By the Way. (1915)

The By The Way Column from the August 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a recent issue of the “Daily Dispatch” a writer deals at some length with the M.P.’s who had the temerity to vote against the National Registration Bill. He says :

“It was a motley group which challenged a division on the Registration Bill last night, and its composition furnishes an interesting indication of the character of the opposition which the National Government will have to meet. . . . There were gathered together ‘all who were discontented,’ and it was a quaint collection of disappointed ex-ministers, radical purists, cranks and anti-British Socialists.”

The writer goes on to describe this “motley group” as “Strange Bed-fellows,” and makes the mistake of calling these labour fakers Socialists. Moreover, this gentleman overlooks another contributor to the same paper, Mr. H. M. Hyndman—the “Revolutionary Socialist”—holding the same views as avowedly capitalist writers to the ‘”Dispatch.” And what of the Liberal and Tory coalition with a mingling of Labourites !

Perhaps it would not be amiss in the circumstances to take a peep at the division list to which the “Dispatch” scribbler refers. We find that the ‘”Socialists” spoken of includes Messrs. W. C. Anderson, C. W. Bowerman, J. F. Jowett, J. R. MacDonald, P. Snowden, and J. H. Thomas. The remainder of that hotch potch known as the Labour Party voted for the Bill ! If the “Dispatch” derives any satisfaction from their reference to these “strange bedfellows,” it at least gives us the opportunity of repudiating the claim of these latter to the title they usurp whenever and wherever it suits their purpose to do so—the claim that they are Socialists. A careful study of the antics of those gentry in and out of the House of Commons will suffice to prove their worthlessness to the working class.

* * *

Lord Kitchener, in big speech at the Guildhall on July 9th, made a passing reference to the object of the National Register. He delivered himself as follows :

“When registration was completed they ‘would be able to note men between nineteen and forty not required for munitions and other necessary purposes, and therefore available, if physically fit, for the firing line. Steps would then be taken to approach them with a view to enlistment, unmarried men to be preferred.” “Reynold’s,” 11.7.15.

* * *

Mr. H. M. Hyndman, the “father of English Socialism,” recently contributed an article to the “Daily Dispatch” (7.7,15) on the subject of “National Registration and National Liberty,” in which he endeavoured to show how the first will safeguard the last. Throughout the article we find him mouthing the usual capitalist prattle, such as “many valuable ships of war have been sunk, and our mercantile marine is suffering from systematic piracy.” A little admonition is dealt out to “our rulers, who for months on end refused to recognise that we “were face to face with relentless enemies organised for the purpose of crushing our allies and ourselves.” He goes on to say that “such organisation, prepared and matured during at least forty years, can only be successfully encountered and overcome by equal organisation voluntarily accepted,” and “whatever may be urged against certain clauses of the War Munitions Act, no such criticism can be fairly levelled at a measure whose object is to put directly at the national disposal the whole of the power of the nation as represented by its entire population for work or for war.”

Doubtless the phrase “national disposal” should read the disposal of the master class, in whose interest the war is being waged, as the working class were not consulted in the signing of any treaties beforehand or the reasons for entering the war. Not a word do we find about “secret diplomacy” which led to war and used to be his pet hobby horse.

Mr. Hyndman further informs us that “nothing for which the masses of our people have ever striven is more important than that they and all of us should win in this tremendous war against the ruthless military caste—happily the last left on the planet (!)—that menaces the rights and freedom of mankind.” And again: “If the Kaiser succeeds in his great endeavour to dominate Europe what chance have we English, or any other nationality, of working out freely and peaceably our own economic and social salvation ?” So Socialism depends upon the whim of the Kaiser, eh ? It depends not on economic circumstance but on dynastic circumstance—according to this blind leader of the blind.

In conclusion he adds that it is “our duty to marshal our entire forces … to ensure safety for ourselves and security for our allies. If for the purpose of achieving this result we are all obliged to submit ourselves to national discipline . . . then the temporary sacrifice of personal liberty will be well rewarded in the end.” Mr. Hyndman at the same time points out that ‘this suppression of our individual liberty” should be “duly safeguarded against bureaucratic tyranny.” But who can guarantee this ?

Doubtless these outpourings will obtain for this “oldest Social-Democrat in Great Britain” the “well done, thou good and faithful servant !” of the masters. (Italics mine.)

* * *

A series of questions were recently asked in the House of Commons touching the matter of whether it was not possible to grant the troops in the new armies facilities for visiting their homes for the purpose of bidding good-bye to their families. It was said that:

“The fare from Salisbury to Lancashire and Yorkshire was a sum beyond the means of many of these men to spare out of their pay ; and whether the Government would undertake that all who obtained leave before going abroad should be enabled to visit their homes free of cost ?”

And it was further asked :

“Whether the War Office would bear in mind that many of these men gave up remunerative posts in order to join the Army, and that their being prevented from seeing their relatives before going abroad through not being able to pay the fare would be a great hardship ?”

The official reply was that the question was being considered.

The remunerative nature of the positions that have been given up may be judged from the fact that those who have given them up have no reserve funds to pay their own railway fare home ; and on the other hand, what is to be said of the measliness of the country they are going to protect, that refuses to let them travel over the “Statized”‘ (temporarily) railways free ? Such paltry niggardness before the “happy warriors” have saved their masters’ bacon augurs well for the open-handed generosity of a traditionally “grateful country” when the maimed and battered remnants of “glorious humanity” are brought home after the struggle.

* * *

The Suffragettes are doing their best to keep their movement before the public. These people, who only a short time ago were busily engaged window smashing, church burning, and picture ripping, are now hailed as law-abiding citizens, whose services are to be used in order to free men from productive processes so that the latter may be driven into the trenches. These ladies, as they took very great care that all the world should know, recently organised a procession to send a deputation to Mr, Lloyd George to “demand the right to serve.” We are told that in the procession “peeresses walked shoulder to shoulder with shop girls and factory lasses.” The ulterior object is seen in the wording of a telegram received later by Mrs. Pankhurst from Mr. Hall Caine. It was given in the “Observer” (18.7.5) as follows :

“After to-day’s thrilling patriotic procession the Women’s Cause will triumph as surely as the sun will rise and the sea will flow.”

* * *

In all our (masters’) newspapers we are told to economise. Government organisations like the Parliamentary War Savings Committee take up the tale with all manner of blandishments. And now along comes Canon (I believe) H. D. Rawnsley pointing out that there is plenty of accommodation in the Lake District for holiday makers. He writes :

“It has come to my knowledge that some who were intending to come to the Lake District for their holiday have been put off by hearing that, in consequence of the war, the holiday makers who would otherwise have gone to the Continent or to the East Coast have thronged the district, and that accommodation is not to be had. I wish to give an emphatic contradiction to the rumour.”—(“Manchester Guardian,” 16.7.15.)

With Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, and other great patriots urging Plunger Sniff the dustman and Sooty Sam the chimney sweep to economy, it is surely doing a disservice to the State on the part of Mr. Rawnsley to try to tempt them to find in the English Lake District a substitute for the lost charms of the Riviera and the pleasures of shove-ha’penny at Monte Carlo. For shame, sir ! You will not let our corduroy prodigals come to the rescue of their bleeding country through “retrenchment and reform” even when they want to.

* * *

At a time like the present, when we are hearing so much about our “liberty,” perhaps a few “rules” from a certain motor works would not come amiss. After having affixed his number and name on the front page the new wage-slave is informed that :

“Each employee must personally register in the time clock when he commences and ceases work.

“Employees ringing in late will be paid from the nearest half hour following the time rung in, and must begin work at once on entering the shop.

