Under the heading, “A Study in Shuffling,” the Socialist, organ of the S.L.P., in its March issue returns to the question of the part played by S.L.P. members in the formation of the Communist Party in 1920. (See the Socialist Standard for October, 1941, and January, 1942.)
They first objected, quite rightly, to a statement made in our columns that the S.L.P. was fused in the Communist Party in 1920. They asked for our apology and got it. We had asked whether they accepted the statement of a Communist writer that “the main part of the S.L.P.” went into the Communist Party? We also set against their claim that they had never “fused, united, federated, nor anything of the sort, with any party whatsoever” the fact that not long before the time when the B.S.P. was mainly instrumental in forming the Communist Party the S.L.P. had been willing to issue a joint manifesto with the B.S.P. and I.L.P.
This has drawn another wild and angry rejoinder which ignores the first question entirely, scornfully rejects the apology which had previously been clamoured for, and asks whether we wished to insinuate that their willingness to sign that joint manifesto constituted a betrayal of any of the S.L.P.’s principles or a violation of loyalty to revolutionary Socialism. To the latter question our reply is that the I.L.P. and B.S.P. would have been strange associates for any body claiming to represent revolutionary Socialism, but that it is for the S.L.P. not anybody else to decide whether association with such parties was or was not a violation of any principle of the S.L.P. Apparently not feeling too happy about its own action in 1918 the Socialist retorts by referring to something which happened in the S.P.G.B. twelve or thirteen years earlier. This was that the S.P.G.B., just after its formation in June, 1904, sent delegates to the Amsterdam International Congress, but under the rules of that body they found that they would only be admitted as part of the British delegation along with the S.D.F., I.L.P., etc., and not as a separate body. The Socialist does not add that when this position was considered by the Conference of the S.P.G.B. it was decided first to try to alter the constitution of the International so that only genuinely Socialist parties would be accepted, and as this effort failed the S.P.G.B. Conference in 1907 decided that no S.P.G.B. delegates be sent.
It will be noticed that this was a problem faced by the S.P.G.B. at its formation, and dealt with when it was found that the International was not prepared to alter its constitution to include only Socialist parties. The Socialist quotes this in order to excuse an S.L.P. policy of associating with the B.S.P. and I.L.P. which was still their policy after they had been in existence sixteen years. Perhaps this is why the Socialist, when mentioning the S.P.G.B.’s relationship with the Amsterdam Congress, omits to give the date, 1904.
Mention has already been made of the fact that the Socialist prefers to ignore the question whether the main part of its members went into the Communist Party. Instead, they find room in their statement, which runs to about 1,200 words, for more references to our sincerity. They say: —
Finally, we reject the apologies of “The Socialist Standard” for the publication of their misrepresentation because their entire conduct and attitude in the matter has convinced us of their complete insincerity. Their shuffling and their obvious desire to rake up anything they think likely to cast mud upon the S.L.P. forces us to the conclusion that they knew from the first that the S.L.P. had nothing to do with the formation of the Communist Party, and that their claim to be ignorant in the matter is not sincere.
Unfortunately for the heated writer of the statement in the Socialist, he forgets what he wrote earlier. His first claim was that we knew the facts and had lied deliberately with intent to deceive. Then to suit another argument he altered his ground and accused as of making the statement “without knowing the facts.” Now he is back to the original accusation for which, in the nature of the case, he could have no justification in any event.
Ed. Comm.
No comments:
Post a Comment