S.P.G.B. Lecture List For March. (1911)

Party News from the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For more information on some of the SPGB speakers listed above, click on these posts for more background.

• December 1910
• December 1912

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

 

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on a few of the speakers missing from the sidebar is posted below. You can also check out these older posts which covers the same ground:

• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• J. Kelly was a member of the Tottenham branch of the SPGB. There were two 'J. Kellys' in the Tottenham Branch of the SPGB (father and son?), both joining the Party in late August 1909.
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. He was a founder member of the SPGB. His membership lapsed from the Paddington Branch of the SPGB in January 1914.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. He should the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• G. Holmes was probably Johnny Holmes, who joined the Earlsfield Branch of the Party in August 1909, and who subsequently rejoined the SPGB (Tooting Branch) in April 1921.
• R. Kenny was Robert Kenny. Though not a founder member of the SPGB, he joined the Edmonton Branch of the Party on the 26th June 1904. That was two weeks to the day after the SPGB  was founded. His membership lapsed in late August 1914, but he rejoined Edmonton Branch in October 1916. He resigned his party membership in December 1931 on the grounds that he felt "he was too old to be active".
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• H. Cooper was H.J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (1908)

Party News from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1911)

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1909)

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

As you can see, my copy of the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard is not exactly in tip-top condition. Interesting to see Harry Martin in amongst the speakers. 

Foundations. (1904)

Cross-posted from the Reasons To Be Impossible blog

"Since some people are talking about Party foundation arrangements, I reproduce below the minutes of the foundation of the SPGB:"

The Socialist Party of Great Britain Minutes of Inaugural Meeting held at Printers' Hall, Bartletts Passage, Fetter Lane, London, E.C. at 6pm on Sunday 12th June 1904 In accordance with the instructions of the Provisional Committee, R. Elrick and C. Lehane acted as Provisional Chairman and Secretary respectively, and the other members of the Provisional Committee acted as stewards. 

There was a good attendance, and the meeting opened with the singing of "The Red Flag". The Chairman briefly explained the object of the meeting, read the notice convening same, and then moved the following resolution:

"That we hereby declare our membership of and thus form the new Party, the constitution of which it shall be the business of this meeting to formulate". 

The resolution was carried, with three dissentients, who were requested to leave the building, as the invitation to attend was extended only to those who were prepared to cooperate in forming the Party. 

After these persons had left, the Chairman called on those present to give in their names and addresses for enrolment as members, and as a result the following one hundred and forty two names were handed in: 

Miss H. Aitken, Mrs Annie Albery, A.S. Albery, Victor Albery, Arch. Alcock, E.J.B. Allen, Mrs Allen, T.W. Allen, Sidney T. Alston, A. Anderson, G. Anslow, Isaac Asher, Will L. Auger, J.T. Bacon, B.G. Bannington, G. Barber, William Bartlett, Hy. Belsey, John Benford, W. Betts, J. Blaustein, A. Baggis, A.R. Brooker, R.J. Buckingham, H.J. Bull, A.H. Burton, F. Cadman, Miss L.E. Campbell, John Chishekoff, W. Chown, T.C. Collings, Robert Collins, R. Compton, Mrs E. Craske, F. Craske, Harry Crump, John Crump, A. Daintree, H.T. Davey, John W. Day, John Donovan, A.C. Dowdeswell, Paul Dumènil, W. Eayrs, Minnie Eden, Stanley Eden, R. Elrick, Edward Fairbrother, E. Fawcett, J. Fitzgerald, G. Fletcher, Haris Fagel, W. Fox, B. Galloway, John Gordon, C. Goss, A.J.M. Gray, A. Greenham, R.D. Gross, Edward Hammond, E. Hardcastle, G.R. Harris, H.J. Hawkins, Miss K. Hawkins, -- Hicks, Geo. H. Hobbs, G.J. Hodsau, Mabel Hodsau, William Holford, Mrs. Holford, Mrs. Holgate, Miss Homerton, H.E. Hutchins, A.W. Fugham, T.G. Jackson, A. Jacobs, Hyam Jacobs, S. Jacobs, A. Jones, A.C. Jones, G. Jones, Mrs L. Jones, J. Kent, R.H. Kent, W.G. Killick, G.T. King, Mrs King, William Lee, C. Lehane, F.S. Leigh, Hy. Martin, Valentine McEntee, J. McNicol, F. Mecklejohn, G.F. Moody, Moore E.O., A. Morrill, D.R. Newlands, H. Neumann, John Nodder, Charles Orme, J. Oxley, Alex. Pearson, Miss M. Pearson, H.C. Phillips, Alf Pilbeam, A. Pyrke, W. Pyrke, F. Quinney, D.G. Reid, G. Richards, A. Ridgewell, S.J.C. Russell, Walter Russell, Mrs L. Salaman, Hy. Salter, H. Severn, William Sills, F.G. Simco, Frank Linfield, H.J. Smith, H.O. Sparks, C.V. Sparks, T. Spooner, G. Streak, G. Sweeting, T. Tarrant, L. Thurston, R. Triggs, C. Turner, Annie Walker, R.H. Walker, J. Wallis, F.G. Watts, T. Wilkins, E. Wilkinson, G.H. Wilson, T.A. Wilson, W. Woodhouse, Walter Wren, H.J. Young. 

