Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

W.T.S. (Crewe).—Irrespective of our opinion in the matter, the General Secretary and Executive Committee of the A.S.R.S. are condemned out of their own months. In April last they issued a manifesto to Railwaymen in which they said “The delegates” (at Birmingham in November, 1906) “also decided that all negotiations relative to the men’s conditions shall be conducted through the Head Office, and the General Secretary of the Society. It may at once be definitely accepted that until this is done the men cannot hope for any great or substantial reforms.” The italics are ours. The income of the Union in 1906 was £82,978 6s. 0d. and the expenditure £50,813 1s. 1d., of which £25,214 0s 8d. was paid to members in benefits, £69 17s. 0d. in contributions to other Unions, and £25,529 3s. 5d. went in salaries of officers and other expenses of management.

J.B. (Manchester),—At the 1903 Newcastle Conference of the L.R.C. the constitution was revised, but has not since been altered. Candidates pledge themselves to accept the constitution, and “to abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” At that Conference it was moved by Mr. John Hodge (Steel Smelters) and seconded by Mr. C. Freak (Boot & Shoe Operatives) “That this Labour Representation Conference, representing nearly a million organised workers, unanimously endorses the candidature of Wm. Crooks, L.C.C., for the bye-election at Woolwich, rejoices in the chance of the return of another member to Parliament who accepts the Constitution of the Committee, and begs every workman in the division to vote for Crooks.” This resolution was carried with one dissentient. The Constitution was revised after the passing of this resolution. At the fourth Conference (Bradford, 1904) the Executive gave the result of the bye-election, describing Mr. Crooks as the L.R.C. candidate and included him in their list of L.R.C. candidates for the next elections. His name also appeared in the next annual report as a candidate and in the following one as an L.R.C. Member of Parliament. Mr. Crooks received £200 from the Committee for his salary for 1906, and presumably, therefore, he was taking the money of the L.R.C. at the time he sent the letter in support of Mr. Hamar Greenwood at York. No member’s salary is paid until he has signed the Constitution.

M.B. (Manchester).—It was stated by Reynold’s Newspaper of January 14th, 1906 that, among other “Socialists,” E. Belfort Bax, J. F. Green, and A. S. Headingley, all of the S.D.F., were members of the National Liberal Club, and that before being elected, every candidate must take a pledge that he will support the principles of the Liberal Party. Mr. Bax makes no secret of his membership. In the Social Democrat for July, 1902, J. B. Askew wrote : “It certainly seems curious that Bax, who is so severe on Bernstein, finds it consistent with his hatred of Liberalism to remain a member of a club which makes it a condition of membership that a member should recognise the principles of the Liberal Party . . . But then, are not the armchairs comfortable, and the whisky good ?” In the following issue Bax replied as follows: “Those members of the S.D.F. (and they count among them men who have certainly paid their tribute to the Cause in the past) who like myself are members of the N.L.C.,” etc. We believe that Mr. H. M. Hyndman is also a member. At any rate he was one of the speakers on May 25th, 1906, when Mr. W. M. Thompson was the guest at a dinner of the Club. Mr. Hyndman spoke after John Burns ! A. Hayday, S.D.F., is president of the South West Ham Radical Club of which W. Thorne and J. Jones are also members.

S.T. (Glasgow).—The S.D.F. “demand” is for “compulsory military training” and this cannot be had without military discipline. The S.D.F. must recognise this, because in that weird document which they term their programme they declare for the abolition of standing armies (number not stated) and the establishment of national citizen forces (number also omitted) and afterwards the abolition of courts-martial; all offences against discipline to be transferred to the jurisdiction of civil courts. So that they anticipate there will be offences against discipline even when they have national citizen forces.

By The Way. (1915)

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

As a result of the long and bloody struggle, which has now engaged the world’s attention for something like fifteen months, we find our masters and their agents taking a keen interest in the question of mother and baby. The “Daily Chronicle,” in large headlines, informs us that “Good Motherhood means bigger and stronger Armies of the future.” This is decidedly funny ! What need is there for large armies in the future ? Have we not been repeatedly told in the capitalist Press and on the platform that “this war is to end war.” Verily, verily, I say unto you: Liars need good memories.

Of course, our masters know that so long as their vile system of society lasts—this catch-as-catch-can do-my-neighbour form—so long will the germs of warfare exist, and hence their increased interest in a plentiful supply of healthy infants.

In passing, one must notice the difference that exists in the methods employed by our masters and those of the common or garden working men when meeting to discuss some item of importance. The former, as a preliminary canter, have “a dinner,” whilst the latter get immediately to business, and, if financially strong enough, after might adjourn to the sign of “—…..Old and Mild.”

However, this all important question of cannon fodder for the future was discussed at a dinner at the Lyceum Club, when Mrs. Philip, the chairman, referred to it as “The noble art of mothercraft,” and said, “What we want is a better chance for all children, and not merely those of the poorer classes.”

Dr. Newsholme, of the Local Government Board, gave some interesting figures and facts about this important population question. He pointed out that:

“We might have had many more potential soldiers if the birth-rate of 1914 had been equal to that of 1876. If it had kept up to the former level 50,000 more babies would have come into the world last year than the number recorded. This decrease has been going on for 38 years. We might have had a much larger number of fighting men if small families had not become so fashionable.”—”Daily Chronicle,” 26.10.15.

With the development of schools for mothers, meals, etc., for expectant mothers and sterilised milk depots for young children, our masters are hard put to it in their endeavour to raise and maintain an adequate number of slaves, who shall serve them in the industrial army or as a fighting force in days to come.

* * *

Mr. Will Crooks recently addressed a meeting in the People’s Palace, Mile End Road, with the object of securing recruits. In the course of his remarks he said: “Don’t some of you want to join ? What are you hanging back for ? Are you waiting for a safe job till somebody doesn’t come back for it ? I can imagine what will happen. The employer will ask where you were in 1915-16, and if he finds that you belonged to the ‘Stay-at-Home-Rangers,’ he will say to you, “Good morning; mind the step.’ ”

“It is a people’s war; a war for the people’s rights and liberties.’”

Doubtless it never occurs to the Woolwich gent, that some “hang back”’ to maintain their “rights and liberties” ; but, of course, here the small number of people have no “rights and liberties.” We are fighting on behalf of small nations ! The threat of the employer saying “Good morning” may be a good incentive to “voluntary enlistment” ! Finally we would suggest to our hon. friend that there are other places than Mile End where he might try his prentice hand, for has not that other great recruiting sergeant, Ben Tillett told us over and over again that “95 per cent. of our fighting forces are enlisted from the ranks of the working class.” Here, then, is a new field for the recruiting agent.

* * *

An Oxford undergraduate serving with the Royal Engineers in France gives the following account of a scene behind the British front :

“I went up as far as the entrance to the communication trenches and watched the wounded coming out. It was a sight I shall never forget. About one-fourth of the men coming out were Germans, wounded . . . the wounded and our wounded were straggling out, apparently the greatest friends. It was a fellowship bond of suffering, a brotherhood of pain.

Those who could walk were supporting those who could not. I saw two Germans, wounded, the one in the head, the other in the arm, supporting between them a Scottish soldier with a shrapnel wound in both thighs.”—”Daily Mail,” 13.10.15.

“Apparently the greatest friends. A fellowship bond of suffering.” Yes, possibly, until then they had never realised that they had had no quarrel, perhaps never met before ; but, alas, the trumpet-call had sounded, their masters had fallen out and were going to settle their differences by force of arms and they had been goaded to take sides in the dispute.

* * *

The increased rent campaign of a section of the masters serves a useful purpose in once again emphasizing the unique “oneness” of the nation in this its hour of suffering. In our perusal of the Press we notice that there is complete unanimity in this respect with the international master class. So strong is the pressure in some parts that we find the wives of the men who are fighting “our” battles so filled with righteous wrath and indignation that a deputation, accompanied by thousands of women, waited upon the Glasgow Corporation to protest against increases of rent. We are told that they carried a banner with the inscription :

“Our husbands, sons, and brothers are fighting the Prussians of Germany ; we are fighting the Prussians of Partick.”—”Daily Chronicle”,” 8.10.15.

Such pungent sarcasm as this was not allowed to go unnoticed and we find the matter raised in the House of Commons on the motion for adjournment, when a member stated that “this kind of thing (raising rent) is going to sow industrial discontent and unrest.”

* * *

A few days later in the columns of the same paper we find half-a-column devoted to the case of a woman in Germany, whose husband had been at the front since the beginning of the war, and who had received a letter from her landlord asking for the payment of the balance of her rent within 24 hours, otherwise steps would be taken. She had paid her rent regularly until two months ago, when bad health had overpowered her.