“The bell will ring in the morning, and after the luncheon hour two minutes before the time to commence work, so that all employees may have a chance to reach their respective places before the starting bell rings, when everyone must be in his place with his overalls on ready for work. Just entering the building on starting time will not be satisfactory.

“Receiving visitors, lunching, eating or reading is not permitted during working hours,

“Smoking or lighting cigars, pipes, etc., is absolutely prohibited.”

I will not not extend the list any further, sufficient being quoted to discover the need for a microscope to reveal our much-vaunted liberty.

The Scout.

Suffragette Humbug. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not long ago the hoardings of London startled the man in the street with ugly black and white posters asserting that women were poor, that women were sweated, that women walked the streets, and that misery and vice stalked in our midst, all because women had not the vote. Those statements, issued by the Suffragettes, were and are unblushing falsehoods, unsustained and unsustainable by any shred of evidence.

The Socialist is in no quandary as to why the many are poor. It is not because propertied women have not the vote, nor even because women in general are not electors—it is because the many are robbed. And the stopping of this robbery depends not upon a mere all round increase in the number of votes, but upon the intelligence of the workers and the correct use of the vote in their hands.

Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism. And were the workers to understand rightly their position and their policy, the political freedom they now possess would enable them to achieve their emancipation irrespective of sex. 

It is, moreover, not a sex war that  exists in Society but a class war, but the Suffragettes endeavour to blur this class issue by screeching qualifications.

What are the facts regarding the Suffragettes? Under the pretence of sex equality they are buttressing class privilege. Under the guise of democracy they are endeavouring to strengthen the political power of property. They plausibly propose that women be admitted to the franchise on the same terms as men, and since all Socialists want sex equality this looks attractive. But wait. What does it really mean? Men vote at present under the £10 franchise. The suffrage is thus upon a property basis with plural voting for the wealthy. Therefore, according to the proposals of the women Suffragists, only those women having the necessary property qualifications are to be allowed to vote. This excludes not only all those single working women unable to qualify because of their poverty, but it also bars practically the whole of the married women of the working class who have no property qualifications apart from their husbands’. Further, it increases enormously the voting power of the well-to-do, since the head of the wealthy household can always impart the necessary qualifications to all the women of his house, while the working-man, through his poverty, is entirely unable to do so.

The limited suffrage movement is consequently only a means of providing votes for the propertied women of the middle class, and faggot votes for the wealthy; possibly tipping the balance of votes against the workers—men and women. Yet the Suffragettes pretend that this is a movement for the benefit of working women! The huge sums spent in this agitation prove that it is not a workers’ movement. It is a movement by women of the wealthy and middle class to open up for themselves more fully careers of exploitation, and to share in the flesh-pots of political office, to get sinecures, position and emoluments among the governing caste.

In their cry for “equality” do not their methods betray them? Every move on their part is an appeal not to sex equality but to sex fetishism. Their tactics rely upon and appeal to the worship of sex. They know that their sex gives them privileges before the magistrate and protects them from the usual police brutality, and that any strong measures against them would immediately raise a storm in their favour amongst the sex worshippers. Hence their peculiar tactics, which have no other explanation. Let anyone compare mentally the treatment that would be meted out to working men did they pursue a similar policy to these Suffragettes. Let them compare the way the suffragist invasions of Downing Street or the House of Commons were dealt with, with that which would follow persistent forcible entries of the Commons by bands of unemployed. Broken heads, bullets, and long terms of imprisonment—and not in the second division—would be their lot, and instead of hysteric sympathy being created for the ill-treated unemployed, horror at their audacity and a determination to repress them brutally would take its place. And the middle class examples of sex arrogance rely upon this very woman worship and sex inequality to further their demands.

The Suffragette movement is upon all counts but a bulwark of capitalism. It is directly opposed to the interests of the working class—women as well as men, and the Independent Labour Party shows its capitalistic nature when it supports that movement in strengthening the political power of the propertied against the propertyless.

Both sexes of the workers are exploited and suffer. Both are  victims of those who live by the ownership of the means of life. Therefore the salvation of working class women lies in the emancipation of their class from this wage-slavery. Their interests are identical with those of working men, and the women of the middle class do but attempt to lure them with false phrases to desert their fellows and to aid the propertied enemies of their class.

The duty of working women is to refuse to allow themselves to be used as catspaws of the wealthy, and to join with their fellows in The Socialist Party, the organisation of their class; thus working for the emancipation of the toilers as a whole, irrespective of sex. Sex-equality cannot be the fruit of the Suffragette humbug, it can only come through economic equality—and economic equality is impossible except through Socialism.

F. C. Watts

Suffrage and Sex. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Civilization, carrying with it as it does, patent evidences of its savage ancestry, frantically endeavouring to hide its humble origin, vainly imagining Gardens of Eden and naked simplicity instead of primeval forest and low-browed beast man, indignant when the first glimmerings of truth appear, ashamed and apologetic by turns when its pedigree can no longer be denied, is necessarily the depository of shams and cant.

No cant that Civilization has uttered is more sickening than that indulged in with regard to the

POSITION OF WOMEN.

“Chivalry” is a rosy-hued dream, compounded of deeds of derring-do against wicked monsters and the rescue of innocent maidens. It is left for the Historical Materialist to lift the veil and to INSIST UPON the viewing of the sinister visage underneath ; “Booty and Beauty” in times of war, the feudal lord’s “right of the first night” in times of peace, for one Sir Galahad a dozen Lancelots ; “bars sinister” brazenly emblazoned on shield, and the Madonna enshrined a second Venus—not without corresponding rites.

Protestantism, the true religious reflex of capitalism, affects utmost concern for women, has no bounds for its indignation against monks and nuns who have converted monastery and nunnery into a stews, a virtuous Bluff King Hal and equally virtuous

GOOD QUEEN BESS

are deeply concerned for the morals of the nation, what time Luther is defending polygamy and a “virgin queen” is wantoning with Leicester.

The Industrial Revolution brings in its train a crowd of “philanthropists” and religious revivalists who hold up their hands in horror at the inevitable immorality in factory and field which surely follows the Revolution, the rising tide of prostitution which is actually one of the bulwarks of capitalist society.

And now, to-day, when men are being replaced by women in the industrial world, the woman misleader is apparently commencing to compete with the man of the same genus, and to draw her own particular red herring across the path of progress to the workers’ emancipation. From the platform and from the police dock, to ”courteous Cabinet minister and brutally businesslike “steward ” they shout

“VOTES FOR WOMEN”

—to which Herbert Burrows, member of the Social Democratic Federation, takes exception, and gently seeks to chide. He, as a “revolutionary Socialist,” points out that the fight is “disingenuous,” nay, even “crooked.” They are merely fighting for a limited franchise for women. He urges them to become, like himself, an “ardent adult suffragist.”

Burrows believes in progress—backwards. The Chartists 60 years ago “demanded” adult suffrage.

Above this din rings out the clarion cry in the

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. “The emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race OR SEX.”

We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain refuse to be led aside by any of the discordant cries around us. Our goal is the Socialist Republic, where, economically free, the position of woman will be no longer determined by mere property “relations, where lip-service homage will give place to high devotion, where “the dark shadow ol haeterism” will be as the fast-fading memory of a bad dream, and the hateful marriage mart a hideous fossil found on the shores of Time to remind the race of its hard probation in the wilderness of capitalism, where woman will be

“Spouse, Sister, Angel ! Pilot of the Fate

Whose course has been so starless.

A divine presence in a place divine,

That on the fountain of our heart a seal

Will set to keep its waters pure and bright”

Augustus Snellgrove

Suffragette mangled. (1911)

Party News from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another serious blow has been dealt the “time wasters” and “confusion mongers.” This time the deed was done in the ancient borough of Gravesend, which is far-famed for its shrimps and its cesspools. The recipients of this latest trouncing were the Women’s Social and Political Union, and their champion was “Organiser” Miss Laura Ainsworth.

