The Class Struggle. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Dividing Line.

It has been urged against our position that it is impossible to draw a clear line of demarcation between the classes, and, therefore, any theory that starts out with the assumption that society is composed of two classes, must necessarily be wrong in its application to the problems of society. Even if it were true, however, that it is impossible to sharply divide society into two opposing classes, that would not invalidate the theory, as I shall endeavour to show.

The biological world is divided into two kingdoms : the animal kingdom and the vegetable kingdom. That division is true and scientifically sound, nowithstanding the fact that there exist organisms which present difficuly in classification. The mere fact that they possess the characteristics, or some of the characteristics, of one, does not prevent them belonging to the other if they possess its distinguishing feature. The decisive factor biologically, is whether the organism consumes ready-made protoplasm, in which case it is unmistakably animal; or whether it lives by the consumption of those inorganic chemical elements which it changes into protoplasm, in which case it is clearly vegetable. Organisms which, like the hydra, have all the appearance of vegetables, but which, living by the absorption of matter already transformed by the true vegetables, are classed, therefore, as animals. Other creatures, again, seen under the microscope, appear, by their ceaseless movement, to be animals; yet, measured by the acknowledged test, prove to be vegetables. Nevertheless, the existence of “borderland,” where the two kingdoms mingle into what is to the outsider hopeless confusion, does not invalidate the division. So in society. The existence of a “middle” class will not invalidate the division the Socialist draws, if a test can be made that will differentiate the constituent elements of that section into one or other of the classes. If, then, we define a capitalist as one living on the labour of others through his control of the means of production (that is, the possession of capital); and a workman as one living by the sale of his labour-power to the possessor of the means of production, we shall be able to decide whether any of the individuals in the “borderland” belong to one class or the other.

The Conflict of Interests.

Actually, however, this clear line of demarcation is not necessary, as for all ordinary purposes the division is plain enough, and the exactness will only be needed by those who have developed what might be called the outlook of the microscopist; for he, intent upon the tiny details of minute organisms, does not so readily take the more general view. So the individual, himself probably belonging to the “middle” class, is more intent upon the exact classification of doubtful cases than in the broader outlook which would make the division palpable.

And when we have satisfied ourselves that society is composed of two classes, we have to look further into the differences between them. The capitalist lives by the purchase of labour-power, which he employs in the production of certain commodities. The wealth then produced is divided into two parts : wages, and surplus-value. Contained in that, surplus-value is the profit on which the capitalist lives. Any increase, therefore, in the quantity of profit means inevitably a like decrease in the quantity remaining for wages, and vice-versa. The object of the worker is to get the highest price possible for his labour-power ; the object of the capitalist is to realise as much profit as possible. In this fundamental economic relationship lies the main-spring of the class struggle. That struggle is being waged unremittingly irrespective of whether the combatants are fully conscious of it or not. That struggle is, to the Socialist, the moving force in history. It arises, as we have seen, from the fact that the means of production, which are the means of life, are in the possession of those who do not use them, except as a means for the exploitation of those who do not possess them.

Class Consciousness.

“The emancipation of the working class from the domination of the capitalist class” can be effected only by the “conversion into common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.” So reads the “Declaration of Principles.” The conversion will not conceivably be made by the capitalist class, because their interest lies in the direction of retaining their privileges, which they may safely be relied upon to uphold to the last ditch. The interest of the workers lies in the direction of stripping privilege from the capitalist class: therefore in a direction opposed to that of the capitalist class. From this antagonism of interests arises the class struggle. The efforts of the workers to gain an improvement in their conditions, whether it be in the direction of higher wages or shorter hours, or in opposition to any of the disabilities imposed by the capitalist system, and the resistence of the masters to any such demand, manifest the struggle between the classes. When the workers’ efforts are directed towards the ending, rather than the mending, of capitalist conditions of industry, we see manifested a consciousness by the workers of their position, and the struggle takes on a new phase—a phase altered by the introduction of “class-consciousness.”

The Conditions of Successful Conflict.

For generations the working-class have battled class-unconsciously for improvements, but despite the heroism occasionally shown, despite the effort that have been devoted to the endeavour times without number, the working-class position has not improved, but has steadily worsened with the development of capitalism, for it cannot he denied that employment is more precarious than it has ever been ; unemployment is more prevalent and more lasting than formerly. Money wages may have increased in some cases over those paid at some former period, but measured by the increase in the productivity of labour, the greater frequency of unemployment, the increased expenditure necessitated by living at a distance from the factory, and the increasing cost of house-rent, it may safely be stated that the worker lives no fuller life than formerly, and enjoys life no more. Hours may, too, in some cases have been reduced, but measured again by the intensity of daily labour, and the rail journey between factory and home, the reduction in hours has by no means kept pace with capitalist development. The struggles of our forebears, then, have not solved our problems, however much they may have prevented us from sinking to a lower level, and mitigated the evil effects of capitalism. For the workers to fight on the old lines is impossible. They are no longer opposed to a competing mass of small capitalists, but to a highly organised and powerful class. The endeavours of the workers to meet that class in the old way on the economic field by means of the strike and the boycott meet with defeat, and must do so because, when the capitalist class is not sufficiently powerful to meet it successfully by its power as employers, it is always ready to call in the assistance of the political arm which it has long since controlled. In the political control by the capitalist class lies the centre of its power; yet the fact remains that political power is derived from the votes of the working class. With the working class rests ultimately the character of the government, because the workers control a majority of the votes cast at any General Election. For all these reasons, therefore, the struggle of the workers must take on a political character.

The Work of the Socialist Party.

This truth has been imperfectly recognised already as is shown by the development of what is called “Independent” Labour Representation. That this movement has been and is being manipulated by a set of job-hunters must not blind us to its real significance, which lies in the fact that a political movement is growing which is becoming independent of the two historic parties under capitalism. Therein lies what may be taken as the first glimmering of class-consciousness. The shortcomings of that movement have been frequently dilated upon in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, so that it less necessary for me to go into it now. As the constituent elements of that movement, and of the working class generally, become really class-conscious, and therefore Socialist, they will realise that the political independence of labour must rest upon the hostility of labour to all the forces of capitalism, and will either leave the present movement or bring it into line with their convictions by bringing themselves or it into The Socialist Party.

During the remainder of the life of capitalism the work of the Socialists is particularly to develop class-consciousness by explaining the class position of the workers in its relation to capitalism, by prosecuting, without intermission, the class-struggle ; while the nearer the Party keeps to the line of the class-struggle the greater will he its efficiency as a Socialist propagandist organisation, and the more effective will it be in generating class-consciousness. Because the Labour Party is in effect merely a wing of the Liberal Party, notwithstanding its protestations of independence, it does not answer the purpose of a working-class party either in encouraging the understanding of the working-class position, or in politically prosecuting the class-struggle. The Socialist Party must at all times, therefore, be opposed to it, and must spare no effort in pointing out to the workers that Socialism must be the goal of their organisation, and the class-struggle the guiding principle in its immediate work.

R. H. Kent

Hyndman as confusionist. (1908)

A Short Story from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

He of this sketch was a fine specimen of the men from Erin’s Isle. He had the physique of a Fitzsimmons and the latent brain capacity of a Mirabeau. As you looked at the great eye-orbits, big forehead, and strong chin, you found yourself speculating as to the big things a man like this will do in a community that lays itself out to grow men, instead of mere labour-commodities for capitalist profit.

“Oi’ve listened to Hyndman,” he said in his fine Irish brogue, “from that No. 3 platform yonder, and I’m jiggered if oi aint quite flabbergasted. Hyndman, look you, on the platform with that strange mixture. Bless me if ’tisn’t enough to confuse a St. Patrick.”

