Sunlight. (1922)

From the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

You know, fellow-workers, that we live in a democratic age. The great ones of the earth walk without ceremony amongst men. You have perhaps heard, and in part believed, how the Prince of Wales at the Royal Garden Party did not wear, but merely carried his gloves ; how the Queen permitted two amateurs to take her photograph, and Prince George laughed at a Punch and Judy show. It may be, too, that at your annual beano you have rubbed shoulders with that aristocracy of wealth which, except at these hallowed seasons, you apprehend but dimly as the beneficent power that feeds, clothes, and shelters you —sometimes; have been privileged to return a respectful answer to a man-to-man query, and to cheer when the gentry departed in its car. But with all this I wonder if you quite realise how democratic we have grown? Do you know that several thousands of our brothers in toil, by the scheme of co-partnership which operates at Port Sunlight, are knit with both the plutocracy and the royal family—united in the exalted purpose of serving human need and a pressing need at that—soap! Well, they are.

“The Marquis of Carisbrooke” (the Star told us one evening), “eldest son of Princess Beatrice and cousin to the King, has joined the Board of Lever Brothers, Limited. . . It is not generally known that many members of the Royal Family have very substantial holdings in Lever Brothers.” Now then !

See what advantage there is in being born in the era of capitalism. Formerly you might as well have sought admission to the circle of seraphim as to the royal circle. There are records of such things, of course, but the terms were much harder: wounds, hunger, and more than a sporting chance of death. You remember Henry the Fifth’s words to his army :

  “For he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, this day shall gentle his condition.”

But nowadays, bless you, you have only to get a job at Port Sunlight, and you automatically become a partaker in glory, although, as our friend Uriah would say, “only a very ‘umble one.”

Oh, the ennobled ones appreciate the honour ! Indeed yes ; and some other things even more than the honour. For example, there was an enthusiastic meeting in July of the ‘umble partners of Lever Bros., to hear presented by Lord Leverhulme a new scheme of benefits intended to be introduced on October 1st. The arrangement, briefly, provides half-pay when there is no work, the same during four weeks of sickness or longer at the discretion of the company, and a free life insurance. And the Star, reporting, and rubbing its hands over the excellence of the scheme, declared: “Labour and capital together can produce the means for these and greater benefits if we can once eliminate the theory that they are antagonistic. Pulling together they could make the whole world one huge Port Sunlight.”

Be sure they could ! One slight alteration will render the Star quite correct. For “eliminate the theory” you must read “disguise the fact”; for the theory of the class-war has a way of realising itself in everyday experience. With this reservation, its truth is evident. Given the present great and potential greater productivity of labour; if the capitalist will only be a little patient for his dividends, and the worker will overcome his foolish prejudice against going on half-rations during sickness and slack trade, the thing is done. You can have a docile and industrious proletariat, a rich and unharassed master-class, an absence of trade disputes, a smoothly, running industrial machine; in short, an ideal capitalist world—a huge Port Sunlight.

And if that is what you want, fellow-workers, well and good. But—I wonder just why you should select for yourselves a life of labour and for your co-partners a life of ease: for yourselves a modest level of comfort and culture, for them the utmost of luxury: for you the cheap cap and the ready-made suit, for them the silk hat and the coronet. In what does Leverhulme or Carisbrooke differ from you? They look much like you; sleeker, perhaps, but not so handsome as many a workman at Port Sunlight. Can they be more brainy than the men who planned the factories and designed the plant? Put them down in the wilderness : could they any better than you preserve and provide for themselves? Only by virtue of one advantage do they enjoy the best of what the partnership produces: they are the owners of the factories, of the machines, of the product. Such a collaboration resembles that of the fox and the wolf. You recall the wolf’s daily chant? “Red Fox, get me something to eat, or I will eat you.” But the fox had an eye to his own interest. When the opportunity came he took it—and good-bye wolf; whereas Lord Leverhulme’s scheme, the Evening Standard tells us, was “enthusiastically adopted.” Ah, but the wolf was less wise than Leverhulme. Instead of “Get me something to eat or I will eat you,” he should have said: “Brother fox, little partner, to provide you with meals is the first aim of our enterprise. I am the director of it. Feed me well, therefore, that I may the better discharge my beneficent mission.” He might then have been able, like Leverhulme, to say: “I have always had the good fortune to be supported.”

Here the prince of soap, candles, margarine, fish, and several other things, may certainly congratulate himself: for without: the support of the employees of his many companies, he would stand no higher than they stand themselves. Their support it is that has lifted him above them, placed him in luxury and increased his power. “I was supported,” he tells us, “by a sweet lady who consented to be my wife . . . all through her life she supported me. I am now supported by my son and my colleagues on the board.”

Excellent, my lord: and you, your amiable wife, your son, and your colleagues (royalty included), have all been supported by whom? . . . The pillars of the glittering edifice are they from whose profitable labour your fortunes are drawn. Fifty years ago you were able to gather your father’s whole staff in the room above his grocery shop in Bolton. From that gathering to this at Port Sunlight in July last, your career is a business romance ; and what has been your rôle in it all ? You have been the bringer together of human labour power and means of production: you have also been the appropriator of the product. To your employees you have allotted, first, the cost of their keep and reproduction, that you may have a plentiful supply of workers always at call; second, a fraction of your profits, that they may have an interest in keeping them high; and now such provisions as, making away to some extent with the insecurity of their modest livelihood, shall further bind them to you in content and loyalty. The first for your own sake you must do; for the two last the resulting high level of production amply recompenses you. In this you are the type of the far-seeing capitalist.

In so far as you have personally directed your concerns, you have done useful work, you have produced value: but you will not pretend that your fortune represents the value of your services alone. It has been built by the unpaid labour of those whom you employ. The worker may not blame you. So long as we leave the organisation of production in private hands, we can look for no other kind of co-partnership. But we are slowly learning that the “captain of industry” can do nothing which we cannot do better ourselves. A little while now, and “Sceptre and crown will tumble down,” and many an immaculate “topper” with them. When that day comes, my lord, directive genius will be used in the service of the people, and rewarded by the people, not allowed as yours is to-day, to reward itself. Make the most of your time !

A.

Blogger's Note:

I'm not sure why but I still just sign these articles as 'A.' (as they appeared in the Socialist Standard) when it is plainly obvious now that 'A.' was Alex Anderson. I do now have Anderson included in the labels and when I'm not such a lazy git, I will at some point go through all the 'A' articles and relabel/re-sign them as Alex Anderson. He should be properly remembered. 

Editorial: Election Reflections. (1922)

Editorial from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The General Election is over and, according to the spokesmen of each party, everybody is satisfied—even Lloyd George is reported to have said that the result is as he expected. Curiously enough, in the “Daily Chronicle" (22/11/22) he contends that under proportional representation his group would have done better, and suggests that the question of representation is an important matter that should occupy the new Government. Strange he uttered no word of this in 1918 when a similar thing happened—he waited until it affected him adversely before he said anything on the subject.

The Coalition swept into victory with a large majority in 1918, and now with the swing of the pendulum the Coalition has been swept out of office.

It is the workers who have mainly accomplished this feat. They have done so because they lack the particular knowledge that would enable them to see how hollow are the pretensions of every candidate who put up, and how futile it is, from a working-class standpoint, to change Tweedledum for Tweedledee. As a matter of fact, the same party (Conservative) that had a majority in the last Parliament has the majority in the new, but they have now knocked the word “Coalition” out of their title—that is the essential difference ! As we pointed out in our election manifesto, the change of Government was an excuse to make certain changes of policy more suitable to the Imperialists who control affairs. 

According to the returns over 13,000,000 people voted in this election ; that is, over 3,000,000 more than in 1918.

