Points for Propagandists. (1930)

From the June 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Labour cannot improve Capitalism.

Mr. Herbert Tracey, the Labour Party’s Chief Election Agent, denies the claim made by his own party that conditions can be materially improved in this system. These are his words :—

“The workers are not getting a larger share of the national wealth. Under Capitalism the proportionate division of the national product cannot be materially altered ; the existing system secretes millionaires and paupers as the liver secretes bile.” (Daily Herald, April 16)

* * *

Who owns Great Britain?

The nonsense talked by all defenders of this system, from Tory to Labour, about the wealth of the workers, is completely smashed by the statement of Sir Leo Chiozza Money, the Labour-Liberal statistician. In the New Leader of April 11, he states :

“Twenty-five years have elapsed since first, in “Riches and Poverty,” I drew attention to the astonishing facts as to the distribution of property revealed by the collection of Death Duties. The facts are not less surprising to-day. In a quarter of a century very little progress has been made in securing a more equitable distribution of land and capital.

The nation, as a going concern, is still, for the most part, owned by a handful of people so small that, if they all left the country, the population would roundly remain unaltered. “

And he further says :

“It is equally true that, taking Great Britain as a whole, about 6 per cent. of its families possess nearly 70 per cent. of its land and capital.”

* * *

Nationalisation and unemployment.

How improved methods of transport affect post office workers in Scotland is shown by the report of the Scottish Council of the Postal Workers’ Union : —

“It is stated on the authority of official reports that during the last five years 1,700 full-time positions have been cancelled in Scotland as against an increase of 800 part-time positions. The reduction in the number of employees is attributed to the increasing use of motor vehicles in the conveyance of mails, which has made many rural postmen and auxiliary workers unnecessary. 

The union are suggesting a reduction in the working week with a view to the avoidance of unemployment in the service.”(Glasgow Evening Times, April 14.)

* * *

The cheapness of "Labour" Reforms. 

How Labour’s reforms save the property-owners money is shown in the following-from the I.L.P, paper, Forward:

“The change over of the unemployed from parish relief to unemployment benefit, as a result of the Labour Government’s new Unemployment Insurance Act, will save Glasgow Ratepayers £7400,000 a year, equal to 9d. off the Rates. Seven thousand men who have been receiving parish relief in Glasgow have been transferred to unemployment benefit through the new Act renewing their eligibility.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

The Revolutionary I.L.P. !

Unemployment relief should be a national charge, say both Winston Churchill and the I.L.P.

“That was the view of the I.L.P. in 1911 when Lloyd George framed his Unemployment Insurance Act. It is still the view of the I.L.P. The I.L.P. agitators of that time are the Government to-day, and it is left to Winston Churchill, the political adventurer with the adaptable mind, to express the I.L.P. point of view on unemployment relief.” (Forward, April 12.)

* * *

Humanizing Socialism !

I.L.P. object to Marx.

Mr. Fenner Brockway, the mouthpiece of the I.L.P., tells us in the Daily Herald (Jan. 22) that 20 years ago he read the American Socialist papers every week, and of them he says :

“They seemed to aim at making Socialism as difficult and forbidding as possible. The theories of the class struggle, the economic interpretation of history and surplus value were elaborated in detail, and their acceptance in entirety was made the test of Socialist conviction. 

I remember discussing this characteristic of American Socialism with Keir Hardie. He told me that before the formation of the I.L.P. British Socialism had been advocated in a similar way. The result was that the working-class was unmoved; it was left cold by the hard materialism, the dogmatic intolerance, and Continental phraseology in which Socialism was expressed.”

So Keir Hardie, who ridiculed the class war idea, and got his economics from Jesus, founded the I.L.P., with its sentimental appeal for social reform and a “humanized” capitalism, and support of capitalist parties.

Mr. Fenner Brockway reviews a book called the “Socialism of Our Times,” published by the “League of Industrial Democracy” (New York, 50 cents). This is a symposium by various writers who provide advice on “adapting” Socialism to the needs of the U.S.A.

Judging from the quotations, it is a collection of intellectual essays on everything except Socialism.

Mr. Brockway naturally commends the book, and quotes Mr. Harold Laski’s suggestions :

“The first step must be to awaken the American people to a sense of the positive character of the State. America still regards the State negatively, as we did in this country before the Labour Party entered Parliament. It does not recognise that the State has any responsibility for the unemployed, the sick, the widows, and the aged. Laski urges, therefore, that, the first need is to advocate unemployment and health insurance and old age and widows’ pensions, plus municipal ownership, taxation for social purposes, and Court and Parliamentary reform. In this way he believes a mental attitude will be created in the public for bigger Socialist reforms.”

* * *

Paralysing Socialism.

So Prof. Laski’s suggestion for “Americanizing” Socialism is to demand bigger reforms. What a Socialist Reform is, he doesn’t say. Seeing that all reforms are to be passed by the Capitalist Government—obviously they can’t be Socialist.

No suggestion is made that the workers should be taught Socialism, so that reforms will not be needed, but Socialism can be established.

The State is to be used by the worker to improve conditions under Capitalism ! The State, however, is a machine used under Capitalism to maintain private ownership and to repress the workers. The only use the State will be to a Socialist working-class is to capture it for the purpose of ending this system.

The workers of U.S.A. are advised by Mr. Laski to fight for the social reform legislation Mr. Lloyd George passed under Liberal Party rule.

This late professor of Harvard University understands the problem so little that he advises the workers in the most advanced industrial country to press for the paltry reforms that Germany had under Bismarck, and that England has suffered for many years.

Miss Jessie Wallace Hughan, another contributor to the book, says :

“American Socialism was imported by foreign-born doctrinaires. ’Gene Debs did much to humanise it, but it has still to be Americanised ‘from the pain economy to the pleasure economy, from the phraseology of the European labourer with nothing to lose but his chains to that of the American worker with his demands for a Ford and a radio.’”

American conditions are so different, she would have you believe, that the worker there has something to lose—and demands a radio and a Ford car. But how is it that both this writer and Mr. Laski advocate that the American workers demand all kinds of pensions, “doles,” and many other reforms similar to those we have in Europe, where “the labourer has nothing to lose but his chains”? The very reform agitation they favour gives the lie to the alleged differences in the condition of labour between U.S.A. and Europe.

Humanizing Socialism—Mr. Brockway calls his article. It should have been entitled—”Socialism” without Socialists— an I.L.P, beef stew !

* * *

Canadian Communists.

The Communist Party is as Reformist abroad as it is here. In Toronto Municipal Elections they are running candidates on a programme which covers everything except Communism. Their immediate demands according to their official organ, The Worker (Toronto, Dec. 21) include :

• “Unemployed relief of £5 per week to married men and £3 to single men.
• An Unemployed Insurance Act.
• Seven-hour day and 5-day week and 2 weeks’ holiday with pay.
• No night work for women and all those under 18 years of age.
• 2s. l1d. per hour for municipal employees.
• Abolition of property qualification for voters.
• Town Planning Scheme to pay union rates.
• Revision of taxation to benefit the workers.
• Free speech assemblage and Press.”

That’s how they build up Communist support in Canada.

* * *

More “Direct Action”?

“American Socialism or Labor Unions contra Company Unions,” by Robert Clausen, 409, East Fifth Street, Los Angeles. Price 35 cents.

This pamphlet, sent to us for review, is evidently the work of an ex S.L.P. member.

The writer claims that the S.L.P. have given up De Leon’s main idea, viz., reliance upon the economic organization, “taking and holding” the means of life without affiliation to any political party. Mr. Clausen does not deal with the weakness of De Leon’s position. In several articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb showed that the S.L.P. had committed suicide politically by advocating that the workers give their undivided attention to economic organization.

