Letter: I.L.P. Compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor.

Dear Sir,—A copy of the Socialist Standard for April, containing Mr. J. Brough’s second letter, has just been put into my hands. There are one or two points arising out of the same that I would, with your consent, like to discuss. In the first place I wish to draw the attention of your readers to the manner in which Mr. Brough, like all equivocators, seeks to evade the real issue by constantly changing his position. At the open-air meeting I addressed in July, ’07, Mr. Brough charged the I.L.P. with having formed a compact with the Liberal Party. This I denied at the time. In his first letter (Socialist Standard, Feb., ’08), the charge is reduced to one of complicity—the L.R.C. being the guilty body, the I.L.P. merely a party to the act. That he is totally unable to justify either one charge or the other is made perfectly clear by Mr. Brough’s second letter. The “compact” is discreetly dropped. (A tacit acknowledgment, by the way, of the “veracity of my denial.”) Forced to abandon one position, Mr. Brough takes up another. He now tries to patch up his case by pointing out that certain I.L.P.’ers (acting on their own initiative, as they must have done on the evidence cited by Mr. Brough from the Daily News, Jan. 11, ’06), voted Liberal. This I submit is not the point in dispute. I never undertook to answer for the action of individual members of the I.L.P. But I can, and do, truthfully say that neither the I.L.P. nor the L.R.C. did as Mr. Brough asserted in his first letter—that is, entered in “a compact, a mutual agreement, or contract,” with the Liberal Party.

The “compact” is a figment of Mr. Brough’s fancy. And one that he now wisely, and for him conveniently, ignores. He has failed to substantiate his charge. And his climb down is so obvious, so unmistakable, that I would have left the matter to the intelligence of your readers had not Mr. Brough made himself responsible for another gross and deliberate lie.

He says : “I cannot understand Mr. Swan’s dislike to having his party alluded to as compromising with Liberals, as I and others have heard him say ‘It does not matter how they (L.R.C. men) get to Parliament, as long as they get there.'”

Mr. Brough knows as well as I do that he never heard me say anything of the kind. The remarks he distorts and tries to twist were made by me in answer to a question from Mr. Brough re the attitude of the L.R.C. towards Victor Grayson. In the course of my reply I said that it did not matter whether Grayson had got into Parliament with, or without, the aid of the L.R.C., so long as he had got there. In this case, as in so many others, Mr. Brough puts into words something they do not contain. Not that I am surprised at Mr. Brough resorting to tricks of this kind. They are characteristic of the man. Were he to be deprived of this his occupation would be gone

.—Yours, etc.,

Tom Swan.

Reply:

Dear Comrade,—If Mr. Swan replies somewhat rudely, the reason is probably to be sought in that he hopes by his wild and whirling words to hide the poverty of his case.

At the Editor’s request I simply resume the facts.

In the first place the contention re compacts has obviously not been dropped, for indeed none of the evidence has been rebutted by Mr. Swan.

Contributory evidence has been given, not from one source alone, but from many sources ; and the evidence in proof of arrangements with Manchester Liberals to which the I.L.P., being prime movers in the L.R.C. there, were incontestably parties, is overwhelming.

Again I ask, if there was no arrangement with the Liberals, why did the secretary of the Manchester and Salford L.R.C. state in a letter to the Clarion that “The introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidatures in S.W. and N.E. Manchester” ? If the I.L.P. were not parties to this why were they, as they stated in the Clarion, unable to promote any candidate in E. Manchester “on account of their affiliation to the L.R.C.” ? These facts have already been given, and why has not Mr. Swan, if there is any other explanation than that of an understanding with the Liberals, given a reason for them ?

Further, Mr. Swan’s bare denial is totally insufficient to dispose of the evidence from the Manchester Courier of Dec. 16th last, that—

“Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew.”

And did not Mr. Clynes, M.P., himself say upon his victory (Daily News, 15/1/06) that “the victory is due to a combination of forces, which, by their united power, had given a great blow to Chamberlainism” ? This and other evidence has already been given. Is it necessary to give more?

The Daily Chronicle, 1/1/06, in an article on “Triangular Contests” said:—

“A settlement [between Liberals and Labour men] has been arrived at in many of the great centres of population—in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Preston, Wolverhampton, Sunderland Stockport, Leicester, Huddersfield and a number of other towns.”

Again, the Daily News, 15/1/06, said :—

“At Halifax, again, Mr. Whitley’s wise arrangement with Labour has produced an ideal result in his return with Mr. Parker at his side and nearly 4,000 votes in front of the Tory candidate. Here there is an object lesson in the right use of great and in the main harmonious powers. The same moral applies to North-East and South-West Manchester, where it is clear that the Labour candidate had the whole Liberal Party at his back.”

And so we might go on.

With regard to the answer to a question put to Mr. Swan at a meeting, it is again Mr. Swan who is lying. The question was not put by me, but by W. L. Brown, of 39, Buckingham Street, Moss Side, Manchester, of whom I have made enquiries, and he writes : “Mr. Swan had said that ‘the return of V. Grayson for Colne Valley had done more to put the fear of God in the capitalist party than any other event during the last thirty years ! I asked how it was that the return of K. Hardie, P. Snowden, and J. R. MacDonald and others had not filled the capitalist with fear also ; were they not Socialists ? Mr. Swan replied, ‘Damn it, man, you’re only quibbling. Of course they are Socialists ; everybody knows they are Socialists. It does not matter under what banner they get to Parliament as long as they get there.'” It will be seen that this agrees substantially with my version, while it flatly contradicts the assertions of Mr. Swan on that matter.

In his first letter Mr. Swan gratuitously accused the S.P.G.B. of being a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties; up to the present he has not substantiated his statement, nor can he do so. His statement, if I may be pardoned the use of his own lurid language, is “a gross and deliberate lie” ; while evidence has repeatedly been given in these columns, and in the Manifesto of the Party, proving that the I.L.P., which he champions, is in practice a “mere adjunct” of the Liberal Party.

For the rest I am prepared to leave the case upon the evidence already given, which evidence Mr. Swan has yet to meet.

—Yours fraternally,

Jim Brough

Correspondence: A deliberate lie? (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

TO THE EDITOR.

33, Albany Street, Beswick, M/c. 

Feb. 5, 08.

Dear Sir,—Mr. J. Brough issues, through the February No. of your paper, a direct challenge to me, and one it may be worth while to accept. I shall perhaps be able to throw some light on the methods of the S.P.G.B.

The author of this challenge ends his letter by asking “What has Mr. Swan to say now ?” Exactly what I said before. The statement that a compact was entered into by the local L.R.C. and the Liberals at the last general election is a deliberate lie ? It was a lie, when Mr. Brough first made it, and it is a lie still. In addition I would like to point out that apart from the Courier extract, concerning which I will have something to say later, Mr. Brough has not brought forward one scrap of evidence in support of his charge. The letters from the Clarion will not bear the construction he has placed upon them. He has read into them something they do not contain.

Mr. Brough bases his case upon the fact that the L.R.C. and the East Manchester I.L.P. declared that a candidate in East Manchester would damage Clynes in North East, and Kelley in South West Manchester. That such was their opinion has never been denied, but has been freely and frequently admitted. Such an admission, however, is not tantamount to an acknowledgement that a compact was made by the L.R.C. and the Liberal Party. To assert that it is, to quote Mr. Brough, to “use words for a purpose different from that in which words are generally understood.”

Mr. Brough explains very carefully what is meant by the word “compact,” and thereby places himself at my mercy. A “compact” is a mutual agreement, or contract, etc., etc. Very good. Now a compact is only possible when there are two, or more, parties to it, and can only be arrived at as the result, the outcome, of certain verbal or written communications. If there is no communication there can be no compact. That either verbal or written communications passed, between the L.R.C. and the Liberals I emphatically deny. And if I am speaking the truth Mr. Brough’s precious “compact ” falls demolished about his ears.

But why waste ink? Mr. Brough may test the truth, or untruth, of my words quite easily. The Trades Union connected with his occupation sends several delegates to the L.R.C., one of whom is upon the executive of that body. Let Mr. Brough, through these delegates, have the question brought up ; let him demand the facts. I will undertake to back up his efforts. And if, after this course has been adopted, it can be proved that I have tried to mislead Mr. Brough, I promise to publicly apologise to him for having done so. This is a perfectly fair proposition, and a reasonable one. Let Mr. Brough act upon it.

