International Socialist Bureau. (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

I. S. B.

Brussels, October, 1906.

Dear Comrade,—

The plenary assembly of the International Socialist Bureau will take place on Saturday, November 10th, at the Secretary’s Office of the I.S.B. (Brussels, People’s Palace, 17, Joseph Steven’s-street, 1st story, room 6), at 10 o’clock in the forenoon.)

Agenda:

1. The organisation and agenda of the International Socialist Congress of Stuttgart (August, 1907).

2. Second examination of Van Kol’s proposition concerning the International Congresses and the I.S.B.

3. The rules of the Parliamentary Socialist and Labour Commission.

The Executive Committee:

Anseele, Vandervelde, Huysmans.

The Essentials of Socialist Unity. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Socialist Working Class

Comrades,

In the January number of our official organ—the Socialist Standard—we addressed you concerning the International Socialist Congresses, and briefly dwelt with our reasons for declining an invitation from the Secretary of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress to take part in forming a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress, on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging by the composition of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress, the proposed Committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialists. That Committee has now been formed and its composition fully justifies the view we took of it in January last.

In accordance with our promise, we have forwarded a communication to the International Socialist Bureau, asking that, in our name, a motion be placed upon the Agenda of the next International Congress, for discussion in open Congress, embodying the following proposals:—

(a) That admission to future International Socialist Congresses shall be open only to all avowed Socialist, bodies that accept the essential principles of Socialism, i.e., socialisation of the means of production and distribution, union and international action of workers, Socialist conquest of the Public Powers by the proletariat organised as a class party recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates upon this basis and adopting an attitude of hostility under all circumstances to all sections of the capitalist party.

(b) That all previous resolutions (defining the basis of admission to. the Congress) be rescinded.

(c) That all matters upon the agenda be discussed in open Congress and that the methods of discussion in Commissions be entirely abolished.

(d) That each delegate shall have one vote, but if a poll be demanded, each Party represented shall be entitled to one vote.

(e) That representation upon the Bureau shall be upon the basis of Parties represented at the Congress, each of which shall be entitled to one representative upon the Bureau.

We have further requested the Bureau to at once consider the advisability of adopting one language in which all the business of the Bureau and of the Congress shall be conducted, with the object of coming to a decision upon the matter in sufficient time for the language decided upon to be adopted as the official language of the Stuttgart Congress.

Up to now the International Socialist Congresses have not considered the composition of the Nationalities represented thereat. At Amsterdam, National matters were entered into, when a resolution was passed in favour of National Unity. If the International Movement is to be placed upon a sound revolutionary basis the Congress must enter into the character of the different National organisations which are obtaining admission to the Congresses and affiliation to the Bureau. When the Congress has, by its resolute action, eliminated all pseudo-socialist organisations, such as deny the existence of the class war, or in any way support the capitalist class or its catspaws in their respective countries, then unity of the Socialist forces in each country will be easily accomplished.

We are, Comrades,

With fraternal greetings,

The Executive Committee,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Head Office,

1a, Caledonian Road, London,

December 1905.

The International Socialist Bureau. (1905)

Notice from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The International Socialist Bureau desires to call attention to the following publications relative to the International Congresses which can be obtained at the Maison du People, Brussels, and at all the best booksellers:

• The International Socialist Congresses: Agendas, lists of delegates, resolutions, Paris, 1889; Brussels, 1891; Zurich, 1893; London, 1896; Paris, 1900 . . . (0.75 Frs.)
• The International Socialist Congress of Amsterdam, 1904. Agenda and texts of resolutions, offered in three languages . . . (0.25 Frs.)
• Reports and resolutions submitted on the questions in the Agenda of the International Socialist Congress, Amsterdam, 1904 . . . (1.00 Frs.)
• Resolutions in three languages on the questions submitted in the Agenda of the International Socialist Congress, Amsterdam, 1904 . . . (0.50 Frs.)
• The Socialist and Working-Class Organisation in Europe, America, and Asia with a supplement. The volume, of more than 500 Pages, contains the reports of the various Socialist Parties of the whole world on the political and trade-unionist movement from the Paris Congress of 1900 to the Amsterdam Congress of 1904 . . . (3.75 Frs.)

The number of copies of these publications on hand being very limited, it is particularly requested that all those who desire to obtain copies should do so at the earliest possible moment.

All orders must be accompanied by remittances made out in the name of Camille Huysmans.

The offices of the Bureau have been transferred to the Maison du Peuple, Brussels, and in order to avoid any delay all correspondence (letters, reviews, newspapers, etc ) should be forwarded to the following address: "The International Socialist Bureau, Maison du Peuple, rue Joseph Stevens, Brussels.”

An Appeal From Russia. (1905)

From the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

In accordance with the invitation of the International Socialist Bureau we publish the following correspondence. Any moneys received in response thereto will be at once forwarded to the Bureau. Remittances should be sent to C. Lehane, General Secretary, The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 107, Charlotte St., London. W. 

#    #    #    #

International Socialist Bureau,

Maison du Peuple, Brussels. 

18.2.05.

Dear Citizen,

We have just received a letter from Citizen Roubanovitch, and we hasten to transmit to you the enclosed copy.

We place ourselves entirely at your disposal for the distribution of the sums collected.

We would ask you to bring the matter under the notice of the Socialist press of your country in which subscription lists have not yet been opened, in order that they may be enabled to answer the appeal of our Russian comrades fighting for the common cause of the International proletariat.