“Indeed,” I said.

“You see,” he proceeded, “according to Hyndman’s point of view (if I understand him aright, and I think I do), it’s no more use to go on talking against drink and gambling and sweating, and low wages and high prices, and pauperism and lunacy, and physical deterioration and starving children, than it is to go on picking maggots off a piece of rotten meat or killing-cockroaches in a damp cellar. As soon as you’ve done for one lot of maggots you’ve got another, and as soon as you’ve settled one lot of cockroaches there’s another arrived. It’s the meat that’s wrong. It’s the damp cellar that’s wrong. And so Hyndman says it’s capitalism that’s wrong, and so long as you have capitalism you must have drink and gambling and sweating, and lunatics and starving children, and slums and unimployed- and more on ’em every day ! ‘

“Well, I’ll leave it to you,” I said, “as to how nearly that describes Hyndman’s position. But, anyhow, I think it’s the truth, don’t you ? ”

“Yes. And Hyndman thinks that too. For instance, he says he spoke in this town twenty-five years ago, and they were then demanding the same little pottering political reforms that they are demanding still, and they are further off from getting them than ever. And the capitalists are taking more of the wealth every year. And the conditions of the workers are going worse every year. And the unemployed are increasing every year. And long spells of bad trade follow short spells of good trade quicker and quicker, so that for sure you may correctly say ’tis bad trade all the time. That’s what Hyndman says ! ”

“Well?” “So that it means that things for the workers go from bad to worse, and that so long as there’s these capitalists on your back, and they sucking like leeches by what they call their capital, there can’t be no improvement for the worker—no progress—no reform.”

“It looks like it, doesn’t it ?”

“Sure, it does. Because, as these capitalists get more capital, they must suck Labour more, and there’s no preventing them, so long’s there’s the system. They can laugh at all your reforms. And so long as they’ve their system they’ll have their full pound of flesh. And that’s what oi’ve heard Hyndman say.” .

“Well, what’s your difficulty ?”

“Just this : If Hyndman believes that before we can have any betterment we must organise ourselves, and go for the overthrow of the system, what does he want to be on the platform with these Labour fellows, who are simply helping the capitalists to mend the system., They don’t mean abolishing capitalism; they simply mean making it a little better. They’ve never examined the system—devil a bit have they. There was one fellow there who talked a lot about temperance, and he seemed to think all you’ve got to do is to make the people teetotal, as if that’s any good so long as there’s capitalism. Then he was followed by a woman who seemed possessed with the holy desire to get the half-time kiddies out of the factory, though how that would advantage the kiddies if they had to come home to an empty table, and how the capitalist was to be made to keep the table full, were matters she was not very clear about. Then another suggested that the capitalist might feed the children through the capitalist State. But if the capitalist does anything for us through his State, I reckon he’ll secure his pound of flesh by buying our labour-power cheaper in return. Then there were other pills for earthquakes. One man seemed to think that an eight-hour day would absorb the unemployed. Another was big on municipal and state capitalism, and he seemed to think that if you could only get the capitalist to rob the worker in a collective way, through the municipality and the capitalist state, instead of in the old way, through his private, factory, that this was going to advantage the worker. The fool ! The post-office here, and the state railways elsewhere, ought to teach him that these things can make no difference to the wage-worker. In fact, so long as the worker is a wage-worker, and the capitalist buys him as he buys anything else, and so long as there’s plenty of unemployed making his price his mere living, whether the state buys him or the master buys him it’ll be all the same.”

“Yes,” I replied, “if you get anything in the way of reform for the worker, so long as there’s capitalism, you simply make him a cheaper commodity for the capitalist, and the capitalist sucks it back again.”

“That’s so,” said my Irishman, “and Hyndman sees that. And I want to know what he wants on the platform with these reforming Johnnies. If Hyndman believes that the system is wrong, then why doesn’t he help you chaps to draw the working class away from all this political reform-mongering which, mind your he himself admits has brought us nothing during the last twenty-five years ? Why doesn’t he educate and organise the working class, to prepare for the overthrow of capitalism, and leave the capitalists and these reform fools to mend their system—if they can ?”

“Looks like a new form of the great game of how not to do it, don’t you think so ?” I said.

“How ? Which way ?” he demanded.

“Well, hearing Hyndman keeps them from understanding what the other chaps mean ; and then hearing the other chaps keeps them from understanding what Hyndman means, and so at the end it keeps them much where they were, Hyndman’s presence and talk makes the great British Public believe that this trade union and Labour gang are a very revolutionary lot, and the presence of the good, solid, practical, level-headed gentlemen on the same platform with Hyndman, makes the same B. P. believe that Hyndman and the S.D.P. are quite judicious politicians, after all.”

“Well, but all this is confusing the workers!” roared my friend.

“Or educating them,” I suggested.

“Educating, be d——d (his language got very strong). I say it’s confusing them !”

“Well, well,” I said, “both words mean much. the same thing applied to the wage-slaves. The educated of the other class don’t lecture the working class to stimulate and enlighten them, but to chloroform and confuse them.”

“Be gorra, and it seems so,” he said. Then after a short silence, still meditating on the issue, he exclaimed—

“Can a man be both a reformer and a revolutionist ? ”

“No.” I said, “But he can pose as both until the people find him out and force him into one camp or the other.”

“And is Hyndman posing as both ?”

“Well, there are the facts. What do they say ? ”

“They say he is. He’s preaching revolution, and he’s on a reform platform. But what is he at heart ? Is he a revolutionist ? ”

“No, I don’t think so. Hyndman’s desire has always been to be the big man, with the big following, who could show the capitalists how to run their system in a proper, up-to-date, scientific way, don’t you know.”

“It looks like it.”

“Well, take the facts. Lately, Hyndman has been pointing out to the British capitalists, their danger of having a war with the German capitalists. Now what revolutionist cares a tinker’s anathema about who the British capitalist goes to war with. Certainly, if the German capitalists invaded England tomorrow they might lay rough hands on the property of the English capitalists, but they could take nothing from the English wage-slaves, seeing that the English capitalists have cleaned them out too well already. So that no evil can happen to the workers from any invasion, and no capitalist war is worth their thought. And yet here is Hyndman writing yards of this stuff in conjunction with that other fool, Blatchford, in working-class papers, and trying to get the workers interested in it. Then again, Hyndman has written a lot in Justice lately about “Capitalist Secret Diplomacy.” Now why should the worker waste one thought upon “Capitalist Secret Diplomacy” ? Surely our business ought to he to cultivate opportunities to oust the capitalist.”

“No, it’s no use our watching the capitalists, how they play the game to filch the wealth they first steal from us, from each other; we must organise ourselves to stop the robbery at the root.”

“I say, old man, when are you going to join the Socialist Party of Great Britain ?”

“Oi’m watching you,” he replied, “but oi must be careful. Life is short, and oi can’t afford to waste any more of mine with reformers.”

“Well,” I said, “if you think there’s danger, come in and help to keep us straight.”

“That’s a thought oi have,” he replied, “oi attend your meetings, buy your STANDARD, and drop my penny in the hat.”

John Tamlyn

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Specially translated for the Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

7.—Increasing number of large concerns, combines.

Besides the competitive struggle between handicraft and capitalist industry there is the struggle between large and small capitalist concerns. Each day brings a new invention, a new discovery, the application of which enhances considerably the productivity of labour.

Each step in such progress causes a smaller or greater depreciation of existing industrial machinery or plant, necessitating replacement of them and often extension of the particular industrial concern ; and anyone lacking the capital necessary for that purpose becomes sooner or later incapable of competing and goes under, or is compelled to turn with his capital to some trade in which the smaller concern is still in a position to compete against the larger ones. Thus competition in industry on a large scale causes overcrowding in petty industry, with the result that ultimately, handicraft is ruined even in the few trades in which petty enterprise was hitherto able to meet competition to some extent.