The author of this pamphlet criticises both the “direct action” I.W.W. and also the industrial unions formed by employers for the harmless organization of their workers. These latter are called Company Unions in U.S.A., and their counterpart has grown up here since the General Strike.

Mr. Clausen’s pamphlet is a poor presentation of his views, but his chief idea is economic organization of labour, to take the means of production out of the hands of Capital.

He does not show how this can be done. Neither could De Leon or the S.L.P. Mr. Clausen supports Marx’s economics, but nowhere did Marx rely upon economic organization. Marx said that the first step was to capture political power (Communist Manifesto). The S.L.P. have not been able to deal with our case against their “direct action” policy, and so they remain silent on this, their special nostrum.

Perhaps Mr. Clausen would like to explain how economic organizations can “come into possession.”

* * *

“The Making of Socialists.”

“Why I doubt that the I.L.P. is a Socialist organization” was the title of a lecture given to the I.L.P. in North St. Pancras on March 6th by E. C. Fairchild. 

“He did not think the policy of social reform adopted by the Labour Party had any real connection with Socialism, and thought that the I.L.P. was making the fatal mistake of trying to outbid the Labour Party in reform measures, instead of concentrating on the making of Socialists.” (New Leader.)

The title of Mr. Fairchild’s lecture implies that he isn’t sure about the I.L.P. His doubts would not exist if he examined the I.L.P’s. position. It is inside the Labour Party, because that is where the jobs and popularity are. Its members run as Labour Party candidates because that is the way to get elected—and it’s election they want, not Socialism. The programme of rationalisation and reform gets millions of votes—advocating Socialism wouldn’t. The real crime of the I.L.P. and Labour Party is not merely their reform programme, but the assistance they give to keep power in the hands of the Capitalist Class.

Mr. Fairchild belonged to the Social Democratic Federation before the War, and in defence of their reform policy, wrote a pamphlet explaining that reforms and palliatives were the weapons of working class struggle.

In a series of articles in the Socialist Standard, our Comrade Jacomb analysed the reform nostrums of Mr. Fairchild. Since then the latter left the S.D.F. and joined the I.L.P., who had more reforms in their programme than the S.D.F. And now he is at Ruskin College as a teacher.

Before Mr. Fairchild started his wanderings in the reform wilderness, there was the Socialist Party of Great Britain in existence, and it still exists for the object of making Socialists and establishing Socialism.

* * *

Shaw v. Marx.

“And do not forget that the Marxian dream of a world-wide proletarian revolution, though it is not now practical politics, may yet upset all our conceptions of international relations. The Reformation did not seem practical in the Middle Ages; but it happened for all that.”

Thus spoke Bernard Shaw in an interview in the Sunday Observer (March 23}. It may suit Shaw to portray Marx’s idea as a dream, but the Capitalist Class don’t spend their time and money fighting dreams. They are busy with every weapon, from miseducation to repression, to try and prevent an end coming to their system. No wonder they are so full of praise for Labour Leaders like Thomas and Labour Politicians like MacDonald, who turn working class discontent into support of Capitalism. Lord Balfour, who has just “gone to heaven,” said that Social Reform was the antidote to Socialism. Shaw and the Labour Party support the antidote, while the very development of Capitalism makes Socialism inevitable.

* * *

The worker in America. 

“If the depression continues for another three months the situation will become seriously acute. The American working man has not been accustomed to saving. He has no reserves, and all his luxuries and household goods have been purchased out of income. If he is out of employment, then he will not be able to meet his instalments, and the companies that are keyed up to mass production will find that the percentage of production necessary to make large profits will be reduced to such an extent that there will not even be small profits—there will be considerable losses.”

Thus writes the City Editor of the Sunday Express (March 23), on his return from America. This Capitalist paper explodes the myth about the prosperity of the American worker with his “home” and motor car—”bought” on the hire system. The effects of mass production in America should teach the worker here that “greater output” in the most advanced country makes the workers’ position more insecure than ever.

* * *

Labour bombs.

Mr. Fred. Montague (Under Minister for Air) is opposed to materialism—in philosophy. As a Labour Minister under the Capitalist system, however, he is a staunch materialist, and strongly defended spending nearly 18 millions on the Air Force, an increase of nearly a million on last year. The modern weapons of war are taking the form of more air forces, so this spiritual Air Minister brings in larger air estimates.

So the Labour Government is keeping up the pace for bombing planes and all the other deadly weapons of this Capitalist world.

* * *

Lloyd George “Behind” the I.L.P.

“Mr. Lloyd George’s article in the Daily Express this week strongly reinforces the I.L.P. policy, so closely associated with F. W. Jowett’s name.” These are the words of the New Leader—the I.L.P. paper. What better evidence of the I.L. P. ‘s Socialism can you have?—Mr. Lloyd George “reinforces I.L.P. policy.” Perhaps that is Lloyd George’s thanks to the I.L.P. for so long supporting his Budget and other Reform campaigns !

* * *

A Communist Programme.

(1) Feeding all school children.

(2) Unemployed men on slack time to be relieved from paying rates.

(3) A school holiday on May 1st.

(4) Joint action by unemployed and employed to force these demands.

This is the Communist Party programme in Fifeshire (Daily Worker, March 14).

That is what they call uniting the workers for Revolution. The workers are to join together—not fighting for Socialism, but fighting for a school holiday on May 1st, etc.

Did the Third International spend large sums to develop such powerful Revolutionaries ?

C.

Answers to Correspondents. (1930)

Letters to the Editors from the June 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why not join the Labour Party?

The Editor, the Socialist Standard.

Isleworth, Middx.

May 16th, 1930.

Dear Comrade,

Why this continuous attack upon the Labour Party: The Labour Party has declared in belief in Socialism, and the aim of all Socialist bodies and Socialists is to obtain Socialism in the shortest possible time.

How can this end be attained? ‘By holding meetings,’ by talking to our fellow-workers, and by the distribution of literature. Yes, all these methods can be employed and have been employed in the past. But are they sufficient? Is it not perfectly obvious that by these means we can only hope to make a few among the many thousands into competent Marxists, and that even those few must do some hard thinking and hard reading if they really wish to understand. But the majority of them live under conditions which compel them to think about the immediate necessity of getting a living, and therefore are not interested in Socialism as a distant theory.

If, however, we talk to them about things they do understand, such as the houses in which they live and the education which is given to their children, then we have some hope of getting them interested, and if we can hold out the prospect of improving things in the immediate future then we can not only get them interested hut we can get them to work hard in order to attain the aims of the party. Having got them into the party and made friends of them, we can now teach them Marxian economics and make real Socialists of them.

There are many competent Marxists within the ranks of the S.P.G.B. Would it not be better policy for them to get inside the ranks of the Labour Party and carry on their educational campaign there?

Come on, comrades, there is plenty of work to do and too few people to do it, and if we are going to get our objective we must use every means that offers. These people are already prejudiced in favour ; hundreds of them are young and intelligent—the very soil on which the seed should be dropped. Yours fraternally,

A. F. Forrest.

Our Reply.

Our correspondent’s picture of the Labour Party is purely fanciful. It is seeking to establish not Socialism, a system of society based upon common ownership of the means of production and distribution, but nationalisation, or State Capitalism. The Post Office is its model ; an institution which is privately owned by investors in various Government loans, and whose services are not provided freely for use, but sold in order to produce profit, just like other capital concerns.

