The Greater War: Our Appeal For Recruits. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the members of the working class: —

For the moment the anti-Socialists have triumphed, and Europe is plunged in anarchy and bloodshed, while over the seas pillage and death have spread their wings. The much vaunted “intellectual development of society,” the great “progress of capitalist civilisation,” the “directive ability” and the “administrative powers” that the master class are supposed to monopolise, have resulted in a vile and vicious struggle between them as to which can murder most of OUR class—the WORKING CLASS.

This is your reward for trusting your enemy; for when either or both sides become exhausted in this conflict, the master class will patch up their little difference, but will continue the Greater war—the subjection and robbery of the working class.

“Peace, perfect Peace,” sing the churches; but “pieces, golden pieces,” chirp the masters, and in their fight for markets in which to realise the wealth stolen from the workers, the Christian croakers and peace praters find their answer as the bullets find their billets in the sons of God, and leading church divines draw dividends from the sale of powder.

This is the reward of those who have foolishly placed reliance on religion.

But meantime the workers have suddenly become important, and particularly the strong, young men. To them appeals are being made; threats even, and hints of probable unemployment are given; while the “superior persons” vie with each other in flattering the possible recruit to their murdering machine. “Your country is in danger, fight for it and maintain your liberties!” Such is now the cry of the masters to the young men of the working-class. Strange, is it not, that the masters should now be so concerned with our country and our liberties? The perjured, lying hypocrites! It is their own country and their own interests that are threatened.

The working class have no country (they must go where they can get a job), nor have they any liberties it would hurt them much to lose.

The lot of the working class in this and other countries is just to be allowed to exist for the convenience of the master class. The workers’ portion, in England as elsewhere, is to be ground down in the struggle to gain the pittance to eke out a miserable existence.

Under the Union Jack or other national flag the workers are the slaves of those, who own and control the means of life. Here, in times of peace, THE GREATER WAR still rages: the relentless, bitter struggle against poverty and starvation. Here we have sweating, low wages and brutalising toil, child-labour and cheap female-labour, unemployment, shoddy clothing, slum dwellings, and adulterated food.

Here we have strikes and lock-outs, and the military machine used in the interests of the masters when the workers, fighting for a living, are batoned, shot, and starved into subjection. Poverty and prostitution ever increasing—degradation ever deepening : such are the liberties, such is the system you are asked to risk your lives in defence of. But a far better thing to do is what we ask of you—that is to stay at home and think.

Realise that the only party of the workers in this country is the Socialist Party of Great Britain—all other parties have misled and betrayed you—all other parties are at present betraying you. Get to understand the economic enslavement of your class. Enlist in the army of the Social Revolution. Your OWN class needs you, let the master class see to itself.

Rouse ye!

The Executive Committee.

‘The great appear great to us because we are on our knees! Let us Rise!’ (Desmoulins)

The Idle Parsons Bless the Busy Soldiers. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth : I come not to send peace but a sword.—Matt. X. 34.

“Peace and goodwill towards all men” is thought, by some to be the watchword of the Christian Church. The Church which is the organisation, above all else, claiming to be the Party of peace and the promoter of better relations between man and man. Nineteen hundred years have passed since their creeds were established and yet almost the whole of “Christian” civilisation is embroiled in deadly war. Verily, it is said the Church is paid by the ruling class to do the work of the rich, for we find the parasitic parsons to-day praising and defending what is undoubtedly the most mercenary massacre which ever stained the pages of history. Every section of the Christian faith adds its blessing to this savagery.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, leader of the Anglican Church, who gets £15,000 per year to preach the “Gospel of love,” said (“Standard,” August 25th):

“So far as I can see, our conscience as a Christian State and people, is as regards this war, wholly and unchallengeably clear. We might, I suppose, for a time have stayed outside the arena, but to have stayed outside at this time would, as I understand it, have been at the cost of England’s honour, at the cost of England's chivalry to weakened peoples, at the cost of England’s faithfulness to her plighted word. Could any of us for the sake of avoiding war have asked God’s blessing upon our reticence ? . . . It was not in quiet and peaceful times that Christian heroes like Henry Lawrence Havelock or Gordon bore an undying message which will live while England stands.”

The awful cant and hypocrisy about “England's honour” and “England’s chivalry” is well taken if we recall how the tiny Boer Republics were treated, the deeds of valour amongst the Indians and Egyptians and nearer home in the ” Emerald Isle.”

St. Paul’s Cathedral is the Mecca of modern Christians and the Canon of the Cathedral, therefore, was sought for his attitude. This is what Canon Alexander said (“Standard,” Aug. 25th, 1914):

“At this, one of the greatest crises of the world’s history, we could not pray for success, we could not look up in simple trust and confidence to God, unless our hands were clean, unless we were convinced that our cause is just. It is God’s leading that we are following now.

“War is the instrument through which God is working out His own purpose. It is Him we are called upon to serve and if we are faithful and loyal and true, He will bring us, in the language of the scripture, “through fire and water,” “out into a wealthy place.”

“Trust in God and keep your powder dry” was the famous charge of Oliver Cromwell to his Ironsides, and to-day Lord Kitchener has struck the same note in advising each member of the force he has sent out that “the first duty of a soldier is to fear God . . . God holds in his hands the issue. Fortunately the strikes and troubles that existed here are settled now. Classes are united. Rich and poor alike are shoulder to shoulder in a righteous cause and in this we see God working out our salvation.”

The Roman Catholic Church is, of course, in the same position as their Anglican confreres in crime. Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, states his views thus (“Standard,” August 22nd, 1914):

“War cannot itself be a sin, since God Himself has actually commanded war on many occasions and even aided His own people to obtain the victory by miraculous means. It is quite certain that God cannot at any time have done or commanded anything sinful. Moreover, in the New Testament the profession of arms ia treated as a perfectly legitimate one ; special favour was shown to the officers of the Roman army (Luke VII, 2, 10). St. John the Baptist, far from advising soldiers to abandon their calling, urged them to be careful to observe military discipline (Luke III, 14), and our Lord not only foretold the coming of war in the future (Matt XII, 36); but declared that he came “not to bring peace but a sword,” and we are told in the Apocalypse (XII, 7) that there was war even in heaven.”