The debate took place at the “Clock Tower” on Saturday, June 3. Even before the debate commenced the lady flew the white flag by desiring that the wording of the proposition should be altered, to which ye gallant knight, Anderson., with his usual courtesy, agreed. Then the lady, who should have opened by affirming “That Women’s Suffrage is essential for the betterment of the Working Class,” with that true understanding of “Women’s Rights” which might be expected of her, refused to speak first, thus putting Anderson in the curious position of having to confirm a negative. However, our comrade’s first speech made it evident to the large audience that the lady’s case was hopeless. Miss Ainsworth’s first effort made it still more so; and the second speech of Anderson so reduced the supporter of votes for wealthy women that the debate became almost a farce.

The poor girl tried again, but could not last out her appointed time, and left us about 9.20 in a hurry to catch one of those convenient trains.

Anderson then spent the rest of the time up till 10 p.m. answering questions and putting the Socialist position, and so effectively did he do this that the members of the I.L.P. who were present had dismay writ large on their faces.

It was a splendid meeting. Good propaganda was done and some of the humbug of the pseudo-Socialists ably exposed. Everyone present was supplied with leaflets, and the Independent Labour Party were once more publicly challenged to support in debate their claim to the title of Socialists.

W. G. Wragg

Working-class women (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 70th anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard carried throughout its pages a series of snippets from old Socialist Standard articles highlighting the SPGB's unique position on issues of the day. Where possible, I've provided a link to the full article.

The suffragettes fought for the freedom of the vote so that they could have their say in the laws governing their property. The position of millions of working class women who had no property and were, in fact, bound hand and foot by their economic dependence upon the employer directly or upon some employed male relative did not rouse the ire of the suffragettes. Obtaining the vote has done nothing to alter that. Only when working class women learn their true position in society will they know how to use their vote wisely, and for this the suffragette movement had no time.

[From “Women’s Freedom”, Socialist Standard, June 1935]

At Random. (1907)

From the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Justice (24/11/06) is bitterly disappointed with the “Labour” members. They have never, it says, “risen to the level of their opportunities.” “We have not had a single Socialist speech in the House since Parliament opened last February.” They (the “Labour” members) have “perfectly acquired the House of Commons manner . . . and have quite the air of statesmen and legislators. But that is not quite what they were elected for. If they have got hold of the idea that a Labour Party is to he a second-rate imitation of the Liberal or Tory Party, they have quite mistaken their mission.” And more of the same sort.

***

All very smart and all very nasty. If the Socialist Standard had said the same thing it would have been abusive and blackguardly. However, as Justice has introduced the matter, I hope I may not be thought too forward if I enquire as to Justice’s and the S.D.F.’s own particular member. I mean, of course, Will Thorne. What’s he doing? And if he isn’t now to be distinguished from the rest of the “Labour” members and the “Labour” members are not to be distinguished except by their awkwardness from the members who are not “Labour,” what’s the S.D.F. doing ?

***

There were times when the S.D.F. plumed itself upon the hold it kept upon members elected to public bodies. Why hasn’t it kept a hold on Will Thorne? Is it because it fears to estrange Will by criticism? Is it because it fears the loss of its only member? Is it because Thorne is not the S.D.F.’s member and therefore not amenable to S.D.F. influence ?

***

The reply I give is an affirmative to all the questions. The S.D.F. cannot afford to lose Thorne or Thorne’s influence. Thorne is not amenable to S.D.F. instruction although a member of the S.D.F. Thorne was elected as the L.R.C. candidate and is paid as such. The S.D.F.’s claim on Thorne is only persevered in because the S.D.F. only has Thorne’s M.P.-ship to swagger with. It makes an important thing of its very remote association with Thorne so as to make the most it can for itself out of Thorne’s electoral success. It’s pitiable but there it is.

***

And now it displays the fraudulent nature of its claim by showing that it has no claim on, and is without influence over, its own alleged member. It means just that ; or this – the S.D.F. has lost the last excuse for its existence. By which I mean to say that if S.D.F. members are so little educated upon the duties and responsibilities, the organisation and the discipline which the acceptance of Socialism involves that they do not insist upon their fellow members, into whatever public position they may go, following closely the line marked out by the Party as a whole, then there is no purpose in the organisation and it may as well be dead. If the Party has not insisted because it has no clearly defined line to follow, then again it may as well be dead in name as it is in fact.

***

John Burns, according to the German Press, has declared that he is not a State Socialist. I agree. Whatever else he’ is—and I could suggest quite a number of names that would fairly fit—he is not a Socialist, State or otherwise.

***

John has since stated that he has no recollection of saying anything of the sort, but he will not contradict the newspaper report because he never contradicts anything that is said about him. I disagree. John’s memory is statesmanlike—and short. He would contradict fast enough if it paid.

***

Preaching in Westminster Abbey recently, the Rev. A. Taylor, M.A., said that the elevation of womanhood in all lands was due to the teaching of the Bible ! Is this merely the ordinary ignorance of “culture” or has the pronouncement anything to do with the fact that the reverend gentleman is the Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society ?

***

Another ecclesiastical dignitary, the celebrated Father Bernard Vaughan, has replied to another Bernard, yclept, Shaw. In his reply the worthy Father has well maintained his reputation for sensationalism in three statements. (1) That in Shaw’s lecture on religion he was “unable to detect a shadow of scientific thought.” (2) That the prayer that rose to his lips after reading it was “Father, forgive him, for he knows not what he does,” and (3) that Shaw would find “eminently satisfactory results” from an enquiry into “the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church.”

***

I did not know that the father’s investigation into “Smart Set” morals qualified him to pronounce authoritatively upon scientific thought. Moreover, as he has so well pointed out, the tenets of the church to which he belongs are eminently satisfactory to—those who know not what they do ! and it would seem, only those. However, statements one and two are all right—a coincidence in the circumstances quite sensational.

***

After “Rocks Ahead,” “Another Political Wreck.” Should the third effort not be entitled “Saved from the Sea” ? I throw out the suggestion for what it may be worth. If the drama is to be well rounded we must have a coming to. The villain might then stand a chance of retrieving his fortunes by playing rescuer and even getting applause at the fall of the curtain. However. I have it on good authority that the reason for the selection of nautical titles has nothing to do with the author being at sea.

***

Herbert Burrows thinks that his comrade Askew is not worth discussing with ; he thinks Askew has deliberately insinuated things against him (Burrows) which are maliciously false ; and he holds that if Askew has a spark of decency in him he ought to be ashamed of himself and apologise.

***

This is distinctly the Burrovian method. If anyone disagrees with Herbert and says so, and particularly if he goes so far as to give good reason for his disagreement, he is (pace Herbert) a fellow of no decency, not to say a thorough paced scoundrel. Herbert, of course, is a gentleman, never uses language that is ungentlemanly and anybody who has known him and his Socialism will admit at once that the Socialist movement ought to be proud of its Burrows. Herbert says so and Herbert ought to know.

***

I am glad to find Herbert ragging more members of the S.D.F. because to me that is prima facie evidence that these members are waking up. When anything of the kind happens, and particularly if in the process the position of Herbert and what I may call the official S.D.F. comes under sharp criticism (as it must) Mr. Burrows can always be relied upon to start in with the “slang.” And it will always be found that the safest and surest sign that he hasn’t the rockiest leg to stand upon is when he falls back upon his “past record.” I will, when I get time, turn up some of that record and I think I can surprise the Burrowsite (if there is any such misguided person alive) with a reproduction of some of the gentlemanly language that ethical Herbert has given off.

