Party News Briefs (1954)

Party News from the March 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last October a member suggested to S.W. London branch that a “Sale of Work" should be held to raise the funds a little. The branch agreed immediately; a small committee was set up, and December 19th was arranged as the date for the sale. All London branches were circularised, as were some thirty members who had already indicated that they were prepared to collaborate, inviting them, not only to the sale, but to donate some article of whatever shape, size or description. In the end, although many of the articles were obviously not "home made," a good, varied collection was offered for sale, for which the donors are heartily thanked. Some of them were apparently turning teetotal: there were three sets of drinking glasses and two bottles of mead. The sale commenced at 3 p.m., and within 10 minutes there was £2 in the kitty. Thereafter trade was not quite so brisk, but there was £7 in the till by 5 p.m., and when the remainder of the goods were sold during a social in the evening the total had reached, with the aid of a raffle, £19 5s. 10d.

Some of the children present in the afternoon were too young to appreciate the "Sale of Work," but proved good customers in the canteen.

A further sale will no doubt be organised. Craftsmen to work!

#    #    #    #

A further reminder of Conference, April 15th, 16th and 17th at Conway Hall. Social and dance is being held on the Saturday (16th) and delegates requiring accommodation are urged to contact, through their branches, the Central Organiser.

#    #    #    #

The third of the series of meetings organised by Paddington Branch is being held at Denison House on Sunday, March 7th, at 7 p.m. The fourth and final meeting is being held on Sunday, 4th April. The two earlier meetings have been successful and the Branch urges Members to bring friends and sympathisers along to ensure the success of the final meetings.

#    #    #    #

It is not too late to send your annual subscription for the Socialist Standard—5s. 6d. post free per annum.

Phyllis Howard

About Books (1954)

Book Reviews from the March 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Even in these days of scientific research, men cling to some very peculiar superstitions. Some of the beliefs and superstitions held by man in his less enlightened past now appear to be downright ridiculous. Worship flows from superstition and Mr. H. Cutner in his book,“A Short History of Sex-Worship" portrays for us some of the queer ideas, customs and forms of worship of bygone days.

For primitive man fertility was something to worship. Good crops and plentiful cattle meant an adequate food supply. Large families ensured many hands to sow and till and hunt and work. Famine and barrenness were things to dread. Small wonder that in his imaginings he conceived gods of fertility who had power to make or mar his existence. Such gods would need to receive sacrifices and to be worshipped in order to induce them to cast a favourable eye in the direction of the worshipper.

From such superstitions arose many religious cults and practices. The sun and the seasons came in for a good share of worship; so also did the human sex organs. This worship of man’s generative powers is known as phallic worship and has played a great part in the ideas and practices of many religious cults.

Mr. Cutner traces the history of phallic worship from earliest times, through the days of ancient Egypt, biblical times, the ancient Far East, Rome and India and shows us how many of the old-time phallic practices have passed into modem religions in a disguised form. He quotes from many sources but we think that the ideas of some of the authorities are a little far-fetched. It appears to us that some of them have seen a phallus around every corner and have mistaken everything that even remotely resembles a male or female sex organ for a sex symbol. We get the impression that some completely irrelevant factors have been viewed solely from an angle suitable to the investigator’s foregone conclusions.

Nevertheless, Mr. Cutner, in presenting this material to us in a concise and easily readable form, has done good work. Collected into his 215 pages is more useful material on the subject than is usually found in far weightier tomes.

The book is published by Watts and Co. in paper cover for 2s. 6d. and is available to members of the S.P.G.B. from Head Office book department.

From Australia comes a novel by a certain Frank J. Hardy entitled “Power without Glory.” The theme of the story is expressed in a quotation from Charles Kingsley that precedes part one of the book,

“A working man who deserts his own class, tries to get on and rise above it, enters into a lie.”