Fraternal greetings,

(signed) Cam. Huysmans,

Secretary.

To the Secretary,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

#    #    #    #

(Enclosure.)

50, rue Lhomond,

Paris (5). 

16.2.1905

Dear Comrades,

Subscriptions are being collected in all countries by the Socialist press on behalf of the Russian Socialists to aid the revolutionary movement or render assistance to the strikers and their families.

I have just been notified by the Central Committee of the Russian Revolutionary Socialist Party, of which I am the delegate to the International Socialist Bureau, that at the present time funds are very urgently required.

I therefore ask you to kindly take the initiative in appealing to the various Socialist Parties and newspapers, requesting them to remit the amounts collected to the International Socialist Bureau, which will distribute the funds between the Russian and Polish Parties in accordance with an arrangement which can easily be come to by the common consent of the Russian and Polish delegates.

Very fraternally yours,

E. Roubanovitch.

The Russian Revolution. (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mediaeval Russia.

The appeal from the International Socialist Bureau on behalf of the Russian revolutionaries which we publish elsewhere, is an interesting document and, like the Revolution itself, gives a working man much food for thought. We by no means desire to dogmatise respecting the events which are now passing in Russia, the more so since reliable news from that quarter is scanty and unsatisfactory. Yet the evidence before us, the news from the seat of the revolution, and the communication we publish from the Bureau, give rise to grave misgivings.

The other great nations of Europe have long ago burst asunder the feudal bonds on industry and commerce, and the few survivals are more picturesque than effective. The aristocracy, where it has been able to continue in existence, is merged into the plutocracy and forms one compact mass against the workers. Russia, however, lags behind; and her economic backwardness is reflected in her mediaeval system of government. Hence in the other nations of Western Europe a straight fight is possible between the proletariat and the capitalist ruling class; whilst in Russia the rising capitalist class has yet its emancipation from Autocracy to accomplish: so that, in contrast with practically the whole of civilised nations, the working class and the capitalist class in Russia have, in the abolition of Tsardom’s tyranny, a step to go together. This historical circumstance, which is at once the strength and weakness of the Russian movement, distinguishes it from that of all capitalist countries.

The Nature of the Struggle.

No Socialist, therefore, can withhold his sympathy from the great struggle of the Russian people for the elements of political liberty, and all must heartily wish that the great barrier to economic and political progress, Tsardom, may be speedily broken down.

It is satisfactory to note that, in the present communication from the Bureau the idea (which was so common at an earlier period of the revolution, and which was proclaimed by many who called themselves Socialists) that out of the ruins of Tsarist Russia the Socialist Republic would arise, is absent; whilst the elements of political liberty, the creation of a Constituent Assembly, or at most the inauguration of a Russian Republic, are taken for granted as the probable outcome of the present struggle. It has been insisted upon in these columns that the Socialist Republic cannot be the outcome of the defeat of autocracy in Russia because the economic elements are lacking or insufficiently developed. As Marx said: “No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have been developed; and the new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions for their existence have been matured in the womb of the old society.” The industrial development of Russia is still in its infancy, and vigorous though the infant may be, the greater part of the empire is yet untrodden by it. It is indeed probable that whatever government succeeds that of the Tsar will be compelled, if only to appease the peasants – the bulk of the nation – to bring about that most reactionary of things in which the land is split up among the peasants as their private property.

The Driving Forces.

But the student who watches with as little emotion as possible the flowing tide of social life, is sickened at noting for how little human suffering and human blood count in great social movements, and how often the masses of the people have been struggling and fighting for a victory the fruits of which when won are not for them; and the present case appears to be but another illustration of this sad fact. The Russian revolution is a struggle, headed at first by the capitalist middle-class, for the free and untrammelled development of capitalism; and, as in former revolutions, it is the proletariat which later forces on the hesitating bourgeoisie to the completion of their revolutionary work. The hesitancy of the capitalist class is natural under the circumstances. They have an unholy fear of the proletariat which is only a degree less than their fear of the Autocracy that is throttling them.

We have misgivings, however, that the Russian working-class movement, not fully conscious of its mission, will lose its identity in the struggle for middle-class emancipation, and be absorbed by the party of the small capitalist, so that after having been the catspaw of the middle-class, the proletariat will have to start afresh the work of educating and organising the workers for their own great battle. Nevertheless the struggle must go on, even though the spoils of victory go to the capitalist class, freed from autocratic restrictions and oppression, and the workers, who remain wage-slaves and subjected, have only started on the road to their emancipation, have only cleared away one enemy in order to have a straight fight with the other whom their victory has placed in power.

The Duty of the Socialist.

Let us then do all in our power to help our Socialist comrades in Russia in the hope that they will not be deceived as to the outcome of the present upheaval: in the hope, also, that they will sternly keep their separate identity and distinct aim, so that the Russian bourgeois State of to-morrow may find a militant class-organisation of Socialist workers heading the final struggle against the capitalist class whose defeat must herald the triumph of Humanity.

