The Socialist Forum: Socialists and Charity. (1933)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism and Charity.

A correspondent writes as follows: —

The opening paragraph in the article on Charity, in the May Socialist Standard, conveys sentiments with which I heartily concur, and emphasises a state of affairs that unfortunately does universally prevail. The argument advanced throughout the succeeding paragraphs sketches the tragedy of the working-class in lurid colours, but I think it is a reasonable statement to make that the condition which obtains is largely contributed to by the workers themselves. I am convinced that, although hardships under any social system are inevitable, a great many, owing primarily to careless and irresponsible spending, are avoidable. There are thousands of disciplined-minded workers with limited wages throughout the country who manage quite well to maintain a self-respecting and healthy existence by their economy, avoiding habits of excess and intemperance, which really are the dominant causes for most of the misery and destitution which exists. It is a shameful cry on the part of the advocates of Socialism to taunt charity workers, and to associate with these ideal efforts such terms as “Lies, Cant and Humbug." Charitable efforts are actuated almost entirely by human kindliness. The voluntary system of maintaining hospitals in this country is a shining example to the rest of the world of the sense of responsibility which actuates the minds of those in the community who are able and willing to help their neighbours. Hospitals succour thousands of grateful patients throughout the year, and I fail to find in the vague programme styled “Socialism” with all its empty platitudes any better system to take the place of that grand voluntary scheme of charitable effort upon which the community is able to rely.

Reply.

Had our correspondent contented himself with saying that some workers are thriftless and intemperate he would have been on safe ground, but even then he should ask himself what are the causes of these characteristics. He would find, if he pursued his inquiries, that the conditions of capitalist employment and the devices adopted by capitalist Governments to patch up the evils produced by their system are direct causes of thriftlessness and intemperance. It should be obvious to any observer that excessive hours of work and excessively laborious work, the worry of unemployment, undernourishment due to insufficient wages, bad housing conditions and the adulteration of food, are factors which drive the workers to seek relief in stimulants, including alcohol, and are factors over which the individual worker has little or no control. Even then it is his poverty which often compels him to buy the cheaper and more harmful stimulants.

To charge any number of the workers with careless and irresponsible spending is ludicrous. How can workers go in for careless and irresponsible spending when the average wage of industrial workers is in the neighbourhood of £2 10s. 0d. a week?

To say that hardship is inevitable under any social system may be true (although, obviously, the hardships due to scarcity of the necessaries of life could now be abolished), but what is not inevitable is that such hardships should fall on only part of the population. There is nothing inevitable about the kind of hardship we see every day under capitalism, of workers dismissed in order to cheapen production by means of labour-saving devices, which serve to enhance the profits of shareholders.

With regard to charity, our correspondent is living in a world which is largely one of make-believe. Behind charitable donations there is some spontaneous sympathy for the victims of capitalism; often, however, from people who will not raise a finger to prevent the need for such charity. They would be doing something of greater practical utility if they helped to abolish the cause of the hardship—the capitalist system.

On the other hand, a vast amount of so-called charity is simply a highly organised capitalist business. Under cover of permits granted by the Government and the police, but only to certain influential and favoured organisations, men and women whose living depends on it, conduct gigantic campaigns of mass advertising and mass intimidation in the form of “flag days" to extract money from the public. The collecting organisations themselves, and the distributing organisations (charities, hospitals, etc.), are often conducted on lines which are as far removed from human kindness and sympathy as anything could be.

It is a common practice nowadays for the victim of a street accident, who lands in a “voluntary" hospital, to be questioned almost immediately by a businesslike official as to whether he or she holds an insurance as a registered reader of a newspaper. The whole or part of the proceeds are, of course, appropriated by the hospital. Next, the hospital authorities press the victim to bring an action if there is the slightest chance of getting damages—in which also the “voluntary” hospital, dips its rapacious hand.

At the Conference of the National Association of Trade Union Approved Societies in Edinburgh, on June 15th, 1933, a resolution was passed protesting against the growing practice on the part of hospitals of making non-paying patients wait for beds, and giving preference to paying patients. The General Secretary, Mr. Ernest Corbey, said (Daily Herald, June 16th) that there is a general move all over the country to reserve more beds for paying patients. So little does Mr. Corbey regard the “voluntary” hospitals as charitable institutions that he expressly concentrated his complaint mainly on the rate-supported hospitals. He said: “We may not be able to grouse very much about voluntary hospitals, on which our claim is less legitimate . . . ."

