S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1913)

Party News from the August 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• C. Elliott was a member of the Tooting Branch, originally joining the SPGB in September 1909. There is no record of when they lapsed their membership.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch.
  William Lewington was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in March 1907. He resigned from the SPGB but no date is given for his resignation.
  C. Gatter is possibly Alfred G. Gatter, who was a member of Stoke Newington Branch. They originally joined the SPGB in February 1910, and their membership was lapsed in April 1919.
  A. L. Cox was a member of Islington Branch.
  B. Seach was probably G. Seach, who originally joined Hackney Branch of the SPGB in September 1912. His obituary appeared in the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1936)

Party News from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

'Comrade Clifford', who was the London speaker at the Durdham Downs, Bristol meeting, was Clifford Groves.

Poplar. (1932)

Party News from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

According to the Party Directory in the April 1932 Socialist Standard, the SPGB had five branches in East London at this time (I'm not counting the Islington or Tottenham branches) but none of these branches were based in Poplar. Therefore, I'm just presuming that these meetings were a joint effort of the comrades in East London from all the branches. 

During this same time period the SPGB had nine regular outdoor speaking pitches in East London which were advertised month on month in the Standard. These included famous outdoor speaking areas such as Ridley Road, Victoria Park and Stepney Green.

Syndicalism, its cause and cure. (1912)

Book Review from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Syndicalism and the General Strike – by Arthur D. Lewis. (London; T. Fisher Unwin. Price 7s 6d)

As the only party in Great Britain that has taken up a definite and consistent attitude towards Anarchism in all its forms, it is meet that we should have something to say on the latest work on Syndicalism that has been published.

We have adopted a frankly hostile policy to this latest importation for the simple reason that we are a Socialist party. The sorry plight of those so-called Socialist bodies like the B. S. P. and the I. L. P. is a natural result of their lack of principles based on a correct knowledge of the position of our class. Inside the former body there is a heated controversy, both among the “leaders” and the rank and file, as to whether Syndicalism is the road for the workers to travel. The curious position of the I. L. P. is shown by their advocacy of the General Strike at the International Labour Congress as a weapon against war!

The cause of Syndicalism lies in the history of these and similar parties. In the Blatchford section they have literally bred Syndicalism by their disgusting election tricks, so often exposed in these pages. Their former members, now Syndicalists, point to the vote-hunting, compromising campaigns of Bethnal Green and Northampton, along with others, as showing the failure and danger of political action. The Independent Labour Party, too, has so treacherously played the part of advance agents of the Liberal party that from political opportunism their supporters right-about-turn to denounce political action altogether  — not that they understand Syndicalism any more than its leading votaries, but believing it to be anti-political, they seek shelter beneath its slogans and formulas.

Our statement of the cause of Syndicalism is supporter by the Syndicalist author of the book under review, who states (p. 187) that: –

“There are practically only one or two Syndicalists in England, but discontent with the degree of success obtained through the Parliamentary Labour Party has led to a general return to trade unionism and strikes as a means of fighting the employers . . . The belief that at least one member of the party bargains with the Liberal Government with a view to his personal advantage; the moderation of its words in Parliament compared with its words on the platform; the incapacity of many members of it, who are only dolls in the hands of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; the acceptance by certain of its members of paid posts given by the Liberals; and its love of Puritanism, have all helped to cause a feeling of disappointment and disillusionment in many who once trusted and believed in it.”

That, then, is the cause of the spread of Syndicalism. It is clearly shown by this that Syndicalism thrives on ignorance. Only mis-educated, non Socialist workers would ever trust the Labour Party, would ever expect them to look after the toilers’ interests; and when the failure of their political inaction is realised, it is not the political method itself that has been found wanting, but it is the lack of sound knowledge on the workers’ part that is demonstrated. Because the political machine has been used in a capitalist direction the Syndicalist and his dupes proclaim the failure of politics!

The present book consists chiefly of quotations from the works of the Syndicalist leaders of to-day throughout Europe, and the author ventures his opinions very little. When he does so, he shows not only that he does not understand Syndicalism, but that he understands Socialism still less. In the preface he declares Socialism to mean that “huge State monopolies are to be formed in all industries, and that these will be controlled by a few very powerful officials at Westminster”.