***

In the same paper for December 15th, Mr. H. M. Hyndman has an article on the same subject, from which I extract the following :

“No pluck whatever has been displayed. Nothing meaner or more contemptible has ever been done, even by our scurviest enemies, the Liberals, than the wholesale discharges of men from Woolwich Arsenal and elsewhere. What has the Labour Party had to say about this infamous conduct ? So far as I know, nothing. Worse still, when Mr. John Burns turned the whole unemployed question, which made his personal and pecuniary fortune, into a farce, who was it who jumped up in haste to thank him for his fine speech and flatter him to his face for his valuable proposal ? No less conspicuous a person than the Chairman at the time of the Independent Labour Party and the Whip of the Labour Party in the House of Commons. Yet not a single man of the whole group dared rise and publicly repudiate such mean talk as utterly unworthy of themselves and their constituents.”

***

In these last days everybody is mightily concerned to manufacture a particular brand of what is called Socialism to meet the requirements of some particular group of individuals. Every brand requires a distinctive label, and every label demands a separate organisation to push it upon public attention. During the last few days I have come across a “Socialism” for millionaires (this is a strictly proprietary brand, placed on the market as was fit and proper, by that “mad-hatter” of the “advanced” movement who owns the Fabian Society), the Guild of St. Matthew brand of “Socialism”; “Socialism for the ‘educated middle class'” ; Tory “Socialism” (!),; I.L.P. “Socialism” (which is realised when land and Capital are nationalised), S.D.F. “Socialism,”— which Mr. H. M. Hyndman says is to be achieved for the working class by the class above, and so on.

***

Amid the din of so many pedlars crying their wares it is grateful to come across a small body of propagandists who advance just a plain, unqualified Socialism as the solution for the problem of poverty which affects one class only—the working class ; a Socialism which they preach as members of the working class to members of the working class only on the ground that only the working class matter. At any rate I am grateful to these, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

***

Professor Oliver Lodge has given us his articles of faith. He holds that the two greatest requirements of life are companionship and affection. But what about food ?

***

“We are told that our women friends who are agitating for the Limited Bill, are in favour of Adult Suffrage. Then why don’t they agitate for it instead of for the smaller measure ? I have always held that the best way to get part is to ask for the whole, and that if you ask for part you won’t even get that.”

***

Hear ! Hear !! Hear !!! Precisely what we are always pointing out to those who, while professing to want Socialism, prefer to ask for unemployed relief, payment of members and—a citizen army ! And one of the men who call us “Impossiblists” therefore, is—the writer of the foregoing extract, H. Quelch!

***

Messrs. Quelch & Co. are most vehement opponents of those who urge in connection with this “Votes for Women” agitation that the best way to secure complete adult suffrage is to get the right of women to the vote conceded ; that the only way indeed to the ultimate goal is to proceed by short stages. Mr. Quelch says in effect, and I quite agree with him, that if we must proceed by stages we will at any rate endeavour to make those stages as few as possible, and the best way to do that is not to concentrate upon a stage, because that stage is thereby made, for all practical purposes, the ultimate goal, with the result that progress toward it is again made in stages, but rather to demand the whole so that when a concession is wrung out of the ruling class (and if the concession is material it will have to to be wrung anyhow) it will be as substantial a concession as possible. Mr. Quelch says this, at any rate, upon the question of votes for women,—and anything else that suits his purpose at the moment, for that matter. Yet when we apply the same process of reasoning to the position taken up by Mr. Quelch and his friends in connection with their palliative proposals, we are quite impossible !

***

The question of the unemployed is in point. Mr. Quelch knows that only Socialism will solve the unemployed problem—and sometimes says so. Mr. Quelch knows that the capitalist class cannot solve the unemployed problem it they would and would not it they could and sometimes says so. Yet Mr. Quelch heads deputations to the capitalist class who cannot and will not solve the unemployed problem, to ask for relief for some of the unemployed. The result is a farcical drop of relief to a vast ocean of misery, the drop to be administered in homeopathic doses by a contemptible capitalist hack.

***

And this is not the only result, as Mr. Quelch knows. He knows that the miserable labour derelicts who follow his lead are being deluded by his agitation even as the “suffragettes” are being (as he says) deluded. They are not organised for, or concentrated upon, the ultimate goal. They are not demanding the whole. They are only asking for what Mr. Quelch implies it is absurd to ask for, viz., a very small part of what they want, with the result that they don’t “even get that.” And because they don’t understand that the whole is their right ; because the leaders of the agitation by their cap-in-hand deputations convey the impression that the little they are asking for is the most they ought to expect; because of this they induce the belief in the working class that the capitalists who finally give the bit of relief are excellent good fellows who are doing their best and who deserve to be supported. In other words the class struggle is obscured, and instead of having advanced a stage in the direction of the ultimate goal, they have at the best remained where they were, and at the very probable worst, have actually retreated a stage.

***

Therefore it is not in the mouth of Mr. Quelch & Co. to talk down at the “Suffragettes” who are but doing what Mr. Quelch himself does. It is notoriously unwise for the occupants of glass houses to exercise with catapaults and it is proverbially grotesque for the man with a beam in his own eye to labour in the endeavour to pluck the mote out of the eye of his—sister ! The only safe place from which Mr. Quelch may criticise the one-step-at-a-timer is in the ranks of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. If he has determined to be consistent for the future I invite him to apply for membership.

***

Try the quality of the “Labour Leader’s” parliamentary writer with me. He is referring to the number of ladies in purple and fine linen who are escorted about the precincts of the House of Parliamentary Gallants and goes on : “The Labour members stand and wonder at it all. Some of them—Barnes, Will Thorne and some others sternly leave the lobby” ! . . . Why—if a plain person may ask the question—do they leave the lobby ? And how do they do it sternly ? Does the sight of the lovely ladies with whom they may not mix give them the waterbrash ? Or what ? And who are these others who prefer not to leave the lobby ? Why do they stay ? Is it on the chance of a tete-a-tete? In any case are we to conclude that they also serve who only stand and wonder?

***

Try again. They (the Balfours, etc.) “are very nonplussed by the presence of the Labour men. It is not that our men interrupt them . . . but they make them feel they are there. Just as they are going to utter their most unreal sentiment they happen to make a half turn, and then—they get a full broadside from the eyes of Keir Hardie.” Dear ! Dear ! How very dreadful ! Especially when you are not expecting it. But why doesn’t Keir Hardie sit on the other side of the House ? He could then fix his man every time, and his man couldn’t say a word. Perhaps those eyes would impel the victim to speak the truth. You never can tell. As it is Hardie has to wait for the half turn before he can operate. Surely it cannot be that love of compromise and half measures has led the “Labour” Group to prefer half turns when they might get a full turn for the same effort. A half loaf may be better than no bread, but, I have never heard that a half turn is better than a whole stare !

***

These are examples of the strong meat the Labour Leader regales its readers with. It’s the sort of literary wash that may serve to satisfy the unhealthy cravings of some of the I.L.P. now that the novelty of the “Labour” Group has worn so thin that the capitalist Press cannot work good “copy” out of it, but it will scarcely do more than impel a sensation of hilarity (or perhaps of nausea) in sober and serious students of working-class politics. The Labour Leader, taking its cue from the “Labour” leaders, is playing down to the weakest headed of its following. Which, being interpreted, is to say that the Labour Leader is playing it as low and as sloppily as it can well do.

Alegra.

