Donations (1934)

Party News from the October 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Educational Classes (1935)

Party News from the October 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• 'Stewart' was Stella Stewart, who is better known today as Stella Jackson, and who was the daughter of SPGB founding members, T. A. Jackson and Kitty Hawkins. By 1935, T. A. Jackson was a longstanding leading member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.
• 'Hayden' was Harry Hayden. He joined the Battersea Branch of the SPGB in April 1932, and was a member of the Party until he resigned his membership in December 1959. He rejoined the Party in July 1975 and remained in the Party until his death in 1992. His obituary appeared in the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• 'L. Otway' was the husband of May Otway. Both joined Walthamstow Branch of the SPGB in October 1924. Whilst May Otway resigned her membership of the Party in April 1940, L. Otway was lapsed from Party membership in May 1942.
• 'Reginald' was Augustus Snellgrove's pen-name/ party name.
• 'E. W. Brightmore' , a former member of the Labour Party and the CPGB, was a member of Leyton Branch from 1933 until his membership was lapsed in 1936.
• 'Goldberg' was David Goldberg. He joined the Hackney Branch of the SPGB in March 1925. He's mentioned in Barltrop's book, The Monument, as dying during World War Two. He was killed in action in Italy in 1945.

SPGB Meetings (1947)

Party News from the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Donations to general account (1938)

Party News from the October 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party Funds (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the Fighting Line. (1907)

Party News from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

West Ham.—Fair to middling. Little to rejoice at except increase of membership, and little to complain of but the apathy of the workers. Our success, of course, is equal to our power to command it, and that both may increase we have now reason to hope. The central classes for which we have yearned and worked are now an accomplished fact, and so far we can confidently recommend them to the careful consideration of the comrades who are still young or at least are not too old to learn. The Hammers look forward to meeting members of all the branches at this intellectual venue of the Party. We already feel the benefit in our own classes of the stimulus of “something done,” in the way of co-ordination of intellectual effort.

G. C. H. Carter

Tooting.—The working class can be united in demanding Socialism, but the reform has yet to be named that does not succeed in dividing their interests more or less. The I.L.P. manifesto on the L.C.C. elections which contains as one of its principal planks that revolutionary reform “A Municipal Milk Supply” is a case in point. Four Tooting milkmen, who had just commenced to take an interest in Socialism, saw this reform alluded to in the daily Press as “a Socialist demand” ; and knowing full well that it would mean that at the most only one fourth of their number would be required to deliver milk under that system, they, on meeting one of our speakers recently, charged him with seeking reform which would put three-fourths of their number out of work. It will take our comrade more than one evening to convince those milkmen that neither municipal capitalism nor the I.L.P. have anything to do with Socialism except in so far as the I.L.P. preaches confusion under that name.

The Wandsworth Trades and Labour Council are affording ample justification for the attitude of the Party in running candidates for the Borough Council against theirs last November. According to the aforesaid Labour Council neither the Progressives nor the Rev. Anderson (Tory) were then able to represent the interests of the workers, so they opposed them with candidates of their own. Somehow the L.C.C. elections have altered the complexion of affairs. First the Trades Council held a meeting for the purpose of hearing an address by Mr. Kellaway, the Progressive, candidate. This not affording complete satisfaction, they invited the Rev. Anderson to run in their interest. He declining they finally decided by 21 votes to 14 to support the Progressive, Mr. Kellaway !

This is independence as practised by Labour groups alliliated to the Labour Party. Opposition to all sections of the capitalist class at all times is the only attitude that will ever release the working class from its present bondage; and many outside our membership are beginning to see the impregnability of our position, in which mental transformation they are being assisted by the vacillating policy of the Wandsworth Trades Council, who have shown so completely that they neither know where they are nor where they are going.

Paul Dumenil

Paddington.—Once again the Paddington Borough is seething with political manifestations, having arisen out of the Slough of Despond into which it had been plunged since the last general election. Progressives and Moderates, aspirants for municipal honours, appear before the working class in this and other districts, clamouring for votes, each party stirring up the emotions of the working class with vague promises that can never be fulfilled while capitalism lasts, even if they wanted to fulfill them.

When the polling day arrives the climax will be reached, the Progressives or the Moderates will be announced as the victors. The glib-tongued politicians having had their purpose served (viz., the perpetuation of capitalism) will, disappear from the public gaze, and the majority of the working class having trusted their own interest to another class, will consider their duty done and await another general uprising in capitalist politics.

In distinct contrast to this flash in the pan, we, the Paddington members, assemble every Sunday morning throughout the year at the junction of the Walterton Road and Elgin Avenue, for the purpose of discussing political and economic questions of vital interest to the working class. We make no promises as to what we will do for them, we solicit no favours from them, nor ask them to support us, but to support themselves by combining with us. For working-class emancipation can only arise from working-class activities being directed in a scientifically organised way by that class itself. We invite all, of every shade of political opinion, to come and analyse the position we take up, and to ask questions of us. For the conclusion we draw from past experience is that the future belongs to us, for ours is the way, the truth, and the light.

T. A. Wilson

SPGB Meetings (1955)

Party News from the June 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Declined with thanks. (1906)

Party News from the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why the West Ham Branch Could Not Join the Local “Labour” Party

West Ham & District Trades & Labour District, Town Hall, West Ham.

19th July, 1906.

Dear Sir,—The following resolution was passed by my Council at their last meeting :

“That the Trades Council convene a Conference representative of all Trade Union Branches and Socialist Organisations in the Borough for the purpose of forming a local Labour Party on the lines of the National Labour Party. The Conference to consist of two delegates from the Trades Council, two delegates from each Trade Union Branch affiliated and unaffiliated, two delegates from each of the Socialist Organisations, viz., S.D.F., I.L.P., S.P.G.B., and Socialist League.”

