Pricking our bubble. (1917)

From the November 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our September issue we took up a little matter with the S.L.P. In the “Socialist” of September the editor of that paper promised to prick the S.P. “bubble” in his next issue—if he has room ! Mark the “barrage” !

Blogger's Notes:

This snippet was untitled in the original Standard.

In the December 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard, there was a follow up article to this snippet entitled 'Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth: SLP's cry from "outer darkness.' " 

It's not on the blog . . . yet.

Editorial: A Cut at the S.L.P. (1917)

Editorial from the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The criticism of the Socialist Labour Party which appears in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto to the Proposed International Socialist Congress seems to have met with the disapproval of the people criticised. The people criticised try — we were going to write “to hit back,” but this would not be correct: they do not try to hit back, they simply try to parry the blow.

Of course, they cannot be blamed for confining their efforts to such defensive measures. That they can find no opening in our defence is apparently obvious, even to them. They have done their best with the unpromising material to hand, and it amounts to this:

An effusion of cheap sneers, stale witticisms, and the like as a mask to cover their skedaddling from the real issue ; a vague charge (vague in that it is unsupported by any evidence) of “flagrant dishonesty ” ; a ludicrous and lying attempt to explain away an awkward statement which appeared in their official organ ; and finally a display of fireworks on their own behalf which is as amusing as such things usually are.

Regarding the criticism in our Manifesto to the Proposed Socialist Congress, the S.L.P. state in their organ : “For ourselves we can smile at the weak criticism passed on the S.L.P.” And having thus adopted the policy of “grin and bear it, or take it lying down,” they pass on to the lighter task of finding funny names to fit the signature of our correspondent ”B.B.B.” In such easy ways are victories won in the class struggle!

“B.B.B.” quoted in our July issue the following (described by the “Socialist” of August as “an Editorial note”) from Nov. ’14 “Socialist”:

“That there are differences of opinion in the S.L.P. as in other parties, on the question of the war must have been apparent to most readers of “The Socialist.” Last month I tried to show what the different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is.”

And this is how the S.L.P. try to explain away that very curious, not to say damaging, statement :

“This note was quite in order; in accordance with our policy of allowing full expression of different opinions in our columns, letters were published urging a pre-war (? pro-war) policy. A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.

Some individuals, mislead by the correspondence and discussion, accused the S.L.P. of wavering on internationalism ; but later, when the Party Manifesto was issued and the air cleared, it was seen that the whole membership was solidly anti-war.”

That is enough to go on with. We will now proceed to handle the S.L.P. on the matter contained in this quotation.

First of all let it be noted that our opponents cling desperately to the pronouncement our comrade and contributor “B.B.B.” adduced against them. They had not the courage — or should we say indiscretion? — to reprint it, for it would then at once have provided the answer — complete and crushing — to their miserable attempt to defend it. “This note was quite in order” the S.L.P. champion says. Good.

Now what is the explanation ? “A discussion took place in our columns on the attitude of Socialism to the war, but the pro-war correspondents were in every case non-members of the S.L.P.” But the note which is “quite in order” says that it “must have been apparent to most readers of ‘The Socialist'” that “there are differences in the S.L.P. . . .  on the question of the war.” Nothing there about non-members of the S.L.P. That which MUST have been apparent to readers of “The Socialist” (and therefore necessarily from evidence appearing in that paper), was differences inside the S.L.P., concerning the war, not outside it. Who said “flagrant dishonesty” ?

It is true that in the May 1915 issue of “The Socialist” the following delectable passage occurs (“Impressions of the Conference “) :

“Imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that the Party was absolutely unanimous against the war, and that the two writers who had created the impression that the S.L.P. was a house divided, were not even members of the Party.”

But who were the two writers referred to ? Were they “M.” and Joseph Andrews, who, addressing the Editor as “Comrade,” were permitted to spread themselves over seven columns in the Jan. 1915 issue and five in the previous November number ? Were they these men, who could write such things as “The maintenance of the balance of power on the Continent is Great Britain’s object and it should be the object of all Socialists” (“M”) and “I propose that . . realising that German militarism is now a menace to the very existence of Europe, we support the Allies in their armed resistance” ? (J. Andrews.) But if these were the two non-members referred to, that still leaves unaccounted for the man who wrote the article “Shall If Fight” in the December 1914 issue of “The Socialist,” the man who penned this : “I cannot understand the stand being taken by some Socialists of refusing to kill,” and this : “I do not regard this question as a test of one’s sincerity as a Socialist,” and this : “So long as the other fellow remains armed and sets out to make mince-meat of me I reserve the right to retaliate,” and a lot more leading up to the position that we should fight. We should be pleased to be assured that this writer was a non-member of the Party; we should be hilariously delighted to “imagine the surprise of all the delegates present when it was found that” besides being the vehicle for the conveyance to the workers of the capitalist case and the capitalist pleadings for drenching the world with working-class blood, the official organ of the S.L.P. was edited by one who was “not even” a member of the Party !

We claim that it is a lie that all the pro-war correspondents were non-members of the S.L.P., and if this is not so will the editor of “The Socialist” explain that reference to the differences in the S.L.P. which must have become apparent — who to? — to those who read “The Socialist”?

Mark what the Editor of our contemporary himself says in the August issue concerning the “note” which was “quite in order,” in his vain endeavour to wriggle out of its implications :

“Bold Bad Boy, or Bunkum Balderdash and Blether, or whatever the mysterious initials cover, quotes from an article in the June 1917 “Socialist,” . . . and compares it with an extract from the November 1914 “Socialist,” where an Editorial note calls attention to the differences of opinion on the war expressed in the columns of the “Socialist,” . . . ”  (The italics are ours).

There again our opponents give themselves away. The note itself spoke of differences of opinion in the S.L.P., the Editor’s latest wriggle says that those differences were expressed in the columns of “The Socialist.” Then what becomes of the statement that the pro-war correspondents “were in every case non members of the S.L.P.”? Who said bunkum, balderdash and blether?

“Compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions,” says our contemporary. Well, suppose we do. In the first place we freely admit that there have been individuals in our party whose knowledge was not sufficient to keep them sound on the question of the war. We have never claimed that our Declaration of Principles could prevent the entry of undesirable people into our organisation ; but we do claim that when such people reveal themselves, by word or deed, as unfit material for a Socialist organisation, the Declaration of Principles to which they give their signatures on joining is an efficient instrument for dealing with them, and putting them outside. In the few cases where the war has revealed unhealthy elements the Party has promptly purged itself of such.

On the other hand, what have been the actions of the S.L.P. in this connection? The Editor of their official organ himself shows that even the columns of that journal have been used to give publicity to the pro-war views of members of the S.L.P. We do not know what action that party took in the secrecy of their councils, but the columns of their organ have not been used to give publicity to any handling of the pro-war members thereof. When the Editor of “The Socialist” is compelled to write, three months after the war broke out, “Last month I tried to show what those different views were, but I have not been able to find out what support each side has, consequently I cannot say definitely what the official attitude of the Party is “—when such a statement as that, we say, can appear in the official organ of the party, how can the party handle pro-war members ? The official organ, the mouthpiece of the Executive and therefore of the party, does not know, in the face of the controversy on such a vital question as that of the “attitude of Socialism to the war,” what the party position is ; how, then, can individual members be expected to know that position, or be dealt with for not knowing it ?

For years it has been the practice of the S.L.P. to refuse to soldiers admission to their ranks. Foolish as this was under pre-war conditions, the logic of such an attitude left no mistake as to the proper course to be taken on the outbreak of war. Yet this party, who, before the war, could not abide an unfortunate member of the working class whom stress of circumstances had compelled to sell his labour-power to the master class in the only capacity open to him, had no “official position” in relation to the war when it had been in progress three months. Up to that time, at all events, the members were “quite in order” in shouting for the despised and rejected soldier to begin the work for which he was despised and rejected, and by that same token the members were in order in “joining up” and getting on with the butchery themselves. The party was divided on “the attitude of Socialism to the war”; its Press could not “find out what support each side had,” and therefore could not say whether it was the duty of the members to rush off and join the Army, or get themselves incarcerated for opposing the war.

That is how we “compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions.”

But we have not done yet: we may as well make a job of it while we are about it. Our opponents try to prove their status as a revolutionary organisation. What is the evidence they offer ? Do they present us revolutionary principles and prove their policy to be consistent therewith ? No. They have a very different standard for judging revolutionary organisations. They judge — by the number of members they have had in prison ! In this respect what a long way they are behind the Suffragettes !