Our correspondent envisages the Labour Party winning and retaining the “friendliness” of the workers by “improving things” for them. We deny that a Labour Government, elected by non-socialists, is in a position to carry out its promises of improving things. Has our correspondent considered what is going to happen when workers who voted Labour find that the improvement does not materialise ? Does he think that the reduction in wages of cotton workers and wool workers, and the half-million men thrown out of work since the Labour Government entered office, are steps on the way to Socialism, and calculated to make the workers more friendly to those responsible?

Our correspondent’s arguments are self-contradictory. He first tells us that the Labour Party is committed to Socialism, and then urges us to get inside in order to convert them. Convert them to what? In truth, the overwhelming majority of Labour Party supporters are ignorant of the elements of Socialist knowledge, and to talk of them having declared their belief in something which they do not understand, is merely the evasion of an unpalatable truth.

If we wished to enter the Labour Party (which, of course, we do not) we would most certainty not be permitted to carry on our propaganda for Socialism, for the reason that it would involve, as it does now, pointing out that the programme of reforms of that Party is valueless to the working class.

Our correspondent also assumes that the Labour Party desires to provide its members with Socialist knowledge. We deny this, and ask our correspondent for evidence that the desire, let alone the effort to that end, exists or has ever existed. If it exists, why does not the Labour Party use its press and its platform for that purpose?

Editorial Committee.

The Capitalists and reforms.

A correspondent suggests that the Capitalists will introduce a large number of reforms in order to dissuade the workers from interesting themselves in Socialism. He asks whether such reforms will, to any degree, make the conditions of the workers better.

If the Capitalists were agreed on the question, there is no reason why the position of the working-class should not be improved at the cost of the Capitalists themselves, but such agreement is not easily achieved. Even in those cases where Capitalist politicians perceive the advisability of a more generous treatment of some of the victims of the system, it is difficult for the Capitalist politicians to convince their backers that need exists, or that “generosity” is the way to deal with discontent. Occasions often arise of the Lloyd Georges, and Baldwins and Churchills of Capitalist politics being forced by their more stupid and ignorant supporters to carry out policies which go against their better judgment and their human sympathies. Future historians will probably be amazed at the appalling meanness (unnecessary, from a Capitalist standpoint}, of the treatment meted out to the victims of war and of unemployment, at the present time.

Even when the workers in large numbers go over to the Socialist Party, there will still be influential sections of the Capitalist class (with their working class followers) who will resist reforms, either on the ground that they are “demoralising” to the workers, or that they hamper trade, or that they merely encourage the workers to ask for more. It is, therefore, probable that reforms will always tend to lag somewhat behind the evils which Capitalism goes on producing.

Editorial Committee.

What is Capital?

An enquirer asks why we talk of abolishing Capital, since, in his view, Capital merely means machinery, tools, etc.

Our correspondent is in error. Capital is wealth used for the purpose of profit. Wealth not used for the purpose of profit is not Capital. When the tools, machinery, buildings, etc., cease to be used for profit, they will not be Capital. The abolition of Capitalism will leave the means of production to be used for the purpose of producing articles for the use of the members of society. There will be no question of private profit, and, therefore, no question of “Capital.”

Our correspondent goes on to suggest that “money, or, more truly credit-power,” will be needed under Socialism. This is incorrect. Under Socialism, there will be no function for money to perform. Money is a means of trading between the private owners of goods of various kinds. Where private ownership does not exist, the possibility of exchange, of buying and selling, disappears. The processes which will be necessary under Socialism are the production of useful articles and their distribution to those who need them. Exchange does not enter in, and money is not required. If our correspondent bears in mind that the means of production will be commonly owned, and the products freely distributed, he will see that money can have no function to perform. Looking at it in another way, he will see that money, by its nature, cannot be “commonly owned.” To contemplate individuals holding stocks of money under Socialism is to contemplate the possibility of private persons being able to purchase the means of living of other persons—which is, on the face of it, incompatible with our definition of Socialism.

Communism or Socialism?

Finally, our correspondent asks if Communism and Socialism are terms which mean the same.

It is not a sufficient answer to trace back the original and interim meanings of the words, because the use of words changes from one generation to another. The chief point is that when we use the word Socialism we define it carefully. (See object on back page.)

Those who use the word Communism, define it differently from our definition of Socialism, or do not define it at all.

In popular usage, the word Communism is associated with the anti-working class policies of the Communist parties. Nothing whatever is to be gained by using two words interchangeably when one will do. Therefore, we do not use the word Socialism to mean the things ordinarily intended by those who use the word Communism.

Editorial Committee.

SPGB Meetings and Notices. (1930)

Party News from the June 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party and the Unemployed. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why are there Unemployed?

Unemployment is the workers’ constant scourge. It is the haunting fear of this that makes the toiler cringe before the tyranny of the master or brutal foreman; that compels him to accept low wages and degrading conditions of toil; that forces him to blackleg those on strike and become a tool to break the spirit of his fellows. Any attempt, therefore, to seriously grapple with this question must command our closest attention, for it is above all necessary for wage workers to have clear ideas upon this subject.

But what lies back of the unemployed question? Is it that the labour of the worker cannot provide his necessaries of life? No, it is because he is denied the opportunity to apply his labour. It is because the means of life—land, mines, factories and railways—are the monopoly of a distinct class who will only feed the wage-slave when the conditions of the market enable a profit to be realised on his labour. In his profit hunger the capitalist continually cuts down his labour bill, and the worker is squeezed out of the factory by new machines and other labour saving devices. The enormous increase in the productivity of labour is accompanied by a slackening demand for products. The growing army of unemployed and paupers, the continued crushing of middlemen by company and trust, all tend to seriously restrict purchasing power in the home market; while other nations inevitably take a larger share in the markets of the world, and so slacken demand there also. Supply permanently outstrips demand. Workers must starve because they have produced too much!

The great social means of production which have now developed, and which are worked by the compulsory co-operation of thousands of workers in factory, mine and railway, are in violent conflict with the anarchy of capitalist distribution, and cry out for the adjustment of Society to the social nature of the new economic conditions.

What must be done?

But to correct this contradiction what must be done? Is it “practical politics” to deny the class antagonism, as does the Labour Party, and to beg the capitalist to get off the worker’s back ? Is it to be expected the masters will themselves abolish the unemployed, the keystone of their social arch ?

The only hope for the workers, employed and unemployed, is in their organisation as a class against the class that is organised against them. They must realise that they will only get what they are able to take; that it is utterly stupid to expect their enemies to legislate or administer against their own interests. The profits of the capitalist class, their income, and even their continued existence as a class depend upon the existence or creation of a reserve labour army.

If there were no unemployed there would be no blacklegs, the “sack” would lose its terrors, wages would rise and profits vanish. Voltaire said if God did not exist it would be necessary to invent one. The modern capitalist can say with more truth that if the unemployed did not exist it would be necessary to create them. How stupid it is then to expect any but the workers themselves to deal seriously with that vital question.

Those who live upon the workers may provide workhouses, or penal colonies as in Belgium and elsewhere, but this means simply that the lash of hunger is partly replaced by the lash of conditions so bad that the victim is glad to accept the worst paid and most wretched toil in the competitive world outside rather than stay.

This is the principle of the workhouse stoneyard—it is also the principle of the Labour Party’s Bill.

The Bankruptcy of Labourism

Never was the bankruptcy of Labourism more evident than in its attempt at legislation on unemployment. 

Having by its flabbiness lost much of the confidence of of its supporters, and having before it the prospect of meeting its Waterloo at the next election, the Labour Party was at last to make a stand and to do something to regain the lost confidence and prepare for the battle to come. That something is the Unemployed Workmen Bill!