Your Branch are therefore invited to appoint two delegates to attend the Conference, which will be held in the second week in August.

I shall be glad if you will let me know at your earliest convenience if your Branch are prepared to take part in the Conference, together with the names and addresses of your two delegates in order that I may send them date, time and place of Meeting.

Yours fraternally,

J. Gilbey, Secretary.

________________

447, Katherine Rd., Manor Park,

29 August, 1906.

Dear Sir,—I have to transmit the following resolution passed by the W. H. Br., S.P.G.B. at its last meeting in reply to yours of 19th July last, asking us to send delegates to a meeting convened by the W.H. & D.T. & L.C. with the object of forming a local Labour Party on the lines of the National Labour Party, to which invitation I promised in my note of 14 Aug. a reply as soon as the Branch had time to fully consider the matter.

Your obedient servant,

G. C. H. Carter, Br. Sec.

J. Gilbey, Esq., Sec. W.H. & D.T. & L.C.

________________

RESOLUTION.

That we, the members of the West Ham Br. S.P.G.B., having considered the invitation of 19th July last by the W.H. & D.T. & L.C. to send delegates to a meeting convened by that body for the purpose of forming a “local Labour Party on the lines of the National Labour Party,” wish to make clear the reasons which compel us to decline taking such action.

As a loyal branch of the S.P.G.B., whose declared object is the establishment of a system of Society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, we are not only unable to work with, but are distinctly hostile to, any party on the political field, such as the L.R.C., or any local party on its lines, whose aims, objects, and methods are so opposite to ours.

We have re-read the reports of the Conferences of the L.R.C., and are more convinced than ever of the confusion existing in the minds of those initiating the establishment of that political party. Take for instance Resolution 1 of the first (1900) meeting (which was an amendment to a motion in favour of the working class being represented in the House of Commons by members of their own class) seconded by John Burns, M.P. in a speech during which that (now Rt. Hon.) gentleman stated that “he believed they should consider parties and policies apart from class organisations.” These members of class organisations (Trade Unions, &c.) obediently detached themselves from their class, negated their class organisations and by a majority of 102 to 3 resolved that “the working class should be represented in the House of Commons by men sympathetic with the aims and demands of the Labour movements.”

Again, the motion by James MacDonald of the S.D.F. endeavouring to place the Party on the only true working-class basis of the Class War was negated by these working-class representatives by 59 to 35, Sexton saying “it was very magnificent, it was very heroic, but it was not war. . . . The resolution was reviving a spirit responsible for more recrimination than anything else in the Labour movement. . . . He was in favour of the spirit of the resolution and would vote for it anywhere but there.”

Coming to the Darn Crook Conference of 1903 we find they have got the length of an “object,” viz., “a group in Parliament with whips and its own policy on Labour questions.” J. N. Bell, the chairman at that Conference, points out in his speech the danger to Trade Union funds by process of law, the aggressive attitude of British Capitalism, the development of Shipping Rings, Trusts, and other American inventions, the Housing Question, Old Age Pensions, Unemployment, etc., and goes on to say “if some years ago straight-forward and satisfactory statements had been given on some of these questions it is possible that such a gathering as the present might not have been necessary.”

Considering this speech in connection with the “object” (a Party with whips, etc.) we consider the S.P. of G.B. is justified in stating (as it does in its “Manifesto” p.7) “The L.R.C. came into existence chiefly, as far as the rank and file of the Unions were concerned, owing to the Taff Vale and Quinn v. Leathem decisions, and, as far as the Trade Union officials were concerned, because they saw the chance of Parliamentary jobs.”

There is much more of interest and instruction in this (1903) Report, especially when read in the light of subsequent history. Take two statements by two typical men, at almost two opposite poles of the “Labour movement” :

John Ward (now Lib.-Lab. M.P.) says “they wanted to get their feet well planted in the House of Commons and he believed they would not be particular about the way in which they did it.” Keir Hardie (Lab. M.P.) is reported as saying, “they should be neither Socialists, Liberals, nor Tories but a Labour Party,” and we find the space between these two poles filled in with a mixture in varying proportions of the two ideas.

At the Liverpool Conference of 1905 we find the L.R.C. (your model), have arrived not merely at an “object” (a party with whips) but have, from the Nebo heights to which they have been led, descried in the telescopic distance an “ultimate object.” This “ultimate object” is too far off, however, to be clearly seen, much less understood, even by the seers of the Party, if we may judge by a statement over the signatures of some of them, from Burns and Bell on the one hand to Ramsay MacDonald and Keir Hardie on the other. We find in the United Labour Manifesto against Chamberlainism signed, among others, by those gentlemen, it is stated, “Protection would limit the power of the Trade Unions to improve the condition of the wage-earners” and then they go on to state as counter proposals, “we appeal to the workers of the country to support us in a campaign which will benefit the industrious classes by increasing National efficiency and securing a substantial reduction in the cost of production.”

How could the condition of the wage-earners be improved by the cheapening of production or by efficiency? By cheapening production you cheapen commodities including labour-power, i.e., you lower money-wages leaving real wages as before. Where then is the improvement ? Further, not only is there no improvement in the condition of the workers employed, but the aggregate wages of the working class are lowered by the increase in the number of the unemployed : the inevitable result of efficiency under capitalism.

If these prophets of Labour, instead of passing pious resolutions in favour of ultimate Socialism which they appear neither to believe nor understand, would turn their attention to immediate common sense, not to say anything so advanced as logic or economics, they might ultimately become less purblind leaders of the blind, though certainly not so successful political tricksters.

During the General Election campaign not only did their “ultimate Socialism” become so very ultimate as to be unworthy of serious mention, but their boasted independence, that terribly extreme policy which prevented Steadman, one of their founders, from signing their declaration, also became so “ultimate” as to be unavailable for immediate use.