As in 1918, so now—the Liberals endeavour to cover their sweeping defeat by claiming that under proportional representation their figures would have been higher. There is no guarantee that such would be the case, as under proportional representation all parties would be represented in each constituency, which might alter the whole complexion of affairs in almost any direction. There was no Socialist candidate put forward in this election, but still, as in 1918, we can claim some consolation prizes.

For example: Dundee has given Winsome Winston the noble order of the boot. In 1919 C. B. Stanton was hoping for “the resumption of the pre-war Royal Garden Parties where their Majesties met members of the House of Commons.” Now, alas! his luck was out and so is he (although he ran as a Liberal against Labour)—no more Royal Garden Parties for him for awhile.

Havelock Wilson is another “failure,” as South Shields turned him down. Colonel Claude Lowther, some time Chairman of the Anti-Socialist Union, got less than a third of the votes at Carlisle and also failed to get in.

Lieut.-Col. John Ward and the Rt. Hon. G. H. Roberts have risen to the distinguished position of running as Liberals against their former Labour associates.

That celebrated strike seller, emigration and military tout, Ben Tillett, squeezed in by a majority of 19 (a minority of the total poll) at Salford, and a chip of the same block, Dan Irving, “worked the oracle” again at Burnley. Bill Thorne also turns up once more.

The voting in the elections was roughly as follows :—

Conservatives    5,500,000

Liberals              4,000,000

Labour               4,250,000

Other Parties        400,000 odd

In other words, 13½ million people voted against Socialism the other day in this country, and many hundred thousands were too indifferent and apathetic to vote at all ! And yet there are people who lately waited on the tiptoe of expectancy for revolution to stalk abroad in the land at any moment.

The Labour Party is jubilant over their large return of 142 members. How was it obtained? A glance at the list of members returned on the Labour programme reveals how very respectable the Labour Party has become. K.C.s, Rt. Hons., clergymen. Army officers, doctors, and other professional place hunters, together with landowners and successful business men, figure in the list.

The entrance of the lawyers is highly significant. They are usually found where there is a promise of plums, and their support of the Labour Party’s policy suggests that this policy promises to be fruitful— with a particular brand of plums !

It is worth noting, in passing, that over fifty Labour candidates were returned by a minority of the poll in three-cornered contests, so that the majority of their constituents are not in favour of such candidates. It is also worthy of note that Labour candidates received a considerable amount of Liberal support. The “Daily News” advised its supporters to vote Labour where there was no Independent Liberal, and backed in particular such candidates as H. Gosling, Emil Davies, and Holford Knight. A further point is that in this election the Labour Party put forward far more candidates than ever before.

When these points are weighed along with the increased vote at the election, and the nondescript nature of the Labour candidates, it takes some of the edge off “Labour’s Victory.”

The Liberals find such a similarity of outlook between themselves and the Labour Party that they can forget their own wounds in rejoicing over the “success” of Labour. For instance :—

  “There will undoubtedly be a real Parliamentary Opposition in the new House, for both Labour and the Liberals have secured the return of many of those leaders whose exclusion robbed the last House of distinction.”—Daily News, 17/11/22.

These “leaders” who have returned to adorn the House of Commons include Ramsay MacDonald (who supported the War) and Philip Snowden (who justified the use of military in strikes).

The Labour Party were determined to have these “adornments” replaced, so they scoured the country for “safe” constituencies. Blackburn, Leicester, and Woolwich were cold-shouldered and Glamorgan and Colne Valley “honoured” by the choice. The “New Leader” (17/11/22) states : “My first day in Colne Valley convinced me that here Philip Snowden had found the right constituency.” Yet although Snowden and MacDonald were returned in each case, they only succeeded in obtaining a minority of the poll. Further down the author of the above quotation makes the following illuminating statement: “I had the relative satisfaction, in the absence of any Labour candidate, of voting for a Liberal woman who opposed two particularly unsympathetic Tories.” The dear, sympathetic fellow ! This further illustrates how short is the step between Labour and Liberal.

Finally the “Observer” (19/11/22) very shrewdly summed up the position as follows :—

  “In summary, it may be said that the Labour Party has at last become national as distinct from class. And one may sleep comfortably in ones bed because the moderate reformers enormously outnumber those who would raze the social structure to its foundations.”

The “Observer” is quite correct. The capitalist class have little to fear and the working class little to gain by the return of the “Labour men” ; the past records of many of them are convincing enough on this point.

There is one important fact, however, to which we must draw attention in connection with the large “Labour” poll. The Labour Party put forward over 400 candidates, out of which 142 were elected. Of the number elected 72 were for seats gained. A glance over the list of places where seats have been gained would reveal the fact that they are just those places where a strong industrialist propaganda (propaganda against participation in Parliament) has been carried on, and where the disastrous effects of “direct action” have been experienced. For example: Aberavon, Merthyr Tydvil (2), Swansea, Neath, Abertillery—all in the South Wales coal area, the beloved “red” area of the Communists. In Durham, out of 11 constituencies the Labour Party gained 7, held 3, and lost 1! Accrington, Newcastle, Rutherglen (Lanark), Wallsend, and Whitehaven are other illustrations of Labour gains in coal areas.

Taking these facts along with the further fact that over 70 per cent. of those on the register voted, some idea will be obtained of how the pendulum is swung back from “direct action” to constitutional action.

In the case of W. Adamson, G. H. Hirst, G. Barker and T. W. Grundy, the other parties combined to make them a present of their seat. This is particularly significant in the case of G. Barker (a pet of the Communists and Plebs leaders), who played a part in the miners’ betrayal last year.

The Communists put up two candidates (W. Gallagher and J. T. Walton Newbold) officially, two others were put up in disguise (J. Vaughan and Walter Windsor), one was put up by the unemployed, of which they did not hear until afterwards (Geddes), and they backed another (S. Saklatvala), who was not a member of their Party. It will be interesting to observe the “State machinery smashing efforts” of their only successful candidate, Walton Newbold.

The Moulders of Public Opinion. (1922)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Observant readers, who are not aware of the forces behind the Press, must have often wondered why the same company will sometimes run Liberal and Tory papers or, more significant still, why the same paper will at one time support one party and at another time support the opponents of that party. An important array of facts and figures explaining these and many other apparently bewildering actions of popular daily and weekly papers, is given in the exceedingly useful pamphlet issued by The Labour Research Department, 162, Buckingham Palace Road, under the terse title of “The Press.” Why one set of papers will change with every alteration of the political weathercock—except when they change oftener—while another set remain steadfast to a given policy year in and year out, is explained here in the cold, calculating terms of finance and figures. Altogether this excellent publication, at the price of 6d., is well worth the study of every worker, whether man or woman.

"What We Want and Why." (1922)

Book Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above is the title of an attempt on the part of six leading lights of the Trade Union world to hide their lack of any common definite object, save that of misleading the workers from the road to emancipation. We are obliged to tell the publishers [Collins] frankly that they have issued a rather expensive 7s. 6d. article. None of the contributors are particularly clear as to what they want, while as to why they want it, they are vaguer still.

The ambitions of Mr. J. H. Thomas would, apparently, be satisfied with an efficient railway service, to be secured, presumably, by “nationalisation.” He is very keen on convincing his readers that he is not out for “aggression.” “Peace and economy” are his watchwords. The interests of the railway servants take second place with him, even if they can be said to have a place at all. He shows the waste going on under such relics of the competitive system as exist, but fails to show how the elimination of that waste would assist the employee ; and keeps dark the fact that economy under capitalism simply means getting the same amount of work done with fewer men. The concentration of the railways in the hands of a capitalist State is only a means to the accomplishment of that end. For this reason it is somewhat difficult to follow Mr. Thomas when he asserts that, “with State ownership we could see a possibility of improving the general condition of the worker” (p. 17). As he himself points out (p. 24), where State ownership exists, as in several countries on the Continent, the chief beneficiaries are the business firms who obtain concessions.

