The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the March 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Safety of England lies in her Sunday.”—Guizot.

A Notable Utterance.

At the time this famous bon-mot, was uttered (1848) any one who had travelled much on the Continent of Europe would naturally contrast the mental equipment of the English workers with that attained by the proletariat of other countries. To such an one the witty saying of the “great” French statesman would have been pregnant with meaning. Sunday was the “day of rest.” The tavern and its next door neighbour, the chapel, were then practically the only means of Sabbath recreation open to the worker. This being so, he would be little likely to bother his head with theories about the reorganisation, of society.

Drugged and stupid with heavy doses of “Beer and Bible” Sunday, but little inclination on his part would be evinced to rise in revolt against his masters. The bourgeois could therefore comfortably settle himself in his cosiest arm-chair, and, as he sipped his glass of after-dinner port, purr softly to himself, “God’s in his Heaven, all’s right with the world!”

Could the shade of the astute middle-class Gaul in this our present day revisit this country, we can well imagine him adding further point to his epigram in some such words as : “and in her Salvation Army.”

Two great assets the masters rely on to keep their wage-slaves in a state of subjection. The armed forces of the nation—which they are able to manipulate to suit their own ends—and secondly the lamentable state of almost hopeless ignorance in which the workers are still steeped.

Chloroforming the Workers.

In fostering and keeping alive this state of ignorance numerous charitable and philanthropic agencies play an ever-increasing and important part. The bourgeois in this our beloved country is a greater adept than his French or German confrere at the gentle art of building temporary bridges across the yawning chasm which lies between him and the proletariat. In the attempt—too often, alas, successful—to hide the running sore of working-class degradation, more time, money and effort are spent in this country than in any other under the sun. Coals, blankets, soup and the visitation of the sick are a very present help whenever it is desired to trail a red herring across the path of the deluded worker.

This, of course, also applies to Continental Europe, but there either the drug is administered in much smaller quantities, or the trick is clumsily performed. Verily, his “charitable institutions” are a tower of strength to the British “employer of labour.” This being so, we shall not have far to seek for one of the chief reasons why the English worker is as yet so unresponsive to the teaching of the Socialist. “Where ignorance is bliss, t’were folly to be wise.”

The Vicar of Hell.

Among the many agencies employed by the capitalist class to bring about this state of affairs, the Salvation Army is one of the most successful.

We have no hesitation in saying that the influence of the Salvation Army on the mind of the working class is wholly evil.

In two ways : Firstly, by its drum and trumpet performances at the street corner, coupled with the exhortations of the “captain” and the “Hallelujah lasses” to “come to Salvation,” a by no means inconsiderable section of the workers is persuaded that “conversion” is the one thing needful, and that the reformation of the individual and the building up of character must precede any attempt to better material conditions.

In this way the worker, being “well saved” “snatched from Satan” (or whatever form of expressive but inelegant cant is used), his eyes turned from his material interests (the only ones that matter) towards a heavenly throne (which doesn’t), is gradually reduced from a potential thinker to a docile, humble and obedient slave.

And that is exactly what the masters want.

The “Great Idea” Fraud.

Thus in a recent issue of a great daily paper [Daily News Dec., 4, 1909] we read the following:

“SALVATION ARMY IDEAL.

In a “foreword” to the annual report of the social work of the Salvation Army—written by Mr. Arnold White under the title of “The Great Idea”—the author expresses “the conviction that in the Salvation Army we have a strong barrier against Godless Socialism,”

“To grasp the Great Idea,” he adds, “is to understand the height and depth of the self-sacrificing devotion, the reason for the common-sense, the resource and readiness of the Booths and their officers, in seeking the rescue of the Lost Brigade. It imparts hope to the man whose failure in the battle of life is due to his own character and conduct.”

Now science knows no such thing as an individual character, apart from social surroundings.

In the second place, the worker’s mind is muddled and befogged by the “Army’s” ministrations to his creature comfort in the shape of “Soup and Shelter.”

Sentimental Slosh.

How often is the Socialist critic met with some such question-begging argument (!) as this ?—”When I was out of work the officer came round and helped my missis and the kids. Don’t say anything against the Salvation Army or I’ll, etc., etc.”

(This, of course, loses sight of the fact that our diatribes are levelled at the “Army” as an institution, not at the inoffensive and often sorely-sweated wage-slaves of that venerable fraud, the autocrat of Queen Victoria Street.)

Or again—”Whilst you fellows are spouting at the street-corner, General Booth and his men are feeding people and giving them shelter from the cold ! Why don’t you do something for the poor? ”

Saving the Rates.

The fact cannot be too strongly insisted upon that the Salvation Army provides the bourgeois with a cheap and effective form of sticking-plaster wherewith to cover up the hideous ulcer which is eating out the vitals of our class. For are we not told by Mr. F. A. McKenzie—the “Army’s” spokesman for 1908—that “it is the business of the Salvation Army to help and reform. And where I have worked out costs on both sides the Salvation Army does for £1 what costs the Guardians £3.“—”Waste Humanity,” 1908, p. XVIII. (The italics are ours.)

This is letting the cat out of the bag with a vengeance !

We are well aware that the workers in other capitalist countries enjoy the blessings of the “Army’s” efforts to please, both on the religious and the material side. Stray items of news do sometimes filter through from “foreign parts” to show that the rate-saving dodge is not confined to British soil. The following paragraph will serve as an illustration.

"COUNCIL SEEKS ARMY’S AID. 

The Helsingfors Town Council has again turned to the Army for a solution of its unemployment problem. Numbers of out-of-works had adopted a threatening attitude towards the authorities, and demanded 10,000 Finnish marks from the council for food and clothes.

In their dilemma, the authorities approached The Army and handed over the sum of £200 (half the money demanded), with the request that we should find some of them work.”—War Cry, Feb. 12, 1910.

But it is in Britain and “our” colonies that the operations of this gigantic many-sided fraud can best be observed from the point of view of working-class economics.

The “Army” and the Public.

Articles and paragraphs criticising the Salvation Army have from time to time appeared in various magazines and newspapers. We nevertheless believe that no detailed attempt has yet been made to approach the subject from the Socialist point of view. Even Mr. John Manson’s monumental work on the subject [“The Salvation Army and the Public,” by John Manson. Routledge, 4½d] (to which we have gone for many of the facts and figures to be herein quoted, and which should be read by all Socialists) deals mostly with the “Army” from the public’s (i.e., the capitalist public) standpoint. We are emboldened to quote, when necessary, from Mr. Manson’s work for two reasons.

First, it is almost impossible for anyone who does not possess an inexhaustible stock of time and patience to gain direct and straight forward information from the Queen Victoria Street authorities themselves. Secondly, although the work above referred to was first published in July 1906—a subsequent and cheaper edition being issued in 1908—General Booth and his assistants have never yet thought fit to make any reply to the charges brought against them, although repeatedly urged to do so by their journalistic supporters in the capitalist Press. The vague and airy nothings of the “General” on this subject can be at once eliminated—e.g.: “These attacks are too silly to need refutation” [General Booth, 1906.] (although a few months previously an interviewer was informed at “Headquarters” that the book was officially admitted to contain “a good deal of truth.”)

(Here let us state that, in accordance with our custom, the columns of the SOCIALIST STANDARD are at all times open to apologists for the “Army,” official or otherwise.)

With the manipulation and management or mismanagement of the Salvation Army’s funds the Socialist is not directly concerned. The money collected is subscribed out of surplus-value, the donations of the workers being, we believe, in proportion to the whole a negligible quantity.

As Socialists our business is first and foremost with the effect the “Army’s” schemes have upon the economic position of the working class. Our enquiry will naturally fall into two divisions.

A. The results of the purely “tradesman” or “shop-keeping” operations of the “Army.”

B. The inception, growth, and present position of the “Darkest England” scheme with its manifold ramifications, viz., Elevators, Farm Colonies, Emigration, etc.

