Cooking the Books: The market fails again (2005)

The Cooking the Books column from the October 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Within a month of the Live8 concerts that were supposed to influence the leaders of world capitalism to do something about poverty in Africa, the charities had to get their begging bowls out again. This time for a famine in Niger, an ex-French colony to the north of Nigeria with a population of over 11.6 million.

In October last year various international agencies including the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation signalled that, due to a bad harvest and an invasion of locusts, cereal production in Niger in 2004-5 was likely to be 7.5 percent below normal. In accordance with the law of supply and demand the price of millet, the main cereal grown and consumed in Niger, began to rise, with the result that the farmers whose crop had failed were unable to afford to buy enough food for their families. Malnutrition, especially amongst children, grew.

The government reacted by bringing in a scheme to sell millet at a reduced price, but although this was below the market price it was still two times higher than the price the farmers had received for their 2003-4 crop.

Dr Isabelle Defourny, of Médicins Sans Frontières, takes up the story:

“In early June, Niger’s prime minister acknowledged that the government’s response was ineffective when he noted that hundreds of thousands of the 3.5 million people threatened by the food shortage were too poor to be able to purchase cereal, even at a low price. Those most severely affected by the food crisis have the least resources, including farmers whose harvests were poor and cattle producers and craftsmen. Many had already exhausted their resources, selling goods and animals to feed themselves.” (Messages, MSF newsletter, July-August, www.msf.fr/documents/base/2005-07-01-Messages137VA.pdf )

MSF urged that “free food distribution is the only way to keep the situation from worsening and to prevent large numbers of deaths”, a perfectly reasonable proposal if we were living in a society geared to serving human needs and welfare. But we’re not. The authorities took a different view, for reasons explained by social researcher, Jean-Hervé Jezequel, in an interview in the same issue of Messages:

“ . . . in early June, at a meeting of the Joint Commission for Consultation, the decision-making body of the ‘action plan’ which includes representatives of the state and of institutional donors, the government of Niger declared that despite the seriousness of the food crisis, it would not set up free distribution operations. The only political reaction from the institutional donors came from the ambassador of France, who was glad there was a ‘policy that will not destabilize the markets’. The ambience was almost surreal: ignoring the emergency food situation, economic considerations were, without hesitation, given priority over the fate of endangered people.”

The French newspaper Libération reported that some cereal merchants had held back stocks to drive up prices further and that others had “disposed of their stocks in neighbouring Nigeria where the population has a higher purchasing power” (9 August).

So, yet again, as in every “food crisis” since the Great Starvation in Ireland in the 1840s, the workings of capitalism have produced the obscene spectacle of the export of food from an area where people are starving because, not having money, they don’t constitute a market and so don’t count.

Party News: Livingston By-Election (2005)

Party News from the October 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party stood a candidate in the Livingston by-election, in central Scotland, on 29 September, caused by the death of former "ethical" Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. As it took place while this issue was at the printers we are unable to report the result, but details of the campaign as it progressed and its outcome can be found on the by-election blog at http://realsocialism.blogspot.com

Editorial: Heartbreak House: The Swindle of Nationalisation. (1945)

Editorial from the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leaders of the Labour Party, with the active support of the Communists, are putting over a monstrous deception on the workers in the mining and other industries.

If Conservatives were now in power they would be telling the workers that it is necessary for them to work harder in order to replace what has been destroyed by war and to produce articles needed owing to the present scarcity of coal, clothing, food, etc.

After the last war the same tale was told—and in due course the workers reaped the harvest of increased production in the shape of glutted markets, unemployment and wage cuts. Remembering what happened then many workers would now be sceptical about such propaganda if it came from Conservatives and the employers generally. They would suspect that they were again being tricked into sacrificing themselves for the benefit of capitalism and the profits of the capitalist class.

Now the propaganda campaign is in full swing again, but this time it comes from the Labour Party and Communists and it is baited with the pretence that under Nationalisation greater production will benefit the whole community and not the propertied class.

Mr. Michael Foot, Labour M.P., writing in the Labour organ, the Daily Herald (August 7th, 1945), puts the Labour Party case:—

“Partly owing to the war, there is a severe physical shortage of all the goods required to provide an abundant, life, and if that abundant life is to be assured in the future certain immediate privations will have to be endured in order to restock the capital industries. No Tory Government could make this appeal, for the worker would suspect that the summons to hard work, discipline and abstinence would result only in fortunes for the few and the later wastage of unemployment. The new Government is in a different situation. It also must appeal for hard work, discipline and, for a short period, continued abstinence. All these are needed to increase the total wealth for distribution, but a Labour Government at the same time can give concrete proof of its resolve to use this wealth for the benefit of the whole community. By its social insurance and health and housing plans it can show its determination to secure a greater equality in the distribution of wealth. By its nationalisation proposals it can show its resolve that the re-equipment of industry shall not merely bring greater profits to the few. By its financial measures it can prove that, when this period of shortage is over, no return will be allowed to wasteful unemployment.—(Daily Herald, August 7th, 1945). 

Mr. Foot in his article was answering criticisms made in the Economist, August 4th, the central point of the criticism being that if the owners of a nationalised industry receive as compensation the same income that they were drawing already there is no surplus from which the workers could receive higher wages unless (through more machinery, greater efficiency and harder work), the productivity of the industry is increased. Mr. Foot’s answer is that the Labour Government will get this greater productivity and it will benefit the workers and "not merely bring greater profits to the few.’’ (our italics).

The Labour Government having in the words of the Daily Herald, convinced the electorate "of its detachment from class interests '' (i.e., working class interests), and "of its devotion to the welfare of the whole community". (Daily Herald, August 1st, 1945), no longer adheres to its old propaganda in favour of drastically redistributing the national income in order to help the workers.

Instead it has taken over the familiar capitalist argument that the only way to improve the lot of the workers is to increase the total national income. Mr. Herbert Morrison clinched this in his speech to the National Conference of Labour Women on September 5th:—

“If we were to be able to provide better benefits under the social insurance measures, reduce taxation, and provide more of the goods of life for everybody, the only way was by increasing the total national income ... it could only be done by work, thought, drive and initiative."(Daily Telegraph, September 6th, 1945).

In the same speech Mr. Morrison justified himself by the plea that "there was a limit to what could be achieved merely by transferring money from one person's pocket to another’s,” and went on to explain why, in the interests of efficiency, the Labour Government holds it necessary to reduce taxation on the profits of the capitalists.

A few days later the Communist, Mr. Arthur Horner, National Production Officer of the National Union of Miners and President of the South Wales Miner’s Federation added his piece to the campaign. He told a Press Conference in London that he was asking the miners to increase output by 10 per cent. On the ground that The Mines are to be nationalised he

“asked the workers in the pits to adopt a new attitude . . . Hitherto the policy of the Union had been to get what they could out of the owners. Now they had taken on the responsibility of assisting in running the industry they must accept new methods. They must take a more active part in assisting greater technical efficiency and increasing output.”—(Daily Telegraph, September 7th, 1945).

This new emphasis on the capitalist doctrine that the workers can only get more by producing more, contrasts glaringly with what the Labour Party and the Communists were saying just before the war. Compare Mr. Morrison's statement now with the Labour Party pamphlet “The Nation's Wealth at the Nations Service.”—(Douglas Jay. Labour Party, 1938).

Mr. Jay wrote :—

“Labour's ultimate objective in economic policy is the removal of unjustifiable inequalities of wealth and opportunity by the transfer of private unearned income and capital into public hands. There exists something like £1,200,000,000 of annual unearned income in Britain to-day; and probably two-thirds of this is inherited income which the recipients have done nothing to earn or deserve.

Fortunes totalling nearly £600 million are left every year by private persons mainly to their own friend, and relatives, many of whom are already wealthy. Here is the available reserve and capital on which Labour must draw to supply the minimum human needs of the poorest . . . .”

He went on to say that “a far greater transfer of wealth can be achieved than any yet attempted, without any dislocation of the community's economic life.”

Another indication of the Labour Party's change of front is their present complete silence about, the “capital levy.” After the last war this device, which was offered as a means of transferring wealth from capitalists to workers, occupied first place in the Labour Party programme.