The story opens in 1890 and leads us through a series of Australian political events up to very recent years. It tells of a young working class man who, by unscrupulous and callous methods, rises out of his class to become a millionaire. Our knowledge of Australian political history is not sufficiently detailed for us to distinguish if all the political events narrated are completely factual. The names of a number of prominent and well-known Australian politicians appear in the story with very little said to their credit.

The author tells us in his concluding note that his book, and others to follow, will not advocate the class struggle but will recognise its existence; that Capitalism, having served its purpose, is convulsively passing, to be replaced by a higher social order. Socialism. Mr. Hardy's sympathies obviously lie with the Australian communists.

The book is illustrated but not well produced having a paper cover and poor quality print, which leads us to suppose that the author had some difficulty in finding a publisher.

We referred recently to books by Jack London and one by Irving Stone. We have recently read Irving Stone's story of Jack London entitled, "Sailor on Horse Back.” This is an earlier book of Mr. Stone’s and the style is not so mature as in “Darrow for the Defence.”

Jack London was undoubtedly a sincere, well loved and exceptional man. An illegitimate child, reared in poverty, he became a news-boy, a pirate, a laundry worker, a seal hunter, a tramp, a gold prospector, a lecturer, a farmer and, after many other things, one of the world's foremost novelists and short story writers. As a writer he earned fabulous sums, every penny of which, Mr. Stone tells us, was mortgaged before London received it because of his super-generosity and harebrained schemes to build boats, houses and farms.

Jack London was called a socialist. Some of his writings, such as his small booklet, “The Strength of the Strong” are masterpieces of educational propaganda dressed in story form. We would classify him as a “Rebel Labourite ” but much of his writing was useful in helping workers to an appreciation of their class status in capitalist society. His life was a series of sensations culminating in suicide in November, 1916. The story of his life makes interesting reading.

W. Waters

Unity with the I.L.P. (1954)

From the March 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received from the I.L.P. the unity proposals set out in the letter published below. We publish also the reply sent to the I.L.P. by our Executive Committee, which explains our attitude to such proposals.

Socialist Party of Great Britain,                   7th January, 1954.

52 Clapham High Street,

S.W.4.

Dear Comrades,

I have been instructed by the National Council of the IL.P. to give you below copy of a Resolution which was passed at our last Conference:—

NEED FOR A UNITED SOCIALIST PARTY

“Conference realises that it would be folly to allow individuals who know little or nothing about socialist theories and ideas to vote on the formation of socialist policy, and therefore we admit to membership of our party only people who realise the need for the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of a Socialist Commonwealth.

“It is not surprising to us that well-meaning socialists who are members of the political section of the Labour Party are continually frustrated (as they are bound to be) when their ideas and resolutions are voted down with soul-destroying monotony at every annual conference by the insensate block vote. The block votes are cast in the names of millions of people who are in most cases never consulted.

“It is not incumbent on the Trade Union leaders who wield the block votes to be socialists, and it is obvious that very few of them are.

“We appeal to active socialists and to those who have dropped out in despair, and also to young socialists who have not yet attached themselves to any party, to join with us in the I.L.P., where every member has a voice in matters of policy, and whose conferences are democratic and uninfluenced by outside block votes. The need for socialism is now so great that the I.L.P. appeals for closer united effort with all other parties or groups which agree with the essential socialistic fundamentals for which we stand. If any possibility arises of a united socialist party based on those fundamentals, no considerations of prestige or sentiment should stand in the way of its formation.”

I should be very much obliged if you would kindly give this matter your friendly consideration and let me know at your convenience whether you will be prepared to join with us in an attempt to bring together the socialist forces in the country for a closer united effort as mentioned in this resolution. 

Looking forward to the pleasure of your reply, 

Yours fraternally,

John McNair

REPLY

Mr. John McNair,

General and Political Secretary,

I.LP.

Dear Mr. McNair,

We thank you for your letter of 7th January in which, on the instruction of your National Council, you forward the resolution on the "need for a United Socialist Party” passed by your last conference. The resolution looks to the possibility of forming a united socialist party and your letter asks if the S.P.G.B. is prepared to join with the I.L.P. “in an attempt to bring together the socialist forces in the country for a closer united effort as mentioned in the resolution.” 

