The case of Philip Snowden, M.P. (1908)

From the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour member for Blackburn, like others who came to the front at the general election, strives to add to his income, (a paltry £200 a year with an extra £25 now and again) by lecturing at high fees, and by writing articles to suit the purposes of the millionaire proprietors of the trustified Press.

In the course of his peregrinations he has run up against members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in our last number we briefly recorded that our Manchester comrades had forwarded to Mr. Snowden particulars of compacts made between I.L.P. candidates and Liberals, with special reference to Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. James Parker.

Mr. Philip Snowden replied as follows : 

(Copy). 

10, Baron’s Court Road,

West Kensington, W.

Jan. 23, ’08.

Dear Sir,—There is nothing at all in all you say which gives any proof of an alliance or understanding. Your extracts simply prove what everybody knows, namely, that in the absence of a second Liberal the Liberal electors voted against the Tory.—Yrs very truly,

(Signed) Philip Snowden.

Now what do we say ?

“Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was adopted as the Labour candidate for Leicester, at a meeting held at the Temperance Hall on Jan. 5th, 1906. In the course of his speech he said that the trade union section, and that practically comprehended the whole of the movement, said that in connection with this election they must vote so that all votes in the House of Commons they could influence would be cast in favour of the upsetting of the Taff Vale judgment. They said the danger of Protection to the wage earners was so great and so pressing that they must fight and kill Protection, and so, after full discussion, their local Labour Representation Committee came to the decision, and he was empowered to communicate it to them that night, that on no account was it going to ask them to plump on Monday week (cheers), and their Trades Council came to the decision the other night to advise every working man, and everybody who was influenced by the Labour movement, to use both their votes, to give one to Mr. Broadhurst and the other to himself (loud cheers).

Councillor Hill proposed the resolution in support and asked every Progressive elector to use his two votes solid for progress and the advancement of Labour.

Alderman Wood, president of the Liberal Association, seconded. He said that his friends had decided not only to run one candidate, but they were going to take off their coats and work not only for the return of their candidate, but also of their good friend, Mr. MacDonald. Let them all work hard and vote for both the Progressive candidates, and then he should be confident of the result.”

Mr. Snowden may find a full report of this meeting in the Leicester Daily Post of January 6th, 1906, headed—

THE BOROUGH ELECTION.

LABOUR CAMPAIGN OPEN.

BRILLIANT SPEECH BY MR. J. R. MACDONALD.

UNITY WITH THE LIBERAL PARTY.

PROTECTION MUST BE KILLED.

Undoubtedly it was a brilliant speech, from a Liberal point of view.

The Leicester correspondent of the London Daily News, on January 15th, 1906, said, “Mr. Broadhurst and Mr. MacDonald, although on separate platforms, are urging that electors should not plump, but allocate their votes to the two Progressives.” Only by accident, of course, Mr. Snowden, there was no “understanding.”

In the Leicester Daily Post for January 16th, 1906, further speeches may be found. The polling took place on the previous day. The following is a reprint from the article “Labour at the Polls” which appeared in the Socialist Standard, March, 1906 :—

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

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

If no alliance existed, no “understanding” was arrived at, when these two parties—Liberal and Labour—”co-operated for the purpose of killing the late Government,” we have yet to learn what an alliance or “understanding” is.

With regard to Halifax, we said in March 1906:—

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

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

And Mr. Snowden says that Mr. M. J. Blatchford’s words do not prove the existence of any alliance or undertaking ! What would prove it to Mr. Snowden?

In November last we referred to Mr. Parker as having “made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election,” and Mr. Parker wrote to us to dispute a certain statement made concerning him in the same article, but did not deny the truth of this particular one. But Mr. Snowden rushes in where Mr. Parker feared to tread.

The member for Blackburn says that what happened was that, in the absence of a second Liberal, the Liberal electors voted against the Tory ! But if the votes polled were merely anti-Tory votes, what becomes of Mr. Bruce Glasier’s arithmetic in the Labour Leader of April 26th last ?

In the Smethwick Telephone for February 8th, appeared a column, which doubtless also saw the light in many another local journal, headed: “From Labour’s Standpoint, by Philip Snowden, M.P.,” in the course of which he says:—

“There is one great omission in the King’s Speech. There is no reference to the question of unemployment. It is amazing that a Government professing the zeal for Social Reform which carried this Government into power should ignore the acuteness and urgency of this matter. . . . The appointment of Mr. John Burns to the control of the department responsible for this work, a man who had himself known the want of food through unemployment, strengthened the hope that a sympathetic treatment of the problem would be adopted.”