So much for the Labour Party since it has progressed from the pre-war political wilderness to the milk and honey of office.

Let us now consider what Socialists have to say about the whole problem of producing and distributing the articles needed by the community. Let it be emphasised once again that the Socialist case is poles apart from that of the Labour and Communist parties.

At present the means of production (land, factories, railways, etc.), are the private property of a small minority of the population, the capitalists. By virtue of their ownership they draw a large unearned income in the form of rent, interest and profit from the wealth produced by the working-class. The Labour Party's remedy for the poverty problem is (while leaving the greater part of capitalist, industry unchanged), to introduce a purely nominal change of ownership in certain industries that are to be “nationalised." Instead of receiving incomes in the form of dividend on shares in mining or railway companies the present owners will relinquish direct ownership and receive instead approximately the same capital and income in the form of Government stocks and the interest thereon, and the existing gross inequality of property and income will not be affected.

But there is a snag in this from the point of view of trying to run with the hare while hunting with the hounds. The Labour government have promised “fair compensation" to the owners in nationalised industries and are committed to enabling the capitalists in private industries to obtain a “reasonable return on the capital employed" (Sir Stafford Cripps, Daily Herald, August 13th); but they are in the dilemma of also having promised higher incomes to the workers which, under the conditions laid down, can only come from an increase in the workers' output.

The only real remedy is one the Labour Government cannot employ because they did not seek at the election a mandate to abolish capitalism. If capitalism were abolished and socialism introduced there would immediately be two big developments through which the poverty, problem of the working class could be solved by increasing the number of men and women actually engaged in production. One is that the members of the capitalist class, no longer able to live in leisure and luxury at the expense of the workers, would become useful members of the community helping to produce the articles needed by the community. The second is that all kinds of activities necessary to capitalism but unnecessary under Socialism would cease, and this would free millions of workers for production who are now engaged in banks, insurance companies, and advertising, or in the taxation and rating departments of the Central and Local Government; as well as those now required by the capitalists to serve in the armed forces for the competitive struggle with foreign capitalist groups. As is explained in our pamphlet "Socialism" the output of wealth could be at least doubled by these means.

This is the only way in which the poverty problem can be solved and the Labour Government, trying to run the capitalist system, cannot solve it. What they are doing is to act as Caretakers for the capitalist class, calling on the workers to increase output (just as a Conservative Government would have done), but using seductive arguments about “service to the community" which would only be justified if in fact the means of production had been transformed or were going to be transformed into the property of the whole community. While maintaining (with merely superficial changes), the system under which the capitalists exploit the working class, the Labour Government are pretending that exploitation has ended.

It is clever propaganda, but the realities of the class struggle between those who own, but do net produce and those who produce but do not own, will not for long be smoothed over by even the most plausible Labour-Communist orator. The working class faced with the same old ruthlessness of capitalist employers, of Government Departments and of the Boards of the Mining and Transport undertakings when “nationalisation" takes place, will find that they have no defence except the limited defence provided by their own trade unions. In strikes and lockouts the web of half-truths spun by the Labour leaders will be rent asunder, and the workers will have made an advance towards the necessary understanding of the fact that Socialism has nothing in common with Labourism.

"King of the Castle" (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is strange what material the socialist finds to his hand in his investigations into the phenomena of society. A book picked up casually, as was the case with the writer, may well throw light upon yet another aspect of that great struggle that is continually with us; through world wars and the uneasy peace periods in between: the class struggle.

The book that is the subject of this article is one by Rumer Godden, and has the strange title, "Rungli-Rungliot.” This means in Paharia "thus far and no further,” a description one might apply to the authoress's socialist knowledge. She is, without a doubt, a fine descriptive writer. One has only to shut one's eyes after reading this sentence in her picture of the house on the slopes of the Himalayas. "The lawn ends in clouds that are sweeping below it,” and one is there both in spirit and imagination. The socialist, however, whilst taking pleasure in looking at the scenery through her eyes, finds most interest in that part of the book that deals with the lives and toilings of the coolies.

That this particular section of the working-class; the coolies of North Bengal, India, live very unhappy lives, is evident from even Rumer Godden’s unseeing pen. Some of the chapters take one back to Marx’s description of the conditions in English factories of the nineteenth-century period. No wonder that even the unenlightened masses of India are beginning to take notice of the results emanating from the rule of the British section of the capitalist class.

The scene of this book is set in a tea garden on the slopes of the Himalayas, and is surrounded on all sides by similar tea gardens—this being excellent tea growing country. This particular tea garden, according to the authoress, consists of two thousand five hundred acres managed by one white man. To quote her words about the manager and his wife: "Their prestige on the estate is enormous. He is king and she is queen and their power among the people is absolute. A less nice man would have become complicated, but W. is genuinely popular and full of a lordly happiness, all the happier and good to see because it is so lordly.” (Page 16.)

We get another view of this "king of the tea garden” when it had been raining heavily, persistently for six days. The authoress says the rain was not so depressing because "The constant drumming noise on the tin roof had something steady and soothing about it.” "Twice W.,” she goes on, "has had to ring the gong at midday to call them in, it was too saturating even for them." (Our italics.)

The manager may have appeared to the ignorant coolies (and the authoress!) to possess the powers of a king, but he was under no illusions himself. He knew well that to that particular section of the capitalist class who deal in the commodity tea he was just another manager, to be replaced if the output of tea declined, whether it be due to rain, drought, snow, earthquake), or any visitation of nature. This may explain why he was straining every nerve and muscle (of his coolies?) to increase the output from four hundred and fifty pounds of tea last year to half a million this (1942).

That the manager of this particular tea garden may or may not have been a shade better in his attitude towards the Indian working class is a point that need not bother us unduly. We have an account of earth-works being built in this and neighbouring gardens. In the gardens, it appears, children carry baskets of earth upon their hacks. The big difference between W. and other garden managers, in the eyes of the authoress, is that he does not employ children under a certain age for this heavy work. One might just as well say, that the capitalist of the nineteenth century who did not employ children under the age of, say, seven, was more humane than hie fellow capitalists. It is only a question of degree; the principle remains the same.

To the members of the reformist parties of this country who urge the putting in order of our own "house” before attempting that of others we reply: Put this "house” in order by all means, and by that we mean not a new layer of paint, but the demolition of the structure so that the new can be built. In other words: we have constantly stressed the fact that reforming the capitalist system will not remove the causes of society's inequality that are the foundation of that system. Only the replacement of the capitalist system by socialism will do that, and it is for that reason we seek to throw light upon the activities of the capitalist class in other countries; and for the same reason that there are five political parties throughout the world bolding to the same object and principles, though independenty.

Socialism, of its very conception, must be international. That is the reason why the workers in Australia. New Zealand. U.S. of America, Canada, and Great Britain, who have formed political parties striving for socialism are the vanguard of the working class in their struggle for emancipation. We ask those people who are attempting to alleviate the lot of the workers of India to examine the S.P.G.B.'s case, and agree that the next step must be the formation in India a political party whose object is not to reform the capitalist system, but to establish a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole

L. Young.

Blogger's Note:

There's a strong chance that 'L.Young' was Len Young, who was a member of the Birmingham Branch of the SPGB.

The Plundering of Haiti (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Haiti was, on the eve of the French Revolution, the richest of all European colonies, for it accounted for no less than two-thirds of the overseas trade of France. Its wealth, drawn from its plantations of sugar, cotton and coffee, was derived from the merciless exploitation of half a million slaves. This island has always reeked of cruelty. The Spaniards exterminated a million natives before they had recourse to the African slave trade. The French were able organisers, but they, too, relied on the lash and reckoned that it paid them to work a negro to death in seven years." 

—H. N. Brailsford, Observer, June 17th, 1945.

The Labour Party Programme: 'Let Us Face The Future' (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party was returned to Power on a Declaration of Labour Policy under the above title.

Very briefly its salient points may be summarized as “public ownership” of the “fuel and power industries"; “transport”; “iron and steel”; “public supervision of monopolies and cartels” and “public ownership of the Bank of England.” (Pages 5 and 6).

Right at the outset, the Labour Party says in this document.