“Vorwaerts then points out to its readers that the woman’s husband has been fighting for more than a year to defend this landlord’s house, a man who is sitting at his ease in Berlin raking in his rents which have not been reduced by one pfennig. The shop-keepers also are charging the woman exorbitant prices for every necessary of life. Thanks to their skill in exploiting the poor and wretched, the woman got behind with her rent. She found it impossible to make both ends meet . . . and thereupon down comes this blood-sucker and threatens to throw her out of house and home. And all the time her husband, who was torn away from his work, is keeping the Watch on the Rhine and endangering his life for the Fatherland.—”Daily Chronicle,” 11.10.15.

We would once again reiterate the Marxian slogan: “Wage Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains, you have a World to win !

* * *

We have for months past received exhortations to economy from all quarters. Printing machines have been busily engaged turning out handbills and posters by the thousand adjuring us to eat less meat, to waste nothing, and be careful with our bread. Yet it is only about three years since that Lloyd George stated that: “You had got side by side with most extravagant wealth, multitudes of people who cannot consider ‘even a bare subsistence’ as assured to them. What do I mean by bare subsistence ? I don’t mean luxuries. I exclude even comforts. I mean that minimum of food, raiment, shelter, and practically the care which is essential to keep human life in its tenement of clay. The wolves of hunger prowl constantly round millions of doors in the land.”

Do our masters really imagine that the working class can do ought else than practise economy now, as ever, particularly bearing in mind that capitalist statisticians admit a 34 per cent. increase in the cost of living ? However, we have noticed during times past that things are vastly different with our bosses, as instance the following :

THE LORD MAYOR’S MENU

Turtle Clear Turtle

Fillets of Soles, Sauce Tartare

Mousses Lobster Casseroles of Partridge

Barons of Beef Capons Bechamel Smoked Tongues

Game Pies Orange Jellies Creams

Meringues

Maids of Honour Princess Pastry

Charlotte Russe

Ices Dessert

Wines.

“Daily Express,” 10.11.15.

We would suggest that practice is better than precept.

The Scout.

Editorial: Pills for Earthquakes. (1906)

Editorial from the August 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The President of the Local Government Board has made his long promised and (by some) eagerly anticipated statement upon unemployment and what the great democratic, progressive, etc., etc., etc. Liberal Government proposed as a solution for that vexatious problem. The introductory speech was, we understand, masterly. Probably. But it would require a speech a thousand times more masterly than the President is capable of, to obscure to even a poorly equipped mind, the real nature of the proposal made. The Liberal Party desire to burke discussion of the problem of unemployment. The Liberal Party will not because they cannot (although they must not, of course, admit that) take any more adequate steps in the matter than their predecessors in office. But the Liberal Party desire political kudos, because the Liberal Party require the support of the working class. Therefore, the Liberal Party must make a show of doing something so that the people may be deceived. That is where the President of the Local Government Board comes in. He has been hired to help make the show and deceive the people. That is his speciality ; his forte. Nobody with any political knowledge worth talking about questions that to-day. So the President makes a masterly speech. The Conservative Government were no use. They could not deal with the unemployed problem. They passed a stupid bill on the subject, which had been practically useless. Now, the Liberal Government of which I, the President, am a not unimportant member (loud “Labour” cheers) are up a different street. They know how to deal with the unemployed problem. But they do not propose dealing with it yet. They have not sufficient data to work upon. It would be highly dangerous if by any ill-advised step, the outcome of undoubted and overpowering sympathy with the genuine unemployed, the sturdy independence of the working man were sapped or Labour was rendered less instead of, as it should be, more fluid. Of course the Government recognised how hard was the struggle against starvation, and it was therefore proposed to make a great grant of money from the national exchequer, in order that the useless act of the Conservative Government might have a better chance of showing how really useless it is, while the Liberal Government are collecting more information upon which presently they will be able to proceed with certainty. The grant will be distributed under my own presidential direction, and I will guarantee that nothing will be wasted. This, aided by working-class thrift and temperance—especially temperance (Hear hear, from Mr. Crooks) should enable the unemployed to tide over next winter (sotto voce—or die in the attempt). The amount of the great grant would be £200,000 (Ministerial shrieks of delight) although I trust it will not be necessary to spend all that sum—and so on.

£200,000 to tide the unemployed over the winter ! Was ever such a palpable fraud perpetuated by any government ? Could any government have succeeded in foisting it upon a starving people without the assistance of a decoy like the President of the Local Government Board ? Indeed, the President is earning his salary well. He is giving good value for money. £200,000 to tide the unemployed over the winter ! All of them ! And Mr. Lansbury says a larger sum could easily be consumed in Poplar ! And the “Labour” group in Parliament puts up Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald to welcome the proposals, while Mr. Crooks is absolutely delighted, and says so. A fraud ! a palpable, bare-faced fraud ! Just the sort of fraud we expected. The Liberal Party can do nothing, but they must make a demonstration of doing something to save their face. And this is the something—this pill for an earthquake—expressly and obviously designed to put the whole matter off for a year. A fraud connived at by a “Labour” minister and condoned by a “Labour” Party. The working class have been gulled often in the past. It seems well-nigh incredible that they can be gulled this time.

Notes and Comments. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

WHY THE LABOUR PARTY IS A FAILURE.

THE PRINTING TRADES DISPUTE.

ASQUITH’S WHITEWASHERS.

Mr. Frank Smith has passed from the Salvation Army to the Labour Movement and from the Labour Movement to the Salvation Army until one hardly knows where he is at any given time. At present he appears to be in the Labour movement as the secretary of a side-tracking, self-appointed Committee, who advise the unemployed to deputise and to beg of their masters to recognise the “right” of their slaves to work, instead of pointing out that they, the slaves, should organise to end their slavery and establish their right to live. In this connection he has a bone to pick with the “Labour” Party in the House of Commons.

* * *

He complains that the “Labour” members are permitting, without protest, the Liberal Cabinet to fool with the unemployed question, and wonders what it is “that is sapping the fight out of the majority of the Labour members?” “What is it,” he asks, “that appears to be turning the lions into lambs ?” He suggests that they are forgetting that they are still agitators, with a wider platform and a greater opportunity to push the war into the camps of the enemy, and are attempting the role of “statesmen,” and adds that they will lose their way and get side-tracked, for the politicians can beat them at the game of bluff every time.

* * *

The Executive of Mr. Smith’s Committee includes G. N. Barnes, M.P., J. Keir Hardie, M.P., and J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P. Has Mr. Smith discussed the matter with his Executive or does the Committee merely consist of Mr. Smith, and the pretence of an Executive merely part of a “game of bluff” which Mr. Smith, as well as his “Labour” Party friends, play so well ?

* * *

Now why should the “Labour” M.P’s be expected to “put up a real fight in the House”? They were not elected to put up a fight. Men who will throw over their principles of independence in order to secure votes, as did so many of the few Labour members who ever professed any, are not going to make a fight against the very men with whom they made compacts at the General Election.

* * *

Take Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, for example. He made a compact with the Liberals of Leicester, because he was more anxious to get to the House of Commons than to fight the enemies of the working class. At the meeting at the Temperance Hall, Leicester, held on January 5th, where he was adopted, he expressed himself in hearty sympathy with the proposals of the government, as voiced by Sir H. Campbell Bannerman in his Albert Hall speech, and asked the working men of Leicester to use both votes in order that Mr. Broadhurst and himself might be returned. He explained that “both the L.R.C. and the Trades Council had declared against ‘plumping’ in order that every member might utilise both his votes to return two Progressives, and so promote the more urgently needed industrial reforms.” And the speech which he delivered after the poll was declared, quoted in our March issue, amply proves that he was returned to support the capitalist Liberal Government, not to put up a fight against it.

* * *

Then there is Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., who is also supposed to be one of the “independent” Labour M.P’s. There has hardly been a Liberal function of any importance since the General Election that Mr. Crooks has not attended. In April, for instance, he and his wife were present at a back-scratching banquet at the Trocadero, which included “some of the best known names in Liberal politics.” The Lord Chancellor presided, Dr. Macnamara and Mr. H. C. Lea, M.P., were the head cooks and bottle washers, John Burns and Lord Monkswell spoke, and Mr. James Stuart and Sir H. Campbell Bannerman sent their congratulations by letter. The speeches mainly concerned the “great Radical victory,” and many were the references to “the dark days from which Liberalism had just emerged.” Does any sane person expect that Mr. Crooks is going to “put up a real fight” against the exploiters whose hospitality he is so willing to accept ?