Is Mr. Snowden simple or is he merely playing the game ? We must incline to the latter view. What Socialist could expect a capitalist Government to recognise “the acuteness and urgency of the matter of unemployment” from the viewpoint of the unemployed ? A reserve army of labour is necessary to capitalism ; the problem therefore will only become acute and urgent when that reserve army, assisted by those in employment, becomes dangerous, and that period, thanks largely to the tactics of Mr. Snowden and his friends, is a long way off. What Socialist regarded the appointment of Mr. John Burns as any promise of sympathetic treatment of the problem ? His appointment was a clever, very clever move of the Liberals. Burns understands Socialism, and was appointed as a foil. The Labour members are either envious of Burns or afraid of him,—probably both. He knows that their precious Unemployment Bill is a fraud, and has probably told them so, has sneeringly pointed out to them, say behind the Speaker’s chair, that if they are Socialists they cannot support their own Bill, with its monstrosity of a penal clause. Mr. Snowden complains that in the debate on the Labour Party’s amendment to the Address, John Burns—

“adopted an offensive attitude from the first. He had no justification for such a course. He followed almost immediately after myself and I had taken special pains to be friendly and sympathetic, and to recognise and admit the difficulties of his position.”

As if John Burns wants the sympathy of Mr. Snowden and his friends ! Of course his attitude was offensive, and it will be until the Labour Party make up their mind (if they have one) to fight him and the master class whose interests he so ably serves. Mr. Snowden continued :—

“A Labour Party in Parliament which remained quiet while men and women and children were starving outside would merit the condemnation of the country.”

Heavens! think of it ! All the time that there has been a Labour Party in the House, men, women, and children have been starving outside. And the Labour Party has been quiet, damnably quiet. It has boasted of its “sensibility, respectability, and adaptability” ; its fighting men have taken a turn on the terrace when they wanted to say that wicked word “damn” ; it has moved the adjournment of the House to draw attention to the shooting of natives in Natal, but behaved with Christlike meekness over the shooting of workers at Belfast; it has boasted of its connection with the Nonconformist humbugs and canted in P.S.A. pulpits, appealing for charity for the Hemsworth colliers (who have now been locked out for 171 weeks) when it should have been denouncing these people for supporting a system and a government which make such things possible ; it has expressed its gratification at the references in the King’s Speech to the Congo and Macedonia when it should have been raising hell over the condition of the people here at home; it has attended Royal Garden Parties and told funny tales concerning the working “classes” to “Docks” when it should have been organising the workers for the Social Revolution.

The Labour Party does “merit the condemnation of the country” !

Jack Kent

Mr. James Parker, M.P. and the “Socialist Standard”. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our November issue we printed two articles, headed respectively, “A Travesty of Socialism” and “Labour Members and Child Slavery,” in which the utterances of the Labour Member for Halifax were criticised. In the first he was accused of talking twaddle and calling it Socialism, thus proving that he was either ignorant or fraudulent. To that accusation he makes no reply. The second article dealt with a speech he had delivered at Burton-on-Trent on October 7th, and concluded as follows: “Thus Mr. Parker, having thrown over ‘political independence’ and made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election, now shows himself prepared to throw over anything else that may endanger his seat. We wish the I.L.P. joy of these ‘political job hunters.’ ”

Mr. Parker has sent us a letter which is printed below:—

Abercoynan.

1/12/07. 

Dear Sir,—I have just seen a copy of Socialist Standard for November. The words I used at Burton-on-Trent were the very opposite of those you quote. If you get the other paper (I forget the name) published in Burton-on-Trent, you will find that the words I used in reference to child labour were these : “Speaking for myself, I would never seek to hold any seat in Parliament if it were necessary for me to support half-time labour to hold it,” If you care to look up my record in this matter you will find no man in the Socialist movement has spoken out more strongly against half-time employment of children. Not only is this true, but I think you will find if you get the paper who were represented at the meeting you refer to by a reporter and I think the paper you quote from had no reporter present, you will find that my speech went the “whole hog” for the proper feeding, training and education by the State.

Yours truly,

Mr. James Parker, M.P.

A copy of Mr. Parker’s letter was submitted to the Editor of the Burton Daily Mail, and he has sent us the following communication :—

Horninglow Street, 

Burton-on-Trent. 

Dec. 12, 1907.

R. H. Kent, Esq., London.

Dear Sir,—I find on enquiry that Mr. Parker, was not properly reported in our issue of Oct. 8th. Our reporter was present, but he did not get Mr. Parker’s reply to the question accurately. What I understand the hon. member did say was that “members of the I.L.P., as a Party, would take up the attitude of getting the age limit raised if they had the opportunity.” I am sorry that our Reporter’s carelessness has caused so much controversy.—

Yours faithfully,

Arthur E. Brown, 

Editor & Manager.

We apologise to Mr. Parker and of course withdraw our criticism in so far as it was based upon the incorrect report sent to us. We have obtained the “other paper” but do not find the words Mr. Parker claims to have used. It reports that he said Socialists would like to get the State to look after their human needs. They wanted a doctor in the schools to deal with the ailments affecting the children, such as bad eyesight, defective hearing, and to see that all were properly nourished. He also advocated one good meal in school each day. To-day they spent a few millions on education and about ten times as much on armaments, but when they became a wise nation and a Socialist nation the figures would be reversed.

