Branch News (1962)

Party News from the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Another of our Central London Rallies has been arranged for Wednesday, March 21st at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.I. The title SOCIALISM OR CHAOS. Comrades H. Baldwin and M. Harris are the speakers. Doubtless as many Comrades as possible will attend this meeting and if everyone brings at least one non-member or sympathiser and tells as many people as they can about the meeting, there should be a large audience. The more people who can hear the Socialist case, the nearer we arc to Socialism. The Literature Committees will see that, there is a good supply of pamphlets and Socialist Standards so that after the spoken word the written word will be available to ensure that the case for Socialism is more readily understood.

Glasgow Branch has re-arranged their March series of lectures and titles and full details appear on page 48. They have passed the half-way mark in their series—’Problems of the Sixties’. The results show they have been successful. Thirteen different speakers have participated, three from London. Collections £31, and literature sales £8. Audiences have averaged 30, thirteen members attending regularly.

The first large indoor meeting was addressed by Comrade H. Baldwin, subject —“Demonstration for Socialism.” and the most recent large meeting was on ‘America —Land of Paradox’, Speaker, Comrade Gilmac. audience 126. Despite fogs! A social was held on Saturday, January 27th whilst Comrade Gilmac was there for the Sunday meeting. A very jolly evening was enjoyed by all.

The meetings are causing the Party to become known to an increasing number of workers. Things seem to be looking up for the Party in Glasgow and the activities of members are increasing. An article appeared in the Glasgow Herald after Comrade Gilmac’s meeting, as follows: —

“SOCIALIST PARTY TO CONTEST NORTH KELVIN. The Socialist Party of Great Britain intend to contest the North Kelvin Ward of Glasgow in the next Municipal Election, and they hope to contest, the Woodside Constituency in the Parliamentary election, an official said yesterday. The Glasgow Branch of the Party has about 40 members.”

also

“The Party must have the necessary members in the Constituency to fill in their candidate’s nomination paper. The Socialist Party enters these elections opposed to all other political parties, whether they are avowedly capitalist, or allegedly labour.”

When similar reports can be made from other towns in Great Britain, it is hoped that not only the British Isles, but many other parts of the world will have become familiar with the ideas of Socialism.

Swansea Branch now hold regular talks. Comrade Rollings recently gave an excellent talk on Crime and Society. Comrade Brain spoke on the ‘Russian Phenomenon’; and a series of talks by Party members have been arranged for the future.

At present the Branch is proceeding with arrangements for a debate with the Liberal Party in Swansea, when this is finalised it is hoped to get as much publicity as possible. Branch members still succeed in getting the Party case published in the Local Press and the Party is becoming well known in the district. A local bookshop has agreed to accept six copies of the SOCIALIST STANDARD for a trial period of three months.

Needless to say the local Labour Party and Communist Party (so called) show their customary opposition to Socialist ideas. It is hoped, when funds allow, to purchase a tape recorder so that talks can be recorded to build up a ‘tape library’ for propaganda purposes.

Phyllis Howard

SPGB Meetings (1962)

Party News from the March 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

As per usual when posting old meetings from old Standards, I don't have enough space in the label section of the blog to list all the speakers and all the branches, so I have to play favourites. My bad.

It's interesting to note that two of the meetings advertised feature speakers who were not originally from the UK. All too often during this period  - and before and after, to be frank - the SPGB were accused of simply being a British and its Commonwealth/former Empire phenomenon. Lewisham Branch featured a meeting on Tito's Yugoslavia, where the speaker was Remy Starc, who I believe was Slovenian, and Paddington Branch featured a meeting on the Italian working-class movement where the speaker was 'Beppe'. Unfortunately I don't have any further information about this speaker. That meeting would have been especially interesting to me, 'cos it was only a couple of years after Visconti's film, 'Rocco and His Brothers'.

On the subject of films, I notice that both Birth of a Nation and October are listed on the meetings page. I'm guessing this refers to the Griffin and Eisenstein's films. The film, The German Story, which was shown at the SPGB's Wembley Branch was a 1956 East German film which was banned in West Germany because of its subject matter.

Adding some background to some of the SPGB speakers featured in the March 1962 Socialist Standard, listed below are links to a number of their obituaries. Yep, grim I know:

• Aug 1995: Edgar Hardcastle (E. Hardy)
• Jun 1976: Gilbert McClatchie ('Gilmac')
• Nov 2003: Cyril May (C. May)
• Feb 1996: Harry Young (H. Young)
• Apr 1982: Tony Mulheron (T. A. Mulheron)
• Oct 2006: Joe Richmond (J. Richmond)
• Jun 2008: Robert Russell (R. Russell)

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the April 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1958)

Party News from the July 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Summer Provincial Propaganda. It is pleasing to note that extensive arrangements have been made by the Propaganda Committee, Central Organiser and the Provincial Branches and Groups for speakers from London to visit the Provinces this Summer. Comrade James went to Nottingham in June for two weeks and held eight meetings each week in Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester and Bradford. From July 14th to 19th, Comrade Baldwin is going to Swansea to hold meetings there and in Newport. Comrade Harris of Newport will be available to help and throughout the Summer he will be helping the Comrades who are visiting the area for week-end meetings. Comrades D'Arcy, Grant and May will be doing these meetings, including visits to Bristol, where Comrade Flowers and the Group there are having good meetings on Durdham Downs. The period they hope to cover is from June 8th to July 13th. During August Comrade Young is touring in his vintage caravan and visiting Nottingham, Birmingham. Edinburgh and Dundee, to name some of the towns in his itinerary. An ambitious programme, all round, and no doubt it will prove as successful as the earlier Provincial tours.

* * *

Bloomsbury Branch will hold discussions on the first Thursday in each month, commencing September 4th. when Comrade Hardy opens the series with a discussion on Crises. Fuller details will be given in the August Standard. As in the past, no Branch meetings will be held during August by Bloomsbury Branch as Conway Hall closes for that month.