Before dealing with other issues raised by the resolution we should explain that the S.P.G.B. has always been unreservedly in favour of common action with parties and groups that are socialist; as for example, in our relations with overseas bodies based on the same principles as the S.P.G.B. On the other hand we are explicitly bound by our constitution to oppose parties whose activities do not promote working class emancipation, that is to say, parties that are not socialist

It is in the light of this that we must consider your proposal that the S.P.G.B. should unite with the I.L.P., and with other parties and groups based on the same fundamentals as the I.L.P.

In effect therefore the S.P.G.B. regards its own declaration of Principles (a copy of which is enclosed) as the sound basis for socialist organization while the I.L.P. resolution invites the S.P.G.B. to unite with the I.L.P. and with other parties or groups on the basis of the LLP’s “essential socialist fundamentals.”

In view of the widespread misuse of the term socialist to mean reforms of capitalism and measures to extend State capitalism or nationalisation it is of course necessary to be clear about the I.L.P’s present proposal to make “socialist fundamentals” the basis of unity. Your letter does not touch on this but the resolution does so itself in the earlier and longer section dealing with the Labour Party.

The resolution condemns the domination of Labour Party conferences by the block vote of the trade unions on the ground that the block votes are wielded by trade union leaders very few of whom are socialists, and that because of this (to quote the terms of your resolution), “well-meaning socialists who are members of the political section of the Labour Party are continually frustrated . . . when their ideas and resolutions are voted down with soul-destroying monotony.” Your resolution goes on to appeal to them to join the LLP. in which there is no block vote to hamper them.

We agree of course that the idea of achieving socialism by tagging the label socialist to a body largely made up of affiliated unions and wholly composed of social reformers is as absurd now as it was when pointed out by the S.P.G.B. in the infancy of the Labour Party; but we cannot agree that the non trade union elements in the Labour Party stand for socialism. The readily available evidence proves this to be quite untrue.

On this we would refer you to the Labour Party document setting out the several hundred resolutions placed on the agenda for the Labour Party Conference 1953. The overwhelming majority of these were submitted not by trade unions but by local Labour Parties, i.e. by those referred to in your resolution as the “well-meaning socialists” whose resolutions are voted down. In vain we search among these resolutions for indication of socialist ideas.

The point can be illustrated from the 30 resolutions on nationalisation only two of which were submitted by trade unions, the rest coming from local Labour Parties. As a body these 28 resolutions assume the continuation of the wages system, of property incomes, of production for sale and profit—in short the continuation of capitalism, modified only by some extension of nationalisation or State capitalism. Not one of them opposes Nationalisation along with private capitalism. Not one of them envisages the emancipation of the working class by the abolition of capitalism. Not one of them could be supported by “socialists” unless the term is again misused to mean social reformers and advocates of State capitalism.

We are therefore left with the impression that the aim of the IL.P. resolution is to secure some re-alignment of social reformist groups in this country on a basis that would be acceptable to many of the Local Labour Parties whose only complaint is that their efforts, to secure Labour Party Conference support for their reform measures are blanketed by the trade union vote. This is of course not a basis for unity for socialists.

If your National Council has in mind any particular statement of I.L.P. principles that in the terms of the resolution it would consider appropriate for the proposed united body perhaps you would provide us with a copy.

At the same time we would ask your National Council to state what is their attitude towards our view that the S.P.G.B's Declaration of Principles is the sound basis for socialist organisation.

Yours for Socialism,

                                                                                                      Executive Committee,

                                                                                                                                             S.P.G.B.

                                                                                  

Backwaters of History - 6 (1954)

From the March 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

English Naval Mutinies 1797

There are two old, historic and important roads leading out of London, known now-a-days as the A2 and A3 and leading to Dover and Portsmouth respectively. In the late 18th century these were loose surfaced highways, infested by highwaymen and toll gate keepers.

