The S.L.P. Still prefers to say nothing (1942)

From the July 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a column and a half of wild words the Socialist (June, 1942) continues to denounce THE SOCIALIST STANDARD for "shuffling," but still prefers to keep mum about the extent to which the Communist Party in 1920 was formed out of former members of the S.L.P. The assertion is now made that the S.L.P. "had no connection with the formation of the Communist Party. It was not even asked to take any part because the C.P.'ers knew very well it would refuse. No member of the S.L.P. joined the C.P."

If the last sentence is meant to imply that no member of the S.L.P. left that party to join the Communist Party it is a falsehood. If it means that at the moment of joining the Communist Party they were not members of the S.L.P. that is an evasion of the issue, though possibly true. All we can do is to leave it alongside Mr. Allen Hutt's claim that "the main part of the S.L.P. was fused with the Communist Party," and Mr. G. D. H. Cole's claim that "most of its more active members . . . passed over to the Communist Party in 1920."

One other interesting remark in the article in the Socialist is that they cannot remember how they came to issue a joint manifesto with the I.L.P. in 1918—"How the I.L.P. came into it, we cannot remember, and it is beyond the limit of our time to look it up."

We do not question the accuracy of the statement, but we cannot help remarking that such an explanation comes very badly from the Socialist. When we explained that the incorrect remark of a writer in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD (that the S.L.P. was one of the organisations fused into the Communist Party in 1920) was an error made in good faith, their reply was that "the facts could easily have been verified and there is no excuse for the falsehood unless it be that he lied deliberately. . . ." People with short memories and who have not the time to verify easily verifiable facts might well refrain from such charges against others.

Editorial Committee

Can the Scramble for Markets be Ended? (1942)

From the November 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dr. Lang, at a recent debate on world reconstruction in the House of Lords, made the statement "We must by international co-operation bring to an end the old accepted scramble for markets."

How, in this age of fierce competition, nations are to be made to co-operate Dr. Lang does not propose.

Having forsaken his position as Archbishop of Canterbury for a pension of a mere £1,500 per year, and sympathising with himself for having (in his own words) "to face the restraints and inconvenience of very slender means," it is most unlikely that Dr. Lang advocates the abolition of the social system that pays him this welcome, though allegedly meagre, pension. Thus Dr. Lang must be advocating international co-operation within the framework of capitalism.

Socialists know that such an achievement impossible.

'

The nationalistic capitalism of any particular country is composed of the capitalist activities of individual capitalists or groups of capitalists within that country.

The fierce competition between capitalists compels them to secure as great an amount as possible of commodities, and to find ever-increasing markets for the transforming of these commodities into cash. Without such markets the surplus value produced by the workers could not he converted into profits.

Within each capitalist country the sum total of this production and scrambling for markets is identified as the capitalism of the country from which it emanates.

The whole of the exploiting of labour power and the grabbing of markets by, for example, American, German, or British capitalists, is recognised as American, German, or British capitalism.

Thus we see that behind the separate entities of American, German, or British capitalism (or whatever nationalist capitalism it be) are individual capitalists who must ever maintain competitive equality or supremacy—or be ousted from their privileged positions as capitalists.

The expansion of individual capitalism within a country, therefore, brings an expansion of that particular country's capitalism.

This law prevails in all capitalist countries with the result that the capitalism of such nations finds itself in fierce competition with the capitalism of other nations.

As long as we live in a society wherein there exists commodity production, and the urgent capitalist need to sell widely the commodities produced, there can be no possibility of removing a world-wide scramble for markets.

Dr. Lang may be sincere in his seeking of a New Order that has no place for market-grabbing, but in his long life he has failed to learn that this can only be done by establishing a social system in which commodity production and commodity selling cannot exist.

F. Hawkins

Japanese Background (1942)

Book Review from the June 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

Japan has moved far since the United States Commodore Perry and his squadron of "black ships" arrived in 1853, forced concessions in the form of trade treaties, extra-territorial rights, fixed low tariffs and treaty ports and were followed by Britain, France, Russia and Holland on similar missions. The Allied naval demonstration necessary at that time to persuade an unwilling Emperor to agree to those concessions, is a far cry from the attack on Pearl Harbour and the sinking of the British battleships. Well might the descendants of those former missionaries reflect on the words of Macbeth: 

" . ... that we but teach
Bloody instructions, which being taught, return,
To plague the inventor."

The romantic conception of Japan to the unthinking Westerner is a country of quaint, happy little people, cherry blossoms and kimonos. This myth is exploded by Jaya Deva's informative book, Japan's Kampf (Gollancz, 6s.).

Japan proper is the most densely populated country in the world, and of her 73 million people, 48 per cent. are engaged in agriculture and fisheries, whilst only 21 per cent, are employed in industry. The respective figures for Britain are 7 per cent, and 40 per cent.

Over 50 per cent. of all industrial workers in Japan are employed in small industries employing on the average five or less persons.

Three-fourths of the country's finance and industry are in the hands of the Zabaitsu, the great family wealth cliques. The House of Mitsui, for example, owns over 200 companies and 1,300 enterprises, with a total capital of £600 millions, and a total family income of £3,000,000 per annum.

The other side of the picture is of millions of people with a standard of living lower than that of any other industrial country in the world, where sweated labour and child labour are in abundance. Eleven hours per day for women and children under sixteen is the maximum fixed by the Factory Law, but many toil for twelve or fourteen hours a day. It is admitted officially that over one million children under the age of fourteen work long hours under extremely harrowing conditions. These miserably paid workers increased the total output of goods by more than 37 per cent. between 1929 and 1936, and yielded an average profit over Japanese industry as a whole of 14.7 per cent.