* * *

Outdoor Propaganda in London. A list of outdoor meetings is given on another page of this issue and Comrades are urged to note the time and places of meetings and give their support wherever possible.

* * *

Comrade Friend of Winnipeg is returning home after a holiday in Britain, and a Social evening was arranged for Comrades to meet him once again at Head Office on Friday, June 13th. Members at home wish him a good journey back to Winnipeg and express their pleasure that he was able to have such a holiday and to re-new contact with Party members in Britain.

Phyllis Howard

Branch News (1963)

Party News from the December 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

As in the past, we are making an urgent appeal to Members and sympathisers, to ensure that as many people as possible obtain and read the Socialist Standard. This special appeal is made each December and the subscription form in this issue is a simple way in which to fill in names and addresses, and send off to Head Office with the appropriate postal order. Many of us have saved a few extra shillings to spend, as most workers have some days off at the end of the month. Why not spend some of the savings by sending somebody a years supply of the Standard? It is hoped that new readers will not only pass on their copy, but will order copies to be sent elsewhere. It is well worth trying.

Mid-Herts Group are holding two meetings—one on Thursday, December 5 and Thursday, January 2. Details with Meeting Notices. Recently the Group held a meeting attended by the Central Organiser. It was decided not to form a branch at present, and to attempt to increase activities, e.g., fortnightly meetings (instead of monthly), alternating between Stevenage and Welwyn Garden City, perhaps with the assistance of Wembley Branch members.

Belfast Branch (WSP) has agreed to contest at least five seats in the Municipal Elections to be held next May. Candidates have been selected for three wards—Duncairn, Shankhill and Pothinger. Two other Wards are under consideration. Shankhill and Duncairn have been contested by the Party before, but this will be the first attempt at Pothinger—a Ward where a lot of effort has been concentrated and where Socialist Standard sales are very good. There will be Labour, Unionist and Communist opponents and the Party will take the opportunity of putting the Socialist alternative to all the reformist groups. The campaign has already started with literature sales drives and the distribution of leaflets.

Open-air meetings in Customs House Square are well established with audiences averaging 50 each Sunday. Questions are good and the meetings continue until dark. This behoves well for the Spring and Summer when the party hopes to hold week-night meetings there. The Sunday meetings now commence at 3.30 p.m. Despite weekly challenges, none have been accepted by the Labour or Communist Parties. The local organiser of the N.C.L.C., Mr. Andrew Boyd, has agreed to a Public Debate in the New Year-- "Which Way to Socialism? " Further details in January.

Swansea Branch is active, more so now that several members are settling in the vicinity which makes it easier for the work to be done. Comrade Harris recently gave a talk to the Students of Swansea University College on "Why Socialists should Oppose the Labour Party.” Several articles have appeared in students magazines, written by Party members. Comrades Mellor and Brain recently attended an open-air meeting of the Nazi-Panzer Group and distributed Socialist Party literature. It is hoped, in the near future, to combine a talk in the University with a public meeting in the town. All in all the Comrades in Swansea are optimistic and looking forward to much future activity.

Phyllis Howard

Should Socialists Support CND? (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

I had to screen grab details for this advertised debate from 1961 because Richard Headicar has been a member of the SPGB since the mid-eighties, standing a couple times - at least - as a SPGB candidate in parliamentary elections. I was in the same SPGB branch as Richard for a number of years in the 1990s and 2000s in London. Lovely bloke.

And the advertised debate from 1961? It had to be 'rejigged' - see below -  because Richard was in the jail for civil disobedience! The things some people do to get out of debating with the SPGB.

From the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard:

  The debate organised by Paddington Branch on October 29th almost didn't take place, and then not quite. Mr. Headicar, the CND representative, “sat down” the previous Saturday and got himself two months imprisonment. At the last moment Mr. S. Cash agreed to put the case for CND. He maintained that Socialism was alright as a theory, but mankind was faced with annihilation and all our energies should he devoted to "banning the bomb.” The SPGB were out of contact with the real world, and death would overtake us all, notwithstanding the propagation of Socialist ideas, unless nuclear weapons were abandoned.
  In reply: Melvin Harris for the SPGB showed that CND was similar to many other bodies, which had sprung up in the past, attempting to tackle one or other evil of the capitalist system. These organisations had failed, and CND would fail for the same reason. Nuclear war can not be separated from the problem of war itself. And the constant threat and possibility of war was a direct consequence of the existence of capitalism. The Socialist Party were opposed to all war, and were working for the establishment of Socialism, in which war would be impossible. This was the most important task facing mankind.
 A considerable number of questions were put to both speakers, and many of the audience of 200 took part in the discussion. There was not nearly enough time for everyone. The collection was £13 and literature sales were good. Perhaps one day we shall land a debate with the elusive CND?

"In the Twilight of Socialism" (1958)

Book Review from the August 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

"In the Twilight of Socialism" by Joseph Buttinger (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.)

The Socialist Party has always maintained that the Labour and Social-Democratic parties were useless for the purpose of introducing Socialism. We saw that their reformist programmes would permit them to enact measures of reform and no more and that to enact their puny reforms these parties would be forced to cooperate openly with capitalist governments, or would have to form governments themselves. In either case they would be involved in the administration of the Capitalist system.

We saw further that the voters and members behind these parties lacked political knowledge and were befogged by pro-capitalist illusions, such as the necessity for Leaders, the impartiality of the State, the permanency of the Wages System, etc., in short, the boasted strength of these parties was but a sign of their fatal weakness. Since their massive support was fugitive in nature it could only be kept by pandering to the backwardness and the prejudices of the supporters; thus the progress in numbers was but the building up of political inertia. An inertia that could not be overcome by brilliant or forceful leadership, since the leaders that would be permitted to rise would be precisely those who most faithfully corresponded to the needs of these backward masses.

