socialism, unlike the Bolshevik policy in Russia, the Socialist policy would depend upon the forces of the Socialist Party in other countries.

The revolutionary workers’ party will not try to go faster than its abilities to travel —those abilities being dependent on understanding of our class and their organisation.

Therefore, at the November Council Elections we shall indulge in no wild outbursts of activity on the fields of local politics. Our policy will be, as in the past, to continue to proclaim the principles of Socialism.

Our ability to do this is determined by the support we receive from those who want Socialism.

Should these lines meet the eye of any of those many friends that we are continually meeting, who tell us, “I have been a Socialist for — years,” whilst still remaining outside the ranks of the Socialist Party—may we once again ask them to consider the desirability of enjoying the unique pleasure—in these days when docile placidity appears to reign supreme—of exercising the courage of their convictions. Activity in a Socialist organisation gives such an opportunity.

Billy Iles

The economics of world poverty (1958)

From the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism spells plenty for the class who own the means of life—the capitalists—and poverty for the working class who produce that plenty. We are told this in The Observer (March 2nd, 1958):—

“One-third of the people of the world go to bed hungry every night.

“One-fourth of the population of the earth earns less than one dollar a week. This is about four dollars less than per capita expenditure in the United States on alcohol.

“The highest per capita income in Asia is in Japan and that is only $100 a year. The per capita income in the United States is over $1,500 a year.*'

“One-half of the population of the earth lives in Asia and yet they receive only 11 per cent, of the total income of the world.”

"Never before in the history of the world was there so much wealth . . . poverty, education, . . . so little coming to the knowledge of the truth . . . so much power. . . . prepared to be used for the destruction of human life.”

And it was Bishop Fulton J. Sheen of New York who made the above statements to an audience of politicians and administrators at a meeting of national leaders in the ballroom of a Washington hotel, in February last.

Although Bishop Sheen was speaking to a representative gathering of capitalists, it is primarily an indictment of their world economy; its shortcomings and failures. Let us follow the course the arguments take: —

"Our moral duty to aid the under-privileged arises from the fact that we have superfluities and the superfluities of the rich are the necessities of the poor.”

“(The “under-privileged,” the “poor” and the “rich” in this context, refer to the industrially underdeveloped countries; their poor standards of living, compared to those of the highly industrially developed countries.)

"A second reason for our moral duty to aid others is because the earth and the fullness thereof were made by God for all the peoples of the earth and not for the privileged advantage of few.”

This earth, this blessed plot!! made by God! This material universe upon which humans live and crawl, to fly now, many of them, is indeed something to set the imagination soaring, at least to those who have given this universal order more than passing thought.

It is common sense, common knowledge, the outcome of many generations of human experience, how the resources of the earth have been put to human use. It is likewise becoming more widely known that these resources, transformed by the labouring activity of the working class, result in the production and distribution of all those necessities which today make life possible. As to the part which God plays, we are reminded of the chat between a rural rustic and the local vicar:—

"Vicar (stopping to admire a garden): 'Wonderful indeed what God and his brethren can make out of a garden.

"Rural rustic: 4 Ay, yer reverence, but you should have seen this 'ere plot when God 'ad it to 'is self'.”

Bishop Sheen then made the following statement: — 

“ The under-privileged countries need our machinery for their fields, our clothes for their backs, our shoes for their feet and our food for their stomachs.”

In the terminology of capitalist economics what the Bishop is no doubt trying to explain is that exchange relationships between the industrially advanced nation states and the industrially backward ones of the world are not functioning as effectively as Bishop Sheen thinks they should. We were rather expecting, and interested to learn, why? But Bishop Sheen fails us. This is a problem which no doubt is confounding, not only the world’s stock exchanges, but likewise the economic professors of the world, too. As Bishop Sheen puts it—“ so much education . . . so little coming to the knowledge of the truth.” It would certainly seem that the professors have let the capitalists down. Just now America is, industrially, suffering a “stand-still,” though their millions of 'unemployed could be howling busy. As Bishop Sheen goes on to say:—

“ It is their stomachs that are empty; it could be our hearts that are empty.”

But how far do we get discussing empty hearts? It is common knowledge, for example, that the American economy has earmarked many billions of dollars on experimenting with the “ H ” bomb, guided missiles, and so on.

We were half expecting at this point that Bishop Sheen would come out with something more forthright than the following:—

"But governments are not completely inspired by an amor benevolentiae, or the love of others for their own sakes”

This revelation dates somewhat. Consider, for example, the hate let loose in the two world wars, diplomatically engineered by politicians, supported by the churches, inspired by capitalists’ greed for profit and plunder. But Bishop Sheen is not finished yet. He goes

on to point out:

"Foreign aid has many aspects, military, political,’ economic and social. One of these aspects worth examining is the giving of aid in order to combat communism by keeping the under-privileged nations within the orbit of the free world.”

In this respect, however, caution should be observed. In giving such aid it must be remembered, he says, that the Russians can and are doing this—to further communism and if it extends its “slave holding” methods, it will be in the position to give even more than the “free West.” It does not follow, he further suggests, that the powers which give the most to the under-privileged, will be assured of winning their allegiance. Besides, this aid by Russia and the “free West ” there is, he points out: — 

“What might be called a third world power . . . God and prayer! . .. One out of every seven persons in the world is a Muslim. 375 million of them in a world constitutes a great supra national force! ”

Think of all those millions of potential customers, he whispers to his capitalist audience! Now we are really getting to the capitalist heart of the matter: down to the skin and the bone, stomachs withall! Bishop Sheen is now in “full cry” with his sales talk. Cautions may now be discounted; they are superseded by the introduction of this “third power,” the Holy Ghost of the church —considered by Bishop Sheen the “inspiration ” of the “free world.”

