The Capitalist Class. by Karl Kautsky (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Specially translated for the Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

1.—Commerce and Credit.

We have seen how the masses of the population in the countries where the mode of capitalist production prevails are more and more becoming proletarians, workers divorced from their means of production, so that they can produce nothing on their own account, and are there­fore compelled, if they are not to perish by starvation, to sell their only possession, viz., their labour-power. The majority of the peasants and small traders belong in reality to the proletariat already. What separates them from it in form, their property, is but a thin curtain, hiding, but not preventing, their exploitation and dependence, a curtain lifted and carried away by any strong gust of wind.

On the other side we see a small crowd of property-owners, capitalists and large land-owners, to whom alone belong the most important means of production, the most important sources of sustenance for the entire population, and to whom this exclusive possession gives the possibility and power to make the propertyless workers dependent, and to exploit them.

While the majority of the population is increasingly overwhelmed by want and misery, the small crowd of capitalists and large land-owners, together with their parasites, usurp all the enormous advantages arising from the achievements of modern civilisation, and, above all, from the progress made in natural science and its practical application.

Let us take stock of this small crowd of chosen people and inquire into the part they play in economic life and into the consequences for society arising from it.

We have already become acquainted with the three categories of capital, viz., merchants’ capital, usurers’ capital, and industrial capital. The last mentioned category of capital is the youngest, perhaps not so many hundreds as the other two categories are thousands of years old. But the youngest brother has grown more rapidly, much more rapidly, than the older two; he has become a giant who forces them into subjection and presses them into his service.

Commerce is not an absolute necessity for petty enterprise in its perfect (classical) form. The peasant, like the handicraftsman, can obtain the means of production, so far as he must purchase them, direct from the producer, and he can also sell his product direct to the consumer. Commerce is at this stage of economic development principally of service to luxury, but is on the whole, not indispensable to the continuance of production or to the preservation of society.

Capitalist production, however, is, as we have seen, dependent from the beginning upon commerce just as much as commerce at a certain stage needs capitalist production for its further development. The more this production expands, the more it becomes the prevailing mode of production, the more necessary does commerce become to the entire economic life. To-day it is not alone of service to superfluity, to luxury. The whole production, even the feeding of the population of a capitalist country, depends upon commerce proceeding undisturbed in its course. This is one of the reasons why a world-war at present would prove much more devastating than ever before. War leads to a paralysis of commerce, and that means to-day a paralysis of production, and of the, entire economic life ; it means economic ruin, which extends further, and is not less disastrous, than the devastation on the battlefield.

Quite as important as the development of commerce, has the development of usury become for the capitalist mode of production. Tho usurer during the domination of petty enterprise, was plainly a parasite, who took advantage of the difficulties or prodigality of others and drew their blood. The money he lent to others served, as a rule— as generally the producer already possessed the necessary means of production—for purposes of unproductive expenditure. When, for instance, an aristocrat borrowed money it was to squander it; when a peasant did so it was to pay money taxes or law costs. Lending money at interest was therefore considered immoral and condemned by everybody.

It is different in society with the capitalist mode of production. Money is now the means for fitting up a capitalist concern and for purchasing and exploiting labour-power. When a business man nowadays borrows money in order to establish a new concern or to extend an existing one, it docs not mean (providing, of course, his undertaking succeeds) that he reduces his income by the amount of the interest he pays for the borrowed money. On the contrary, that money is used by him to exploit labour-power, hence to increase his income, and always by a larger amount than the sum he has to pay away as interest. Usury now loses its original character. Its part as a means of taking advantage of financial difficulties and prodigality gradually gives way to the role of fertilising capitalist production, that is to say, of making possible a more rapid development than would take place, if it were to depend on the accumulation of capital based on the means of industrial capitalists alone. Abhorrence of the usurer ceases; he is whitewashed and receives a new, high-sounding name—creditor.

The main direction of the movement of interest-bearing capital has at the same time become a different one. The sums of money which the usurer-capitalists amassed in their coffers flowed in former times from the accumulating centres through thousands of channels to the non-capi­talists. But to-day the coffers of usury-capital, viz., of credit institutions, have become accumulating centres, to which through thousands of channels the money of the non-capitalists flows in order that it may from there find its way to the capitalists. Credit is to-day, as of old, a means of subjecting non-capitalists with or without property, to indebtedness to capital on the basis of interest. But it has now also become a powerful means of transforming into capital the possessions of the different sections of non-capitalists, from the enormous wealth of the Catholic church and the old aristocracy down to the few pence saved by servant girls and day-labourers, that is to say, credit has, by transforming these possessions into capital, changed them into a means of exploiting the one and decomposing the other of these sections. The credit arrangements of to-day, savings banks, etc., are lauded because, according to the supporters of the present system they transform the saved-up pence of the wage-workers, handi­craftsmen and peasants into capital and these persons into “capitalists.” But this accumulation of non-capitalists’ savings has no other purpose than to place fresh capital at the disposal of the capitalists and thereby hasten the development of the capitalist mode of production, and we have seen what that means to the wage-workers, peasants and craftsmen.

If the credit arrangements of to-day have more and more the effect of transforming the entire possessions of the different sections of non-capitalists into capital, which is placed at the disposal of the capitalist class, they have on the other hand the effect of turning the capital of the capitalist class to better account. They become the accumulating centres of all the money of- the individual capitalists, which these have no opportunity of using for the time being, and make such sums of money, which would otherwise lie idle, accessible to other capitalists in want of them. They also make it possible to transform commodities into money before these have been sold and to lessen thereby the period of circulation, and also the amount of capital which, for the time being, is required for the carrying on of a concern.

Hence it is that the amount and power of the capital at the disposal of the capitalist class increases enormously. Credit has to-day, therefore, become one of the most powerful stinmlants of capitalist production. Apart from the intense development of machinery and the expansion of the army of unemployed, it is one of the main causes of that power of the present method of production which enables industry upon the slightest impetus to rapidly expand.

But credit is far more susceptible to disturbances than is commerce; and each shock it experiences tells upon the entire economic life.

Some economists have considered credit to be the possible means of turning propertyless persons and those owning little property into capitalists. But, as indicated by its name, credit depends upon the confidence reposed by the giver of it in the recepient. The more the latter possesses and the greater the security he offers, the greater is the credit he enjoys. The credit system is hence only the means of obtaining for the capitalists more capital than they possess, the means of increasing the predomination of the capitalists and of accentuating the social contrasts, not of lessening them. The credit system is accordingly not only a means of developing capitalist production more rapidly and of enabling it to utilise favourable fluctuations ; it is also a means of hastening the ruin of petty enterprise, and it is finally a means of making the present mode of production more complicated and more susceptible to disturbances, of also carrying into the midst of tho capitalists the feeling of insecurity and of causing the ground on which they stand to vibrate ever more strongly.

________________

2.—Division of Labour and Competition.

