Violence and the Labour Movement. (1916)

Book Review from the May 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Violence and the Labour Movement" by Robert Hunter, author of "Poverty," (George Routledge, London; The Macmillan Co., New York, 1916. 400 pp. cloth. 2s 6d. net.)

R, Hunter's Reform Bias Exposed.

Every Socialist recognises the complete futility of individual or mob violence as a working-class weapon, in face of the overwhelming power of the State. The fact that the “propaganda of the deed,” so dear to the Anarchists or direct-actionists, has always played into the hands of reaction is a commonplace. The Labour movement in all lands passes through despairing stages of such activity; and it is only as its futility becomes thoroughly realised, and the true nature of the problem which faces the worker is understood, that the worship of mere disorder or violence is outgrown. Its very hopelessness shows it to be a gesture of despair. It is the expression of economic and political weakness, disorganisation, and ignorant passion.

But this is not to say that the question of force has not an important part to play in the struggle for Socialism ; for when the need and time arrive the workers cannot hesitate to use force against force. It does mean, however, that the force to be used cannot be mere individual or mob violence. It must be the organised might of the whole working class, rooted in economic needs, and based on knowledge rather than on blind hate, and used because essential to complete the task of emancipation.

In essence, moreover, the success of a revolution depends, not upon mere force, but upon economic necessity. The role of force is secondary to this. And it is only because the economic necessities of the capitalist system pave the way for the working class advance to power, that Socialists are enabled to use legality in their educational and organising work; it is only because they are the expression of economic needs and forces that the workers have the opportunity of advancing from strength to strength until their power is sufficient to finally wrest from their masters the major force of the State.

This being the case, it is evident that any account of the role hitherto played by violence in the Labour movement must resolve itself into a record of the activities of men ignorant or doubtful of the economic trend, distrustful of the workers themselves, and filled with a conceit that foolishly credits miraculous powers to an “intellectual” few. And in a book just published by Messrs. Routledge entitled “Violence and the Labour Movement,” by R. Hunter, this fact is clearly shown. By far the most entertaining section of the book is that recounting the titanic struggle on the question of Anarchy that raged within and around the old International. Another section that is of particular interest is that on “The Oldest Anarchy,” dealing in particular with the lawlessness of American capitalists, and with that peculiarly American problem, the hire of armed bands of private detectives, such as the Pinkerton thugs. Apart from these interesting points there is little that is new to anyone who has digested Pleckanoff’s little masterpiece. “Anarchism and Socialism.”

But that is not all that has to be said about the book. The Socialist has a bone to pick with the author. Mr. Hunter vitiates any usefulness his book may have by special pleading of the most insidious kind in favour of the attitude of reformist organisations such as that jelly-fish, The Socialist (!) Party of America, of which he is an ornament. And it is significant in this connection that he suppresses the undoubted fact—urged with great force by Liebknecht in “No Compromise"—that Anarchy is directly fostered by the anti-Socialist policy of compromise, confusion, and political charlatanry which renders worse than useless most of the so-called Socialist and Labour parties of the' world. Indeed, to make it appear that the pseudo-Socialism which he favours is in line with Marxian principles he is reduced to misrepresenting those principles and to distorting the words of Marx and Engels. A few instances may be given, not as appealing to the authority of Marx—which appears to be a cult mainly in evidence among those who distort his teaching—but on the ground of appeal to the demonstrable truth of the scientific principles of Socialism, which transcend any personality.

On page 130 the author refers to Marx and Engels outlining in the Communist Manifesto :

   Certain measures which, in their opinion, should stand foremost in the program of labour, all of them having to do with some modification of the institution of property. In order to achieve these reforms, and eventually to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, they urge the formation of labour parties as soon as proper preparations have been made and the time is ripe for effective class action.

Now the truth regarding these measures is that, far from being those which, in the opinion of Marx and Engels, “should stand foremost in the program of labour,” they are expressly referred to in their joint preface to the Manifesto as being “antiquated” Owing to the vast changes that have taken place, and therefore

   no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded to-day.