Crushed by the burden of taxation, ground rent, and interest on loans, the majority of the peasantry cannot even afford to eat rice and fish, the principal food, but exist on cheap salt-water eel and sometimes even the bark of trees.

Most of the land is concentrated in the hands of a few rich landowners, the Emperor and his family owning 1½ million hectares, whilst the average size of a farm is 2½ hectares (a hectare is about 2½ acres.) Over half a million peasant families, however, exist on farms of half this size. Tenants and small farmers, unable to afford machinery or hired labour, produce larger families, which means more hands for work in the rice fields. The meagre budget of these families is increased by turning over child labour to the urban industries, while 90 per cent. of the Japanese troops are recruited from the peasantry. Like all Imperialist powers disclaiming territorial ambitions, Japan has managed to add considerably to her territory since she emerged from her period of seclusion, seventy odd years ago. The Tanaka Memorial (the blue print of Japanese Imperialist policy), which was formulated and presented to the Emperor in 1927, lays down the plans for expansion, and makes no apology for it. Japan's policy in China is stated frankly in this remarkable document: —

" . . . we must beware of the day when China becomes unified and her industries become prosperous. Our best course is to take positive measures to obtain rights and privileges in Manchuria and Mongolia. These will put us in the position to develop our trade. This will have the effect not only of arresting the industrial development of China, but also the penetration of the European Powers."

Japan's chief obstacle to the establishment of the "Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" is the presence in the Far East of the Great Western Powers: —

"Altogether the U.S. alone has invested 800 million dollars in the whole Orient."

Japanese imperialism challenges the hitherto undisputed right of the great Western Powers to exploit the vast resources and peoples of the Far East. This right Japan claims for herself, hence, her military expenditure for 1940/1, added to most of the new capital issues which went to finance war industries, amounted to no less than 37 per cent. of the total national income.

The Pacific rivalries were not permitted to obstruct legitimate business, thus to quote Deva : "It is said that during the last two years Japan bought 85 per cent. of her war material from Britain, United States and the Netherlands East Indies." Business, after all, is business, and appeasement is an important political policy.

On the question of whether Japan is Fascist, Deva points to the intense nationalism, the absence of party politics (all political parties having "voluntarily" dissolved), suppression of labour unions, state control in factories, racial theories, patriotic youth movements, the New Order and alliance with the Axis. The expansionist policy of Japan determines the totalitarian character of her regime.

Space does not permit us to deal with the many controversial points raised in this book, but the author's references to leadership merit attention. "In Japan," he says, "there have been for some time all the objective conditions for a social revolution, but as the small group of militant workers of that country state, a correct political leadership of the masses has been conspicuous by its absence." The Radical and Labour leaders of the reformist Social Mass Party are blamed for their failure to give the "correct" political leadership, and for their betrayal of the confidence placed in them by the working class. Leadership, correct or otherwise, implies a lack of political understanding on the part of the working class which is one of the objective conditions necessary for their emancipation. As Deva himself remarks, "historical forces are stronger even than Princes and Premiers."

Deva shows a failure to understand the nature of capitalism when he writes: "Nippon knew she had only two alternatives. Having once set upon the purple path of expansion and war, she must keep on to it 'in ever expanding progression,' or she could turn back and return to a rational state of existence."

Japan's policy is determined by the demands of the underlying economic forces.

The problem of the Far East is not a problem of Japan, but of capitalism. Like similar problems in
other parts of the world, it can be solved only by the abolition of the capitalist system itself.

A. P.

The Green Line Strike (1935)

From the September 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Thursday, July 25th, employees of the London Passenger Transport Board's Green Line coaches at Windsor and Slough agreed to strike in protest against speed-up schedules of duty and against too much discrimination in wages between Green Line conductors and the 'bus conductors on the same routes.

The Transport Board replied that they would have to wait to have the matter considered until September, when the directors of the Board returned from their holidays.

On the following Saturday morning many other garages joined the strike, bringing the number of strikers up to nearly three thousand. The strike was still, however, quite unofficial, and the Transport and General Workers' Union took up a definitely hostile attitude, advising the men to resume work and let their grievances be settled by means of the existing machinery. Later that day the Board announced that if the men had not returned to work by Monday they could consider themselves dismissed. By Monday morning the men were back at work.

A controversy arose, in which Mr. Bevin criticised not only the minority movement for interfering with the running of union matters, but also Herbert Morrison, the Labour Party's ardent advocate of Public Utility Boards such as London Transport. At the time when Mr. Morrison was making his stand in the House of Commons we maintained that the rationalisation of transport in London would by no means improve the position of the transport workers. But Mr. Morrison, turning a blind eye on the class struggle, continued to urge legislation which could—and did—result only in the bringing together of the transport owners in one united force opposed to the transport workers.

During the last few weeks a spate of strikes among the 'bus and coach workers against rigid discipline, speeding up and low wages, has amply vindicated our claim that the Public Utility Boards, which the Labour Party holds up to admiration as measures of "Socialism," are no more than tools to intensify and to mask capitalist exploitation.

The attitude of the Union was unheroic; apparently the leaders wish at all costs to avoid trouble; they expressed no sympathy with the workers in their bad conditions, but merely begged them to return to work and "let things be done decently and in order." However necessary discipline may be in a union, and however "illegal" a lightning transport strike may be, an organisation which claims to fight the workers' battles can rightly be expected to manifest sympathy with, and understanding of, such expressions of the class struggle. In the recent strike, however, the Union simply played into the hands of the bosses.

Modern Trade Union leaders show no inclination to emulate the Tolpuddle Martyrs. No doubt Mr. Morrison will offer to the workers at the next election a programme teeming with Public Utility Boards.

D. S.

National Independence (1942)

From the October 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party, I.L.P. and Communist Party, the Liberals, and the gentleman of the Atlantic Charter have found a common cause, the cry of "National independence."