“We have had many of our members on the Clyde imprisoned and deported for revolutionary propaganda,” our contemporary says in course of proving their revolutionary character. “We have Editors, past and present, in gaol or under the shadow of gaol. (A former Editor – A. McManus – was deported and again arrested for working-class activity in the recent strike.”) All of which wears a different complexion when we remember that the S.L.P. “martyrs” to gaol in spite of abject contrition, and that McManus, if reports be true, has taken the chair for Tom Mann, whom the S.L.P. has so roundly denounced upon occasion. “And our Press and organ have been under the ban of the military,” our contemporary goes on, finally asking : “Do these things happen to a party which is pro-war, or anything but a revolutionary organisation?” Such things certainly may, as witness the Suffrage movement. But at all events, we should imagine the Government would have paid pretty heavily for some of the stuff which appeared in “The Socialist” after the outbreak of .the war. It takes rank with Harold Begbie’s ” What do you lack, Sonny?” as a contribution to the confusion which made it possible for the capitalist butchers to drag our fellow workers from their homes to the shambles. Perhaps the S.L.P. can now see how lightly “B.B.B.” let them down.

Islington Branch (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Though the spelling is different in the advert, I'm pretty sure the SLP speaker, 'Budgeon', was Frank Budgen. I suggest that you click on Budgen's wiki page. He was an interesting man who lived a full life.

The Bury debate. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee have received the following communication from Mr. Allan, who signs himself the General Secretary-Treasurer of the British Advocates of Industrial Unionism, with a request for publication. We have asked our comrade Fitzgerald for his remarks on the matter and append his reply.—ED.

____________

After a debate between the S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. in Bury on August 2nd, in which the S.P.G.B. representative was Mr. Fitzgerald and the S.L.P. representative was W. Davis, the former gentleman endeavoured to slander the I.W.W. by stating that while the Industrial Unionists made a point against the Trade Unions in that they created their own scabs by expelling members who were out of employment and who allowed their dues to lapse for a period of say one year or so, the I.W.W. did so still the more because it had a rule expelling members out of employment who were sixty days in arrears. In proof of this he read from Article VI., Section 10, of the Constitution :—

“All National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, Local Unions and individual members of the Industrial Workers of the World that are in arrears for dues and assessments for sixty days, counting from the last day of the month for which reports and remittances are due, shall not be considered in good standing and shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or payments from any fund of this organisation.”

He claimed that the term “shall not be considered in good standing” was an Americanism which involved expulsion, and although the rule does not specifically state that members who are out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he gratuitously assumed this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W., that they shall be kept in the organisation by being excused payment of dues.

However, as I always like to be doubly sure, I wrote to W. E. Trautmann, General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W., and this is a copy of his reply, which should effectually ram the lie back in Mr. Fitzgerald’s teeth if he intended purposely to slander the I.W.W., or gently correct him if he was only mistaken.

____________

COPY OF W. E. TRAUTMANN’S LETTER.

Chicago Ill., U.S.A. 

Aug. 17, 1908.

Comrade and Fellow-Worker,

In reply to yours of August 3rd, I wish to state that there is no occasion for anybody to drop out of the I.W.W. when once a member, as those out of a job are exempt from paying any dues, etc; but if those who work and earn money so that they could pay their regular dues to the organisation, neglect their duty, they thereby suspend themselves, after three months lapse of time, from the organisation (Note, they suspend themselves.—W.G.A.).

The Constitution, of which I enclose a copy, does not state that members out of work are exempt from payment of dues, but that has been the rule since the inception of the organisation, and is especially now of great benefit to the organisation, as those without jobs are allowed to continue the agitation for the I.W.W. as members thereof, although they do not pay dues and are receiving exemption stamps to show it. 

(Signed) W. E. Trautmann.

Further comment is needless, and if Mr. Fitzgerald is honest he will tender his apology and admit he was wrong.

Yours for Industrial Freedom,

W. G. Allan. 

20.9.08.

___________

TO THE EDITOR

5th October, 1908.

Dear Comrade,

Beyond a further point of explanation of the occurrence at Bury I can add no evidence to that so conclusively embodied in Mr. Allan’s own letter as to the truth of my statement.

I stated that the Constitution of the I.W.W. by excluding members for a shorter period of non-payment of dues than the ordinary trade union, helped to make its own blacklegs faster than those they (the I.W.W.) denounced, and pointed to unemployment as the chief cause of this non-payment. Mr. Allan first denied that such a rule existed, and when confronted with a copy of the Constitution, and the rule he quotes in his letter was pointed out to him, he tried to escape by saying that there was another rule exempting those unemployed from payment of dues. He was at once handed the Constitution and challenged to find such rule, and, of course, failed to do so. The letter purporting to come from W. E. Trautmann re-emphasises this fact by stating that “The Constitution does not state that members out of work are exempt”—the only point in dispute. What fancy, unwritten laws may prevail in Chicago—or in Trautmann’s mind—have no bearing on the point, seeing that the I.W.W. was formed in 1905, has had a convention each year since, and is still without such a rule in its Constitution.

Mr. Allan says that “although the rule does not specifically state that members out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he (Fitzgerald) gratuitously assumes this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W.” It is a pity Mr. Allan did not read the rule he himself quotes, as it there states ” ALL. . . . individual members,” etc. This admits of no exception, and therefore I assumed nothing in the matter. As to it being a “well-known principle,” so little is it either a “principle” or “well-known” that it, is embodied in neither the Preamble nor the Rules.

The only lie in the case is Mr. Allan’s assertion that the I.W.W. had a rule in its Constitution exempting unemployed members from payment of dues, the falsity of which is fully proved by his own letter. The only apology due is one owing to your readers for having to go over ground already fully dealt with in our debate with the Advocates published in the August and November, 1907, issues of this journal.

Fraternally yours,

J. Fitzgerald

Letter: Airbrushed (2014)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Airbrushed

Dear Editors

On 12th July at Sheffield Anarchist Bookfair the Communist Workers Organisation (CWO) held a meeting titled ‘The only war which is worth fighting is the class war’. The subject was the First World War and at 8 minutes 21 seconds in, the speaker representing the CWO stated ‘I won’t go into the various British ones today but the only group – and it was a group rather than an organisation – that can claim to have had any real anti-war policy completely was the Socialist Labour Party’.

In Revolutionary Perspectives issue 4 (Journal of the CWO) dated Summer 2014, the article ‘Social Democracy, the First World War and the Working-class in Britain’ starting on page 14 discusses ‘The Response of Socialists in Britain’ even discussing the Socialist Labour Party (De Leonist) on page 18.

For all the CWO airbrushing of consistent SPGB opposition to the First World War, it is ironic the same CWO speaker once debated the SPGB accusing the SPGB of being ‘schooled in Stalinism’.

Jon D. White 

(by email)

Reply:

Strange indeed, and for two reasons. The first being the clear and principled opposition to the war from the SPGB (on the basis that it was a capitalist war and not in the slightest about the interests of the working class).  Second, the SLP was split into two factions, one pro-war, the other anti-war (with articles in their paper The Socialist reflecting this division at the start of the conflict). It was only some months into the war that the anti-war faction won out and the SLP clearly stated its opposition to the slaughter. We know that the CWO as ‘left communists’ venerate the SLP because after the conflict the majority of its membership left to join the pro-Bolshevik Communist Party of Great Britain at its foundation, but the SLP’s attitude to the war has been well documented and there is no excuse for such shoddy historical revisionism. – Editors.

British Bolshevism (2025)

Book Review from the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900–21. The Origins of British Communism. By Walter Kendall. Edited by Paul Flewers John McIlroy. Brill. 2025.

This is a reprint of a work first published in 1969, now with a 50-page foreword and a new index. We reviewed this at the time of its first publication so all we need to add is more detail on Kendall’s derogatory remark about us and to comment on McIlroy’s foreword.

Kendall wrote that the SPGB was ‘unwilling to enter the political fray even to the extent of adopting a programme of “palliatives”’. This is a peculiar understanding of the term ‘political fray’ but it let slip what Kendall, a left-wing Labourite, thought that politics was all about — what measures to adopt within capitalism to try to mitigate the problems it inflicts on the working class. The SPGB did most certainly enter the ‘political fray’ in its normal sense of political battle, even to the extent of standing candidates in local elections during this period.

Kendall was also being disingenuous as the SPGB was not the only party he discussed that took this position. The DeLeonist Socialist Labour Party (SLP), which was the other product of the ‘impossibilist revolt’ in the Social Democratic Federation, was also unwilling to adopt a programme of palliatives. Yet Kendall devoted a whole chapter to them and argued against this position (‘barred as it was from any advocacy of reform, the SLP was unable to make contact with the mass of the working class’) rather than dismissing it peremptorily as not part of the political fray.

McIlroy, in his foreword, discusses the validity of Kendall’s conclusion that the founding of the British Communist Party, thanks to the machinations of the Comintern and ‘Russian gold’, was a mistake and had a harmful effect on the working class movement in Britain. As a Leninist himself (subspecies, Trotskyist), he argues against this and speculates that things would have been worse had the CPGB not been formed. But one thing did happen. The SPGB did survive and from the 1920s onwards provided a Marxist criticism of the Leninist distortions and undemocratic practices (as well as the Voice of Moscow) that the CPGB introduced into the working class movement and which represented a step backwards. On this point Kendall was right.