With the first of these divisions: “The ‘Army’s’ Trading Schemes,” we shall at once proceed to deal.

“Fritz”

(To be continued.)

The Salvation Army and the Working Class II. (1910)

From the April 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The “Army” in Trade.

“The army of friars should be absolute mendicants, keeping themselves sternly apart from all worldly entanglements . . . Within thirty years of Francis I death in 1226, the Franciscans had become one of the most powerful, wealthy and worldly corporations in Christendom, with their fingers in every sink of political and social corruption, if so be profit for the order could be fished out of it. . . . Who is to say that the Salvation Army in the year 1930 shall not be the replica of what the Franciscan order had become in the year 1640” —T .H. Huxley, “Social Diseases and Worse Remedies.”

A Prophecy Fulfilled.

In its haste get rich quick “for God,” the Salvation Army has literally fallen over itself, thereby justifying Huxley’s forecast with ten years to spare.

It must be borne in mind that the Booth trading concerns are a religious growth, carefully to be distinguished from those undertakings to which the “Social” Scheme has given birth.

“Each territory or country,” we are told, “has its own trade department, but that connected with International headquarters . . . buys and manufactures largely for oversea territories.” In the early days of the “Army” a penny song-book and monthly magazine were published. The latter afterwards became the “War Cry.” Later on “certain articles of uniform were required by our officers. These being difficult to procure elsewhere, we had them prepared and sold them ourselves. From these modest efforts the present trade operations—in their large and ever-increasing proportions—sprang.” (Salvation Army Year Book, 1907)

We are further assured that “trading is now a Salvation Army necessity,” and that “the ‘Army’ must buy and sell.”

Wage-Slavery for God.

After this authoritative pronouncement, if any doubting Thomas yet remains, he is passified by being told that “the entire profits are devoted to the extension of the spiritual work. Sovereigns mean souls. The trading is done for God, and the aim of the ‘Army’ is that strict truth and righteousness actuate every transaction. Every Salvationist ought, therefore, to buy all he needs or can from the Trade department.”

Let us glance at what is being done “for God.”

In addition to religious publications and uniforms, the official list of articles sold includes among others too numerous to mention :

Women’s dresses.

Men’s and children’s suits.

Drapery.

Hosiery.

Boots and shoes.

China and glass.

Earthenware.

Cutlery.

Pianos and organs (hire system).

Flannelette and “Non-Flam.”

Sewing machines.

Furniture of all kinds

Bicycles and mailcarts.

Printing, bookbinding and stationery.

Books.

Watches and clocks.

Bags and portmanteaus.

Underwear.

Bread—families waited on daily.

Tea, coffee and cocoa.

Etc., etc.

The Heavenly Whiteley.

Here we have (in this extract from an official trade department catalogue) proof positive that the ‘Army’ thinks it is justified in competing with the ordinary tradesman in the supply of almost everything, by taking advantage of its peculiar position, reputation and influence.

Moreover it is not only to “members” that the goods in which it deals are supplied. The circulation of the “War Cry” and “Social Gazette” is mainly amongst a class of folk who, whilst perhaps in sympathy with the Salvation Army, are not actually members of that body. Specious advertisements in both the journals referred to, constantly invite the reader to apply for this or that particular trade list or catalogue. In these advertisements all the well-known catchpenny devices for attracting “business” are employed. The following is an example—one out of many. It speaks for itself (“Social Gazette,” Dec. 4. 1909).

OUR CHRISTMAS GIFT TO YOU.

Christmas is the season for giving. The custom has suggested our doing something for our friends which may add a drop to the cup of gladness which we hope will come full to the brim to all our customers this Christmas time. To make a direct gift would be impossible, however great the desire to do so. We propose to do something, however, that will, we hope, be regarded as almost, if not quite, as acceptable to those able to participate. 

FIVE USEFUL AND SERVICEABLE ARTICLES AT HALF-PRICE.

A. A pair of Trousers, usual price 11s, for 5s. 6d.

or B. A Woman’s Honeycomb, Jersey Blouse, usual price 5s. 6d., for 2s. 9d.

or C. A pair of Men’s ‘Fortress’ Boots, usual price 9s. 11d., for 4s. 11½d.

or D. A pair of Women’s ‘Favourite’ Boots, usual price 8s. 11d., for 4s. 5½ d.

or E. A Girl’s Winter Coat, usual price 7s. 6d., for 3s. 9d.

HOW IT IS DONE.

1. One of the Half-Price Articles supplied with every order not less than £1 in amount, not counting the half-price article, cash for which must be sent in addition. Customers may send as many £1 orders as they wish. For every such order is given the option to purchase one of the half-price articles. 

2. The goods to be selected from our Uniform and Outfit Catalogue, or from our Christmas Sheet of USEFUL PRESENTS which will be sent FREE ON APPLICATION.

Under the cloak of religion then the strongest possible appeal is made to the prospective customer’s love of—not God, but—a good bargain.

How it is done.

It is moreover the duty of the “field-officer” (wage-slave commanding a religious corps) to take a lively interest in the trade, push it and try to increase it as much as possible. He must announce the visits of Trade Headquarters’ representatives . . . and afford every facility . . . for getting into touch with his soldiers and friends. These poor wretches are so badly paid (18s. a week if unmarried and 27s. a week if married) that they are forced to push the sale of goods. (Orders and regulations for Field officers. 1904)

For this they receive commission. And mind you, the wages are only paid after all the local expenses of the corps have been met. In case the unfortunate officer, for some reason or other, is unable to meet the weekly expenses, he gets practically no wages at all. A pretty picture, forsooth. Enough to make one’s blood boil. The harassed victim of the malpractices of Booth & Co., forced to undersell and cut the price of commodities which have themselves been produced by sweated labour. And this in good “Salvationese” is called “earning a sovereign for the Kingdom of God” !

Booth and Boots.

Apropos of underselling, a quotation from the “Army’s” boot and shoe catalogue makes interesting reading :

“The following argues in favour of the low price of our boots :

The representative of a manufacturing firm remarked recently that we were selling a certain class of their boots 1s. 9d. per pair less than they were to be obtained at several shops mentioned by him. We were ignorant of the prices of any of the goods sold by the retailers mentioned . . . Any idea of “cutting” the price was, therefore, quite out of the question, showing that either we buy better or are content with smaller profits.”

The official apologist does not tell us which of these two factors—the ‘Army’s’ ability to buy better or its being contented with smaller profits—determines the price of boots.

Possibly a jocular remark made by “General” Booth when about to leave for America (Sept. 1907) may throw a little light on the subject.

“If you are not willing to be sweated,” said he, “don’t have anything to do with the Salvation Army.”

The pious old jester referred to the “field-officers” in the religious work, but inasmuch as we are told that “the trading is done for God” it is quite likely—if the truth were known—(not so easy to come at, that same truth) that the workers and distributors in the “Army’s” trade departments are not paid such handsome salaries as obtain in shops and stores, where profit is the primary consideration and “God” has to be content with a back seat (or shelf) for six days in the week. These factors will probably be found to have some bearing, not only on the price of the “Army’s” boots, but upon its successful competition with the ordinary labour market.

And at this point we are brought face to face with the crux of the whole matter.

The Cheap-Jacks of Religion.

Is the Salvation Army able to create a new or increased demand for the commodities it supplies through the agency of its huge religious staff ? If it is not, then the effect of its participation in the production and distribution of such commodities must necessarily diminish the demand for goods which are produced under the ordinary conditions of the labour market.

In proportion as the “Army” increases its production of those commodities more workers will be employed (by the “Army”) under especially bad economic conditions, and fewer will be the number of those employed (by the ordinary capitalist) at ordinary wages.