The Labour Party is indeed fortunate in its defeat. Had not the Liberal Party thought it profitable, in view of the great Tory campaign, to make a show of opposition to the falsely so-called “Socialist” Labour Party, and had it adopted the Bill, emphasising its penal clause; the game of the Labour group would have been up; the rottenness of the Bill could not have escaped exposure, and the hopelessness of peddling Labourism would have been driven home to the multitude.

For what does the Bill amount to ?

One of the great claims for the Bill was that it was a training Bill. J. R. MacDonald in seconding the second reading said it was not relief works that were wanted, but to impose a course of training on the unemployed man ; and that it was a mistake to assume “that the purpose of the promoters was to put the unemployed to their own work.” What does this mean ?

It means, since there are unemployed in every calling, that an unemployed navvy, for example, is to be trained for carpentering or bricklaying, while the bricklayer or carpenter is to be trained for navvying! To attempt to alleviate general unemployment by such means is on a par with the suggestion that men could earn their living by taking in one another’s washing.

A Snare and a Delusion

But the crux of the Bill, according to the Labour Party, is clause 3, and we agree. At first glance the clause and appears to provide employment at conditions not lower than those standard in the locality, as demanded by trade unionists; but a second glance reveals that this is a snare and a delusion. It is so worded as to give a false impression to the trade union worker, while in reality it places no limit, to the badness of conditions which the unemployed man must accept under pain of punishment.

In the House of Commons Mr MacDonald confessed that the clause “may be badly worded,” but that it only meant that the trade unionist was not to be victimised because he may formerly have declined work for an outside capitalist at less than current rates. “It did not mean that the local employment authority must provide work at trade union rate of wages.”

No, indeed, the only conditions are such as capitalists may consider “reasonable,” and we know what that means. Under the Bill a man might be offered the wretchedest conditions of both work and pay, and what would be the result if he refused ? The local authority is then empowered under clause 7 to obtain an order “to enforce control over the person named in the order for a period not exceeding six mouths, which period must he passed in the performance of reasonable work under the control of the local employment authority.”

That is to say, if you will not accept the most degrading conditions that may be offered, they may inflict penal servitude upon you for a period not exceeding six months. Thus is the “Right to Work"!

And what is there to prevent the local authorities, as of yore, putting men to work at exceedingly low rates (under pretence of unemployed relief) at work which must otherwise have been done at full rates by men now transformed into “unemployed” ?

So long as there is a capitalist Parliament the LocaI Government Board will be its tool, while there is no more bitter enemy of the workers than its president. Yet the Labour Party in their Bill place enormous powers of control and in the framing of rules for carrying out the Act, in the hands of the L.G.B. Even were the Bill otherwise of any use, this would suffice to damn it.

The Only Hope.

Unemployment is the big stick that the master class use to break strikes, to beat down wages, and to make the employed “get a hustle” on them. The ruling class is not going to burn that stick. For the abolition of unemployment there is only one way, and that is not to follow the Will-o’-the-wisp of Labourism, but for the workers to organise as a class for Socialism. The workers must therefore organise to themselves capture political power in order that they may cease to be the despised beasts of burden of the propertied class, and become freely associated producers in a cooperative commonwealth.

Socialism is your only hope.

A Sketch of the Life of Marx. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

May 5th, 1818. – March 14th, 1883.

At the ancient German town of Treves, Heinrich Karl Marx, the founder of scientific Socialism, was born of Jewish parents on May 5th, 1818. The father of Marx was a prominent lawyer, and a man of considerable talent, saturated with the ideas of the French Encyclopedists of the 18th century regarding religion, science, and art. After going through the ordinary school course, Marx entered the university of Bonn and later that of Berlin, studying “law to please his father and history and philosophy to please himself” At the conclusion of his university studies, Marx intended to take a lectureship in philosophy at the Bonn University, but the treatment meted out to his friend Bruno Bauer, who was a lecturer there, caused him to relinquish this plan.

Though Marx was at this time but 24, his remarkable talent already attracted the attention ot the Rhemish bourgeoisie, and at the founding of the “Rheinische Zeitung” in the Autumn of 1842, he was placed at its direction. The life of this journal was a continual struggle with the censorship. A double censorship not sufficing to curb this dangerous daily paper it was suppressed by the government in 1843.

With his young wife, Jenny Von Westphalen, Marx now settled in Paris. Here he made the acquaintance of Engels and Proudhon, and collaborated with Arnold Ruge in the production of the “Deutsch-Franzoesischen Jahrbuecher.” In these annals he published his long essay on Hegel’s “Philosophy of Law” and another on the Hebrew question, which show that he had by this time emancipated himself from his earlier Hegelianism, and had wedded the dialectic to experience.

After the cessation of the Franco-German Annals, Marx and Engels—for the two become henceforth inseparable, the one supplementing the other—wrote the “Holy Family,” a satirical critique of German idealistic philosophy; and collaborated with Heine and Ewerbeck on the Paris “Vorwaerts.”

Marx having, as he himself said, been led by his studies to the conclusion that legal relations, as well as the forms of state, could neither be understood by themselves nor explained by the so-called general progress of the human mind, but are rooted in the material conditions of social life; now took up seriously the study of economics as the anatomy of society. These studies were continued in Brussels, where Marx nevertheless found time to write articles and pamphlets, and to reply to Proudhon’s bombastic Utopianism by the “Poverty of Philosophy.” The Communist Alliance had been founded by German refugees in Paris, and while in Brussels Marx and Engels joined this semi-secret society, which henceforth became simply an organisation for Communist propaganda. In 1847 the Alliance was transformed by the adoption of the famous Communist Manifesto.

In the stormy times which followed the events of February, 1848, Marx was expelled from Brussels, went to Paris and thence after a time to Cologne, where he collaborated with Engels, Wilhelm and Ferdinand Wolf, Ernest Dronke, and the poets Freiligrath and Georg Weerth, on the brilliant editorial staff of the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung.” The defence of the Parisian insurgents by this intrepid daily paper, together with its outspoken policy in general, brought about a continuous struggle with the reaction and finally led to the suppression of the journal in May, 1849.

Marx now went to Paris, and having participated in the movement culminating in the fiasco of “June 13th, 1849” was expelled from Paris and came to London, then truly the hub of the world. Here he found the material for the work of his life, for, as Liebknecht says, “Capital” could have been created in London only.

Keeping aloof during this time from the dregs of the February and March movements, Marx now wrote his history of the coup d'etat of December 2nd, 1852, under the title of the “18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte,” a work which, to those familiar with the chief personages and events of the time, is an illuminating application of the economic interpretation of history.

After the dastardly trial and conviction of the Communists at Cologne, and the consequent crushing of propaganda, the Communist Alliance was dissolved ; Marx writing his “Disclosures regarding the Cologne Communist Trial” in 1853. The time that followed was for Marx an entire devotion to scientific study and literary work. He became a regular contributor to the “New York Tribune,” then under the famous editorship of Horace Greely and C. A. Dana ; and became acquainted with David Urquhart, the talented explorer and student of Oriental questions.

From this period date the articles on “Revolution and Counter Revolution,” while the materials were now gathered for the “Life of Lord Palmerston,” “The Secret Diplomatic History of the 18th Century” and “The Eastern Question.”

In 1859 the “Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” was published, and in it were laid down the foundations of the work afterwards developed in “Capital.”

Marx again entered politics in 1859, and came into conflict with Herr Vogt, a German ex-regent then at the court of Napoleon III. Carl Vogt’s abuse of the “Sulphur Gang” drew from Marx the classic pamphlet “Herr Vogt.”