Adam Buick

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

Letters to the Editors from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

A. J. W. (Reading).—You are confusing the two bodies. Our office is in London, not in Glasgow. As we believe that our members understood our position when they signed our Declaration of Principles on joining the Party, and as there has been no change in that position, we do not think it necessary “that each member of the Party shall reaffirm his adherence to the essential principles” of the Party.

W. H. (London, W.) objects that the title of the letter, “The Fall of Hardie,” which appeared in the last issue, presupposes that Hardie had a position to fall from. So he had—a position in the estimation of the writer of the article. That estimation may have been higher than the circumstances warranted, but we are not concerned with that. Besides, it is quite conceivable that Hardie could fall lower yet, even in our estimation. But he hasn’t nearly so much room to fall as he has to rise as he has to rise.

Anxious Enquirer (Herts).—Why haven’t we dealt with the Garden Party incident ? Well—we were so much occupied in watching the Labour members making what Will Thorne would call “blithering idiots” of themselves, and we were so convulsed by the exhibition, that we couldn’t keep our hand steady enough to write. But if you want to know our view, it is that Edward (gorblessim) is just a marionette worked by capitalism for capitalism. He is doubtless a well-constructed figure (gorblessim) and works nicely and easily, his joints being adequately greased by a special preparation known, we believe, as palm oil. He responds to the manipulator so readily that the audience frequently loses sight of the string. But the string is there all right and the manipulator is the same every time. To talk, therefore, of the King versus the people as the Labour members have, is the result of losing sight of the string. The issue is the capitalist class versus the working class. The present disturbance is due to a Labour member or two being knocked off the free list of a certain al fresco entertainment at which the marionette divertissement referred to, was the star turn. Naturally, the members affected felt aggrieved. Having been professional “dead heads” for so long they objected to their privileges being curtailed. Of course, it’s very sad, but if they are not prepared to cheer the performance they can’t expect to receive a pass-in check. And that’s all there is to it. If they want the pass they must cheer. If they don’t want it what are they howling about ?

American Parties and the Unity Question. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The article under this heading appearing in the last issue is simply the expression of the opinion of the writer alone and must not be taken to imply that the S.P.G.B. has in any respect changed its open and avowed hostility to Mr. DeLeon and the American and English S.L.P.

Bolshevising the Red Flag (2025)

Book Review from the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Raising the Red Flag. Marxism, Labourism, and the Roots of British Communism 1884-1921. By Tony Collins, Haymarket Books.

In his 1969 pioneering work The Revolutionary Movement in Britain 1900-1921: The Origins of British Communism (reviewed July 1969), Walter Kendall advanced the view that Bolshevism-Leninism was something that was alien to the formally democratic traditions of the working class movement in Britain, introduced from an economically and politically backward part of the world where conditions were quite different. Collins, writing as a Leninist, argues that in fact those who founded the British Communist Party were all too much in the tradition of reformist labourism. Both views have some merit.

The main constituents of the CPGB when it was founded in January 1921 were the British Socialist Party (BSP), part of the De Leonist Socialist Labour Party (SLP), Workers Dreadnought (Sylvia Pankhurst), and some from the Shop Stewards Movement and the left-wing of the Independent Labour Party (ILP).

The British Socialist Party was the name the Social Democratic Federation adopted when it amalgamated with some branches of the ILP in 1911. It was essentially the same organisation from which the SLP and the SPGB broke away in 1903 and 1904 respectively over its lack of democracy, and its reformism and opportunism. It was to provide the bulk of the original membership of the CPGB and, Collins argues, its political approach too of seeing itself as the left wing of the Labour movement.

Collins examines the origin and practice of the founding factions and finds them all wanting in one way or another from a Leninist point of view. The defect they all (except the Shop Stewards Movement) share, he says, is what he calls ‘abstract propagandism’ as opposed to seeking to lead a discontented but non-socialist majority in an insurrection against the capitalist state. The Shop Stewards Movement is criticised for restricting itself to purely industrial matters and the 1911 pamphlet The Miners Next Step for advancing the slogan of ‘no leaders’. His view is that, on the contrary, new leaders were required, but the leaders of a vanguard party of dedicated revolutionaries. In fact, he argues that it was the absence of this ‘subjective’ factor that was the reason why there was no workers’ revolution in Britain just before and just after the First World War.

Tendentious

Explaining his criticism, Collins writes:

‘The SLP’s answer to the syndicalists was that a party was necessary to win a parliamentary majority which would then support the workers as they took over industry, whereupon parliament would hand over state power to the industrial unions. … Shorn of its industrial militancy, this was not very different from the SDF or the SPGB, who believed in the manner of The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists that the working class would come to socialism through being educated about its benefits and thus vote for socialists in parliamentary elections’ (p. 58).

‘The Bolshevik conception’, Collins goes on to bemoan, ‘… did not exist in Britain’.

His criticism is a caricature, and tendentious in suggesting that ‘education’ meant something other than the action of workers, who had become socialist through their experience of capitalism, persuading their fellow workers to realise, on the basis of the same experience, that socialism was the only solution. It was true, though, that the implication was that a majority of workers who wanted and understood socialism was needed before socialism could be established and that, if that majority existed, workers should, among other things, vote for it. The Bolshevik conception rejects the principle that a socialist majority is necessary, indeed even possible, as it teaches that workers can only reach a trade-union consciousness and so require a vanguard party to lead them politically.

Although the SPGB is mentioned in passing a number of times, as here, only one short paragraph is devoted to our political position:

‘By this time the SDF leadership had completed its purge of leftists with the expulsion of the leaders of the London opposition, who formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904. Once out of the SDF, its leftism proved to be a chimera. The SPGB declared its object to be ‘the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery [of government] including [those] armed forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation’, and pursued a grim messianic parliamentary reformism for the next hundred years and more’ (pp. 30-1).

None of our opponents at the time (and even our honest opponents today) would have accused us of ‘parliamentary reformism’, as what characterised us was a refusal to advocate reforms to capitalism (called ‘palliatives’ at the time). We did advocate using parliament but not to try to reform capitalism but to deprive the capitalist class of their ownership of the means of production and their ability to use the armed forces of the state to maintain it.

Collins’s accusation is outrageous, obviously biased and possibly dishonest. It is also ignorant. The term ‘instrument of emancipation’ was consciously taken from the preamble to the 1880 programme of the Parti Ouvrier Français, a preamble that Marx himself had drafted and which speaks of the working class needing to form themselves into a political party which should use ‘universal suffrage which will thus be transformed from the instrument of deception that it has been until now into an instrument of emancipation’ (tinyurl.com/bdf7vmj8). Clause Six of our Declaration of Principles which Collins is misinterpreting is saying the same — that to end capitalism the workers need to gain control of the machinery of government (state power) which currently upholds capitalist ownership of the means of production. It is a call for the revolutionary, not the reformist, use of parliament.

It also makes Collins a bad historian as the views of the SPGB are just as relevant, if only in terms of the numbers who held them, to his subject of Marxism during the period he is studying as are those of the SLP, John Maclean and Sylvia Pankhurst. In fact, five of the people mentioned by him either were to become or had been members of the SPGB (Jack Fitzgerald, E. J. B. Allen, T. A. Jackson, Valentine McEntee and George Hicks).

Because he didn’t bother to go into the matter in detail, Collins seems to think that the SPGB favoured participation in elections and nothing else. Actually, like the SLP, the SPGB was (and still is) in favour of industrial as well as political action, the difference being over which was the more important. The SLP said industrial, we said political. Ironically, this is the position Collins himself takes up in criticising The Miners’ Next Step and the Shop Stewards Movement, though, as a Leninist, by political action he envisages a vanguard party staging an armed insurrection to seize state power in a period of acute industrial unrest.

He doesn’t list the Socialist Standard as among the contemporary publications he looked at. Which will explain how he missed that in March 1915 we published an anti-war statement by the Bolshevik representative in Britain, Maxim Litvinov, when he couldn’t find anyone else prepared to do so . He also ignores, while noting that the BSP, the SLP and Keir Hardie wobbled on the outbreak of the war, that the SPGB immediately denounced it in a manifesto dated 25 August 1914. Nor does he mention that our members were among those imprisoned or going on the run for refusing to be conscripted.

Two issues

The groups which founded the CPGB initially disagreed on two issues which Collins examines in detail — affiliation to the Labour Party and participation in elections. The BSP was in favour of both. Sylvia Pankhurst was against both, while the SLPers favoured electoral action but not affiliation (which would have been our position but we are proud to have had nothing to do with the founding of the CPGB). In the end Lenin and the Communist International decreed that the new party should accept both, which was easy enough to ensure as the bulk of its members had come from the BSP (born SDF).