I propose to question this "national independence." Upon what will "independence" be based? Will it be race, creed, colour, language or geography? In the proposed restoration of "nations" to their "independence" will the restorers go back twenty, fifty or a hundred years? and having established this "independence" will that be a guarantee against future "fascism," for it must be remembered that "fascism" grew in nations that were already independent.

Modern nationalism manifests itself as the political expression of a rising capitalist class when it considers itself grown up and able to run its industries, banks, etc., without the aid of "foreign" capitalism. This enables the native capitalists to enjoy all the profits instead of sharing it.

In 1860 was established the Kingdom of Italy, and in the next decade it was unified by the adhesion of Rome and Venetia. The Italian "independent nation" soon began to open its doors to "foreign" money, and industrial undertakings were established by firms like Amstrong's and Henry Ford's. The workers now "nationally independent," began producing profits for "foreign " capitalists, with their home-grown masters sharing the swag. The value of their "independence" was then seen by the workers in their mass emigration to U.S.A. to become wage-slaves to another "independent" capitalist class. Having achieved their independence, the Italian ruling class then began the suppression of Ethiopia, Tripoli, part of Somaliland, a few islands from the Greeks, and Albania. Sixty years after its own liberation the " independent " nation of Italy went—FASCIST.

During the greater part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the present one a large ramshackle empire lay athwart Central Europe. Within its confines were a motley collection of "nations" and "races." The war of 1914-18 shattered this empire, and the map changers, by various treaties, plus loans, plus armed threats, restored "independence" to "nations" which had lost it, and gave territory to some "nations" which hadn't lost it. Sheer kindness of heart!

The two nations mainly concerned were Austria and Hungary. For many years the new independent Austria was so "independent" that it had to be artificially fed by Paris finance. Now, here is the strange case of a ruling class which did not want independence, but sought an anschluss (customs union) with its brother ruling class over the border—Germany. The French ruling class, fearful of a rejuvenated Germany, came down with a heavy hand (and bribes) and said, "You will have to be independent," for Austria was so "independent" that France could dictate her actions. In 1934 this independent nation became Fascist under the pocket dictator, Dollfuss.

Hungary, always the land of the hungry peasant and home of the brutal Magyar landowner, was made independent (after slices of it had been given away) by a treaty subsequent to the war of 1914-18. An effort by Bela Kun to Sovietise this land proved a complete failure and resulted in bloodshed with the eventual establishment of a "White" dictatorship under Admiral (Butcher) Horthy in place of the "Red" dictatorship. The Hungarian working class has one of the lowest standards of living in Europe, but at least retain their "national independence." To-day independent Hungary is an ally (and vassal) of Fascist Germany. So far the blessings of "national independence" seem to be more apparent than real, for the workers of Italy, Austria and Hungary couldn't be much worse off if they had been parts of an Empire without "national independence." I hope to continue my enquiry in another issue. 

Lew Jones

"A Living Wage." I.L.P. Moonshine (1925)

From the June 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

Now and again our opponents forget themselves and tell the truth, but they do not point out the harm that has been done by their previous deviations from the truth.

The Independent Labour Party has kept the workers' attention fixed upon questions of Taxation, Credit Banks, Nationalisation, and a thousand and one other things in which the remedies proposed would bring no appreciable improvement in the general position of the workers.

In the course of the Editorial Article (New Leader, 17/4/25) dealing with the I.L.P. Conference, the editor writes :

  "On this broad problem we propose to concentrate the mind and will of the Labour movement. Men, if they are to fight in a solid phalanx, must fix their thoughts on a simple issue. You cannot rally the masses for a banking policy or an elaborate scheme of industrial re-organisation. You can rally them to the simple demand for a living wage.''

The writer goes on to state that he knows the demand is an impossible one but that the move is a strategical one "to require every industry which fails to pay wages on this basis to submit to reorganisation and control."

Let us first of all take note of the proposed change in the I.L.P. policy. It, also, has fallen a victim to the "United Front" and "Strategy" fevers. Previously, as mentioned above, the traditional policy of the I.L.P. has been the backing of all kinds of schemes as part of the "step by step progress to Socialism"; now it is waking up to the fact that a simple single issue is better than an assortment of complex issues. But what an issue has been chosen! A Living Wage! The idea is almost a century old and the I.L.P. has not got beyond it get. What is the objection to "Socialism" as the single simple issue? Surely that would be an issue worth fighting on. Why, then, is it not proposed? The answer is simple. The I.L.P.'s idea of "Socialism" is a vast and complicated system of state ownership, in which credit banks, money, and other trading impedimenta would flourish. The members of the I.L.P. are too hide-bound by their own "step by step" ideas to grasp what Socialism really signifies—wealth produced, distributed, and enjoyed communally, without the intervention of money, credit instruments or any of the other rubbish essential to a trading world.

The editor of the New Leader would have people believe that the reorganisation of industries to guarantee a living wage to the workers in such industries would be a relatively simple matter. But would it? First of all there would be committees and conferences to define a living wage; after which there would be interminable discussions as to what was a living wage in a particular industry and in a particular district, and so on. The net result of which would be the provision of fat jobs for unemployed labour leaders like Hodges and opportunities for "statesmanlike" speeches from decoy ducks like Thomas.

Surely the workers have had enough of "controlled industries" during the last ten years or so to knock all such balderdash out of their heads for ever. But then the I.L.P., the Labour Party, and similar organisations do so love committees and conferences with the masters—it is such a nice gentlemanly-way of proceeding, it develops social intercourse and breaks down class barriers between masters and leaders, and, above all, there is no immediate fear of anything really serious happening to disturb the peaceful, placid step by step progress down the incline to the grave of all hopes.

