Letter: The S.P.G.B. and leaders (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent, Mr. J. Crow, Sunderland, asks, "Why doesn’t the S.P.GB. give more prominence to the names of its leaders?"

The short answer is that the Socialist Movement, unlike other movements, has no leaders. If we may be permitted to state the obvious a leader is one who leads. Those who do not know where they are or where they are going need leaders. Socialists, who do know where they are going and by what means Socialism will be achieved, do not need leaders. The S.P.G.B. has an elected Executive Committee and various officials to do work for the Party as well as speakers appointed to expound its case. All of them are bound by the Declaration of Principles which is the Party’s basis. The members know and accept that Declaration and they co-operate in furthering the Party’s object. For what purpose then could the S.P.G.B. need leaders?

A leader exists and is necessary in non socialist organisations, the members of which do not accept, understand and agree upon a defined object and policy. He is publicised and glorified and wields power over the organisation,. The members put their faith in his supposedly superior wisdom, often with results which prove disastrous—then they acclaim a new leader. Sometimes, as in the popular "labour" organisations the leader falls for the flattery or more substantial inducements offered by the ruling class and betrays his members. Being a leader, with the capacity to sway and direct his uncritical trusty followers he has something to sell to the other side.

As socialist understanding grows, leaders and leadership fadeaway.

Editorial Committee.