A revival of the labour movement was now taking place almost throughout Europe. Meetings of sympathy with Poland led to the suggestion of an International Association of Working-men, and in September, 1864, at a meeting in the old St. Martin’s Hall, London, the International was formed. Its history is that of continued struggle with enemies within and without, and its dissolution was precipitated, not alone by the superior force of organised repression, but also by the internal struggle between the Communists, and the Utopians and Anarchists. It nevertheless served its purpose in laying the foundation of international working-class organisation.

In 1867 the first volume of “Capital” appeared, and its influence has steadily grown year by year. Even the acutest critics pay tributes to the value of the book and the genius of its author. Marx stands out as the protagonist of the economic interpretation of history ; a method of investigation and theory of social growth developed independently as regards ancient society by the great American, Lewis H. Morgan. “Capital” is, indeed, the demonstration of this method and theory, and even opponents are compelled to admit, as does E. A. Seligman of Columbian University, N.Y., Professor of political economy and finance, that “whether or no we agree with Marx’s analysis of industrial society, and without attempting as yet to pass judgment upon the validity of his philosophical doctrine, it is safe to say that no one can study Marx as he deserves to be studied—and let us add, as he has hitherto not been studied in England or America—without recognising the fact that, perhaps with the exception of Ricardo, there has been no more original, no more powerful, and no more acute intellect in the entire history of economic science.” [“The Economic Interpretation of History,” P. 56. The Macmillan Co.]

The war of 1870 and the Commune which followed it proved trying times for the International. To this period we owe the manifestoes by Marx on the war and the Commune. The International having become a terror to the rulers of Europe was now outlawed in all countries. The headquarters were transferred to New York by the Congress of La Hague in 1873, and this meant practically its dissolution.

Sickness, brought on by overwork, undermined the strong constitution of Marx and forced him to seek the South of France. The death of Jenny, his wife, dealt him a terrible blow, to be followed soon after by another in the death of Jenny Longuet, his favourite daughter. With sorrow thus heaped upon his head the scientist of the proletariat languished a few months longer and died peacefully in London on the 14th March, 1883.

* * *

It has not been attempted to deal with the touching family life of Marx; that may be glimpsed in Liebknecht’s “Biographical Memoirs” to which indeed we are indebted for many of the facts already set forth.

We are here concerned above all with the scientific method, the economics and philosophy of Marx, and its supreme utility to the working-class movement.

The enormous, continued, and yet ineffective literature of Marxian criticism is the highest testimony to the importance of what is called Marxism, and to the impregnability of its position. The dialectic of events daily confirms the dialectic of Marx, and now the duty devolves upon those with whom science is not subordinate to the buttressing of exploitation to cease their damnable faces and get to business. The instrument of investigation forged by Marx—and already so fruitful of results—has wide fields yet virgin before it in the domain of ideology, in the evolution of philosophy, art, and religion. To use the method of Marx, however, it is above all necessary to comprehend it. There are members of the working class, who, having studied and mastered the historic method of Marx, lament silently the lack of leisure and lack of means that condemn them to sterility. Adequate study is rendered impossible to them, and they are denied the opportunity of using the splendid instrument the genius of Marx has prepared, in increasing our knowledge along any of the wide vistas of scientific investigation that open out before them.

But the Socialist worker knows that this cannot always be, and though his intellect is despised by the would-be intellectuals of the bourgeoisie from behind their shallow learning and superficial polish, yet he, at least, sees clearly the trend o! evolution and holds the key of the future; while bourgeois social science has to declare itself bankrupt where it does not adopt the method of Marx.

F. Charles

A lesson in capitalist ethics. (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The fact brutally resolves itself to this. Society ultimately depends on force. Happily force is not constantly employed, but, until the world becomes very different from what it is, it must always be latent."—The Times, Feb. 29, 1908.

Review: The Problem of Race Culture. (1908)

Book Review from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

[“The Bar of Isis : the Law of the Mother.” By Frances Swiney. The Open Road Publishing Co. 6d. Nett.]

The subject discussed in this well-printed brochure of 50 pages is one that is beginning to have more attention paid to it than formerly, although not more perhaps than it deserves. Isis, the wife and the sister of Osiris, the God of the Egyptians, became later the patron Goddess of women, and the Bar of Isis represents the sanctity of the prospective mother from all approaches of the male. The argument of the book is that the husband must learn to be sexually abstemious, for on his continence depends, to a very large extent, the health and constitutional vigour of the offspring. Many of the ailments of children are alleged to be attributable to the incontinence of the father during the period of gestation. Medical evidence is quoted in favour of this position, yet Dr. Allinson lays down a different position, and he is probably one of the best known writers on this subject. Apart from certain personal factors, he says nothing in favour of complete abstinence on the part of the husband and no injury to the offspring is suggested as the result of indulgence during the prohibited period.

But all that apart. We are not particularly concerned with questions of that nature. The important part of the book to us, is where it is argued that race deterioration and degeneracy are attributable to the violation of the Bar of Isis ; for whether such violation does or does not adversely affect the child, it seems abundantly clear that such pre-natal factors are as dust in the balance against material factors of a post-natal character, such as food, clothing and shelter. As with our author, so with the Eugenist. Indeed, their objects seem to be the same, viz., a short cut to the solution of the social problem; the one through heredity, the other through an improvement in pre-natal environment. Both positions fail by ignoring the material conditions with which the Socialist primarily deals. The offspring of genius, developed under ideal conditions of pre-natal development, would still need to be fed, clothed, housed, educated, etc. The words of Max Nordau in this connexion carry considerable weight owing to their obvious truth :

“Marry Hercules with Juno, and Apollo with Venus, and put them in slums—their children will be stunted in growth, rickety and consumptive. On the other hand, take the miserable slum-dwellers out of their noxious surroundings, house, feed, clothe them well, give them plenty of light, air, and leisure, and their grand-children, perhaps already their children, will reproduce the type of the fine, tall Saxons and Danes of whom they are the offspring.”

There is no way of taking the slum-dweller out of his noxious surroundings except by abolishing the poverty that sent and keeps him there. As William Morris said, while you have poor people you will have people poorly housed; and the same thing applies to feeding, clothing, etc. Socialism alone can abolish poverty by abolishing private ownership of the means of living which allows the workers to be expropriated of the wealth they produce, yielding them only as wages the cost of their subsistence.

Were it not for the overshadowing fear of the Editor’s blue pencil, I could show, from the pronouncements of the Eugenists themselves, that the improvement of the environment is essential to the improvement of the race. Eugenics is, for the present, mainly negative. It consists, in the words of Dr. C. W. Saleeby, in the denial of the supreme privilege of parentage to those suffering from congenital defects of mind or body. On the other hand it seeks to encourage the fecundity of superior types. This then is the Eugenic aim, the discouragement of the unfit and the encouragement of the fit to perpetuate the species. There is a difficulty in the fact that the lower type is naturally the more fertile. Dr. J. L. Tayler, in a long paper on Individuology, in discussing this subject, differentiates the prevailing types as mainly paleogenie and neogenic, which we, being under no obligation to use unnecessarily long words, may call the low type and the high type. He shows that the low type persists owing to the existence of the material environment adapted to it; and it would seem, therefore, that the more effective method of discouraging the continuance of the low type lies, not in artificial and oppressive sterilisation, but simply in improving the environment, thus automatically discouraging the low type by forcing it upward in an endeavour to adapt itself to a higher environment. The potentially high types who acquire the characteristics of the lower through “noxious surroundings” would be enabled to develop ; the low types would cease to flourish in an environment unsuited to them; while each individual of whatever type could adequately develop the best that it had the fortune to inherit.