This is typical of the misrepresentation that the Syndicalists feed their followers on. If Mr. Lewis would consult what he calls an “orthodox” Socialist, say Frederick Engels, he would find that Socialism rises upon the ashes of the State, for when Socialism comes the day of the State has closed for ever.

Though the title of the work is Syndicalism and the General Strike, only one chapter is devoted wholly to the latter question. The chief part deals with the theory of Syndicalism and Syndicalists.

Our author tells us that “the Syndicalist likes poor unions best — riches bring caution: he likes low weekly dues and small benefits”. Rather we would say, the average Syndicalist likes no dues and many benefits. We are promised much melodrama and but little organisation and education by his statement that: “The great weapon of the workers against their masters is disorder”. And one phase is described as “sabôtage or the destruction of property, intimidation of masters, sitting in factories with folded arms so no blacklegs can take your places, leaving work at an hour earlier than the masters want, telling the truth to customers: all these are means by which the masters can be made to yield”.

What they are to be made to yield by these means we are not told. But anyone can realise that while these things may prove aggravating to the isolated employer, and make him more bitter against the music-hall revolutionists, yet if this kind of thing was general, all the employers being on the same footing, they would feel its effects very little.

But to keep this conduct up the workers would need the power, not merely to personate George Washington, but to take control of the entire means of life; not to leave at an earlier hour than the masters desire, but to leave masters altogether. The crude notions of these folk are brought forward in the idea of “sitting with folded arms” while the masters want food, clothing, etc. for their daily needs. Sabotage, like all Syndicalist methods, is born of the want of sound knowledge and strong organisation.

Despite the fact that the author declares that the General Confederation of Labour in France “contains both a reformist and a revolutionary section”, and that the latter is “the minority of a minority of a minority — only some of the members of the C. G. T. being revolutionists and the C. G. T. itself only representing a minority of the unions” — despite that, however, the Anarchists miscalled revolutionists have a governing influence in the organisation, and have made its actions both comedies and tragedies.

They don’t believe in democracy. As the leading French Syndicalist, Émile Pouget, says in the work quoted — “The Syndicalist” — “Syndicalism and democracy are the two opposite poles which exclude and neutralise each other . . . This is because democracy is a social superfluity, a parasitic and external excrescence, while Syndicalism is a logical manifestation of the growth of life”, etc. Another French leader, M. Pierrot, is quoted as saying in “Syndicalism and Revolution” : “It is better to have an active group who know how to carry the masses and turn them in the right direction by their words and actions” . “The Syndicalist”, says our author “has contempt for the vulgar idea of democracy: the inert, unconscious mass is not to be taken into account when the minority wishes to act so as to benefit it”.

That is the key note. The ‘intellectual’ few are to dominate the many. Not democracy but autocracy and dictatorship. The day of  a revolution carried out on these lines would also be the day of counter-revolution, the day of disaster, of drilled, unthinking masses being driven to the New Jerusalem. The day of revolution would but be the prelude to the long, black night of apathy and despair.

 

The Socialist Party, however, clings fast to democracy in organisation and in action. It knows that the real, reliable movement can only be built up with an alert, awakened, interested working class. That alone can bring about emancipation — not a few leaders hypnotising an ignorant rank and file.

Syndicalism means but a change of leaders. As Gaylord Wilshire’s (the wealthy Syndicalist) magazine declares (November 1912): “The new movement calls for new leaders”. And again: “The new conditions must bring forth a new type of leader, powerful, inspiring, and heroic”. Leadership, not a live membership doing their own work in their own way, that is the ideal. Mr. Lewis points out that unions with small funds are wanted, for, says he, “where funds are large the workers are made to vote for or against a strike”, thus showing that the Syndicalist objects to the will of the worker being expressed and acted upon.

“Syndicalism has an immediate programme. It would have the unions look to it that there are meeting places for working men, where there will be lectures, baths, and all that helps them to learn how to take control of production and consumption; also the officials, with professional help, should get for the workers their legal rights and place medical and legal advice at their disposal.”