Mr. Hunter’s first point, therefore, is definitely contradicted; but a far more important point remains to be dealt with. It will be observed that Marx and Engels speak of them not as being “reforms” at all, but as revolutionary measures. And so they are. They are suggested measures to be taken by the victorious workers only when the revolution is an accomplished fact. Mr. Hunter carefully conceals this truth. It brands his party as non-Socialist. But the facts are entirely beyond dispute. Marx and Engels say in the Manifesto regarding those very measures that:

the First Step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of a ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.
   The Proletariat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the Slate, i.e., of the proletariat organised as a ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
     Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected excepted by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
    These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Consequently. Mr. Hunter has distinctly falsified the Socialist position. Such measures are in no sense of the word “reforms." They give no possible basis for any reform program. They give no support whatever to the long lists of vote-catching reform nostrums professedly realisable while the capitalist class are in power. And they would be “very differently worded to-day."

The measures necessary when the workers have won their class battle can, indeed, only be definitely decided upon when that moment arrives. The only possible program for a Socialist party is Socialism ; and its only “immediate aim” is the straight fight for the conquest of the Stale in order to begin the transformation of capitalist society into Socialism. As the founders of scientific Socialism state in the Manifesto itself, their “immediate aim" is the “formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” Any party, indeed, whose immediate aim is less than this, is, by that same token, not a Socialist party.

In some instances the author’s attempt to graft his reform twaddle upon the authority of Marx and Engels is distinctly amusing, as when he says :

  Marx considered the chief work of the International to be the building up of a working-class political movement to obtain laws favourable to labour. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that such work was of a revolutionary nature.

Seeing that, as Marx said, the conquest of political power by the workers is the first step, it is obvious that the obtaining of “laws favourable to labour” must be “work of a revolutionary nature.” But that is not what Mr. Hunter wants his readers to understand: and on page 150 he says regarding the attitude of Marx toward the co-operative movement :

  Arguing that co-operative labour should be developed to national dimensions and be fostered by State funds, he urges working-class political action as the means to achieve this end.

Then he quotes Marx’s own words on this :

    To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working class.

Marx's own comment is a sufficient reply to Mr. Hunter's insidious attempt to misrepresent him. So far is it from being true that Marx, as Mr. Hunter implies, favoured the working class diverting their energies to the development of co-operation to national dimensions within capitalism with the aid of State funds, that he distinctly stated the contrary. In his letter on Unity sent to Bracke on the eve of the Gotha Congress Marx said on this very' matter:

   The workers seek to establish on a footing of social production, and in the first place, in so far as it concerns them, on a footing of national production, the conditions of collective production ; but what does this mean other than that they work for 'the overthrow of present conditions of production ? And this has nothing in common with the foundation of co-operative societies with the aid of the State.
   Regarding existing co-operative societies, they have value only in so far as they are the creation of the workers themselves, to which neither governments nor capitalists come in aid.

Let Mr. Hunter twist that if he can!

For the rest, it is obvious that where the the political elements of the class struggle are lacking these must first be obtained in order that the revolutionary struggle may proceed, and because the immediate aim of the Socialist Party must be the conquest of political power. In no sense do the pro-capitalist proclivities of Mr. Hunter and his kind obtain support from the founders of scientific Socialism. From the principles themselves it is clear that a Socialist party cannot be a reform party. It must devote its energies to organising the workers as a class for the capture of the citadel of the State. Only when that is accomplished can the workere pass any measures at all.—Until then all reforms are “gifts” from, and in the interest of, the ruling class. Consequently the Socialist Party must be revolutionary first and last.

