A Look Round
According to a memorandum prepared by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, there were in existence at the end of 1903, 1,166 trade unions, with a total membership of 1,902,308, as compared with 1,190 unions with 1,924,809 members at the end of 1902, a decrease in membership of 22,501. The number of women and girls included as members in 1903 was 119,416, as compared with 122,210 at the end of 1902, a decrease of 2.3 per cent. The decline was chiefly in the cotton trade unions and followed upon a period of unsettled employment in the cotton trade.
The total funds in hand for the 100 principal trade unions were £4,550,000, about £4 per member. The amount paid in unemployed benefit shewed an increase of £80,000.
The acuteness of the unemployed problem in West Ham has caused much discussion in the Press, and a few days before Xmas various “Relief” funds were opened. Vague references to “revolutions” and “riots” have been indulged in, but surely no one expects that starving men or physical deteriorates could sustain any organised revolutionary effort. The advice of Will Thorne, who “asked the men to behave themselves as they walked through the borough, and so show the governing classes that they knew how to conduct themselves although they were poor,” has been followed, although what on earth men who have already lost what little they ever had, including, in many cases, the franchise (through accepting Poor Law Relief) have to gain by “behaving themselves,” is very difficult to understand!
In this connection the letter of Councillor McAllen (S.D.F.) which appeared in the morning papers is interesting. He said “Alarm is felt by the local authorities that the seriousness of the distress may precipitate a crisis, which would be attended with deplorable results. This must be avoided at all hazards !” We again ask what have the unemployed to lose, and what results could be more deplorable to them than those which have already overtaken them ? One would imagine that these Revolutionary Social-Democrats, who preach peace where there is no peace, hold a brief for the propertied class.
During the agitation, various leaders of the capitalist political party have been deputised by Jack Jones, A. Hayday, Salmon and others. As we have already pointed out, we do not agree with holding any parleys with either section of the workers’ enemies. In the first place, the issue is confused and the workers are led to believe that the social problem can be dealt with otherwise than by the overthrow of capitalist domination, and in the second place, if the capitalist politicians are asked to do certain things, and they reply favorably, those who ask them are morally bound to support them in their efforts. As Herbert Gladstone retorted, in reply to interruptions by J. J. Terrett and others, as to why the Liberals do not do this, that, or the other,
“If you want the Liberal Party to do these things, then help them to win elections and thus place them in a position to do them.”
Herein lies one of the chief causes of the disagreement between The Socialist Party of Great Britain and others claiming to be Socialists. We would just as soon expect that burglars and pickpockets would organise themselves for the purpose of devising and carrying out means for the protection of the public against burglary and pocket-picking as we would expect the capitalist-class to carry measures for dealing with the unemployed problem. We tell the workers that there can be no solution except by the establishment of the Socialist Republic; that the capitalist politicians, whether labelled Liberal or Conservative, desire to maintain the capitalist State, in which a reserve army of unemployed is a necessity, and under no circumstances will we beg and pray them, or appeal to them—our class enemies—to do something which we know they will not do. The workers must accomplish their own emancipation, organised as a Socialist Party, independent of and hostile to all other parties. That emancipation will never be obtained otherwise.
What can be said of professing Socialists, claiming to believe in the class-war and all that that belief involves, delivering speeches like the following:
“Perhaps it was best to have a friend in both parties. If they succeeded in getting one Liberal leader and one Tory to do something in the matter they would have succeeded in making the guestion a national one, and probably from both sides of the House they would get sufficient support to carry out some scheme.” ? The most charitable view is that the speaker (Jack Jones) allowed his feelings to get the better of his Socialist convictions, owing to the extraordinary amount of distress existing in the district.
As is usual just previous to a General Election, the Liberal papers are endeavouring to show how much superior would be the government by that capitalist faction to that of the Conservatives. But in doing so they have to give away their own case so far as the alleged prosperity of the country, due to Free Trade, is concerned. In a recent speech Mr. Birrell declared
“We long to see the energy of our party directed towards an honest attempt to do, at all events, something to solve the problems of poverty and suffering. This world will never be a Utopia, but we want to make it a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.”
