Public Safety versus Railway Profits. II. The Fireman. (1913)

From the July 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

[Continued from last issue.]

 

We will now look into the conditions of the spare firemen and firemen of the trunk lines, and in doing so we shall be concerned with men that are actually working the trains.

The spare fireman is a man that has been “passed” to act as a fireman when needed, but who is not always engaged in firing. When he is not doing so he is booked “shed duty as required,” and as often as not goes back to cleaning or other shed work. We can briefly pass him bye, because when firing he is under the conditions of a regular fireman.

His working hours are ten without a break, as a rule, and his pay is anything from 3s. to 4s. a day when employed firing. But he must exceed five hours in order to get this. When on “shed duty” the wage is something less (usually 3s. 6d.), which is another instance of the shameless robbery of these men, seeing that it is not through their fault that they are “put back” in the shed, or “cancelled.” Once a man is passed for firing he should be treated and paid as such.

As a rule the spare fireman’s week is six days. Occasionally, however, it is seven days. He is usually on shunting work, but is sometimes put on long trips—a common practice on the M.R. The period of spare-firing is about two or three years, then the man undergoes a further exam. for a regular fireman.

His promotion generally follows in the order of seniority, but the company “reserves the right of choice for promotion irrespective of seniority”—a clause which obviously leaves plenty of room for jobbery.

Once a man is passed as a regular fireman he is always at work on engines, either on or off shed ; so in looking at his working conditions we shall commence to get to grips with the indictment that has already been levelled at the companies: that the men are overworked and underpaid, which are circumstances not consistent with public safety.

Let us briefly look at his conditions. Ten hours constitute his working day. This, for a man standing over a furnace which (according C. I. Bowen Cooke, of the L.N.W., in his book “British Locomotives”) developes a temperature of 5,027 degree Fah., is excessive.

To give some idea of the nature of the work let me quote from an article, “A day’s work on the footplate,” which appeared in that capitalist, organ, “The Railway Magazine,” Oct. 1909, and in which the author says : “With 14½ on (a moderate load) I fire up every two minutes, and sometimes oftener.” That this is no exaggeration is shown by the fact that on some of the big engines the coal consumed is about 50 lbs. per mile.

Before leaving the shed the fireman has to make up his fire, assist in oiling, clean and trim his lamps, fetch oil for his driver, and in many cases clean his “front” and otherwise assist his driver to get the engine ready to back on the train. By this time he must be “squared up” and have steam up to anything between 140 to 225 lbs per square inch.

To get the engine ready to leave the shed half an hour is allowed ; to get “on train” from shed another half hour generally, but sometimes only a quarter. In “British Locomotives” Mr. Cooke (Chief Mechanical Engineer L.N.W.) says (p. 353): “Firemen should come to work before booked, and make all preparations with comfort to himself and his driver”—a thing all firemen have to do, for to get an engine ready in a proper manner to ensure safety in the time allowed is impossible, and many firemen “sign on” as much as half an hour before booked in order to make these preparations.

After an engine has run a trip one way “the fire must be cleaned, etc., in readiness for the return journey.” (“British Locomotives,”.p. 370). In the running, when not actually firing, “the fireman must assist his driver in sighting the signals.” (Rule 139.) This is the way that he “learns the road.”

After the return journey is completed and the engine is “on shed,” it has to be “put away,” which means thoroughly cleaning all the parts affected by fire, “turning” the engine, filling the tank, and locking up the tools, etc., reporting any losses of same. For this he is allowed half an hour, which is quite inadequate. He then “signs off,” and is at liberty for nine hours (eight on the L.B.S.C.) from that time. But “in cases of emergency” he may be called out before he has had nine hours off. No matter what “turn” he is booked, after nine hours have expired from his “signing off,” he is the “property” of the company employing him, and is liable to be “called out” at any time. If he is not at home when he is required he is cautioned or reprimanded, and often fined or suspended, for “not being available for duty when required.”

The man’s turn, as a rule, varies daily, and he does not know what turn he will be until the previous day (the Midland and the L.N.W. keep their men fairly well informed of their turns). As aforesaid, his working day is ten hours, but often circumstances compel him to work overtime, especially when starting his career as fireman on the main line, for which, of course, he is paid. Often a fireman does twelve hours or so, then has nine hours off, for two and three days together, the result being that he is tired before commencing his day’s work. This, by the way, being consistent with the companies’ ideas of “safety,” to say nothing of Rule 6 and the dangerous way he may have to cross running roads during the day’s work to carry out the detestable rule 35.

Anyway, his week must not exceed six, or sometimes seven, days (which is quite enough), so after his nine hours off periods he is given a rest of something like sixteen to twenty hours, but only nine of them are his—he is company’s property for the rest of the time, for which he receives nothing.

Of course, anyone with a whit of sense can see that the “men only drive and fire for about four hours per day and are paid ten” (“A Day’s Work on the Footplate,” “Railway Magazine,” Oct. 1909), and the statement of Mr. J. Gooday (Gen. Manager G.E.R.) and his directors, who consider that the “time the men are on duty counts only in the actual running” (“Railway Magazine,” March 1907), is mere piffle, and is only intended to poison the mind of the man in the street, who regards such statements, emanating from such journals and gentlemen, as gospel truth.

It will be seen that the life of a fireman is worry from beginning to end, with bad rest, bad coal, bad engines, bad conditions generally, and bad pay—with which I will deal later.

Now we come to conditions which are rather peculiar to most sons of toil, but which play an important part in dividend making as applied to the Loco. Depts. of the trunk lines. I refer to “lodging,” one of the biggest curses that can befall the loco. man, whether driver or fireman. The sum allowed for a “lodge” is 1s. 6d., and if it exceeds twelve hours, 2s. 6d. The latter price, however, is easily wangled by “calling out” the man a minute or before the twelve hours have expired.

The “main line” men are affected by this, on some lines more than on others. On short lines it is unknown. The men working the long distance goods trains are generally safe for a “lodge out,” because they can only get one way by the time their day is up. They, therefore, on their scanty wages, have to keep two homes going, to say nothing of making a smoke as the result of the bad coal supplied. (See “British Locomo­tives,” p. 346.)

The fireman’s wages vary from 3s. 6d. to 5s. 6d. per day, according where and by whom he is employed—a good average through the country being about 30s. a week. A main line man might get somewhere about 35s. if he is lucky; but besides “lodging,” time worked that he is not paid for, and time at home “waiting” after his nine hours are up for which, as I have said, he gets nothing, and many other expenses connected with the calling, he has to run something like 950 miles.

The wages are nothing like sufficient, neither are there enough men by half, as the long-distance engine working and “lodging” will show. And engines work daily double journeys of 180 odd miles.

The usual term of firing is from twelve to sixteen years, and it is a period of excessive robbery from beginning to end. And while such conditions prevail, and such a set of men are worked as they are, the “welfare and safety” of the travelling public is impossible.

J. Sevier

[To be Continued.]

Public Safety versus Railway Profits. III The Driver. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

[continued from last issue.]

How often has one gone on any busy station and seen a crowd of people gathered round a large engine just about to “get away” with a world famous train ! And how often have we heard very harsh and untrue things said about the men thereon, especially in the neighbour­hood of August 1911, by the master class, and even by many misguided workers !