Editorial: A Terrible Outrage. (1906)

Editorial from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Labour” members were very indignant. “Mr. Snowden was white with anger.” Mr. Jowett was disquieted. Mr. Macpherson and Mr. Barnes said the stupid exhibition had put the movement back 10 years. And Mr. Burns, brave, bold and brotherly Mr. Burns, said if it had been his sister, he would have boxed her ears ! Such an outrage upon the dignity of a legislative assembly. Such an affront to the “Mother of Parliaments.” Such a disagreeable departure from all precedent, They ought to be ashamed of themselves. And to persist until a posse of fat policemen hurried them out of the gallery ! The hussies ! Let them think themselves fortunate they did not belong to Mr. Burns, he would have spanked them—if only to retrieve the prestige lost by running away from the elderly gentleman who responded to his bumptious challenge to a boxing bout.

Apart from that and the ludicrous disgust of the “Labour” members so anxious to deserve the praise lavished upon their moderation and respectability and regard for the forms of the House, we confess to considerable admiration for the energy and determination with which the women suffragists have forced themselves and their demand for votes upon the attention of stodgy statesmen and a Parliament apathetic toward all things except the interests of the capitalist class, and concerned only to dodge demands not regarded by them with approval. We do not agree of course that this agitation for votes for women is worth while, for the reasons we have several times given ; but the persistence and determination in the teeth of opposition, and the fine disregard for Parliamentary procedure and respectability which the women who are conducting the campaign have displayed, compel appreciation. They are worthy of a loftier cause. These women have recognised that in a fight the best thing to do is not to make your opponent as comfortable as possible ; and anyhow they have set an example which their masculine fellow pedlars of reform might well follow if they think, as we assuredly do not, their short sighted and in effectual objects are worth while striving for.

Letter: The Enfranchisement of Women. (1906)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor of “The Socialist Standard.”

Dear Sir,—May I appeal to your readers, men who have fought and won a great victory for Labour, to stand by the women who have now begun in earnest their struggle for political existence?

Working women realise at last that just as Labour men had to agitate and fight to secure their right to be represented in the State, so they must now agitate and fight to win their enfranchisement, for the sake of their homes and their children—for the sake of justice and honour.

Our experience of every agitation for a wider suffrage is that at the last moment women have been left out of the question. We want first to get sex disability abolished, and then to work with all those who desire a broader basis of democratic representation, and a fuller measure of social reform. We shall welcome very gladly all the help we can get from men, and we hope to collect a fund that shall enable us to carry out an organised, vigorous campaign.

Yours etc,

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence.

Hon. Treasurer,

Women’s Social and Political Union.

Central London Committee.

Reply:

We do not hold the recent election of “Labour” men to Parliament to be a victory for Labour. In our March issue it was shewn to be a victory for confusion.

For the rest Mrs. Pethick Lawrence has reversed what we regard as the correct order of things, and it is for precisely this reason that we are opposed to all the reform school of politicians, whose method is to focus attention upon some supposed ameliorative measure in the hope that by it they may be advanced one step, more or less short, on the road to a more or less distant goal. The goal is subordinate to the steps. We claim that by crystallizing attention on the goal, the possibility of losing our way among a multitude of stops is obviated. It is the goal that matters.

On the question of women’s franchise, for instance, it is the step that concerns Mrs. Lawrence. The goal is a very indistinct and shadowy “fuller measure of social reform.”

Our goal is Socialism. We know that the working class cannot obtain Socialism ’til they understand their class position and the reasons why Socialism alone will materially benefit them. It is our business, therefore, to instruct them so far as we may in their class position and in Socialism. When they understand ; when they are class-conscious, they will fight with us for Socialism. Short of that there is nothing that will avail. The fact that they strive for something less is proof positive that they are not class-conscious. We have therefore class-un-conscious workers to deal with, and if we harness their untutored spirit of revolt to the chariot wheel of reform, we are simply deluding them and wasting energies which might just as well and just as easily be focussed upon the essential—Socialism.

Therefore we are not concerned with electoral reform, howbeit we are of necessity Universal Adult Suffragists. The present franchise which gives the male workers sufficient power to effect any purpose, has been utilised to maintain capitalist domination in politics. That is to say the working-class vote has been used by the working class against working-class interest—why? Because, of working-class ignorance. To an ignorant working class, therefore, the weapon of the vote is useless. Only an intelligent working class can use that weapon to working-class advantage. Why are the workers ignorant? We reply because to a considerable extent their energies have been consumed in unimportant reform agitations such as this of the women’s franchise. How may their ignorance be dispelled ? We answer, by Socialists telling them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth particularly the whole truth.

And the whole truth is that the extension of the franchise to women is not an important matter ; that the important matter is working-class-consciousness—the full appreciation of the absolute and irreconcilable hostility of interest existing between the capitalist class and the working class. When that has been achieved and the workers have organised themselves into a political force translating their industrial antagonism to the capitalist class into political antagonism to all the political forces of capital (which would, of course, be the necessary and inevitable result of class-consciousness), the extension of the franchise to cover women workers and that great body of at present vote-less males, will be effected without difficulty— if, indeed, in the process of organisation, the capitalist class, dismayed by the determination of a rapidly growing working-class party to be satisfied with nothing less than the extinction of capitalism itself, have not enacted a measure of complete enfranchisement in the hope that it might side-track the movement, or at any rate, stay its progress temporarily. If there is one fact that obtrudes upon the attention of students of industrial history more than another it is that the larger the demand preferred by organised determination, the larger the concessions made. We do not, therefore, demand the half-loaf (if it is a half-loaf) of a woman’s vote, nor even the whole loaf (as they regard it) of the more advanced reformer. We demand the whole baker’s shop of Socialism, and it is our business to endeavour to harness the might of the working class to our demand. We have hitched our waggon to a star, and we do not propose to uncouple.

The text for Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and for all who earnestly desire working-class emancipation should be, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Socialism and its righteousness, and all the other things will be added unto you.”

We hope we have without offence made it clear why we cannot respond to the appeal made for help. We have important work to do.

Bird’s Eye View: Going Nowhere (2022)

The Bird’s Eye View Column from the December 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

Going Nowhere

‘It was once home to some of the world’s most celebrated radicals and changemakers including Karl Marx, Charles Dickens and Nelson Mandela, but now the Royal Society of Arts has become the centre of a bitter battle over trade union recognition. Nearly half the workforce below senior manager level at the 270-year-old charity’s headquarters in central London have joined the Independent Workers’ union of Great Britain, with most staff, in and outside the IWGB, backing unionisation. But the RSA’s executive team led by new chief executive Andy Haldane, a former chief economist at the Bank of England and government levelling-up adviser, has refused three times to voluntarily recognise the union, which would give the workers’ elected representatives the ability to negotiate pay and conditions’ (Guardian, 9 October).

Should we really be surprised? There are clues in the RSA’s charitable status and its full name: The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Another clue is provided by reading the list of recipients of the Society’s Albert Medal. Scientists feature prominently, but the list is also peppered with parasites including Prince Albert’s wife, their eldest son, two great grandsons, QE2, etc., plus Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts and Winston Churchill. The obvious odd one out, and more deserving than most of the gong given in recognition of the ‘creativity and innovation of those that work to tackle some of the world’s intractable problems’ is Peter Tatchell. For him solving such problems requires us to:

‘Be sceptical, question authority, be a rebel. Do not conform and don’t be ordinary. Remember, all human progress is the result of far-sighted people challenging orthodoxy, tradition and rich, powerful, vested interests. Be daring, show imagination, take risks. Fight against the greatest human rights violation of all: free market capitalism, which has created a world divided into rich and poor, where hundreds of millions of people are malnourished, homeless, without clean drinking water and dying from hunger and preventable diseases. Don’t accept the world as it is. Dream about what the world could be – then help make it happen (Honorary doctorate acceptance speech, 26 July 2010).