Now a few words in reference to the extract from the Manchester Courier. If what I have stated above is true, it follows that the statement contained in this extract is as false as that made by Mr. Brough. They are both to the same effect ; they stand or fall together. The fact is the Courier man knows no more, and he could not know less, about the matter under discussion than Mr. Brough himself. And I submit that a Socialist who goes to the Tory or Liberal Press for information concerning other Socialists, and uses this information without ever trying to verify it is playing very low indeed. Tories and Liberals alike are interested in circulating lies about us. And if you repeat these lies you are doing their work whether you are paid for it or not.

Mind you, I do not dispute the right of Mr. Brough, or anyone else, to criticise me, or the organisation to which I belong. But criticism to be of any value must be prompted by a desire to see truth prevail, not by stupid pugnacity; it must be based upon fact, not wild assumption; and must be the outcome of knowledge, not of ignorance. If the S.P.G.B. will confine itself to criticism of the former, and leave the latter kind to our mutual foes it will fulfil a useful function ; if it does not it will remain a mere adjunct of the capitalist parties.

—Yours etc.,

Tom Swan.

Blogger's Note:

Jim Brough replied to Mr. Swan's letter in the April 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard.

[Quotes] (1908)

From the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Liberals must persevere with their accepted policy of combining the defence of Free Trade with reasonable, just, and prudent Social Reform, which indeed becomes all the more necessary as a protection against the wild schemes of extremists".-—Daily Chronicle.

_________________ 

Exact justice is commonly more merciful in the long run than pity, for it tends to foster in men those stronger qualities which make them good citizens.—Lowell.

_________________ 

Great minds do, indeed, react on the Society which has made them what they are; but they only pay with interest what they have received. Macaulay.

_________________ 

“The Socialists voted for a little known barrister, on the express understanding that in certain other divisions of Manchester and in neighbouring constituencis the orthodox Liberal should abstain from opposing Labour candidates.”

The above extract from the leading article in the Daily Telegraph of January 24th last should be read in conjunction with the correspondence columns of this issue.

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

I.L.P. compacts in Manchester.

Comrade,—On November 20th Mr. T. Swan of the I.L.P. asserted in debate with J. Marsh (S.P.G.B.), that a member of the S.P.G.B. had stated that the I.L.P. had been parties to a compromise with the Liberals during the General Election ; but this statement was a deliberate lie, as no such compact had taken place. If, he added, the S.P.G.B. were proved locally to have made a statement that could not be verified, of what value were the statements made in their Manifesto and elsewhere ?

Now for the facts upon which the charge was made. On the 28th July, 1907, Swan was announced to debate with Kitson, on “Socialism versus Anarchism.” Wishing to know something more of the Anarchist position, I went to the meeting place, but found Swan holding forth, Kitson having failed to turn up.

At the conclusion of Swan’s address questions were asked for. After I spoke of the compromise referred to above. Swan denied that it had appeared in the Clarion, and, as I spoke then only from memory of 18 month’s previously, I let it pass. After, however, it was referred to by Swan on Nov. 20th, I bought the Clarions for the last three months of 1905 and found “The Clarion Post Bag ” for Nov. 10th, 1905, contained the following :—

”EAST MANCHESTER,  

To the Editor of the Clarion. 

Dear Sir,—Your article in Clarion of October 27 re Socialist candidate for East Manchester Parliamentary Division, was considered by our executive committee at their meeting on November 2, and I was instructed to inform you that the above committee was created by the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council for the purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates in Manchester and Salford at the next General Election.

The committee is representative in character, consisting of trade unions and branches of the Independent Labour Party, and the constituencies they have selected to be contested are South-West and North-East Manchester Divisions.

Our candidates, Mr. G. D. Kelley and Mr. J. R. Clynes, have been before the constituents some time, their prospects of success are excellent, and they have received the endorsement of the National Labour Representation Committee.

Our executive committee are strongly of the opinion that the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidates in S. W. and N.E. Manchester Divisions, and would tend to upset the cordial relations at present existing between the trade unions and Socialist organisations for independent political action, which has taken many years to bring about.

In view of these circumstances, they feel it would be a mistaken policy for the Clarion to put forward a Socialist candidate for East Manchester, and one which they, as the representative body of the Labour and Socialist bodies in the district, appointed for the specific purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates, could not countenance. 

Yours sincerely,

J. Nuttall

Secretary, M/c & Salford Lbr. Rpn. Committee, 29, York Street, Broughton, Salford.”

J. Butterworth, of 7, Royal Street, Ardwick, Secretary of the Ardwick I.L.P.,had a letter in the same issue of the Clarion in which he states in reply to A. M. Thompson’s “I wait now to hear from the constituency,” (Nov. 3/05), that “I or someone else may have something definite to say upon the matter,” “in the course of a few days.” What that “something definite” was we gather from the Clarion of Dec. 1st, 1905, when there appeared the following in a letter, dated November 27th, 1905 :—

“The following resolution was moved by Councillor Fox and seconded by Councillor Sutton:—

That this meeting of the members of East Manchester branches of the I.L.P. cannot consent to the candidature of Bramley without the consent of the M/c and Salford L.R.C. After discussion, the following amendment was moved by Comrade Hunt (of the Bradford branch), and seconded by Comrade Jones (of the Ardwick branch) :—

‘That we, members of the Ardwick and Bradford branches of the I.L.P., although, on account of our affiliation with the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester, cannot withhold our consent to the promotion of the candidature of F. Bramley for the division by the Clarion Board.’ ”

In explanation, A. M. Thompson said “The resolution conveyed in this letter shows misunderstanding of the situation. No candidature is, or can be, promoted by the Clarion Board.”

F. W. Jowett, in the Clarion for December 15th, 1905, points out that “There is one thing, however, which is beyond doubt, and that is the duty of our members in constituencies where a candidate is being run by any of the organisations affiliated to the L.R.C., as an L.R.C. candidate. The cohesion of the Labour movement largely depends upon the thoroughness with which the sections in each constituency concerned unite on the man in the field, to whatever section he may belong.”

Now, I maintain that the I.L.P. as a party affiliated to the L.R.C. are, as a matter of moral obligation, compelled to agree to any arrangement the L.R.C. may arrive (or connive) at. That they did act loyally to their L.R.C. confederates is shown by the words “we, on account of our affiliation to the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester” (their “consent” without support would have been useless to Bramley, as a candidate). Therefore it was a mere pious resolution. Had they supported Bramley they would have been false to their L.R.C. friends, because “the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in M/c would seriously damage the good prospects” of Kelley and Clynes in S.W. & N.E. Divisions. (vide Sec. Nuttall of the L.R.C.) They were, on this showing, as members of the L.R.C., parties to the compact I spoke of.

Perhaps Mr. Swan may use words for a purpose different to that in which words are generally understood. But a compact is “a mutual agreement or contract, a treaty, a league, a confederacy.” (Nuttall). That there was an agreement was made further evident when I saw in the Clarion for December 22nd, 1905 a letter signed “Unification,” in which occurs the following:—

“That there is a great possible danger in the confusion of the word “Labour” with the Liberal Party will be obvious to most people when we read such statements as appeared in a Manchester evening paper—that a certain Labour candidate saw eye to eye with the Liberals on nine points out of ten, and it would, therefore, not be policy to bring out a Liberal candidate and thus create a three-cornered fight. The ambiguity of the term is proving a valuable asset to the Liberal Party ; but when we learn that the L.R.C. are averse to sanctioning the candidature of a Socialist for East Manchester, on the grounds that the Liberals would then contest the two Manchester divisions, where Labour candidates are nominated, we can certainly excuse the outsiders if they consider the Labour Party as a Liberal wing. What other complexion can be placed on such a help-me-and-I’ll-help-you policy ? ”

And furthermore, in the Manchester Courier of December 16th last the following appears :—

“LABOUR AND WEST SALFORD 

Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew. The Labour Party’s love of Liberalism has not been improved in the last two years, and after the success of its own candidates in Manchester last year a renewal of the arrangement which gave the Liberals six candidates to Labour’s two is not likely.”