While the economic development leads on the one hand to ever closer relations between commerce as well as credit and industry, it has, owing to the increasing division of labour on the other hand, the effect of more and more consigning the various manipulations, for which the capitalist has to arrange in economic life, to separate concerns and undertakings. In times gone by the merchant had not only to buy and sell commodities, but also to collect, stock and take them to frequently very distant markets; he had also to sort and display the goods, so as to make them accessible to the individual buyers. To-day we have not only the division of labour between small and large trading, but also separate large concerns for the transport and the warehousing of goods (storehouses and elevators); further, at the largest central markets, the exchanges, buying and selling has so much become an occupation in itself, so completely severed from the other functions of the merchant, that not only are goods bought and sold which are still at some remote place, or have not yet been produced, but goods are bought without the intention of being taken into posses­sion, and goods are sold which the seller does not own.

In times gone by a capitalist could not be imagined without a big iron safe, in which he deposited the money coming in and from which he took the money required for making payments. To-day the financial arrangements of the capitalists in the industrially developed countries, especially in England and America, have become the business of separate undertakings—of banks. Payments are no longer made to the capitalist, but to his bank, and are not received from him, but from his bank. And hence a few central concerns deal with the financial transactions of the entire capitalist class of a country.

But if in this way the various functions of the capitalists are consigned to different independent undertakings, they become thereby only outwardly, juridically, independent of each other ; economically they remain as before, closely connected with and dependent upon one another. The functions of any one of the concerns cannot proceed with regularity, if the functions of any one of the other concerns, with whom it stands in business relations, are in any way disturbed.

The more commerce, credit and industry become mutually dependent upon each other, and the more the various functions of the capitalist class fall to separate undertakings, the greater becomes the dependence of the individual capitalists upon the others. The capitalist business of a country—indeed, in certain directions already, of the entire world-market—becomes ever more one tremendous body, whose organs are most closely connected with each other. While the great mass of the population becomes ever more dependent upon the capitalists, the latter themselves become continually more dependent upon each other.

The economic factors of the present mode of production become to an ever larger degree so complicated and sensitive a mechanism that its undisturbed working depends to a continually greater extent upon all the innumerable small cogs of its wheels catching exactly into each other and performing their functions with precision. Never before was there a method of production that so needed regulation according to a plan as the present one. But private property makes it impossible to bring design and order into this system. While the single concerns become economically more dependent upon each other, they remain juridically —from a point of law—independent of one another. The means of production of each single concern are private property, their owner being able to dispose of them as he may think fit.

As production on a large scale develops, and the larger the single concerns grow, so the economic efforts inside each concern become systematised in accordance with a certain precisely thought out plan in every detail. But the working together of the single concerns is left to the blind forces of free competition. By an enormous waste of energy and means, and by increasingly serious upheavals, this competition manages to keep production going, not by putting everybody in the right place, but by demolishing everybody who stands in its way. That is called “the selection of the fittest in the struggle for existence.” In reality free competition annihilates less the incompetent ones than those who are in false places who are unable to maintain their positions through lack of special ability or perhaps for want of capital. But competition is not satisfied to-day with crushing merely those “unfit for the struggle for existence.” The fall of every such “unfit” one causes the ruin or paralysis of many, who stood in economic relations to the bankrupt concern, such as wage-workers, creditors, contractors, etc. Yet to-day it is said that everyone can shape his own destiny. That notion is derived from the time of petty enterprise, when a work­man’s prosperity depended upon his own personal qualities—but only his prosperity and that of his family. To-day the destiny of each member of capitalist Society depends less and less upon his personality and continually more upon many and various circumstances, over which he himself has no control. It is no longer a selection of the best which is accomplished to-day by competition.

(To be continued.)

Letter: "Municipal Politics." (1908)

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

Suspicions arising as to the genuineness of the following letter, a communication was sent to the address given. It was returned through the post marked "Not known." Though it is unusual to take notice of anonymous correspondence, an exception is made in this case since the matter may be of some interest to our readers.

"Municipal Politics."

Jan. 18th, 08. 

Socialist Party of Great Britain,

Gentlemen,—In The Socialist Standard for January an article appeared under the heading “Municipal Politics." In regard to a candidate becoming elected to a municipal body you state that he will of course work to wrest from the capitalist class any possible present amelioration although he did not seek suffrages for this, but for Socialism. Since amelioration is of no use whatever to the working class as long as the exploiting class remain in power, why should he waste time on this since he did not seek votes to obtain amelioration, but to bring about Socialism? Also since he was appointed by a class- conscious electorate one would think that they would not expect any reforms to be advocated by him. Hoping to see a reply to this in your next month's issue, I remain.

Yours fraternally,

J. R. Smith.

409, Oldham Rd., Manchester.

Reply:

To say, as does our correspondent, that “amelioration of any kind is of no use to the working class so long as the exploiting class remain in power” is entirely absurd. It is saying that an amelioration is at the same time not an amelioration. It implies that the workers if able to obtain a rise in wages should refuse to take it on the ground that it would be of no use to them!

The only point upon which there can be intelligent discussion is, not whether an amelioration is of use, but whether or how any amelioration is obtainable under capitalism; and if Mr. Smith had used the whole and not a half of a sentence he would have seen that the other half states that neither the Socialist member nor his "electors are under any illusions on this head, for he has made plain how little is to be hoped for from the enemy while entrenched in power."

If Mr. Smith will read the article in question he will see that its whole burden is that any wide spread or important amelioration is impossible under capitalism, and that to obtain even any partial or temporary benefits that may be obtainable as sops from the master class, the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism is the only effective way. And in this struggle for Socialism the workers will take all they can get, and will use every coign of vantage, not to patch up a rotten system, but to strengthen, educate, and organise the working class army in the task of abolishing capitalist exploitation.

As distinct from the reformers who adapt themselves to bourgeois interests, the Socialists must always—as stated in the article—formulate working-class interests and so make clearer in contrast with capitalist interests the polar antagonism that exists and which can only be dissolved by Socialism. Nothing can be considered by a Socialist as being in working class interests that helps to perpetuate a system of oppression, but everything will be welcomed that can be used effectively as a weapon by the Socialist army in ending the capitalist system.

When the Socialist workers control a municipal council, are they, as according to Mr. Smith, to do nothing because they cannot do all? Limited though the local powers are, yet, obviously, they must be used to the utmost. It would, indeed, be folly to contest a local election if the workers were not prepared when in a majority to use the organisation of the municipality as a base of operations in the revolutionary struggle, by aiding and strengthening the workers in revolt against the system. While to refrain from using the electoral machinery where such can be of use to the Socialist workers would be treachery.

Social reformers seek votes in order to patch up the present system, but the Socialist seeks only the conscious co-operation of the workers for its abolition. Hence with the Socialist all else is subordinate to this end, and is only of use in so far as it is a means thereto. By revolution alone can permanent and substantial benefit accrue to the workers. Consequently, even for substantial and lasting amelioration, the first and essential step is, as stated in the article to which Mr. Smith refers, "the control by the workers nationally and locally, and this must be made plain ; and when the workers are the ruling class, lists of reforms suited to the continuance of capitalism become stupid, and entirely different revolutionary measures of transition become the order of the day. Thus reform programmes not only scatter and render mutually antagonistic the workers' efforts, but they obscure and prevent concentration upon the essential step."

So, Mr. Smith, we do not advocate reforms.

We may, then, conclude by further quoting for our correspondent’s benefit from the article in question, whose contents he seems to have unaccountably overlooked :

"It must, therefore, be clearly understood, (1st) that any reform worthy the name from a working-class standpoint involves the conscious taking from the capitalist class of, at least, part of the power and proceeds of robbery, and thus genuine reform is conditional on working-class supremacy. (2nd) That to wield in the workers' interest even the limited and paltry powers allowed by the central government to the local bodies it is first necessary to control the local bodies by a Socialist majority."