However, the final and sufficient answer to all who propose such remedies is that capitalism itself nullifies whatever advantages might accrue by worsening the general condition of the workers. It is not suggested that all who live should have a living wage, but that the workers should have a living wage; in other words that those in employment should have a living wage. Let us see how the business would work out assuming that the point were conceded.

First of all we take it that, broadly-speaking, a living wage means a wage on which people could live with a certain amount of comfort: pay the average rent demanded, get a sufficiency of nourishing food, have the small luxuries necessary to make life worth living, be able to give their children the necessary education and leisure, and be able to take an annual holiday to freshen and rebuild a jaded physique.

Once such a wage was conceded the employers would immediately receive an extra impetus to look around for ways and means to lower production costs. Machinery that low wages now render unnecessary would be introduced, fresh machinery invented, waste as far as possible eliminated, industries amalgamated to cut out waste connected with competition. The result of this process (a process that is always going on but receives an extra push now and again) would be a reduction in the numbers of workers employed and an increase in the already huge quantity of unemployed. A small group of workers would be more comfortable at the expense of greater misery for the mass.

In other words attempts at bettering the conditions of the workers, while retaining the wage system, act, as a rule, as incentives to the capitalists to lower production costs by methods that worsen the general conditions of the workers. The only, and the simple, solution is the introduction of Socialism.

Gilmac.

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peckham.

Peckham and adjoining districts were once described officially as “a huge dormitory.” The observation contained more truth than it was intended to convey. To awaken the workers out of the slumber of hopeless apathy which capitalist politicians, aided by reformers and pseudo-Socialists, have induced, we of the Peckham Branch are advocating the principles of the near approaching social revolution, especially by insisting on the necessity of a clear recognition of the class-war, in working-class political action, in practice as well as in theory. If in the determined pursuit of the object we have before us we have been compelled to regard and to treat as opponents the speakers of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the L.R.C. or other persons aggrieved, let them understand that we never shall cease to oppose them so long as they continue to obscure the plain teaching of Socialism that the political ascendancy of the working-class is the prime condition of working-class emancipation, or even of the alleviation of the miseries suffered by the workers.

Meetings have been held at Elm Grove on Thursday evenings when speakers were available, otherwise we have attended the meetings of the local Trades and Labour Council, and effectively elucidated the class-war principle by means of questions and criticism. The meetings of the S.D.F. have also been attended with the same object, notwithstanding unsuccessful attempts in this quarter to prevent criticism by the S.P.G.B. “Let truth and error grapple” is evidently no motto of the S.D.F., or why should they be so particularly anxious to avoid opposition? At the Kenuington Triangle on Sunday mornings good meetings have been held. This spot must have persistent attention if the mischievous advocacy of nostrums, based on the assumption that the capitalist-class may be persuaded to legislate itself into political oblivion, is to be counteracted. No more fitting term than “impossiblism” could be applied to the wretched reform propaganda upheld by the S.D.F. speakers here. Large and successful meetings on Peckham Rye on Sunday evenings have to be recorded. The sustained interest shown at these gatherings proves how the straightforward exposition of revolutionary Socialism by our speakers is better understood than the delusive “palliation” propaganda.

On June 27th several members attended a lecture on Labour Representation by Mr. J. J. Stephenson (treasurer, L.R.C.). According to Mr. Stephenson, the election of Messrs. Crooks and Shackleton foreshadows the coming triumph of Labour in Parliament. Evidently conscious of his utter inability to meet the criticism offered, this protagonist of Labour evaded the points raised by deliberately bantering and irritating those who disagreed with him. We have publicly challenged Mr. Stephenson to debate, under conditions in which his discreditable tactics will not enable him to conceal the significance of facts or to ignore the soundness of Socialist principles.

The mass meetings of Sunday, June 18, on the Rye, addressed by Anderson, Belsey, and Lehane, were highly successful. About 800 persons attended the evening meeting, which was justly described in the Dulwich Post as “one of the best Socialist meetings ever held to our recollection.” The report referred to concludes: “So finished one of the most intellectual treats we have ever had to listen to from young men supposed to be in a hurry. These young workmen are in earnest.”

Indeed, we are in a hurry; we are m a hurry because we are in earnest.

W. G. Killick

Islington.

In Finsbury Park “the happy hunting ground of quack theorists and freak showmen, ranging from the riddlers of perpetualism to the riddlers of Sissle, Frissle and Fryers of the soul in torment,” we have carried on our propaganda of discontent with and revolt against wage-slavery and capitalist profit-squeezing. Whilst having opposition from and debate with representatives of both Liberal and Tory tricksters, we have practically given the “order of the boot” to those pseudo-Socialists, who, after many years of vain effort, have had to quit the field. All the capitalist champions and political fakers have strutted up nobly week after week to defend their “honorable” and ''religious” system of pauper-making, and to quash this (small?) party of straight hitters and straight thinkers. We are desirous not so much of vanquishing our platform opponents, as to win the working-class by logic, reason, and common sense to a consciousness of their position in this class-struggle, and eventually to swell the ranks of the S.P.G.B. “The harvest is great and the labourers are few.”

Our audiences have ranged from 200 to 800 in Finsbury Park, while the interest manifested at our Wednesday night meetings at Highbury corner, gives us great encouragement. Other branches please note that our one endeavour is to be the strongest branch of the Party, both numerically and financially, and to capture the “Northern Heights” of London for Socialism and the S.P.G.B.

"Forward."

Watford.