While the enrolment was in progress, one man refused to join the Party stating that he had not yet decided what to do in connection with the movement, and that he had an "open mind" on the matter. The Chairman again explained the object of the meeting and stated that the persons who had been invited to come were only those who had made up their minds in connection with the object of the meeting, and gently but firmly requested this man to take his "open mind" outside. 

This being done, the business of the meeting was proceeded with. The following letter was read:

Socialist Society, Newcastle upon Tyne 10/6/04 

Dear Comrades, 

Our society has recently had its attention drawn to the controversy between the S.D.F. and a section of its members. Although we are not affiliated to the S.D.F., we consider that, as a Social-Democratic Society, and one in full sympathy with the principles of the S.D.F., we had a title to consider the dispute. After much discussion of the question at issue, on information based on the two circulars of the dissentient members, the Report of the Burnley Conference, the Statement in "Justice" of a fortnight ago, the experience of those of our own members who, in other parts of the country, have been members of the S.D.F., and our own observation of the trend of affairs during the last few years, - we have arrived at the following resolution, "That, believing that the basic principles of the S.D.F. have not been violated by the expelled members and branches, we regret the motion of the conference and executive in relation to these members and branches". 

I remain, yours truly, (Signed) T. Kerr, Secretary. 

P.S. Am sending a copy of this letter to H.W. Lee. The resolution is as far as the bulk of our members are prepared to go at present. Permit me, however, to express my personal and, of course, absolutely unofficial sympathy with your comrades in the action that they have been compelled to take, and to trust that its result will be the rescuing of the S.D.F. from the dangers of opportunism and intolerance which at present beset it and the placing of that organisation on the absolutely straight and unswerving pathway of Social Democracy once again. Personally, I should be sorry to see a permanent second Social Democratic Party established in opposition to the S.D.F., but I quite agree that the action your comrades are taking is such as may well lead to the really closer unity of the Socialist forces in the near future. Would be glad if you would keep me informed of the progress of the agitation. 

The reading of the above letter was met with loud applause, and the Secretary instructed to send a suitable reply. 

The next business was the election of Chairman and Secretary of the meeting, and the election of tellers. On the motion of Fitzgerald and Anderson, the Provisional Officers, viz., Elrick and Lehane, were unanimously elected Chairman and Secretary respectively. Kent, Woodhouse and Killick were elected tellers. Phillips read the minutes of the Battersea Meeting on Sunday May 15th 1904, and on the motion of E. Allen and Jackson they were unanimously adopted. 

Phillips gave a verbal report on the work of the Provisional Committee elected at the Battersea Meeting to draft a constitution for the Party and to make arrangements for the holding of the Inaugural Meeting. 

On the motion of Hawkins and Lehane the report was adopted with unanimity. Anderson and Lehane moved: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain."' 

Neumann and Blaustein moved an amendment: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Social-Democratic Party'". 

A good discussion followed, Hawkins, Jackson, E. Allen, Turner and Kent speaking in favour of the motion, and Martin, Mrs. Salaman, Killick and Albery for the amendment. On a show of hands, there voted for the amendment 27 against 76. The amendment was therefore deemed lost. Martin and Neumann moved a further amendment:- 

"That the name of the Party should be 'The Social-Democratic Party of Great Britain'." 

After some discussion a vote was taken, and there were 31 in favour and 73 against. The amendment was declared lost. Another amendment was moved by McEntee and Hutchins: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland'." 

This amendment was also lost, only 6 voting in favour. There being no further amendments, the motion: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain" 

was put to the meeting and carried by 91 votes to 3. The announcement of the result was greeted with loud applause. Hawkins and Martin moved: 

"That the Object of the Party shall be 'The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community". 

There was no amendment and the motion was carried unanimously. The Declaration of Principles drafted by the Provisional Committee was then read: 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds:- 

 That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (ie, land, factories, railways, etc.} by the capitalist or master-class, and the subsequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced. 

That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess. 

That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working-class from the domination of the master-class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and the democratic control by the whole people . 

That as in the order of social evolution the working-class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working-class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex. 

That this emancipation must be the work of the working-class itself. 

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working-class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic. 

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working-class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master-class, the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other party. 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action, determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working-class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom. Fitzgerald and E. Allen moved: "That we adopt the Declaration of Principles as read". 

Martin and Blaustein moved an amendment:

"That the statement of Principles be printed and submitted to each member of the Party for consideration and that a Conference of the Party be called in one month's time to adopt same or accept amendments thereto".  

Hawkins, Jackson and Leigh spoke against the amendment, and on a vote being taken only 3 were in its favour, all the other members present voting against. The amendment was therefore declared lost. Martin and Albery moved a further amendment: 

"That the word 'hostile' be deleted and 'opposed' substituted". 

This amendment was also lost, only a few votes in its favour. The motion: 

"That we accept the Declaration of Principles as read" 

was then put to the meeting and adopted with unanimity and enthusiasm. 

