The Essentials of Socialist Unity. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Socialist Working Class

Comrades,

In the January number of our official organ—the Socialist Standard—we addressed you concerning the International Socialist Congresses, and briefly dwelt with our reasons for declining an invitation from the Secretary of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress to take part in forming a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress, on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging by the composition of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress, the proposed Committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialists. That Committee has now been formed and its composition fully justifies the view we took of it in January last.

In accordance with our promise, we have forwarded a communication to the International Socialist Bureau, asking that, in our name, a motion be placed upon the Agenda of the next International Congress, for discussion in open Congress, embodying the following proposals:—

(a) That admission to future International Socialist Congresses shall be open only to all avowed Socialist, bodies that accept the essential principles of Socialism, i.e., socialisation of the means of production and distribution, union and international action of workers, Socialist conquest of the Public Powers by the proletariat organised as a class party recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates upon this basis and adopting an attitude of hostility under all circumstances to all sections of the capitalist party.

(b) That all previous resolutions (defining the basis of admission to. the Congress) be rescinded.

(c) That all matters upon the agenda be discussed in open Congress and that the methods of discussion in Commissions be entirely abolished.

(d) That each delegate shall have one vote, but if a poll be demanded, each Party represented shall be entitled to one vote.

(e) That representation upon the Bureau shall be upon the basis of Parties represented at the Congress, each of which shall be entitled to one representative upon the Bureau.

We have further requested the Bureau to at once consider the advisability of adopting one language in which all the business of the Bureau and of the Congress shall be conducted, with the object of coming to a decision upon the matter in sufficient time for the language decided upon to be adopted as the official language of the Stuttgart Congress.

Up to now the International Socialist Congresses have not considered the composition of the Nationalities represented thereat. At Amsterdam, National matters were entered into, when a resolution was passed in favour of National Unity. If the International Movement is to be placed upon a sound revolutionary basis the Congress must enter into the character of the different National organisations which are obtaining admission to the Congresses and affiliation to the Bureau. When the Congress has, by its resolute action, eliminated all pseudo-socialist organisations, such as deny the existence of the class war, or in any way support the capitalist class or its catspaws in their respective countries, then unity of the Socialist forces in each country will be easily accomplished.

We are, Comrades,

With fraternal greetings,

The Executive Committee,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Head Office,

1a, Caledonian Road, London,

December 1905.

The Impending Collapse of Labourism. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the near approach of a general election the signs and portents that tell of the futility of what is at present known as the “Independent Labour Representation” movement increase and multiply. With one desire paramount in their minds—the desire to secure election—many of the candidates for whom the Labour Representation Committee is responsible, are quite ready to subordinate their independence to their election in the belief, quite honestly held doubtless in some cases, that some special virtue attaches to the right to append the letters M.P. after a name. Nor is this surprising. When men set out with the all-pervading notion that the imperative necessity of the hour is the formation of a “Labour Group” inside the House of Commons, without a very clear notion as to why there should be such a group, without being at infinite pains to understand the reasons underlying the supposed necessity, without being intimately acquainted with the only conditions upon which a Labour Group can be of utility and effect, it is not surprising if they think to proceed to their “independence” within the Commons, by very dependent methods without. It is not surprising that Mr. Richards, the L.R.C. candidate for Wolverhampton, for example, prefers not to take the chances of defeat in opposition to the Liberals when the chances of election in alliance with them are so bright. And this it would seem, on the authority of Mr. Tom Jones, representing the “Labour” side of the Liberal-Labour Conference held to make arrangements, is the position of the responsible officers of the Labour Representation Committee.

“They were satisfied that, anxious as they were to get a Labour Representative returned, it was impossible to do so on Labour lines exclusively. . . . The one object . . . which the Labour Party had was to try and replace one of the worst governments of modern times, . . . they regretted that some annoyance had been caused by individual men objecting to Liberals having anything to do with them,” and so on.

And these are the leaders of the movement that, once formed, was to march straight into the real working-class—the Socialist—camp, because forsooth, it could follow no other road. This was the assumption upon which the only argument of the I.L.P. (L.R.C. patron and sycophant) rested. And yet of the four men already in Parliament, and drawing their stipend from the L.R.C., three are quite frankly adjuncts of, and in no way distinguishable from, the capitalist Liberal party, while at the first approach of the general encounter with what are supposed to be (from the L.R.C. point of view) the forces of re-action, the political training of a life-time is too strong for their candidates, whose independence grows smaller by degrees and beautifully less. Of course. They want to get into Parliament. Many of them don’t clearly know why, and those who do have no intelligent force behind them to insist that they shall keep to the line of independence.

The I.L.P. having done all in its power to foster L.R.C’ism —mainly, it is true, for the purpose of securing monetary support for its own men naturally grows apprehensive at these indications of collapse, and protests against the Wolverhampton violation of the L.R.C. Constitution. But in the first place the L.R.C. has no constitution, and in the second the I.L.P. tactics are in the main the L.R.C. tactics, as defined by Mr. Tom Jones. At Halifax, Mr. Parker, I.L.P. candidate and member of the I.L.P. Executive, is in precisely the same position that Mr. Richards occupies, i.e., he has sold out independence and all to the Liberal Party. The I.L.P. will find difficulty enough, it seems, in keeping its own particular candidates in order, Without worrying about anything else.

The fact is, of course, that both the I.L.P. and the L.R.C. (not to mention the S.D.F.) have omitted to ponder the fact (or have deliberately blinked it) that to change a label is not to change an idea, and if from their youth up the working-class have been trained to give allegiance to Liberalism or Toryism, the return of Labour men—commonly so-called—to Parliament will not have the effect of changing their views ; while without that, change of view the Labour men returned, having no mandate and no strength at their back, are practically useless except to themselves, even when, as in the case of Crooks, Shackleton, and Henderson, they are not themselves, in everything but name, thick and thin supporters of one of the orthodox capitalist factions. Only by education, by an exacting and painstaking course of instruction in the true inwardness of the economic phenomena that affects them always to their detriment, can the working-class ideas be changed. The S.D.F., have frankly tired of this educational work, the I.L.P. were probably never able to perform it, and the L.R.C., without principles or object, and with only the most loosely defined policy, has always been nothing more than the happy hunting-ground (or perhaps we should say Tom Tiddler’s ground) for the man on the make, the political quack and charlatan. It remains, therefore, the more imperative that the S.P.G.B. should persist in its work with the determination and consistency which have characterised its efforts hitherto. To educate and organise the working-class of Great Britain into an army of irreconcilables at perpetual war with the forces of capitalism upon both the economic and the political fields, this is the purpose of the Socialist Party. And this purpose cannot be effected by compromise with capitalism, by arrangement, real or implied, by methods of confusion, by obscurantism of whatever consistency. It cannot be effected by indulging the particularly absurd hope of the Labour Leader “to unite working men of all shades of political opinion into one great Labour Party,” because a Labour Party cannot exist on any such basis, and would be useless if it could. It can only be effected by keeping essentials clear. And the first essentials are the absolute incompatibility of working-class interest with capitalist interest, and the necessity therefore, of translating the class struggle which is for ever manifesting itself on the economic field to the political field, to be waged with unceasing effort. This method may seem long and thankless, but it is the method that is sure in its results. Moreover, it is the only method.

A. James

The Pillory. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Labour party was under no delusion; for if a working-man was taken in to the Cabinet, they knew why, they knew the reason behind his being taken in.” Keir Hardie.