Mr. Thomas attaches very great importance to the machinery of conciliation between the workers and the bosses, yet on page 26 we are told that “no machinery can have the slightest value unless it is operated with good-will on the part of both interests.” Why should good-will obtain between parties whose interests are diametrically opposed to one another? To that question Mr. Thomas provides no answer.

He shows that the workers by strict observance of the companies’ rules could practically “stop the service” (p. 28), but “I should personally never favour such action.” He leaves it to his colleague Bromley to point out that the companies are not so squeamish. They have no hesitation in using their rules to send a man to prison if it suits their purpose (p. 176). It is the old story. The workers are advised to be peaceful and to leave their case to their leaders what time the bosses do as they like. And this is the gentleman who poses, and is accepted by the workers, as their champion !

Robert Williams, of the Transport Workers’ Federation, would have us believe that he is a Socialist, yet does not condescend in the space afforded by fifty pages to give us a clear definition of Socialism, nor any hint as to how it is to be brought about. He appears to be much more concerned to excuse and justify the treacherous activity of the leaders of the Triple Alliance, on the ground of trade depression and increasing unemployment. Although the workers were organised in much greater numbers than ever before, and he admits that the need for militancy was just as great as it ever had been, he pretends that the rout has been nothing more than an inevitable retreat carried out in an orderly manner. He fails to show that the real cause of the trouble has been the lack of understanding and mental solidarity on the part of the workers themselves; for which he, Robert Williams, and his colleagues are, in view of their opportunities, largely responsible by default. Williams advances some timid criticism of the Labour Party’s association with the Coalition during the war, and attributes their defeat at the General Election (1918) to this cause. The logical process by which he arrives at this conclusion is somewhat obscure. In any case, the Labour Party’s policy from the date of its inception has never been guided by any intelligible principle, so that Mr. Williams has only himself to blame if he has been disappointed in it. If he really wanted Socialism he would abandon the Labour Party to its inevitable fate, dishonour and disruption !

Tom Mann, in “The Case for the Engineers,” provides a little variety, inasmuch as he makes some pretence at analysing the existing order and offering an alternative ; yet here, again, the alternative is not defined with any degree of clarity. “Economic change” is mentioned, but its precise character is not stated; while as to the means whereby it is to be accomplished, we are referred vaguely to “industrial action.”

“The Politicians,” by whom, presumably, Mann means the Labour Party, are superficially criticised. Their faith in Parliament and constitutional methods is attacked, but their political treachery and duplicity are not mentioned. Mann appears to be utterly oblivious of the fact that Parliament controls the armed forces of the nation and is not likely to stand meekly by while the “men in the workshop” do as they like. The political machine is the only means whereby the workers can give public and effective expression to any common aim and purpose which they may develop as a class. For that reason the Socialist advocates its use. To leave it in the hands of the masters is sheer criminal stupidity !

Coming back to the engineers, Mann endeavours to illustrate the power of industrial action by instancing the hopelessness of asking for a rise in wages from Parliament. He fails to see that the same workers who are asking for a rise have sent their enemies to the seat of government. Are people in such a mental condition ready to emancipate themselves by any action, industrial or otherwise? Further, how can struggles on the industrial field over wages, hours, etc., lead to freedom from wage-slavery? Mann appears to hold that the industrial organisations will gradually assume control of the worshops and pay all wages, etc. Are the masters, therefore, going to surrender their profits. And, if not, what advantage will the worker obtain by drawing the price of slavery through his branch secretary?

Real control centres in the possession of the means of production, and the fight for that possession must take the form of political action. Capitalist property will exist just so long as the capitalist class are left in control of forces which protect that property.

Mr. Noah Ablett illustrates from details of his own experiences the destructive conditions under which the miners toil. When, however, he deals with remedies he becomes extremely confused. He condemns private ownership on account of the antagonism of interests which it involves, and yet advocates a programme of reforms which will become meaningless as soon as private ownership is dispensed with. One is thus driven to the conclusion that by the elimination of private ownership he simply means “nationalisation,” which, for reasons already stated, can offer no gain to the workers. In order to make this clearer, let us proceed to Mr. Bromley’s article.

Mr. Bromley covers much the same ground as J. H. Thomas, but gives a more definite description of what “nationalisation” amounts to. On pages 186-7 we read, “two unions very carefully drafted a Bill for the complete nationalisation of the railways. . . . It proposes the purchase of railways stocks and shares through the medium of Government Stock . . . charged on the State railway undertaking and the Consolidated Fund, which shall bear such a rate of interest as would enable it at the time of issue to be realised at par.” Thus “nationalisation” simply transforms the capitalists . . . concerned from shareholders in a private concern into Government Stock holders still living on the workers by means of the rate of interest !

Mrs. P. Snowden deals with the competition existing between the sexes in the working class. Her “ultimate ideal” is the “payment for work, irrespective of sex, of such a wage as no man or woman would be afraid or ashamed to accept” (p. 214). Albeit, she has previously pointed out that the existing “industrial system does not scruple to play off women against men in attempts to lessen the costs of production by reducing the wages bill” (p. 212). She wants the capitalist system minus one of its principal and essential features, the subsistence level of wages. Curiously enough, on page 261, discussing the necessity of finding work for an ever-increasing number of women, she says that “This can only be done satisfactorily when the social system of the present has given place to a new order, in which all the instruments of labour are in the hands of the community as a whole.” The force and significance of this admission do not appear to strike her, however, as she proceeds on the next page to propose all sorts of ameliorations in the worker’s lot without the slightest hint as to how they are to be accomplished. Further, she advocates the technical education of women and girls, apparently blind to the fact that hundreds of technically trained men are at the present moment searching in vain for a purchaser of their labour power. She fails to point out that the women, no less than the men, of the working class need to realise that they are slaves. This is the essential preliminary to any improvement.

So long as the capitalist class control the means of life, every economy and every improvement in the education, health, and technical ability of the workers, male and female, only results in their becoming more productive slaves. The fruits of their increased productivity go to the masters and not to themselves. This is the central fact ignored or obscured by these so-called leaders of labour.

Whether the workers follow the Labour Party “to nationalisation” plus reforms, or the Industrialist leaders to “workshop control” plus reforms, they are doomed to disappointment. The only road to emancipation is the conversion of the means of life into the property of the whole people. To this end we call upon the workers to organise consciously, and politically for the capture of the machinery of government.

Socialism, undiluted and unadulterated, is what the Socialist Party wants. As to why we want it, only look around you. Millions of willing producers are compelled to be idle while they need food, clothing, housing, etc., and the means exist ready to hand whereby they can produce them ! Generations of workers have put their faith in legislative reforms and strikes, but we are as far away as ever from economic security. 

The Social Revolution offers the only way out. Muster, then, under our banner, with a view to its speedy accomplishment.

Eric Boden

Election Manifesto. (1922)

From the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

When, in 1918, the “Hang-the-Kaiser— Make-Germany-Pay” Election was being fought, the S.P.G.B., in their Election Manifesto, warned the workers of the line the development of the then existing conditions would take, and the real reason for an election at that moment.

It was pointed out in the Manifesto that :—

  “While prices of necessaries are still rising thousands of munition workers are being discharged ; tens of thousands are working short time, and, according to Lord Curzon, “In a few weeks’ time there would be a million of people out of work.” And this is only the beginning. Further unemployment is bound to occur while such demobilization as will be carried out will add to the number vainly seeking work. Wages will fall as a result, though prices may remain up for some time, and poverty and misery will increase as a consequence throughout the land . . .

Before the deluded workers awake to a realisation of how they have been duped, despite their “victory” over Germany, the master class wish to be in possession of a “mandate” so that they can claim the allegiance of the armed forces should it be considered necessary to use these forces against the workers during troubles or disputes. “

The plan succeeded. The people “who made the mess” were returned “to clear it up.” They had, however, less trouble with the working class than some of them anticipated.