Our correspondent concludes with some extravagant and misplaced praise for that grand voluntary scheme of charitable effort upon which the community is able to rely. It is misplaced because the community, as capitalist Governments have everywhere been forced to recognise, has not been able to rely on charity.

One country after another has had to institute unemployment insurance and work-houses and poor law relief, because the thin trickle of charity was not enough. One country after another has had to institute state and municipal hospitals, because charity would not provide sufficient voluntary ones. Taking the industrial capitalist countries as a whole, dependence on voluntary hospitals is becoming the exception rather than the rule.

Charity is sometimes the spontaneous expression of fellow feeling by people who do not understand why the need exists. It is more often a salve to the conscience of the exploiter; a cheap insurance against the discontent of the dispossessed; and the insult which the exploiting class adds to the injury wrought by it on the workers. 

Ed. Comm.

The Big Issue at 35 (2026)

From the September 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In May this year the Big Issue published its annual ‘Impact Report’, a celebration, it said, of ’35 years of action and impact’. Its CEO claimed that, over its existence, it had ‘changed Britain’s high streets’ and provided ‘innovative earning, learning and social investment opportunities’, seen as ‘the key to breaking the cycle of poverty’. It had been ‘an exciting year’, the report stated, and now the Big Issue Group was moving forward ‘to build bold new solutions to tackle poverty and the deepening crisis amongst young people’. Its 35th Anniversary Dinner, held in March, raised over £200,000 and was attended by celebrities and politicians, most notably the Big Issue founder, Lord John Bird, and Angela Rayner, Housing Secretary in the current Labour government. Rayner was quoted as saying: ‘The Big Issue provides the dignity of a hand-up. That opportunity to become economically active, build confidence, develop new skills and a sense of dignity. That’s why I got involved in politics and it’s why I’m a supporter of the Big Issue’.

Yet, together with all these optimistic words, the report also points out that, even after 35 years of the magazine, destitution still affects 3.8 million people in the UK. In so doing, it echoes the frustration expressed in a recent article by John Bird that ‘three decades of the same conversation is exhausting’. Not that anyone would want to deny the report’s other claim that Big Issue activity has helped support many individuals to live less deprived, less demeaning lives. It has given them the magazine to sell, advised them on finding employment and even assisting some in starting their own small businesses. This, however, is a drop in a very large ocean where, given the extent of poverty and homelessness in the society we live in, for every individual helped out of a dire situation, there is another (and others) waiting to be helped. The report itself provides evidence of this with its figure of 3.8 million people living in destitution, representing a rise of 148 percent since 2017.

Looked at closely, the experience of the Big Issue very much mirrors that of the older charity organisation known as Shelter. Founded in 1966, Shelter pledged to get rid of homelessness within 10 years. But, since then, the problem it set out to tackle, together with the poverty that underlies it, has remained endemic. Shelter recently announced that 120,000 children in the UK are waking up homeless every day and that many thousands more are suffering housing and living conditions that make it impossible for them to live comfortable and fulfilling lives. There is no more talk of eliminating homelessness but rather a focus on the need to provide day-to-day assistance to those without a proper roof over their heads. Shelter even runs its own weekly lottery to raise funds for this. In a similar way the Big Issue report makes no mention of bringing homelessness to an end but sees its role as ‘ensuring our impact continues for generations to come’.