Whilst not even attempting to disillusion the Bishop, we should just like to say by way of an aside, that it has been hushed about that the Russian orthodox church played a very significant part in world war two. This took the form of encouraging the Russian armies to resist the German invasion at its crisis. For this the Russian church were promised a more sympathetic consideration [♦] for their future status in the Soviet realm. Likewise, no doubt the Russian elite who top this realm will be correspondingly condescending to the Russian church in their attempts to set an example of respect for the formalities of church traditions. We shall expect to hear that it is now the right thing to attend the services whilst winking the other eye, if it but help to reconcile the Russian masses with their enslaved conditions. After all have not the free West been winking both eyes at their own church with its mumbo jumbo for generations! fobbing the working class off with “pie in the sky” as a consolation for the poverty of their material conditions. This is confirmed by Bishop Sheen when he opines:—

"The Soviets would have the world believe there is only hunger of the belly. One great country which has risen to prosperity because it holds that God has endowed men with certain unalienable rights must recognise that "not by bread alone doth men live.’

What kind of “prosperity” the millions of unemployed in Bishop Sheen’s America may be anticipating, now and in the immediate future, can be better imagined than described. The road up to this “prosperity” for the working class of America, it’s grim industrial struggles with its armed thugs and strike-breaking battalions—outstanding and distinctive features—is one long story of brutal repression, equalled and surpassed only by Russian slave labour and concentration camps of the present era.

To sum up, it would seem that Bishop Sheen has in mind a religious revival as a means of combating communism. If the Russians see things in a similar light than we may expect bibles by the billion, missionaries by the million, air-shipped to the uncharted wastes of Asia, Africa (including Timbuctoo, too). Bibles or boots, missionaries or machines, Gods or goods, the material needs of the industrially undeveloped countries and their toiling and impoverished millions will remain unsatisfied, just in the same way as the working class of the most advanced industrial nations goes unsatisfied today.

Finally, it must be noted that the guy who reported Bishop Sheen’s sermon, states that the Bishop embroidered on it as he spoke. What we have missed, we may never know! As far as it went it may have been well intended —for his capitalist friends. That he never once revealed, however, that the private property institutions of capitalism-exploitation of the working class for profit—the resulting poverty and degradation, plus the war-mongering which flowed therefrom, was the primary cause, gave us pause for reflection.

Capitalism is like this; populations thinned by starvation—unemployment—or war (a whole world plunged in twilight) and we felt tired with Bishop Sheen. He said a lot, but left. ..”. . . so little coming to the knowledge of the truth . . .” and we also went to bed hungering for it, like some of the “one-third.”

O. C. I.

♦This “hearsay” is confirmed by “Pendennis” in The Observer, April 13th, 1958, in an article “Five Monks to Moscow.” The writer says: “ They will be the first monks to have been invited to visit Russian monasteries since the revolution. . . For years the Church virtually went underground until in 1942 Stalin appealed to the priests to encourage the war effort (italics ours) and congregations and services suddenly reappeared. Since the war the church in Russia has been very much more in evidence. . . .”

It's that "Great Man" idea again (1957)

From the June 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the earliest times of recorded history up to the present age, the idea of the “great man,” “the superman" has captured the imagination of the crowd. Stroll along any of the main highways of the world’s big cities and we are confronted with statues of every conceivable size erected in remembrance of these "great men.” But, like everything else, the worship of this “great man” idea has been done to death. There was Jesus Christ for example, supposedly crucified, dead and buried, but three days afterwards (so is the legend) popped back to life again. God had sent him. “He was the son of God.” And no man can, according to the Christians, surpass Christ. He was, and remains, the greatest of them all.

Of course this is all very childish now to those adults who have made any attempt to understand the historic origins of life—humanity and all its heirs and relations. Why has this “great man” idea been so carefully fostered through the ages? It is hard for the rationally minded to believe that it is a “carry over” from early man’s cave dwelling origins, a memory and worship for the departed chief warrior, high priest.

Even if it be conceded that recollection of the deeds of these great men have been a source of inspiration— for a time—in the main it has been one of the biggest contributory causes of the worshippers overlooking their own miserable plight.

We are prompted to record these few odds and ends about the “great man idea” because of what the Manchester Guardian recently described as “the long and occasionally acrimonious struggle to perpetuate the memory of Keir Hardie in Parliament’s own small Valhalla of statutory. . ." The origin of Keir Hardie’s fame is associated with the fact that he entered Parliament wearing a cap, a severe blow to the respectability and propriety which had been enjoyed by that assembly for generations. It is often murmured even now that it undermined for a decade respect for political tradition. But what’s in a hat or a cap for that matter. Has not the recently resigned Prime Minister set the fashion in head gear, inspiring many and otherwise very humbler members of the community to appear less humble—and correspondingly more respectable. There have been others, Baldwin with his pipe, Joseph Chamberlain with his eye glass and orchids; the world's “big chum" with his big cigars and last, and by no means least, the Welsh miner who once coloured the pages of history by recording on a particular occasion his detestation of vermin!

All these incidents are of course quite trifling, but we would ask in all seriousness whether the cause of Socialism owes anything to whatever Keir Hardie ever said, whether with cap or bareheaded. Suffice it to say that the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee has been struggling for so many years to get the House of Commons to accept "a fine golden gleaming bust . . ." (but without that cap) to adorn those sacred precincts of the House of Commons. Lord Samuel, speaking on the occasion, is reported to have said . . . “Keir Hardie’s cap struck a discordant note. It made us feel slightly uncomfortable. It was meant to make us feel uncomfortable.” Mr. Gaitskell made his tribute at the occasion, saying, ". . . Far more than any other man, Keir Hardie had founded the Labour Party. His Socialism was idealistic in character, drawing more from Methodism, from Robert Burns, than from men like Karl Marx!”