Weary of the war, and thankful for the relief of the Armistice, the workers accepted wage reductions and worse conditions with a minimum of protest. Wherever resistance was offered it was of a sectional, and often spasmodic, character, that the masters were able to defeat with comparative ease. It was not so much lack of will or courage to resist, as ignorance of the fundamentals of their class position, that was responsible for the attitude adopted, for the majority could see no way out at present, and little hope in the future.

Freed to some extent from fear of trouble at home, the sections of the capitalist class among the Allies found more time to fight out their quarrels over the spoils of the “Great Victory.” These quarrels reached a crisis in the Near East. Two sections of Imperialist financiers came to grips over the routes, areas and resources of the East. One section controlled the British Government, while the other section controlled the French Government. The situation, however, was somewhat awkward. Officially Britain and France were still Allies. It would be difficult openly to come to blows over the difference of interests in the booty, so each side put forward a “catspaw” for the purpose of pulling the chestnuts out of the fire. The British Government put forward the Greeks, while the French Government supported the Turks.

It would be sheer folly to imagine that the British Government had any regard for the Greeks’ “lawful aspirations” in Asia Minor, or the French Government any noble ideal of helping the Turks to their “freedom.” Only those ignorant of the workings of the capitalist system could imagine such a thing. Whichever side may be acclaimed the winner, it will find that it can only move, organise and govern as its paymasters decide. At the moment of writing the Greeks have been driven out of Asia Minor, and the British section of Imperialist financiers have suffered a setback. Of course, the people concerned keep in the background. It is not they who will be blamed for the expense and trouble in the East. As a matter of fact, they always keep in the background, and allow their tools and puppets to take such praise or blame as may be coming in any given crisis. More, they are quite indifferent as to the fate of these puppets, once they have served the turn required.

The Imperialist financiers have always crowds of job-hunters waiting to take office as soon as any particular occupant is turned out. In the present case, almost all the mouthpieces of the capitalist class are united in putting the blame for the shaky situa­tion in the East upon the shoulders of Lloyd George; but not one has whispered whose orders he obeyed when he made such “blunders.”

In December, 1918, we described the position Lloyd George occupied in the following words :—

  “Behind this mountebank marionette stands the Imperialist section of the Capitalist class, composed of both Liberals and Tories, who are striving to extend their dominion and power of robbing the working class over larger areas of the globe. It was to protect their interests that this country entered into the war. When two years ago the military situation looked serious for the Allies, this section looked for a more pliant tool to take charge of the Government. One was at hand possessing a glib tongue, always ready with large and extravagant promises, quite unscrupulous, and able to sway crowds with his claptrap. A dirty political shuffle took place and Lloyd George became Prime Minister.

  Of course, he wishes to retain the office. He wishes to pose as the head of the “Government that won the war,” and wishes to be at its head when it “Reconstructs the Empire.” . . .

Not his wishes, however, but the interests of the Imperialists, whose agent he is, demanded this Election. “

And, now, having failed to carry through their scheme successfully, Lloyd George is “sacked” with as little ceremony as an ordinary day labourer, by the Imperialist gang. He will be the “scapegoat” for the failure and will form a useful figure upon whom to put the blame, not only for the immediate trouble in the East, but also for the bad trade, unemployment, the chaotic exchanges—and the atmospheric storms that hindered the astronomers from making full observations to test Einstein’s theory !

The great advantage of such a “scape­goat,” is that the attention of the mass of the workers will be diverted from studying the facts of the situation, into dwelling upon personalities. Yet even the sacrificing of a notorious tool can hardly conceal the emptiness of the alternatives offered.

The Liberals are far from anxious to take office, as is shown by the statement of the Daily News for October 20th, 1922 :—

  “Whatever Government succeeded the Coalition could not but be an improvement, and in that one respect the events of yesterday are a matter for unreserved congratulation. “

While further on in the same article we are told : —

  “There are obviously the gravest possible reasons against an immediate General Election “

It is easy to see from these paragraphs that the Liberals would prefer to let the Tories handle the muddle that exists.

The Tories seem clear on only one point : That public expenditure on any “unnecessary” legislation and administration must be reduced or abolished. Thus the Daily Mail, October 23rd, 1922, says :—

  “The country is anxiously waiting to hear from him [Mr. Bonar Law] what relief it may expect from the heavy loads which the late Government has laid upon it. and from the anxieties in which recent divagations of policy have placed our country. “

The Daily Express, October 23rd, 1922, which claims to be independent and “bound to no party,” declares that it:—

  “Intends to support that Conservative Party during the course of the General Election and to recommend the electors to return it to power.“

Among the reasons given for this attitude we are told : —

  “Mr. Bonar Law can be trusted to pursue a safe and saving course at home as well as abroad. There would be an end of those ambitious schemes which cost millions, tax industry, depress credit and end in a financial fiasco.“

To prevent confusion, however, the same article hastens to remark :—

  “In saying this the Daily Express shows no hostility to Liberalism.“

And Mr. Bonar Law, himself, at the meeting of the Conservative Party that elected him leader, is reported as saying :—

  “What the country wanted was quiet and a reduction of our commitments, with little interference from legislation and administration” Evening Standard. 23/10/22.

But Bonar Law is no less a tool than Lloyd George. The Imperialist gang will give him orders as to their requirements, and he must take those orders or go. Already some of those orders are beginning to be formulated in such a way that even the man in the street can see their trend.

Thus the Observer, October 22nd, 1922, under the heading “Russia Still the Acid Test,” says :—

  “British policy ought to throw the whole weight of its influence into the scales in favour of full Russian participation. If we do that our policy will prosper. It will never look back in the sphere of foreign affairs either East or West.

   Incidentally, the commercial cause of agreements, like the Urquhart Concession, would be promoted to the gain of employment. Otherwise, economic chances still open to ourselves would be transferred to foreign powers.

  If the new Government did not resolve to settle fully with Russia, that issue would soon play its big part in sweeping them out. We desire to put that warning on record.“

On the same page it is also stated that :—

  “Henceforth our only substantial security for any legitimate British interest connected with the Straits is friendship with Turkey and with other nations.”

These points are supported by the Daily Mail, Daily News, Daily Express, Evening Standard, etc.

Here, then, the instructions are beyond doubt. Commercial relations with the East must be established, full and soon, to pre­vent British oil and shipping interests being beaten by the Americans and Japanese. A General Election will afford a good means of introducing this change of policy and of getting rid of a tool who has failed to carry out their orders as they wished.

So an Election is arranged for November 15th. The Tories put forward the pro­gramme referred to above. The Liberal Party make numerous promises as usual, and vaguely refer to “Liberal Principles” without running the risk of defining them. The Labour Party promise to show the people how to save money by spending it, for in their official programme they say :—

  “Labour attaches the utmost importance to economy in the public administration. But we do not believe in starving the public services.”—Daily Herald, 26/10/22.

Especially those that have provided so many jobs for Labour Leaders. Another staggeringly original statement is :—

  “Unemployment and low wages, caused largely by the policy of the Liberal and Unionist Government, have brought distress to the bulk of the working people.“—Ibid.

Had such “unemployment and low wages” been caused by the policy of a Labour Party, are we to assume there would have been no “distress?” One of their remedies for unemployment is “the national organisation of production,” but they attach “the utmost importance to economy in the public administration.” National organisation of industry should certainly be more economical—that is carried on by fewer workers per unit of service—than organisation by private individuals. So the remedy for unemployment is to reduce the number at work by “national organisation !” Seems to be a catch somewhere ?

All of them, however, are united in condemning Lloyd George. In this they are assisted by the Communist Party, who, with their usual blindness to facts and their ignorance of the real forces moving in Society, follow the capitalist press in placing responsibility upon Lloyd George. In the Communist (September 30th, 1922), is a certain cartoon on the front page wherein the workers are advised to ”Dump Him,” and on the centre page we are told “David must sweat for this.” In their issue of October 14th, 1922, a displayed paragraph warns us to “Watch Lloyd George,” and we are told :—

  “His one hope of saving his position, his place, and his emoluments is a war.“

Five days later this terrible, powerful person, who could “make war,” is tumbled out of his job neck and crop.