"Consequently to promise ‘immediate reforms' that cannot be granted until the revolutionary step has been taken leads to confusion, disappointment and apathy, while it means a vote worthless for Socialism followed by desertion. But to insist upon the futility of reform, and the primary necessity of capturing political power, means a sound vote, a solid backing, and a sure and steady growth of the class-conscious and revolutionary army."

And that, Mr. Smith, is why we do not advocate reforms.

F. C. Watts

A Look Round. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who are the “impossiblists” ?

* * *

At the Central Hall of the Social Democratic Federation Mr. Herbert Burrows has been tearing up the Programme of the S.D.F., pointing out that it contains contradictory proposals and also wants boiling down. Many of the changes demanded should not be included in the list of immediate reforms and others are not Socialist at all ! Moreover, he entirely disbelieves in the establishment of a National Citizen Force. The S.D.F., then, which claims to be out to unite the working class, has not yet even united itself upon the means to be employed to unite them.

* * *

An elevating sight was witnessed last month. Mr. H. M. Hyndman publicly trounced his “comrade” Will Thorne, M.P. On January 31st at the Holborn Town Hall Mr. Hyndman declared that it was an absolute disgrace that the Labour Party in the House of Commons took no more vigorous action in the Unemployed Debate. John Burns should have been denounced as a traitor of the foulest and most loathsome type. Someone should have got up on the floor of the House and insulted him.

* * *

How very Hyndmaniac ! And yet since Burns became a “traitor,” the S.D.F., with Mr. Hyndman’s consent and largely upon his advice, supported his candidature for Parliament, and prominent members canvassed for him.

* * *

W. Thorne is a member of the Labour Party in the House, and also a member of the S.D.F. He is therefore included in Mr. Hyndman’s public condemnation. Verily, the “father of English Social Democracy” gives it “hot” to some of his offspring at times.

* * *

Hyndman is most unfair to Thorne. He knows his position and the extent to which he is bound to his Union. The S.D.F. would have been more manly had they expelled Thorne years ago for breaking their rules by supporting Liberal candidates, as he has done on so many occasions. It would have been better for the S.D.F. and also for Thorne. Instead of which they have assisted him into an untenable position and now publicly denounce him for his inaction.

* * *

Thorne is no doubt doing his best. On February 13th he brought in a Bill defining luggage on railways with regard to bicycles. Thus the revolution proceeds apace.

* * *

Mr. H. Quelch, too, who will vigorously denounce the writer of the above pars when he reads them, who is always protesting against this policy of “pin pricks,” who will “go for” the Wigan branch of the S.D.F. at the forthcoming annual conference with all the vehemence and vituperation at his command (and that’s not a little), when they urge, if permitted by the Conference, the deletion of the palliatives from the S.D.F. programme, has also been distinguishing himself recently.

* * *

In the Daily Express for January 30th he had an article on Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., with whom he associates and co-operates at various conferences and congresses. For that attack on the chairman of the I.L.P. he received, I suppose, four or five guineas. He, therefore, is quite willing to become a capitalist hack in pursuance of his desire to discredit one whose success (by means quite as creditable as those employed by many S.D.F. aspirants for political honours) has made him green with envy.

* * *

In the House of Commons on January 29th Mr. A. Henderson opened his remarks on the King’s Speech by saying that the Labour Party welcomed most heartily the references to the policy of the Government in regard to Macedonia and the Congo Free State. It is, of course, most important from the capitalist point of view that as much attention as possible should be diverted from evils here to troubles thousands of miles away.

* * *

On the following day Mr. Ramsay MacDonald declared that the existing machinery for dealing with unemployment is very simple and the Act establishing it, for which Mr. Walter Long was responsible, was one of the most courageous pieces of statesmanship seen in our generation ! Mr. Pete Curran followed and asked the Government and all parties in the House to prevent the possibility of revolution in this country !

* * *

There is no possibility of revolution so long as the workers are content to be represented by the Hendersons, the MacDonalds and the Currans, and the Liberals and Conservatives are fully aware of it.

* * *

Mr. A. Henderson has been elected to the committee of the Nonconformist members of the House of Commons. His election is another proof of the value of the Labour Party pledge to abstain from identifying themselves with any section of the Liberal or Conservative Parties.

* * *

Whenever it has to define a policy on social and economic questions the Labour Party is forced by the logic of circumstances to proceed on Socialist lines, say the Executive of the S.D.F. in a circular appealing for more money. From this we gather that the Labour Party’s Unemployed Bill, with its Penal Clause, is, in the opinion of the S.D.F. on Socialist lines. No wonder it’s a difficult job to convert the workers to Socialism.

* * *

Mr. E. R. Pease, in The International, makes a similar remarkable statement. The particular measures the Labour Party introduces, he says, and the proposals it makes are without exception Socialist !

* * *

“Bold advocacy might win the middle classes to see that their interests are in no way injured by a policy of social justice and humane reform.”—Daily News.

* * *

In his “Report on Sanatoria for Consumption and Certain Other Aspects of the Tuberculosis Question” issued on January 23rd by the Local Government Board, Dr. H. Timbrell Bulstrode says that whilst the prevalence of consumption is contributed to by many causes, poverty stands out prominently above all others. “Although” he says, “it is a matter for dispute which elements of poverty are mainly operative, there is much evidence in support of the view that poverty as a whole, with all that it comprises and implies, may be regarded as one of the most, if not the most, potent predisposing causes of the malady. Poverty acts in many ways ; it may, for instance, diminish resistance of the individual to the disease by promoting overcrowding of persons, semi-starvation, lack of sunlight, of ventilation, and of cleanliness; it may induce occupational predisposition, and increase opportunities for infection.”

* * *

“Where are your hospitals?” demands the thoughtless opponent of the Socialist speaker. But they are not ours. They belong to the capitalist system to which they are necessary. They will not be required under Socialism, because the poverty and the risks of employment common to capitalism will have disappeared.

* * *

In opening his campaign at South Leeds on February 3rd Mr. Fox, in reply to a question, said that he didn’t agree that capitalism is the root of poverty, but he did agree that Socialism is the only real remedy!

* * *

Giving evidence before the Factory Commission at Cawnpore (India) on January 18th, Mr. Francis Horsman, of the Cawnpore Cotton Mill said they had worked twelve hours a day for the past year, as compared with thirteen hours previously, and the gross production was just as good. In other words, with the shorter hours each operative produced more per hour than previously.

J. Kay

[Quote] (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The House has ceased to be frightened by the bogey of Government antagonism to railways since the President of the Board of Trade showed himself so keenly alive to their interests at the time of the great labour trouble.

Daily Chronicle, Feb. 13.

The case of Philip Snowden, M.P. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour member for Blackburn, like others who came to the front at the general election, strives to add to his income, (a paltry £200 a year with an extra £25 now and again) by lecturing at high fees, and by writing articles to suit the purposes of the millionaire proprietors of the trustified Press.

In the course of his peregrinations he has run up against members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in our last number we briefly recorded that our Manchester comrades had forwarded to Mr. Snowden particulars of compacts made between I.L.P. candidates and Liberals, with special reference to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. James Parker.