This cannot be done under the conditions of modern society. The thirteen millions of people in this country “on the verge of hunger ;” the 30 percent, of the people of London who live on or below the poverty line ; the million or more of the inhabitants of London who live under “overcrowded” conditions, are all hopelessly handicapped in their development, and it is to these conditions we must turn our hand before we can even be sure of the other facts in the question. Socialism will apply the solution to all these problems, in the first and most important place, by removing the economic hindrance to a full and adequate satisfaction of the material requirements. In the second place by removing the property restrictions which hinder the operation of what in biology is known as sexual selection, and allowing freedom of choice between the individuals, irrespective of the all-pervading influence of economic considerations. And in the third place by removing that economic necessity of obedience to the breadwinner which will probably explain to the author of the book we set out to notice the main causes of the violation of the Bar of Isis.

Dick Kent

A Labour Review. (1908)

Book Review from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

[“The Socialist Review.” I.L.P., London. 6d. Nett.]

The Editor of this Review tells us that one of the circumstances which call for its publication is the desirability of attracting sections of the middle class. The movement “must command the support of the intellectual democracy ; the professional classes—the men and women whose ‘wages’ is not merely an income, but the mental satisfaction which their work brings; the intellectual middle and rich classes—men and women who are moved by intellectual ideals, repulsions and attractions.”

The review, presumably, is an appeal to the “brains” of the nation, in contradistinction to the unintellectual bestiality of the lower orders.

Since, however, the middle class is helpless without the aid of the workers, the Editor is constrained to insist on the futility of a separate middle class organisation. “A middle class Socialist Society is an absurdity.” It could be nothing but an uncertain, isolated and somewhat despised influence. So this coterie of politicians are prepared to use the working class as voting cattle under the guidance of middle-class “intellect” for the furtherance of middle-class interests.

One of the contributors, Mr. J. R. MacDonald, in advocating the taking of office in a capitalist cabinet by “Socialists,” under very elastic conditions, shows how keen is his scent for the fleshpots of office.

He also says: 

“A Labour Party in the House of Commons can do as much for Socialism as a Socialist Party can do, because the former can use to the maximum every Socialist tendency of the present day. We may have a hundred debates on Socialism in the House of Commons, but the unemployed will be starving unless we get an act passed that will work. Many people will support such an act who are not Socialists. They belong to the tendencies making for Socialism.”

A non-Socialist party in the House of Commons could neither assist in the spread of Socialism by making its principles clear, nor use to the maximum the events of the day, since it would lack the necessary knowledge and backbone. Its ignorance and blunders give rise to the confusion of the workers, and at the same time provide the opportunity of the enemy. The result can only be disappointment, apathy and retrogression.

The overwhelming majority of the Liberal Government against the “Unemployed Workmen Bill” shows that even the paltriest measure that threatens their interests finds the capitalist class united against it. Many even among those who voted for the Bill did so merely as a “blind,” because they knew it could not pass, as indicated in the “House.” While the Bill itself is hopeless, its penal clause is deserving of the strongest condemnation. Even if passed it would only be administered by the class in control of the administration in so far as it served their interests, and wherever the worker might theoretically stand to gain, its provisions would be distorted, re-interpreted or neglected, and no power could say them nay.

What do these facts show but the necessity for the revolutionary method at which Mr. McDonald sneers? Is it not imperative that the workers be helped to see that to legislate in their interest they must control political power ? and to have such legislation administered in their interests they must themselves administer them? The reform method is hopeless. The only hope lies in the consciousness of the workers in their class interests, and in their persistent organisation and advance toward the control of the political machinery, for then only can they commence to use the economic forces which have developed under capitalism, for the well-being of those who produce ; while only by the adoption of this method are they likely to get “something now.”

The review also contains some extracts from letters by Marx and Engels which the Editor tries to use in support of the Labour Party.

The letters, as they are printed, are not authoritative since they have the appearance of having been edited with a purpose. The full text of the letters would have been more convincing.

As they stand, however, the letters by no means support the position of the “Labour Party,” for Marx shows how the middle class is to be distrusted ; whilst his appreciation of the attitude of Belfort Bax, who, whatever his shortcomings in economics, was at that time the aggressive exponent of working class interest, is significant of what Marx judged important.

The letters of Engels are instinct with confidence in the working class and reliance on the logic of events, while insisting on the danger of dogmatism. He insists that “the great thing is to get the working class to move as a class.” The italics are Engels’.

And is not the following extract from a letter of Engels’ also the condemnation of the policy of the I.L.P.? He says:—

“The Fabians here in London are a band of ambitious folk who have sufficient understanding to comprehend the inevitableness of the social revolution but who cannot trust this gigantic work to the proletarian alone, and therefore have the kindness to place themselves at the head of it. Dread of the revolution is their fundamental principle. They are the cultured par excellence. Their Socialism is municipal Socialism—the commune, not the nation, shall at least be the possessor of the means of production. This Socialism of theirs is then presented as an extreme but inevitable consequence of middle-class Liberalism, and hence their tactics are to fight the Liberals not as decided opponents but to drive them on to socialistic consequences; therefore to trick them, to permeate Liberalism with Socialism and not to oppose Socialist candidates to Liberal ones, but to palm them off, to thrust them on, under some pretext.”

* * *

The review also contains articles on Italy, Food, the Unemployed, and one by Kautsky on the Belgian Peasantry. It is well got up and will doubtless have a large sale among the many who, under the influence of economic pressure, are becoming dimly conscious of the necessity for social change; but who will have to unlearn, in the hard school of experience, much of what they gather from the literature of the I.L.P.

F. C. Watts

Letter: Municipal politics. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

In the January issue of the Socialist Standard there appeared an article under the head of “Municipal Politics” and signed “W.” Upon that article I should like to pass a few comments, lack of time being my excuse for not having done so before.

In its Declaration of Principles the S.P. states it “enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties,” etc.

la his article “W” evidently tries to prove that the administration of laws made by other political parties may be held to be consistent with this clause.

That is to say, S.P. members may consistently help to administer laws made by political parties against which their organisation has declared war.

For instance, the members of the S.D.P. and I.L.P. now in Parliament, may, with the assistance of the Liberals and Tories, place a certain law on the Statute Book. This law the S.P. will at the present moment decry as useless and mischievous, yet in the future, according to the article under notice, some of the party members may be busily employed in administering this very act.

It appears to me that to object to the making of a given law and then to concientiously see that it is properly administered, is to give a new meaning to the word hostility.

The S.P’er does not work directly to bring about Old Age Pensions, the Feeding of the Children, etc., yet when such proposals have become law he must see they are properly carried out ! But if such laws are good enough to be administered by S.P. men, the principles they embody are good to be advocated by S.P. Men—or so, at least, it appears to me. This will apply equally to any other measures.

I have frequently heard I.L.P. speakers enunciate precisely the same sentiments as those expressed in the article under discussion.

They claim that there are in existence many laws which, if properly administered, would tend to ameliorate the condition of the working class, and that it is, therefore, the duty of Socialists to obtain seats on the governing bodies for the purpose of getting out of such laws all that is in them.

I submit that to administer the laws better than they are now administered is a reform—a reform of administration.

To “insist on the futility of reform,” and then to see that such reform is carried out “according to the Act,” seems to me to be acting on the principle of exhausting all the possibilities of error before getting down to concrete business. There are many excuses to be made for a party which does not know its business, but for the S.P. to go on such lines !

I am not now arguing whether the policy outlined by “W” is right or wrong, but I submit it is, so far as I can see, hostile to the hostility clause in your Declaration of Principles.