The following is taken from the cover of a juvenile clothing catalogue issued by the “Army,” and will serve to give some slight idea as to whether the “Army” is creating a new demand or merely competing with and underselling the ordinary market:

“I am a representative of the Salvation Army Outfit department … I am glad that I belong to the Salvation Army, as people will not only listen to what I say, but will know they can believe what I tell them. I am devoted to the selling of children’s clothing. Every moment of my life, night and day, is given up to it. I am in every way up-to date, although it is myself that says it … I am not afraid of the keenest competition. Compare my prices with those of other sellers of juvenile clothing. I shall like it, and have no doubt about my coming out on top.”

With the “Army’s” launching out into the wholesale and retail tea and coffee business—its incursion into many other departments of trade—we have, unfortunately, no space to deal. For fuller details of this interesting subject we must commend on readers to Mr. Manson’s work.

The “Flannel” Fraud.

But as a final illustration of the lengths to which this hydra-headed monstrous fraud is prepared to go in its desire to “sell,” the story of the “flannelette” is too good to be passed over. We accordingly rescue it from an undeserved oblivion, leaving it to our readers for judgment.

On September 22, 1906, a column advertisement appeared in the “Social Gazette.” This took the form of an “Open letter to Parents” signed by Lieut.-Col. Simpson (the “Army’s” trade Secretary). Big black capitals were splashed all over the page directing urgent attention to the dangers incurred by little children from the use of ordinary flannelette— “1,500 children burned to death in 1905—Save the little ones,” etc., etc.

“Your duty then is plain,” said the worthy Colonel, “send for the Army’s ‘Non-Flam,’ an excellent safety flannelette . . . Your duty is plain . . . Not to use for the precious little ones the dangerous fabric, which has been the cause of so much suffering and death.”

Now the colonel’s own department had been selling ordinary flannelette for years before the date on which this advertisement appeared. It is, to say the least, remarkable that his department continued to advertise it even after the discovery and adoption of “Non-Flam.” Six months later we find a drapery catalogue advertising—yes—”Non-Flam,” but giving precedence and nearly three times the space to—flannelettes at 2¾ d to 8½d. per yard !

None of these were described as non-inflammable. People were even urged to write for patterns of these dangerous materials as being “of exceptional value”—”cheaper than many leading drapers,” etc.

Apparently Colonel Simpson’s principles were his own and could, therefore, be sacrificed. The remainder of the flannelette was Booth & Co’s. and could not !

Fritz.

(To be continued)

The Salvation Army and the Working Class III. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part II.

The Social Scheme.

 The indirect features of the scheme must not be such as to produce injury to the persons whom we seek to benefit.

While assisting one class of the community, it must not seriously interfere with the interests of another. In raising one section of the fallen, we must not thereby endanger the safety of those who with difficulty are keeping on their feet. . . . It is no use conferring six pennyworth of benefit on a man if, at the same time, we do him a shillings worth of harm.

—”In Darkest England,” page 81.

The Book that Made a Stir.

General Booth, when launching onto a sea of controversy his now celebrated book : “In Darkest England and the Way Out,” told his readers that, from calculations he had made himself and from the figures supplied by various authorities on the subject, in these islands fully one-tenth of the population was hopelessly submerged. Hopelessly that is, so far as all previous efforts on their behalf were concerned. This section of the people he nicknamed with his cant phrase “the submerged tenth.”

The purpose of his book was to arouse the public interest in these “lost ones,” and to obtain financial support for the starting of his “social scheme.”

We were shown at great length how hopelessly inadequate to cope with the evils of want and destitution had been the efforts of well-meaning reformers who worked in connection with various “charitable” agencies.

“It is no use trying to bale out the ocean with a pint pot,” said he (“In Darkess England,” page 253). What was wanted, we were told, was an all-embracing plan. “This scheme changes the circumstances of those whose poverty is caused by their misfortune. To begin with it finds work for the unemployed. This is the chief need.”

The Legion of the Lost.

The way in which our octogenarian professor of philanthropy proposed to go to work may best be set forth in his own words :

“The Social Problem presents itself before us whenever a hungry, dirty and ragged man stands at our door asking if we can give him a crust or a job. That is the social question, what are you to do with that man? He has no money in his pocket, all that he can pawn he has pawned long ago, his stomach is as empty as his purse, and the whole of the clothes upon his back, even if sold on the best terms, would not fetch a shilling. . . He asks for work, which he will set to even on his empty stomach and in his ragged uniform, if so be that you will give him something for it, but his hands are idle, for no one employs him. What are you to do with that man ? . . . To deal with this man is the problem of the unemployed. To deal with him effectively you must deal with him immediately, you must provide him in some way or other with food, and shelter, and warmth. Next you must find him something to do, something that will test the reality of his desire to work. This test must be more or less temporary, and should be of such a nature as to prepare him for making a permanent livelihood. Then, having trained him, you must provide him wherewithal to start life afresh. All these things I propose to do. My Scheme divides itself into three sections, each of which is indispensable for the success of the whole. In this three-fold organisation lies the open secret of the solution of the Social Problem.

The Scheme I have to offer consists in the formation of these people into self-helping and self-sustaining communities, each being a kind of cooperative society, or patriarchal family, etc. 

These communities we will call, for want of a better term, Colonies. 

There will be

(1) The City Colony,

(2) The Farm Colony,

(3) The Over-Sea Colony.”

(Before proceeding to our dissection of results we have troubled to quote Booth at some length, in order that those of our readers to whom ”Darkest England” is inaccessible may gain a clear and definite idea as to what his main object was when he set out to conquer “the powers of evil” and bring about “a new heaven and a new earth.”)

The “City” Colony.

By the phrase “City Colony” was meant a number of institutions which were to act as “Harbours of Refuge.” Into these havens were to be gathered all who had been “ship-wrecked.” Food and shelter were to be provided in return for work. Employment found for him, the mariner wrecked on life’s stormy sea was to be rescued and “reformed.” He was then to be restored to the joyful bosom of his happy family, or (in case the wild happy family were not having any) he was to be passed on to the Colony of the second class.

The second stage in this new Pilgrim’s Progress was intended to work out as follows :

Farms for the Famished.

The Salvation Army would buy land near some great city (the neighbourhood of London being chosen for the first experiment). Buildings would be erected and a farm stocked. The “wretched outcast” having passed through the refining fires of the city shelter and workshop, was then to be dumped down into a real live farm—there to be taught the whole art of husbandry.

In fine a regular “Garden City” would arise wherein our friend the W.O. would work out his economic and moral salvation.

Just here we may note a significant remark of the General’s when discussing the prospects of this portion of his scheme. (“In Darkest England,” page 249.)

“As the scheme progresses, it is not irrational to expect that Government, or some of the varied Local authorities will assist in the working out of a plan which, in so marked a manner, will relieve the rates and taxes of the country”.

(The last passage was not originally italicised.) 

In our examination of the actual, every-day working of this famous scheme, we shall have occasion to again refer to this pious hope that the “authorities” would patronise the concern. He then goes on to say: “From the Farm, as from the City . . . large numbers would be restored to friends up and down the country. Some would find employment in their own callings” (thereby pushing others out and lowering the rate of wages), “others would settle in cottages on a small piece of land that we should provide, or on Co-operative Farms which we intend to promote ; while the great bulk, after trial and training, would be passed on to the Foreign Settlement, which would constitute our third class, viz., the Over Sea Colony.”

As the last-named section of the Scheme has up to the present failed to materialise, we shall not let it worry us.

The Return of the “Golden Age.”

The Scheme, in its entirety, was, in the General’s own words :

“To draw up these poor outcasts, reforming them, and creating in them habits of industry, honesty, and truth . . . forwarding from the City to the Country, and there continuing the process of regeneration, and then pouring them forth on to the virgin soils that await their coming in other lands . . . Why not ?”

And Echo—after twenty years of scheming and planning, with money poured out like water ; after twenty years of “food and shelter depots,” Elevators, City and Farm Colonies, et hoc genus omne ; after twenty years of bluff and brag in the capitalist Press, self-denial weeks and special collections—shouts across this awful waste of time, “WHY NOT?”