So anxious are they about reforms that they even worry about legal rights. Fancy hungering after the rights conferred by lawyers and by Parliament! But it is not surprising, for above all else the Syndicalists are reformers. Without economic knowledge or political insight, what else could they be? The English Syndicalist, Mr. Tom Mann declares (“A Twofold Warning”) that poverty can be abolished under capitalism, and he also says: “I contend that reducing the working hours provides a solution for the problem of unemployment, and it matters not what system obtains”. With this rot they make converts among the ignorant, yet any tyro in economics could prove to him that the reserve army of labour is the corner-stone of capitalism, and that the shortening of hours doesn’t mean the lessening of the product of the same number of men. The Chief Inspector of Mines just reports that in spite of the Eight Hours Day Bill, and the strikes last year, over seven million tons more coal were produced than in 1912, and on the average every miner’s output increased three tons. This is typical of the whole industrial world.

Syndicalists claim great things for their strikes and sabotage. Something now! “The use of trade union labels is regarded as an instance of direct action”. The free advertisement of particular employers! Further we are told that by sabotage “bread has been made inedible but not injurious” — a kind of general “hunger strike” forced upon the working class.

But the sad story of Spanish, French and Italian strikes and sabotage has somewhat dimmed the picture. Yvetot, the chief of the C. G. T., in his ABC of Syndicalism, confesses that “the principle obstacle to a revolution is the army . . . When the Government does not use the army to replace strikers, it makes soldiers into massacrers of workmen”. What, then, is the use of the General Strike? What can it do against the army? As Yvetot says, the army massacres the strikers. In Italy, we are told (p. 104): “A general strike of railway workers was attempted in 1905 as a protest against a new attempt to introduce the (strike smashing) law; it failed and the law was passed. Men were shot down by the soldiers in 1907 and there was a renewal of a wide-spread strike. The strikers were defeated, and it was said that 20,000 men, or one third of all the men on the railways, were punished, either by imprisonment, discharge from the service, fines, or degradation of rank.”

Arturo Labriola, the leading Italian Syndicalist, shows the similarity between Syndicalism and capitalism. He says: “You can imagine that a Syndicat for a certain trade could contain all the workers in a single branch of industry, could contract on uniform conditions with all the capitalists on behalf of these workers, and would form a kind of common treasury of all the profits, to be distributed according to a rule of exalted justice to all its members  . . . This process could go further. It can be imagined that at a certain point of its development the workers’ union might hire the capital of the capitalists for a fixed return and then use it co-operatively, either working in one mass or constructing so many separate co-operative bodies each having separate and distinct accounts.”

And he goes on: “Syndicates, as organisms opposed to monopoly, and therefore open to all, would enthusiastically receive the capitalists of yesterday become the companions of to-day, and would make use of their indisputable directive and administrative ability.”

Before leaving the General Strike theory it is useful to note the words of Mr. Ben Tillett, quoted in the book. Speaking after the 1911 Transport strike was over he said (Glasgow, 11.2.12): “A  week before the strike a Cabinet Minister pleaded with me in a tearful voice to stop the strike. Of course, this pleading was unheeded until the men got what they wanted”.

Yet within six months of that speech the transport workers were fighting fir the very demands they had “won” the year before! And what a cruel comment was the suffering of that historic defeat on the “efficacy of the strike” idea!

The general strike of miners and other strikes in England bring home the lessons of the Socialist. Whilst the strike, local or industrial, may effect improvement for the time, slavery remains. Whilst the threat of a general strike may induce concessions, it cannot bring a solution. The best results of economic unity can only be effected by class-conscious toilers who recognise the need for class action, class union, for working class ends; who realise that, as the road to emancipation lies in control of political power, political action is a vital necessity.

The cure for Syndicalism is education in the Socialist principles and policy. There is no substitute for a Socialist working class seeking its salvation through the political struggle. When the toilers understand Socialism they will have no room in their minds for the sophisms and fallacies of Syndicalism.

Adolph Kohn

Bounty babies. (1912)

From the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Smiling mothers everywhere, clasping their new arrivals as though they hadn’t a care in the world. Thus the highly coloured posters picture the thirty bob benefit, the “endowment of motherhood,” under the “People’s Insurance Act.”

In the black hells of mining villages, midst the smoky and dirt-ridden factory towns, and around the death-stricken courts and alleys of dockland—there faces you this poster. In foul St. Helens, in Dante’s Dowlais, in unprintable Canning Town—there is this cynical caricature displayed.

Mark the pink and glowing faces of the wives of workingmen, the mothers of the working class. There is no deathly pallor there, no line of sorrow or privation, no mark of haunting worry and anxiety. No, all these are wiped out by the hand that was going to “banish poverty from every hearth” in three years.