None of this is to demean the dedication or good faith of those involved – many on a voluntary basis – in seeking to alleviate the hardships of those suffering the worst effects of poverty. So we should not, for example, question the sincerity of Greg Hurst of the Centre for Homeless Impact when, in a recent Big Issue article, he wrote that ‘We must hold on to the belief that homelessness can be ended and look for evidence of proven or promising approaches that could be tried or tested right now’. But those seeing things in that light would at the same time do well to ask themselves why, regardless of their best efforts, the problems they are addressing not only never seem to go away but, depending on circumstances, may even get worse with the passage of time, so at best they are running fast to stand still. If they did ask the question, they might end up agreeing that poverty and homelessness are not caused by a dearth of houses or food being in short supply, and that, with the technologically efficient production systems that exist today, we could easily house, feed and clothe everyone on the planet. They might go even further and accept that the reason this never actually happens is that, in the system we live under, goods are produced and services are provided not to satisfy human need but to make profit for the small minority of humanity who own or control the vast majority of the wealth, while the rest of us can only have access to what the money in our pockets will buy.

For some, especially in the more technologically advanced countries, the existing set-up may offer a stable existence, even if at the cost of having to work on a day-to-day basis in employment we may not like or conditions that make it unpleasant or insecure. But for others, in particular those who have the most poorly paid or insecure jobs or no employment at all, things are far worse, often a constant round of worry, instability and hopelessness. And no matter how much time and energy is put into trying to rectify this by the Big Issue, Shelter and other such well-meaning organisations, their efforts can do no more than scratch the surface of the problems they would like to solve. John Bird got it right – perhaps inadvertently – when, in a Big Issue article, he wrote that ‘ideas of ending poverty are stuck in the realm of fantasy’.

So while the Big Issue Group’s stated ambition to ‘build a future where every individual can thrive’ is nothing if not admirable and one socialists would share, in today’s system of ‘can’t pay, can’t have’ that we call capitalism, it is frankly unachievable. It can only realistically be envisioned in the society socialists campaign for, in which nothing is bought or sold, production is for use not profit and there is free access for everyone to all goods and services.

Howard Moss

The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the March 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

A Notable Utterance.

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

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

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

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

Chloroforming the Workers.

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

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

The Vicar of Hell.

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

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

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

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

And that is exactly what the masters want.

The “Great Idea” Fraud.

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

“SALVATION ARMY IDEAL.

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

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

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

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

Sentimental Slosh.

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

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

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

Saving the Rates.

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

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

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

"COUNCIL SEEKS ARMY’S AID. 

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

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

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

The “Army” and the Public.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Fritz”

(To be continued.)

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

From the April 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

The “Army” in Trade.

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

A Prophecy Fulfilled.

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

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

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

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

Wage-Slavery for God.

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

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

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

Women’s dresses.

Men’s and children’s suits.

Drapery.

Hosiery.

Boots and shoes.

China and glass.

Earthenware.

Cutlery.

Pianos and organs (hire system).

Flannelette and “Non-Flam.”

Sewing machines.

Furniture of all kinds

Bicycles and mailcarts.

Printing, bookbinding and stationery.

Books.

Watches and clocks.

Bags and portmanteaus.

Underwear.

Bread—families waited on daily.

Tea, coffee and cocoa.

Etc., etc.

The Heavenly Whiteley.

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

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

OUR CHRISTMAS GIFT TO YOU.

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

FIVE USEFUL AND SERVICEABLE ARTICLES AT HALF-PRICE.

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

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

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

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

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

HOW IT IS DONE.

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

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

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

How it is done.

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

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

Booth and Boots.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Cheap-Jacks of Religion.

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

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

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

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

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

The “Flannel” Fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fritz.

(To be continued)

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

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part II.

The Social Scheme.

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

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

—”In Darkest England,” page 81.

The Book that Made a Stir.

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

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

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

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

The Legion of the Lost.

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

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

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

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

There will be

(1) The City Colony,

(2) The Farm Colony,

(3) The Over-Sea Colony.”

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

The “City” Colony.

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

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

Farms for the Famished.

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

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

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

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

(The last passage was not originally italicised.) 

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

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

The Return of the “Golden Age.”

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

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

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

The Answer.

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

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

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

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

Specious and Misleading Advertisements.

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

“STARVATION AND MISERY

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

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

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

Fritz.

(To be continued)

The Salvation Army and the Working Class. (1910)

From the June 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to the last issue.

III—Continued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV

Concerning Hanbury Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Hanbury St. is not a piecework shop

COLONEL JACOBS

(Commissioner Sturgess’ assistant.)

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

————————

(Agreement signed by men.)

“In the case of task work,” etc.

