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

Loving fathers of industry. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

An interesting advertisement booklet recently published by Messrs. Joseph Crosfield & Sons, the Warrington soapworkers’ exploiters, shows how “model employers” dominate even the “private life” of their wage slaves, dictating as to how they should spend their scanty leisure.

After giving the names of the directors and other parasites who “run” the business, the pamphlet shows us how increased efficiency in the worker only benefits the capitalist class. For it states: “It is compulsory upon all boys and girls (employees) between the age of 14 and 17 to attend an evening school at least three nights a week. The course of instruction for boys is naturally concerned with questions relating to their line of work.” (Italics mine.)

Not a bad wheeze, teaching the poor kiddies their trade at night schools in their all too meagre spare time, after they have put in 8½ hours hard graft at the works for their lords and masters ! It is obvious, of course, that no time will be lost at work in teaching these youngsters soap making ! For the workers’ time is money to the capitalist.

We are then told that in the day-work departments, the 9½ hour day has been reduced to an 8½ hour day, “and events have proved that as much work as previously is done in the shorter hours.” Will the “B.S.P.” please note, that if the 8 hour day for all workers came into vogue, the capitalists would see to it, as they have done in this case, that the workers’ output was not lessened, but that they would be “speeded up,” so that the same or even an in­creased output was maintained in the shorter working day, with less expense to the masters in running machinery, lighting and heating the factories, etc.

With an eye to business the firm tells us: “The physical aspect of education is not over­ looked, for all work-girls up to the age of 17 undergo a course of gymnastics during the winter months.” Because strong, healthy, well-developed workers can obviously turn out more and better work than weak, unhealthy, and ill-nourished workers. So that from a purely busi­ness point of view—the point of view the master class always take—this little incidental expense well repays the employers.

Under the ironical heading “Social Recreation during Leisure Hours,” we are informed that the firm provide a company of the 4th Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment (Territorials), also a company of boy-scouts.

Note the masters’ determination to inocculate their workers with that brain-disease, patriotism. One can imagine how useful would these same workers be in defending their masters’ property against foreign invaders, or more probably, strike rioters.

Verily, the capitalist moves in mysterious ways, his wonders to perform !

This, we are told, is how the firm take a keen interest in the social life of the work-people ! Not much time for these workers to study their slave position in society. The firm see to it that their workers’ minds are diverted into less revolutionary and dangerous channels.

“Garden Village” employers go one better even, by providing their workers with libraries filled with capitalist works, libraries from which working class books and papers are vi­gorously excluded. Gardening, too, is taught, and thus the workers keep the “garden village” well cultivated in their spare time, without expense to the employers. Free fire brigade staff, ambulance staff, and gardening staff ! And so on, ad nauseam.

After giving a description of the soapmaking the pamphlet concludes with photos, several showing the work-people cheering and flag-wagging, on the occasion of a recent visit to the works of our royal parasites.

The enormous profits made out of the unpaid labour of the workers by soap kings was demonstrated by the “Daily Chronicle,” (24.4.14). According to that rag, Messrs. Joseph Watson & Sons, the Leeds soapmakers, made a profit of £103,999 last year, as compared with £84,215 in the year previous.

How much more of this devilish game will you workers submit to ? Aren’t you tired of being referred to in contemptuous terms as the working asses? or are you going to quietly wait for that last phase of this rapidly decaying system, State Capitalism, with its universal “model employers,” “garden villages,” “ideal conditions of labour,” “co-partnership,” “profit-sharing,” etc.; which is really more intensified slavery still—to a hide-bound State, instead of private employers—than that which exists at present ?

Capitalism has long since outstayed its wel­come ; why not organise with us and overthrow it at once ? “Now is the accepted time ”

A. C. Kelly

A Letter from Mr. Walton Newbold (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fulham, London, S. W. 6. 

3rd Sept., 1932.

The Editor, the Socialist Standard,

Tell the truth and riddle the opportunists. 

Dear Comrade,

In saying that I am now supporting the Maxtonites and implying that I have joined the I.L.P. once more, you are reading into the letter, headed, “The Puritan Strain” and appearing in The New Clarion recently, much more than you are entitled to do. Certainly, I admire Maxton and Brockway, Jennie Lee and Geo. Buchanan for having the courage of their convictions and taking the road into what may mean the abandonment of the flesh-pots, far away from which you will never find Laski, Brailsford, Wise or Dollan. For the courage of your convictions and the same disregard of advancement I have always admired the S.P.G.B., about whom I could equally well have said in that concluding sentence of my letter : “I do not agree with the (l.L.P.) in much, but they have the courage of their convictions.”

I was brought up, and have again become a Quaker. Twenty-five years I have been moving around the whole Labour and Socialist Movement and here and there and now and then I have found men and women who dared to say what they thought and damn the consequence to their careers. But for the most part the Movement lacks “guts.” Where there is no vision, it is quite true, the people perish. That is why the most appalling mess of all will be the Third Labour Government. But that is inevitable. That you and I know. Now, as to my going to Motherwell in 1918, and the means I took most deliberately to force the Catholic clergy, step by step, to reveal themselves as the enemies of Socialism and to bring them into antagonism to the interests of the Irish as a nation struggling to be free, and as workers needing either to limit their families or break away from the Catholic morality of private property on the basis of the patriarchal family. When I went there I was still a member of the Society of Friends. A priest charged me with being an atheist. The letters I produced caused him not only to apologise but, praising the society, practically to call Catholics to vote for me.

Well was I aware of the fact that the worst enemy the Socialist Movement has ever had in its ranks was the late John Wheatley. The Catholic Socialist Society we now know to have been “a contradiction in terms.” Pius XI tells us no Catholic can be any kind of a Socialist. John Wheatley substituted for Socialism his plans for Housing Reform. He turned the whole Socialist Movement of Scotland, including old Freethinkers like John Downie, of Wishaw, down that false scent. Motherwell and Wishaw were the worst-housed burghs in Scotland. With my eyes on John Wheatley I chose to fight in Motherwell.

The Catholic clergy dared not come out openly against the republican independence for Ireland. For that, if I was to stand, I had to break with the Labour Party. When the Clyde division came to Westminster I took good care that I spoke in the House of Commons ahead of John Wheatley. Always, John Wheatley was trailing behind me. Always, John MacLean was advising me. Together, we insulated John Wheatley. We did it as individuals and so committed no one but our two selves.