Hear our debate with him at bit.ly/3Cy11HN.

Tatchell again

‘It is quite evident that the Soviet system today represents the exact opposite of almost everything that the left in the West is striving for – obsessive state secrecy rather than freedom of information, centralised bureaucratic control instead of devolved decision making and public accountability, total state power over the individual as opposed to inalienable civil liberties, authoritarian economic management rather than trade union freedom and industrial democracy, and a government-manipulated media instead of greater diversity and choice in news and information sources’ (Democratic Defence. London, GMP Publishers. p. 36, 1994).

He is not alone here. Writing seventy years earlier, Sylvia Pankhurst observed:

‘The Russian workers remain wage slaves, and very poor ones, working, not from free will, but under compulsion of economic need, and kept in their subordinate position by a State coercion which is more pronounced than in the countries where the workers have not recently shown their capacity to rebel with effect’ (Workers’ Dreadnought, 1924, bit.ly/3SZ7kLD).

If Albert gongs were given posthumously, Sylvia would likely be the odd one out. Meanwhile, ‘Singer and actress Beverly Knight (MBE!) will star as suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst in highly anticipated musical Sylvia at The Old Vic theatre. Following its first appearance as a work-in-progress show at the famous London venue in 2018, Sylvia will return for a limited run from January 27 to April 1 2023. The funk, soul and hip-hop musical tells the story of Pankhurst and her daughter Sylvia, played by Sharon Rose. It was originally commissioned to mark the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918 and the end of the First World War’ (Express & Star, 6 October). Sylvia’s mother and sister, Emmeline and Christabel, were supporters of militarism and empire, urged women to aid industrial production and encouraged young men to fight. They became prominent figures in the infamous white feather movement, which was composed of women who handed out white feathers, considered a symbol of cowardice, to men not in uniform during WW1 in order to shame them into enlisting. We can only guess as to which issues will be skirted over or distorted.

We Come in Peace — Shoot to Kill

Further examples of inappropriately named and/or awarded gongs abound. The Nobel Peace Prize list is littered with them. Abiy Ahmed Ali, the prime minister of Ethiopia since 2 April 2018 won the 2019 Prize for his work in ending the 20-year post-war territorial stalemate between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Yet as early as January 2021 Simon Tisdall of the Guardian wrote that the gong should be returned as:

‘Despite Abiy’s claims that the war is over and no civilians have been harmed, sporadic fighting continues, an analyst familiar with government thinking said. Thousands of people have died, about 50,000 have fled to Sudan, and many are homeless, sheltering in caves. Intentional artillery attacks have destroyed hospitals and health centres in an echo of the Syrian war, the analyst said. Meeting this month in Mekelle, Tigray’s capital, aid workers complained Ethiopia’s government was still hindering relief efforts and demanded full access. “People are dying of starvation. In Adwa, people are dying while they are sleeping. [It’s] the same in other zones,” a regional administrator, Berhane Gebretsadik, was quoted as saying. But there has been scant response from Addis Ababa’.

This year’s recipient is the Ukraine-based Center for Civil Liberties, headed by Oleksandra Matvichuk. Shortly before the award in an interview with The Intercept she stated, ‘WHAT WE NEED TODAY IS WEAPONS’ (sic) (7 October).

Answers to Correspondents (1936)

From the December 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

L. McMillan (Lindfield).—Thanks for the suggestions. We agree, and will bear them in mind.

Editorial Committee

E. A. James (Somerset).—You will notice to start with that the Socialist's opposition to Reformism, i.e., to the policy of building up an organisation on the basis of a reform programme, does not rest upon the contention that every reform is necessarily harmful or useless, but on the contention that reformist organisations cannot achieve Socialism. On the contrary, they confuse the workers and create apathy and despair.

The S.P.G.B., accordingly, is not prepared to propagate reforms or seek support on them.

The women’s suffrage agitation was inspired and directed by propertied women seeking changes in the law which would improve their position as members of the propertied class. They were not interested in freeing either men or women workers from wage-slavery. On the contrary, they were, in the main, opposed to Socialism. It may also be pointed out that even before women received the vote the great majority of the voters were members of the working class, so that the electoral system did not stand in the way of emancipation.

The laws which prevent the employment of young children have, of course, had good effect, but like all reforms they touch only the fringe of the problem. In spite of all the existing legislation relating in various ways to children, not even the most enthusiastic reformist would claim that the position of working-class children is satisfactory. Malnutrition, bad housing, poor clothing, grotesquely inadequate education, premature employment, long hours, etc., are only a few of the problems which will never be solved under capitalism.

Editorial Committee.

E. J. T. (Coventry).—Thanks for cuttings. Unfortunately, no date or name of paper.

Editorial Committee.

P. P. M. (S.W.1).—Reply held over owing to pressure on space.

Editorial Committee.

T. H. Mahoney.—Your criticisms are based on the wrong assumption that the Labourites are or have been Socialists. This is not correct, and we are not prepared to discuss their conduct on the assumption that they are Socialists. It is not correct that "Socialism had 2,000 years start” of Fascism. Socialism could only arise out of modern capitalism. You are quite wrong also in stating that the. German Social Democratic Party was Socialist. Although some of its leaders paid lip-service to Marxism, the membership was non-Socialist, as the S.P.G.B. was pointing out long before 1914.

Editorial Committee.

Books and Booklets. The Citizenship of Women (Keir Hardie) (1905)

Pamphlet Review from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Citizenship of Women—is the latest pamphlet from the pen of Mr. Keir Hardie, and within its covers are probably all the few arguments that can be adduced by the supporters of what is known as the Limited Franchise Bill for Women. Its chief value, however, lies in the fact that it emphasises the back-door and step-at-a-time (the smaller the better) methods which find favour in the sight of Mr. Hardie’s I.L.P. Thus :—

“Once women are admitted to citizenship and some women become voters, the male mind will insensibly accustom itself to the idea of women citizenship and the way be thus prepared for adult suffrage complete and unrestricted.”

The same writer recently gave it as his opinion that Socialism would probably come as a thief in the night, and it is not extraordinary to find the same argument being used in regard to an alleged step that was used in regard to the ultimate object of that step. But to the man who understands that the first postulate of Socialism is the existence of a class-conscious and well organised proletariat whose every step towards emancipation must be taken with eyes wide open, Mr. Hardie’s position is grotesque.

If Mr. Hardie and the I.L.P. hold that the only way for the workers lies in the unconscious absorption of these alleged preliminaries to Socialism, obviously their duty to themselves and to the workers is to ensure that the process shall be unconscious. Because clearly if the workers have their suspicions aroused by the clumsy administration of an overdose, they may on the one hand do themselves an irreparable injury by refusing to acquiesce in a measure designed to benefit them, and on the other, summarily and ignorantly, seal the fate of the I.L.P. that to-day trembles in the balances. Therefore the course Mr. Hardie should adopt in this matter of the enfranchisement of women, is to reduce the persons immediately affected by the measure to the lowest possible minimum. Let it embrace the wives of, say, dukes only, and let it be smuggled through if possible without fuss and under some other guise by someone who cannot be accused of sympathy with the working-class. Thus a commencement will have been made, and the principle, which is to have such beneficial and far-reaching effects upon working-class life and outlook, will have been conceded, and, before the male worker who, according to Mr. Hardie, “will not lightly or all at once part with the authority which has so long been his, and admit that the wife of his bosom is his political equal,” will have awakened to the fact that his authority has been weakened, his mind “will have accustomed itself to the idea of women citizenship and the way will have been, prepared for complete adult suffrage.”