“The nation wants food, work and homes. . . . These are the aims, in themselves they are no more than words. All parties may declare that in principle they agree with them. (pp. 3). . . . The nation needs a tremendous overhaul—all parties say so—the Labour Party means it.” (pp. 4.)

It is thus clearly stated that all parties proclaim the same programme; “food, work, homes,’ the difference being that the Labour Party means it. This genuine workman like plan is the proposal for Public Control.

Despite the fact that on page four of “Let us face the Future” all parties say they stand for the same objects—on page 6 a rather startling change takes place.

“The Labour Party is a Socialist Party—and proud of it.”

“Its ultimate purpose at home is the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain. "

But Socialism cannot come overnight, as the product of a week-end resolution .... There are basic industries—ripe and over-ripe for public ownership and management in the direct service of the nation.”

The question therefore arises! Will “Public Ownership" as propounded by the Labour Party “ultimately” establish Socialism?

There can be little doubt that the astounding success of the Labour Party at the polls was largely due to the association, in the minds of the workers, of Government Control with Employment.

The bitter memory of the Depression years after the last war still rankled; and many jumped to the false conclusion that what had found them regular Work, was not War, but Government Control.

When this is coupled with the specious, though spurious, notion that Government Control and State direction lead to Socialism—a perfect vote-catching programme results.

Let us see what the Labour Party is actually doing to “implement its election serenade.”

Immediately it was returned, two authoritative spokesmen were put up; one from inside the Government and one from outside, to reassure the American capitalists.

Sir Stafford Cripps, on August 1st, outlined the Five Year Plan of the Labour Government in an important broadcast to America.

“The Labour Party, Sir Stafford said, did not believe in Confiscation, but rather in fair compensation for any person whose interests were taken over by the State, whether in Industry, Land or Finance.”— (News-Chronicle, August 1st, 1945).

“Professor Laski, chairman of the Labour Party National Executive, in a broadcast to America last night said he had been asked what would be given priority in Labour's programme of Nationalisation.

The Bank of England was going to be socialised and the direction of investments planned as part of the progress of industrial re-organisation.

This would follow nationalisation of mines and electrical power and the iron and steel industry.

The programme would follow the broad outline of the Tennessee Valley authority scheme—planned production by the State. . . . ”—(Evening Standard, August 1st, 1945).

In response to urgent requests from the Conservatives. Mr. Hugh Dalton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, intervened in the Debate on the King’s Speech to make perfectly plain exactly what the Labour Party means by “Socialisation” of the Bank of England.

“To a large extent the changes we propose will have the effect of bringing the law into accord with the facts ... as they have developed. . . . Private stockholders will disappear from the scene, carrying with them fair compensation. They will be fairly treated. They will lose the powers which legally they still possess, though they may have fallen into disuse, it is proposed to eliminate the stockholders with appropriate compensation from the State.”—(Manchester' Guardian, August 22nd, 1945).

This was quite clear to all the financial Editors beforehand, who said the same sort of thing as the News of the World, for example

“The ‘socialisation' of the Bank of England will do no more than give formal recognition to what is already an established fact.

Ever since we came off the Gold Standard in 1931, responsibility for the general direction of our financial and monetary policy has been assumed by the Treasury. And since .the outbreak of war in 1939 control over the Bank by the Government has been absolute. It is not expected that there will be any change in the Governorship, which is at present held by Lord Catto.”— August 20th, 1945).

In any case, Dalton had already made the position obvious to the Bankers by shouting at them in the Lobby.

“Tell your friends there is no need to sell their Bank shares. Now is the time to bay.”—(Daily Mail, August 6th).

Articles are now appearing in the public press, like that of Mr. Laurence Wilkinson, in the Evening Standard for August 28th which discuss How stockholders of the Bank of England (17,000 of them) are going to be compensated! He points out that the Bank has paid a dividend of 12 per cent for the past 29 years but claims, on all sorts of grounds, that more should be paid in compensation, because the Bank stock is actually worth more. Another Argument is that; if Bank stockholders are to be given a fixed interest Government security in exchange for stock (say 12 per cent.) they lose all hope of the small gradual increase which the stock showed! And well-meaning members of the Labour Party are solemnly debating these points!

The same largely applies to the Mining Industry—except that it consists of tangible assets, i.e., the actual material and plant involved.

On August 16th the National Mining Association passed the following resolution :—

“In view of the fact that legislation for the transfer of the industry from private enterprise to public ownership is to be proceeded with, and having regard to the statement made on behalf of the Government that the industry would be fairly treated as far as compensation is concerned, the colliery owners, through the Mining Association place themselves at the disposal of the Government.”—(Manchester Guardian, August 31st).

At the same time, Mr. Shinwell, the Labour Minister of Fuel, has demanded more production (exactly like Beaverbrook and Churchill), and appointed the Communist Miners’ Official, Arthur Horner, to get going. Horner has already called on Miners to be “ Stakanovites.”

The net result of the Labour Party's “Socialist” Public ownership, so far, therefore; is that the value of the Bank of England stock has gone up—Coal Mine shares are at a premium—and the miners are expected to work harder this winter.

On the same day that the Mine-owners “placed themselves at the disposal of the Labour Government”—the Daily Herald declared in an editorial, that “the foundations of the Socialist Britain,” will be “laid in the coal pits”? Which makes one wonder what the Labour Government have got to do with it—the coal pits are the last place to find them. “Socialism” has been proclaimed from some very funny places—Karl Kautsky twitted Bernstein with discovering it in every municipal public lavatory fifty years ago—but never before down the coal pits.

The foundations of Labour Party “Socialism” may be in the coal pits—the first floor is already in the British, owned lead and zinc mines of Yugo-Slavia.

“The British Government intend to make an urgent protest to Marshal Tito's Yugo Slav Government against the nationalisation of British lead and sine mines without compensation.

The French Government are to make similar protests. . . .

The protests are considered not important in themselves, bat they are being watched as test cases concerning other Allied properties and concessions in the Danubian and Balkan States, including oil in Rumania, gold, copper, zinc and lead in Bulgaria, lead zinc tin and steel in Yugo-Slavia and other interests in Poland and Hungary. (Evening Standard, August 28th).

Poor Tito—he believed those election speeches too! Socialism is the Common Ownership of the means of wealth production. The means of wealth production under capitalism are the private property of the capitalists. The only way to transform Capital (private property) into Social Wealth is to take it away by expropriating its present capitalist private owners. Socialism cannot be inaugurated by compensating capitalists—which leaves wealth in its Money form (Capital) in the same hands. Nothing whatever is changed by the Labour Government's “Socialisation” of the Bank of England, except the name on the documents entitling the owners to their pound of flesh. Same owners—same flesh—“the 12 per cent." comes out of the hides of the workers.

Banks are institutions of the Money system—Capitalism. They only function for, and in that system: They can only operate when the great mass of production is carried on to exchange products—for profit. They are the clearing houses of that commodity—(or its paper tokens) gold; which serves as the universal medium of exchange—which stems from private ownership.

Banks borrow—and lend other peoples money, i.e., they take deposits, and make advances on security (property). Banks make profits (without which they close their doors) from the difference between the cost of attracting deposits; and what they make by lending or investing a large part of these deposits for short periods. Banks are Profit making concerns of Capitalism. They are nothing whatever to do with Socialism; which will abolish Money and Banks, along with parsons, prostitutes, pawnbrokers and politicians.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood told the Conservatives that the Labour majority in the House to-day is “quite different,” from the Conservatives, but went on to say of his own Labour Party colleagues:—

“I look around among my colleagues and I see landlords, capitalists and lawyers. We are a cross- section of the national life.”—(Hansard, August 17th, Column 261.)

And not one voice was there to interject, “Double-cross section”!

The Labour Government's object is not the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain—which can only be done by “dispossessing”—“taking away,” (Oxford Dictionary) expropriating—not compensating Capitalists. Marx's slogan was:—

“Expropriation of the Expropriators.”

“Public Ownership” simply means wealth in the form of “public corporation” stocks, quoted on the Money Market to the highest bidder, in place of private stockholders. Mr. Dalton has already expressed the hope that British Government securities will increase in value, as a result of his legislation. Under the Labour Government's convenient “Socialism," the profits and wealth of the capitalists increase.