From the very foundation of our Party we were able to demonstrate that unenlightened, reform-seeking masses were unfitted for the Revolutionary Act and the years that have passed since then have piled up proofs of the accuracy of this Socialist analysis. Further proof of the soundness of our position is provided by Joseph Buttinger (alias Gustav Richter) in his Twilight of Socialism.

In this work, sub-titled, “A History of the Revolutionary Socialists of Austria,” we have an absorbing and highly detailed account of the Social Democracy of Austria, from the formation of the Dollfus Government in 1932 until the early post-war period. The bulk of this book deals, therefore, with the impact of Austrian and German Fascism on the Social Democrats and with the bodies they set up in exile and underground.

After 1918, we learn, the Austrian Social Democratic Party grew to be a “mass organisation of unique size and vigour,” so much so that when in March, 1924, the police announced the ban on Social Democratic bodies, they could list no less than fifteen hundred associations as falling under this ban. Here Buttinger, himself one of the two top leaders of the Social Democrats during their underground period, gives an account of the nebulous basis on which this giant party grew. “Its broad organisational structure had room for all trades and professions. It enabled all ages to organise their entertainment requirements, their educational plans, their purposes in life, their cultural desires, their hobbies, even their follies, and to fuse them ‘ideologically’ with the aims of the party, in serious or ridiculous fashion. Labourers and Bohemians, white-collar workers and moral reformers, winegrowers and teetotallers, soldiers and nurses, physicians and prison guards, lawyers and policemen, writers and innkeepers, newspapermen and rabbit-breeders, actors and generals, educators and acrobats, philosophers and football players, boy scouts and free thinkers, Catholics and nudists, economists and psychiatrists, pacifists and arms smugglers, stamp collectors and funeral orators were what they were, and they did what they did, not as such but ‘ ideologically ’—in the real or imagined behalf of the party and ‘ Socialism'.” (Page 21.)

When Dollfus moved against the Social Democrats and arrested their leaders (and here it was the possession of arms by the Social Democratic Defence League that provided him with the pretext for action), the impotence of masses who, lacking political understanding, had left their thinking to leaders, became at once obvious. Dealing with the leaderless, disorientated Social Democrats Buttinger says that, “All their lives, these people had experienced political events through their work for the party, had acted in line with party directives, and thought only in a fixed framework of party doctrines. Now was the moment when they most urgently needed the voice of party authority—and now, for the first time in their lives, it was mute. The members ran to their organisers, the minor officials to intermediate ones—who were helpless, for they, too, were given to functioning in line with revelations furnished for every event by the supreme authorities of the party, and now these revelations failed to arrive.” (Page 29.)

Buttinger sums up the pathetic plight of these people thus, “It was not the weakness of their social philosophy, but a lack of insight, determination and strength, to take responsibility . . .  that brought about the sudden helplessness of thousands. . . .” If by ‘social philosophy’ the author means those vague yearnings for a better form of life that are present in the 'Labour’ movements, and the criticisms in this book seem to confirm that this is his meaning, then we can agree with him, for 'insight, determination and the strength to take responsibility,’ are exactly the qualities that our class needs in order to emancipate itself, and it is only on the basis of Socialist Consciousness that such qualities can arise. Hence our insistence on the need for understanding.

This book is a moving and tragic history of workers so saturated with the ideas of the ruling class and so confused by the failures of their reformist movements, that instead of seeing that their destinies lay in their own hands, they approved of the very system that thwarted and warped their lives, even to the extent of surrendering what democratic institutions they had and embracing Fascism. It is a history of worker against worker, but because it is History, it is something we can draw strength from in the struggle to unite worker with worker. Properly used, the lessons drawn from this and other chapters of working class history, can help non-socialist workers to rid themselves of their induced servility, and their immature need for guidance from above.

The author himself has learnt and is still willing to learn, as he makes clear in his last pages. His final political position is not too clear cut, but then he admits that he is still trying to clarify his ideas. He declares that he still adheres to basic Socialist ideas, but rejects the view that the mass ’Labour’ movements are the guardians of these ideas, and for him, “Socialism is no longer advanced by the Socialist Party (of Austria).” On nationalisation his 'new spirit’ of enquiry, “no longer reliably told him whether nationalisation of key industries was necessarily already a step on the road to Socialism.” He is convinced, however, that “the policies of Leon Blum or Clement Attlee were wrong.” He confesses that he is, “unable to reach reliable conclusions about Soviet economy, the social structures of the new Russia,” what he does find, nevertheless, is that the Soviet system. “Retained the most objectional characteristics of the capitalist system.” He. is convinced. “That Soviet society was no Socialist society. Soviet Socialism, to him was no more genuine than the democracy claimed by Stalin’s regime.” The view that the Soviet dictatorship is the inevitable result of “ Marxist doctrines,” he finds contemptible.

Of the claims that the last war would bring freedom and justice to the world he has this to say, “At best a restoration of pre-Hitler conditions in parts of Europe could be expected, which meant the restoration of all the evil conditions and contradictions which made Hitler and the war possible.”

The book ends with Buttinger looking for a new way to Socialism, that is one distinct from the futile paths trodden by the Leninists and the Social-Democrats, but whether or not he will discover his 'new way’ to be in fact the old and only way as pioneered by our Companion Parties, one cannot be certain, but of one thing we can be very certain and that is that the lessons of this book will help others to find the will and the way to the Classless Society.

Melvin Harris

Correspondence on John Strachey (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cwmbran.

Mon..

5th March, 1959.

The Editorial Committee

"The Socialist Standard"

London, S.W.4.

Dear Comrades.