Seriously we ask, what do Mr. Fenner Brockway, chairman of the Keir Hardie Memorial Committee, and Mr. Gaitskell, the old Etonian, really think about such odds and ends, which takes the mind back to the times of Moses, to the primordial past, leaving the story still untold of the manner and ways in which Capitalism still enfolds the life of the worker, with its slums, its homeless millions the world over. May we ask these two sentimentally saturated and posing politicians whether working class understanding of Capitalism as the cause and Socialism as the remedy for the existing ghastly lot suffered by the working class has been advanced one tittle? Or is it perhaps a vain hope which excites both these two political “show offs” to be “the bust of a to-morrow!” Who knows and who cares? Is not this the land of cant and humbug and can political humbuggery go lower?

O.C.I.

Compulsory arbitration. (1926)

From the February 1926 issue of the Socialist Standard

There has been some talk recently about compulsory arbitration in the settlement of industrial disputes. Let us examine what is behind the idea.

It should be remembered that the general practice employed in the past has been the so-called “fight to a finish” method: we refer to the “strike” or “lock-out,” the armed forces being kept in readiness, as a government would say, “to maintain law and order” : this, so far as the national life is concerned.

In the international arena of world politics, it is to be noticed that the governments of most of the large States are beginning to realise that there lurk grave dangers in the use of force in the settlement of threir differences. Consequently the League of Nations made its modest bow to a war-weary world a few years ago. Behind the League of Nations is said to be the principle of “compulsory arbitration.” It is the first feeble flicker in the minds of the more astute capitalists of the need for an alternative to “blood and iron.”

Hot on the heels of the League of Nations comes the “Arbitrate First League,” the formation of which was recently reported by the “Daily Herald.”

Naturally enough J. Ramsay MacDonald, political tourist and odd-job man for the capitalist class, gives it his blessing. He hails it as the greatest discovery of the age —next to himself—and the “Red Letter.”

This development in the international relationships of the ruling class has its reflection in the domestic life of the nation. We refer to the recent coal-mining dispute in this country. It will be remembered that a stoppage was averted at the eleventh hour by the intervention of the Government by the granting of a subsidy.

While, therefore, the degree of economic development of the foremost nations of the world permitted, up to within recent years, “a fight to a finish” as between employers and employed (the former generally being the victors and necessarily so by virtue of the political power enjoyed, and ironically enough, bestowed upon them by the workers), the growing interdependence of what are known as “key industries,” raises objection to such methods to-day. Another important factor has also to be considered, i.e., competition for the world’s markets. This is now so keen (owing to the entry of the colonial dependencies, Canada, Australasia, India and again Japan, the most formidable rival in the East, to the age-long supremacy of the Western world) that time lost through “strikes” and “lock-outs” means loss or cancellation of orders and contracts.

Compulsory arbitration in consequence, therefore, may well become the new guiding star—for the ruling class—for the future safeguarding of their economic aspirations.

The sufferings endured in the past by the hungry strikers, the murder of their defenceless dependents, the horrors of infantile mortality, the wholesale butchery of countless millions, occasioned in the last great war, pale into insignificance compared with the one all-absorbing passion of the capitalists, i.e., to maintain their political supremacy and their position of affluence and idleness which this implies. For this all-important reason the workers are being called upon to forget the past, i.e., Germany’s “war guilt.” Therefore, Germany comes into the sacred circle of the League of Nations. The “horrible hun” we were called upon to hate and revile is now to be looked upon as a repentant sinner. The oscillations of world trade, influenced largely by the war, demand new undertakings and agreements between the capitalist highwaymen; or, to use the terminology of the professors, “maintain balance of power.” The League of Nations represents the machinery which they hope will achieve this desirable end.

THE WORKERS’ VIEW-POINT.

Although the majority of the States of the Western world depend upon a very wide and universal suffrage, nevertheless the freedom of any organised section of the workers to sell their services exists only in name. The workers may look forward with cold comfort, therefore, when they are informed by an all-wise and beneficent Arbitration Court, that as from such and such a date they will be permitted to suffer a reduction in their standard of living under the plea, perhaps, that the Empire’s future welfare demands such a sacrifice.

It must be emphasised here that the workers get what they vote for, that is all. The simple economics of the wages system clearly reveal that the workers can only hope, at the best, to receive in wages what it costs to maintain them in a condition to continue working and replace their type. Carrots and labour power are commodities ; the price at which they are sold is determined by the same economic law, i.e., the cost of production, which, of course, fluctuates with the operation of supply and demand.

CAPITALISTS ON THE DEFENSIVE.

Compulsory arbitration, then, if and when it becomes the rule for regulating national and international differences, will simply stand revealed as the great gun of the ruling class.

“But why do we give the arbitrators political power?” asks one, a little less dull-witted than the rest.

The answer is, that the working class fail, as yet, to recognise that their interests, as a class, are diametrically opposed to those who govern or arbitrate for them. That in a class-divided society, Arbitration Courts will be influenced, ultimately, by the economic necessities of the ruling class.

The Socialist seeks to abolish class-divided society. To achieve this, the revolutionary object of the workers must be Socialism.

O. C. I.

The Coal Miner and his Union (1922)

From the February 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

We remember a glowing eulogy of Frank Hodges appearing in the daily Press at the time of the coal strike, 1920.

An immediate reason for “pointing him out” arises from the following statement he is reported to have made (“Daily News,” 14/1/22) on the miners’ plight and low wages.

  “Those who are working, are working with unprecedented energy, but the pithead prices secured for the coal does not warrant either a decent wage for the workmen, nor anything like a fair measure of profit to the owners; although the industrial consumer and the domestic consumer are still having to pay fabulously high prices for the coal after it has passed through the hands of merchants, factors, and retail dealers.”

Why should Hodges be concerned about “a fair measure of profit to the owner” ? What are profits ? They represent a portion of surplus value, unpaid labour time.

