Cuttings and Comments. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Consider ye the millionaires, how they toil not, neither spin, yet Solomon in all his glory couldn’t buy the gasoline for their automobiles. How do they manage to do it? It’s a cinch. You are foolish enough to work and they are sensible enough to let you. By ‘abstinence and thrift’ they have succeeded in gobbling everything in sight, so that when your poetic soul is filled with the noble aspiration to toil, you have to do it with their tools, in their factories. Whatever you make should logically belong to them. And it does. Out of the fulness of their pocketbooks they humanely return you enough so that you may live to work another day, and all goes as merry as a funeral until their warehouses are filled to overflowing. Then it becomes manifestly impossible for them to allow you to work any longer. You have been gluttonous and intemperate instead of taking your work in decent moderation and look what you’ve done.”

–++–

The reference to millionaires in the above extract from the Western Clarion (Vancouver, B.C.) reminds one of the Harmsworth publication, entitled, “Fortunes made in Business,” in which it is stated that

“The House of Rothschild is to-day one of the greatest powers of the world. Its members exercise more direct influence on human affairs than perhaps any king. Its agents, mostly unknown, are at work in a hundred lands. It creates new nations. At the bidding of its members kings stay their campaigns. . . . The total of their wealth can only be imagined. In the great capitals of Europe they hold their court—the money lords of the Eastern world. Their nod could produce, if they wished, the greatest financial panic the world has ever seen, sending hundreds of thousands to ruin almost in a day.”

–++–

The apologists of the capitalist system declare that the “common people” rule in this “democratic age.” The words quoted above will be useful to our propagandists who run up against such flapdoodlers.

–++–

From the same series we learn that the foundation of the Rothschild’s wealth was laid by an incident that occurred when Europe was in arms against Bonaparte. Hearing that Napoleon had sent an army to seize him and sack his country, the Landgrave of Hesse took flight, but before doing so he handed over his gold and art treasures to Rothschild (Mayer Anselm of that ilk) to mind. The Jew buried them and after the soldiers had left, having failed to discover anything, dug them up and sent the bullion to his son (Nathan Mayer) in London. He used it and luck being with him multiplied it exceedingly. Had Waterloo gone against the British, the Rothschilds would probably have been ruined and would certainly have lost the Landgrave’s millions. As it was, however, they were enabled to return his money and also considerable profits.

–++–

It is always advisable to be successful when you set out to gamble with others’ property. If you fail, you will probably be sent to jail, as often happens to solicitors and others who try to emulate the deeds of the Rothschilds and gamble with wealth entrusted to them to “mind.” But if you succeed and succeed on a sufficiently large scale, you will be appointed to high places in the State and may “exercise more influence on human affairs than perhaps any king.”

–++–

“We will never have Socialism until the working class become conscious of being a class and a disinherited class, and until as the result of this class consciousness they struggle as a class for the institution of a society in which they will be equal participators with all at the festal board of humanity.”

Wilshire’s Magazine (New York).

–++–

Messrs. J. Keir Hardie and J. Bruce Glasier of the Independent Labour Party, which Mr. Wilshire in his journal supports, declare there is no class war ; they say it is a “shibboleth” and a “reactionary and whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism.”

–++–

But political job hunters will say anything.

–++–

“With a Labour party on a trade union basis Liberals could always work in sympathy, although they could not go the whole way with them. With a Labour party which had become the instrument of revolutionary Socialist propaganda they could have nothing to do. They accept Sir Henry Fowler’s words spoken so opportunely at Wolverhampton this week. With a scheme such as the Hull Conference has adopted for “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” Liberals “will have nothing to do ; they will oppose it to the utmost; they will oppose it in the interests of commerce and industry, and in the interests of the people themselves.”—Daily Chronicle, Jan. 24th.

–++–

Those who really understand Socialism know that neither Liberals nor Tories will help it along, they will fight it to the bitter end. That is why they advise the workers to abstain from voting for candidates of these parties. And when organisations such as the Social-Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party not only urge the working class to vote Liberal but also make arrangements with them for dividing the working-class vote it is evident that they do not really understand the principles of revolutionary Socialism.

