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.

The Influence of Property in the Civilisation of Man. (1907)

From the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“It is impossible to over-estimate the influence of property in the civilisation of mankind. It was the power that brought the Aryan and Semetic nations out of barbarism into civilisation. The growth of the idea of property in the human mind commenced in feebleness and ended in becoming its master passion. Governments and Laws are instituted with primary reference to its creation, protection and enjoyment. It introduced human slavery as an instrument in its production ; and after the experience of several thousand years it caused the abolition of slavery upon the discovery that a freeman was a better property-making machine. . . The dissolution of society bids fair to become the termination of a career of which property is the end and aim ; because such a career contains the elements of self-destruction. Democracy is the next higher plane. It will be a revival in a higher form of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes.”

—Ancient Society MORGAN.

A New Year’s Gathering. (1907)

Party News from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

IMPORTANT.
A NEW YEAR’S GATHERING
OF PARTY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS
WILL BE HOLDEN
EARLY IN FEBRUARY
IN THE HALL OF
The Communist Club,
Charlotte Street, W.

_____:0:____

GREAT PROGRAMME IN PREPARATION.

_____:0:____

SONGS, DANCES, etc.

_____:0:____

Full particulars will be sent to Branch Secretaries shortly

The Islington dispute. (1907)

Party News from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A statement dealing with the expulsion by the Socialist Party of Great Britain of certain members of the Islington Branch of the Party will appear in the February issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Branch Directory. (1907)

Party News from the January 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I don't usually make a habit of posting the branch directory from the Standard on the blog but I thought I would make an exception this time 'cos of the information at the bottom about contacts outside of London. As you'll note the SPGB in 1907 were still largely concentrated in London (and Watford), so it's interesting to note that there were members as far a field as Liverpool, Bradford (a hot spot for the ILP), Birmingham and Burton.

By the end of 1907, the SPGB did have a branch in Manchester.

Sting in the Tail: Warning to our readers (1995)

The Sting in the Tail column from the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Warning to our readers

Shock horror! A spate of muggings in what was once ‘appy ‘ampstead has resulted in some very valuable Rolex watches being nicked.

Several of the well-heeled fraternity including one of Michael Heseltine’s daughters and ex-model Jilly Johnson have had their prized timepieces snatched from their persons. Some of the watches cost as much as £20,000 and one is described as being “diamond encrusted' (Guardian, 29 April.)

In a cunning and very well publicised attempt to surprise the muggers, decoy policemen wearing fake designer clothes are parading around Hampstead sporting imitation Rolex watches provided by the company which is, naturally, anxious to see that its customers are not discouraged from buying the real thing.

So our warning to all our readers is: do not go up to Hampstead flaunting your £20,000 Rolex as you could easily be mistaken for a policeman.

Somebody tell them

What happens if you put a lot of predatory fish, large and small, into a fish tank and leave them to get on with it? That’s easy, the little fish get gobbled-up by the big ‘uns.

This is what has happened in Britain’s passenger bus industry since it was deregulated in 1985. The government’s declared aim was to end “public monopolies” run by municipal authorities and “open up the industry to competition”.

For a while, this is what happened as lots of new operators emerged to compete with privatised ex-municipal bus companies for a share of the lucrative market.

But since then hundreds of the smaller companies have been taken over or forced out of business by biggies like Stagecoach or Badgerline, and the end result will be a few big companies each aiming for the legal maximum of 25 percent of the market.

The government and its think-tank advisers completely failed to foresee the so-predictable consequences of their policy, but shouldn’t capitalism’s loudest advocates at least understand how the bloody system works?

Natural unemployment?

Socialists are used to dealing with well-paid apologists for capitalism’s shortcomings. Politicians who tell us that it is natural to be aggressive and acquisitive. Priests who tell us that it is natural to have poverty amidst plenty.

Now we have another piece of “natural” nonsense. The economic journalist Evan Davis in the Independent (20 April) wrote a column entitled “How Much Unemployment Comes Naturally?”. He reviewed various “expert” opinion on what the natural figure for unemployment might be. One of these groups of experts, the Centre for Economic Policy Research, comes up with a figure of 6.4 percent. He favours a figure “of about 5 or 6 percent”; this is based on comparing the commercial property market with the labour market.

“There are significant ‘hiring and firing ’ costs in both—so companies usually don’t hire property by the day any more than they hire labour by the day. Well, I am told by those who work in it that a typical period in that market might see about 6 percent of buildings unemployed, or vacant. ”

One pleasing aspect about the establishment of socialism is that such experts as the CEPR and economic journalists will be freed from their arduous research and allowed to pursue some useful occupation.