Such an authority for war has rarely been surpassed by the followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene.

The Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford also agrees as to the divine origin of the war for he says (same paper) :

“The war is the result of the sins and passions of men; it is the great scourge used by the Almighty to chastise the sins of the world.”

The Nonconformist Conscience has also been appealed to and the Pastor of Westminster Chapel, the Rev. G. Campbell-Morgan, blesses the wholesale butchery in these words (same paper):

“I preach peace at all seasons, but with regard to the course of Great Britain in the present great conflict, I have changed my views because I believe that my fellow-countrymen are pursuing the only honourable course open to them by upholding the cause of a small nation, upon which all the horrors of a ruthless invasion have been forced. … I am certain that Great Britain has been drawn into the present strife by the highest and noblest of emotions. . . We are thankful to God for the readiness of the sons of the nation to go forth upon their stern duty.”

Even the Quaker testifies for the “Fatherland and the Flag.” E. B. Sprigg, of the Society of Friends, asked by the “Standard” (19.8,14), says:

“The action of Great Britain on embarking on her present adventure in Europe is probably a righteous one.”

Westminster Abbey is the home of kings and from this shrine the voice of Canon Westlake speaks a good word for the war. His views appear in the “Standard” for August 18th:

“I cannot think there is any negation of Christian principles in a Christian people going to war … In the present instance we find Great Britain, Belgium, France and Russia resisting warlike aggression on the part of other nations, and their cause is therefore a righteous one. Great Britain could not have kept out of the conflict and retained her honour.” After quoting from the Bible he goes on to say: “This sanction of the sword by the Christian Religion is borne out by the fact that the old Bishops of the Church were warriors, and often rode into the fight with the armies. Then again, there is the blessing of flags and arms, which is a religious ceremonial, and the appointment of Chaplains of fighting regiments. This indicates that the Church gives its sanction to war.”

Cottonopolis must, of course, get its religious representative’s blessing and hence Bishop Weldon, Dean of Manchester, writes thus “Standard, August 27th, 1914):

“The soldiers of the King stand in need of prayer so that by their conduct, as by their courage, they may show themselves worthy of their Christian native land.”

The Dean of Ripon informs the “Standard” readers that “the Lord is on our side,” having undoubtedly received a private wire, uncensored.

Numerous others of the “Black Squad” could be quoted in the same strain for the Church is doing its work well.

It is, of course, quite incidental that many of the dignitaries of the Christian faith have shares in the armament firms who live on war and war scares. The Bishop of Kensington, for instance, is listed as a shareholder in the International armour plate ring known as the Harvey United Steel Co. The Bishop of Chester is a shareholder in Vickers, the International firm whose works at Fiume supplied Austria with torpedoes to be used against the marines the dear bishop blesses. The Bishop of Hexham is a shareholder in Armstrong Whitworths, which belonged to the world combine of armament manufacturers in company with Krupps. The Bishop of Newcastle is another shareholder in Vickers, whilst that bitter and outspoken enemy of Socialism, Dean Inge of St. Paul’s, is a shareholder both in Armstrong’s and Vickers. The Bishop of Newport is a shareholder in John Brown & Co., and the President of the Free Church Councils, Sir J. Compton Rickett, owns 3,200 shares in John Brown & Co., and 2,100 shares in Cammell Laird, the two famous firms in the death trade.

Rumour has it that these eminent Christian firms do not spend all their time “beating swords into ploughshares” but that report is, of course, untrue.

Space does not allow of any more names, but those given are sufficient to show the material interest of these “Ambassadors of Christ.”

Well does the Nonconformist “British Weekly” declare “United, we stand,” for the parsons and plutocrats hang together lest other things happen. When the war heat has passed away for a time, we can imagine a banquet in honour of the Church and the spokesman of Capitalism blessing it, with the words : “Well done ! thou good and faithful servant.”

Adolph Kohn

A few comparisons. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Together with the conclusions we draw from them.

It has been said that mere comparisons do not appeal to the workers in general. So accustomed are they to their poverty and the possession and display of wealth by the class that exploits them, that to merely point to such a fact, or even to draw comparisons of the extremes of wealth and poverty, conveys nothing to them. It does not appear at all extraordinary to them that a class performing none of the useful work of society should possess fabulous and ever increasing wealth, while they who produce all the wealth of society should remain always in abject poverty.

This is not because the worker lacks the power of observation or comparison; but rather because he has seen it all his life, has become accustomed to it. Just as he expects the night to follow the day or the day to follow the night, and accepts both as unalterable; in the same way he looks upon society as being of necessity made up of two classes, rich and poor. Natural and social phenomena are in the same category for him—things that have always been and always will be.

This is scarcely to be wondered at, for almost from the cradle influences have been at work shaping in his mind this idea as to the fixed character of social institutions. All those he comes in contact with show by their actions daily and hourly that they do not question the elementary rules upon which society is based, however much they may squabble over the details. The average worker, therefore, regards his class as helpless and inert, though he is himself a unit and a fair sample of all the rest. Even if he understands Socialism, or claims to, he overlooks the power that can be attained by an organised movement, and the paramount importance of maintaining such a movement by individual effort, consequently he does nothing. That, together with the incessant struggle for a bare existence, is the explanation of apathy among the working class.

The result of apathy is disastrous, not only to the working class as a whole, but to the individual. Those who are quiescent not only strengthen capitalist domination, but are continually throwing away what opportunities remain to them of becoming men and women in the real sense; for nothing can be more contemptible than to wear chains without making an effort to throw them off ; while persistence in manly actions makes men.

Socialists, like others of the working class, are compelled to sell their energy in order to live. They cannot escape from wage slavery, but they have already escaped the effects of one of capitalism’s worst weapons, the deliberate propaganda of ignorance and confusion. Without Socialist principles that make his class position clear, the worker cannot discriminate, his brain does not function as the organ of thought, but becomes the receptacle of all the ignorant twaddle that is purposely served up to him through the Press, platform, and pulpit.