————————-

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

——————————–

(War Cry, May 1st, 1909.)

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

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

——————————–

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

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

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

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

——————————–

Fritz.

(To be continued)

Material World: The closed world of billionaire power (2026)

The Material World column from the April 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

You can’t throw a brick these days without hitting one… philanthropic billionaires. One of them has been in the capitalists’ news cycles: Bill Gates has been in the news recently not so much for the atrocious spyware-laden Windows 11 operating system, but for his business ties and friendship with serial child exploiter Jeffrey Epstein. Yet Gates is still treated by the media as a kind of global saviour. A benevolent technocrat. A trusted voice on health, population, food, and development.

Philanthropy or social currency of ‘soft power’

Gates’s relationship with Epstein reveals the closed world of billionaire power. According to recently released documents, Epstein first contacted Gates in 2013 to propose a ‘donor-advised fund’ that would serve as ‘cloud computing for the giving world’, a vehicle to attract ‘the most money any charity has ever had’. Over 18 months, Gates’s family office head and foundation general counsel engaged in extensive correspondence with the convicted sex offender about this charitable vehicle.

But here’s the thing: why did the world’s second wealthiest individual require introductions to wealthy donors from a registered sex offender? The answer lies in understanding that billionaire philanthropy operates not as charity but as a mechanism of class consolidation an exclusive club and you’re not in it. Where the extraction of surplus value is celebrated through tax advantages. Barry Josephson and Epstein revelling through criminal interactions. Bill’s conundrum: what to do about the poor.

And we know exactly what they discussed. In an email exchange, Epstein wrote to an associate: ‘I’ve been thinking a lot about that question that you asked Bill Gates ‘how do we get rid of poor people as a whole’ and I have an answer/ comment regarding that for you’ (from the document provided, dated 3 February, 2011, showing correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and Barry Josephson). This is what they talk about on the island. This is what billionaire philanthropy really means.

The population … problem?

Gates believes that the problem isn’t over-extraction, capitalism or the profit motive. Greed or billionaires don’t concern him, instead he sees African birth-rates as a threat to global capitalist progress. He has stated in a TED talk that he wants to reduce global population by 15 percent.

The Gates Foundation’s 2024 budget totals $8.6 billion, with family planning separate from the $8.3 billion for ‘fertility management’. Gates pledged $100 billion for this on World Population Day, not International Women’s Day. Fertility management in the Gates Foundation has its own budget and targets: $150 million for 2024 and $143 million for 2025. Not through maternal care or with improving material conditions like clinics that could continue afterwards. The money does not flow from charity to women; it flows from tax sheltered wealth to pharmaceutical corporations.

The Depo-Provera scandal

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), backed by hundreds of billions, claims moral authority to influence the health, agriculture and family lives of millions across Africa and the global south. This is about Sayana Press, Pfizer’s injectable contraceptive, a reformulated version of Depo-Provera that was previously subject to over 2,000 brain tumour lawsuits in Florida. The UK and US government both subsidise the use of this drug.

A 2024 study in the British Medical Journal revealed that women using Depo-Provera face a 550 percent increased risk of developing intracranial meningiomas, AKA brain tumours, requiring invasive surgery, radiation, and often causing permanent neurological damage. Pfizer knew of these risks for decades while failing to warn patients. European and Canadian labels now carry meningioma warnings; the US label was only updated in December 2025 after litigation began.

The Maxwell precedent: intelligence and institutional power

Robert Maxwell, press tycoon, scam artist, and former Labour MP too knew how to create institutional power. He had intelligence contacts in Mossad and with the KGB and did work for British intelligence. He also hobnobbed with the queen, (prince) Charles, Thatcher, Mother Teresa, George Bush and so on. He was the go-to guy for dirt on the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

The Epstein-Gates nexus is modelled on these earlier networks of elite control. Epstein’s own operations, his ‘black book’ of contacts, his mysterious wealth, his lenient 2008 prosecution, suggest similar intelligence community protections. The ‘Lolita Express’ flight logs and island visitors represent not merely criminal activity but the mechanisms through which ruling-class loyalty is ensured through mutual incrimination.