It was not John Wheatley who broke the discipline of the Labour Party, but myself, supported by an old garrison-soldier and pioneer of the Labour Colleges, George Barker, of Abertillery, when we divided the House on May Day, 1923, against Singapore Naval Base. Following up, I opposed other Navy Votes. John Wheatley, Geo. Buchanan and Tom Henderson joined me. Deliberately and in defiance of the Communist Party “polbureau ” (which had ordered me to demonstrate in Sheffield that day) did I force this split in Labour Party discipline on armaments. Deliberately and without consulting “the polbureau,” did I stage my suspension from the House in a debate on the danger of a war.

Deliberately, did I steal John Wheatley’s thunder in the debate on the Housing Bill, and cause him to come to me afterwards urging and telling me “Your business is to preach revolution ! Mine to preach reform ! Keep to your job !”

Deliberately, in the spring of 1926, did I make it possible for the advocates of Birth Control to go to the Clyde via Motherwell to start a campaign that I knew must split “the Left” so ingeniously got together by John Wheatley. The manoeuvre succeeded and the I.L.P. fell a-quarrelling, “Marxists” for birth-control propaganda, Catholics and all opportunists against it.

When the riot against me in Wishaw in June, 1926, occurred and I saw the chief Catholic town councillor inciting the crowd on because of my attack on the Rev. Barr and his opposition to birth control, I knew that I had lit a fire in Motherwell and Wishaw that will not finally go out till it has burned the Catholic church out of the West of Scotland.

Clericalism is the enemy on “the Right,” “Communism” of Moscow’s Comintern the enemy on “the Left.” I have used them both, and the taste on my tongue is very sweet.

Wishing you many years of good, hard hitting and fearless statement of what seems to you to be the truth.

Yours fraternally,

Walton Newbold.

Reply

We accept the correction about the I.L.P. but disagree with many of the views expressed in the letter.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Look Round. (1905)

From the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Registration Courts are being held, and many citizens of this “free” country are striving to secure or to retain that very questionable advantage, under present conditions, the vote !

* * *

The Liberals tell us they are in favour of the franchise. They claim to have been foremost in extending it and to desire to still further extend it. The depth of their sincerity may be gauged by the fact that their paid agents are striving at the present moment to keep men off the Register !

* * *

I have frequently commented upon the flabby-ness of the speeches and election literature of some candidates claiming to be Socialists. Even the Labour Leader is now compelled to protest. It says ”The contrast between the substance of the teaching at the innumerable propaganda meetings of the I.L.P., where the power of the movement is created, and the substance of the addresses by some of our candidates claiming to be Socialist and Trade Unionists, is as between an honest dinner and a dish of skilly. Constant complaints reach us on this matter. So cautious to timidity, so practical to the utter iteration of commonplace vestry politics, have the deliverances of many of our candidates become, that quite frequently the speeches of their capitalist opponents are the more inspiring of the two.”

* * *

As most of these “Socialist” candidates have their eyes longingly fixed upon the loaves and fishes of the L.R.C., they are more concerned about becoming M.P.’s than creating a class-conscious Socialist army. Let it be clearly understood that none of them is a member of the S.P.G.B.

* * *

The Trade Union Congress led one of the capitalist sheets to discourse upon the number of “Labour” journals in existence, specially mentioning The Labour Record and Review, edited by F. W. Pethick Lawrence. A few days after Mr. Lawrence was announced to speak at Holmwood, under the auspices of the Home Counties Liberal Association. Is his “Labour” paper edited in the interests of Liberalism or of Labour?

* * *

“What is wrong?” The discussion upon this will doubtless continue until Parliament re-assembles or the space is required for other gas. One of the participants writes, “When we practise true Christian Socialism—’What I have I give unto thee’—all that is now wrong will become right.”

* * *

So that the social problem is to be solved by everybody who has anything giving it to somebody else, then the givers will have nothing and the given-to something which they can give back to those who have nothing, and so on to the end of the chapter. This may be Christian but it isn’t Socialism.

* * *

I am reminded of a lecture upon “Christian Socialism” once delivered by the Rev. Stewart Headlam for the Fabian Society, in which he quoted the saying of Christ “Sell all thou hast and give to the poor” as a proof that Jesus was a Socialist ! All that was wanted was the universal adoption of this teaching real Christianity—and Socialism would be here. When asked who would buy, supposing all became “real” Christians and proceeded to sell all that they had in order to give to the poor, he gave it up.

* * *

Socialism is an economic transformation, desired by those who wish to remove all hindrances to human development. It is concerned with the material things of life because “the basal factor determining the constitution of society is its material and economic condition.” It is neither “Christian” nor “Atheist.”

* * *

Messrs. Rowntree, of York, are “considerate” employers. They run what the Clarion terms a “cocoa oasis in the desert,” and, be it noted, advertise in the Clarion. The firm admit that their considerateness “pays,” and I presume their advertising also does. Most of the employees, they state, are on piece work, and if one is found not to be earning a reasonable minimum, special investigation is made into his case, and a remedy discovered. There are many employees working upon piece who, for want of arrangement, or help, or stimulation of some kind, would go on year after year, earning a comparatively low wage, although they are perfectly capable of earning a higher wage if the necessary help be given by the employer, and this without any alteration in the piece rate.

* * *

In the dining rooms cheap meals are provided, and large numbers use them. The firm lose by this considerably, but they say. “Some material return for this expenditure is no doubt obtained, inasmuch as employees who have had a nutritious dinner in a comfortable and well ventilated room are more vigorous and fit for their work than they otherwise would be. The advantage which the firm derives from this circumstance must be considerable.”

* * *

Messrs, Rowntree, Cadbury, Lever and Co. are farsighted capitalists who see that it is an economic advantage to them to palliate the evils of the capitalist system. But their workers are still slaves, can still be dismissed and turned out to starve at the will of their masters. And owing to the better conditions under which they work they are enabled to do better work and hand over more surplus value to their employers, thus intensifying the problem of unemployment.

* * *

Sir John Gorst is also another farsighted member of the capitalist class. He advocates the provision of free meals to some starving children because “England and Germany have a friendly rivalry in trade and manufactures, and how can we expect to carry on that rivalry with success unless very speedily such a social reform is carried out in this country as would put us on something like a footing with Germany ?”

* * *

There are none so blind as those who cannot see, except those who will not.

* * *

In spite of all the efforts and self-sacrifice on the part of many men and women during the past 150 years, the position of trade unions to-day is by no means an enviable one. They are constantly being called upon to maintain conditions of labour which our forefathers obtained, and the fight grows more difficult every year.—Charity Organisation Review.