The large industrial undertakings become ever more extensive and enormous. From moderately large concerns, employing hundreds of workers, they develop into gigantic establishments employing thousands (spinning-mills, breweries, sugar factories, iron works, etc.) The smaller undertakings tend to disappear: industrial development leads, from a certain point, not to an increase but to a continual decrease in the number of undertakings on a large scale.

But that is not all. The economic development leads also to the concentration of an ever greater number of undertakings into the hands of a few—either as the property of one capitalist or that of a capitalist association, which economically is only one person (a juridical person).

Several ways lead to that concentration.

One way is the endeavour of the capitalists to exclude competition. In the previous pages we have learnt that competition is the moving force of the present system of production; it is in fact the moving force of the production and exchange of commodities. But although competition is necessary for the entire society of commodity production, each single owner of commodities would like to see his commodities in the market without competition. If he happens to be a possessor of commodities in great demand or of a monopoly, then he is able to raise the prices above the value of his goods ; then those requiring his commodities are entirely dependent upon him for a supply of the same. Where several sellers appear in the same market with commodities of a similar kind, they can artificially create a monopoly by amalgamating and practically forming one single seller. Such an amalgamation—a combine, ring, trust, syndicate, etc., is naturally the sooner possible the smaller is the number of competitors whose opposing interests have to be reconciled.

In so far as the capitalist mode of production causes the extension of the market and the number of the competitors on the same, it makes the creation of monopolies in commerce and industry more difficult. But in every capitalist branch of industry there arrives, as already mentioned, sooner or later the moment, from which its further development leads to the diminution of the number of undertakings in that branch. From that moment the branch of industry developes more and more towards trustification. The time of maturity can be hastened in any given country through safeguarding its internal market against foreign competition by protective tariffs. The number of competitors for this market is thereby diminished and the amalgamation of home producers takes place, thus enabling them to create a monopoly and to obtain a greater share of the wealth produced in consequence of “protection.”

Within the last twenty years the number of combines, by which the production and prices of certain commodities are “regulated,” has, as we know, increased, particularly in the countries of protective tariffs—United States, Germany and France. Wherever it comes to combination the various concerns, which are amalgamated, form practically a concern under one management, they being very often in reality brought under one unified management.

It is indeed, the most important, and from the standpoint of carrying on industries, the most indispensable commodities, namely, coal and iron, whose production, sooner than that of other commodities, falls under the control of combines. Most combines extend their influence far beyond the branches of industry monopolised ; they make, in fact, all the conditions of production dependent upon a few monopolists.

Simultaneously with the endeavour to combine the various undertakings in a certain branch of industry into one, the endeavour grows to amalgamate into one also, various undertakings in different branches of industry, because in some of these concerns tools or raw materials are produced which are required for the carrying on of production in one or other of these various undertakings. Many railway companies possess their own coal mines and engineering works ; sugar factories endeavour to grow a portion of the beet-roots used by them ; potato growers establish their own distilleries, and so on. And there is a third way : that of combining several undertakings into one, the simplest of them all.

We have seen that the capitalist has had to fulfil very important functions under the present system of production. However superfluous these may be under a different organisation of production, yet under the domination of commodity production and private property in the means of living, producing on a large scale is now possible only on capitalist lines. And for that purpose it is necessary, if production is to proceed and the products are to reach the consumers, that the capitalist step in with his capital and apply it advantageously. Although the capitalist does not produce, does not create any value, he plays an mportant part in the present economic relations.

But the larger a capitalist undertaking grows, the more necessarv it becomes for the capitalist to transfer part of his increasing business functions either to the other capitalist undertakings or to his own paid officials whom he employs to carry out some of his duties. It matters nothing from the economic standpoint whether these functions are fulfilled by a wage-worker or a capitalist: they do not become of a value-creating character by the fact that the capitalist has them attended to by someone else, that is to say, that as far as they do not create value, the capitalist has to pay for them from surplus-value. We here get to know a new way of drawing upon surplus-value tending to the diminution of profit.

[To be continued]

The Trade Union Congress. (1908)

 

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress opened at Nottingham with a notable address from the chairman. Let the Daily News speak :—

”Mr. Shackleton’s address was largely occupied with the great social problems of the country at large—the drink question, the education question, the care of old age, and even dangers in foreign policy. On all of these joints he took a strong and definitely Liberal position.”

And that’s all that requires to be said for it. Mr. Shackleton made it quite clear that he had not a glimmer of an idea of the working-class position in relation to any of the questions touched upon. Either that, or he was concerned to obscure his knowledge. Mr. Shackleton, we are constantly informed, is the “strong man” of the Labour movement. He is. His strength lies in the definitely Liberal, and therefore pro-capitalist, and therefore anti-working-class, position he may be relied upon to occupy.

For example :

Mr. Shackleton thought the fact that Trade Unions’ returns shewed 8.2 per cent. of skilled workers unemployed in July of this year as compared with 3.7 last year, was one—calling “for the serious consideration of the Government” ! He affirmed that “the great political and social measure of the Session was undoubtedly the Licensing Bill” ; that the great question which is on everybody’s lips is what will the House of Lords do “when the Bill came before it” ; and that “Labour was prepared to fight the Lords on the Drink evil.”

But—

“The outstanding feature of a notable speech was the appeal to the Government to convene in London an international conference on labour.

He cited the precedent set by the German Emperor eighteen years ago. Since then the spread of the international character of the labour movement had been the most striking feature in the Trade Union world, and the time had come for another conference.”—Daily News.

Verily a strong man. A man head and shoulders above all the hosts of Israel. He would refer the unemployed problem to a government of capitalists who depend upon the maintenance of the unemployed problem. His most important Bill of the Session is the Licensing Bill which doesn’t matter a brass farthing to the working class. And the scintillating darling of his genius for statesmanship is an 18 years old proposal of that earnest and far-sighted labour leader, the German Emperor of that day, for an international conference on labour, to “include representatives of the European and United States (capitalist) Governments” who are opposed by the nature of their interests to the interests of the working class !

Evidently the fraternal delegates from America were impressed. “When Mr. Shackleton was in America,” said Mr. Creamer, “he described Mr. Gompers as a, ‘grand old man.’ I cannot do better than describe Mr. Shackleton as a ‘grand young man.'” Mr. Creamer doubtless meant that Mr. Shackleton was following in Mr. Gompers’ footsteps. Those who know Mr. Gompers as the chief labour lieutenant of the capitalist class in America, and know the work of Mr. Shackleton in England, will doubtless agree that Mr. Creamer “could do no better” in the way of accurate description. Mr. Gompers is at present actively engaged in assisting Mr. Bryan, capitalist candidate for the Presidency.

The same Mr. J. J. Creamer in the course of his address said: “In the Southern States the movement against child labour was growing and he hoped ultimately that all children and married women would be excluded from the mills.” He continued: “I want to congratulate this Congress . . . particularly on its president” (Mr. Shackleton). It is not recorded that Mr. Shackleton, the champion of child labour in mills, blushed noticeably. This is a real test of greatness !

With such a brilliant lead from such a brilliant leader the Congress settled down to its work, and notwithstanding the difficulties of the position, managed to follow the line marked out for it, with wonderful restraint, if not lamb-like docility. There was a full week of dull and stodgy talking, only lightened here and there by the contributions of such advanced thinkers as Mr. Harvey, M.P. Speaking on the motion that the Congress do all in its power to restrict Sunday labour, in the future, to the narrowest possible limits, this worthy person said : “Working men are not wholly free from blame. They are too much inclined to ask for Sunday excursions. I believe that the strength of our family and national life lies in the keeping of the Divine commandments.”