We have taken these words from the Burton Evening Gazette and must express our inability to understand Mr. Parker’s conception of a Socialism which would require a “few millions spent on armaments.” The coming of Socialism will mean the triumph of the wealth-producers over their exploiters. As the Manifesto of the S.P.G.B. fully explains, “in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to be emancipated,” and the emancipation of this class “will involve the abolition of all class distinctions and class privileges and free humanity from oppression of every kind.” Whence, then, will arise the necessity to spend a few millions on armaments ?

It will be noticed that Mr. Parker does not deny that he won his seat by making a compact with the Liberals. Of course he is not the only I.L.P. leader who has done so, particulars of several of these compacts being given in the S.P.G.B. Manifesto. With regard to his claim that he “went the ‘whole hog’ for the proper feeding, training and education by the State,” if one who believes that children should be fed, and trained, and educated by the “State” is a “whole hogger” we are glad we are not “whole hoggers.” The mother, for whom a State institution, however beneficent and well-equipped, can never be a substitute, is the proper person to feed and care for her children, and it is because we know that Socialism alone will make it possible for mothers to properly feed, and train, and educate their offspring that we are Revolutionists.

Jack Kent

A Travesty of Socialism. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Undoubtedly one of the greatest hindrances to a clear understanding of Socialism is the misrepresentation to which it is subject, not only from opponents, but also from those who, at times, call themselves Socialists. Here, for example, is Mr. Jas. Parker, Labour M.P. For Halifax, which position he secured by making a compact with the Liberal Party, assuring an audience at Swadlincote Town Hall (on October 8th) that the Army, Navy, and Post Office are Socialistic institutions, and that the last Government decided to socialise the telephones. Did anyone ever hear such twaddle ? What is Socialism ? It is the ownership and control by all the people of all the means of production and distribution of wealth. It is thus the very antithesis of capitalism. How, then, can you have Socialistic institutions in the midst of capitalism ? The Army and the Navy exist for the purpose of protecting the British capitalist class against the capitalist class of other countries and to enable them to extend their spheres of exploitation. Yet these according to our I.L.P. oracle, are Socialistic ! And the Post Office is admittedly an institution where the lower grade of workers are abominably sweated in order to provide a huge profit, which the P.M.G. (Tory or Liberal) may apply to the reduction of taxation. And as taxes do not affect the working class in the least, as their exploitation takes place in the factory—they are robbed at the pay-box—(a fact which even Mr. Victor Grayson has not yet grasped) what does it matter to them whether taxes are high or low ? There is all the difference in the world between State Capitalism and Socialism. In the former the members of the working class are still wage-slaves, even tho’ their conditions may be better than under Private Capitalism, but, as has been proved by recent events at Woolwich, the fear of dismissal always hangs over their heads. In the latter, all will be workers, owning and controlling all the wealth-producing implements that they operate. They will no longer be slaves, subject to be condemned to semi-starvation at the whim or caprice of a master, but free men and free women performing their share of the necessary work and enjoying, as only a free people can enjoy, the good things of life that they co-operate to produce. To argue that certain capitalist institutions are Socialist ones is misleading and those who so argue are either ignorant or fraudulent.

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

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VICTORY FOR CONFUSION.

Jack Kent

The Impending Collapse of Labourism. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the near approach of a general election the signs and portents that tell of the futility of what is at present known as the “Independent Labour Representation” movement increase and multiply. With one desire paramount in their minds—the desire to secure election—many of the candidates for whom the Labour Representation Committee is responsible, are quite ready to subordinate their independence to their election in the belief, quite honestly held doubtless in some cases, that some special virtue attaches to the right to append the letters M.P. after a name. Nor is this surprising. When men set out with the all-pervading notion that the imperative necessity of the hour is the formation of a “Labour Group” inside the House of Commons, without a very clear notion as to why there should be such a group, without being at infinite pains to understand the reasons underlying the supposed necessity, without being intimately acquainted with the only conditions upon which a Labour Group can be of utility and effect, it is not surprising if they think to proceed to their “independence” within the Commons, by very dependent methods without. It is not surprising that Mr. Richards, the L.R.C. candidate for Wolverhampton, for example, prefers not to take the chances of defeat in opposition to the Liberals when the chances of election in alliance with them are so bright. And this it would seem, on the authority of Mr. Tom Jones, representing the “Labour” side of the Liberal-Labour Conference held to make arrangements, is the position of the responsible officers of the Labour Representation Committee.