Provided they have paid in sufficient to clear administration charges, the doctor’s “eight and six,” the sanatorium’s cost, the druggist’s demands, the approved society’s levy, etc., and if they have enough then left, the mother is to get thirty bob ! But to win this she must do without sickness benefit for two weeks before and four weeks after confinement. The medical benefit also is withdrawn when the “thirty pieces of silver” come. The doctor is not supplied. He must be paid out of the money. So must the midwife, and all the other expenses. It is open to the approved society to provide these and pocket your thirty pieces. If the mother seeks the portals of the lying-in hospital, they get her money. If the child is still born, then it is a case for the referees, lawyers, medicos, etc. These are the joys that await the woman who presents her “marriage lines” to the commissioners and her babe to a grateful country.

The Liberal frauds even boast that one million mothers of the working class are going to be made happy with this thirty bob every year. It is a significant comment upon the prevailing social system that in the richest country in the world one million mothers stand in need of a thirty-shilling dole to enable them to bring their babies into the world. Think who it is that require this assistance. It is the wives of the workers, not of the idlers ; the toiling wives, not the won’t-work women, who need it—and who have to pay for it.

I have sometimes wondered what the result would be if an official called with a “maternity” benefit upon a parasitic partner—say Mrs. John Jacob Astor, the “Titanic” heroine, who brought the three-million-pound baby into the world, or Mrs. Vanderbilt, who gave birth to a millionaire child at Wimbledon lately. The idler’s wife would collapse with horror at the bare suggestion that she stood in need of such humiliating aid, and the footman would do things which hurt.

One million workers’ babies need bounties ! One million veteran and broken toilers need pensions for the December of their days. Thus confesses the Government. If the babes only knew ! If they live through the strife and struggle of the dozen years of childhood, what lies beyond ? They have to serve the sentence of close on sixty years hard labour—sixty years of servitude passed upon them by the owners, the robbers, of the world’s wealth.

Not only hard labour at bench, or machine, but hard labour in the weary, heart-breaking, never-ceasing round of visits to the slave exchange, the factories and workshops, begging a job.

There is the incentive. After sixty years of back-breaking toil they will stand in dire need of a pensioner’s dole. But the babies do not know, go they live on.

No, not all of them. Only some of the toilers’ children escape the clutches of Death. The Registrar General in bis report tells us that in the mining towns of Durham, in the Rhondda Valley, in the cotton-weaving town of Burnley, in the pottery town of Longton, and in many other places, 200 out of every 1,000 children born are done with life before they are one year old. What is being done to stop tbis murder ? Precious little, even in the face of the steadily falling birth-rate. As Father Ring and otbers have shown, as lying in hospitals have reported, the children of the transport workers died off like flies at the time of the strike because their mothers were starved by the callous scoundrels who own and control the means of life.

In textile factories, in dressmakers’ and tailors’ workshops, in pottery bakehouses, in chainmaking sheds, in jute mills and matchmakers’ mortuaries, there sweat the mothers of the toilers’ race. In creches, in nurseries, in open streets and blindalleys, and in locked rooms their loved ones must be left while they mint millions for the parasites and their pets. No wonder Lancashire doctors report that in time of strikes and lock-outs the early days are marked by declining infant mortality and illness. This is because the mothers are set free to look after their little ones. True, as in East London,, when the dispute lasts long all this improvement is wiped out by the starvation that inevitably ensues.

The children of Carthage were sacrificed to Moloch, but the quick death of these was merciful, for all its seeming barbarity, by comparison with the lingering torture of the starved mites of the modern workers. The newspapers are full of sickening stories from the “homes” where the babies are brought to die. The present Tooting case, where five infants died within a week, is an example.

Again, the Southwark Coroner pointed out on November 12 that 600 children are burnt to death every year in England—mainly the tragedy of flannelette ! Flannel is not for the infants of the working class.

After infancy, school, for a meagre and begrudged apology for education, rushed through in the shortest possible space of time. The Board of Education tells us that of those fourteen years of age only 36 per cent. are at day school—the rest are at work !

The masters, however, want, the children before they are fourteen. The Interdepartmental Committee on the Partial Exemption of School Children (1909) said (vide Report): “It was most strongly represented to us by millowners round Bradford and Halifax that any restriction, on the supply is liable to cause inconvenience to employers.” The half-time system meets the masters’ demands in that it is cheap and the children are docile.