“It is now announced that by one of his last official acts Mr. Gerald Balfour has appointed Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald as one of the Local Government Board representatives on the committee (Central Unemployed).” I.L.P. Organ.

In what material respect would an appointment to the Central Unemployed Committee at the hands of a Tory Capitalist Minister differ from an appointment to the Local Government Board at the hands of a Liberal Capitalist Minister ? Answer Hardie. And if there is no difference may we not know the reason behind both appointments ? Is it not that the ministers know their men ?

“We find it difficult to understand the point of view of those ‘Labour men’ who have been congratulating Mr. John Burns on his acceptance of office. We naturally supposed that all would now see that he had definitely gone over to the enemy. Nevertheless it appears to some Labour members and candidates who are pledged to rigorously abstain from identifying themselves with either Liberal or Tory Party that this final act of repudiation of the Labour cause by John Burns is one upon which both he and they are to be congratulated. It passes all comprehension.” ‘Justice,’ S.D.F. Organ.

“The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress has passed the following resolution:

That the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress heartily congratulates the Right Hon. John Burns, formerly chairman of the committee, upon his appointment to the position of President of the Local Government Board, and wishes him every success during his period of office.” Morning Leader.

“Justice” adds the situation is Gilbertian when “we have the ineffable Winston Churchill, another colleague of Mr. Burns going down to support the Liberal opponent of Mr. Alderman Bowerman, who, as a member of the Labour group on the L.C.C., signed the letter of congratulation to Mr. Burns.” Agreed. It is Gilbertian. But when Mr. Will Thorne, a very prominent member of the S.D.F., that through its organ gibes at the absurdity of Mr. Bowerman congratulating Mr. Burns himself, as a prominent member of the Parliamentary Committee, signs a similar letter of congratulation, Gilbert pales his ineffectual fires. Perhaps “Justice” will now jeer Mr. Thorne, but as Mr. Thorne constitutes a valuable asset to “Justice,” perhaps not!

“Never was the I.L.P. so great, so strong, so full of courage as it is to-day. From every corner of the land reports pour in telling of crowded halls, revival, and organisation.” J. Bruce Glasier (I.L.P. Executive).

“What was their position as a party ? If he understood it—and he knew he was speaking for the heads of the party—they wanted to see in the next House of Commons a Liberal Party big enough to do something, and to let them see what they could do. Give your votes so that they will get into the same lobby as often as possible” Jas. Parker (I.L.P. Executive).

Mr. Glasier’s remark follows immediately after an adverse criticism of Mr. Parker. The ordinary person will probably incline to the idea that the great “Independent” Labour Party is full of courage because of the encouraging reception their advances receive from the Liberal Party upon which some of them are apparently dependent. It is reported that after Mr. Parker’s speech, a prominent Liberal rose to advise his fellow Liberals to give one vote to the Liberal and one to Mr. Parker. He hoped the Labour men would reciprocate the entente cordiale !

“The Durham miners are ballotting as to which of four constituencies Mr. J. W. Taylor shall stand for at the coming election. One of the four seats which are being ballotted upon is Chester-le-street, which is represented by Sir James Joicey, and last week Mr. J. H. Wilson, at one time member for Middlesboro’, addressed several meetings in the constituency in support of Joicey.” Labour Lender.

“There was no vacant places at house dinner to Mr. Thos. Burt, M.P. (Miners, Morpeth), at the Newcastle Liberal Club last evening. Letters of regret for non-attendance were read from Sir James Joicey. Mr. Burt said . . . Liberals and Labour men were natural allies. . . . There was no conflict of interest between one and the other.” Northern Echo.

After which striking example of Miners’ consistency, it is not surprising to read in the official organ of the I.L.P. that the I.L.P. is making remarkable progress among the miners. It is. The similarity in the mental tangles of both parties’ representatives, simply stands up to strike one.

“But circumstances are telling in our favour. At home the hopeless incapacity and irreconcilable antagonisms within the two prevailing capitalist political factions unquestionably help us.”

H. M. Hyndman, S.D.F. Dec.

“In all important matters, foreign, domestic, colonial, the Liberals express themselves as being determined to carry on the policy of their predecessors.” H. Quelch. S.D.F.

“This sham fight (between Liberal and Tory.) ” Every S.D.F. Speaker.

Irreconsignable antagonisms within the two Capitalist factions ! And this from “the Father of English Social Democracy”!! O Lor!!! will someone post Mr. Hyndman the S.P.G.B. Manifesto ?

“Mr. Shackleton, speaking at Nelson recently, formulated a programme of a startling revolutionary character. . . He declared himself in favour of Home Rule, Registration Reform, Payment of Members, Taxation of Land Values, the subjection of the House of Lords to the popular chamber and Public Control of the Education and Licensing Questions. Evidently the Labour Party is taking its courage in both hands when it does not hesitate to boldly declare in favour of such a programme. Why it is almost as far as that dangerous extremist, Campbell Bannerman, would dare to go.” H. Quelch (ironically), Dec.

“These, then, are some of the chief political reforms that Socialists will do well to keep to the front (Second Ballot, Payment of Members and Election Expenses, Adult Suffrage, Triennial Parliaments and the Initiative and Referendum.” J. F. Green, S.D.F. E.C. (Seriously).

“The question I wish to bring under the notice of English Socialists … is whether the time has not arrived when they should formulate a vigorous demand for all the political measures I have indicated (Second Ballot and Payment of Members and Election Expenses).” H. W. Lee, S.D.F. Sec.

Mr. Quelch is very ironical at Mr. Shackleton’s expense, very ironical. But all the same Mr. Shackleton’s immediate demands are not so very insignificant when, contrasted with Mr. Quelch’s fellow S.D.F’ers. Mr. Quelch’s satire like other peoples curses, invariably comes home to roost—if the metaphor will bear the strain.

Blogger's Note:

The formatting of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard neatly puts the contradictory statements side by side (see below) to give the full impact of the ILP/SDF opportunism and double talk. Sadly, I can't do the same on the blog and, as you can see, the quality of the scan isn't the best anyway.

A Look Round. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A comrade sends me what he describes as a “Problem for Socialists.” At an Eastern seaside town, much frequented during July, August, and September by holiday makers, there was a small piece of land near the sea, of no value, too sandy for cultivation and too shifty for house building. It was let to a few fishermen for three or four shillings a year to dry their nets upon.

* * *

One Spring, however, two men went to the landlord and offered to hire the land during the summer mouths at a rental of £4 per month, to which the landlord willingly consented. The hirers fenced the land, erected a booth and dressing-room, obtained two or three hundred chairs, and announced that, weather permitting, concerts would be given twice a day during the season. The troupe, consisting of three women and four men, soon arrived. They were successful and at the end of the season were at least £100 to the good.

* * *

In the following Spring they again went to the landlord and proposed to hire the land as before. But the “ramrod man” would not agree unless the hirers would pay £16 per month. And in that manner, without any effort on his part, the landlord was enabled to take to himself all the profit that the musical troupe, by their work, ability and persistency, could make.

* * *

“What a shameful affair. How unjust.” And my correspondent adds that the landlord was the Town Council ! He asks whether this fact made the transaction any juster, and what would occur under Socialism in similar circumstances.

* * *

Now, excepting to those persons who imagine that a municipality under capitalism is anything but a capitalist body, trading on capitalist lines with the object of making a profit out of their enterprises for the benefit of the property owners, the action of the particular municipality will evoke no surprise or condemnation. Is it not urged by land “reformers” that Public Bodies should secure and retain possession of land in order that they may obtain the “unearned increment,” which now goes to the individual landlord ?