The Draft Rules drawn up by the Provisional Committee were then read: 

MEMBERS 

(1) Any person desiring membership shall be required to fill in and sign the application form signifying acceptance of the principles and policy of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting, to which the applicant shall be invited, for consideration, when a majority vote shall decide. 

(2) A member shall not belong to more than one Branch at a time. A member may transfer to another Branch provided a clear record be furnished by his last Branch. 

(3) Each member shall pay 2d per week towards the Branch funds. The payment of dues shall be waived in the case of members when out of employment. Members thirteen weeks in arrears shall be struck off the books after written notices have been sent to them by the Branch and a further fourteen days have elapsed, unless a satisfactory explanation be given, and shall not be allowed to join any other Branch whilst these arrears remain unpaid. 

(4) Members shall have the right to attend and speak at meetings of Branches other than their own, but shall not have the right to vote. 

(5) Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused. The Branch shall consider the matter, and a majority of two thirds of the members present at any business meeting shall have power to expel any members. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to the EC or annual Conference. All expulsions must be immediately reported to the EC. BRANCHES 

(6) The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six persons making written application on the prescribed form to the EC and receiving their sanction. In any Parliamentary constituency there shall not be more than one Branch. 

(7) Branches shall elect their own officers and may draw up such bye-laws as they may deem necessary for their internal management, provided they do not conflict with the rules and policy of the Party. 

(8) Each Branch shall report its numerical strength and financial condition once a quarter to the EC. 

(9) Each Branch shall remit to the centre 1d a member per week. 

(10) Branches thirteen weeks in arrears shall not be allowed to vote upon any Poll nor send delegates to any Conference of the Party. 

(11) Disputes between Branches shall be submitted to the EC, all statements being reduced to writing; copies of all documents in connection therewith shall be forwarded to the Branches concerned. The decision of the EC shall be binding, with a right of appeal to the next Conference. 

(12) Branches shall neither sell nor distribute any literature which has not been approved of by the EC. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

(13) The EC shall consist of twelve members and the General Secretary and Treasurer, and shall be elected by a vote of the whole Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches. A paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to stand for election to the EC. 

(14) Any member of the EC absent from three consecutive meetings shall thereby forfeit his position on that body, unless a satisfactory explanation be given. 

(15) The EC shall meet at least once a fortnight, seven members to form a quorum, and shall send a report of each meeting to the Branches and a report to a quarterly delegate meeting. 

(16) The EC shall make all arrangements for the Conference of the Party, carry out the resolutions of the Conference and those adopted by general vote, supervise the work of the organisation, establish and maintain communications with the Socialist Parties of other countries, and establish a Literary Agency from which all Branches shall be supplied. 

(17) The EC shall submit an Annual Report to the Branches at least three weeks before the Conference upon their last year's work. The members of the EC shall be entitled to attend and speak at the meeting but shall not have the right to vote. 

(18) Should the action of any Branch be deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the principles, policy or rules of the Party, the EC may expel such Branch, but there shall be right of appeal to the next Conference. PARTY OFFICERS 

(19) The Party Officers shall consist of a General Secretary, Treasurer, and two auditors elected in the same manner as the EC. 

(20) The General Secretary shall send a financial statement to the Branches each quarter, and shall present to the Conference a Balance Sheet which shall have been submitted to the Branches at least three weeks previously. 

 

CONFERENCE 

(21) A Conference of the Party shall be held annually at Easter. A special Conference shall be called on a requisition, signed by six Branches, being sent to the General Secretary. 

(22) Each Branch shall be entitled to send two delegates. Delegates must have been members for at least six months immediately preceding the Conference, except in the case of Branches which have been formed for less than this period. A member of the EC or paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to act as delegate to any conference. 

(23) A preliminary Agenda shall be submitted to the Branches eight weeks before the Conference. All amendments to resolutions and additional items received within three weeks thereafter shall appear on the final Agenda which shall be issued to the Branches at least fourteen days before the Conference. 

REFERENDUM 

(24) A Poll of the Party may be taken at any time by the EC or at the request of not less than six Branches sending a requisition stating the matter on which the Poll is desired. The result shall have the same effect as a resolution of the Conference. 

 

ELECTORAL ACTION 

(25) A member shall not be eligible for candidature unless he has been a member of the Party for six months. 

(26) A member of the Party shall not stand for any political office except as the official candidate of the Party. All candidates shall pledge themselves to act, if elected, in accordance with the instructions of the Branch in the case of local and of the EC in the case of Parliamentary elections. 

 Jackson and Hawkins moved: 

"That the rules as read be accepted provisionally and that the E.C. be instructed to have them printed and distributed amongst the members in order that they may be fully considered at a Conference to be held in three month's time". 

Neumann and Kent moved an amendment: 

"That the rules be printed and distributed amongst the Branches, any amendments to or additions thereto to be sent to the Secretary within fourteen days, and that a meeting of members be held one month hence to discuss and decide upon them. That a Provisional Executive Committee to consist of twelve members be elected forthwith to do such work as this meeting may instruct them". 