Correctly speaking, ignorance is lack of knowledge, but it does not follow that ignorance is purely negative. Ignorant persons can babble, fraudulent labour leaders can make social reforms appear plausible to those who do not think for themselves. The clergy by their trained eloquence keep alive superstitions that no longer exist in the minds of intelligent men and women, because science has long ago explained their origin and growth and shown their absurdity.

Where ignorance speaks the loudest, however, is in the dissemination of falsehoods with regard to the function of capital. Those who own the most capital are everywhere extolled as the most desirable citizens. Yet when one of these desirable citizens dies, the function of the capital he leaves behind goes on without interruption, though it may be left to a child or a lunatic. Whatever that function may be it is obvious that it does not need any special ability in its owner in order to function ; an extract from “Harmsworth’s Popular Science” illustrates this.

“But many a modern shareholder of means resembles a French nobleman of the old regime. He knows personally nothing about the workmen who help to earn the dividends on which he lives. All that be knows is that when they strike for higher wages they are striking for a reduction in his income. He often knows no more about the manner in which the income on his capital is obtained than he does about the manner in which the animal from which his meat is sliced was bred and slaughtered.”

The great mass of the wealth of all capitalist countries is owned in this way by shareholders, who may know a little or a great deal about their concerns, but who certainly take no part in any of the necessary operations of production. This fact is borne out by a superficial examination. When “the heads” do come down to see us at work they are blissfully ignorant of the meaning of it all, and have to be shown round and have things explained to them. They really have no time for the understanding of things industrial or economic ; the pursuit of pleasure absorbs the whole of their useless lives, as Lady Troubridge says in an article in the “Royal Magazine.” “The pursuit of pleasure by society has been brought to a fine art, and almost every week has its own special gaiety and distraction . . . The real fact is that the London season is but the culminating point of a year’s ceaseless round of gaiety and sport, every month of which is mapped out so as to seize the greatest amount of pleasure that it is possible to obtain.” When is their boasted directive ability exercised if they chase pleasure all the year round ?

“What do these men and women know” says the same writer “of the monotony of long, grey days, broken only by tedious work and the weariness of accustomed sights. To them the glittering ballroom with its rose wreathed pillars, its haunting music, its flower-decked tables heaped with dainties, are exchanged before they have time to pall, for the white deck of a yacht, or the moors or uplands of breezy Scotland, and later on for the hunting field and the luxurious country home ; and all the time society is preparing for the great culminating burst of gaiety that comes with the flowers of May.”

On the one side is all luxury, gaiety and sport, on the other want and misery. The World’s workers are robbed of the wealth they produce and then insulted with the hoary tale that if there were no demand for luxuries poverty would be still more widespread—almost sufficient in itself to proclaim the rotteness of the capitalist system. The very fact that they have a superabundance proves that there is no need for anyone to lack the necessaries of life, but to claim indulgence as a virtue and give themselves credit for making work, is pure hypocrisy, and should cause every worker to think. In fact, on every hand we find contradictions, inconsistencies, and comparisons that should rouse the workers to thought. Modern society is full of them. Fashionable women spend incalculable sums on dress and “Swaddle their dogs in costly blankets and spray them with priceless scents,” while, according to Mr. J. J. Mallon, Secretary of the Anti-Sweating League: “The vast majority of women workers in this country earn less than ten shillings per week.” An American millionaire, Lieu. Com. Spofford, bestows one hundred pounds per week on his baby, and Mr. E. McClean’s child is known as the twenty million pound baby, while the Rev. J. E. Roberts says that in London alone 122,000 children are underfed. Mr. Lloyd George once told a large audience “that he knew twelve men whoso income during the worst days of depression would suffice to keep fifty-thousand working-class families in comfort for one month.”

These are a few comparisons taken at random for the thoughtful reader to reflect upon; they should arouse the deepest indignation and the desire to eradicate them. Those who believe in tho permanence of the capitalist system can only suggest social reforms of one kind or another, that are easily shown to be impossible or absurd. The very fact that there are no remedies possible of application within the system, proves that the system is responsible and we have to look to that for the cause.

The system of society we live under to-day differs from feudalism and chattel slavery, though like it, both these were forms of slavery. Under feudalism the worker owned the land he tilled and his took, but was forced to give up a portion of his produce and labour-time. Under chattel slavery the workers were bought and sold like cattle. Under capitalism they are stripped of everything in the nature of property and forced to sell themselves.

Under all these systems the workers produced all the wealth of society, yet may only retain, or have returned to them the barest necessaries of life. Under each of them they are forced to labour to add to the luxury of a ruling class, while they remain poor.

In Oriental countries where the needs of the workers were scanty and easily supplied, they were forced to labour to add to the luxury and grandeur of their rulers. In capitalist countries it is the same; the more thrifty and efficient the working class becomes, the greater the affluence of the master class.

The merchandise character of labour-power is also a condition that breeds and develops antagonism ; the germ of the class struggle. This struggle cannot continue indefinitely, though it is bound to go on while labour-power is merchandise ; obviously, then, the struggle will cease only when the conditions that engender it come to an end. So-called economic action is useless to this end, because in the main it agrees with the wages system by asking for more, while when it endeavours to be revolutionary it simply challenges armed forces with which it is unable to cope.

The working class have to learn that man frames his system according to the means and methods of producing and distributing wealth, and that they can and must change the system to make it harmonise with the changes that have taken place in these means and methods. That change must be from the present private and class ownership to the common ownership and democratic control of all the means of life.

This is Socialism—the only remedy for poverty in the midst of plenty. In its establishment the working class will receive no assistance from the class above ; on the contrary, every obstacle that can hinder the movement will be flung across the path of the revolutionary working class. The workers must therefore preserve their indignation and hatred of the crimes of capitalism. They must be wary of cant and hypocrisy, suspicious of social reformers, and above all, watchful and critical of those who profess to be their friends. In a word, every worker must understand Socialism for himself, then no one can deceive him.