Collins’s point about the early CPGB being a continuation of the reformism of the SDF/BSP is valid, as we recognised at the time from having opposed for the previous sixteen years the views and actions of those involved. However, in the mid-1920s the Communist International decided to ‘bolshevise’ the CPGB and imposed on it a strictly Leninist organisational form with a leadership that told its members what to do and which way to turn (and which itself took orders from the rulers of state-capitalist Russia). This was, as Kendall had pointed out, quite alien to the traditions of working-class organisations in Britain. Unfortunately, it resulted in the ‘Bolshevik conception’ getting established here and in Leninist theory and tactics passing as Marxism and revolutionary socialism, as Collins’s book itself bears witness. It was left to us, alone for most of the time, to keep the standard of anti-Leninist Marxism flying high.

Adam Buick

Trade Unionism. S.L.P. versus S.P.G.B. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To prove our proposition in this debate we shall first state the true Socialist position on the trade union question and then proceed to show how the wanderings of the S.P.G.B. away from that position have landed them into great confusion.

In this paper the word “political” will cover all action affecting the state, including the political ballot, the political strike and the political rising. “Economic” will be held to mean “on the field of industry.” The basis of all Socialist tactics is the class struggle, which arises economically and is developed into politics.

Every member of the working class is employed by a member or members of the capitalist class. The antagonism of class interests in the workshop, mine, or factory, arising from the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production, is expressed by the formula “more wages, less profits ; less wages, more profits,” and is the basic, the original and the most obvious expression of the class struggle. When this is thoroughly grasped by any worker, he will readily proceed further to understand that just as he and his shopmates have a common interest against their employer, so he and his class have a common interest against the employing class as a whole, organised in the state. Therefore from the point of view of making Socialists, revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means.

The class antagonism in the workshop forces itself more or less clearly on the notice of all the workers and drives them to unite in unions the better to carry on their side of the contest.

Trade unions in this country had their origin in an age when the handicraft industry was only beginning to be supplanted by machine industry, and they therefore took the form of unions of craftsmen. As the development of machinery is rapidly making the craftsman as extinct as the dodo, these craft unions have gradually lost all the usefulness they ever had, to the working class at least; and now by artificially dividing the workers along the lines of supposed craft interests, they obscure their common class interest and so are stumbling blocks in the way of working-class emancipation. These craft unions are constantly quarrelling and blacklegging on each other ; they foster and encourage that mischievous division of the workers into mechanics and labourers, which is such an obstacle to working-class solidarity. Again they have become a great vested interest and have brought into existence a powerful group of permanent officials whose chief interest in life is to keep their jobs intact and who dominate the great mass of the workers on both the industrial and political fields. By truckling to the craft unions and their officials more than one revolutionary movement in this country which started out full of promise, has been finally engulfed in a bog of opportunism and compromise.

Economic organisation then, being necessary and inevitable, must to fulfil its proper functions, be based on class not on craft lines, and must have as its object the real interest of the working class, namely, the overthrow of the parasite capitalist class and the taking over and holding the means of production by and for the workers themselves. In other words, the economic organisation of the workers must be a revolutionary class union. To be a class union it must unite all wage workers according to industries, in other words according to their actual economic groupings. Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union which would form part of the Union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to start in Great Britain, and we claim that, without it, the overthrow of capitalism will be impossible. History teaches very clearly that economic power invariably precedes political. It was only after they had gained complete control of the means of production, that the capitalists attained political power, and so must the working class. The bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property, but the working class who have no property, can only do so through organisation. It is they that carry on every operation of production, and, if organised industrially, they can control every productive process.

The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism, and usher in the Socialist Republic. Whatever of good there is in electoral action, it is obvious that the master class will never surrender their privileged position to votes alone, unless behind those votes stands the organised might of the workers, ready and able to enforce the mandate of their ballot.

The industrial union is then necessary to the workers under capitalism, and is necessary for the overthrowing of capitalism, and its existence must precede effective political action of any kind. It is therefore the clear duty of every revolutionary Socialist to join us in forming such an union.

And now what is the position of the S.P.G.B. ? Their Manifesto, issued in 1905, states that trade unions should be supported if they act on sound lines, and opposed if they act wrongly—a neutral position, which, when applied to politics, the S.P.G.B. repudiates. Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism. No clear and definite tactics are outlined for the guidance of a party which above all else prides itself on the clearness and definiteness of its position, as witness the phrase—now well-worn even to shabbiness—anent “clear and unmistakable principles interpreted in plain and unequivocal tactics.” On the other hand a facing-both-ways attitude was adopted which leaves every situation, as it arises, open to doubt, discussion and hesitation.

At the first Conference of the S.P.G.B. a motion in favour of a straight and uncompromising position was rejected, and a vague and indefinite resolution adopted instead.

In as much as all articles in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD were first approved by the executive committee, who made a practice of rejecting matter they considered unsound, the appearance of Allen’s article on “Boring from Within” in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD for November, 1905, was hailed by well-wishers of the Party as a sign that they had at last come down from the fence on the union question and had adopted a straight, uncompromising attitude. In this article, we find the following :

“We Socialists want to see industrial unionism, that is, we want to see all the workers in each trade organised, and the various trades in each industry affiliated, thus forming one huge, cohesive organisation of the workers.”

But, however bright the hopes raised by the publication of “Boring from Within,” they were doomed to be dashed to the ground. A further article by Allen on the same lines was in March, 1906, rejected as unsound, and at the annual conference of that year, a motion in favour of revolutionary industrial unionism was defeated and the question referred to a Party meeting.

This was held in four instalments in May—June, 1906. Several resolutions were put on the agenda, including one by the then Bexley branch, which gave expression to the position outlined at the beginning of this paper. All were, however, defeated but two—Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s. Space is too short to recite these in full, but their mutual contradictions may be summarized as follows :

Kent’s resolution

(a) declares war on existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist industrial union. (Though insisting that such union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B.),

(c) adopts as method, therefore, what is known as “boring from without,”

Fitzgerald’s resolution

(a) does not declare war against existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist craft union—”the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation,”

(c) adopts as method “boring from within.”

It had been decided by the 1906 Conference that a poll should be taken on any resolutions passed by the Party meeting. This was not done till the beginning of the present year—the S.P.G.B. being left for 6 or 7 months in the extraordinary position of having provisionally adopted at one and the same time two mutually destructive positions.

When at last the poll was taken the party rejected both the resolutions. For this we commend them. But to destroy what is unsound is not enough ; construction is needed. The rescinding of Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s resolutions simply brought the S.P.G.B. back to the nebulosity of the 1905 Manifesto, and there, so far as we can ascertain, they still remain.

The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party meeting last year to define their attitude on the union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined. After the best wisdom of the Party had been expended during the four sessions of this meeting in adopting, not one but two positions, the membership has by its action declared both of these to be also unsatisfactory. But instead of at once endeavouring to define a sound policy, they have been satisfied to return to an attitude, which by their action they have already declared to be unsound.

We therefore maintain that on the question of trade unionism, the position of the S.P.G.B. is one of hopeless confusion.

LONDON ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

____________

REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

To talk of the S.P.G.B “wandering away” from the true position practically asserts that the S.P.G.B. at one time held the true position—otherwise they could not have wandered away from it—a thing the “Advocates” deny later on.

After a reference to the position of employer and employed, we are told by our critics that “revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means” though they are curiously silent as to how this is to be done today under the strict supervision that exists in most modern factories and where any attempt to propagate Socialist ideas, or push literature, is usually followed by dismissal.

Paragraph 6 says—

“Economic organisation . . . must be based on class not on craft lines”

and then goes on to say—

“To be a class union it must unite all the wage-workers according to industries (!)”

Perhaps this is a specimen of New Scots humor but the contradiction in talking of forming a “class” union according to “industry” should have been obvious even to the “Advocates.” It is then said—

“Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union, which would form part of the union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to form in Great Britain.”

From the above jumble of local unions, departments, industrial organisations, etc., forming finally a general union one can only draw the conclusion that the time thus occupied will be wasted since the General Federation of Trade Unions is in the field to carry on that work.

In paragraph 7 we are told that—

“The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism and usher in the Socialist Republic”

This is begging the entire question for it is exactly the question of what power that is in dispute. The Anarchist claims that the strike, particularly the “general” strike, is the method to be followed—an attitude to-day re-christened “direct action.” If the “Advocates” mean the power of the economic organisations on the industrial field they are preaching the same stupid fallacy. The power of the workers to carry on or stop production depends entirely upon their control of the fighting forces, and even if all men were inside their industrial unions they could no more “take and hold” the means of production and distribution by that form of organisation than by the present ones. With the modern weapons of precision and rapid death-dealing, the unarmed and undrilled workers would be easily driven out of the mills and factories, while, with the large stores at their command, the capitalist class could sit down and let starvation complete the work.