The Answer.

The answer must be because the whole “Darkest England” Scheme from top to bottom has proved a gigantic fraud and failure. In our detailed examination of the actual working of the Scheme, reviewing the various divisions in their due order as set forth by Booth in his Vade-mecum, much damning evidence in support of our statement will come to light.

At the base of the “Social Scheme” were to be the food and shelter depots of the City Colony.

It was proposed to establish in connection with every Food and Shelter depot a workshop or labour-yard (ominous term) in which any person who came destitute and starving would be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the 4d. needed for his bed and board.

The Salvation Army’s official figures for 1908 tell us that nearly six million meals were supplied at cheap food depots, and over two million cheap lodgings for the homeless were provided.

Specious and Misleading Advertisements.

Judging from the advertisements which appear under the “Army’s” aegis daily in the papers—of which the subjoined taken from the Westminster Gazette is a fair sample—anyone not in the know would naturally imagine that the 6,000 poor referred to had only to present themselves in all their abject misery at a Shelter, and lo and behold—they would be welcomed with open arms.

“STARVATION AND MISERY

are found on every hand among the Poor and Outcast by the Officers of the SALVATION ARMY who live among them, and are qualified to help them in the most economical and able manner. PRAY SEND HELP for so needy a work. £150,000 annually needed for the Army’s Central Funds alone. Over 6,000 Poor sleep in the Homes nightly. 170 Branches of Social and Relief work; are in operation.

Please address cheques (crossed “Bank of England, Law Courts Branch”) to GENERAL BOOTH, 101, Queen Victoria-street, London. Balance-sheets forwarded.”

In reality nothing of the kind takes place. “I was a stranger and ye took me in.” Yes, but there’s an if. The tune they play at the door is “The Absent Minded Beggar” with its haunting refrain of “Pay ! Pay ! Pay !” There is no work test applied at these “poor men’s hostels,” and the “crowd of hungry, desperate wretches, without even a penny in their pouch, demanding food and shelter”—over whose woes twenty long years ago William the saintly waxed so tearfully eloquent—unless they can furnish the needful coin of the realm, are met with that sternest of all arguments on a winter’s night, a closed door !

Fritz.

(To be continued)

The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the June 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to the last issue.

III—Continued.

(B) The true story of the "Elevators." 

Mr. F. A. McKenzie (the Army’s official trumpeter for 1908-9) in his Booth-inspired work of fiction : “Waste Humanity” writes as follows :

“Let us trace what becomes of the man anxious to leave the streets, who appeals to the Salvation Army for aid. He first goes to the Social Headquarters in Whitechapel-road, where he states his case. . . The Army’s officials say to him. Here is a chance for you to rise again. Make the best of it. Do what you are told. Put your heart and back into the work given you. . . . This is not a place of worship—it is a place of work. God bless you !

The man who appears to be genuine, etc., etc., . . . is sent, if there is room, to one of the City Colony Elevators in Spa-road, Bermondsey.”

The process of “Elevation” is both curious and instructive. The “out-of-works” are put to sorting waste paper and refuse. This the Army collects for nothing, under the plea that souls are thereby to be saved and wastrels (!) “elevated.” As no wages are paid, the luckless inmates experience all the refined tortures of an elaborate “truck” system.

Tickets are given them with which to obtain food and shelter. “At Spa Road and Old Street waste paper sorting elevators, the man, whether on the barrows or at the screens, are lucky if, in addition to their keep (valued at 7s.) they get more than a money grant of 6d. or 1s. for a very long week’s work. Many of the inmates remain for years, without showing any sign or seeing any prospect of Elevation.

“It is only natural that many men leave from dissatisfaction after trying the system long enough to learn that, instead of raising them, it is designed to keep them in perpetual submersion.” (“The Salvation Army and the Public,” p. 66.)

Until recently one of the principal industries connected with these depressors (beg pardon, “Elevators”) was the manufacture of firewood. So keen was the Army on getting orders for elevated firewood that many of the ordinary makers were forced to engage fewer hands.

Picture to yourselves these aforesaid hands turned on to the street owing to the operation of this precious schema, there to make their way to the nearest Shelter, thence to find work at an Elevator, pushing more hands out, and so on ad infinitum !

In 1892 the average earnings of an Army wood chopper were 1s. 2½d. per day, paid in tokens thus : Breakfast 3d, Dinner 4d., Tea 3d., Bed 2d., and 2½d. reserved as money grant and to cover cost of Sunday meals.

The average wage (!) paid was therefore 7s. 3d. par week, while the highest possible was 11s. per week—7s. of it being in “truck.”

As regards underselling, whilst on the one hand the officials make loose and vague statements to the effect that “no underselling takes place,” on the other hand we have the definite declaration of certain firewood makers that they have lost orders and contracts through being undersold by the Army, and were compelled to employ fewer hands owing to the capture of their trade by the Army.

When confronted with these definite pronouncements (full data being supplied) the Army found a safe refuge in discreet silence. In au interview published in the Blackburn Times, Aug. 3rd, 1907, General Booth said :

“We have practically no firewood-making now. It raised so much prejudice and silly opposition that we gave it up.”

Doubtless the touching pictures in the Social Gazette of March 21st 1908—”Wood-Chopping” and “Preparing Firewood”—were directly the result of “giving it up” !

IV

Concerning Hanbury Street.

There is no discipline so brutal as that of the sweater ; there is no slavery so relentless as that front which we seek to deliver the victims.”In Darkest England,” p. 166.

Although our factories will be permanent institutions they will not be anything more than temporary resting places to those who avail themselves of their advantages.—Ibid, p. 109.

One of the most famous—or rather, infamous—of the Salvation Army’s social institutions is the Joinery Elevator in Hanbury Street, Whitechapel. Every man who goes into this den has to sign an agreement. From this agreement—a copy of which we have been fortunate enough to obtain—a few quotations will prove very instructive.

CLAUSE 1. “I declare that, being unable to find work elsewhere, and being homeless, friendless, and destitute, I have been admitted to the City Colony, to work only for my subsistence and shelter, and that everything allowed me beyond this will be so allowed by the kindness of the Governor.”

CLAUSE 5. “I understand that no payment of any kind is promised beyond food and lodgings, etc.”

CLAUSE 6. “I agree to give my clothes over to the Officer on entrance, and if, in the opinion of the Officer, they are incapable of further use, the Colony to supply me on loan with the necessary clothes, for which I am prepared to give a receipt, with the distinct understanding that should I on leaving the Colony take these clothes with me without written authority for my so doing, I render myself liable to be charged with embezzlement.”

CLAUSE 7. “I understand that in the event of my giving the Officer cause for dissatisfaction by bad behaviour, or for any other reason, I am liable to instant dismissal, and also to the forfeiture of my reward promised for industrious work.”

From sixty to eighty men are usually employed at these “works.”

Except in the case of a very few outside or “paid hands” taken on from time to time, all the men taken in are “out-of-works.”

“The joinery works,” says Mr. Manson, “are well equipped, the machinery being driven by electricity. Practically every kind of work is undertaken—inside doors and front doors, windows, office partitions, flights of stairs, benches for halls, kitchen tables, and train indicators. To do such work at all competently a man must be a very good joiner. No inexperienced man could do it.”

The hours worked at this “Labour Hospital” are from 6.30 a.m. to 6 p.m. (except on Saturdays). Three-quarters of an hour is allowed for breakfast, and one hour for dinner, both of which are supplied at Quaker Street (a sort of soup kitchen run by the Army) half a mile away.

The working week is 53½ hours, with frequent overtime. And an 11¾ hours’ working day is not uncommon.

The work done is rated by time or by piece. 2s. a day or 12s. a week is the wage or allowance given for time or day work.

9s. a week is deducted as the cost of board and lodging, thus leaving an average of 3s. a week by way of money grant.