Killick and Wilson supported the amendment and Anderson and Lehane spoke against. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried by 40 to 35 and thus became the substantive motion. Anderson and Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we adopt the Rules as read, any necessary alterations to be made at the Conference of the Party nine months' hence, and that the Rules and Declaration of Principles be printed and placed in the hands of the members without delay". 

This gave rise to a further discussion in which Jackson supported and Kent opposed the amendment. The amendment was lost, 26 voting for and 49 against. Another amendment was moved by Day:

"That the adoption of the Rules be postponed for one month and that amendments to or additions to the draft be received within a fortnight." 

This was carried by 39 to 29 and became the substantive proposition. To this Phillips moved the following amendment: 

"That we accept Rules 1 ,2, 3, 4, and 13. Amendments to the draft submitted by the Provisional Committee to be sent in by July 15th. Rules and amendments to be submitted to a general meeting three months hence. Officers, General Secretary, Treasurer, and twelve members to be elected provisionally as Executive Committee". 

This amendment was carried by 62 to 1 and became the motion before the meeting. McNicol and Albery moved: 

"That the subscription be 1d per week and that Branches contribute at the rate of 1/2d a member per week to the Centre". 

The amendment was lost, only a few voting in its favour. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. Jackson moved and Phillips seconded:

"That C. Lehane be elected General Secretary" 

and there being no other candidates, Lehane was elected with unanimity. Anderson moved and Jackson seconded: 

"That R. Elrick be elected Treasurer" . 

Elrick was unanimously elected Treasurer, and as a first duty called for a collection, which resulted in £1.7/2 being handed in. 

For the twelve other positions in the E.C. there were 15 candidates, viz: 

Albery A.S., Crump J., Neumann H., Allen T.W., Fairbrother E., Phillips H.C., Anderson A., Gray A.J.M., Watts, F.C., Auger W.L., Jackson T.A., Wilson G.H., Belsey H., Martin H., Woodhouse W. 

Ballot papers were issued and the voting resulted as follows: 

Albery A.S., 54 Crump J. 34 Neumann H. 49 Allen T.W. 47 Fairbrother E. 37 Phillips H.C. 67 Anderson A. 61 Gray A.J.M. 44 Watts, F.C. 40 Auger W.L. 24 Jackson T.A. 48 Wilson G.H. 49 Belsey H. 50 Martin H. 63 Woodhouse W. 63 

Accordingly the following were declared elected to the E.C. Albery A.S., Gray A.J.M. Phillips H.C. Allen T.W. Jackson T.A. Watts, F.C. Anderson A. Martin H. Wilson G.H. Belsey H. Neumann H. Woodhouse W. 

On the question of Palliatives, Anderson and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up a statement, to be issued in leaflet form, of the Party's position regarding immediate demands and municipal action and submit same to the General Meeting". 

Agreed without discussion. Neumann moved and Martin seconded: 

"That the question of establishing a Party Organ be considered at the General Meeting". 

To this there was an amendment by Anderson and Hawkins: 

"That the question of a Party Organ be referred to the E.C. who shall have powers to deal with the matter". 

The amendment was carried by 54 to 10 and became the substantive motion. Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we elect four members to act as Press Committee". 

This was lost, 10 voting for and 45 voting against. Another amendment was moved by Auger and Lehane: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to open a fund for the purpose of establishing a Party Press and submit a scheme in connection therewith to the next General Meeting". 

The amendment was carried by 45 to 3, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. H.C. Phillips made a statement relative to the financial position and Kent and Fairbrother were appointed to audit the acc's of the Provisional Committee. On the question of raising funds for the Party, Anderson and Martin moved: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to organise a series of Mass Meetings in different parts of London, half the amounts collected thereat to go to the Centre". 

The motion was carried unanimously. Woodhouse and Hawkins moved: 

"That Branches shall contribute to the Centre half the amount received as subscriptions from the members." 

The motion was carried unanimously. 

Neumann reported that with regard to the instructions of the Battersea Meeting, he proceeded to translate the first circular but had come to the conclusion that the circular was not suitable for circulation on the Continent. Neumann's report was accepted and Hawkins and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up and issue Manifestos on the situation". 

This motion was carried unanimously. On the question of the relation of the Party to the Trade Unions, McEntee moved: 

"That consideration of the matter be deferred for three months". 

To this Hawkins and Jackson moved an amendment: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to convene as soon as possible a special meeting of members to discuss and determine the attitude of the Party towards Trade Unions". 

The amendment was carried by a large majority, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. Anderson and Jackson moved and it was unanimously decided:

"That the Declaration of Principles of the Party be printed and that a copy be signed by each of the members constituting the Party." 

On the motion of Fitzgerald it was unanimously decided: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to arrange a lecture list for the Party." 

The meeting closed at 10pm with the singing of the "Internationale" and cheers for the Socialist Revolution. (Signed) Alex Anderson.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1910)

Party News from the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Speaking Out (2023)

Book Review from the August 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Speakers’ Corner Anthology. Edited by Jim Huggon. Union of Egoists. 2022.