“They were satisfied that, anxious as they were to get a Labour Representative returned, it was impossible to do so on Labour lines exclusively. . . . The one object . . . which the Labour Party had was to try and replace one of the worst governments of modern times, . . . they regretted that some annoyance had been caused by individual men objecting to Liberals having anything to do with them,” and so on.

And these are the leaders of the movement that, once formed, was to march straight into the real working-class—the Socialist—camp, because forsooth, it could follow no other road. This was the assumption upon which the only argument of the I.L.P. (L.R.C. patron and sycophant) rested. And yet of the four men already in Parliament, and drawing their stipend from the L.R.C., three are quite frankly adjuncts of, and in no way distinguishable from, the capitalist Liberal party, while at the first approach of the general encounter with what are supposed to be (from the L.R.C. point of view) the forces of re-action, the political training of a life-time is too strong for their candidates, whose independence grows smaller by degrees and beautifully less. Of course. They want to get into Parliament. Many of them don’t clearly know why, and those who do have no intelligent force behind them to insist that they shall keep to the line of independence.

The I.L.P. having done all in its power to foster L.R.C’ism —mainly, it is true, for the purpose of securing monetary support for its own men naturally grows apprehensive at these indications of collapse, and protests against the Wolverhampton violation of the L.R.C. Constitution. But in the first place the L.R.C. has no constitution, and in the second the I.L.P. tactics are in the main the L.R.C. tactics, as defined by Mr. Tom Jones. At Halifax, Mr. Parker, I.L.P. candidate and member of the I.L.P. Executive, is in precisely the same position that Mr. Richards occupies, i.e., he has sold out independence and all to the Liberal Party. The I.L.P. will find difficulty enough, it seems, in keeping its own particular candidates in order, Without worrying about anything else.

The fact is, of course, that both the I.L.P. and the L.R.C. (not to mention the S.D.F.) have omitted to ponder the fact (or have deliberately blinked it) that to change a label is not to change an idea, and if from their youth up the working-class have been trained to give allegiance to Liberalism or Toryism, the return of Labour men—commonly so-called—to Parliament will not have the effect of changing their views ; while without that, change of view the Labour men returned, having no mandate and no strength at their back, are practically useless except to themselves, even when, as in the case of Crooks, Shackleton, and Henderson, they are not themselves, in everything but name, thick and thin supporters of one of the orthodox capitalist factions. Only by education, by an exacting and painstaking course of instruction in the true inwardness of the economic phenomena that affects them always to their detriment, can the working-class ideas be changed. The S.D.F., have frankly tired of this educational work, the I.L.P. were probably never able to perform it, and the L.R.C., without principles or object, and with only the most loosely defined policy, has always been nothing more than the happy hunting-ground (or perhaps we should say Tom Tiddler’s ground) for the man on the make, the political quack and charlatan. It remains, therefore, the more imperative that the S.P.G.B. should persist in its work with the determination and consistency which have characterised its efforts hitherto. To educate and organise the working-class of Great Britain into an army of irreconcilables at perpetual war with the forces of capitalism upon both the economic and the political fields, this is the purpose of the Socialist Party. And this purpose cannot be effected by compromise with capitalism, by arrangement, real or implied, by methods of confusion, by obscurantism of whatever consistency. It cannot be effected by indulging the particularly absurd hope of the Labour Leader “to unite working men of all shades of political opinion into one great Labour Party,” because a Labour Party cannot exist on any such basis, and would be useless if it could. It can only be effected by keeping essentials clear. And the first essentials are the absolute incompatibility of working-class interest with capitalist interest, and the necessity therefore, of translating the class struggle which is for ever manifesting itself on the economic field to the political field, to be waged with unceasing effort. This method may seem long and thankless, but it is the method that is sure in its results. Moreover, it is the only method.

A. James

The Pillory. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Labour party was under no delusion; for if a working-man was taken in to the Cabinet, they knew why, they knew the reason behind his being taken in.” Keir Hardie.

“It is now announced that by one of his last official acts Mr. Gerald Balfour has appointed Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald as one of the Local Government Board representatives on the committee (Central Unemployed).” I.L.P. Organ.

In what material respect would an appointment to the Central Unemployed Committee at the hands of a Tory Capitalist Minister differ from an appointment to the Local Government Board at the hands of a Liberal Capitalist Minister ? Answer Hardie. And if there is no difference may we not know the reason behind both appointments ? Is it not that the ministers know their men ?

“We find it difficult to understand the point of view of those ‘Labour men’ who have been congratulating Mr. John Burns on his acceptance of office. We naturally supposed that all would now see that he had definitely gone over to the enemy. Nevertheless it appears to some Labour members and candidates who are pledged to rigorously abstain from identifying themselves with either Liberal or Tory Party that this final act of repudiation of the Labour cause by John Burns is one upon which both he and they are to be congratulated. It passes all comprehension.” ‘Justice,’ S.D.F. Organ.