* * *

As to what would happen in similar circumstances under Socialism, my correspondent will agree, upon reflection, that there could be no similar circumstances. Under Socialism the people will not only produce, by their own highly organised collective effort, the material wealth necessary to existence, but will also, by associated effort, provide their own amusements and pastimes, where desirable. You would not have, in the Socialist State, some folks providing amusement for others, as a speculation, depending for their sustenance upon individual contributions from pleased or pitying members of the community.

* * *

Of course, no Socialist, unless he is a very raw recruit, wastes his time putting forward any cut-and-dried scheme which he claims will be the method of detailed organisation in the Socialist State. He knows that when the necessary mental revolution which must precede the economic revolution has been accomplished, the people will be more capable of settling the details of the new society than anyone now living. The Socialist can only advocate the principles upon which he believes Society should be based and upon which he believes it will be based. Because, unless that which he thinks should happen is likely to happen, he is simply wasting himself. He claims that Socialism is scientific because he has carefully studied the history of pre-capitalist states of society and watched the developments and tendencies of the present. He can show that the tendency is towards the most economical and effective organisation of the production of wealth. But to-day this organisation is in the hands of a class, comprising the individual capitalist, the trust and the capitalist municipality, all making up the capitalist state. The interests considered are capitalist interests and the function of the Socialist is to convince the people of the advantages of this organisation being controlled by and in the interests of the wealth producers. When this is accomplished the people will establish the Socialist Republic.

* * *

It sometimes happens that municipal enterprise is uneconomical and reactionary as compared with the enterprise of the Trust and Combine and it is just a question as to whether Socialists should not oppose this form of capitalist development.

* * *

Rent is robbery. It matters not to me whether I am robbed by the ducal landlord or the municipal landlord and the extent to which municipalities claim to be enabled to reduce the rates by trading is no concern of the working-class. Rents are not reduced because rates go down. In fact, the opening up of a tramway route, by which the municipality may be enabled to reduce rates by a halfpenny or so, often causes rents to rise, by rendering more accessible districts where hitherto competition for house accommodation, which determines rents, was exceedingly restricted. Moreover, trains, tubes, etc., which are being provided everywhere, even for school children, are producing a race that cannot walk—a “born-tired” people.

* * *

If all those who have at some time or another emphasised the fact that the working-class are not affected by rates would always adhere to that position there would be less confusion of thought amongst the working-class. Here, for instance, is Mr. Will Thorne, the L.R.C. candidate for South West Ham, who has declared that it would make no difference to the working-class if the rates in West Ham were twenty shillings in the £, putting on the front-page of his election address : Nationalisation of Education, Poor Hates, Mine Rents, and Mineral Royalties. Mr. Thorne does not explain how these matters concern the poverty-stricken workers of South West Ham. In the body of his address he says he is strongly in favour of “Nationalisation of the Land, Canals, Railways, Mine Rents, and Mineral Royalties, the private ownership of which acts as the real barrier to British Industry in the Markets of the World” !

* * *

This is an interesting pronouncement for a man whom the S.D.F. claim as their candidate, although he is nothing of the sort and they are not responsible for one penny of his election expenses. As a matter of fact, admitted by the capitalist Press, British Industry has been supplanted because production naturally tends to locate itself where natural conditions are most favorable. But why concern ourselves about Britain’s position in the markets of the world ? For the capitalists, whether Free Traders or Tariff Reformers, the matter is of interest, but the concern of the Socialist is to stop the exploitation of the working-class, not to help one set of capitalists to exploit at the expense of another.

* * *

That is a capitalist struggle, like the fiscal fight. One set of capitalists say that we (i.e., British Capitalists) are losing because our fiscal system requires changing ; another set say that we hold our position because of our fiscal system and shall lose it if we change. And so their struggle continues. It is a matter of indifference to me whether I am plucked by a Free Trade Kite or a Protectionist Crow : I object to the plucking.

* * *

I am glad that some of Mr. Thorne’s friends recognise this. In last week’s “Justice” Mr. D. Carmichael writes:

“Members should insist, during the coming election, on making the workers realise that, while the fiscal question may be of interest to their masters, it is of little importance to them, and by heckling the capitalist candidates on every possible occasion expose the folly of depending on the robber class helping the robbed.”

* * *

Mr. D. Carmichael is one of the unemployed “leaders” who have been “demanding” that the robber class shall help the robbed !!!

* * *

But Mr. Will Thorne does not agree with Mr. Carmichael. He declares for “No Tariff Barriers” and is a “determined opponent of the imposition of any Tariff burdens on the food of the people.”

* * *

The whirligig of time, we are told, brings its own revenges. In “Justice” for the 16th of last month I read:

“Our veteran comrade Dadabhai Naoroji, whose services to India for more than 50 years are well known, is standing as a Liberal candidate in North Lambeth. We are no friends to Liberal candidates, and we are certainly not enamoured of the set which is supporting Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji. But we should regret, nevertheless, if he were opposed by a working man. There are exceptions to all rules and this case is that exception. Mr. Naoroji, more than any Indian living, voices the aspirations of 300,000,000 people under our rule. On that ground we hope he will be returned to the House of Commons.”

* * *

It occurred to me when I read the above that I had seen something in “Justice” to the opposite effect. I turned up my index and found the following, which appeared on the 22nd September, 1894 :

“Social-Democrats can lose the ‘Progressives’ certain London seats by mere abstention. Why shouldn’t we ? We owe the Progressives’ nothing—less than nothing. They are a miserable lot. We thought Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji one of the best of them. He owes his seat to our votes. If we abstain at the next election, he at least must go. What should we keep him in for ? He has been of no use whatever to us and of very little use to India. The Liberal Party may seem to our Parsee friend a very grand and glorious institution, but we fail to see how acting the part of a mere Liberal Hanger-on rewards Social-Democrats for the trouble they took in going to the poll for Mr. Dadabhai.”

* * *

What a virtue is consistency !

* * *

“Justice” is owned and controlled by the Twentieth. Century Press Ltd. In 1894 Mr. Naoroji held 80 shares in the Company, he now holds 280. These figures relate to the ordinary shares of 5s. 0d., not to the debentures. So that, apparently. “our Parsee friend” has paid £50 for the support of “Justice.” Let us hope he is satisfied with his bargain.

* * *

Mr. Ebenezer Howard, founder of the Garden City, presided at a meeting held last month at this very latest paradise, to consider the question of the provision of dwellings for working men. The Dean of St. Albans addressed the meeting on the desirability of proper housing for the working classes and urged the men to support a scheme for proper dwellings. Others also spoke.

* * *

Was not the Garden City one of those brand new patent schemes for solving the Housing problem ?

* * *

Mr. Isaac Mitchell, Secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions, was, as usual, unable to be present at the meeting, but, again as usual, sent his blessing by letter.

* * *

No meeting of “reformers” is now complete without a letter from Mr. Isaac Mitchell.