* * *

The terrific slaughter wrought in every country by consumption is— at least in the main—the inevitable result of the exploitation of helpless human lives for money profit, the inevitable result of over-work, lack of nutrition, and over-crowding. Talk of “alcoholism.” The drinking bar is largely the refuge from the depressing, debasing surroundings of the so-called home.—Daily News Paris Correspondent.

* * *

Official figures show that 877,057 persons were employed in the mines of the United Kingdom last year, and that 698,967 of this total worked underground. Out of 9,544 children under fourteen years of age employed 6,818 worked underground. The fatal accidents numbered 1,158, involving a loss of 1,202 lives. Compared with the previous year this was an increase of 7 in fatal accidents, and of 10 in the number of lives lost.

* * *

Extracts from a series of articles from the pen of Mr. Collis Lovely on the subject of prison made American shoes, are published in American Shoemaking. Mr. Lovely’s remarks are said to be based on personal observation made in different American prisons, while acting as special agent to investigate the operation of penal institutions under the Department of Labour of the State of Missouri. The investigations were made following his appointment, on March 2nd, 1905.

* * *

Mr. Lovely found 4,258 convicts were employed in shoemaking, at an average wage of 48 cents a day, turning out approximately 8,000,000 pairs of shoes annually, or probably about one-thirtieth of the entire annual production of the factory-made shoes of the United States. Of course, the prison output is disguised, the goods going upon the market as regular lines.

* * *

Kentucky branch penitentiary, at Eddville, supplies the Kentucky Shoe Manufacturing Co. with 175 men at 45 cents per day, and the Frankfort Shoe Co. with 400 men at 50 cents a day, in addition to shop room, water, and light, free of charge. In connection with the Maryland penitentiary, Baltimore, the state supplies the Baltimore Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Co. with 225 men at 45 cents a day, with free shop room, light, water, and power. One of the most impressive examples of the extent that prison labour may be employed by a single firm in the manufacture of boots is, says Mr. Lovely, that of the Davis Boot and Shoe Co., Boston, who make their shoes under a prison contract with the Virginia penitentiary at Richmond, Va. The company employs 901 male convicts at 42 cents per day, and 56 female convicts at 30 cents a day, or a total of 1,017 persons, of which 16 are employed in making shoe boxes. The company’s average output is said to be 5,000 pairs per day, or an average of five pairs per day, per person. Mr. Lovely adds, “I know of no firm employing free labour and making this grade of shoe, whose output exceeds five per day per person employed, and surely none who get their labour at 42 cents a day. This firm uses no machinery in the lasting department, and the task ranges from 36, 42, and 48 pairs per day, or an average of 42 pairs per day, lasted by hand. The task for McKay sewers is 480 pairs per day, edge trimmers 480 pairs per day, and so on all along the line. The above figures will reveal the fact that the total labour cost, exclusive of foremen, to the Davis Shoe Co., is 8 cents and a fraction per pair.”

* * *

The Giesecke Boot and Shoe Manufacturing Co., of Jefferson City, made a contract in December, 1898, with the Missouri State penitentiary, at Jefferson City, for the convicts of that institution to be employed in the manufacture of footgear. This contract put thousands of dollars in the coffers of the company. The State, now, however, exacts 150 instead of 50 cents per day. Not only has this firm been furnished with shoe machine operators for 50 cents a day, but it has had free water, has paid absolutely nothing for rent, has been furnished with power from a 145-horse power engine, which would cost a manufacturer outside of a prison at least 500 dollars a month on payment to the State of only 100 dollars a month. In Missouri the task of a convict is based upon and usually equal to what a free labourer can perform. The penalty for a convict who fails to perform the task set for him is the whippingpost. From ten to thirty-nine lashes are usually given, and the strap used is made of heavy harness leather, 2m. wide and 18in. long, fastened to a wooden handle 12in. long. The strap will bring out the blood with every blow if the warder so desires.

* * *

There is no doubt that America is the “land of the free,” and if such atrocities were perpetrated on the Congo or on the Rand, wouldn’t the Nonconformist conscience shriek ?

J. Kay

The Harbinger of War (1951)

From the September 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peace talk is the harbinger of war: the louder the talk the nearer the war. When governments are protesting their peaceful intentions and pacifists are loud in their denunciation of war, one can be sure that a war is in the offing.

Between the wars of the present century a collection of peace organisations sprouted up, flourished, spread and propagated until the outbreak of the next war withered them up and they shrivelled to insignificance. Again, today, we are confronted with a batch of them. There are peace committees, peace councils, peace unions, peace societies, peace conferences and all the conglomeration of organisations that go to make up the “peace movement”.

The attitude of the majority of peace organisations is that war is wicked, that it is immoral, a crime against society. This approach to the problem of war is largely emotional, and, because it is rooted in emotion, the “peace movement” is doomed to futility. It attracts the sentimental and not the understanding opponents of war.

The very same sentiment that will urge a man to support a peace organisation will drive him to support a war. The prospect of war with its slaughter and suffering is, undoubtedly, vile and revolting. It is understandable that any human being should brand it as immoral and seek to oppose it. But a prospective enemy is always portrayed as a vile and vicious beast, revolting atrocity tales are circulated and he is proclaimed the enemy of all decency, morality and of civilisation in general. Whether the foe be called a Boer, a Hun, a Fascist or a Communist, he is caricatured as a destroyer of all that genuine peace-loving people hold dear. The sentimentalists turn their attention from the horrors of war to the new horror that is presented. The emotional seeker after peace is asked, “What would you do if a German, or a Korean or a Russian were to rape your sister or to murder your mother?” and immediately he becomes an equally emotional war-time flag-wagger. The same arguments that he previously used against war he can now use against the prospective enemy. So the peace organisations fade.

Prior to the 1939-45 war a group of pacifists, some of whom were members of the Society of Friends, published a booklet entitled “The Roots of War”. In this booklet they quoted from “Conscription and Conscience” by J.W. Graham:

“At the outbreak of the Great War 90 per cent of the peace movement disappeared like snow before the summer sun and 32 per cent of the available young men in the Society of Friends joined up.”

That referred to the 1914-18 war. The position did not change before the last one. During 1935 millions of people signed a Peace Ballot. Four years later most of them had forgotten all about it or would have justified their support of the impending war with similar arguments to those that they had previously used in favour of peace.