We were informed by the Daily News of 10th Jan., 1906, that “Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. H. Broadhurst on separate platforms are urging that electors should not plump but allocate their votes to the two Progressives.” This was confirmed after the election by the local papers in which Mr. Broadhurst is reported to have said, “he was proud of the Liberal Party and of the Labour Party of Leicester who had brought about this great triumph. Liberalism and Labour had known no difference. . . This was what they did when they had confidence in each other.” Mr. J. R. MacDonald is reported as saying that “there was one significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald. The plumping had been insignificant. . . owing to the crises—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to industry they had co-operated on these specific and definite points to kill the late government and prevent things going from bad to worse.” “Hurrah! for Liberalism and Labour !” says Broadhurst. “Hurrah ! for Labour and Liberalism!” says MacDonald. “Hurrah! for Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the independence of Tweedledum !” say we.

It sounds like the language of two separate sections of the same Trust with two different local names professing independence and excusing the similarity of their language by a crisis common to both. MacDonald was no more independent of Broadhurst than Liberalism was of “Labour.” There was no independence on either side.

Whatever pious resolutions the L.R.C. may pass in favour of ultimate Socialism, independence, etc., the language and actions of their members point to a stronger belief in Lib.-Lab-ism if not ultimate Liberalism.

Their professed independence which at its best has about the same relation to even an “ultimate” Socialist attitude to other political parties as the Zulu cotton-thread-on-sticks magic had to the English Field-telegraph has been illustrated locally by Will Crooks and Will Thorne. Both these gentlemen, as you no doubt recollect, supported an ostensibly Free Trade meeting in Stratford (really got up to support the candidature of its chairman Masterman). Thorne by letter wishing it success, and excusing himself from attendance on account of a prior engagement. Crooks by a speech during which he alluded to Mr. Masterman as “your member.”

During the General Election, perhaps to demonstrate principles held by company kept, or it may be to illustrate the proverb, “birds of a feather,” Crooks and Thorne, flanked by Passmore Edwards and G. Cadbury, appear as supporters of the Liberal Percy Alden in the company of Buxton, Gladstone, Burns, and Asquith. Crooks and Thorne are local members of the National Party on whose lines you propose forming, or perhaps ere now have formed, a local party.

Should any professed Socialists not understanding the principles of Socialism be tempted to join and, from the Local Party following too closely the “lines” of the National Party, find themselves compelled to withdraw, it may be as well they should know the treatment meted out by the secretary of the National Party to the S.D.F. on their retirement.

In the International Socialist Review of June, 1903, Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald writes: “Two years ago the S.D.F. ceased to co-operate because it alleged the Committee was not receiving sufficient support from the Trade Unions. . . . The I.L.P. will support such movements in spite of a handful of more timorous and dogmatic Socialists.”

In short, even were we not prevented by our principles and policy from voluntarily associating ourselves with any un-class-conscious political action such as you propose, a statement like the above from the point of view of tactics alone would prove sufficient deterrent.

Even supposing ourselves destitute not only of principles and policy but of political experience or aptitude, we could take warning as to the folly of compromise from part of the chairman’s speech at the L.R.C. Conference of 1903. He said (Report, p. 22) : “The path of compromise is often alluring, and the path of principle is nearly always difficult to tread, but in deciding which way we shall take we cannot afford to forget that by following principle we are certain that it leads, however slowly, to the object we wish to attain, while compromise may lead us there, but may also lead us in a hundred other directions,”

While thanking you for your invitation, which, however, we are convinced must have been sent in utter ignorance or misunderstanding of the principles of the S.P.G.B., we would invite the attention of your members to some of the literature published by our Party, notably the “Manifesto,” and the Socialist Standard, 1d. monthly (28, Cursitor St., E.C.) which in every copy up to the present one contains the “Object and Declaration of Principles.”

Yours faithfully,

G. C. H. Carter, Br. Sec.

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Branch has received short notice to vacate its present meeting place at the Co-op Hall in Mare Street, Hackney, owing to a scheme for re-building. Future branch meetings will be held at the Bethnal Green Town Hall on Friday evenings until further notice. The Mile End Baths have been booked for a debate with the Conservative Party candidate for the Mile End (Stepney) Division, on Monday, February 13th, at 8 p.m. Application has also been made for a further booking of the same hall to hold a Social and Dance sometime early in March.

The Manifesto of the S.P. of Ireland is at the printers. We are expecting copies to be available before the next issue of this paper.

The W.S.P. of U.S. has moved its National Headquarters from Boston to Detroit. The address is now World Socialist Party of the United States, 3000 Grand River, Detroit 1, Michigan, U.S.A. The previous headquarters at 27 Dock Square, Boston, Mass., will remain the centre for publication of The Western Socialist, and all matters concerning that journal should be addressed there. All matters for the National Executive Council should be sent to Room 307 at the first-mentioned address.

The Report of the 45th Executive Committee to the 46th Annual Conference (1950) is now in the hands of the branches. The Conference will be held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.l, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 7th, 8th and 9th of April. The report is a very detailed one covering 22 foolscap pages. From it we learn that membership figures are still slowly increasing. At 31st December, 1949, we had 1,071 members. The Executive Committee, acting on a 1949 Conference resolution, agreed on a procedure for enabling members of our Central Branch (comprising those members who reside in an area where no branch of our Party is established) to vote at Annual Conferences. The procedure is being implemented. The Central Organiser reports on a series of meetings held in the provinces at Derby, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Bristol, and says: —

“ At the. moment it is difficult to assess the value of these meetings, but they must contribute to the ultimate formation of branches in the areas mentioned. In 1950 attempts will be made to hold meetings in other parts of the Provinces and it is hoped that our increased speaking strength will make this a practical possibility."