“The men have fine jobs and get good money, and they ought not to be allowed anywhere where beer and spirits are sold, nor to smoke, for the responsibility of these men is great, and every precaution should betaken.” That is what I have often heard from “gentlemen,” and that, no doubt, expresses the ideas of many people on the subject.

I will attempt to show what a “fine job” and what “good money” falls to the lot of the engine driver.

As regards beer, Carrie Nation herself could not have said anything stronger ; besides, it implies that the majority of accidents are due to drink, which is not the case—though doubtless there have been times when a loco. man has been at fault in this respect.

I am not advocating the “Standard’s” “right to get drunk.” I agree that “every precaution should be taken.” But to debar the men from having any beer or tobacco is not precaution, but only tyranny. Real precautions cost money, and hence lower dividends, so they are not taken.

At the commencement of these articles I stated that in order to cope with the dangers of their calling, all men of the running department should be assured of a decent living, decent conditions, perfect machinery, good education, and encouragement. All this is essential to making a man thoroughly efficient. But all, alas! is sadly lacking.

The fireman who has done about sixteen years swinging the shovel first undergoes a very stiff exam, to see if the fire has “killed” his eyes. If such is the case he is ruthlessly cast aside, but if he gets through he is in for an exam. of the engine that no one has taught him—unless it is his driver, who only tells him what he has had to find out for himself. If he passes he is then a “spare driver” : i.e., he drives if there is a job, but if not he has to go firing, with a corresponding reduction in pay. He is usually “spare driving” about four years, and then, after passing more exams, and tests, he becomes a full-blown driver.

Let us look at this man, whom we perhaps have seen with a pipe on as he sits down for a minute or two before running something like 350 miles. Upon his presence of mind and vigilance depends the safe running of the train, and one would think that, to keep him fit for a task that must tax him to the utmost, he above all men would be assured of decent conditions, pay, and rest. But far from this is the case.

The driver’s hours are ten, and there is plenty of overtime. And besides being “in steam” at home, for which he is not paid, he is a victim of “lodging out.”

It will be quickest, perhaps, to describe a driver’s day’s work. His first duty is to “sign on.” He must then read the notices—whether they concern him or not he must read and know them—and sign a book saying that he has read them. He then proceeds to get his engine ready. “Everything that could possibly go wrong must be examined” (“British Locomotives,” p. 348). At the same time he must oil the whole of the working parts. Often he must make a shunt to get water and coal. Having done all this, he “whistles up,” and goes right away to back on to his train at a terminus or wait for it at a road-side station.

From signing on to “right away” half an hour is allowed (in the interest of safety) which is far too short a time in which to do the work satisfactorily on the big engines of to-day. This is well known to the officials, as Mr. Bowen Cooke says that the statement that the firemen should come on before booked applies equally to the drivers. (“British Locomotive,” p. 383.)

Often only a quarter of an hour is allowed to get on the train, and this is the first the public sees of the driver—when he has been at work an hour and a half.

When the driver backs on the train he delivers a “ticket” to the guard, who times the train throughout the trip, stating whether he is early or late at various points and why. And if the driver is not “to time,” and no “satisfactory” excuse is forthcoming, it means a fine or suspension, even if the engine is vastly overloaded.

Another examination of the brake apparatus is made here to see if it is all right on the train, in accordance with rule 3d Vacuum Appendix, and the guard tells him what load he has on, and the brake-power under his control.

The average express-train load throughout the country is about 350 tons behind the tender on passenger, and about 45 waggons (average capacity 10 tons) or about 750 tons on goods trains. (These waggons, by the way, are loose coupled, and have no brake-power provided to “hold” them, except it be a 10- or 20-ton egg-box). Even this seems, in the eyes of those jealous guardians of the “public safety,” the railway directors, to be too much, for within the last few weeks a goods guard on the Midland Railway was dismissed for refusing to take a train with insufficient brake-power, according to that company’s own rules. To have taken the train would have directly affected the driver in working it, and woe betide him if he lost control over it !

We must now consider the “homework” a driver has to do to properly work his train. He has an Appendix consisting of about 1,200 pages, with the working time-table, which he must know—for he dare not take his eyes off the road while he is running. Weekly notices are issued to him in reference to any alterations of signals and repairs to the road, and he must be prepared to act on them. Many a “day off” of a driver is taken up in learning all this printed matter, which is, in effect, part of his work, and for which he receives nothing.

We must not, however, forget the Rule Book, containing over 260 rules, which it is impera­tive he must know.

Still now the signal is “off,” the flag waved and whistle blown and we are on the move. Through rain, snow, fog, wind, and boiling sun this frail hero is now “doing his duty,” ever mindful of what he has behind him, and knowing only too well what it means if he does not get over the road to time—at speeds which are sometimes criminally excessive. But we are a queer people in a queer system.

Besides driving his own train the driver must be prepared to safeguard trains travelling on the opposite road (Rule 191c), and occasionally to assist the fireman, either manually or viva-voce. He must make no “unnecessary” noise in the working, nor must smoke be emitted from the engine, for either of these offences are rewarded with a fine or suspension, and in the case of smoke it falls on the fireman as well, for “being concerned with driver in making a smoke when working train” (“British Locomotives,” p. 346.)

After he has worked one way according to written orders, the driver “comes off” the train and gets into a siding or the nearest loco. shed, and there “another examination must be made by the driver in readiness for the return journey” (“British Locomotives,” p. 370). The return trip is performed as before, after which the engine is taken to the shed and again examined, and put away.

When the driver leaves his train the guard gives him back his tickets, which he then has to copy out on to a “way-bill,” also stating what coal and oil he has had, what coaches attached and detached, and make out a report of any irregularity in the day’s work.

This bill sometimes takes half an hour to write out, and then the driver has to enter in the “repair book” whatever he may have found wrong with the engine during his examinations and in the running. He then finds out his turn for the next day, “books off,” and goes home.

From the time of arriving on the shed half an hour is allowed to get clear away and “book off,” but it usually takes nearer an hour.

Such is a very brief outline of a day’s work on the footplate. The number of hours worked by a driver in a week actually on the job amounts to anything between 60 and 80, to say nothing of the work of memorising he has to get through at home.

Now a word as to the pay. “Spare” drivers, as a rule, get 5s. 6d. per day, and when firing 6d. less. The “registered” driver usually starts at 6s., and continues at this for three years or so, until he has advanced to occasionally getting a “running” job. Many companies then “bracket” the pay of drivers. If a “bracketed” man runs six miles he is entitled to 7s. a day; if he runs less he only gets 6s. And, needless to say, the mileage is made up as a rule so that he only gets the 6s, I know of a case where one mile is deliberately cut out of the mileage table in order to “dish” drivers out of 1s. a day. From A to B is three miles, but the return trip over the opposite pair of rails is only given as two, so the driver making that journey, though he actually runs six miles, is only allowed to book five !

Generally when a man is properly “on the road” (i.e., does little or no shunting), his wage is 7s. a day. Occasionally 8s. is the highest wage of a main-line driver in this country, and this, with all expenses to be paid, including “lodging” away from home, is shamefully inadequate.