These selfish, luxury-loving working men, spending their substance in riotous living, and rushing about the four corners of the globe on a Sunday, instead of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy ! But who is this cheerful Harvey and who let him out of the museum of Mediaevialities ?

Once or twice proceedings threatened to grow stormy, as when somebody wanted a public enquiry into the methods of the Salvation Army’s “elevator” work, but as the Salvation Army is the one institution we cannot do without (according to Mr. MacDonald); the organisation upon which the “Labour” Party in the House relies for its information on working-class affairs, “the tumult and the shouting” died down into an agreement to leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Committee.

Against this one organisation that the “Labour” Party cannot do without, shameless and unblushing sweating, undercutting and black-legging, have been alleged and proven to the satisfaction of most men outside the Salvation Army’s own ranks. (In the ranks, probably, lying to the glory of God, is pardonable and permissible). The Parliamentary Committee will “deal” with this ; but the supply of blacklegs through other agencies, to fill the places of Continental workers on strike, is a matter reflecting upon the international credit of an imperial race—and so forth.

With these occasional breaks in the monotony everything went through “swimmingly,” and everybody appears to have been satisfied. Sheaves of resolutions were disposed of in a “business-like” way by talking on them for an hour or so and finally referring them to the Government who won’t do anything, or to the Parliamentary Committee who can’t. This, of course, is of no great consequence, as nine-tenths of the resolutions didn’t matter, and those that did the delegates seemed quite incapable of handling.

Such, incapacity is quite understandable when it is remembered that the delegates are, unfortunately, representatives of constituencies of ignorance. While that ignorance persists, we shall have the mortification of witnessing our own class annually wasting its money and its strength in Congress meetings, that do nothing quite as well as they demonstrate to the world of capitalism that the day when the profit-monger shall fear for his hoard is not yet.

For ourselves, there is nothing we can do except that which we have consistently done from our inception until now,—point out the futility of anything less than Socialism and urge the necessity for working-class organisation in industry as in politics, for the establishment of Socialism. That is the message our men have to carry to they who sit in darkness inside and outside Trade Unions—anywhere in fact where the workers do most congregate. In order to do it we must expose fraud or foolery, even though it is expressed through the workers’ most revered leaders.

That is a thankless task for which we shall probably continue to reap for some time more kicks than ha’pence. But as there is no other party in the country to do it, and as it must be done, we are not deterred by present contumely or indifference. Sooner or later the policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must win. We are in the Party that cannot lose ; working for the cause that cannot fail. If the workers or their leaders don’t like the truth we cannot help it. Children don’t like medicine, but when their case gets parlous they have to take it. The truth about the present Trade Union Congress is that it is a ghastly farce, a waste of time and money, and only of advantage to the delegates who, through it, get an annual junket at the workers’ expense.

Alegra.

Bounteous Bournville. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among the many devices adopted for the purpose of befuddling the minds of the working-class, a strong favourite is the one of loudly advertising the actions of the “good” members of the capitalist class and emphasising what they “do” for the workers. We are told of their contributions to various charitable institutions, their subscriptions to various funds, and of the thought and care they exercise in looking after those in their employ.

A typical instance of the latter point is Messrs. Cadbury’s model village at Bournville. Gallons of good ink and yards of paper have been used in describing the superiority Bournville possesses over the ordinary village or the working-class quarters of our large cities. Let us see how these “advantages” benefit the workers living in this model village.

When one first enters “Cadburytown,” the wide streets planted with trees, the semi-detached houses, each pair of different design, with large gardens in the rear and smaller gardens in the front, certainly convey the idea that this is a far healthier and more pleasant place to live in than most villages of the same size. True, the attempt to vary every pair of cottages has resulted in some weird and wonderful specimens of domestic architecture, but we may let that pass. A spacious recreation ground with a fine pavilion and a large allotment ground are also shown with pride to the visitor. He is also carefully informed that inside the large factories everything is clean and bright, and that Mr. Cadbury is himself frequently present to deal with any trouble or complaint that may arise. Inside the factory a gymnasium is fitted up and the younger of the employees partake of exercise, for a fixed period, during working hours. Up to a certain age—18 years I believe—costumes are provided for the girls entering the “gym” ; after that age they must provide such costume themselves.

But the Socialist is still unconverted. He has one or two questions to ask. He has already noticed that every garden is in a certain stage of cultivation. There are differences, of course, but all are cultivated in some degree. Then he learns that prizes are given for the best gardens and, to prevent ignorance of horticulture being advanced as a reason for not competing, two gardeners are employed for the purpose of instructing the tenants in the arts and mysteries of cultivating a small holding. The allotments, too, are ample, and from a cursory inspection it would seem that most of the tenants take up at least one plot.

After working during the day in the factory, the cocoa worker can enjoy the fresh air and the fragrance of Nature by working on his garden or allotment land ; or he may take a turn at cricket or football practice on the recreation ground. He is expected to compete for the garden prizes, for what would be the use of providing professional gardeners to instruct him if he does not take advantage of their services ? Thus between his cottage garden, the allotment plot, and the recreation ground he finds himself under the aegis of Cadbury from the moment he awakes till he retires to his well-earned rest.

Those of the working class who have attempted to follow any regular or systematic course of study, know only too well the serious handicap that working as a wage-slave during the day imposes upon them, and how difficult it is to apportion their scanty spare time to the best advantage. At Bournville the worker is completely safeguarded against any such worries by the simple expedient of filling up his time outside the factory with work—of a different kind, perhaps, to that inside—under the eye of Cadbury. It might be inconvenient for Cadbury and the rest of the capitalist class were he to spend his spare time in studying, say, the source of surplus value, or the cause of unemployment. Therefore he must have something else to do—and he has.

Just before leaving, a question perhaps occurs to the visitor that the array of “good” things done by the capitalist had, up till then, driven into the back-ground. “What are the wages paid here?” he asks, and is surprised to find that no one seems to know. By dint of some enquiries he gradually discovers that most of the employees are paid at piece-work rates. But in addition to this they are expected to turn out a certain quantity in a given time ; in other words, it is not only piece work, but task work.

The tyro in economics may wonder why the employer should trouble about the quantity the worker turns out seeing that the latter is only paid for what he produces. Like other capitalists, however, Cadburys have long learnt that the establishment expenses are going on all the same, and that the larger the quantity of articles this can be spread over, the relatively cheaper is the production.

And now the iron hand inside the velvet glove is beginning to be discerned. If a worker does not keep up to the standard speed set by the employer, he or she is required to give an explanation. Do they not live in a healthy place with plenty of open-air occupations ? Are not the houses fairly roomy and healthy, so different to the crowded town slum ? Is not the gymnasium provided in the works, to be used during the employer’s time, on purpose to keep the worker physically fit ? And the wage-slave at Bournville would be obliged to answer “yes” to all these questions. Then why are you not able to keep up at the pace fit for the highest physical efficiency at present humanly possible? And some plausible excuse must be found, or there is a vacancy soon after.

To do him the barest justice it must be admitted that Cadbury himself admits that it is not philanthropy, but entirely business reasons that lay behind the establishment of Bournville. To obtain the maximum output from the worker he or she must be in the highest state of physical efficiency. This again can only be obtained by supplying the worker with the means of keeping in good health. Hence the detached cottages and large air space at Bournville. Hence also the gymnasium in the factory.