For a great many years the Socialist Party has declared that:—

“It is impossible to exaggerate the harm done to the Socialist movement, by those who, calling themselves Socialists, have taught the workers to believe that State Capitalism and Social Reform are Socialism.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always been careful to define what Socialism means. Nobody who grasped that definition ever made the error of supposing that State Enterprise like the Post Office or Public Utility Corporations like the London Passenger Transport Board had anything to do with Socialism. Nor did they imagine, even for a moment, that Hitler and Mussolini were Socialists, or that Socialism could result from the Bolshevist dictatorship in Russia or from a Labour Government in Britain or Australia. But our critics who ridiculed what they called the “doctrinaire” Socialist Party of Great Britain, all fell into these errors—with disastrous results."

The greatest disaster of all will befall the National Labour Party—as the workers discover, by bitter experience, that it does not stand for Socialism. We shall proclaim louder than ever what Socialism means—the workers will learn—and the Labour Leader take his place in the museum of antiquities, with Money—Banks, “ the spinning wheel, and the Bronze axe."

Horatio.

A Journey Through Dreamland (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was a frosty clear morning when I found my foot-steps taking me towards an exclusive store in the heart of the West end of London.

I stopped outside the ostentatious entrance, hesitating before entering. In the mean time a contiunual stream of taxis and cars deposited beautifully robed ladies, escorted by men in immaculate uniforms. From their appearance they had neither toiled nor spun throughout their lives.

I mused, thinking, dare I enter in my cheap utility costume, which had taken months of saving and scrimping? I took my courage in both hands and passed through the swing doors.

As I crossed the threshold, I stood wide-eyed with wonder! Was this the sixth year of the War? Were not we all rationed? Had we not been told over and over again that equality of sacrifice was demanded from each and even one of us, irrespective of our station in life? That the rich and poor received only what was allotted to them in foodstuff and clothing? What I saw did not bear this out.

To the left of the entrance, was an array of the most exquisite blooms one could desire; Orchids, Roses, Early Spring Violets, Snowdrops, and Daffodils. I drank in their sweet aroma and enquired the price of daffodils. 1 was told “15/6 a bunch, Madam." I turned sadly away; this was outside the scope of my wage packet.

To the right a space was allocated to beautiful antique furniture and hand-made glass of the finest workmanship and design. I picked up a tiny Venetian wine glass, one of a set of six, and hurriedly placed it down again. £10 the set! An old antique cabinet was marked £70. These goods were not for the poor workers, they were only for the idle rich.

My wanderings carried me along to the food department. Here a veritable Alladin's cave opened in front of my eyes. If this was the kind of food supplied to the clientele of the store in wartime, what could it have been in times of peace! Arrayed upon the shelves and counters were wonderful things to eat and drink. Red Currants in Cognac, Cherries in Brandy, Asparagus in wine, turtle soup (real, not mock), Roast Chickens, various fruits and rare cheeses, fine teas and coffees. Even the dainty rolls and loaves of bread seemed to be made of a different Hour from that of the bread in my local stores. I enquired the price of the cherries in brandy, £3 10s. a small bottle. I looked around and saw the well-fed men and women giving their orders for these things. I noticed their air of general well-being, their smug contented looks and wondered whether they ever gave a thought, to the men and women who produced all these good things for them to consume.

Continuing my journey, I came to the clothing department in which I found beautiful dainty silk underwear at prices ranging from £6 to £18 a garment. Chiffon blouses at £7 each, dresses, coats, and costumes, all to delight the eyes at fabulous prices. The Linen department contained the finest household goods, towels, sheets and other things requisite for the furnishing of a home. Sheets were marked up at £8 a pair, all in delicate colourings.

I retraced my footsteps slowly into the sunshine again, my thoughts wandering back to the stores where I usually do my shopping. I could not recollect ever seeing such an array of foodstuffs on those counters and shelves. I had never seen cherries in brandy there nor fine cheeses, nor roast chickens. What usually struck me in the eyes were tins of spam, more spam, and still more spam, the inexhaustable supply of powdered eggs and milk, the tins of cheap soup, the tinned fish and other synthetic foods. The clothing department invariably displayed ill fitting utility garments made of shoddy material. The exquisite garments and the dainty underclothing were conspicuous by their absence. It was impossible to obtain any household linen unless one queued up for hours at an end.

The workers have always been rationed, they never have sufficient money to obtain more than the necessities of life not only during a crisis but during the whole time that Capitalism has existed.

The words of Shelley's poem flashed through my mind as I turned towards home.

The Seed ye sow, another reaps.

The Wealth ye find, another keeps. 

The Robes ye weave, another wears.

The Arms ye forge, another bears.

Sow seed, but let no tyrant reap,

Find wealth let no impostor keep.

Weave robes let not the idle wear.

Forge Arms in your defence to bear.

Anne.

What is a Realistic Attitude for the Working-Class? (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A leading article in the Daily Telegraph, July 26th, contained the following:—

“It is the intention of the General Council of the T.U.C. to recommend to the full congress when it meets next September acceptance of a scheme for compulsory national service after the end of hostilities in the far East. . . . Hitherto whenever compulsory national service has been proposed, whether in parliament or elsewhere, trade-union leaders have opposed it. Thai they should now have changed is an encouraging indication of a more realistic attitude of mind. . . . Also it is permissible to hope, trade-union leaders now see that national service is, in the truest sense of the word, democratic, and provides the best possible antidote to class-consciousness, whether it takes the form of class, war theorising or of mere foolish snobbishness.”

Surely the most realistic attitude for the trade unions together with the rest of the working-class is to take into consideration the most important facts of their existence. First their poverty. Secondly their enslavement, due to capitalist ownership of the means of life, and thirdly their incessant straggle to raise wages above the poverty line to which they are condemned by the merchandise character of their labour-power.

These facts are the outcome of the class ownership of the means of wealth-production. Consequently a realistic policy for the working-class is to organise politically with the sole object of establishing a system in which the means of wealth-production shall be the common property of all. Under such a system a real democracy and a settled plan for production and distribution would put an end to poverty. The abolition of classes would end the incessant struggle over wages by removing the cause of class antagonism-, i.e., the class ownership of the means of life and the resulting enslavement of the working-class.

This the leader writer of the Daily Telegraph might say is theorising, but it is the logical result of reasoning from hard facts, and it is on hard facts that sound theory and a realistic attitude are built up.

F. Foan

Hiroshima and After! (1945)

From the October 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another date has been added to History’s gruesome chronology of horror. Hiroshima, August 5th 1945, marks the application of a new technique in the sordid science of slaughter. In one catastrophic flash a city has been destroyed and “all life seared to death”. While the monument of dust still towered above the ruins, the news was released upon a world almost satiated with carnage.

Yet it is significant to observe that although the use of the atomic bomb hastened the end of the war in the East, the announcement was received with little popular enthusiasm.

Before 1939 it was comparatively easy for the ruling class to convince the workers of the need for a large navy, army, and air force. Armaments, they maintained would ward off would-be aggressors and thereby ensure peace. Their solicitude for our safety seemed almost genuine. Years of grim experience, however, have proved the Socialists’ contention that armaments are no insurance against war. New methods of persuasion will be needed next time to herd the population into the future shoddy equivalents of Anderson shelters, particularly since we are told by the US War Department that “an atomic bomb could be made 1,000 times more powerful than the type used on Japan”. (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945). There will be very few near miss stories!

The reaction of the military mind is summed up by General Ismay, who in 1941 stated on behalf of the Chiefs of Staff Committee, “although personally, I am quite content with the existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement”. (Times, August 7th, 1945).

Let there be no mistake! The disastrous effect of this latest device to uplift humanity will in no way prevent its use. In fact because of the power of destruction, it becomes obvious that the element of surprise will be a major advantage in war. It may well be that a matter of hours will decide which group of capitalists will emerge victorious from the next edition, which gang will be jet-propelled on the next Crooks Tour, to sit at the fleshpots of some future Potsdam Conference.