Much light from various sources was from time to time thrown upon these “elevating” methods. Forthwith the Salvation Army officials made strenuous efforts to excuse their damnable practices by depreciating and vilifying the quality of the men’s work. “Piece-work” was flatly denied.

Apropos of this last some comparisons of official statements will prove amusing as well as most instructive:

COMMISSIONER STURGESS. (Memorandum July 22nd, 1908.)

“Hanbury St. is not a piecework shop

COLONEL JACOBS

(Commissioner Sturgess’ assistant.)

“When a man becomes experienced we put him on piecework.”

————————

(Agreement signed by men.)

“In the case of task work,” etc.

————————-

(An Army official to a representative of the Times. “It is all piecework.”

——————————–

(War Cry, May 1st, 1909.)

“We said that the majority of those provided with employment had lost their skill, and could only do the commonest class of work, and little of that.

Salvation Army Year Book, 1908. Page 43. “The majority are accomplished hands, and are able to do any hind of work usually carried on in the trades.” (Carpentry, joinery, and painting).

——————————–

A knowledge of what the Army professes to pay its hands for piecework is of great importance, because we can then discover, with a fair degree of accuracy, how these prices compare with those paid outside for exactly the same work. The work-tabs which have—unfortunately from the Army’s point of view—come to light, show this clearly.

These tabs supplied to the men for each job give the price to be paid to the man for making, and bear the signature of the officer in charge.

“Comparisons are odorous,” as the old lady said in the play, but the following list (by no means a complete one), showing the prices paid by the Army for certain work, and the prices estimated by a master-builder as those which he would have to pay for the same work, is positively damning.

No amount of plausibility can possibly explain away these stubborn facts.

——————————–

Fritz.

(To be continued)

The Patriarch and the mote. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hyndman on compromise ought to be funny. The “International Socialist Review” for February provides the interesting combination. Come, let us guffaw together.

It is a long article and contains the usual verbal hydrogen which bulks so largely and weighs so little; the usual Hyndmanic hysteria and verbal stage-strutting in which the patriarch delights. The smile comes in when one reflects on the little omissions that appear to have been made. As instance : “In order to make sure of retaining their seats in the House of Commons at the General Election, both the Labour Party and the I.L.P. have come to terms with the Liberals in a manner which must shake all confidence in them in the future.” This, of course, is all very horrible, and no doubt deserves all the vituperation of which Mr. Hyndman is capable, but we do not observe any reference to Herbert Burrows’ letter to the Daily Chronicle asking for Liberal support. We agree that “when a body of men returned to Parliament to represent Labour interests exclusively and independently, enter upon a whole series of bargaining with the national and local organisers of one of the great capitalist factions they do an amount of mischief to the whole movement which they do not comprehend ; “but we must confess our inability to discover the remotest difference between that action and the slimy evolution of Quelch and the S.D.P. at Northampton. The Liberals of the boot metropolis are not decidedly differentiated from the Liberals of the rest of this country. On what grounds shall we exclude the Northampton attempted deal from the “whole series of bargainings” ? Logic supplies no answer other than the thoroughly patent fact that the S.D.P. and the I.L.P. differ in nothing but their initials. And even this difference is got over locally by selecting another set, such as L.R.C., T. & L.C., or what not, under cover of which intrigue, chicanery and political poltroonery receive different values. The pure and spotless S.D.P. as a party, tire not in their denunciation of the foul and rotten Labour Party, but no objection is raised to segments of the pure and unspotted former alliancing with the specked and flyblown latter, also in segments.

Without going over ground already covered in our columns we would like to contrast the ponderous piffle of the patriarch with actual recent events. “‘No compromise’ must be our motto and our policy from the first and all through,” he says. Then please explain Camborne, Haggerston, Northampton, etc. “Let us take all we can get, but never let us sink our principles, or lower our flag, for any consideration whatever.” Contrast this with Quelch’s reply to a questioner: “If we cannot get anything better than the Budget, I shall vote for the Budget.” Supplement the latter with Hyndman’s “a Budget which I do not hesitate to declare is as outrageous a fraud upon the people of the United Kingdom as any swindle which even the Liberals have as yet perpetrated—and that is saying a great deal.” Quite interesting, isn’t it? Says Hyndman : “No Socialist can admit the right of the House of Lords to throw out the House of Commons’ Budget, however bad it may be in principle and application.” And again (same article): “I look with sadness, not unmingled with contempt, on the manner in which the Socialists of the Labour Party have surrendered to the capitalist Liberals on the Budget, on the House of Lords and on the General Election.” And so on.

There is quite a touch of sadness in the sentence where he looks back, at the age of sixty-eight, over his thirty years of Socialist effort, and realises that he will not see its fruition in the Co-operative Commonwealth. But does Mr. Hyndman think it will be brought nearer by the advocacy of more Dreadnoughts and the adoption of a modification of conscription, as suggested by himself and jingo Blatchford at Burnley. We who are nearer twenty-eight can join in deploring the non-imminence of the Socialist Republic, but the tears of regret do not blind us to the fact that every year of the S.D.P.’s further existence puts the Revolution back ten. And we are out to smash you. We are young, most of us of the S.P.G.B., but we are awake. We were born slaves, we are slaves now, but we are not going to die slaves if we can help it. Life is very rapid. A little twink of time and we are no more. The sweets of life are very meagre and Capitalism has the larger hand. Capitalism has got to go. The S.D.P. by its program of patches, immediate demands and general piffle, stands, wittingly or no, for its continuance. So the S.D.P. must go too. Every year we knock off its life brings Socialism and sunshine ten years nearer. Says Hyndman in concluding : “It is for us to take care that we hand on the torch of revolutionary Social Democracy … to those who shall in turn take up the splendid task from us.” There are signs, however, that this curiously named fire-brand will burn itself out even before Hyndman & Co. relinquish it, and then perhaps the path may be the more clearly seen in the absence of its reeking smoke and uncertain flicker.

Wilfred.

How to be independent. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the General Election came the L.C.C. elections. The Labour Party and I.L.P. ran candidates in eight constituencies, but it is not true to say contested, as in only one of the eight did they run a full ticket.

As is well known, each constituency has two seats, yet the “Independent” Labour Party ran only one man in each of seven districts. Why ? Because they knew their position was hopeless without the help of the progressives (Liberals). They ran two candidates at Woolwich only, where the Progressives had none. Even then they lost.

In Bermondsey and Kennington where the Progressives ran two official candidates, the I.L.Peers were defeated. In Bow and Bromley, North Lambeth, and Poplar the one-and-one idea was followed with the result that Lansbury, F. Smith and Ensor were elected. And Mr. Robert Williams claims these as Socialist victories and calls the three a “Socialist group” !

Another I.L.P. member—C. L. Jesson—followed the example of the Fabians and ran as a Progressive in Walworth, and was returned.

Evidently the I.L.P. idea of “independence” embraces bargains and joint candidatures with their supposed enemies. These are their boasted “glorious victories,” the fruits of their superior tactics and ability. But the workers may be sure that the “Independents” will support the Proressives every whit as heartily at Spring Gardens as the Labour Party does the Liberals at Westminster, and for the same reason—their seats are the gift of the capitalists.

Jack Fitzgerald

Correspondence: Oath of Allegiance. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oath of Allegiance.

R. Von Berg (Queen’s Park).—The oath of allegiance to the King required of M.P.s would not prevent a Socialist M.P. taking his seat

Correspondence: Reply to James Fletcher. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reply to James Fletcher.

The Social-Democratic Party in Germany occupies a similar position to the party similarly named here. Its programme (the Erfuter Program) consists of the theoretical part, based on the teachings of Marx—the Materialist Conception of History, the Surplus Value theory and the Class Struggle—and the practical, consisting of reforms and palliatives ; and we allege that the whole existence of the German S.D.P. has been spent in the advocacy of those reforms, to the detriment of Socialist propaganda. In the early days of our party we held the erroneous view—still entertained by the S.L.P. of Gt. Britain and America—that the German workers must obtain certain reforms because the revolution from feudalism to capitalism was not complete. But we found that conditions there make a Socialist Party quite as possible as here. A small number of members of the German S.D.P. take up our position and work for the formation of a straight party. As to our use of the expression “our German comrades,” it were a sorry state of affairs were we not in a position to so express ourselves, while Bebel’s action in 1906 speaks for itself.