The average shunting and local drivers’ wage is from 36s. to 42s. a week, and on the main lines it is higher where the mileage rates are in force. Long distance engine working is a favourite dodge of the companies’ to save additional engines and men ; so, as a general thing, many companies lay it down that 150 miles shall be a day’s work. But owing to the long distance working, many men get 1¼ , 1½, or 2 days in one, which looks very nice—on paper.

The men, however, are worn out after these long trips, and where they are in vogue, usually follow a long trip by a short one. This often means 9 hours off after having worked 12, 13, and sometimes even 14 hours on the job, which is clearly a menace to public safety.

Other companies have the “trip” system—so much for the trip—which on a number of lines means hours worked for nothing at all. A few companies work on “classification,” paying different rates for different trains worked ; so many a man’s hours are paid at two or three different ratings in one day.

Anyway, the average “crack” driver’s earnings are a little less than £2 10s. per week, for which, as in the case of the fireman, something like 950 miles must be run.

The safety of the driver or the public is not allowed to stand in the way of the sweating of the railway servants and the heaping up of profits. Signals are placed anywhere, and not in the best position to be read ; and many of them cannot be seen until one is quite close to them. On most lines no difference is shown by night between a “home” and a “distant” signal, nor are the slackening notice-boards illuminated. In the “interests of public safety” the driver has to guess where these notices—in fact, many lines discard them altogether. The same applies to water trough, and crane notice boards, and also gradient boards. Chance rules the road. The driver is even placed on the wrong side of the engine to see the signals and station work himself, and he has to ask his mate to look for him. Even in the matter of stopping a train the “actual” brake-power is not known : only the “absolute” power is shown when running, and the actual power at the driver’s command often falls short of that shown on the brake gauge. Nothing is told him as to where to apply the brake—he has to find this out from his own experience.

A further example of the elaborate precautions taken to procure safety is found when, in long-distance working, the driver has to leave the regulator and swing the shovel because the half-starved fireman becomes exhausted. And again in the common practice of putting a young and inexperienced fireman on a heavy job in order to save a few pence—which re-acts on the driver. At the best his hands and mind are over-crowded, and it is murder to impose these additions to his duties.

Now that we have briefly looked at the conditions under which our enginemen work, we can truthfully say that their lot is a hard one, and that it is a period of continual overwork. Any child knows full well that such a state of affairs cannot exist side by side with safety. A study of what is here laid bare will show that the conditions of labour of the men upon whom the safety of those using the railways depends constitute a public scandal. But there is still more speeding-up in the air so far as the Loco. Dept. is concerned, which will make railway travelling still more dangerous. And until the railway magnates, together with all other property owners, are dispossessed, and the railways, together with all the other means and instruments of production and distribution, become socially owned, profit will be the first consideration, and the public welfare and safe services quite a secondary matter.

J. Sevier

                                                                 [To be Continued.]

Public Safety versus Railway Profits. IV The Engine. (1913)

From the September 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

[Continued from last issue.]

After even thus briefly reviewing the working conditions of the footplate men, I doubt whether anybody will question that the Loco. running conditions are bad, and that the “elaborate precautions” for the public safety that we hear so much about are entirely wanting. We now come to another part of our survey, namely, the machines that the men have to work.

Like the men, the engines are overworked. They are also supplied with poor coal and oil, and are nothing like sufficiently examined or repaired. The officials’ motto is : “As long as the wheels go round let her run.” Let me quote the “Railway Magazine” for October 1908 : —

“The proper cleaning of an engine is a great help to economy. The valves, packing, tubes, and firebox do not always get examined until trouble o! a serious nature exists.”

This is giving the game away with a vengeance. But the men get fined or otherwise punished if a mishap of any kind happens whilst working, as I have stated before.

To show how injustice is done to the men in the way of fines for losing time, etc., I may say a lot of it is entirely due to the bad state of the engines and to the villainous coal supplied (see “Drivers in Difficulties,” “Railway Magazine,” November 1911).

Now we will look at the working of an engine. The first thing after being left the previous day is to have the repairs that the driver entered in the repairs book carried out. This, by the way, is done in a very loose fashion, and, as often, as not, the repairs, like the cleaning, remain undone, unless they happen to be of such a nature as to almost stop the engine.

Many a time I have known defects in the brake apparatus to be ignored for days together, as also defects in the injectors, which might easily cause trouble on the road. Frequently, too, the regulators are allowed to get in such a condition as to “blow through” very badly. Before now I have seen engines at work with loose tyres, and spring hangers almost cut away, and very often the “blowing” of glands and cylinder covers is passed over as nothing.

The parts of the machine looked after most carefully are the boiler and the firebox, but even these are in a bad state, the continual breakage of firebox stays, and the number of leaking and burst tubes being ample evidence of this.

Next comes the cleaning (!) and perhaps a “wash out” of the boiler—a process which, if properly carried out, saves a great deal of fuel and prevents the boiler burning away. (The general rule is about 300 iniles between each “wash out,” but on local engines, where there is a fire for a week on end. a proper examination of the boiler even is out of the question, to say nothing of washing out.)

Next an “examiner” (!) looks rapidly over the engine, and then comes the driver’s examination. This last, after knocking off ten minutes for finding the engine, getting out and replacing his cans and tools, etc., would work out at about twenty minutes—which, of course, is quite inadequate.

After the run another examination is made as before described. Once a month is about the usual interval for a thorough examination of the engine, for which it is “stopped” for two or three days. Generally eighteen months or two years elapse between the engine being the subject of “heavy” repairs, during which period the machine has to run some 100,000 miles.

In the face of all this it is really amusing to observe the righteous indignation of the companies and their henchmen in the matter of the driver’s glass of beer—clearly enough exposed, by the facts herein described, as a shallow and pitifully cheap artifice to cover their own callous disregard of their passengers’ safety, and cast suspicion for all the disasters that have happened in the past and will, under the conditions imposed by the greed for dividends, most certainly happen in the future, upon the men who work the rotten and uncared-for engines.

The trunk lines build their own engines—often by piece-work—and it can be guessed how it is done. If the imagination is not lively enough to serve, perhaps Col. Van Dolop’s remarks upon the cause of the Stoat’s Nest disaster (L.B.S.C.) on Jan. 29, 1910 will assist.

According to the Colonel’s report the accident was “caused by shifted wheel. The wheel was examined, and the grip between the wheel and axle can only have been a very loose one, and on most railways it is not customary to test whether wheels have a firm grip on their axles.”

There is many an engine on the road to-day, on which the automatic brake apparatus is next to worthless, and it is a bye-word amongst drivers on suburban passenger trains that they lose a lot of time through not being properly able to release the brake owing to the bad state of the apparatus. In fact, even to-day on a few lines, there are engines that work goods and coal trains of fairly heavy weight (whose stock is not “braked”) which are fitted with the hand brake only—which is a fine state of affairs, and likely to prove pretty costly to somebody in a case of emergency.

Now just a word on overloading, which is a common occurrence, especially during the busy seasons. Often excessive loads are placed behind comparatively small engines, with the result that, to get along to time, the machines are “flogged” to the utmost, which obviously overstrains the working parts and overworks the men.