Mr. Philip Snowden replied as follows : 

(Copy). 

10, Baron’s Court Road,

West Kensington, W.

Jan. 23, ’08.

Dear Sir,—There is nothing at all in all you say which gives any proof of an alliance or understanding. Your extracts simply prove what everybody knows, namely, that in the absence of a second Liberal the Liberal electors voted against the Tory.—Yrs very truly,

(Signed) Philip Snowden.

Now what do we say ?

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was adopted as the Labour candidate for Leicester, at a meeting held at the Temperance Hall on Jan. 5th, 1906. In the course of his speech he said that the trade union section, and that practically comprehended the whole of the movement, said that in connection with this election they must vote so that all votes in the House of Commons they could influence would be cast in favour of the upsetting of the Taff Vale judgment. They said the danger of Protection to the wage earners was so great and so pressing that they must fight and kill Protection, and so, after full discussion, their local Labour Representation Committee came to the decision, and he was empowered to communicate it to them that night, that on no account was it going to ask them to plump on Monday week (cheers), and their Trades Council came to the decision the other night to advise every working man, and everybody who was influenced by the Labour movement, to use both their votes, to give one to Mr. Broadhurst and the other to himself (loud cheers).

Councillor Hill proposed the resolution in support and asked every Progressive elector to use his two votes solid for progress and the advancement of Labour.

Alderman Wood, president of the Liberal Association, seconded. He said that his friends had decided not only to run one candidate, but they were going to take off their coats and work not only for the return of their candidate, but also of their good friend, Mr. MacDonald. Let them all work hard and vote for both the Progressive candidates, and then he should be confident of the result.”

Mr. Snowden may find a full report of this meeting in the Leicester Daily Post of January 6th, 1906, headed—

THE BOROUGH ELECTION.

LABOUR CAMPAIGN OPEN.

BRILLIANT SPEECH BY MR. J. R. MACDONALD.

UNITY WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY.

PROTECTION MUST BE KILLED.

Undoubtedly it was a brilliant speech, from a Liberal point of view.

The Leicester correspondent of the London Daily News, on January 15th, 1906, said, “Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. MacDonald, although on separate platforms, are urging that electors should not plump, but allocate their votes to the two Progressives.” Only by accident, of course, Mr. Snowden, there was no “understanding.”

In the Leicester Daily Post for January 16th, 1906, further speeches may be found. The polling took place on the previous day. The following is a reprint from the article “Labour at the Polls” which appeared in the Socialist Standard, March, 1906 :—

“After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, as shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood,” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties— Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to Industry—they had, upon those specific and definite points, cooperated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things going from bad to worse.”

If no alliance existed, no “understanding” was arrived at, when these two parties—Liberal and Labour—”co-operated for the purpose of killing the late Government,” we have yet to learn what an alliance or “understanding” is.

With regard to Halifax, we said in March 1906:—

“At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).”

And Mr. Snowden says that Mr. M. J. Blatchford’s words do not prove the existence of any alliance or undertaking ! What would prove it to Mr. Snowden?

In November last we referred to Mr. Parker as having “made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election,” and Mr. Parker wrote to us to dispute a certain statement made concerning him in the same article, but did not deny the truth of this particular one. But Mr. Snowden rushes in where Mr. Parker feared to tread.

The member for Blackburn says that what happened was that, in the absence of a second Liberal, the Liberal electors voted against the Tory ! But if the votes polled were merely anti-Tory votes, what becomes of Mr. Bruce Glasier’s arithmetic in the Labour Leader of April 26th last ?

In the Smethwick Telephone for February 8th, appeared a column, which doubtless also saw the light in many another local journal, headed: “From Labour’s Standpoint, by Philip Snowden, M.P.,” in the course of which he says:—

“There is one great omission in the King’s Speech. There is no reference to the question of unemployment. It is amazing that a Government professing the zeal for Social Reform which carried this Government into power should ignore the acuteness and urgency of this matter. . . . The appointment of Mr. John Burns to the control of the department responsible for this work, a man who had himself known the want of food through unemployment, strengthened the hope that a sympathetic treatment of the problem would be adopted.”

Is Mr. Snowden simple or is he merely playing the game ? We must incline to the latter view. What Socialist could expect a capitalist Government to recognise “the acuteness and urgency of the matter of unemployment” from the viewpoint of the unemployed ? A reserve army of labour is necessary to capitalism ; the problem therefore will only become acute and urgent when that reserve army, assisted by those in employment, becomes dangerous, and that period, thanks largely to the tactics of Mr. Snowden and his friends, is a long way off. What Socialist regarded the appointment of Mr. John Burns as any promise of sympathetic treatment of the problem ? His appointment was a clever, very clever move of the Liberals. Burns understands Socialism, and was appointed as a foil. The Labour members are either envious of Burns or afraid of him,—probably both. He knows that their precious Unemployment Bill is a fraud, and has probably told them so, has sneeringly pointed out to them, say behind the Speaker’s chair, that if they are Socialists they cannot support their own Bill, with its monstrosity of a penal clause. Mr. Snowden complains that in the debate on the Labour Party’s amendment to the Address, John Burns—

“adopted an offensive attitude from the first. He had no justification for such a course. He followed almost immediately after myself and I had taken special pains to be friendly and sympathetic, and to recognise and admit the difficulties of his position.”

As if John Burns wants the sympathy of Mr. Snowden and his friends ! Of course his attitude was offensive, and it will be until the Labour Party make up their mind (if they have one) to fight him and the master class whose interests he so ably serves. Mr. Snowden continued :—

“A Labour Party in Parliament which remained quiet while men and women and children were starving outside would merit the condemnation of the country.”

Heavens! think of it ! All the time that there has been a Labour Party in the House, men, women, and children have been starving outside. And the Labour Party has been quiet, damnably quiet. It has boasted of its “sensibility, respectability, and adaptability” ; its fighting men have taken a turn on the terrace when they wanted to say that wicked word “damn” ; it has moved the adjournment of the House to draw attention to the shooting of natives in Natal, but behaved with Christlike meekness over the shooting of workers at Belfast; it has boasted of its connection with the Nonconformist humbugs and canted in P.S.A. pulpits, appealing for charity for the Hemsworth colliers (who have now been locked out for 171 weeks) when it should have been denouncing these people for supporting a system and a government which make such things possible ; it has expressed its gratification at the references in the King’s Speech to the Congo and Macedonia when it should have been raising hell over the condition of the people here at home; it has attended Royal Garden Parties and told funny tales concerning the working “classes” to “Docks” when it should have been organising the workers for the Social Revolution.

The Labour Party does “merit the condemnation of the country” !

Jack Kent

Can a Socialist be a Christian? (1908)

Pamphlet Review from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism, Atheism and Christianity. By C. Cohen. London. The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle St., E.C. 16 pp., 1d.

Mr Cohen does not take up the cudgels on behalf of Socialism. His position is simply that “Socialism is fundamentally Atheistic in the sense that it is without the belief in God”. That Socialism traces all the phenomena with which it concerns itself to natural causes, and relies on purely secular forces for its realisation; while “Christianity cannot combine with any system in which the belief in God does not rank as an essential feature”.