The socialist alternative

Socialists do not oppose access to contraception, nor deny the importance of reproductive choice. On the contrary, we insist that women must be free from economic compulsion in deciding whether and when to have children. The Gates Foundation model, in which pharmaceutical corporations, backed by billionaire ‘donations’ and government co-funding, experiment on vulnerable populations, represents the antithesis of reproductive freedom.

True reproductive freedom requires the social ownership of pharmaceutical production, democratic control over healthcare priorities, and the elimination of economic coercion in all its forms. When contraceptives are developed through producer-controlled research, distributed through publicly accountable health systems, and provided as genuine choices rather than population control measures, then we will have achieved something worth calling family planning.

Until then, we must recognise billionaire philanthropy for what it is: the velvet glove of the ruling elite sanitising exploitation while the iron fist of king capital maintains its grip.

A.T.

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Twenty-eight years ago the S.D.F. advocated national afforestation, not only as possessing great national advantages in preventing what capitalism was and is forcing on the world, namely, a timber famine, but also as a means whereby the labour of men otherwise unemployed could be utilised, and they in turn benefited. And now the members of the Royal Commission (including an ex-member of the S.D.F., who apparently has not forgotten all he learnt while with us) unite not only in blessing the idea of afforestation as many have done before, but produce definite statistics and estimates on the subject.”— Justice, 23.1.09.

There’s progress for you ! Only 28 years of hard, honest, unremitting toil and then a Royal Commission blesses the idea you have been advocating. Surely this is a complete answer to those “young men in a hurry” who sneer at those who devote so much energy to obtaining these “much needed reforms.” Here is a success sufficient to confound all the “unpractical,” “impossibilist” hustlers.

* * *

True, the “unpractical” persons may retort that had the same energy and enthusiasm been devoted to propagating Socialism and making Socialists these “reforms”—for whatever they may be worth—would have been handed out by the capitalist class, not only in a much shorter time, but in far greater quantity ; that the confusion engendered in the minds of the working class by associating these tinkerings with the name of Socialism would have been avoided, and a far more solid—because clearer-minded—organisation of the working class effected, while some of the more extreme might even suggest that the reform, when obtained, was hardly worth spending a day, let alone 28 years, upon. As witnesseth the following :

“Afforestation appears late in the race, and even if undertaken to the fullest extent suggested by the Royal Commission (which they themselves do not appear to expect) it can only absorb some small fraction of the unemployed, and the wave of unemployment will soon overtake the difference caused even by wholesale afforestation.”

No one, of course, but an “unpractical impossibilist” could have written that. Any self-respecting “reformer” would at once denounce it as mere jealousy. But, alas ! it is from the same page of the same paper that was just previously chortling over its success in obtaining so valuable a concession for the workers.

* * *

Surely the rank and file of the S.D.P. might compare such statements as those given above and realise the futility of following the example of the horse purchaser in the ancient story where the horse dealer admitted after the sale that the animal he had sold had two faults. “What are they?” asked the purchaser. “Well,” was the reply, “the first is that he is very difficult to catch.” “Oh, I’ll manage that all right !” confidently asserted the purchaser. “The second little drawback is,” the dealer went on, ” he is no good when you’ve caught him.”

* * *

The moral is obvious.

* * *

The New Age for 14.1.09 contained an article in support of municipal bakeries for the supply of “free bread for everybody.” The point which seemed to appeal most strongly to the writer was that “It would positively pay the State in the long run to provide free bread.”

The “State,” to whom the appeal to municipalise anything must be made, consists of the representatives of the capitalist class. This will continue to be the case until such time as the working class, educated to a consciousness of their class position and organised for their own emancipation, possess power to use the machinery of government to their own advantage. When that time arrives the necessity for the working class to appeal to capitalism for anything will be gone.

The power to pass a Free Bread Bill would be sufficient to “socialise” everything. That such a state of affairs is not contemplated by the “New Age” writer (A. O. Orage) is shown by his having written “Private artists would provide it (i.e., fancy bread, cakes, etc.) for the people who choose to pay.”