* * *

Of course, at this function Mr. Crooks did not preach about the evils of drinking, smoking and gambling. That he reserves for the class to which he once belonged. It is part of the decoy-duck game he is playing for the capitalists.

* * *

Then we have Mr. Will Thorne, M.P., now made a Justice of the Peace for the Borough of West Ham, in which capacity he will be called upon to punish those victims of the capitalist system who have offended against capitalist laws, passed to protect capitalist property and capitalist institutions. Mr. Thorne is a member of the S.D.F., who, no doubt, will claim that a “revolutionary Social Democrat” can serve the working class and at the same time serve in the capacity of a tool of the capitalist class. There is now no real difference between Burns and Thorne, excepting that Burns is well paid for his job and Thorne is one of the great unpaid.

* * *

I am here reminded of the words of Wilhelm Liebknecht: “A Socialist who goes into a bourgeois government, either goes over to the enemy or else puts himself in the power of the enemy. … He may claim to be a Socialist, but he is no longer such. He may be convinced of his own sincerity, but in that case he has not comprehended the nature of the class struggle—does not understand that the class struggle is the basis of Socialism.”

* * *

Before elected persons can put up a real fight they must be elected to do so, they must have a guiding principle and a definite policy. They must know what they want and how they must go to work to get it. And above all, they must have the knowledge that behind their actions lies the full strength of the electors who voted for them and the non-electors who also helped to return them. They must clear their minds of the fallacy that place necessarily means power for those claiming to represent the working class. That power can only come when the working class understand their position, and will return men as rebels. “No compromise” must be the watchword, and as the “Labour” M.P’s have not been returned as rebels, as they do not endeavour to enlighten the working class as to their position of wage slaves, as they merely hanker after reforms in a mild and quite respectable manner, they are useless to the working class, and therefore are, as they must be, a failure.

* * *

The dispute in the London Printing Trade has, apparently, only ended as far as the Compositors are concerned, and it is quite evident that in ending it the Compositors were guilty of two false moves—one in not recognising that the matter affected all the workers in the industry, and therefore that all should have been considered and consulted before any agreement was entered into, and another in falling so easily into the trap laid for them by the astute newspaper proprietors, who in future will form a separate employers’ organisation, apart from the Master Printers’ Association. If the Compositors were in a position to exact terms from the masters, they should have insisted that the cause of one employer should be considered the cause of all, that all the employers should join one and the same masters’ association, and thus action against one would have been action against all. The policy of the working class is to get all its enemies, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, into one body in front of it.

* * *

A great and enthusiastic throng gathered together at the National Liberal Club on Friday,June 16th to meet the members of the Government and to make merry over the Liberal victory. As might be expected, the Social Democratic Federation was represented—by Mr. A. E. Fletcher.

* * *

Mr. W. P. Byles has taken upon himself the whitewashing of Asquith, who, he claims, was in no way responsible for the murder of the Featherstone Miners. Against Mr. Byles’ opinion we have Asquith’s own avowal, previously quoted in these columns. It was made at Glasgow on the l7th October, 1893, and he said :—”In his character as Secretary of State for the Home Department, it had been his duty to take executive action in more than one of those cases for the maintenance of the law and for the prevention of disorder, and he accepted the full responsibility for everything that had been done.”

* * *

Of course, whatever Asquith’s whitewashers may say, Asquith is bound to take the responsibility. If he repudiated it, it would be tantamount to admitting that the Imperial troops could be ordered to murder in cold blood the Imperial workers, at the instance of a local capitalist, without the consent of the Executive Government. It is too much to expect a member of the Executive Government to plead that the Government does not control the Executive’s forces, and therefore Asquith takes the full responsibility. And glories in it, gloats over it, smiles in grim satisfaction at the thought that his class had so crushed the workers as to make it possible, without a protest, either from the workers outside or from the “Labour” Members who were then inside the House. They did not “put up a real fight” then, any more than the present “Labour” members will over questions which really concern the working class.

J. Kay

On Personalities. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A standing objection to us and our method of propaganda in press and on platform is that we are too personal. When all other criticism has been reasoned down, we can generally rely that our opponent for the time being will fling at us as the last word in the category of the objectionables—too personal. Generally, also, we get this dialectical missile hurtled at us as our worthy critic hastens without the reach of any reply we may wish to make—which provokes in what I endeavour shall be my exceedingly charitable mind, the thought that the objector is more concerned with scoring a point at our expense than with urging an argument for the sake of truth.

Nevertheless, I am aware that the same objection seriously influences some number of persons to regard us unfavourably, so that it may be worth while to occupy a little space in an enquiry into the validity and the value of the objection.

My endeavour will be to shew, not that we do not use what is called personalities, but that such personal references as we make are entirely unobjectionable and are, indeed, absolutely indispensable to the elucidation of the problems and the discussion of the questions we direct our attention to as a Socialist Party. Not, of course, that the use of personalities is peculiar to a Socialist Party. Every other body of propagandists, from the occupants of professional chairs dilating upon the wonders of a universe, to the denizens of a pot-house dilating upon the virtues of a particular brand of four ale ; from men of the standing of Ernst Haeckel to men of the lying of say, Dr. Torrey, all make the personal appeal, the personal reference, use the personal illustration. Even our friend the anti-personality man commits what he regards as the unpardonable sin in illustrating his objection by personal references to us. There is no subject under high heaven that can be discussed without personalities of one sort or another. We can hardly talk of the law of gravity without reference to Newton and without pointing our remarks upon the operation of the law by the illustration of the unfortunate men who have fallen out of balloons. Nor can we dissociate Darwin from evolution, Marx from the theory of value, Armour and Co. from the recently disclosed horrors of embalmed beef, “Labour” Leaders from political impotency and the cause of working-class confusion and so on. These are all personal references and should be, if our objector’s case is a good one, taboo. Does our objector agree ? So far as the first four cases are concerned probably he does, but he disagrees about the last mentioned. Which means that he is in favor of some personalities sometimes. Then where does he draw his line ? How does he discriminate ?

If I know my honest objector well (as I think I do), his protest is not against the use of personalities at all. It is against the unfair and the unnecessary use of them. And his idea of the unfair and unnecessary personality is that one which for certain reasons is distasteful to him. He is an admirer say of Will Crooks or John Burns. He thinks they are good men who are striving whole-heartedly for the benefit of the working class. And when we lump them together among the crowd of working-class enemies, he is indignant and declaims our use of personalities. But when in our examination of the workings of Capitalism we make denunciatory references to the pork packers of Chicago who are prepared to poison the proletariat for personal profit, he says “hear, hear,” and applauds vociferously.

Now why is this ? It is in the one case because he can appreciate enough of the facts to know that our personal references to Armour and Co. are fair and necessary and serve as a forceful illustration of our argument, while in the other the references are not fair or necessary, because he has not appreciated the facts. Yet we are continually placing on record facts in proof of our arguments against Burns and Crooks, who we hold are poisoning the minds of the proletariat. We make our personal references to them serve as illustrations in just the same way as our personal references to the poisoned pork packers.

Why does not our friend appreciate the facts as much in the one case as in the other ? Because in the case of Crooks or Burns he starts prejudiced in their favour and either will not listen to the facts at all, or dismisses them as personalities. Which simply means that he is in favor only of the personalities of approval so far as they are concerned and is in favor of the personalities of disapproval so far as we are concerned, because he usually stigmatizes us as “personality” purveyors of an objectionable type. But be it observed he approves the use of personalities in any case.

The same thing applies to our references to the I.L.P., the S.D.F. and similar bodies or members of similar bodies. It is frequently urged that we may and should go on our way preaching our gospel, regardless entirely of such men and organisations. But this is just as impossible as the omission of references to the individuals whose names are inextricably intermixed with such subjects as Evolution would be, were we discussing those subjects. As a Socialist Party, we have to face and deal with a doleful mass of working-class ignorance. To do so we have to face and deal with what we regard as contributing factors to working-class ignorance such as the organizations and individuals named. In their case we have the greater incentive because their existence is known of in every district that we can reach in our national propaganda work and we are, therefore, the more urgently called upon to shew cause why we, making for the goal which they too are ostensibly working toward, are yet dissociated from them. Moreover, even if it were possible to drop them from our consideration entirely, we should be discarding the potent illuminating force to be obtained from personal reference. Anything that may be fairly used to illustrate our argument and emphasise our attitude, should be utilised. We should be failing in our duty to our class were we to omit to do so. We should most certainly be voluntarily weakening ourselves as propagandists and to that extent should be defeating our own purposes. Incidentally we should be laying ourselves open also to the charge of cowardice from those who, knowing of the existence of these other bodies, observe that we studiously avoid tackling them.