Since the increase in the size of the Socialist Standard from its war-time 12 pages to its present 16 pages, our Head Office has suffered a loss with the publication. Figures are given in the report which show that the normal monthly deficit is approximately £18 10s. 0d. and this does not take into account the expenditure connected with posting and packing of library copies, free issues, etc. Objection is raised to any increase in the price of our paper to offset this deficit. It is suggested that increased sales are the remedy. A 1949 Delegate Meeting resolution recommended that the cover design of the Socialist Standard be changed. This matter, together with proposals for a new lay-out, is receiving attention.

Detailed statistics of the year’s propaganda meetings are included in the report. The total number of outdoor meetings reported to Head Office during 1949 was 950. Other figures are as follows: Indoor meetings, 108; Debates, 14; Addresses to other organisations, 21. Total for all meetings, 1,093. Not included in the report, but for readers who are interested, we give comparative figures for the past few years. These are for meetings that have been reported to Head Office. It has been estimated that approximately 33 per cent, are not reported.

Under the heading “Education” the Executive Committee makes a statement in reference to a 1949 Conference resolution calling for the setting up of machinery “ . . . to more effectively utilise the energies of those members who have passed through the tutorial classes at Head Office.”

“The view of the Executive Committee is that it should be borne in mind that the production of speakers, writers and tutors is not simply a matter of attendance at classes. These kinds of Party work, like others, produce themselves, as always, by doing work and keeping on with it and this would happen, better or worse, if there were no classes. What the classes do provide (in addition to a general survey of Party theory) is a more systematic training and encouragement They also help to sort out Party members leanings, and provide refresher experience for older hands, and their existence as a permanent part of organisation helps to maintain the general level of Party work in various fields.”

The report then reviews the work of the Introductory Class, the Speakers' Class, the Writers’ Class and Special Classes together with the arrangements for an Advanced Economics Class.

The difficulties experienced by the Committee that was to inaugurate the Research Bureau are reported. It had been hoped to publish a regular publication composed of the material produced by the Research Committee, at least once a quarter and possibly once a month. Unfortunately plans did not materialise, not because the response by branches was lacking or that the matter was insufficient, but mainly because the members of the Committee, for reasons of employment and pressure of other work, could not continue the job. Under “Electoral Activity” we are informed of the nomination of G. McClatchie as prospective Parliamentary candidate for North Paddington by the Paddington Branch and of H. Young for East Ham South by the West Ham Branch. Following a Delegate Meeting resolution calling for a new procedure in the manner of appointing Parliamentary candidates, the Executive rescinded the two previous candidate appointments. The new nominations from the two branches concerned were approved (C. Groves being unable to stand for health reasons and W. Waters expressing a desire to withdraw).

It is not possible to deal with all the matters covered by the report. It must be sufficient to say that it is a clear statement of the condition of our organisation, containing no false encouragement, but a plain explanation of what has been done, what has been left undone, what it has not been possible to do and what it is intended to do in the future. Altogether it is good reading and gives one a feeling of satisfaction with the progress made.

The Publicity Committee reports that the Star has declined to accept an advertisement for the Socialist Standard. No reason given.

W. Waters

Debate. The S.P.G.B. versus The Tory Party. (1933)

Party News from the January 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Debate organised by West Ham Branch was held at Stratford Town Hall on Sunday, November 27th, 1932, between the Socialist Party of Great Britain and the Conservative Party. 

Comrade E. Hardy—for Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Mrs. E. Tennant—for the Conservative Party.

Comrade E. Hardy commenced his case for Socialism by stating two points on which the two parties would probably be in agreement—firstly, the imperative need for a solution to the problems of poverty, unemployment, preventive illness and death, war, and industrial strife; and secondly, that individual action was inadequate, the needs of the present situation requiring that the working class shall take organised political action by means of the vote to secure their emancipation from these evils.

He pointed out that the Socialist case is based on the principle that human beings are dependent on the material conditions which surround them, and that the programmes of other political parties proved that they also recognised that favourable economic conditions are necessary to a happy and satisfactory life.

He then defined the two classes which make up capitalist society: —

The working class, which comprises all those who, not having property incomes, have to sell their services—their mental and physical energies—their labour power, in order to live, the alternative being charity, robbery or dependence on the State; emphasising at the same "time that these are the wealth producers; and

The capitalist class, made up of those who live on property incomes—rent, interest and profit—who own the means of production and to whom the wealth produced by the workers belongs.

He showed that, arising out of these conditions, the capitalist is able to get a return over and above the sum of money he invests for the simple reason that out of the wealth that the working class produce but do not own they only receive in the shape of salaries or wages a fraction. And further, that this fraction, speaking generally, is based on the cost of living of the worker according to the particular trade, industry and country, and under the conditions prevailing at any given time.

The speaker then proceeded to lay stress on the need for the establishment of Socialism. He said that a Socialist understood the evolution of society and the necessary place that capitalism occupies in that evolution. In its early days it had enabled society to develop to an enormous extent its productive powers. It had broken down national barriers and exclusiveness, it had modernised the backward nations, it had destroyed the isolation of rural life and freed the subject class from being tied to land and locality. It had developed the money system of exchange, and facilitated the division of labour. Now, however, capitalism prevents the workers from gaining the benefit of the development of the productive forces.

The Socialist’s solution to present-day problems was not therefore utopian, nor based on class hatred, but on the need to solve the social problem by instituting common ownership of the means of production and distribution. It was on these grounds alone that the Socialist Party of Great Britain invited the support of the working class.

Mrs. Tennant (a Conservative Parliamentary candidate), speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party, made it clear during her first remarks that she was under the impression that she was opposing a party which supports the Labour Party, and therefore made little serious attempt to state a case against Socialism and the S.P.G.B.