Ever since 1900 the number of half-timers has steadily risen. It rose from 74,000 in that year to 78,000 in 1903, 80,000 in 1904, 82,000 in 1906, 85,000 in 1908. At twelve years of age the boys and girls are busy in the heated sheds and mills, grinding out profits for those who own. Although the Board of Education states that over 60 per cent. of the children attending school are defective in health, Mr. W. Sykes, of the Teachers’ Union, stated that in 24 years’ experience he had never known a child rejected, as physically unfit, although some of them were not robust enough to be employed in the playground. (Before the Board of Education, Nov, . 4, 1907.)

What is the lot of the children working half-time at twelve years ? The Committee referred to told the Government that “their progress is retarded, if not absolutely brought to a standstill. The children come to school tired and sleepy. . . . They are unable to pay proper attention to their school work. The boy . . . loses a large part of his education . . at a time when the value of education ought to become greater to children.”

They tell us that “the results of several statistical investigations made in more than one half-time town indicate distinctly that the weight and chest measurement, and sometimes the height, of half-time children, are less than half those of full-time children in the same place and of the same age.”

What shall you think, then, of the Labour Party members who try to keep the little ones in the mills to be murdered ? Mr. Shackleton, before he got his present job, supported with might and main the maintenance of the half-time system, and his fellow Labour members resented any attack upon this masters’ man. Now Mr. W. A. Gill, a shining light of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, opposes the abolition of the half-time system. In the half-time debate on April 26, 1912, he said he “agreed with those who believed that in letting them (the children) go to school half the day and be trained to work during the other half, they were doing what was best for their children.” One almost fancies one can hear the bosses telling him to say it.

Bad as half-time is for children of twelve and thirteen, the labour leaders have done their best to force the children into the mills and fields full time at those ages. In short, they have helped the murderers of the children in their nefarious work, and, like Shackleton, they will get jobs.

In May, 1906, Sir John Brunner, the millionaire chemical-factory owner, introduced into Parliament a Bill “to amend the Education Act.” This Bill bore the names of its backers, Mr. Will Crooks, of the Labour Party, and also Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, its secretary.

While Mr. MacDonald’s party were “pledged” to fight for the raising of the school age, he fought to lower it. Whilst twelve and thirteen were the earliest ages for partial exemption from day school, he tried to make them the statutory ages for total exemption !—conditional always, upon their being driven to night school to have their tired brains racked with education.

We opened with the blessings of childhood, but the blessings belong to those who do the children in—to the Penruddocks and the Wilesmiths ; to the Abkar Reformatory rulers and the Tooting philanthropists, the thoughtful factory owners and the rural lordlings. The blessings will fall upon the children when, through the triumph of Socialism, the power of property over human existence has gone for ever.

Adolph Kohn

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (London District.) (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• C. Elliott was a member of the Tooting Branch, originally joining the SPGB in September 1909. There is no record of when they lapsed their membership.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• F. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch.
• William Lewington was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in March 1907. He resigned from the SPGB but no date is given for his resignation.
• J.M. Wray was a member of the Wood Green Branch, originally joining the SPGB in May 1909. He resigned from the SPGB in June 1924.

A few of the names featured in the lecture list are not listed in the early membership records, This could be explained away in two ways: 1) Further confirmation that the membership records to hand are incomplete. 2) A number of SPGB members were operating under pseudonyms in their visible party activity because of the threat of blacklisting.

SPGB Meetings (1947)

Party News from the November 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

S. Lustigman was a member of South West London Branch of the SPGB from October 1942 until he resigned his membership for personal reasons in December 1952. According to the SPGB's membership records, he was a relative of longstanding SPGBer Julius Merry, who shared the same surname until he changed it because of anti-semitism.

The Revolutionary Communist Party's Jock Haston first encountered the SPGB at Hyde Park in the early 1930s. He recounted his experience in Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson's 1986 book, Against the Stream: A History of the Trotskyist Movement in Britain 1924-38:

"When I first began to question the C.P. line I still sold the Daily Worker, but at Marble Arch I came into contact with the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and a guy who was then the Secretary of the S.P.G.B. called Cohn. He gave me a terrible hammering one night on my ‘Leninism’, and I spent the whole night reading, and when I went back the following night he gave me a bigger hammering. For some months after that I used to attend S.P.G.B. meetings, and learned a great deal from the S.P.G.B. over the course of the next eight or nine months."