Poverty and TB

The British Medical Journal recently carried a report that the incidence of tuberculosis is rising. In the last five years there has been a 12 percent increase.

“Anyone can catch tuberculosis but it is more likely to spread from person to person in overcrowded conditions and individuals who are badly nourished or otherwise in poor health are less liable to fight off the infection, ” says the British Medical Association. Dr John Moore-Gillon and Dr Malcolm Law of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London, have now discovered that TB is 10 times more common in the poorer tenth of the population than the richest tenth " (Herald, 13 April.)

The increase of unemployment and homelessness has led to an increase of this poverty-related illness. Just another example of the needless suffering of a section of the working class because capitalism is more concerned with profits than public health.

Who are the immigrants?

The Observer (30 April) under the headline “Jospin hopes to recruit Le Pen’s rag-tag army” reported that the so-called Socialist Party in France were eager to get some of the votes cast in the first ballot for the National Front candidate.

“Pierre Buccelato, 60, is one such voter. A former builder who found himself among France’s three million unemployed when recession struck, he now sells flowers on the edge of a sprawling estate . . . Railing against the foreigners who he claims are awarded council flats ahead of ‘French people ’ he said he once voted for Mitterand but now agrees with Jean-Marie Pen’s National Front. ‘Immigration is why we have no work. Get rid of the immigrants and we’ll get our jobs back,’ he insisted, pausing to admit that he himself was an Italian immigrant who had arrived in France in 1957.”

All workers must seek wages wherever they can. Blaming “foreign” workers for unemployment is stupid. In the world recession of the 1930s there was hardly any immigration to France but there was high unemployment. As long as workers support politicians like Le Pen, Chirac or Jospin capitalism will continue, with all its problems.

The Rich get Richer (1995)

From the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Despite John Major's claim that it is his aim to create a classless society there is hardly a day goes by without new revelations coming to light concerning the fact that capitalism in Britain is as class-divided as ever between the rich and the poor.

Two recent publications confirm the inequality in the ownership of capital that is the basis of capitalism. The first is the 1995 edition of Social Trends, an official government publication. The second is the report on Income and Wealth published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The Rowntree Report is mainly about the distribution of income but it contains a chapter on the distribution of wealth based on recent research as well as on government statistics.

The part on inequality in the distribution of income demolishes the misleading view put forward by the Tories (but not just by them) that because real incomes rose by 36 percent between 1979 and 1992 this meant that everybody became better off by that amount over the period. When the figure is broken down into income groups it becomes clear that only the top 30 percent had an increase of 36 percent or more; the great bulk of people didn't get this; 50 percent got less than this, 10 percent got no increase at all. while the bottom 10 percent ended up worse off in real terms, i.e. their standard of living actually fell; they had less to consume. Given these figures even the capitalist press was obliged to talk of the “rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer”.

When it comes to the distribution of wealth the first problem is the definition of “wealth”. There are at least four different definitions used by the government: (1) "marketable wealth”, or assets owned by persons that can be sold or cashed in; (2) "marketable wealth less value of dwellings”, which takes the value of privately-owned houses and flats out of the first figure; (3) marketable wealth plus the notional capitalised value of people’s accrued occupational pension rights, and (4) marketable wealth plus the notional capitalised value of both occupational and state pension rights.

The last two of these—sometimes called “personal wealth”—are quite useless as it is invalid to regard future pension rights as a capital sum belonging to the pensioner. These rights are not marketable and so this sum is entirely notional as far as the individual is concerned; they can't sell it or bequeath it. As far as they are concerned it isn’t part of their wealth, so it doesn’t make sense to say that they own it. All they have is the right to be paid a pension, which is what a pension right is and nothing more.

The absurdity of converting the legal right to an income into a notional lump sum which the person concerned is then said to own can be seen by looking at “income support" The law lays down that everybody has the right to have their income made up to a certain minimum level; if they have no other income then they have the right to be paid an income from the state equal to this level. Yet nobody has suggested that a person’s income support should be converted into a notional capital sum and attributed to them as their wealth. The absurdity of doing this is so obvious; these people are destitute, they have no wealth; that’s why the state has to pay them something. But there’s no difference in principle between a pension right and the right to income support. What is absurd in the one case is just as absurd in the other.