After saying that it was always easy to legislate and make a perfect plan on paper, Mrs. Tennant stated that the Conservative Party were the first people to become alive to the industrial horrors of the 18th and 19th Centuries, and went on to mention in detail the various reforms for which the Conservative Party were responsible, for example:—

The placing of the first Factory Act on the Statute Book in 1802; the Combination Law in 1824, giving rise to the Trade Union Movement; the Ten Hours Act, 1847; the first Act for Compulsory Education, 1876.; Workmen’s Compensation Acts; Pensions Acts, etc.

She also gave the Conservative Party credit for having reduced unemployment during the years 1924-1929, for improving this country’s trade balance by £63,000,000, and for having built a record number of new houses.

And just when “things were looking a little brighter" the country returned a Labour Government, because, she stated, they promised a new heaven and a new earth. They promised to clear the slums and cure unemployment (then about one million) in three weeks. But they did none of these things. The “Socialist" M.P.s agreed to nine-tenths of the cuts adopted by the National Government, and unemployment increased. She was now afraid that the “Socialists'" new programme of nationalisation for the banks, industry, agriculture and transit would be dangerous to the workers because it would stampede capital and order. It would cause increased unemployment, higher food prices and greater taxation.

She said that Karl Marx had inaugurated the Class Struggle, and cited Russia as an example of the low standard of life to which this country would sink if the “Socialists” had their way.

Comrade Hardy, replying, regretted in the first place that his opponent had mistaken the Socialist Party of Great Britain for a party supporting the Labour Party. He pointed out the consistent opposition of the Socialist Party to the Labour Party ever since that party’s formation in 1906 (two years later than the formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain), and denied emphatically that the Socialist Party gave the slightest support to nationalisation.

He pointed out that it is absurd to say that the Conservative Party were the first people to realise the horrors of industrial capitalism. The working class had, of course, been well aware of them for years, and the Conservative Party's factory legislation, for what it was worth, was generations late. He pointed out that some of the reforms claimed by the Tories were also claimed by the Liberal Party. He was prepared, however, for the sake of argument to give the Tories credit for them all. The very need for reforms was the condemnation of capitalism. The Tories have to “protect the workers”—against capitalism. The only remedy was the abolition of the wages system.

It is not true that Karl Marx had “initiated the 'Class Struggle.” He had merely pointed out that it existed, and that it arose out of the basic contradictions of capitalist society.

Speaking of housing, Comrade Hardy said this problem, after having been “solved” in turn by Tories, Liberals and the Labour Party, was still with us. According to Sir E. Simon, in a letter to The Times, February 12th, 1931, “ the position of the slum dwellers is worse than it was ten years ago.” There was, properly speaking, no housing problem for the working class. What did exist was a poverty problem which could not be solved within capitalism. The Tories said they gave the workers the vote in 1867. Why 1867? Fifty years earlier, in 1819, the workers demonstrated peacefully at Peterloo to ask for the vote. A Tory Government killed and wounded numbers of them.

Proceeding to deal with the historical case against capitalism, he pointed out in some detail that capitalism after first developing the power of production was now making frantic efforts to restrict it again, and having brought the rural population to the towns, capitalist reformers talked of solving unemployment by sending them back again to the country. There was even an attempt to return to barter in a large number of countries at the present time.

Capitalism was unable to use its resources to the full, and had outlived its usefulness to mankind.

Mrs. Tennant’s final remarks were to the effect that it was easy for the Socialist Party of Great Britain to sneer at 95 years of Government experience, and she submitted that when the Socialist Party of Great Britain was in power there would be many disillusionments. Karl Marx had never governed so much as a puppy-dog, “so it was all paper legislation.” She again referred to Russia as an example of Socialism. Russia had failed to feed her people, which was a very serious accusation to bring against a country. She was afraid this beautiful system of Socialism would not materialise until human beings were perfect.

In reply, Comrade Hardy stated that Russia was not a Socialist country, but one in which industry was run through the medium of private and State Capitalism. It was still a backward country, suffering from the legacy of inefficient Czarism. Why not look at the spectacle of poverty in rich U.S.A. The Daily Telegraph had recently quoted the American Federation of Labor that 60 millions, one-half the population, will be on the verge of starvation this coming winter. America, he pointed out, was not a backward country, but one of the most highly developed capitalist countries in the world.

He said his opponent had put the only case possible for the Conservative Party, that of social reforms. These had been tried and found wanting. He reiterated that there was only one solution to the problems confronting the working class, and that was to establish the common ownership of the means of production and distribution by the method advocated by the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The debate was well attended. There were about 800 present and many were turned away owing to lack of room. A collection was taken of £5 10s. and about 27s. worth of literature was sold.

Blogger's Note:

In all probability the Conservative Party representative, Mrs E. Tennant, was Eleonora Tennant. 

Eleonora Tennant was a Tory parliamentary candidate in the East End of London (Silvertown) at the 1931 and 1935 General Elections and, let's be honest, women being so under-represented in politics in the 1930s, what are the chances of there being two Mrs E. Tennants' in the Tory Party active in the East End of London at this time? If you click on her wiki page you'll go down a rabbit hole of far right and anti-semitic politics which covers both Britain and Australia.

Donations Received. (1933)

From the January 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

From Our Branches. (1906)

Party News from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

West Ham.