The pacifist solution to the problem of war is to urge everyone to resist war service and conscious support of war efforts. The argument is, if everyone refused to participate in war there could be no war. True. But one could as readily say that if everyone refused to be unemployed there could be no unemployment. The logic is sound, but the premise is false. A widespread refusal to participate in war will not, and cannot spring from the sloshy soil of emotionalism. It must have its roots in an understanding of the cause of war, the purposes for which wars are fought and a recognition of worldwide class interests, irrespective of nationality, language, colour, sex or any other sectional division. When the majority of workers realise that they have a common interest with those whom they are sent to kill and that the real enemy is the social class that sends them to do the killing, then there is prospect of an end to war. Until then, mere sentiment will no more stop future wars than it has staved them off in the past. Sentiment is the hotbed from which grows patriotism, racial prejudice, hatred of foreigners and national bigotry, all of which can be suitably fertilised by propaganda, religious teaching, martial music, etc.

Practically all of the peace organisations make great play of declaiming against instruments of mass slaughter such as the atom bomb. They seldom direct any opposition to killing by bayonetting or rifle sniping. The individual methods of killing are selective and are usually confined to the soldiers in the front line of battle, but the instruments of mass destruction are not selective, they do not discriminate between the soldier and the civilian, male and female, the old and the young, god worshipper and atheist, Liberal and Labourite, or, what is more important, between worker and capitalist. Radioactivity is no respecter of persons.

If the opposition is to killing, why direct it at one particular instrument of destruction even though it may be the most spectacular. Is death less objectionable when due to disembowelling by a bayonet than when it is caused by disintegration by Gamma rays? Such specialised opposition to the instruments of mass destruction suggests a desire to escape the consequences of modern war rather than a desire to eliminate the evil of war itself. It suggests a fear rather than an indignation.

All such opposition to mass killing, atom bombs, as well as to war propaganda and armament manufacture, is opposition to the effects of war and not to war itself. The peace organisations, admirable as their intentions may be, are useless for the purpose of preventing war. War is a product of social conditions and those conditions must be examined for its cause before it can be eradicated. Socialism alone has the solution that can end war for all time.

There is another approach to the war problem that would be humorous were it not that so many workers are deluded by it. There are those who claim that by the superior might of an associated group of nations, would-be aggressors can be scared away from war. This is the line taken by the majority of governments today. Armaments are piled up by blocs of states in order to intimidate other blocs and thus crowd the world with snarling fighters who are all afraid to start anything for fear of getting a licking. The whole argument is, of course, sheer nonsense. The League of Nations was based on this idea, just as is U.N.O. today. The League of Nations could not intimidate Italy when it invaded Abyssinia, nor could it prevent the last world war. The existence of U.N.O. did not prevent the war in Korea nor will it prevent the greater war that is looming ahead. Atlantic Pacts, the grouping of Western powers, Russia and Oriental alliances are all of the same order. The increased military might that results from an alliance between a number of states is heralded as a force for peace. Bunkum! It is just so much increased strength when the war starts. The smallest and weakest of nations are driven to war by the force of capitalist competition, even against mightier competitors. Military strength may defer but cannot prevent the ultimate use of military force to settle international conflicts.

This “peace by force” argument goes hand in hand with the well propagated idea that it is always the other fellow who is the villain. No government ever admits that it is the aggressor. Each capitalist state protests that it is pining for peace but that others will not leave it alone. Various opponents arise with martian expression to disturb the peace. Once it was the French, then the Germans and the Turks, now the Russians. In each of those countries the aggressor is some other nation. Britain claimed that Hitler was warlike and started the last war, Russia attacked Finland to safeguard itself against aggression, Hitler and Mussolini wanted peace but warmongering Britain was aggressive. “Please sir, it wasn’t me, it was that other boy.” So they hoodwink the emotional pacifists and wean them away from their peace organisations into an all-out war effort.

The Communist-inspired peace conferences, likewise, have nothing to offer. The acrobatics of the Communist Party during the last war are still fresh in our memory. Always the policy is in line with the foreign alliances of the Russian Government. If Russia and Britain are allies, the Communists are patriotic enthusiasts. If Russia is in the opposite camp, it is a war of capitalist imperialism against the workers of the East, and the Communists are anti-war. Any protestations of peace coming from the Communist Party indicate the requirements of the Russian Foreign Office. The indication now is that Russia is not yet prepared to face a war. But the fighting pacifist speeches at the peace conference attract a lot of well-intentioned but sentimental pacifist workers.

High profits and low wages indicate that the workers are producing a lot of wealth that does not come back to them in their weekly wage packets. It is in the scramble to acquire profit that capitalist groups come into conflict with one another. Certain necessities to modern civilisation such as petroleum and rubber are only to be obtained from particular parts of the world. Their production and sale offers great profit. National capitalist groups jostle for control of these areas. They argue, they enter into diplomatic relations, they place their case before U.N.O. and they build armaments against the day when they must fight for survival. If one group gives up the struggle even for a short while it is swamped by its rivals. Constant alertness is vital and a preparedness to resort to arms when the national economic life is being strangled which, for the capitalist, means when his profits are being diverted into someone else’s pocket.

There is no working-class interest to be served in any capitalist war. They are not worth the shedding of working-class blood. But the workers must not be pacific. There is a war to fight, a war against those who would maintain the existing system of production for profit. The class war. That calls for a very determined and fighting working class, not a sentimental pacifist one. The question of morals or the evil of war does not enter into it. Where there is a conflict of interest there must be a readiness to fight. If we object to fighting then we must remove the conflicting interests. If we remove the capitalist class we shall have solved the problem of all wars, international as well as class. But we shall not remove the capitalist class with sentiment and talk about morality.

W. Waters

50 Years Ago: Capitalism and christianity (1979)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Christian will tell us that if only we would all show a spirit of brotherhood, the spirit of Christ, and exercise forbearance and be unselfish, all our industrial troubles would vanish. For the most part employers and workers, even those who are nominally Christian, make no special effort to apply their Christian principles to their relationship with each other. There are however religious persons, Quakers for example, who do profess that their religion can and does have a very intimate bearing on their everyday activities, including the running of a business. Thus the Cadbury family claim that the application of Quaker principles to industry has made Bournville something of a model for the industrial world, containing the hope of a solution for the problems of modern history.

The question has been raised in an acute form by the application of ‘‘rationalisation" in the Cadbury cocoa business, the subject of an article in the New Leader (Feb. 22) by a Quaker member of the Independent Labour Party. Three years ago, he says, there were distressing scenes when another 400 women, some of them over 40 years of age, who had been with the firm since early girlhood, were added to Birmingham's 30,000 unemployed.

"I confess", says Mr. Chamberlain, "that as members of the Society of Friends, I had hoped for great things from Quaker employers. I had hoped that they might have given a bold lead to other employers. But with the action of the Cadbury family my hope has vanished".

It has taken 25 years for an ILP speaker and writer to learn that capitalism is a system of society organised not for the satisfaction of human needs, directly, but in the first place for profit-making.