It is part of the policy of the rulers in every country to encourage those who deceive and confuse the workers as to the meaning of Socialism. One section is telling us that Christianity is Socialism, another that the State must own the means of life, another that we must buyout the capitalists. These are easily seen through; the worst frauds are those who lull the workers into apathy by telling them Socialism will come by evolution, and that even now we are in the transition stages.

Socialism can only be established by the deliberate and conscious action of the working class utterly disregarding the interests of those who oppose them. Before they can arrange or control the details of their own lives they must own and control the means of wealth production. To gain possession of these, they must first control the physical power that protects the capitalist class in their ownership. This is only possible by means of a working-class organisation that will control the political machinery. When the armed forces, through the machinery of government, are controlled by the working class, they can enter into possession of the means of wealth production without bargaining or compensation.

Of the details of the future system we say nothing, content to leave them in the hands of those who control—the people. Lady Troubridge, in the “Royal,” says: “Truly this world is a pleasant place for the rich and the gay. . . . Those happy ones whose hearts dance to as merry a tune as the fashionable rag-time music of Cassano’s famous band.” With modern methods of production and a sane system of society, slavery and poverty would be a thing of the past, and all hearts might dance to whatever tune they pleased.

F. Foan

How Volunteers are made. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Any unmarried man who is big enough and strong enough to serve in the Army is asked to offer himself as a recruit in His Majesty’s forces. In the event of his being accepted his place in Lord Derby’s stable will be kept open for him. . . Any man who has refused to try and serve his country in this way has been discharged. I am glad to say that nearly all have shown their patriotism by enlisting.”—Hon. Geo. Lambton, in the “Daily Citizen,” 4.8.14.

The standard the workers must keep . . . (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The standard the workers must keep flying during the war is the Socialist Standard. Let us see to it that it holds its place in the forefront of the "greater war" in this time of crisis.

Again we tell you. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The average working man does not like the Socialist to tell him that he is a slave. But nevertheless he is a slave. The only freedom the worker has to day is the freedom to starve, or to change one employer for another. Even that, he finds from bitter experience, he cannot always do.

If the worker cannot find work to do he has no means to live on. It then soon dawns upon him that if he cannot find an employer to give him work, he will be forced into the workhouse, or, worse still, be compelled to steal and to become an outcast dodging the upkeepers of the capitalist laws.

We are Wage Slaves. It does not matter what class of labour we do, whether we work as navvies, clerks, or mechanics, we all come under the category of working men. The master class call us by one name: his employees.

Now we of the working class do not own the mines, factories, land, etc. We have no alternative, therefore, but to go to those that do own them, and ask them to give us permission to work. One thing is obvious: we have to work in order to live. If someone else owns the means by which we live then we are subservient to them. Are we not, therefore, slaves, when we have to ask others to let us work for them in order that we may live ?

It is only when we can make a profit for them (the masters) that we are allowed to work, so the thoughtful man can easily see that we are not considered for a moment. When the markets are glutted and our employers cannot sell the commodities we have produced, we are given the sack.

The poverty of the worker when he is working, and the nerve-wrecking fear of unemployment, makes his position as a wage slave worse than any previous form of slavery that was perpetrated upon his ancestors. The chattel slave had comparative security. We have not. The serf had security, less work, and more leisure, than we have.

The working man has no property. He can live in a house—or rooms—just so long as he can pay rent for it. He can go on paying rent for 50 years and the house is not his. His furniture ! Ah, yes ! That is his so long as he can pay the rent. If he cannot fulfil his obligations to the landlord then his furniture is taken.

To put the case in a few words, we own nothing but the power to work. As we own no property, I repeat, we are the slaves to those that do. “He owns my life who owns the means by which I live” is as true now as when Shakespeare wrote it. It will be, too, as long as we, the working class, like to keep a parasitic class upon our backs.

It is no longer necessary to do this. The capitalist class has served its purpose. It is now suffering from disorganisation and decrepit old age. The working class is the last class to achieve its freedom. We have now to carry out OUR mission. That is to take over the means of producing and distributing wealth ourselves, and use in the interests, not of a few, but of the whole community.

It should be obvious to the worker, surely, that if we control our owns means of living we will put a a end to slum dwellings and unhealthy places to work in. The majority of diseases and complaints which the worker suffers from are the result of the conditions under which he works or the unsanitary, over-crowded dwellings wherein he lives. That would be obliterated, never to show its ugly form in the future.

That is the goal before us. The ending of poverty which is the result of the private ownership of the means of life.

With the common ownership of the world’s means of production the social evils that we are faced with to-day would never occur again. That briefly is what Socialism offers. It is your place to take a firm stand one way or the other. If you do not believe that what we say is right, then fight us vigorously. But if you believe in the principles and policy which we expound, join us and help us to end such a system as can only hold out to the workers in their youth, starvation and misery as the fruits of unending and arduous toil, and in their old age, a five shilling pension or the workhouse. The means of producing wealth are now so fertile that only fools can accept poverty as a necessary condition of society to-day.

J. G. W. Stone

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1914)

Party News from the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Exhibition Review: In the Wild (2024)

Exhibition Review from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manchester Museum (part of the University of Manchester) underwent a sizeable redevelopment last year. One result of this is a much larger space for temporary exhibitions, which is currently occupied by ‘Wild’, a display on until June next year.

It is a thought-provoking exhibition, featuring paintings, animals as taxidermy mounts, and information displays that focus on specific projects concerned with rewilding (‘letting nature take care of itself, enabling natural processes to shape land and sea, repair damaged ecosystems and restore degraded landscapes’, rewildingeurope.com). An interesting concept is the baseline, a time when an ecosystem was healthier, though this can be subject to various interpretations.