In reply to numerous enquiries (kind and otherwise) I beg to state that Watford stands pretty much where it did and the Watford Branch is moderately well, thank you. Not very strong, perhaps, as men count strength (i.e., by the number of heads that can be paraded), but strong enough to keep in good evidence through the medium of public meetings of our own and others, — the latter providing us with opportunity for awkward question asking, of which we gladly avail ourselves. Indeed, so awkward do these questions appear to be that speakers on platforms which were once claimed to be “free,” are fearful of dealing with them (although they are intimately connected with the subject matter of their addresses) preferring rather to take the damaging course of refusing to answer. Thus it will interest many to know that Mr. Daniel Irving, S.D.F., declined to reply on the ground that he knew the questioner (who happened to be Comrade Fitzgerald) so that we were reduced to fetching a platform of our own out and addressing a large audience from that. Mr. Glossop, S.D.F., questioned on the subject of the help his organisation has given to capitalist candidates, replied that he was prepared to support “Masterman, Dan Leno, or any other fool against a scoundrel like Rutherfoord Harris.” Thereafter, with the connivance of his chairman (a local character afflicted with hysteria) he declined to deal with the matter further, or to our discuss in public the unhappy position to  which his organisation has brought itself, notwithstanding that he was appealing to his audience to join that organisation. They do not, they say, propose to wash their dirty linen in public, failing to see that a public organisation can wash its dirty linen in private only at the expense of any reputation for honesty and straight forwardness they may have, and failing to understand that the statement involved the admission of the dirty linen's existence, which hitherto they have been concerned to strenuously deny.

However, the editorial injunction (forcefully imposed) is that brevity should be the first law of branch reporters. Therefore I cannot give further incidents of the position here. But space may be allowed me to say that whatever our numerical strength may be, we can he relied upon to the last man to carry on the fight against capitalism and its supporters—cynical or sycophantic, conscious or unconscious — to the best of our ability.

Ess. Rationis.

Wood Green

Without a doubt the past two months have been marked by earnest hard work so far as propaganda is concerned. Our usual meeting place — Jolly Butcher’s Hill — has witnessed some really good enthusiastic gatherings. The way our Party speakers encourage questions and opposition is highly appreciated, and has been taken full advantage of. The latest development of the Branch activity is the opening up of meetings on Friday night at High St.. Hornsey, which, so far, are a notable success. Our paper and the Manifesto sell readily, the first issue of the latter having already been disposed of.

In concluding this very brief report we record the satisfaction we have, in common with our comrades in other parts, in seeing the worker waking up to his true interest, and surely beginning to understand the hopelessness of the old capitalist political parties, and all those sections that are dragging at their tail. Our confident hope is that our Party membership will be considerably increased in the near future from this district.

John Crump

Fulham.

Although we have not reported for the last few months, it is not because of dry-rot by any manner of means. We have had some splendid meetings, our ordinary audience several times outnumbering the attendance at the mass meetings of other bodies claiming to be Socialist. Our straight propaganda, our keen criticism of the local “Labour” party, combined with an outspoken attitude on Trade Unionism, is beginning to tell. The sales of The Socialist Standard have increased and a large number of Manifestoes have been disposed of. Our progress is slow but sure. We believe in making Socialists first and members afterwards. We hope by the time the propaganda season is over that we shall show an increased membership. Our Economic Class, though small, is regularly attended, and the knowledge gained is sure to be valuable to the Comrades attending.

E. J. B. Allen

West Ham.

We have had a lively month in West Ham, winding up with a visit from that promising young comrade, Dick Kent, who told us that he could not speak, and straightway got up on the platform and made himself out the biggest fabricator of the truth in the party. Keep a watch on this young man, Mr. Lecture Secretary; send him out into the highways and byeways. We are getting considerable opposition now, and needless to say we regard this as a most valuable aid to us in our work, and we are nursing it and nurturing it with tenderest care and affection. Efforts are being made (not by us) to organise this opposition, and if these efforts are successful, “That will be Glory—” We have lately had two striking illustrations of the internationally fraternising power of the Socialist Movement. A short time ago a comrade from Poland, a member of the Polish Socialist Party, claimed the fraternal handshake and greeting. He understood very little English, but he understood that Socialism breaks down all national pride and prejudice, jealousy and hatred, that our platform is a barricade erected against the enemy that drove him out of his own country, and does not cease to grind his face in this, and that all are brothers in arms who march and serve faithfully under the red flag. It was sufficient for him that we are doing that, and for us that he was doing that, even if we could not understand a word of each other’s tongue. The second instance occurred on the last Sunday in the month, at Forest Gate, when a young fellow came forward and said “I’m an American, and I’m a Socialist.” “Shake!” says one comrade, “All round” says another, and all round it was. The new chum is a cowboy from the place that is said to be separated from hell by a sheet of brown paper, and he says he might feel “prutty wal at home en London ef ther durn brown paper edn’t took fire.” He was constrained to speak to us because he found us, to put it in his lurid language, "goin' fer it bull-headed en buck-eyed.” which linguistic caper from the Wild West is not altogether unintelligible even in prosaic West Ham. The wild and woolly one has had our position made clear to him, and he seems anxious to ”take a hand in the great ‘round up.’ ” Having got the East Ham Branch into working order, we are leaving them to their own resources what time we look round for new worlds to conquer. We have put aside the spade and are taking a steam plough to the virgin soil at Leytonstone and Woodford. There is good prospect of our being established in both these places by the end of the present season.

A. E. Jacomb

P S. Does any branch want that spade?

The Curse of National Prestige. (1905)

From the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The dawn of peace appears in the Far East

Slav and Mongol have faced each other on many a battlefield on land and sea, and victory has been uniformly with the new world power of Japan. This war was essentially a commercial war, as all wars are to-day carried on in the interests of commerce. All international relations, diplomatic and military, are becoming more and more commercial in their nature.

Some years ago the late Lord Salisbury declared that all wars in the future would be railway wars, and later he avowed that they would be tariff wars. He saw clearly as we Socialists see that war is but a manifestation of the antagonism of interests existing in the several national spheres of industry. We have only to look at recent wars in which European powers have been engaged to see that they have all been economic.