Is it to be doubted that a full and adequate explanation of many of the “accidents” which take place from time to time (and there are many that the public never hear of) is to be found in all this callous, pinching, false economy ? When an enquiry (!) is held, the companies are time after time shielded by the person who issues the report of the enquiry, as the shipowners were shielded in the Board of Trade “enquiry” into the loss of the “Titanic.” That is what such institutions and such “enquiries” are for. In the case of the “enquiry” into the cause of the Shrewsbury disaster, rather than indict the master class, those appointed to make the investigation attributed the “accident” to the alleged fact that the men “sleep on the footplate whilst, on duty.” (See decision of Col. Yorke, “Railway Magazine,” June 1908.)

CONCLUSION.

Now a final word in reference to the situation. It must not be thought that the whole of the defects of the railway systems have been brought forward. Space has permitted me to deal only with a few of the principle abuses connected with the calling of the loco. men, who are at least as much concerned and as responsibly engaged in the running of the trains as any other section of the railway slaves. I doubt if, after having read the irrefutable statements which have appeared in this series of articles, anyone can continue to hold the opinion that the railway magnates really do run the safe services they would have us believe.

Now the railways are a necessary institution in our modern life, and the safety of the services should be the first consideration of, not only all who have anything to do with their provision and maintenance, but also of all who have occasion to use them. Therefore we will see if any remedy can be applied, and if so, what it is.

There is no solution under private ownership except “cutting down expenses” and the extension of the “control” we have heard so much about lately. The masters have no ideas in railway working outside of this. And as for the Trade Unions, the National Programmes of 1907 and 1911 of the A.S.L.E. & F. and the A.S.R.S. (the section dealing with loco. men) was a poor contrivance, and only calculated to give the present bad conditions a new lease of life. The “four eights” are no remedy for the railwayman, because they would soon be nullified by the increased cost of living, etc. Moreover, such items as lodging and long-distance engine working figured prominently, whilst such necessary items as the fitting of all engines with power brakes—items which have a direct and vital bearing on safety—were omitted.

The Trade Unions may effect something, but they will never be able to grapple properly with the safety question, and often it looks as if the “leaders” do not intend to do so—the N.E.R. betrayal re Knox and A.S.R.S. to wit. Some of them, no doubt, are in earnest, and so are the rank and file, but they are not conscious of their position in society.

Now let us look at the claims of that nostrum, State Ownership of Railways, and see if that would solve the “problem.”

We have no State lines in England but there are plenty in Europe, of which Mr. Bell, speaking of a tour through various countries on the Continent which own State lines, said they are not beneficial, either to the workers or to the public. “I am satisfied” he declared, “that, bad as are the conditions of British Railwaymen, they are far in advance of State owned railways on the Continent, and if conditions there are a fair sample of them, then save the British Railwayman from them.” (“Railway Magazine,” December 1908.)

Besides, we have an example in the frequent strikes which occur on the French State railways. For, after all, the State of to-day is merely the master class, so that anything owned by the State is just the property of the proper tied class.

The only remedy, therefore, is that which is proposed by the Socialist, viz., that the railways shall be owned and controlled by the whole community for their own use. This, of course, can only be accomplished through the complete overthrow of the master class and the taking of all the means and instruments of production and distribution by the community for the community. When this condition of affairs is brought about the people will see to it that the safety, both of those who operate the railways and those who use them, shall be the first consideration, far transcending all question of speed or economy.

Only when this property condition has been instituted, when there is no longer any question of “cutting down expenses” in order to provide big dividends for idle shareholders and princely salaries for parasitic directors and jacks in office, will the services be safely run and the community be able to use them to the fullest extent.

Such a condition is Socialism, therefore only Socialism is the remedy for the unsafe and unsatisfactory conditions under which the railway services are run.

J. Sevier

Editorial: The London Society of Compositors and the “Socialist Standard” (1913)

Editorial from the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the May issue of the “London Typographical Journal” the Socialist Standard is advertised. The advertisement takes the form of an attack, in which this Party is charged with producing its official organ in a “NON-SOCIETY OF­FICE,” and wherein incitement is given to the members of the London Society of Compositors to act with a view to getting this altered.

The immediate result was that at many of our public propaganda meetings our speakers were bombarded by L.S.C. members and others, with such questions as: “Where is the Socialist Standard printed?” and “Why do you support rat-shops that employ blacklegs ?”

In most cases the questioner’s air of injured innocence coupled with a display of bad feeling made it quite clear that, while, apparently, he sincerely believed it to be nothing short of sacri­lege to have anything printed outside a “society” house, he was obviously as ignorant of the facts relative to the production of our party organ as he was of the rottenness of his own “sacred” trade union. Our speakers, of course, were quite able to deal with such, and that line of attack was speedily abandoned.

Meantime, on the request of Mr. T. E. Naylor, of the L.S.C., the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party agreed to receive Mr Davies, Organising Secretary of the L.S.C., on the matter. In the course of the interview this gentleman made the following admissions :—

(1) That the L.S.C. did not know where the Socialist Standard was produced or

(2) how it was produced.

(3) That it would have been more fair if the L.S.C. had made enquiries of us before “blacklisting” us.

(4) That it might be advisable for “legal and political” reasons for a “revolutionary working-class paper” to obscure its place of production.

Mr. Davies then explained that his society was desirous that the “composition” of the paper should be done at a “fair house,” defining a “fair house” as an office where the employer pays the wages and observes the hours and conditions as approved by the L.S.C., and when he was assured that, such definition could not meantime be applied to the production of the Socialist Standard, since it is not “set up” in any “office” within the meaning of the trade language, he again admitted that it was a pity his society had not known that before, as had they been aware of the facts, he was quite sure they would not have put our journal on the “blacklist.”

Mr. Davies was then asked if he would request his Committee to publish a retraction and an apology. This he was not prepared to do, but he said that if a letter (the text of which was agreed upon) was sent to the “Typographical Journal” he would use his influence with the editor to have it inserted and thus close the incident.

The letter was duly sent and inserted in the columns of the “Typographical Journal,” and there, as far as we are concerned, the matter could have rested had not the editor of that paper (who, we understand, is Mr. T. E. Naylor, of the L.S.C.) thought fit to publish with our letter a false and dishonest comment.

Says the “Typographical Journal”: “We acquit the Socialist Party of any deliberate intention to produce their paper under any other than fair conditions. . . . Pending a satisfactory outcome of the negotiations now proceeding we must insist on retaining the name on the Objection List.”

Now it is a deliberate lie to say “negotiations now proceeding,” and although we wrote Mr. Naylor under date June 13, asking him what negotiations were referred to, he has not yet (July 29) been able to tell us. Seeing that no negotiations are proceeding, our name is likely to remain on the L.S.C.’s objection list for a considerable time—and we have no hesitation in saying that this is exactly what Messrs. Nay­lor & Co. wish.

The Socialist Standard is a Socialist paper—the official organ of the Socialist Party, while Mr. Naylor and many of his committee are pseudo-Socialist ; hence the pitiful attempt on the part of a few canting hypocrites to damage our circulation.

Although our organ is not “set up” in a “NON-SOCIETY office,” and although it is actually printed in an office that has for years appeared on the “Fair List” of the L.S.C., we wish it to be clearly understood that we do not worship at the shrine of Trade Unionism, most certainly not at that of such a perversion of Trade Unionism as is typified by the L.S.C.

