Bevan—Reformer, Prophet and Politician (1952)

Book Review from the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his book “In Place of Fear” Mr. Bevan states his case in opposition to official Labour Party policy and pleads his alternative. It is skilfully done; clever in the way in which it uses quite a lot of words to say nothing, and in telling the old, old story to make it seem quite new, proposing what are in fact the old reforms but making them appear revolutionary.

Mr. Bevan has been connected with the Labour Party from youth and it is an understatement to say that he knows it very well. He knows the sort of working men and women who make up its membership, and the mixture of ex-working men, capitalists, aristocrats and careerists who lead it. Mr. J. Strachey, reviewing Bevan's book in the Daily Herald gave it some faint praise, but warned Mr. Bevan of the fate that will overtake him if he splits the party. That would not be forgiven. That, however, would depend on the size of that part of the split that might be behind Mr. Bevan if the split occurred. And there would seem to be little doubt of Mr. Bevan’s opinion of his chances if it did. It could be that Mr. Bevan, who has seen many a previous attack on official policy in the past prove abortive, might believe that he will achieve the changes he desires without splitting the party. The chances would seem fair. Despite six years of Labour governments, discontent and frustration rankle more deeply than ever among members and supporters of the Labour Party. And if Mr. Bevan’s proposals can crystalise this discontent he may find himself leading the Labour Party.

It may be no accident that Bevan opens his book with an emotional narrative of his early days as a worker in the mines. Certainly from what can be judged from some of the many comments in the Labour press this might have a calculated purpose. Knowing the workers it is, of course, not unlikely that Mr. Bevan considers that emphasis on his youthful experience and sufferings as a worker might give him an advantage over the sort of “middle class” uplifter that so often send working-class audiences to sleep. Mr. Bevan was a sensitive young man and learned from the working-class movement. He read, among others, Marx, De Leon and Morris. The evidence from this book is that he learned from them how to clothe his challenge to wealth and privilege in anti-capitalist phraseology without committing himself to Socialism. The intellectual food that came the way of the young aspirant in the Labour movement in Bevan’s day was the sort of food that fed the Socialist. Like others with him, and before him, he stopped short of Socialism, and applied what understanding he acquired to the advancement of Mr. Bevan and the perpetuation of Capitalism.

For there is no mistake about it: there is no proposal in this book which is fundamentally different from the reformism of the Labour Party’s policies for fifty years. There is no proposal which could not be the official policy of any capitalist party if it happened to suit the interests of any one of them. If Mr. Bevan differs it is on a question of degree and not principle. The reviews of the book in the capitalist press show not a little pleasure and relief at his mildness and “statesmanship.” Here is no leader gathering his armies for the final assault on Capitalism. He had seemed much more of a menace in speech than in writing. How right they are.

Here are some of Mr. Bevan’s main contentions. There should be much less private, and much more public, spending. Hence he argues for more controls of investments. And he says, “Once Competitive Society is compelled to serve a general social aim the automatism of the market is interfered with and we are no longer in the capitalist system at all. . . . From this point on, moral considerations take precedence over economic motives. . . . The decision what to do without, or take less of, necessarily places that item of consumption lowest in the order of priorities.” It is sufficient to note that Mr. Bevan considers that the restrictions on production, the controls, and the rationing of the past six years' Labour Government as “no longer the capitalist system at all.” He would extend that policy. Under his proposals he says “We shall have abandoned selection by competition for selection by deliberation.” This statement epitomises Mr. Bevan’s conception of the function of the State over which he would preside. Social security, that guarantee of working class poverty, would administer to the needs of the poorest of the workers and soften and offset the worst effects of low wages and salaries. He also agrees that the middle class and professional men should have incomes comparable with “status.” There should be more Nationalisation. He says, “Once a larger proportion of industry is publicly owned, a larger part of public spending could be finance out of the surplus which now accrues to private incomes. This would mean compensation at a low rate on gilt edged securities, and more surpluses from these communally owned industries would accrue to the national exchequer and taxation would be correspondingly reduced. . . . . This would not mean that the taxpayer would have more money to spend. As we have seen this could only be done by hurting the recipients of public benefits. But it would mean that more of the whole would be distributed in the form of private income could in the main be privately spent, and the individual would be spared the pain of seeing so much taken from him that he thought was his to spend.”