Correspondence: "No more “honest workers” ; no more idle loafers, but a race of MEN." (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the Editor.]

Strange as it may seem, I, one of the army of workers, the class which is the only useful class, am classed as above. And I am unemployed ; I can find no man who will give me work to do, that I may earn sufficient to keep the life within me. I can work ; I like to work ; I can’t get it.

Not alone, however. I take up the daily papers ; I read of the great things a Liberal Government is doing for the class I belong to.

I read of their latest benefaction, an institution in each town where we unemployed men and women may go and register our names and qualifications, so that intending employers may look over the books and pick out the suitable ones. And I read that in every place where such exchanges have been opened, a struggling mob of masterless beings have fought to have their names placed on the lists—4,000 in Manchester on the opening day, many more in London, from every industrial centre there comes word of hundreds of men like myself, wanting a master and finding none.

I see it is the beginning of a brighter day for English workers ; that honest workers at last have found their chance. A minister of Christ speaking last week said in a short time all loafers and idlers will be known by name throughout England, and that this was desirable to the honest man willing to do a day’s work. I am one of those honest men. but I have been more fortunate than others in having a roof over my head and plenty to eat while I hunted for the elusive job.

But I ask myself what inducement has any man to remain one of these honest workers, when he has worked so hard as to nearly break down in health, helped also by the knowledge that another waited for his place when he failed. Some day he is told that his services are no longer required, as business is slack. In vain he looks for a job ; he sees the same thing is common all around ; men who have worked their best are flung out to the cold at another’s whim. What is there in honest labor? A fortune for the lazy man who owns the job, starvation for the poor wretch who is bought to work the job.

I also see where a progressive muck-raker (literary) has discovered that by going about the thing properly, double the money made by a casual labourer can be made by artistic begging.

But the man who does that is a loafer ; the man who begs for work an honest working man, much lauded by the clergy and other intellectual prostitutes. Both beg for the same thing—a living. The one starves but is praised for his virtues ; the other lives and is cursed for his vices.

The dawn of a brighter day will come, methinks, when the other slaves discover as I have done, that we are mere bundles of merchandise, bought and sold in the market for the price of subsistence, though in ourselves having the power to create many times more wealth that we never get.

The reason we starve is because, bur wages equalling only a small portion of the wealth we create, we are unable to buy it all back. The remedy is to dispossess our masters of the power they hold by government to-day, and remove ourselves from the category of merchandise, make ourselves men, by the simple act of getting control of the forces of Nature and using them for the benefit of all instead of for a class of parasites.

There can be no unemployed then—all can supply their needs whenever they choose to do so. No more “honest workers” ; no more idle loafers, but a race of MEN.

F. S. F.

S.D.P. Befogged. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

For some weeks past a discussion has been carried on in the columns of our contemporary, “Justice,” a periodical which presumably claims,to be a Socialist journal, on the above question. The mere fact of such a subject being debated is sufficient to prove that the publication referred to is not an organ of Socialist thought, and that the party for which it speaks does not understand the principles of Socialism.

We find in the discussion under consideration, many and various policies advocated ; but even the slightest study of the records of the S.D.P. will reveal the fact that politically they are all at sixes and sevens. And to this the obvious fact that after thirty years of political existence they do not know what to do with the chief weapon for working-class emancipation, and we see that so far are they from being Socialists, that they are still floundering in the morass of Capitalist philosophy.

The use of the vote is no problem to Socialists, because their whole thought and action is based on the recognition of the class struggle. By this term is meant the struggle that must exist when, in society, one section own all the means of wealth production, while the other section, owning nothing but the energy in their bodies, have to sell their energy to obtain a living. Between these two sections—capitalists and workers— a bitter war rages.

The class struggle—of which the foregoing is an explanation—forms a part of the basis of Socialist principles, and anyone rejecting the same either does not understand those principles, or is deliberately misleading the working class. In either case he is of no use to the proletariat.

Of such is the kingdom of the I.L.P. and the S.D.P., with which latter body I am, for the time being, more immediately concerned.

The first significant note in this controversy was struck by Mr. T. Stanley Mercer, in “Justice” (Feb. 5th, 1910); who put the question : “Is there any possible means of finding out definitely the actual policies pursued by the I.L.P. and S.D.P. ?”

He says when he first joined the I.L.P. there was no greater authority than himself on the “ways and objects of the Party” (a large order to start with, as Keir Hardie, Philip Snowden, Ramsay MacDonald & Co., must have been lesser lights by comparison), but as months grew into years he felt less and less certain of his position, etc.

The mere possibility of asking the query with which Mr. Mercer opens his letter is sufficient to show that these parties do not act according to Socialist principles, but that their actions are governed by the exigencies of vote and seat capturing at any price.

Mr. Mercer further says “I think the worst shock I have had was . . . when an I.L.P. member, on having his position challenged, retorted, ‘You’re trying to obscure the constitutional issue by dragging the red herring of Socialism before the members of the I.L.P.’ ! ”

These are the people who are going to emancipate the workers some day—perhaps.

No, so far from accomplishing that will they be, that they will only lead the workers into the Desert of Reform, and so make them the more secure victims for capitalist exploitation.

Now for the S.D.P.

Mr. J. Maclean, writing in “Justice” for Feb. 12th, 1910, deals with local affairs at Pollokshaws (Glasgow). He says amongst other things: “If we had no candidate we always issued a manifesto, supplemented by public meetings, to advise the voters which candidate to reject.” He also says : “Encouraged by our success in local elections, we thought it expedient to experiment with the General Election by adopting similar tactics, although not with the unanimous consent of the branch.”

So there are some members, at least, who see the light.

Socialist policy should at no time be governed by expediency for “experiments” or otherwise, “but should at all times be decided by principle and principle alone.

I suppose that Maclean and others like him would say : “Of two evils choose the lesser.” But Liberalism and Toryism both stand for the same thing—Capitalism, and working class exploitation —and voting for one in preference to the other will not alter the fact that they are both the enemy.

But the gem of the whole matter is the contribution by Mr. H. Quelch, editor of the “official organ of the Social-Democracy,” whatever that may mean.

Dealing with a complaint by Maclean in the previous issue, where that gentleman said : “Had a special conference been convened, or had the E.C. given a definitely clear lead, there might have been the possibility of united action,” Quelch says : “there is not yet among the general body of our members, and still less among sympathisers, a clear conception of what political action should mean for Social-Democrats.” (Italics are ours.)

That is, in common parlance, “they dunno where they are.”

Nothing more unkind than this has yet been said of them even by any member of the S.P.G.B.

Socialists, on the other hand, have got that “clear conception,” the lack of which amongst the Social Democrats is so deeply deplored by Mr. Quelch.

“In order to gain that clear conception,” says Mr. Quelch, “it is necessary for it to be understood . First that we mean what we say when we declare that from our point of view there is absolutely nothing, fundamentally, to choose between the two parties—Liberal and Tory” (that, it seems), is why Quelch & Co, are so frequently angling for Liberal—or Tory for that matter—support and votes) ; “second, that politics are not an end, but a means—not a question of principle at all, but of tactics,” etc.

Now bearing in mind the premises laid down at the beginning of this article, I cannot believe that Quelch does not understand the position, therefore in view of this brilliant utterance, I am forced to the conclusion that he is deliberately obscuring the issue in order to confuse the working class.