To-day, Lloyd George is trying to gather around him the remnants of his scattered crew to form a “Party” that, unhampered by any fixed principles or programme, will hold itself free to support or oppose any Government or Cabinet, till it can once more, it hopes, secure recognition from the chiefs of the capitalist class. One of his most rabid supporters—J. I.. Garvin—pro­mises him this recognition, with greater power than ever, if he will only wait a few years. But a flare fire wants continual re­plenishing, and a very few years would see the slimy Welshman snuffed out of political life.

Whichever Party contesting this Election obtains a majority, it will leave the workers in their present state. The unemployment, want, hardship, and insecurity of existence that afflict the workers in all capitalist coun­tries, will not be abolished either by war with Turkey or peace with Russia; by changing Lloyd George for Bonar Law or A. Henderson ; by voting for Tory candi­dates instead of Coalition ones; or for Labour candidates instead of either.

Because these things are not the CAUSE of the workers’ misery. That cause is the private ownership of the means of life. Under capitalism the master class owns the raw materials, the means of transport, the machinery and factories requisite for wealth production. As a result they own the wealth that is produced. Hence the workers are a propertyless class, and can only live by permission of the capitalists. To put it shortly, they are SLAVES to the owning class.

This is the crucial test. Liberal, Tory, Coalition, or Labour Parties all stand for the retention of capitalism—therefore, for the continuance of the slavery of the workers. With the developments in machinery and the increasing applications of science to industry, with the elimination of competition by the further formation of Trusts and Combines, the effective demands of the world’s markets are met with a constantly decreasing number of workers employed to produce a given amount of wealth. Hence, apart from temporary fluctuations, unemployment is bound to in­ crease.

Peace in the East, business with Russia, cannot result in more than a temporary fillip to trade compared with the world’s production. Reduction of taxation is of no concern at all to the workers. The only solution to their troubles is the abolition of the cause—the private ownership of the means of life. Until they decide to carry this abolition through, their position as a whole is bound to grow worse by the operation of the factors given above.

To abolish their slavery; to establish the common ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution, the workers must first seize the governing machinery of society. This is the political machinery, with its centre in Parliament.

At any General Election the workers can do this, because they have the vast majority of the votes. But behind the vote is needed knowledge. Only when the majority of the workers understand they are slaves will they be in the position to end their subjection. Until then they will remain slaves.

In this election how few are the workers who understand their class position is shown by the fact that not a single Socialist candidate will be seeking election.

This will not prevent those desiring Socialism from voting for it. They can go to the polls, write Socialism across the ballot paper, and thus add their quota to the factors making for working class en­lightenment.

When a sufficient number are enlightened then we shall see the workers organise into the Socialist Party, putting forward their delegates and voting them into Parliament. With this control they will be able to enter into possession of the means of life, and end not only wars, Eastern or Western, but abolish the misery and hardship of the pre­sent system, and replace by the system that will secure comfort and happiness to all— namely, SOCIALISM.

Executive Committee.

Socialist Party of Great Britain,

October, 1922.

Jottings. (1922)

The Jottings Column from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

We hear doleful tales of the ruin coming when workers protest against wage cuts. The “poverty” of our masters in these times of trouble is gloomily dilated upon. “Somebody,” however, is not doing badly, as witness the following quotation from the Daily News (18/10/22) :—

“300 PER CENT. DIVIDEND.

PLAN FOR FIVE-FOLD INCREASE IN

VACUUM OIL STOCK.

New York, Tuesday.

  The directors of the Vacuum Oil Company, one of the Standard Oil group, have voted to increase the company’s stock from 15,000,000 dollars to 75,000,000 dollars.

The shareholders will be asked at a meeting on December 2nd to approve the plan.

The proposal is the result of the declaration of a dividend of 300 per cent.“—Reuter.

300 per cent. ! That means to say that the shareholders have received their money back three times over, and still have the original amount invested in the company. Oil is booming!

In their issue for May 31st, 1921, the Daily News published an article entitled “World Rivalry for Oil,” by their New York correspondent. Some of the figures in that article are somewhat startling. For example, he states :—

  “In 1914-15 the profits of the Mexican Eagle Oil Company were 5,900,000 dollars. In 1919-20 they had risen to 59,000,000 dollars, an increase of 1,000 per cent. In 1914 the Burmah Oil Com­pany had a profit of £971.278. Five years later that profit was £2,849,000.

In eight years the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey increased its earnings from 35 millions dollars to 101 millions, and in 1918 paid 44 mil­lions in income tax.“

Such are the people who complain that “industry” will not bear the burden of present wages!

* * *

While the unemployed are demanding work, the scientists, at the behest of the capitalists, are pursuing exhaustive enquiries and experiments to reduce work as much as possible. To put the point an­ other way, the application of science to industry is being speeded up with a view to increasing the amount of wealth a worker can produce without using up more energy. We have frequently given evidence in these columns of the increasing use of machinery; the providing of better surroundings—such as those existing at Port Sunlight and similar places; the increase in volume and simplification of effort by means of mass production; the reduction in the number of operations an individual worker performs; the introduction in certain factories of frequent rest periods; and the introduction of music into others ; and hosts of other things. 

The latest idea, however, is set forth in the Daily News (18/10/22) in an article dealing with the experiments being carried on by the Department of Applied Physiology at the Medical Research Institute, Hampstead. From this article we learn that :—

  “Part of the work of this Research Institute consists of measuring the amount of effort which a man expends under certain conditions of labour.“

The article then goes on to describe an experiment that took place. A man got on to a stationary bicycle wearing a mask with two valves. He cycled for five minutes, and the result of his effort is estimated accurately by delicately balanced instruments attached to the bicycle, and also certain apparatus attached to the mask.

The article then goes on as follows :—

   “By these measurements we can find out,” said Professor Hill, “how much fuel has been burnt by the human furnace, and how much energy has been expended during those five minutes’ work.”

   The Department has converted a disused corridor into a wind tunnel. A bracing wind is generated by a huge fan at one end of the tunnel, and in this breezy atmosphere the spell of work on the bicycle-ergometer is repeated.

  It is found that in these conditions the work is performed with far greater ease and freedom from fatigue than in the air of an ordinary room.“

With the use of a little imagination, we can picture the wage worker of the future turning up at the factory gate to be “weighed in,” his energy measured, put into room with a whirlwind, and tearing through the work like a tornado ! Not much chance of “dodging the foreman“ then ! His capacity and his performance will be measured with delicate instruments !

The point in the business is that, whereas the capitalists of all countries try to con­vince us that unemployment is due to fall­ing markets, they are all employing the methods that must of necessity increase the relative volume of the wealth produced, and at the same time choke the markets. Thus the forces of capitalism inevitably tend to increase unemployment.

* * *

Lloyd George defined his political outlook in a speech he made at the opening of the new offices of the Port of London Autho­rity on Tower Hill. The treasure is worth preserving. He said :—

  “I am very pleased to see something which represents the spirit of compromise characteristic of our people—something which represents no principle of any sort or kind, but is an outrage on every principle you can lay down. And yet it works. “—Daily News, 18/10/22.

Such is the outlook of the man who has proved himself to be, in many ways, an admirable tool to carry out the wishes of the master class. Ambitious, unscrupulous and deceitful, he has a glib tongue that could sway crowds, and flattery and cajolery that could turn the heads of “Labour leaders” and hoodwink workers’ deputations. He steered the helm of State successfully for a time on behalf of those whose interests he served. Why did his “lack of principle ” work ? Because at the back of compromise, and apparent lack of principle there was, after all, a principle that governed his actions. That principle was the advancement of the interests of the capitalist class.