This is a republication (with a new, additional Foreword) of an anthology first published in 1977. It is a collection of excerpts and other written material connected to Hyde Park’s Speakers’ Corner and there are several references to the SPGB scattered throughout. Jim Huggon is an anarchist who spoke regularly there from 1965 to 1983. He refers to a review by the Socialist Standard of the original version which has slightly puzzled us as it appears that no such review was ever published.

The collection also includes a knockabout piece by Harry Young (Horatio) called ‘On the Platform’ and originally published in the Seventieth Anniversary edition of the Standard in June 1974. There are excerpts too from famous Speakers’ Corner regular Bonar Thompson’s book, Hyde Park Orator, which has also recently been republished with added illustrations.

In addition, there is an interesting if rather pious excerpt from a piece by Lord Donald Soper about his time as an outdoor orator (more focused on Tower Hill than Hyde Park). This is interesting as he tells of encounters with a variety of other regular speakers and his relationship with them, without actually naming them. In particular, he writes of his conversations with a well-known Tower Hill personality and that this man was a scientific socialist, ‘breathing fire and slaughter against all religion, sneering at morality [and] despising the consolations of faith’ who turned out to be much warmer privately than his public persona had initially indicated. Given Soper’s detailed description of him it is highly likely that this was Harry Martin, a regular speaker at Tower Hill and who had left the SPGB in 1911 to found the Socialist Propaganda League (see ‘Getting Splinters’, in the June 2004 Centenary Edition of the Socialist Standard).

Tower Hill no longer exists as a speaking station and Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park is a shadow of its former self, these days a veritable bear garden aimed at tourists with very few serious speakers. This anthology helps capture the spirit of an earlier age.

DAP.

Blogger's Note:

There's a wee mistake in the review. The original edition of this book was reviewed by Robert Barltrop in the June 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Letters: Pendulums & Dynamos (1975)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard welcomes letters for
 publication, putting questions about the Socialist case
or commenting on articles.

Pendulums & Dynamos

For many years now I’ve heard the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s case, but it is still hard to determine whether the Socialist pendulum swings on the importance of the economic factor or on the political factor in society.

To hear one Socialist speaker, one begins to think that the dynamo of the socialist case is the understanding of the wage-labour, value, price and profit relation, while one can think the dynamo of the Socialist case is its object—namely Socialism (common ownership, production for use etc.) (idealism).

One minute we are told that capitalism exists because people vote for some respective party, i.e. Labour. Liberal or Conservative while the next minute we are told capitalism exists because the majority of people support the institutions of capitalism—money, buying, selling, wages and profit-making, by actively taking part in actions associated with such institutions on the domestic and industrial front.

I await your reply.

R. Ramshaw

Manchester.

Reply:

Without the development of a potential for adequately meeting the needs of a world community Socialism could not be possible. This might be called the economic factor, and is, in our opinion, already here.

What has not yet developed is the Socialist majority, understanding their class position under capitalism, and ready and willing to undertake the transformation of society from capitalism to Socialism. This is the political factor. In its absence capitalism will continue to exist because workers, lacking the necessary Socialist knowledge, will continue to support political parties dedicated to the continuance of present day society.

Both factors are equally important for in the absence of either Socialism is not possible.

Editors.

Progress and Leadership

I admire and support the beliefs and objectives of the SPGB to a great extent, but I remain unconvinced about certain points.

Firstly the practicality of achieving Socialism. The Party has existed for 70 years but has made little progress in that time, and it is rare to meet anyone who has even heard of you. The capitalist media will always be unwilling to give airing to your views, and I cannot believe that a handful of members will be able to spread the Socialist word to any significant extent in a society dominated by capitalist education and culture. How can you break this situation and persuade a majority to vote for you?

Secondly, you seem to spend a great deal of time criticising the so-called Communist countries of the world, but surely you must admit that the standard of life for the vast majority of people in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China has been made infinitely better since the respective Revolutions, compared with their conditions previously. Despite the shortcomings of Communist regimes, their planned economies have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met, their material standard of life successfully improved, and social services provided on a large scale. How many generations more would these people have had to live in misery if these revolutions had not occurred?

All this leads to the question: is it not better in practice that an enlightened minority take action on behalf of the majority of oppressed people, rather than face the almost insuperable, and extremely lengthy, task of persuading the majority to vote for Socialism?

F. Ansell, 

Leeds.

Reply:

We are only too well aware that progress towards the establishment of Socialism is slow. Nevertheless progress is being made. We know of no short-cut around the necessary task of agitation and education for Socialism.

Capitalist propaganda cannot remove the problems suffered by the working class; neither can it solve the basic contradictions within society. In their efforts to solve the problems and contradictions the workers must eventually turn to Socialism as the only solution. Since the SPGB was formed we have seen a seemingly endless array of attempts at alleviating the problems thrown up by capitalism, and we have seen them fail as they must. If all those who in the past said, as you do, that they “admire and support” our objectives had joined with us in our task of making Socialists that task would have been made easier. Unfortunately such workers still persist in futile reformism, or in advocating minority action by “enlightened” leaders.

We are opposed to this. The outcome of minority-led revolutions, even if ostensibly to establish Socialism, must inevitably lead to some form of capitalism. In the absence of a Socialist majority consciously understanding the implications involved in the establishment of Socialism there is nothing the leadership (no matter how enlightened) can do other than administer capitalism.