Jack Kent

Editorial: No change. (1906)

Editorial from the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

At last ! After paltering with the destinies of an imperial race for more years than the Liberal party care to remember, Mr. Balfour has resigned and the great Unionist Party has gone out of office. At last ! After fretting in the shades of opposition for a decade, Sir Henry Campbell Bannerman has assumed control of the reins of Government and the Great Liberal Party has gone into office. The most capable, the most industrious, the most earnest, the most successful Government of modern times (vide the Tory Press) and the most disgraceful, the most useless, the most fraudulent, the most shameless Government in the history of mankind (vide the Liberal Press) has decided to take a well-earned rest from its laborious endeavours (Tory Press), or has been forced by the pressure of a disgusted public opinion to vacate its position (Liberal Press), and an impossible government of mutually warring elements that cannot by any chance conduct the affairs or in any adequate way discharge the responsibilities of the English people (Tory Press), or a Government representative of the brains of the Empire, a sound and workmanlike Government that can unhesitatingly claim to voice the aspirations of every section of the nation (Liberal Press) has taken its place. The people of England may have which view they like for their ha’penny, and doubtless by far the majority of the people of England will have and unfortunately share, one or the other of them. We would it were otherwise. It would be otherwise if we could get the intelligent ear of the people of England—or the working class of England, for we are concerned with no other section. We would have the working class understand that, as a matter of fact, despite all the emphatic assurances of the Capitalist Press to the contrary, there is no real change in the Government. It is the same Government representing the same interests, aiming at the same object, actuated by the same motive. True it is a Liberal Government to-day, whereas yesterday it was a Tory Government. But that is only a change of label. It has a Bannerman at its head, vice a Balfour, a Burns at the Local Government Board, vice a second Balfour. But that is only a change of name. True also the change of name and label may involve a slight change of method. It has doubtless become necessary to make a concession to a slowly awakening working class opinion and a departure from the more usual course in the selection of a man for ministerial position who, to the slow-moving working class mind, would be regarded as a champion of working class interest, has been made. But this “Labour” representative has been carefully selected. By years of faithful service which the dirtiest of work has not affected he has demonstrated his trustworthiness and devotion to the interests of his employers. A change of names, of labels, of methods—that is all. The interest represented is still capitalist interest. The object still the retention of the means of life in the bands of the capitalist class, still the subjugation and exploitation of the working class. In no single material respect has the Government changed.

Editorial: Burns, P.C., M.P., L.G.B.., L.C.C. (1906)

Editorial from the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In regard to the appointment of Burns to the Local Government Board, we have just a few words to say, A considerable bulk of nonsense has been spoken and written on the subject by those who claim to represent Labour, mostly to the effect that it is desirable to suspend judgment on the man until he has had a chance to show what he is prepared to do. Now these Labour representatives must know quite as well as we know, why Burns has been selected for the position and the conditions of the appointment. He is selected because be is a “safe” man, because he has acted jackal to the Liberal Party for years, and because he has rarely, if ever, during the course of his Parliamentary career, raised his voice in championship of the interest of the class from which he sprang, but has, on the contrary, always been at the disposal of his capitalist friends to defend any act, even acts of palpable atrocity, committed by them. His association with that cold-blooded mediocrity, Asquith, in the murder of the Featherstone miners, and his plea for the use in such cases of the deadliest bullets obtainable, placed him for ever without the pale so far as we are concerned. But notwithstanding his record, his proletarian origin has given him a standing with the ignorant working class which the entire capitalist press has endeavoured, successfully, it must be admitted, to strengthen. To reward him with a well remunerated post was therefore to secure a large measure of working class support which the pressure of adverse economic conditions and the inability of capitalist governments to touch even the fringe of the trouble were tending to alienate. These are the reasons for Burns’ elevation. The conditions are that he shall do what may with safety be done to ensure the continued support of the working class to the Liberal Party. There is no question about this at all. Everyone who understands the working class position understands that this is the only condition upon which a capitalist government would consent to the inclusion of an ex-working man in their counsels. Knowing this we do not require to wait for what Burns may do. We know what he will do and why he will do it—just as the Tory St. James Gazette knew when, in commenting upon his appointment, they asserted that he could be relied upon to deal with the “whining wastrelism” known as the unemployed.

Answers to Correspondents. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

T.W:—The statement, like many another in the journal mentioned, is incorrect. No reference to Mr. Hyndman as “Uncle Harry” has ever been made in the Socialist Standard. Notwithstanding which we shall doubtless have it frequently brought up in evidence against us as an exhibition of bad taste. However—

W.L.D. (Leyton).—Certainly. Every contribution receives careful consideration.

Battersea Social. (1906)

Party News from the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this, the alleged festive season, it is pleasant to find that some people enjoy themselves. Truly, on Dec. 10th, with a fog so thick without that it might have been a blind man’s holiday, it was surprising to find Sydney Hall. Battersea, teaming with such a joyous gathering.

The occasion was a tea and social arranged between the West and South West London branches of the S.P.G.B. The Battersea, Paddington, Tooting, Fulham and Peckham branches were well represented. Clerkenwell was also represented, and contributed materially (or should it be immaterially?) to the amusement of the evening.

But I am anticipating.

After the tea had been hidden from view, Comrade Leigh of Paddington was prevailed upon to take the chair, and an excellent and varied programme was gone through. It would be invidious to praise particularly, because where all were excellent none could be more, and, (let me confess it) I have forgotten many of their names.

Suffice to say, the Social was a great success, and all were of opinion that this, the first joint Social, should not be the last; for such a pleasant relaxation from the stern uphill fight against Capitalism, cannot fail to bear fruit in better knowledge of each other, in closer comradeship and increased enthusiasm for the cause we have at heart.

The fun still ran high, when the stalwarts from the outlying branches carved their way through a dense London particular to the railway station in time for the last train home, to snatch a few hours sleep before commencing another week of drudgery, brightened, however, by memories of that evening, and by hope for the time when all shall be better than well.

Bolus o’ the Ditch.

Party Notes. (1906)

Party News from the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee have dissolved all Sub-Committees and will in future meet at the Head Olfice every Tuesday at 7 p.m.

o o o

It has also been decided to abolish all Special Funds or rather to consolidate them into one General Fund.

o o o

This does not mean that the Party can do without the money hitherto raised by means of these special funds. On the contrary it can do with very much more, so that its sphere of activity may be considerably widened.

o o o

At the same time, it must be clearly understood that a member is only required by rule to pay twopence per week to the Party. But there are some who can afford more and these need only to be reminded that cheques and Postal Orders should be made payable to A. J. M. Gray.

o o o

The Delegate Meeting will be held at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street on Saturday, the 27th. inst. at 3 p.m., and a Party Reunion will take place at the same Club on Friday, the 26th inst.

o o o

Members should apply to their Branch Secretary for their new cards without delay.

o o o

Although the E.C. will not in future meet on Saturdays, the Socialist Standard will still be published on the first Saturday in each month and the Head Office will be kept open every Saturday until 4 p.m.

o o o

Branches so desiring can have their supplies of the Party Organ sent by carrier direct from the printers on the Friday preceding date of publication.

o o o

Comrade R. A. V. Morris has resigned his membership of the S.D.F. and the Secretaryship of both the Bexley and District Socialist Society and the Dartford Division Joint Unemployed Committee in order to become a member of our Party. He is endeavouring to form a Branch and will be glad to hear from readers in the district. His address is “Oxshott,” Warren Road, Bexley Heath.

o o o

Comrade Rogers of Southend is very actively engaged in exposing the contradictory tactics of the local confusionists. On December 17th, after one Thomas Doody had spoken for the S.D.F., our comrade asked a number of questions bearing upon the difference between the preaching and the practice of that body, and why prominent members of the S.D.F. supported the defenders of capitalism. Mr. Doody, unable to satisfactorily reply, relied upon the usual side-tracking dodge, and thundered forth charges against this Party and its members. Now, if all Mr. Doody’s charges could be substantiated, if all his statements concerning us were true, the soundness or otherwise of the tactics of the S.D.F. would not be affected in the least. And when a public speaker, professing to have an open platform, to invite and to welcome criticism and opposition, ignores the criticism, shirks the questions, and makes wild charges against persons who are not there to speak for themselves, the public can easily see that his case must be a very bad one indeed.