Nor, understanding as we do, the evils inherent in the capitalist system, can we engender such a horror of the “non-society” man as some ultra Trade Unionists profess to feel.

Therefore it is really with feelings of disgust and contempt that we listen to the unctuous twaddle of Mr. Naylor, who, it might appear, would put a ban on everything that does not carry the seal of Pope (or is it Father ?) Naylor from the “chapel” of St. Bride Street.

Yet what is the record of this man and his Committee ? Prior to the recent strike in the printing trade they were doing their best to keep men out of the society. During the strike they were advertising for all and sundry to come and join. And after miserably muddling through the worst managed strike of modern times—a strike in which they lost everything but the contempt of the masters and the pity of their fellows, while becoming the laughing-stock of the printing trade, Mr. Naylor now PERMITS L.S C. members to pose as non-unionists in order to get work and thus relieve the drain on the society’s funds—which are needed for the maintenance of useless, because incapable, officials.

Can Mr. Naylor deny the above ? Dare he deny that he “permits” his members to leave their “cards” with him while they go and work as non-society men, with non-society men, in non-society houses, under non-society conditions ?

In his “Annual Report” of the L.S.C. issued February 1910, Mr. Naylor writes:—

“AS REGARDS MEMBERSHIP THERE IS A REDUCTION ON THE YEAR OF 112, PARTLY BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE POLICY OF RESTRICTION CARRIED OUT BY YOUR COMMITTEE. … SO FAR AS IS POSSIBLE, WE MUST CONSERVE THE INTERESTS OF OUR UNEMPLOYED MEMBERS, WHOSE POSITION WOULD BE MADE EVEN MORE PRECARIOUS BY THE TOO FREQUENT ADMISSION OF STRANGERS.”

Here we have this pseudo-Socialist humbug of a labour leader desiring to keep men out of the society, thus making them “blacklegs,” and then endeavouring to corner all the work for Society men—thereby condemning those kept out of the Society to perpetual unemployment, or banishing them from London. Meanwhile, with consumate impudence, he is prepared to give “permits” to his society men to play the role of non-unionists !

Could dirty, devilish deceit descend lower ? Could the idea of Trade Unionism be reduced to a greater mockery? Could more noxious cant be conceived than that those men should prate about “FAIR houses” and fair conditions of Labour ? Yet these are the men who would impeach the Socialist Standard ! UGH ! !

Arrogating the virtues to themselves, they point the finger of scorn at us. They put us on the “Objection List”—we return the compliment. We put the L.S.C. Committee and the “Typographical Journal” on our objection list, and we do so because we object, in view of the above, to Messrs. Naylor and Co. interfering with us—after all, there are limits ; and further, because even if our party organ was “set up” in a non society shop (which it is not), it could even then be done by L.S.C. men, and Mr. Naylor knows it.

Therefore let Naylor & Co. see to themselves.

To the rank and file of the L.S.C. we say read the Socialist Standard and think for yourselves. Soon you will arise and sweep out the Augean stables of St. Bride Street—the sooner the better if you wish to save your society for Trade Unionism.

Blogger's Note:

The Party knew a Labour fakir when they saw one. Mr. T. E. Naylor ended up as a Labour MP.

The Vital Question. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

All men and women, whether they happen to be rich or poor, capitalist or worker, whether they are of much intellectual, physical, and social merit or are but poor fools devoid of all the graces, at some time or other come face to face with what is, did they but know it, the greatest and most important crisis of their lives. I mean that moment when they are forced to ask themselves the questions : “What am I doing ? what am I ? where am I going ?”

This moment of self-interrogation comes to everyone, brought about, it may be, by something they read, but however coming, compelling them to “take stock” of themselves. The majority of people burk the question—cannot or dare not attempt to answer. Especially at the present time, when social conditions are tending to breed a class (the working class) whose whole outlook on life is one of physical and mental supineness, and, on the other hand, a class (the capitalist class) which looks on life as a period of gross and violent pleasures, of brutal indifference to anything but its own well-being, this supremely important question is put on one side by almost everybody.

It is an inconvenient question, an ugly question—the kind of thing that keeps one awake at night, that creeps between us and the pleasure we are taking or the work we are doing; and so it is easier to endeavour to forget it than to answer it, to shelve it until we have time from our pleasures or rest from our work to think about it. We are, most of us, cowards—the worker as well as the capitalist—frightened of life, drifting downward to destruction on the current of present-day degeneration.

There are, however, some—we at least who are Socialists—who, having been brought up against this dead wall of self ignorance, realise how imperative it is that it should be stormed and broken down. We realise that this question of our present position and future activities must be answered, and answered correctly, for on the answer we give rests not only our existence as individuals, but the existence of the human race.

The capitalist class is hopeless. The uselessness of expecting help from such a class becomes every day more and more apparent. (Not that Socialists ever expected or wanted help from the capitalists.) If society is ever to be established on a basis whereon the great potentialities of life may have a chance of fruition, then it is, and can only be, the working class who will thus establish it.

To expect the capitalist class, with their narrow vision, their lack of imagination, their callous indifference and their unctuous self-satisfaction ever to engage in any task other than the conservation of themselves as a class, would be absurd. The absurdity becomes even plainer when it is remembered that the inception of the Socialist basis of society implies the total elimination of the capitalist class.

The future of mankind depends upon the strength and wisdom of the workers. But the pity of it is that the workers, who are strong enough and wise enough to produce all the world’s wealth, are still so ignorant of their position in society, of their position as wage-slaves, as to render nugatory the energy they expend on the economic and political fields. They will run after every will-o’the-wisp, will flounder in every economic and political quagmire, before discovering the only road that will lead them to their emancipation from their present slave-position.

Liberal and Tory politicians, labour leaders, priests, and pressmen, social reformers, Anarchists and Syndicalists, cranks and charlatans of every description, dangle before the eyes of the workers the false lights of their particular nostrum, in their endeavour to beguile the unwary. Bewildered by the multitudinous clamour arising from the army of misleaders, can we wonder that the average working man (or working woman) is unable to think out for himself the problems that confront him, such as his relation to his fellows and to society as a whole ?

It therefore becomes the task of the Socialist—who has realised his class position as a wage-slave, who clearly understands what is necessary to alter that degrading position, and whose whole activities are focussed upon the change in society necessary if freedom from wage-slavery is to be accomplished—to try by any and every means to concentrate the minds of the members of the working class on the things that matter. We, as Socialists, understand too well what we are ! We realise—and we want every other of our fellows to realise—that we are units in a vast multitude of men and women, working day after day, often far into the night, for what is the bare necessary amount of food, clothing, and shelter to keep us fit to continue this unending round of toil. We are the products of a system that gives us the worst food, the shoddiest clothing, the most meagre shelter. We live in an atmosphere of physical and mental squalor. Art and literature are to us practically non existent. The greatest work of art gives forth no message; the noblest literature is so many empty words. The natural beauties of the world are not for us. We have not the time nor the opportunity, not even the inclination in many cases, to study them. We are the workers ; our life’s business is to work so that our masters may enjoy (!) life. We are the slaves of a class composed of men and women who are, in a sense, themselves the slaves of the present social system of capitalism. Can there be a greater degradation than to be the slave of slaves ?