The gardens, allotments, and recreation ground are part of a more general scheme for binding the employees, body and mind, to their employers by keeping them completely under the employers’ control every moment of their lives. Despite their “superior” surroundings, the employees at Bournville are more completely enslaved, and certainly as much exploited, as the workers in the ordinary industrial centres. The form under which the exploitation takes place may differ, but the essence remains. Cadbury, no more than any other capitalist, can get wealth out of the air. It can only be produced by the application of human energy to the nature-given materials. Large subscriptions to various lists and the subsidising of a daily paper can only take place when some section of the working class is being robbed of the results of their applied labour-power. Attempts to “sugar” the pill by building “model” villages and fitting up gymnasiums cannot hide the fact of its being a pill, while, as shown above, the “sugar” is more than compensated for by the increased enslavement of the employees. One does not hear of a union among the workers at Bournville, for, of course, there is no need of such a thing where the worker can speak to his employer personally and place his grievance—or demands—before him first hand ; while, in his isolation, he is wondering what on earth the man working next to him is going to do. Not by misleading the workers into thinking there are “good” and “bad” capitalists, but by showing them that all capitalists and employers can only exist by robbery will the emancipation of the working class be hastened. Only by using their scanty leisure to learn the lesson of Socialism put forward by the S.P.G.B. will they get rid of the superstition that an alteration in the form or methods of exploitation can alter their position. With that lesson learnt the days of Cadbury, Bournville, and Bunkum will be over.

Jack Fitzgerald

Can a man be a Socialist and a Christian? (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Yes,” say the I.L.P., S.D.P., and the other quassi-Socialist parties who are after big mem­berships. Well, the Socialist says the only cure for poverty is in the intellectual awakening of the working class, preliminary to the ownership and control of the means of life. The Christian says the cure for poverty is in “believing prayer to our God.” One is absolutely dependent upon “God.” The other is absolutely indifferent to God. How, then, can a man be a Socialist and a Christian ?

At Random. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Mr. Burrows ought to be in Parliament; he is much the sanest of the Party to which he belongs.” (W. T. Stead, Review of Reviews, August, 1908.

* * *

After this handsome certificate of comparative “sanity” from one of the most notorious tin gods of Nonconformist-Liberalism, the suave gentleman who plays “Socialism” on a cracked pipe in an impossible key to the tune of “Reform,” should experience no trouble in making one of those “compacts” with the master-class which the Social Democratic Party would never endorse.

* * *

What, never ? Well; hardly ever ! See Manifesto of the S.P.G.B., pp. 1, 9, and 10.

* * *

The “humanity” of individual members of the governing class often throws a lurid light on the all-essential conception of class-consciousness. We learn from the Correspondent of the Daily News that “President, Faillères and M. Clemenceau have stubborn objections to capital punishment.”

* * *

Whether a criminal shall take his last look through the “little window,” or be immured in prison, has little, or very remote, bearing on the interests of the gentlemen in question as members of the governing class. Quite otherwise with a strike. The sabred right of the capitalist to exercise his unfettered “freedom” in brutal exploitation is challenged. The genial Fallières and the clement Clemenceau have no hesitation then in shooting.

* * *

“Stubborn objections to capital punishment” en masse, in the interests of the employers, have as little existence with Fallières and Clemenceau. as with Asquith and Burns.

* * *

When will the worker fully grasp the fatal significance of the armed forces of the nation to himself ? “Hard times” are in store during the coming winter. Sharp reminders of the real moaning of such forces may serve to help even fatuous fools of the Blatchford type to see that preservation of “our” country is the function of the army and navy only on the clear recognition of the fact that “our” is synonymous with the class that hold and control the instruments of production.

* * *

The worker is fatherland-less. Stripped of all claim to any advantages which he may have formerly enjoyed from the use of land, the appeal to save “our” country from foreign conquest by the Editor of the Clarion, is on a par with his strenuous begging for funds to finance “our” Vans—which belong, as you please are solely controlled by—spite the feeble Clarionese kickers—the Editor of the Clarion

* * *

As thus : “MY method is soon told. I look out for good men. When I find one, I give thanks. I put him into the right place. I give him a free hand.”

“Alderman E. R. Hartley will be appointed Van Organiser.—Clarion (recent issue).

* * *

Inimitable style, Nunquam’s ! ! My very dear friends of the Clarion brand of “Reform,” DO YOU READ “YOUR” ORGAN?

* * *

Listen to the tale of woe ! The Class Teacher this time. “Pious professional protests, pious professional tears have all been in vain. In some cases we (the teachers’ unions) are actually progressing backwards.”

“One gets sick unto death of it all: we are singing and making merry while the ship is sinking.”

* * *

The “dearth” of teachers has come to a most brutal, beastly, unseemly end. The poor pedagogue is actually being brought face to face with “iron laws of supply and demand.” But—soft ! We will take heed unto ourselves, we will take counsel of the miner, we will learn wisdom from the bricklayer, and the gasworker. We “will reduce the number of possible blacklegs.”

* * *

Why, damme ! if it comes to that, “we will adopt strike principles.”

* * *

Ay ! Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the Counter-Jumpers’ Champion, noise it not abroad in the Dustmen’s Herald—we will bow our heads, and admit “uncertificated teachers” to the Union what time we declare that “with the ‘supplementary ‘ teachers we have no cause in common.”

* * *

“No cause in common.” Fools and blind ! Compelled to sell your pitiful commodity, a shoddy education, at a rate which compels you too oft to occupy your “leisure” time in petty trading, in divers pursuits which a false pride and an eye to income tax compels you to hide, you have yet to learn that you have a “cause in common” with your class, the working class.

* * *

Meanwhile, the President of your Union is discovering that there is a “great sense of unity” among teachers in the wonderful German Empire.

* * *

A comrade from Manchester, who modestly hides his individuality under the weird title of “Jaybee,” writes: —

“The futility of endeavouring to put a stop to industrial operations by such a method as the general strike, was shown during the recent strike in Paris ; Mr. Clemenceau, the Premier, said he would be able to place at the disposal of the directors, military engineers to take the place of the men in supply stations if they went on strike.”

* * *

“Further, he was prepared to supply TROOPS TO GUARD THE MAINS.”

* * *

A striking commentary on the soundness of the position taken up by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, viz: that, whilst fully recognising the necessity of organisation on the industrial plane, the seizure of the political machinery (including the armed forces of the nation) by the worker, is absolutely essential to working-class emancipation.

* * *

“Direct action,” however thickly veiled with high-seeming Socialist phrases, is Anarchy, and he who would persuade the worker to “drive out Beelzebub with Beelzebub” is working present woe, and hindering future weal in a way that is the more tragic, in so far as a genuine desire to serve his class often dominates the misguided devotee to an ancient and obsolete faith.

A. Reginald

Letter: Money: Will it be needed under socialism? (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Money: Will it be needed under socialism?

To the Editor.

Sir,—Having participated, as a humble listener, in many discussions on Socialism, I have noticed, as no doubt have many others, what a stumbling block the money question presents to many earnest seekers after truth. Seeing on sale a pamphlet bearing the title quoted at the head of this letter, I purchased a copy in the hope that it would help in surmounting the obstacle in question.

Mr. A. P. Hazell, the author, is not, I understand, a member of your Party, but I feel sure you will grant him space to clear up my doubts and remove my difficulties.

“The ordinary individual is quite confused in his ideas concerning the medium of exchange,” says Mr. Hazell, with which I quite agree, as I also do with two other statements, viz., “Capitalism presupposes production of wealth which has to be distributed by means of exchange,” and “Socialism does not presuppose distribution of wealth by means of exchange. It assumes that society has evolved a stage beyond exchange, and that, consequently, there will be no need for money.” But I understand that Mr. Hazell is a prominent member of, and an accepted economic authority in, the Social Democratic Party, which has for its object “The Socialisation of the Means of Production, Distribution and Exchange.” Its members refer to this object as Socialism. Why then seek to socialise something which is necessary to capitalism but not to Socialism, which will supersede it? I have heard members of the S.D.P. criticise the I.L.P. because the latter would socialise capital, whereas Socialism means its abolition. Is this not a case of pot and kettle ?