* * *

A member of the S.D.P. alluding to the “impossibilists” recently, said, “they were like certain early Christians who went about asking people to kill them, so sure were they of going to heaven.” The fact that certain persons hold opinions strongly enough to suffer death rather than give them up, is no proof of the truth or falsity of those opinions. For example, if five or five hundred people die to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5 it will not affect the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Both the professing Christian and the so-called Socialist of to-day stand on different planes to those early Christians alluded to above. The Christian of to-day looks forward to a life hereafter, but if he gets a chance to visit the realms of bliss by passing through the Gate of Death, he will call in the best medical aid obtainable in order that he may continue his penal servitude on earth.

So likewise is it with that contradiction in terms, the “revolutionary reformer” of the S.D.P. He knows, or should know, that Socialism can only be achieved by the complete overthrow of the present system of wealth production, yet he works for this, that and the other reform in order to patch up the very system he is out to abolish.

* * *

Here is an example. After stating that waste was desirable in order that work should be found for persons who would be otherwise unemployed, Mr. H. Quelch (at Eccles, 17.1.09.) in answer to a question, said in effect that, organisation of various concerns under municipal and national management tended towards the elimination of waste and consequently to the more speedy overthrow of the capitalist system.

Whilst he does not hold with one capitalist spending money wastefully upon a “coming out” dinner that found work for some persons,, he, as a member of the Right to Work Executive Council, would approach the capitalist class banded together as “the State,” to find useful work for the unemployed, knowing full well that the problem of production has already been solved, and that anything produced by the present unemployed would only mean the consequent slackness or loss of work to those employed. In the one case “elimination of waste” means the more speedy overthrow of capitalism, and in the other he would advocate waste to overthrow the system sooner than if nothing were granted to the unemployed, by advocating relief works, etc. It would be interesting to know whether he is really of the opinion that waste or the elimination of waste is better for the workers under capitalism.

* * *

Seeing Mr. Quelch admits that the organisation of production under municipal and national control is used to the detriment of the workers whilst the capitalist class are in power, perhaps he can explain how “greater material and moral facilities for the working class to organise itself and carry on the class war” (S.D.P. programme) will be obtained by advocating measures whereby the workers will come more under the sway of capital. When explaining this point he might also prove the following words to be false. “The higher the productiveness of labour the greater is the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of existence, viz, the sale of their own labour-power for the increasing of another’s wealth, or for the expansion of capital.”—”Capital,” Karl Marx, Vol. I p. 660. Should he admit the truth of the above passage, then the reforms advocated by his colleagues of the S.D.P. are not palliations of the system from the working-class point of view at all, and support for the movement gained by their advocacy is falsely gained, because these supporters are led to believe that the lot of the mass of the workers would be bettered while it would not.

* * *

Mr. R. Blatchford as good as says there is no Socialist Party because the posters for a recent issue of the “Clarion” said, “Wanted, a Socialist Party.” If the S.P.G.B. had said the S.D.P., I.L.P., Fabian Society and Clarion Scouts were not Socialist Parties it would have been high treason. Still those persons who were about to join the Clarion Scouts under the impression that it was a Socialist body will reconsider their position, doubtless. Of course, it applies equally to the S.P.G.B., but then we are used to being told that we are “Tories in disguise,” except when we want the platform in opposition, when it is refused to us on the plea that they take opposition only from non-Socialists.

* * *

Mr. J. Hunter Watts has been lecturing on “The Need for a Revision of the S.D.P. Programme.” After 25 years too! We would suggest as his next subject “The S.D.P. : Where is it ?”

* * *

In our January issue it was mentioned that the capitalist class would always out-bid, in the field of charity-doles, such efforts as the “Clarion Bread Fund.” Here is proof. Sir Peter Carlow Walker (of brewery fame) has placed at the disposal of the Liverpool Food and Betterment Association, funds to any amount necessary for the alleviation of dire necessity. Two offices have also been furnished at Sir P. C. Walker’s expense.

Irish stew, currant bread, cocoa and coffee are to be distributed to single, respectable, unemployed women and men, and provisions and probably clothes are to be given to widows having young families. Higher grade artisans and clerks out of employment are to be the chief beneficiares of the fund, those who are hard pressed and have to keep up appearances will, most likely, have clothing supplied them so that they may go respectably dressed to look for the work that does not exist.

