A Look Round
The people of this country always forget and forgive and the capitalist politicians can do and say anything without troubling whether they are acting consistently. Ofttimes they deliberately contradict themselves. It is part of the game.
Our fearful misgovernment of the Indian Empire has produced one of the most appalling famines on record, yet the English conquerors seem generally indifferent to the sufferings of the victims. … In face of these manifold wrongs the alleged Liberal leaders are silent. What a contemptible gang! … It was very amusing to hear Sir H. C. Bannerman say that the nation was “thunderstruck” at the revelations of Mr. Burdett-Coutts. Had he read “Reynold’s Newspaper” he would have found during the last six months numerous letters from soldliers containing these exact charges. It shows how well he is qualified for leadership, being unaware of the exposures which we have made.
W. M. T., in “Reynold’s,” July 8th, 1904.
We have no hesitation in saying that any Liberal member who, publicly or privately, intrigues to prevent Sir H. Campbell Bannerman from being the next Liberal premier, ought to be regarded as an enemy to the party of progress. The votes of the Radical Democrats ought to go to the Tory rather than to such a traitor to the decencies of public life in this couutry.
W. M. T., in “Reynold’s,” Feb. 12th, 1905.
For obvious reasons, lawyers, in particular, require good memories.
In a recent issue of the “Clarion,” Mr. R. B Suthers waxes indignant at the “raging, tearing, jingoistic screeching” of the “Daily Mail” because that journal perpetrated a provocative headline to a report of a certain rabid speech by a minor member of the Government surnamed Lee. The objectional headline read “Our Naval Eye on Germany,” and was calculated, says Mr. Southers, “to foment hatred between us and Germany” and was therefore “wicked and criminal.” Yet we do not remember to have read a similar condemnation of the “raging, tearing, jingoistic screeching” of Mr. Robert Blatchford, also of the “Clarion,” who, a few weeks back, was so strenuously urging that we should keep our Military Eye on Germany because he thought he could see Germany’s Naval Eye on us, and who was so anxious that we should be in a position to blow Germany out of he North Sea. Mr. Suthers’ just and righteous indignation would be more effective if he had first given some indication of his desire to set his own house in order. As it is, his protest falls flat because it does not ring true and he lays himself open to the retort discourteous of the “Daily Mail.”
He was going the next day with other comrades to meet the Prime Minister. (A voice: “What’s the good ?”) He did not think it would be much good but if the proposals they laid before him were carried out he believed it would be the means of remedying for the time being some of the misery which they saw around them.
W. Thorne, at Canning Town, Feb. 6th, 1905.
All the money coming into West Ham had hindered them from carrying on the fight so vigorously as they might otherwise have done, for when they had wiped out a little of the misery the workers had become the more contented and drifted back into the old conditions.
A. Hayday, at the same meeting.
“What’s the good” of raising false hopes in the hearts of the people and encouraging them to look to the capitalist party to deal with the unemployed problem ? What’s the good of neglecting revolutionary propaganda in order to distribute relief tickets ? Is there not a sufficient number of charity-mongers to do this propping up of the capitalist system ? Hayday, Jack Jones, McAllen, Mercer and others could surely find more useful employment, from a Socialist standpoint, than that of appealing to the exploiters to “lull the cry of toil and spare a trifle from the spoil.”
Hodge is a poor patient plodder, who lives his monotonous life driving horses and waggons, toiling in damp fields, and drinking in village ale-houses, with sage and onions hanging from the rafters and sawdust strewn over the floors. … He jogs out his plodding, patient, uncomplaining existence until, rheumatic-ridden, he inevitably seeks aid from the rural guardians, to be questioned sharply by the chairman, with the white waistcoat and the double chin, as to his sinful remissness in neglecting to provide for himself in old age. Provide for old age out of 10s. a week and a cottage!—something less than the price of a bottle of champagne squandered by his “better ” in a flash London bar anv night.—LONDON OPINION.
“As Artemus Ward held that an occasional joke improved a comic paper, I hold that a Socialist paper should contain some Socialism,” says Mr. R. Blatchford in the “Clarion.” After this avowal we shall look forward to future issues of that journal with great expectations.
We greatly regret that Councillor Ewell McAllen, of the S.D.F., is pursuing a line of conduct which is not only calculated to bring that body into disrepute, but also to discredit the Socialist movement in general. At a meeting of the West Ham Town Council last month he ”let himself go” with the following choice interruptions : “Dirty Crow, black Crow!” “You paralysed parasite ! You greasy reptile ! You miserable liar!” “Sit down, monkey face !” “Withdraw, you cur. Monkey face, withdraw. You cur !” Any person of average intelligence can acquire a sufficient knowledge of the Socialist position to be enabled to crush his opponents by irrefutable arguments, without recourse to mere abuse. If Councillor McAllen does not recognise this or has not sufficiently studied Socialism to place himself in a position to argue with its antagonists, then he should surely resign his public position until, by study and reflection, he has become a really “fit and proper person” to champion the Cause.
The Saturday evening editions of the “King’s Lynn News” have contained some caustic coments on the recent actions of Mr. J. J. Kidd who has suggested that £25 should be raised for the purpose of contesting Lynn, in orde to “teach the Liberal Party a few lessons.” We think those who read the letters which we printed in our last issue will agree that this shining light of the S.D.F. Executive should learn the elementary principles of Socialist policy before attempting to instruct the Liberals.
By the way, this party which is to be “taught lessons,” has been described in the Critical, but not always careful, Chronicle of “Justice” as “having become entirely and hopelessly demoralised, without leaders, without a policy, or principles, or enthusiasm, or initiative, or vigour” and as “absolutely dead and done for.” Why, then, should the S.D.F. worry about it ?
The “King’s Lynn News” reprints the greater portion of our comments on the Jermyn-Kidd incident and thinks that our “drastic language” is “calculated to make Mr. Kidd throw a flower pot at the neighbour’s cat.” No one more deeply regrets than we the necessity for such “drastic language,” although, of course the S.D.F. will not consider that anything wrong was done. That Body officially supports Liberal candidates and permits its members to do so. Mr. Kidd, therefore, only did that which th Body has already sanctioned.
In one respect, however, it is necessary to correct the “King’s Lynn News.” It says “Mr. Kidd gets it hot and strong from the official organ of his own party.” Let it be distinctly understood that Mr. Kidd is in no way connected with The Socialist Party of Great Britain. He is, as we have already stated, a member of the Executive Council of the Social-Democratic Federation, which declares that between Liberalism and Socialism there is not only opposition of tactics, but also antagonism of principle, which it is impossible to get over. Therefore to pretend to be on good terms with people who are not going their way and have no intention of travelling in their direction would be to hamper the action of Socialism in regard to matter which they deem crucial. This position was stated by H. M. Hyndman at Holborn Town Hall, on April 9th, 1899. But the S.D.F. has long since ceased to practise that which it preaches, hence the recent split and the founding of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. As a member of the S.D.F., even as one of the Executive of that body, Mr. Kidd did nothing extraordinary in supporting a Liberal, although his methods were somewhat clumsy. No member of The Socialist Party of Great Britain would be permitted to support a Liberal or any other non-Socialist. As will be seen by the Declaration of Principles on page 7, the Party enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist. It is definite in policy as well as principle and for that reason the working-class will, sooner or later, recognise that it is the only party worthy of their confidence and support.
J. KAY