Pioneer

SPECIAL SHOW OF NEW GOODS For the Season of the Latest and Newest Materials for DRESSES, BLOUSES & COSTUMES UP-TO-DATE MILLINERY-SMART BLOUSES! Novelties in Neck Wear, Gloves, Scarves and Hosiery Ladies' Tailor-Made Costumes IPP" a Speciality "loll ¥! SECURE YOUR r?\?/f A? SUPPLIES FROM DOWLAIS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY DOWLAIS. I No. I Branch-STATION TERRACE, BEDHNOG. I[ No. a Branch—XIGH STREET, PENVDARREN. No. 3 Branch-PANTSCALLOO, DOWLAIS. | No. 4 Branch—HIGH STREET, CAEHARRIS. 1- i t a Are unrivalled for all Irregularities, etc., thev BLANCHARD'S ^peedilv fford rehef and nc?i- fail to alleviate 11 sufferulg. They supersede Pennvroval Pill P11 1 R ——mm C ?hia, B'tter, Apple, &e. Blanchar'd,, e the ■ best of all Pills for Women. Sold In boxes, 1/112, by BOOTS' Branches ami all Chemists, or post free, same price, from LESLIE MARTIN, Ltd., Chemists, 34 Dalston Lane, London. Samples and valuable booklet sent free. Id. stamp.

s id for .10 at yet ile it arises ,cs of our ent conditions, heir families, the ..y living. k contains a grave in ry purpose is to recom- Æstruction to be followed the war. Mr. Rowntree .0 whom intolerable con- i continual challenge, and he rtend this challenge to the na- could choose no better moment "mg down the gauntlet. IndLis- as he says, is in the melting-pot. I must re-mould it in accordance with a .ter standard." This book. which de .erves < wide attention, is published by Messrs. Thomas Nelson and Sons, who are about to issue la new edition of How the Labourer Lives."

AN EXPLANATION. I Owing to the Gas Striks, and the conse- quent dislocation of our composing depart- ment, the Pioneer" had to be produced as best it could this week. The use of larger type, and the inevitable early compo- sition has resulted in the holding up of many important features. These will ap- pear when the local industrial war is ended.