In the body of the Manifesto all Socialists are urged, innocently enough, to bring pressure to bear on their governments to prevent the lending of money “at high interest” to the Government of Russia. Our Russian comrades have an object lesson close at hand as to the value of bringing pressure to bear on a government with any other object than that of defeating it. It is to be feared that the recommendation rests on a misapprehension. If the Socialists in any country are doing their duty in waging incessant war with all their power upon the capitalist government, it should be clear that the Government, knowing that the Socialists as soon as they can defeat them will immediately do so, will pay no attention to Socialist threats and will not yield to pressure in any particular except to superior force or for their own interests, being aware that the Socialists are doing their worst all the time and can do no more. It is conceivable that the capitalist class would, in order to get the support of some or all of the Socialists, or to avoid being defeated by them, make some small effort to get that support or avoid that defeat. But a Socialist movement which supports Capitalism ceases to be Socialist. The movement which begs a crumb when it has power to take its fill is – well! words fail to describe it. The spectacle of Socialists attempting to prevent the capitalist class lending money at high interest is pitiably amusing. The capitalist class would buy shares in hell itself, if hell could pay a dividend! In this connection the only word for the Socialist to concern himself in is the taking from the capitalist class the power to lend at all.

————————————————————————————————————-

International Socialist Bureau, 

Maison du Peuple”, Brussels

TO THE WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES.

In spite of his given word, Nicholas II, twice perjured Tsar, has dissolved the Duma as he had violated the constitution of Finland. After having concentrated his troops in St. Petersburg and forced the deputies to disperse, he has, to draw away the attention of Europe, issued a manifesto of which each word is an untruth. He accuses the Duma of having committed illegal acts, – after having illegally imposed the fundamental laws upon it, contrary to his promises of the 30th October. He accuses it of impotence, – after having refused it any power, after having compelled it to be but a tribune, which has served, at least, to denounce the crimes of the bureaucracy. He reproaches it with having done nothing, – after having made it impossible for it to realise a single parliamentary act.

International Socialism will not lose its time in vain protestations. It is to the action of all that it once more appeals. 

The new outrage of the man of the 22nd January has not at all surprised the Socialist Party and does not find it unprepared. The Duma was doomed as soon as the clique of secret councillors, the officials and Grand Dukes, saw the weakness of the majority of the assembly; and the latter, despite the efforts of the Social Democratic and Labour Groups, has followed tactics which could but weaken it.

An odiously restrictive electoral régime, administrative pressure of the most shameless kind exercised on the voting, popular suspicion keeping from the ballot boxes the few proletarians who had access to them; all this has created a fictitious majority which in no wise represented the aspirations of the majority of the country. The elected of the liberal bourgeoisie have themselves proved, by their attitude after the dissolution, that they were wrong to show themselves vacillating before the government, and hesitating before the most urgent reforms. Have they not lost the confidence of the peasants by promising only an insufficient agrarian reform, the adoption of which would not have restored the land to the people of the country districts? Have they not discontented the workmen in offering miserable palliatives to them instead of fundamental reforms? Have they not deceived all those who ardently aspired to liberty, by not knowing how to be firm and energetic respecting the amnesty, the pogroms, and the death penalty? And in spite of their repeated declamations of loyalty, the Tsar has had nothing but contempt for them. At the opening of Parliament he praised the fundamental laws before them, and, during the whole of the session, he refused them everything. At last, when by their own fault they found themselves without support and without power, they were dispersed without effort like dead leaves before the winds of Autumn.

The consequence of the coup d’état of Nicholas II will be to compel the liberal bourgeoisie to abandon the phase of speechmaking and to choose between absolutism and revolution. Compromises and delays are henceforth done with. After recent experience the most naively optimistic must be convinced that it is useless to try to conciliate contraries. The creation of a Duma without power of executive could not prevent the bureaucracy from pillaging the public treasury, from starving the peasantry, from organising with the pecuniary assistance of the occidental bourgeoisie, massacres and outrages upon the liberty of the workers.

But the revolution does not founder with the Duma. The revolution, on the contrary, enters upon a new phase, more decisive. Before putting an end to the parliamentary comedy, Nicolas II consummated the financial and economic ruin of his empire. He killed the idea of a constitutional Tsarism in the minds of the conservative classes. He opened the eyes of the peasants in refusing them the land. He rallied a portion of the navy and army to the cause of the people, who, after having ascertained the impotence of the liberal bourgeoisie, come again on the scene, grouped under the flag of Socialism. As at the beginning of the struggle it is the proletariat that leads, in the front rank, the struggle against absolutism. With the workmen of the towns, the peasants are joining, who understand better every day that only that union can give them the land, and so also are the intellectuals, more permeated with our doctrines than in any other country. Liberal bourgeoisie itself, if it will not be condemned to a radical impotency, will be, in many cases, compelled to follow the stream.

Two armies thus find themselves henceforth face to face: the army of the Tsar and the army of the people, and between the two, whose conflict is inevitable, victory will be by so much the more decisive for us as the revolution will have been better able to concentrate its forces, realise a unity of action, and utilise more abundant resources. The revolution commenced by the strike, will, at the proper time, be pursued by the strike, by refusal of taxation and of military service, by the occupation of the lands of the crown, of the aristocracy, and of the church, by armed revolt with the aid of the soldiers and sailors whom the Socialist propaganda daily wins to the new ideas. It will be pursued without truce and without weakness until the day when Tsarism, having neither troops nor money, neither credit nor power of any sort, the people will be at last the masters of their own destinies.

The past of the Russian Socialists speaks for the future. They will know how to compel the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, and to do their duty to the end. Let us know how to do ours. We can aid in the common work by two means: BY PREVENTING THE AUTOCRACY PROCURING MONEY, – AND BY SENDING MONEY TO THE SOCIALISTS OF RUSSIA.