In his writings prior to Contemporary Capitalism John Strachey had displayed his lack of understanding of Marxism and his desire to tailor the theory and practice of “Socialism” so that it fitted both Social-Democracy and Leninism. In Contemporary Capitalism he surpassed himself and asserted that. “Marx in fact taught that not only was it impossible for the wage earners to raise their standard of life under capitalism: he went further and announced that their standard must steadily decline.” (Page 101.) Page 95 has it that Marx. “ . . . predicted that real wages could never rise above subsistence so long as capitalist relations of production continued . . ." and page 90 assures us Marx held that, ". . . the standard of life of the mass of the population . . . never rises; indeed, as we shall see, Marx believed that it would actually fall below subsistence.” Strachey is quite dogmatic about this. He tells us that, “The crucial passages leave no doubt that Marx took this view”, then calmly stating, “It may be sufficient to quote two of them . . . ” (page 101) he displays for us the famous “pauperisation ” quote from the Communist Manifesto and the equally famous “increasing misery” quote from Capital, Vol. I. which in the faulty Eden & Cedar Paul translation (dealt with by Jack Fitzgerald and Riazanov, Socialist Standard. Vol. 1932) becomes happily for Strachey “increasing poverty.”

The real significance of these two passages has been dealt with in the Standard and it has been shown that they lend no support whatsoever to Strachey's case, but what of the other “crucial passages.” the ones that Strachey doesn’t quote, but keeps up his sleeves? The truth is that these other passages just don’t exist, that Strachey is unable to advance any proof to back up his wild claims, that Strachey was, when he wrote this book, on his own admission, ignorant of the real position taken up by Marx on the living standard question which is in fact the very reverse of the position fastened on him by Mr. Strachey.

Mr. Strachey’s admissions were made publicly at the Transport Hall, Cardiff, where on February 10th, 1957, he held, under the auspices of the N.C.L.C.. a one-day school to discuss the scope and findings of his Contemporary Capitalism. I took to that school all the works of Marx and Engels available in English at that date, thus making sure that any defence offered by Mr. Strachey could be accurately examined on the spot and thus eliminating the chance of an alibi based on “writings not on hand."

During the question and discussion periods I gave Mr. Strachey the opportunity to prove to the hundred or more people present that his analysis of Marxism was correct. With every book that he could need to prove his case on hand, Mr. Strachey was unable to produce any evidence to back up his assertions other than the two quotes already mentioned. The celebrated “crucial passages” failed to materialise, not even a clue could be given as to their whereabouts!

When I read out to the school the many passages in which Marx clearly shows that the working class could increase their living standards under capitalism, Strachey admitted that he was not acquainted with any of the extracts quoted. He stated that the passages I had advanced showed that Marx had held views contrary to the ones attributed to him in Contemporary Capitalism. He also said that it looked as if he had over-emphasised (!) one aspect of Marx’s ideas and neglected others. He was also not aware of the faulty nature of the Eden and Cedar Paul translation of Capital, Volume 1, from which his chief piece of “evidence” was taken. Since my quotes were mainly from Wage Labour and Capital and Capital, Vol. 1 (the majority of these quotes can be found in the January, 1957. S.S.), which are works as basic as one can get. Mr. Strachey s admissions arc pretty damning.

Later, in the presence of the organizer of the school. Mr. Strachey complimented me on my “Marxian scholarship” and speaking of Marx said: “It looks as if I’ve done the Old Man an injustice.” Scholarship is an odd word to describe a mere basic knowledge of a subject and it is intriguing to think of a term which, continuing this same picturesque tradition, will describe Mr. Strachey’s lack of knowledge!

I was prepared to wait for the promised second volume by Strachey before writing anything about this encounter, but I now learn that Mr. Strachey has been acquainted with the articles written by E. W. (January, February, March, April. .S.S..) on Contemporary Capitalism and is trying to dismiss their incontrovertible arguments as mere differences in “interpretation” of Marxian theory. This is dishonest of John Strachey. It is not the position he took up at Cardiff and it is not a position that he can maintain if he is bold enough to meet the Socialist Party in public debate. Though not a member of the Socialist Party at the time of this meeting with Strachey, the position I then took up is the same as that held by the Party. I therefore challenge Mr. Strachey to meet a representative of the Socialist Party in public debate and I can promise him that he will be very fairly treated, though 1 cannot promise that his cup of happiness will be overflowing or even full.

Yours fraternally.

Melvin C. Harris.

Branch News and Obituaries (1961)

Party News from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here is a way of increasing sales of the Socialist Standard. For eight shillings a year a copy will be sent to any address in the British Isles. A small amount of money really! Why not persuade a friend to take a subscription for 1962, or pleasantly surprise someone with a gift of one year's “Standards”? It is very simple. Complete the form on page 191 and return it to us at 52 Clapham High Street, with of course the 8s. postal order.

Over 57 years the Socialist Standard has held the torch for Socialism. Consistent, searching and uncompromising has been its advocacy for Socialism. But still our Party journal must be brought to more and more people. The greater its circulation the greater will be the impact of Socialist propaganda, and incidentally, the more economic will be the "Standards" cost of production.

Resolve in 1962 to increase your sales of the Socialist Standard, and redouble your energy in spreading the case for Socialism. 

Wembley Branch were delighted with the success of their first indoor, public meeting on October 30th. “Introducing the SPGB" was Cyril May to a sizeable audience, mainly non-members. More than half the time was devoted to questions and discussion, and the audience took full advantage of it. Collection and literature sales were encouraging. Now for another and more ambitious venture in the near future!

The Branch’s winter lectures are in full swing with a wide range of subjects, every other week. Full details will be found under meetings on page 192. All those who attend will find the meetings stimulating and worthwhile.

Wembley is holding their Xmas Social on December 16th at the Ealing Park Tavern. "Joe's Group” will supply the music, and a repeat of last year’s success is certain. Everything will be laid on, and if you don’t enjoy yourself, it will be your own fault. Full information is on page 191.

Ealing Branch is continuing its winter activities with a showing of Eisenstein’s film "Strike” on December 8th. Comrade Ambridge is providing the comment. Owing to the length of the film, please note that the showing will begin at 7.45 p.m. prompt. Further lectures and film shows are being planned for January, February and March 1962.