* * *

The Communist for 21st October, 1922, contains the election policy of the Communist Party for the Local Government Elections. An examination of this document reveals the value of this wild and woolly gang of compromisers.

The final solution of the workers’ troubles, they contend, can only be arrived at by “the workers taking over control of the affairs of the community through their own machinery of government — the Soviets”. But in the meantime (blessed word !) there are many points on which there is agreement and on which all could combine; and it considers it “its duty to the working class … to join in with the rest in making the. attempt to see what can be done with the existing forms of local government.” This is very interesting—and so like the conciliatory spirit pervading the recent religious conferences on unity !

Now let us examine some of the matters upon which there can be general agreement.

These are some items from the pro­gramme :—

  “2.—The absorption of the excess workers in each locality, as far as possible, by the extension of useful public enterprise.“

What is “useful public enterprise?” Obviously doing work that, in general, would otherwise be done by private enter­prise. In other words, throwing out of work the workers in one direction to employ less of them in another—because, as a rule, the work of a public body takes the place of the work of several private bodies, eliminating overlapping and waste. Over­ lapping and waste usually mean more work for workers. What a truly brilliant method of absorbing excess workers ? In any case why “useful public enterprise?” What does it matter to the starving unemployed whether the work is useful or useless, so long as it enables them to get bread? Digging holes and filling them up again will cost the capitalist some of his wealth, but will not hurt the workers. The Communist Party is evidently concerned about assisting the capitalist to “save the rates.” This is borne out by the following : —

  “20.—Pooling of rates in all populous centres to avoid distinction between rich and poor areas. “

The Communist Party is concerned about the rates—a matter which we have frequently demonstrated affects the capitalist class alone.

Item 3 demands nationalisation of land—that old bogey and well-worn labour shibboleth. It is an excellent means of increasing unemployment and assisting the capitalists. The Communists are really very much concerned about the interests of the capitalists.

There are many other fat-headed items in the programme, but I had better finish up, or the Editorial Committee will be hitting me over the head for using up too many of the valuable columns in this paper.

Punchinello.

Editorial: Behind the Fall of the Coalition. (1922)

Editorial from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The bulk of the world’s-oil supply comes from America. According to the Daily News (May 31st, 1921), “82 percent, of oil comes either from the United States or from American mines in Mexico.” The same paper states that within 13 years the wells of the United States, unless conserved, will give out. The Standard Oil Co. practically controls the American supply and, consequently, they have been looking abroad lately for fresh fields. In this they have come into conflict with the Dutch and British group of oil companies. The capital of the respective oil companies is tremendous, and they use their resources to shape the policies of the different world powers.

The fight for oilfields and control of oil distribution has played a large part in recent foreign policy. Behind the Russian negotiations and the Mesopotamian squabble lurked the power of oil.

On Thursday, October 26th, 1922, the Financial Times reports an interview with Mr. J. Koster, the managing director of several oil enterprises. Mr. Koster, after giving detailed evidence to prove that America would be facing a shortage of oil in the near future, wound up as follows :—

  “My study of the world’s oil position teaches me these significant facts. The conclusion I have arrived at is that in the United States within the next two years there will be a crude oil shortage, and the prices of crude oil and oil-products, and the value of yet unmined petroleum, must necessarily feel the effects of such unavoidable shortage, and the one result can only be higher prices and a large premium for oil reserves.

   So the British and Dutch oil enterprises that have succeeded in securing control of a large part of the world’s petroleum reserves can face the future with every confidence. In order to account for this, one has but to consider the effect which a stopping of all export from the United States, combined with a decreasing export from Mexico, would have on the markets outside of America. Besides the profits already obtained under the present circumstances by undertakings working in countries like the Argentine Republic, Venezuela, Persia, the Far East and Roumania, the future of such undertakings, thanks to the state of affairs in the United States, seems to offer almost unlimited possibilities.”

The prize is large, the future bright— what seeds for future turmoils ! The Anglo-Persian (in which the British Government has a large interest) and Shell Groups have angled themselves into a good position in the East to threaten the position of the Standard Oil Co., and the fight between these groups to corner the world’s supply is now going ahead fast and furious.

Another factor at the root of the late Government’s fall has been suggested by two recent happenings.

Mr. Leslie Urquhart, the Chairman of the Russo-Asiatic Corporation, negotiated an agreement with a representative of the Russian Government under which his corporation gained certain concessions in Russia. Arising out of the British Government’s muddling of the recent near Eastern problems, the Russian Government refused to endorse the Urquhart concession. In his speech to the shareholders of the Russo-Asiatic Corporation on October 23rd, 1922 (see Evening Standard for that date), Urquhart blames the British Government’s policy for his failure, and urges that Russia should be treated as any other world power. He also deprecates the suggestion that his corporation would endeavour in any way to influence Government policy. The next day Mr. McKenna, the Chairman of the London Joint City & Midland Bank, and formerly a Liberal Chancellor of the Exchequer, threw overboard his former associates, and appeared on a Tory platform, advising his audience of business men to support Bonar Law, the new Tory Prime Minister. On the surface, this might appear as an ordinary case of a political turncoat. It is a curious fact, however, that the London Joint City & Midland Bank owns thousands of shares in the Russo-Asiatic Corporation. Would it be too bold to suggest, in spite of Mr. Urquhart, that the above corporation have succeeded in influencing Government policy?

The Man in the Street. (1922)

From the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The enemy is once again pulling the leg of the worker by raising the old gag of the “Burden of taxation on the man in the street.” This poor fellow, judging from an editorial in the Daily News (10/5/22), appears to be an infant requiring the guidance of a nursemaid, whom we can all recognise under the name of Miss Print. Through the strenuous efforts of this ubiquitous creature the Man-in-the-Street, infant that he is, is cajoled, frightened, or badgered by various bogeys which are trotted out to distract his attention lest he gain knowledge which will threaten the career of his callous nurse and those who pay her.

One of the chief bogey stunts is the Taxation Bogey, which Miss Print and politicians have used with great effect, and advantage to themselves.

The infant is led to believe by the Daily News scribe that the expenditure on the Admiralty Department comes out of his pocket, and that “the Admiralty has been able, by simple defiance, to reduce the ‘cuts’ demanded of it from 21 millions to 4 millions.”

He is told “not Parliament, nor the Government, but the Departments determine now what taxes you are to pay.”

In thrusting this bogey before the eyes of the Infant-in-the-Street, the Daily Nurse is ably seconded by Labour and unemployed leaders of all descriptions, each intent on fooling the infant into the belief that there is nothing else so important to him as the question of taxation.

Within the capitalist class there is a difference of opinion as to the amount to be expended on the upkeep of the Army, Navy, and other Departmental Services.

The section the Daily News speaks for have not in general an urgent need for armaments on an Imperialistic scale, other than those required for keeping intact the system of private property and the right of exploitation at home. Their outlook is National Defence against the working class, and they profess to trust to peaceful penetration for development of foreign trade; and possibly they consider themselves clearer sighted than those sections who do not judge the situation otherwise than through the spectacles of expansion of trade and exploitation of markets by conquest or a display of force.

However, the economy stunts, whether these take the shape of cutting down Government staffs of clerks and mechanics, the lowering of wages, or fewer orders to armament firms, do not improve the position of the worker whom the Daily News refers to as the Man-in-the-Street.

To suggest to such a man when he is thrown on the unemployed heap that he has been sacked so that he will not have to pay so much in taxes, is sheer humbug. When a man is employed he sells daily, weekly, or monthly his physical and mental energy at a price which on the average is merely sufficient to reproduce that labour force, which, when applied to natural materials, produces wealth, and in the sphere of organisation and distribution carries out the functions which the system of capitalism requires.

You unemployed ! You who are in very truth the Men on the Street. You believe that you pay taxes ; Well, if you do not pay them when you are employed, how can you pay them when unemployed ?