Unfortunately for the British and American capitalistic class it will be impossible to monopolise the development of nuclear power. Sir James Chadwick, chief scientific advisor to the British members of the Combined Allied Policy Committee in Washington, has admitted that any nation with reasonable industrial facilities could start now and produce an atom bomb in 5 years’ time, without assistance from Britain and the USA. Its antecedents are the past ages of patient research. From the 1890’s when the Curies conducted experiments in radio-activity, up to the recent perverted achievement, the efforts of such scientists as Professor Rutherford of Manchester, Niels Bohr of Copenhagen, Dr Lawrence of California University, Professor Joliot of France, and others in Germany, Japan, Russia and elsewhere, prove indisputably that in the modern world production is a social function. In brief, as reported by the US War Department the bomb was created “not by the devilish inspiration of some warped genius, but by the arduous labour of thousands of normal men and women”. (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945), i.e., members of the working class.

Needless to remark the news has produced a spate of advice, comments, explanations, warnings, and prophecies from people qualified and otherwise. Among the latter, Mr G. B. Shaw, in the Sunday Express, August 12th, 1945, unable to explain, yet urged to say something reverts to hollow flippancies, and reminiscences of childhood days. Dr Joad, emulating Churchill thanks God, “for one of the innumerable dispensations of Providence by which this country has been preserved”, and asks querulously, “Will nobody stop these damned scientists, put them in a bag, and tie them up! Or into a lethal chamber?” (Sunday Despatch, August 12th, 1945). Although goaded to repeat the question when we see such waste of print, or hear his brain storms distorting the ether waves, we know that the fault lies not with the scientists, but with the system of society which corrupts their discoveries.

General Fuller in the Sunday Pictorial, commenting on the cause of war, says “there are several . . . but in the economic age in which we live, the one which seems to me to tower above all others, is the ‘profit motive'”. To socialists the profit motive is the only explanation of war in the modern world.

As long as Capitalism remains, there will be no slackening of research for even “better and more beautiful” methods of destruction, no tightening of the purse-strings which have already disgorged £500,000,000. Meanwhile the producers of wealth will be sampling the elusive fruits of rationed victory amid Portal shanty-towns and unemployment queues.

There is no need to enlarge on the physical results of atomic warfare. Combined with jet-propulsion, mass-murder is possible by remote control.

It is, however, relevant to examine a few of its effects on the current political fallacies of the defenders of “private enterprise”.

The USA is now as vulnerable to attack as the rest of the world. Geographical situation offers no advantage, and in consequence the last crumbling bastion of isolationism is breached. This is clearly demonstrated by her policy of expansion especially in the Pacific.

All ideas of warfare are obsolete, or at least require drastic revision, and already, at the end of the worst war in history, the spectre of the next conflict haunts the celebrations of peace.

Sooner than we realize nuclear power may be harnessed to industry. In the inevitable scramble for production and profit gluts, slumps and unemployment figures will reach new levels and defy solution by the obsolete plans of the Beveridge type.

These are just a few of the problems of Capitalism: that Hydra-headed system which the Labour Party now administers in Great Britain; but will never control. Many supporters of the Labour Party are still deluded by the idea that Nationalisation is a major step in a policy of gradualism which will “reform capitalism out of existence”. The sledge-hammer blows of events will nail this tragic error!

Wars are inherent in the private-property system itself, and are likely to wipe millions of workers out of existence, while the futile pin-pricks of reform leave its structure untouched.

Who can now suggest that the policy of the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain, though correct in theory, is one for application only in some remote future? Who would question the practicability of our case?

There is no time for complacency! Let us face the fact that time is on our side only if we seize it by the forelock and use it to our advantage.

Socialism, the only solution to the problems which confront us, is the need not of the century, but of the hour!

Sympathisers, men and women of the working class, we urge you to join with us in the struggle for emancipation.

You have but two alternatives! Either the poverty, servitude and degradation of Capitalism, culminating in war, or Socialism in which the inventive genius of man will be used for the welfare of all society.

Your choice is as simple as it is vital! On it rests the future of humanity!

R. V.

Editorial: Peace on Earth. (1905)

Editorial from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

While from thousands of pulpits Christian preachers are asking for “peace on earth, goodwill toward men” we find war between classes and war between nations everywhere manifest. If we take but a short period of ten years we shall find that every civilised country has been engaged either in war or in oppressing subject races. America with Spain and with the Philipinos ; France in Madagascar and in Algeria; Russia with Japan and with the Manchus; Germany with the Hereros ; Holland with the Javanese ; Britain everywhere : thus the tale of war is told.

We who are Socialists are all in favour of peace, at the same time we recognise that so long as men live in societies based upon class opposition, in societies in which the modes of producing the material sustenance of man are monopolised by a class, so long will war be rife as a means of satisfying national disputes.

The fact that one class monopolises all that is best in life because of its owning the means of production, while another class possesses nothing but its power of labour, has to sell that power in order to gain a mere livelihood, is the primary cause of the war of classes. Each class seeks to better its condition. And this is only possible at the expense of the other class. A rise in wages for the worker is a fall in the profits of the employer. A reduction of hours for the worker beyond certain limits is at the expense oi the employer’s surplus-value. This opposition between employer and employed manifests itself not only in the striving for better wages and reduced hours, but throughout the whole of the ramifications of modern industrial, society.

The production of commodities is to-day production for the market. During periods of prosperity production is carried on by all manufacturers with great intensity. This production is furthered by means of the “credit” system, which allows of capital being borrowed and material being bought on credit. When, as the result of all the rival manufacturers turning out their goods as quickly as possible, the market becomes glutted, it becomes necessary to somehow convert these goods into money in order to discharge their liabilities. The usual markets being glutted, it is ever more necessary to extend the limits of the market, to secure fresh outlets, and the ordinary method of arriving at this end is to annex new territory and develope its resources.

Thus arising from the very course of commerce itself comes the necessity of carrying on wars of aggression. War to-day is essentially commercial, and at all times has been at base economic. Whether it is the ancient commercial feud of Athens and AEgina, the jealousy of Rome of its commercial rival, Cathage; the desire of Rome to conquer the lands adjoining the Mediterranean and thereby possess a monopoly of that sea which was then the world’s commercial highway; peasant wars, servile wars, feudal wars, or modern wars of aggression like the recent Boer War ; whichever of these they be, they are fundamentally economic, and in the interests, not of the whole people, but of the ruling class.

And when such wars do arise they always receive the support of the Church within their own nation, which is so ready at other times to prate of “peace on earth.” While having no quarrel with religion as such, we cannot but recognise that the official church in any country is the worthy bulwark of the ruling class in that country, and that towards that most reactionary of churches, the Roman Catholic, the propertied class are drifting more and more.

When the Church is prepared to advocate and to hasten the downfall of the present industrial system—the cause of modern wars—and to substitute therefor a society based upon social equality from which no wars can possibly spring, we shall be the more willing to believe in their protestations in favour of peace. But to-day they cry peace ! peace ! where there is and can be no peace.

Each of the forms of war—the outcome of the existing capitalist system—carries in its train results both dire and disastrous for the working people. Whether national or industrial warfare is the more distressing and far-reaching in its results may be difficult to determine from actual tabulated statistics, but after a minute examination of both we have no hesitation in saying that industrial warfare has far the greater number of victims.

Enormous as have been the victims of battles like Borodino, Sedan, or the Sha-ho ; great as is the estimate of 2,000,000 men killed in battles between fairly civilised powers in the 25 years from 1855 to 1880, greater still has been the sacrifice to industrialism. Let us calculate the number of children dying in their first year from remediable causes, the number of accidents on the railway or in the mine, the early deaths of the workers from living in insanitary dwellings and working in insanitary factories and workshops with insufficient nourishment for their daily fare, and we shall see that the industrial warfare is as severe as the national. When we remember that the number of those killed and injured on American railways during the past year exceeded the 45,000 casualties of the Sha-ho battle we shall see that it is as necessary to consider means for the removal of the warfare of peace as of that of war.

We may be excused if we give two extracts, one showing the horrors of the battle-field, the other the terrors of the factory.