Beavers were hunted to extinction in the UK about four hundred years ago, but they are now being re-introduced, as they build dams and so on, being ‘natural engineers’. In Yellowstone National Park in the US, the last wolves were deliberately killed in 1926, but this led to there being too many grazing animals, and wolves were re-introduced in the 1990s.

Knepp in West Sussex (knepp.co.uk) is the first major rewilding project in England. Its soil made it unprofitable as a dairy farm, and from 2001 it was transformed into a naturalistic grazing system with a range of habitats and herds of cattle, ponies and pigs. But, of course, it still has to make a profit, and this is achieved by means of safaris, accommodation such as yurts, and selling meat. It has been criticised as not truly being rewilding, as the landscapes are not in any real sense natural.

The Isle of Arran off the west coast of Scotland now includes the South Arran Marine Protected Area (arrancoast.com), aiming to ‘protect and restore a diverse, abundant and beautiful marine environment’. In Lamlash Bay this includes a No Take Zone, where no fish or shellfish can be taken from the water, seabed or shore. This is intended, among other things, to protect beds of maerl, a coralline pink seaweed that forms a space where small species can find food and hide from predators.

The exhibition makes the point that there can be a contradiction between rewilding and using land for housing and food. At the end, three possibilities are set out: prioritise nature and leave it to do its own thing; prioritise the relationships between humans and nature; or prioritise nature for the benefits it provides to people. These are hardly mutually exclusive, and different ones could be applied in different areas, rather than there being a single global policy. But issues such as this may well form part of democratic discussions and decision-making in a socialist world.

Paul Bennett

Cooking the Books: Harris in Blunderland (2024)

The Cooking the Books column from the October 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘Believe me, as president, I will go after the bad actors and I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food,’ Kamala Harris declared in a speech on 16 August, adding: ‘My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules’ (tinyurl.com/7c373bda).

Price gouging is not a term employed this side of the Atlantic where the equivalent would be ‘profiteering’ or ‘rip-off’. Basically, it’s when a firm or individual selling something to the general public takes advantage of some temporary shortage to jack up the price and reap an extra profit beyond what they would get in normal times.

What Harris was promising appeared to be to bring in legislation to stop the price of food rising, a people-pleasing promise when there’s a cost-of-living crisis.

Actually, when you look at the small print, all she was promising was legislation at federal level to prevent this when a State of Emergency had been declared such as for a forest fire, a hurricane or some other disaster. It wouldn’t apply in the case of a supply chain problem or a temporary shortage arising from some other economic or industrial cause. In any event, many of the states of the US already have such legislation.

In her first interview after officially becoming the Democratic Party’s candidate, Harris went further and promised not simply to stop grocery prices rising but to actually bring them down:

‘Prices in particular for groceries are still too high. The American people know it. I know it. Which is why my agenda includes what we need to do to bring down the price of groceries’ (tinyurl.com/5eyfpf7m).

She didn’t explain how she was going to do this. A federal act to punish ‘opportunistic companies that exploit crises’ won’t do it. Nor will naming a raft of measures an ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ as the Biden administration has already done.

These days ‘inflation’ is defined as a rise in some index of the price of a basket of consumer goods, whatever the cause. This can be caused by a depreciation of the currency through over-issue (the main cause since the 1940s) or by an exceptional rise in the prices of some key products in the basket of consumer goods (which was the main cause from 2020 till this year due to supply chain problems as a result of the Covid epidemic). In neither case would price controls work to stop ‘inflation’ any more than a command by King Canute stopped the tide coming in.

‘Inflation’, then, is the difference between what the index was at one date compared with what it was at a previous date. What this measures is the rate of increase. So, ‘bringing inflation down’ is reducing the rate at which prices are rising, not bringing prices down. Doing the latter would be ‘deflation’, which is what Harris seemed to be promising.

This is theoretically possible, but it would require a change of policy on the part of America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, which currently aims to keep the rate of increase in the general price level at 2 percent a year (even if not very successfully in the past few years). In other words, that prices, including the price of groceries, should rise at this rate every year.

Since it is unlikely that the Fed will abandon this policy or that she will pressure them to do so, we can confidently predict that a President Harris will not bring down the price of groceries. Anyone who votes for her because she has pledged this will find that they have been ripped off.

50 Years Ago: Confucius, Lin Piao and the CCP (2024)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lin Piao is dead and in disgrace. Confucius who died a couple of thousand years earlier is getting the treatment reserved for high-ranking renegades — scapegoats of the Chinese ‘Communist’ Party. (…)

The Chinese ‘Communist’ Party set out to develop and control capitalism, and now claim to have set up a Socialist society. Socialism will come sure enough, but in spite of them. What any student of Marxian economics would recognise as an emerging capitalist state was described as ‘People’s Democratic Dictatorship’ and when the state had gained control of the greater part of industry and agriculture it was supposed to have carried out the transition to Socialism. A state of affairs where, on their own admission, classes and the class struggle still exist.

This is not a harmless deception as capitalist society can only work against the interests of the working class and any government trying to run it must come into conflict with the workers. Part of any government’s armoury of weapons in this conflict are arguments designed to get workers to make sacrifices for the mythical nation and warn them of the dangers to the workers of wanting more of the wealth which they produce. Although there may be power struggles taking place in the top ranks of the government, the Lin Piao-Confucius campaign is also a weapon in the class war against the workers. Once workers become aware of their class status they will see through the deceits and come to understand that a class-less society cannot be brought to them from above. They will then form their own Socialist party in opposition to those who at present administer their exploitation. (…)

The Chinese ‘Communist’ Party having pursued the national liberation of China are, despite their protestations to the contrary, nothing but a party of capitalism. They have taken the terminology of Socialism and used it to disguise the State capitalism they administer. The ‘Thoughts of Mao’ may serve them now, but such is the dynamic of capitalism that they will ‘become antiquated before they can ossify’ and become redundant like ‘the ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions’ of Confucius.