There it is. Sort it out. Something for everyone. Gilt edged securities for the capitalist. Reduced taxation for the taxpayer. And (touching thoughtfulness) consideration for the recipient of public benefits, sparing the taxpayer (excepting the millions of workers who do not pay income tax and the recipient of the public benefits) the pain of seeing so much taken from them. He continues: “I am not suggesting the abolition of income tax. That would only be possible if all industry belonged to the community.” (Our italics.) Really what box of tricks could produce more.

There is more to come. “ Suppose we fix a date —towards which we should at once begin to work— when a definite percentage of what we are spending on arms shall be set aside for the peaceful development of backward parts of the world.” The reviewers have really fallen for that one. It has really put him amongst the “statesmen.” It seems they are impressed even though he thought of it after General Marshall and after the Labour Government had inaugurated something like it through Colonial Development schemes.

On the question of Russia Bevan spreads himself out. There is an “over assessment of Soviet military strength.” Russia is “less belligerent than some American publicists.” Russia “would have struck by now if she were going to strike at all.” Russia has her own internal problems. The more her industrial economy grows, he argues, the more Russia will develop the need for democratic institutions through which ideas and technical knowledge must find free expression in order to develop. Equally conjectural arguments could be found to deduce conclusions the opposite to Mr. Bevan's. This part of Bevan’s case, however, is in some part suspect as a rationalisation for his resignation from the Labour Government This was defended on the grounds that the country could not afford the burden of £4,700,000,000. Mr. Woodrow Wyatt M.P., casts some light on this in the News Chronicle (7.1.52).

  “It is always difficult to convince the Labour Party of the need for armaments, and I am glad that it should be so. Mr. Bevan was a key figure in securing general Labour support for the defence programme and his achievement in that direction culminated in his brilliant speech in the House of Commons a year ago.

   “His concluding phrases on that occasion still echo in my ears. ' . . . we do beg that we shall not have all these jeers about the rearmament that we are putting under way. We shall carry it out; we shall fulfil our obligations to our friends and allies. . . .’

  “When he withdrew his backing for the £4,700 million programme last April it was understandable that the confidence of many Labour supporters should be shaken. At the same time he said that the earlier and smaller defence programme—£3,600 million over three years—was sufficient.

  “Adherence to the smaller programme was repeated in 'One Way Only' and maintained until the announcement of the Conservative Government's defence programme for this year. Then it was disclosed that the balance of payments situation, never anticipated by Mr. Bevan and his friends, had forced a slowing down of the larger programme.

  “The speed of rearmament, allowing for rising prices, has been reduced to that of the smaller programme which Mr. Bevan had always said was within our capacity even without American aid.

   “Did Mr. Bevan welcome this reduction and support the new programme? No, astonishingly, he attacked again and divided the Labour Party in the House on it." 

Mr. Bevan’s friends say that this book intends to convey a “mood.” It could also be the intention to create a mood favourable to the idea of Mr. Bevan as the "Man of Peace.” That would seem to have quite good political prospects.

And there is no doubt that Mr. Bevan is quite a politician.

Harry Waite

Pensions and Poverty (1954)

From the May 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

In April, 1908, a young man lost a bye-election in North-West Manchester. He had been President of the Board of Trade in Mr. Asquith’s government, serving on the cabinet with Sir Edward Grey, Haldane and Lloyd George. A brilliant future was predicted for him. His name was Winston Churchill. He was not out of Parliament for long. In the Manchester Reform Club after the count a messenger brought a telegram from the Liberal party in Dundee, inviting him to contest a pending bye-election. Before Dundee voted, the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented his budget, with provision for the payment of old age pensions.

The decision of the Liberal government of 1908 to introduce the Old Age Pensions Act was first announced in the King’s speech in January of that year and was met with cries of, “The country can’t afford it!” (The annual cost was £6 million—today it is over £275 million.) Nevertheless, the year saw the Act passed, granting to people of 70 or over a pension of from 1s. to 5s., subject to a means test. After 1908 many Acts covering sickness and unemployment insurance were passed, including the Widows’, Orphans’ and Old Age Contributory Pension Scheme of 1925— which introduced contributory pensions—and the Old Age Pensions Act of 1936. which allowed non-contributory pensions at 70. Thus when the 1939 war came the Statute Book carried a mass of legislation dealing with national insurance. The system had developed piecemeal and contained many inconsistencies and much overlapping between government departments, local authorities and the Approved Societies.