West Ham is neither dead nor asleep, although so far as branch reports in our Organ are concerned some comrades might he justified in having come to that rash conclusion. Neither he “with lips of livid blue” nor his fraternal relative “rosy as the morn,” has been reigning here. The fact is we are poor, and have been experimenting on silence to see if it be golden. We have empirically demonstrated the hollowness of the platitude : all we can say in its favour is that silence seems to be cheaper than speech, seeing we are in debt for our branch advt. Like the bears, the dormice, and other sweet children of Nature, however, we must confess to a more somnolent attitude during the hybernating period than in the season of out-door propaganda. In Winter we can get no raw material on which to exercise our propagandist power; sensible men, the kind we want to convert, will not stand to be frozen, so all we can do is to drill, to sharpen our weapons, and otherwise get ready for the Summer campaign. We have done a bit of that, and are now in the streets carrying on the war. Several successful skirmishes have already taken place, and an assault in force was made on East Ham on Saturday 21, led by Comrade Anderson. Several supporters of the brewing section of the capitalist class turned up as usual and opposed in their usual undisciplined manner, but also some “bonnie fighters” appeared, and were bonnily fought. Anderson hits straight and hard. He is coming back : so are some of his opponents when they have recovered.

At our Forest Gate station we seem to have struck a better vein this year than last; and one of our apprentice-lecturers has drawn a strong opponent—a Mr. C. Quinn—who objects to our revolutionary attitude, claims to be a Socialist himself, believes and is prepared to demonstrate that Socialism is only to be established through a long series of reforms, only useful in their educational effect and as stepping-stones to Socialism. As this gentleman has signified his readiness to debate the whole question with a representative of our Party, the Branch is arranging a meeting.

G. C. H. Carter (Branch Reporter.)

Tooting.

Still young and still vigorous, going right out for Socialism as the only remedy for the condition of our class, carefully avoiding everything likely to mislead and confuse, what time we do all that we may to combat the influence of those who seem, deliberately and of malice aforethought, to adopt exactly opposite methods.

We have received an invitation from the local Trades Council to send delegates to a conference convened to draw up an ideal programme suitable to all sections of the Labour Party. We know those conferences and those ideal programmes and have respectfully declined to accept the invitation. Our members are quite satisfied with the Party programme as expressed in the Declaration of Principles, and from our intimate knowledge of the Trades Council gentlemen (whose ideal programme at the General Election consisted in an appeal to the workers to vote Liberal) the outcome of their earnest deliberations is not likely to embody an improvement upon our present position. For the same reason we are not drawn to assist “Clarion Van” propaganda. We prefer to remain Socialist propagandists all the time, thank you.

R.B.

Watford.

We promised ourselves that at the forthcoming Urban District Council Elections we would make ourselves heard and—it was so. We issued a manifesto, and pressed into it as simply and directly as possible a statement of the working-class position, and some of the reasons why we were obliged to deliberately range ourselves in opposition to every candidate standing for election, even those specially claiming to voice working-class interests. In the result the pseudo-labour gentlemen whose pretentions we particularly directed our argument against were all defeated by large majorities.

As to how far our Manifesto helped to this end we do not pretend to say, but we know that the possibility of the issue of such a document was regarded with much misgiving by some of the “Labour” candidates’ followers, who have not hesitated to lay the responsibility for their catastrophe at our door. We accept the responsibility. We would accept far greater responsibility if such were incurred by telling the truth that alone can make the workers free. We have no concern for “victories” gained by cloaking facts. Our business is to disseminate facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. It was to facts that we confined ourselves in our manifesto. Therefore if the “Labour” candidates were defeated through our manifesto it was because the facts against them were too strong; because they were in conflict with the truth.

The incidents connected with the issue of our leaflet may be interesting. One is specially noteworthy. While our secretary was arranging with the printer, the editor of the little monthly sheet which the “Labour” party here issue, called. Subsequently the printer, who was also printer of the little journal mentioned, intimated that he had found he could not do our job. Why ? Because he had received instructions to keep the “Labour” journal “up,” and so could not use the type to print our manifesto ! Here was a predicament ! We had only a day or two to get it out. We tried half a dozen local shops. Only one could do it in the time, and the price asked was 100 per cent. higher than the first firm’s ! As a last resource we posted the MSS. to a London printer. It was turned out at top speed. We had no time to read a proof (which will account for one or two sentences reading awkwardly). We had the copies wet from the press and rushed them out the same night. It was a near thing.

We mention all this for two reasons. First to call attention to the act of the “Labour” journal’s editor which temporarily stopped our manifesto against the “Labour” editor’s party. Secondly, as an answer to those who, we hear, are alleging against us that we went to a “rat” shop for our printing. We don’t know whether our printers were trade union or not, although an objection of that sort coming from persons who are probably clad in sweated garments and certainly use some articles produced by sweated labour, does not perturb us. We only point out that even were our alleged offence as heinous as some of the “Labour” Party, for lack of other ground for criticism, would have it believed, they themselves by the act of their representative are responsible.

Heartiest thanks to all comrades and friends who lent us such ready assistance. No room for more this report.

The Branch.

The Communist Party Shirks Debate (1932)

Party News from the November 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

On several occasions the Communist Party have played the trick which the letter below illustrates. To impress an audience their speakers will issue a challenge to debate, but if the challenge is accepted the Communist Party subsequently repudiates it. The following letter was sent to the West Ham Branch of the S.P.G.B., in reply to a letter asking for the debate to be arranged : —

The Communist Party of Great Britain,

West Ham Local. 

Reply to 11, Carson Road, Plaistow, E.16.

Sept. 12th, 1932. 

Mr. P. Hallard. 

Dear Sir, 

Re your letter of the 4th inst., enquiries have been made into the authenticity of the challenge, and we are forced to the conclusion that the challenge emanated from an irresponsible source. 

Undoubtedly it was issued from our platform, but the speaker was not a member of the Communist Party, and was, no doubt, unaware that the Communist Party sees no useful purpose served in entering into debates with the S.P.G.B.

Yours faithfully,

(Organiser) S. Warren.