What has Mr. Swan to say now?—Yours fraternally,

J. Brough

P.S.—As I did not join the S.P.G.B. Until 28th August, 1907, the statement Mr. Swan dubbed a “deliberate lie” was not made by “a member of the S.P.G.B.,” but that, of course, ia a minor point.

Correspondence in brief. (1906)

Letters to the Editors from the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

H.P. writes that he recently visited Glasgow and Edinburgh. In the former town he found that 16 members of the S.L.P. out of a branch of 24 had left owing to the Party’s support of the I.W.W., and half the members of the Edinburgh branch had left for the same reason.

o o o

An S.D.F. member wants proof that W. Thorne M.P. has accepted the position of J.P. conferred on him by the capitalist class. We suggest that our correspondent write direct to Mr. Thorne, asking (1) whether he consented that his name should be submitted to the proper authorities for a J.P’ship ; (2) whether he has taken the oaths of office ; (3) whether he is now endeavouring to get his name struck off the roll of J. P’s ; and (4) whether this last endeavour is due, wholly or partly, to our criticism of his conduct,

o o o

East Ham I.L.P’er can find Mr. J. R. MacDonald’s speeches, referring to the Labour Party’s arrangement with the Liberals of Leicester at the General Election in the Leicester daily papers for January 6th and 16th last, and Mr. J. Parker’s arrangement with the Liberals at Halifax is admitted by Mr. M. J. Blatchford in the Halifax Guardian for January 20th.

Editorial: The Countess of Warwick and John Burns. (1906)

Editorial from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A considerable amount of interest appears to have been aroused by a statement which appeared in a recent number of this journal to the effect that the lady who came down from her exalted position to become a member of the lowly S.D.F. (the Countess of Warwick) sent a telegram to the gentleman who left his lowly position as a member of the S.D.F. to ascend to an exalted sphere (the Right Honourable John Burns) regretting her inability to attend one of his election meetings, and wishing him success. We have received quite a number of communications on the subject, and have been requested to state the grounds upon which the statement was made. Our correspondents appear to be astonished that a member of the S.D.F. should have taken a course so entirely opposed to the attitude of that body, and apparently are unable to understand why, if such a telegram was sent, the organisation has taken no steps to repudiate either the member or the action. So far as we are concerned, however, the only cause for surprise lies in the fact that there is evidently still a number of persons who see in the incident something incongruous—persons who, it would seem, are students of, or at any rate interested in, contemporary English politics. We can only commend to them a perusal of back numbers of the Socialist Standard and the pamphlet called the Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, wherein they will find a record of many incidents of a similar character. Not only are members of the S.D.F. continually taking public action opposed to the policy for the time being of that organisation, but the organisation itself is continually taking action in flat contradiction to its professed principles. In the matter of John Burns its attitude to-day is one of virulent denunciation, but to-morrow it would not be a surprising thing if it were the complete opposite. On the contrary, it would be strictly in accordance with precedent. In the past it has roundly trounced the Right Honourable gentleman and a week or two afterwards supported him, although his attitude was unchanged, just as in the past it has been engaged in roundly trouncing the capitalist party Burns is a member of, while its members and branches have been actively engaged in assisting the candidatures of representatives of that party. Sufficient evidence to satisfy the most hard-shelled unbeliever can be found in the file of this paper and the Manifesto mentioned.

Therefore we may say that neither the present action of the Countess nor the lack of action of the S.D.F. is ground for incredulity. Indeed, there is less ground in this instance than in many others of a similar nature, because in the other cases the members concerned were just common or garden persons while the Countess is an exceedingly valuable asset. Her personality and associations secure for the S.D.F. most useful advertisement (much to the very pronounced disgust of the I.L.P., which regards itself as the refuge par excellence for all aristocratic and plutocratic persons with bees in their bonnets or democratic yearnings in their hearts, and is naturally incensed that the S.D.F. should have poached upon its preserves to such good purpose). Besides which has it not been told in Gath that “a mere drawerful of jewels” has been at the S.D.F’s disposal ? Very well then ; why should the S.D.F. take action ? Why should it risk a trump card ?

But if our correspondents want the evidence they may have it. We only hope its publication may serve as a further justification for our opposition to the S.D.F. and similar bodies, and by establishing a fact in proof of the supine, vacillating and confusing attitude of that organisation, help to direct the working-class mind to the consideration of the only principles and the only policy upon which a working-class party capable of effecting those social changes which alone will remove poverty and all its concomitant evils from out of working-class experience, can be built up—the principles and policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, as summarised on the front page of this paper.

This is the evidence :—

1. Several members of this Party were present at the meeting and heard the telegram read (names and addresses can be supplied if desired).
2. Our Comrade Fitzgerald, speaking at Battersea on the Sunday following, was challenged by Mr. Archer, a prominent supporter of Burns, who, under the impression that Fitzgerald was a member of the S.D.F., demanded to know why he (Fitzgerald) was opposing Burns when the Countess was supporting him according to the telegram he (Archer) heard read at Burns’ meeting.
3. The written statement of Mr. J. H. Brown, Hon. Sec. of Burns’ Election Committee, who informs us that he received application to reserve seats on the platform of Burns’ meeting for Lady Warwick and friends ; that Lady Warwick was unable to attend and sent a telegram of regret etc.
4. A written communication from Mr. W. Rines (Mayor of Battersea) whose recollection was that some such telegram was received and read.
5. The report of the Battersea Borough News, Jan. 12th, 1906, which concludes “Telegrams expressing regret at their inability to attend were received from Lady Warwick and Lady Collins.”

For our purposes statements 1 and 2 (the reports of our own members of public incidents well within the knowledge of the large audiences of both Burns’ and Fitzgerald’s meetings) are good enough. Statements 3, 4 and 5 only confirm and amplify those reports. Our correspondents may consider all of them in conjunction with the fact that another prominent member of the S.D.F. (its treasurer, Mr. J. F. Green) speaking at Hammersmith on April 22, informed his audience that they had only one “working man” in the Cabinet who could not do much by himself, and that what they wanted was to send another six working men to help him from, which we conclude that, according to Mr. Green, the S.D.F. is all wrong, and that there is nothing deplorable about Mr. Burns’ position except that there is not more of him !

Doubts and Difficulties: Individual versus collective well-being. (1906)

The Doubts and Difficulties column from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some time has elapsed since last I made my bow before the audience–or should I say voyance—of the Socialist Standard. Before the pressure of more urgent matters it has been necessary for me to leave many doubts and difficulties unsolved. One difficulty indeed I must frankly confess my powerlessness to solve. It came in simple guise. “What is the difference between the Liberal and the Tory Party ?” Thus ran the question ! Of course, I at once sat down to answer it. But, alas, for human vanity !

* * *

For weeks the question haunted me. Meal—the scanty meals of a worker—went neglected ; my face got haggard and wan ; I shrunk visibly—no, no, Mr. Editor, this is not an advt.—and yet no solution would come. The difference was one which I could not discover. A happy thought struck me. Yes, I should read their literature. I should explore the mysterious depths of comparative politics.

* * *

I have read their literature. For weeks past I have been wading through the mire of their party press. Pamphlets, election addresses, speeches of Parliamentary candidates have been perused and still the difference between these two parties is to seek. The same trickery is common to both. The same avowed desire of working-class welfare, joined with the same desire to wring as much profit as possible from the labour of that working class. But enough of the unsavoury subject. Let us proceed.

* * *

A General Election has come and gone. The result has been a remarkable victory for the capitalist class. They have rallied round them with the help of the Labour Party (sic) an unexampled enthusiasm. Peer and peasant, and the wives of peer and peasant have made a triumphant, rally under the capitalist banner, and henceforth all will be well.

* * *

Unprecedented is the only word which can describe that election. Mrs. Smith, the docker’s wife, pawning her jewellery to help the candidature of the big commercial magnate (she tells me she got ninepence for her bangle, and sixpence for a nickel chain which was a family heirloom) was a sight for gods and men.

* * *

The pity of it ! The working class, with their minimum of education, misled as to their true interest by the press and by pretended working-class leaders, have again been betrayed, for the present Government have already shown clearly that so far as the workers are concerned, no material improvement will result. Pious resolutions are passed in favour of reforms, but “the public exchequer is empty” and nothing can be done.

* * *

I cannot say that I am sorry for this failure of reform. The capitalist class interests are not seriously threatened. Why then should the capitalist class throw sops to the worker. Only when the worker says plainly that reforms will not do, will reforms be seriously offered to him. Then the legislators of the present riding class will try to wean the worker from a determination to stop at nothing short of revolutionising the entire basis of Society.

* * *

The time for this has not yet come. The worker does not realise that he is a slave. He is not a free man. Any man who is compelled to obey another who holds possession of his means of livelihood is to all intents and purposes a slave to that other. This is the position of the working man. There is no freedom for him during the period of the day for which he has sold himself and beyond that period the needs of the body for rest restrict the individual freedom.

* * *

To us the whole business seems so simple. The means of sustaining man in life are material. The food the worker desires to eat belongs to the owner of the soil; the clothing he desires to wear belongs to the owner of the factory ; the house he wants to live in belongs to a landlord. The worker has been trained to a standard of comfort which demands these things. Without them he could not live. He would cease to exist.

* * *

The owners of these various goods have no use for them. They wish to get rid of them, but not for nothing. They want to sell the goods they possess to those who can use them. The bulk of those who can use them cannot buy them until they possess something to buy them with. The only goods the working class possess with which they can buy things is their power of working. They are, however, in the unfortunate position of having only particular methods of exercising their power of working, and these methods are not wanted by the owners of the goods.

* * *

The worker must find some one who wishes to buy his particular kind of labour power, and sell it to him for the universal equivalent of unspecialised labour power—money. But his desire for food, clothing, and shelter are always with him and the number of men possessing his kind of labour power is always in excess of the demand. Therefore, the tendency is, through the operation of the laws governing competition, for the amount obtainable for labour power to sink to a minimum. That minimum—the minimum to which the average wage of the worker ever tends to fall, is that amount which will just provide the barest subsistence for the working man and his family.

* * *

The man is considered as a machine. So much money is required to keep this mechanism going, but, like every machine, man gets worn out and has to be replaced. The method of replacement for man is exactly the same as for any other piece of machinery. A certain amount is set aside for the purpose of replacement. For the ordinary machinery it appears, in the accounts as “wear and tear,” but for the human machinery it is manifested in a slightly higher wage than would be necessary if the working class could live at their normal working strength for ever.

* * *

The working man is but a slavish mechanism—a mechanical slave. He is docile and he is ignorant. He has, however, a latent power which will one day become active and he will recognise that it is possible to organise the industries of a country in the interests of the people of the country. He will see that it is necessary for man to work because it is necessary for man to eat. But he will also see that because it is necessary for every man to eat, it is no less necessary for every man to work. He will see also that the end of all work is the satisfaction of men’s material requirements, and he will work directly towards that end.

* * *

To-day, however, all this is far from clear. The end which is secured is less the satisfaction of man’s needs than the establishment of a class apart which is enabled to monopolise the wealth and power of the country and only parts with a portion of its monopoly in order to increase and maintain them.

* * *

This leads me to the difficulty which I set out to deal with. I was discussing recently the important question of population, when the remark was made that it was conceivable that a small family was good for an individual, but that it might not be good for the community as a whole. But no, it was objected. A thing cannot be good for an individual without being good for the community. A community is the sum of all its individuals.

* * *

I am not here concerned with “limitation of family” ideas. What I wish to combat is the pernicious doctrine that in our modern society whatever is good for the individual is good for the community. The doctrine is untrue and it is harmful. The very essence of the structure of capitalist society is that the good of one individual, the comfortable living of one person prevents or militates against the happiness and welfare of others.

* * *

Riches have their necessary counterpart in poverty. Men get rich because men are kept poor. It is the very first principle of modem society. This society is indeed divided along economic lines and into economic classes. The working class which produces the whole of the wealth over against the capitalist class which owns the whole of the wealth. The class which gets its income from profit, rent, and interest—that is. from the unpaid labour of the working class, is called the capitalist class. The class over against the capitalist class which labours under the most unhealthy conditions and which creates all profit, rent, and interest is the working clans.

* * *

The individual good of the capitalist involves the living in slums, the wearing of shoddy clothing, the eating of adulterated food for the worker. The good of the worker when he gets a higher average wage modifies the good of the capitalist.

* * *

So, too, with the sectional differences within the two classes which divide the community. The individual worker who finds an employer and the consequent means of living keeps some other worker out of a job. The individual capitalist who monopolises some new labour saving machinery and thereby “scoops” the market, proves anything but a good to his competitor of the same class.

* * *

In only one society which the human mind has been able to conceive could the good of the individual prove the good of the community. In that society the selfishness and the altruism of the individual would be one and the same. The desires, the actions, and the happiness of all men would be harmonised, for a society would have been evolved in which an identification of the interests of all men would have arisen. Such a state of Society is one in which the economic foundation would be that of common property, and the political life would consist in the administration of the Commonweal. Such a society would be a Socialist society and the coining of such a society, which is as certain as the coming of tomorrow’s sun or of the next issue of the Socialist Standard, would be the harbinger of joy to all living men and may one of those who lives to see that day be–

Economicus.

Editorial: Et Tu Brute. (1906)

Editorial from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

After Bebel—Lafargue. Writing to Justice, our comrade says:—

“The Socialists of the two worlds unite fraternally in heart and voice with English Socialists in celebrating the electoral victory of the working class of Great Britain. Its victory is the victory of International Socialism. . . . The Trade Unionists . . . understand at last that in order to ameliorate their lot and to benefit by the wealth which they alone produce, the workers must form themselves into a class party for the purpose of expropriating the capitalist class from political and economic power.”

Which is precisely what they do not understand. As Lafargue himself unwillingly admits, ”the movement is confused, uncertain, unconscious.” And it is unconscious and confused because the Trade Unionists do not understand the necessity for the formation of “a class party for the purpose of expropriating the capitalist class.” How, therefore, Lafargue can hail the electoral victories of a confused, uncertain and unconscious movement as victories for International Socialism we fail to understand, while to talk of “the cool energy of the British working class that no effort will weary and no defeat discourage,” is to attribute to us virtues which are certainly not the conspicuous or peculiarly characteristic possessions of the British working class. We fear that Comrade Lafargue has allowed his kindly May-day desire to say something nice and appreciative to lead him to express himself in terms provocative of the idea that his acquaintance with English conditions is unhappily superficial—an idea which, knowing Lafargue’s high standing in the international movement and being acquainted with his exceedingly valuable contributions to Socialist thought, we are loth to entertain. We cannot agree that the election of the nominees of the Labour Representation Committee were working class victories. We have shewn them to have been achieved partly in alliance with capitalist Liberalism, and wholly by a class-unconscious vote. Does our comrade believe that because Trade Unions stimulated into political activity by certain legal decisions having the effect of endangering the financial reserves of their organisations, have entered into a loose association, for the purpose of recovering a position they had thought themselves secure in, that, therefore, they have established themselves upon a definite class basis in opposition to the political expressions of capitalist interests ? Why, every indication gives a flat denial to the supposition. Their leaders dare not formulate a programme that would emphasize the antagonism of interest and dare not even if they desired it, proceed in such fashion as would bring them into sharp conflict with the capitalist parties, because the membership of their organization have not yet withdrawn their allegiance from those capitalist parties. These leaders, some of whom at times profess Socialism, frankly drop their Socialism to secure the support of the Labour Representation Committee on the ground that to urge Socialism would alienate the Trade Unionists who are not Conservative ! And, so they proceed with halting steps and no little trepidation along the tortuous and unprofitable path of reform legislation, which, as our Comrade Lafargue will not be inclined to dispute, is not calculated to effect that sound class organisation of the workers which it is the sole purpose of the Socialist propagandist to facilitate, but is, on the contrary, more likely to result in confusion and apathy, because the attention of the working class is diverted to the consideration of immaterial issues. We need only add here a quotation from a speech by one who is regarded as among the most advanced thinkers, directing this new pseudo-labour organisation, which Lafargue regards so favourably. He may see in it an indication that the Trade Unionists of Great Britain are still far from recognising, “that their ideal of a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work recedes in proportion to the development of capitalist production.” Thus;

“For years the Association he represented had been trying to organise the town of High Wycombe. They were not doing that with any animosity towards the employers or the capitalists. Whatever might be their opinion as between capital and labour, as practical men of the world they knew that under present circumstances capital and labour had to co-operate in production . . . They as Trade Unionists said that if the principle of combination was good for the workmen it was good also for the employers. As workmen they wanted to see as strong a combination amongst the employers as it was possible to get. And why ? Because if the employer wanted to conserve the interests of his capital, the only possible way to do it was to prevent unfair cut-throat competition. The only way he could do that was to combine with his fellow capitalists, so that they might come to an understanding with the organisation representing labour, that there should be a bed-rock set of conditions that should determine the prices at which they should put their goods on the market . . . He believed that if there were 75 per cent. of the workmen in the Trade Union at High Wycombe and if there was a strong federation among the employers, they would double their wage in five years.”—J. O’Grady, M.P., made organizer of the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, reported in the Society Circular for April, 1905.

And this is one of the “Socialist” leaders of the new “Labour” Party, one of the victors in the electoral contest which achieved “a victory for International Socialism.” He is a fair type of the new movement’s fore-front men, and his views a fair sample of the views of the “extremists ” of the Party. How long then, Comrade Lafargue, will it take, think you, to build up a working class party on these lines ? And where in this speech is the idea of mutuality of interest between capital and labour, which is the hallmark of class-unconsciousness and continued working-class enslavement, combatted as one would expect it combatted by an organizer of victory for International Socialism ? It is not combatted at all of course either by O’Grady or any other leader of the new Party. It is deliberately fostered, and while that continues to be the attitude of the leaders of the Party acquiesced in by the rank and file, it is idle and mischievous to endeavour, as both Bebel and Lafargue have done, to invest the movement with an importance that may only be correctly applied to an enlightened proletarian organization on well defined class lines.

Bebel and the S.P.G.B. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondence arising out of a telegram on the results of the Parliamentary elections, sent by the leader of the German Social Democratic Party to “Reynolds’s Newspaper.”

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

17th February, 1906.

A. Bebel,

Per Addresse “Vorwaerts,” 

68/9 Lindenstrasse, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am instructed by the Executive Committee to forward to you the enclosed cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper of Sunday, January 28th, 1906, containing text and translation of a telegram alleged to have been sent by you to the paper in question.

The Executive Committee will be glad if you will kindly state whether such a telegram was sent by you, and in the event of a telegram having been sent, whether it is correctly reproduced in the attached cutting.

Awaiting your reply,

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane,

General Secretary.

______________

HERR BEBEL .
TO “REYNOLDS’S.”
IMPORTANT TELEGRAM. —YESTERDAY.

Herr Bebel, the famous leader of the Social Democratic party in the German Parliament, sent a telegram yesterday to Reynolds’s Newspaper, in reply to a request for his opinion on the results of the General Election. His reply was as follows :—

I welcome the result of the elections as a genuine sign of the desire of the British people for a friendly understanding in foreign affairs, and as a progressive development in domestic affairs. In any case the decision of the voting implies a cold douche for Jingoes with us and with you. On the other hand, with regard to the signs of progress in domestic affairs, I dare not, after old experiences, express an opinion until I know more.

______________

German Imperial Parliament,

Berlin, February 20th, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

The telegram corresponds with the wording of that sent by me. By way of explanation I wish to state that concerning “progress internally” I have above all in mind possible progress in the amelioration of the working class position. Here I also regard the Liberal Party with distrust.

With fraternal greetings.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

London, 9th March, 1906.

A. Bebel,

German Imperial Parliament, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th ult. regarding your telegram to Reynolds’s Newspaper.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes to enter its emphatic protest against your action in this matter. The opinion you expressed in the telegram is not in accord with the Socialist position in this country, as set forth in the manifesto (entitled “Why Vote?”) issued by this Party in January last, copy enclosed. Reynolds’s Newspaper is a capitalist organ which has used your telegram against the Socialists and in support of the Liberals.

The Executive Committee regrets that occasion should have arisen to evoke this protest, but the sentiments to which you have given utterance in welcoming Liberalism to political power as an indication of progress in foreign or domestic affairs are such as to leave no other course open. Nationally and internationally there is but one Party to which we can look for progress, and that is the Socialist Party, but Socialism will triumph only by the overthrow of Liberalism in Britain and elsewhere.

Copies of this letter are being forwarded to the German Social-Democratic Party, International Socialist Bureau, and “Vorwaerts.”

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane, 

General Secretary.

______________

Translated from “Vorwaerts” of March l5th, 1906:

Relating to this matter Comrade Bebel writes us:—

Immediately on the conclusion of the English Parliamentary elections, I received a telegram from the Editorial Department of Reynolds’s Newspaper requesting me to communicate to them my views concerning the result. For this purpose a prepaid telegram form that afforded me the scope of 120 words for my reply was placed at my disposal. As the character of Reynolds’s Newspaper was known to me as that of a bourgeois paper, I at first entertained misgivings as to the advisability of sending a reply. Eventually I dispelled these doubts and sent off the telegram reprinted above.

But I am not a little astonished at the importance the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain attaches to my telegram. When describing the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people in favour of a peaceable development of affairs externally and conducive to progress internally, I could not, had I been, dreaming, have understood by that only the result in favour of the Liberals, and could not possibly have overlooked the result of the elections in favour of the Socialist Party. The total effect of the elections has the result pointed out by me—the protest raised does not in any way alter my views, which may be characterised in three directions:—

1. Definite disavowal of the protective tariff proposals of Mr. Chamberlain and his colleagues.

2. Renunciation of Jingoism and Chauvinism which have developed more and more under the Conservative regime.

3. Furtherance of progress in the social legislation of England, mainly due to the entrance of representatives of the Socialist Party into Parliament.

In the concluding sentence of my telegram, I certainly expressed distrust as to whether hopes of this kind would be realised in face of the Liberal majority in Parliament.

How the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain could gather from my telegram that I failed to recognise that real progress, internationally and at home, could only be achieved by Socialism, is also a riddle to me. Let no one ascribe to me what, in consideration of my past career, nobody dare impute.

I am not aware in what way Reynolds’s Newspaper has used my telegram against my comrades in England. The loyal interpretation of my telegram that I had reason to expect from the Editorial Department of that journal would have made it impossible. If I have been mistaken in this respect, I am sorry.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

Schoeneberg-Berlin, March 13th, 1906.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

22nd. March, 1906.

To the Editors, ” Vorwaerts” Berlin.

Dear Comrades,

The questions raised in the telegram sent by Comrade Bebel to Reynolds’s Newspaper and further elaborated by our Comrade in his reply published by Vorwaerts to the protest which the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain felt constrained to enter, are of such serious importance to us here in England and we believe also to the whole international Socialist movement that the Executive Committee desires through the columns of Vorwaerts to deal with the position taken up by Comrade Bebel in this matter.

Let us say at the outset that far from desiring to inconsiderately impute to Comrade Bebel sentiments out of harmony with his record as a fighter in the ranks of Socialism, it was with feelings of pain that we found it necessary to send our protest, recollecting as we did that it was Comrade Bebel who at the International Socialist Congress (Amsterdam, 1904) strongly supported the ”Dresden Resolution” which decisively affirmed our tried and victorious policy based on the class struggle, condemned every attempt to mask the ever-growing class antagonisms, rejected all responsibility of any sort under political and economic conditions based on capitalist production, and discountenanced any measure tending to maintain the dominant class in power; but, having regard to the position laid down in the Dresden Resolution, we deemed it our imperative duty to call attention to an action, to which Comrade Bebel does not appear to attach much importance but to which Reynolds’s Newspaper gave the greatest possible prominence, in the hope that we would in future be saved from the humiliation of seeing the lesson which we have been hard endeavouring to inculcate into the minds of the British working class repudiated by a prominent continental Comrade in the columns of one of the most dangerous organs of Capitalism in this country.

Here we wish to observe that although we called Comrade Bebel’s attention to the manifesto (“Why Vote ?”) issued by The Socialist Party of Great Britain in January last, he has not even hinted at the truth or falsity of the arguments therein set forth. A correct comprehension of the nature of our protest is perhaps impossible unless the position taken up in iliai manifesto is known and appreciated.

Regarding the telegram which is the subject of this correspondence, there is absolutely nothing in it to suggest that the sender was a Socialist, and had it not been announced by Reynolds’s Newspaper that the message had been sent by Comrade Bebel no one would have suspected that this was a pronouncement made by a recognized spokesman of Socialism. On the contrary, the telegram might well be supposed without taxing the imaginative faculty, to have been sent by an ordinary bourgeois radical. Indeed, far from crediting this message to have emanated from Comrade Bebel, and well knowing how erroneous it might be on our part to rely on the mere assertion of a journal like Reynolds’s Newspaper that the published wording was the actual text of the telegram sent, we decided in the first instance to send direct to our Comrade the complete cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper in order that we might ascertain the authenticity and accuracy of the published message.

We received from Comrade Bebel a letter confirming the telegram and at the same time volunteering the information that as to “progress internally” he had particularly in mind possible progress in the betterment of the position of the working class. The fact that our Comrade thought it necessary to explain a certain part of his telegram would seem to indicate that he himself realised that his message was not explicit in at least this particular, and the further fact that in his statement already published in Vorwaerts he introduced matters not referred to in the telegram serves to shew that he recognises the incompleteness of the position he at first laid down.

In his reply to our letter published in Vorwaerts Comrade Bebel states that his telegram described the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people ; to this we have raised no objection but we would point out that what we have called attention to was that the telegram also indicated on the part of Comrade Bebel a state of mind which was in our opinion unsatisfactory m so far as it “welcomed” as a sign of progress that result. The concluding sentence of the telegram did certainly express doubt as to whether the expectations of progress would be fulfilled, but similar doubts and in stronger language haver been more than once expressed by Reynolds’s Newspaper itself. That, however, dues not prove the Editor of Reynolds’s Newspaper to be a Socialist. Surely, we are justified in expecting from our comrade an expression of opinion which would convey something more than a doubt as to the power or inclination of the Liberal Party of Capitalism to ameliorate the condition of the working class ? The members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain at any rate entertain no doubts on the matter. British Liberalism is an enemy, and we expect nothing from an enemy but hostility.

Comrade Bebel avers that in sending his telegram he had in mind not merely the result in favour of the Liberals, but also the result in favour of the Socialist Party. Here the result of the elections is regarded as an overwhelming triumph for Liberalism or Radicalism, and as the telegram did not contain any reference to Socialism, it was open to the render to understand that our Comrade sympathised with the Radical victory. We have again perused the telegram and find our impressions in no way altered. In this connection it is well to point out that it is a common practice among capitalist journals in Britain to describe German Socialism as a bourgeois Radical movement, and when we here preach the class struggle they tell us that we are not in accord with the German movement. In the issue of Reynolds’s Newspaper containing Comrade Bebel’s telegram, an editorial article in the column preceding that which was boldly headed by the telegram, points out that “a Socialist in theory is a Radical in practice,” and the publication of the telegram as an ”important” message was calculated to support this position. In that issue, also, is reproduced part of our “Why Vote ?” manifesto, and the obvious contradiction between our advice to the working class to abstain from voting altogether in the last General Election (on the grounds that every candidate appealing for their votes was a conscious or un-conscious supporter of capitalism and that, therefore, whatever the result, it could not be beneficial to them) and the position taken up by Comrade Bebel whose telegram greeted the result as an auspicious sign of progress, was just the. kind of thing which has in the past been used to our detriment by the British Radical press.

Our Comrade says he cannot imagine how we could have thought he did not recognise that genuine progress could be achieved except by Socialism, but there is no mention of Socialism in the telegram and the victory of the Liberal Party is the only result referred to.

Regarding Comrade Bebel’s views with reference to the result of the British elections, we wish to make the following comments :

(1) We agree that it might be described as an expression of determination to uphold the Free Trade system. In view, however, of tho fact that as admitted by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman the head of the Liberal and Free Trade Government, there are in Britain to-day thirteen millions of the working class on the verge of starvation although the Free Trade regime has been established for sixty years, it can scarcely be claimed that the workers have much to congratulate themselves upon. As Comrade Bebel knows, it is difficult to say which are the worst off, the workers of Protectionist America or Free Trade Britain. In Germany where Feudalism is still far from being extinct there doubtless exist reasons for interesting the workers in questions of tariff, but here in Britain where industrial Capitalism enjoys full sway, such reasons are inapplicable. Hence we tell the working class that questions of tariff do not affect them.

(2) If the elections shewed a desire on the part of the British people to renounce jingoism, it is a curious fact that in foreign affairs it is the avowed intention of the Liberal Cabinet to continue the policy of the late Tory Government. On the very day that Reuter’s Berlin telegram containing Comrade Bebel’s view as to the abandonment of Jingoism in England was published, there also appeared in the English press the announcement of the refusal of the British Secretary for War to reduce the standing army which is still on the same footing as it was during the South African War. In this refusal the Government were supported by such “Socialist” Members of Parliament as P. Snowden, D. J. Shackleton and W. Crooks. Indeed, there has been no slackening of Jingoism either during or after tne elections. Comrade Bebel has apparently mistaken Liberal professions for Liberal performances. They profess to be the party of peace, but historical records shew that more wars have been carried on in the name of the British nation while the Liberal Party have been in power than while the Tories have held ollice.

(3) We absolutely deny the accuracy of our Comrade’s assertion that progress is to be expected in the social legislation of England due to the entrance into Parliament of representatives of the Socialist Party. Not a single Socialist canidate was elected. It is not at all clear what Comrade Bebel has in mind when he speaks of the “Socialist Party,” but if he refers to the Labour Representation Committee, which is the organisation that returned the so-called Independent Labour members, we wish to inform our Comrade that this organisation declines to recognise any Socialist candidate : it has no principles, no program, and merely a constitution which states that their members shall be independent of the other political parties. The Independent Labour Party, which ran its candidates under the auspices of the Labour Reprsentation Committee, repudiates the class struggle—see their press. J. Keir Hardie, Chairman of the Labour Party in Parliament, denies the class struggle, and J. Ramsay MacDonald, Secretary of the Labour Representation Committee and Parliamentary Whip of the Labour Party, has recently written a book entitled “Socialism and Society,” published by the Independent Labour Party, repudiating the class struggle and ranking Karl Marx as the last of the Utopian Socialists. Those candidates claiming to be Socialists and recognised as such by the International Socialist Congress or International Socialist Bureau, and who were elected, did not stand as Socialists—they are part and parcel of the non-Socialist Labour Party. The Social Democratic Federation, which is claimed by Reynolds’s Newspaper to be “the only genuine Socialistic organisation in the Kingdom,” did not secure the return of a single Socialist candidate.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain notes that Comrade Bebel recognises that genuine progress in both domestic and international affairs can be achieved only by the Socialist Party, but regrets that he did not remove any possibility of misconception by utilising for the specific indication of this belief the remaining scope of the one hundred and twenty words prepaid by Reynolds’s Newspaper. Had he have done this, the London organ of bourgeois democracy would be unlikely to have given his message the prominence it did.

The Executive Committee of

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

(Signed) C. Lehane.

General Secretary.

Blogger's Note:

From the same issue of the Socialist Standard see:

• Bebel's Incursion Into English Politics
• Rampageous "Reynolds's."

Letter: The Enfranchisement of Women. (1906)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor of “The Socialist Standard.”

Dear Sir,—May I appeal to your readers, men who have fought and won a great victory for Labour, to stand by the women who have now begun in earnest their struggle for political existence?

Working women realise at last that just as Labour men had to agitate and fight to secure their right to be represented in the State, so they must now agitate and fight to win their enfranchisement, for the sake of their homes and their children—for the sake of justice and honour.

Our experience of every agitation for a wider suffrage is that at the last moment women have been left out of the question. We want first to get sex disability abolished, and then to work with all those who desire a broader basis of democratic representation, and a fuller measure of social reform. We shall welcome very gladly all the help we can get from men, and we hope to collect a fund that shall enable us to carry out an organised, vigorous campaign.

Yours etc,

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence.

Hon. Treasurer,

Women’s Social and Political Union.

Central London Committee.

Reply:

We do not hold the recent election of “Labour” men to Parliament to be a victory for Labour. In our March issue it was shewn to be a victory for confusion.

For the rest Mrs. Pethick Lawrence has reversed what we regard as the correct order of things, and it is for precisely this reason that we are opposed to all the reform school of politicians, whose method is to focus attention upon some supposed ameliorative measure in the hope that by it they may be advanced one step, more or less short, on the road to a more or less distant goal. The goal is subordinate to the steps. We claim that by crystallizing attention on the goal, the possibility of losing our way among a multitude of stops is obviated. It is the goal that matters.

On the question of women’s franchise, for instance, it is the step that concerns Mrs. Lawrence. The goal is a very indistinct and shadowy “fuller measure of social reform.”

Our goal is Socialism. We know that the working class cannot obtain Socialism ’til they understand their class position and the reasons why Socialism alone will materially benefit them. It is our business, therefore, to instruct them so far as we may in their class position and in Socialism. When they understand ; when they are class-conscious, they will fight with us for Socialism. Short of that there is nothing that will avail. The fact that they strive for something less is proof positive that they are not class-conscious. We have therefore class-un-conscious workers to deal with, and if we harness their untutored spirit of revolt to the chariot wheel of reform, we are simply deluding them and wasting energies which might just as well and just as easily be focussed upon the essential—Socialism.

Therefore we are not concerned with electoral reform, howbeit we are of necessity Universal Adult Suffragists. The present franchise which gives the male workers sufficient power to effect any purpose, has been utilised to maintain capitalist domination in politics. That is to say the working-class vote has been used by the working class against working-class interest—why? Because, of working-class ignorance. To an ignorant working class, therefore, the weapon of the vote is useless. Only an intelligent working class can use that weapon to working-class advantage. Why are the workers ignorant? We reply because to a considerable extent their energies have been consumed in unimportant reform agitations such as this of the women’s franchise. How may their ignorance be dispelled ? We answer, by Socialists telling them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth particularly the whole truth.

And the whole truth is that the extension of the franchise to women is not an important matter ; that the important matter is working-class-consciousness—the full appreciation of the absolute and irreconcilable hostility of interest existing between the capitalist class and the working class. When that has been achieved and the workers have organised themselves into a political force translating their industrial antagonism to the capitalist class into political antagonism to all the political forces of capital (which would, of course, be the necessary and inevitable result of class-consciousness), the extension of the franchise to cover women workers and that great body of at present vote-less males, will be effected without difficulty— if, indeed, in the process of organisation, the capitalist class, dismayed by the determination of a rapidly growing working-class party to be satisfied with nothing less than the extinction of capitalism itself, have not enacted a measure of complete enfranchisement in the hope that it might side-track the movement, or at any rate, stay its progress temporarily. If there is one fact that obtrudes upon the attention of students of industrial history more than another it is that the larger the demand preferred by organised determination, the larger the concessions made. We do not, therefore, demand the half-loaf (if it is a half-loaf) of a woman’s vote, nor even the whole loaf (as they regard it) of the more advanced reformer. We demand the whole baker’s shop of Socialism, and it is our business to endeavour to harness the might of the working class to our demand. We have hitched our waggon to a star, and we do not propose to uncouple.

The text for Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and for all who earnestly desire working-class emancipation should be, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Socialism and its righteousness, and all the other things will be added unto you.”

We hope we have without offence made it clear why we cannot respond to the appeal made for help. We have important work to do.

More Confusion. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have before us a copy of the Agenda for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the United Government Workers’ Federation, which was held on the 15th and 16th of March: a document that illustrates very clearly the confusion existing in the minds of the workers as to the class struggle.

The Agenda consists of about 50 Resolutions on Education—these are tucked away at the bottom of the Agenda and consist of something less than the familiar list of pious aspirations on the subject usually voiced at the Trades Union Congress. The Executive put forward a motion congratulating local organisations on the return of Messrs. Crooks, Bowerman and Jenkins and regretting the failure of Messrs. Quelch and Saunders. And another congratulating the Labour M.P.’s and asking them to ballot for motions for bringing the question of improving the position of State employees before the House of Commons.

Nearly all the rest of the Agenda consists of Resolutions “calling on” “urging,” “respectfully urging,” “requesting,” . . the Government to concede some special points interesting one or other of the local organisations. These or similar motions have doubtless been passed hundreds of times before by working class assemblies with exactly the same result—just nothing at all. How much longer will the workers continue to beg cringingly, each little section for itself, instead of boldly standing up as a class and taking what is their own.

A. R. V. M.

Labour at the Polls. A Victory for Confusion. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the General Election much twaddle has been uttered concerning the result thereof. It has been a “Great Victory for Labour,” the “Triumph of Socialism,” and the like. Let us examine some of the polls, with a view to seeing how far Labour has won a victory and Socialism has triumphed.

The Social Democratic Federation were enabled by the Countess of Warwick and a mysterious “rich sympathiser” down Cornwall way, to contest six constituencies, and allowed some members to run under Trade Union auspices, permitting the breaking of the rules of the S.D.F. where necessary to secure Trade Union and L.R.C. support. It is a significant and satirical fact that this body, claiming to be of and for the working class, could not have sent at least three of its seven candidates to the poll had it not been for the gold of Lady Warwick and the mysterious friend referred to above.

The S.D.F. candidates and constituencies contested, with the polls, were the following : —

The solid vote for Gribble and Williams was 2,214, so the total S.D.F. vote was 17,131. This is rather over the mark, because the S.D.F. Executive only gave the Accrington Branch permission to put forward Irving “subject to the approval of the local Trades Council,” so that Irving’s was really a joint candidature, not an S.D.F. one alone.

Other members of the S.D.F. who contested seats were Quelch at Southampton and Belt at Hammersmith, both of whom ran as “Labour” candidates under the auspices of local Trades Councils, and Thorne at South West Ham, who was originally the candidate of the West Ham Trades Council, but who, on the instructions of the Gas Workers’ Union, signed the L.R.C. Declaration and ran as a “Labour” candidate under its auspices. At Rochdale the S.D.F. supported S. G. Hobson (I.L.P.), who ran as a Socialist. The polls were :—

Only 1,155 of Mr. Quelch’s poll were “plumpers.”

It will be noticed that, with two exceptions, all the constituencies for which an S.D.F. member stood returned Liberals, and in one of the exceptions there was no Liberal candidate. This result is instructive in view of what appeared “Justice” for Jan. 13. Said the editor (H. Quelch), “We have, as the phrase goes, ‘smashed up’ the Liberals in all those constituencies in which, in spite of hypocritical eleventh-hour appeals, they did not leave us a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” Of course, this was sheer brag, and can only bring a Body indulging in it into ridicule. As Mr. Hyndman remarks, “The S.D.F. has stood, and can stand, a lot of ridicule, But ridicule is apt to kill.” Mr. Hyndman is right.

Strenuous efforts were made by the S.D.F. to get the Liberal candidate out of the way and thus leave the S.D.F. “a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” But if the S.D.F. candidates are only concerned to get into Parliament by the votes of the Socialist working class, it should make no difference to them how many capitalist factions put up candidates, excepting in so far as the more candidates to divide the non-Socialist vote, the better chance of the Socialist electors putting their candidate at the top of the poll. And why all this passing of resolutions, breaking up Liberal meetings, and wire-pulling to keep a Liberal out of the field ? Why not move heaven and earth to get the Conservative out of the way and try the issue direct with the Liberals ?

At Burnley, Mr. Hyndman, of course, ran as a Social-Democrat, but was quite willing to get elected by non-Socialist votes. In his election address he appealed to them to elect him so that he might “plead in Parliament for the sad and suffering millions of India.” The prospect of effecting the Social Revolution by pleading to the capitalist class to relieve to some slight degree the “sad and suffering millions” is a very remote one. British policy in India, said Mr. Hyndman, is “destroying, with inconceivable imbecility, the greatest market in the world for Lancashire cotton goods.” Now, this was an appeal to the interests of a section of the working class and their masters, which any non-Socialist could make quite as effectively, if not more so. A drastic change in the direction referred to would tend, if it provided an extended market for Lancashire cotton goods, to give a new lease of life to British Textile Industries, and thus defer the final collapse of Capitalism. Strenuous efforts, also were made to secure the Irish vote. In fact, Mr. Hyndman’s friends and also Mr. Hartley’s at Bradford assert that they lost the election because “the Irish vote was awarded to the Liberals.” We have yet to learn why the Irish should be expected to vote for Socialists, unless they are themselves Socialists. It has also been suggested that Mr. Hyndman would have won had there been a second ballot. But we claim that a vote that will be cast for a capitalist candidate at the first ballot and for a Socialist at the second is in no sense a class-conscious Socialist vote and could not be relied upon to back up revolutionary action taken by Socialists in Parliament.