The workers are poor because they are robbed of this surplus value. The workers receive back only a relatively small proportion of the values they produce. They are paid wages on the subsistence level, the sliding scale system. The worker has but his power to labour, which, in order to live he is compelled to offer for the best terms he can obtain.

His labour power is a commodity, and like every other commodity, its price is determined, in the main, by its cost of production, the price fluctuating through the operations of supply and demand. Therefore, the cost of purchasing the necessaries of life—food, clothing, and shelter—determines as a rule the amount of wages which the worker receives from time to time.

Now Hodges knows that the wages system spells misery to the worker and he clouds the situation with his talk of “decent wages” and “a fair measure of profit.”

O.C.I.

Jottings. (1921)

The Jottings Column from the November 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the economic field there is constant conflict between the masters and the workers, each in turn fighting to reduce and increase this common standard of subsistence. If, therefore, a section of the master class are successful in shifting the burden of taxation imposed upon them by Parliament, for the purposes before mentioned, it amounts to the fact that by so doing they have succeeded in reserving for their sectional interest a larger proportion of the surplus value, which they and their class as a whole filch from the workers.

The activities of Lansbury and Co., therefore, in the interests ot the local industrial capitalists and landlords (our George is one of 'em), is another illustration of the political profiteering of this "Come to Jesus" humbug. There are others besides him, and the Communist Party of Great Britain do not intend to be caught napping by anyone after "Stunt Championships." Listen to what they have to say on the issue :

 "Poplar Borough Council is in gaol. It has done more in one week for the workers than all the other Labour Councils have done in all their little lives." . . ."The assumption of everyone was that a Labour Council in Poplar would be good and carry out the 'precept' of the L.C.C. —levy, as usual, money, that must be wrung, at any rate immediately, from the starving to save the pockets of the wealthy West Enders." —"The Communist," 17th Sept., 1921. 

The Communist Party of Great Britain, affiliated to the Third International, claiming to base its actions on the Marxian doctrines ! Phew ! Revolutionary substitutes.

--0--

"America is the home of the free," so they say. We happen to know, however, that the workers in that country, faced with a capitalist system of production, are subject to similar evils that afflict the workers everywhere that system obtains. They do things on a much "higher" scale in America, however. For instance, we read the following from the "Daily News," 3rd Sept., 1921 :—

  "According to latest advices from Mingo, the recalcitrant miners of West Virginia are to be attacked forthwith by American aviators with tear bombs and gas bombs . . . merely a very modern form of police protection. It is probably a tip taken from a recent German book which showed how effectively aeroplanes could be employed in times of peace for dispersing unauthorised assemblies. If the American bomb droppers really get going they will be able to show the Black and Tans a thing or two."

Overlooking the sardonic suggestion to the Government for a speedy means of settling the Irish question, contained in the last sentence of the above, we did not think that the American masters would devise such an ingenious way of bringing their slaves—with tears in their eyes—to their proper senses. But the Yankee worker will tell you—chewing gum the time—that "he won the war" and that "America is God's own country—believe me." But he forgets to add "for the American Capitalist."

--0--

  "The day may be far distant when the actual political arrangements of the world will realise the highest ideal of which our social instincts are capable; but every life honestly spent in the faithful service of the Commonweal, every hour devoted to the earnest study of the public good, brings that day more surely within our reach." —"History of Politics," Ed. Jenks, M.A.

The object of the Socialist Party is the establishment of Socialism, a system of society wherein the means of production will be owned and controlled by the producers, the Working Class. It is because these means of production are privately owned by the Capitalist Class to-day that millions of the workers throughout the world are in need of food, clothing, and shelter. Wealth is socially produced; it is the result of the co-operation of effort of the Working Class of the world applied to natural resources. But this wealth and the means for producing it are privately owned. It is this antagonism which the Socialist Party is out to abolish. Under the Socialist system harmony will take the place of the existing chaos, because there will be social production side by side with social ownership. This change in the social order is the revolutionary ideal of the Socialist. All else is illusion.

Workers, mark well the words contained in the above quotation, and fit yourselves for the mission which historical development demands—that you shall, by the power ot your own individual and collective effort of muscle and brain, some day triumphantly achieve. When you will, who shall say you nay?

--0--

"Compromise is virtual death. It is the pact between cowardice and comfort, under the title of expediency."—George Meredith.

Great brains think alike, so it is said. Note the hostility clause in the Declaration of Principles at the back hereof, and in conjunction therewith, write for a copy of  our Manifesto, which explains our attitude of hostility towards all other parties. Price 3d., post free 3½d.

--0--

"CALMLY STRIVING." 

 "A sunny view of world and life 

As balm for brain and heart, 

It is with health and beauty rife, 

With noblest works of art. 

But do not for a moment think 

That it is captured in a wink. 

The golden harvest does not grow

 Unless the early tempests blow. 

And only bitter woe and strain 

Will bright and lofty wisdom gain." 

—Fr. von Sallet.

The present social structure was not conceived by any one man or number of supermen. It is the result of slow, steady evolutionary processes. So with the new order—the Socialist society of free men and women—it will come when the time is ripe, when the productive forces are developed to the point when a change will be inevitable. Our message to the workers is: Be prepared for that time to welcome the birth of the new social order ; to herald in the Co-operative Commonwealth. As the poet puts it: "What is life?

'Tis not to walk about and draw fresh air
From time to time and gaze upon the sun.
'Tis to be free. When liberty is gone
Life grows insipid and has lost its relish."

To those who yawn in this black hell of Capitalism, arouse yourselves to the work of Working Class emancipation.