But the difference between us and the working men and women who do not yet understand their class position is that we are not content to remain as we are. To be free, as far as freedom is possible in a social sense, is the goal towards which we are striving. And we know that only by the complete overthrow of capitalism, the destruction of the present system of private ownership in the means of life and the establishment of the common ownership by the whole people in the means of life, can the slaves of capitalism throw off their shackles and be free men and women.

We know, moreover, that only by the co-operation of the working class in its entirety can this be accomplished. The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We, for our part, believe and hope that that co-operation and help we ask for will be forthcoming, and to obtain this help and co-operation is the object of our propaganda.

Every day it is becoming more evident to the workers that they are slaves and nothing more. However objectionable the term may be to many the facts of everyday experience are proving this to be the case. The question as to what the position of the worker is in society needs little answering. But the question which every member of the working class will sooner or later be compelled to answer, the question as to whether he or she is going backward or forward, onward to a time when life shall be free and full and joyous, or to an atavistic period when the chains that bind the slave shall gall even more than now, when freedom shall be a forgotten dream, when life itself shall be a hell darker than any Dantesque vision—this question still awaits a reply.

It would seem, indeed, that the wheel is come almost to full circle. Men and women of the working class, it is for you to answer your own question ! Whither goest thou ?

F. J. Webb

Socialism v. Secularism. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

It will be remembered that during the time the “Daily Standard” was carrying on its campaign against what it euphemistically called “The Red Peril,” the S.P.G.B. was misrepresented by a holy leech as being Atheistic first and Socialistic afterwards. Of course, the Socialist Party at once and rightly repudiated the allegation; but in view of the fact that this lie of the reverend gentleman is widely accepted as the truth, and that it is being persistently circulated both by the enemies of Socialism and the ignoramuses of Secularism, each for purposes of their own, it is thought advisable to set out in plain and unmistakeable language the attitude of the S.P.G.B. towards the movement known as

ATHEISTIC SECULARISM.

In the course of a debate (Cohen v. Gun) on the subject of “Theism v. Atheism,” a prominent speaker for the National Secular Society pointed out that “Theism is always, in the ultimate, merely an expression of some theory of the origin of the Universe.” No doubt he was quite right in making this assertion, for the moment Theism ceases to be so characterised it becomes meaningless and loses its raison d’etre. It is in this connection alone that it can be judged on its argumentative merits or demerits. For this very reason, however, Atheism, its antithesis, finds itself, as a philosophy, within the same groove, merely representing antagonistic views on this specific subject and this alone.

In the first part of Herbert Spencer’s “First Principles” we find Atheism and Theism, as he conceives them, dealt with in an impartial and masterly way. All the arguments that may be deduced in support of either contention are clearly set forth, dissected, and analysed ; and while showing the fallacies and the self-contradictory nature of the Theistic mode of reasoning, he proceeds to show that Atheism, as a reasonable hypothesis accounting for the origin of the Universe,

CANNOT BE ACCEPTED,

not on the ground of improbability, but of inconceivability.

Speaking of Theism as a theory of the Uni­verse Herbert Spencer writes :

“To conceive existence through infinite past time implies the conception of infinite past time, which is an impossibility. To this let us add that even were self existence conceivable it would not be an explanation of the Universe. No one will say that the existence of an object at the present moment is made easier to understand by the discovery that it existed an hour ago, or a clay ago, or a year ago; and if its existence now is not made more comprehensible by knowledge of its existence during some previous finite period, then no knowledge of it during many such finite periods, even if we could extend them to an infinite period, would make it more comprehensible. Thus the Athe­istic theory is not only absolutely unthinkable, but even were it thinkable, would not be a solution. The assertion that the Universe is self-existent does not really carry us a step beyond the cognition of its present existence, and so leaves us with a mere re-statement of the mystery.”

Evidently the representative of the National Secularist Society was fully aware of this, for he was careful to point out that : “It is the

SOLE BUSINESS

of Atheism to analyse theistic arguments and to reject them if they prove unsatisfactory on account of the contradictions which they imply.”

It will here be noticed that no alternative hypothesis is offered.

The above admission (from which there appears to be no escape) by the aforementioned speaker—probably the most capable man in the ranks of Atheism, explicitly excludes that philosophy from dealing with anything outside theistic controversies, and although it may be contended that Secularists do extend their activities in other directions, yet an impartial examination of the attitude they adopt and the propaganda they advocate, will show that as far as the real, vital, and fundamental issues are concerned, they are as indifferent or as reactionary as the Theists they oppose.

The economic and political aspects of society are either rigidly kept out of their discussions or are considered as of little or no importance in comparison with Secularism. Thus, in spite of his profession of determinism, the Secularist utterly fails to understand that religious ideas, like his own—like all ideas, in fact—are determined by

SOCIAL CONDITIONS,

and are therefore nothing but the results of such conditions.

What are those conditions, and how are they characterised ?

These are questions which have no weight in the propaganda of the Secularist. To the Socialist the solution of these problems are of extreme importance, because it carries him to the very foundation of society. It breaks through the veil of idealism and enables him to see what lies behind the scenes. Such a solution affords the only explanation of the rise of and the course followed by ideas, and therefore of intellectual development. The conception of history, from the materialist point of view, is based upon the fact that before we can think and have ideas, we must have food, clothing, and shelter. How they necessaries of life are produced and distributed determines in general what the people of an epoch shall think and shall strive for. In other words, ideas are subservient to economic forces. Further, these economic forces constitute the centre of gravitation of political activities ; whether the manner in which the necessaries of existence are produced and distributed shall be preserved or abolished constitutes the object of those who endeavour to capture political power.

Thus it is that legislative measures, enacted or in the process of being enacted, no matter what aspect they may present, always find their root-motive in

MATERIAL ADVANTAGE

and are subservient to the basic principle of modern society, viz., private property.

The Secularist or pseudo-materialist places the cart before the horse in true Christian fashion. He is much more interested in effects than in the causes that produce them. Although, as we have already seen, and on their own admission, Atheism can only stand as a negation of fallacious theistic ideas, the Secularists nevertheless regard it as a basic principle upon which they proceed to elaborate a certain plan of conduct and to derive from it their conceptions of ”right” and “wrong,” “justice” and “injustice,” “good” and “evil,” and various other forms of morality. They assert that man is the creature environment and circumstances, and yet they disregard the material factors which govern the society upon which they propose to operate! And with what results ?

In the political arena, which is but a reflex of the circumstances in which we live, they are

HOPELESSLY DIVIDED.

One finds all shades of opinions among them—similar opinions, in fact, to those held by the very people they are out to attack. Such are the “refreshing fruits” of their so-called “philosophy” ! Such are the people who parade their propaganda under the name of Materialism, while they attribute their unbeliefs to the triumph of Reason ! They do not realise that such an expression is just as illogical and just as silly as any that ever flowed from the lips of a Christian. By this they imply that Reason is something transcending all laws, something beyond the scope of cause and effect, whereas, it being only a function of the brain acting in accordance with acquired experience, it cannot be conceived as triumphing over anything. One might as well talk about the wetness and ponderousity of water triumphing over oxygen and hydrogen.

The fact is that the Secularist will not atone for his sins, so a scape-goat is to be found, and he finds it in the shape of Reason.