o o o

Friend Doody declared that the members of the S.P.G.B., “instead of staying in the S.D.F. and trying to pull it straight, left and formed a new party.” We thank Mr. Doody for the public admission that the S.D.F. is crooked and requires to be pulled straight. He is apparently unaware that most of those who came out and formed the new party in June, 1904 had been for years trying to pull the S.D.F. straight and that they only came out when they recognised that “Vested Interests” were too strong for them; in other words, that the extent to which the Twentieth Century Press Ltd., the proprietors of “Justice,” the official organ of the S.D.F., was dependent upon Trade Union officials for orders and capital and upon individual capitalist politicians for financial assistance rendered it impossible for the S.D.F. to go straight.

o o o

If Mr. Doody will refer to the letter sent to the S.D.F. Executive in June, 1901, signed by some of the oldest and best known members of the S.D.F., asking for permission to form a Central West Ham branch, because those who signed it refused to associate themselves with the compromising policy then being pursued by the branches and members in West Ham, he will be compelled to admit that even at that time efforts were being made to “pull the S.D.F. Straight.”

o o o

The S.D.F. Executive, well knowing the extent to which the movement had been compromised in West Ham. gave permission for the branch to be formed.

o o o

That those who signed the letter had accurately judged the position is testified by a long communication from J. J. Terrett, who was a member of the S.D.F., which appeared in the “South Essex Mail” for December 16th last. He says :

“Most Socialists and Trade Unionists will, as they are pleased to phrase it, ‘vote for the least of two evils,’ viz., the Liberal as something better than the Tory. This has been our consistent attitude for nine years in all contests at Stratford, municipal, poor law, or national.” The italics are ours.

o o o

We did our best, then, to pull the S.D.F. straight, but without success. On April 23rd, 1904, a meeting of London members of the S.D.F. was held at Shoreditch Town Hall to discuss the resolutions passed at the Easter Conference. At that meeting Mr. J. F. Green, a comparatively new member of the S.D.F., who, because he was a middle-class man and acquainted with large numbers of middle-class reformers, was made a member of the S.D.F. Executive and appointed to the Treasurership almost immediately he joined the body, told us if we could not agree with the policy of the S.D.F. we ought to clear out. We cleared out.

o o o

Yes, we of the working-class, who had stood up at the street corner in defence of the revolutionary principles which the S.D.F. once promulgated, at a time when it was dangerous, physically and socially, to do so, we who had performed, in the interest of the working-class to which we belong, our full share of the hard graft which fell, and will continue to fall, to the lot of the revolutionist, were told to clear out by a middle-class man, pushed to the head of an alleged working-class organisation, if we did not agree with what he and his middle-class confreres considered was the proper policy to be pursued.

o o o

In June, 1904, we formed The Socialist Party of Great Britain. If you desire to follow the record of our work, send a postal order for 3s. to our Head Office, and you will receive post free a bound copy of volume 1 of the Socialist Standard.

o o o

Amongst other wild statements, Mr. Doody declared that Comrade Lehane was the editor of this journal. What that had to do with the policy of the S.D.F. cannot be seen. But the statement is not true. Lehaue has never edited the paper.

o o o

Mr. Doody also made certain statements concerning J. Fitzgerald, but as he also offered to meet our comrade in public debate and his challenge was immediately accepted on our behalf by Comrade Rogers, these need not be dealt with here. Arrangements will be made for the debate as soon as possible, and will be duly announced.

o o o

Ask your Branch Secretary for the Party Emblem. Twopence, or post free from Head Office for three stamps.

_____________

Readers are requested to forward copies of Election Literature, particularly that issued by S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. candidates, to the Head Office,

SPGB Meetings. (1906)

Party News from the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Wolfenden Report: Committee frank but clueless (1957)

From the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

“In my realms,” Queen Victoria is reputed to have said, “there are no such women.” If the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee become law, that happy state may be restored: not the one in which no prostitutes exist, but the realm wherein old ladies may assume that the unseen is the unreal.

The main findings of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution are by now too well known to need recounting. Briefly, they urge easier laws on homosexuality and harder ones on prostitution—that is, on street soliciting, the only offence with which prostitutes may be charged. There is no gesture towards ending or reducing prostitution; the Committee’s aim is simply to brush the dirt under the carpet—to remove what the Manchester Guardian called "the scandalous spectacle now commonly presented by some streets in London and other big cities.”

There can hardly be much objection to that, as far as it goes. The parade of streetwalkers is a sordid sight. How far does it go, however? Is anyone really going to feel better or more satisfied through knowing that they are on the ’phone and not the kerb, or because the invitation to five minutes of commercial, loveless love, is made indoors instead of in doorways?

That is not to imply that the Wolfenden Committee has been hypocritical. On the contrary it has done the only thing possible for it and, incidentally, accepted what some reformers will not see: that, in a social framework such as ours, prostitution cannot be done away with. “The law by itself cannot do so,” says the Report. The alternative, therefore, was to regulate the prostitutes and try at least to see that their activities were addressed to whom they might concern.

Why cannot prostitution be stopped? The Report speaks of a need first for education and a changed moral sense among the community. The fact is, however, that there is almost nobody who would not like to see prostitution disappear and is not aware of the squalidness of everything and everybody connected with it; no words, for example, convey deeper contempt than “ponce” and “pimp.” Moreover, it is overlooked that the toleration of prostitution owes a good deal to moralists who have condoned it as a kind of safety-valve for the family institution. Lecky, in his History of European Morals, wrote:—

“That unhappy being whose very name is a shame to speak, who is scorned and insulted as the vilest of her sex, and doomed for the most part to disease and abject wretchedness and an early death . . .  is ultimately the most efficient guardian of virtue. But for her the unchallenged purity of countless happy homes would be polluted . . . On that degraded and ignoble form are concentrated the passions that might have filled the world with shame.”

To look for the causes of prostitution via such questions as: "Why do women take to it?" is fatuous. The Wolfenden Report does state categorically, however, that “economic factors” enter into it scarcely at all nowadays. In a limited sense of “economic,” meaning that girls do not now go on the streets as the alternative to destitution, this can be taken as true. Beyond that, it means very little. Many prostitutes, like the one who spoke on television, do it just for money—not out of distress, but because they want the things money buys. And this is no perversity, but our society's commonest ideal. Sir Miles Thomas said vehemently in a television programme a little time ago that anyone who did things for any other reason was insane (did he tell that to his workers, one wonders; or to Sir John Wolfenden?)

The real causes of prostitution are the economic and social conditions in which it lives and flourishes. It is, in fact, a product of the monogamous marriage system within the framework of buying-and-selling societies; its proverbial oldness is simply the long history of those societies. The ancient civilizations, which were highly commercial ones and had strong marriage traditions involving usually the subjugation of women, all had a great deal of prostitution. The Middle Ages had it, though the extent is uncertain. The earlier, pre-industrial Revolution stages of capitalism had more than ever of it, just as they had more than ever of begging, squalor and crime. And almost any of Queen Victoria's subjects could have put her right: Lecky, or Charles Mayhew, or W. T. Stead who, to show what was going on, bought a girl of thirteen from her parents for £5—the understanding being that she was to enter a brothel.