To unravel this tangle an inter-departmental committee was set up in June 1941, under the chairmanship of Sir William (now Lord) Beveridge, to survey the whole field of social insurance and allied schemes and to make recommendations on their inter-relation. This committee produced in November 1942 the famous Beveridge report. At that time, in the depth of the war, the report appealed widely as a design for a great new world and many extravagant hopes were conceived. Beveridge, himself was, apparently, less sanguine. In the Sunday Times of 14/2/54 he says, “The Beveridge Report . . .  was a model . . .  of financial caution and of moral responsibility, above all in regard to pensions.”

In February 1946 the National Insurance Act 1946 was debated in the House of Commons. Although the Bill was sponsored by the Labour government of the time, the Conservatives gave their support and the second reading was taken without a division. The Act implemented many of Beveridge’s recommendations and covered a wide and complex field. The principle of the “subsistence level”—that is, benefits as of right high enough to command the bare necessities of life—was accepted and a method of adjusting benefits to allow for changes in the cost of living was devised. Minimum old age pensions were immediately raised to 26s. per week, thus rejecting Beveridge’s proposal of a gradual increase over a period of years. Perhaps it was this splash of generosity which moved Mr. Arthur Greenwood to say in the debate on the Bill, “ It . . .  is a contribution to the better life which . . .  the people of this country richly deserve . . . which will enable the people . . . to tread the path of greater freedom with great dignity . . . ”

As laid down in the National Insurance Act of 1946, retirement pensions were easily the most expensive of benefits. It was estimated at the time that in the first year of their payment they would account for half the cost of the entire National Insurance Scheme and by 1976 for two-thirds of the total cost In addition, many people receiving pensions at the new higher rate had only contributed amounts in accordance with the former (lower) pension. Thus it was expected that even if pensions remained at 26s. per week, the expenditure of the pension fund would eventually exceed its income. But the rise of prices since 1946 has reduced the buying power of the 26s., so that in 1951 and again in 1952 it was necessary to apply the principle of the "subsistence level” and increase the minimum retirement pension. Today it stands at 32s. 6d. And old age pensions, whatever the amount will become steadily payable to an increasing number—in the next 20 years the number of people of pensionable age will rise from seven million to 10 million.

These factors have aggravated the problem of balancing the accounts of the National Insurance Fund. The government actuary’s report on the scheme for 1951-52 estimated that only 5 per cent of expenditure on retirement pensions is covered by past contributions: this year is expected to be the last in which the fund’s income from contributions and exchequer assistance will balance with its expenditure. In the future there will be a growing deficit which will rise to about £417 millions by 1978 and which can only be eased by such measures as: (a) reducing pensions; (b) postponing the minimum pensionable age; or (c) increasing contributions. Once again, “. . . the country can’t afford it! . . .” The Manchester Guardian of 10/2/54 commented, “ The problems involved . . .  are such that it could make the financing of National Insurance a main issue at the next election.” So we are nearly back to Dundee, 1908!

Nobody should conclude from this that the life of an old age pensioner is one long spree of riotous extravagance. In fact, the worry of making ends meet presses as heavily today as ever. Both the News Chronicle and the Manchester Guardian have recently published a series of articles on the serious distress of old people. A letter to the editor of the News Chronicle on 4/3/54 told of an unexpected visit on a woman pensioner which found her without a fire, making a dinner of a slice of dry bread and a meat extract cube dissolved in water. In the Manchester Guardian of 11/11/53 appeared the story of a W.V.S. worker who helped to distribute cheap lunches to old people in Poplar. Among those she served was the blind man who lived alone in a room at the top of a lodging house, who never had a fire, a plate or a saucepan. He would sometimes grumble and swear, sometimes smile obsequiously, at the women who brought his food. And there was an old woman who lay in a room congested with dusty Victorian furniture, who never spoke, only glared and spat into a kitchen bowl. These are not exceptional cases. In his report for 1953 the Medical Officer for Brighton recorded some terrible poverty amongst the aged and contended that their lot has actually worsened since the introduction of the so-called Welfare State. The National Federation of Old Age Pensioners’ Associations calculated in May 1953, after a survey of 2,700 pensioners, that the 32s. 6d. per week fell short of a single pensioner's actual needs by 6s. 6d. and that many pensioners were consequently living below the line of subsistence. These facts are hard to reconcile with Mr. Greenwood's promised path of freedom and dignity.