And there is good ground for this. If such a person as a consistent Christian ever existed, he could only regard this “vale of tears” as an essential part of God’s plan, to be accounted for only through God, and to be modified only through His pleasure. He could only regard those who sought the explanation of social conditions in purely natural causes, to the tacit exclusion of God, and also sought to take advantage of the natural development in order to turn this “vale of tears” into a pleasant garden, as men who denied by their acts the very basis of his faith.

Socialism is the application of science to the relations between men, and will infallibly drive superstition from this its last ditch. Socialism, as the science of Society, is an essential part of a scientific view of all phenomena regarded as an interdependent whole; and such a Monistic view of the universe, with each part in inseparable causal relation to the rest, can leave no nook or cranny for God.

The consistent Socialist, therefore, cannot be a Christian, and although (as Mr. Cohen justly complains) many “Socialists” keep their views on religion in the background in the belief that it is irrelevant to their propaganda, yet that Socialism implies the rejection of superstition cannot be disputed.

Our author, however, has come across the “Labour” politicians angling for middle-class votes, and uses his cudgels to some effect in belabouring such pandars to the cant and hypocrisy known as the “Nonconformist Conscience”. In this scramble for votes it has been said that Socialism is profoundly religious! And Mr. Cohen quotes Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s statement that the Socialist finds in the Gospels “a marvellous support for his economic and political proposals”. This and other statements by the same shifty politician are effectively riddled in the pamphlet under review.

Nor has Mr. Cohen failed to indicate the material basis of the religious ardour that has infected many Labour M.P.s. Commenting upon a passage of a work by Mr. MacDonald, our authors says:

“The striking thing about this passage is its almost obtrusively party political character. At present the Parliamentary Labour Party is in a state of pseudo-alliance with a Liberal Government that relies on Nonconformists. Many Nonconformists are also – since the return of thirty Labour M.P.s – patronising “Socialism” and professing it from the pulpit. For these reasons Mr. MacDonald leaves the Bible – the Nonconformist fetish – alone, while attacking the Prayer Book . . . It is texts and quotations from the Prayer Book that were used – as though texts and quotations from the Bible were not used as frequently, and as though plenty of texts might not be quoted from the New Testament as to the blessings of poverty, the virtues of non-resistance, the lawfulness of slavery, and the duty of obeying constituted authority, with a threat of damnation against all in rebellion. In the same way, it is the Established Church parson who is singled out for attack, while the middle-class manufacturer, with his mouthpiece, the Nonconformist minister, escapes scot free. Yet all Socialists are aware that it is from this class that the greatest enemies of Socialism have been drawn.”

Nothing, indeed, is more typically middle class than Nonconformity, and the servile truckling to that section, characteristic of certain Labour candidates, has already been commented upon by other writers in these columns. No P.S.A. is nowadays complete without a Labour M.P. on show. And in the present connection, the mere fact that the falsely so-called “Socialism” of the Labour M.P.’s is acceptable to large sections of the reactionary Nonconformist middle class, is in itself sufficient to prove its incompatibility with working-class interests rightly understood.

The religious appeal betrays the shoddy politician. To attempt to stir the workers into an electoral activity by the disinterment of decomposing religious sentiment is to play the game of the enemy. Those whose standpoint is that of the welfare of the working class can make no appeal on the grounds of religion; for religion is an instrument of domination which cannot be used as an agent of emancipation at this stage of social development. The great theoretic weapon of the workers in their fight for emancipation is science, not religion; and religion and science are as incompatible as fire and water.

The working class, moreover, though not as yet hostile to religion, are nevertheless becoming increasingly indifferent to it. This is so partly because the workers never find religion, when put to the test, to be on their side. It is also and chiefly due to the fact that the workers are daily in contact with the hard realities of life; and, in spite of their lack of learning, the mass of them find little basis for belief in divine interference, and little reason for doubting that the inevitable warp and woof of cause and effect seen in all industrial processes extends unremittingly over the whole universe. The worker learns in the factory that the most awful natural forces are regular, explicable, and controllable; while the feelings of helplessness before natural forces, and the obscurity and incomprehensibility of these to man, recede before the lessons of man-made productive forces rivalling nature in their giant strength and rational complexity. In technical processes all is reduced to system based on belief in the uninterrupted sequence of cause and effect, and all mysteries are made to yield to persistent effort. Upon such a foundation religion cannot firmly stand. As Lafargue says: “the practice of a modern factory teaches scientific determinism to the wage-worker without him having to pass through the theoretic study of the sciences.” Nature, indeed, appears ruthless, inevitable, and cruelly precise to the workers, and their materialistic experience of life provides a less and less fertile soil for superstition.

And the worker who becomes a Socialist finds there also a belief in the supernatural logically excluded. He discovers that the study of man and Society is, in effect, a branch of natural history.

Nor is there hope for religion in the future. The matter has been put in a nutshell. In the deeply philosophical chapter on “Commodities” in Capital, Marx says: –

“The religious reflex of the real world can, in any case, only then finally vanish, when the practical relations of everyday life offer to man none but perfectly intelligible and reasonable relations with regard to his fellow men and to nature.

“The life process of Society, which is based on the process of material production, does not strip off its mystical veil until it is treated as production by freely associated men, and is consciously regulated by them in accordance with a settled plan. 

“This, however, demands for Society a certain material groundwork or set of conditions of existence which in their turn are the spontaneous product of a long and painful process of development.”

From this it becomes obvious that Mr. Cohen’s position is completely justified when he maintains, in opposition to Mr. J. R. MacDonald, that such a great social change as Socialism must profoundly affect religious beliefs.

The natural history of religion is a deeply interesting subject, for the association of certain phases of religion with certain political interests is by no means accidental. Doubtless this aspect of the matter did not come within the plan of the pamphlet, while the tail end of a review is no place for the discussion of so big a theme. The general principles of the religious reflex of social life are, however, easily grasped in the light of the Marx-Morgan conception of Society, while occasion may be had to revert in greater detail to this aspect of the subject at a later date.

As a belief, religion is a manifestation of man’s ignorance of Nature’s working, and of the mastery which the uncomprehended natural and social forces have over man. As rites and ceremonies it is a legacy of the relatively changeless forms of ancient society, and of the supreme importance of mysterious and venerable custom to the existence of the primitive community. By the inertia of the mind religion tends to live on through newer conditions in so far as it serves some interest. So the successive modifications of religion have been the reflexes of changed conditions and interests, although it has ever been attempted to pour the new wine into old bottles.

This evolution of religion, if such it may be called, is curious in that it is an evolution into thin air. Religious change has usually been more remarkable in what was abandoned than in what was added or retained; and religion from being inextricably bound up with the whole social life of a people, becomes a more and more insignificant reflex of the remaining dark corners of that life.

In primitive societies the non-observance of the ancient, sacred, and mysterious customs meant the break up of social life. What was old was tried, venerated and holy; what was new meant disorder and strife. The innovator was slain. In modern society the methods of producing the means of life are no longer invariable and upon ancient model and precedent, but are in the process of great and continued change. What is old is now often synonymous with antiquated, outworn and useless; what is new is hailed as advance and improvement, and novelty is always in demand. The inventor is less frequently slain. Following lamely after this change the old religious forms crumble slowly and tardily away in spite of the frantic efforts of the priestly interest at restoration or readaptation.