The first is from Dr. Russell, of the “Times,” who wrote the following account of the battle of Sedan:

“Let your readers fancy masses of coloured rags glued together with blood and brains, and pinned into strange shapes by fragments of bones ; let them conceive mens’ bodies without heads, legs without bodies, heaps of human entrails attached to red and blue cloth, and disembowelled corpses in uniform, bodies lying about in all attitudes with skulls shattered, faces blown off, hips smashed, bones, flesh, and gay clothing all pounded together, as if brayed in a mortar, extending for miles, not very thick in any one place, but recurring perpetually for weary hours, and then they cannot, with the most vivid imagination, come up to the sickening reality of that butchery.”

Thus of war ! and now of peace ! Our extract is from Dr. Tatham’s Report on “The Mortality of Occupations.” He pays :

“At the last census (1891) male cotton and flax operatives above the age of 15 numbered 179,359 in the aggregate having increased since 1881 by 11 per cent. At ages below 45 years the mortality of cotton operatives scarcely differs from the average among textile workers, but at each group of ages above 45 the rates are considerably in excess of the average. Compared with the standard for occupied males the death-rates are excessive at all ages over 25 years and under 45 years. The comparative mortality figure of these workers from all causes at ages 25—65 is 1,141, considerably exceeding that of textile workers generally; while compared with that of occupied males it is in excess by 20 per cent. Cotton operatives die half as fast again as the standard from diseases of the respiratory system; their mortality also shows an excess of two-fifths from diseases of the nervous system, and of the digestive organs other than the liver, and an excess of one-fifth from circulatory diseases. They also suffer more than the average from phthisis, influenza, diabetes, and suicide, whilst, in common with textile workers generally, their mortality from alcoholism and liver disease is below, but that from rheumatic fever is above the average.”

True, the first of these pictures is far more horrible than the second, but we have a Sedan only once in thirty years or more, while we have the remediable terrors of factory life with us day by day.

By all means let us have peace, but let us work for it by trying to remove the cause of war—our present industrial system. When society is no longer a crystallised selfishness, when the condition of man’s living is no longer at the expense of his neighbour, when anarchy is no longer the phase of production of commodities, when, instead of all these, men live, owning the material means of subsistence in common, and men and women can obtain the satisfaction of their needs without having to sell their labour force for a bare subsistence, then it will no longer be necessary to speak of peace, for peace will then be a living reality.

Those who really desire that peace should reign over all the earth, who see peace between men as a condition of healthy industrial and social development should join with us of The Socialist Party of Great Britain in organising that party which shall preach those principles of industrial harmony based upon the abrogation of class privilege and the holding of all means of production and of distribution in common, which shall be the basis upon which shall be built up a peace which shall endure and which shall extend throughout the world-wide co-operative Commonwealth.

Party Notes. (1905)

Party Notes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the month of January there will be two meetings of the Executive Committee, viz., Saturday 7th at 3 p.m., and Tuesday 17th at 7 p.m.

* * *

Since the election of the present Executive Committee, there have been three vacancies created by the resignation of Comrades E. Allen, H. Hawkins, and Woodhouse. The latter is now in the United States in pursuit of a livelihood and has, I am sure, the beat wishes of every member of the Party. The following members have been elected to the Executive to fill the vacancies: T. A. Jackson, A. Barker and F. S. Leigh.

* * *

A Branch has been formed in Tottenham. The Secretary is Leslie Boyne, 17, Etherley Road, South Tottenham, N., who will be glad to hear of anyone desirous of joining.

* * *

The Quarterly Delegate Meeting to receive and deal with the report of the Executive Committee will be held at the Communist Club at 6.30 p.m. on Saturday, 21st January. Each Branch is entitled to send two delegates. Credential forms have been sent to the Branches, and Branch Secretaries should see that each Credential issued is properly filled up.

* * *

In order that the Quarterly Report of the Executive Committee may be completed, will Branch Secretaries please note that the Reports of Branches (form C) should be forwarded so as to reach the.Central Office by Saturday, 7th inst. if possible.

* * *

Membership Cards for 1905 are now ready. Each Branch Secretary should send at once to : Comrade J. McNicol, Assistant Secretary, 179, Isledon Road, Finsbury Park, London, N., a list containing the registered numbers of those members for whom new cards are required. The member’s full name and address may be given in each case, but the registered number is all that is necessary.

* * *

All remittances from Branches to the Party Funds should be sent to Comrade McNicol, who transacts the Secretarial work as far as Party Finances are concerned. All remittances ia connection with payment for copies of the Socialist Standard, advertisements therein, etc., should be sent to Comrade Anderson, 24, Belmont Avenue, Edmonton, N.

* * *

Articles, Branch Reports, and all other matter intended for insertion in the columns of the Socialist Standard should be forwarded to 5, Arvon Road, Highbury, N. If members and other readers would follow out these instructions considerable trouble and delay will be obviated.

* * *

Ill health has compelled our Comrade Dowdeswell to cease his work in connection with the Lecture List. For the present the duties have been taken up by Comrade T. A. Jackson, 408, St. Anne’s Road, Harringay, N. It is to be hoped that with the advent of more genial weather, Comrade Dowdeswell will again be in form and at his old post.

* * *

Members should use their best endeavours to secure.subscribers to the Socialist Standard. Subscription forms can be had on application to Comrade Anderson. A subscription form enclosed in each letter to friends likely to be interested would bring good results.

A Look Round. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to a memorandum prepared by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, there were in existence at the end of 1903, 1,166 trade unions, with a total membership of 1,902,308, as compared with 1,190 unions with 1,924,809 members at the end of 1902, a decrease in membership of 22,501. The number of women and girls included as members in 1903 was 119,416, as compared with 122,210 at the end of 1902, a decrease of 2.3 per cent. The decline was chiefly in the cotton trade unions and followed upon a period of unsettled employment in the cotton trade.

The total funds in hand for the 100 principal trade unions were £4,550,000, about £4 per member. The amount paid in unemployed benefit shewed an increase of £80,000.

* * *

The acuteness of the unemployed problem in West Ham has caused much discussion in the Press, and a few days before Xmas various “Relief” funds were opened. Vague references to “revolutions” and “riots” have been indulged in, but surely no one expects that starving men or physical deteriorates could sustain any organised revolutionary effort. The advice of Will Thorne, who “asked the men to behave themselves as they walked through the borough, and so show the governing classes that they knew how to conduct themselves although they were poor,” has been followed, although what on earth men who have already lost what little they ever had, including, in many cases, the franchise (through accepting Poor Law Relief) have to gain by “behaving themselves,” is very difficult to understand!

* * *

In this connection the letter of Councillor McAllen (S.D.F.) which appeared in the morning papers is interesting. He said “Alarm is felt by the local authorities that the seriousness of the distress may precipitate a crisis, which would be attended with deplorable results. This must be avoided at all hazards!” We again ask what have the unemployed to lose, and what results could be more deplorable to them than those which have already overtaken them ? One would imagine that these Revolutionary Social-Democrats, who preach peace where there is no peace, hold a brief for the propertied class.

* * *

During the agitation, various leaders of the capitalist political party have been deputised by Jack Jones, A. Hayday, Salmon and others. As we have already pointed out, we do not agree with holding any parleys with either section of the workers’ enemies. In the first place, the issue is confused and the workers are led to believe that the social problem can be dealt with otherwise than by the overthrow of capitalist domination, and in the second place, if the capitalist politicians are asked to do certain things, and they reply favorably, those who ask them are morally bound to support them in their efforts. As Herbert Gladstone retorted, in reply to interruptions by J. J. Terrett and others, as to why the Liberals do not do this, that, or the other,

“If you want the Liberal Party to do these things, then help them to win elections and thus place them in a position to do them.”

* * *

Herein lies one of the chief causes of the disagreement between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and others claiming to be Socialists. We would just as soon expect that burglars and pickpockets would organise themselves for the purpose of devising and carrying out means for the protection of the public against burglary and pocket-picking as we would expect the capitalist-class to carry measures for dealing with the unemployed problem. We tell the workers that there can be no solution except by the establishment of the Socialist Republic; that the capitalist politicians, whether labelled Liberal or Conservative, desire to maintain the capitalist State, in which a reserve army of unemployed is a necessity, and under no circumstances will we beg and pray them, or appeal to them—our class enemies—to do something which we know they will not do. The workers must accomplish their own emancipation, organised as a Socialist Party, independent of and hostile to all other parties. That emancipation will never be obtained otherwise.