Because prostitution has gone on so long, many people think it must be human nature. Well, it may become an enforced need, but it certainly isn’t human nature to buy and sell that. In the primitive places and communities where you would expect human nature to be rampant, prostitution is unknown (at any rate until the traders and colonists arrive). Indeed, sex is a matter in which human nature needs only half a chance to assert itself in good and satisfying relationships between men and women, and one of the terrible things about capitalism is the number of people to whom even that half-chance is denied.

Of course, prostitution can be abolished. Do away with property-based, sale-and-profit society, and you do away also with the ubiquitous trading, bargaining and hawking which condition or take the place of all human relationships. Set down a no-property, common-ownership basis, and social relationships then express only human beings' needs—of which prostitution is not one. The Wolfenden Committee confesses impotence: reformers have foiled with this as they foil with almost everything. Attitudes-to prostitution have varied from ferocity to sentimentality, and today's “social problem” approach, but prostitution remains. You cannot, after all, remove the ugly rash without cleansing the patient's system.

The Committee's other concern, homosexuality, has had the lion's share of the press and broadcast discussion. In spite of all the arguing, the proposal that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults should cease to be a crime is not new or sensational. Edward Carpenter was stating their case, with the support of medical experts, over forty years ago; so was J. A. Symonds. Various bodies for penal and moral reform (including the Catholic and Anglican Churches) have supported the proposal. Indeed, if it becomes law it will simply bring English law into line with that of France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Belgium.

The real, age-old taboo on homosexuality is rooted in its antithesis to the family institution. Thus, it was punishable by death in the Old Testament tribes, because it threatened the birth-rate; thus though the Catholic Church wants it removed from the list of crimes, it remains “the sin crying to heaven for vengeance ” in the Catholic Catechism. Its exact appraisal by society at large has always been related to the state of the family; here and there in history—in Greece, in Rome, in the Persia of the Arabian Nights—the circumstances have allowed toleration and even some degree of approval. Possibly the outcry against Oscar Wilde derived a good deal from the fact that most people, in the days of the platoon-sized family, were only too well bound to normal sexuality.

There is no reason for not being gratified that a small group of people may be released from the fear of vindictive legal penalties on their behaviour; equally, no reason for passing over the fact that another group now stands faced with harsher penalties. What remains, after three years' investigation and deliberation by the Wolfenden Committee, is that the Sunday papers will not be deprived of anything in material for their perennial Exposures of Vice. Perhaps it is unfair to mention only the Sunday papers, however: in his boyhood this writer heard preachers chill their audiences by speaking of the dens of vice that existed “ in this very town; here, around us . . ." Not for some years did be realize—and his curiosity abate that the working-class district in which he lived, in the days of mass unemployment, would not have kept a single prostitute for a single week.

Such problems as these are inseparable from the civilization in which we live. The prostitute and her customer, the homosexual with his secret, the ponce, the blackmailer, and the pervert are not outside but part of that civilization. With them stand the class division, the moral values, the family structure, the education, the "living standards,” the entire social fabric which we know. Take a look, gentle reader, and ask: Is it worth it?

Robert Barltrop

Letter: How to get Socialism (1957)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

How to get Socialism

To the Editors of the Socialist Standard.

Sirs,—I like much your invitation of letters from readers. I desire to accept it because I am profoundly dissatisfied with your reply to Sidney Warr, whose address I should like to have seen given by you. Anonymous letters ought to be discouraged.

Mr. Warr will probably have to be content with your “ reply,” will, in fact, be expected to be. He laid himself wide open to a knock-out by his use of that beloved-of- politicians' word, "Reformism.” What Sidney Warr really meant was Evolution. If he had said Evolution, how would you have answered? I hope to find out by using the term myself. How do you get what you term " Socialism ” otherwise than by Evolution?

Incidentally, I object most strongly to your continuous abuse of the word principles. Principles have nothing to do with machinery. Principles are human and concern and govern human conduct. Look at the inhumanness of your reiterated “ownership.” Ownership and morals cannot co-exist. To change society human values must annihilate material valuations. Where is your evidence that you recognise that what is wrong with society is its morals? Where is your recognition of the one and only commandment, Thou shalt not be selfish?

Yours sincerely,

David MacConnell. 

Beech House, Castle Street, 

Bakewell, Derbyshire.

Reply:

Our correspondent objects to anonymous letters: Mr. Warr’s letter on Reformism and Strikes (see September issue) was not anonymous, but we do not publish addresses unless we know that correspondents wish it

We are interested to learn from Mr. MacConnell that Mr. Warr’s letter about reformism was not the letter Mr. Warr really meant to write. According to Mr. MacConnell “what Sidney Warr really meant was Evolution.” (Perhaps we shall now hear from Mr. Warr telling us what Mr. MacConnell‘s letter means.)

We are now asked: “How do you get what you term ’Socialism' otherwise than by Evolution?” As the establishment of Socialism (as distinct from retaining capitalism with “reforms”) involves changing the property basis of society, it can be achieved only through a Socialist majority gaining control of the machinery of government for that purpose. Our correspondent is referred to our Declaration of Principles on another page.

We are not told how “evolution” is supposed to do the job, and incidentally this shows that Mr. MacConnell’s belief that he is Mr. Warr’s interpreter is quite wrong, for Mr. Warr did not put the case that Socialism could be achieved by reforms (or evolution).

Mr. MacConnell is angry about our alleged abuse of the word principles, but gives no example, so we do not know what he has in mind.

He says that “ownership and morals cannot co-exist," which is, of course, absurd. Capitalist morality co-exists with capitalist ownership. And apparently Mr. MacConnell does not really believe what he says, for he wants the morals of present-day society to be changed. Capitalist society cannot have its morality changed if it has none.

We give no evidence that we recognise that what is wrong with society is its morals, because the statement is meaningless. It is like saying that what is wrong with war is the violent way it is conducted.

Our correspondent lays down his one and only commandment: "Thou shaft not be selfish," but does not notice that in a class society it is two-edged. Does it mean that the exploiting class should show their unselfishness by giving up the exploitation of the working class? Or does it mean (as in the view of the exploiting class) that the workers should give up struggling against being exploited?

Editorial Committee

Letters: Religion and Socialism (1957)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Views put in letters in the correspondence column do not necessarily represent the Party's attitude).

Religion and Socialism.

If the existence of religion is not enough proof for God's existence, does Mr. Jarvis hope to find any more powerful evidence than this? If so, I would like to hear it. Mr. Jarvis's own proposition, that religion could not exist without a belief in God proves this right up to the hilt. For the logic of this proposition could only mean that a belief in God determines the existence of God and religion, for without this belief neither God nor religion would exist. Now when Mr. Jarvis asked his religious opponent for further proof of God's existence, than his own boomerang proposition, I claimed he was talking in riddles. And now he asks me: “What's wrong with this?" I answer: “The logic of your own proposition." It is true that the belief in Socialism does not prove that Socialism exists, but who said it did? Socialist Parties could exist knowing full well that a Socialist society did not exist, but a God-religion could not exist while knowing full well that God did not exist. Therefore, from this it would be true to say that the Socialist believes in a society that does not exist, while the religious man, on the contrary (if belonging to the Christian or Islam religion), must believe in a God who does exist. Socialists believe that man must go through a purgatory of historical periods before he can finally reach his salvation, while the religious man believes that men could be saved in any historical period, if they carry out the will of God.