The Russian and other state-capitalist revolutions (e.g. China, Cuba etc.) have set back the Socialist movement by at least fifty years, by side-tracking workers. Only now is the realization that they have nothing to do with Socialism—something we said at the time.

The fact that living standards have improved in these countries is no reason whatsoever for advocating that system of government. Indeed the same claim could be made for avowedly capitalist governments—is this a reason for workers continuing to support them? Of course not.

Your contention that they “have enabled the basic needs of the working class to be rationally met” is unfounded. Workers in state-capitalist countries suffer from the same problems as workers here. Poverty, inadequate housing, inflation and a constant struggle to make ends meet while a privileged minority live in luxury and comfort are features of Russia and East Europe as much as Britain. The waste of armaments, the rape of the world’s resources and pollution of the environment exist in “rationally planned” Russia. Look at the facts!

State plans come unstuck with the same monotonous regularity as do private enterprise ones. The Programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (1961) promised Russian workers that government plans would increase agricultural production by 150 per cent in ten years. This would mean that “In the first decade the Soviet Union will outstrip the United States in output of the key agricultural products per head of population.” The intervening period has seen Russians entering the world markets in order to purchase massive amounts of grain (mainly American) to feed her people. Eastern Europe has been no more successful in this respect. Food shortages are common and what is available is costing more. Indeed many East European countries are relying more and more on what is left of the private sector in agriculture by giving cash grants to stimulate production.

State capitalism retains class divisions and solves no working class problems. The only escape from exploitation and subjugation remains Socialism.

Editors.

Art & the Ruling Class

The article “Art and Civilization” claims that only the social and economic environment explain how man acquires certain aesthetic tastes and conceptions. I certainly cannot agree with this view all the way. Some people have very little taste for art at all. The vast majority of workers would be bored stiff if they were made to go into an art gallery. You just cannot explain all art through economics.

Economic phenomena and intellectual phenomena are just not one and the same thing. The ruling ideas of any age may be the ideas of the ruling class of the time, but the ruling class did not paint the Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo did. Certainly he had to have the material to work with, but it was his creation. A poet must have something to work with as well, but to say Schiller would never have written Laura am Klavier if no piano and no Laura existed would be nonsense.

A windmill cannot make meal unless it is fed with grain, but it is not the grain that runs the mill, but the wind. Some people could study aesthetics from now to doomsday and never produce a work of art. Beethovens and Wagners do not grow on trees; and did they get their ideas on how to compose their music from the ruling class? Burns’ “Tam O’Shanter” could be enjoyed and appreciated in a Socialist society as well as a capitalist society.

Ron Smith,

Dundee

Reply:

You are confused as to what is meant by "the social and economic environment”. Of course large numbers of workers do not care for classical arts: the ruling class does not pay to have them educated for that.

“Aesthetic tastes” generally require some leisure and comfort, both to be formed and to be pursued. That is why they are traditionally upper-class enjoyments and are held to be the “higher” ones. On the other hand, nearly all workers use taste and discrimination in their gardens, in appreciating sports, and when possible in their work. It is also true that working-class products and enjoyments are often despised but later appropriated by “the higher culture”; for example, folk art and the silent film.

Your historical examples do not support your argument. Michelangelo, like the other artists of his time, did religious paintings because a section of the ruling class — the church — paid him to. When patronage shifted from the church to the new commercial class, artists painted them instead. The impetus to musical composition has come most strongly from technical innovation, and in that respect composers are obviously dependent on social and economic change. Your windmill analogy in fact illustrates our point; the wind is still there, but windmills are no longer required.

If the ideas embodied in Beethoven’s music — or Shakespeare’s plays or Burns’s poems — did not come from society, where did they come from? The belief that the capacity to create and appreciate art is a thing apart from social development fails to explain why Beethoven is a row to Indians and Chinese, and their music to us. Only historical materialism gives an adequate explanation of these phenomena; without it people can, as you say, “study aesthetics from now to doomsday”.

Editors.

Getting round the world 

I have been an advocate of Socialism for many years now, in pre-war days I enjoyed listening to Harry Martin on Tower Hill. There is one point on which I would like some information. How is Socialism going to be established throughout the world at the same time? Seeing that one of the fundamental aims is the abolition of money. I cannot see that it is possible to establish it in one country at a time. I should be very grateful if you could put me right on this.

R. Phillips

Reply:

We agree with your view that Socialism cannot be established in one country at a time. As capitalism is the dominant form of society today, the problem created by it are also apparent throughout the world. Members of the working class internationally are therefore having similar problems to one another. However they are constantly misled by non-revolutionary political organisations that capitalism will, at some time, begin to work in their interests.

We can see no fundamental differences in the problems facing the working class in, say, the United States, Russia or Australia, but assuming that large numbers of workers in one part of the globe began to reject the false arguments of the capitalist parties and recognised the need for Socialism ahead of other workers, there is every reason to believe that interest in their ideas would be generated in a very short space of time among members of the working class in different parts of the globe.