Just previously the “Advocates” stated that “the bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property” (as though means of production were not property) while as a matter of historical fact the bourgeoisie laid the foundations of their control by first building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax to fight the Army of the Feudal Aristocracy.

After what we have stated paragraph 8 is quite gratuitous as not one of the so-called “necessary” things have been shown to be even useful, let alone necessary.

The criticism of the S.P.G.B. position then begins. We are told that this position is “neutral.” This must be another joke, for how a position that opposes one side and supports another can be “neutral” will puzzle the “Advocates” to explain. They state—

“Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism”.

But the Manifesto on p. 10 says:—

“The basis of the actions of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism and the class-struggle necessarily resulting therefrom : in other words they must adopt the Socialist position if they are going to justify their existence at all.”

Can the “Advocates” put the position better ? Yet they call this a “facing both-ways attitude.”

The quotation from THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, in paragraph 11, is carefully selected, for the whole of the article with the exception of that sentence is devoted to advocating a Socialist union, and when Allen openly advocated industrial unions in his next article it was rejected.

At the Annual Conference, when the industrial union resolution was moved, it was the “Advocates” who opposed having an open discussion on the matter and wanted it rushed through there and then. Space is too short to give the resolutions in full they say. This must have been fortunate for the “Advocates” as it enables them to make false statements under the cover of want of space.

The resolutions are given in full in the July, 1906 and February, 1907 SOCIALIST STANDARDS, where it will be seen that Kent’s resolution did not state that the union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B., while Fitzgerald’s advocates a Socialist union on a class basis—the rest being matters of detail—and urges propaganda outside as well as inside the trade unions and cannot be called “boring from within” in any sense of that much abused phrase.

The “Advocates,” in commending us for rejecting these resolutions, seem unaware that the reasons given for this rejection were that the position laid down in the Manifesto, coupled with the Declaration of Principles, was a sufficiently clear exposition, of the Socialist position on Trade Unionism.

The next paragraph says:—

“The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party Meeting last year to define their attitude on the trade union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined.”

This is a piece of cheap, specious pleading that will deceive few. At every one of our propaganda meetings we invite discussion of the Principles of Socialism. Does this admit that those Principles are not satisfactory ? Certainly not. When a few members had been bitten with the I.W.W. fever and tried to get their views adopted without adequate discussion, then the meetings were called to openly discuss the position and see if these supporters of the I.W.W. could show any flaw in our standpoint. This they entirely failed to do and the vote of the Party resulted as above. In face of these simple facts the rest of the paragraph is sheer nonsense and on the whole question they have completely failed to show that any confusion or unsoundness exists on the side of the S.P.G.B.

But what is the position of the “Advocates” ? Why are they so peculiarly silent on the question of existing industrial unions ? It may be said that none exist as yet in Great Britain. If for the sake of argument we assume this, then whence does Industrial Unionism arise ? The answer is America. When the Industrial Workers of the World Union was formed in Chicago in 1905 certain persons in this country adopted the idea without examination or discussion and tried to form a branch of that organisation here through the Advocates of Industrial Unionism.

At the beginning the I.W.W. was endorsed in full, its literature distributed, and phrases and terms used in America imported here. And one of the chief arguments used by the I.W.W. supporters in America was that the present unions manufactured their own blacklegs by their high initiation fees, dues, etc. which must be paid or the member is excluded.

Any union that excludes members for non-payment of dues—which non-payment is largely due to unemployment—manufactures its own blacklegs, and this is exactly what the I.W.W. does. Its entrance fee and minimum dues are larger than several English unions, while its period for arrears of dues ordering exclusion, is 60 days as against the 180 days allowed by the majority of existing unions.

Tho I.W.W. therefore tends to make its own blacklegs faster even than the ordinary unions mentioned and accentuates the very evil complained of. This point by itself is sufficient to condemn the I.W.W., but it is not all. The organisers and officials of the I.W.W. tell the workers that their “pure and simple” strikes are failures because conducted on “craft” lines but that an I.W.W. strike would be victorious because their position is invincible. Yet every strike they have undertaken has been a failure ! The Buffalo Garment Workers’, the Wichita Bakers’ and the Schenectady Electrical Workers’ strikes—all organised and run by the I.W.W. —were complete victories for the employers. A split has lately taken place and we have the encouraging spectacle of the workers being indivisibly and economically united into two I.W.W’s. Inability to decide which Workers of the World they should endorse is perhaps responsible for the attempt to form a third—and British—Workers of the World here, and curiously enough by the very means so readily condemned in others. Not only are they ready and willing to attend any craft or other union for the purpose of advocating their views, but as in the case of members of the S.L.P., they appear upon the platforms and support men and organisations, (under the cover of it being a meeting for Industrial Unionism) that at other times they condemn as misleaders of the working class. Such actions would not be tolerated for a moment by the S.P.G.B. On this point our position has been clear and consistent. No deliberate support of capitalists or capitalism has been allowed, and in one or two cases where such occurred the members offending were at once put outside. No excuse—trade union or other—has been allowed to cover any voluntary action in support of capitalism, but adherence to the Declaration of Principles insisted on in every case.

The fact that Industrial Unionism is the latest of many attempts that have been made to form a Socialist organisation with non-Socialist material is not only bound to produce failure, but, as is shown in America, also adds another organisation to the long list of those that provide a field for, and give encouragement to, the “Labour Fakir” and misleader. The position of the S.P.G.B., on the contrary, is to carry on Socialist education towards the building up of the Socialist economic organisation that will aid the Socialist Party to abolish capitalism.

The old old story. (1914)

From the December 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The B.S.P., keeping up its reputation of madness, has recently issued to its members and friends a circular entitled: “A Call to Vigorous Effort,” and with it a letter—begging subscriptions for carrying on a National Winter Campaign, to stir up public opinion in order to obtain from the master class “stepping stones to Social Democracy.”

In the letter, which is dated Nov. 4th, it states that: “In a matter of ten weeks, more progress has been made in the direction of Socialist legislation than during the previous ten years.” From this it would seem that if the war continues as long as some of the half-penny daily “military experts” inform us it will, Socialism will have become an accomplished fact !

Go ahead, then, B.S.P.! Go ahead !

—–O—–

But, as usual, the B.S.P. puts the noose round its own neck, for when we turn to the “Call” we find that it endeavours to describe what actually has taken place, and what the B.S.P. calls in its letter, “progress towards Socialist legislation.” It says: “The Government, which promised that the real producers and defenders of the United Kingdom should receive fair treatment, and that their dependents should be fully cared for, is breaking every pledge it made.” By the way, who produced the United Kingdom ? “Cumbersome and unworkable machinery has been set up in order to evade responsibility ; doles have been cut down below the slow starvation limits; the workers in distress are being left to the tender mercies of the ‘charitable rich’ . . . capitalists have taken advantage of Government subsidies, Government guarantees and Government protection to increase their profits.” Progress ! Socialist legislation !

—–O—–

Perhaps we are just getting to it. Further it reads : “Public opinion must be stirred to follow actively on the lines of National Control of Railways, National Fixation of Prices, and National Insurance of Shipping already secured.”

So far as the control of railways and the insurance of shipping goes, we venture to assert that the majority of capitalists in other industries would be only too pleased to have their profits guaranteed and secured in a similar manner. That the B.S.P. jubilates over this action only goes to prove what we have always maintained, viz., that, like the other pseudo-Socialist bodies, it is composed either of misguided mortals or deliberate frauds deluding their fellows in the interest of the capitalist class.

The Government has not fixed prices, nor can it do so. All it has done is to state a price arranged beforehand with the capitalists beyond which certain commodities must not be sold. And here again the Government took particular care that profits were not in any way reduced. It was officially stated that these prices allowed “a good profit both for the wholesale merchant and the retailer” ; and when the representatives of capitalists talk about “a good proft” they usually mean what they say. Far from the prices being fixed, they have fluctuated even more than at ordintry times. Take sugar, for instance; the maximum price has been bobbing up and down all the time, 4½d., 3¾d., 4¼d., 3¾d. and so on. And don’t forget it that in most cases out of ten the dealers charged the maximum.

—–O—–

The S.L.P. is also in a bad way. So bad that the editor of their official organ has to warn its readers not to understand any of the articles therein as expressing the Party’s attitude or view regarding the war. This, mark you, after the war has been in progress for three months ! In fact, he admits that he does not know what the official view is ! One of its contributors, presumably a member of the Party, says “The S.L.P.—let us admit it freely—has been taken by storm, though not so disastrously as other parties. . . . What policy does the S.L.P. follow with respect to this war ? We don’t know. We are disunited. We are groping for a lead at the present time.”

