The Patriarch and the mote. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

Wilfred.

A cutting cutting. (1909)

From the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“When found make a note of !” Thus our old and esteemed friend, Cap’n Cuttle. Here is something we found and made a note of. It was discovered in the financial column of London Opinion for November 21st last. You all remember the great cotton “lock-out” of last year? The capitalist Press was never tired of reminding you of the awful loss the workers sustained in working days, wages, and what not, whilst the loss to “your country’s trade” was incalculable, irreparable, and altogether deplorable. The inference is, of course, that you were a very stupid, short-sighted lot, to grumble at, and actually go so far as to resist, attempts at slicing your wages. A shilling in the pound off £2 10 per week only meant 2s. 6d. per week short, and £2 7s. 6d. was not such a bad wage, after all. Why will you be so unreasonable ?

Perhaps it is accounted for by the fact that many of you were only getting 18s. or £1 per week, and 5% off that meant all the difference-between at best a hand-to-mouth existence and positive privation. Many of you, no doubt, took the view that “if we accept a 5% reduction, what is to prevent the imposition of a 10 or 20% reduction” ? Perhaps the cutting will help us.

“TEXTILES.—The termination o£ the strike amongst the Cotton operatives should have a good effect on prices in this section of the Industrial Market. That little harm will have been done appears apparent, and that the masters will be benefited to no small extent seems probable, for they have been able to get rid of the large surplus stocks which had accumulated during the depression which is now passing away, in addition to saving an enormous aggregate in wages and working expenses.” London Opinion.

The italics are ours.

Need we say more? Do you want it any plainer than that ? They have given you the sack for several months and made a profit on the business. Sounds like a joke, doesn’t it ?

In our unregenerate days we used to wonder what the Socialists meant by affirming that the average trade union was the best friend the employers ever had. Is anyone in doubt after perusing a statement like the foregoing ? Five or six months without employment and consequent lack of the wherewithal to live, would, if occurring upon so large a scale as in the instance under notice, speedily settle the hash of the workers. How fortunate, then, that when the cotton operatives have produced more fabric than the market can absorb, and the employers “find themselves compelled to announce a reduction in wages” in the sure and certain knowledge that the men will “jib,” how fortunate, we say, that the men are able through their trade union, to scrape along on bread and margarine until the “large surplus stocks” have been got rid of.

Nothing remains to be done now but to create some more surplus stocks, and then the same tragi-comedy will be enacted over again. You pay the piper, fellow-workers, how do you like the tune ? Don’t you think a change of melody might be advantageous ? Or do you prefer to shuffle along until the fast approaching day when you will be “scrapped”—too old at forty—and die in the cheerful knowledge that your children will do the same ?

On our back page you will find a Declaration of Principles. Read it through carefully and think it over. There is not a difficult word or sentence in it. It was thought out, written and put together by working men ; it should not be difficult for any working man in possession of ordinary common sense to understand it. If you should be doubtful upon any point, let us have your difficulty. It will only cost you a penny stamp. Or if you care to drop in at any of our meetings (they are all open) we will do our best to help you there. But, above all, do something definite. Don’t become a “half-and-halfer.” Don’t become a parti-coloured nonentity—a Socialist “er, to a certain extent” to the Socialist; a Liberal to the Liberal; a Tory to the Tory and nothing to the nobody.

If you see no flaws in our position, let us have your name and, above everything, your help. Socialism will come in your time—if you want it—and work for it. Our Secretary waits.

Wilfred.

Pot Pourri. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

I did not go to the Business Exhibition, but I have done the next best thing — read the newspaper puffs of it. One needs not to be a master of deductive philosophy to read the lesson writ large over the pages of booming devoted to it. The features of this year consist of calculating machines for eliminating clerks ; a machine (the Dictaphone) for doubling one’s output ; another that addresses envelopes at the rate of 2,000 an hour, and so on. Competitions for speed and accuracy are again a leading item, marked this year by the large number of women who have entered for the first time. One firm will teach you (for a consideration) how to develope your powers, how to manage men, increase efficiency and such like.

* * *

The Dictaphone is best described in the maker’s advertisements : “enabling one person to do the work of two, saving 50% time and labour in any office. The work of the principal is simplified, the output of the typist doubled.” Wages, we understand, will remain stationary. When the envelope addresser and the Dictaphone get thoroughly going, throwing half the clerical workers on the streets, making the unfortunate remainder work doubly hard, I suppose the Tariff Reformer will still have no difficulty in proving to them that a tax on Dutch cheese and a preferential tariff in favour of Colonial sardines will solve the problem. The Free Trader, doubtless, will glibly assure the beaten competitors of the Dictaphone and the mechanical calculator that as soon as the Budget has had a chance, and when the 99 year leases fall in, and when the great schemes that the Liberal party has up its sleeve (at present only darkly hinted at) get in full swing, “then !” he’ll say, “then !—” Ah ‘then !