Very well. The position narrows itself to this : personalities, so far from being objectionable, are proper and necessary, so long as they are fair. A fair personality is one which expresses that which can be substantiated as true. If any objector thinks he has a case against us he must, therefore, shew that our personal references are unfair because they are untrue. If he can find any such and will point them out to us and so prove his objection, we, for our part will be very ready to withdraw and apologise. So far as I am aware, no such unfair reference has been made by members of this Party. If it has, I am quite confident that the Party will immediately repudiate it. We are out to speak the truth as we know it to the end that the working class knowing the truth may organize upon a sound basis and proceed along right lines towards their emancipation.

That is our business. Simply that and nothing more, and if in the process we come full tilt against the words or the deeds of the heroes of our good friend the conscientious objector to personalities, I hope that, before he stultifies himself by launching the personality of opprobrium against us, he will carefully weigh with what of calm, cool dispassionate discrimination he may, the facts and the argument which we adduce in support of our attitude. Then he will be the better able to judge whether we deserve dismissal from his or any other’s consideration. In any case, I am sure a fair attention to this little screed will induce him to regard his objection to the use of personalities with rather less favor than at present.

Agra.

Editorial: The Social Ladder. (1906)

Editorial from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard 

 

“Those who were at the top of the social ladder, or half-way up, must help those who were at the bottom. If they did not do so they must expect that some day the ladder would be pulled away.” W. Crooks, 4/5/06.

The first part of the pronouncement is quite up to the Crooks standard, and assumes, like the statement familiar to every school-boy that “every lad can become a Lord Chancellor if he likes,” that there is plenty of room for everybody on top of the social ladder. Which even the school-boy himself, to-day, recognises as the acme of absurdity. The idea of Society being likened to a ladder at all is confusing. It presupposes that the whole of Society is on the ladder, whereas the fact is that the bulk of Society forms the base upon which the ladder rests. Even social ladders must be planted on something. Only infinitesimal fragments of Society occupy the rungs, fragments which grow smaller by degrees and beautifully less the higher they get. Clearly, therefore, the fragments on the ladder could not help any appreciable portion of the bulk below into a more elevated position because to do so would render the base upon which the ladder rests exceedingly unstable and the position of the fragments most unhappily precarious And even if this were not so it would be quite palpably impossible to assist any notable number on to the bottom rungs already overcrowded, without pushing off some of those already on or forcing them higher; and as the economy of ladders precludes the possibility of any overweight at the top, the fragments of Society already there must be unceremoniously cuffed or pushed off by those forced up from below or the whole ladder must lose its balance and come toppling to the ground. Therefore the main concern of those on top, as well as those on the lower rungs, is to prevent the base from shifting.

We do not think Mr. Crooks is so desperately baffle-headed as not to understand that. As a matter of fact he makes it fairly apparent that he does understand in the last part of his remark. If those who are on the ladder do not help those at the bottom they must not be surprised if presently the ladder itself is pulled away.

Precisely. And the exact difference between Mr. Crooks and ourselves is that we are out to pull the ladder away by inciting the working-class at the base to view it as not less than an unmitigated nuisance at the best and as a crushing burden at the worst, a ladder up which they cannot climb anyhow, while Mr. Crooks is out to inspire the working-class at the base with the idea that the ladder is a great institution up which they may climb if they are good and virtuous, what time he points out to those on the ladder that if they are to maintain their position they must fill the working-class base with the idea that they (the ladder persons) are very sympathetic and only anxious to lend a hand to help them (the working class base) up the rungs. In other words Mr. William Crooks, M.P., like his friend, Mr. John Burns, M.P., is playing a double game.

Land Nationalisation. (1906)

From the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the 25th Annual Meeting of the Land Nationalisation Society held last month, Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., said he had fought his own election almost entirely on the land question. Mr. Will Crooks also spoke as did Mr. Franklin Thomasson, Mr. A. H. Scott and other Liberal M.P’s.

Editorial: Impotence or Impudence? (1905)

Editorial from the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The working-class may well pray to be delivered from their friends, for those “friends” are evidently determined that, so far as it is possible for them to compass it, the working-class shall remain in that condition of mental darkness and confusion to which is traceable their present inertia and indifference to those prime and fundamental causes of proletarian misery upon which we who form The Socialist Party of Great Britain are endeavouring to focus their attention as the indispensable preliminary to that Social Revolution which alone can effect any material and lasting benefit for them. The month of November seems to have been particularly favourable to the production of astounding examples of muddled reasoning on the part of these “friends” who, because the working-class are largely ignorant, have been permitted to foist themselves into the position of leaders. Of themselves these exhibitions of fatuous baffle-headedness or calculated deception and treachery—whichever it is—would only invoke hilarity or contempt, but unfortunately their authors have secured a standing of considerable prominence, so that it becomes necessary for those who know the truth and who are earnestly desirous that the working-class should awaken to an appreciation of their powers and opportunities, to dissociate themselves as forcefully as possible from such utterances and actions, and to expose their impotence and impudence.

Consider the case of the women’s deputation to Balfour, that event which recently attracted so much notice. These unhappy women of the working-class in their “looped and windowed” raggedness are prevailed upon to parade their pathetic poverty, not be it noted in menace, but in order that the pitiable pathos of their position may move the hearts of those who batten upon their misery and whose very existence is dependent upon the continuance of an impoverished proletariat. And these women are inspired to depute a number of their fellows to wait upon a capitalist minister to beg that something he done for them lest they utterly perish. Yet the leaders of this deputation subsequently confess their full knowledge of the futility of such an appeal !

It is true that one at least of them has endeavoured to justify the action on the ground that otherwise the workers would not believe that nothing can he obtained from the capitalist class. But this same leader at the same time admits that he has headed similar deputations for 20 years ! How many more years then will he be content to follow such methods ? Surely he has sense enough to see that the working-class are hardly more alive to the fact he wishes to impress upon them than they ever were. And surely his knowledge is not so limited that he cannot understand that this continued ignorance is to some considerable extent due to the fact that he and his fellow misleaders have omitted to tell the whole truth in the past. Then by what name shall we call him if he is prepared to inflict still further pain and disappointment upon those whose misery is even now greater than they can hear ?

If those who, knowing the truth, have failed to speak it ; if those who should have educated the workers have occupied their time mainly in deluding them, it is small wonder if the ignorance is as great and the working-class conditions as bad as they have ever been. How many more years we ask will these leaders be content to play the game of the fool ? Or is it that they are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth after having told other than the truth for so long ?

It is small wonder, we repeat, that the working-class mind is muddled when we have, to take another horrible example, a member of the highly cultured middle class (as he describes himself) like Mr. Hyndman, who, while urging that Socialists should do all the harm they possibly can to Liberalism, affirms that Socialists are prepared to support Liberals in their efforts to put on the statute books certain reform measures which, in the next breath, Mr. Hyndman himself admits will not affect the working-class in whose interests he claims he is working. If this is an example of Mr. Hyndmau’s high culture, we can do without it, just as we can do without the logic of a Robert Blatchford, who, while rightly condemning the absurdity of the action of the unemployed leaders in arranging deputations which it is foreknown must be fruitless, argues that the thing to do is to ensure the return of a large number of labour members to the House of Commons at the next election. Mr. Blatchford knows quite well that the Labour members already elected to the House of Commons are precisely the persons who are concerned with the arrangement of absurd deputations—men like Mr. W. Crooks, a rump Radical, who holds that because certain monied persons are contributing infinitesimal fractions of the wealth they have robbed the working-class of to relief funds for the unemployed, the rich and the poor are beginning to work hand-in-hand ; or like Mr. Keir Hardie, who, while denying the existence of a class war and preaching, for the mollification of the conscience of non-conformity, and for his own election to political position, the necessity of the gospel of love as the only method by which happiness may be ensured to all, argues in another connection and for another purpose, that the working-class must inspire the capitalist-class with fear, must compel them by sheer terrorism to let go their grip before they can hope to achieve their purpose.

These are some of the men and some of the influences we have to combat in order that the clear issue may be presented to the working-class to which we belong. And whatever epithet of opprobrium these men or others may coin to belittle our efforts and to retard the spread of our views, we shall persist with our propaganda by all the means at our disposal, in the full confidence that ultimately our class must adopt our attitude if they would work out their own emancipation from the thraldom imposed by capitalist and landlord domination.