--0--

Owing to the failure of the Working Class to understand their position in society, they easily become the victims of any Labour Shark desirous of fattening on their ignorance. At the present time, millions of workers unemployed or on short time are demonstrating in almost every city and town, demanding work or maintenance. Lacking knowledge, they are easily led into difficulties and conflicts with the Police. Quite recently in Liverpool the unemployed workers demonstrated in great numbers, and one of their number shouted, "Raid the Art Gallery."

Whatever could be obtained by capturing that object passes our comprehension.

The building was immediately rushed and occupied by the unemployed, but they were driven out by the Police with drawn batons, with the result that much damage to heads was done and many unemployed were arrested. We have often pointed out that so long as the workers fail to make a serious study of the Socialist proposition, that the private ownership of the means of life is alone the cause of unemployment and all its concomitant evils, the workers will, sheep-like, follow any politician or would-be Labour leader to their own destruction and disillusionment.

Apropos of the workers, we read the following in the Evening News (27/10/21) :

  "An extraordinary example of the way sheep will follow their leader, even to destruction, occurred here to-day (Yarmouth), when one of a flock of pedigree black-faced ewes attempted to eat some leaves which covered a disused well. The animal fell through the leaves and disappeared down the well. Other sheep immediately followed until 17 had leapt in. All were killed or suffocated before help arrived." 

Further comment would simply spoil it.

--0--

It is becoming almost impossible now to pick up any of the daily papers without reading in their columns terribly distressing stories of privation, starvation, suicide, or murder consequent upon the awful struggle for existence of the Working Class. If man's command over Nature had not reached the point it has, where, with the aid of wonderful machinery, he is able to produce wealth in abundance, such starvation and want in our midst to-day would be understandable. Millions to-day are idle, cannot obtain permission to manipulate the machinery of wealth production, and, with the raw material provided by Nature, fashion into the finished products we need for food, clothing and shelter. And yet we can read of the following in the so-called Twentieth Century of Enlightenment

"CRYING FOR BREAD." 

''It is one of these awful cases of dire distress and starvation," said Detective-inspector Hall, in the Thames Police-Court.
Emma Coughlin, aged 41, of Willis Street, Poplar, was remanded on a charge of attempting to murder her three children and commit suicide by means of coal gas.
When arrested she said : "I put some money in the gas and locked the bedroom door. I only did it to frighten him (evidently meaning her husband). I do not know why I did it.
The children are continually crying for bread, and I do not know where to get the money. . . . I sold some furniture and I have pawned nearly everything. I have no clothes for my bed. I did not know what to do." Evening News, 1/10/21

Bread, like every other form of wealth, can only be produced by applying human energy to Nature's resources.

The land, all in it and upon it—the workshops, factories and machinery, the mills, mines, and railroads, all the necessary tools and implements for producing and distributing wealth—are owned and controlled by a comparatively few people in society. The vast majority of the human race, being divorced from the means of life, obtain permission from the owners to produce wealth for the latter, with a view to profit, and in return receive a wage, just a portion of the total value produced.

When a profit is no longer forthcoming, and, incidentally, when the markets of the world are glutted with the good things of life, the workers in thousands remain idle and go without just at the time they should be enjoying the fruits of their energy. Such cases as above could never disgrace a system of society where the means of life were the common property of all, inasmuch as when the whole of those who are physically and mentally fit, capable of contributing their quota of energy in association with their fellows the world wide, would, when the wealth is produced, socially own, control, and enjoy the results of their social labour.

--0--

That vile, sickly sentiment, of which only the Press of the Capitalist Class is capable, is once more being indulged in by the daily papers, concerning the coming anniversary of the signing of the Armistice.

Once more they are urging that November 11th should be a day of "National Observance" as paying a tribute to the "Heroic Dead."

If our masters were able to show and to prove that those who survived the terrible struggle in France and Flanders were passing through those "fields of waving corn" promised so often, which have never materialised, something might be said for the tribute they wish us to pay.

Right from when the last cannon and machine-gun spluttered forth its deadly missile, until the present time, the Working Class, including the ex-Service men, have faced a far worse struggle for existence than ever known before.

Since the last anniversary, the workers, irrespective of whether they had been in the armed forces or munition factories, fighting and slaying to maintain the "glorious prestige of the British Empire," have suffered a greatly reduced standard of subsistence as a result of the reductions in wages forced upon them by the Capitalist Class.

Far more common it is to-day to see the "brave lads" begging support in the streets, playing barrel-organs and generally trying to appeal to the generosity of our benevolent Ruling Class! Thousands are seeking employment, many of whom are physically wrecked on account of their experiences in the trenches. Their chance of employment is almost hopeless, and doubtless they will find their way to the heroes' home—the workhouse, or a premature grave, the victims of starvation.

The hypocritical Ruling Class will always pay tributes in words, but not in deeds. Those workers who perished fighting the battles of our masters to satisfy the latter's insatiable greed for profits, we know only too well, did so under a conception of patriotism drilled into them when young and fostered since.

Were it not for the fact that they have no understanding of their position in society, where they are divorced from the means of life, we should see them fighting the battles in the only fight that does matter —the Class War. We who lived through those four years of unparalleled destruction of precious human lives, say again, as we did in our September, 1914, issue of the Socialist Standard: "The struggle did not justify the shedding of one single drop of Working Class blood," and that it was "a commercial war being fought out in the interests of the Capitalist Class for the markets of the world in order to dispose of the wealth robbed from the workers." While we regret that so many workers of all countries lost their lives in the bloody shambles, the appeal of the Capitalist Class leaves us cold.

--0--

On many occasions in the columns of the Socialist Standard we have pointed out that the object of Sinn Fein was to further the material interests of the manufacturing section of the Ruling Class of Ireland, and whatever be the outcome of the conflict between them and the British Government, the wealth producers of Ireland will find little alteration in their position. 

This question was dealt with more fully in our issue of June, 1917, but we do not think it would be out of place for our readers to note the following (Evening News, 3/10/21) :

"LABOUR TO FIGHT SINN FEIN.'' 