Mr. Hazell deals with “The Guernsey Experiment” which “Shows that money even now under given conditions can be dispensed with.” But the paragraph records that the Governor of Guernsey issued paper money against the cash which was to come in as rent for stalls. As it came in the paper money was withdrawn from circulation. This, in my opinion, proves the opposite to what the author claims.

“If Municipalities” says Mr. Hazell, “could overcome the opposition of the Bankers, and obtain the consent of Parliament, they could easily raise funds and do without the capitalist financiers whose function it is to exact interest on loans.” It seems to me that municipalities will not be able to do this until the conscious effort of the Socialist working class has deprived the capitalist financiers of their political power and appointed its delegates to organise the administration of things. If I am right then it is little use and very confusing to argue upon this “if.”

But it is on pages 4 and 5 that I encounter my greatest difficulties ! Mr. Hazell says : “A socialistically-inclined Cabinet would have to go cautiously to work to realise their aim. Its best method would be to enter the field of production, and bodily attack the present system of exchange,” and again, “But let us be clear. No Socialist Government would enter into production ostensibly for the purpose of either abolishing money or the system of exchange. They would be laughed at by the ignorant, who for a long time yet will remain in the majority,” and further, “Socialists are in favour of direct employment, and will, without question, force the hands of the Government to move in this direction against its will.” We would thus appear to have arrived at a condition of affairs in which we have an ignorant majority but yet a Socialist Government. This Socialist Government would not enter into production on Socialist lines, because they would be laughed at. The hands of the Socialist Government would be forced (against their will) by the Socialists ! Now mark this is not a position arising from a division in the House suddenly placing the Socialist Party in office, because “The capitalists, defeated at the poll, etc.” The unwilling Socialist Government has beaten the capitalists at the ballot box, although “the ignorant are still in the majority.” “Let us be clear,” says Mr. Hazell. Well, let us, by all manner of means, let us

No wonder that Mr. Hazell assumes that his Government is full of trouble ! It wants to borrow money, but has trouble with the financiers ; an agitation in the country has succeeded in getting passed through the House the Right to Work Bill, which increases its difficulties; it is afraid to raise the income tax beyond a certain point because that might cause civil war; but at last the sun appears upon the horizon. The Government receives an order from the Colonies for a warship, to cost two millions. To enable it to construct this monument to the establishment of the brotherhood of man, it issues paper to the value of two millions, which it redeems when the Colonies pay over the cash for the Socialist “Dreadnought.” It extends its undertakings and its profits enable it to defy all opposition. I did not think that warships and profits would play a part when a Socialist Administration had been elected, but I suppose I was wrong.

There are other points in the pamphlet I should like to deal with did space permit, but only one will I touch upon now. If Mr. Hazell endeavours to assist me will he please state whether there will be a “reserve army of labour” under Socialism—an army of unemployed seeking work ? I ask this because on page 15, after the “Reformers” have won, when “the organisation of labour is now so perfect that there is a superabundance of wealth,” he refers to the drafting of “surplus” labour into particular departments, and I do so wish to be “clear.”

—Yours etc., 

Kendrick Johns.

September 9th, 1908.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1908)

Party News from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: On the Cause of War. (1908)

Editorial from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the Cause of War.

A few years ago the Sociological Society published some papers by J. S. Stuart-Glennie on “Some General Historical Laws,” designed to establish, among other things, that a “periodic law” operated to bring into inevitable conflict the East and the West, the Mongol races and the Aryan races at intervals of half a millennium. The Russo-Japanese War seems to have happened most opportunely for the purposes of the argument, and was hailed by our author as a palpable fulfilment of his prophecy: “Thus as, long years ago, I predicted from this periodic law, there has occurred in this twentieth century another of those great European-Asian conflicts which, at intervals of approximately half-a-millennium, have marked the age since the upbreak of the truly ancient civilisations in the sixth century B.C.”

The order of the events which culminated in this last upheaval are given thus: “The first epoch opened the Graeco-Roman half-millennium which culminated in the world conquest of Alexander . . . and of Aristotle. The second, that of Julius and Augustus Caesar and the establishment of Christianism by Constantine. The third, that of Mohammed and the first conquests of Islam, opened the Medieval half-millennium of the Byzantine empire and the barbarous Western anarchy only temporarily abated by Charlemagne. The fourth, the Asiatic conquests of the Turks and the first Crusades opened the Feudal half-millennium. The fifth opened the modern Industrial half-millennium of access to and attack on Further Asia, and the establishment of the Crescent for the Cross in Asiatic Europe.” The sixth epoch was punctuated by the Russo-Japanese War and—there you are ! The Russo-Japanese War was clearly ordained by the Fates about the time the crust of the earth was solidifying, and couldn’t have been otherwise.

The Revelations of General Kuropatkin.

Clearly, therefore, General Kuropatkin’s idea that the whole cause of the trouble was merely a dirty financial deal in which the Russian Royal House was engaged, has not taken into account the whole of the case. The Russian Royal Family doubtless wanted the timber wealth of Manchuria and were quite prepared to ride rough-shod over all the undertakings ever made in the name of their country ; they were prepared to drench a continent in blood in order to put money into their own pockets, and, on the showing of Kuropatkin, did it. These, however, were mere accidental causes only. Actually, on the hypothesis of “periodic law,” the war was, like the salvation of the soul of the hard-shelled Baptist, foreordained before the foundation of the world.

We fear, however, few students of history will be able to subscribe to Mr. Stuart-Glennie’s thesis on the evidence adduced. They will be far more ready to accept Kuropatkin’s plain statement of the immediate causes of the war, the more particularly as all wars can, with a high degree of certainty, be connected with approximately similar causes. Mr. Stuart-Glennie’s “periodic law” could not apply unless the conditions, at the expiration of the half-millennium time limit, were favourable to war between the races concerned. If a forest fire had swept Manchuria free of timber a year or two before the outbreak between Russia and Japan, the “periodic law” would have been punctured, if, as Kuropatkin asserts on indisputable evidence, it was the fact that the timber land was the bone of financial contention. The “law” that depends upon so small and accidental a thing as a bonfire, is not one to base large calculations upon.

Some Cant and a Lesson.

Once again, then, it is established that wars are in general the outcome of conflict of economic interests. And once again we are brought up against the rant or the cant that the moralist newspaper gentlemen, who are pleased to do our thinking for us, and who are concerned to ascribe, as far as possible, other causes to wars in order that the truth may be obscured, retail for our consumption. Where, as in the case of the Russo-Japanese War, the “gaff has been blown” so thoroughly by a man in a position to speak with absolute authority as Kuropatkin, it is difficult to disguise the brutal, sordid facts. The only thing possible, therefore, is to speak as though the case were quite exceptional. At this sort of game the Daily News is always first class. In its leading article upon the subject it delivers itself thus : “We had known that a Royal Family’s greed played a considerable part in this horrible business ; we now know that it was the moving cause, and that, but for the greed of the St. Petersburg Court circle the war would never have occurred.” And again : “Deliberately to bring about one of the most terrific wars of history in order that a worthless set of royal relations, hanging about a court, may handle a little more gold than they had before, is a development that may suit a commercial age, but adds a new shame to the history of mankind.”