To return to the editorial:—

  “Once again not the real necessities of national defence but what each Department thinks to be necessary for the efficiency of its own service, quite regardless of whether it is or is not being duplicated by others, determines the rate of taxation which you pay.”

Well, what if there is duplication? It is not the workers’ funeral; there are one and a half million unemployed who would be very pleased if there was more duplication, and, either way, duplicated jobs or no jobs, the rate of taxation need not be any cause of worry to them.

The Man-in-the-Street has yet to realise that within the capitalist ranks there are struggles between sections to gain control of the political machinery, in order, among other things, that the burden of taxation; may be made as light as possible for the section in control, and thus we find sectional differences of opinion as to the requirements of the various State Departments.

Each section contends its policy is the best, and appeals to the workers on the grounds of economy and progress.

In reference to the matter of education, we see the antagonism between two sections showing clearly, for according to the Daily News scribe, Sir Eric Geddes asserts :—

  “That it is the work of a visionary with only one eye to educate children for higher positions and advancement in industry when in the very doing of it he is going to kill the industry and the commerce to which these children will have to look for a livelihood.”

Replying to the above, the Daily News writer says :—

  “The answer to that is that the ultimate threat to British industry in competition with American and German is much more likely to be lack of trained brains than lack of capital or credit. It is a misfortune to be one-eyed, but it is a worse misfortune to be blind.”

Here there are two points of view clearly defined, the Daily News admitting that it is not likely there will be any lack of capital or credit, is anxious to carry on in what may be termed the peaceful competitive style; apparently forgetting that the more intense the technical and commercial education, the keener will be the competition not only between workers for jobs (this is probably what the writer had in his mind’s eye), but also between national groups of capitalists for the world’s markets, thus inevitably leading to a war more merciless even than the last.

The other view-point, that of Sir Eric Geddes quoted by the Daily News is, that taxes for education will ruin industry, and he obviously believes that there are a sufficient number of educated wage slaves for the efficient development of industry and trade, and that force is the best method for controlling and gaining markets. Expressed in other terms, this means that naval and army expenditure for the protection of capital and the acquisition of exploitable territories is justified.

Although the struggles for positions amongst the workers who have been educated at Secondary and Technical Schools has reached even now a terrible pitch, the Daily News is prepared to tell the Man-in-the-Street that technical education is a good thing for him and leads surely to good positions in industry.

Thus the minds of many in the working class are impressed with the need for advanced education; and many parents, both in the professional and manual grades of the working class, turn their attention (forced, indeed, by the very pressure of the circumstances of capitalism, though few would explain it in such terms), to the schools of engineering, commerce and commercial “art,” in the hope that in one or the other spheres of industry their children may find safe anchorage and a comfortable income.

It is probable then that taxation for education is likely to be more popular than taxation for the upkeep of armaments, for says the one side : Does not education stand for progress? Are not armaments a monument to waste?

The Socialist message to the Man-in-the-Street is that they are two phases of one thing—the system of capitalism. Capitalist progress means high productivity, profits, economy of labour to the capitalist, but ill-health and nervous tension, robbery of, and unemployment, to the worker.

He has nothing to gain by supporting taxation or anti-taxation stunts from whichever side of capitalism they come, for in any case taxes have to be raised for the upkeep of the various Departments, and they can only be paid from the accumulated wealth which has been wrung from the workers who are the victims of a system of robbery which day by day extracts surplus value from them. It is a misfortune to be blind, but the Man-in-the-Street is not aware of his affliction; nevertheless, the numbers are steadily increasing of those who have seen the light and refuse to be led up the “garden” by Miss Print, and there will be soon a vast army working consciously towards the Socialist goal— Socialism.

E. J.

Correspondence. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editor,

The relative merits of the Socialist Labour Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain have been discussed for weeks by a few Marxian students without coming to any satisfactory conclusion as to which party propounds the correct principles that deserve working class support.

Under these circumstances it was thought wise to present some of the views expressed by the supporters of the S.L.P., so that your party may oblige with an answer in an early issue of your Standard. They say that your party is very inconsistent, as proven by the back numbers of the Socialist Standard and Manifesto. On page 17 of the latter, to top of page 18, we find as follows :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class, with the object of ending the capitalist system and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth.”

The inconsistency is obvious, they say, when one sees in that statement that your party recognises the necessity of an economic organisation, based upon class; and at the same time in actual practice only believe in a political organisation.

The proof of this is seen when one reads clause 6 of your party’s “Declaration of Principles.”

The irony of the situation, say they, lies in the fact that your party should see the necessity of the economic organisation, and then publish matter in your Socialist Standard to absolutely ridicule the said type of organisation. For instance, in the February, 1919, Standard, under the title, “Where we Stand,” on the bottom of page 54, is a brief statement as follows : “How long it does take some people to discover the absurdity of their sophistries ! We pointed out the idiocy of organisation by industries years ago.” Then, again, is that statement in agreement with the brief statement at the end of article called “What the Workers Do Understand,” in January,1921, Standard, which read as follows :— “Educated in these things, and organised on the industrial and political fields, they will seize political power and wield it, and its forces, for the paramount purpose—the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth.” Why mention “organised industrially,” if it is an idiotic act?

These super-intellects say that you are all “at sea” on another point of importance. You state in your Manifesto, page 18, as follows : “Emancipation, not palliation, must be the watchword of the workers, as it will be when they become Socialists.” Lower down on the same page is as follows : “Its tactics must be aggressive as well as defensive, and its aim revolutionary.”

Do the two statements clash ? Are not the tactics of aggression on the side of palliation? Have not the workers through their industrial unions been aggressive, which aggression has only palliated their conditions? Apart from that, it is highly questionable whether (even if the Trade Unions did adopt the Socialist attitude, as you state) they could, and successfully, adopt an aggressive and defensive attitude.

Your party seems to think that it is a “wise tactic to be always ready to defend working class interests, irrespective whether conditions are suitable or not, as is shown in the article “The Betrayal of the Miners” (in the Standard, May, 1921, page 138, halfway down second column), which reads as follows : “Had the rank and file of the Triple Alliance understood even their ordinary Trade Union interests, they would have stood together and fought to the fullest extent of their power against this attempt to worsen their conditions.” Obviously, your party thought that had the Triple Alliance acted and taken that defensive attitude against the interests of the employers, all would have been well. This means a sectional strike (which your party ridicules). We may ask : what hope of success was there had it taken place, under the conditions then existing? This would have been putting the so-called economic power of Triple Alliance against the political power of the masters. Obviously, had it turned out to be a fight between the two powers, the former power would have been beaten by the latter power, by the ordering, if necessary, of the police and soldiers to act against the workers. Again, such a strike would prevent the normal distribution of the food supply, which is necessary for the workers; and under such circumstances the shortage of food would be sufficient to force the workers back to the workshop. These very same factors of a political nature would also work against the workers’ organisations, should they adopt a palliative or an aggressive attitude.

So, in conclusion, the persons interested in this controversy would be highly pleased if you would endeavour to give your reply to the same in the November Standard.

I remain, yours for Socialism,

Edward Littler.

Answer to E. Littler.

For convenience of reference, we have numbered the paragraphs in above letter that call for specific answers.

No. 1.—The Declaration of Principles lays down the minimum essential factors of the Socialist position. For instance, that Declaration says nothing about carrying on the propaganda for Socialism—yet the S.P.G.B. does it.

Conceivably, Socialism could be established by the political organisation alone, but the economic organisation alone would be quite powerless to establish it. In actual fact, as the conditions allow, both organisations will be used by Socialists for the attainment of their object, though the seizure of power, the greatest by far of the factors at our disposal, will be carried through by the political organisation. Thus no inconsistency in the position of the S.P.G.B. is shown in our correspondent’s statement.

No. 2.—On this point the questioners are so blind that they cannot see that their query is already answered in the quotation they themselves give from our Manifesto, which says :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class.”