Lead kindly light !

J. W. Pyle

Important Notice. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Next month's issue will contain an article on the Labour Party Conference in Belfast; an interesting letter on "Why Every Other Political Party is Hostile to the S.P.G.B." and a reply by "Economics"; a report of a Debate held last month at Plumstead between E. J. B. Allen (S.L.P.) and our Comrade J. Fitzgerald, etc.

Help the Cause of Socialism by subscribing to the Socialist Standard. See terms on p. 44.

Letter: The S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Calle Capua 23 entresuelo, 

Gijon, Spain, 

2/11/06.

Dear Sir,—Your use of my name in the last two numbers of the Socialist Standard, in a manner calculated to mislead, must constitute my excuse for begging the insertion of these lines in your paper.

You say that I served as official correspondent between the London “Impossiblists” and the Scotch Socialists now organised in the S.L.P. The facts in the case are as follows : At the Blackburn Conference of the S.D.F. in 1902, Comrades Yates and Matheson left me their addresses in order that might acquaint them with what went on in London. I was not appointed by any section and corresponded on my own. The said correspondence treated chiefly of the position brought about by my expulsion, and of the bringing out of the Socialist. When I left England I asked Fitzgerald to keep in touch with the Scotch comrades. Neither Fitzgerald nor myself represented any section.

I write because you make use of this to build up a case that the S.P.G.B. has sprung out of a London “Impossiblist” section, which is most emphatically untrue, several of your leading members, such as Kent and Neumann, having been at open enmity with the London “Impossiblists” up to and after the London S.D.F. Conference of 1903. These latter, up to the time I left London, recognised the Socialist as their organ, and did their best to push its sale, showing conclusively that they endorsed the attitude now associated with the S.L.P.

Yours faithfully,

Percy Friedberg

Reply:

[To save continually reiterating portions of the article that appeared in our August issue, may we suggest to future would-be critics that it would be well for all concerned if they took the trouble to read that article before rushing into correspondence. In the letter above it is stated that we said that Friedberg was the “official correspondent between the London and Scotch sections.” The article says :

“At the Blackburn Conference . . . the so-called ‘Impossiblist’ delegates from Scotland and London met. . . . Friendly relations were established and the understanding arrived at that the London members would work in conjunction with the Scotch members for the adoption of an uncompromising policy by the S.D.F., Friedberg agreeing to act as correspondent.”

Not only is there no use of the word “official,” but it is distinctly stated in the article that in London there was no special plan or organisation among the “Impossiblists,” arid therefore there could be no “official” representative in any capacity. So far as his letter goes, Friedberg substantiates the statement in the article, but he omits one important point, that is, that in addition to Yates and Matheson, he corresponded with Anderson, who had been elected on the Provincial Executive of the S.D.F., and this on matters other than his (Friedberg’s) expulsion.

The letter says “it is emphatically untrue” that, the S.P.G.B. “has sprung out of a London ‘Impossiblist’ section,” but, unfortunately, does not attempt to state whence it sprang, if not from the London “Impossiblists.” Nor is the statement substantiated by the reference to several of our “leading members, such as Kent and Neumann,” being opposed to the “Impossiblists.” “Several” is not well taken when only two names are given, for in the first case Kent was well known for years for his advocacy of what he called the “Ishmailitish” policy, and was in fact referred to by Friedberg in the letter sent to the New York People as the one “Impossiblist” returned to the London E.C. at the Blackburn Conference. Neumann is certainly a case in point, but his conversion to our view later on—ending in his expulsion from the S.D.F.— was evidence of the success of our efforts while in the S.D.F., to bring the truth of the situation in front of the members.

Above all is the fact that such well-known “Impossiblists” as Elrick, Fitzgerald, Alec and Margaret Pearson, Woodhouse, etc. refused to join the S.L.P., and helped to build up the S.P.G.B., while the most active member in forming the London S.L.P. was E. E. Hunter, who had been an opponent up to the Blackburn Conference.

The last point Friedberg attempts to make is that the London “Impossiblists” recognised the Socialist as their organ “and did their best to push its sale, thereby showing conclusively that they endorsed the attitude now associated with the S.L.P.” which it will be easily seen is an endeavour to build up a case on two different tenses. Firstly the article proves the position “now associated with the S.L.P.” is very different to that associated with it previously in certain particulars. Secondly, though it may be said that the tone of the Socialist was different then to what it is now, yet protests were made from London quite early in its existence against its tone. Thirdly, and most important, the pushing of the Socialist was dropped by those “Impossiblists” who refused to be led by the nose as soon as the attempt to swindle them was discovered. Ed. S.S.]

Blogger's Note:

Sadly I'm not sure of the exact date, but I remember that Steve Coleman did a talk on the History of Islington Branch in (maybe) the early 1990s, where he went into some detail about Percy Friedberg. Before moving to Spain, Friedberg lived in North London and was active in the Finsbury branch of the SDF. According to Challinor, he was the first to be expelled by the SDF leadership during the impossibilist revolt. I've only heard a recording of the Coleman's meeting, and the last time I asked there wasn't a copy of it at the SPGB's Head Office. Maybe a copy will turn up one day.

The Matheson mentioned in the correspondence is John Carstairs Matheson, who was a schoolmaster from Falkirk. If you search his name online, it will throw up extensive correspondence between him and James Connolly.

". . . Kent was well known for years for his advocacy of what he called the “Ishmailitish” policy . . ." If you're wondering what the “Ishmailitish policy" is, this Socialist Standard article from May 1905 might throw some light on it.

". . . Elrick, Fitzgerald, Alec and Margaret Pearson, Woodhouse, etc. refused to join the S.L.P., and helped to build up the S.P.G.B . . ." Elrick was one of the first editors of the Socialist Standard; Alec Pearson, alongside Jack Kent, attended the Amsterdam Congress of Second International in August 1904 as an SPGB delegate; Margaret Pearson was the sister of Alec (Alex) Pearson, and was married to Alex Anderson; William Woodhouse had been the secretary of the SDF Poplar Branch from 1901-03, and was a member of the East London Branch of the SPGB. He resigned from the SPGB in November 1904 as he was emigrating to the United States.

". . . while the most active member in forming the London S.L.P. was E. E. Hunter . . . " Hunter's an interesting character, not only because of his subsequent career in the ILP and as a Labour Movement journalist, but because Robert Barltrop mentions him in his biography of Jack London. According to Barltrop, Hunter was one of a handful of SDFers who knew of London's true purpose for being in England, and provided him with information and guidance during his trip which led to London's book, The People of the Abyss. Barltrop mentions that another SDFer, by the name of Edward Fairbrother, also assisted London during this trip. Though Barltrop doesn't mention it, there's a very strong possibility that this Edward Fairbrother is the same Edward Fairbrother who was a founder member of the SPGB. Interestingly, there's no mention of Hunter's impossibilism on his wiki page. In fact, Challinor doesn't even mention Hunter in his book on the Socialist Labour Party.

Debate on Industrial Unionism. (continued) (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Continued from the October issue.)

Geis in his second speech said that up to a certain point he agreed with Fitzgerald—indeed, Fitzgerald with his wider and more intimate knowledge of Trade Unionism, would make a better Advocate of Industrial Unionism than he (Geis) himself. The adoption of the Preamble was not sufficient of itself; if the material to support it were not present in the working class it was useless. The passing of pious resolutions, of course, did not signify ; but they had to recognise what was vital in the principle laid down.

The effort being made was honest ; and though the organisiation he was representing might fail the principle would live—the principle that would establish Socialism. The working class had evolved to a certain stage, and different degrees of class-consciousness were observable everywhere in its members. The theory of the Industrial Unionist was that Socialism had so penetrated the working-class mind that the elements were now ready to organise on the lines he proposed. Fitzgerald had urged that the I.W.W. should call itself Socialist if it were Socialist; but the I.W.W. had to be considered not for what it called itself but for what it actually was—a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It had to be judged not by its name, but by its principles and action. With regard to the statements of Klemensic at the Chicago Convention, it was not at all unlikely that he was only in the position of a man who was for the time being rather puzzled by the clause under discussion. The I.W.W. included members of the Socialist Party, the Socialist Labour Party and others of no political affiliation whatsoever. Affiliation with either of the parties mentioned would only result in the promotion of discord. They were doing their best under the circumstances to unite the working-class politically by first uniting them industrially, in the firm belief that political disunity was the outcome of economic disorganisation. The existing political divisions in the working-class were clearly the shadow of their conflicting economic organisations. [This argument Geis illustrated thus : If in the sunlight, he held out his hand and extended his fingers, the shadow would show divisions ; but by closing up his fingers the shadow would be an undivided one.] That was why the I.W.W. refrained from affiliation with any existing political organisation. There were those who had not yet emancipated their minds from the metaphysical method of reasoning. [Here Geis read a very long extract from Engels’ “Socialism : Utopian and Scientific,” with the object of proving that Fitzgerald was a metaphysical reasoner.] The working-class was always in fluid motion its activities could not be frozen ; so sure as organic bodies grow, the working class would attain its emancipation through Industrial Unionism.

