The Pillory. (1906)

From the February 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

While all other parties regard election campaigns as a nuisance . . we revolutionary Social Democrats enjoy the opportunity of fighting the enemies of the proletariat.

Justice, 13.1.06.

We should never have thought of contesting (the Southampton Election) but for the undertaking voluntarily made by the Liberals with the Trades Council only to run one Candidate.

Justice, 20.1.06.

So that if the undertaking had not been made, the S.D.F. would have denied themselves the enjoyment of fighting the Liberal enemy of the proletariat. There’s self-sacrifice for you !

“Williams and Gribble fought well and Jack in particular was gaining in popularity every day. . . So far as the calculations of those who are supposed to be excellent judges of elections went our chances were exceedingly favourable.”

Yet—

“Something went wrong with the works of the voting machine however, and just at the critical time a considerable portion of our people must have given their favours to the Liberals.”

Northampton S.D.F. Rept. Justice, 20.1.06.

The popularity of picturesque personalities is a poor thing to build up a working-class party upon. Anyhow, it was not strong enough to prevent a considerable portion of our people from falling from grace. Moral.—Build always upon the rock of Socialism and your people will never fail you.

“To us the chief value of the present contest is educational ; and that is why our interest is virtually centered in the small band of uncompromising avowed Socialists. . . . It is because of our deep-seated and long held conviction of the utter hopelessness of anything short of open and implacable warfare against party and privilege and capitalism that . .. . we repeat our advice to our friends to vote solid for the Socialist Candidate and to abstain from voting where no Independent Labour or Socialist candidate is standing.”

Clarion, 12.1.06.

Anything short of open and implacable warfare against capitalism is utterly hopeless. Therefore, we should abstain from voting except for Independent Labour Candidates. Yet not one of the independent Labour Candidates is either an avowed uncompromising Socialist or at open and implacable war with Capitalism. Therefore, they are utterly hopeless. Dear ! dear! And this is a clarion call.

“London, long-suffering, patient London, has made a wonderfully clean sweep of its ruck of ground landlords, contractors, gas and water shareholders, electric trust candidates and municipal reactionaries generally.”

S.D.S., Labour Leader, 19.1.06.

“The main part of their (the Liberals’ and Tories’) business is to mislead the people. They find out what questions are most likely to excite the prejudices and appeal to the passions of the mob and then play upon them. . . They are bound to be found out, but they are buoyed up with the hope that when that time comes some other question will arise. If not then the worst that can befall is the defeat of their party, and their rents and profits and legal fees mill be quite as secure us before”.

J.K.H., Labour Leader, 12.1.06.

One of the faults of the young men who write for the “Labour Leader” is that they think their own contributions are the only things of value in the paper and never read the other fellows’ stuff. Now if S.D.S. had but read J.K.H. the week previously when J.K.H. for some unexplained cause happened to be writing sense, he might have avoided making such a dismal exhibition of himself.

The significant feature of the elections so far is the big vote polled by Socialist and Labour candidates who were run independent of both capitalist factions.

ELECTION RESULT.

Camborne.

Dunn (L) 4,614

Hewitt (C) 2,384

J. JONES (S.D.F.) 109

Why this falling off in the big vote? Is it because the Camborne Candidature was not independent of both Capitalist factions ? Is it because it was dependent upon one of the Capitalist Factions ? Who said Tory gold?

Blogger's Notes:

Like the previous month's column (also titled 'The Pillory'), the  "formatting of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard neatly puts the contradictory statements side by side (see below) to give the full impact of the ILP/SDF opportunism and double talk. Sadly, I can't do the same on the blog and, as you can see, the quality of the scan isn't the best anyway."

Also, the ILP newspaper, the Labour Leader, which is mentioned in the piece, is labelled under 'New Leader' on the blog. That's 'cos the newspaper went through a number of name changes in its history . . . Labour Leader . . .  New Leader . . . Socialist Leader . . . and, finally, back to Labour Leader again when the ILP rejoined the Labour Party in the mid-1970s.

Finally, my educated guess is that the 'SDS', the ILP columnist quoted in the Labour Leader, was 'S. D. Shallard'. I'd never heard of him before now, but I was able to hunt him down via a quick look through David Howell's history of the early ILP. Another source mentions that Shallard originally had plans for a career in the Church, but "after a spell of employment in the Woolwich Arsenal had become a professional journalist and socialist lecturer". Beyond that there is little info about him on the internet.