.rman Majority Position. I NTS OF HOPE AND OPTIMISM. I "It} in the Manchester Guardian," luysman said: The interest of the tion made to Troelstra by Scheidc- in the name of the German Majority ilists may be summarised in one brief snce The German Social Democrat Party ac- opt as a basis of discussion the Stockholm .eutral peace proposal signed by Hjalmar Branting. i This declaration is, in my opinion, a step forward, and, I venture to say, an import- ant step. It was difficult for the Majority Socialists to accept as the basis of discus- sion the Inter-Allied memorandum. It would also have been difficult for the French and British Labour representatives to ac cept a German memorandum as a basis of discusion, even if this document had been satisfactory. In certain countries the im- ponderabilities play an important parF in political dislussion—questions of prestige, questions of national sensibTTity. ~Vs a mat- ter of fact, rhe nter-Allied parties did not ask a surrender or an unconditional adhe- sion to the memorandum of the February conference. They wanted only an accept- ance of the general areas of economic free- dom and compulsory arlJitration incorpor- ated in a league of sufficiently free and pro- gressively disarmed nations. I A DOUBLE ERROR. I This acceptance has been obtained. 1 he German working class does not desire at all a new edition of this world-war, and those who represent the Germans as a block —as an aggressive block—commit a double error-an error of fact and an error of policv. An error of policy because it is against the interests of democracy to reject those who claim to defend our own ideas. Bv accepting the proposal of the Stock- holm neutrals as a bists of discussion the German Majority Socialists declare that their own Stockholm memorandum is not an ultimatum. I am not authorised to publish a report of the private discusions which hafe taken place in Stocvholm between tfie Organising Committee, of1 which I was the Secretary, and the German Majority delegation. These discussions have lasted nine days. I have had the privilege of dealing especially with the Belgian case and wTtTi, the Alsace-Lor- raine problems. But I had already the im- pression in Stocyholm that the Majority Socialists would make concessions. Schiede- mann is not at all a fire eater. He has a conciliatory spirit, and among those who showed the broadest spirit I mention Sas- senbach, who before the war studied in Great Britain and has very sicar ideas on international affairs. The great diyerence between the proposal of the neutrals and the German Stockholm memorandum is of course the conception of the Alsace Lorraine question. In Stock holm, Dr. David tried to prove that only vi.4 per cent. of the population of Alsace- Lorraine speak French, and he considered this fact as a determining argument. Speak- ing in the name of the whole delegation he recalled that Alsace ancf-Lorraine had been German during the greater part of their his- tory, and he declared that he remained true to the scheme accepted by the French So- cialists before war—the autonomy of these provinces in the franme of the German Em pire. I need not say what we replied. The re- lutation is not difficult. But we tried to make clear that even if all the arguments of Dr. David proved the truth of his concep- tion, he forgot one important matter, and this fact is that the Alsace-Lorraine ques. tion is a European question. It would even be sufficient to say it is a question, and that if it is a question it is discussable. The German Majority could not" agree on that point. I found only one among them who would consider the possibility of accepting the plebescite idea. At the last Congress of the party, the de- legates were nearly unanimous in support- ing the view expressed at Stockholm. Troelstra considered this attitude as a nar. row-minded political blunder from a Social- ist's point of view. He published a very strong statement regretting the vote oh this resolution, and he invited the Majority party to reconsider the question for the sake of a lasting peace in Europe. I know that this intervention has made a strong impres- sion on the rank and file of German Labour, and I am conviced that the new attitude of the Majority is due to this Dutch influence. COMPENSATION FOR SMALL l NATIONS. I It is useless to recall that the German Ma- jority was already in Stockholm in favour of an independent Belgium, of an independent Serbia, of an independent Russian Poland with autonomy for the other districts. The only difference betwen their memorandum and the proposal of the neutrals was that the German Majority proposed to compen- sate all little countries out of an interna- tional fund, whilst the neutrals held Ger- many alone responsible for the damage done by the invasion of Belgium. The argument, of the German Majority was that one day longer of war costs more than the indemni- ties to be paid to Belgium. The neutrals did not say that such international fund was not necessary, but they wanted the Ger- mans to recollect that the German Chancel- lor had on the 4th August, 1914, promised to right the wrong created by the invasion. The German delegation made three other declarations at the flague:- (I) Thev did not object to the discussion of the origin of the war, although they think that such discussion cannot be con elusive. (2) Thev reminded us that they nevei wanted to make peace on the military map, but they did their utmost, even from the be- ginning of the war, to suggest a settlement according to general rules. (3) Thev pointed out that if a satisfactory agreement was made between all parties at a general conference the German working class would do their best in order to attain the general aim and show by that act that thev do not consider labour solidarity as words void of meaning. For the moment I am unable to say more on the Hague negotiations. I regret that Troelstra has not been allowed himself to say to British Labour what the Hungarian, Austrian, and German working class is sug- gesting for the quick settlement of this world-conflict. The official documents have not vet reached us. As soon as they are in our hands we shall give them the necessary publicity. But what we know is sufficient to justify hope and optimism.