During April, May and June of the year 1797 there was much thundering of horses hooves, rumbling of carriage wheels and creaking of wide flung turnpike gates on these two roads. There was a dashing hither and thither between Whitehall and Portsmouth and Sheerness. Steaming horses were urged on by whip and spur to break speed records. Terrific consternation—the British navy was on strike—right bang in the middle of a war.

Napoleon was threatening to invade England. Part of the fleet were at anchor at Plymouth, at Spithead, at Yarmouth and at The Nore, all in readiness to attack the French fleet if it emerged from Brest.

In March and April the seamen of the Spithead fleet sent a number of petitions to the Admiralty, to Admiral Lord Howe, to Parliament, to Charles James Fox and to the king. The sailors had many grievances.

The main grievance was pay. Rates of pay that were set during the reign of Charles II still prevailed in the reign of George III, about 130 years after, despite great increases in prices. From a sailor's meagre pay there were many stoppages and most men's pay was months and months in arrears. Now they asked for a rise and regular pay. 

They also wanted an increase in the quantity and even more important, an improvement in the quality of their food. The food they received was maggotty, rotten and mostly inedible. Any little extra they requested was charged to them at extortionate rates and supplies of the sick was embezzled by officers. They wanted proper care for the sick and pay when wounded.

Seamen were kept to their ships for years without shore leave. Conditions were so vile that the Admiralty was afraid to grant shore leave knowing that the men would not return to the sea. Now the sailors petitioned for a modest measure of leave. 

The men did not protest about discipline but they did call for the removal of the disciplinary abuses that were rife. Flogging was the main disciplinary punishment and, although naval regulations laid down a maximum of twelve strokes for an offence, no officer was deterred from giving more, even to over a hundred lashes, often for the most trivial offence that was probably provoked by the officers themselves.

"To be flogged was to be tortured. The first stroke to be laid on by the brawny boatswain's mate, as hard as he could at the full length of his arm, would always jerk an involuntary 'Ugh!' out of even the most hardened unfortunate 'seized up to' the grating at the gangway; six blows tore the flesh horribly, while after a dozen the back looked like 'so much putrified liver.' After a time the bones showed through, the blood burst from the bitten tongue and lips of the victim, and expelled from his lungs, dribbled from his nostrils and ears. To make sure that the standard of hitting was maintained, the wielder of the cat would be changed every two or three dozen and the blood was wiped off the thongs between each stroke to prevent them sticking together . . . A severe flogging smashed a man, he was ill for weeks after it, and rarely recovered his self-respect if he originally had any good in him." -"Sea Life in Nelson's Time," by John Masefield.)

Ships were rotten, leaky and foul smelling; drinking water was foul; the food caused scurvy; ship doctors were drunkards and without skill; officers like the notorious Captain Bligh of the "Bounty" were brutes.

The war with France made it necessary to double and treble the size of the navy and the ships were manned by men released from debtors prisons, shanghaied from merchant ships in port and recruited by quotas from each county, a bounty being offered to volunteers. Quite a number of men, better educated than the regular seamen, were attracted into the navy by the offer of the bounty.

Secretly, carefully and with success an organisation had been built up in the separate fleets although with little contact between the fleets. A few sporadic, single ship mutinies against the vile conditions had occurred at times during the previous years. The organisation in the separate fleets in 1797 appears to have been spontaneous.

Very wordy petitions, expressing loyalty to king and country and willingness to fight the French if the invasion became imminent, but demanding redress for their grievances were despatched and replies patiently awaited. The organisation at Spithead was tightened up, each ship appointing two delegates and the battleship "Queen Charlotte" selected as unofficial headquarters. Plans for action were circulated, signals arranged and a time set for action. The delegates were mainly young men holding some non-commissioned rank.