(from Socialist Standard Special Issue on China, October 1974)

Action Replay: Bulls, lions and cuts (2024)

The Action Replay column from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

In July it was claimed that there had been massive job losses at the British Basketball League. But our focus here will be on a similar situation in another leading sport. That same month, the i reported that Rugby Football League and Rugby League Commercial, the organisations at the top of the game, were likely to make at least ten members of staff redundant. The big clubs are not happy with how the sport is being run; in particular, the marketing company IMG is being paid £450,000 a year, but so far to little effect, with no new sponsors found and TV coverage reduced.

Rugby league is the eighth most popular sport in the UK, but Super League attendances average well below ten thousand. Financially, the sport is not in great shape. In 2022 every Super League club in England lost money, the total (after tax) being over £12m; this figure excludes Catalans Dragons, who play in Perpignan in France. The largest loss was of £2.5m at Huddersfield Giants, and the smallest, at Salford Red Devils, was still over half a million. Salford may be helped out if the local council take full ownership of the Community Stadium where they play. Wigan Warriors had an operating loss of over £1m, from a turnover of £6.6m (they lost over £1.75m in 2021). Government support during Covid has been ended, and the loans involved are now having to be repaid.

Bradford Bulls, who play in the Championship as a part-time club, make use of a corporate hospitality suite to boost their income. The owners put in cash, and insist on keeping the elite academy, which costs £140,000 a year to run. Wakefield Trinity were the top-spending team in the Championship: they had been relegated from the Super League, have an extremely rich backer, and are still full-time, though they may have to leave their Belle Vue stadium, as it does not comply with current standards.

Central funding has decreased quite drastically, largely because of a cut in TV coverage. In League One – the lowest of the three tiers – Swinton Lions, for instance, have suffered a reduction in central funding of £150,000 since 2021. In 2023, West Wales Raiders, based in Llanelli, withdrew from the league. In the last few decades, attempts to expand the sport to clubs in Blackpool, Chorley, Nottingham and Sheffield have all been unsuccessful.

Three clubs, including Bedford Tigers, have applied to join League One next season. So maybe league can still expand beyond its traditional heartlands, but it will probably be a struggle.

Paul Bennett

Editorial: The capitalist witches’ brew that led to Grenfell (2024)

Editorial from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The final report of the Inquiry into the Grenfell Fire makes devastating reading.

There was an active lack of interest in fire safety at the heart of central government:

‘In the years between the fire at Knowsley Heights in 1991 and the fire at Grenfell Tower in 2017 there were many opportunities for the government to identify the risks posed by the use of combustible cladding panels and insulation, particularly to high-rise buildings, and to take action in relation to them. Indeed, by 2016 the department was well aware of those risks, but failed to act on what it knew’ (Executive Summary (tinyurl.com/GrenfellExec), p. 7).

Then the most damning paragraph of the report:

‘One very significant reason why Grenfell Tower came to be clad in combustible materials was systematic dishonesty on the part of those who made and sold the rainscreen cladding panels and insulation products. They engaged in deliberate and sustained strategies to manipulate the testing processes, misrepresent test data and mislead the market. In the case of the principal insulation product used on Grenfell Tower, Celotex RS5000, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) was complicit in that strategy’ (p. 10).

A regulatory body had been captured by the construction industry:

‘The National House Building Council (NHBC) […] failed to ensure that its building control function remained essentially regulatory and free of commercial pressures. It was unwilling to upset its own customers and the wider construction industry by revealing the scale of the use of combustible insulation in the external walls of high-rise buildings, contrary to the statutory guidance’ (p.14).

The local authority, Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC), managed the property at arm’s length through a Tenants Management Organisation (TMO):

‘RBKC and the TMO were jointly responsible for the management of fire safety at Grenfell Tower. The years between 2009 and 2017 were marked by a persistent indifference to fire safety, particularly the safety of vulnerable people. […] RBKC was responsible for overseeing the TMO’s activities, not monitoring its operations on a day-to-day basis, but its oversight of the TMO’s performance was weak and fire safety was not subject to any key performance indicator’ (p. 16).

The TMO allowed an unqualified person to be the fire safety manager, who carried out substandard assessments:

‘The demands of managing fire safety were viewed by the TMO as an inconvenience rather than an essential aspect of its duty to manage its property carefully’ (p. 17).

The TMO ‘wanted to reduce the cost’ by using the specific type of cladding panel that failed so appallingly but were badly advised by an incompetent firm of architects. In fact:

‘[not] one of those involved in the design of the external wall or the choice of materials acted in accordance with the standards of a reasonably competent person in their position’ (p. 19).

Here, then, were the ingredients of the capitalist witches’ brew that caused Grenfell: a housing market largely geared towards the wealthy, with workers squeezed into as little land and living space as possible. Politicians driven by an ideological aversion to regulation and a desire to please the construction industry. A local authority holding its tenants (many of whom were vulnerable people on benefits) at arm’s length as an unwelcome cost not to be listened to. A regulator captured by the industry it is supposed to regulate. Builders concerned with growing their profits over the wellbeing of the people who will live in the buildings. Unscrupulous manufacturers willing to gamble with people’s lives to sell a few more units of their goods, knowing profit-hungry builders wouldn’t look too closely and would cut them in on the action.

Grenfell was not a mistake but the result of a combination of regular occurrences under capitalism.

September's "Done & Dusted"

Unfortunately, I went a bit AWOL for part of September. Apologies for that but real life intervened. I hate it when that happens.

Anyway, Hey-Ho — do people still say 'Hey-Ho' or am I away with the fairies in a Wodehouse World? — I was able to post a handful of completed Socialist Standards on the blog in September. I need to up my game for the last quarter of the year. At a bare minimum, I'd like to end the year with at least 1500 posts on the blog for 2024.

September's "Done & Dusted"

September 1914

September 1945

September 1955

September 1975

September 1977

September 1981

September 2010

September 2011

September 2024

Here and There. (1907)

The Here and There column from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Students of Bible-lore can hardly have failed to observe that the steady deterioration in Saul’s character dated from the time that unfortunate monarch was observed by the gossips to be “among the prophets.”