Blackpool Lights. Reference was made in this column last month to a literature selling trip made by some members to the Blackpool Labour Party Conference. They hired a van, and throughout the week sold literature, inside and outside the Conference hall, held meetings, and made themselves known very effectively as representatives of the only Socialist Party in the country.

The van was decorated with Party posters and banners, and was stationed at various key points for literature drives and outdoor meetings. Sales totalled £9 6s. 0d. The detailed story of our comrades activities makes interesting reading, but unfortunately space limits us to this very brief report.

What must be said is that the trip was most successful, and the propaganda value was probably much greater than can be assessed at the moment. Next year it is intended to repeat ventures like this, and their growing success will be in no small measure due to the hard (though pleasurable) work done by our comrades this Autumn.

The debate organised by Paddington Branch on October 29th almost didn't take place, and then not quite. Mr. Headicar, the CND representative, “sat down” the previous Saturday and got himself two months imprisonment. At the last moment Mr. S. Cash agreed to put the case for CND. He maintained that Socialism was alright as a theory, but mankind was faced with annihilation and all our energies should he devoted to "banning the bomb.” The SPGB were out of contact with the real world, and death would overtake us all, notwithstanding the propagation of Socialist ideas, unless nuclear weapons were abandoned.

In reply: Melvin Harris for the SPGB showed that CND was similar to many other bodies, which had sprung up in the past, attempting to tackle one or other evil of the capitalist system. These organisations had failed, and CND would fail for the same reason. Nuclear war can not be separated from the problem of war itself. And the constant threat and possibility of war was a direct consequence of the existence of capitalism. The Socialist Party were opposed to all war, and were working for the establishment of Socialism, in which war would be impossible. This was the most important task facing mankind.

A considerable number of questions were put to both speakers, and many of the audience of 200 took part in the discussion. There was not nearly enough time for everyone. The collection was £13 and literature sales were good. Perhaps one day we shall land a debate with the elusive CND?

Obituaries

With sadness we have to record the death of two comrades, Llewelyn McKone and George Sword. Llewellyn McKone died on October 18th at Swansea. He had been a member of the Party since well before the war, and for many years was a member of Wood Green Branch. In recent years he had been working hard with our Swansea Comrades.

George Sword died at the end of October after a short illness. He joined the Party in 1942 and was active with a small group of members at their place of work, where they discussed Socialism and sold literature to their fellow workers. He was a member of Central Branch and until a year ago, when his health began to deteriorate, he worked in the Party Library and helped in the despatch of the Socialist Standard to subscribers.

To both our late comrades' families we extend our deepest sympathy.

Phyllis Howard

The Labour Party (1971)

From the July 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Capitalist Party

Clause Four of the Labour Party’s constitution, in speaking of securing for, “the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible . . ." is vague and open to a number of conflicting interpretations. "Common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange . . . " is completely meaningless when one realises that the means of exchange are inseparable from the rest of the framework of the capitalist system. For the means of exchange exist only to facilitate the exchange of commodities, and commodity production is production for the market and not for the satisfaction of human needs. It is in fact the basis of capitalist production. Through exchange the capitalists realise the fruits of their legalised robbery of the working class, their surplus value; hence the impossibility of the community commonly owning institutions and mechanisms which exist solely to serve the interests of a minority ruling class.

That the Labour Party can display such ignorance of the nature of capitalist society is understandable when one realises that they have embraced all the ‘new’, short-lived and inadequate theories of orthodox, respectable and academic economics. But even if their object had been beyond reproach in its phrasing, this would still not have made the Labour Party a socialist party, for a party is more than just a declaration of intention. Its organisation, its teachings and its behaviour are the essential things to consider when one categorises any party and judged by these things the Labour Party must be condemned as just one other of the parties that seek to run British capitalism, its working class origin notwithstanding.

The party of Socialism in this country is the Socialist Party of Great Britain which made Socialism its one and only Object in 1904, that is two years before the Labour Party as such was born. The Labour Party, by contrast, had no programme in its Constitution until 1918 because, “it did not wish to exclude Non-Socialists . . . ” (S. F. Markham M.P.) and in the famous policy statement of that year, Labour and the New Social Order which was supposed to have committed the party to Socialism, the word is not even mentioned. The Labour Party then, as now, was concerned with votes above all and was afraid to frighten the electorate. The Socialist Party, on the other hand, saw that only a class-conscious working class could build Socialism. It made its task therefore the advancement of an unadulterated, uncompromising Socialist programme. When the Labour Party did get round to using the term Socialism they simply made the task of imparting Socialist ideas twice as difficult; instead of educating they confused.

Every one of the measures introduced by the Labour Party during its governments has been completely compatible with the structure of capitalist society, and the opposition shown by Tories to measures of State ownership and control is not an opposition to the basic principle as such, but merely represents differing views on the advisability and timing of such measures. The past actions of Tory and Liberal governments, and of other frankly capitalist governments throughout the world, prove that State ownership is just one of the forms by which capitalist ownership can be safeguarded. This holds good for Russia too, for there the new ruling class exploits the workers directly through the State machine and their surplus value can be taken by them openly or disguised as salary form.

The Labour Party has also for years been guilty of encouraging the belief that the system in Russia was Socialist, and one of the claims made for a Labour government at the end of the last war was that it would be able to talk more successfully to a ‘Socialist Russia’ than a Tory Government! The only party that was able to present a Socialist analysis of the Russian Revolution, and that from its very beginning, was logically enough the Socialist Party which, using its Marxian understanding of economics and society, was able to show that the revolution could not produce Socialism but would industrialise and modernise Russia on a capitalist basis suited to needs of a giant 20th Century nation.

Opportunism was inevitable in a party where the bulk of members are only needed to pay their dues, to help at elections and to assist in fund raising. As a party the Labour Party is now a battle ground for the professional politician and for the seeker after power and prestige. Many of the founders of the Labour Party had a completely different view of the future of their party but they built on working-class backwardness not on a class-conscious, enlightened support. And so the distortion of their vision was inevitable.