Fitzgerald emphatically denied that, he in any sense, or up to any point, had advocated mere Industrial Unionism, in which he had no faith. He had advocated Socialist Unionism, and no other. And in doing so he had dealt with facts ; his arguments were entirely along dialectical lines : not a single example had been adduced to show that his reasoning was dialectically incorrect. He also would refer to Engels’ “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” at p. 75 especially, where Engels indicates that the proletariat, will emancipate itself by seizing political power from the exploiting class and abolishing the class State. Although the I.W.W. was represented to be a single union it already showed a strong tendency to simulate the craft unions in its devolution into thirteen sub-divisions, quite regardless of the original seven-division “wheel” described by Hagerty. Thus the I.W.W. had obviously not themselves realised the class form of industrial organisation. He (Fitzgerald) was in favour of industrial organisation on a class basis, as opposed to the sectional basis, of the I.W.W. How was it possible to overthrow the Capitalist system, and “take and hold” the means of existence, merely by industrial organisation ? The seizure of land by the unemployed at West Ham afforded a miniature illustration of what would happen on a vast scale if the absurd attempt were made. In the one case the police and fire-hose sufficed to compel the unemployed to relinquish their hold on an acre of land : in the event of a greater attempt by Industrial Unionists they would be confronted by all the armed forces at the command of the dominant, class. The key to the position, as Engels had shown, was to obtain control of the fighting forces through the wresting of political authority from the possessing class. This was not a question of honesty, but of right and wrong; and the I.W.W., by its proposal to “take and hold” by economic action alone was simply misleading the working class. Political parties, moreover, were not a reflection of economic organisations, but the recognition and expression of economic interests. It was all very well to say in the Preamble that the I.W.W. did not countenance political affiliation ; it left political action out altogether. Why, if economic unity promoted political unity were such prominent advocates of Industrial Unionism as E. V. Debs and Daniel DeLeon still in political opposition ? why generally were its members at each other’s throats in the political field ? Only a clear understanding of their class position could bring about the political unity of the working class ; and so rapid was the development of economic conditions at the present time that all confusing and misleading proposals should be strenuously opposed, and the only way pointed out to the workers along the lines of Socialism and Socialism alone.

Geis observed that the members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain were obsessed with the idea of an armed Revolution ; they could not conceive the possibility of a peaceful revolution, and therefore they insisted on the necessity of the control by the workers of the armed forces of the nation. Their eyes were full of the blood of the French Revolution. Unless the workers were Industrially organised a bloody revolution would undoubtedly occur. He would point out that the soldiers engaged in the Featherstone shooting travelled by the aid of the craft unionists, who also supplied them with hats, boots, and clothes. If the workers were class-conscious the military would not be so supplied, nor with bayonets, bullets and “grub.” The armed force argument therefore fell to the ground. The whole working class would have to be industrially organised however, before it could complete its mission: but when that organisation was accomplished, the armed forces would not be able to move a hair’s breadth. The ballot-box method was a proved failure. The Russian revolutionaries were shot down notwithstanding the election of the Duma. With regard to the thirteen sub-divisions of the I.W.W., criticised by Fitzgerald, these did not constitute craft unions ; they were geographical divisions having local autonomy, but were subject to a central board. In this matter the I.W.W. submitted to circumstances they could not overcome, and Fitzgerald had elaborated no alternative scheme. Only by such industrial organisation as that he advocated would the workers accomplish the Social Revolution.

Fitzgerald replied that the emancipation of the working class was an impossibility until they were organised politically and economically. He had pointed out that although according to the Preamble of the I.W.W. the workers must come together on the political as on the economic field, two delegates at the Chicago convention of the I.W.W. had revealed the hopeless political confusion and class-unconsciousness of the members of that body, and the statements of those delegates were not repudiated. Neither had Geis made the least attempt to meet the question raised, which was essential. He (Fitzgerald) had every reason to desire a peaceful revolution, but the history of class-antagonisms and the circumstances of modern times provided him with but little hope in that direction. By repudiating the ballot-box method Geis had simply taken the Anarchist position ; and assuredly if the efforts of the I.W.W. were non-political they were also non-Socialist. Apparently Geis had never heard of soldiers being employed on railways, of the storage of seven years’ munitions of war and other such provisions. Finally he reasserted that a Socialist Preamble did not make a Socialist organisation, either in the case of a “pure and simple” craft union or the I.W.W. And his denial that that body was a Socialist Union implied also his opinion that it was not worthy the confidence and support, of the working class.

The S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

G. Geis writes at considerable length challenging the statement made by J. Fitzgerald in our last issue that he (Fitzgerald) asked Geis to stay away from the Cock & Hoop meeting. The matter is extraneous to the article we published in the August number, and in no way affects the position of the S.P.G.B. It was introduced by a correspondent whose letter appeared last month, and is at most a question of personal recollection with which we have nothing to do.

Answers to Correspondents. (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fred W. Tod.—Had hoped to print and deal with your letter in this issue but pressure prevents. Both letter and answer wait but for the psychological moment !

W. S. Jerman.—Your letter is largely a reiteration and contains no new point of importance. If you have any material criticism to offer we will be pleased to deal with it. But always remember that brevity is a sign of grace in a correspondent. You might easily have compressed your five pages into one and the matter would have benefited by the attention. Your desire to speak the truth only is laudable, but, unless you wish us to think it exceptional, hardly worth mentioning. We credit all our correspondents with the same desire. However, keep the desire alive and vigorous. It will help you to admit your error frankly (on points of journalistic method for example) when you know better.

Debate on Industrial Unionism. (1906)

Party News from the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Is the Industrial Workers of the World worthy the support of the working class?” was the subject of debate between G. Geis, S.L.P. (affirmative) and J. Fitzgerald, S.P.G.B. (negative) on Peckham Rye on Sunday evening, August 12th. W. Russell, S.P.G.B., acted as. Chairman.

Geis, in opening, corrected a remark by the chairman in which he suggested that the I.W.W. owed its origin to the S.L.P. The I.W.W. was not formed by, nor was it in any way under the control of the S.L.P., or any political organisation whatsoever. With regard to the question in debate, he had first to call attention to the object of the capitalist method of production, which was the extraction of surplus value from the working class. Hence arose the class struggle—on the part of the capitalist class to take from the workers as much as possible of the wealth that was alone produced by labour, and on the part of the working class to resist such exploitation. In the early period of capitalism the organisations formed by the workers were capable of fighting the small and unorganised capitalists with comparative success. Since that time the power of capital had developed enormously ; at the present time the capitalist class was well organised economically and politically, whereas the working class was not well organised in either respect. Indeed, trade unionism, instead of adapting itself to changing conditions, had remained in its babyhood, so to speak. It was now necessary for the workers to organise industrially on the basis of the class struggle. Craft unionism was played out and incapable either of offering resistance to, or advancing against the exploiting class. The outcome of craft unionism was well exemplified in the observations of a recent deputation of German working men to this country—a deputation, it should be noted, by no means revolutionary, but composed of persons eminently respectable, orthodox, and capitalistic. They commented most unfavourably on the uncleanly and unkempt appearance of British working people, and on their social and domestic condition generally. They were especially impressed, however, with the good understanding which existed between employers and employed. This, in their opinion, was an achievement due to the fine diplomatic spirit of the British race. Representatives of each side met, “and the employers got the men’s leaders to understand.” The function of the labour leader, commented Geis, was similar to that of the lightning-rod. The masters instructed the labour leaders, and the labour leaders instructed the men. The labour leaders, as accessories of the capitalist class, had their reward. The report of’ the delegation referred to was in fact an unintentional indictment of pure and simple trade unionism. The German delegates expressed the view that the big unions were anything but altruistic ; the skilled workers organised themselves in their own selfish interests, without any kind of regard for the welfare of the unskilled, the unorganised, and the unemployed. Geis pointed out that of a working population of 14,000,000 but 2,000,000 were at present organised. The higher wages and better conditions of the organised minority afforded no justification for the exclusiveness of craft unionism, for if the whole working class were organised the condition of all might be improved. As a commodity in the labour market the price of labour-power (wages) was regulated by supply and demand. The formation of a complete trust in the labour market, such as was implied in the form of industrial unionism he advocated, would force the condition of the working class infinitely higher ; the obstacle which prevented such a comprehensive industrial organisation was the job-trust, pure and simple trade unionism now existing. Apart from wresting from the capitalist class an ever increasing share of the product of labour, the mission of industrial unionism was to overthrow the capitalist system altogether, which was the logical and inevitable termination of the class struggle. In America, where the I.W.W. was a growing power, its main object was the overthrow of capitalism, but in the pursuit of that object it would incidentally raise wages and reduce the hours of labour. The purpose of the advocates of Industrial Unionism in this country was to start as soon as practicable a similar new organisation of the working class, for the existing craft unions, with their notions of the mutual relationship of employer and employed, and their exclusiveness and selfishness, were useless and irremediable. Geis then gave a number of examples of craft union action to show how the capitalist class took advantage of the sectional organisation of the working class, and how the sections fought and “scabbed” upon one another to their own detriment, and undoing. There could, he said, be no hope for the working class until it was organised, on the basis of the class struggle, in one vast world-wide organisation, co-extensive with capitalism itself, for the overthrow of the capitalist system. It was the duty of working men to understand the principles laid down by the advocates of Industrial Unionism, and by corresponding action to put an end to the unspeakable conditions under which they, the workers, could not be said to live, but merely existed.