The radical government of France, the reactionary government of Germany, the capitalist class of all countries, have made themselves the accomplishes of the Tsar in lending him at high interest the pay of his gendarmes, of his executioners, and of his black bands. Let us bring pressure to bear on the governments to put an end to their compliance! Let is warn the possessing class that the Russian Republic of to-morrow will not pay the infamous debts which the Tsar contracts in order to hire assassins! Let us rally all useful support to the cause of Liberty to end that millions of men may be delivered from an implacable tyranny. And, if contrary to all expectation, the Holy Alliance of the international reaction attempted to intervene in the conflict to break the revolutionary effort and save the Tsarist oppression, let us know how to take the necessary measures to effectively help the people of Russia, who, united still closely in that conjuncture, would make no distinction between Tsarism, already stricken to its death, and the foreign invader, guilty of attempting to outrage the autonomy of a nation conscious of its rights. Let us give, then, and give generously! Let the accumulated pence of the poor decide the victory!

Let the pass word be: MONEY FOR THE VICTIMS OF TSARISM.

Let each Socialist, let each worker, send his mite, be it to the central organisation of his party, be it to the authorised delegates of our Russian comrades, or to the Secretariat of the International Socialist Bureau.

DOWN WITH AUTOCRACY!

LONG LIVE INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM!

The Executive Committee of the International Socialist Bureau (Belgium). Eduoard Anseele, Emile Vandervelde, Camille Huysmans, Secretary. (November 1906)

Our Attitude Toward The International. (1913)

From the March 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the two following letters from a reader in America, and are glad, in order to make our reply more “strong, official, and efficacious,” as well as to refresh the memory of certain of our critics at home, to give both these letters and our reply the publicity of these columns.

Morgantown, West Virginia,

United States, North America.

December 18, 1912.

To The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

                                           London, England. 

Comrades,—A quarrel has broken out in Socialist circles of our country, and we ask you to settle it.

Some time ago my neighbor, Comrade Joseph Mras, ordered of you 100 copies of your booklet “Socialism and Religion." I bought of Comrade Mras several copies of the said booklet and quoted it on some occasions. Now the comrades accuse me of insincerity. They tell me that I quoted a booklet, of which I knew that it is of no authority whatever. They maintain that your party has not the slightest connection with the International Marxian Socialism. Your booklet, they say, is the rankest forgery, because page 6 contains the sentence: “ It [the booklet] is issued, not as the view of an individual, but as the accepted manifesto of the Socialist Party on the subject,” whereas it contains only the personal opinion of some individual or small group of individuals. 

The Socialists are treating Comrade Mras not better than they treat me. They tell him he should burn the booklets he ordered off you rather than sell them. They display a genuine fury against the circulation of your booklet.

Comrade Mras wrote to the National Secretary, John Work, of Chicago, asking him for information, and sent him a copy of your booklet. Comrade Work sustains the views of our antagonists, as you see from the enclosed letter.

Now. there is a great deal of insincerity, not on our part, but either on the part of John Work and his followers, or on your part. I have studied many Socialist standard works, and I find the principles contained in your booklet in perfect harmony with the teachings of Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Bebel, Bax, Morris, Hyndman, and the rest of the great Socialist champions. On the other hand, John Work, John Spargo, and Morris Hillquit are trimmers who strive to hide the basic principles of Marxian Socialism, for the purpose of catching votes. We think, however, that you deserve credit for the frankness with which you stated the said principles.

Be this as it may, we ask you to send us a clear, concise, and official statement concerning your attitude to the International Socialist Party and its Bureau. Please make your statement as strong, official and efficacious as possible. We do not like to be abused on account of your booklet, in which we placed in good faith our confidence. Kindly return also John Work's letter.

Please favour us with an answer.

With best wishes and kindest regards, 

Respectfully yours, (Signed)

 C. J. Kluser.

*      *      *      *      *

The Socialist Party (of America).

John M. Work,

National Secretary.

National Headquarters.                                                                                                          

111 North Market Street, Chicago.

               December 9, 1912.

Joseph Mras,

       Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dear Comrade,

   According to the Bulletin of the International Socialist Bureau, the Socialist Party of Great Britain is not affiliated with the Bureau.

The book is apparently the personal opinion of some individual or small group of individuals. It does not correspond with the policy of the Socialist Party of the United States.

Fraternally yours,

(Signed) John M. Work. 

National Secretary.

JMW—GM

*      *      *      *      *

The Socialist Party of Great Britain

                                   193 Grays Inn Road,

                                                   London, W.C.

                                   Jan. 31, 1913.

C. J. Kluser,

Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dear Mr. Kluser, 

  In answer to your query regarding our attitude toward the " International” as represented by the “International Socialist Bureau,” the following points from our official records will be sufficient.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1904 as the culmination of a revolt of the rank and file of the Social Democratic Federation against the reformism and corruption of the official section.

The S.P.G.B. was represented by two delegates at the ”International Socialist Congress” at Amsterdam in 1904. Their report appeared in the official organ of the S.P.G.B. (the “Socialist Standard") for September 1904.

In the "Socialist Standard” for January 1905 appears an address, in three languages, to the “International” stating the S.P.G.B. attitude toward “a communication from the Secretary of the British section of the Amsterdam Congress asking among other things whether the Party (S.P.G.B.) favoured the holding of a Conference with a view to forming in England a national committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress.” The address continues: “ We have declined to take part in any such conference on the ground that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging from the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, at which the Party was represented, the proposed committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialist.”

Elsewhere in the same number of the official organ the correspondence is published in full and evidence given in support of the above contention, while measures necessary to remedy such a state of things are also outlined.