"Irish labour leaders do not hide their anxiety regarding the future under a Sinn Fein government. Sinn Fein is claiming greater powers than Ulster regarding the repeal of legislation passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, and in particular takes exception to restrictive trade union practices which are accused of stifling Irish industrial development.
"It is well-known that some of the most prominent men in Southern Ireland believe the Trades Disputes Acts to be inimical to Irish interests and will not assume responsibility for enforcing such laws in Ireland. Realising that they may have to fight their own Government harder than they did the British authorities, the Irish labourers are preparing for conflict.
"They threaten to fight every constituency in the towns, and expect that with the issue of self-government out of the way it will he easier to make headway against official Sinn Fein."

Members of the Communist Party and the S.L.P., please note.

O. C. I.

Agricultural Industry. (1921)

From the September 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the "Labour Gazette" for July,1921, some interesting facts are brought to light. We are told that the Agricultural Wages Board appointed a Committee in December, 1920, "to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Unemployment Insurance Act might be made applicable and beneficial to agricultural workers." This report has now been completed, and in their comment on same we are told: "There was a time when the distress arising from unemployment in agriculture, at least in certain years, was considerable. During the latter half of the 19th century, however, changes in the methods of farming and the extensive introduction of machinery, caused a great reduction in the number of men employed on farms, with the result that the smaller number who were now employed enjoyed greater stability of employment." Here are some of the figures re-quoted from the report by the "Labour Gazette": —

The point it is desired to show once again is that, with the development of the forces of production under Capitalism, there follows greater insecurity of life for the worker. To those who happen to qualify for employment—generally the more skilled and efficient—there follows corresponding intensity of conditions arising from the manipulation of the intricate machinery brought into being to increase the output per hour per man. The writer repeats, therefore, that which has always been insisted upon in these columns, that so long as the means and instruments for producing the requirements of the community remain the private property of the capitalist class, the conditions of the workers must inevitably tend to get worse. The only remedy is Socialism, the common ownership of these means and instruments for producing wealth.

The above illustration shows the need for the worker to study his position in capitalist society and organise for the establishment of Socialism. Under that system every device invented will shorten the hours of labour necessary for the production of the requirements and comforts of the human race. As Paul Lafargue so brilliantly puts it: —

  Mechanical production which, under Capitalist direction, can only buffet the worker to periods of enforced idleness, will, when developed and regulated by a Socialist administration, require from the producer to provide for the normal needs of Society, only a maximum day of two or three hours in the workshop, and when this time of necessary social labour is fulfilled he will be able to enjoy freely the physical and intellectual pleasures of life.
   The artist then will paint, will sing, will dance ; the writer will write, the musician will compose operas, the philosopher will build systems, the chemist will analyse substances, not to gain money, to receive a salary—but to deserve applause, to win laurels, like the conquerors at the Olympic games—but to satisfy their artistic and scientific passions; for one does not drink a glass of champagne or kiss the woman he loves for the benefit of the gallery.

O. C. I

Working-Class Politics. (1921)

From the April 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

There has recently been a bye-election at one of the London boroughs, viz., East Woolwich, and we draw attention to the fact in order to show the political ignorance which still prevails amongst the workers.

The vacancy was caused by the retirement of that capitalist henchman, Will Crooks on account, so it is said, of ill-health. It is suggested, however, that the real reason was that the new I.L.P. candidate, J. Ramsay MacDonald, had been politically unemployed for an inconveniently long time. In short, that the wirepullers of the I.L.P., seeking a wider advertisement for their quacks and quack remedies, thought East Woolwich would provide them with the political market in which to hawk their wares.

Alas ! Alas ! It was not to be,
For the Woolwich workers returned a V.C. 

Now what are working-class politics? This is the all-important question which the Woolwich workers and the working class throughout the world have yet to make up their minds about. At Woolwich the workers have considered that a V.C., a supporter of the Coalition Government, was deserving of their vote, and once again they have voted for capitalism and its horrors—as, of course, they would have done had they voted for the other candidate.

But again, what are working-class politics? Let us briefly endeavour to explain from the Socialist view point.

Politics is the business of Government, i.e., the control and management of people living together in a society, so in effect says Prof. Ed. Jenks in an excellent little work entitled "A Short History of Politics."

Once again however, we draw the attention of the workers to the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party, wherein we show that present-day society is divided, in the main, into two distinct classes—the workers on the one hand, by whose labour, applied to the nature-given material, all wealth is produced, and on the other hand the capitalist class, who own and control the wealth and the means by which it is produced. The workers have to sell their labour power in order to live, to those who own the means by which alone that labour-power can be applied to wealth production. The interest of the workers is to get as much by the sale of their labour-power as they can. To achieve this result they organise in Trade Unions. Seeing, however, that the workers produce all the wealth, and yet remain poor and are denied the opportunity of living when they are, through no fault of theirs, unemployed, the question arises why such an unreasonable state of things exists.

If a policy is pursued by the governing class which denies its subjects the means of life, then that policy needs examination. To understand an effect the cause must be sought. The cause of all present-day social evils lies in the root of the capitalist system—private ownership and control of the means of living. In this ownership they are secured by the political power given to them by a politically ignorant working class. This political power enables them to control the armed forces, which are used to conserve the interests of the ruling class. The workers, therefore, have to deprive their masters of this political power as the first step toward their freedom, and only knowledge and organisation can enable them to do this, therefore, with its Object clearly stated, and guided by its Declaration of Principles for the attainment of that Object, is out to bring that necessary knowledge to the workers and to organise them in a political party for the conquest of political power by and for the working class It is consequently hostile to all other political parties, and claims to be the only party in this country worthy of working-class support.

