NOTES AND COMMENTS

Grey River Argus, 4 September 1934, Page 7

NOTES AND COMMENTS

FROM A STOCKTON CORRESPONDENT. The old Independent Labour Party seat in Merthyr, held the late Keir Hardie and R. Wellhead, is now held by Mr S. D. Davies, the can didate put forward by the South Water Miners’ Federation. There were four candidates in the field, nemely Messrs S. O. Davies, V. Evans Campbell Stevens, and Wai Hannington. The voting resulted as follows:— Mr S. O. Davies (Socialist) 18,645; Mr J. Victor Evans (Liberal) 10,376; Mr Campbell Stevens (1.L.P.) 3,508; Mr Wai Hannington (Communist) 3,409; Socialist majority over Liberal 8,269; Socialist majority over all other parties 1,352.

Some very interesting figures from previous elections are as follows; 1918, Sir E. Jones (Co-Lib.) 14,127; J. Winstone (Labour) 12,682, Co-Lib. majority 1,445. 1922, R. C. Wallhead (Lab.) 17,516; Sir R. Mathias (Ind.), 15,552; Labour majority 1,964. 1923: R. C. Wallhead (Labour) 19,511; L. R. Thomas (Lib.) 7,403; A. C. Fox-Dav-ies (U.) 5,548, Labour majority 12,108 1924: R. C. Wallhead (Lab.) 19,882; A. C. Fox-Davies (U.) 13,383; Labour majority 6,499. 1929: R. C. Wallhead (Lab.) 22,701; J. Jenkins (Lib.) 8,696; F. P>. Bradley-Birt (U.) 6,712; Labour majority 14,005. 1931: R. C. Wallhead (1.L.P.) 24,623; Sellick Davies (New Party) 10,834; I.L.P. majority 13,789.

There has been a very large drop in the I.L.P. vote since the days of the late Keir Hardie, and according to reports, the old Labour Party is now contesting elections on the Socialist ticket.

Mr. Victor Evans said after the election that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hannington stood for out-and-out Socialism, but Mr. S. O. Davies, the miners’ representative, stood for a sort of S.O. Socialism. Prior to the election the South Wales Miners’ Federation, attempted to lay down that no official of the Federation should be allowed to remain in his position unless he accepts and is subservient to the policy of the Socialist party, whether he agrees with it or not. However, Mr. Evan Evans and Mr. Arthur Horner refused to bow by the threat of the Federation and supported the Communist candidate, as they were elected to the Federation on a straight-out Communist programme. A strong endeavour was made to revive an interest in what is called Independent-Liberalism (whatever that may mean). The time is fast aproaching when all the exploiters of the workers will b.e driven into the one camp. The sooner the better. A Liberal can exploit the worker just as efficiently as the Tory. The only difference is that, one wags his tail up and down, and the other down and up. When the political consciousness of the working class has developed to a point where they realise the uselessness of depending on employers of labour for their emancipation, a move forward will be made by an enlightened working class, to the administration of things produced for use and not for profit.

The cardinal distinction between rival politicians is that one wishes to retain the evils that already exist, while the other wishes us to have a set of new ones. It is not correct to say that all journalists write against their opinions. To write against opinions implies their existence, and many journalists have only a vocabulary. Fully developed intelligences are rare. The natural converse of this is that low intelligences are common, and society organizes itself for the majority. What another man thinks about you is ultimately of but small importance. It is the opinion that one has of oneself that is of final consequence.

There is one ultimate science, and that must be to lift the masses from the slough of ignorance and degradation. There is.nothing else in history but the fight Ifetween freedom and tyranny. As George Meredith says: “ Though few, we hold a promise for the race That was not at our rising.” And we should not be piously preoccupied by personified perfection for pecuniary profit paralysing public progress and pugnaciously pilfering possessions in the process. We occasionally meet earnest souls so absorbed in entirely unrealistic economic theories that one would think they regard humour as an invention of the capitalist class for distracting the attention of the proletariat from the realities of the class struggle.

Tn a world such as ours, a world ”fertile in obstacles” as Vauvenargues puts it, how precious is the gift of

humour; Even Candide was ultimately forced to remind the learned Dr. Pangloss that, though this be the best of all possible worlds, we have still to cultivate our garden.

The importance of a rejection lies in the prevalences of an acceptance. It is surprising that while most men are ashamed of being detected in an act of physical cowardice, so few should be ashamed of intellectual cowardice. Far from that being the case they will take it as a sufficient justification that it was not safe to express their opinions, or that it was not wise to oppose the majority, and yet physical cowardice is a small matter beside intellectual cowardice. AH reforms come from a minority of one. To suppress one’s opinions may be to suppress something that is of infinite importance to the whole of humanity. To hide one’s convictions is to convey the impression that one agrees with their views, and one is thus bolstering a lie.

Labour-power is the source, not only of value, but of more value than lab-our-power has itself. To the credit reformers, the class basis of capitalist society does not exist. They maintain that the contradictions of capitalism exist primarily in the sphere of circulation, and that a “rational” alteration of this process of commodity circulation will suffice to inaugurate the millenium. The slogan for the workers should be: “The complete ownership of the means of life.”