Comments and Critiques
The article “Who are the Impossibilists?” which appears in another column, deals at length with the statement Mr. Quelch, Editor of Justice, has permitted himself to make recently. I may, however, here be permitted, as the matter is of importance, to supplement that article by a few remarks of my own upon a point that it does not cover.
Seldom can Mr. Quelch be drawn into explanations of the S.D.P. attitude upon what he is pleased to call “impossibilism.” He knows too well the danger of that. Consequently, most of his references have been but very ill-natured ebulitions of vinegary vituperation directed against the personal of the S.P.G.B. And as Mr. Quelch is something of an expert in the language of the literary hooligan, he has, doubtless, often had occasion to congratulate himself upon the effectiveness of his efforts in this direction. Readily conceding him pre-eminence in a department we prefer not to enter, we persistently emphasize the unassailable position we occupy as a working-class party, and continually point out how, because they do not occupy our position, the other parties and the individuals composing them have been driven by the pressure of circumstances into taking illogical action with pitiably futile results.
However, Mr. Quelch has recently allowed himself to be drawn into something like a serious criticism of “impossibilism,” and has again demonstrated, not only the folly of his own party’s attitude, but the extent to which he is obliged to follow the line of suppresis veri, suggestis falsi in his endeavours to bolster his own case. Possibly his apology for an argument will have the effect of impressing a few, but it is certain that the man or woman who has taken the trouble to analyse the statement will at once perceive that it is a rather clumsy attempt to mislead. Take the paragraph which follows and dissect it with me.
That is from Justice for June 13th, and the italics are Mr. Quelch’s own.
“Our organisation is opposed to “impossibilism” because it is impossibilism, and we are Social-Democrats, not impossibilists. The impossibilist position may be summed up as follows: The emancipation of the working class can only be achieved by the working class themselves. In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised and class-conscious. But no reforms of any advantage to the workers are possible under capitalism ; therefore the workers cannot become educated, etc., until they have emancipated themselves ; yet they cannot emancipate themselves until they are educated.”
Now Mr. Quelch has, quite unintentionally, divided his paragraph into two parts just where I should myself have cut it. A distinct break comes immediately before the italicised portion. Something has been left out there that destroys completely the continuity of the argument. What is that something and why has it been omitted ?
The omitted sentence following the words “In order for the working class to achieve its emancipation it is necessary that the workers should be educated, organised, and class conscious,” would read something like this : “The education and organisation of the workers can only come through reforms.” The rest of the paragraph could then follow on coherently.
The point Mr. Quelch wishes to emphasise is clear in the words he himself italicises, viz., the contradictory contention of the “impossibilists” that reforms are useless and yet without them the workers cannot become educated. But if he had put in the sentence I claim he should have put in for coherent reasoning, everyone with any knowledge of our position would have seen that he was stating the opposite of the fact in order to justify a conclusion that reflected upon our sense of logic ; in plain, blunt English, that he was lying his way to a conclusion damaging to us. So he drops the essential connecting link from its proper place, and suggests it in his final sentence.
The fact is that we have never contended that the education of the workers is effected through palliatives. We have urged, urged strongly, the very reverse, viz., that the effect of palliative mongering must be the utter confusion of the mind of the workers, and to that extent delay their effective organisation. That being so, Mr. Quelch’s argument becomes at once absurd.
Among other reasons advanced for the “Daylight Saving Bill” are (1) that it would benefit the physique, general health, and welfare of all classes of the community, and (2) reduce the industrial, commercial, and domestic expenditure on artificial light. From which it appears that if the unemployed rose with the sun their general health would improve. I wonder they have not tried this method of improving their physique, instead of working for wages.
The second reason explains why chambers of commerce, borough councils, and railway companies supported the measure. Reduction of industrial, commercial, and domestic expenditure would be to their advantage. The advantages to the workers are not nearly so obvious.