“New shame !” There is nothing new in it. It doesn’t make a difference in the “shame” because the persons standing to benefit are a royal gang of financiers and not a gang of professional bucket shop keepers, or capitalists in quest of new markets. It’s the old “shame,” as old as wars are old, and the only “moral” there is to it, is the lesson it offers for working-class learning, that the capitalist class control the State, because they dominate politics, and are prepared to use all the power of their control in their own interests, whether they lie in the direction of using the weaponed arm of the State for the purpose of cracking the heads of native workmen who manifest discontent, or in the direction of carrying on an aggressive policy abroad for the markets of the world and the benefit of their own banking accounts. In either case the remedy lies in the workers capturing political control in their own interest —the interest of the useful section of society.

Hell in the Clouds.

Discussing the further question of the development of aerial navigation and its possible relation to war, the organ of the “Prince of Peace” pursues its dull and melancholy way:—

“To drop various explosives down upon large objects like cities would not be difficult, but, after all, there are such things as Hague Conventions against the random destruction of private property.”

“Fool and slow of heart, who hath bewitched you?” Verily, the faith of the Daily News in Hague Conventions is of the brand that ought to move mountains. But faith never yet moved a mountain and there is no reason to suppose it will be more efficacious in the future than in the past—not even when the object to be moved is a mountain of stupidity or fraud such as the Hague Convention undoubtedly is. The question is, can the Hague Convention prevent the conflict of national commercial interests ? If it can, and when it does, it may stop wars which are, every one, the outcome of capitalist rapacity. But as it doesn’t try to stay the war of capitalist commerce, and could not effect it if it did, it follows that the interference of the Hague Conventions will stop wars when wars are impossible ! Just then.

But, say the peace-makers, the Hague Convention, we know, cannot stop wars, but it can by agreement, humanise them. It could, for example, rule out airships, or at any rate, prevent their use in the discharge of explosives from above and so on. Yes, it can—as it ruled out expanding bullets, and the inhuman practice of smoking out the enemy who had taken refuge in caves, and all the rest of it. But its ruling would not affect the matter worth tuppence for all that. It did not in South Africa.

The way of Peace.

You can’t humanise war. If you could it would not be war. While we have wars we must have inhumanity. And we must have wars until Socialism. Because even assuming the possibility of the present development of capitalism toward monopoly, reaching the universal trust stage, wars between sections of the working class and the dominant power would still continue, and probably be far more bloody than now. Even now we have our Right Honourable John Burnses and others of the “humanity-mongers” calling for the use of the deadliest weapons in industrial struggles.

The immediate object of war is to dispose of the opposing forces. To do that, if they won’t cave in, “you must kill ’em, and kill ’em, and kill ’em blooming dead” as somebody said somewhere. And you don’t kill ’em with humanity either. You use explosives and steel. The idea is to get as much explosive matter pumped in as possible in order that the opposition may be crumpled up the quicker. And that’s where the balloon may come in. If it can be used in that way to suit capitalist purposes it certainly will be; and would be the day after the signing of a Hague Convention, by all concerned, prohibiting it.

The only power that can stand between the people and the inhumanity of war is the organised working class of the world. The only hope that the intelligent peace-makers have against the possibility of serial machines dumping murder upon them from the clouds, is in the working class of the world organising themselves before the navigation of the air has reached the stage of the efficiently practical. Their only hope, that is, is Socialism. An for the peace-makers of the Daily News order, they merely howl “peace” when there is no peace— nor can be.

In The Ditch. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Common Objections To—The Clarion!

Mr. R B. Suthers is a distinguished member of the Clarion staff who gives expression to his avowed desire to propagate Socialism by propagating. anything and everything (nearly) that isn’t Socialism. His style is as faithful a reproduction of Mr. Blatchford’s as he is able to make it, and his speciality is milk and water and the like, which he is fain to see municipalised. In this, he has, although he may not know it, the support of considerable numbers of capitalists, who, being quite aware, as Mr. Suthers is apparently not, that municipalisation and nationalisation of various services will not affect their interests other than beneficially, are probably duly grateful for Mr. Suthers’ work.

Recently, Mr. Suthers, out of his plentiful lack of information, has undertaken to make the crooked path straight for those who cannot see. This is chivalrous, but it hasn’t prevented both the blind man and his Quixotic but equally blind guide finishing up in the ditch. Unfortunately, Mr. Suthers, being rather badly afflicted, isn't even able to appreciate the fact that he is off the road, and as Mr. Blatchford has all his attentions occupied in keeping touch with the German army which is mobilising somewhere or other in preparation for a descent upon our land (which we haven’t got) with the idea of doing us an injury (which we are suffering from already), there is nobody on the Clarion to acquaint Mr. Suthers of his unhappy position. This is a charitable presupposition of Mr. Blatchford’s ability and readiness to help his henchman out of his hole. As, however, Mr. Blatchford has himself pointed out, rather graciously, that he is miles in front of the rest of us, it is at least doubtful whether he would feel justified in returning, and there are those who allege that even if he did, it is extremely doubtful whether he would be able to assist. The result is that Mr. Suthers goes floundering along with his miserable charge in tow, and is so well satisfied with his efforts that he proposes to publish a full and correct report of them in book form.

At present only one volume has been issued and flounderings in article form are still appearing in the paper of “ the largest circulation of any,” etc., etc. (Mr. Blatchford sees no reason why the Daily Mail and all the other papers with largest circulations should have the brag entirely to themselves). When they are all published in book form somebody will have to come along with another book to show that it’s only a ditch Mr. Suthers has been exploring after all. In other words, Mr. Suthers’ answers to objectors to Socialism and his replies to those in difficulties, will require another answer by one who is not blind, and can see the difference between the plain high road and the dank and dreary ditch—or would require an answer if Mr. Suthers really and materially mattered.

We would turn one of our young bloods on to that book if his time and the Party money were not required for more important work. So while yet the great work is incomplete, we will just notice one of Mr. Suthers' efforts as it appears in article form, and then drop him unless we want a little light exercise again at some future time. Let us take this one as an example. Generally speaking, the others are full up to sample. Somebody had written to say that the Clarion closed its eyes to the class struggle and Mr. R. B. Suthers spreads himself in reply, thus: — 

   This is comic. The sole reason for the Clarion's existence is the awakening of the workers to the causes of their evil condition, viz., the private ownership of land and the means of production. Until they realise that these ARE the causes of their slavery there can be no "class’’ struggle. When they do realise the facts, and decide to remove the causes, the "struggle” will be of short duration, and of course it will be conscious.

Mr. Suthers opens well. The first three words are finely introductory to the remainder. Verily, this is comic. The class struggle cannot exist until the workers are conscious of it. (Mr. Suthers “lifted” that without acknowledgement from the comic work of his brother in affliction, Ramsay MacDonald). The man who, upon reaching home, finds that somebody has relieved him of hie purse, hasn't really been robbed, can't have been robbed—until he finds out he has been. The robbery did not take place half-an-hour or an hour, or whatever it was, before, but only when the man reached home and found it out. I suppose the man then shut his front door quick in case the pickpocket should get away!

Mr. Suthers has apparently never read his revered chiefs book, entitled, “Not Guilty,” or he would know that every human action is the outcome of a conflict, or a struggle of forces, of which the individual is often blissfully unconscious. But perhaps Mr. Suthers does not think much of his chiefs collection of the opinions of others in the book referred to. And presumably he would say that the continual outbreaks of the working class against oppression are not expressions of the conflict of working class and capitalist class interests, because the working class do not recognise them as such.