In his election address, Mr. H. Quelch said, ”Having been selected as their candidate by the Trades and Labour Council, and other working class organisations in the Borough,” and “I and the Party for which I speak, the Labour Party of Southampton,” etc. A leaflet issued contained a cartoon shewing three men, “The Landlord” on the back of “Rates and Taxes,” who in turn was on the back of “Ratepayer.” “Vote for Quelch and get them off your back” ! Another leaflet was headed “A Bad Day for Liberalism,” and probably had some reference to the day when the Liberals of Southampton decided to break their agreement with Mr. Quelch’s “Labour Party,” and run a second candidate. This leaflet urged the establishment of a “Labour Party,” and called upon its readers to “Put the candidates of the Labour Representation Committee into Parliament” ! No mention is made in this literature of the S.D.F., although, according to “Justice,” Mr. Quelch was an S.D.F. candidate. Time was when Mr. Quelch wrote: “We want our men elected as Social Democrats, for the greater glory of Social Democracy. If they cannot be elected as Social Democrats, they had much better remain outside. We want our men elected as Social Democrats, independent of all other factions.”

Mr. J. Jones said he was “defeated ignominiously because he was the victim of lying misrepresentation,” and that “if they knew all the circumstances in connection with that fight they would say he had done a lot better than they expected.” Well, Mr. Jones has been repeatedly asked to tell all the circumstances but he has preferred to be “the victim of lying and misrepresentation” to doing so. He has, however, admitted that he himself did not know all the circumstances as the name and address of the “rich sympathiser” whose money was being so lavishly spent were unknown to him. Not only so, but the members of S.D.F. Executive were equally in the dark concerning this spook-like being, for at their meeting on Nov. 29th, 1904, “The Secretary reported that he had been introduced to, and had had an interview with the gentleman who was prepared to find the money for a Socialist candidate in the mining division of Cornwall ; he had revealed himself to him on the strict understanding that his identity should go no further.” After this one and only “materialization,” the E.C., at their next meeting, decided to run Mr. Jones.

At Hammersmith Mr. Belt, described in Justice as “London’s Socialist Candidate,” though he was careful to keep the word “Socialist” out of his election address, issued a special handbill pointing out that it was not the fault of the “Labour” Party that the “forces of progress” were divided, as they had brought out their candidate on the promise of the Liberal Association to support him, and that the Labour Party were “most anxious to arbitrate” as to which of the “forces of progress,” Liberal or Labour, should nominate the candidate. Thus did Mr. Belt present a clear issue to the working-class of Hammersmith. He, like Mr. Irving at Accrington, signed the L.R.C. Declaration, but neither was adopted by the L.R.C.

The Independent Labour Party “played the game” by running nearly all their candidates under the auspices of the L.R.C. In several cases they contested double-member constituences, and not only got in by Liberal votes, but made arrangements with the Liberals to work and vote together. Here are some of the polls :

Writing in the Clarion after the election, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said, “We shall remain an Independent Labour Party, absolutely.” We have italicised “remain” because we deny that Mr. MacDonald won Leicester on independent lines.

After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, an shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood.” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties—Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to industry they had, upon those specific and definite points, co-operated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things from going from bad to worse.

At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).

Mr. F. W. Jowett contested W. Bradford and won the seat against both Liberal and Conservative, but according to Mr. Hartley, the S.D.F candidate for the adjoining division, he ran as a Labour candidate because “he believes in getting your man in.”

Amongst L.R.C. candidates who contested two-member constituencies were the following :

After the declaration of the poll at Norwich Mr. Roberts said there were local political factors which had been used to their advantage and the certain promises by the other party had evidently been carried out. He wished to add that they were quite willing to work hand-in-hand with any other section or party of the State who were willing to labour for the realisation of industrial reform.

At York, when it became known that Mr. Stuart was not elected, some strong remarks were passed by his supporters at the Labour Committee Rooms. Because the Liberals had given Mr. Greenwood 2,082 plumpers and Mr. Stuart’s only numbered 421, Mr. Hawkin declared that, it was “the last time that he would ever agree to any compromise with any party whatever.”

It is quite evident that these gentlemen, when they found the election upon them, threw over all the “independence” they had been insisting upon and signing declarations upon previously. It was much more important to most of them that they should he M.P’s than that a clear lead should be given to the working class. Reynold’s asserts that Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald had interviews with one or more representatives of the Liberal Party with a view to an arrangement. We cannot say whether this is so, but it, certainly is given colour by a letter from a Wakefield Liberal which appeared in the Daily News of Jan. 3rd. The writer asserted that the official Liberals would not help the local Liberals to find a candidate because of a compact which the official Liberals had made with the Labour Party.

Mr. Crooks (Woolwich) and Mr. Steadman (East Finsbury) are members of the National Democratic League. We believe, they are both vice-presidents. The N.D.L. exists, “not to oppose, but to help the Liberal Party.” Mr. Crooks was an L.R.C. candidate, and has signed the Declaration of Independence ! Mr. Steadman refused to sign this, and ran as a Liberal-Labour candidate. But Mr. Steadman was put forward by the London Trades Council, which is affiliated to the L.R.C., and whose S.D.F. chairman (Mr. H. Quelch) has referred to Mr. Steadman as “our” (L.R.C.) candidate since his refusal to sign the L.R.C. Declaration. Over the nom de plume TATTLER, Mr. Queleh writes in Justice:

“The London Trades Council is pledged to independent political action, and is affiliated to the L.R.C. John Burns demonstrates his hostility to an independent working-class party by joining the Liberal Government. The London Trades Council endorses the candidature of a number of independent candidates, including, I believe, Quelch at Southampton and Stranks at Croydon. John Burns, as he was in duty bound to do, supported the Liberal candidates at Croydon and Southampton; and then the Trades Council, by 75 votes to 35, congratulates John Burns on accepting an office which made it incumbent upon him to oppose the candidates whom the Council supported, and the policy to which the Council is pledged. It really is very funny !”

Why doesn’t Mr. Quelch complete the paragraph ? Would it be too funny ?

Another L.R.C. candidate has been showing how “independent” he is of the L.R.C. Declaration which he has signed. On Monday, Feb. 12th, at the Liberal Club, Elm Grove, the Peckham Liberals celebrated their victory at the election by entertaining the new member (Mr. Goddard Clarke) at a Dinner and Concert. After a number of congratulatory speeches Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M.P., said he made no apology though a Labour member for being present. As a Labour man he was very much indebted to the Liberals of Deptford for the position he occupied. The best Liberals in Deptford came and supported him. For the first time in political history the workmen had been alive to their own interests. And as long as the Liberal Party will be loyal to them they will be loyal in return.

Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal and Progressive candidate for Tottenham, issued a pamphlet on “His Public and Civic Life,” written by Mr. Will Crooks. At the end are letters from “Labour Leaders,” including Messrs. Will Crooks, Will Thorne, W. C. Steadman, J. Passmore Edwards and George Cadbury. The two first have signed the L.R.C. Declaration of Independence. Mr. W. Thorne is a member of the S.D.F., and in his letter he says, “I come into conflict with many of my comrades for backing up men like yourself, but that I cannot help.” There’s independence for you ! Other supporters who sent letters were Messers. H. H. Asquith, James Bryce, Herbert Gladstone, John Burns, Sydney Buxton and John E. Ellis. What a galley !

Space will not allow us to give details of other alleged “Labour” and “Socialist” candidatures, but sufficient has been said to show the hollowness of the claim that there has been a victory for Labour or a triumph for Socialism. If further evidence is required one has only to take the declarations of the successful candidates as to why they won and what they think should be done. Free Trade, Trades Disputes Bill, Chinese Labour, and the like. There is only one phrase that will express the result. It was a

VICTORY FOR CONFUSION.

Jack Kent