Melvin Harris

Myth of Industrial Unionism (1966)

From the May 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party attitude towards any specific political or economic organisation is determined by its basic position that there can be no social change as great, as far reaching and as demanding as the creation of Socialist society, without the conscious co-operation of the majority of the working-class. Until we reach that stage, until the wage-labour and capital relationships are abolished, there remains the vital need to safeguard working class living standards and conditions of work, and this safeguarding is rightly the task of Trade Unions. As long as a union remains a defence organisation the Socialists supports its sound actions and hits out at actions which conflict with the general interests of the workers, and as long as Socialists are few in number this is the only sound action possible. But the moment that any union claims that it is a revolutionary organisation then it must be judged from a revolutionary standpoint and the allowance made for the actions taken by non-Socialist unions are clearly out of the question.

Holding to this logical approach to the problem the Socialist Party very carefully examined the claims made for Industrial Unionism when American workers set on foot the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905. The claims were that here was an organisation placed upon a class basis, free from conflict between skilled and unskilled workers, free from craft divisions, with such a resultant unity that the antagonism between boss and wage-slave could be seen clearly and met in the most effective manner. These “new style’’ unions, it was said, organised the workers “economic power" in such a way that it fitted them to take and hold the means of living when the time arose. These unions would then form the framework of socialist society and become its permanent administration. The Socialist Party was able to counter these claims by showing that no structural changes in union organisation could turn non-socialists into their opposites.

The Industrial Unions were open to all who took out membership cards; as a result their organisations housed Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, etc., men of every brand of political persuasion. “It is useless for us here to attempt to disguise the fact that we have every shade of political opinion”, declared Delegate Murtaugh at the I.W.W. first Annual Conference. Yet the advocates of Industrial Unionism insisted that the I.W.W. was a "Socialist" organisation, one composed of "38,000 class-conscious workers" (Socialist Jan. 1908).

The I.W.W. was presented as an uncompromising force for unity, but in truth it was held together by shabby compromises and as a result it split, split and split again into warring factions. The split between the De Leonist elements and the “Bummery" section led to the existence of two rival I.W.W.’s (Detroit and Chicago) and during the active life of these rivals each side claimed that the other had blacklegged in industrial disputes. The De Leonist I.W.W. (later W.I.I.U.), though backed by the Socialist Labor Party of America, was organised on the same lines as the original I.W.W. and was thus open to all; as S.L.P. speaker, W. W. Cox confessed in the Weekly People (30 Dec. 1916) “The Workers International Industrial Union recognises no political party and it has a Republican, Democratic, Progressive Prohibitionist and Socialist Party as well as S.L.P. membership”.

The S.L.P. of A. while continually calling for clarity in political thinking at the same time approved and organised political confusion on the industrial field. As long as the politically confused were organised into the W.I.I.U. the S.L.P. was happy. In some magical way it was imagined that when the industrial unions grew strong enough they would themselves generate political clarity. The S.L.P. continued to urge the workers to “Organise industrially on the principles of the W.I.I.U.” until 1924 when, since the so-called “Socialist W.I.l.U.” had become an embarrassment, it was allowed to die.

In rejecting the fallacies of the Industrial Unionists the Socialist Party never asserted that Socialist Society would result from the actions of parliamentary delegates alone. It is completely illogical to imagine that Socialist understanding could grow to the point of political victory without simultaneously resulting in a growth of understanding and hence organisation to prepare for the taking over of industry. The Socialist Party in fact knows well that organisation is necessary for the running of industry in the new-born Socialist society. It holds also that a sizeable spread of political clear-sightedness will lead to the growth of such organisations, for when many workers want Socialism they will begin to organise and plan for the rebuilding of society prior to the capture of political power. We in fact stand for the principled, democratic organisation of class-conscious workers in contrast to the Industrial Unionist concept of industrial bodies built up upon the “open-house” principle.

For the present, however, Socialists have to act and co-operate with a majority of non-socialist fellow unionists. Socialist unionists will certainly oppose unsound actions and theories wherever these are found in the unions but we do not support the view that if the present unions were smashed then “genuine working class unions would arise in their place”—yet another industrial myth. The faults of the present-day unions result from the lack of understanding of their members and until their experiences lead them to realise the limitations of the day-to-day struggle, until they realise that within the framework of capitalism they cannot rise above their basic status as victims of the caprices of the world market these faults remain.

Melvin Harris

Lenin and the 'Socialist Standard' (1970)

From the April 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard

On February 14, 1915, a Conference of so-called "Allied Socialists" opened in London. At this conference Maxim Litvinov (Maximovitch), the Bolshevik representative to the International Bureau of the Second International attempted to read a declaration sent by his section of Russian Social Democracy.

The conference chairman, Keir Hardie, twice prevented the reading of this declaration, whereupon Litvinov left the conference. This London Conference became an important landmark for the Bolsheviks who considered that they had made clear the differences between their anti-war stand and the "social chauvinist" approach of the Second International. At the time the conference was held the actions and resolutions of the participants were reported and commented on in the Zurich organ of the Bolsheviks, the Sotsial-Demokrat.

Later the conference was dealt with in detail in a number of works such as Lenin's Collected Works Vol. XVIII, Lenin on Britain and A. U. Pope's Maxim Litvinoff. But nowhere is it recorded that the declaration supplied to Litvinov and refused a hearing at the conference was in fact printed under his name in the March 1915 issue of the SOCIALIST STANDARD and the whole of the front page was given over to its presentation.

Since the declaration was in fact written by Lenin himself (and more than likely translated into English by him) this is indeed strange, for in Leninist circles even a doodle by the late master would be sought after and noted! In fact this seems to be the first known article by Lenin to have been published in English.

Is there an explanation for this odd silence? Let us look a little closer at the events of 1915.