Inadequate pensions have compelled more and more people to apply for National Assistance. In December 1953 nearly one and a quarter million persons who were drawing National Insurance benefits were also receiving National Assistance. About 80 per cent, of these were old and sick. The needs of a single person, excluding rent, are assessed by the National Assistance Board at 35s. per week. In most cases an additional average of 11s. 6d. per week is granted for rent. This payment is subject to a means test. According to the National Federation of Old Age Pensioners, it leaves less than 2s. to be spent on food each day. This, then, is the outcome of the hopes and the promises to care for the aged. We have a pensions scheme, which, whilst fast running into the red, does not provide benefits large enough to keep pensioners on the level of bare subsistence, so forcing them to submit to a means test to obtain assistance which in turn is insufficient. The reformers’ plans have once more gone awry: the means test of so many unpleasant memories is with us again. Lord Beveridge said in the House of Lords on 20/5/53 that “National Assistance, which the experts and I thought would have to continue on a small scale and would gradually diminish, is increasing year by year. Today there are at least twice as many people, nearly two million people, in receipt of National Assistance, subject to a means test, more than there were three or four years ago.”

Old people may well wonder why their burden is always so heavy. Firstly, they are not poor because they are old; but because they are old workers: their poverty is the distilled, concentrated poverty of the whole working-class. It is a condition which only the working-class experience—aged capitalists do not need to apply for National Assistance. Secondly, capitalism is not much interested in old people. Workers live only by their wage, which depends upon being able to work. When working ability is impaired by approaching old age the wage is threatened and eventually ceases. Employers, in their own interests, have most use for young workers—the old, if employed at all, are relegated to such jobs as nightwatchman or doorkeeper. Some firms are generous to their superannuated employees, but they are the exception and have little effect on the problem.

The decline in the working usefulness of old people is reflected in the community at large. They become unwanted, sometimes even by their own families. They are pushed from place to place and increasingly regarded as a nuisance. Some are left to decay in filthy, remote rooms. Others, like the old lady and the blind man in Poplar, maintain a fierce, abusive independence; perhaps they are the most pitiful of all.

It is fear of coming to this that makes workers support pension schemes in our workplaces and pay into the old age endowment policies which the insurance companies organise. The advertisements of these schemes aim to excite response by playing upon the dread of aid age. “ If it hadn’t been for him I should not have been provided for,” says the widow-like lady of one advertisement. The benefits of these schemes may ease old people’s poverty, but its abolition is well beyond their scope.

Despite the years of legislation since 1908, to grow old can still be a catastrophe. Pensions, allowances, cheap subsidised tobacco come and go—the pensioners’ poverty goes on, seemingly for ever. The history of old age pensions is one of despair, makeshift, futility— and distress. It is a fair sample of the history of reformism itself. This lesson must be learnt. Said Henry V to his reluctant soldiers before Agincourt, “Old men forget, yet all shall be forgot . . . " A melancholy phrase. Yet somewhere there must be hope. Is it too much to ask that old men should for once remember? We will settle for that. As a beginning.

Ivan

What to do about the H-Bomb (1954)

From the May 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The probable consequences of using the hydrogen bomb as an act of war must now be familiar to everyone. The newspapers, screens and radio have given enough facts and pictures of the latest tests to leave us in no doubt about the “progress” that has been made in the development of atomic weapons since the days of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Almost as often as we hear descriptions of the tremendous destructive power of these weapons, we hear a demand to “ban” them. That revulsion at the prospects is widespread cannot be doubted—only the form and direction of this revulsion is questionable. Often the grave issues involved are reduced to a question that seems to ask no more than “Are you for or against the Bomb?" Yet the question and the answer are made meaningless by the fact that no one wants the hydrogen bomb to be used, not even those who are in favour of carrying on war with the "conventional” weapons.

Everyone wants peace, and most would like to believe the prediction of the physicist Hans Thirring that settling international disputes by killing as many enemies as possible is about to become outdated. But the work of making and developing the destructive power of these weapons continues. In order to study this whole question seriously we must look beyond the banner headlines and the more emotional than reasoned appeals to “Stop the Bomb!”

We live in a world in which the possession of property and the protection of property institutions is the dominating feature. Inseparable from Capitalism is the capitalist state, the machinery which governs the countless individual acts of exploitation and which can, as in Russia, actually constitute the exploiting agent. The state is power and, whether democratic or dictatorial, holds sway by virtue of having force at its command—armed force, the purpose of which is safeguarding capitalist property and the prosecution of war against economic rivals when other methods of settling disputes over markets, trade routes and sources of raw materials fail.

The hydrogen bomb is merely the most efficient way known at present of carrying out this purpose. It is often said that the tremendous destructive power of such weapons will act as a deterrent to their use. There is no reason to believe that it need be any such thing. It could reasonably have been predicted that the last war would cost millions of lives, yet no such prediction was allowed to interfere with the prosecution of the war,

The childlike faith in the argument that atomic weapons must continue to be made and developed so that the certainty of retaliation would stop an "aggressor" using them is foolish and dangerous. It amounts to saying that we must have the hydrogen bomb in order that hydrogen bombs won't be used. It is difficult to think of any other sphere in which such fallacious reasoning would be seriously entertained. If a scientist were, to announce that he was breeding rabbits in order that rabbits would be abolished, he would be looked upon askance. And if he were to produce a breed of super-rabbit which could multiply much faster than the ordinary kind, and then claimed that the danger of rabbits was lessened, he would probably be certified.

One of the more hopeful aspects of this ghastly business is that many of the ideas that used to be advanced to make it seem “not so bad after all" are becoming more and more untenable. As Earl Nelson wrote in the News of the World (28.3.54):

“The inhabitants of large cities are being prepared for civil defence against bomb attack, but since a single hydrogen bomb could blast a city such as London, New York, Paris, Berlin or Moscow off the face of the earth the only benefit of civil defence would appear to be keeping up the morale of the population prior to their annihilation.”

It is clear from what has been said and written on this subject by people who otherwise hold widely differing opinions that all stand aghast at the prospects opened up by the development of the hydrogen bomb. Every "authoritative” article, every school-room meeting, all the pub and club talk is avowedly in opposition to atomic warfare. Yet it cannot be disputed that the two vast camps into which the world is at present divided are arming against each other. Each side is afraid lest the might of the other is bigger, and neither is likely to abandon any strategic advantage it may have or see the chance of having.

What does the ordinary working man think about all this, he who is content to give power to politicians and to bemoan the consequences? He doesn’t want to drop a hydrogen bomb on anyone. In past wars he was persuaded to take up arms to protect his hearth and home, his poor old mum, or his violable sister. Such arguments cannot be used today (not that they were valid when they were used) because it is quite obvious that bombs capable of destroying cities don’t protect civilians. He has to be given another line—another phoney reason for killing his fellow-men. He feels his powerlessness as an individual lost in a group. He is therefore persuaded to recognise himself as an instrument of that group, to make its "cause” his cause.

The groups which stand out today as most likely to be adversaries in a future war (it is never safe to predict the actual line-up) are the " Communist World ” versus the " Free World.” To make it easy for you to follow this deadly game, they mark, the shirts "East” and “West.” All that is needed now is the patriot and his propaganda. He doesn’t have to be a politician—there is always the lurking suspicion that politicians have an axe to grind. Let a famous author and dramatist such as Charles Morgan explain "our” dilemma as nicely as possible:

  “Because everything that we value in Western civilisation, including Christianity, is threatened from the East, we cannot abandon the use of the atomic bomb for the purpose of defence ...
  “This is the great paradox to which we have been driven. A man of good will who loathes war and, above all, the use of the H-bomb . . .  to destroy his fellow-creatures cannot reject them as defence and deterrent.”

And there we have the justifying lie in all its subtlety. Robert Briffault once said that if a lie has power it will be bloody and murderous. This latest and most heinous offender against humanity is the assertion that atomic weapons can be used to defend—that is, to ward off, resist, protect or maintain against an attack. They cannot. They can only destroy.

There is nothing paradoxical in what Morgan writes, unless it is his claim to be of good will. The man who cannot reject the use of bombs as deterrent cannot reject the burning, maiming and blasting of his fellow-men. He cannot reject the property relationships which set men at each other’s throats and which are always seeking to perfect the means of mutual — but "defensive" destruction.

The socialist argues that it is senseless to imagine that the problem of war will be solved by advocating the banning of this or that weapon, or even of all weapons. Sir Hartley Shawcross was near the mark when he said that it was no use pretending that a treaty made in advance would make countries obey the rules of war as if it were a game of cricket. The only solution to the problem of war is the removal of its cause—the property basis of society.

Let us make our position quite clear. We have no objection to the banning of hydrogen bombs. But we do have an objection to people getting killed by other methods also. Our cry is not, therefore, "Ban the H-Bomb!” Carry this a stage farther. There is no objection to banning all war. But, even assuming that this aspect of present society could be changed without changing its whole basis (and there is no reason to suppose that this is possible), it would still leave unsolved the other problems of poverty and insecurity which also take toll of human life and happiness.

All of the separate cries to end this or that social evil in the world today add up to the cry to end Capitalism. The singling out of objects “for immediate attention" may claim the merit of moderation, but it is tragically inefficient in obtaining results. To treat each symptom separately—"Ban this Boil!”," Abolish that Pimple!”—is to let the patient go on suffering from a disease which only a revolutionary change can cure.

Stan Parker

Some Notes On Party History (1954)

From the May 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

The meetings of the Provisional Executive Committee were concerned with all the arduous spade work involved in starting an organisation literally from scratch. The Party members had nothing but knowledge and enthusiasm; no office, no literature, no meeting places, no organisational system and no funds. All the plans had to be made and the bricks gathered to build a structure that would serve as a jumping-off ground. There were few members with time to do the work; all committees and sub-committees were made up by ringing the changes on members from the same small group. In the circumstances what they accomplished was astonishing, and a tribute to their energy.

For a long time there was no central office and the E.C. used to meet fortnightly in a room at the Communist Club in Charlotte Street.

At the first meeting of the Executive Committee, after the Inaugural Meeting, it was reported that the following branches had been formed: Islington, Battersea, Wood Green and Paddington. A committee of four was appointed to organise the membership into branches, and another committee of three to consider and report on the question of a Party journal.

As the new party had come into existence without literature of its own a list of pamphlets was drawn up and sent to branches with the recommendation that they confine themselves to this literature for the present.

The E. C. were not happy about some of the pamphlets on the list but they had a limited choice. Members and speakers were complaining about how frustrating it was to hold meetings and have no literature to distribute explaining the Party's views. The titles of some of these pamphlets sound rather curious now. Here is the list: —

"Socialism and the Worker," George.
"Wage, Labour and Capital," Marx.
"Socialism and Radicalism," Aveling.
"No Compromise," Liebneckt.
"The Social Revolution", Kautzky.
"How I became a Socialist," Morris
"Jones Boy, " Spokeshave.
"Commune of Paris," Marx.
"Socialism and Drink," Russell Smart.
"The Meaning of Socialism," Widdup.

A Committee was appointed to draw up a Manifesto to the working class of Great Britain and a Manifesto to the Second International; Reeves were to be approached to see if they would dispose of the copyright of the Communist Manifesto. In due course Reeves replied that the Communist Manifesto was still in print and they had no intention of selling the copyright.

It was decided that Party letter headings must have the Object of the Party printed on them but the selection of address to be used as Central Office was left to the General Secretary. The latter decision was unavoidable because the address had to be wherever the General Secretary was lodging for the time being. As he was almost penniless he had a habit of moving frequently.

Finally Kautzky was to be approached about permission to translate the Erfurt Programme. We will have more to say about this later.

At the second meeting of the Executive, on the 25th June, arrangements were made for a series of mass meetings to be held in different parts of London for the purpose of raising funds and making the Party known. The General Secretary was further instructed to write for delegates credentials for the forthcoming Congress of the Second International to be held in Amsterdam. It was taken for granted that the Party would automatically affiliate to this body. Later developments brought about a reversal of this attitude.

A Resolution was also carried at this meeting that the special meeting of members to discuss the attitude to trade unions to be held on Saturday, July 9th, and that only those who had signed the Party's Declaration of principles be admitted to the meeting. The Special Meeting was held at the Food Reform Restaurant, Furnival Street, E.C. There was a considerable conflict of views on the attitude to be adopted towards trade unions, and the meeting adjourned without coming to any definite decision. The E.C. was requested to arrange a further meeting. As the trade union question was a thorny subject for the first two subject for the first two years of the Party's history, before a definite attitude was agreed upon, we will consider it at some length in later notes.

The International Socialist Bureau was the body that conducted the business of the Second International between Congresses. As the Bureau declined to recognise the Party a letter was sent to H. M. Hyndman and H. Quelch, as representatives of that body in this country, requesting them to use their influence in the direction of securing due recognition of the Party by the International Congress.

Eventually the Credential Forms arrived, and then the fun began; the problem of finding members who could make the journey, and raising money for expenses. J. Kent was approached to represent the Party, on the understanding that all or part of his expenses would be paid. He replied that he was willing if part of his expenses was paid. Money was collected and sent on to him, but he subsequently wrote that he could not travel as the amount subscribed did not help much. This letter came before the Executive meeting of the 15ht August. Lehane (the General Secretary) reported that immediately he received Ken's letter he proceeded to the address of the Party Treasurer, R. Elrick, who advanced the sum necessary to cover the expenses. Lehane made an appointment by wire with Kent for the following day, Friday the 12th August, and handed him £2 18s. which, with the sum of £1 11s. 4d. previously collected, made up £4 10s. in all. Kent then undertook to proceed to Amsterdam the following morning, The state of Party finance may be gathered from the difficulty in raising such a small amount as 4 10s. Part of it came from a collection at the Special Meeting of members.

A few days later Kent notified the Executive that he had arrived in Amsterdam and that A. Pearson, who was paying his own expenses, had turned up and joined him as a delegate of the Party.

The report the two delegates brought back from the Congress was a shock to the members and fundamentally altered the Party's attitude to the Second International. At first attempts were made by correspondence with the Bureau to get our views on the unsatisfactory state of affairs put before the parties affiliated to the Congress. The basis of the complaints was (1) That representation at the Congress was chaotic and (2) That delegates from organisation with no socialist basis were admitted to Congress.

At the first General Meeting of the Party on the 18th September the following resolution was carried unanimously:

"That the E. C. be instructed to prepare a statement of the position in Great Britain, go into the whole question of representation at the International Socialist Congress and carry on an agitation throughout the world for the purpose of clearing the air of confusion regarding the true basis of the Socialist Movement."

The E. C. carried out the instructions contained in this resolution as far as they could. The January 1905 number of the SOCIALIST STANDARD contained copies of correspondence with the Bureau. The front page had a message "To the Socialist Working-class" in English, French and German which, after a general criticism of past Congresses, contained the following:

"The Socialist Party of Great Britain is strengthened in this opinion by facts well known here which show clearly the principles animating many who took part in the recent congress at Amsterdam. Our delegates thereto found such organisations as the Independent Labour Party, the Labour Representation Committee, the Social-Democratic Federation, and the Fabian Society claiming and obtaining admission as Socialist organisations. Thus were seen the defenders of capitalism, the upholders of Child-slavery, the friends of Compromise and Reform, and the catspaw of the Bourgeois reaction generally masquerading as Revolutionists, prostituting the name and spirit of Socialism, and confusing the workers on questions of vital importance"
"With the object of placing future International Congresses on a definite Socialist basis, and securing proper and proportionate representation of all bona fide Socialist Parties thereat, the S.P.G.B. is preparing a memorandum for the consideration of the International Bureau and the Socialist Parties affiliated in the hope that measures will be adopted to as far as possible prevent the recurrence of past confusions and place the working-class of the world on a united and revolutionary platform."

The Executive Committee reported on their efforts to the first Conference in April 1905. The Conference then passed the following resolution:—

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

After further correspondence with the Bureau we eventually withdrew from the International as our points were not conceded. From that time on a critical attitude developed towards prominent champions of social democracy and we had, at times, to dissociate ourselves from some of their actions. In 1906 we called A. Bebel to book for a telegram he sent to "Reynolds" hailing the Liberal victory as a triumph for the progressive forces. Bebel, along with Karl Liebknecht, had been an outstanding figure in the German Social Democratic Party during the last quarter of the 19th century. The correspondence we had with him on the subject occupied six columns of the SOCIALIST STANDARD in 1906. The STANDARD was then double its present size.

In the next contribution we will come to an important landmark in the Party's history; the production of the first number of the SOCIALIST STANDARD in September 1904.

Gilmac.

(To be continued.)