Norway and Sweden may be seen in a state of extreme tension because the ruling class of Norway believe that Sweden has been securing preferential commercial treatment through the appointment of a Consulate whose sympathies and interests were purely Swedish. Because of this commercial friction the Norwegian Storthting has passed a resolution deposing King Oscar and placing their country under the control of a provisional government.

Greece made war upon Turkey because she lusted after the rich olive groves of Crete. France and Germany were at war because France had ambitious thoughts of extending her boundaries to the Rhine while Germany was desirous of possessing the broad, smiling plains of Alsace and Lorraine. America fought with Spain for the possession of the plantations of Cuba and the Philippines. Britain crushed out the national independence of the Transvaal and Orange River Republics.

During the latter of those wars what was the fear of the ruling class as expressed in their Press? Not of the loss of life of the soldiers on the veldt, not of the thousands of children done to death by official incompetence, or something worse, in the concentration camps; not of the burning of homesteads and farmhouses in the Vaal; no, it was none of those things. The real fear was shown in the thrill of horror which was felt by the monied class in Park Lane or on ’Change when the rumour was current that Botha had blown up the Rand.

Nor is it a new thing for war to be fundamentally economic. In one stage of civilisation the food question causes tribe to fight against tribe, the fate of the defeated tribe being to serve as food for the victors. In another phase of civilisation the captured in battle are sent as helots to toil for the benefit of those who have vanquished them.

As Britain deliberately crushed out the trade and manufacture of Ireland and of India in the interests of her own manufacturers, so have countries sought for colonies and for extended territory in order to secure trade monopolies. In other directions the cloven hoof of commerce has displayed itself. Thus the union of the Parliaments of England and Scotland has ever been defended on the plea that it gave to the latter all the commercial privileges that the former had won for herself.

Although our contention that war has always been fundamentally economic can be justified from every historical epoch, yet it would be going too far to say that this has always been obvious. Many wars have appeared on superficial examination to be primarily religious, while others have been excused on the ground of maintaining national prestige. When recently the Baltic Fleet shot down innocent fishermen on the Dogger, when France ignored Germany in her arrangement with Britain, Spain and Italy as to her position in Morocco, in the thousand and one other occasions on which war has been in the air it has been the maintenance of national prestige which has been the excuse and the justification put forward.

In the worship of this fetich Britain replied to Russia’s seizure of Port Arthur by the seizure of Wei-hai-wei, and Germany by the fortification of Kiau-Chau. Britain having a sphere of interest, another phrase for a sphere of exploitation, Germany must have a sphere of interest in the province of Shantung, while France and Japan seek for similar enforced “concessions”.

The above remarks have been called forth by our witnessing dissension in the recently unified French Socialist party on the question as to whether the party should take part in wars carried on by the ruling powers of France. Among Socialists there appears some uncertainty as to the proper position to adopt with regard to this question, and a few remarks on the subject may not be out of place.

Beaconsfield, in his novel Sybil, declared that England was divided into two nations. These two nations are the nation of propertied and the nation of propertyless. The nation of the haves who do not work, and the nation of the have-nots who do. The question we have to determine for ourselves is, “Is the country of the propertied worth fighting for by the nation of the propertyless?”

I do not think it will be questioned by any Socialist that it is his duty to oppose the wars of the ruling class of one nation with the ruling class of another, and to refuse to participate in them. When Germany seeks to force war upon France so as to secure for herself special trade advantages with Morocco, it is for the millions of German and French socialists to declare in no uncertain voice that they will have no part or lot in the war. If they do this then there will be little fear of war. The military power of Russia has failed in the Russo-Japanese war largely because of the unrest among the Russian people, and the military power of Germany would be equally powerless against a revolt against war amongst the most intelligent of the political parties in the Fatherland.

With defensive wars the question becomes somewhat complicated. Is the Britain of the ruling class worth defending by the workers? Has the worker to-day – a wage-slave earning but a bare subsistence wage – anything to fight for? As it is the country is being conquered by the operations of the international capitalist. The British worker is to-day the employee of a limited liability company or of a trust whose shareholders are international, and it is the capitalist class who rule the political machine.

Were Germany to conquer France or France to conquer Britain, he would be ruled by no more alien class than rules him to-day. As the result of bring a citizen of a country which is nationally independent his condition is such that he has no guarantee from week to week of his power of earning his livelihood. Thirteen millions of him are living in a state of semi-starvation, and the individuals composing those thirteen millions are always changing. In the slum districts the conditions are such that crime is at a premium, and virtuous living at a discount, so much so indeed that it is a constant surprise that the results of these conditions are so good.

The worker to-day has nothing to fight for. The interests of his masters are not his interests. National prestige is not his prestige, but is used to force from other nations commercial treaties and conditions which in the end prove adverse to him.

What the Socialist has to realise clearly is that the interests of his fellow workers in other lands are nearer to his than are those of his master in his own country. The bonds which bind worker with worker, irrespective of nationality, are those of class solidarity. The meeting of Japanese and Russian on the platform at the International socialist Congress at Amsterdam in August last was but symbolic of this solidarity. From the capitalist-class of every country the worker is divided by a gulf of class antagonism which can be bridged only by the absorption of the capitalist-class in the working class, the result of the coming Social Revolution.

When the capitalist-class fully realises that they can no longer depend upon the working-class, when they find that the worker has at last come to understand his class position, and that he has no reason for fighting in his master’s interests against those with whom he has no personal quarrel, he, the capitalist, will see that it is impossible to appeal to national prestige, to patriotism, to the spirit of “our imperial race” and all the rest of the phrases used of old, and then it will be impossible to make war in so light a spirit, or to raise questions likely to create a tension between the ruling class of different nations.