*  *  *

If the early chapters of Mr. Hunter’s book, dealing with the struggles around the International, are, as has been said, interesting, it must at the same time be confessed that while the author had the material and opportunity for the production of a Socialist classic, he has failed to do more than produce what can only be characterised as a "red-herring.” The last chapter, indeed, contains elements of broad farce. It is the reductio ad absurdum of his so-called -Socialist standpoint. He lumps together the votes cast for the Labour Party of Great Britain, the Labour Party of Australia, the Social Democrats of Germany, and the other reform parties of the world in a grand total of eleven million votes for Socialism! It has no significance for him that over one half the world most of this vast army for "Socialism” vanished into the "dug-outs” of patriotism at a single blare of the bugle, and that the other half is getting ready to follow suit! His rhetoric is proof against unpleasant truth. He continues:

   Where shall we find in all history another instance of the organisation in less than half a century of eleven million people into a compact force for the avowed purpose of peacefully and legally taking possession of the world? They have refused to hurry; they have declined all short cuts . . .  they have declined the way of compromise, of fusions, of alliances . .  .

And so on in a dithyramhic crescendo of hysterical absurdity until at the end one sets down the hook in a burst of laughter.

Indeed, the pitiful reality is so tragically different to the author's gaudy imagery that one hastens to laugh in order to avoid tears.

F. C. Watts

Editorial: Violence and Fraud - and The One Ray of Hope. (1916)

Editorial from the May 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The few days previous to going to press have been full of moving incidents, none of which can be given the attention they merit owing to the little time and space available—and other things. A grave armed revolt in Dublin against English rule is raging at the time of writing. It is a revolt doomed from the outset, both because of the futility of its narrow nationalist aims, and the utter hopelessness of such a revolt against the mighty organised force of the political State. It is, apart from the fact that Socialism alone is worth fighting for, yet another illustration (if such were needed) that the organised Socialist conquest of the political power of the State is the only way, and that mere mob violence plays into the hands of the oppressor and strengthens the gyves that fetter us.

Such a revolt, however, is the natural result of centuries of alien oppression, which has forced the ideas of Irishmen into nationalist channels and blinded them to its futility. And it is at the same time a fitting commentary on the perfervid declarations of the British champions of "honour” and "righteousness” that "they” are fighting, above all, for the "rights of small nationalities”!

Contemporaneously with the above there have been secret sessions of Parliament, and following these have come proposals for body-snatching on a wider scale, and a renewed farce of "voluntary” enlistment for the married, even more farcical than those pilloried in our April issue. At first sight it was astonishing that proposals which had apparently been agreed upon were rejected by all sides as soon as put forward in open sessions, in favour of something even more drastic, but a closer inspection reveals again the deliberate fraud. The whole question has been staged again on an elaborate scale only in order to make complete conscription inevitable. And it has succeeded.

Nevertheless the role of the Labour Party has been particularly despicable. Many of its apologists have claimed that secret diplomacy was the cause of the war; yet they are the servants of State tyranny who actually demanded a secret session! Was it to cover their hypocrisy and enable them to argue, in favour of "Prussianism,” that military tyranny is necessitated by the grave needs of the situation about which they must not speak? Socialists will draw the obvious conclusion.

And what are the pseudo-Socialist organisations doing? Their conferences have just been held, and the brief news of their proceedings available at the time of writing sufficiently indicates their position. The letter of the National Council of the Independent Labour Party to the Zimmerwald International Anti-war Conference is significant. In it they say:

The Independent Labour Party neither condemns or condones the action of those who have voted the war credits. It realises that the pressure of circumstances in each of the belligerent countries, the different situations of the Socialist Parties, and the Parliamentary and military systems can only be fully understood by the comrades in those countries.

Such is their contempt for the fundamental principles of Socialism!

In the business of the Newcastle conference of the I.L.P. the same contempt is visible. The following weak resolution was proposed in connection with those prominent members who openly support and advocate capitalist murder for profit:

This Conference expresses its regret that certain I.L.P. members of Parliament have acted and voted in opposition to the declared policy of the Party regarding the war and Conscription, and instructs the National Council to inform these members of Parliament that a continuance of this opposition to the I.L.P. will make it impossible for the Party to support them at the next election.

On this there were some "brave words,” and then Mr. Ramsay Macdonald spoke :

He admitted that the man who was responsible for the recruiting campaign was responsible for the imposition of Conscription! (Cheers.) The recruiting campaign had encouraged the Government to undertake policies which could not be carried through except by Conscription. But he was not going to say that men who had participated in the recruiting campaign should be turned out of Socialist organisations. (Hear, hear.)