Fitz Brough

The Passing Show: Who are the hungry? (1965)

The Passing Show Column from the March 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the hungry?

When I was a youngster, my parents had the sort of struggle to clothe and feed their children that was common enough in those days. With the Old Man often out of work, Ma had to turn her hand to any job available—charring mainly—for a few shillings. Like many other working class children, we were badly clothed and housed, and while perhaps we did not actually starve, we were often hungry.

At that time, it would have been ludicrous to suggest that we give to funds aimed at preventing starvation or alleviating poverty in other parts of the world. Ma would have laughed that one bitterly out of court. We were already recipients of charity in one form or another—coal, food parcels and other children’s leftoffs—and it was cold comfort to be told that there were always those worse off than ourselves.

Times have now changed, we are assured. Ma is dead and Pa draws National Assistance to keep him ticking over in his declining days. The overt charity has more or less dried up, although he does get occasional gifts and treats from the old age pensioners’ club. He doesn’t go hungry, although from what I can see of it, a lot of what he eats is starchy filler with not much food value. Ironically, two or three years ago he was frequently an interested reader of The Good Food Guide, a yearly catalogue of recommended eating houses in the British Isles.

Ironic from another angle too. This book is published by The Good Food Club, which recently allowed OXFAM access to its address lists for circularising an invitation to an “austerity supper.” The meal would consist of a bowl of herbs and rice, with cold water. The charge, said the letter, would be two guineas, the balance after meeting costs to go to OXFAM funds. Pa got one of the circulars.

Now no one is suggesting that there was any calculated insult intended. Of course OXFAM could not know that they were writing to an old age pensioner, and anyway, he did not take it amiss—merely laughed. It is the whole basic concept of such bodies as OXFAM that must be challenged. In a world where there are over forty million refugees and around half the population underfed, an organisation like this can barely begin to scratch the surface of the problem, granting their sincerity every inch of the way.

I have before me one or two of OXFAM’s appeal adverts. One tells us that:

“Millions of the world’s families have no great hope for 1965. To them it will be just another year in the endless battle against hunger, disease and the terrible, grinding poverty.”

And another says that OXFAM will be:

“Helping them get enough to eat, buying them medicines, giving them a roof over their heads. But most important, helping them free themselves from a life sentence of poverty—with education, training, new tools.”

So from this you could be forgiven for thinking that these problems are associated perhaps with the “backward” areas. Politicians do anyway lend credence to it by talking about “aid to underdeveloped countries” (e.g. Mr. Wilson at the beginning of January). But it is not so. The foremost capitalist country in the world—USA—has such an appalling poverty problem that writers are often drawing attention to it.

“According to government figures … 56 per cent of low-income farm families were deficient in one or more basic nutrients in the diet. The rural poor were ever worse off. Seventy per cent suffered from this deficiency. Thus there is hunger in the midst of abundance.” (Michael Harrington, The Other America.)

Yet OXFAM would think it ridiculous to spend their funds in the USA. They concentrate exclusively on the extreme poverty and hunger which are rooted in primitive agriculture and inadequate physical means of production, poor land etc. These may of course aggravate a local condition under capitalism, but there is no doubt that the world at large is capable of feeding everyone—if properly organised.

Aye, there’s the rub. Wheat stored away in river backwaters, lettuces and potatoes ploughed back into the soil, and land deliberately taken out of cultivation, all to try and keep up the prices to a profitable level. The fact that people starve in the meantime is a mere incidental. The market is the all powerful god under capitalism. And this not only in Western countries. Only last month we drew attention to the deliberate burning of cocoa in Ghana for precisely the same reason as above. If OXFAM are thinking of spending some of their money in this backward area, we wonder what they think about such news as that.

The tragedy of OXFAM, Freedom from Hunger, War on Want, and other such organisations is not just their failure to make any worthwhile effect on the problem. It is their refusal even to glimpse its causes or to question a world which can destroy food stocks wholesale in one place and let millions starve in another.

Conservative Security

I noticed a giant poster, presumably a leftover from the general election, on a hoarding at the top of our road a week or two ago. “For a safer world, vote Conservative” it screamed at me from the usual bilious red white and blue colour scheme. It was the use of the comparative “safer” I found intriguing. Did it mean safer than right now. Or perhaps safer when the Conservatives were last in power, or just safer in a general sense?