Editorial: The Folly of Fools. (1905)

Editorial from the November 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

In common with most other London and Suburban districts, Poplar has an unemployed problem—somewhat more acute, perhaps, in the neighbourhood of Poplar, but the same problem that afflicts every industrial centre of every capitalist country in the world, and, because capitalism is impossible without this out-of-work army, that will continue to afflict until production is organised for the use of the producer as distinguished from the profit of the non-producer, as at present. But the affairs of Poplar, being in the hands of progressive gentlemen—practically Socialists as we are informed—it follows that, in real or feigned ignorance of the inevitability of unemployment, the public progressive persons of Poplar are making efforts to solve the, under present conditions, insolvable. Their methods as compared with those of other borough councillors are, however, sensational. They want, and in this respect they are just ordinary, Mr. Balfour to call a special Parliamentary session to deal with the question—although what that amiable apostle of culture could do is not clear. Mr. Balfour, apparently, is not inclined to do anything of the sort. Whereupon our Poplar worthies spring into a great notoriety by asking that the King himself shall hear their requisition, the which the “little father,” being a moderately wideawake gentleman, agrees to. The humble and loyal representations are duly made and most graciously received (the little mother smiling sympathetically the while) and—passed back to the amiable Balfour ! Whereat Poplar is delighted, Mr. and Mrs. Crooks are photographed in the act of smiling their pleasure, the Mayor walks on his heels, bearing himself proudly, and the unemployed take in their belts another hole and look hopelessly and shudderingly ahead to the rigors of a winter that threatens to be even longer and more bitter than usual. 

Well, it is useless to bemoan the abysmal ignorance that will forever follow in the wake of folly. We can only proclaim to those whom our voices will reach and who have ears to hear, that there is no hope for the working-class until they cease appealing and appealing and appealing for what they may take when they will. We can only repeat and repeat and repeat that there is no hope for the working-class until they have understood and have themselves taken over the means by which they may produce the things necessary to their life and happiness. It may seem a cold and comfortless answer to give the appeal of huddled misery crying aloud for “something now.” But it is not. It is a message charged with hope and a great possibility—if only the workers will listen. It is a message that will bring the “something now”—if only the workers will listen. For, as we have so often urged, and as every indication goes to show, “something now” is never conceded except out of the fear of the possessing class. And no greater fear can be bred in their hearts than that of an intelligent working-class after the means of life upon the ownership of which the power of the capitalist depends. At present the workers are asking for crumbs as a charity, and they got the equivalent of nothing. Let them demand the whole loaf as a right and show behind their demand a determination that will not be denied and the “something now” will surely materialize. The message of the S.P.G.B. indicates the only path that can be followed for the attainment of the “something now” or the whole loaf of presently.

Tribunes of the People. (1905)

From the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

To those who follow the sequence of political events with anything like interest, the extraordinary mental muddle manifested by some of the men whom the L.R.C. are content to pay at the rate of £200 per annum (200 dirty pieces of gold as the chairman of their group, Mr. John Burns, has so amiably phrased it) in connection with the Unemployed Bill, cannot have escaped notice. Before it passed the Commons Mr. Keir Hardie rose to explain that he had no hope, personally, that the bill could be of any use whatever, but as Mr. Crooks was somewhat sanguine in the matter he would be prepared to support it.

After the Bill had passed, Mr. Crooks is reported as having given it as his opinion that he was afraid the Bill was of no practical utility. So that Mr. Hardie supported the Bill knowing that it was useless because Mr. Crooks thought it wasn’t, and Mr. Crooks supported the Bill because he thought it was of some use and only afterwards found it wasn’t. Of the two which laid himself open to the greater censure—Mr. Hardie for voting against his knowledge on the recommendation of a man who apparently had no knowledge, or Mr. Crooks for voting on a subject requiring knowledge before first of all obtaining that knowledge ?

Cuttings and comments. (1905)

From the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Every man born on the soil of England had a right to claim work.” Thus the Lord Bishop of Ripon. But who disputes the right to claim ? Certainly not the Bishop’s friends of the capitalist-class. Why indeed should they ? The more men claiming the keener the competition and the lower the wages. Now if every man born on the soil of England put in a claim for the whole product of his toil and refused to allow the capitalist to non-suit the claim, there might, it is true, still be unemployment, but only because the worker would not require to work so hard nor so often. And as he would receive all the wealth he produced, there would be none left for my Lord Bishop, who would perforce have to work himself.

—o—

William Sotting, aged 74, shot himself, having been forced to the conclusion that “Old men are like old dogs, and ought to be shot when they are past work.” According to the dictum of American capitalism, when a man reaches the age of 40 he should be taken out and shot as useless for further profit-making. Here is a case in which the views of exploiter and exploited coincide. Ergo, there is no class war as Keir Hardie would say!

—o—

Referring to certain Trade Union amendments which he had heard were to be moved to the Government “Unemployed” Bill—that unqualified absurdity in which the S.D.F. have claimed their influence is apparent—the writer of the labour column in the Echo says: “It seems to be quite certain that Mr. Balfour will consent to none of these amendments, and, what is more, a Liberal Government would not assent to them either.” As the attitude of both Liberal and Tory Governments towards labour is the same, the Echo writer has doubtless spoken truly, although in speaking truly he is not following the precedent set by other Liberal scribes whose business it is to induce Trade Unionists to lend their support to Liberalism, on the ground that Liberalism is infinitely better than Toryism. If he gives the game away so inartistically, the Echo writer we fear, will not for long remain unacquainted with the order of the sack.

—o—

Mr. William Crooks, M.P., L.C.C, has been talking again, this time to a World interviewer. “There is no snobbish or social distinction when once you get inside the House of Commons” he says; only “wonderful and splendid kindness” for Labour members apparently. He did not add “so long as they do as their capitalist fellow members want them to do,”—the addendum necessary to make the statement entirely true.

—o—

Mr. Crooks also has a remedy for the overpopulation of cities and the misery resulting from unemployment. He unburdened himself of it to the World man thus :

“It is to be found on the land, the mother of us all. You go through England and see what vast stretches of beautiful and uncultivated soil there are. Why don’t some of these wealthy landowners say : ‘Hang it all, I will give up some acres or so to these poor under-fed devils, shove up some tin houses and train them in agriculture’ ? They are no good at first. They hardly know the difference between a brick and a lump of clay. But they can learn, and they can quickly pick up their strength, and turn into good farm labourers, worth their 2s. 6d. a day in England and their 6s. 6d. a day in Canada. The experiment has been tried on a small scale and has proved successful. But we leave it to the hobby of an American philanthropist, and our own wealthy classes won’t lend a hand.”

This “remedy,” though couched in unpolished and homely phraseology, hath an ancient and fishlike smell. We seem to have heard of the “shove ’em back on the land” cure, as Mr. Crooks would say, before. It is much the same as the reafforestation (or firewood manufacture) cure favoured by other ”Labour Leaders,” and pre-supposes capitalist production without a large army of unemployed. Which, as the youngest of economic fledglings would be able to show, is ridiculous. Mr. Crooks should read more and talk less.

—o—

” A Rose by any other name—

“A woman applied to Mr. Rose at the Tower Bridge Police Court for a pair of boots for her young daughter from the funds of the poor box. In refusing the application, Mr. Rose said he was averse to giving boots in the summer because he did not consider them as a necessity. Children could go to school without boots, especially this weather, or with canvas shoes, which could be bought for a shilling, or slippers.”

—o—

Mr. Rose is no doubt a most worthy person, and has spoken according to his lights. If his lights are not very bright or his sympathy with working-class want not over strong, the fault is not his. The brutality of his indifference simply reflects the training he has received, the atmosphere he has moved in from his youth up. It is a not unusual expression of the callous cult of capitalism.

—o—

Mr. Rose is not to blame, but his reply to the woman asking for boots is strongly reminiscent of the reply of Foullon, of unsavory memory, of whom it is recorded that, in the days which preceded the French Revolution, he replied to the people who cried aloud for bread that they should eat grass. Foulon was the product his time and was not to blame. But his latter end found Foullon hanging from a lamp-post his mouth stuffed full of his grass.

—o—

Philosophic dissertations upon individual responsibility—or lack of it—have no great weight with the ill-educated striking against oppressive conditions. They personify the causes of their misery, and the persons selected are generally those who have been most brutally indifferent to the unhappiness of their position, or who have in some other manner been associated with the maintenance of the system spelling oppression : at these they strike.

—o—

We do not pretend to view this method of striking with favour. We are in existence as a political party in order to educate the working-class so that they may strike effectively at the ballot box without having recourse to the lamppost. The lamp-post has had its day. But the representative of capitalism who speaks as Mr. Rose has spoken, is none the less in a dangerous position, because he emphasizes the existence of the gulf which yawns between his class and the oppressed and poverty-stricken working-class, and so helps to prepare the material out of which the Socialist Party will fashion the weapon that shall presently sweep capitalism out of existence altogether—the weapon of a class-conscious, well organised, working class. Mr. Rose is therefore in the dangerous position of contributing to the destruction of the form of society upon which his position depends.