Fitzgerald said he was, of course, in entire agreement with his opponent, regarding the necessity of complete economic organisation in the working class. In the capitalist system the workers did not own the wealth their labour produced : it accumulated in the ownership of the numerically small capitalist class ; the relationship of the two classes was, therefore, simply that of robber and robbed. The complete monopoly of the resources of production compelled the workers to sell their labour-power as merchandise to the capitalist class for wages, or in other words, for the bare cost of maintaining and reproducing their productive energies, according to various circumstances and conditions. Hence it became necessary from time to time for the workers to debate with the capitalists the price at which they would sell their labour-power, Necessarily, as the capitalist system developed they found themselves at an increasing disadvantage in their bargaining for subsistence. What Fourier had foreseen—namely, that competition would result in the combination of the competing parties—was surely being realised, and the workers were now confronted with a position in which the capitalist class was becoming smaller and increasingly powerful. For example, during the Engineers’ strike of 1898 eight firms practically dominated the steel industry ; since that time the number had been reduced to about four. Such concentration implied economy of management, especially in the reduction of the number of wage-workers. The promoters of the Milk Trust in America had estimated that when their scheme was in full operation they could dispense with the services of 11,000 “hands.” Again, when Allsopps, Salts, and the Burton Brewery Co. decided to combine, notices were given to a large number of the staff. It had been suggested that the craft form of unionism was responsible for unemployment and the helpless condition of the working class; on the contrary, Fitzgerald contended that no form of unionism—even Socialist unionism—could of itself materially or permanently improve their condition in the capitalist system, under which the application of every new scientific process to industry, or higher organisation, necessarily increased the number of the unemployed. The unions, as at present organised, it was true, by insisting on the payment of high initiation fees and subscriptions in times of crisis, had thereby forced large numbers out of their ranks ; they had unquestionably impaired their own effectiveness by increasing the number of the unorganised, who, driven by the whip of starvation, were used against them in periods of depression. Furthermore, until the workers recognised their class position, and so long as they did not realise the necessity of organising on a Socialist basis to overthrow the capitalist system, sectional differences and internal disorganisation would continue. There were certain delusions prevailing, however, regarding the Socialist basis of trade unions. The mere adoption of a Socialist preamble did not constitute a union a Socialist union. The Gas Workers’ Union and one of the Burnley Weavers’ unions had a Socialist preamble, but owing to the ignorance of the rank and file they had not expressed in action the principles by which they were supposed to be guided. In a Socialist union the members would clearly recognise that the overthrow of the capitalist system was only attainable by the united effort of the working class to wrest political authority from the capitalist class. Revolutionary political action was essential in a real Socialist union.

It had been claimed for the I.W.W. that it was a Socialist union. Like the craft unions just referred to, the I.W.W. did not call itself Socialist, nor did its members exhibit any clearer understanding of Socialist aims than the “pure and simple” unionists they condemned. The I.W.W. was not, in fact, a Socialist union at all. “We must not overlook the fact,” said delegate Klemensic at the first Convention of the I.W.W. at Chicago, “that we are here as working men, and as such we do not recognise the Socialist, the Anarchist, or any other kind of ‘ist.'” This expression of opinion drew no protest from De Leon, nor from any other members of the Socialist Labour Party or Socialist Trades and Labour Alliance who were present. When Keir Hardie, at Darncrook, Newcastle, had stated that the Labour Party was not out for Toryism. Liberalism, or Socialism, but for Labourism, the Socialist Party of Great Britain had not hesitated to condemn his attitude. What distinction could be drawn between the positions taken respectively by Klemensic and Keir Hardie ? Moreover, the Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World contained a remarkable contradiction as follows:

“Between these two classes a struggle must go on until all the workers come together on the political as well as on the industrial field, and take and hold that which they produce by their labour through an economic organisation of the working class without affiliation with any political party.”

How could they come together on the political field if they were kept apart by non-affiliation ? Naturally enough, a big battle raged over this clause in the Chicago Convention. Delegate Clarence Smith said:

“It seems to me that this paragraph of the Preamble particularly is intended, not to represent the principles and purposes of industrialism, but represents a toadyism to three different factions in this Convention, and I am opposed to this organisation toadying to any man or any faction of men. … It seems to me that this paragraph could not have been more involved or more confusing if it had been written by the platform committee of the Republican or Democratic Party. It seems to me as if the paragraph is intended to be toadying to the man who does not believe in politics at all, the pure and simple trade unionist as we have come to call him ; that it means a toadying to the Socialist, and also to the Anarchist, if you please. It seems to me that this paragraph is intended to be such that the supporter of this movement can point to it when talking to a pure and simple unionist and say ‘That is just what you want and expresses what you believe in.’ I believe it is intended to be such that a Socialist can be pointed to this platform with the statement that ‘This is Socialism.’ I believe it is intended to be such that an Anarchist can be confronted and told that ‘This means Anarchy as it is written right in this paragraph.’”

Delegate Murtaugh also made a statement which revealed a confusion of political elements in the I.W.W. which similarly characterizes craft unionism:

“It is useless for us here to attempt to disguise the fact that we have every shade of political opinion. We have the Socialists—I happen to be one of them—who believe that action in the political line is absolutely necessary. We have the Socialist, on the other hand, who is so near the Anarchist that he is beginning to think as the Anarchist does—that action along the political line is absolutely harmful instead of being useless.”

Thus within the I.W.W. according to Murtaugh, there were those who were prepared to repeat the old cry of “no politics in the trade unions.” There was a suggestion made at this Conference that no member of the I.W.W. should be allowed to accept nomination for office in a capitalist political party, whereupon Klemensic pointed out that this would conflict with the position of the Western Federation of Miners in Butte, Montana, where they formed part of the Republican party. Mr. Haggerty, the delegate of the Butte district of the Western Federation of Miners, made the following statement:

“It is true that back in the State of Montana we have a peculiar condition of things. Some five or six years ago I attended the convention of the state labour movement in the city of Helena in September, 1899. I went with the delegation from the organisation that sent me to this convention. It devolved upon that convention to go forth and organise what we knew as a political party. . . . After the party had been organised, capitalist parties commenced to lay plans to seize upon it. We found the Amalgamated Mining Company upon one side, and Senator Clark and F. A. Heinze upon the other, at war. There was an opportunity we could not miss. We seized upon the opportunity. Clark wanted to become a U.S. Senator, and F. A. Heinze wanted something else, and we knew it. I maintain that we did not go to them, but compelled them to come to us; but nevertheless there was a capitalist combination with a labour party, and hence it became capitalistic. We went to the polls and united our movement to theirs. Twelve men went to the legislative body from that county. In the division we got six of the twelve. We got the sheriff of the county, the coroner, and others. I was nominated for the office of county commissioner and was elected.”

Continuing, Fitzgerald pointed out that in Colorado two years ago the Western Federation of Miners had passed through an experience that threw our Featherstone shooting entirely in the shade. Yet at the following election they voted for a capitalist Governor in that state—and this was the organisation that claimed to be “the most radical and revolutionary in America,” and which formed the most important and powerful section of the Industrial Workers of the World. Obviously the elements composing the I.W.W. were indistinguishable from the “pure and simple” unionists represented at our Trade Union Congress ! One of the arguments used against craft unionism by the advocates of Industrial Unionism was that they excluded the unorganised by high initiation fees and subscriptions. But comparison of these charges made by a typical craft union like the Operative Bricklayers’ Society and those made by the I.W.W. was certainly not favourable to the latter. Thus the initiation fee of the I.W.W. was twice as large as that of the O.B.S., while the latter allowed 180 days’ subscriptions in arrear before exclusion, and the I.W.W. only 60, or one-third of that time, as shown by the Constitution and By-laws of the I.W.W. In action, therefore, it was also difficult to distinguish between the I.W.W. and “pure and simple” craft unionism.

[To be continued.]