THE C.L.C. AND THE I.L.P. TO THB BDITOR. This correspondence was opened in your issue of June 8th by Harry Brockhouse inquir- ing if it was "possible to get an understanding between C.L.C. men and the I.L P for mutual assistance against the common enemy," an inquiry which led W. J. Edwards in your is- sue of June 15th to declare "although I have an inclination to give my own interpretation and my own answer to the question I will merely confine myself to a few of the mis-' conceptions arising out of Mr. Brockhouse's article," and then proceed to heap abuse on the I.L.P. I chip in on June 29th clearly showing W. J. Edward's and another, who is seemingly effectively silenced, that in the realm of app- lication the I.L.P. is acting in accordance with the practical life work of Karl Marx, a sub- mission which one is entitled to assume re- quired to be met and challenged or honestly admitted with apologies to the I.L P. for the abusive letter of June 8th. But W. J. Edwards chooses to absolutely ignore it in your current issue and coolly remarks that no one seems to have confined himself to the most vital question of the whole issue; whether the I.L.P. can come together on a common educ- ational basis to assist in the furtherance of Socialism." This is a perfectly delightful sample of side-tracking, but I cannot allow it to succeed, as it is essential in a proposition for a common understanding between a purely educational body and a political party to consider not only theories, but the practical application of those theories; and, surely, the living Marx best knew how to apply hismtheo- retical system to political advantage! If W. J. Edwards knows the theoietical system of Karl Marx—which Dr. Schaffle admits took him ten years stndy to understand—he also knows that the life work of Marx is being carried on by the I.L.P., and must face the issue and justify his attitude of hostility to the I.L.P. With a degree of mildness which is to be much appreciated, W. J. Edwards proceeds and wants to know if in my opinion criticism of the I.L.P. necessarily means that the critic is an enemy of Socialism, and suggests the utterly nonsensical idea that to me the I.L.P. may be Socialism. I have no objection to criticism, in fact I welcome it, but very early in life I learned that abuse is Ino argument. and have, therefore, a very determined hosti- lity to abuse being used as an argument against the I.L P., a movement whose method of propaganda is admitted by such an unequi- vocal adherent of the C.L.C. as Walton New- bold to be substantially correct (Pioneer, June 15). The I.L.P. is certainly not Socialism, neither is the C.L.C.. Both are movements with the inauguration of ttietfiociaii^t^C^mnion « eaAh as their ideal, and the C.L.C. as an education al movement only, adopts the innoculatory method of the theoretical system of Marx, which, it is well to remember, according to Baronowsky, does not contain the theory of Socialism but of Capitalism, and of the devel- opment of Capitalism conducive to Socialism, I have every respect for the C.L.C., and the classes, mainly composed of I.L P'rs, carried on in this district last winter were of the utmost benefit to the Socialist movement, but if one has to wait for the development of the movement until the people generally under- stand Marxian economics then we had better give it up; since general knowledge on that highly technical subject is just as likely as a general knowledge of Chinese. The I.L.P. is both educational and political and in its educational sphere dismisses the idea that the only way to an appreciation of the necessity for and the beauty of the Social- ist ideal is through a knowledge of Marx's, brilliant analysis of the Capitalist system, and as a result good educative propaganda work is done by all economic sections of the Party. There are plenty of good socialists in the country with a thorougly clear conception of what they want and how to get it who have never read a line of Marx. Personally, the open propaganda field of the I.L.P. is the more attractive as I consider tne immediate work is to ingrain the philosophy of collect ivism into the minds not only of the working but also of the middle class, to point out the doom of the philosophy of individualism, the ideaology of private ownership and particular- ly of individual enterprise." Bouain in his. ) Theoretical System of Karl Marx gives the preceding quotation as the real meaning of the famous phrase "We are all Socialists now," and declares it is not the legislation or attempted legislation for the benefit of the working class only that must be considered but all legislative attempts which show this. change of ideology." On its political side the I.L.P., with that regard for practical association always shown in the life of Marx has allied itself with the working class :movement and in this work,, apart from theoretical agreement, is joinedlby a good few of the C.L.C. students in Soutn Wales. The cooperatian of the I.L.P. in for- ming C.L.C. classes would be a very effective combination, but arising out of this correspon dence the I.L.P. has to consider the advisab- ility of allowing certain class teachers facil- ities for carrying on a campaign of unmerited.. abuse of our movement. W. J. Edwards is seemingly still seeking for theoretical agreement in contra distinction to the living Marx, and evidently assumes there can be no Socialists outside the Marxian circle, so I am justified in admitting him into the Simon Puie Socialist school, eligibility for membership in which means a very far removal from the practical Marx stand. This school whilst upholding the Materialist Con- ception of History, and treating with unmin- gled contempt any ideological school has dei- fied a Marxian god of their own making which they worship with an intensity of priestcraft not surpassed in ancient or modern history. JOHN BARR. Printed and Published by the National Labour Press, Ltd., at the Labour Pioneer Presa, Williams' Square, Merthyr Tydfil, Saturday, July 27th, 1918.