R. Smith.

Dundee

It is a sheer waste of time to discuss religion, as there are so many facets to the subject. One man says that Jesus was a poor man and condemned the rich, but the churches seem to have made a good business out of it, especially in our own time, when it is investing its assets in stocks and shares on the Stock Exchange.

I would like to know what is the value of his religious experience to us. As far as I can ascertain it consists of a confusion of ideas, much of which is illusion and wish fulfilment. Millions of people have such delusions, he says, and that may well be the case.

Surely our task is not to concentrate on dispelling illusions, but in spreading a knowledge of Socialism, for light dispels darkness, and both ignorance and illusions will fade away when enlightenment is achieved. How many people now believe that the world was created four thousand years ago, or that it is flat, and down below there is hell and up in the sky, somewhere, there is a heaven. Very few now, so why worry about illusions. Spread Socialism.

I. Flower,

Battersea.

In his letter answering John Wyatt and R. Smith on “Socialism versus Religion," H. Jarvis makes a number "of telling points, but his reference to ". . . the pacifism of the New Testament" needs some elaboration.

True, Socialists are not pacifists; that is they do not “turn the other cheek" when the employer attempts a wage reduction, neither do they tell workers to "resist not evil." But Socialists are opposed to war and violence —all wars! But what of the alleged “pacifism" of the New Testament?

Much is made by Christian pacifists of the alleged sayings of Jesus concerning the love of enemies and the blessing of peacemakers, but little or nothing is said about those sayings attributed to Jesus which are the complete opposite of these sayings, such as:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke XIX, 27.)

* * *

“ Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt, x, 34.)

* * *

“ Suppose ye that 1 come to give peace on earth? 1 tell you, Nay; but rather division.** (Luke XII, 51.)

* * *

“And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy." (Luke XXII, 36.)

* * *

And was there not war in heaven, when "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon." (Revelation, XII, 7). And have not the Christians been fighting each other, and supporting their masters' wars ever since?

So much for Christian pacifism!

Yours fraternally,

“PEN."

The Editor.

Dear Sir,—Being a subscriber to Socialist Standard, I must comment on articles in the June 1957 issue on pages 86-7.

I am a Catholic and have long been a believer in Socialism. I will remain both, despite Comrade Jarvis and others of his ilk who will confuse religious with economic and political problems.

Established Socialism would, I believe, constitute that Kingdom. He spoke of and showed us how to achieve. The lessons of His crucifixion and "popping back to life again" need not be gone into here.

To say He is admired as a “great man" is so much bull-dust. In the eyes of the world He was a weakling as a man. As St. Paul puts it: “The weakness of man is the strength of God." He condemned the "great man" idea as much as you. Such "great man" egotism as Comrade Jarvis showed in trying to make an enemy of a friendly Mr. Barr, was absent from His character. He was a friend to all and loved all, even His murderers. A lesson to be learned and an example to be followed by Socialists, Catholics, and all who hope for a better way of life.

The greatest, in my opinion, of the Holy Fathers, who, incidentally, was a father and never denied it, speaks of the ideal of owning all things in common and explains why it cannot be as yet. Namely, St. Augustine in “City of God.”

Finally, please convey comradely greetings’ to Comrade Jarvis, who, despite his total ignorance of Christianity and its message, is no doubt a good and honest worker for the common cause of humanity, albeit in vain.

Yours sincerely,

C. W. Reilly.

Harbord, 

N.S.W., Australia.

Dear Sir,—I don't know where your correspondent, Henry Myers, gets his information from, but the plain records of the Gospels state that Christ was hounded to death by the chief priests and scribes of that time. (Mark, 14-1). They paid Judas, a disciple of Christ, to betray him, and he was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Being occupied by the Romans, the scribes and chief priests had to hand Christ over to the occupying power. But the Roman Governors, Herod and Pilate, both saw that they were dealing with an innocent man and attempted to free him. The people, however, whipped into a frenzy by the church authorities, declared that Christ was not the long expected Messiah, and clamoured for his death. Can any story be plainer?

As for Mr. Myers’ contention that Christ’s last words: “Why hast Thou forsaken me?” are blasphemous, is just plain silly—besides being in bad taste, as these were the words of a dying man.

By the way, if Mr. Myers will consult a dictionary (as well as the New Testament), he will find that the word “ambiguous” means having two meanings—not necessarily untruthful.

Yours truly,

Geoffrey Sharpe,

S.E.3.

P.S.—May I add a word in favour of your correspondent, Mr. John Wyatt, who stated that the New Testament could be found to support a better economic system than our present one?

Other Letters.

Letters are in hand from C. Luff, Canada; R. L. Rhodes, Trowbridge; and D. Anderson, Glasgow.

Editorial Committee

Merdeka in Malaya (1957)

From the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

On August 31st Malaya attained Merdeka (independence), after over a century of British colonial rule. The day is a memorable one for the people there, who celebrated amid scenes of wild rejoicing and shouts of “Merdeka.” In the capital, on the stroke of midnight, the new Prime Minister told the people:

“A new star rises in the eastern sky—a star of freedom for yet another Asian people. This is the greatest moment in the life of the Malayan people, for a new nation is born —a nation that will stand forth free and independent." 

Incidentally, this little speech recalls our article in last December's issue of the Socialist Standard entitled Happenings in Hungary, where it was pointed out that the battle cry of “Freedom ” was used to rally support to a budding capitalist class trying to seize power in Hungary. The last sentence in that article will probably prove as relevant to Malaya as to Hungary: “In other countries whenever the new ruling group is firmly in the saddle of government they lose no time in turning on the workers.” 

Miss Nancy Simmons, a Colonial Office was also present She had been invited as a representative of the British working-class by the Malayan Prime Minister. This point illustrates the usual procedure of the rising ruling-class when taking over governmental power, of attempting to give their cause a working-class flavour.

What Malaya is worth

The transfer of power has taken place with the blessing and co-operation of the British Government, who had despatched the Duke of Gloucester there to represent the Crown, and, as part of the ceremony, hand over the instrument of transfer. A glance at recent events may indicate the reason for this support, which, at first sight, might seem against their interests.

Foreign investment (mostly British) in Malaya was nearly £100 million in 1937, chiefly invested in rubber plantations and tin mines. Imports into Malaya amounted to £484.5 million in 1956, of which U.K. was one of the largest suppliers.

But for several years past profits have been reduced by internal strife—Chinese "communists” attempting to gain power by force. The Chinese population is important, being as numerous as the Malays. These Chinese miners and agricultural workers find that developing capitalism is no panacea for their problems, and so they give their support to the Communist Party under the mistaken impression that their policy will radically alter society. This Party is influenced to an extent by the regime in China, to whom it looks for moral support. British interests in Malaya, seeing that there is a real threat to their investments, called in the British Army. Many members of the British working-class have already lost their limbs, their health and some their lives, fighting for their masters’ interests in the steaming jungles of Malaya.

Besides the antagonism that all this may arouse in Britain how much better to let the native rulers take over the thankless task of tying to make exploitation popular in Malaya. Merdeka in Malaya is the answer.

Trade Union Movement

The beginnings of a working-class (in the present-day meaning of the term) occurred with the rapid development of that country at the turn of the century when rubber and tin became useful to industry and the development of the steamship and the Suez Canal made bulk cargoes from the East a proposition for industrial Europe. Tamil workers were imported into Malaya from India to work on the rubber plantations. There are 400,000 such workers now employed. Chinese were imported for the tin mines. As an indication of the growing trade union movement, in 1947 696,036 days were lost in strikes on rubber plantations. In Singapore in 1945 173,000 workers came out in a general strike.