In conclusion I would like to ask “W” the following questions :

If a reform act, carried out to the letter, tended in any way to hurt capitalism, would not the capitalist central authority quickly interfere with its operation ? If such reform did not hurt capitalism, of what use would it be to the working class ?

If S.P. members on local bodies may there work in harmony with Radicals, S.D.P. and I.L.P. men, why may they not do so on the platform’?

If S.P. members may help to administer capitalist laws why may they not help to frame them?

May members of the S.P. become J.P’s, magistrates, judges, etc., if such positions should come their way ?

If an S.P. man may help administer local affairs, why not national affairs also ? That is, would he be allowed to take a seat in the Cabinet should an opportunity offer ?

If he may do either of these, will he be permitted, as an official, to administer the affairs of a Trade Union ? If not, why not ?

Finally, will “W” explain the difference—if any—between the policy he lays down and that adopted by the S.D.P., I.L.P. and similar organisations ?

As a Revolutionist, and as an admirer, hitherto, of the main policy of the S.P., I, and doubtless many others, would feel obliged to “W” if he would deal again with the subject in the next issue of the Standard.

Yours fraternally,

Philpott Wright

Reply:

It was neither said nor suggested in the article under discussion that the Socialist was to see capitalist laws carried out “according to the act.” The phrase Mr. Wright puts in quotation marks is a fiction of his own of doubtful honesty.

It is, therefore,, quite irrelevant that an I.L.P’er conceives it to be the duty of an elected member to administer existing laws to the letter; for the Socialist does not seek to use the powers of the municipality “to the letter,” but only in so far as they can be used in the interest of the revolutionary working class, ignoring or fighting everything that cannot be so used.

There can, moreover, be no question of administration, even upon a local council, until the Socialists have the majority. Then only can they use the limited “power, funds, and organisation of the municipality, as far as is locally possible, in helping to complete the task of the workers in the capture of the central powers for Socialism,” as shown. And this is very different from administering laws “according to the act.”

Nor, indeed, was there any question of administration at all, except in so far as the use of the local powers as a weapon by the Socialist workers may be held to be such.

Since, however, the powers of local councils are practically limited to the use of laws defining their spheres of operations,—which are passed, not by I.L.P. or S.D.P., but by the capitalist class irrespective of initals,—it follows that to take any action within the framework of the local powers may be held to be the administration of local government acts. In this view, then, to do anything upon a local council is to endeavour to administer—either in the interest of the workers or of the masters—laws passed by the central power. But the Socialist Party, being a political party, is (as evidenced by its participation in municipal elections) prepared to use the local powers as a weapon in the great class struggle.

According to Mr. Wright to do thus is to give a new meaning to the word hostility. To use legality in so far as it serves our aim in hostility to all sections of the capitalist class is to work in harmony with I.L.P., S.D.P., and Radicals. It can surely only be Mr. Wright’s modesty that makes him stop at Radicals; for wherein do they differ from the rest of the master class as regards the workers ?

The Socialist Party, moreover, is not to be turned from its endeavours by fear that the ruling class will use the force of the State against the municipalities in revolt, for the response of the capitalist class to the efforts of the class-conscious toilers cannot fail to fan still higher the flame of rebellion and hasten the day of complete victory.

But what appears to be the alternative to the policy that has been outlined, as adumbrated by Mr. Wright ? It is to repeat empty, would-be-revolutionary phrases. To do nothing.

If one is not prepared to use the municipal powers, why contest local elections at all ? Indeed such a policy leads directly to Anarchism, for does it not follow that if the use of local powers by Socialists is to work in harmony with capitalists, it is equally so to use the capitalist franchise laws to get a man elected ? Such a policy is obviously absurd.

No verbal twisting can make the use of the local powers by a Socialist majority as a weapon of hostility in the class struggle be at the same time a working in harmony with capitalism. Mr. Wright, consequently, is wasting time.

Having set out to show that the policy of endeavouring to use the administrative powers of the municipality by S.P.G.B. candidates is contrary to the hostility clause in the Declaration of Principles, and having signally failed, Mr. Wright further shows his confusion by asking nearly a dozen questions not one of which deals with the supposed contradiction he attempts to prove.

His thesis having fallen to the ground, it is unnecessary to waste space in following Mr. Wright in all his devious wanderings.

He claims to be an admirer, hitherto, of the policy of the S.P.G.B., but his present opposition, and indeed his every communication, has shown that he has never understood that policy. It is, then, not surprising that he should not know the difference between the policy outlined in the January No. and that of the I.L.P. The differences are, indeed, legion, and though it does not properly come within the scope of this reply, yet it may be useful to restate the essentials briefly.

The policy of the I.L.P. is based on Utopian ideas of universal brotherhood fostered by place-hunting politicians. It is opposed to revolution and does not work for the supremacy of the proletariat, while it repudiates the class struggle. it holds that what it calls Socialism is to come by a gradual accumulation of instalments, or “like a thief in the night.” It promises and seeks support for reforms, which, if obtained,, could only be gifts from the capitalist class. It keeps in the background the extremely limited nature of the powers of the municipality, and puts forward big programs, as in the I.L.P. manifesto on “A Commune for London,” that are mostly quite outside the power of the municipality, and therefore fraudulent. It repeatedly bargains with, and seeks support from, sections of the capitalist class. In short, it is in no way a Socialist party, but is a party seeking only to modify capitalism and to harmonise capital and labour. And the I.L.P. is typical of the reform movement generally.

The policy outlined in the January issue is on the other hand the logical policy of the class struggle based on the antagonism of interests between capitalist and proletarian. It is a policy of war, and is inconsistent with any support of, bargaining, or harmonious working with, the capitalist class. It points out that no important amelioration can be obtained under capitalism unless as sops thrown by the master class in fear of extinction by revolution. It insists, consequently, that Socialism cannot come from an accumulation of reforms, but that the essential is the revolutionary step of working-class supremacy to which all else is subordinate. While the futility of the reform method is also proved by the fact that, until the workers are the ruling class, reforms are only the gifts of capitalism and therefore no concern of ours, and when the workers are triumphant, then reforms are stupid and unnecessary. It also shows the necessity of seeking support for nothing else than Socialism in order to secure a solid, class-conscious and revolutionary backing. It insists upon the extremely limited nature of the local powers, and therefore makes no false promises and raises no false hopes. It points out that while in a minority the only effective political weapon of the workers is the relentless opposition and exposure of capitalism ; while when the municipality is captured, then its limited powers will be used in the workers’ interest—and therefore of necessity in hostility to capitalist interests—not to lengthen the life of a rotten system, but as a centre of resistance in the struggle for supremacy and an aid to the militant working class. The Socialists will, in short, take all they can get in the open class struggle, and will use every suitable weapon to their hand in prosecution of the proletarian historic mission.

The policy of the I.L.P. is to divert the worker from the class struggle and from the revolutionary step, keeping him ever at the mercy of the capitalist, and as a wage slave within the capitalist system.

The other policy which has been sketched is that of a keen edged sword cutting through Society to the extinction of capitalism and the emancipation of the worker.

F. C. Watts

Blogger's Note:

I'm not 100% sure that the above Philpott Wright is the same person as the H. Philpott Wright that previously appeared in the pages of the Socialist Standard but 'Philpott Wright' could not have been that common a name back in the day, surely?

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor

Comrade,—In the last issue of the Socialist Standard Mr. Swan again charges me with “a deliberate lie” for stating that the evidence of a compromise appeared in the Clarion, and asserts that I have read into the Clarion letters, etc. “something they do not contain.”