Mr. James Billington, vice-president of the Amal. Assn. of Operative Cotton Spinners, speaking at a dinner given to Mr. Thos. Ashton, President, said “Instead of having driven trade out of the country the unions have made the British workman what he is to-day—the best workman on the face of the earth. That even the employers admit. By our existence what have we prevented the employers taking from us? . . Taken all round the spinners are the best paid body of workmen in the kingdom.”
I have before me extracts from the half-yearly reports of 26 cotton-spinning concerns. One each paid a dividend equal to 18½, 11⅔, and 10½ per cent. per annum respectively, 17 paid equal to 10, 1 to 7, 2 to 5 and 1 equal to 4 per cent. per annum. The remaining one paid no dividend.
These figures are enough to make any operative spinner proud. Dividends being the proceeds of the robbery of the workers, it looks as if we are to understand from Mr. Billington’s remark that the more the workers are robbed the better for them.
“Quartus,” writing in the Manchester Guardian, 2nd July, 1908, gives an example of what a young curate in a working-class district has to contend with in the way of slums, sweating, slack trade, and their attendant evils. “He (the curate) reflects on the little that legislation has effected in removing obvious evils and making it easier to do right.” Recognising this, in our typical case the curate ultimately becomes a vigorous reformer, turns agitator, and perhaps joins the I.L.P. !
Our curate then would be in the same sad case as the “Socialist” who, recognising the futility of reform from the working-class standpoint, persists in agitating for them, “because we cannot let the children starve whilst Socialism is coming.” Yet Mr. Quartus does not see he has written anything funny.
The Editor of the Christ Church Monthly Visitor, Burton-on-Trent, thinks that the reply of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the question “Can a Christian be a Socialist?” “will not commend itself to believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.” Ah well! we must take the consequences.
A member of the Chorlton-cum-Hardy Socialist Society (affiliated to the I.L.P.), speaking in criticism of the S.P.G.B., said he had no fault to find with our Socialism, it was absolutely correct; so also was the Socialism of his society, the I.L.P., S.D.P., and the Fabian Society. He was working with others to alter the I.L.P. Altering it to what ? Why is he concerned to change that which is “absolutely correct” ? If, as he says, our position, based as it is on a recognition of the class antagonism now prevailing, is correct, the position of the I.L.P., which denies the existence of the class struggle, is wrong. If our argument as to the futility of palliatives is sound, then the S.D.P. policy of reform propaganda is unsound.
“Economist,” in The Grocer (4.7.08), deals succinctly with the development of the system that has ruthlessly crushed out the little shopkeeper and established the large capitalist and the trustified form of production and distribution on top. If the writer is not a member of the S.P.G.B. he ought to be.
For the quarter ending March 31st the directors of Brunner Mond & Co. declared a dividend at the rate of 30 per cent. for the year on ordinary shares, and 7 per cent.
on preference shares. £100,000 was placed to reserve fund, £2,500 to the writing off of the patent account, and £35,000 was carried forward !
Small wonder that the Brunners and Monds are such enthusiastic supporters of the eight hours day.
“The arrangements for the International Peace Congress, which opens in London on Sunday, July 26, are nearly completed. The President of the Congress is Lord Courtney of Penwith, and the Hon. Treasurer Lord Avebury. A special fund is being raised in connection with the Congress, among the latest donors to which is Mr. Andrew Carnegie, who has given the sum of £100. A meeting for adults will take place in Queen’s Hall on July 28, the speakers being Lord Courtney, Mr. Lloyd-George, Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., and Dr. Clifford. The United Labour Peace Demonstration in Trafalgar Square, fixed for the last day of the Congress, Saturday, August 1, is being officially supported by the following important bodies :—The Trade Unions Congress Parliamentary Committee, the London Trades Council, the Metropolitan Radical Federation, the Labour Party, the Social Democratic Party, the Independent Labour Part, and the General Federation of Trade Unions.”—Manchester Guardian, 2.7.08.
A notable combination. “Which way blows tie wind ? ”