(From an editorial "Capitalism and Christianity" in the Socialist Standard, March 1929)

Letters: Christianity (1982)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Christianity

Dear Editors,

Having purchased my first ever copy of the Socialist Standard, I was dismayed to find “Socialists Against Religion” on the first inside page. What a philosophical and social disaster! As socialists we do not want to alienate the Christians; for a start, 1 aspire to be both a socialist and a Christian. I agree with socialist principles on all levels and I am not politically illiterate or 1 would not have purchased a copy of your journal.

You have probably heard the suggestion before, but I will repeat it anyway as it has a bearing upon my argument: Marx who was after all, along with the Levellers and such like, a father of socialism, gained much of his fraternal and communal theories from the influence of early Christian life. We know early Christians lived a communal life, sharing goods and work in common. My opinion remains that Christ was a socialist — the faults and greeds of men have corrupted this fraternity ever since. You confuse the ultimate equality and egalitarian message of many of the world’s religions with the rotten and corrupt uses made of less powerful peoples by the owners within society. After all, as a female, I have more to gripe about in a subservient role still imposed on me by the corrupted values of a so-called Christian society.

Furthermore, you must be aware that the Methodist movement was founded by a strong Tory and that several socialists specialising in the sociology of religion and that of work, have attempted to prove the Wesleys were involved in stopping a labourers’ revolution in the eighteenth century. Therefore, to cite Methodism (which I do know something about) as reformist is not really true. Also remember that the Quakers, during the time of the Hundred Years War refused to make gun metal, material for making military uniforms, or to sell timber. Instead they turned to food manufacture and suffered very much for it.

It is also irresponsible to deal only with a man’s physical needs. Even if you take a functionalist view of religion it has important spiritual uses. The loss of a son or daughter in an accident, a home due to an earthquake, or the gaining of a much desired child, all need spiritual or mental help and understanding. I will admit to having a vested interest as I begin university in October to sit Psychology (seen, incidentally, by HM Government as a subversive subject, as I was reliably informed), but R D Laing, “left wing” as he is, says the unconscious is very important to the whole self.

Let us have a social revolution, political revolution, by all means, but let us also have a religious revolution—use it to free us from spiritual oppression as well as physical oppression. Do not be like the capitalists and discourage free thought. Bear in mind that John Paul II, much as the writer of the article might dislike him, is the first Pope ever to have laboured by the work of his hands and to have spoken on the true dignity of the worker and his right to work as he wishes.
Your fellow in Socialism

Y. E. Garwood 

Kent

Reply:
While it is not the function of socialist propaganda to “alienate" any worker, it is essential that we expose all anti-socialist ideas, and one of the most powerful of these is religion. As we pointed out in the article “Socialists Against Religion” in the Socialist Standard (May 1982), religion attempts to divert the working class from the task of establishing socialism by the delusion that the problems of capitalism can be solved by making some moral adjustments. Socialists must oppose such an idea; only a revolution will rid us of capitalist society’s inadequacies and social ills.

Marx’s historic role was to place socialism, as far as it is possible, onto a scientific footing. He drew on the work of a mass of historians, philosophers, economists and the like, many of them religious. But this did not make him religious; indeed, it led him to formulate the Materialist Conception of History, which explains historical development in terms directly opposed to religious idealism. This conception sees capitalism as the logical development from former social systems, arising from revolutionary changes in the mode of wealth production. Ms. Garwood’s idea, that capitalism is a corruption of a long-ago purity in human affairs, is a typical religious misconception: it simply does not fit in with the facts. The article described many (not all) Methodists and Quakers as reformist, because they readily became involved in movements like CND and Anti Apartheid, which try to eliminate some problems of capitalism while leaving the system in being. Quakers are commonly pacifists; they have a moral objection to war—which is an inevitable product of capitalism—but, illogically, no objection to capitalism. Socialists argue that the nature of capitalism cannot be changed; those who object to its effects should work for its abolition.

Whatever the distinction between “conscious” and "unconscious” thought, neither can operate without material support and nutrition. Neither can they exist outside the material world; all human thought is fashioned by that world and works in material terms to change it. In human social development it is the mode of production which is the motivating force and which, by stimulating changes in ideas, drives society towards socialism.

Although Catholics may like to put emphasis on it, the Pope’s personal background is irrelevant. Whether he once laboured physically or not, he is the purveyor of a false idea which has no reasoned basis, and as such he powerfully helps to keep the world working class in their wage slavery.

It is important to the spread of socialist ideas that the working class are able freely to discuss all theories, including religious ones. We should, of course, remember how many dictatorships have been and are being aided in their repression by the Church in their country.

Editors.

Legal freedoms

Dear Editors,

The dogmatic stance of the SPGB is to some extent counter-productive in the struggle to achieve socialism. I refer essentially to the Party’s position on social reforms.

Reforms need not always be categorised as anti-revolutionary, because they do not solve problems, since some reforms are nevertheless necessary stages in the workers’ struggle. It is true that the Labour Party’s efforts throughout their history have been futile (welfare state, state owned housing schemes, nationalisation, etc.) and have merely served to create a more hard-line Tory Party and to distract the working class from activity in its real interests. However, how is the “intellectual revolution" to be achieved through the parliamentary process when most of the world does not have a parliamentary process? Surely a prerequisite to the revolution is the establishment of some significant degree of democracy and freedom of expression throughout the world.

When the majority of Poles, Turks, Chileans, Iranians, South Africans, Eastern Bloc citizens, to name but the obvious few, have little or no real education or legal rights to control their political destinies, is it not pompous for the SPGB to pledge support for "liberation movements” only when they unite for socialism? Such reforms will be beneficial to the people as being not just useful, but necessary steps towards the establishment of a world of free access.

Or does the SPGB envisage a miraculous short cut?

Andy Spencer

Berlin 39 

West Germany

Reply:
That a socialist party should not advocate reforms has always been our policy, although we do not hold that reforms of capitalism can never benefit the working class—some can and do, while many are futile and harmful. Similarly, while we do not support non-socialist organisations which claim to be fighting for or defending democracy, we certainly do not minimise the importance of certain legalised freedoms for the working class and socialist movement. This position may appear ambivalent or dogmatic; in fact, it is a consequence of the recognition that workers’ political struggles must be waged along class lines.