Let your readers note the italicised passages of J. Nuttall’s letter and the amendment of Messrs. Hunt (Bradford) and Jones (Ardwick) to the resolution moved and seconded by Councillors Fox and Sutton, and then consider in what way the prospects of Messrs. Kelley and Clynes would have suffered by the introduction of a third Labour candidate in Manchester, unless by the Liberals opposing Kelley and Clynes.

Mr. Swan states that “certain verbal or written communications” can only form the basis of a compact, and he denies emphatically that any such communications passed between the L.R.C. and the Liberal Party. This denial proves nothing, especially as he does not seem sure as to the veracity of his denial, ”if I am speaking the truth” writes Mr. Swan; “if” implies a doubt, or want of knowledge of the subject dealt with. As “verbal communications” may form the basis of a compact it would be a waste of time to trouble the local L.R.C.

The charge of using statements from the Liberal and Tory press without verifying them fails, as every reference in my first letter, with one exception—that from the Courier—was from the Clarion. Is Mr. Swan of opinion that the Clarion is a capitalistic newspaper ?

I submitted the Courier extract in order that a refutation of the charge therein contained might be forwarded to the Courier office. Arising from that refutation we should see what information the Courier had at its disposal, and what facts formed the basis for the statement. The place to deny statements is through the columns of the journal printing them. That Mr. Swan has taken this course in the case of the statements in the S.S. I admit—will he do so with reference to the Courier extract ?

If it be “stupid pugnacity” to bring forward what one considers evidence in proof of a statement, then I plead guilty.

I also desire to see the truth prevail, and on evidence being produced which disproves my statementsts will apologise through these columns.

The S.P.G.B. deem the L.R.C. one of the “mutual foes” to Socialism which Mr. Swan refers to, and that is why the L.R.C. are opposed and exposed.

The Daily News, Jan. 11th, 1906, stated—

“The Labour vote is an important factor in most of the divisions, and particularly in those in which Mr. Balfour, Sir James Fergusson, Mr. Galloway, and Mr. Schwann are candidates. If Mr. Horridge gets a large proportion of this vote Mr. Balfour’s political association with Manchester will cease. 

“At the recent municipal elections the Labour Party with the Liberal aid, carried all before them. 

“In East Manchester Mr. Horridge has made great progress, and though the Socialists will not make any public recommendation, I have it on the authority of a well-known member of the I.L.P. that the Liberal candidate will get their support. 

“The official Liberals intend to issue a manifesto urging the members of the Party to support the two Labour candidates, … if this advice is generally adopted, and the Labour men in the other four divisions vote for the Free Trade candidates, there should be a clean sweep of Toryism on Saturday.”

The Manchester Guardian, Jan. 12th, 1906, informs us that the Liberals advised their supporters to vote for Kelley and Clynes. The L.R.C. constitution, which candidates running under its auspices sign, contains the following words: (candidates are) “To abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative parties.” Evidently the interests of the Liberals were promoted by only two L.R.C. candidates standing in Manchester, otherwise they would not have instructed their adherents to vote “Labour.”

Having been elected by Liberal votes one understands why Kelley and Clynes are useless as Socialists in the House of Commons. They cannot go beyond their electorate and are therefore doing Liberal work whether they are paid for it or not. I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say “It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.”

The only point of difference between Comrade Evans and myself is whether the arrangement at the election was “a compact” or a “tacit understanding.”

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

P.S. The Daily News (Jan. 15, 1906.) also stated that “Mr. Clynes (Lab.) said ‘The victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism, and paved the way in the coming Parliament for dealing with labour and social legislation of which the people were so much in need.’ “

Correspondence: Does this mean Tory Gold? (1908)

From the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Dear Sir,— Will you kindly insert the following in your next issue, for the information of your members, and Socialists generally.

A. Jacobs.

The attitude of Socialists to Conservatism. 

To the Editor of the Saturday Review

25th October, 1906.

Sir,- In your interesting article on the attitude of Conservatives to Socialism you remark that “Conservatives have no need to be frightened from their own principles by the name of Socialism. If Liberalism has had to desert individualism, and come round to the conception of State action operative in any and every sphere of social and industrial activity, Toryism has not had to execute any such volte-face.”

This is not the only right-about turn the Liberals have executed. After a prolonged and fruitless effort to cajole us into an alliance with them they now threaten us with a crusade against Socialism—a threat which we deride as we derided their proffered alliance. With characteristic confusion of ideas they have mistaken Anarchism—the logical issue of their own political faith, though they are not courageous enough to face that fact—for Socialism, and it is a significant circumstance that representative Anarchists like my friend Kropotkin, are constantly rebuking Socialists for their hostility to the Liberal Party.

Antipathies are more irreconciliable than hatreds. The Socialist opposes both Liberal and Tory because they are prepared to defend in common a position of economic vantage which which they occupy jointly and from which the organised workers will have to oust them before they can enjoy the social freedom which is the field of conquest of democracy. To the extent that Tory and Liberal alike are determined to preserve private property in the means of life, there is, from the Socialist point of view, no difference between them, though a distinction is not difficult to discover between our irreconcilable antipathy to Liberalism and the sneaking regard we preserve for a party that never embraced the doctrine of “everyone for himself and the Devil catch the hindmost.” The Socialist attitude to Liberalism is one of unrelenting hostility; to Conservatism it is one of watchfulness. When the Tory Party is prepared to fight us we shall not decline the combat, and—God defend the right! In the meantime we are waiting to see how far you are prepared to go in such matters as the nationalisation of the railways or of mines. We share the opinion of your reviewer that “there are at least as many if not more Conservatives than there are Liberals who would be prepared to go with the Socialists” so far. As a member of the Executive of the oldest Socialist organisation in this country I cannot pledge myself that it will call upon its members to vote Tory if your party adopts in its program those two planks, but I am perfectly certain in which box Socialist voting paper would be dropped in constituencies where no candidate of our own are in the field. Liberal promises to support the same proposals would fail to catch Socialist votes because we know from experience the value of their election promises.

The difficulty about Socialism to which your reviewer refers—”that it has so many different meanings”—is more apparent than real. The root of the word indicates its meaning, but companionship can never exist between master and slave. Socialism seeks therefore to extinguish every form of servitude to which man has subjected his fellow-man. Wagedom is in some respects the worst form of slavery and we believe it will prove to be the last. We deny the title “Socialist” to anyone who refuses to assist the workers in their effort to emancipate themselves from wagedom, and we refuse it to the workers who hug their chains. Mr. Chiozza Money has been inviting us to drop the title and to be satisfied with that of Collectivist, which only proves that Mr. Money has not yet completed his education in Socialism. Socialists are Collectivists merely because we can discover no other economic basis on which to rear the Socialist superstructure.

The Labor Party in the House of Commons includes in its ranks a handful of Socialists but it is unkind to saddle us with any responsibility for the Radicalism and Liberalism of the majority, and by so doing your reviewer wounds our keenest susceptibilities. It took twenty years’ active propaganda among the trade unionists before we could induce them to abandon their motto “No Politics” ! and we cannot expect them to complete their education more rapidly than Mr. Chiozza Money is perfecting his knowledge of Socialism. They prelude the advent in the House of Commons of a social-democratic party whose influence will soon rival that exercised by our colleagues in the German Reichstag and in the French Chamber of Deputies. When we have pushed aside the Liberals we shall be ready to cross swords with the Conservatives. In the meantime we may continue to preserve mutual respect. Yours faithfully,

J. Hunter Watts.

P.S.— The above letter appeared in the Saturday Review, 27th Oct., 1906.

The italics are our own.—[ED.]

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard