50 Years Ago: Bernard Levin and the SPGB (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Levin wrote a criticism of the SPGB in an article entitled Credo Quia Impossible (The Observer, 18th April 1976) — and here we must add dog Latin to his many other talents. The article patronized us and what he described as the ‘glorious nonsense’ emanating from the SPGB. This attack on the Party gave the impression of an amused tolerance for a ‘sect’ based on ‘eccentricity’ (his words) and was made in a review of a book called The Monument — the story of the SPGB. Unfortunately for Levin, some of the facts and anecdotes contained in The Monument, despite its many merits, are a personal version and the Party does not accept any responsibility for its contents. (…)

He says our position is ‘Marx is right; the SPGB interpretation of Marx is right’. We do not accept that Marx was always right, and we have in the past criticized Marx. Nevertheless, we agree with the main Marxist theories of Historical Materialism and his analysis of capitalism.

Finally the SPGB has never been opposed to, or supported, reforms. Levin is confusing the political action which is necessary to get reforms with the content of the reforms. Nobody could oppose the introduction of safety working measures, of which Levin accuses us, free heating for old age pensioners, or other reforms, and we have never done so. If workers wish to sell their votes for a few crumbs of social reform that is their privilege, and equally, it is our privilege and duty to show that there is an alternative. We want them to take political action that will remove the need for reforms.

We mention these few facts in the rather forlorn hope that Levin will correct his mistaken view of the Party. We would also bring to his notice that no member was expelled or disciplined for carrying a gas-mask, nor is it true that ‘every time there was a vote on an expulsion those who had voted against it were themselves forthwith expelled’. Levin can satisfy himself on this score, as the weekly Minutes of the Executive Committee are intact from 1904 and photocopies are available.

[From the article, 'Bernard Levin and the SPGB', by Jim D'Arcy, Socialist Standard, June 1976]

Blogger's Note:

The Monument was reviewed by Harry Baldwin in the December 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard.

What happened at the Brixton Hustings at St Mathews Community Centre – Mon 27th April (2026)

Blogger's Note:

Another piece from Brixton Buzz website, in connection to the SPGB contesting the local election in Lambeth. This light-hearted 'sketch' of a local hustings actually dates from the 28th April.

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

What happened at the Brixton Hustings at St Mathews Community Centre – Mon 27th April

Tue 28th April, 2026 - by Contributor - 6 Comments.

Yesterday, a Brixton Hustings was held at St Mathews Community Centre, and local writer The Back Row sent Brixton Buzz his report:

“No-one there from Lib Dems (surprisingly – they’ve got a load of ‘real’ candidates in the Brixton wards), Conservatives or Reform. Loads of current Labour councillors from across the wards in the audience.

Some dispute over there being 2 independents under the ‘shake it up’ alliance on the panel. “We’re not a party, but we’re working together”.

Didn’t really make it a lot clearer. (Issue for me is they don’t have any policies – you literally don’t know what you’re voting for. What they support will come down to their assemblies on every issue, but how are they going to run those? )

The Socialist woman was great value. Under the socialists housing will be free for all, you’ll be able to shoplift food again, and we’ll solve deaths on the roads by scrapping salaried jobs so eliminating commute traffic.

She absolutely passed the ‘would you go for few pints with this candidate’ test. A few drinks would turn into an all nighter in no time.

The Trade Union & Socialist candidate was straight out of central casting. 1980s Liverpool will be the model for Lambeth apparently (he disputed the shout from the audience that “they’re all in prison”).

Of all the topics discussed the Christian Alliance guy got most animated denying there was a genocide in Gaza and espousing just how pro-Israel he was (to the extent of getting into some back and forth with the (Kiwi/Jewish) Socialist candidate who was rightly pointing out that you could be proudly jewish without being Zionist).

Unsurprisingly the CA view was not especially popular with the audience. He’d also scrap all the LTNs and decision making would be led by the churches.

Other than incumbent Labour Councillor David Bridson they were all weak on the questions about specific local issues – the stuff that they’d actually be dealing with and have some influence over. Which was disappointing.

Green candidate (ex Labour, Corbynite) was a dramatic speaker but tried to ‘both sides’ questions on both LTNs/Road safety (whereas Green policy is pretty clear) and Brockwell Park Festivals which doesn’t really work whichever side you stand on these issues.

The ‘shake it up’ independents just want to have a citizens assembly on every issue.

Which is both expensive to do properly (DB pointed out Lambeth have done a Climate Assembly) and is going to make any sort of decision making incredibly slow. It’s also not going to lead to ‘consensus’ – you get a view but it’s not one that everyone is going to agree with (the councils current climate/transport/etc policies came out of that assembly).

There was a question about councillors being kicked out for racist/otherwise unacceptable behaviour/statements where most of the candidates were saying they should be kicked out as councillors not just their party.

(Scarlet O’Hara pointed out from audience that there was no way of legally doing that – would require a national change in law but that didn’t stop most on the panel just repeating the same point).

Someone turned up to be shouty and angry about LTNs. That she came from Streatham rather than any of the Brixton wards is probably a strong sign that the anti LTN crew really are shouting into the void now.

And her idea that it’s not safe to walk home from the bus stop without rat running traffic has never made any sense and is counter to all evidence.

The Chair did a good job of keeping people in line, to time, and staying neutral.”

Additional blogger's note:

A link to this report of the hustings was posted on the SPGB's discussion forum with the additional comments by 'ALB':

"We went to the hustings yesterday evening organised by the Brixton Neighbourhood Forum for parties standing candidates in Brixton. Represented were us, the Greens, Labour, Christian People’s Alliance, TUSC and Shake It Up (two — they pulled a fast one as both are technically “Independents”). The Tories, Reform and the LibDems sent no one (the last perhaps because of some deal with the Greens not to try hard in this part of the borough in return for the Greens not trying in another).

There were about 120 present.

The debate was organised fairly which each candidate being given exactly the same opportunity and time to answer questions. From a conventional party political point of view the main contest here is between Labour (representing by an outgoing councillor seeking reelection in Brixton Acre Ward) and one of the Greens standing in the same ward — Michael Chessum, leftwing journalist and activist, who switched from Corbyn to the Green Party. He claims to be a socialist (and confided to our candidate, who was sitting next to him, that he was a “Marxist”). Here is his arguments as to why “revolutionaries” should join the Green Party . . . "

Meet the Candidates: Socialist Party of Great Britain – abolishing capitalism since 1904 (2026)

Blogger's Note:

The Socialist Party is contesting three seats in Lambeth, South London, in the 2026 Local Elections. The following article appeared on the Brixton Buzz website, which is "Brixton’s biggest and most comprehensive news, features and listings site."

LAMBETH COUNCIL / NEWS

Meet the Candidates: Socialist Party of Great Britain – abolishing capitalism since 1904

Wed 6th May, 2026 - by Phil Ross

Founded in 1904, the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB) is one of Britain’s oldest socialist parties, and one of its most uncompromising. Unlike Labour or the Greens, the party does not seek to reform capitalism – it seeks to abolish it, along with the state and money itself.

The SPGB is standing three candidates in Lambeth’s 7 May council elections – Anya Krycek in Brixton North, Jacqueline Shodeke in Clapham Common & Abbeville, and Cesar Sotillo in Stockwell West & Larkhall.

Brixton Buzz put four questions to the candidates, and in keeping with the party’s non-hierarchical principles, they answered collectively:

What does the SPGB offer a resident of your ward right now, today?

We do not offer false promises that Lambeth Council can abolish poverty, solve the housing crisis, or fix underfunded public services under capitalism.

Other parties will tell you that with the right policies, the right leadership, or the right ‘progressive coalition,’ things can be made tolerable. We say: capitalism cannot be reformed into a humane system. It is a system of production for profit, and profit will always come before human need.

What we offer immediately is a vote for socialist consciousness.

Every Socialist Party (GB) vote is a declaration that you recognise the present system has failed and must be replaced. It is a signal to other workers that they are not alone in wanting something fundamentally different.

We do not promise to manage capitalism better than Labour. We promise to use any position gained to expose its limits and advocate for revolutionary change.

That said, if elected, we would vote for any measure that genuinely improves working class conditions – since we are not opposed to reforms as such.

[Jacqueline Shodeke]

The SPGB vision is a moneyless, stateless society of common ownership.

Brixton has a thriving culture of independent businesses, market traders and community enterprises.

In that world, what happens to them?

They become part of the common ownership of the means of production. Not state-owned, there will be no state. Not privately owned, there will be no money, no buying and selling.

But democratically controlled by the community of producers and consumers.

Market traders are workers. Independent business owners are typically small scale exploiters of their own labour, often struggling under the same pressures as wage workers.

In socialism, they would contribute their skills and labour directly to meeting social needs, without the constraint of profitability, rent, or competition.

Brixton Market would not disappear, it would transition to a place of free distribution, where the produce of collective labour is available to all without exchange.

The ‘thriving culture’ that people value is not dependent on capitalism and in fact is stifled by both alienation and homogenisation.

Capital constantly undermines through gentrification, rising rents, and the displacement of working-class residents. Socialism would preserve and extend that culture by removing the economic pressures that destroy it.

[Cesar Sortillo]

Where does the SPGB fit in a broader left coalition?

Nowhere. We do not join coalitions with reformist parties, including the Greens or any ‘progressive’ alliance.

Our position is not sectarianism for its own sake, it is a recognition that these organisations operate on fundamentally different principles.

The Greens, like Labour, seek to administer capitalism more humanely. They believe that with better regulation, greener technology, and more ethical consumption, the system can be made sustainable. We disagree.

Capitalism is inherently destructive, of the environment, of human wellbeing, and of any possibility of a rational society. No amount of green washing changes its basic drive for accumulation.

As for ‘working alongside’ others on specific local issues: we support any group of workers in struggle, regardless of political affiliation, for immediate defensive gains.

But we do not enter electoral pacts, shared platforms, or coalitions that imply common political objectives. Our objective is the abolition of capitalism. Theirs is its reform. These are incompatible.

[Anya Krycek]

What is your assessment of Labour’s record in Lambeth, and what would genuinely left representation look like in its place?

Labour has administered capitalism in Lambeth for decades, and the results are visible: gentrification, displacement, privatisation of housing, underfunded services, and a council that acts as a local manager for central government austerity.

They are not a failed alternative to the Tories. They are a reliable partner in managing the same system. ‘Genuinely left representation’ would not mean a more radical Labour council.

It would mean representatives who use their position to tell the truth: that local government under capitalism has no real power to change the fundamental conditions of working class life.

It would be refusing to implement cuts, refusing to collaborate with property developers, and using every platform to argue for the common ownership of the means of production.

That is what Socialist Party (GB) representation would look like.

Not better management of decline, but a clear voice for revolutionary change, starting with the recognition that the working class must organise politically, democratically, and consciously for socialism.

Anya Krycek, Brixton North Jacqueline Shodeke, Clapham Common & Abbeville Cesar Sotillo, Stockwell West & Larkhall

More Info

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Letter: Marx and the State (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the State

Many of your members and readers may feel that the SPGB is a truly Socialist and Marxist Party. But I doubt if Marx would think so if he were alive today.

One of your biggest theoretical blunders is assuming that society can be changed through Parliament. The state machine of every bourgeois society has as its principal aim the preservation of the supremacy of the ruling class, and the consequent enslavement of the proletariat. So how you expect to use this state machinery against the ruling class is beyond my comprehension. As Marx said in The Civil War in France " . . . the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes”. So how are we to achieve Socialism? Engels provided the answer in a letter to G. Trier dated December 18th 1889. “The proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution”, (my emphasis) If the SPGB supposes for one minute the bourgeoisie is going to simply hand over one iota of their power power and privilege just because, by some miracle, the SPGB has a majority in parliament then they are living in a dream world.

For the revolution to be successful we need a strong organized proletarian party. Let us hear what Marx has to say on this in a letter to F. Bolte dated November 23rd 1871. “The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organization of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising precisely from its economic struggles”. But we see that the SPGB refrains totally from indulging in these “economic struggles” i.e. fighting for higher wages, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. Certainly not Marxist tactics!

In number eight of your Declaration of Principles we find the wholly dogmatic and élitist statement that the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties”. Engels had something to say on this in the above mentioned letter to G. Trier, namely "For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party. But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use other parties for its purposes. Nor does this mean it cannot support other parties for short periods in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom”. So much for the SPGB’s dogmatism.

In conclusion I have this to say about the SPGB, principally that it is not the Marxist or Socialist party it claims to be and will certainly never lead the proletariat to emancipation. Socialism will only be achieved by a truly Marxist Party (e.g. The Socialist Workers’ Party) that is active within and able to lead the proletariat to victory, not by the passive élitist theorising of the SPGB.

A. Mounsey

Sunderland

Reply:

Selecting quotations out of context has been the stock-in-trade of the so-called Communist party throughout its existence, and now the non-Socialist Workers’ Party, (formerly IS) are trotting out the same time-worn fallacies.

If society cannot be changed through Parliament, why does the SWP go through the ritual of putting up candidates? Presumably they hope to get elected.

It is perfectly logical for us to aim at capturing Parliament, because we hold that capitalism can be ended in no other way. It is contradictory for the SWP to say Parliament is useless, then try not only to capture it but try to use Parliament, not to establish Socialism but to reform capitalism by modifying the useless policies of Labour governments. This is what “fighting the cuts”, etc., means. In so doing they accept that the power for change resides in the political arena.

Yes, the state machine is there to preserve the supremacy of the ruling class. No less so in places like Vietnam, whose ruling class has SWP support. All the nationalist struggles fought ostensibly against imperialism, and supported by IS or the SWP, have as their aim control of the state to preserve class supremacy. The political parties which support capitalism, including the Labour party which is urged workers to vote for, gain power because they are elected by a majority of workers who as yet are reform, not revolution, minded. When the reverse situation is reached, a Socialist majority will elect their own delegates, and the state will then be in the hands of those who have a mandate to end capitalism. It is good of the SWP to expose themselves as advocates of violence; the workers will wisely ignore them.

Marx’s letter to Bolte makes exactly the opposite point from your selective quotation. He shows that the economic organization of the workers precedes the political, which is decisive.

And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. (Marx’s emphasis)

(Selected Correspondence, Lawrence & Wishart edn., p. 318-9)

So with The Civil War in France. Marx, writing about the Paris Commune (see March SS), explains what happened to “the ready made state machine":

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself and restored to the responsible agents of society.

And:

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supersede universal suffrage by hier-achaic investiture.

(Selected Works, p. 472)

The repressive relics like the standing army, the bureaucracy and hierarchy which the state-capitalist advocates of the SWP seek to preserve, are what Marx sought to scrap.

Show us what specific advantage can be gained by the Party for Socialism supporting parties for capitalism. If you cannot do this (and you can’t) your final quotation is meaningless.

Finlly, while calling us élitists you say the "SWP" will lead the proletariat to victory. Leadership is élitism. The SPGB has never set out to lead the workers anywhere. We are confident of their capacity to understand and organize on a conscious basis; only sheep need leaders.

If you can get one of your “leaders” to debate us on Socialism, we will be happy to continue the tuition.

Editors.

Notes by the Way: The Fabians and the House of Lords (1957)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Fabians and the House of Lords

In the Socialist Standard for February, 1907, was an article about the Fabians which opened with a quotation:—

“ The government of the future will be by experts and we, naturally, want to be the experts."

This little gem had been spoken by Mr. H. Snell, of the Fabian Society.

The writer in the Socialist Standard had appropriate comments to make on this typically Fabian proposal for running other people's lives. He began:—

"So now you know, if you did not before, what the Fabian Society are after. Their ‘Socialism’ is government by bureau, and ‘naturally’ (sweet word) they want to be the bureaucrats. ‘Naturally’ they want the plums. ‘‘Naturally’’ they want to sit in the seats of authority and arrange things for the benefit (naturally for the benefit) of the other and somewhat lower orders who do the mere producing."

Our writer hit the nail on the head when he said the Fabians aimed to occupy the seats of authority and in the course of time many of them had their little hour in the Labour Governments, where they showed that their “superior brains” could no more cope with the chaos of Capitalism than could those they affected to despise, the political aristocrats and the business men.

One of the “reforms” supported by the Fabians was the abolition of the House of Lords. They came to be glad that they hadn't succeeded because it was to be a final refuge for a number of Fabians, including Sidney Webb (who wrote the Fabian tract demanding abolition of the Lords), and Attlee, and of course Mr. Snell, who became Lord Snell of Plumstead in 1931 just about the time two million unemployed were wondering how their Fabian trained leader had managed to get things in such a mess.

Macmillan Must Go!

If we were Labour or Communist vote-catchers we would be campaigning for “Macmillan Must Go!" and telling anyone silly enough to believe it, how successful we had been with our last campaign for u Eden Must Go!"

Since the S.P.G.B. was formed in 1904 there have been ten such campaigns for getting rid of a no-good Prime Minister. There have been rather more than ten governments because some of them, after being pushed, pulled or squeezed out have managed to get back again. When we survey the list we marvel at the rich variety. Scots, English, Welsh, and half-American (Churchill); spell-binders like Lloyd-George, and others who didn’t know how to gild the lilies of oratory; philosophical types like Balfour and Asquith and "plain, blunt men" like Baldwin;; semi-Pacifists and war-mongers; business men and professional politicians; the relatively poor and the passing rich; religionists and agnostics; aristocrats and commoners; Tory, Liberal, and Labour.

There are the differences: What of the similarities? They have all had a strange belief that the country was very lucky to have them at the helm. They have all come in generously promising how much better they will make life for the people and have all gone out little lamented.

And what difference has it made in the one thing that ought to be of paramount concern to the workers, the question of establishing Socialism in place of Capitalism? Just no difference at all. That job has yet to be done and it won't matter in the least whether the next Prime Minister who tries to administer Capitalism is Mr. G., or Mr. B., Mr. X or Mr. Y.

“Why We Left the Communist Party”

A group calling themselves the Nottingham Marxist Group, has issued an eight-page leaflet under the above title. As a criticism of the leaders of the British Communist Party from the standpoint of members whose confidence was first shaken by the dethronement of Stalin and then shattered by the Russian Army's onslaught on the Hungarian workers, it is effective enough. But that is all it is. In no way does it justify the claim that the group are Marxist in outlook. Indeed the limited range of their criticism clearly shows that they are not. Their case is against “the politically and morally bankrupt leaders of the Communist Party," but not against the idea of leadership and if it were not for their view that it is in practice impossible to change the leadership they would he working for new leaders in place of the old. They fail to see that a Socialist Party has no use or place for leaders.

They condemn various comparatively recent consequences of dictatorship in Russia and Hungary, but nowhere do they show an understanding of the fact that Socialism is incompatible with dictatorship. They do not explain how it was that they accepted the dictatorship and only woke up to some of its inevitable consequences at a late stage. Above all they do not square their claim to be Marxist with their tacit acceptance of the absurd belief that the Russian dictatorship is Socialism. This ought to have been the central theme of their declaration because every criticism they make stems from the fact that the social organisation in Russia and Hungary is and always has been Capitalism. They do now see that Socialism cannot be imposed by force and they quote from an American Communist journal:—“Socialism . . .  could not be imposed on a country by those means”; but they do not face up to the truth that that was the original, impossible, aim of the Communist group that seized power in Russia, and that dictatorship and a police state were the inevitable outcome of that attempt It was then that the Russian Communists “betrayed” the principles of Socialism, not at some later date, as the pamphlet would have us believe, when the “cult of leadership” was carried to such lengths as to endanger the stability of the dictatorship itself.

The Not-so-Stupid Tory Capitalists

The Hon. William Douglas-Home, writer of successful plays and unsuccessful Parliamentary candidate standing on one occasion as a “Progressive Independent," and on another as “Atlantic Charter" candidate, wrote to the Observer (3 January, 1957) advising the Tories to apply in foreign politics the policy they have used so well at home. He described the latter as follows:—

“. . . they never seem to realise that a controlled withdrawal is precisely what they have conducted with considerable skill in domestic policy since the industrial revolution, and that to this policy, and to this policy alone, they owe their survival. Whereas any attempt to preserve the status quo would have resulted in either their total extinction or a revolution, or both.”

Strikes by Hungarian Workers

On January 13 the Russian imposed government of their Hungarian colony announced a new decree imposing the death penalty for a number of acts, many of which would in most countries be regarded as normal trade union and political activities.

The Manchester Guardian (January 14), quoting B.U.P. and Reuter despatches from Budapest, had the following:—

"The death penalty was introduced in Hungary today for anyone calling a strike, damaging factory machinery, or committing  'any kind of offence directed against the State.’ The death sentence could be ordered for distributing leaflets, or for entering a government factory without permission, according to the new regulations, announced in a supplementary paragraph to the martial law declared in December."

The News Chronicle and other newspapers gave similar versions. Only the Daily Worker (January 14) managed to twist this new decree almost out of recognition. They left out the reference to strikes and reported it as:—

“ Death sentences may be imposed on people who ‘ sabotage or interfere in any way with public utilities and other essential enterprises'. "

But if the Hungarian workers in Hungary may now be hanged for striking, Hungarian refugees in Britain have shocked a lot of people by refusing jobs offered to them and by coming out on strike. The Sunday Despatch (January 16) reported:—

"Eighteen refugees walked out of their jobs at St Albans because they were dissatisfied with their pay. They were receiving an average of £7 a week as cooks, waiters, carpenters and farm workers. Mr. G. P. Bannister, manager of the Employment Exchange at St. Albans, said: ’They expected £14 or £15 a week. Most of them want to go to America or Canada'. "

This sort of conduct will get the Hungarians disliked by the employers and before we know where we are we shall hear the Hungarians denounced as unwelcome agitators. Being spirited in demanding the right to strike in Budapest is not at all the same as continuing to behave like that here.

But British workers ought to be delighted that the refugees do not intend to become a source of cheap and servile labour. And if the incident makes British workers more assertive in trying to raise their wages so much the better.

Exodus to Canada

And while the Hungarians pour in the Britishers pour out as fast as they can, Canada-bound for preference. Rhona Churchill, in the Daily Mail (January 8, 1957), made inquiries and these are her conclusions:—

“ Emigrant applications at Canada’s London and Liverpool offices have now reached 20,000 a week.

John Bull Taxpayer has had enough.

Emigration figures had been falling off. Then suddenly the Butler austerity Budget of October, 1955, doubled the numbers, calling at Canadian immigration offices, the Macmillan squeeze Budget of April, 1956, trebled them, and Suez, with its promise of more Budget austerity three months from now, increased them sixfold.

A quarter of a million Britons, tired of being told for ten austere years: ’Belt-tightening today means prosperity tomorrow,' and, finding that tomorrow never comes, are now actively organising their escape, believing that Britain has no sound financial future to offer their children."

But while the exasperated British workers flee from the rigours of “Welfare State" Capitalism to seek paradise in Canada the Canadian Railwaymen were on strike because they too have grievances against their “free enterprise” Capitalism.

Profits and the Ugly Head of Politics

For a century or more business men, stock exchange speculators and economists have recurrently dreamed of a beautiful world in which Capitalism would function “naturally” without being disturbed by politics. The latest is Mr. A. G. Jenkins, City Editor of the Empire News (January 3,1957).

’’So much for the short-term view. Dividend limitation, nationalisation, confiscation and many other 'ations’ loom ahead when politics rears its ugly head, and for the moment this may discourage buyers of industrial ordinary shares."

Mr. Jenkins thinks Capitalism would be nicer without the serpent of politics and other “ations.” He should think again. If there were no political machine to be controlled by the politicians bent on keeping Capitalism going, our class divided society would disintegrate. One “ation” would, indeed, be taken away, but Mr. Jenkins would not be pleased for it is “exploitation," and if there were no exploitation of one class by another there would be no rent, interest or profit, no Stock Exchange, and no City Editors.

Over in Bombay the great Indian iron and steel concern of the Tata Company knows better. They don’t want to rule out politics; on the contrary they have just appealed successfully to the High Court for the right to make contributions to political party funds.

"Mr. Justice Tendolkar allowed a petition by the company for confirmation of alteration in its memorandum enabling it to make such contributions. He said that expenditure by way of donations to political parties could in the long run be economic.

”The petition said the company was at present carrying out a Rs. 750m. (£57m.) expansion programme and any further expansion would depend on Government approval. The company’s prosperity was therefore bound up with the policy of the party in power.”

(Financial Times, 12th January, 1957). 

The Indian Capitalists, who used the nationalist movement to establish themselves as a Capitalist India, learned all the tricks and devices of Capitalist rule practised by the British ruling class.

The Communists and the S.P.G.B.

Letters written to the Daily Worker by members of the S.P.G.B. have been refused publication recently. This is not in itself surprising but the reason given deserves comment. A letter from the Editor, J. R. Campbell (October 10, 1956) included the following:—

“It is true that the Daily Worker does not propose to publish letters dealing with insignificant political bodies like the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Our space is precious and we have to devote it to more important questions.” 

We can imagine the indignation of the Communists if, say the Daily Herald were to give the same reason for not publishing their letters. And of course we can guess that J. R. Campbell (responsible recently for the suppression of reports from Budapest by its own correspondent) may have other reasons for not wanting the Marxist case against his party to be put before his readers.

One small point about Campbell’s letter is that he addressed the S.P.G.B. member as “Dear Friend” and ended it “with best wishes.”

Another letter (January 7, 1957), this time signed “with all good wishes” by the Assistant Editor of the Daily Worker, Mick Bennett, informed our member that “the role and influence of the S.P.G.B. has declined over the years largely because of its conscious deliberate policy of remaining a small sect devoted largely to the theory that until all the working class have been sufficiently educated in Marxism they will not be able to get rid of Capitalism.”

This implies that the S.P.G.B. used to have more influence and was therefore worthy of the notice of Communists but, except on very rare occasions, the Communist Party has always maintained the policy of ignoring the S.P.G.B. and declining debates. But the official reason given for this in the early days was that there was no time or place for discussion because revolution, here and in the world generally, was "just around the corner.” Privately members of the C.P.G.B. were advised to keep away from discussion with the S.P.G.B.

Bennett's letter (in the last sentence quoted above) re-iterates the Communist’s case that Capitalism could be got rid of in speedier ways than by building up a movement of Socialists. What a pity we can't have from him his explanation of the total failure of Communist governments in Russia, Hungary and elsewhere, to get rid of Capitalism and introduce Socialism.

Brotherly Love from a Christian

A reader sends us an article by Pastor W. W. Kirkby. published in the Elim Evangel (December 8, 1956), called “Ambitious Russia,” which sets out to describe the imperialist aims of the Russian Government; including, so the writer says, the conquest of Israel as a main objective.

It is full of the common misconceptions about the social system in Russia (the writer of the article thinks it is Communism and that Marx was responsible for it), and about the driving force behind the Russian Imperialism (the writer naturally fails to recognise that it is like the imperialism of the rest of the Capitalist powers).

One interesting item is an alleged quotation from Karl Marx in which he is made to say that as “loving my neighbour” has not changed the world, “let us see what hatred can do.” (No source is given).

But just to show how different the Christian and his God are the article ends:—

“Four thousand years ago God declared to Abraham, the father of the faithful: 'I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee.'

. . . That principle has been carried out right down the years, and in the future God’s curse is to fall upon atheistic and ambitious Russia.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the March 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Twenty-eight years ago the S.D.F. advocated national afforestation, not only as possessing great national advantages in preventing what capitalism was and is forcing on the world, namely, a timber famine, but also as a means whereby the labour of men otherwise unemployed could be utilised, and they in turn benefited. And now the members of the Royal Commission (including an ex-member of the S.D.F., who apparently has not forgotten all he learnt while with us) unite not only in blessing the idea of afforestation as many have done before, but produce definite statistics and estimates on the subject.”— Justice, 23.1.09.

There’s progress for you ! Only 28 years of hard, honest, unremitting toil and then a Royal Commission blesses the idea you have been advocating. Surely this is a complete answer to those “young men in a hurry” who sneer at those who devote so much energy to obtaining these “much needed reforms.” Here is a success sufficient to confound all the “unpractical,” “impossibilist” hustlers.

* * *

True, the “unpractical” persons may retort that had the same energy and enthusiasm been devoted to propagating Socialism and making Socialists these “reforms”—for whatever they may be worth—would have been handed out by the capitalist class, not only in a much shorter time, but in far greater quantity ; that the confusion engendered in the minds of the working class by associating these tinkerings with the name of Socialism would have been avoided, and a far more solid—because clearer-minded—organisation of the working class effected, while some of the more extreme might even suggest that the reform, when obtained, was hardly worth spending a day, let alone 28 years, upon. As witnesseth the following :

“Afforestation appears late in the race, and even if undertaken to the fullest extent suggested by the Royal Commission (which they themselves do not appear to expect) it can only absorb some small fraction of the unemployed, and the wave of unemployment will soon overtake the difference caused even by wholesale afforestation.”

No one, of course, but an “unpractical impossibilist” could have written that. Any self-respecting “reformer” would at once denounce it as mere jealousy. But, alas ! it is from the same page of the same paper that was just previously chortling over its success in obtaining so valuable a concession for the workers.

* * *

Surely the rank and file of the S.D.P. might compare such statements as those given above and realise the futility of following the example of the horse purchaser in the ancient story where the horse dealer admitted after the sale that the animal he had sold had two faults. “What are they?” asked the purchaser. “Well,” was the reply, “the first is that he is very difficult to catch.” “Oh, I’ll manage that all right !” confidently asserted the purchaser. “The second little drawback is,” the dealer went on, ” he is no good when you’ve caught him.”

* * *

The moral is obvious.

* * *

The New Age for 14.1.09 contained an article in support of municipal bakeries for the supply of “free bread for everybody.” The point which seemed to appeal most strongly to the writer was that “It would positively pay the State in the long run to provide free bread.”

The “State,” to whom the appeal to municipalise anything must be made, consists of the representatives of the capitalist class. This will continue to be the case until such time as the working class, educated to a consciousness of their class position and organised for their own emancipation, possess power to use the machinery of government to their own advantage. When that time arrives the necessity for the working class to appeal to capitalism for anything will be gone.

The power to pass a Free Bread Bill would be sufficient to “socialise” everything. That such a state of affairs is not contemplated by the “New Age” writer (A. O. Orage) is shown by his having written “Private artists would provide it (i.e., fancy bread, cakes, etc.) for the people who choose to pay.”

* * *

A member of the S.D.P. alluding to the “impossibilists” recently, said, “they were like certain early Christians who went about asking people to kill them, so sure were they of going to heaven.” The fact that certain persons hold opinions strongly enough to suffer death rather than give them up, is no proof of the truth or falsity of those opinions. For example, if five or five hundred people die to prove that 2 plus 2 equals 5 it will not affect the fact that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Both the professing Christian and the so-called Socialist of to-day stand on different planes to those early Christians alluded to above. The Christian of to-day looks forward to a life hereafter, but if he gets a chance to visit the realms of bliss by passing through the Gate of Death, he will call in the best medical aid obtainable in order that he may continue his penal servitude on earth.

So likewise is it with that contradiction in terms, the “revolutionary reformer” of the S.D.P. He knows, or should know, that Socialism can only be achieved by the complete overthrow of the present system of wealth production, yet he works for this, that and the other reform in order to patch up the very system he is out to abolish.

* * *

Here is an example. After stating that waste was desirable in order that work should be found for persons who would be otherwise unemployed, Mr. H. Quelch (at Eccles, 17.1.09.) in answer to a question, said in effect that, organisation of various concerns under municipal and national management tended towards the elimination of waste and consequently to the more speedy overthrow of the capitalist system.

Whilst he does not hold with one capitalist spending money wastefully upon a “coming out” dinner that found work for some persons,, he, as a member of the Right to Work Executive Council, would approach the capitalist class banded together as “the State,” to find useful work for the unemployed, knowing full well that the problem of production has already been solved, and that anything produced by the present unemployed would only mean the consequent slackness or loss of work to those employed. In the one case “elimination of waste” means the more speedy overthrow of capitalism, and in the other he would advocate waste to overthrow the system sooner than if nothing were granted to the unemployed, by advocating relief works, etc. It would be interesting to know whether he is really of the opinion that waste or the elimination of waste is better for the workers under capitalism.

* * *

Seeing Mr. Quelch admits that the organisation of production under municipal and national control is used to the detriment of the workers whilst the capitalist class are in power, perhaps he can explain how “greater material and moral facilities for the working class to organise itself and carry on the class war” (S.D.P. programme) will be obtained by advocating measures whereby the workers will come more under the sway of capital. When explaining this point he might also prove the following words to be false. “The higher the productiveness of labour the greater is the pressure of the labourers on the means of employment, the more precarious, therefore, becomes their condition of existence, viz, the sale of their own labour-power for the increasing of another’s wealth, or for the expansion of capital.”—”Capital,” Karl Marx, Vol. I p. 660. Should he admit the truth of the above passage, then the reforms advocated by his colleagues of the S.D.P. are not palliations of the system from the working-class point of view at all, and support for the movement gained by their advocacy is falsely gained, because these supporters are led to believe that the lot of the mass of the workers would be bettered while it would not.

* * *

Mr. R. Blatchford as good as says there is no Socialist Party because the posters for a recent issue of the “Clarion” said, “Wanted, a Socialist Party.” If the S.P.G.B. had said the S.D.P., I.L.P., Fabian Society and Clarion Scouts were not Socialist Parties it would have been high treason. Still those persons who were about to join the Clarion Scouts under the impression that it was a Socialist body will reconsider their position, doubtless. Of course, it applies equally to the S.P.G.B., but then we are used to being told that we are “Tories in disguise,” except when we want the platform in opposition, when it is refused to us on the plea that they take opposition only from non-Socialists.

* * *

Mr. J. Hunter Watts has been lecturing on “The Need for a Revision of the S.D.P. Programme.” After 25 years too! We would suggest as his next subject “The S.D.P. : Where is it ?”

* * *

In our January issue it was mentioned that the capitalist class would always out-bid, in the field of charity-doles, such efforts as the “Clarion Bread Fund.” Here is proof. Sir Peter Carlow Walker (of brewery fame) has placed at the disposal of the Liverpool Food and Betterment Association, funds to any amount necessary for the alleviation of dire necessity. Two offices have also been furnished at Sir P. C. Walker’s expense.

Irish stew, currant bread, cocoa and coffee are to be distributed to single, respectable, unemployed women and men, and provisions and probably clothes are to be given to widows having young families. Higher grade artisans and clerks out of employment are to be the chief beneficiares of the fund, those who are hard pressed and have to keep up appearances will, most likely, have clothing supplied them so that they may go respectably dressed to look for the work that does not exist.

Fitz Brough

Marxism and United Fronts (1939)

From the January 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists recognise the need for working class unity; we are enthusiastic supporters of a united front. But we cannot, and will not, support unity at all costs. It is true to state that a real united front of the working class can only come into being when it is based on the solid foundation of Socialist knowledge. We are, therefore, according to our Socialist principles, obliged to oppose united fronts of the character so often presented, because the object which is aimed at is not of a Socialist character, nor is the basis of the suggested unity Socialist knowledge. Our battle-cry is, therefore, not unity at all costs, but unity on Socialist principles, the unity of an intelligent, politically organised, and determined working class for the overthrow of class society.

Some people may think that this is a very nice ideal, but it is not practical—it is not possible to get a majority of the working class to act along the lines indicated; therefore, it is essential, in order to stimulate activity, to seize upon some issue on which temporary agreement can be obtained between the various parties. In order to justify this form of activity our opponents often quote the Communist Manifesto (wrongly, in the sense that the Communist Manifesto never referred to the modern united front). “The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to other working class parties . . .” (page 21, M. Lawrence edition). This section of the Manifesto is assumed to provide the justification for all kinds of absurdities in connection with the class struggle in general and unity in particular. It is put forward as the Marxian basis of action in the form of an unchanging truth, a dogma. It is inferred that, were Marx alive to-day, he would urge affiliation to the Labour Party and united fronts for everything and anything, as do our misguided friends, the C.P. and I.L.P. In passing, it might be to the point to add that it seems strange that people who are continually changing policy and tactics on the ground of being dialectical should fail to see (or is it refuse to see ?) that, by virtue of the dialectic, that which was applicable during 1848, and even remained so until 1870, is no longer suited to meet the needs of 1938 (so far as advanced countries are concerned).

If one reads the Communist Manifesto carefully that is made clear, e.g., the joint preface by Marx and Engels, 1872, states (Section 4): —

“… Although in principle still correct, yet in practice are antiquated, because the political situation has been entirely changed, and the progress of history has swept from off the earth the greater portion of the political parties therein enumerated.”

Since Section 2 deals with the same matter, it is also included in the joint remarks of Marx and Engels.

We accept the Marxian case, not because of any blind homage to either Marx or Engels, but because they discovered social truths the correctness of which history has proved up to the hilt. The Marxian approach to the social problems places a key, or tool, in the hands of the working class, by which they can understand past social history, the present, and from this glean valuable knowledge to guide their future revolutionary actions, and thereby accomplish the task of overthrow more quickly.

When Marxism is applied, not as a dogma, but as a beacon light to illumine the proletarian highway, then it will be realised that no fixed and unalterable tactics are possible, and also that the particular conditions in any given situation will determine the details of the course to be pursued. Sections 2 and 4 were, and still are, suited to meet the requirements of the infant proletariat in their struggles in countries which have still to overthrow feudalism and establish capitalism. If we view past history we find that man’s development socially was in proportion to the development of his tools. At the stage where private property became established classes were born and class struggles commenced. The ruling class were always the most important class economically. The rise of the modern capitalist :class made them economically the most important class. But they, in order to perform their function, i.e., carry social development a stage further, were compelled to establish their political supremacy in order to permit the breaking down of the feudal fetters which restricted further social progress. In other words, the historic mission of capitalism is to create a great proletariat, eliminate the peasant, establish social production, and centralise control. To accomplish this task the capitalist class had to carry out the revolutionary overthrow of feudalism. If we keep in mind the fact that under the feudal system there were several classes, e.g., aristocracy, peasants, capitalists, and the then developing proletariat, we will see that the class struggle assumed a fourfold aspect. Further, it would not have been possible for the modern master class to have fought its battle with the feudal aristocracy without the aid of both peasants and workers. Again, capitalism was a necessary phase of social development; it therefore represented progress. In addition, so long as the class struggles were of a many-sided character, the issue between the capitalist class and the working class could not become really clear. By way of indicating that this was the view of Marx, a quotation from “Revolution and Counter-Revolution” may serve : —

“The working class movement itself never is independent, never of an exclusively proletarian character, until all the different factions of the middle class, and particularly its most progressive faction, the large manufacturers, have conquered political power, and remodelled the state according to their wants. It is then that the inevitable conflict between the employer and employed becomes imminent and cannot be adjourned any longer . . .” (page 8).

When the capitalist class have attained their political supremacy, then the class conflict is speedily reduced to the clear issue between the two great classes, the last two classes to appear in social history. When one considers that the Communists then in existence were merely a handful, and also that the establishment of capitalism would provide the social, economic, and political conditions which would make the Socialist proposition understandable to the working class; then the correctness of the urge to the Communists to assist their enemies, the capitalist class, in the destruction of their enemies, the feudal aristocracy, to put it in the words of Marx : “In short, the Communists everywhere support all revolutionary movements against the existing social and political order of things” (i.e., the abolition of feudalism). The Manifesto also makes it clear that the Communists should not conceal their aims, i.e., the abolition of capitalism; also that their independence should be preserved.

Contrast this with the programmes of the Labour Party, I.L.P., and so-called Communist Party, who, if they ever had any Communist aims, disdain to reveal them. Their aims are, and always have been, such as any Conservative or Liberal could, at a pinch, vote for. To take a few of the more prominent issues : Work for the workless, 40-hour week, defend Austria, Czechoslovakia, democracy, etc. These are issues which the modern master class are interested in from time to time; there is nothing revolutionary about any of them.

Suppose we put the question: Was feudalism abolished here? The answer is yes. Were the social and political conditions necessary for working class emancipation created ? Again, yes. 

Then it follows that the possibility for the organisation of the working class on an independent basis, and of an exclusively proletarian character, have been in existence for many years. Our task is, therefore, clear: to organise the working class for overthrow, to create proletarian organisation based upon Socialist knowledge for the purpose of social revolution. Instead of doing this our united fronters are even fanatical in their avoidance of revolutionary activity. They squander the courage, enthusiasm, and generosity of the working class in the advocacy of Labour programmes which are essentially Liberal in character; then, on special occasions, become the brazen defenders of British capitalism. It is interesting to note that Engels, in a letter to Bebel, expressed strong views on the question of unit)? at all costs: — 

“Unity is quite a good thing so long as it is possible, but there are things which stand higher than unity. And when, like Marx and myself, one has fought harder all one’s life long against the alleged Socialists than against anyone else, one cannot greatly grieve that the struggle has broken out” (this refers to the party split) (page 402, Correspondence).

The letter dealing with immediate claims, by Marx and Engels jointly, to Liebknecht, Bracke and others, deals scornfully with the suggestion of dropping the issue of Socialism in order to attract the workers with a programme of immediate aims. Quoting the German S.D. programme as follows, “Let no one misunderstand us. We do not want to give up our party and our programme, but we think that for years hence we shall have enough to do if we concentrate our whole strength and energy upon the attainment of certain immediate aims which must in any case be achieved before the realisation of the more far-reaching ends can be thought of . . .” Engels replies as follows, “The programme is not to be given up but only postponed — to an indefinite period. One accepts it, though not really for one’s self and one’s own lifetime, but posthumously as an heirloom to be handed down to one’s children and grandchildren. In the meantime one devotes one’s ‘whole strength and energy’ to all sorts of petty rubbish and the patching up of the capitalist order of society, in order, at least to produce the appearance of something happening without at the same time scaring the bourgeois.”

How that fits exactly the so-called Communists to-day is self-evident. The Socialist Party refuses to be drawn into this campaign of peddling rubbish; our opponents, who are bankrupt of a case against us, can only resort to abuse and such absurd assertions as: “The S.P.G.B. do not take part in the day-to-day struggle,” etc.

When the question of the day-to-day struggle is examined, it is evident that no member of society, irrespective of whether worker or master, can escape the day-to-day struggle; it is the class struggle, in its non-revolutionary aspect. We, as members of the working class, are very much concerned about such things as the means test, slums, poverty, etc. We realise that, even within capitalist society, our poverty can be aggravated, hence the reason why we endorse the need for the working class to struggle against the encroachments of capitalism where possible. We also know that even the most diehard Tory Government must introduce reforms from time to time; and that, even were all that which has been promised to the workers by Tories, Liberals, Labourites, or so-called Communists (even in their wildest days prior to their extreme Conservatism), granted, we would have poverty, slums, unemployment, etc. As Socialists we want much more than they will ever give, viz., Socialism; consequently we logically concentrate on the quickest means of obtaining it. It is not our job to assist the master class in running society; in the course of doing so, national and local legislation and administration is essential. It is true to state that to-day possibly 99.9 per cent. of the time of Parliament and town councils are concerned with affairs of no interest or concern to the working class; this is so, irrespective of the personnel who form the Government.

We are Socialists, not careerists; therefore, we take our stand on the need for spreading Socialist knowledge. Keeping this in mind, we know that, in proportion to the growth of Socialist knowledge, the working class will find that they will be even more successful on the question of conditions of labour, etc. Try and visualise a May-day demonstration of Socialists, one hundred thousand strong; their banners bearing revolutionary slogans, their ranks the living manifestation of solid unity based upon Socialist knowledge, their action indicative of determination to abolish capitalism. Because you are intelligent, strong and united, you are feared, therefore respected; meantime you are politically ignorant, disorganised and weak; consequently you are not feared, but despised. When the working class are so organised then the words of Marx, “Let the ruling class tremble at a Communist revolution,” will be fully realised. The ruling class, in their panic, will be ever more ready to concede your demands; you will be in a position to demand. Now, in most cases, you only beg. The remedy for all the ills, unemployment, slums, poverty, war, etc., is Socialism; it should be established at the earliest opportunity. To accomplish this it is essential that a majority of the workers become Socialists. We, of the S.P.G.B., are doing our utmost to convince the workers of the need for Socialism; our task is made more difficult by the propaganda of confusionists who call themselves Socialists; however, we will win in the end. The importance of this task should not be under-rated. As Engels said (“Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”): “To accomplish this act of universal emancipation is the historic mission of the modern proletariat. To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions, and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.” In other words, make Socialism first, then the rest (unity) will follow, and the working class will soon get rid of capitalism.

John Higgins

Correspondence. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor

Dear Comrade,

May I claim the indulgence of a short space in your valuable paper, in order that there may be no error in conception, or wilful misrepresentation, of my conversion to the principles of the Socialist Party cf Great Britain. First of all I recognise that the existence of a Socialist Party, as a revolutionary party, must be consistent with a rigid adoption of its principles, any deviation from that course rendering the party nugatory, and its name a misnomer, as some of our opponents are realising in the humiliating circumstances in which they find themselves when under the cross-fire of criticism that the stalwarts of the S.P.G.B. know so well how to administer. These are circumstances of which, many of your readers and the public will know, I am well able to give from personal experience, as a more trenchant onslaught than I received at the hands of some of the S.P.G.B. members seldom falls to the lot of mankind. No eel in the well sanded fist of a cook, upon the eve of being skinned, ever twisted and writhed as I did, when compelled by the grip of Reason to admit the fatuity of my position. In the political field of this purposely complex system of capitalism, there has been vast scope for the formation of various political parties, societies, and so-called Socialistic bodies,—possessing lugubrious titles, and promoted by political job-hunting rascals,—with a nefarious Press, to circulate their pernicious verbiage—sucking the blood of the country year in and year out, that they may give to their descendants the sop of political power. If the great mass of the workers, environed as they are on every side with poverty, plunder, and oppression, have sufficient strength to repel these political bloodsuckers, to what can it be attributed but to a consciousness of the true inwardness of capitalism ? Given that consciousness and its correct representation by a truly Socialist party, we prove our abhorrence of capitalism by uniting against it all the disciples of a Socialist Commonwealth in Britain.

Yours fraternally,

Quelch

Letter: Seeing red (1999)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Seeing red

Dear Editors,

Ivan’s article, “Keeping Their Hair On”, in the July Socialist Standard made some interesting points about party colours and the image of politicians. But why are certain organisations or institutions associated with particular colours?

For example, royalty has traditionally been represented by the colour blue and yet there is no certainty as to how or why this originated. I am not even sure if there is a reason for the left being traditionally represented by the colour red.

Whatever the reason for the association of the left with red, why does the Socialist Party still use this colour too—at least for its publicity and stationery? The Socialist Party is not left-wing (or any “wing”, for that matter) as it is advocating an entirely different system. Red, in the context of socialism smacks of Commies, Reds, Lefties, Militant, “Keep the Red Flag Flying” and all that other nonsense we are trying to distance ourselves from. Think of the old Soviet Union or China and what comes to mind? Red flags!

If we are to change people’s stereotypical perception of socialism and socialists—which is difficult enough as it is—then we need to change how people view us rather than reinforcing what they already believe. It is a question of image.

Sadly, capitalism has made image a more important quality than substance but as long as we have to operate within capitalism we will be judged on petty points such as our Party colour, just as much as we can be judged on our ethos. Perhaps we should use the colour blue (or a strain of it) ourselves; that would really give people something to think about!

Simon Montfalcon, 

Romsey, Hampshire

Reply:

The red flag was first used as a revolutionary emblem in the French Revolution, in 1792 when the monarchy was overthrown. Apparently, up till then it had signified that martial law was in force and of course is still a danger signal (for the ruling class?). In the following century it became the flag of those in France who wanted a social as well as a political revolution.

Thus, in one of his articles on the revolutionary events in France in 1848 (Class Struggles in France 1848-1850) Marx referred to the red flag as being the flag of “the most extreme subversive party”. So too, the first English translation of the Communist Manifesto appeared in an extreme Chartist paper, the Red Republican. The Paris Commune of 1871 adopted the red flag as its official flag, so again Marx wrote about “the Red Flag, symbol of the Republic of Labour, flying over the Hotel de Ville” (Civil War in France).

The words of the song The Red Flag (which used to be sung at pre-WWI Socialist Party meetings such as those to commemorate the Paris Commune, before the song got hijacked by the Labour Party) were written by James Connell in 1889. One line reads “we must not change its colour now”– Editors

As Others See Us: The New Statesman (1983)

Found via the 8th Wonder of the World: Archive.org

Sadly, I can't find a better quality of picture but I'll take what I can get. An architecture/politics piece from the New Statesman that dates from the 10th of June, 1983. It would have tied in with the General Election that was taking place that month. That election where Thatcher trounced Foot, and the Party was contesting Chris Smith's seat in Islington South and Finsbury.

I've cropped the picture and blurb for the Party's Head Office, but it's not the best. For those of you who can't read the text, it reads as follows:

"Good for the SPGB — the only party with the courage to say who they are, and in tasteful sans-serif lettering. The Ecology Party masquerades behind the Yuk Chuen Chinese Restaurant and the Jearlene Unisex hairdressers. The far left and far right can always be identified by their taste for barricades wire mesh perimeter fencing and other forms of security (e.g., SWP, CP and, below, the Conservative Party)."

A piece so old the Green Party were still called the Ecology Party, and my only political activity in that year - in fact, it was in that actual month - was me waving back at Paul Boateng as he went around the local constituency waving at bemused Saturday shoppers from the top of an open-topped double decker election bus. (I was a polite kid.)

Posted below is the full article from that issue of the New Statesman. You'll have to click on the image to make it larger. Good luck reading the text!

Letter: It is robbery ? (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is robbery ?

Why does the Socialist Party of Great Britain claim that man’s activity, society’s activity, centres around Speakers’ Corner, Marble Arch, where the SPGB speaks?

How vast and worldly and adventurous is the activity of socialists outside party activity? Socialists claim that they aim to obtain Socialism democratically (the only way). To act democratically means also that you must act legally in all of your activity in and outside party activity. How is this possible when the economic system, capitalism is NOT democratic? There is no democracy in the economic and industrial jungle of capitalism, and it is extremely difficult to remain legal (democratic) in this field.

Socialists say the capitalist class "rob” the workers by denying them the full fruits of their labour. So what’s to stop us robbing them, the capitalists?

J. W. Spencer 

London W.2.

Reply:

The opening of your letter is unoriginal; for a reply to that, see page 157 of this issue. Your second question is why Socialists should act legally, either in their political party or as individuals, in an undemocratic society. The answer on the Party account is that capitalism requires the consent of the ruled-over and so provides a sufficient democratic apparatus for Socialists to use. Your concern about democracy should show you that the attempting of illegal means implies conspiracy, i.e. action by a minority. As individuals, most of us would say that there are enough problems for working people without adding to them by going in for crime.

However, your last paragraph shows a serious misconception at the bottom of your argument. The working class sells its labour-power, its only possession, to the owners of the means of production and distribution, who lay claim to the consequent products. The workers are not robbed — indeed, it is impossible to be robbed of what one has never owned; they are exploited. To argue that it is robbery just the same implies (a) that the Socialist case is about “right” and “justice” — it is not; and (b) that the aim of Socialism is to snatch back the product. Of course our aim is that the working class shall obtain the full fruits of its labour, but the target has to be not the product in itself but the ownership of the means of production. That is what the struggle is about.

Editors.

The damn’d grotesques. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.D.P. annual Conference laboured mightily and brought forth several gems. I hasten to rescue some of them from an unhonoured and unsung obscurity, and give them the benefit of our rapidly increasing circulation.

o o o

First Mr. Quelch presents his compliments and begs to say there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain. He wishes there was. And yet “Fighting Carmichael,” “Camborne Jones,” and a host of other young bloods out of the camp of the Quelches were largely occupied at Manchester with appealing to their comrades to hold them back in case they (the young bloods) should “go for” certain members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain who insisted upon preaching Socialism as against Danirvinism—the name given to the queerest lot of rant, cant, and fustian extant.

o o o

Quite apart from the reports the young bloods undoubtedly gave him, Mr. Quelch has many excellent reasons for knowing of the existence of the S.P.G.B. So excellent that Mr. Quelch is probably mortally anxious to escape the necessity for dealing with us other than in the dark and devious ways that seem to delight him.

o o o

But if there is no such thing as a Socialist Party of Great Britain, what have the “old gang” got to say about it? They have “borne the heat and burden of the day,” as Quelch would phrase it, for thirty years, in an endeavour to build up the Socialist Party that Harry Quelch laments does not exist. Harry will not admit us as the S.P.G.B., and yet there is no other ! For he himself has said it. But it’s a most depressing admission—for him and the “old gang.” However, we refuse—it’s most ungracious of us—but we refuse to consider ourselves dead, even to please Mr. Quelch. We ought to have died within a few weeks of our birth, but somehow or other we’ve hung on, increasing our membership and the sales of our literature for four years. And so far as I can see we shall have to keep on going on.