This simply tends to show that atheistic Secularists are people who have extricated themselves from one superstition to embrace another. As the Socialist Party points out in its pamphlet “Socialism and Religion”: “The bourgeois-freethinker is, like the Christian, attributing miraculous powers to the

“FIGMENTS OF MEN’S BRAINS.”

Now, in the face of this it is obvious that the attitude of Socialists toward Secularism must be identical with that they assume towards religion: it must be one of uncompromising antagonism. Neither of them explain the bed-rock basis of society ; neither of them are concerned with the cause of increasing wealth in one section of the community at the cost of the perpetual and ever increasing poverty of the other section.. These things are outside the sphere of activity of their respective philosophies.

While the Christian from his abysmal ignorance tells us that men must be born again before they may be able to change and improve society,, the Secularist believes that social evils find their immediate cause in the existence and influence of religion ! In his study of history he sees nothing but the evil deeds of priestcraft. Deeper than this he does not go and does not

WISH TO GO.

Thus his so called philosophy is not unlike the Hindu theory of the earth resting on the back of an elephant, itself standing on a tortoise, and then — nothing except his triumphant Reason !

While the Theists and the Atheists are wasting their time and energy on things that do not matter, while academic discussion affords sport for their intelligence, there is a situation the gravity of which increases in intensity as each day passes. That situation is that the producers of the world are poor because they are robbed ; they are robbed because the means of wealth production are private property owned by those who have political power. What matters it to -the worker whether his master imposes upon him atheistic ethics or Christian morality ? In either case is his misery more bearable ? Is his insecurity lessened ? Does his worry and care for the morrow leave more room for the peaceful enjoyment of life ? Obviously no !

In the sphere of politics there is nothing to distinguish the bourgeois freethinker from the Christian. Both are to be found in the same camp, lending their efforts to the work of repressing and oppressing the working class. The J. M. Robertsons, the Greenwoods, the Haldanes and the Morleys are engaged in an unholy alliance with the Asquiths, the Isaacs and the Lloyd Georges. In France the Briands and the Clemenceaux are against the working class. In Portugal the Positivist legislators are

FILLING THE PRISONS

with exploited and discontented wage-slaves.

Secularism, forsooth ! Does any Secularist really think that the affairs of this world are run and managed by religion ? Why, if by Secularism it is meant that the affairs of this world can be run without supernatural intervention. what else is there, what else can there be, but Secularism to govern now ?

One thing reigns supreme : the grim class struggle.

The question as to how parasites shall continue to live and workers be exploited alone sways the destinies of millions to day ; and the simple and only question regarding the destinies of millions to-morrow is as to how parasites shall be swept out of existence and workers be free. This abolition of the parasites, this freeing of the workers, is the object of Socialism. The Socialist cares little for a world of ideas whereby workers are enslaved. When the workers come into their own they will have a

WORLD OF IDEAS

of their own. In the meantime, let it be noted that the Socialist looks upon Theism and Atheism, Secularism and Christism, as so many red herrings drawn across his path, as so many Will-o’-the-wisps which disappear one by one as he travels towards his emancipation.

M. J. Le Cart

The C.O.S. and fish. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

The question of the price of foodstuffs, we are informed, was dealt with by the Council of the Charity Organisation Society in a discussion raised by the reading of a paper by the Rev. J. C. Pringle. It turned upon the effect on prices of a large supply of fish and the necessity of keeping prices up by destroying part of the catch.

When a Socialist agitator makes it a count in the indictment of capitalism that a portion of the wealth produced must be destroyed to keep up the price of what is left, he is accused of exaggeration—or worse. Yet the reverend gentleman takes the acceptance of his statement for granted.

“At present, part of any great catch was thrown into the sea to prevent a fall in prices. It was too great a risk to sell it as manure. Yet it was admitted that each fall in price brought out an army of customers, who could not, or would not, pay a high price. Social workers ought surely not to rest until they had satisfied themselves that everything had been tried which might obviate the necessity of throwing fine food into the sea within sight of hungry people.”

And there is no plainer or more direct condemnation of this ridiculous system called capitalism than this plain fact. Fish is most frequently the commodity dealt with in this way, but it is by no means the only one. Fruit and agricultural produce is similarly treated—fruit being allowed to drop and rot upon the ground when the market price is not high enough to pay for picking, packing, and marketing. And while the products of the land are so treated, we have alleged democratic agitations to get back to the land, and prominent statesmen drawing lurid word-pictures of the town-dwellers scrambling after smallholdings, and bits of dirt generally.

But while fruit is very nice in season, and dropped fruit may be tolerated sometimes, it cannot be accepted as a staple article of diet all the year round. The effect produced on the market by the multiplication of fruit growers, what time fruit won’t pay for marketing, may be imagined but cannot be described.

To return to our muttons—or our fish—the effect of this on the fish market would be similar.

“Applied science was coming to the aid of the fisheries, and some plaice recently transferred to the Dogger Bank multiplied several times as fast as they did in the place they came from. When it came to marketing it was difficult to believe that human ingenuity could not devise a means of giving the public the benefit of great catches without injury to the business people to whom the public owes it that it had fish at all.”

The difficulty is not that there is a shortage of fish, but that there is too much fish. Why, then, take the plaice from one place and place it in another place to make it grow quicker? It is only for manure or to be thrown into the sea at the finish. Human ingenuity within the limits of capitalism cannot devise a means of selling fish or anything else at a profit at a price that eliminates profit. And we are grateful to learn that it is to the business people we owe our supply of fish. The business people are, presumably, the manipulators of the market, the owners of the fleets, and the shopkeepers—the people who decide how much to market, how much to use for manure, and how much to put back in the sea. We should have thought in our simplicity, not belonging to the C.O.S., that we were indebted to the men who caught it—the men who, at great risk of life and limb, issue from every nook and cranny along the coast-line to catch fish—fish being a food, and men having been fishermen ever since they shed the simian tail and came down out of tree-tops.

The report of the discussion at the Council of the O.O.S. in the “Daily Telegraph” does not tell the conclusion that body came to on what it calls “a vexed question.” The disputants took two sides, one claiming that articles were sold cheaper to poor people, the other claiming that there was no selling at lower prices except to get rid of surplus stocks. It would seem in the face of it the latter must be more correct or there would be no necessity to destroy the surplus. There is no doubt plenty of demand—hungry stomach demand—for fish, fruit, and other foods ; but there is no “effective” demand—no £ s. d. demand beyond a certain limit. That limit is fixed by wages.

There is an argument that wages are rather to be measured by the use that is made of them than by their actual quantity. This argument reaches its zenith with the teetotaler who would say that if you spent nothing on beer you would be able to eat all the fish and none would have to be thrown away, Of course, that overlooks those who merely eat fish—well salted—as a necessary preparation for preventing any beer being thrown into the sea ! But the argument of the teetotaler shifts the question without solving it.

The argument has another phase, one shown during the discussion of the recent budget. The extract belongs to Mr. Masterman, presumably, but it has been cut out without the introduction being preserved. As it was received with great gusto and Ministerial cheers, it will not be repudiated :

                                      “COMMUNITY’S EXTRAVAGANCE.”

“He agreed that the evidence of the Budget provided facts for seriousness as well as satisfaction. There was evidence of amazing extravagance in all classes of the community. There was little evidence of laying up or even of anticipation of bad times that might succeed good times.”