It is for the worker to see that his position demands that he should fight only for his class emancipation, and that nothing, internal reform or national strife, should draw him away from his determination to fight for the realisation of the Socialist regime.

WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS! YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.

Robert Elrick

Quotes. (1905)

Quotes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early issues of the Socialist Standard would be peppered with brief quotes which would serve as inspirational, informative and, most importantly, as space fillers. Here are the quotes from the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard:

The object of true education is not merely to make people do the right things, but enjoy the right things; not merely pure but to love purity; not merely just, but to hunger and thirst after justice.  — Goethe.

In the huge mass of evil, as it rolls and swells, there is ever some Good working imprisoned; working towards deliverance and triumph.  — T. Carlyle. "French Revolution."

The plain message physical science has for the world at large is this, that were our political and social and moral devices only as well contrived to their ends as a linotype machine, an antiseptic operating plant, or an electric tramcar, there need now at the present moment be no appreciable toil in the world, and only the smallest fraction of the pain, the fear, and the anxiety that now make human life so doubtful in its value. There is more than enough for everyone alive. Science stands, a too competent servant, behind her wrangling, underbred masters, holding out resources, devices, an remedies they are too stupid to use.  — H. G. Wells in "Fortnightly" for December.

Quotes. (1904)

Quotes from the December 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early issues of the Socialist Standard would be peppered with brief quotes which would serve as inspirational, informative and, most importantly, as space fillers. Here are the quotes from the December 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard:

Let no man fear the name of "Socialist." The movement of the working class for justice by any other name would be as terrible.  — Father William Barry.

The rich are always content with the lot of the poor.  — Wertheimer.

Call ye that a society, where there is no longer any social idea extant? not so much as the idea of a common house, but only of a common over-crowded lodging house, where each, isolated, regardless of his neighbour, clutches what he can get, and cries "mine!" and calls it Peace, because, in the cut-purse and cut-throat scramble, no steel knives, but only a far cunninger sort, can be employed.  — T. Carlyle. (Sarter Resartus.)

With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who now, for the first time, becomes the real conscious lord of Nature, because he has now become master of his own social organisation. . . . It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom.—Frederick Engels.

Obstinacy of opinion and heat in argument are surest proofs of folly. Is there anything so assured, resolute, disdainfu, contemplative, serious, and grave as an ass?  — Montaigne.

The really exhausting and really repulsive labours instead of being better paid they are almost invariably the worst paid of all . . . The more revolting the occupation the more certain it is to receive the minimum of remuneration.  — John S. Mill.

In every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it, forms the basis upon which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of that epoch. Consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes. The history of these class struggles form a series of evolution in in which, now-a-days, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class— the bourgeoisie—without at the same time, and once and for all emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class-distinctions and class-struggles.—Marx.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstacies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom—Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation. —The Communist Manifesto. 

He that is down needs fear no fall.  — Pilgrim's Progress.

Better to hunt in fields for health unbought,

Than fee a doctor for a nauseous draught.

                                                             — Dryden. 

This mournful truth is everywhere confessed,

Slow rises worth by poverty depressed.

                                                             —  Dr. Johnson. 

"Master, I marvel how the fishes live in the sea;"

"Why as men do a-land: the great ones eat up the little ones."

                                                             — Shakespeare.

The law is a sort of hocus-pocus science, that smiles in your face while it picks your pocket; and the glorious uncertainty of it is of more use to the professors than the justice of it.  — Macklin.

I never could believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world, ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden.  — Richard Rumbold, when on the Scaffold (1685).

The Co-operative movement has to some extent lost sight of the great aim which Robert Owen had in view, which was to raise the whole of the members of the community by reorganising the forces and circumstances which governed their lives.  — Co-operative Annual, 1902.

Quotes (1904)

Quotes from the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early issues of the Socialist Standard would be peppered with brief quotes which would serve as inspirational, informative and, most importantly, as space fillers. Here are the quotes from the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard:

And we too love peace, but not the peace of slavery. Marat.

They shall build houses and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards and eat fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat. — Isaiah. LXV. 21, 22.

What sort of society is this that has, to the extent that ours has, inequality and injustice for a basis? Such a society is fit only to be kicked out through the windows — its banquet tables, its orgies, its debaucheries, its scoundrelism, together with all those who are seated leaning on both elbows and enjoying it on the backs of others whom they keep down on all fours. The hell of the poor is the paradise the rich love to solace themselves in. Victor Hugo.

The human race is gradually learning the simple lesson, that the people as a whole are wiser for the public good and the public prosperity, than any privileged class of men, however refined and cultivated, have ever been, or, by any possibility, can ever become. — Lewis H. Morgan. Ancient Society.

The artisan who is demanding at this time an eight hours day in the building trades is simply striving to recover what his ancestor worked by four or five centuries ago.  — Thorold Rogers.

Wage-Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains — you have the World to win.  — Karl Marx

The great appear great to us because we are on our knees: let us rise!  — Theroigne.

The modern state, whatever its form, is essentially a capitalist machine; it is the state of the capitalist; the ideal total capitalist.  — Frederick Engels.

The punishment good citizens get for neglecting their politics is to be governed by bad men.  — Plato.

The abolition of poverty and the abolition of capitalism shall be accomplished at one and the same time.

Room! For the men of mind make way!
  Ye robber Rulers, pause no longer;
Ye cannot stay the opening day:
  The world rolls on, the light grows stronger.
The People's Advent's coming!
— Gerald Massey.

Political economists see nothing but the past; hence future generations will represent the civilization of political economists by a head reversed and looking backward. — Fourier. 