The political activities of non-socialists necessarily express capitalist interests, for the simple reason that they are helping—however unwittingly—to maintain the existing order of society. Andy Spencer believes that our stand is counter-productive, that by failing to support those who demand limited political freedoms in authoritarian states we are weakening our case. But how can we, on the one hand, urge British workers to pursue their class interests and, on the other, tell those abroad to ally themselves with any political Tomas, Ricardo or Henri? We call upon workers everywhere to organise to defend their interests on the industrial field, but we don’t urge British workers to support the TUC’s political and industrial policies. Likewise, while the struggle of, for example, Polish workers to achieve a degree of freedom of political expression (a "necessary stage”, if you like) is warmly to be welcomed, we cannot support Solidarity because of its manifestly pro-capitalist, nationalist outlook. Doubtless, many of its members would endorse Ronald Reagan’s view (expressed to British MPs last month) that in Eastern Europe we should “foster the infrastructure of democracy, the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities, which allow a people to decide their own way”.

Democracy is a weapon, politically valuable, it is true; but like every other weapon it can be used for self-preservation or self-destruction (in 1933, for example, a majority of the German electorate voted for its abolition). Unemployment, poverty, insecurity, militarism and the other evils of capitalism will remain, no matter whether the form of its political administration be democratic or dictatorial. This is why we stress that the limited freedoms of expression obtainable under capitalism can only be consolidated and expanded to the extent that workers also adopt a socialist standpoint.

Editors.

Editorial: Capitalism and Christianity. (1929)

Editorial from the March 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Truths of Quakerism
When the Socialist points to the continual struggle between employers and workers, and to the accompanying strife and ill-will as evils which are inseparable from a social system in which property is owned by one class and wealth is produced by another, he is often met with the answer that the discord, the strikes and lock-outs, are the result not of the economic organisation, but of the defects of the human beings concerned.

Thus the Christian will tell us that if only we would all show a spirit of brotherhood, the spirit of Christ, and exercise forbearance, and be unselfish, all our industrial troubles would vanish. For the most part employers and workers, even those who are nominally Christian, make no special effort to apply their Christian principles to their relationships with each other. If a certain trade union appoints an official chaplain, and if other unions habitually open their meetings with prayer, most of the people concerned do not treat these conventional practices as having any useful bearing on the business of the organisation. There are, however, religious persons — the Quakers, for example—who do profess that their religion can and does have a very intimate bearing on their everyday activities, including the running of a business. Thus the Cadbury family claim that the application of Quaker principles to industry has made Bournville something of a model for the industrial world, containing the hope of a solution for the problems of modern industry.

We have always contested that view. Bournville embodies no feature which is essentially Quaker; it solves no problems except certain problems of the Cadburys as employers of labour; and it offers no hope for the working class. The idea that the granting of certain health-promoting facilities to the staff brings a return in the shape of greater productivity which exceeds the outlay is not new, and is not confined to Quakers. Nor is the practice of paying wages above the average to a picked staff of more than average skill and fitness. Its motive in general is the securing of greater profits. Its application comes from a more than usually acute perception of the conditions of capitalist production. It is limited in scope by the nature of the work performed in the particular concern, and it is obviously only of special service to the Fords and Cadburys so long as it has not been applied throughout industry. If all employers were to bid against each other for the pick of the workers it would cease to be any more profitable than paying a lower wage for workers of average efficiency, and if all employers offer the same facilities to their staff, each particular firm loses the advantage it formerly obtained in having employees who would remain in the same employment for a long period, thus eliminating the cost of training new employees.

The question has been raised in an acute form by the application of “rationalisation” to the Cadbury cocoa business, the subject of an article in the “New Leader" (Feb. 22) by a Quaker member of the I.L.P., Mr. W. J. Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain, it may be added, is editor of a Labour journal, the Birmingham “Town Crier," and has been an active member of the I.L.P. for many years.

He confirms our view that the Cadbury welfare schemes have been a very successful form of advertising, and in this respect alone have been worth many thousands of pounds to the firm in creating a demand for their goods. Now, however, with the application of new methods and the installation of new machinery,

  Many hundreds of men and women have been sacked by the firm during the past twelve months—men and women who have spent the best years of their life in the service of the firm.

Three weeks ago, he says, there were distressing scenes when another 400 women, some of them over 40 years of age, who had been with the firm since early girlhood, were added to Birmingham's 30,000 unemployed. They have little chance of finding fresh employment, and their specialised skill is useless outside the chocolate and cocoa industry. The firm “admitted that there has been no falling off in trade," but the dismissals were necessary “in order to reduce the staff to an economic level." Mr. Chamberlain denies that the grant of a few pounds to some of the dismissed can be regarded as generous treatment to men and women who have given a life of service. Mr. Chamberlain concludes that “even Quakers cannot combine Christianity with capitalism." and that this “is the greatest indictment of Capitalism that we have had in our time." No doubt Mr. Chamberlain would define “Christianity" differently from us, but the first of these two statements appears to be the reverse of true. Surely the truth is that the Cadburys have combined Christianity and Capitalism very successfully indeed. They have made very large profits—the proof of success in a capitalist world—and at the same time they have succeeded in earning and retaining a reputation for Christian principle and brotherliness which has been so effective that among its numerous devotees was to be numbered Mr. W. J. Chamberlain.

“I confess," says Mr. Chamberlain, “that as members of the Society of Friends, I had hoped for great things from Quaker employers. I had hoped that they might have given a bold lead to ether employers. But with the action of the Cadbury family my hope has vanished."

One striking thing about the article is the extraordinary lack of knowledge and thought it indicates in its author. Mr. Chamberlain knew that of the directors of Cadbury’s all but one “are Liberals or Tories, and therefore upholders of capitalism.” He has been in the I.L.P. since 1904. That is to say he has been engaged in preaching to others that (in the words of the I.L.P. slogan) "Socialism is the only hope." Yet for all these years he has retained a belief that far from Socialism being the only hope, there was a much easier and nearer one, i.e., the application of Quaker principles by Quaker capitalists to capitalist industry. Not until 25 years have passed does he discover that “my hope has vanished, and I know now that we shall have to wait for a Socialist Government to rescue for the workers not benevolence, but justice."

It has taken twenty-five years for an I.L.P. speaker and writer to learn that capitalism is a system of society organised not for the satisfaction of human needs directly, but in the first place for profit-making.

When next members of the I.L.P. tell us that it is useless preaching “pure" Socialistic doctrine to the poor, benighted workers because they don’t understand, we shall be tempted to reply that the really big problem before the Socialist propagandist is the conversion of the leading lights of the I.L.P.

"The Glories of War" by a soldier in the trenches. (1917)

From the April 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are indebted to the Editors of "The Ploughshare" for permission to reprint the following sketches, which appeared in the March issue of the Quaker Magazine of Social Reconstruction.— Ed. Com. Socialist Standard.