–++–

“The laboring class, who perform the work of the world, must sell themselves to the ruling class. They cannot produce independent of the owners of the machines, mines and factories, because under competition only the cheapest production demands the best, most expensive and complicated machines. They are compelled, because of the fact that social progress and private property in improved machines is making vast numbers of them unnecessary in the process of production, to fight among themselves for any opportunity to live. If they are to rise an atom above the slaves’ portion, they must unite and fight side by side against the class of exploiters,”

–++–

Thus says the International Socialist Review for Australasia, but to fight against the class of exploiters means to fight against them all the time, not to oppose them in one district and support them in another as has been the practice of the professing Socialist parties, the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., in this country.

–++–

“If I have to take money from you does it matter whether I take it from your right or your left pocket ?” asked the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain in one of his Tariff Reform speeches.

–++–

As the working class must be exploited by the master class, does it matter to the former whether the latter call themselves Liberals or Tories, Christians or Jews, Imperialists or Little Englanders, Protestants or Catholics ?

–++–

“It (a minimum wage for State employment) should be fixed at such a sum that whilst it would be sufficient to support life on a scale of decency it would not unduly tax the resources of the capitalist system to afford it,” says Mr. H. Russell Smart, of the Independent Labour Party, in his pamphlet, “The Right to Work.”

–++–

How anxious the I.L.P. leaders are not to “unduly tax the capitalist system” ! Can the Socialist omelette be made without breaking the capitalist egg ?

–++–

At Fairbairn Hall, Canning Town, on Feb. 14, Cllr. J. Jones, S.D.F., in his well-known manly manner, persistently interrupted the speech of Mr. Masterman, M.P., on the Unemployed. When the speaker declared that the most he hoped for from the Farm Colony was that it would improve the men’s physical condition, Councillor Jones shouted: “Yes, for their masters to exploit them and make more money out of them.” Jones denouncing palliatives is a sight for gods and men.

Why Does Russell Smart? (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is unfortunate that we have to begin the New Year like this, but there is no help for it. We have been asked, for the nineteen-hundred-and-ninth time, why there is so much discord in the “movement.” Why don’t we leave off slanging the S.D.P. and I.L.P., let them pursue the uneven tenor of their way, and devote the whole of our energies to propagating what we consider to be the truth ? Why split the forces that have all the same aim and differ only as to method ? Let us each traverse the path, which is most congenial: we are bound to meet some day, and so on. Points, dear reader, which, you will observe, all beg hosts of questions. For instance, supposing that our ultimate aims were identical, there is surely no reason why if proof could be adduced, we should not point out that the other parties were “coffin-ships.” And, of course, there is the question as to what comprises the “movement.” If you say “the Socialist movement” our answer is easy. There is but one Socialist movement, and its headquarters are situated at 22, Great James Street. There is certainly no discord in the Socialist movement. On the contrary, a more solid unity upon the questions that matter it would be difficult to find.

But should you specify the “Labour” movement, or the “Social Reform” movement as movements making for progress and ultimately for Socialism, we beg moat emphatically to disclaim, any intention of splitting the already riven. The very word “Labour” has become synonymous with political ineptitude and wind-bagging, whilst “Social Reform” includes within its spongy boundaries, anything and everybody, from the Smoke Abatement Society to the Smoke Creation or Fabian Society ; from the Independent Labour Party to the Anti-Gambling League ; from the Clarion Flowerpot Guild to the Moore and Burgess Minstrels, very nearly. But, seriously, the “party of progress” includes some queer fish, or rare birds, whichever you prefer.

In the S.P.G.B. we make but one stipulation, and that is that its members must be Socialists. The ranks of Social Reform include anybody with a pet fad who will adopt the formula : “I too am a Socialist, in some respects, ahem! but I think we want the Single Tax, or a paper currency, or State Ownership of Ice Cream Carts, you know, first.” And so we find Joseph Fels, the single taxer, R. J. Campbell, the new theologian, Arthur Kitson, the currency crank, H. G. Wells, the sensational novelist, and hosts of others, representing all shades of faddism, up and down the whole gamut of puerile futility, all in the same camp and under the same many-coloured banner of “Social Reform.”

Usually the faddist is a man of means, often an employer of labour, and, curiously enough, he almost invariably joins the I.L.P. Of course, accidents will happen, and the S.D.P. has been known to bag a real live countess, with a motorcar and diamonds and things of that sort, but the I.L.P. appears to be a happy-hunting-ground for the man with the hobby.