The Commercialisation of Literature. (1904)

From the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

The awful ignorance of the middle-class re-acts on Society at large, yet the ignorance is not due to lack of information but incapacity of thought. This observation was forced upon me the other day as I was reading in The Guardian an article entitled “The Next Literary Epoch.” Miss G. Hill, the writer, began by showing how books are now treated as manufactured articles, and are "advertised and sold much as a new line in dress material.” This is due to the gradual disappearance of the personal relation between publisher and author. Huge amalgamations have made the link solely a monetary one. The manager of the company dares not deal with ought but "certainties.” The literary element in the governance of publishing is diminishing since the directors had no more knowledge of literature than the directors of a chemical company have of chemistry. Science has also created a thirst for facts; literature, as a mental refreshment and enjoyment, has ceased to be sought after.

Miss Hill continues: "We must take into account the fact that literature is chiefly in the hands of the middle classes, and will therefore be modified by the conditions of life and habits of thought prevailing among these classes. It is they who furnish the bulk of both writers and readers. The democracy, as a rule, use their leisure for the study of science. It might be supposed that what the upper classes lack in point of numbers they would make up in point of opinion; but they are not originators; they do not create new movements of thought or control the stream of intellectual tendency.” Further the writer of this interesting article show that specialising has become a rule, but that it is useless if the basis of education is not broad enough to specialise upon. People are acquiring knowledge without thereby acquiring "power.” The facts obtained sufficed without deductions being made from these facts. "This is the way to train up learners but not thinkers.”

S. J. C. Russell

Radical Principles? (1904)

From the September 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the council meeting of the Metropolitan Radical Federation held on Saturday, 20th August, Mr. Herbert Burrows was unanimously appointed delegate to the International Peace Congress at Boston, U.S.A., in September. He will, doubtless, prove an able representative of Radical principles.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain. (1904)

Party News from the September 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

Official Notice.

The General Meeting of the Socialist Party of Great Britain will be held at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, London, W., on Sunday, 18th September, 1904, commencing at 9.30 a.m.

The following Preliminary Agenda has been arranged:

Election of Chairman.
Appointment of Stewards.
Election of Standing Orders Committee.
Report of the Executive Committee.
Party Organ.
Rules.
Report of Delegates to the International Socialist Congress, Amsterdam.
Party Emblem.
Premises.
Election of General Secretary.
Election of Treasurer..
Other business.

On behalf of the Executive Committee,

(Signed) C. Lehane,

General. Secretary.

Literature Agency.

Branches and members should purchase their literature through the Party Agent, F. C. Watts, 154, Ashmore Road. Paddington, London, W. Write for particulars as to terms, etc.

Central Economic Class.

The class meets weekly and is free to all. Full particulars will be sent on application to J. Fitzgerald, 34, Wilmington Square, London, W.

The International Congress at Amsterdam. (1904)

From the September 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Welcome to Delegates.

[From "Het Volk."]

The Netherlands Social-Democratic Party gives you a hearty welcome!

The Paris International Congress of 1900 conferred upon the still young Dutch Party the honour of receiving the representatives of the world's Socialist organisations in 1904, and it is to Amsterdam that from all parts of the earth are flocking' together the hundreds of men and women entrusted with the will of the millions of toilers, who carry the heavy burden of capitalism throughout the Earth's length and breadth.

The eyes of the entire conscious proletariat are now turned towards Amsterdam, where the proletarian forces are concentrated, bearing the happy message of a new and a better future. The organtisation of the class-war is now the principal object. But even through our strife itself the seeds are sown for the tank of days to come, the organisation after the victory.

To this twofold task of organising the strenuous battle, we are now fighting with all the strength of our convictions, and of breaking the ground for the future society, which is necessarily germinating in the cesspool of unfettered capitalism, you are concentrating the labour of this coming week.

Proletarian might and courage and self-reliance grow up high out of the wealth of our scientific researches, strengthened day by day by the hard facts of capitalism itself. Proletarian forethought and prudence have to be observed by the masses, whose will and intentions yon represent, for many are the difficulties and great is the responsibility when facing the task of choosing the ways and means.

The Dutch Party, too, awaits your debates and your decisions with keen interest. However young we may be in the ranks of the International—within a few weeks we will celebrate the tenth birthday of our party; and then, strengthened by the rules which the Congress will have again laid down for the international life and movement of the proletariat, we will promise each other earnestly and solemnly to carry on the propaganda of our principles with renewed power until the victory is gained. And we shall no less proclaim our unshatterable will to hold high—above all differences of opinion, which with us can and may be but temporary— that unity of action, without which the proletariat can never excel in power its great and still mighty enemy. In the prosperous growth of our party nothing is more natural than difference of opinion concerning the means of action. But all exchange of thoughts about such differences must be governed by the earnest dedise to find, on the basis of proletarian science and of proletarian consciousness, the solution which shall warrant unity of action.

That shall be our firm resolve, when by and by we shall look back upon our labours of ten years and shall gather new strength for the times to come.

In the far East capitalism is forcing the workers of two great nations to fight each other in bloody battles. In the colonies' it wages its exterminating wars to gain ever larger fields for its insatiable lust of exploitation. In the industrial countries it lays like a leaden burden upon the working classes. In the agricultural districts it fosters as much as possible the ignorance and the unconsciousness of the toiling masses.

Against this irresponsible power we direct our forces, whose war-cry is—Organisation and Unity!

And the serrying of our ranks is now of greater importance than ever, where the churches are of late openly using their influence solely on behalf of capitalism. Bearers of Christian love and charity, as they call themselves, they throw the ethics of Christianity to the dogs, and freely accept the ethics of capitalism.

This we experience even in our country, and we arm ourselves formidably for this new form of old battle.

Your discussions will strengthen our power. We are happy to see you in our midst, and we give you a hearty welcome!