To the clerk, as to every other labourer for hire, it should be clear that the good things of life are not for him whilst the present system of “managing men” is the vogue. If you believe in a step at a time (most of them backwards), join the Liberal party, or its adjuncts, the I.L.P. or S.D.P., and work for State Christmas Trees for your great-grandchildren and municipal ice-cream barrows. If you want freedom now, not in 99 years, join the S.P.G.B.

* * *

I would like to say just here that we Socialists don’t ask for any license, poetical, political, or of any other variety. When we say the I.L.P., Labour Party, S.D.P., Fabian Society, etc. are capitalist agencies, please don’t assume that pique or arrogance actuate us. Just to show you what is meant, here is an instance.

* * *

The Railway Clerks’ Association has recently affiliated to the Labour Party. The latter, of course, accepted it on the usual terms. The character of the.R.C.A. is succinctly outlined in. the October No. of their official organ, p. 202 : “The policy of the R.C.A. is not only to secure justice for its members, but also to urge and assist them to make themselves worth more to their employer.” Of such is the kingdom of Henderson & Co.

* * *

Whilst we are on the subject I may have a jab at the Fabians. Now look at this !

“I came to the conclusion that just as it is in the interests of Capital to keep the rolling stock and the permanent way in good repair, so it must be to the interest of Capital to be constantly raising the standard of living for the men in order that the human factor may be improved.”

Who said that? None other than Mrs, Sidney Webb, at the opening of the new A.S.R.S. offices. That’s the sort of fool’s errand the Fabians are on. Don’t join them.

* * *

A few lines from a poem by Mr. James Stephens are worth repeating.

"For I’ve sat my life away with pen and rule,

        On a stool,

Totting little lines of figures, and so will

        Tho’ the chill

And the langour of gray hairs on my brow

        Mock me now.

And sometimes while I work I lift my eyes

        To the skies,

To the foot or two of heaven which I trace

        In the space

That a grimy window grudges to the spot

         Where I tot.

And I ask the God who made me and the sun

          What I’ve done

To be buried in this dark and dreary cave

           Like a grave,

While the world laughs in scorn now and then

          At my pen."

You see, that’s just where he is silly, asking God anything. You can sit on a stool asking conundrums of space and gather nothing but a harvest of wasted years and a heap of worn-out trousers. It may be easy, but it is quite profitless. Get off your stool and get to work on your slave-irons. Gazing through a couple of feet of smoky window-glass wont help you any. If you have any spare brain your employer has not a lien on, we’ll tell you what to do with it. Come in.

Wilfred.

Why Does Russell Smart? (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilfred.

A Lesson from a “White Paper.” (1910)

From the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The futility of palliatives, amongst which we must perforce reckon conciliation boards, is strikingly illustrated by the consideration of the Board of Trade White Paper containing the preliminary statement relating to the railways of the United Kingdom for ’09. The result of a few of the decisions of the conciliation boards operate in favour of the men, but only on comparatively unimportant questions. By judicious “wangling,” ruthless cutting down and agreements between companies, any slight advantage to the men has been more than out-weighed, smd there is more despotism than ever. The financial results of the year’s operations compared with 1908 were as follows :

	1909	Inc. Or decrease
	£	£
Passenger receipts	51,198,000	-467,000
Goods receipts	68,971,000	+742,000
Working expenses	75,033,000	-1,375,000
Net receipts	45,130,000	+1,649,000

Maintenance of way, works, etc., cost £60,000 more, but there was a saving of £1,422,000 in locomotive power. Such facts invest the dryest figures with interest. The quantity of minerals and general merchandise conveyed increased by 7,727,000 tons, but the number of train miles declined by 3,035,000.

The lesson here is clear and plain. Any tinkering with conditions of labour, whilst the chain of wage slavery remains unbroken, can only, if it affects matters at all, result in a tightening up of the links. After all, the bargaining with employers, be it through conciliation boards, deputations, recognition of Union officials or what not, is not progressive. It is only the half conscious effort of the workman to recover the ground that capitalism ever pushes away from beneath his feet. It is a struggle against retrogression. Only in Socialism do we find the larger hope. Let us, then, abandon trying to patch up a rotten system ; let us desist from the fatuity of endeavouring to make worse more bearable. All such effort is mere resignation to the slave condition. There is far better work to do than to struggle for such crumbs as your leaders lead you on to. When those leaders led you into the “conciliation boards” trap they delivered you, bound hand and foot, into the hand of the masters. We said so at the time and events prove us correct. Join the S.P.G.B. . . . and concentrate on your freedom.

Wilfred.

Do you see what Cecil, K.C., sees? (1911)

From the April 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Among the many “topics of the moment” may well be included the question of co-partnership, or profit-sharing. The matter has been dealt with in these columns on several occasions, but the appearance of the following paragraph in the Evening News of 12.11.10 makes it opportune to again direct attention to the tricky purpose behind the specious wording of the phrase co-partnership.