All we can say about it is that, if the argument is taken too seriously, we shall have the C.O.S. discussing “vexed questions” affecting a great number of industries, and the working class will be in the position of the unfortunate donkey who, by a process of elimination, was to be reduced to one oat a day, and who, having been successfully got down within sight of the desired end, disappointed everyone concerned by inadvertently deceasing.

Obviously, when fish is produced for the feeding of the community, the contradiction of having hungry stomachs clamouring for food on the one side, and the business people to whom we are alleged to owe the fish we get throwing it away on the other, will be impossible. If production for a capitalist market necessitates such a state of affairs, so much the worse for capitalism. It is, perhaps, too much to expect the C.O.S. and its “social workers” to view “throwing fine food into the sea within sight of hungry people” as a necessary and inevitable result of capitalist production, to be remedied only by changing the entire method and producing fish—as everything else—for the enjoyment and the use of the community organised into the Co­-operative Commonwealth.

D. K.

Leicester—and after. (1913)

From the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we dealt briefly with the position occasioned by the bye-election at Leicester, and pointed out to the workers generally, and to the workers of Leicester in particular, the necessity for understanding their class position in society. How necessary this is has been demonstrated by the fact that a very large number of workers voted for the Liberal candidate, believing that their interests would be best looked after by the Liberal Party, and that if they abstained from voting it might be taken as “a graceless disregard of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s position.”

The refusal of the National Executive of the Labour Party to endorse the candidature of the Leicester Labour Party’s candidate can only be taken as evidence of their adoption of the “one-and-one principle.”

The truth of our contention that the Labour Party is not independent and is mainly concerned in keeping the Liberal Party in office is amply confirmed in three recent issues of the “Labour Leader.” (It is worth while to remember in this connection that it was the Liberal Government who passed the Payment of Members Bill, and, of course, £400 a year is worthy of serious consideration.)

Since the declaration of the poll we have been treated in the capitalist daily Press, and especially in the “Weekly Journal of Socialism, Trade Unionism, and Politics,” to yards of explanation from the official Labour Party.

The “Labour Leader” (July 13) says: “We all want a clearer manifestation of our independence. We all want a more vigorous denunciation of the Government’s tyranny at home and abroad.” A letter from the secretary of the Bermondsey branch of the I.L.P. appears in the same issue, in which he states, among other things, that “the Leicester business has given us a staggering blow in Bermondsey. Our members are broken and crushed. They feel they can no longer face the enemy, as they know that the criticisms levied against the ‘independence’ of the Labour Party are justified after all, and that they can no longer honestly continue to repudiate the allegations. They are sick and tired of ‘explaining’ and ‘apologising’ for the Party, and the culminating business of Leicester can neither be explained nor apologised for. It can only be condemned.”

In another issue of the “Labour Leader” we find a special article by Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, in which he tells us : “Our Parliamentary policy is exactly that which the most revolutionary Socialist Party would adopt if it had 40 members in the House of Commons in the year of grace 1913.”

This is, indeed, nonsense. When the workers become class-conscious they will reject the Labour Party for the spurious body of rogues and fools that it is. Understanding what they want, and having sent 40 members of “the most revolutionary Socialist Party” to the House of Commons, it is certain these representatives would have to carry out the instructions of the workers who had sent them there. Knowing that they were sent with specific instructions they could not play a two-handed game, and we should not witness that, sorry spectacle which the Labour Party has treated us to—a “revolutionary” party voting against their own amendments in order to save the Government.

Last year there were several bye elections, and as a result of three cornered contests the Conservative candidates in some instances managed to secure the seats. This caused much discomfiture amongst the Liberal and Labour Parties.

Why the workers should be perturbed at the loss of Liberal seats the present writer cannot understand. Are not the Liberal Party ever ready to bring out the armed forces to maim and murder the workers with as little compunction as the Tory Party ? Belfast, Llanelly, Tonypandy prove that they are. Yet this is the brutal party that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald is prepared to “bargain” with. The following from “Reynolds’s Newspaper” (6.10.12) is pretty significant :—

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, in a speech on Wednesday last, stated that there would be no more three-cornered contests if the Liberal Party would recognise the right of the Labour Party to 80 members.”

“This would seem to indicate the readiness for a ‘deal’ on the part of the latter in view of the next election” is an editorial comment.

Independence, forsooth !

In the “Labour Leader” of July 17 appears an article by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald under the heading : “What is Independence ?” He says that his critics are “nothing more than anti-Liberal,” and asks : “If Lord Selborne had been in South Africa instead of Lord Gladstone what would have been the difference ?”

What this has to do with the “independence” of the Labour Party it is difficult to understand. The reference to Gladstone and Selborne is, of course, an admission of the truth of our contention that the Liberal and Tory parties are really one party, who are only concerned with the robbery of the working class. But if the working class are to derive any comfort from the fact that things would have been no different on the Rand had Lord Selborne been there instead of the Liberal butcher, they should find balm in the reflection that the miners would have been just as ruthlessly murdered had Mr. MacDonald been there instead of either.

A recently joined member of the I.L.P. said publicly : “After what you have done about Leicester, it seems to me that I might just as well have stayed in the Liberal Party for all the good we are doing” (“Labour Leader,” July 17.) Quite so.

Fellow workers, the only organisation worthy of your serious consideration is the Socialist Party of Great Britain, because it is the only party standing for Socialism.

S. W. T.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1913)

Party News from the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• C. Elliott was a member of the Tooting Branch, originally joining the SPGB in September 1909. There is no record of when they lapsed their membership.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch.
  William Lewington was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in March 1907. He resigned from the SPGB but no date is given for his resignation.
  C. Gatter is possibly Alfred G. Gatter, who was a member of Stoke Newington Branch. They originally joined the SPGB in February 1910, and their membership was lapsed in April 1919.
  A. L. Cox was a member of Islington Branch.
  B. Seach was probably G. Seach, who originally joined Hackney Branch of the SPGB in September 1912. His obituary appeared in the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Snippets: Himalayan flash floods (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

August 27, 2026

With record summer heatwaves and ‘weather whiplash’ events, global warming is fast becoming normalised. Now shocking video has emerged of unsurvivable flash floods in Nepal and Tibet, probably caused by a melting Himalayan glacier. Geologists have been warning about this for years, and there have been similar previous floods.

The death toll continues to rise as the water recedes. Rescue work is underway as local villagers scramble to help survivors, and aid workers pour in from elsewhere. But in the boardrooms of the world’s corporate powerhouses, eyes do not move from the bottom line figures. Nothing matters except profit, even while capitalism heats the planet and melts glaciers.

Until we abolish this inhumane system, these human tragedies will continue.

SPGB Snippets: Poverty in families (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website

 

August 27, 2026

A recent study showed that nearly half of parents are struggling financially after having a baby.

In some cases this has even led to them watering down baby formula milk in order to save money. This can be really serious for an infant, as it may result in growth problems and developmental delays. Baby banks supply clothes, nappies and baby wipes to parents, but get few donations of baby milk.

This is what life can be like for some of the poorest workers under capitalism: essential items such as baby formula can barely be afforded. A society that results in this level of poverty needs to be replaced by one where meeting human need is the priority.