Adding notional sums for pension rights to the real assets that "marketable wealth” represents distorts the figures completely and makes people appear much richer than they actually are. For instance, a table in the Rowntree Report (Figure 50) shows that in 1992 total marketable wealth amounted to £1,689 billion. When a notional capital sum for pension rights and another for secure tenancies at below market rents are added the figure for “total wealth" increases to £3,325 billion, i.e. nearly doubles.

What this means is that nearly half of total so-called personal wealth is fictional as far as the persons who are supposed to own it are concerned. It has no real existence for them.

In fact most of it has no real existence at all since there are no real assets in the economy that correspond to it. It is true that this doesn’t apply to funded pension schemes but their value is only about a third of the value of the capitalised pension rights attributed to individuals in these government statistics and, in any event, it makes more sense to see the really-existing assets these funds represent as belonging to the employer who set up the scheme rather than to the future pensioners.

The way these false figures distort the facts can easily be demonstrated. The bottom half of adults own between them only 8 percent of marketable wealth, or an average of about £600 each. When all the fictional, non-marketable “wealth” is added their percentage share rises to 17 percent of a figure nearly twice as big. This increases their average “wealth”-holding to around £2,500. Suddenly, by the stroke of the statistician’s pen, they can be portrayed as more than four times wealthier than they actually are. It's all a nonsense but it is easy to see the political motivation behind it.

Wealth and capital

The only meaningful figures for the distribution of wealth are the first two: those showing the concentration of personal marketable assets and those showing this minus the value of houses and flats. The difference between these two can be seen from table 5.23 in the 1995 edition of Social Trends which gives the provisional figures for 1992:

For some purposes, the first column is valid—to show how much personal property individuals actually possess whether they invest it or whether they are consuming it. But, for demonstrating the inequality that is at the basis of capitalism, the second column is the more valid since socialists contend that capitalism is based on the inequality of ownership of wealth that provides an unearned income (i.e. on wealth that is invested as capital) rather than of all wealth, some of which is used for consumption (as are most houses).

What the second column shows is that the top 1 percent (less than half-a-million individuals) own nearly five times as much income-providing assets as the bottom 50 percent (some 22 million people). And that the top 5 percent own more (53%) than the bottom 95 percent (47%). Or, put differently, that out of every 20 people one of them owns more than the other 19 added together.

These figures haven’t changed much since 1976. If anything the rich have got richer, relatively as well as absolutely. In 1976 the top 5 percent owned 47%; they now own 53%; while the share of the bottom 50 percent has fallen from 12% to 6%.

Actually, even this second column doesn’t give the true picture of the inequality of capital ownership since it is only concerned with capital that is personally owned, i.e. that is attributable to individuals. An appreciable amount of capital, however, cannot be attributed to identifiable individuals as individuals; it is owned collectively as by the government, by trusts and by pension funds; it also includes any part of the assets of companies that is not attributable to shareholders.

This non-personal capital is equally part of total capital and when taken into account reduces the share of capital owned by the bottom 95 percent of the population. Capitalism really is based on their exclusion from the ownership and control of all but negligible amounts of capital.

How poor are you?

Just how negligible can be seen from a revealing 1994 study, quoted by the Rowntree Report, by three researchers based on data obtained by the 1991-2 Financial Research Survey carried out by National Opinion Polls (The Distribution of Wealth in the UK, James Barker, Andrew Dinot and Hamish Low, Institute of Fiscal Studies Commentary No 45, 1994). This shows (Figure 54) just how few financial assets most people own:

This means, as the Rowntree Report put it, that “half of all families had financial assets of less than £500 in a 1991-2 survey, and 90 percent less than £8,000”. This certainly puts things into perspective. Most people only receive trivial amounts of unearned income since their holdings of financial assets are so small.

Owning or buying your house and having an extra £10,000 - £15,000 invested somewhere is probably the height of most people’s ambition (though only a few of them are going to attain it, and then only within ten years of their deaths). But it is still not enough to get you into the top 5 percent and, if you are below pension age, it is certainly not enough to allow you to live on your unearned income and so free you from the necessity to seek an employer.

The income from an investment of £15,000 (which is the upper limit for the bottom 95 percent of the population) might top up your income if you’re retired but it’s only peanuts as far as those on the top 1 percent are concerned. There the lower limit is £36,801 and the upper limit is the sky, as the latest Sunday Times's (14 May) list of "Britain’s Richest 500" shows. Number One on the list are the Rausing brothers owning £4,000 millions-worth of wealth, followed by the Sainsbury family with £2,520 million. Fourth is the Duke of Westminster with £1,500 million. Mrs Windsor is seventeenth with a mere £450 million.

Adam Buick