As Mr. Cohen points out vigorously and clearly in the concluding portion of his pamphlet, Christianity has ever been the tool of rapacity and tyranny. From the dawn of civilisation religion has been a weapon of political domination. But to continue to be so used, religion must retain a hold upon the people, and if the capitalist class institute secular education it will only be because the growing irreligion of the proletariat compels the master class to rely solely on their other instruments of domination over the workers. But that time is not yet.

To abolish religion is not to end exploitation. The workers have, above all, to dislodge the exploiting class from power, and all else is secondary to this. Not that it is sought to belittle the specifically anti-religious fight, for many a Socialist has received from the actively materialist propaganda of the secularists the spark that brightened later into an illuminating, scientific light upon Society and led him to Socialism.

The supreme aim of the workers, however, must be their emancipation from wage-slavery, and the fight against superstition is but one phase of this great fight. But it must never be forgotten that since religion is ever used as a weapon by the ruling class against the workers, no Socialist in the struggle for working class emancipation can honestly avoid the religious conflict.

F. C. Watts

The Secret of Marx. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Open Letter to the Author "The Secret of Herbart." 

Dear Dr. Hayward,

Your book, “The Secret of Herbart,” must impress everyone who reads it with the feeling that you are earnestly endeavouring to do something beyond what you are primarily expected to do by your employers, viz., apply the screw to the “captains and guides of the democracy” in order that they shall the better grind out of the school mill more efficient wage-slaves as exploitation material for the class which laughs up its sleeve at your misdirected efforts to bring about the millennium by Dickens-readings and the generous administration of chunks of “apperception” stuff. But at the same time we feel impelled to point out to you that your book is

AN UNCONSCIOUS FRAUD.

The “secret” which you set out to discover to a grateful public, and the knowledge of which shall add stature to those who are wallowing in your “professional gutter,” is so “portentous” that, at the finish, it whittles down to what looks uncommonly like an 80 pp. puff of books advertised on the cover. Where the “priceless biographies of the Bible,” let alone the lives of Curtius and Livingstone have failed, can your pinchbeck “hero of the situation” with his “Book of Moral Lessons” effect the desired alteration ?

But let us come to close grips. You aim at a better state of Society. Good. “Education” so far has failed. Granted, — from your point of view, and from ours too. But it has succeeded admirably in serving the purpose for which it was intended, and is intended, by the framers of “codes,” past and present. Have you read a soul-inspiring work, “German Schools,” by one of your late colleagues? In that mass of pseudo-scientific collation of facts, and of inane inconsequentialities, two observations stand out which typify the trend of thought of the average “educationist” who is hired by the capitalist class to help to bolster up a system which it is beginning to feel, in spite of its Caliban-like mental outlook, has already taken a decided cant in a direction which inspires him with deep misgivings.

The writer of the work in question notes with deep satisfaction that arithmetic is most successfully taught in Hamburg, and has no doubt that this is owing to the stress laid on the subject by the merchants of that city. What kind of a “circle of ideas” does the mind of

THIS VERY PETTY BOURGEOIS

run in? This man had “charge” of L.C.C. schools once, Doctor. He derived immense satisfaction on one occasion from the fact that poor little mites of seven to nine years old were somewhat hazy as to which was “subject” and which was “predicate” in the sentence “I saw a man running round a rock.” It evinced such high scholarship, such acuteness to discover that the infantile mind is unable to grapple with the niceties of a subject which may be safely ignored by the cultured man, and is the sheerest futility to “teach” to children.

The other observation is that with regard to the massing of children, and their devout rendering of a German national song. This picker-up of peddling trifles, whose whole vision seems obsessed by “average sums right,” “average mistakes,” waxes as eloquent as his very “practical” mind will allow him. He says :

“The commemorative gathering (Sedan-Day) was held in the large hall of the school. A long address was read, after which recitations alternated with songs of a patriotic kind. . . The impression made upon me was profound—a pious assembly met in a God-fearing way to celebrate their great triumph. With such a people it would be much to be friends, it would be disquieting to have them for enemies.”

You see the point ? Good arithmetic—better clerks ; patriotic ritual—obedient wage-slaves, quiet, docile animals who would not, could not, be guilty of lèse majesté, under no conditions whatever would read Marx and Engels, but who should thank God that they were only pelted with hard speeches instead of harder bullets, and should join their English fellow-workers in striving to order themselves lowly and reverently to all their betters.

This view, judging from your work “The Secret of Herbart,” is not satisfactory to you. I hope it is not too personal to observe that, in your official capacity, you must feel like the proverbial fish out of water. You are seeking to penetrate, not only the “impenetrable carapace” of the Blatchfordian gin-drinking wastrel, but incidentally the equally “impenetrable carapace” which officialdom invariably assumes. Has it ever struck you that possibly

BOTH ARE TWIN MONSTERS

born of the same hideous mother—foul, unholy capitalism. Has it ever occurred to you that the “circle of ideas” can only revolve in a

MATERIAL FRAMEWORK.

You occasionally glimpse the position. You say “Lust and brutality are generated as certainly as scrophula or typhus.” They are. Typhus and scrofula are the outcome of certain conditions. The merry typhus germ may career around for all time, as far as we know, without doing any damage until it finds suitable soil. Unhealthy surrounding are an absolute necessity for the fell work of the typhus germ,—the foetid atmosphere generated by capitalist society is peculiarly adapted for the growth of “lust and brutality.” Social relations determine the prevalence of typhus and scrofula,—no less do social relations determine the prevalence of “lust and brutality.” And here we come full on the

SECRET OF MARX,

beside which the alleged “Secret of Herbart” stands abashed. That secret is

“In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch.”

The highest philanthropic and missionary work, you say, is that which seeks to “implant wholesome interests.” Allow me, my dear Doctor, to introduce you to the

SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN,

which is seeking to implant the most wholesome interest a worker can have, namely, interest in himself as a unit of a slave class, interest in seeking to learn the genesis of that class, interest in seeking methods to remove the cause of his slavery. Can you ask higher ? What greater service can you render to a slave than to make him feel his position keenly (to be “class-conscious”), to point out the origin of his enslavement, and to show him the only road to his salvation? If “apperception” be “the process of interpreting some new fact or experience by means of our previous knowledge” then the Socialist Party of Great Britain may lay claim to be the only true disciples of Herbart to-day. The “new fact” of wage-slavery we interpret in the light of the “previous knowledge” appertaining to the growth of private property in the means of life ; sin, morality, and a thousand other abstractions we insistently seek in material causes. While your “educationists” are piffling about “faculty doctrines,” etc., while your sociologist is “tabulating the causes of poverty,” the Socialist Party of Great Britain is proclaiming aloud the one cause of poverty— capitalism—and is educating the worker in the only “doctrine” which will “implant wholesome interests,” the doctrine that the emancipation of the working class must be the

WORK OF THE WORKING CLASS ITSELF.

“Realising that, as in the order of social evolution, the working class is the last class to be emancipated, the emancipation of the working class will involve abolition of all class distinctions and class privileges and free humanity from oppression of every kind, the Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the political arena, in full faith that the members of our class will work out

THEIR HISTORIC MISSION,

hurls defiance at all forces of reaction. Generated by capitalist society, heir to the slavery of ages, outcast of civilisation, the working class will prove a fitting instrument of the movement of history, and by the brain and sinew of Labour will arise the Socialist Commonwealth, a society wherein poverty, privilege and oppression will find no place, and wherein all may lead a full, free, and joyous existence.”