“The West London Parliament will meet to-night in the Council Chamber of Marylebone Hall, when Lord Robert Cecil, K.C., will move : 

‘That in the opinion of this House, the fair division of the profits of industry, as between capital and labour, is of supreme importance, and can only be secured by the adoption of co-partnership ; that being the only effective alternative form of industrial organisation to Socialism.'”

I do not know the result of the debate, but anyway, that is unimportant. The discerning reader will draw quite a number of conclusions from the paragraph as it stands, but I would ask him more particularly to consider the last few words. The only alternative to Socialism is co-partnership, according to Lord Robert Cecil. Good ! I hope the toilers can see it equally clearly.

Observe there is no hypocritical reference to Socialism destroying family life, religion, initiative, etc.; to it being the “end of all,” the creed of the chronic grumbler, or piffle of that description. With refreshing candour the fact is specifically admitted that Socialism is a form of industrial organisation. Grant that and you have the unique spectacle of one of the Cecils, with a pedigree as long as a poker, inferentially preaching Socialism.

Prove it ? Set your thinking apparatus in motion. Look here, if co-partnership be the only alternative to Socialism, logically the bankruptcy of the former leaves you but one course. In that the noble lord concurs. Co-partnership has been proved in these columns to be a fraud. It has proved to be a failure wherever it has been inflicted upon the workers—notably quite recently in the shipbuilding industry, where it was installed with a nourish of drums and sounding of brasses, but only to demonstrate that the wealth producers would still obtain but a mere fraction of their product.

Out of capitalism nothing but its effect can be expected. The method of wealth making that we call capitalism depends and rests upon the fact that the class that makes all wealth gets only a small portion returned to it in the shape of wages. Any juggling with the proportions of the total product of labour, and calling the process the profit-sharing or bonus system, does not alter the central and fundamental fact that the people who make it do not get it. They only receive a portion of it. And yet there are people who talk of a fair division of wealth between those who make it and those who don’t. K.C.s may be able to see it, but workers cannot —there is a difference.

Wilfred.

Review: "Wake Up, England!" (1910)

Book Review from the September 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Wake Up, England! Being the Story of John Bull—Socialist.” by Edward Prince (St. Stephen's Press)

This is a stupid book — a clumsy book. It is addressed more particularly to anti-Socialists, and, in the guise of a badly written tale, endeavours to convey some idea of the state of things thirty years after the Revolution. The author would certainly have succeeded better had Nature, endowed him with a brain, but there, as the volume is directed to those equally lacking in intelligence, no great harm will be done.

But to get on with the ganglionic perturbation under notice. The chief character is a doctor, a man whose mental calibre may be estimated quite as highly as the author’s, when it is known that although he worked and voted for Socialism and lived for thirty years after its advent, at the end of that period he knows nothing about it. The “hero” of the book, John Bull, is a weak, phthisical boy, a manifest importation from capitalism, with bad eyes, a morose, taciturn disposition, a longing to be alone, and a hatred of his kind. He attempts to murder a man who runs off with his wife, and finishes up by drowning himself. Another “great” character, with a longing for the “good old times,” is William Sykes, who did a “night’s work" in the days of capitalism and came out of prison after the establishment of the new order. With this single exception, and that attended with disaster, Bill Sykes had never done a stroke of work in his life, and his misguided father, just before quitting this vale of tears, reproached him with being a tramp, and left him 10s. a week and a cottage so that toil and Bill Sykes should for ever remain estranged. Bill, by waging a kind of guerrilla warfare with the “ fishals” succeeds in living as a parasite upon his fellows, a fact which seems to afford our author immense satisfaction.

The officials, by the way, are most carious creatures—weird composites of all that is most petty and tyrannical in the vilest of capitalist shop-foremen, the most parsimonious of poor-law guardians, and the most stupid of police inspectors. By everyone hated and despised, the author is compelled to invent an impossibility to account for their retention of office. He calls it “being responsible for a majority.” Exactly how it works is not apparent to those devoid of the eye of faith. It may be clear to the author, but his secret is safe, anyway.

In brief, this bile-producing ‘‘work” is a very bad rehash of the “break-up of-family-life,” “Socialism — means — Atheism, therefore — bad,” “Socialism-means-death to-incentive” tags: silly statements, as we all know, with which Methuselah whiled away his childhood. After perusing this colossal tome the inhabitants of Frying Pan Ally and Paradise Place will number themselves with the happiest of mortals. The free and independent citizen who is fifteen weeks in arrear with the rent, and finds himself and his family kicked out in the rain, will still be able to gaze into the smiling, sunny faces of his emaciated family and congratulate himself on the preservation of his family life, his immortal soul, and his incentive —especially his incentive. He can still say as the sole drops off his only boot and he gets run in for being without visible means, “thank Gawd it aint Sosherlism, anyhow ! ”

The present writer is glad he hasn't got it on his conscience that he paid for the copy he has read.

Wilfred.