Really one would think from a perusal of Mr. Hardie’s pamphlet that the extension of the franchise to women was a matter of the first importance. The fact is, of course, that to-day the working-class have sufficient political power to do pretty much as they like. Unfortunately they like to return the Liberal or Tory or bogey Labour man. The reason they like to do that is because they do not know how to use their power. And they have failed to understand largely because reformers, with the best of intentions maybe, have worked upon the untenable assumption that the average mind is not capable of taking a grip on the whole Socialist position and have so omitted to tell the whole truth. While the workers do not know the whole truth they cannot understand, and while the mental activity they can spare is harnessed to and expended upon, attempts at altogether ineffectual reforms, they never will.

The pamphlet is prefaced by a character sketch of the author by W. T. Stead.

A. J. M. Gray

Aspects of the “Woman Question.” (Part 4) (1929)

From the October 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 3.

(Based on Notes of a series of lectures on “The Sexes in Evolution.”)

We are told there is a sex antagonism. Any morning we can open the pages of the stunt press and find articles calling attention to the intensity of the sex war. In the old days of the Women’s Suffrage agitation the success of the movement depended upon women’s adherence to, and recognition of, this sex war. As a matter of fact there is no sex antagonism and hasn’t been for thousands of years. How many books have been written explaining the sex problem ? Yet—there isn’t a sex problem. There is a problem, but it is a social problem. And that problem is the problem of getting a decent living. Hunger and Love are the two dominating factors of life. They are the basic biological principles which underlie every form of living activity and every institution. The satisfaction of these two primal necessities is the first concern of all living things. But since we—different from most other animals—are obliged to cooperate with each other in order to obtain the food we require, the question becomes a social one. Further, since we find that the means of getting a living are in the possession of another class, the social question becomes a social problem, and, by the very nature of the existing structure of society, a political one as well. Incidentally, we know quite well that a problem is a problem no longer when its solution is known. We know the solution as readers of this journal will be well aware. For present purposes, however, we speak of the “social problem.”

The so-called Women’s Movement, so far as it has gone, has been a movement for the advancement of certain reforms within the framework of the present social system. It would be true to say that even if all their claims for equal political and social rights were achieved it would not mean the emancipation of women, or anything near it. Only those women would benefit who belong to the privileged, or propertied class in society—those with sufficient wealth to possess a political “pull.” The majority of women, like the majority of men, belong to the wage-earning class, and this class cannot benefit so long as the tools of production —and not only the tools of production but the product as well—remain the property of another class.

To those who see the effects only and do not trouble to trace causes, the women’s struggle appears to be a struggle of sex against sex, and this idea is carefully worked upon. This mistake was made by the leaders themselves in the early feminist movement. They accepted the suggestion that woman was inferior to man, and in thousands of homes—especially those of working folk—it went without question.

That women are in a condition of subjection goes without saying. But they are not in subjection to the men. Individuals certainly may be, but not as a class. Men are in subjection—slaves to a system, and because the men are in subjection the women necessarily are in subjection, too. Morgan, in his valuable book, ”Ancient Society,” has shown that human society has an essentially economic basis. He has shown that the evolution of human society has progressed in accordance with the development of the means of production, and the methods of their ownership. Here we have the secret of the origin of all forms of social slavery, the subjection of women among the rest. Without the introduction of economic inequality, sex inequality could never have spread throughout the civilised world as it has done.

In the days of the adult suffrage agitation it was maintained that the acquisition of complete enfranchisement would mean sex equality. How true this claim was has now a chance of being shown. But right here it can be said that to make this claim is to lose sight of the true function of politics. Woman’s subjection did not arise from political disabilities—in fact these disabilities themselves arose from woman’s subjection— and, as already stated, this subjection has its roots deep down in economic inequality. Politics are the result of economic conditions, and in all its variety political action has gone upon the lines of economic interests. The enfranchisement of every man and every woman, now that it is practically universal, will certainly extend the possibilities of political action, but cannot of itself remove or alter the economic conditions under which people suffer. That is, so long as the majority of men and women remain un-conscious of their class position in society. So that universal suffrage, to be of value, depends upon the use to which it is put. Granting the vote to every man and woman does not in the least jeopardise the position of the exploiting class at the present stage of working-class political education. We need only ask : who possessed the greatest social power—the woman employer who hadn’t a vote, or the enfranchised wage-worker she exploited?

Tom Sala

(To be continued.)

Machines and Hell in the US (2022)

Book Review from the February 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

E. Sylvia Pankhurst: A Suffragette in America: Reflections on Prisoners, Pickets and Political Change. (Edited by Katherine Connelly) Pluto Press £16.99.

Sylvia Pankhurst visited the US in 1911 and 1912, each trip lasting about three months; the first included a few days in Canada. She wrote an account of her visits, but it was not finished or published. Here Katherine Connelly provides a timeline, an extensive general introduction and short introductions to each chapter of the original text; she also supplied the title.

The visits were undertaken partly for financial reasons, but also to spread suffrage ideas in the US, where in only five states did any women have the right to vote by 1912. Pankhurst spoke to many suffrage organisations, but her write-up is more concerned with the social situation: the lives of working women, prison conditions, racism, and so on. In New York she observed that bad pay and conditions, such as a seventy-hour week, were not just applicable to immigrants but to all women workers. In a laundry the workers ‘moved as though they were part of the machinery’. A factory in Nashville ‘might well serve as a representation of Hell’, such was the noise and dust. Prison conditions were appalling, with a ‘dehumanising atmosphere’.

The visit to Nashville was a deliberate choice to study the situation in the American South and Pankhurst specifically chose to speak to a black audience. This was because many suffrage organisations marginalised or excluded black women activists, and some campaigners even argued that giving white women the vote would restrict the influence of black voters.

In 1912 Pankhurst also spent several days in Milwaukee, where a supposedly Socialist local council had been elected. The mayor, Emil Seidel, was the vice-presidential candidate when Eugene Debs ran for president on the Socialist Party of America ticket that year. She acknowledged that the council had achieved relatively little and that women’s needs had been overlooked. Such a ‘top-down’ approach to policy was not appropriate, and this may well have influenced her views back in the UK, when she rejected the authoritarian attitudes of her mother Emmeline and sister Christabel, and set up the East London Federation of Suffragettes, which linked the suffrage struggle to trade union activities.

For socialists the most interesting part of Sylvia Pankhurst’s career came a decade later, when she rejected Bolshevism and stood for ‘the total abolition of money, buying and selling, and the wages system’ (see our pamphlet Sylvia Pankhurst and Socialism). This volume, however, provides a useful and informative look at her earlier views and the political situation in the US.

Paul Bennett

Rear View: Sick society (2020)

The Rear View Column from the September 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sick society

‘Many Turkish womens’ right groups say the crackdown reflects a wider societal problem. They say many women who are being abused seek — but never receive — proper help. Melek Önder of the We Will Stop Femicide initiative told DW that Turkish police, the government and state officials must do much more to protect women at risk: “There were cases where women who were being violently abused asked for help, but nothing happened,” she says’ (dw.com, 24 July). The crackdown on protests is hardly surprising under the would-be Sultan, Erdoğan. Calling for wife beating to become a priority concern for the police, who prefer not to get involved, and thus give their tacit endorsement, is reformist folly, particularly when there are so many reactionaries such as Ebru Asiltürk, ‘the spokeswoman for womens’ affairs for Turkey’s Islamic conservative Saadet Party.’ She opined recently that ‘…the treaty [Istanbul Convention to tackle violence again women and domestic abuse, as well as promoting gender equality – which Turkey was, ironically, the first country to ratify!] would be like a “bomb” destroying Turkey’s traditional family structure.’ Femicide is indeed an indication of serious, wider social and sexual problems that are not confined to a small minority of deviants or reactionary regimes – Poland is another example – but are typical of a sick society. Neither changes in the law and policing policy, nor more prosecutions against wife beaters offer a cure.