Will you come and help ? Does our position demand attention ? What do you think of the “Secret of Marx”? “Recondite?” Maybe. “Portentous ?” Aye, verily.

A. Reginald

Cuttings and Comments. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Consider ye the millionaires, how they toil not, neither spin, yet Solomon in all his glory couldn’t buy the gasoline for their automobiles. How do they manage to do it? It’s a cinch. You are foolish enough to work and they are sensible enough to let you. By ‘abstinence and thrift’ they have succeeded in gobbling everything in sight, so that when your poetic soul is filled with the noble aspiration to toil, you have to do it with their tools, in their factories. Whatever you make should logically belong to them. And it does. Out of the fulness of their pocketbooks they humanely return you enough so that you may live to work another day, and all goes as merry as a funeral until their warehouses are filled to overflowing. Then it becomes manifestly impossible for them to allow you to work any longer. You have been gluttonous and intemperate instead of taking your work in decent moderation and look what you’ve done.”

–++–

The reference to millionaires in the above extract from the Western Clarion (Vancouver, B.C.) reminds one of the Harmsworth publication, entitled, “Fortunes made in Business,” in which it is stated that

“The House of Rothschild is to-day one of the greatest powers of the world. Its members exercise more direct influence on human affairs than perhaps any king. Its agents, mostly unknown, are at work in a hundred lands. It creates new nations. At the bidding of its members kings stay their campaigns. . . . The total of their wealth can only be imagined. In the great capitals of Europe they hold their court—the money lords of the Eastern world. Their nod could produce, if they wished, the greatest financial panic the world has ever seen, sending hundreds of thousands to ruin almost in a day.”

–++–

The apologists of the capitalist system declare that the “common people” rule in this “democratic age.” The words quoted above will be useful to our propagandists who run up against such flapdoodlers.

–++–

From the same series we learn that the foundation of the Rothschild’s wealth was laid by an incident that occurred when Europe was in arms against Bonaparte. Hearing that Napoleon had sent an army to seize him and sack his country, the Landgrave of Hesse took flight, but before doing so he handed over his gold and art treasures to Rothschild (Mayer Anselm of that ilk) to mind. The Jew buried them and after the soldiers had left, having failed to discover anything, dug them up and sent the bullion to his son (Nathan Mayer) in London. He used it and luck being with him multiplied it exceedingly. Had Waterloo gone against the British, the Rothschilds would probably have been ruined and would certainly have lost the Landgrave’s millions. As it was, however, they were enabled to return his money and also considerable profits.

–++–

It is always advisable to be successful when you set out to gamble with others’ property. If you fail, you will probably be sent to jail, as often happens to solicitors and others who try to emulate the deeds of the Rothschilds and gamble with wealth entrusted to them to “mind.” But if you succeed and succeed on a sufficiently large scale, you will be appointed to high places in the State and may “exercise more influence on human affairs than perhaps any king.”

–++–

“We will never have Socialism until the working class become conscious of being a class and a disinherited class, and until as the result of this class consciousness they struggle as a class for the institution of a society in which they will be equal participators with all at the festal board of humanity.”

Wilshire’s Magazine (New York).

–++–

Messrs. J. Keir Hardie and J. Bruce Glasier of the Independent Labour Party, which Mr. Wilshire in his journal supports, declare there is no class war ; they say it is a “shibboleth” and a “reactionary and whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism.”

–++–

But political job hunters will say anything.

–++–

“With a Labour party on a trade union basis Liberals could always work in sympathy, although they could not go the whole way with them. With a Labour party which had become the instrument of revolutionary Socialist propaganda they could have nothing to do. They accept Sir Henry Fowler’s words spoken so opportunely at Wolverhampton this week. With a scheme such as the Hull Conference has adopted for “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange,” Liberals “will have nothing to do ; they will oppose it to the utmost; they will oppose it in the interests of commerce and industry, and in the interests of the people themselves.”—Daily Chronicle, Jan. 24th.

–++–

Those who really understand Socialism know that neither Liberals nor Tories will help it along, they will fight it to the bitter end. That is why they advise the workers to abstain from voting for candidates of these parties. And when organisations such as the Social-Democratic Federation and the Independent Labour Party not only urge the working class to vote Liberal but also make arrangements with them for dividing the working-class vote it is evident that they do not really understand the principles of revolutionary Socialism.

–++–

“The laboring class, who perform the work of the world, must sell themselves to the ruling class. They cannot produce independent of the owners of the machines, mines and factories, because under competition only the cheapest production demands the best, most expensive and complicated machines. They are compelled, because of the fact that social progress and private property in improved machines is making vast numbers of them unnecessary in the process of production, to fight among themselves for any opportunity to live. If they are to rise an atom above the slaves’ portion, they must unite and fight side by side against the class of exploiters,”

–++–

Thus says the International Socialist Review for Australasia, but to fight against the class of exploiters means to fight against them all the time, not to oppose them in one district and support them in another as has been the practice of the professing Socialist parties, the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., in this country.

–++–

“If I have to take money from you does it matter whether I take it from your right or your left pocket ?” asked the Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain in one of his Tariff Reform speeches.

–++–

As the working class must be exploited by the master class, does it matter to the former whether the latter call themselves Liberals or Tories, Christians or Jews, Imperialists or Little Englanders, Protestants or Catholics ?

–++–

“It (a minimum wage for State employment) should be fixed at such a sum that whilst it would be sufficient to support life on a scale of decency it would not unduly tax the resources of the capitalist system to afford it,” says Mr. H. Russell Smart, of the Independent Labour Party, in his pamphlet, “The Right to Work.”

–++–

How anxious the I.L.P. leaders are not to “unduly tax the capitalist system” ! Can the Socialist omelette be made without breaking the capitalist egg ?

–++–

At Fairbairn Hall, Canning Town, on Feb. 14, Cllr. J. Jones, S.D.F., in his well-known manly manner, persistently interrupted the speech of Mr. Masterman, M.P., on the Unemployed. When the speaker declared that the most he hoped for from the Farm Colony was that it would improve the men’s physical condition, Councillor Jones shouted: “Yes, for their masters to exploit them and make more money out of them.” Jones denouncing palliatives is a sight for gods and men.

The Ilford Socialist Party. (1908)

Party News from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The adjourned debate at the S.P.G.B. Club, 27, York Rd., Ilford, on Feb. 2nd was “funked” by the members of the Ilford Socialist Party, although the date was fixed to suit their convenience. Only three attended, one of whom declared that he didn’t see they could do any more than agree upon general principles and then allow the members liberty of action ! Since then, one of the I.S.P. leaders, Mr. S. H. Sweetman, has publicly supported the candidature of Mr. W. P. Griggs, a local Conservative, for the Cranbrook Ward of Ilford, moving the resolution of confidence at a public meeting held at Cranbrook College on February 4th !

Mr. Sweetman may be remembered as having once occupied a seat as a "Socialist” on the West Ham Town Council.

Correspondence: A deliberate lie? (1908)

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

TO THE EDITOR.