a .pen ..iners. ^•-eement. .neir several dd slay. surdity! stronger than all s to stop its repre- if they say: We every Government i in pieces. If In- .ermined to negotiate, prisoners, but to cheat .s, neither the Govern- .r the Devil can prevent atesmen cannot bring this ooasted superiority of intel- eoples could not prevent, to a j. The more ,humane among them country would like (to, but the task j wad their capacity. The less hnmane j thinking all the time: "How shall we itand at the Peace ? What will be our posi- tion afterwards ?'' Their thoughts are of themselves, of their Parties and prospects. The monster—the Devourer of Men—whom t.hey nurtured and tended until he escaped from their keeping, has become too strong for them to cope with. And British Labour has the issue in its hands, the ball at its feet. British Labour is the spinal column, the life-sustaining, life- creative force of one of the two great sections of the European family which tear one an- other in an orgy of strife which has long since become meaningless to fill the belly of the Devourer of Men. British Labour is master of the situation still. lbritish Labour can LEAD. And are not its obligations equal to its power? British Labour has suffered. But it has suffered less than its Continental breth- eren. Does it not owe much to them on that account ? For the people of Belgium the war has brought temporary national extinction its prolongation means an ever intensifying Ides pair. For the People of France, the war has meant that hundreds of thousands of men, women and children do Jnot know where to lay their heads; its prolongation means irre- vocable national exhaustion. For the People of Italy, the war has meant poverty a hundredfold more acute (and, for the mass. it was acute enough, in all con- science, before the war); its prolongation means starvation. For the people of Russia, the war has meant death and mutilation for some six millions in actual fighting, and heaven knows how many more sufferers from disease and want; its prolongation means increasing chaos and the disappearance of hard-won liberties at the hands of the predatory ele- ments of an international Capitalistic-Imper- ialism without guts of conscience. See how the vultures of all lands, scenting decompo- sition, darken the sky. And with these Peoples, the Peoples of Aus- tria-Hungary and of Germany are confounded in a common Jtribulation from whose worst effects British Labour has been free. British Labour can initiate. All the Peoples were willing to confer a year ago. Had Bri- tish Labour then insisted, the peoples would have met. Now British Labour knows, thanks to Trotsky, Lenin, and their friends, what it was actually fighting for when it allowed itself to be over-ruled—secret pacts rebounding nei- ther to its honour, nor to its interests secret pacts the realisatiou-of which would make no Briton happier, wiser or bettej off. Now, despite the efforts of the Govern- ments, British Labour knows the thoughts of the Peoples between whom and it, the inca- pacity and mutually destruciive ambitions of statesmen and the manoeuvres of the screamers in safety, erect barriers of corpses. Then let British Labour now insist upon meeting its bretheren of a torn and ravaged Continent who, without British Labour's in- sistence, are powerless. Does not the call rise clamojrous above the sounds of the battlefield? For, consider this (Oootuiued At (oat of next column).

thing. British Labour took up arms to de- fend the outraged, and because British states- manship had contracted debts of honur in its name but without its knowledge. Later Bri- tish Labour was conscripted. But these who conscripted it said: "Theseobjects hold good. We have none other. We do not ask for the blood of your sons to increase our Empire, or the Empire of our Allies." And now the enemy Peoples-" enemy only because of the great error-say Bel- gium shall be restored. Serbia shall be free. France shall be evacuated. There shall be a League of Nations. What more do you re- quire? What More Does British Labour Require? Further privileges for International Capi- talism, under cover of the Union Jack, and in the name of Empire? Further advantages for sectional British business interests in a'war of tariffs and "of trade, when the cannon has ceased to growl? For such things, the con- tinued immolation of its sons? No ? Then let British Labour demand the convocation of the International: not crawl and grovel for ft on the doormats of the mighty (mighty by Labour's toleration): but DEMAND it. For from that meeting will come the Great Truth that all the Peoples are one, in needs and sufferings, in martyrdom and heroism. And with the coming of the Great Truth will vanish the Great Error, and a refusal any longer to fill the belly of tne Monster with human meat.