Cultural pain and pleasure

‘The UK’s only centre dedicated to stamping out female genital mutilation is facing closure after the government pulled its funding, putting women at fresh risk of harm. Cash has been quietly withdrawn from the unit – set up by Theresa May, when she vowed to end FGM “within a generation” [likely as effective as Tony Blair’s 1999 pledge to end child poverty] – leaving it struggling to survive…The crisis comes despite hundreds of new victims of FGM being identified every month and just one successful prosecution for the practice, despite laws being on the books for 35 years’ (independent.co.uk, 26 July). Women supporting the status-quo or reactionary cultural/religious practices abound, alas.

Back to the primitive?

There may be some socialists who would like to see the return of the woolly mammoth, but none favour primitive communism over the establishment of a post-capitalist world. ‘ Lotte Alberg, who owns two sex clubs in Amsterdam’s famous red-light district, is relieved to see her staff back at work. Club BonTon and Club LV both reopened this week after four months of lockdown due to the coronavirus pandemic’ (pri.org, 6 July). To Alberg and Fuambai Ahmadu, an anthropologist who chose clitoridectomy as an adult, we say the only place for prostitution and FGM in a world freed from the dictates of capital and culture will be at the museum of antiquities. Engels showed that the suppression of women had its origin in the rise of private property. Marx saw sex work as ’only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer’ (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, 1844). Rosa Luxemburg and Sylvia Pankhurst shared the socialist vision of Engels and Marx:

 ‘The mass of the proletariat must do more than stake out clearly the aims and direction of the revolution. It must also personally, by its own activity, bring socialism step by step into life’ (Rosa Luxemburg, What Does the Spartacus League Want?, 1918). 

‘Our aim is Communism. Communism is not an affair of party. It is a theory of life and social organisation. It is a life in which property is held in common; in which the community produces, by conscious aim, sufficient to supply the needs of all its members; in which there is no trading, money, wages, or any direct reward for services rendered’ (Sylvia Pankhurst, What is behind the label? A plea for clearness, 1923).

Mother and daughter

The decade leading up to 1914 and the ‘War to End All Wars’ was they heyday of the Suffragette movement under the leadership of Sylvia Pankhurst’s mother, Emmeline. Some readers may be intrigued surprised to learn that we opposed her and the Women’s Social and Political Union she founded in 1903.

Sylvia Pankhurst is better known for her part in the campaign for votes for all women as well as all men (one third of whom were denied the vote before 1918). Her mother, Emmeline, the authoritarian leader of the WSPU, was against this and campaigned instead only for votes for women on the same terms as then applied to men; which would have resulted in enfranchising more property-owners than workers. Opposing that was a no-brainer.

When Sylvia Pankurst wrote the passage above she had come to hold the (mistaken) position that the vote didn’t matter either for men or for women, arguing that communism (or socialism, she used both words to describe the same form of society) could only be achieved by anti-parliamentary action. A few years later, in 1927, Emmeline, who had been a jingoist in the First World War, was adopted as a Conservative Party parliamentary candidate; not surprising for someone who had stood for votes only for rich women.

Socialism can only be achieved with the majority support of women and of men. This point is so important that it forms part of our Declaration of Principles: ‘That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex‘ (emphasis added). This clause along with the other seven dates from the formation of our Party in 1904. Yes, the founding members, all 142 of them from Miss H. Aitken to H. J. Young, were remarkably forward-thinking in their assertion that women’s emancipation could only be achieved as part of the emancipation of all humanity through the establishment of socialism as described above by Sylvia Pankhurst.

Editorial: The “Reform Bill”. (1912)

Editorial from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

After long years of promise the Liberal Party have drawn up a Suffrage Reform Bill. With a long sham fight about “Home Rule” and “Welsh Disestablishment” in front of them, the measure seems to have had its last and first reading.

Although a majority of the Liberal Members of Parliament have “won” their seats by reason of their sympathy (real or feigned) with “Woman Suffrage”, that proposition is left entirely out of the Bill! Many of the Liberal employer M.P.’s are now opposing female franchise on the grounds of “unfitness”, calmly ignoring the fact of the millions who are “fit” enough to make huge fortunes for Liberal masters in the factories and mills. But such hypocrisy is in keeping with Liberal traditions!

The fraud of the Bill, though, is plainly shown in its fancy franchise for men. According to Mr. McKenna himself in his introductory speech, the total number of males over 21 in the United Kingdom is 12,032,000. The number of voters at present is 7,409,986, and of the 4½ millions would remain he computes that about half will be entitled to vote.

The measure stipulates for an eight month’s residential or occupational qualification – that is, you must be at an address from December 25th to August 1st.

If the Liberals were in earnest even about this question of suffrage they could quite easily have given a vote to every man instead of leaving 2½ millions out in the cold. The long residential conditions in these days of a drifting working class, make it result that those who, because of deepening destitution, need a voice most are deprived of a vote.

Another typically peculiar Liberal decision is that their Reform Bill only applies to Parliamentary elections, not to those concerning local bodies.

The bill is essentially and undisputably a mere shop window affair. It is drawn up and announced for the specific purpose of enabling its authors, the Liberal party, to win bye-elections. The prevailing “labour unrest” and the only-to-be-expected, but nevertheless dirty and despicable part played therein by the Government is slowly but surely making many working men to doubt their so-called Liberal friends, and this latest Liberal fraud is brought in in order to make a fresh show of democracy – and this in spite of the fact that the rich man, in accordance with the capitalist commandment, is always more sure of his vote than is his “poor brother”.

The suffrage for women, too, seems to have been left out of this Government measure in the hope that will help to keep the fires of controversy burning – and perhaps to sufficient effect as to cremate the Bill.

One way or another we are no deeply interested parties. We know that Socialism includes democracy, and can only come when a majority of the working class voice their will and desire in favour of it. But this Bill does not provide the democracy which is to be such a vital part of Socialism. Already Liberals and Tories alike have spoken about all kinds of amendments making even more fanciful the paltry provisions of the measure. We have seen very often the difference between the first appearance and the final form of Government Bills. The Shop Act was boomed as a sixty hour Bill, but when Liberal and Tory shopowners had completed their dirty work the sixty hour clause was as dead as a “Labour” leader’s conscience, and instead it provided that those under eighteen could not be employed more than seventy-four hours a week. Those over that age could be worked as many hours as the profit-grinders desired!

To us as Socialists the vote itself is not the thing. Millions of working men have had the vote for forty years, but lacking knowledge of how to use it in their own interest, they have steadily voted their masters into power; voted the continuance of the system that keeps them poor.

We know that there are enough working-class voters to-day to defeat the capitalist class – but it wants intelligence behind the vote. Our work, therefore, is to convert the workers from supporters of capitalism into fighters for Socialism. And as the vote is extended by our masters, pushed by the development of their system, so, too, our work will still be needed, for the workers, voters and non-voters alike, to-day are against Socialism.

We are not advocating reform, whether Reform Bills or Adult Suffrage. We want to enlist a membership for Socialism, to build up a party of men and women who realise Socialism to be their only hope. When the Revolutionists are strong enough to elect one of themselves to Parliament, then he will have behind him a solid body of men and women who mean Revolution. He will voice their interests, expose the bunkum bills of the workers’ enemies, and drive home the Socialist position upon every question that arises. He will occupy his seat wholly as a fighter for Socialism, and will regard all his activities from the standpoint of their helpfulness to the speeding of Socialism.

Hence, although we are necessarily and without any qualification democrats, we do not, and never have, and never will, support such swindles upon the working class as the Liberal Reform Bill.