This idea is further borne out on a perusal of the remainder of Quelch’s illuminating (?) quota to the discussion. He says that to abstain, from voting or to mark or spoil ballot papers “is not political action but inaction. Absolute abstention is simply disfranchisement; it is to withdraw ourselves from the political arena altogether, and leave it entirely free to our capitalist enemies for the continuance of their petty, superficial faction fight. Abstention pure and simple is to make ourselves as a party a negligible quantity, no matter how strong numerically we may become,” and more to the same effect. He also says : “except for tactical purposes, there is absolutely no reason. . . why a Social Democrat should . . . vote for either Liberal or Tory.” Expediency again ! It is not a matter of principle at all, but of seats at any price.

But let us go back a little—where is the need for Socialists to take part in the “faction fights” of their masters, even for “tactical purposes” ?

Mr. Quelch goes on : “Accepting the first principle that I have submitted an essential to a clear understanding of our position in politics —that there is nothing fundamentally to choose between Liberal and Tory—the policy of abstention, where there is no Socialist to vote for, is from the point of view of principle, the only possible policy to adopt.” Yet he negates this by wanting us to abandon “the only possible policy” in order to vote Liberal or Tory “for purely tactical reasons.” However, he shows the mental tangle he has got into by saying “If there really is no fundamental difference for us between the two parties, then obviously we cannot vote for the Liberal as being the lesser of two evils. To do so is to admit that after all there is a difference, and one to the advantage, in our estimation, of the Liberal.”

Mr. Quelch sees the danger of this policy, because “it follows, as naturally as night follows day, that the good ‘practical’ Socialist had much better vote Liberal, even where there is a Socialist candidate, rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

Now let us see where Mr. Quelch has landed himself.

(1) He admits that there is no fundamental difference between Mr. Liberal and Mr. Tory. This means that in voting for either we are supporting our natural and historic enemy. (2) But to abstain means self-effacement, politically, and therefore we must support one section of the enemy against the other, “for purely tactical reasons.” Yet to do so is to admit that there is a difference,” etc., etc. At the same time “this is a most dangerous policy” because it will cause those, “good ‘practical’ Socialists to vote Liberal rather than risk letting in the Tory.”

But we find later on that Quelch is quite willing to enter the capitalist “faction fight”—”to use our organisation in every possible constituency to defeat the Liberal and to destroy the Liberal Party—not because that Party is any worse or any better than the Tory ; but because it is the party which stands in our way, which saps our strength,” and so on.

Mr. Quelch says that “At the Annual Conference held at Edinburgh in 1898, he proposed a resolution to the effect that the organised vote of the Social-Democratic Party in Great Britain should be directed solidly to the extinction of Liberal candidatures by the vote being cast steadily on the Tory side up to and through the General Election.” The resolution goes on to give instructions as to the means of its being carried out; but with characteristic Social-Democratic duplicity it provides for exceptions “where the candidate belongs to the extreme Radical Left, and is prepared to work with us,” etc., etc.

Mr. Quelch and the average S.D.P.er cannot see that the nearer some other body may appear to be to them, the more dangerous that other body will probably be. But Quelch’s eloquence was not sufficient to carry his resolution, for after considerable opposition the following was carried :

“That this Conference in view of the growing tendency of the capitalists and landlords to unite against the interests of the people, instructs the E.C. to use its influence to throw the Socialist vote against the Liberal and Tory candidates indifferently, as may seem to the greatest advantage of the Socialist cause, except——”

They must have the usual exception.

Now they admit of no fundamental difference between the sections of the political expressions of capitalism. They further recognise that this admission means that it is dangerous to support either political faction, yet they are prepared to support one against the other, except where that other is a representative of those who are prepared “to act with us for the realisation of immediate practical measures,” and so on ad nauseam.

Oh ! but I forget! This course is adopted for “purely tactical reasons.” As if that makes any difference. The tactical advantage—if any—is much more likely to be on the other side than on theirs ; for they stand to gain greater tactical advantage by being in constant opposition to all capitalist parties than by supporting at one time and opposing at another.

This can easily be confirmed by reference to the famous Albert Hall speech of butcher Asquith, in which the Irish party, having adopted a policy of hostility to the Liberal party, are promised Home Rule. The Suffragettes, having consistently opposed the Liberals, are promised votes for women ; but the Labour Party are promised—nothing.

In the recent election we find Social Democrats fishing for Liberal support (vide Northampton). Not getting it, they opposed the Liberals with a second candidate. Elsewhere they had no settled policy. Thus in Battersea we find them supporting the Tory against Burns (just the reverse of what they did in 1900).

Mr. Frank Colebrook, writing in “Justice” for Jan. 22nd, 1910, advocates the claims of the Liberals to S.D.P. support in view of the great constitutional crisis. In the same journal dated Feb. 5th Mr. Stanley Briggs reports a resolution of protest passed by his branch against Colebrook’s letter in the previous issue. In the issue for Feb. 26th Mr. Colebrook made some attempt to defend his action in voting Liberal, pleading the “purely tactical reasons” beloved of Quelch. Neither tactics nor any other consideration would allow members of the S.P.G.B. to use their votes in conflict with the Party’s constitution, for we are governed not by expediency but by principles.

E. W. Spackman puts forward in “Justice” (12.3.10) a novel proposition. That is to “put up candidates in every constituency where a branch of the S.D.P. exists at every election. …Not having the cash to pay the returning officer’s fees, he will not be allowed to go to the poll. Nevertheless, so far as we are concerned, the candidature could be proceeded with.” The writer then goes on to press for payment of Members, etc., so ruining a proposition that had the promise of a sound foundation by introducing the eternal, vote-catching reform.

Mr. Quelch is continually denying any compromise or bargain of any shape or form with the Liberal Party, but “M.G.” puts the position very neatly in “Justice” for March 29th, when he says : “There are, of course, in the English language, other expressions for this than ‘arrangement with one of the orthodox parties,’ as used in my letter (“Justice,” March 5th, 1910), but in such an important question preciseness is very desirable.” That is very true, and it is the hope of some, at least, of that desired preciseness being attained, that has inspired this long article.

To sum up, Socialists should give their votes to none but Socialist candidates, or if there is no such candidate in their constituency, they should mark their ballot papers by writing “Socialism” across them. This is not self-disfranchisement, as Quelch says, but is a practical demand for a candidate to be put up for that constituency.

To do anything else is to support the exploiting class and so enable them to live by the exploitation of the workers. Socialists should be governed by principle alone. Let Quelch and his fellow reformers and job-hunters flounder in the bogs of “tactics” and expediency if they will—they will surely become engulfed.

Hutch.

Blogger's Note:

This may be the first mention of John Maclean in the pages of the Socialist Standard.

Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (Part 2) (1910)

Pamphlet Review from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser, S.D.P.)

(Continued from the previous issue.)

Something Less than Socialism.

The first objection, says Mr. Fairchild, “to the adoption of a programme of proposals to palliate or diminish the evils of capitalism, is the doctrine that anything less than the realisation of complete Socialism would be valueless to the working-class.” He goes on to declare that

“The argument that Socialism only can remove the artificial inequalities of to-day, restore the social produce to the social workers, and abolish all forms of actual poverty is perverted. That argument is held to mean that the condition of the workers is a fixture, and that poverty cannot be diminished under the capitalist state.”

This statement is untrue. The so-called impossibilists do not pervert the argument to any such meaning. On the contrary, so far are they from regarding the condition of the workers as a fixture, that they continually point out that it is ever becoming worse—a verity the reform champion himself subscribes to when he says (p. 4) “In all capitalist countries the share of the total wealth production taken by the working class is falling.”

The “Social-Democracy,” ill-grounded in social science, and, therefore, groping like blind Samson for that which they cannot see, imagine that they have their arms about the pillars of capitalist society when they grasp their “palliative programme.” But they cry “palliation” without knowing what palliation is, and think they have palliated the system when they have helped to do that which the system forces the capitalists to undertake in their own interests.