A. J. M. Gray

A Look Round. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

An appeal to the possessors of this world’s goods and chattels has been issued, signed by a peculiar collection of side-trackers, amongst them the Countess of Kinnoul, the Hon Claude Hay, Mrs. Clara Hendin, and Mr. George Lansbury. These good people have discovered that the employment of working-class mothers to the detriment of their children is an evil. Do they therefore propose to abolish the capitalist system which produces the evil ?—to stir up the mothers and other members of the working-class to revolt, so that they can establish the Co-operative Commonwealth and properly provide for all, grown-ups as well as children ? No, my friends, As the appeal states, they are “Social Reformers.” The aristocratic and middle-class of them desire to show the working-class how the hearts of the upper-class beat in sympathy for the sufferings of the lower-class, and how much they are willing to do to brighten the lives of the poor. As usual, they have been cute enough to secure the help of some members of the working-class, and as soon as the funds come in Model Day Nurseries will be established.

* * *

And as soon as possible after they are in working order, and mothers are relieved of the cost of providing for their children during the day time, the wily capitalist will seize the opportunity to reduce the wages of the women.

* * *

Well, we suppose the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. can assist the employing-class to “humanise” the conditions of capitalism, if they wish. We prefer to devote our energies to changing the system. That is why we claim to be the only revolutionary party in this country.

* * *

“We cannot find much to say for a Bill which looks suspiciously like a quack remedy for the present industrial disease.”

* * *

Thus the Tory People about the Government’s Unemployed Bill, which Keir Hardie and other Labour “Leaders” are so anxious that the House shall pass. It is this thing which Hardie must know is a quack remedy that he advises the Unemployed not to endanger by marching on London !

* * *

The “tactics” question has reached an acute stage in America, in connection with the Spring elections in Milwaukee. According to Wilshire’s Magazine, the Socialist Party there, upon a referendum vote, has decided not to contest these elections, as has hitherto been its custom. Victor Berger, recently their candidate for Mayor, explains that it is merely a judicial election, and doesn’t count for much ; and anyway the party can, by casting its vote for one of the old party candidates defeat one of the other old party candidates, a man who is strongly “anti-Socialist.”

* * *

In comment the Editor of Wilshire’s writes :— “Inasmuch as I had supposed that all non-Socialist party candidates look alike to us Socialists, all in our eyes being ‘anti-Socialist,’ I hardly see the logic of Mr. Berger’s position. When the fall elections come round Mr. Berger may have trouble leading all of his Milwaukee flock back out of the old party ranks into the fold of Socialism. His tactics are most dangerous and are calculated to destroy the solidarity of our Socialist political movement.”

* * *

Well said, Mr. Wilshire. It is precisely because we of the S.P.G.B. take up a similar position that we are denounced by the would-be political wire-pullers of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. as “Ishmaelites,” “Impossiblists,” etc. But we hold that “straight” tactics are best, at all times. A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.

* * *

After Mr. Berger’s reply, however, Mr. Wilshire says:— “There may be no objection to Socialists voting for capitalist candidates when the Socialist Party has no nominee” ! We admit that “may” is different to “can,” but surely, in the comments quoted above, Mr. Wilshire has given the best possible reasons why such a course should not be pursued. And so we “hardly see the logic” of Mr. Wilshire’s position.

* * *

“Socialists demand the abolition of the system of competition and the private ownership in its entirety, and are in politics to voice this demand, and not merely to get through any particular reform, even if that reform is so good and soundly Socialistic as municipal control of street railways. The Goddess lost the race by stooping to pick up the golden apple. The apple was good and beautiful enough, but it was not worth the losing of the race. This is the Socialist position regarding municipal ownership, the referendum, and other side issues. All good enough in their way, but not good enough for us to break up our Party and let go of Socialism to chase after them.”—Wilshire’s Magazine.

* * *

At the Annual Dinner of the Woolwich Chamber of Commerce last month, Mr. Hugh Montgomery (Conservative candidate) proposed the toast of “The Houses of Parliament,” and coupled with it the name of Mr. Will Crooks, M.P. In reply Mr. Crooks said that in the House of Commons there was a comradeship which was comparatively unknown in any other gathering elsewhere. In the tea room could be seen the Prime Minister chatting with the humble “Labour” member. The labour members were very much like the Chamber of Commerce, they “looked after the interests of the whole community.” And so on, only more so. And this is the man whom the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. delight to support.

* * *

Mr. J. R. Clynes, Organising Secretary of the Gasworkers’ Union, has publicly denied the statement made in the Executive Report of the S.D.F., submitted to the Annual Conference at Northampton, that W. Thorne, at South West Ham, is one of the Parliamentary candidates for whom the S.D.F. is financially responsible. He states that Thorne is a candidate promoted by the Gas-workers’ Union, which makes itself responsible, the members paying a quarterly contribution to a Parliamentary Fund, on conditions similar to the other candidates endorsed by the L.R.C.

* * *

As we pointed out in our November issue, W. Thorne, acting upon the instructions of his Trade Union paymasters, has signed the constitution of the L.R.C., and is running as a “Labour” candidate accordingly. But the S.D.F. still claim him as “their” candidate (and they are quite welcome to him as far as we are concerned) and mislead their members into believing that he is running as a “definitely avowed Social-Democrat” as required by the Rules of the S.D.F. Pie-crust !

* * *

It will be remembered that a few issues ago we drew attention to the illogical position of the S.D.F. in opposing Mr. Masterman at North West Ham in face of the fact that at Dulwich Mr. J. Hunter Watts had voted for him and urged the local S.D.F. to do likewise. We contended that the reasons which were given for opposing Dr. Rutherfoord Harris by supporting Masterman could be urged against Ernest Gray at West Ham. Last month Dr. Rutherfoord Harris addressed a crowded meeting of his constituents at the Denmark Hill Schools, and his principal supporter upon the platform was Mr. Ernest Gray ! Are our S.D.F. friends still unrepentant?

* * *

An interesting article on “James Farley, Strike-Breaker” has appeared in the Times. Not many years ago, it says, the need of a job constrained Farley to join the crowd of “blacklegs” in a strike at Brooklyn. After this was over, he devised a scheme for keeping in touch with “blacklegs,” and it is said that he has today on his books nearly 40,000 names. He perfects his arrangements for breaking a strike to such a degree that, at the moment when the employees of the elevated and underground railways of New York came out on strike recently, Farley had on the spot a man to fill nearly every deserted post, and within three days it was generally recognised that the strikers were beaten. Farley is considered to be a very wealthy man now, as the result of his operations, and. we fear he will amass much more wealth before the workmen of America recognise the futility of the Strike, as now understood, and make up their minds to strike at the ballot box—not merely for shorter hours and higher wages, but for the abolition of the wage system by the substitution of public for private ownership, democratic for class control, and production for use for production for profit.

* * *

In the article referred to the Times says that “labour troubles in Chicago mean war.” And they mean war everywhere. A war in which the employing class are ever ready to use the maxim gun and the magazine rifle, the gatling and the gunboat, and, in fact, all the death-dealing forces of Christian Civilization against the men, women, and children of the working-class. And while even the Times admits that this war exists, the leaders of the I.L.P., when it suits them, deny it.

* * *

The Co-operative Small Holdings Society has issued an appeal for funds to enable it to carry on its work. Now it is indisputable that the land must play a very vital part when the reorganisation of our economic system is under consideration, but evidently this society, to quote a phrase used by Sir William Harcourt concerning the Liberal Party, “has no revolutionary schemes.” It appears to be merely desirous of establishing the labourer, as such, more firmly on the soil, because “it is proved that in the few districts where allotments and Small Holdings are numerous, farmers have less difficulty in securing labourers.” It therefore proposes “to supply a ladder whereby the agricultural labourer or artizen may rise from the cultivation of a small allotment to the occupation of a holding capable of contributing materially to the support of himself and his family.”