The organisations we have ridiculed have never been based upon the class position of the workers, but have been those supported by the S.L.P., which consisted in the mass of supporters of capitalism, and which the S.L.P. claimed could “take and hold” the means of production against the armed forces under the control of the masters.

As we have pointed out on various occasions, economic development has travelled beyond the limits of “industry” in numerous directions, and, therefore, the workers’ organisations must cover a wider area than the “industry” even to “keep pace.” The quotation from the Socialist Standard of January, 1921, is of no help to the S.L.P., as the word “industrial” is used here to denote the whole economic field. This is clearly shown by the context.

No. 3.—No ! The two statements do not clash, as even a superficial reading would show. To emancipate itself, the working class must become revolutionary, because it must carry through a revolution before emancipation can take place.

The workers have been no more “aggressive” in the so-called “industrial” unions than in the ordinary “craft” unions, though the failure of such “aggression” would be a blow at the S.L.P., which supports these unions—not at us

No. 4.—While we are always ready to defend working class interests, the phrase “whether conditions are suitable or not” needs explaining. The reference to the article on “The Miners’ Betrayal” is beside the point. The miners were being attacked, and the railwaymen and transport workers were being threatened with an attack. In such conditions, the business of the men concerned, obviously, was to fight together—as the article says—to the extent of their powers. There was no question here of pitting the economic organisation of the Triple Alliance against the armed forces. This ghastly policy, propounded and defended by the Industrial Unionists and the S.L.P., is one we have denounced on scores of occasions. Under some conditions even a sectional strike is better than no struggle at all, and the members of the Triple Alliance would have prevented some of the conditions being imposed upon them that they now suffer under, had they struck on “Black Friday.” How far the interference with the normal food supply would affect the struggle is mere guesswork. Partly it would have depended on the length of the strike. Every strike of any size causes inconvenience and sometimes suffering. But to follow the above argument to its logical conclusion means that the workers must accept anything the masters choose to impose, even though it may mean greater suffering than would be entailed by a strike !

On the economic field the workers’ powers are limited, and in the ultimate, can always be beaten by the possessors of political power. But, as Marx has pointed out, these everyday struggles, with all their limitations, are a product of the system, and cannot be avoided unless the workers are ready to sink below “cooliedom.”

A little further information on the position of the S.L.P. may perhaps be interesting.

In the Socialist, 15/4/1920, they state in the editorial, with reference to the actions of certain prominent members who had broken away from the organisation :—

  “The whole trouble is that a self-condemned Unity Committee, who had more or less “bossed” the Party for the last four years, found themselves up against the rank and file of the S.L.P. in their efforts to compromise Revolutionary Socialism.”

That is a peculiar admission for a self-styled Working Class Party ! If the party is so constituted that one group could boss it for four years, what is to prevent other groups successively bossing it ad infinitum?

Further on in the same editorial they write :—

  “Send in your resolutions to your Executive. Indicate your wishes, strengthen your Executive’s hands in the good work it has carried on since it took up office in September, 1919, when it placed the control of the Party and its Press in the hands of the rank and file.”

According to the above, the control of the party and its Press was not in the hands of the rank and file until September, 1919. A startling admission this, after an existence of 15 years !

After the revolutionary action of placing the party in the hands of the rank and file, an article appeared in the Socialist on the miners’ strike. The following are some extracts from it :—

“THE MINERS SHOULD NOT STRIKE.

My advice to the miners is, don’t strike. Why should you? ”Take and hold” should be your slogan. You have a splendid opportunity at this juncture Work the mines for yourselves. MINERS, SEIZE THE MINES. Is it possible—It is.”

Then follows instructions to the miners to issue a statement saying that on and from a certain date the mines will be worked by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. Coal to be reduced by 14s. 2d. per ton, and miners’ wages increased 2s. per day. So easy ! How simple these people are ! And what would the masters be doing while this little transaction was taking place? The same as they do in a strike : bring the armed force to bear on the situation. But the S.L.P. have provided for this :—

“The Army will support you. Call for the support of the Army.

Let your call be “All Power to the Workers.” If you do this you will win hands down.”

Simple, isn’t it? What wonderful childish nonsense ! Anyhow, the subsequent action of the Army and Volunteer Force, when a railway strike was expected, should have knocked that idiocy out of their heads.

It would be interesting to find out what the S.L.P. mean when they state in their Platform :—

  “Whilst the working-class are compelled to organise to capture the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be worked in the interests of society as a whole.”

Money is the means of exchange. They then are working for a system under which money will exist. An elementary knowledge of money would tell them that it can only exist where buying and selling exists. In other words, where private property exists. According to their platform, then, they are not out for Socialism.

In spite of all the noise they make about industrial action, they themselves are not clear as to what their own position is. Since the inception of the S.L.P. the columns of the Socialist have been largely occupied with the disagreements of members as to the position on industrial unionism. From last January onwards a discussion raged, under the title of “The Problem of Policy.” Finally, at their Easter Conference, they decided to support the “Workers’ International Industrial Union.” In an editorial on the Conference (Socialist, 27/5/22) they say :—

  “It has cast a glance at the past and has viewed with disdain its many errors now, and we hope for all times it will never compromise truth to make a friend, and never withhold a blow at error lest it should make an enemy.”

Apparently they keep finding themselves out—yet they “keep on doing it !” Where knowledge is lacking, foolish deeds will flourish.

The S.L.P. have decided to support the W.I.I.U., but in the Socialist (8/12/21) the political policy of that organisation was. stated as follows :—

  “By electing a Political Committee whose duty it will be to safeguard and further the interests of the W.I.I.U. in the political field, and who will take instructions from the Branch and report activities at each Branch Meeting.”

This surely signifies that another political organisation will exist alongside of the S.L.P. If so, where does the S.L.P. stand? Which of the two bodies is supposed to be correct?—both evidently can’t be.

In a Manifesto on the Russian Famine (Socialist, 22/9/22), they recommend the starving workers of this country to send “Food, clothing, boots, medicines and locomotives to Russia.” Would it be any harm to suggest that “Charity begins at home”? The best way to help the starving Russian workers is to push on the advent of Socialism as rapidly as possible, and not to contribute a few pence to be used by the Co-operative Society, as the S.L.P. suggest. Ironically enough, they were calling upon the workers to contribute to save the S.L.P. Press shortly afterwards !

The following tit-bit is an illustration of S.L.P. Logic :—

  “And economic organisation is a necessary requisite to enforce the aims or wishes as expressed by the political organisation at the ballot box. . . . Organise, therefore, on the political field to capture political power and sweep aside the ”robber burg” of Capitalism.”— Socialist, 8/6/22.

If the “robber-burg” of capitalism has been swept aside, where does the “enforcing” come in? Note the phrase, “aims or wishes.” Perhaps the aims differ from the wishes !

Editorial Committee.

Quotes: George Sand. (1922)

From the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “The wealth of the soil, the harvests, the fruits, the splendid cattle that grow sleek and fat in the luxuriant grass, are the property of the few, and but instruments of the many. The man of leisure seldom loves, for their own sake, the fields and meadows, the landscape, or the noble animals which are to be converted into gold for his use. He comes to the country for his health, or for change of air, but goes back to town to spend the fruit of his vassal’s labour.

On the other hand, the peasant is too abject, too wretched, and too fearful of the future to enjoy the beauty of the country and the charms of pastoral life. To him, also, the yellow harvest fields, the rich meadows, the fine cattle, represent bags of gold; but he knows that only an infinitesimal part of their contents, insufficient for his daily needs, will ever fall to his share. Yet year by year he must fill those accursed bags, to please his master, and buy the right of living on his land in sordid wretchedness.”

* * *

  “Is not the furrow of the labourer of as much value as that of the idler, even if that idler, by some absurd chance, has made a little noise in the world, and left behind him an abiding name?”

George Sand