Obituary: George Edkins (1978)

Obituary from the November 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another old member has left our ranks with the death of Gearge Edkins, aged 78. He joined the West Ham Branch in 1928, and was active at outdoor and indoor meetings in the area until the 1940’s, when he and his wife went to Devon to run a guest house. Although out of the mainstream George continued as a Central Branch member and retained contact with many London members some of whom spent their holidays at George’s establishment. To the end of his life he remained a firm and committed Socialist and after his retirement often regretted that his location prevented more involvement in Party activity. We extend our sympathy to his wife Phyllis.

Alice Kerr

List of Donations to Party Funds. (1930)

 Party News from the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

We need your help. (1931)

Party News from the October 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

West Ham. (1905)

Party News from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

I am happy to be able to report on behalf of the comrades of the West Ham Branch, considerable progress during the month. Comrades will be glad to hear that, as the result of our activities (together with the valuable assistance of the Romford Division boys—who are so modest that they would never be heard of if I didn’t mention them) in the adjoining district of East Ham, an East Ham Branch of the Party is in process of formation, and will probably be going strong by the time these lines come before the eyes of the expectant multitudes of Britain. London (and Watford) contains somewhere about a sixth of the population of this land of the free, and it is of the utmost importance that London be captured. The West Ham comrades have set their minds on establishing two other branches before the propaganda season is through. Where are the Branch Reporters ? Branch Reports are the antidote to dry-rot.

A. E. Jacomb

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Watford.

Last month we were, according to a certain “organ of Social-Democracy,” financially ruined for months to come. We had also been “effectually disposed of” by—of all the good and harmless persons in the world—Mrs. Jarvis! who, together with other champions of irreconcilable and uncompromising class consciousness (S.D.F. brand), did their little best to help return candidates in whose programmes the eye of Faith, peering through the most perfect of microscopical appliances, would have failed to discover a distinctive labour characteristic, and who appealed piteously for votes on the ground that they would look after “the best interests of all”! Yet we have quite cheerfully commenced to financially ruin ourselves some more by running a series of meetings in the Market Place on Sunday evenings, at which we shall be pleased to welcome S.D.F.’ers or what-not, and to make clear how well Mrs. Jarvis (or whoever was responsible) has succeeded in deluding the writer of the note referred to into believing (if indeed he did believe) that we were disposed of. Nothing, says the report of the S.D.F. oracle, was spoken but undiluted Social-Democracy, Thus:—

We want the children brought up with wills free and strong in the image of God.

Socialism means the abolition of idlers at both ends of the scale.

Socialism means a fair return to the workers for their labour.

Etc., etc., ad nauseum. Samples of diluted Social-Democracy would be interesting.

We took the opportunity the elections presented to distribute some thousands of a special pamphlet dealing with the local situation. Of course the wrath of our “labour leaders” was aroused, but they will doubtless recover. We are quite ready to justify our action on the public platform as they well know, and that is probably why they give our public platform a wide berth.

The Raunds strikers passed through this town twice. The “Labour” Party supplied tea the first visit. The Liberal Party did ditto the second. Effect—confusion worse confounded.

And there are so few of us to clear the issue and keep it clear. But we go forward doing all a few men may, knowing that the future is with us ; that we hold the key to the door through which the workers must pass to their emancipation. And it is well.—THE BRANCH.

Islington.

We have emerged from winter-quarters and initiated our 1905 open-air campaign. On May 7th we had an excellent meeting in Finsbury Park, with plenty of questions and opposition, 50 copies of the Party Organ sold and a good collection. A local supporter of Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal and Labour Candidate for Tottenham, challenged us to debate. We at once closed with the offer, and on Sunday, 14th, the encounter took place. An ex parte statement that we had the best of it may scarcely be a fair way of putting it, but at any rate the meeting was large, so was our collection, and again we sold 50 copies of our paper. On the following Wednesday we engaged the enemy at Highbury Corner, and forced the representatives of the local I.L.P. to accept a challenge to debate, which comes off on Wednesday, 24th May. This will afford us a good opportunity of exposing the pretensions of those who are trying to resuscitate the I.L.P. in Islington, and of exhibiting in their true colours the mar-eadh Socialists. In Islington, as in other parts of this country, those who call themselves Socialists can be divided into two classes, viz., those who believe in Socialism and those who don’t. It is our business to get those who believe in Socialism to join the S.P.G.B. and to keep those who don’t outside until they learn something of the science of working-class politics. At Highbury Corner two men came forward to join our party. On Sunday, 21st May, we were again in evidence in the Park where we held a large audience for two hours. One new member handed in his name, 50 copies of our Organ sold, and a good collection taken up. It is only fair to mention that no other organisation claiming to be Socialist has held an audience in Finsbury Park for the last three Sundays, although they have held meetings. We don’t mind this in the least. Soon the workers on Islington’s heights will realise that the S.P.G.B. is the only party of the workers. Saoghal fada dho !—CONCHUBHAU.

Romford Division.

We congratulated ourselves upon the result of our first Sunday morning meeting this season, but our success was also our undoing. We had a large audience, sold over two dozen Standards, and had many questions and some teetotal opposition. But the police discovered that the meeting was a danger to the electric trams, or that the trams were a danger to the meeting, or something to that effect, and when we again essayed to hold a meeting in Ilford Broadway on the following Monday evening, the “force” prohibited it, and we were perforce compelled to seek a fresh location. But we shall make a good station of this by sticking to it and not disappointing our audiences. There is no question about the interest displayed by the public in our position. It is to them a welcome change from the attempts to confuse Socialism with Christianity and the perpetual glorification of municipal profit-mongering to which the speakers of a local “Socialist” body mainly devote themselves, what time they are not supporting Liberals for municipal elections. We have held meetings in Romford and Barking, and hope in the latter town to revive that revolutionary spirit which the confusing tactics of the S.D.F. turned Labour Fakir politicians have almost crushed out. At the last General Election the S.D.F. supported the Liberal candidate in this division, but we have made it quite clear that we shall oppose them all. We are not of those who advise the working-class to vote for their class and then blame them for the result.