o o o

For example, it took a member of the S.P.G.B. to polish off Lawler Wilson of the Tariff Reform crowd. Wilson had met the champions of several of the parties misrepresenting themselves as Socialists, and as he is a fairly ‘cute chap, and his opponents’ parties had records that will never come out of the wash with credit, Wilson had a gorgeous time. He came to Battersea Town Hall, therefore, rather cock-a-hoop, and—a packed audience saw him die.

o o o

This isn’t bounce, it’s truth. Ever heard of truth, Harry ?

o o o

Apparently Harry is not prepared to recognise any organisation until it is as big as his own. That is an excellent reason for the I.L.P. ignoring the S.D.F., for the “Labour Party” ignoring the I.L.P., and so on. But then Harry would call the I.L.P. names, among which “cowards” would be the mildest, and something with several B’s in it among the stronger !

o o o

Harry is fond of “langwidge” and big things—particularly S.D.P. big things. That’s why Jack Jones finds favour in his sight. Happy Jack!

o o o

And that reminds me. Jack Jones at the Conference gave off this: “Correspondence is the curse of democracy.” A delegate had attacked the S.D.P. Executive for not doing what the Conference had instructed it to do, and had read the letter (“unwisely,” says Justice) the Executive had sent in reply. “Unwisely ” is a good word, but it barely meets the case.

o o o

The purport of that letter has already appeared in this journal. It was to the effect that the S.D.P. opposition to “Lulu” Harcourt in the Rossendale Valley had been withdrawn partly, at any rate, for the reason that Harcourt was a better chap than many of his colleagues ! As if from a Socialist standpoint there were degrees of goodness among capitalist politicians.

o o o

Undoubtedly the letter was read “unwisely.” It isn’t wise to let the rank and file of the Party know that such views are held by their executive officers. They may begin to have doubts. And Happy Jack was right in the circumstances when he said correspondence was a curse—not a curse in itself, of course, but the very devil of a curse when it is read to others for whose ears it is not intended.

o o o

But this method of secret diplomacy is, of course, vide H. M. Hyndman (same Conference), “wholly undemocratic and dangerous, tending to the support of despotism and the maintenance of corruption and intrigue.” But in the conduct of a supposedly far more democratic organisation it is very good and very necessary, while the publication of correspondence is a curse. We are lovely democrats in the S.D.P. !

o o o

Still, one can understand Happy Jack’s disgust. He is doubtless still painfully aware that Camborne is standing on the map. And I wonder whether it was his experiences in that delectable district that led him to the conclusion that it was desirable to get somebody—”a good cadger” was Hyndman’s felicitous term—”to get down into other people’s pockets without them knowing it.” Nice anti-secret-diplomacy chap, Jack,

o o o

On this matter of the Rossendale Valley contest, it is of some little interest to observe that “there is no folly in striking a blow for Social-Democracy wherever it can be done as effectively as it was at North-West Manchester, with the result of demonstrating to our enemies that there is no position too strong for us to assail.” (Justice, 2/5/08.) Apparently it can’t be done effectively at Rossendale, although they have more branches in that division than they have members in N.W. Manchester !

o o o

It would, in the circumstances, be nice to know what the sapient editor of Justice regards as an effective strike at capitalism. And I wonder what, if any, correspondence, that “curse of democracy,” has passed between the anti-secret-diplomatists at Chandos Hall, and the “good capitalist” party in Rossendale.

o o o

Also I should like to know what F. Davey, of Paddington, and others interested, now think of the reply of the editor of Justice to the statement published by us on the reasons for the withdrawal of the S.D.F. Rossendale candidate.

o o o

This reply characterised our report as misleading and untrue. According to the Justice report of the S.D.P. Conference, however, it was quite true. Oh, the curse of this unwise correspondence !

o o o

And how does this square with the S.D.P. Executive’s statement that “Lulu” Harcourt had improved his position—become more democratic, more sympathetic to Labour, and so on ? “Harcourt had certainly a greater grip on the capitalist parties and would get more Tory votes than before.” (Fred Knee, S.D.P. Executive representative at Conference.)

o o o

That either means that Harcourt is getting more into favour with the capitalist class, or it means nothing. And that’s the way Harcourt is improving his position and finding favour in the S.D.P.’s sight !

o o o

Another matter. I cannot fill the paper with S.D.P. Conference absurdities, lies, and contortions, although it would be the easiest matter in the world. We are for ever being asked why we continually attack the S.D.P., I.L.P., and other parties “who are coming along to the same goal as ourselves.” Our reply is contained in the foregoing—a fair sample of the pitiable, if ludicrous, position the strenuous endeavours of the S.D. and I.L. Parties to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds are for ever landing them into.

o o o

These parties are appealing to the working class for support. The working class does not know what it is letting itself in for if it responds to the appeal. Therefore we do what we can to open its eyes ; or at any rate we have taken the precaution of repudiating any responsibility for S.D.-I.L.P. action. When, therefore, the storm breaks and swamps the time-servers in a deluge of the wrath of the once deluded working class, we shall be in the ark with the blessed.

o o o

Ever heard of the Ark, Harry ? No, you’re wrong. It isn’t a public-house.

o o o

Which again reminds me. The S.D.P. are “agin” the Licensing Bill. The l.L.P. are largely for it—most enthusiastically. Another case of unity of idea among the forces of progress.

o o o

What is our view of the Licensing Bill ? It leaves us unmoved. It doesn’t matter a tinker’s anathema. It’s part of the great game of political “coddem”—if that’s how the word is spelled.

o o o

I was going to refer to the repudiation by the S.D.P. Conference of Gott, of Bradford, a S.D.P. member suspected of the intention of issuing an agnostic pamphlet about Christ, the enemy of the human race. This might injure Danirvinism in North-East Manchester. Wherefore the S.D.P. solemnly repudiated the pamphlet and worked off its stock cant resolution about religion being a private and personal affair,

o o o

Now perhaps they will repudiate Blatchford and his anti-Christian books. Because Blatchford holds the anti-Christian propaganda of such importance that he would put it in the forefront of the battle.

o o o

Will the S.D.P. repudiate him ? Not much. You see Blatchford is a sort of important person and Gott is not. And the S.D.P. Executive are keen on important persons.

o o o

Sometimes, however, the important person, having been roped in, fails to exhibit becoming respect towards his loving parent organisation. There’s the.unhappy case of H. G. Wells, who burst upon North-West Manchester with two columns of advice to the elector to vote against Danirvinism and S.D.P.-ism.

o o o

Of course Wells is merely an insufferable person whose hat is too small for him, and the present Justice estimate of his Socialist knowledge is fair enough. “Nobody but himself takes Mr. Wells seriously.” A novelist of the Jules Verne school who “thinks he knows something about Socialism” but doesn’t, and so on. But readers of Justice will clearly remember the great chortle with which Justice welcomed the addition to the ranks of the S.D.P. of the great thinker, the literary genius, Wells.

o o o

It's the same Wells. But the S.D.P. view has changed a little—that's all !

Alegra.

Blogger's Notes:

By 1908 the Social Democratic Federation were now known as the Social Democratic Party. They had changed their name in 1907. They were to relaunch (with others) to become the British Socialist Party in 1911.

'Danirvinism' is a cheeky play on words. It's a reference to Dan Irving, who was a leading member of the SDF/SDP in Lancashire. Lancashire was one of the few places outside London where the SDF had been able to secure a significant base, and in some parts of Lancashire  - especially Burnley - were on an equal footing with the ILP. Dan Irving would later become a Labour MP after the first world war.