* * *

It will be noticed that the Society does not aim at providing a Holding which will be capable of entirely supporting the holder, and the position seems to work out somewhat in this way. The provision of allotments and small holdings on a large scale will enable landowners to obtain more for their land than otherwise and secure the presence of a large supply of labour in districts where at present it is scarce. The Holdings will not suffice for the sustenance of the holder and his family, therefore, he must sell his labour-power to the farmer. But his holding will partly sustain him, so that he can accept a lower wage. But if he has to work for the farmer he can only labour on his own holding either before commencing his wage labour or after finishing it for the day. The nett result to him therefore is that his hours of labour are greatly increased, his rate of wages is decreased, to the advantage of the farmer. This being so, it is clear that Allotments and Small Holdings offer no solution of the agricultural problem. We shall return to this matter, but cannot refrain from asking why, amongst others, the names of Joseph Hyder, Percy Alden, J. R. MacDonald, and Fred Maddison appear in the list of supporters of the Society. Why should they strive to increase the landlord’s rent, the farmer’s surplus-value, and the labourer’s hours ?

* * *

At a Conference held on Saturday last at the Passmore Edward’s Settlement to consider the Unemployed Bill, Mr. J. Hunter Watts represented the S.D.F. He characterised the Bill as a wretched one, but it was better than none, and for that reason he hoped it would be passed.

* * *

Oh! what a falling off is here ! It is not merely a case of half a loaf being better than no bread, but even of the distant prospect of a crumb being better than half a loaf. Which shows how easy it is to tread the downward path when once a start is made.

* * *

Speaking at the Town Hall, East Ham, yesterday week, H. Quelch stated that he had no sympathy with the working man because at one time he voted Conservative and at another Liberal. Well, this is precisely what the S.D.F. has advised him to do at different times

J. Kay

Jottings. (1913)

The Jottings Column from the April 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

What an ungrateful world this is ! Bearing in mind the fact that it is the workers who provide the capitalists with the wealth they batten upon, one would almost suppose that the capitalists would, in a measure, be grateful for the service rendered to them, if only to the extent of giving them a decent wage in return. And so they would, no doubt, did they not know that the workers as a class are not yet wise to the game. As it is, knowing that they hold full possession of the power (again provided by the workers) whereby they can keep the workers in subjection, they are prepared to exercise it to any extent in order to maintain it. Not only do they grind their victims down to the uttermost limit of degradation, but they seek to make it appear that they are doing them (the workers) a service in allowing them to live at all !

We, as wealth producers, are expected to be grateful to them for the privilege of producing wealth, in order to hand it over to them !

And how particular they are, too ! They will insist on having the best even in buying labour power. They are connoisseurs, too, in the art of picking and choosing. Whenever a job is to be given, members of our class are paraded and eyed up and down, just for all the world like a lot of prize cattle. Those of us who are lucky (!) enough to have a job lose our personality (if we ever had any) immediately we get it, and respond to a number or a section the same as convicts.

* * *

One of the latest devices for improving this system has just come to light. It is used for particularising applicants for employment at the Board of Trade Labour Exchanges and is in connection with the working of Part 2 of the Insurance Act. This, by the way, is only one feature of the Insurance Act.

When a man presents himself to sign the unemployed register, it is said a clerk surveys him up and down and jots down by the side of his name a capital letter in accordance with a code they possess, the key to which is herewith furnished.

A.—Greyhaired.

B.—Slightly deaf.

C.—Very deaf.

D.—Tidily dressed.

E.—Untidily dressed.

F.—Down at heel.

G.—Generally unfit.

H.—Fringe at bottom of trousers.

I.—Insolent bearing.

J.—Slouchy gait.

K.—Over garrulous.

L.—Seedy appearance.

M.—Unkempt appearance.

N.—Smart appearance.

O.—Intelligent face.

No sign of gratitude here to the wealth producers—rather one of shameless cunning and insult. No sign here of the repeated promise of the Liberal tricksters to end the misery of unemployment. No ! When it comes to the process of still further weeding out the poor devils who have once before been weeded out, it is an indication that the struggle between the producers and the non producers is reaching its most acute stage. Factors such as these sound an ominous note. There are rumblings in the air. A little longer and then—Mr. Capitalist, look out !

* * *

Another “self-made” man has gone over. According to the effulgences which have lately appeared in the Press, Sir William Arrol “was essentially a self made man, owing nothing to patronage, and conquered by his own sheer indomitable will, which raised him from the humblest ranks to the most exalted position in the profession of engineering.”

Dear, dear ! Just mark what this most wonderful man accomplished. “The chief triumphs of Sir Wm. Arrol’s genius were the construction of the second Tay Bridge, the Forth Bridge, the Tower Bridge, and the Nile bridges near Cairo.”

As he “owed nothing to patronage” we must assume that he did it all himself—for sport. There is no mention made of anyone giving him a lift with the job, except in the case of the Forth Bridge, when King Edward drove home the last of 6 million rivets.

Perhaps he was a magician !

* * *

In these days of capitalist sorcery one has to be prepared for anything. If someone comes along with an invention that will do away with the necessity for eating it will not be in the least surprising. As it is we are getting on that way now. If report speaks truly it will shortly be possible for the worker to remain at his task for an indefinite period. A Doctor Morton, of the State Psychopathic Hospital, Mass., has invented a substitute for sleep which permits the brain to work 24 hours a day !

The invention consists of a scientifically constructed chair in which one can rest while following his occupation (if a seated one), and in which all mental and bodily vigour is maintained. A professor who has experimented on it over a number of years has never found it necessary to close his eyes !

Phew ! Once get this going and the jig’s up ! However, it’s an ill wind that blows good to nobody. Apply the invention to our industrial system and the eight hours question is solved right away. There won’t be any !

* * *

Following upon the agitation some time ago for better conditions in the Postal Service, a Committee of Enquiry was appointed to enquire into and report upon the existing conditions of the various services in connection with the Post Office. Prominent among those who gave evidence was Sir Alexander King, the Secretary to the Post Office and Head of the Department. Obviously his purpose was to gloss over the bad conditions, and also to rebut any evidence that might damage the Department.

Now, mark ! Quite recently the Postmen’s Federation held a social at Beckenham at which their Parliamentary Secretary and Labour candidate, Mr. G. H. Stuart, presided. The honoured guest of the evening, who was received with loud applause, was—Sir Alexander King !

* * *

In connection with the recent bye-election at Houghton, the Liberal Press a few days prior thereto pointed out the farcical position of a Liberal and a Labour candidate fighting in the same contest when both stood for the same thing. It certainly is very funny, though not surprising.

The Labour candidate (Ald. House) says : “The Labour Party agrees with every item in the programme of the Liberal Party.”

The “Manchester Guardian” (12.3.13) says : “Mr. House is taking his stand at this election on the same ground as the Liberal candidate,” and goes on to complain that the Labour candidate is altering his political dress more and more to match the Liberal pattern !

Of course it must be aggravating when a chap comes along and queers the pitch. After all, though, haven’t the Liberals the best of the game ? Have they not two representatives to the Tories’ one ?

* * *

The “Labour Leader” is now mildly protesting against the too frequent appearance of Labour M.P.s on Liberal platforms. It has been quite the fashion, lately. “Everybody’s doing it.” It’s all right once in a way, but don’t over do it, you know ! Gives the game away.

Mr. W. Johnson has been unusually busy. He supported the Liberals at Coventry on the occasion of a demonstration on January 24 and on March 1 he opened a Liberal club. On March 6 he attended the annual dinner of the Bolton Liberal Club, where he informed his pals that he had given the Government his loyal support. “I am not going to be dictated to as to where I shall go,” he said, “and I would not refrain from being amongst you to-night.” There is nothing like candour !

Both Mr. Crooks and Mr. Bowerman supported the “Progressive” candidates in various wards last month, despite the fact that candidates were running under the auspices of the B.S.P., and who had, in Bow and Bromley, the support of the Gasworkers’ Union. Thus we find them in opposition to their own kind !

I don’t know that Mr. Crooks is to be blamed altogether, for he has always displayed a cringing servility toward his “betters.” Politically he is blind. As a platform orator he has a habit of putting his foot in his mouth every time he opens it, as, for instance, when he was seeing Mr. J. Ramsay McDonald off to India he admitted that “sometimes in looking up to heaven we stumble over the log that is at our feet and come a cropper because we don’t see where we are going !”

Tom Sala

A Look Round. (1904)

From the December 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those nose-poking busybodies who constitute the Charity Organisation Society have recently employed themselves enquiring into the question of other people’s unemployment and have issued an exhaustive report on the matter. They have discovered that pauperism and vagrancy are increasing continuously and that there is a large, unskilled, unorganised mass, many of whom are unemployable, if that word can be taken to mean that they have come to dislike long periods of continuous labour, and are often, in bodily strength and temperament, unfit for it.