The 'Cohn' mentioned in the quote would have been Adolph Kohn. I'm not sure Kohn was the [General] Secretary of the Party in the 1930s but, at various times, he was on the editorial committee of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1933)

Party News from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Blogger's Notes:

'R. Lord' was Robert Lord, who joined Central Branch of the SPGB in October 1925. His membership lapsed in January 1935.

'A. Goldberg' is not listed in the membership records but there was a David Goldberg, who was a member of Hackney Branch from March until 1925 until he was killed in action during World War Two. Barltrop mentions him in The Monument.

'S. Stewart' was the party name used by Stella Jackson.

There is no listing in the (incomplete) party membership records for a 'D. Russell'.

'G. Cameron' possibly William Cameron.

SPGB Meetings (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

L. Otway was the partner of May Otway, both joining the Walthamstow Branch of the SPGB in October 1924. He lapsed his membership in May 1942, two years after she had resigned from the SPGB over the Party's position on the war.

Outdoor Propaganda Meetings (1935)

Party News from the August 1935 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1936)

Party News from the August 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Outdoor Meetings (1936)

 Party News from the August 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1914)

Party News from the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Open Air Meetings (1934)

Party News from the July 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Interesting that Hyde Park isn't listed. I guess it was just taken as read that the Party would always have speakers there.

As mentioned previously on the blog, I really wish I could include all the speakers listed in the label section but it's just not doable. Outdoor speaking was so central to the Party's activity and identity in the first fifty years of its history that it's unfortunate that it cannot be properly represented on the blog. Looking at the names listed, here's a wee bit info about some of the speakers listed:

• Tony Turner: The pre-eminent SPGB outdoor speaker for twenty plus years. Originally joined the Southwark Branch of the SPGB in July 1931. Resigned in April 1955 over the Forum dispute. His obituary appeared in the April 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard. He appears on the front cover of the June 2004 centenary issue of the Socialist Standard.
• Gilbert Manion: A former member of the Social Democratic Federation, Manion originally joined the SPGB in November 1928 and was a member of the Party on three separate occasions between 1928 and 1953. Originally a member of the Camberwell Branch of the SPGB he was also a member of Hackney Branch. He was still a member of the Party when he died in 1953. There was no obituary for him in the Standard.
• Jimmy Banks: A member of Battersea Branch, he joined the SPGB in May 1915 and was still a member of the Party  when he died in December 1966. A class conscious objector during the first World War, he was sent to Dartmoor Prison for his principles. Sadly his obituary from the February 1967  issue of the Socialist Standard is brief to the point of ridiculousness for someone who was an active socialist for over 50 years.
• Henry Russell: The Russell listed amongst the speakers was probably Henry Russell. Joining Southwark Branch of the SPGB in September 1933 he was a member of the Party until his membership was lapsed in November 1952.
• Bob Ambridge: One of the mainstay members in the history of the SPGB, Bob Ambridge joined the Battersea Branch of the Party in September 1927 and was a member of Swansea Branch when he died in February 1980. His obituary appeared in the April 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard.
• Claud Godfrey: Sadly, another longstanding member with an all too scant obituary in the pages of the Socialist Standard (April 1972 issue). Godfrey originally joined Tottenham Branch of the Party in July 1926, and was a member of Haringey Branch when he died.
• Jack Butler: Another stalwart member of the SPGB, joined West Ham Branch of the Parry in 1910 and served the Party both as a speaker and as a behind the scenes member. At the time of his premature death in 1944, he had been the Party Treasurer for 20 years. 'Gilmac' (Gilbert McClatchie) wrote a warm and personal obituary for Jack Butler in the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard. 
• R. Innes: A member of East London Branch of the SPGB, joining the Party in September 1931.
• F. Wiltshire: There were two 'F. Wiltshires' in the SPGB. A F. Wiltshire Sr and a F. Wiltshire Jr. This was probably F. Wiltshire Sr, who originally joined the Islington Branch of the SPGB in April 1911. He was to join and rejoin the Party three or four times over the course of forty years.
• Nathan Isbitsky: Joined the East London Branch of the SPGB in July 1930. He's briefly mentioned in Barltrop's The Monument, but there is no record of when he left/resigned from the SPGB.
• Sid Rubin: Another member who joined the Party via East London Branch. He joined the Party in July 1931 and was an incredibly prolific speaker and writer through the 1930s and 1940s, until he had to resign his membership in April 1949 as he was moving abroad. As 'George Camden', he wrote the novel 'My Time, My Life'.