The result, very naturally, is chaos. No two elections are fought alike. The old Liberal and Tory dodge of playing down to your electorate in order to “get your man in,” is a well established feature of Labour politics. Temperance legislation is promised to the teetotal fanatic ; Home Rule has the candidate’s whole-hearted sympathy when the son of Erin asks questions ; he is quite willing to prove that Free Trade is much superior to Protection, when the Liberals offer their support, and so on.

We should not mind a great deal if the people named would call themselves the “Peaceful Persuaders,” or “The Gently Does It Party,” or something of that sort, but they persistently label themselves “Socialists” ; preachers of undiluted, straight-forward Socialism, etc., and that is where we object. We are not the only ones who are of that opinion. Their own members are telling them so. This is what Leonard Hall says in the Clarion of December 4th. After showing that the I.L.P. is in danger of being “(1) side-tracked by tired, timid, or trimming tactics; (2) disrupted by impulsive inexperience or too intolerant enthusiasm; or (3) stultified and spragged by immoderate hero-worship, caucus dictation, or paralysing over-centralisation,” he proceeds to point out that “the first and second of these perils would and could have no existence if the national administration of the Party were in fact democratic—that is to say, if the members of the Party were in a position to give full effect at any and all times to their wishes and will as to administration and policy. The present machinery of the Party’s national administration and the temper and strategy of the few worthy gentlemen who in fact hold control of that machinery are just as undemocratic as if they had been carefully designed for the sole purpose of undemocracy. For these gentlemen also control the official Party newspapers,”

Mr. Hall very aptly concludes his article by saying “Will it also not be useful to remind ourselves that the original objective of the I.L.P. was Socialism ?”

We of the S.P.G.B. have never said anything worse of the I.L.P. than that. That, in fact, is our case. We may differ as to whether the objective of the I.L.P. ever was Socialism, but it certainly is not now.

Mr. Hall is not alone in the position he takes up. Russell Smart, in a letter to the New Age, October 29th, is “sick, sorry, and tired of the confusion and disorganisation into which the party (the I.L.P.) has drifted, and the incapacity with which its affairs are administered.” The letter is too long to quote in full, but the following is about a third of it, and comprises a complete summary of the way things are managed in the Independent (?) Labour Party.

“But this melancholy business is chiefly our own fault. Who is to bring the wrong-doers to book ? By which court are they to be tried? The N.A.C. should be the body, but the N.A.C. to all intents and purposes is Hardie, MacDonald and Snowden—scarcely an impartial tribunal. These men have gained possession of the whole movement. They are the N.A.C. They succeed each other as chairman. They are our M.P.s ; our chief delegates to the Labour Party Conferences, they agree among themselves as to the policy to be pursued and then give forth that policy to the party from which they exact a sheep-like adherence. The party is never consulted before action is taken, it is only asked to endorse policies already decided on. The Unemployed Workers Bill was drafted and laid before Parliament without submission to the Party. Undoubtedly it is a good Bill, and meets with the approval of every member as a whole, though there are clauses in it to which considerable opposition might be urged. The Licensing Bill has received the unanimous support of our I.L.P. members of Parliament. They have appeared on public platforms along with Liberal members at thinly disguised Liberal meetings, and there is no one to call them to account.

“Cockermouth was fought, Newcastle left unfought, entirely on their own responsibility ; all sorts of wire-pulling and intrigue go on in constituencies who contemplate running candidates. The party organ has also come under their control; it is not the paper of the I.L.P., but the register of the official view; and their henchman, the editor, is allowed to let loose those vituperative insults which are his chief qualification for his position, on any individual who dares to criticise the action of Olympus.

“This oligarchy is provoking general dissatisfaction. I hear of individuals, even whole branches, seceding, or threatening to do so.

”What poor-spirited treachery to a great movement. Where will the dissentients go ? To what organisation will they transfer themselves ? Assuredly if they submit to dictatorship in the I.L.P., they will be subject to a similar yoke in the S.D.P., S.L.P., S.P.G.B., or any other alphabetical combination.”

That is from a member of the I.L.P., and it is as fine an indictment of the Hardie-MacDonald-Snowden combine as could be wished for. Leonard Hall’s phrase “immoderate hero-worship and caucus dictation” seems to just need Russell Smart’s “sheep-like adherence” to explain, the whole wobbly structure of the Party.