The matter was then discussed at the Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain at Easter, 1905, and reported in the official organ for May, 1905. At that Conference it was moved ”that the Executive Committee be instructed to draw up a series of resolutions embodying the following points : —

1. That only Socialist organisations recognising the class war in theory and practice should be represented at the International Socialist Congress.
2. That disputes between the various parties in each country as to the genuineness of their respective organisations be settled by the Congress itself.

The scandal of a non-Socialist majority of the British delegation bossing the International relationships of the Socialist Party is also referred to in the leading article of the “Socialist Standard” for June, 1905.

In the "Socialist Standard” for January, 1906, the following manifesto to the Socialist workers was issued by the Executive of the S.P.G B. under the title of "The Essentials of Socialist Unity ” : —

   "Comrades,
    “In the January number of our official organ, the “Socialist Standard,” we addressed you concerning the International Socialist Congresses, and briefly dwelt on our reasons for declining an invitation from the Secretary of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, to take part in forming a national committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress, on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging by the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, the proposed committee would consist of men who arc in no sense of the word Socialists. That committee has now been formed, and its composition fully justifies the view we took of it in January last.     “In accordance with our promise we have forwarded a communication to the International Socialist Bureau asking that, in our name, a motion be placed on the agenda of the next International Congress, for discussion in open Congress, embodying the following proposals:
   "(a) That admission to future International Socialist Conferences shall be open only to all avowed Socialist bodies that accept the essential principle of Socialism, i.e., socialisation of the means of production and distribution; union and international union of workers; Socialist conquest of the Public Powers by the proletariat organised as a class party recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates on this basis, and adopting an attitude of hostility under all circumstances to sections of the capitalist party.
   "(b) That all previous resolutions (defining the basis of admission to the Congress) be rescinded.
  “(c) 'That all matters upon the agenda be discussed in open Congress, and that the methods of discussion in commissions be entirely abolished.
   "(d) That each delegate shall have one vote, but if a poll be demanded each party represented shall be entitled to one vote.
  "(e) That representation upon the Bureau shall be upon the basis of parties represented at the Congress, each of which shall be entitled to one representative on the Bureau, etc., etc.
                                               “THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
                                                        THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.
    “Head Office, London,
    “December, 1905."

This request to the Bureau was not granted.

At the Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain held in London at Easter, 1907 (vide report in official organ, April 1907), the first business of the Conference on the second day was a discussion on the International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart. The questions were whether the S.P.G.B. should seek representation at that Congress under the conditions laid down by the non Socialist British National Committee and the International Socialist Bureau, and what was the best method of getting into communication with the known representatives of that uncompromising policy of which the S.P.G B. are exponents in this country. In the result, it was passed that “This Conference of the S.P.G.B. recommends that no delegates be sent to the next International Congress, but that the E.C use their best endeavour to get in touch with those abroad who occupy our position.” (“Socialist Standard.,” April, 1907.)

All along we had, of course, regularly received the communications of the Bureau and published them when necessary. But although the matter of the International Congresses has been reopened in the S.P.G.B again and again, the above resolution still stands, and consequently the answer you received from John Work is partly explained.

No such objection to our literature as the one to which you refer has been, or is likely to be, urged against us in this country, for obvious reasons. J. Work and others are simply exploiting the lack of knowledge which exists on your side regarding political conditions here.

The pamphlet you refer to "Socialism and Religion''; was revised, endorsed, and issued by the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B. As stated in the pamphlet, it represents, not the views of an individual, but the accepted views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The position laid down in the pamphlet is the Socialist position and nothing else. It is based on the bed-rock of Marxism. The proof that the pamphlet expresses the Socialist position is contained within the pamphlet itself. The paltry subterfuge of those incapable of answering its arguments only succeeds in being ridiculous.

I am returning herewith letter from John M. Work as requested.

Trusting the above explanation will prove satisfactory, I remain, yours respectfully,

A. L. Cox,

Gen. Sec, pro tem.

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first Annual Conference of The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be held at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street. London, W., on Thursday, 20th April, 1905, commencing at 7 p.m., and on Friday 21st April, when the proceedings will be resumed at 9 a.m. The constitution of the Conference is defined by Rules 22, 23, and 24.

*  *  *

During March there will be two meetings of the Executive Council, viz., Saturday 4th, at 3 p.m., and Tuesday 21st, at 7 p.m. Usual place. 

*  *  *

A meeting of Speakers and prospective Speakers will take place on Saturday, March 4th, at the Communist Club. Several important matters in connection with the forthcoming open-air propaganda will be discussed. Time —7.30 p.m.

*  *  *

Members and others are requested to note that, a vote of the Party having been taken, H. J. Hawkins was on February 4th, 1905, expelled from membership of The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

*  *  *

Notification has been received from the International Socialist Bureau that V. Serwy has resigned the Secretaryship. Camille Huysmans has been appointed to the position, and the offices of the Bureau are now at the Maison du Peuple, Brussels. 

*  *  *

Will Branch Secretaries and members note that I no longer reside at Birnam Road? All communications should be forwarded to the Central Office, Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street, London, W.

Con Lehane.

Editorial: A Blow for Socialism. (1915)

Editorial from the March 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

At a period when the space in our last issue was already allotted, there came to hand from the Socialist Labor Party of America, a letter addressed to "the Affiliated Parties of the International Socialist Bureau.”

The fact that we are not one of the affiliated parties need not prevent us subjecting this very silly epistle, with all its wild claims and shallow assertions, to the test of Socialist criticism.