—++—

The Editor of the Review of Reviews should have noted the fact before assuming the role of prophet. Says he: “The men and women of Leyden listened for an hour and a half with rapt attention while I proclaimed the great truth that the coming of the Federation of the World is near at hand.”

—++—

It appears that Lord Milner unkindly postponed “the garnering of the harvest of the Peace Conference of 1899 by his determination to crush the Boers.” These little eventualities are most trying to the modern seer. Then, again, the Organiser of Peace—and incidentally collector of pieces—has omitted from his calculations the somewhat strained relations subsisting between Master and Man all over the world.

—++—

Which reminds one of the bright and beautiful boy who— magnificently heedless of details— ignored the “blooming dots” in a problem involving “decimals,” and so arrived at an alarmingly incorrect, not to say, wildly impossible, solution.

—++—

But our enterprising journalist has, at any rate, learned the supreme merit of vagueness in his valicinations. “Near at hand” cannot be accused of Baxterian definiteness. But Upton Sinclair, of Chicago, where the potted meat et cetera—no negligible quantity either, that “cetera”—comes from, is distressingly definite when he assumes the prophet’s mantle. As thus: “the Social Revolution will take place in America within one year after the Presidential Election of 1912.”

—++—

And who is to be the “Abraham Lincoln of the coming revolution” ? HEARST !

—++—

No comment. Perhaps our American comrades will oblige.

—++—

Really, if one is to judge from the enthusiastic reports which London teachers have brought back as a result of their visit to American schools, the New country must be a veritable El Dorado for the Knights and Dames of the Ferule. One reads of schools where “the entrance hall was decorated with large palms and other shrubs, giving it more the appearance of a conservatory leading into a gentleman’s mansion than the entrance to a schoolroom,” of “lavish expenditure” on equipment, of “delightful atmosphere” in schools. One enthusiastic lady is even led to remark, somewhat oracularly, that “only he who sees takes off his shoes.”

—++—

In spite of all these advantages, in New York, 90 per cent. of the teachers are women, because “men of education usually draft off into pursuits where dollars flow more freely.” Note right here, that “salaries are much higher here than in any other city of the States.” No wonder the pedagogues of Washington “complain bitterly.”

—++—

Of course, the usual snobbery, the internecine feuds among workers which are inseparable from the capitalist system, is to be observed. “I had plenty of opportunities of noting that in the States, as in England, the University graduate and the normal school graduate do not dwell together in unity ; they are inclined to nurse a mutual prejudice; they rarely dream of going to school with each other.”

—++—

The average teacher has need “to go to school” again to learn certain facts. For instance : the “emancipation of the Certificated Class Teacher” can only be accomplished in the general emancipation of the class to which he belongs—the worker. While he may be able to snatch an apparent “victory” here, a doubtful “concession” there, (for which he is always “truly thankful. Amen.”), the economic trend of events must tend to make his wages conform to the general law operating in the present state of Society—they must tend to bare subsistence level. He has only his labour-power to sell in the mart. This he cannot dissociate from himself. He goes along with it. He is a COMMODITY.

—++—

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is open for membership to all workers. Its aim is the emancipation of the worker, its strength the recognition of the futility of “reform,” its inspiration the knowledge that it is but a factor aiding in and accelerating the inevitable Revolution towards which Society is progressing.

A. Reginald

A Look Round. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

John E. Williams has been elected a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians. Whilst avoiding in his election address many of the pitfalls usually associated with S.D.F. candidatures, he could not refrain from promising that which he knew he could not perform. “I say frankly,” he declared, ”that if elected I go to the Board to force my former colleague in the Dock, the Rt. Hon. John Burns, M.P., to do his duty to the countless poor of Canning Town.” Fiddlesticks ! J. B’s “duty” is to the folks who gave him his present job.

—++—

On the day following his election, Williams was congratulated at Tower Hill, and informed his hearers that one of his first steps would be to call a conference of all the Poor Law authorities with the object of pressing the Government to nationalise the Poor Rate. But if the working class do not pay the rates, and if, to quote Mr. W. Thome, M.P., it would make no difference to the working class if the rates went up to 20/- in the £, what concern is it to men who “have nothing to lose but their chains” whether the Poor Law is nationalised or not ?

—++—

There is one thing the advocates of this “reform” never mention—the question of control. If the central government will consent to the abolition of local rates, to the raising of all charges for the Poor Law, Education, etc., out of national funds, is it to be expected that they will permit such funds to be administered locally ? Not a bit of it. And so with the nationalisation of the Poor Rate must come the withdrawal of all local spending powers and the extension of the L.G.B. to deal with the funds. Is this what Mr. Williams is aiming at ?

—++—

Even if the Liberals have discharged men from Woolwich, say Liberal papers, the Tories were as bad and worse. What are the facts ? Between June 1st, 1902, and November 30th, 1905, 4,567 men were discharged, an average of about 108 per month. Between December 1st, 1906, and June 22nd, 1907, the discharges numbered 2.473, equal to about 370 per month ! There is no doubt that Codlin’s the friend, not Short.

—++—

In a statement issued by the committee “formed to protect the holders of Debentures secured upon Breweries and licensed properties,” Sir John. Ellerman, chairman of a large London Brewery Co. is reported to have said: “Capital is a shy bird and, if unduly oppressed, it has a knack of seeking employment in other countries where the capitalist is more fairly treated, to the benefit of the country where it is employed.” Now, why can’t the people whose security is threatened by the introduction of a time limit present their case without twaddle of this sort?

—++—

Imagine a Brewery Company, for example, shifting its Brewery and plant to, say, Germany, where the people are quite satisfied with the German brew. Of course the thing is impossible. Before they could withdraw their capital they would have to sell out and they could only sell out, at ruinous prices, to others, on whose behalf the businsss would be continued as before.

—++—

Mr. Lever, says “P.W.W.” in the Parliamentary column of the Daily News, “makes no pretence that the building of Port Sunlight was an act of benevolence or philanthropy. ‘A successful business,’ he explains, ‘must have physically efficient workpeople.'” Quite so, Mr. Lever is a cute capitalist.