Does Mr. Suthers admit the existence of conflict between the interests of the two classes referred to? If so, does he deny that the conflict cannot exist without struggle? Can he conceive of a conflict without struggle?—but perhaps he can. Mr. Suthers is like the most high with whom anything is possible. His arguments are like the love of the most high—they pass all understanding. That, of course, is largely due to the fact that Mr. Suthers does not understand. He hasn’t the knowledge. Which would not be nearly so serious a matter if he did not suffer so badly from the complaint of his chief —swelled head. That is fatal to his future usefulness in the working-class movement. With a little serious study he might be of assistance in the work of awakening the working class. But as he starts with the assumption that he has the knowledge he really lacks, there is not much hope for him unless something very special happens. Perhaps while engaged in blundering blindly in that ditch with his enquirer in tow, he will come a sufficiently forceful cropper to cause the enquirer to discover where he is and to lash out in indignation at the discovery. This may in turn arouse Mr. Suthers to the truth of affairs, and help him to a happier position. Or it may result in him throwing up the working-class movement in disgust at its base ingratitude and retiring to the somnolescent quiet of the Fabian Society. In either case the working-class movement stands to benefit.

James Alexander

Party Pars. (1908)

Party News from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades everywhere should make a special point of sending in to the Editor any paper, cutting or book extract containing facts and figures of value in propaganda. The capitalist system is continually giving itself away; continually giving indications of the growth of that seed of its own destruction which is inherent in it. We can, by the simple expedient of keeping our eyes open, get every month enough dynamite from the enemy’s own magazine to blow him and all his works to the hell out of which they came. This is something that any one can do. Do it!

#    #    #    #

Councillor Gorle, S.D.P., has accepted the challenge of the Watford Branch to public discussion. Arrangements are proceeding. Mr. Gorle intervened in the correspondence which the Watford Branch were conducting in the local Press, in reference to the position of the Party and the hooligan tactics of the Tariff Reformers, and promptly found himself in the pillory and very much on the defensive. The pending debate is the result.

#    #    #    #

The Islington Branch are holding a ‘‘Grand Social and Dance” on the 3rd inst. (Saturday evening), at 7.30 p.m.. in the Fairfax Hall, Portland Gardens (close to Harringay Park Station). The North London boys (and girls) have a reputation for quality in entertainments of this description, and Islington may be relied upon to keep their end up adequately. Visitors will find, therefore, full value for the sixpence which they must pay to secure admission. Tickets of Branch Secretary or at the doors.

#    #    #    #

Through the columns of the Burnley Express a debate between representatives of the Temperance Party and the S.P.G.B. has been conducted upon the question : “Is the position of the Temperance Party economically sound?” This is an effective change from the oral method normally adopted. The representative of the Party had small difficulty in disposing of the Temperance advocate, although the latter may not he disposed to accept that view. However, and here is one of the advantages of this method, the printed word of the debate remains.' We are quite satisfied to take the verdict of the worker who is prepared to weigh both sides of the discussion without prejudice.

#    #    #    #

Owing to the great pressure on space, several important articles, besides some of the regular features, have had to be omitted from this issue. There would be little difficulty in doubling the size of the paper if sales warranted the increase. Verb, sap., Q. E. D., etc., etc.

#    #    #    #

Scotland Yard have refused to issue to the Paddington Branch the permit supposed to be necessary to enable collections to be made at public meetings, notwithstanding that the Salvation Army seems to possess such authority and make collections without interference. On the other hand, the Islington Branch has been informed that the permit is no longer necessary. On the third hand, as Mr. Dooley would say, a permit has been applied for and obtained by the Earlsfield Branch since the application of Paddington was made. Either, therefore, Scotland Yard are at sixes and sevens, or, which is more probable. persons of local standing are pulling the leg of the police in Paddington, to the detriment of the Paddington Branch. The E.C. are taking action and will report developments.

#    #    #    #

The comrades who spent their holidays in propaganda work in Nottingham, report large and interested audiences and good literature sales. The seed has been sown on good ground, and in due season may be relied on to bring forth much fruit. Already several members have been enrolled.

Blatchford under the Harrow. (1908)

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between the nether millstones of the Socialist attitude upon the question of invasion, and the Liberal Manchester Guardian's answer upon the facts of the present German scare, Robert Blatchford has been rather pitiably pulverised. The Socialist Party derides Mr. Blatchford's passion for lamp-black and lightning, and repudiates his attitude upon war as upon other working-class questions; and the Manchester Guardian, with a single splutter of the pen, has killed the only alleged fact upon which Mr. Blatchford built up his war scare articles. His 200,000 Germans practising embarkation are now, as he himself admits, as dead as doornails. It is true Mr. Blatchford admits his error (as to the 200,000). There was. indeed, nothing else for it. But he still holds to the idea that we are in danger of invasion.

From a working-class point of view, of course, it doesn’t matter two straws whether we are or not. There is no reason for supposing that a German capitalist is worse than one of the bull-dog breed, and this is the only question that affects the workers in this connection. The casual person would be justified in concluding from the outcry of scare mongers of Mr. Blatchford's mould, that the Germans were a semi-barbarous horde who, having conquered England, would either put the whole 40 millions of us to the sword and have done with us in one great blood orgy, or would enslave and reduce us to a state of wretchedness inconceivable. In point of fact the normal German is at least the equal of the normal Britain in intelligence, and standard of comfort. If, therefore, the hosts of the Teutonic capitalist overran us and imposed German conditions and a German standard of comfort, there would be no material change in the case of the working class. As for any attempt to appreciably reduce the standard of living, that is clearly impossible. The working class of this country have plumbed the deeps of misery and poverty. They have, as a class, no further to go if they are to maintain anything approximating to working efficiency.

Therefore the intelligent working-class answer to the lay of the Clarion minstrel is, that, as they have nothing to lose but their chains, they are supremely indifferent to the possibility of a Prussian descent upon the English capitalist's coast. If Germany wants good old England, they may have it for us. It doesn’t belong to the English working class. Why should the English working class worry about preserving it for others? If the others want it, let them fight for it. and if they manage to eat one another in the process, all the better.

The only thing that matters is the development of a consciousness of working-class solidarity, born of appreciation of the common cause of the working-class misery and its common remedy. Socialism is the answer to every question of working-class import, and— Socialism knows no frontier. It matters nothing that England may be peopled as to one half by Germans, or by any other proportion nameable of any or all nationalities on the capitalist globe. That would make no difference to the movement of the working class towards the world-embracing Co-operative Commonwealth. The workers of all nations make common cause against the common or capitalist exploiter.

Therefore, if invasion is coming, let it come; and if Mr. Blatchford wants to don his old uniform and go out to fight, let him fight. It will he no more than one foolish entry on his own record - -and what is one among so many! Upon questions of this sort he is suspect. His reputation is known. He is weighed in the balances. He is of the stuff that the patriot is made—the patriot of the music hall—however he may protest to the contrary. He has worn regimentals and they have got into his blood. For this cause he gives himself over to the imagination of vain things (one of them being that he can speak with authority upon military matters). Wars and rumours of wars are (with the lust of adulation), meat and drink to him. He may quite honestly hold himself to be a man of peace but,—it is no more than a delusion he hugs. What reason he has, goes to the four winds at the tap of a drum. “My country right or wrong,” is the essence of Jingoism, and that was openly, blatantly, the attitude of Blatchford during the Boer War, however much he may attempt (as he has so often attempted), to disguise it to-day by quotations from other articles of that time, capable of bearing other constructions. He went “off the handle then, and his unfortunate daughter played, so he told the world, the “national” anthem (or was it “ Rule Britannia”?) every evening at his command. He was Sergeant Blatchford of the Dublin Fusiliers then, and he would be Sergeant Blatchford once again. He has very much in common with Kaiser Bill —whom he despises.

Well, the Socialist movement cannot afford to have a Sergeant Blatchford of the Dublin Fusiliers. He would be dear at any price.

But it must be a bitter pill for if the word is pardonable - so “cocksure” a gentleman as Mr. Blatchford to have to make public confession of error.

A. J. M. Gray