33, Albany Street, Beswick, M/c. 

Feb. 5, 08.

Dear Sir,—Mr. J. Brough issues, through the February No. of your paper, a direct challenge to me, and one it may be worth while to accept. I shall perhaps be able to throw some light on the methods of the S.P.G.B.

The author of this challenge ends his letter by asking “What has Mr. Swan to say now ?” Exactly what I said before. The statement that a compact was entered into by the local L.R.C. and the Liberals at the last general election is a deliberate lie ? It was a lie, when Mr. Brough first made it, and it is a lie still. In addition I would like to point out that apart from the Courier extract, concerning which I will have something to say later, Mr. Brough has not brought forward one scrap of evidence in support of his charge. The letters from the Clarion will not bear the construction he has placed upon them. He has read into them something they do not contain.

Mr. Brough bases his case upon the fact that the L.R.C. and the East Manchester I.L.P. declared that a candidate in East Manchester would damage Clynes in North East, and Kelley in South West Manchester. That such was their opinion has never been denied, but has been freely and frequently admitted. Such an admission, however, is not tantamount to an acknowledgement that a compact was made by the L.R.C. and the Liberal Party. To assert that it is, to quote Mr. Brough, to “use words for a purpose different from that in which words are generally understood.”

Mr. Brough explains very carefully what is meant by the word “compact,” and thereby places himself at my mercy. A “compact” is a mutual agreement, or contract, etc., etc. Very good. Now a compact is only possible when there are two, or more, parties to it, and can only be arrived at as the result, the outcome, of certain verbal or written communications. If there is no communication there can be no compact. That either verbal or written communications passed, between the L.R.C. and the Liberals I emphatically deny. And if I am speaking the truth Mr. Brough’s precious “compact ” falls demolished about his ears.

But why waste ink? Mr. Brough may test the truth, or untruth, of my words quite easily. The Trades Union connected with his occupation sends several delegates to the L.R.C., one of whom is upon the executive of that body. Let Mr. Brough, through these delegates, have the question brought up ; let him demand the facts. I will undertake to back up his efforts. And if, after this course has been adopted, it can be proved that I have tried to mislead Mr. Brough, I promise to publicly apologise to him for having done so. This is a perfectly fair proposition, and a reasonable one. Let Mr. Brough act upon it.

Now a few words in reference to the extract from the Manchester Courier. If what I have stated above is true, it follows that the statement contained in this extract is as false as that made by Mr. Brough. They are both to the same effect ; they stand or fall together. The fact is the Courier man knows no more, and he could not know less, about the matter under discussion than Mr. Brough himself. And I submit that a Socialist who goes to the Tory or Liberal Press for information concerning other Socialists, and uses this information without ever trying to verify it is playing very low indeed. Tories and Liberals alike are interested in circulating lies about us. And if you repeat these lies you are doing their work whether you are paid for it or not.

Mind you, I do not dispute the right of Mr. Brough, or anyone else, to criticise me, or the organisation to which I belong. But criticism to be of any value must be prompted by a desire to see truth prevail, not by stupid pugnacity; it must be based upon fact, not wild assumption; and must be the outcome of knowledge, not of ignorance. If the S.P.G.B. will confine itself to criticism of the former, and leave the latter kind to our mutual foes it will fulfil a useful function ; if it does not it will remain a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties.

—Yours etc.,

Tom Swan.

Blogger's Note:

Jim Brough replied to Mr. Swan's letter in the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard.

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

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

I.L.P. compacts in Manchester, etc.

77, Nightingale Lane, Hornsey, N. 

10th Feb., ’08.

Dear Comrade,

Although I am not quite sure that the word “compacts” is correctly used in this connection, it is undoubtedly true that there was a tacit understanding in I.L.P. and L.R.C. circles in Manchester prior to the last General Election, that if either of these bodies promoted any more candidatures in Manchester, (with particular reference to East Manchester division), the Liberals would oppose Messrs. Clynes and Kelley in their respective divisions. This was an open secret at the time, and plainly means that Messrs. Clynes and Kelley angled for, and actually received, Liberal support, of course for “value received” elsewhere.

With regard to your reference to Mr. G. D. Kelley, M.P., in the leading article in February issue of the Standard, I should like to say that there is not much point in your remarks about this gentleman stating that he is not a Socialist. Throughout his public career, as a secretary of his Trades Union, as secretary of the Manchester and Salford Trades Council, and also as a member of the Manchester City Council, he has been a consistent Liberal; no man showed more bitter hostility to the local I.L.P. during the time that Party upheld their famous “Fourth Clause” of independence. Therefore I submit that although he became “converted” to “Independent” Labourism just as soon as he saw a chance of sailing into the House of Commons under those colours, like the remainder of the so-called Labour Party, yet unlike most of that kidney, he is an open and not a secret opponent of Socialism, inasmuch as he never once has denied or even attempted to cover up his Liberalism. Any Manchester employer of labour in the printing trade will vouch for the harmlessness and respectability of Mr. G. D. Kelley, M.P., especially those who came in contact with him as secretary of his Union.

—Yours fraternally,

W. Evans

Grayson’s Gratitude to the S.D.F. (1908)

 From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the course of the Joynson-Hicks-Grayson debate in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, on February 14th, Mr. Victor Grayson, M.P., in immaculate evening dress (which we suppose is typical of his revolutionary views), said : “It would have given me pleasure in to-night’s debate had Mr. Joynson-Hicks, instead of reading the esoteric philosophic ramblings of the philosopher, Mr. Belfort Bax, instead of going to the exotics of Karl Marx, if he had come to the source of English Socialism, the books of the English economists, to learn what the Socialist suggestion really is.”

We are anxious to know what the S.D.F. think of that, in view of their efforts to pat him on the back and take him under their wing, as recorded in the columns of Justice, since it was apparent that he could command a following.

Fourth Annual Conference of the S.P.G.B. (1908)

Party News from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fourth Annual Conference of the S.P.G.B. will be held on Friday and Saturday, April 17th and 18th, 1908, at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street, London, W.C. All Branches should send their full quota of delegates ; while members generally should make a point of attending. The outside public will also be admitted.

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note.

The speakers at the S.P.G.B. Club in Ilford (Romford Branch) in March 1908 were not as well known as the speakers featured that month at the Battersea and Islington Branches, so here's a wee bit of background on them:

H. C. Phillips was a founder member of the SPGB. The following information about him is from Kaz's document on the founding members of the SPGB:

"Phillips [of Fulham Brnach] was a member of the Provisional Committee of May 1904, of the EC in 1904-6 and was an outdoor speaker from 1904 to 1908. Previously he had been secretary of the SDF Mile End branch (1901-3). He is presumed to have lapsed membership around 1914. He rejoined Central branch on 3rd November 1931, finally leaving through being lapsed on 1st December 1936."

J. H. Kennett was a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in May 1905. 

W. A. Cole was also a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in April 1906.

Myles O. Bartley was also a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in September 1907.

A. Reginald was, of course, Augustus Snellgrove. He originally joined the Peckham Branch of the SPGB in September 1905. In 1908 he would have been a young school master, which may explain the subject of his lecture. He resigned from the SPGB a couple of years later over the 'W. B. of Upton Park affair',  rejoining the Party in April 1933.