One of the techniques which capitalism has developed to a tremendous degree is the facility of high-speed global communications. Socialist-conscious workers would use such facilities to the full in order to propagate their ideas to workers in other countries. They will do so recognising that Socialism can only be introduced by a united international working class. They will also do so in the knowledge that the solution to capitalism’s problems is the same for themselves as for fellow workers throughout the world.

Editors.

Letter: We are charged with contradiction (1951)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following letter from a critic.

Leicester

Dear Sirs,

Will you please explain the apparent contradiction in May issue Socialist Standard. On page 71 there is a report of the death of Harry Martin in which it is stated “In the early years of the Party he came into conflict with the majority on the question of the attitude to be adopted by a delegate if elected to Parliament. He held the view that such a member should be so unswerving in his hostility that he must vote against every measure, from whatever source, that came before Parliament—except of course the measure to introduce Socialism. He held that whatever the nature of such a measure voting for it or even abstaining from voting would constitute pandering to reformism, thus, according to his view, a Party Delegate would be committed, without examination, to voting against any measures to improve educational facilities, safety facilities in mines and factories, the removal of disabilities on trade unionism and even a proposal, however fatuous it might Be, to abandon the prosecution of a war.” Then on pages 75-76 it says in an article headed Wage Labour and Capital. “No! Socialism does not exist in these countries! But is it being built up there? How can it? Wage-labour and capital form the basis of the system which exists in these countries. It is capitalist. What reform can alter this basic relationship? All the political and economic adjustments that have taken place since Marx’s day, all the points that have, been on the programmes of Labour parties and Communist parties since the foundation of these parties have been realised with the nationalisation of basic industries and the development of the social services, yet the position of the working class remains the same etc.” Seemingly you endorse certain principles in Wage Labour and Capital but condemn Harry Martin for similar expressions.

Yours faithfully.

F. L. Rimington

Reply:

Our critic has discovered a purely imaginary contradiction, He takes first the question whether socialist delegates in Parliament should automatically vote against every measure (except the measure to introduce Socialism). Then he quotes a passage which showed that all the measures to reform capitalism have left the working class in the same subject position as before.

His argument is that those who hold that reforms do not basically alter capitalism should logically oppose in Parliament all measures introduced by non-Socialists because only the measure to introduce socialism can achieve what is aimed at. That was the position held by the late Harry Martin and was his ground for disagreeing with the S.P.G.B.

Harry Martin agreed with the S.P.G.B. that reforms do not basically alter capitalism and agreed with the S.P.G.B. that Socialist delegates must contest elections solely on the programme of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism, thereby seeking the votes only of Socialists and not of reformists.

The sole issue was whether Socialist delegates elected on Socialist votes would vote for measures which, whatever their origin and motive, would incidentally be of benefit to the working class and the Socialist movement. Mention was made in the article in question of measures to improve educational facilities, safety facilities in mines and factories, the removal of disabilities on trade unions, etc. Another example is a measure to end conscription. Without supposing for a moment that the ending of conscription means the ending of capitalism (and Harry Martin never charged the S.P.G.B. with that absurdity) the S.P.G.B. takes the line that Socialists outside Parliament would require their delegates in Parliament to vote for such measures on their merits. The vote would be given not in order to meet the views of reformists but under instruction of Socialists.

Harry Martin’s “all or nothing" position while attractive in its simplicity is less logical than he imagined. It would logically lead Socialists to take no action at all except in support of the establishment of Socialism. It would for example require them not to support trade union efforts on the ground that a wage increase or resistance to a wage reduction is not Socialism.

Incidentally Marx, who also held that reforms do not end capitalism, consistently supported legislative measures to restrict the working day.

Editorial Committee

Letter: Have We Socialisation? (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editorial Committee of the
 Socialist Standard.

Comrades,

An article appearing in this month’s Socialist Standard over the initials J. D., entitled “Remedies,” needs your careful attention; an otherwise admirable article is marred in its conclusion by the astounding statement that the remedy for unemployment, poverty and overwork suffered by the working class is the socialisation of the means of production and distribution. Since how long has the socialisation of those means been the one remedy for the above mentioned social evils, poverty, etc. ? Seeing that capitalism and its mode of production has long since achieved the aforesaid socialisation of the means of production and distribution, what is there to trouble about; and why, like other journals still working for this end, such as Justice, Labour Leader, Socialist, continue to agitate and advocate and waste time over bringing about what is already accomplished? It is better to be exact than misleading in our teaching, and if J. D. and yourselves will show in our next or some succeeding number of the Socialist Standard that the only remedy for poverty, unemployment and overwork lays in the direction of social ownership and democratic control of the means of producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community, you will have done what is necessary so far as the article needs correction; and in the interest of truth, and of the hitherto good name of the Socialist Standard, I trust you will see the necessity of giving the correction as prominent a place as the statement that caused me to write you.

Yours fraternally,

Hy. Martin.

P.S.—The exactness I mean is not in the metaphysical sense.

Reply.

Mr. Martin has discovered a mare’s nest. The means of production are socially operated because the laws, methods of management, and the interaction of the various members of society who take part in wealth production, are all adapted to serve the present economic system.