The general purpose of the letter we are criticising is to seize the opportunity provided by the wide spread discredit thrown upon Socialism by the pseudo Socialists of Europe for the purpose of attaching the confused and bewildered workers to the pseudo Socialism of America. In other words, it is a deliberate attempt to prevent the workers from seeing and understanding the real cause of the failure of working-class political organisation in the present crisis, and the break-down of the "International,” in order that the workers shall turn their wearied eyes, not to class conscious political action, but to that snare and delusion, Industrial Unionism, with its kibosh of “taking and holding” and “locking out the masters.”

We are told that: “The events in Europe are likewise a demonstration of the principle that a pure and simple political party of Socialism, however revolutionary it may be in its utterances, cannot be of real service to the proletariat, let alone accomplishing [sic] its emancipation." In a mass of vague statements and ambiguities this assertion and its implications are clear. If it means anything at all it means that a Socialist political party has been called upon to stand the test of the present crisis and has failed. Only thus could "the events in Europe” be a “demonstration of the principle that a pure and simple political party of Socialism . . cannot be of real service to the proletariat." This implication is nothing but a sophism intended to discredit the class conscious political organisation of the workers—the reason for it we shall see presently.

The authors of the letter indicate who they regard as the “pure and simple political party of Socialism” when they say in an earlier passage, “ the European Socialist movement—and that means largely the movement in Germany, France and Austria,” and go on to talk of the “vast numbers which the movement in general in Europe enlisted under the banner of Socialism, the great vote cast in the various countries,” and so forth. They leave no doubt at all that it is those gigantic parties on the Continent who take up a similar attitude to that adopted by the Labour Party in this country whom they hail as the “pure and simple political party of Socialism"—for no other purpose than to be able to claim that Socialist political organisation has failed.

Against such deliberate falsehood, such treacherous misrepresentation, we rise indignant to defend the Socialist position. We repudiate the implied statement that Socialist political organisation has failed. We claim, on the contrary, that in the only instance we know of where Socialist political organisation has been put to the test, it has emerged unshaken, unsullied, and triumphant.

What are the facts concerning the political organisation of the so called “European Socialist Movement” ? What is the true significance of the failure of the “vast numbers” and the “great vote” that movement attracted to itself to count as a force against the machinations of high anarchists who have drenched the lands and seas of the world with blood? These questions are easily answered.

The political organisation which has failed to stand the strain of recent events was not Socialist political organisation at all, and the significance of its failure is that working class political organisation is useless to the workers unless it is firmly grounded upon Socialist principles.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always held that the essential principle upon which the political party of the working class must be based is the principle of the class struggle. The implications of this are several. The first is that only the class conscious may be admitted to membership in the organisation, since only those who are conscious of the working-class position in society can understand the class struggle, and only those who understand the class struggle can intelligently prosecute it on the political field. The second implication of the principle of the class struggle is that the political party of the working class must be uncompromisingly hostile to all other parties, for the reason that political parties are the expression of class interests, and the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class.

We claim that only upon this basis of the class struggle is it possible for the “political party of Socialism” (to use the phrase of the S L.P. of A.) to be founded. Political organisation which is not based upon this principle, no matter by what name it goes or how many millions of votes it may succeed in capturing, if it pretends to be Socialist political organisation, is spurious and fraudulent.

Political organisation is not merely a matter of enrolled membership. It is much more than this. It is the organisation of the vote both inside and outside of the political organisation. While its strength for organising the vote to the ballot box lies in its organised membership, its strength for political conquest lies in its vote. It is through this vote that the class struggle is to be ultimately decided. But the vote is only an expression of opinion, and its only value lies in the opinion that it expresses.

The logic of this is clear enough. If it is important that the organised members of the “political party of Socialism” shall understand the working class position, it is equally important that the organised vote, upon which the political party must lean in its assault on the political supremacy of the master class, shall be the expression of opinion of class-conscious, revolutionaries.

We are now at the root of the whole matter of the failure of the “European Socialist Movement” to take up and maintain the Socialist position in the recent crisis. These gigantic political organisations which disposed of so many millions of votes were not Socialist organisations. They were not founded upon the principle of the class struggle. They had not done the work of politically educating their supporters. They had not built up their strength upon an electorate understanding the working-class position and desiring revolution. These millions of so-called Socialist voters did not understand the class division in society, and did not, therefore, realise the unity of interest of the workers the world over, and the clash between the interests of the working class and the master class, at every point, nationally and internationally. Their votes had been attracted by all manner of nostrums and side-issues, and simply expressed opinions thereon, and not on the vital matter of working-class emancipation.

That is how the matter stood at the time of the outbreak of the war. We had always foreseen that political organisation upon such a basis must fail the moment it should be put to the test, and that in the time of crisis it could only bring disaster upon the working-class movement. In innumerable articles in our official organ we have stated this clearly, and events have justified us to the full. The so-called Socialists did not understand the class struggle, with its clear call, "workers, unite!” They were of that school (to which the S.L.P. of A. belong) who (here we quote the letter before us) “recognise the fact that the Socialists of Europe have been confronted with many problems which had to be solved before the real issue, Socialism versus Capitalism, could be decided.” They lacked, indeed, every essential of the mental equipment necessary to enable them to take up the line of action which their interests demanded—in short, they were not Socialists.

Before proceeding farther let us turn for a moment to another aide of the matter. The S L.P. of A. claim in their letter that had their views been adopted “certain measures could have been taken at least to minimise this terrible catastrophe ” ; indeed, they go further, and say that they believe that, “had the various brother-parties listened to our voice and adopted our suggestions, the present catastrophe now crushing the proletariat, might—if it had happened at all—have been turned to the defeat of the capitalist class, the overthrow of this barbarous system, and caused the ushering in of the Co-operative Commonwealth, the Industrial Republic of Labour.”