Out of such ignorance as this comes the puerile statement that “the system has been palliated to provide magnificence and great wealth for the few.” Magnificence and great wealth for the few, however, were inherent in the system, and not provided by any imaginable “palliation” Mr. Fairchild can instance. And when the term “palliation” can be applied to such opposites as the depression of the multitude in order to “provide magnificence and great wealth for the few,” and, the wrenching from these few, of the means of lessening the misery of the toiling many, then it behoves us to look to our anchors, lest we drag and drift on to the rocks of lunatic chaos.

What, after all, is a palliative ? In sociology, surely, some betterment of the social conditions, given or obtained apart from the decree of economic law and the necessities of the social system.

Thus, trade union effort to advance wages is not palliative effort, but simply the exercise of that power of resistance necessary to arrive at and assert the value of labour power. The law of exchange in accordance with which wages are determined by the cost of production of labour-power, presupposes resistance on both sides of the market. The same resistance between buyer and seller exists in all commodity exchange. It takes the place of that theoretically presumed exact knowledge of values, which no buyer or seller ever yet possessed. The man has not been born who could trace the cost of production (in units of socially necessary labour time) of two commodities through all its intricities and say of them “in such and such quantities these goods are equivalent values.” The question of values must be referred to the competitive market, where the appeal is to force and the only gauge the mean of prices over extended periods.

Similarly, as the struggle for higher wages is not a palliative straggle, since it is a necessary and presupposed part and parcel of the wages system, so there are many measures of a seemingly ameliorative nature, which, since they are necessary to the continued working of the capitalist system itself, are not in any sane sense palliatives.

What possibility, for instance, would there be of the existence in a state of profit-producing efficiency, of several millions of persons within the London area, under the sanitary conditions of the middle ages ? In these days when gardens are on the roofs, and tube underlies tube in the bowels of the earth, surface area is far too valuable for open sewers and cesspools. The night-soil man has become an impossible person, and the earth closet an insupportable expense. In addition, black plagues (and consequent scarcity of labour-power) and high profits do not go well together. Capitalism, and not the sentimental tear of the palliator, demanded cheaper and more efficient sanitary arrangements, and that demand was met by, among other things, that “liberal water supply” and “modern drainage” which the S.D.P. champion (pp. 4-5) declares have “modified the original structure of the capitalist system in the interest of the workers,” (!) and are, therefore, palliatives.

The poultry farmer who runs ten to twelve hens to the acre need not worry greatly about sanitary arrangements for his stock, but when he multiplies the number of birds by four or five, he immediately has to face and deal with the problem of sanitation. To say, however, that he does so for the hens’ sake is ridiculous. Yet it is a parallel case with the claim that modern drainage and the liberal water supply are palliatives of the capitalist system.

They are nothing of the sort. They are necessities of the capitalist system, without which the process of profit production would be hampered at every turn. They are perpetuators, not palliators, of capitalism. Is it imaginable, highly developed capitalist transport, expressed in the latest phrase—motor haulage—on the old feudal bridal paths, or even the roads and bridges that were good enough for our grandfathers’ stage-coaches ? Is it thinkable, the modern industrial and business world with the illiterate working class of the “hungry forties ?”

We all know that the constant wail of representative British manufacturers is that German education has been allowed to get so far in advance of English, and one of their number who recently said “I do not fear Germany’s competition, but I fear her technical schools,” spoke volumes as to the motive underlying the educational palliative.

Again, during the last 35 years the birth rate has steadily fallen from 36 to 26, to the horror of the patriotic pulpit and the uneasiness of the exploiting class—who can see only less honey from fewer bees. But with fewer births has come the desire to keep more of the children alive, and so we find “the amenities of the worker’s lives” (as our author puts it) by the provision of municipal sterilised milk supplies, maternal training, free meals for school children, and such “palliatives.”

The truth is that the gradual development of the productive system demands and necessitates an unceasing adaptation of social conditions, but these are not palliatives of the system, but the mere adjustment to the needs of an industrial machinery whose one motive force is the production of the greatest possible profit. They leave the workers’ position untouched. These “amenities of the workers’ lives” have not kept pace with their steady degradation. The “liberal water supply” of the water company may not altogether compensate for the loss of the sweet air that moved about the well, nor could the site of the Thames Embankment have been, as a low-lying muddy waste, a picture of more utter and hopeless despair, than now when it offers its proud, granite bosom to be the dreary, comfortless bed of scores upon scores of poor wretches that once were men, and women—and children.

No, Mr. Palliator, the position of the worker is not a fixture. Their exploitation increases, their unemployment increases, their insecurity and anxious misery increases, in spite of those “amenities of the workers’ lives,” “a liberal water supply, modern drainage, and the extension of public open spaces.”

The position of the Socialist Party is, not that the condition of the workers is a fixture, but that it is constantly being adjusted to the requirements of the capitalist system, and that this adjustment is not palliation of working-class conditions. For the working class, they hold, there is no palliation—there is only emancipation. This is why “something less than Socialism” would be valueless to the proletariat.

The Distribution of Wealth.

In the brief confines of this chapter we are treated to several curious statements. We are are told, for instance, that “the productive capacity of labour is subject to continuous change. It will rise or fall with every application of knowledge to industrial functions.” This piece of owlish wisdom, of course, flies in the face of all experience, and it would be interesting to learn when the application of knowledge causes the productive capacity of human energy to fall.

In one breath our author declares that the “proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is not “fixed by economic or political laws,” and prescribes a political law for the fixing of a minimum wage !

The Socialist Party holds, not that “the proportion or amount of the requirements of life which fall to the share of the respective classes” is fixed by economic or political laws, but that, in capitalist society, the “return to labour” is determined by the cost of producing labour-power.

This is an economic law. It operates through competition. Therefore, if the statement of the law is true, the only way to increase the “return to labour” is either by raising the cost of producing labour-power or by restricting competition.

If the reformer started out to induce the people to “waste their substance in riotous living,” to become more drunken and to burn a loaf for every one they ate, he would be derided for his pains, but he would be logical. He would be trying to raise the “return to labour” by increasing the cost of producing labour-power which governs it. But to propose to raise the cost of producing labour by increasing that which it determines (wages in the long run) is madness.

If, on the other hand, the reformer aspired to so completely organise the workers for resistance in the economic field that competition was effectually strangled, again, in spite of the hopeless magnitude of his task, he would be logical. He would be trying to defeat the economic law of exchange by eliminating the mainspring of its operation—competition.

Now the law as stated above is a law of capitalism—not of other social systems. Capitalism presupposes and hangs upon competition. To eliminate competition in the labour market (of all markets) is to eliminate capitalism. Hence every force of the existing system is arrayed against any attempt to tamper with the freedom of competition. But our would-be palliators, who say that labour’s share of the wealth produced is not fixed by economic or political laws, are going to tilt against the windmill. They are going to match a political law against an economic law. They are going to set up their Minimum Wage Act against the whole world of masters interested in paying the least possible wages they can, and the whole seething mass of hunger-driven workers, striving for employment at any wage.

Later Mr. Fairchild gives us “a little history.” Let us have little history now.

The Black Plague in the 14th century made labour-power very scarce. The Statute of Labourers was enacted to prevent the payment or reception of higher wages than had ruled prior to the outbreak. What was the result ? Many on both sides were imprisoned, but labour was not made one whit more redundant. Hence the labourers continued to get the best of the competitive straggle, and wages rose 50 or even 100%. So we have it on record that complaint was continually made in Parliament that the Statute of Labourers was utterly inoperative (see “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” Thorold Rogers, p. 226 on).

If wages could not be kept down by law then, when labourers were not free, as they are now, to seek other masters, and when the masters, who controlled the political power, were interested in supporting the law and keeping them down, how much less can the law enforce a minimum wage now, when the masters, controlling the political power, are interested in evading such a law, and the workers themselves are forced by the awful competition for work, to cast every artificial barrier to their degradation into oblivion ?

A. E. Jacomb

(To be Continued.)