* * *

What can be said of professing Socialists, claiming to believe in the class-war and all that that belief involves, delivering speeches like the following:

“Perhaps it was best to have a friend in both parties. If they succeeded in getting one Liberal leader and one Tory to do something in the matter they would have succeeded in making the guestion a national one, and probably from both sides of the House they would get sufficient support to carry out some scheme.” ? The most charitable view is that the speaker (Jack Jones) allowed his feelings to get the better of his Socialist convictions, owing to the extraordinary amount of distress existing in the district.

* * *

As is usual just previous to a General Election, the Liberal papers are endeavouring to show how much superior would be the government by that capitalist faction to that of the Conservatives. But in doing so they have to give away their own case so far as the alleged prosperity of the country, due to Free Trade, is concerned. In a recent speech Mr. Birrell declared

“We long to see the energy of our party directed towards an honest attempt to do, at all events, something to solve the problems of poverty and suffering. This world will never be a Utopia, but we want to make it a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.”

And in commenting on this, a Liberal writer adds:

“And who is there of human instincts, whatever his political leanings, that does not sympathise with those millions whose life is a dreary struggle, whose steps are dogged by chronic want, whose children cry for food and warmth, and cry in vain. England, the richest country in the world, counts millions of these. Poor, struggling millions! Surely the social and economic system is out of joint that allows the few to amass unmeasured wealth while the very bread of life is wanting to thousands who would earn it if they could. We speak not of the idle, improvident and intemperate, but of the honest, industrious and independent poor; these latter even are counted by millions, and their lot is hard indeed.”

* * *

Observe ! After fifty years of Free Trade, at the end of “a century of amazing progress” during which our wealth has increased from £140 to £303 per head of the population, our “honest, industrious and independent poor are counted by millions.” “Here is an opportunity for Liberalism” proceeds the scribe. Yes, an opportunity to make this world “a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.” Only that and nothing more ! Capitalism is Hell for the workers. There is only one way by which they can get out of it, and that is by organising for the Revolution, by joining the Party of the Revolution, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

* * *

In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with the same matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best-known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence.

* * *

There comes into force this year an agreement between the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the London and North Western Railway Companies, which they have entered into for fifty years. It is hoped that the co-operation which will give place to the competition hitherto existing between the two companies will result in a large reduction of expenses. Many trains will cease to run but there will be no inconvenience either to passengers or traders.

There will also be a general reorganisation in the goods departments, from which in some towns in Yorkshire a saving of £2,000 a year is expected.

* * *

This arrangement will no doubt throw a number of workers out of employment and the financial advantages will be secured by the shareholders. Such is capitalist co-operation—a step towards trustification. Under Socialism the more efficient organisation of any public service would benefit the whole community.

* * *

The Ups and Downs of a Poor Palliative would make an interesting article, if one had time to write up all the material connected with the S.D.F. proposal, which starting with the “One good meal a day free” advocated by H. Quelch, E. Sansom and others at the 1888 London School Board Election, gradually developed into Complete State Maintenance for all children. But recently many members of the S.D.F., so possessed have they become by the spirit of mere reform and the desire to win elections, have even gone back upon the crude proposals of 1888. At recent elections, Martin Judge (West Ham) advocated “Free Food for Starving Children,” and A. C. Bannington (Coventry) running under the auspices of the Trades and Labour Council, advocated “Free wholesome meals for all school children who need them.” And at the recent meeting at Canning Town, presided over by Will Thorne, the resolution moved by the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F.) was not in favour of State Maintenance, but merely

“That, with the view of checking the physical deterioration amongst our population, the Government should, in accordance with the demands of the Trade Union Congress, grant to the education authorities the power necessary to provide food for children attending State-supported schools.”

Ex-Alderman Hayday seconded this resolution and other members of the S.D.F. present included Jack Jones. Thus we see Trade Union officials watering down the S.D.F. proposals to meet the wishes of the Unions.

* * *

At a recent meeting of the Reading Debating Society, J. F. Hodgson (S.D.F) moved

“That this House would welcome the introduction by Government of a measure providing funds for the supply of free meals to school children.”

This was supported by Messrs. Mackay, Leaver and Quelch, and carried. There’s progress for you !

* * *

In looking through the programme of A. C. Bannington, referred to above, we find the following:

“Unskilled men to receive not less than 25s. per week,”

and in looking through the programme and rules of the Organisation to which we believe Bannington still belongs, we find that a minimum wage of 30s. is demanded as an immediate reform, and that a candidate’s programme must be previously sanctioned (together with his election address) by the local Branch and by the Executive Council. But when some folks get the election fever, programmes and rules go by the board.

Jack Kent

The Prospects of the Workers' Children. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The class antagonism between exploiter and exploited, arising, as it does, out of the fundamental contradiction in the capitalist system of production, viz., the appropriation of the social product by the individual capitalist, naturally permeates the entire social organisation under Capitalism. Hence the children of the workers do not fare an iota better than their parents. There is but one difference, namely, that the parents could collectively take action with the view to their emancipation, while the children are powerless so far as securing their own welfare is concerned.

The capitalist-class naturally look upon the children of the working-class merely as the rising generation of wage-slaves, whose only justification for existence is sustained by the fact that they are the prospective producers of all wealth and luxury for the idle and useless master-class. The portion of wealth that under present conditions falls to the workers barely suffices for their miserable subsistence and the propagation of their kind. It therefore goes without saying that the conditions regulating the working-class standard of “vegetation” (to call it “standard of comfort” would be the most biting satire) apply in equal measure to the growing generation of the toilmg-class.

Men and women who live in slums and hovels, who, when at work, are under-fed and over-worked, when out of work (nowadays of only too frequent occurrence) are literally starved; who, by their vile environment and conditions are thrown into vice and disease, cannot possibly reproduce children with strong, healthy physique, brilliant intellect, firm moral backbone and sense for the pure and beautiful.

The whole process of reproducing the wage-slave is evidently in full accord with the object of his future existence. It is not only when capable of wielding the instruments of production and exchange that the life of the worker is, at its best, deplorable; already while he is being prepared (“dragged up,” would be a more fitting term to use) for his miserable task of wage-slavery, he experiences the bitter foretaste of adversities, to which, unfortunately, he grows accustomed in after-life.

During the period of pregnancy the average working-class woman is often over-worked and unable to obtain fresh air, sufficient and wholesome food and a healthy, decent environment. Were we but in a position to compile correct statistics with regard to the prenatal sufferings of the worker’s child, the cruelty and the injustice of the present system would, if possible, become more disgusting and revolting to us. Born in surroundings of squalor and wretchedness, the child of the toiler is frequently from its birth ill-fed and neglected. The working-class mother being often a wage-slave, has, in cases out of number, to entrust the care of her infant to a person running a day-nursery on commercial lines. Further comment is superfluous. Being sent to school at three years of age the worker’s child is soon compelled to forego romping and playing in favour of zealous attention to the study of the 3 R’s, indispensable accomplishments for a sturdy producer of surplus-value.

To the child habitually under-fed, badly housed and insufficiently clothed, the knowledge imparted in the modern elementary school is indeed far too liberal an education, because in numerous cases it is absolutely wasted. Seeing that the child of the worker commences its career as a responsible wage-slave at the age of twelve, thirteen, or fourteen, it cannot be a matter for surprise to find that nearly one-third of the number of children attending public elementary schools are between three and seven years of age. The total number attending such schools in England and Wales were at the end of the school year of 1902-3, 5,967,868, of which number 1,858,590 were between the ages of three and seven.

Considering that at the present time the number of unemployed workers throughout the country is nearly approaching a million, which number is increasing daily, it is not difficult to guage the number of starving and under-fed children in and out of school. The capitalist employer who, prompted by sheer “patriotic zeal,” is setting the workers of one country against those of another, has not the least compunction in employing—no doubt also for “patriotic reasons”—women and children of his native country in place of men of native birth. What wonder then, that, as the Blue Books of the Board of Education show, over a million of school children from 5 years upwards are engaged in laborious work in order to augment the earnings of their parents; at least, that is what the Government Inspectors say. The most recent Report of the Board of Education contains the information that of the 5,975,127 children who in 1902-1903 attended the public elementary schools of England and Wales, 937,629 stayed away every day throughout the year. Besides there were in that year 80,758 half-timers. These wretched children rise at five or six in the morning, tramp in all weathers to the factory and work there till noon, by which time their puny emaciated bodies are pretty well exhausted. Regardless of their being absolutely unfit for any brain work they are compelled to attend school in the afternoon. How peculiar that the kind-hearted capitalists should not prefer those half-timers working at the mills in the afternoon, so as to give them the opportunity of attending school in the morning, when their little brains are more fit for work than in the afternoon. But the ways that real kindness of heart pursues are as numerous as they are mysterious.