Whichever way you look at it, the underlying theme is that political parties in general and the Conservative Party in particular, can appreciably affect the safety of the world by their policies. The Tories would not of course suggest that their opponents were deliberately pushing the world to the verge of another war. Rather would they be inclined to say that it was their ineptitude which was doing the damage, and that only the return of the Conservatives can restore matters.

Well let’s have a brief look at it. In the past fifty years there have been two world wars, both supported by the Tories. They were in power for quite a large part of that period. Not a particularly peaceful one. In the years of the postwar Labour government, it was remarkable how Tory support could be guaranteed for actions involving armed force or the threat of it, such as Greece, Berlin and Korea.

What of the years which followed? When they returned to power in 1951, the Conservatives had already made the usual vague promises about “our contribution to peace,” but whatever this may have meant to them in theory, what happened in practice was the almost chronic bloodshed in Cyprus, and the crises in Suez, Lebanon and Berlin (again). A safer world?

I would not have called it that, but there’s an amazing flexibility of meaning to such words when spoken by capitalist statesmen. Anyway, they were not discouraged and were busy telling us again later that “Peace is one more reason why Conservative government is good government.” (Guardian advert 17.8.59.). In the five years which followed that little piece of double talk, we have had more bloodletting in Cyprus and the agonising Cuba affair, not to mention smaller incidents in various parts of the world.

The truth is that the Conservative Party is no more a party of peace than of war. Like its Labour counterpart it is committed to running British capitalism and protecting its interests at home and abroad. At times this will mean sending men out to fight and die. That is why, even allowing for differences of opinion and errors of judgment, the views of government and opposition are so close, especially in the field of foreign policy. That is why also, there will always be those on either side who will jeer that the others are stealing their thunder, or protest that their party is becoming contaminated with the other side’s ideas. This was the very gist of one speaker’s complaint at the Young Conservatives’ Conference on February 7th.

But the net result is still the same. It is still a very unsafe world in which to live because the conflicting interests of capitalism make it so. Far from influencing the course of events to any great extent, the Conservative and other capitalist parties must frame their policies to meet the events and then hope for the best.

Propaganda Broadside

Have you noticed a crop of newspaper adverts about South Africa recently? Those I have seen glowingly describe the place as “a developing community of nations” or “rich in resources and rewards” or “the British Motor Industry’s biggest single export market.” The South African government is obviously anxious to build up a favourable picture particularly, it seems, in Britain, and if in the process the truth gets a bit discoloured that’s not likely to worry them overmuch.

Take for example their claim of January 26th:

“The structure of non-white wages has been, and is constantly being, raised to realistic levels of economic and social requirements . . . thousands of African workers . . . seek an opportunity to work and earn better wages on South African farms and in the mines and factories.”

Somewhat vague, but definitely calculated to create a good impression would you think? Now compare it with a United Nations report only two weeks earlier:

“Africans working for foreign companies in S.W. Africa live as though in slavery. . . . The policy of Apartheid . . . offers . . . every opportunity for the exploitation of the indigenous inhabitants. . . . The very low level of African wages, the lack of development of the native reserves, and the evils of the migratory labour system, result in misery and untold sufferings.”

Maybe it’s as well that Socialists have a sort of built-in scepticism which makes them examine everything they are told with a supercritical eye. But as you can see, we don’t always have to make conscious efforts at disproving the falsehoods spread around by one ruling class or the other. South African racial policies have provoked hostility among the new “coloured” states, and some of the older capitalist states are coming out against them too. So it’s not surprising that reports like this one appear from time to time, and South Africa comes under fire from the other paragons of virtue at the U.N.

What we should bear in mind is that there has been evidence of harsh and oppressive conditions there for many years, but it is only recently that outside interests have demanded any fuss be made about it. Quite clearly brotherly love is only a minor consideration in this new-found desire for racial equality. “Exploitation for all workers, regardless of race” is the real battle cry behind the pious slop uttered by the winds-of-change-merchants.

Eddie Critchfield