“The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress has passed the following resolution:

That the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress heartily congratulates the Right Hon. John Burns, formerly chairman of the committee, upon his appointment to the position of President of the Local Government Board, and wishes him every success during his period of office.” Morning Leader.

“Justice” adds the situation is Gilbertian when “we have the ineffable Winston Churchill, another colleague of Mr. Burns going down to support the Liberal opponent of Mr. Alderman Bowerman, who, as a member of the Labour group on the L.C.C., signed the letter of congratulation to Mr. Burns.” Agreed. It is Gilbertian. But when Mr. Will Thorne, a very prominent member of the S.D.F., that through its organ gibes at the absurdity of Mr. Bowerman congratulating Mr. Burns himself, as a prominent member of the Parliamentary Committee, signs a similar letter of congratulation, Gilbert pales his ineffectual fires. Perhaps “Justice” will now jeer Mr. Thorne, but as Mr. Thorne constitutes a valuable asset to “Justice,” perhaps not!

“Never was the I.L.P. so great, so strong, so full of courage as it is to-day. From every corner of the land reports pour in telling of crowded halls, revival, and organisation.” J. Bruce Glasier (I.L.P. Executive).

“What was their position as a party ? If he understood it—and he knew he was speaking for the heads of the party—they wanted to see in the next House of Commons a Liberal Party big enough to do something, and to let them see what they could do. Give your votes so that they will get into the same lobby as often as possible” Jas. Parker (I.L.P. Executive).

Mr. Glasier’s remark follows immediately after an adverse criticism of Mr. Parker. The ordinary person will probably incline to the idea that the great “Independent” Labour Party is full of courage because of the encouraging reception their advances receive from the Liberal Party upon which some of them are apparently dependent. It is reported that after Mr. Parker’s speech, a prominent Liberal rose to advise his fellow Liberals to give one vote to the Liberal and one to Mr. Parker. He hoped the Labour men would reciprocate the entente cordiale !

“The Durham miners are ballotting as to which of four constituencies Mr. J. W. Taylor shall stand for at the coming election. One of the four seats which are being ballotted upon is Chester-le-street, which is represented by Sir James Joicey, and last week Mr. J. H. Wilson, at one time member for Middlesboro’, addressed several meetings in the constituency in support of Joicey.” Labour Lender.

“There was no vacant places at house dinner to Mr. Thos. Burt, M.P. (Miners, Morpeth), at the Newcastle Liberal Club last evening. Letters of regret for non-attendance were read from Sir James Joicey. Mr. Burt said . . . Liberals and Labour men were natural allies. . . . There was no conflict of interest between one and the other.” Northern Echo.

After which striking example of Miners’ consistency, it is not surprising to read in the official organ of the I.L.P. that the I.L.P. is making remarkable progress among the miners. It is. The similarity in the mental tangles of both parties’ representatives, simply stands up to strike one.

“But circumstances are telling in our favour. At home the hopeless incapacity and irreconcilable antagonisms within the two prevailing capitalist political factions unquestionably help us.”

H. M. Hyndman, S.D.F. Dec.

“In all important matters, foreign, domestic, colonial, the Liberals express themselves as being determined to carry on the policy of their predecessors.” H. Quelch. S.D.F.

“This sham fight (between Liberal and Tory.) ” Every S.D.F. Speaker.

Irreconsignable antagonisms within the two Capitalist factions ! And this from “the Father of English Social Democracy”!! O Lor!!! will someone post Mr. Hyndman the S.P.G.B. Manifesto ?

“Mr. Shackleton, speaking at Nelson recently, formulated a programme of a startling revolutionary character. . . He declared himself in favour of Home Rule, Registration Reform, Payment of Members, Taxation of Land Values, the subjection of the House of Lords to the popular chamber and Public Control of the Education and Licensing Questions. Evidently the Labour Party is taking its courage in both hands when it does not hesitate to boldly declare in favour of such a programme. Why it is almost as far as that dangerous extremist, Campbell Bannerman, would dare to go.” H. Quelch (ironically), Dec.

“These, then, are some of the chief political reforms that Socialists will do well to keep to the front (Second Ballot, Payment of Members and Election Expenses, Adult Suffrage, Triennial Parliaments and the Initiative and Referendum.” J. F. Green, S.D.F. E.C. (Seriously).

“The question I wish to bring under the notice of English Socialists … is whether the time has not arrived when they should formulate a vigorous demand for all the political measures I have indicated (Second Ballot and Payment of Members and Election Expenses).” H. W. Lee, S.D.F. Sec.

Mr. Quelch is very ironical at Mr. Shackleton’s expense, very ironical. But all the same Mr. Shackleton’s immediate demands are not so very insignificant when, contrasted with Mr. Quelch’s fellow S.D.F’ers. Mr. Quelch’s satire like other peoples curses, invariably comes home to roost—if the metaphor will bear the strain.

Blogger's Note:

The formatting of this article in the original issue of the Socialist Standard neatly puts the contradictory statements side by side (see below) to give the full impact of the ILP/SDF opportunism and double talk. Sadly, I can't do the same on the blog and, as you can see, the quality of the scan isn't the best anyway.

Labour Members on Child Slavery. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

When is the case of the sweated children and “half timers” in the textile industries to be taken up by the Labour Group in Parliament? asks Reynolds' Newspaper. For years, it says, the Radical Democrats have been trying to secure better conditions for these little slaves of industry, and to some extent have succeeded. But surely, after the resolution passed at the recent Trade Union Congress, there is a special duty upon the Labour party to see that something further is done in this direction in the next Session of Parliament?

Reynolds is too optimistic if it thinks that the present Labour Party will do anything in this direction. Mr. David Shackleton and Mr. Gill, members respectively for Clitheroe and Bolton, have already expressed themselves against any action being taken. As they explained at the Belfast Conference of the Labour Party, if it were insisted that they should initiate or support legislation with this object, they would lose their seats and the societies they represented would withdraw from the Labour Party and this would involve the withdrawal of their payment of £900 a year to the Labour Party funds. But, we are told by some of our enthusiastic I.L.P. friends, the “Socialist” members of the Party will take the lead in the House of Commons, and the Shackletons and Gills will have to follow, and they call attention to clause 5 of the I.L.P. programme, ”The raising of the age of child labour, with a view to its ultimate extinction.” But the I.L.P. members of Parliament are not bound by the Party's programme, as witness the manner in which they threw it over at Kirkdale. And now Mr. James Parker, M.P.  for Halifax, and member of the National Administrative Council of the I.L.P., expresses his views. Lecturing at Burton-on-Trent on October 7th, on “Socialism and the Children,” he declared his belief in the children of the poor people having a free breakfast. "Indeed,” he said, “I believe that every child should have one meal a day at school.” He also advocated that they should sit together and be medically inspected. In what way these views touched Socialism he omitted to state, probably because he knew that they had nothing to do with Socialism at all. Neither did he outline the position of the children under Socialism. At the conclusion of his lecture he was asked whether a Bill was to he introduced during the next Parliamentary Session to raise the age at which a child could go to work. Mr. Parker replied that he did not know. He and other members of the I.L.P. favoured such a step, but as many of them represented such manufacturing centres as Halifax and Leeds, they would have to vote for their constituents and against such a course. Thus Mr. Parker, having thrown over “political independence ” and made a compact with the Liberal Party to secure election, now shows himself prepared to throw over anything else that may endanger his seat. We wish the I.L.P joy of these “political job hunters.”

Jack Kent

Against War When It Mattered (1984)

Classic reprint from the April 1984 issue of the World Socialist

July 1917, and the bloody butchery of world capitalism had been unleashed for nearly three years. Workers in their masses were being sacrificed as human offerings to the insatiable god of profit. The recruiting sergeants, in different countries and different languages, poured forth the propaganda of nationalistic hatred. 

And with them, supporting the recruitment for the trenches, were the bogus socialists. Yes, indeed, these so-called socialists, who wave the red flag in peace time and their national flags when the signal for war was given, had spoken loudly of "internationalism" before the war began. Easy to favour peace when there is no war, isn't it? But, because they were tied up in the ideology of capitalism and did not recognise it as a world system based upon a clear class division between capitalists and workers, the phoney socialists abandoned the interest of the working class in favour of the interest of capitalist nations. 

We publish below the Manifesto which was issued in 1917 to be considered by the proposed anti-war conference which was due to be held in Stockholm. It shows that, at the time when it mattered, we socialists held tight to our principles and upheld the case for world peace. 

Since 1917 socialists have been urged to support other wars. Indeed, some of those who were part of the minority of anti-war internationalists in July 1917 were subsequently to create the Russian state capitalist dictatorship which, in 1939, justified the Stalin-Hitler pact in the name of socialism. We have been asked to support "wars for democracy" and "wars of liberation" and even "civil wars for socialism". In every case the World Socialist Movement has refused to support the view that the workers' interest can be advanced in any way by means of capitalist war. It is not only in peace that we have spoken of peace, but in war too, even though the consequences for our members have not been easy or comfortable. 

So, in printing this, the first of our regular "classic reprints", we stand by what we stated in 1917. The parties referred to may now have different names; in different countries the militarist histories have taken different forms; but war in this century is of global proportions and has a single cause: the system of capitalism. And, as war has only one cause, so it has only one possible solution: world socialism.

_________________________

From Socialist Standard, July 1917

The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

To the proposed International Congress

COMRADES,- 

Residing as we do under the control of the "democratic" British Government, we are not permitted to send Delegates to the Congress to state our views, present our case, and defend our policy, as we so strongly wished. All the more is this to be regretted as our organisation is the only one in the British Isles that takes its stand upon a definite and avowed Marxian basis and follows a policy logically deduced from that basis. 

We hold that the Working Class must march to its emancipation from wage-slavery and the domination of the Capitalist Class, by the conquest of political power. In the British Isles the means wherewith to accomplish this are already in the hands of the workers, as, despite certain anomalies in our franchise, the workers have the overwhelming majority of the votes at their disposal when an election takes place. Hence the great, immediate, and pressing work requiring to be done is the education of the Working Class to an understanding of Socialism -to a realisation of their slavery and the method of their emancipation. 

The Working Class are slaves to the Capitalist Class. While the Workers produce all existing wealth by applying their labour-power to the materials provided by Nature, this wealth, and the instruments necessary for its production, along with the great storehouse of Nature's materials -the earth- are owned and controlled by the Master Class under a system of private ownership that necessitates the selling of the bulk of the products upon the markets. But while powers of production increase by leaps and bounds, the markets grow but slowly. Hence the struggles between the various groups of Capitalists for the control of these markets and the routes thereto so that they may dispose of the commodities the wage-slaves have produced. Practically all the wars of the last three centuries, from the struggle against the Dutch and Portuguese in India to the present colossal carnage which is devastating the whole world, have had their essential causes rooted in the demands of the various groups of Capitalists to control these markets and routes. 

The Workers' share of these conflicts has been to slaughter each other in their Masters' interests, to find a grave if killed, or be offered the degrading and comfortless shelter of the workhouse if disabled or maimed. The hardship, misery, want, and suffering following these wars fall always upon the Working Class. Thousands of cripples and tens of thousands of men with constitutions ruined by military service will feel the horrors of the struggle for existence with tenfold bitterness after the war. In the midst of the conflict the Pensions Minister, Mr. G.N. Barnes - a member of the ILP and of the "Labour Party", and "Labour" Member of Parliament for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow - has admitted that over 100,000 men have been discharged from the British Army as medically unfit for Service without allowance or pension of any kind. To soothe the ruffled feelings of these unfortunate victims of capitalist brutality this so-called representative of the Workers said: 

"It has been claimed that these men should be put on pension . . . . inasmuch as the doctors have passed them in . . . . I want to say that they will not get it while I am in the office."-Official Report, col. 254, March 6th, 1917. 

No matter which group of the Masters win the struggle, the Workers remain enslaved. The division of interests is not between the peoples of the world, but between the classes - the Master Class and the Working Class. Not, therefore, in their fellow Workers abroad, but in the Master Class at home and abroad, are the working-class enemies found. 

What interest have the Workers, then, in either starting or carrying on war for their masters? Absolutely none. 

Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow Workers. All those who on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist. 

Moreover, where the Working Class have the necessary means - the franchise - for their emancipation within their grasp it is clearly an anti-Socialist and treacherous act to urge them to use those means for the purpose of placing political power in the hands of the masters. The flimsy excuses so often used to cover up such acts of treachery to the Working Class merely add evidence to support the truth of this statement. 

Applying these tests of real understanding of Socialist principle and correct action to the organisations in this country claiming to be Socialist, we find all of them except the Socialist Party of Great Britain failing to stand that test. The Fabian Society, with Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. Sidney Webb at its head, merely wishes for an extension of the Civil Service system under the control of a bureaucracy, and is opposed to the Workers being emancipated from their slavery .In addition to supporting the carrying on of the war, both the society and its individual members readily support the return of Liberal Capitalists to Parliament. 

The so-called Independent Labour Party is ready at all times to make political bargains with the Capitalists and to urge the Workers to place power in the hands of the masters. Thus Mr. Ramsay Macdonald at Leicester, Mr. Philip Snowden at Blackburn, Mr. F. Jowett at Bradford, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, Mr. G.H. Roberts at Norwich, Mr. G.N. Barnes at Glasgow, and Mr. Clynes at N.E. Manchester all owe their seats in Parliament to bargains made with the Liberals, in return for which they gave their support to Liberals in these and other constituencies. While protesting - in some forms - against the war, and now urging "Peace by negotiation", the ILP allowed its members like Mr. Parker and Mr. Clynes to assist in the recruiting campaign. 

In a letter sent to his constituency on 11th September, 1914, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald said: 

"I want the serious men of the trade unions, the brotherhoods and similar movements, to face their duty .To such it is enough to say ‘England has need of you' and to say it in the right way. 

"They will gather to her aid; they will protect her." Daily Chronicle, September 9th, 1914. 

In the Merthyr Pioneer for 27th November, 1914, the late Mr. Keir Hardie, another ILP Member of Parliament, said: 

"I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting. I know too well all there is at stake." 