After making a verbal and written protest Litvinov left the conference hall in disgust. For some days afterwards he attempted to get his Party's declaration printed in the "Labour" and "Socialist" press but every journal approached refused to print it. He then asked the Socialist Party of Great Britain to publish it. The Minutes of our Executive Committee for February 23, 1915 read:

“Russian Letter on War: M. Maximovitch stating that certain Russian Political Parties had been excluded from the arrangements made by Socialist Bureau although members of the Bureau, and also protesting against the action of the European Socialists in the supporting the War.
Lobb and Anderson moved "That the letter of M. Maximovitch be inserted in the next issue of the S.S. as a front page article". Cd.”

If we compare this declaration (also reproduced in our pamphlet Russia Since 1917) printed exactly as received, with the version later published in the Sotsial-Demokrat (March 29, 1915), we find that the Russian version differs from the English printing. The Russian version concludes with two sentences not found in the copy submitted to us by Litvinov. These sentences read

“the workers of Russia extend their comradely hand to the Socialists who act like Karl Leibknecht, like the Socialists of Serbia and Italy, like the British comrades from the Independent Labour Party and some members of the British Socialist Party, like our imprisoned comrades of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party.
It is to this road that we call you the road of Socialism. Down with chauvinism which destroys the proletarian cause! Long live International Socialism.”

And here we have the solution to the mystery. Lenin and the Bolsheviks had for long held the traditional Social-Democratic illusions concerning the strength of the anti-war forces. Before the war they believed that the anti-war resolutions of the International, would lead, in the event of a crisis, to antiwar action, even though the reform-minded masses were clearly patriotic, and the German Party itself had repeatedly in the Reichstag and in its press, sworn itself to stand by the Fatherland. After the war began they still continued to see pockets of socialist internationalism in places where they did not exist and never had existed. For the Bolshevik theories were based on a belief in the need to manipulate socialistically-ignorant masses, therefore they could not reject the mass-based reformist labour parties but tried to find allies within them, Lenin up to the date of the London Conference was quite ignorant of the real activities of the ILP for example. Since he relied on Litvinov for his information about English political affairs it is clear that Litvinov was playing the old opportunist game of concealing the defects of those he wished to ally himself with. The extent of Lenin's illusion can be gauged from his comments on the London Conference:

“On the other hand, the Journal de Débats laid the cards on the table in declaring that the major achievement was the vote of the English Socialists with Keir Hardie at their head, who had hitherto been against the war and against recruiting, and who at the conference cast their vote in favour of the war until victory is won over Germany.” (Sotsial-Demokrat March 29, 1915.)

Litvinov on the other hand, living in England, knew the real nature of the so-called anti-war forces. He knew that the ILP leaders though regretting the outbreak of war (in common with many Tories and Liberals) had not in fact opposed it. He knew that Keir Hardie, MacDonald and the others had in fact supported the war long before the London Conference. He knew that these gentlemen had in fact boosted recruitment to the forces even if they opposed the official recruiting platforms. So he deleted the final part of the declaration knowing that part to be riddled with illusions and knowing the Socialists Party had consistently exposed these illusions. After the date of publication he presumably regretted his action since it reflected on the accuracy of the information he had supplied to Lenin. The fact that Lenin's statement had been published and distributed widely in this country was never mentioned by Litvinov in any of his writings on the London Conference.

Melvin Harris

News from the Branches (1962)

From the August 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Good news from Glasgow Branch which is going strong propounding Socialism to workers in Scotland. Eleven outdoor meetings were held in June, three of them in Edinburgh. Audiences averaged 100 and literature sales totaled £5. A collection of £3 was taken at an indoor meeting and £5 at the outdoor ones. Average attendances of members was nine.

Swansea Branch held a successful debate with the Liberal Party represented by R. Gool. The SPGB representative our comrade Harris gave a critical survey of the history of the Liberals demonstrating how their reformist policy was of no value to the working-class, and that there was no alternative to Socialism if workers wanted a better way of life. The Liberal attacked the idea of the "class-war" and belittled the Party because it was small and therefore ineffective. He argued that the Liberals were concerned with "day-to-day" issues and gave a list of reforms which he claimed would solve all the problems of the British. Good questions were put from an attentive audience who were clearly sympathetic to the Socialist case. Literature sales, 16s. and a promise was made by a member of the audience to donate her late father's books by Marx and Engels. More indoor meetings are planned especially in view of the interest shown at this debate.

Coventry Group have linked up with Birmingham Branch to conduct propaganda meetings in the Midlands, the first of which was held in June. This lasted for two hours with an audience never below 100 and at times 200. Other meetings will be held in Coventry and surrounding towns. SS subscribers have been notified of future meetings. The local library ban on the SS has been lifted as from June.

The newly formed Bromley Group is already very active busily canvassing the constituency with introductory leaflets and following up with sales of the SS and are finding the method very successful. Comrade May addressed a meeting at the local library. Advertising was made by handbills and posters. (Poor positions were chosen by the bill-posters so members quickly placed more in prominent positions). A van literally covered with posters for the meeting was placed in a busy shopping area on a Saturday. The same was intended on the Monday but was met by a police reception committee. A challenging letter in the local press failed to evoke any response from the Colossi to whom it referred. A contingent of CND supporters attended the meeting and were challenged to debate. Socialist Standard and pamphlets were sold and a collection of £2 taken and a report appeared in the local press. A lively and very promising start.

Bloomsbury Branch have sadly learned of the death of Nat Posner, who had been ill for some time. A member for over twenty years, he had known and supported the Party a long time and had interested workers in Socialism for more than forty years. Some of these joined the Party thirty years ago becoming very active in propaganda work. Originally working as a group at their place of work they sold thousands of Socialist Standards and pamphlets and took regular weekly collections for the Party from sympathizers over a period of years. Thus, our comrade Posner by quietly and patiently convincing others, set off a chain of socialist activity. He was a frequent chairman at outdoor meetings especially at Hyde Park; a consistent and staunch member, he will be missed.