We guarantee the genuineness of the two sketches which follow. They are written by. a soldier known to us, one who expresses himself as grateful for the work we are doing. Shame on us to accept thanks for this when so much more could be done!

I. GOING INTO ACTION.

The glories of war! How this great illusion has been kept up in former days! What volumes of romance have been written about it! But now war is stripped of all its glory and romance; it stands bare and hideous in the sight of thinking men, and to the soldiers it is an indescribable horror, breaking the mind and body and eating into the soul.

“Going into action" has always been a favourite theme with romantic writers; it lends itself to vivid word-painting about courage, determination, and sacrifice. Yet going into action to-day spells terror and despair to the men engaged. They know that in the awfulness of modern warfare few survive. Let me, therefore, give a brief description of an engagement as it occurs at the Front to-day.

The regiment has been at rest in billets a few miles behind the firing lines. Here we clean up, recoup, and receive fresh drafts to replace former casualties. A fairly easy time is passed until one morning the Colonel announces on parade that we are going up to the trenches again that night. Now all is activity and excitement; rifles are inspected and ammunition served out. New gas helmets replace the old ones, and “tear-shell" goggles are distributed; some of the men receive trench dubs— “daggers" ; the bombers have the latest instructions read to them. We fill our water-bottles and get the iron rations of bully beef and “dog-biscuits.”

As the day wears on, some of the men become reserved and quiet. The more thoughtful begin to ponder on what is in store for them. Some already feel they are beneath the ground. Poor wretches! perhaps the gods are kind in not giving us a glimpse of the future! But all contemplation soon ceases, for presently the bugles sound the “fall in.” We hastily put on our full equipment, line up in the ranks, and await the Colonel's instructions.

Along he comes, attended by the adjutant and officers. He looks pale and anxious. “Men," he says, “we are going up to the trenches now. I hope you will all give a good account of yourselves, and may God have us in his care.“ The band plays “Eternal Father, strong to save," and as we sing it some cry like children. Tears are in the eyes of all. We think of our dear ones at home, and many a silent prayer is offered up. Some ask themselves in thought: “Is there really a good God to allow this awful suffering and carnage?" The chaplain reads a prayer which seems like the burial service. Then the bugles sound again, hoarse orders are shouted, and away we march as night is quickly falling.

On, on we tramp, staggering beneath the heavy load of equipment, slipping in mud and slush, stumbling in holes. “How much farther is it, chum ? ” I ask the man next to me. He cannot reply, he is crying bitterly. Now we approach the danger zone. The artillery is blazing away and the noise makes talking impossible. We break step, put out our fags, and begin to march in “extended order.” Suddenly there is a roar and a crash—a shell has fallen just behind us! Happily no one is hurt. Then I see a man in front of me fall, caught by a spent bullet. He shrieks in agony, and the stretcher bearers come to his rescue.

Now we march along in silence, absolute silence, dumb men driven to the slaughter. We are nearing the communication trench. The sky is lit up with the flashes of thousands of guns, and the star shells shed a lurid glow over the field of battle. Shells are bursting near us, for the enemy is shelling the roads. Several men fall, hit by shrapnel. We quicken our pace to get the cover of the trenches. The wounded are being brought from a field dressing station and quickly put in Red Cross vans. As the stretchers pass us, the poor wretches groan in agony.

We are now in the assembly trench; it is knee-deep in mud ; we slip and stumble about, advancing in single file towards the front. My company is to be stationed in a rear trench, but the others advance to the front. We are allotted our positions by the Captain, and we stand there all night asking : “Will the dawn never come ? "

All next day we stand there; some have gone into dug-outs to try to get a few hours sleep, but this is almost impossible, for the earth shakes from the vibrations of the artillery. The lice crawl all over the body, driving one nearly frantic, and the rats are in swarms and run over us. But there are some corpses lying out on the top, with plenty of rats around them, so they won't go hungry!

The next day we are told an attack is to be made at dawn. On this I notice a weird change comes over the men; they become strangely religious as the fear of death comes near. The Catholics are telling their beads, the others reading their Testaments and Bibles. Some are crying, and all are silent—petrified with cold and horror.

As the hour for attack draws near, the officers become pale and anxious. They keep looking at their watches. They try to smile as they shake hands with the sergeants, whispering “Good-bye." in case the worst happens.

The noise of the artillery is now awful; every gun, from a trench mortar to a big naval gun, is blazing away, smashing down barbed wire entanglements and parapets. The world seems to have gone raving mad. In an hour it will be dawn, and then—?

The men in the front trench have now fixed their bayonets, and thrown off unnecessary equipment. They dare not look at each other; steel helmets are firmly fixed as they await the word. Suddenly a young officer pushes his way to a place prepared in the parapet for jumping over. In his hand he holds a whistle. He gives a shrill blast, and is over the top, the others scrambling after him, and at this moment the artillery ceases.

Through the periscopes we watch the progress. Some are falling and throw up their arms and spin round as the bullets strike them. Some are dashing madly on. The machine-guns of the enemy are spitting forth thousands of fiery bullets. The men still unhurt have passed through the German entanglements and are on their parapets. The bombs and bayonets are busy. Strong men are falling like corn before the sickle. Now the fighting is in the enemy's trenches. Both explosions and revolver shots are heard. Our men have captured the trench and are consolidating it. In “ No-man’s-land ” the stretcher-bearers are busy, dragging in the dead and wounded. The doctors in the trench dressing station are hastily bandaging wounds and injecting “anti-lockjaw” serum. The sight is indescribable. Groans and cries rend the air as the dead and wounded lie together in the dressing-station. An ashy pallor is on their faces.

And now the enemy observers see that we occupy the trench and immediately signal to their artillery. Hundreds of shells now pour upon our comrades, smashing up the position they have occupied and burying them beneath the debris. And thus the hideous game goes on and many brave lives are sacrificed. The hidden artillery has robbed them of victory; for in this trench warfare neither side conquers.

In the rear trench we shiver through the long days and night ; some of us have lost our brothers and comrades ; we curse the war and the folly of the men who make it. “Why were we born ?’’ I have heard men say.

Some get “trench feet” : others contract “trench fever’’ and scabies; some begin to develop pneumonia and consumption. We lean against the side of the trench, our teeth a-chatter, and try to sleep, when suddenly a gong rings, for a gas attack has been launched. We hastily don our gas helmets and “stand to" .

'The enemy trench mortars are throwing devilish bombs. We reply, dealing death and destruction to the unseen foe. . . .