And in commenting on this, a Liberal writer adds:
“And who is there of human instincts, whatever his political leanings, that does not sympathise with those millions whose life is a dreary struggle, whose steps are dogged by chronic want, whose children cry for food and warmth, and cry in vain. England, the richest country in the world, counts millions of these. Poor, struggling millions! Surely the social and economic system is out of joint that allows the few to amass unmeasured wealth while the very bread of life is wanting to thousands who would earn it if they could. We speak not of the idle, improvident and intemperate, but of the honest, industrious and independent poor; these latter even are counted by millions, and their lot is hard indeed.”
Observe ! After fifty years of Free Trade, at the end of “a century of amazing progress” during which our wealth has increased from £140 to £303 per head of the population, our “honest, industrious and independent poor are counted by millions.” “Here is an opportunity for Liberalism” proceeds the scribe. Yes, an opportunity to make this world “a little less like Hell than it is for millions of our people.” Only that and nothing more ! Capitalism is Hell for the workers. There is only one way by which they can get out of it, and that is by organising for the Revolution, by joining the Party of the Revolution, The Socialist Party of Great Britain.
In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with the same matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best-known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence.
There comes into force this year an agreement between the Lancashire and Yorkshire and the London and North Western Railway Companies, which they have entered into for fifty years. It is hoped that the co-operation which will give place to the competition hitherto existing between the two companies will result in a large reduction of expenses. Many trains will cease to run but there will be no inconvenience either to passengers or traders.
There will also be a general reorganisation in the goods departments, from which in some towns in Yorkshire a saving of £2,000 a year is expected.
This arrangement will no doubt throw a number of workers out of employment and the financial advantages will be secured by the shareholders. Such is capitalist co-operation—a step towards trustification. Under Socialism the more efficient organisation of any public service would benefit the whole community.
The Ups and Downs of a Poor Palliative would make an interesting article, if one had time to write up all the material connected with the S.D.F. proposal, which starting with the “One good meal a day free” advocated by H. Quelch, E. Sansom and others at the 1888 London School Board Election, gradually developed into Complete State Maintenance for all children. But recently many members of the S.D.F., so possessed have they become by the spirit of mere reform and the desire to win elections, have even gone back upon the crude proposals of 1888. At recent elections, Martin Judge (West Ham) advocated “Free Food for Starving Children,” and A. C. Bannington (Coventry) running under the auspices of the Trades and Labour Council, advocated “Free wholesome meals for all school children who need them.” And at the recent meeting at Canning Town, presided over by Will Thorne, the resolution moved by the Countess of Warwick (S.D.F.) was not in favour of State Maintenance, but merely
“That, with the view of checking the physical deterioration amongst our population, the Government should, in accordance with the demands of the Trade Union Congress, grant to the education authorities the power necessary to provide food for children attending State-supported schools.”
Ex-Alderman Hayday seconded this resolution and other members of the S.D.F. present included Jack Jones. Thus we see Trade Union officials watering down the S.D.F. proposals to meet the wishes of the Unions.
At a recent meeting of the Reading Debating Society, J. F. Hodgson (S.D.F) moved
“That this House would welcome the introduction by Government of a measure providing funds for the supply of free meals to school children.”
This was supported by Messrs. Mackay, Leaver and Quelch, and carried. There’s progress for you !
In looking through the programme of A. C. Bannington, referred to above, we find the following:
“Unskilled men to receive not less than 25s. per week,”
and in looking through the programme and rules of the Organisation to which we believe Bannington still belongs, we find that a minimum wage of 30s. is demanded as an immediate reform, and that a candidate’s programme must be previously sanctioned (together with his election address) by the local Branch and by the Executive Council. But when some folks get the election fever, programmes and rules go by the board.
J. KAY