P. H.

The Keir Hardie myth (1961)

From the March 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The myth about Keir Hardie's attitude to war is very persistent. At an anti-Polaris rally in Glasgow last December, the Co-operative Movement representative had only to refer to him, ". . . if we could get Keir Hardie here . . ." to have his words drowned by applause. Whatever the sentiments of the audience may have been, it was certainly in error about Hardie's attitude to war.

In 1914, with the Great War drawing near, the Second International called for "Peace demonstrations" throughout Europe. On August 2nd, in Trafalgar Square, Hardie spoke at the "Peace demonstration". Sentimentality and emotionalism were offered in place of the sound education and organisation needed by the workers. Two days later the War began, and the Second International collapsed, its unsound base giving way beneath the strain. In the Labour Leader Hardie proclaimed, "The I.L.P. will at least stand firm. Keep the Red Flag flying!" Brave words indeed, but wholly false. For the I.L.P. turned out to be standing firm on one issue and that was on the question of party unity. To preserve this unity, to retain the greatest number of members within the fold, the most opportunist and unprincipled formulas were applied to justify the conduct of individual party members. The flag hoisted by Hardie and his fellow "Labour Leaders" was a clear and unmistakable Union Jack.

In articles directed at his electorate in Merthyr, Keir Hardie made his position clear. "A nation at war must be united especially when its existence is at stake. In such filibustering expeditions as our own Boer War or the recent Italian war over Tripoli, where no national danger of any kind was involved there were many occasions for diversity of opinion and this was given voice to by the Socialist Party of Italy and the Stop the War Party in this country. Now the situation is different. With the boom of the enemy's guns within earshot, the lads who have gone forth by sea and land to fight their country's battles must not be disheartened by any discordant note at home." (Pioneer, Merthyr 15th Aug., 1914). The man who recoiled from the talk of waging the Class War was quite prepared to have workers serve "their Motherland" in Imperialist War; he wrote that "We must see the war through, but we must also make ourselves so familiar with the facts as to be able to intervene at the earliest possible moment in the interests of peace" (Pioneer 15th Aug., 1914). Let no one be deceived by the mention of the "earliest possible moment" because for Hardie this was a very long way off and he was in fact prepared to support a long, drawn-out conflict in Europe. As he put it on 28th November, 1914, "May I once again revert for the moment to the I.L.P. pamphlets? None of them clamour for immediately stopping the war. That would be foolish in the extreme, until at least the Germans have been driven back across their own frontier, a consummation which, I fear, carries us forward through a long and dismal vista" (Pioneer, Merthyr).

Time after time Hardie fed workers the lie that they were part of a "nation" and as such were bound up in the quarrels of their masters. Not "International Working Class Solidarity", but "Class Collaboration" was his rallying cry, for Hardie was a patriot and proud of it. "I am not a pro-German", he wrote, "and still less am I a pro-Russian. I am a pro-Briton, loving my country and caring for her people. Any war of aggression against the rights and liberties of my country I would resist to the last drop of blood in my veins. But I have not seen, outside the columns of the yellow Jingo Press, any proofs that our interests as a nation were in any way imperilled or threatened by a war in which Austria and Germany and Russia and France were involved" (Pioneer, Merthyr. 22nd Aug 1914).

But although he was a patriot, Hardie would not appear on the official Government recruiting platforms. In the first place he could not stomach the crude jingoism and Imperialism that emerged from these platforms and secondly he wished to remain free to present the I.L.P. version of the events that had led to Britain's involvement in the war. He believed that if the people were told frankly about the "Secret Diplomacy" that had piloted Britain into the war, and were shown how the war, though "unjust," had put the country in peril, the needed volunteers would emerge and there would be no need for jingoistic exhortations or conscription. This in Hardie's view was the "right method" and belief in this method led Hardie to boast that he had been instrumental (together with his colleagues) in securing more recruits for the Armed Forces than his Liberal opponents.

Writing in the Pioneer of November 28th, 1914, Keir Hardie made his claim thus: "I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting; I know too well all there is at stake. But, frankly, were I once more young and anxious to enlist, I would resent more than anything the spectacle of young, strong, flippant upstarts, whether MPs or candidates, who had the audacity to ask me to do for my country what they had not the heart to do themselves. Of all causes, this surely is the one in which actions speak louder than words. If I can get the recruiting figures for Merthyr week by week, which I find a very difficult job, I hope by another week to be able to PROVE that whereas our Rink Meeting gave a stimulus to recruiting, those meetings at the Drill Hall at which the Liberal member or the Liberal candidate spoke, had the exactly opposite effect." Hardie was so determined to prove his point that he tried on a number of occasions to obtain the relevant recruiting figures.

The figures were refused him, but this did not daunt Hardie. In the meantime, his staunch supporter J.B. (John Barr). writing in the Pioneer enthusiastically endorsed Hardie's claim; he wrote. "I am still of the opinion that the Rink meeting gave a fillip to recruiting, and my opinion is based on the belief that the I.L.P. method is the right one. . ."

Two weeks later Hardie was able to proclaim that he had obtained the recruiting figures for his constituency and was able to make good his boast. He set out his claim in this manner: "(1) That for the five weeks before the Rink Meeting. recruiting had been steadily going down week by week; (2) that our I.L.P. meeting was held on Sunday, October 25th, and that for the next three weeks the number of recruits secured in Merthyr kept steadily rising. . . If Mr. Jones challenges this statement I shall produce the figures, though not inclined to do so for very obvious patriotic reasons. Unlike my colleague I am more concerned with aiding the army than with trying to take a mean advantage of a political opponent" (Pioneer, 19th Dec., 1914).

Ample evidence exists to prove that in supporting the War Hardie in no way acted as a renegade. His actions were in fact in concord with the actions of his colleagues in the party leadership and these actions were never repudiated, but were endorsed and underwritten by the party as a whole.

Melvin Harris