How is all this different from assisting in carrying on the war? How clearly it shows the treachery of the ILP leaders and Members of Parliament! 

Moreover, the ILP has allowed its members to accept office in a Capitalist government without making any protest or repudiation. It is true that their 1917 Conference passed a resolution dissociating the organisation from Mr. Parker's action in taking a Government office, but not only is Mr. Parker allowed to remain a member of the ILP, but no protest at all is made when other members, as Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Roberts, accept office under similar conditions. While protesting against German Social-Democrats voting war credits in the Reichstag, ILP members have steadily voted for war credits here. 

The claim of the ILP to be a Socialist organisation is fully repudiated by the actions of its members, of which the above are but examples. 

The British Socialist Party has been just as ready - if with less success - to try and enter into arrangements with the Capitalist parties for seats and offices. At General Elections they have shown their impartiality by advising the Workers to vote for Capitalist candidates of the Tory brand in some constituencies - as South Hackney, Norfolk, etc. - and for Capitalist candidates of the Liberal type in other constituencies. The one MP who until recently was a member of the BSP -  Mr. W. Thorne owes his seat to the Liberals and Tories in West Ham combining to make him a present of that constituency. In the early days of the war he, with Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Hunter Watts, and others, took a prominent part in the recruiting campaign, calling upon the Workers of Great Britain to take up arms for the slaughter of their fellow Workers on the Continent, although Mr. Hyndman admitted that whichever side won the Workers would not benefit a single jot. Just lately Mr. W. Thorne has returned from a trip to Russia, taken, along with Mr. O'Grady and Mr. W. Saunders, on behalf of the British Capitalists, to persuade the Russian Workers to continue the war on the Eastern side. 

In the ranks of the BSP a division of opinion has developed, resulting, after a struggle between the two sections, in the secession of the defenders of the war - Hyndman, Hunter Watts, Lee, Irving, and the rest - and the formation by the secessionists, of the National Socialist Party .The absurdity of the title is balanced by the merit it has of showing how completely pro-Capitalist and anti-Socialist these individuals are. 

The BSP has now joined hands with the ILP in a so-called peace propaganda, but the confusion and double-dealing lying behind this movement is shown most glaringly by the fact that both these organisations remain affiliated to the Labour Party that has whole-heartedly supported the war from its inception.

One of the rewards given for this support was the appointment of Mr. J. Hodge, "Labour" Member for Gorton, as Labour Minister. Within a week of his appointment he tried to show his utility to the masters by threatening to use the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act against the Boilermakers of Birkenhead, who were protesting against the rotten conditions imposed upon them by the employers. 

The organisation calling itself the Socialist Labour Party has never understood how the Workers are enslaved, and for years has propagated what it calls Industrial Unionism as the method of emancipation. Its attempts to reconcile this position with its claim to be a political party has led to such confusion in its ranks that when the war broke out it was divided as to whether it should support or oppose it. 

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN alone takes up the Socialist position here. At the beginning of the war we pointed out the essential factors forming its cause which we have given above, and we have steadily and consistently pressed this view by all the means in our power, and maintained it upon all occasions without change or deviation. Thus we said in the first issue of our official organ to be published after Britain's entry into the war (Sept. 1914): 

"THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN . . . whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands, who are being used as food for cannon abroad while suffering and starvation are the lot of their fellows at home. 

"Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity . . ." 

While in the February 1915 issue we said: 

"We . . . declare again that there was nothing in the conditions of any country which justified Socialists voluntarily supporting either side in the war, and record our condemnation of such action as a betrayal of Socialist principles arising from lack of political knowledge and unsound political organisation." 

So, with our own hands clean and our every action in accord with the CLASS struggle and the solidarity of the interest of the Working Class the world over, we bring before the international proletariat our DEMAND FOR PEACE without any change of attitude or re-adjustment of policy. We stand for PEACE without reference to terms, since the fruits of Capitalist war are the Masters', and only the pains and penalties thereof the Workers'. 

The grim humour of the claim that Britain is fighting to "crush Prussian Militarism" is clearly shown by the fact that a Bill is being passed through the liberty-loving, democratic British Parliament establishing "Militarism" in a far worse form than either the present Prussian or the late Russian rulers ever attempted. Men who have crossed the seas because they refuse to accept military service are to be forced into the army of the "allied" country they may be in or brought back to serve in the army here! 

To the Socialists of other countries we extend our fraternal greetings. As soon as conditions will permit us to do so we shall endeavour to join forces with our Comrades for the purpose of establishing a Socialist International Congress where Socialist policies shall be decided, where misleaders and tricksters who use the name and fame of Socialism will be exposed and denounced, where the message of Socialism will be sent forth to the toilers of all countries in clear and unmistakable terms, where the gage of battle against the Capitalist Class will be thrown down to the clarion call: 

"WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS; YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN."

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

20^th June 1917                                                                    193 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1.