Having briefly explained our case we will return to the Woolwich bye-election. Here we see MacDonald strutting on the political stage with his pockets bulging with red herrings. Examine this one: "Let Woolwich give a hearty blow to the tottering Coalition Government and help to put in its place a Government which, both at home and abroad, will serve the interests of the common people, do homage to our dead by carrying out their ideals of liberty and justice, and save our land from the crushing burden of debt and the oppressive measure of new wars." ("Labour Leader," 2.3.21.)

There is sufficient in the above to show the capitalist nature of his ambitions. The establishment of Socialism would mean the abolition of governments, which are only necessary in a system of society where subject and privileged classes exist. When he refers to "our" land, "our" debt, he may be put in the same category as all others of his kind that make use of the same phraseology. The workers are propetyless, landless, and thousands at the moment foodless. National debts cannot fall upon such as these— they fall upon their capitalist masters.

In the above address there is not the slightest reference to Socialism, and the necessity for the workers to organise on the political field in order to establish it. What we do see is a graceful trimming of sails—a careful use of phraseology, with the object of demonstrating to the class with whom he seeks to curry favour, He endeavours to display his qualifications to carry on, if elected, in the interests of his paymasters, the capitalist class.

Now, however, the ungraceful lurch he makes as he trims his sails for the capitalist harbour, Westminster. He refers to interests abroad— imperialist interests, which demand a big army and navy to support them—and casts fatherly glances m the direction of the industrial capitalists at home, whom he would save from “the crushing burden of debt and the oppressive measure of new wars."

I repeat, not the slightest reference is made to Socialism. But just here I direct attention to the colossal surprise of an I.L.P.er expressed in the "Labour Leader" for the following week:

 In spite of all the Socialist propaganda that has been carried on by the I.LP. during the past 25 years, the ignorance of the mass of the working people as to what is meant by Socialism is simply colossal! So our duty as Socialists is simply to continue our work of education more strenuously than ever.

And he concludes by urging

every member of the Party, to greater endeavours for the only cause that really matters—the winning of the people to Socialism. 

How the writer, who has caught a gleam of the truth, can remain in the I.L.P. it one of those little things that mystify the man with any sense of logic.

Here is another example of I.L.P. confusion. In an article in the “Labour Leader” of March 10 entitled “Again War,” Mr. R. C. Wallhead, Chairman of the I.L.P., states (in reference to the rumoured Allied advance upon Soviet Russia): 

  The duty of the I.L.P. is dear. We shall take our stand unflinchingly, as we did throughout the war, and demand an immediate cessation of military operations and a complete revision of the iniquitous peace treaties, in the interests of our own workers as well as those of Central Europe.  . . . The Vienna Conference with prophetic insight passed an urgency resolution asking that all Socialist bodies throughout Europe should on Sunday, March 13th, organise meetings to protest against the Capitalist Imperialism, and demand revision of the peace treaties, especially on this question of impossible indemnities.  I appeal to all my comrades of the I.L.P. to do their utmost to give effect to this resolution, and thus take their part in a great international Socialist effort for peace, justice and humanity.”

 I should like to know in what way Capitalist peace treaties affect working-class interests. A gang of robbers—the capitalist class of the world—disagree over the division of the plunder—the wraith they have stolen , from their victims, the workers of the world. Along comes Mr. Wallhead, and urges the workers to demand that robber A. should be more generous and considerate to robber B. Further, the statement that the I.L.P. "throughout the war" opposed that colossal iniquity, is a deliberate lie.

The three quotations given from the "Labour Leader"—the official mouthpiece of the I.L.P. —should be sufficient to prove once more the utter bankruptcy of the I.L.P. as a working class political party. Confusion worse confounded hardly describes the shallow sentimental nonsense which is foisted on to a public as Socialism—a public which, however, is sufficiently intelligent to see through the cunning humbug of these gentlemen. Because the fact remains that MacDonald lost at Woolwich, and still remains politically unemployed.

Of course he explains his defeat quite frankly, for once : It was his war reputation that weakened him ("Labour Leader," 10.3.21), and he finally consoles himself and his followers by giving vent to the following flow of windy rhetoric, typical of the crafty apologist who sneaks away and bides another day. Listen !

"Woolwich was like the breaking of the day. A cloud obscured the sun, but it is there and it is rising. We have seen it."

What ecstatic imagery ! How funny this must sound to the sweating hordes of Woolwich workers !

Workers of Woolwich, learn your lesson ! Study the facts for yourselves ! It is your political ignorance that prevents you enjoying a decent life. Don't trust others to do your thinking. Study the object and Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party, and then see about joining up to work for the emancipation of your class.

O. C. I.

The Irony Of It. (1921)

From the January 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

"It is a strange irony"—so concludes an editorial in the "Daily News" of 13.11.20, under the title of "The Two Paths," wherein is described the ceremonial which took place on the day following the anniversary of the armistice. The writer, playing upon the emotions, remarks:

  "The kings and chaplains and prelates had departed, the pomp and ceremonial ended, and then the people, not only those of London, but from all parts of these islands, drawn as naturally as men lost in a desert, came quietly together and made Whitehall the beating heart of England."

We are not unmindful of the untold suffering and misery which has been inflicted upon the working class of the world as a result of the Great European War. Millions of working-class lives were sacrificed ; shattered constitutions and wrecked hopes are the lot of many thousands of victims who have survived King Capital's carnage. And the class responsible for all this misery—the ruling class of the world—still are the principal figures in the drama of life ; and the working class, doped, dazed, bewildered, still gaze on the players with reverence and awe—a satisfied audience whose emotions are carried along on the tide of a stupefying misconception of life. The working-class conception of life conception of life consists of work and wages. These two things fill their horizon and colour all things else. Their inevitable reward is insecurity of livelihood, poverty and toil. It is for a condition of life like this that the workers have made their sacrifices and given their best to further the interests of King Capital.