The real significance of this extravagant claim is that the S.L.P. of A. believe that the Co-operative Commonwealth can be established by an unclass conscious proletariat— a point to be farther dealt with.

We know that whether our teachings or those of the S.L.P. of A. had been propagated in Europe the course of events as far as the war and its conduct are concerned would have been very much the same. It may be noted in how many ways the mentality of the Socialist Party differs from that of the quasi-Socialist Party, and how this difference is revealed at every turn. The S.L.P.'s lament is that the European “Socialist” Movement failed to prevent or moderate “this awful catastrophe”; our complaint is not this at all for the reasons we have given. What we regret is the spectacle of what so many regard as the “great Socialist Movement” failing to make audible protest against the butchery of millions of the working class on the battlefield in capitalist interests. Nor is this all—these exploiters of our sacred cause have everywhere identified themselves with the war, and urged the workers to take up arms against their fellow wage slaves. To us this is the great injury inflicted upon the workers’ cause because we know how much this great betrayal will impede the work of spreading class-consciousness among our follow workers. Such education is not necessary in the minds of the S.L.P. of A., hence they are not concerned with this point.

We now come back to the matter of the contempt of the S.L.P of A. for the class-conscious political organisation of the workers. They assert that "the correct form of the economic organisation (industrial unionism) is the embryo, the undeveloped form of future society.” And what is this “industrial unionism”? The following quoted from the letter before us helps us here : “ . . . no one man can represent the varied interests of the different industries which are found within a given territory.” So industrial unionism, the undeveloped form of future society, is based, not upon the unity of the interest of all, but upon antagonism of interests by industries! It is quite clear that it is utterly hopeless to try to make this idea and class-consciousness — the very essence of which is the recognition of the unity of the class interest— run in harness together.

A moment’s consideration will show how little justification any organisation can have for describing itself as a Socialist body, that holds that “industrial unionism is the embryo, the undeveloped form of future society.” The idea is anti-social and anti-democratic. It is anarchistic to the very marrow. It is founded upon antagonism of interests; it presupposes that the means and instruments of production and distribution are to be controlled, not by the whole community, but by the industry! Just as it is the abnegation of working-class unity before the Revolution, so it is conceivable only as the antithesis of social unity after the revolution. It has, however, the same advantage from the point of view of those who want to shirk the arduous but necessary work of educating the working class that the compromising policy of the European “Socialists” has; i.e., it does not demand a class-conscious proletariat —indeed, it can only thrive on working-class ignorance.

The S.L.P. of A. talks as if it were the only body claiming the Socialist title who realises the necessity for the workers to organise on the economic as well as on the political field. This is far from the truth. The S.P.G.B. has always maintained the need for economic organisation, but has ever insisted that such organisition must be on class lines, and must be thoroughly class-conscious. Granted these essentials, it is quite clear that Socialist political organisation must, in point of time, proceed Socialist economic organisation. For both the political and the economic organisation must draw their adherents from the same general body of class-conscious workers, and the direction in which organisation can be maintained with the smallest numbers is the direction in which organisation will take place first. Economic organisation brings the workers into direct conflict with their employers who hold their livelihood in their hands It brings them also into direct conflict with the present trade unions. For these reasons it is sheer folly to talk about organising Socialists on the economic field until there are vast numbers of Socialists to organise, for the class-conscious few would be quickly starved out between the masters and their fellow workers.

How mad is the statement in S.L.P. of A. resolution to the Stuttgart Congress that the "economic organisation of Labor" (and by that they mean industrial organisation) is "the only conceivable force with which to back up the ballot”! Only the "take and hold” cranks, whose brain cannot get away from the idea that what is to be done on the day of the Revolution is to nip round to the workshop early and turn the key on the master, could harbour such a suggestion. As a matter of fact it is just as conceivable that political organisation could provide the force with which to back up the ballot as that economic organisation could do so. There are innumerable instances of political organisations backing their objects with force, and in capitalist society the supreme force is politically controlled.

Economic organisation of the working class is necessary for other reasons than the shallow one set forth by the S.L.P. of A. It is necessary for the fighting of the workers’ battle on the industrial field under capitalism; it is necessary for the maintenance of industrial order in the new-born Socialist Commonwealth. In order that it may perform the first function it must be organisation on a class basis; in order that it may perform the second function it must know nothing of any division of interest within itself, whether along the lines of crafts, industries, sex, nationalities, color, or whatnot. Obviously, then, Industrial Unionism cannot fill the bill.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain calls the attention of the workers of this and other lands to the fact that, founded as a political organisation upon Socialist, principles, it has maintained the true working-class position in relation to the war without difficulty. We cannot boast of the support of millions of voters at the polls, but no one can point to a single word or deed of ours, in this time of crisis, which has been a betrayal of the cause of the proletariat. Well for Socialism, well for the stricken workers, well for the great cause of humanity, if, when the present riot of anarchy is over, and those who have to pay for it in blood and tears come to count the cost and apportion tho blame, they realise that the political party of Socialism, weak though it was in numbers, was strong enough to denounce the war on all sides, strong enough to expose the misleaders of Labour and their purchased “patriotism,” strong enough to avow and maintain, in the face of a frenzy of insane nationalism, the unity of interest of the Workers of all countries, strong enough to remain Socialists and keep the flag of Socialism flying.