—++—

A Blue Book has been issued giving the report of the Textile Factories (India) Labour Committee appointed in December, 1906. The Committee recommend that the hours of labour should be reduced to 72 per week !

—++—

The Liberal Press in particular is still booming our growing trade and alleged unprecedented prosperity, due to Free Trade. It is, therefore, somewhat unkind for Sir James Crichton Browne to declare that “except as an occasional luxury, meat is beyond the reach of the working class of this country and it is therefore necessary that they should be taught what is the best substitute for it.” He declared himself, at the Mansion House on June 26th, a firm believer in the value of the mutton chop, and would like to see a sirloin on the Sunday dinner table of every family in the land.

—++—

After this it is easy to understand why a movement to improve the health of the people by abolishing luxuries from the table is to be started in Bethnal Green. The Simple Life is somewhat of a chestnut there.

—++—

And now a par from London Opinion will not be amiss : —

“I see it stated that the keepers of City restaurants find their meat bills decreasing owing to the lighter luncheons which are being taken by the clerks and other office workers. The fashion for commercial men to take only the lightest of meals is alleged to be increasing. I do not believe a word of it. Whenever an Englishman has money in his pocket he is prepared to eat meat, and if City workers abandon it, that is simply because of the want of money. How some of the toilers manage to buy a lunch at all is a mystery to me.”

—++—

Sir Jas. Crichton Browne also said that he would like to see all proved adulterators of food electrocuted. One of these days the working class may remember his words. But if a Socialist were to advise that those who are battening and fattening upon the misery of the poor should be shot, or hanged, or electrocuted, he would be charged with inciting to murder and sedition.

—++—

As a property-owner, writes Mr. George Cadbury in the Daily News for July 16th, I have no fear whatever of the success of Labour men . . . I believe that so far as this country is concerned the stability of the Throne and of the institutions of our country will be secured, not by resistance to ameliorative measures, but by doing justice to those who produce its wealth.

—++—

In these sentiments Mr. Cadbury, who is a member of the I.L.P., expresses the feelings of many of the members of that body. The “institutions of our country” are the State, the Church, the Law, etc. These capitalist institutions are not to be abolished, but secured, if only the other capitalists will become as cute as Mr. Cadbury and Mr. Lever and introduce “ameliorative measures.” Instead of working for the establishment of a community of free citizens, co-operating as social equals, contributing, according to their ability, to the necessary work and enjoying, according to their needs, the good things of life, many of those posing as Socialists are merely striving after the establishment of the rule of a benevolent plutocracy, under which the workers may be well-fed, well-housed, and well-clothed, but will still be wage-slaves, subject to a master class.

—++—

That such a state of affairs may develope out of existing capitalist conditions is not at all improbable. The persistent advocacy of palliatives by the S.D.F., I.L.P., and other reform parties, the growth of the Garden City movement, the increasing number of capitalists who recognise that it pays to take “an interest” in their wage-slaves, the establishment of “model” factories, “model” villages, etc., all tend in this direction, and unless the issue is kept clear, the workers will be side-tracked again. Hence the need for the S.P.G.B.

—++—

The merchant princes of the Cardiff Docks, says the Evening News correspondent, have decided to inaugurate a fund for the purchase of an annuity for the “Labour” Knight, and have subscribed £1000. Mr Clifford Cory, M.P., being at the head of the movement, which is certain to succeed, Sir William Crossman being a most popular man by reason of his moderation as an advocate of labour. . . . The idea now is to get sufficient money invested to ensure him a reasonable annuity. The new knight does not fear going back to work, but, naturally, he would prefer an annuity. What ho!

—++—

"The great political struggle of the future will be a struggle in which the Radical party will have no place. The issues will be fought out between the principles of Socialism on the one hand and Imperialism on the other."—Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Campbell, K.C., M.P., at United Club banquet.

—++—

Mr. Churchill, replying to Mr. Myer in the House of Commons, said in April last there were in the Transvaal mines 17,886 whites, 114,470 coloured labourers, and 53,114 Chinese. For April, 1906, the figures were 18,035 whites, 93,793 coloured, and 49,832 Chinese, showing a decrease of 149 whites, an increase of 20,731 coloured labourers, and of 3,282 Chinese.

And this is eighteen mouths since Sir H. C. Bannerman declared “we have abolished Chinese labour” !

—++—

The industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, and brings up his family with affection and care, is a real national asset, he is, indeed, among the most valued possessions of any country, and since it is almost impossible for him to put by enough money to ensure his livelihood when work is no longer possible, he has a moral right to demand from the community comfort and sustenance in the evening of his days.

—++—

Thus the Pearson Paralyser. But what becomes of their argument that the Post Office, Building Society, Co-operative Society and other deposits represent working-class thrift, if it is almost impossible for the industrious, steady working man, who works hard through a long life, to put by etc. ?

—++—

A few months ago capitalist politicians and writers were holding up their hands in pious horror at the revelations with regard to “graft” in America, declaring that English politics were so pure, you know.

—++—

Yet the letter of Mr. C. H. Lea, Liberal member for East St. Pancras, compelled some of them to make admissions. Mr. Lea accused the Government of selling peerages and other “honours” for contributions to the Party war chest. This war chest was used to help poor candidates whose votes, if elected, are looked upon as secure, “no matter what the issue, or what pledges may have been given to the constituents.” To us it was no wonder that these practices of the Liberals should have been defended by the Tories, whose mouthpiece was Lord Robert Cecil.

—++—

Commenting on the debate the Daily Graphic said : it is an open secret that those who want titles must contribute to the Party funds. . . Any respectable citizen who contributes handsomely to the fundsof one or other of the political parties may, in the fulness of time, claim a title and get it. … We have established what we call democratic institutions, and we can only keep the machine running by the sale of aristocratic titles.

—++—

The Daily News also said: The practice of rewarding those who pay heavily to the party funds by giving them honours is not confined to one party. It is a recognised and rather squalid phase of the normal political game.