* * *

At first sight this looked as if the C.O.S. were indulging in the prevailing fashion and attacking the “smart set,” but as probably some of the Society belong to that set they would hardly cry “stinking fish.” The report contains a number of recommendations which may be summed up in more committees, more classification, better organisation of charity and a further enquiry and report. And if all these recommendations are adopted the unemployed problem will be untouched because the cause of the unemployment lies deeper than these people have ever poked. When it is solved by the only way, a reorganisation of our industrial system, well-fed unemployed like the members of the C.O.S. will find circumstances somewhat altered.

* * *

Charity, whether organised or unorganised, exists because some folk have more than they need and others need more than they have. In a country where labour applied to natural objects can produce more than sufficient for everybody, such a state is unnecessary as well as unjust. In the Socialist Society, where industry is organised for the benefit of all, where all perform their share of the necessary labour and where all enjoy without stint the results of the organised effort of the whole community, neither want nor charity need to exist. But the perpetuation of the capitalist system and not the establishment of the Socialist Society is the object of the charity-mongers.

* * *

In a note appended to the report George Lansbury, who was a member of the Committee of Enquiry, dissents from it, mainly on questions of principle, such as the reasons which have led to increased pauperism in places like Poplar and West Ham. He agrees with what is said as a statement of reasons which have operated to accentuate the evil, but does not agree that we have created the evil. He is of opinion that this lies far deeper in our individual life than any question of Poor-Law administration. This is veering round with a vengeance, for a man who has been a Socialist Parliamentary candidate and thus has publicly associated himself with the materialist philosophy.

* * *

Much attention is being given just now to the Poplar Labour Colony at Laindon, Essex, which is claimed by its promoters to most nearly approach to a solution of the unemployed problem. The colony consists of some hundred acres of land which were presented to the Poplar Guardians at a peppercorn rent for an experimental period of three years by Mr. Fels, with the option of buying it at the price he paid, viz., £2,125. Work has been going on for three months, during which time two reservoirs have been constructed and are almost ready for use, living quarters have been erected, and nearly the whole of the farm colony prepared for cultivation. When it is added that the colonist, of course, is not supposed to make a resting place of the farm, but will, when sufficiently trained in agricultural duties, be passed on to some other employer, where he will be able to make a fresh start in life, it will easily be recognised how far from the solution the experiment is.

* * *

From the point of view of those of the submerged who are taken from the gutter and taught to become competent agricultural workers some good is done, but as soon as they become such they enter into competition with other workers, and if they are to secure employment it can only be by driving others, less competent perhaps, into the gutter to require treatment by the Guardians in the same manner. Obviously such a scheme provides no solution of the problem—it merely raises one section of the community at the expense of another.

* * *

In dealing with this problem last month, attention was drawn to the effect of the introduction of machinery, involving a greater and greater output with the aid of fewer men. Machines are introduced to effect a saving, usually in the wages bill. Last month’s number of the “Decorator” published a description of the paint-dipping plant recently installed at Woolwich Arsenal. Ammunition and other waggons are dipped bodily into tanks containing paint, which is kept agitated by means of revolving screws, and may be given three coats in one day, as the paint dries very quickly. The saving effected is very great and is likely to be extended to other industries.

* * *

The Liberals have every reason to be satisfied with the good work which W. Crooks is doing for them, and they must laugh in their sleeves when they recollect that he is paid £200 a year by the L.R.C. to represent “Independent” Labour. Last month he presided at a bazaar organised by the Boro’ of Woolwich Labour Representation Association, and in his opening address declared that Earl Carrington was one of the best friends of Labour, and a democratic member of the House of Lords. The workers of Woolwich were under more than an ordinary obligation to his lordship. If every lord who possessed land as Lord Carrington did were as good and kindly as he it would be an excellent thing for the country.

* * *

So that apparently, in Crooks’ view, landlordism is all right if the landlords are good and kindly, and no objection may be raised to the House of Lords provided the members are “democrats” and will condescend to place the workers under more than an ordinary obligation by opening bazaars for them !

* * *

Of course his lordship was smart enough to rise to the occasion and to play the game. He returned his most grateful thanks for having been allowed to open the bazaar, which he believed was entirely run and entirely stocked by the free gifts of that great industrial class which it was his pride and his privilege to remember his own family originally sprung from. It is rumoured that he added “and have lived on ever since and will continue to do as long as you will allow us” but the loud and prolonged applause, ably led by Mr. Crooks, prevented this from being heard by the assembled sturdy sons of Labour.

* * *

Since the bazaar Crooks has been the chief speaker at a Free Trade meeting at Stratford Town Hall, where the chair was taken by C. F. G. Masterman, who was such a persona grata with some S.D.F. members when he recently contested Dulwich that they canvassed for him. He is at present the Liberal candidate for North West Ham. The Liberal wirepullers, with their usual astuteness, are trotting him round the constituency in a “non-political” capacity. A few days previous to this meeting he took part in an Education conference and lectured to the members of Grove Congregational Church Literary Society. Doubtless he will shortly be present at the annual distribution of the Coal and Clothing Club, send his best wishes to the annual sale of work of the Dorcas Society, and look in for a few moments at the concert of the amalgamated athletic clubs of the district, for thus are elections fought and won.

* * *

At the Free Trade meeting Councillor Anarchist Leggatt occupied a seat on the platform, together with A. E. Jacobs (I.L.P.), and letters were read from W. Thorne (Labour Candidate for South West Ham) and C. Boardman (Liberal and Passive Resister), regretting their inability to take part in the meeting. Truly a strange gathering ! After the speeches Crooks proposed a resolution pledging those present at the meeting to oppose any candidate at the next election who does not guarantee to maintain the policy of Free Trade. Now, if such candidates are to be opposed, their opponents, provided that they pledge themselves to maintain the policy of Free Trade, must be supported. Thus the Liberals adroitly lead Labour members and candidates to admit that there is a difference between capitalist candidates—a difference in favour of Free Traders as against Protectionists, a difference in favour of the kites as against the crows. It is regrettable that members of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P. fall so easily into this trap.

* * *

In the September quarter’s report of the Gas-workers’ and General Labourers’ Union, W. Thorne hopes that when the general election takes place Union members in all parts of he country will recognise the absolute necessity of working for and voting in favour of men of their own class. That way lies disaster! From a Socialist point of view the fact that a candidate is or has been a member of the working-class is not of itself sufficient. Nothing is to be gained by voting for a candidate, whatever his class, who does not understand the principles of Socialism, and who is not prepared to go to the House of Commons as a rebel, determined, by every means in his power, to seek the overthrow of the capitalist-class. The average labour leader who attaches himself to a section of the capitalist political party serves the interests of that party and not those of the working-class.

* * *

Socialists well understand the motives that prompt benevolent plutocrats to build model villages, erect sanitary and even palatial factories and workshops, admit their employees to a share of the profits, and other little dodges of a similar character. It is because they are sufficiently far-sighted to recognise that it pays. The latest is the introduction by Messrs. J. Lyons & Co., of the gramophone. This is now kept going whilst the workers grind coffee, pack tea, etc. A representative of the firm thinks that instead of detracting the girls from their work it gives them a fillip. Soldiers, he says, march better to music, so why should not workers work better ?

* * *

There is every reason why the necessary labour should be performed under healthy and enjoyable conditions, but such are at present adopted only to enable the capitalist class to obtain greater results in a given time out of the workers.

* * *

W. C. Steadman, who is advertised in the “Finsbury Free Press” as the “adopted Liberal, Radical and Labour Candidate for Central Finsbury,” pursues the even tenor of his way and plays his part exceedingly well as a decoy-duck for the Liberals. Last month he presided at a meeting held at Stepney Meeting House to hear an address from Mr. Durham Stokes, the Liberal Candidate. On the platform were Earl Beauchamp, B. S. Strauss, Liberal candidate for Mile End, and J. W. Benn, Liberal candidate for St. Georges. We would ask our friends who urge the workers to vote for men of their own class, without insisting that they shall be Socialists, whether they consider that Steadman is acting as a friend of his class whilst he is playing the game of the capitalists in this manner ?

* * *

An arbitration case has just been concluded between the Liverpool Corporation and Sunlight Soap Lever. Some years ago Mr. Lever purchased 2,200 acres of land at Horwich, adjacent to the Rivington Watershed, the property of the Liverpool Corporation, for £60,000. Mr. Lever gave 400 acres of the land to Bolton, his native place, for a public park, and for the remainder, which the Liverpool Corporation require for public works, he demanded £400,000. The Corporation offered to pay £40,000. Mr. Lever displayed his “public spirit” by refusing and putting Liverpool Ratepayers to the expense of an arbitration, as the result of which the price fixed to be paid to him is £138,449. In this manner our “model employer” builds up his reputation for good works, and by his own hard work (?) becomes enriched. For of such is the kingdom of capitalism.

Jack Kent