But both the means of production and the products are privately owned. Hence there does not exist the Socialisation—or the making into a social system—of the means of production and distribution. This can only exist when social operations are combined with social ownership of both means and results of production. In other words, when Socialism is established.

Editorial Committee.

Obituary: Death of Harry Martin (1951)

Obituary from the May 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Through the medium of a correspondent we have learnt with regret of the death of Harry Martin, who was a familiar speaker to those in London who attended meetings at Tower Hill and similar spots.

He was one of the small group that took part in the foundation of our party forty-seven years ago and fought out the problems the solution of which helped to clear our vision and reinforce the soundness of our general attitude.

In the early years of the Party he came into conflict with the majority on the question of the attitude to be adopted by a delegate if elected to Parliament. He held the view that such a member should be so unswerving in his hostility that he must vote against every measure, from whatever source, that came before parliament—except of course the measure to introduce Socialism. He held that whatever the nature of such a measure voting for it or even abstaining from voting would constitute pandering to reformism. Thus, according to his view, a Party Delegate would be committed, without examination, to voting against any measures designed to improve educational facilities, safety facilities in mines and factories, the removal of disabilities on trade unionism. and even a proposal, however fatuous it might be. to abandon the prosecution of a war.

As the Party would not accept his view he resigned his membership and never rejoined although, in his propaganda, he supported the Party’s outlook, sold our literature and urged listeners to join with us. Those who knew him well believed that his reason for not rejoining was simply that he preferred to remain a free-lance speaker.

He propagated socialist ideas sedulously, during a long life-time, on the outdoor platform in all weathers and was a familiar figure to those interested in change. Though his knowledge was not wide he had a firm grasp of the essentials, of the socialist position and was indefatigable in pounding away with rough humour and a fierce scorn of all that was put forward to patch up and support the system that exploited the workers. He was the means of helping many workers to an understanding of Socialism and there are many, including some who opposed his ideas, that will be genuinely sorry to hear of his passing.

He died in St. James’ Hospital, Balham, on the 2nd February at the age of 87 and was buried in Garret Lane Cemetery. Up to the last he remained what he had always been—a fierce and resolute opponent of Capitalism and a staunch advocate of Socialism.

Gilmac.

Robbed blind (1993)

Book Review from the March 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dare To Be A Daniel—A History of One of Britain's Earliest Syndicalist Unions. by Wilf McCartney. Kate Sharpley Library, BM Hurricane, London WC1 3XX.

The misery of wage slaves exploited in the catering business has always been particularly bad. Although Wilf McCartney's twenty-four page booklet on the subject, written originally in 1942 and published in 1945 with a preface by Orwell, is written in a workmanlike, sometimes poorly-crafted style, it expresses well the plight of the catering workers then and now. Reading it, what is clear is just how little has changed. It has always been a notoriously hard occupation to unionize, based mainly on casual and cheap foreign labour, and McCartney shows how little the official trade unions did to support catering workers. Reports of minor successes in rank-and-file strikes are written up encouragingly, but the hard fact is that catering workers are still being robbed blind by hotel and restaurant bosses despite earlier militancy.

Politically, McCartney's radicalism was of a pretty confused nature. Of relevance here is that he joined the SPGB in its early (not as a founder member) and makes the following critical comments about his experience:

I and others joined this party to learn socialism, but later, along with H. Maslin [surely, H. Martin—editors] and others, we left because of a letter in the Socialist Standard signed "Upton Park". The questioner wanted to know what would be the action of a member of the SPGB elected to Parliament, and the answer was that the Socialist member, backed by the revolutionary votes outside, would consider capitalist measures on their merits! This was quite enough for us.

McCartney is here referring to one of the most historically interesting formative conflicts in this party. The Socialist Party was formed to advocate socialism and nothing but. We have always rejected any compromise with the capitalist system. In 1910 some members, interpreting this principled anti-reformism as a dogmatic opposition to all reforms under capitalism, put their point by writing a letter to the Socialist Standard signed "W. B. of Upton Park". The reply given to them was that a single socialist or a minority of socialists elected to parliament on the basis of whether such measures benefitted or harmed the working class. For example, if measures extending the freedom of socialists to disseminate ideas or reducing election deposits or banning religious control of schooling were on the agenda it is quite possible that a socialist minority would be instructed to vote for them.

The minority within the SPGB formed a Provisional Committee to oppose this policy. Like dogmatic sectarians, inspired by doctrine to dismiss social reality, they went as far as to argue that no reforms have ever helped or could ever benefit the working class. The exchange of documents between the Executive Committee, expressing the position which we maintain today, and the ultra-sectarian Committee, of which McCartney was possibly a member, is highly educative and explains well why our party is opposed to reformism but not to reforms.

Many of our opponents on the Left, embarrassed by our unceasing exposure of their own rotten reformism, have tried to attack the Socialist Party by attacking what is actually the position of the few members of the Provisional Committee who left this party precisely because we do not hold the view in question. McCartney did hold that view, left the SPGB and went on to join the Syndicalist Propaganda League which was soon to disappear into the mists of history. What a pity that a man of such evident passion and union militancy did not stay within the ranks of the one revolutionary party committed to the abolition of the wages system.

Steve Coleman