Whereupon the I.L.P. expressed its own rottenness by voting down even that mild censure of anti-Socialism and treachery, by passing to the "Previous Question” by an overwhelming majority!

Next, in view of the open flouting of every Socialist principle by the Labour Party, of which the I.L.P. is a part, and by the Labour Ministers that it supports, the expected also occurred. A resolution to reconsider the affiliation of the I.L.P. to this Labour Party of infamous memory was also defeated by an "overwhelming majority."

The anti-Socialist attitude of the I.L.P. on the war in particular has been exposed in past issues of this journal, but even the increasing hardship, the growing tyranny, and the ever more obvious anti-working class objective of the war advocates does not succeed in opening the eyes of the leader-ridden and reform-blinded rank and file of the I.L.P.

The so-called British Socialist Party is another case in point. By “British” many of them mean anti-German. And they are still falling to pieces. The more extreme war advocates, led by H. M. Hyndinan & Co., have seceded to form a “National” Socialist Advisory Committee. Is its advisory function to further advise the authorities regarding unpatriotic members? As was stated when we abandoned the S.D.F. twelve years ago owing to the ineradicable pro-capitalist nature of that body, it was hardly necessary to expose it because its inherent rottenness would kill it. And so it is proving. It propagates chiefly by fission. Indeed, it appears likely to continue to do so until its only remaining organised phase will comprise Hunter Watts and Hyndman as amateur auxiliaries to the organisation of Scotland Yard !

In direct contrast to all the above was the Easter Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It was well attended both by delegates and members, the public also being admitted. But although a report is not available at the time of writing, the important point may be mentioned that there was not the slightest division on matters of Socialist principle. Regarding the attitude naturally and inevitably taken up by the Socialist Party in complete opposition to all capitalist war, and against every manifestation of capitalism as such, there was no difference of opinion and consequently no discussion, except on points of administrative work. This is a fact of which the Party may well be proud. But that the Party is most keenly alive to its responsibilities was proved by the interest taken in, and the sharpness of, the discussion on the Report of the Executive Committee a discussion which centred largely on questions of organisation and the correct procedure to be used in cleanly and democratically ridding the Party of any who may choose to play fast and loose with the principles of Socialism. The earnestness that prevailed may be gathered from the fact that an extra session of over four hours beyond the appointed time on the Saturday evening was required to conclude this discussion on the important problem of Socialist organisation.

In all respects the conference was a business meeting of Socialists; no electioneering claptrap was indulged in, nor window-dressing resolutions put forward. Indeed, it was clear that the Party regards itself in the most serious light as the nucleus of the revolutionary working-class, and is determined to keep its house in order and its principles free from all entanglement, so that it may adequately fulfil the historic role that lies before it.

This, then, is the ray of hope-that cheers us. And it is not idle to mention further that this cheerful confidence in the future of the working class in the midst of its blackest trouble was reflected even in the great gathering of members and their personal friends who filled the large hall of the Fairfax Halls on the occasion of the Social gathering of Good Friday evening. Never had the hall been so filled, and never with a more cheerful or kindly gathering. And so the new year of party activity opens with good hope. The Party faces the trying times to come absolutely united, fully conscious of the great difficulties to be faced, and of the great distance to be traversed. But it faces the future determined to prosecute the essential educational and organising work in the great class war for Socialism with the utmost intelligent vigour in spite of the difficulties and dangers that surround it at the present time.

'To The Advocates of Militarism'. (1916)

From the May 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

Compel them to come in, for there shall be
A feast well-spread, to suit the taste of all-
Ruin and pain and untold misery;
The downward trend, the devastating fall,
From every higher impulse; robes to wear
Woven of fraud, hypocrisy and lies.
Compel them to come in that all may share
This wolfish feast of bloodstained infamies.
Not yours the chains of slavery to break;
You heed no woman's sorrows, no man's groans,
No flag of freedom in the breeze unfurled.
Your passion is destruction, you would make
A world-wide graveyard full of dead men's bones.
Whence reeks a stench that sickens all the world.

F. J. Webb.