Before the plans were complete events on the "Defence" precipitated action and the whole Spithead fleet went on strike. It was called a mutiny but it had none of the hall-marks of the usual mutiny. The men carried on with their normal duties, respected their officers but refused to put to sea. The delegates were afforded the privileges of officers, they maintained strict discipline amongst the men and issued many statements and orders for the control of the strike. Everything on the surface appeared normal but the officers had no power.

The Admiralty and the officers made threats, but the men remained unconcerned. The Admiralty made promises to redress some of the grievances, but the men rejected them. A bill to increase sailors' pay was introduced into Parliament but there was delay and procrastination and the men became impatient. The most detested officer were put ashore and a fracas broke out on the "London" resulting in the death of one man. Further bloodshed was averted by the delegates and Admiral Colpoys. The delegates court martialled the officers concerned, found them guilty but reprieved them.

When the government realised that the seamen were not to be trifled with it granted their demands. But the delegates were still suspicious. They demanded a Royal Pardon in writing and that the officers they had set ashore should not be returned to their respective ships. Lord Howe was sent to Spithead with the Royal Pardon and authority to grant the men's demands.

Having achieved their demands the sailors organised a grand gala and there was much carousal and fraternisation between Lord Howe, Portsmouth civil authorities and the seamen. The two most prominent of the delegates, 25 year old Valentine Joyce, Quarter Master's Mate of the "Royal George" and John Fleming, 25 year old A.B., were especially feted.

As the Spithead fleet celebrated its success The Nore fleet went into action to achieve similar improvements in conditions and pay. The organisation here was less complete. John Parker, a 30 year old ex-schoolmaster, rated as a supernumerary A.B. on the Depot ship "Sandwich," was quickly elevated to the position of President of the delegates.

The "Sandwich" was a 40 year old decaying corpse ship, smaller than Nelson's "Victory" with a full war complement of 750 men. When it laid at Sheerness in 1797 it had on board about 1,600 men.

"One has a vision of writhing humanity, like worms crawling over one another in the foetid pot of a boy fisherman . . . "("The Floating Republic," by Dobree and Mainwaring.)

This hotbed of fever and disease became the headquarters of The Nore fleet mutiny.

The Naval authorities took advantage of the weaker organisation of The Nore seamen and refused to talk with the delegates, making stronger threats backed with a show of military force. All the ships of the Nore fleet were not unanimous in their support of the mutiny and before long the struggle began to weaken. The "Clyde" and the "San Fiorenzo" pulled out from the mutinous fleet.

Food supplies became short and the delegates decided to hold up merchant shipping en route to and from London. This raised the ire of the London merchants and an emergency naval force were recruited to be sent against the mutineers, civilians from all walks enlisting for the job.

By June it was becoming more and more difficult for the delegates to hold The Nore fleet together. The "Repulse" and the "Leopard" attempted to escape and were fired on by the other mutineers, only the "Leopard" getting away. During the following days other ships drew out. As arguments went on in the ships the people of Sheerness saw the Red flags replaced by the blue and white, them, perhaps the red ones going up again, to be replaced yet again.

Men tried to escape. The authorities were jubilant and took steps to prevent escape. A pardon was offered to men who would give themselves up. On June 13th John Parker handed over the command of the "Sandwich" to the officers after a meeting of the men of that ship. So the Nore mutiny dissolved.

The naval authorities took revenge. Parker, with 28 others, was executed, a few others received from 40 to 380 lashes with the cat, whilst others were imprisoned.

The Plymouth fleet gave slight support to the Spithead seamen whilst the Yarmouth fleet adhered to their comrades at The Nore.

The Spithead affair achieved immediate results whilst the Nore mutiny appeared to have failed. But the fierceness of the Nore outbreak to which the Yarmouth fleet had been attached, the length of time it lasted and the threat to London was probably a greater contributory cause of the naval reforms that were introduced during the early years of the 19th century.

Books to read:
"The Naval Mutinies of 1797," by C. Gill
"The Floating Republic," by G. E. Mainwaring and B. Dobree.

W. Waters