At last we are going to be relieved, and another regiment is to take our place We begin slowly to thread our way through the communication trench. A sergeant reads the roll: to many names there is no reply. The remnants reach the road behind the trenches. It is pitch dark and the rain is falling in torrents. Most of us are limping, and some have taken off their boots. We are caked in mud from head to foot. There is no music now, no “glory of war,” no cheering crowds. We are but the human fuel that feeds the engine of Armageddon. On, on we stagger back to camp. Some relieve their emotions by weeping. The man next to me is kissing the image of Christ on his rosary, the officers are silent ; too weak and worn even to give orders. . . .

There are no cheers now when we pass other regiments going up to the trenches, as there were in the early days of the war. We look at each other and say, “Poor devils! God help them.’’

As day advances we reach the camp. Worn out and aching with rheumatism, we stagger to the tents and fall asleep. And in that sleep there are some who dream of a wiser age to come, when man will have learnt the truth about the “glory of war.”

We who are the victims of this carnage know that this “glory” does not exist. Would to God that the warring nations could know the same! — say I. Yes, the poor soldier is the victim all the time. There is no animosity between the fighting men. Wounded British, Germans, and French fraternise with each other, exchange cigarettes, and sympathise with the others’ wounds and pains. I have seen German prisoners walking arm-in-arm with our soldiers.

“Going into action”! Yes, let us go into action, but not to slay and torture, but to build up a happier and brighter world redeemed from the folly and brutality of war.

II. THE CASUALTY STATION.

We sat in our dug-out reading a fragment of an old newspaper; it contained a vivid description of a casualty station written by a well-known newspaper owner. In glowing phrases it told of the cheerfulness of the wounded and the laughter and happiness which prevailed in the “wards.” In short, from the description, one would really believe that men loved being torn and maimed, and that they were in a place of amusement instead of a human shamble-house which baffles description.

My chum tossed the paper to me and said: “Ye gods! that people should believe that! To think that those at home are so gulled! If they could only see a dressing or ambulance station for half an hour, such a demand for peace would be made that no Government could stop it.”

My chum was right. I will now try to describe a casualty station, but no words of mine can suffice; only a Zola or a Dickens could give even a faint description of the horrors which one sees —horrors that eat into the soul and make one wonder whether it is a hideous scene from Inferno or a reality.

Imagine a large field with about twenty marquees erected for the reception of the wounded. The bitter wind blows through the canvas, and a solemn air of death and suffering pervades the whole. (When I was there, nurses and doctors were nearly knee-deep in mud.) The never-ending stream of Red Cross motors is coming and going. The R.A.M.C. men swiftly and gently lift the stretchers from the care and take them to the reception marquee. Many of the wounded are groaning, and some are already dead. They are smothered with mud, while fear and pain are written on their pale faces. A doctor makes a hurried examination, then each case is taken to the “ward ” allotted to that class of injury. Here the wounded are stripped, their clothes thrown aside or sent to the destructor. Now the ward- doctor makes a minute examination.

The surgeons are busy in the operating tent; as case after case comes and goes, shattered legs and arms are quickly amputated. The bucket outside contains hands and feet, pieces of jaw, and the rest. I see an orderly hurrying along carrying a big white leg to the destructor, thinking nothing of this, for it is an hourly occurrence.

Have you ever seen a butcher after a day’s killing? Well, that is how the surgeons appear. They work day and night, clever, self sacrificing men, appalled at the awfulness of their duties. The nurses appear somewhat hysterical, the result of doing hours of arduous duty and bloody work. Their aprons are saturated with gore. In the wards are the mangled and the dying. Many cases are too awful for operation, and nothing can be done to relieve them, so the orderly injects morphia and the poor wretches pass quietly away.

A priest is in attendance; sometimes his words console the one passing hence; but I, who have seen many men die, say unhesitatingly that, instead of dying gladly (as the corrupt Press declares), they do so with appalling regret, feeling inwardly that cruel war is wrong, and that they ought not to die so young.

But the ambulance train has arrived to take the sufferers to England. The most dangerous cases are placed on the train first. What a sigh of relief is given as they know that they are going to “Blighty”—away from the infernal scenes of carnage and slaughter! Now the train is nearly full of “lying cases,” and the sitting cases come next An orderly is leading some men—they are blind; and here are some men apparently unharmed—what is the matter with them? They are deaf and dumb from shellshock. Next come the insane—they are strongly guarded and locked up in a special compartment. Some are shouting and raving—it is nothing, only war!

A blast from the whistle and the train is off. Doctors and nurses give a sigh of relief, but it is of short duration, for'“gas cases” are arriving in the hospital. The poor wretches are propped up in the open air; they are struggling and gasping for breath. Some are already turning blue as the muceous fluid slowly rises in the lungs and chokes them. Some are dead and fall over with faces distorted and hands clenched in their awful struggle. . . .

In a field at the back the dead are lying; they, are clad in their shirts with a blanket thrown over them. Let us pull aside the blanket and look! The first has no face—a big blob of wadding hides the mangled features. The next is white as marble—he has bled to death. 'The next has been shot through the brain; it took him three days to die, poor chap, and he was conscious to the end. How tenacious some are of life!

The “sanitary men” are busy tying up the corpses, whose shroud is a blanket and a bit of string. A few handfuls of chloride of lime are thrown over the naked bodies, and sometimes in the mouths. The sanitary men work in silence, they are so horrified and appalled: see! that young man’s hair is going white, and there is a strange look in his eyes.

The corpses are pulled about as the slaughter-man pulls his dead sheep. There are post-mortem examinations on some of them, and for this purpose intestines and pieces of lung are in a bucket outside a tent, so that the young surgeons may get good practice.

The dead are now ready for burying. Four old French peasants are digging graves. There is not time to dig them very deep, and they fill with water at once. Quickly the corpses are dropped in the water as the parson reads a few words from the Burial Service and the wet earth is thrown in.

As we go back to the hospital the night is made hideous with the groans and shrieks of men in agony. Sleep is often impossible, and sometimes I have been awake all night hearing the awful cries of these poor men. Many are passing away, and as dawn begins to break a silence reigns from which we know that these mud-stained, weary warriors have passed into the Great Beyond.

And so it goes on, day after day, week after week, the never-ending stream of maimed and mangled bodies. Strong, happy, smiling men are knocked into bundles of bloody rags!

Yes, the Press and politicians may talk of the “glory of war,” but the casualty stations tell the true tale. And when that wealthy newspaper owner writes about the wounded, let him tell the real truth, and not deceive the public with cruel lies, which help to lengthen the war and thus bring death and indescribable suffering to thousands.

This is what we in the trenches think!