In the first elections held in 1955 the union of the various nationalistic political parties won 51 of the 52 seats. The only opposition seat was won by the Islamic party. Many of tbs workers in Malaya believed that their troubles were due to the country being ruled by foreigners and, therefore, they supported their native capitalist class. Presumably these workers will find out that a change of administrative personnel will not alter their class position.

Women and Merdeka

One feature in the capitalist development in Malaya is the lack of status of the Malay woman, despite her influence in favour of Merdeka. At the elections the newspapers expressed astonishment at the voters. Some of them had trudged miles carrying babies to get to the booths. By tradition, Malays are allowed to divorce their wives with only three months' sustenance as alimony, and it is estimated that 60 per cent of Malay marriages end in divorce. As a result of all this there is widespread prostitution. Very little other employment is open to women, and destitution is the only alternative.

One thing of which we can be confident is that a modem capitalist welfare state will not stand for the expense of directly keeping large numbers of unproductive discarded women and their children. For the women of Malaya capitalism will no doubt in due course bring them an up-to-date capitalist marriage system. It is a useful spur to productivity for a worker to be burdened with the worry of providing for a wife and family. But it will be economic causes, the need for a larger labour supply educated to some degree, that will change the way of life and their bondage for many of Malay women. The “independence” of their country will play but a little part. 

What are the prospects?

Malaya is a heaven for big business. The two chief industries, rubber and tin, require vast capital outlay for efficient exploitation. The price of labour is comparatively low, but the demand for these raw materials is tremendous and constantly expanding. What more can a capitalist wish for—low wages and an expanding market. Furthermore, the development plan for the period 1956-60 envisages a capital expenditure of over £1,000 million. Merdeka will, they hope, mean a rich harvest to the foreign capitalists (who own much of the wealth of Malaya) without the headache of repressing a working- class continually growing more aggressive.

The following tip (straight from the horse’s mouth) sums up the position for the capitalist in Malaya, and, incidentally, for the worker too. This is an advert by the Malayan Government in Eastern World (August 1957): “INVEST IN MALAYA, THE LAND OF GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. BIGGEST RETURNS ON INVESTMENT, LOWEST TAX ON PROFITS. SECURITY ASSURED BY STABLE GOVERNMENT.” But riches at one end of the scale presupposes poverty at the other, and it will be poverty that will continue to be the lot of the workers in their promised land of Merdeka in Malaya.

Frank Offord

The Big Crocodiles of Fleet Street (1957)

From the October 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

As Socialists, we do, of course, expect the Capitalist Press on both sides of the Iron Curtain to be two- faced. The fact that the Press, along with the other media of mass head-fixing, has to present Capitalism to the workers in palatable form, makes hypocrisy unavoidable. Amongst the most glaring examples of recent hypocrisy is the dual attitude on strikes.

When a strike occurs in this country, the Capitalist Press, with the exception of the Daily Worker, is agreed that the time’s not right, the “country” can’t afford wage increases just now, arbitration is best, or the grievance is not a genuine one. The Red Bogey is often used amongst other cheap tricks to poison public opinion. “The Reds are stirring up trouble again—but for these Moscow agents, things would be all right." That's how the theme goes. The Daily Worker loves to play the role of workers’ champion and, to those with short memories, about its opposition to past strikes, it goes down well. Who would suspect that the Daily Worker might have a motive other than the successful organisation of workers for wages and conditions?

The ironic thing about Capitalism, however, is that it laughs at them all in the end. What happens when there is a strike behind the iron curtain? Wages and conditions are still the issues, but the Daily Worker and the rest of the Capitalist Press change over. The strikers suddenly become "heroic freedom fighters” to the pro-British Press, and to the pro-Russian they are “Fascist Agents." At first sight this may seem very bewildering, but really it is simply that policy is dictated not by workers’ interests on either side, but the nation of preference to those concerned. If they favour British Capitalism, strikes in Britain are bad, but strikes in Russian colonies are good. If they favour Russian Capitalism, the position is reversed. Perhaps the greatest ally the propaganda agents of the Capitalist class have is the short memories of most workers. The events in Hungary in the latter part of last year caused a momentary wave of excitement, but the so-called Communist Party, with its anti-working-class poison, is still here. If they shout “Down with the Tories" loud enough and often enough, they hope people will believe that there is actually someone blacker than they are, then Hungary and the general set-up in Russia can be conveniently forgotten.

How long the “plain sailing" between the Moscow earthquakes will last each time they do not know. They only have to print what Pravda says about Molotov and Malenkov and wait for the next lot. Recently there was the strike at Lodz in Poland (caused by some Fascist agents left over from Poznan no doubt).

The Daily Express (14/8/57) traced the trouble in Poland to “trying to build Socialism on a shoe string budget and keeping as far as possible from entanglements with Russia." It is doubtlessly true that Gomulka and the present gang at the top in Poland would rather not tangle with the military might behind the Russian ruling class, but surely the Express knows that Socialism is not involved. Budgets, shoe string or otherwise, are obviously part of the buying and selling basis of Capitalism. Workers are always poor whatever the State budget might be. They are poor because the places they work in are not theirs, and, working for wages, they only get back part of what they produce; the boss who pockets the rest always wants them to work harder for less. As much as the Press might try to ignore it, the class struggle between those who produce but do not possess and those who possess but do not produce is always with us, and the State running of industry alters nothing. State running of industry has nothing whatever to do with Socialism, which is a fundamentally different system. Socialism means the end of a class of wage earners, and a class of interest and profit and rent receivers. It means the end of buying and selling completely. Obviously under Socialism, where the means of production are held in common, the fruits of mankind’s co-operative labours will be freely available.

The Daily Express for the same date continued as follows: “But the Poles, a proud people, are tired of hunger. They are just as tired of high prices—of working for a week to buy a shirt, and two and a half months to earn the price of a suit.” Now there is a fine piece of rousing warm-heartedness for you, how different from what the Express was saying a couple of weeks before about the Midland Transport strikers. Perhaps under Polish Capitalism the “benefits” of hire purchase and “pay as you wear” have yet to make their appearance.

Now remember the point made at the beginning of this article, remember also the familiar excuses as to why workers here should not have wage increases, then read what the Daily Worker says about Lodz. Before we quote it, let us point out again, this time they don’t quote Pravda, but quote the Polish paper Trybuna Ludu. They have a Daily Worker reporter in Warsaw, and yet the report of just over two dozen lines was mostly quotes (15/8/57). (That’s one way of getting the line right). Having announced the end of the strike, they go on: Trybuna Ludu, reporting the return to work, said: “ 'The Lodz tram workers, recognising the unfairness of the strike action, resolved to return to work.' The Editorial added that the Lodz tram workers let themselves be influenced by irresponsible elements and had put forward unreal demands."

A Government communique on August 10th announced a wage increase for the tram workers which was “the limit of the possibilities of our economy.” The Polish trade union paper The Voice of Labour said that the rise asked for by the tram workers “is due to them as well as to other sections of the working class. But the Government is today unable to pay a wage increase such as all of us would like to have. Neither,” it added, “should the Government act in such a way as to cause inflation.”

Please don’t tell us you have heard it all before, we know you have, and while the wage slaves on both sides of the iron curtain see no alternative to Capitalism, we are sorry, but it will be more of the same. 

                                                                                                                               Harry Baldwin