One of the greatest tragedians on the social stage—David Lloyd George—on the occasion of one of the numerous rehearsals which are periodically held throughout the land—the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall—said in an optimistic speech : "The workmen are three fourths of the population and the future of the country depends upon their common sense and their patriotism." ("Daily News," 10.11.20.)

There you see the actor setting the scenery for another drama which will shortly be acted—The General Election. They are rehearsing; they are advertising. They will organise a mammoth campaign. Coalitionists, Liberals, and Labourites will come before you, each blackguarding the other, each representing different sectional interests of the capitalist class. They will cajole, flatter, and trick you into going to the great show. They are prepared to spend millions of pounds in this direction, though thousands may be destitute and starving. They depend upon the common sense and patriotism of three-fourths of the people—the working class.

The term ''common sense" is a vague phrase typical of the foggy nature of most of the utterances of men like Lloyd George, who, we call to mind, coined those mystic phrases, "A land fit for heroes to live in" ; "Let there be sunlight in the workman's cottage" ; "The land shall be a field of waving corn." They reflect the depth of working-class political ignorance and apathy.

"Patriotism" is something more concrete. It is the love of one's country. The country belongs to the master class. Those who own the earth own those who live upon the earth. It should be clear, therefore, you dignified, politically ignorant three-fourths of the population, that you are nothing more than wage slaves—you cannot well be less.

It is a strange irony, therefore, that while you are marching with your grief to Whitehall there should be another army of marchers, as the editorial above referred to points out, the great army of unemployed—men and women denied the opportunity to live, compelled to see those dependent upon them reduced to hunger, reduced even to starvation.

The "Daily News" editorial finishes with heart-tearing sighs and veiled regrets. Hypocritical, maudling, sentimental pathos is contained in those words—"It is a strange irony," because the "Daily News" serves as one of the daily programmes of King Capital's drama, figuring the scenes which tell of the misery and sufferings of the workers—that three fourths of the population upon whose votes so much depends.

How much depends ? Why, the very existence of the capitalists as a ruling class.

The picture drawn above should be clear. The capitalist Press of the entire world is the servant of the capitalist class. Its members know what is behind the scenes, and their function in life is to provide the limelight, the music, and the curtain.

I will conclude with the remark that it is a strange irony that a small minority—the ruling or capitalist class—should retain their privileged position in modern society while "three-fourths of the population" should be compelled as a consequence to live miserable lives, struggling for the mere necessities of existence. Truly it is a strange irony that the working class, by whose labours, applied to the raw materials of mother earth, all wealth is produced, who fight the sectional battles of the ruling class, should be so politically ignorant that they give all power to their enemies when at election times they record their votes in favour of the class who are the cause of all the economic evils mankind is suffering throughout the capitalist world to-day.

Fellow Workers, arise from the depths of your dumb despair. Arise and avenge yourselves for the untold suffering which for so long has been your lot. Rid yourselves of the horrors and nightmares of capitalism. The world and all its fruits stand ready for you to take—are you worthy to enjoy them? If you are you will be with us, helping to organise your class in the Socialist Party, in order that the present social system may give place to the Socialist Co-operative Commonwealth.

Do not run away with the idea that you cannot help, that your weight will not count, that your efforts do not matter. To those who think thus there is a special meaning in Clough's splendid lines:

"Say not the struggle nought availeth,
   The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not nor faileth,
   And as things have been they remain. 

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars:
   It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e'en now the fliers,
  And but for YOU possess the field."

So if you agree that our principles and policy are correct, do your obvious duty and join us.

O. C. I.

The New Heroes. (1920)

From the December 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Daily News" of October 25th published the following note and comment:

  "The estate of the late Mr. Andrew Carnegie has been finally certified at 23¼ million dollars (nominally £4,650,000).
"By law only half of this amount is available for public bequests, which are therefore reduced by ten millions during the life of the widow, unless she elects to make gifts.
"[When Mr. Carnegie's will was published in August, 1919, the estate was estimated at between £5,000,000 and £6,000,000. Gifts during the testator's lifetime exceeded £70,000,000. Annuities under the will included £2,000 a year to Mr. Lloyd George, £2,000 a year to Lord Morley, £1,000 a year to Mr. John Burns, and £1,000 a year to Mr. John Burt.]"

Mr. Andrew Carnegie must have been class-conscious in a very high degree to have recognised the heroes mentioned in the liberal way he has.

John Burns, Lloyd George & Co. are once more seen in their right setting, as champions of the robber class of which Carnegie was a typical representative.

Carnegie is still thought by some to be a great benefactor of the working class, because he has bequeathed a few libraries to his fellow capitalists, to enable their wage slaves readily and cheaply to take in the mental dope which is stored on those libraries' shelves.

Yes! Carnegie was class-conscious. He recognised the necessity of keeping working class minds inoculated with the poisonous matter which comprises the bulk of the literature contained in his libraries. He also recognised the valuable services which men like Lloyd George and John Burns have rendered to him and his class. The "honest John," as some used to know him—the supporter of butcher Asquith and his shooting of the miners at Featherstone. Lloyd George, the great bamboozler, the silver-tongued betrayer.

Yes! they are the Carnegie war heroes; they were the valiant supporters of the class war, waged in full consciousness by Carnegie and his fellow capitalists. Strange as it may appear, no bequests are made to the million and one heroes who bled to death, who were blown to death, who were frozen to death in the great European war just ended, to defend the property and interests of the murdering Carnegie class, the capitalist class.

Yet perhaps it is not so strange, for fellow wage slave, Carnegie was class-conscious.

When will you. become so, and join with us in waging the only war worth while—the class war—in order to dethrone capitalism's gang of thieves and inaugurate the Socialist co-operative Commonwealth ?

O.C.I.