Juat a word on Russell Smart’s reference to the S.P.G.B. He assumes that a similar state of things exists in this organisation as has made the I.L.P. the last word in political trickery. Nothing could be further removed from the truth. For instance, all our propaganda platforms are free and open to anyone who cares to take them in opposition. Are those of the I.L.P. or S.D.P. ? We have been refused them scores of times. All our meetings, from the business meetings of the E.C. and the Annual Conference down to the ordinary branch meeting and the Quarterly Delegate Meetings, are open to the public. And why should they not be ? We are not a secret society ; we have nothing to hide. There can be no wire-pulling, intrigue, or caucus dictation in such circumstances. We don’t flee discussion : we invite it. What is most important, we ensure a concrete foundation for our edifice by insisting that our members understand what they are signing when they sign our Declaration of Principles, and that they act in accordance with it when signed. In a word, we see to it that The Socialist Party consists of Socialists. Nothing illogical about that, is there ? Do it now.

Wilfred.

Smart. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class struggle having been satisfactorily disposed of by Messrs. Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier who have now proved beyond the possibility of doubt that the interests of the capitalist-class and the working-class are (more or less) identical and cannot by any chance breed conflict (except now and again), Mr. Russell Smart also of the I.L.P., not to be outdone, rushes into print to show how very easy of solution the unemployed problem really is when tackled by a member of the "practical" school of political economy. All that is required is to round up the existing unemployed and put them back to work on the land. As the machine in the factory turns out more, put them, back on the land also. When they have acquired that degree of efficiency necessary to enable them to enter into effective competition with the established agricultural worker, then take the men displaced and put them back on the land! Put. 'em all back! and then the problem will be solved and everybody will have work, and there shall be no more sighing and all tears shall be wiped away ! It is all so simple that a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not make a mistake. No wonder Russell Smart raises an indignant voice of protest against the absurdity of the contention of illogical, irresponsible, not to say ill-informed Socialists who with purblind fatuity hold that nothing short of Socialism will dispose of the problem adequately and finally. They are bringing discredit upon the movement. They have forgotten "the land." They talk as if the capitalist system were based upon profit; as if profits were affected by the existence or otherwise of a surplus of labour on the market; as if the elimination of competition for work would mean the diminution, of profit; whereas it is well known that the very reverse is the case. It is well known that the capitalist system is not concerned with profit; that if it were the profit has no relation to the amount of competition for work; that as a matter of actual fact if the demand for labour were greater than the available supply—if, for example, there were 2 jobs for every one man—if the profits were affected at all they would he greater for the simple reason that worker, seeing the difficulty of the capitalist to get the work covered ; knowing that if the work was not done there could be no return on the capital, which would mean that the capitalist would commence to consume his reserve of wealth and would presently be entirely without means; knowing further that Capital and Labour are brothers (vide Keir Hardie and Bruce Glasier): knowing all this the worker would, for the good of trade, the glory of the flag, and the honour of the empire, gladly enough do the work of two men for the price of one (or one and a half), finding sufficient happiness in the unwonted possession of plenty of work to recompense him for all the extra expenditure of energy involved.

Obviously, therefore, the extremists who hold that unemployment is inevitable under capitalism are quite out of court in the eyes of all practical and fair-minded men. Luckily, they (the extremists, not the practical and fair-minded) are but few, otherwise it would be necessary to take steps to combat their imbecile heresies.

A. J. M. Gray

The "Ballot" Strike. (1913)

From the December 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

To Show what a smart and up-to-date journal the “Daily Herald” is, the issue of 25th November contains an article by Mr. Russell Smart advocating that, instead of running candidates for Parliament “without even a feeble hope of success,’’ the workers go to the ballot and deliberately spoil the voting papers.

Smart Russell has discovered that it is not good enough to merely abstain from voting or using the ballot, but that the ballot can be actually made a useful agency by Socialists for registering their strength in the constituencies.

Has Smart been careless enough to attend a meeting of the S.P.G.B., and to learn that for years we have taught that the ballot can be used for ascertaining the strength of the movement. 

Perhaps! and perhaps not; for we learn further that the ballot paper can be spoiled "either by writing ‘Socialism’ across it, or better still, filling in the space opposite the candidates’ names with the word 'Knave.’”

If Russell thinks that “knavery" is a better retort to "capitalism” than the demand for Socialism, then perhaps he has succeeded in describing the attitude of the "D.H.," Fabian Society, the I.L.P., the S.D.P., and the Syndicalists more accurately than he intended. 

Smart, isn't he?

South West.