According to Blue Book statistics there are further about 200,000 children between 5 and 13 years of age who, attending school regularly, work after school hours from 15 to 40 hours per week, that is to say, in all from 45 to 75 hours per week.

Here I must remind you that Mr. Shackleton, M.P., the Chairman of the so-called British section of the recent International Socialist Congress, has until now persistently defended the necessity of child labour.

Comprehending as we do, that the children of the workers are compelled by a Capitalist Government to attend school for the purpose of being trained for their future vocation in life, viz., to be victims of capitalist exploitation, we fully realize that the whole system of education for the workers’ children is based upon the principle of “Little science with reactionary deductions, heaps of superstition encouraging servility.”

It is evident that teachers for the training of capable wage-slaves need not be particularly accomplished. Again, the Blue Book informs us that of the 157,281 teachers engaged in the elementary schools of England and Wales, 86,375 are not even certificated and consist of pupil teachers, probationers and article 68 (any female over 18 years of age, who has been vaccinated). 4,645 teachers are trained in colleges every year. Of 47 colleges, 32 belong to the Church of England, 12 to the Nonconformists and Catholics, and only 3 with 356 scholars are undenominational. It being impossible for the average child of the worker to take up teaching as its calling, owing to the expense and time involved in a course of training, the majority of elementary teachers spring from the lower middle-class, who naturally carry into their work the snobbery, jingoism and reaction so rampant among their class.

As to the school books used, history and science, in fact all subjects, more or less, are interpreted with a view to convincing the prospective toilers of the necessity for the existence of competition, class distinction and the struggle for a paltry sustenance for ever and ever.

Holding, as we of The Socialist Party of Great Britain do, that the social evils produced by Capitalism have reached a stage where peddling reforms enacted by a Capitalist Parliament can only have the effect of retarding working-class emancipation, it is our bounden duty to be up in arms against all those who, posing as champions of working-class interests, help to bolster up the capitalist system by assisting the capitalists in throwing a bone to the under-dog—the proletariat—in order to prevent him from attacking his tormentor—the capitalist-class.

Having existed now over 20 years, the Social-Democratic Federation has in recent years seen fit to abandon the propaganda of Socialism and to devote its energies to promoting “Liberal-Labour” candidatures, to an attempt to solve the unemployed problem under Capitalism by demanding from a Capitalist Government the calling of a special Session of a Capitalist Parliament, and last but not least, to the agitation of “a meal a day for the children in public schools” (I assume it means breakfast). The capitalist-cum-labour “political machine” produces most staggering effects. Here a palliative which, enforced on Socialist lines (the only possible for Socialists), would start the “Social Revolution,” is put into the aforesaid machine and, lo and behold ! out comes a measure : “a meal a day for the children,” promoted by Claude Hay, Sir John Gorst, “The S.D.F. Countess,” and Co., which is received with wild rejoicing by the Social-Democratic Federation, for now at last their few “Labour seats” for Parliament appear absolutely safe. What matters that Socialism once more is dragged into the mire, so long as ambition for place and distinction is satisfied and the capitalist-class has been assisted in gulling the unwary workers.

It was until a year or two ago that the S.D.F. agitated for “Free Maintenance,” which was always interpreted to mean that the children of the workers were to be adequately fed, clothed, and housed with the view to becoming sturdy citizens of a free and happy commonwealth. To-day, this “Reform” organisation stands (see “Justice” of December 17th last) for ”a meal a day,” that is an extension of the Poor Law system, which the capitalist-class is compelled to introduce in view of the growing unemployment among the workers. That a presumably Socialist organisation has, owing to the “distinguished” intervention by a “Knight” and a “Countess” consented to stand sponsor to a “capitalist offspring” is undoubtedly a feather in the cap of the “capitalist-cum-labour” caucus, which exists for arranging the diplomatic relations between capital and labour.

With regard to the prospects of the children of the working-class, we of The Socialist Party of Great Britain have, as respecting all other social evils endured by the toiling-class, no illusions whatever. Fully recognising the rottenness of the entire capitalist system, we regard it as a betrayal of the true interests of the working-class to encourage, let alone assist, any “patching up,” which, after all, only means prolonging the agony.

The capitalist-class will, as we know, only concede what it is impossible to withold from the workers. Hence the assistance by so-called Socialists in the granting of these concessions tends to throw the working-class completely off the path of class antagonism.

So soon as we fully understand that under such conditions and in such surroundings as described above it is impossible to give the child of the worker the scope of a full physical and mental development, we necessarily recognise that all measures promoted to improve present conditions only tend to further delay the advent of the economic freedom of the toiler and to prolong the suffering of his offspring. Surely it is not the business of the Socialist to assist in applying the brake to the wheel of human emancipation. But those would-be Socialists who join hands with the capitalist politicians in procuring a paltry meal for the little standings of the working-class now conveniently ignore the fact that they flatly contradict the deductions they drew in the past from the economic causes and effects presented by the Capitalist System.

If the capitalists make a concession with one hand they recoup themselves with the other. They may provide a little food for the children in school, but as they will on no account suffer a reduction in the amount of their surplus value—seeing that they completely own and control the economic and political power of the State—the wages of the workers will go down and most likely to such degree that the little food the children will obtain at school will probably be all the food they will get. Besides, the class-unconscious workers are sure to take this concession on the part of the capitalist-class as a pure act of grace and not—as in reality it is—an economic necessity, especially when they see that an organisation posing as a Socialist Body has been amiably working with the capitalist to attain that end.

Now, it may be argued that even if the capitalists recoup themselves and the workers and their children consequently do not gain materially, and even become less class-antagonistic, yet the thin edge of the wedge has been inserted and the small concession will lead to full-fledged free maintenance of the children and hence to the Social Revolution. One may as well argue, as the “advanced Reformers” contend, that the workhouse system, if fully taken advantage of by the workers, would eventually abolish poverty, misery, and degradation. In fact, the once revolutionary S.D.F. to-day argues that providing you put a sufficient number of patches on a pair of old boots you will produce a new pair. But in order to be politically successful in the capitalist sense it is impossible to proceed on strictly logical and uncompromising lines.

We may further get reminded that Marx and Engels in their Communist Manifesto held that it was the duty of the proletariat, while working for the revolution, to endeavour to obtain every amelioration possible for their class. Our reply is that this pronouncement was made over fifty years ago and that since then Capitalism has developed to such an extent that, if Marx and Engels were alive to-day, they would fully agree with us that at the present time there is only one way of obtaining amelioration for the proletariat and that is to usher in the Socialist Republic as quickly as possible.

Further, if amelioration were possible, surely it could not be obtained by joining the capitalists in promoting measures prompted by economic necessity and the desire to stave off the collapse of Capitalism. How amelioration could at all be achieved unless enforced by the antagonism of the class struggle is for a Socialist impossible to comprehend.

It was such men as Marx, Engels, Lassalle and Liebknecht who wrought the enlightenment and knowledge that led to the elevation of Socialism to the powerful science and the political creed of the International proletariat. But apart from the great services these men rendered to mankind, we must not forget the devotion and faithfulness they at all times bore to the suffering proletariat, never flinching, never yielding, although at times bowed down by their own personal suffering, by their own individual misery.

Seeing in their teachings our guide, our refuge, and our hope for human emancipation, endeavouring to emulate their moral strength, their uncompromising revolutionary attitude, we invite all men and women of a similar mind to ours to rally and thus help us to keep aloft our banner: “No Reform, no Compromise—but complete, unconditional surrender of the existing capitalist forces in favour of the free and happy Socialist Republic.”

Hans Neumann