SPGB Meetings (1937)

Party News from the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Open Air Propaganda (July) (1937)

Party News from the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

A bit of a mystery here. A Party speaker with the surname of 'Otto' is listed four times in the Speakers' List for July. There is no record of an 'Otto' in the Party membership list. This member was obviously well regarded as a speaker 'cos they secured one of the marquee spots speaking at Hyde Park on a Sunday alongside the likes of Sammy Cash and Tony Turner. So, it's either a case of another example of the incomplete membership records or, more likely, that 'Otto' was a pseudonym for a Party member whose name couldn't appear in the Party press.

Also interesting to note that both Adolph Kohn and Eric Boden are listed as speaking. I didn't know they were still doing outdoor speaking this late in their Party lives. 

The Birkbeck collapse. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are always being told about “the savings of the working classes” and the vested interest they have in the banks and allied institutions in this country. But when the Birkbeck Building Society’s Bank closed its doors, another story was told by our good capitalist Press.

We then heard of the hundreds of pounds being lost by this investor and that one, and day by day the story was continued of 10s. in the £ amounting to one, two and three hundred pounds, being carried away.

Much was written about the struggle of this shopkeeper and that professional man, etc., to save up his little hoard.

Once for all, then, the anti-Socialists give the lie to their own cry. that it is the savings of the workers invested in these institutions. They themselves amply prove that the banks are filled with the money of others than members of the working class

Even the small savings of the working class are at the mercy of the capitalist financiers. The workers do not control the money, which comes into the hands of the capitalists, who use it to exploit the toilers.

The sequel to the bankruptcy supplied backing to the Socialist contention that the control over capital concentrates into relatively fewer hands as this system develops.

The business of the Birkbeck was acquired by the London County and Westminster Bank, one of the premier banks, with a capital of 14 millions. That is the usual way—the small concern dies the large one grows greater at its expense.

Adolph Kohn

Labour in Lancashire. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many facts of interest to workers may be gleaned from the report of the International Federation of Textile Workers’ Associations, presented to their conference held at Amsterdam in June. Mr. Wm. Marsland, the General Secretary of the Amalgamated Society of Cotton Spinners of England, is also Secretary of the Federation, and he tells us that out of the total membership of 430,027, England accounts for 200,000. During the three years the Report covers the membership in this country has remained stationary. This stagnant condition has obtained in most other lands, and is ascribed to “the severe depression in trade which has been more or less prevalent in all countries for the greater part of the three years.”

In the reports from the British Spinners’ Unions, Mr. Mullin, secretary of the Card and Blowing Room Operatives, states that the funds have suffered greatly during the last three years. In 1908 £1,730, 1909 £27,000, and in 1910 £45,000 was paid out for “Bad Trade” benefit. “The drain on our funds for accidents and injuries to members has been very great,” he points out, notwithstanding the century of “factory legislation” we have had.

On behalf of the Operative Spinners’ Association Mr. Marsland states that, since 1908 £277,000 has been paid in “Bad Trade” benefit and £173,000 for strikes and lock-outs.

Mr. W. C. Robinson, of the “Beamers, Twisters and Drawers,” says: “The mechanical drawing and tying machines grow but slowly ; however, they are increasing, and we expect they will do, consequently we have to make some additional provision for monetary payments to our members who are thrown out of work in consequence of their introduction.”

Under the “Weaving Section” reports, Mr. J. Cross, of the Northern Counties Weavers’ Amalgamation, points out that “the majority of the mills worked short time, and some of them were closed altogether for months at a stretch, and £276,000 was spent in the three years on strikes and stoppage.” After drawing attention to the pilfering “system in the weaving department of inflicting fines for alleged bad work,” mostly caused by the cheapest materials being used, Mr. Cross goes on to say : “In about one-half the weaving mills it is the practice to use artificial humidity in order to make what may be called a ‘weaving atmosphere.’ The practice is to send into the sheds hot steam ejected from the pipes, or to spray the air with fine particles of water. The workpeople have taken strong objection to artificial humidity of any kind on the ground that it is detrimental to their health, and that the practice is mostly required ia order to facilitate the weaving of inferior material. The objections of the workpeople can be well understood even by an outside observer, when it is explained that hot steam is sent through the sheds even during the summer months, causing the greatest personal discomfort and much physical prostration, and in the winter in months the sheds are heated to such an extent that many people are apt to contract bronchitis and rheumatism.”