Editorial: Will Thorne and the Others (1917)

Editorial from the February 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

A REPUDIATION OF THEIR CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR SOCIALISM.

There was a time when Mr. Will Thorne was spoken of as "honest, blundering Bill Thorne." It was not honesty blundering, however, that led him, after specifically declaring during his last election campaign that he was not standing as a Socialist, to bawl from the balcony of the West Ham Town Hall upon the night of the declaration of the poll which elected him, that he had won a great victory for Socialism and Labour.

At the recent Labour Conference Mr. Thorne, in moving a hostile amendment to a resolution calling for the holding of an International Socialist Conference after the war, asked: "What sort of an International Conference would it be with delegates from Serbia and Bulgaria upon it?"

Would the man who claimed a Socialist victory when he did not stand as a Socialist, say if he stood as a Socialist when he arose to move that amendment and make that remark? It is not at all difficult to supply an answer in the absence of one from the member for South West Ham.

Mr. Thorne does not speak as a Socialist because he is not a Socialist. His claim to be such is exactly on a par with his claim to have won a victory for Socialism when he admitted that he had not fought a battle for Socialism. Not understanding the class struggle, not realising the unity of interest of the working class the world over, he is a nationalist—an anti-Socialist. But just as he regards himself as a Socialist, so he regards other nationalists of other lands as Socialists also. And just as his ignorance of the fundamental facts of the class antagonism has permitted this sordid masters' quarrel to fill him with hatred of his fellow-workers of other climes, so he sees the Thornes and Clynes of other lands seething in a hatred of their own class of other nations such as utterly precludes a peaceful international conference when the present strife is over.

Undoubtedly Thorne is right within certain limits. The hatred with which he regards his fellow working men of Germany and Austria and Bulgaria is no doubt heartily reciprocated by his mental parallels in those countries. And doubtless also that attitude of mind is as fully appreciated by Kaiser, Hindenburg, Bhung, Schippeowner, Schweater and the rest as is Thorne’s similar mental attitude by a like circle at home, as an expression of loyal love and fidelity toward “the hand that feeds.” To argue that such men can sit in peaceable international conference were fatuous, and therefore Thorne, so far, is right.

But this only proves what has already been stated here, that Thorne is not a Socialist. And by implication, neither are his mental images of other countries Socialists. And by the rules of logical argument, since a Socialist conference must be composed of Socialists, and since the Thornes and Clynes and Hendersons of this and other countries are not Socialists, a conference composed of such elements cannot by any possibility be a Socialist conference.

We always have maintained that the late conglomeration called the International Socialist Bureau was not Socialist at all. Events have proved us correct. The first blast of war found the Thornes and Clynes and Hyndmans of the various countries at each other’s throats. The "Socialist International” collapsed. It was not founded on the international unity of working-class interests; it was not reared and tested and levelled and plumbed and kept true and sound by that grand instrument for working-class guidance, the principle of the class struggle. Had it been so based and built Thorne would have been pitched out neck and crop at least at no later date than the first opportunity after he fought an election but did “not stand as a Socialist.” Such evidence that he did not (or would not) understand that the line of cleavage is drawn between the classes, and that therefore the political struggle must follow the same line, and that again therefore the man who “did not stand as a Socialist" in that highest expression of the class struggle, the political struggle, necessarily stood in opposition to Socialism—such evidence, we say, of these things, would have sufficed to place him outside any Socialist International that was such in fact as well as in name.

And the same remark applies to all the members of the Labour Party, who each and every one ran upon the same constitution, and not as Socialists. It applies also to those “Labour representatives” of other countries who have followed the same line of action. These men, and the organisations whose mentality they reflected, who could not separate themselves from their masters in peace time, would not have been permitted to remain in a SOCIALIST international to wreck it because, perforce, they found themselves in hostile camps in war time.

The Socialist can never be a nationalist. His mind can conceive no division of interests between the working peoples of the world. To him capitalism is one the world over, an international torture-rack on which every working-class race of the present day is stretched in agony. To him this capitalist war, terrible as it is, is but one of the torture twists of that rack, wringing impartially the thews of all workers unfortunate enough to be caught in its toils. His bosom, therefore, harbours no hatred for the German or Austrian worker whom he finds in arms against his fellow of Britain or France. Whether the combatants are the willing or coerced tools of the master butchers, and whichever side they serve, they are alike the subjects of the Socialist's pity, regret, and fraternal concern. He knows that they are a part of his class, wherever they are to be found; he knows that their ignorance, so curiously alike in England and France and Germany and Russia, as the late International itself, in both its rise and its fall, amply proves, is part of the class ignorance it is his mission to combat and disperse; he knows that their weakness as well as their strength, their agony as well as their emancipation, their struggle as well as their foes, are international. The only thing he finds in his whole political outlook that is not international is the sectional interest of the master class—before which the International composed of the Thornes and Clynes and Hyndmans of all countries collapsed like a house of cards before a “Jack Johnson.”

This is the difference, then, between Mr. Thorne and hie like on the one hand and the Socialist on the other and it is the difference between an International composed of Labour adventurers and one consisting of Socialists and founded upon Socialist principles. For the former Mr. Thorne may be permitted to speak—for the latter he never shall. Any Congress which may be engineered and set up by men of the kidney of those is doomed to be rotten at the start, since it must start with the assumption that the workers must defend their masters' property. It must therefore crumble at the test, whether it is confined to the “Allies” and neutrals or not.