TEAR’EM

West Ham.

Enthusiasm is working wonders in West Ham. We are having good and attentive audiences, both here and in East Ham, in the former case drawn chiefly from those to whom it is necessary to break the news very gently that they also are of the working-class, but so far we have had no fatality. The worst of messing about with ink, worrying over details of profit and loss, and looking like bosses is that it leads to so many cases of mistaken identity. Many are wroth to find that the profits are somebody else’s while the losses are theirs. The local “squints” continue to shape their course by the rule of “don’t let ’em see any red, Sir !” but there are signs of mistrust of those who see round corners. Especially is this the case in East Ham, where we hope to establish a branch almost immediately.—A. E. Jacomb.

Donations to Party Funds. (1931)

 Party News from the July 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists & Capitalist Hospitals. (1905)

From the April 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why “capitalist” hospitals? the non-Socialist will ask. Because the diseases and injuries there treated are caused, almost entirely by the unhealthy conditions of life of the workers, imposed upon them by the capitalist system, or negligence of the employers to provide accident preventing appliances. Because, also, as consistent Socialists have always pointed out, the patients, mostly of the working-class, are used to experiment on for the benefit of the propertied class.

“The hospitals, it should be remembered, are the training schools of the medical profession,” wrote London’s Lord Mayor in 1899, “and for that reason deserve grateful recognition and adequate support.” The treatment meted out to the “subjects” is detailed by a medical practitioner in the Grand Magazine in the course of which he declares that although medical students must learn their business, patients also have rights—but the poorer class of these, especially women, are treated as if they were destitute of human feeling. He asserts that in every hospital recognised by the Medical Council as a place of instruction for students the treatment of the patients is entirely subordinated to the instruction of those students and that it may be said with perfect truth that the girls and young women who attend the public hospitals gain the possible healing of their bodies at the expense of mortal injury to their souls. What, he asks, must be the moral effect on a modest girl who goes to a hospital complaining of some trivial ailment, and is stripped naked to the waist, and subjected to the salacious scrutiny of some dozens of youths who lay hands on her and maul her about to their hearts’ content? It is immaterial whether she complains of or has anything the matter with her chest or not. She, in common with her sisters in misfortune, is utilised as “material” for the instruction of students. At one time he saw 14 young women of ages from 12 to 25, all standing stripped in this manner. One girl, aged 18, told him she had been attending the hospital nearly every fortnight for over three years. Imagine how much modesty would he left in her after exhibiting herself in this fashion for years to many hundreds of students. There was not the slightest hope of cure or improvement, so that this girl was regularly exposed in this manner merely because she was an “interesting case.” Eighteen months ago he was the unwilling witness of an even greater atrocity. A woman was dying of malignant disease of the stomach, and the physician under whose “care” she was was delivering a clinical lecture, taking the unhappy woman as his text. In the course of his remarks he mentioned various ways of ascertaining the extent of the stomach, amongst them the method of inflating it with gas, and then by percussion mapping out its boundaries. A student inquired precisely how it was done, and the physician said he would show him. The patient was thereupon given a solution of bicarbonate of soda, and this dose was immediately followed by one of tartaric acid. The effect on the poor woman was pitiful, as one can readily understand, for the stomach was instantly distended enormously, which would have been extremely painful had it been healthy; how much more so when eaten out with cancer? She was hours recovering from the effect of this unnecessary experiment, and she died the next day. Is it fair, or just, or even reasonable that, in addition to the pain and worry of her disease, a young woman should be compelled to sacrifice her modesty by stripping herself to the gaze and handling of dozens of men? No medical man would dream of treating a private patient in such an unseemly manner. Why, then, should advantage be taken of the poverty of less fortunate women ?

Of course, there is nothing new in all this. Such practices have assisted Socialists in their opposition to attempts to persuade the workers to contribute to hospital funds, or to take part in friendly society, trades union and other like parades, and street collections. Moreover, the voting of subsidies by public bodies has, until recently been strenuously resisted. We know that this attitude is unpopular, because the workers have been bamboozled into believing that the hospitals exist for their benefit, but it is none the less the correct one for the Socialist, who sees in the failure of the capitalist-class to support them, an opportunity for the people to provide, own and control such places in the interest of and for the benefit of all.

In view of recent developments, it would be too much to expect S.D.F. members and other “labour” representatives to support such a vote-spoiling, “inopportune” attitude. On the contrary, they must “use every means” to get and keep seats. We seldom hear of the anti-hospital Sunday demonstrations we knew in the old days. We do occasionally hear of so-called Socialist councillors and other elected persons appearing at dinners organised for the purpose of raising funds for hospitals and learning to use the tooth-pick with the best of them. But it is left to an S.D.F. councillor of West Ham to propose an express speed down-hill policy in this connection by placing the following resolution upon the agenda for a recent meeting of Council. “Councillor Mayday will move: 'That the Council do approach the trustees of the West Ham hospital for the purpose of entering into an arrangement by which upon payment by the Council to the trustees of the annual sum of £1,000 the latter will, from time to time, receive into the hospital such number of sick inhabitants as may be nominated by the Council.'” As we have seen no report of its being discussed or voted upon we presume it has not been reached and stands postponed. Meanwhile the West Ham branch of The Socialist Party of Great Britain have sent a letter of protest to the Council, setting forth their reasons, and we trust their action will prevent public funds being voted to private institutions where the bodies of the working-class are utilized as experimental objects for the benefit of the rich.

W.