It is news pregnant with dire meaning for the immediate future to learn that :

 “The Northrop loom is making progress, and if the adoption of the loom should assume a mire rapid character THE COTTON WEAVERS OF LANCASHIRE WILL BE FACE TO FACE WITH THE GREATEST PROBLEM OF THEIR LIVES. When it is considered that the operatives are working 12, 16, and 20 NORTHROP LOOMS EACH, AND THE NUMBER OF LOOMS OF THE LANCASHIRE TYPE WORKED BY EACH WEAVER (THE AVERAGE IS ABOUT FOUR LOOMS FOR EACH WEAVER) THE PROSPECT OF STEADY EMPLOYMENT IN THE FUTURE IS NOT VERY BRIGHT.”

“It is admitted on every hand that the introduction of the new loom means the displacement of a large number of workpeople, and it cannot be expected that the cotton trade will ever, under the most favourable conditions, be able to expand sufficiently to absorb the unemployed.”

Time after time during the last 70 years hours have been reduced in the cotton factories and strike after strike has been declared. Yet the fact stands out that the operative of to-day is faced with greater difficulties than ever before. He produces more in fewer hours, and works “short time” and is unemployed to a degree previously unknown. Through sheer depletion of their funds the operatives go back to work on the masters’ terms after being locked out for weeks. Combination among the masters and amalgamation of companies proceed fast and far. In view of the conditions under which the men work and the poverty they suffer, it is not surprising that ill health dogs their footsteps all their lives. At a protest meeting against the Insurance Bill held by the Lancashire Branch of the British Medical Association we were told, anent the £160 limit: 

“That, as they knew in Lancashire, was going to take away from them the cream of their practice. Wage earners from 30s. per week upwards were the backbone of their practice, and they received from these wage earners more than from all the others combined.” 

Hence we see that it is the workers who provide the doctors with work—and fees—through illness resulting from the conditions of their toil.

What have the Lancashire toilers done to end their slavery ? History answers “Little.” Lancashire is a stronghold of Liberalism and Free Trade, and despite the fact that the great majority of the employers in her staple industries (textiles) are Liberals, they are voted info place and power every time. Mr. C. W. Macara, the secretary of the employers’ federation, who has again and again organised the lock out of the operatives and reduced them to servile submission, is also Vice-President of the Free Trade Union and a noted Liberal. The officials of the trade unions are Liberals also practically to a man and the Labour M.P.s for local divisions may be seen advocating Free Trade upon the Free Trade League platforms throughout Lancashire. Is it not time that the workers of Lancashire took a lesson from their employers and organised politically to protect their interests ? It cannot be done by Labour Parties who support half-time for children in the mills, and who seek to murder the toddling little ones by backing Bills to lower the age at which they leave school and enter the factory hells of Lancashire.

No ! The road to liberty, the road from slavery, is the Socialist road. March on, toilers of Cottonopolis !

Adolph Kohn

Mrs. Partington again. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

John Bull for June 10 published an article headed “Is the Small Trader Doomed? The Multi-Shop Octopus.”

Once again the wild, despairing cry of the small shopkeeper is heard deploring the passing of his kind. After describing the methods by which the great firms oust the “little men,” the position of the combine’s employees is summed up thus :

“The lot of the employees is very unsatisfactory, the majority of these companies refusing to employ a man who has been in the service of their rivals, no matter why he left his previous situation. They are discharged on the merest pretext, as the continuous advertising amply proves, and their wages compare unfavourably with those paid by the small trader. One of the managers recently remarked that he did not think it advisable to keep a man more than 6 months as by that time they had exhausted all his ideas. Pick his brain and throw him on the human scrap heap !”

“The remedy” for the small trader is, John Bull tells us, “for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax on multi-shop trading, as is done in Germany.”

Is this a case for Bottomley’s “Business Government” or—the Lunacy Commissioners ?

A. Kay

Blogger's Note:

Once again mention of a 'Mrs. Partington' crops again in the early issue of the Standard. Once again, here's a link to give you the background details.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, For July. (1914)

Party News from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard