How Kirkdale was Fought. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

They were not responsible for the Kirkdale contest being fought upon Socialism, said Philip Snowden, M.P., at Smethwick on September 28, at an I.L.P. demonstration. No one can accuse the I.L.P. of a desire to fight upon Socialism. And the speeches delivered by Mr. Hill’s supporters prove that every effort was made on their side to turn the contest on anything and everything but Socialism. Mr. McPherson, M.P. (Preston), claimed that the Labour men in the House of Commons contained an exceptional proportion of P.S.A. workers and teetotalers. Mr. Stephen Walsh, M.P., asserted that they “would not confiscate the land or rob the landlords, but they would soon be in a position to say to the privileged classes ‘So far and no farther,'” a sentiment which met with loud applause. Mr. Will Crooks, M.P., appealed to them as “Ye Christian Men !” and asked them to vote for Mr. Hill because “Christ died to adjust social inequalities.” Mr. J. Seddon, M.P., referred to “the notorious fact that almost every member of the Labour Party belonged either to the Established Church or to one of the great bodies of nonconformity.” Mr. Arthur Henderson, M.P., stated that the Labour Party contained more religiously inclined persons, and took the pulpit oftener on Sunday than any other section of politicians. What was the real issue, he asked, involved in the contest ? It was this: that the electors would declare whether there was endorsement on all of the substantial points of the Government policy. A victory for Labour would show how the people stood, for this Government or against it. The conclusion arrived at would be, that if the Labour Party were defeated it would prove that there was a weakening of the Liberal trend. The Rev. E. F. Forrest (vicar of Pemberton) of the Church Socialist League, wanted Society shaken to its foundations so that “employers and employed might fraternise and class distinctions be abolished.” Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., declared that Tariff Reform was the real crux of the election, and that its adoption would bring about the ruin of the port of Liverpool. Mr. T. F. Richards, M.P., eulogised John Burns. It was just like some working men, he said, to haul down one of their own class. If it was possible for an engineer to be President of the L.G.B., why should not the democracy fill other high offices of State? (Which of the “high offices” is Richards after ?) Mrs. Cobden Sanderson (daughter of Richard Cobden), said if her father were alive he would be with her upon that platform. She pleaded for a Free Trade policy and accepted every word of the address of John Hill, “as the aspiration of a true Liberal !” And Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald explained that the Labour Party did not make Socialism a test for its candidates. We can, therefore, quite agree with Mr. Snowden that they were not responsible for the Kirkdale election being fought upon Socialism.

Jack Kent

Trade Unionism. A Debate. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard.

[To save repetition and for convenience of reference we have numbered the paragraphs in the reply of the Advocates, and will answer under those numbers.]

Reply of Advocates.

The loose and inaccurate habit of thought of the S.P.G.B. is well typified by the sub-heading of their answer, which attempts to make out that the present debate is with the S.L.P. instead of with the A. of I.U.

(1) When we speak of the S.P.G.B. wandering away from the correct position, it is in the sense that they totally fail to put into practice the principle expressed in their Manifesto, “that the basis of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the worker’s position under capitalism and the class struggle resulting therefrom,” by advocating the formation of such a union in Great Britain. Instead they deliberately attack those who are seeking to establish an industrial union based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the Socialist Republic.

(2) The S.P.G.B., after publishing in its official organ the statement that “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” reject another later article because it asks for the same thing. For the S.P. to contend that a union could not be a class union, that is, based on the class struggle, because it would be organised according to industries, cuts the ground from under their own feet, for if economic grouping in an economic body robs it of its class character, then geographical grouping in a political body must do likewise.

(3) There is no jumble of unions in our organisation. Our object is to organise the workers in a compact body along the same lines in which modern industrial conditions compel them to work together, that is united according to industrial, and not divided along craft lines. The object of our union is the taking over by and for the workers themselves the productive forces they now operate for a boss. Anyone knows that the General Federation of Trade Unions is simply out to federate the existing craft unions, duplicates as well, leaving their internal organisation absolutely intact. What we are out for is to organise one union of the whole working class, divided for administrative and other purposes into industrial departments and local industrial unions, just as an army is divided into regiments or a political party into local branches.

(4) The I.W.W. of America, in spite of the alleged split (a split only in the sense that the fakirs were kicked out) has now over 28,000 fully paying members. Several European countries, France, Roumania, Bulgaria, Italy, Germany, etc., have unions organised on industrial lines, both before and since the I.W.W. was started, and now Australia is starting an industrial union, with the title, preamble and constitution of the I.W.W.—facts which prove the efficiency of revolutionary industrial organisation.

(5) To say that because we wish an economic organisation as being the chief means to overthrow capitalism and to form the foundation of the Socialist Republic, that we are Anarchist as believing in direct action, places the loyal S.P’ite in the same category should he become involved in a strike and should he not attempt to conduct it through the ballot box.

(6) We claim that were the working class organised in a revolutionary industrial union, we could prevent to a large extent the use of armed forces against the workers. Transport, food, clothing, ammunition, etc., are necessary factors in warfare, and the workers industrially organised could prevent the hired assassins of the capitalist class from using them. In the railway strike in Italy the Government used armed force to compel the men to run certain trains, but the organised workers in Milan and elsewhere called a series of strikes in these towns which made the Government withdraw the troops and grant the workers’ demands.

(7) If the revolution is to be effected by armed force, how are the workers going to get it ? because if the capitalists can prevent the organising of a revolutionary union because of their strict supervision, are we to suppose they will allow an armed force to be got together ? And if they did, how are workers ever to obtain sufficient wealth to purchase “the modern weapons of precision and death-dealing ?”

(8) Although the capitalists could not starve the industrially organised workers into submission, seeing we will have possession of the means of production, what would there be to prevent them starving a “Socialist” government out of power by refusing to give up control of the fighting forces and the means of production to the Socialist M.P.’s ?

(9) To say that the capitalist class laid the foundation of their control by building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax begs the question as to how they got control of this army, which we contend was only by the capitalists having since the time of Henry 8th been developing and getting economic power, thereby being able to purchase the munitions of war, pay their soldiers, etc., when the question of feudal or capitalist supremacy finally became relegated from Parliament to battlefield.

(10) We were wrong in describing the S.P. as “neutral,” for to actively oppose, as they do, those who are attempting to organise a union “based on the class struggle, aiming at the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic,” amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. To say that Allen’s article was allowed in because it asked for a Socialist union when it stated “we Socialists want to see industrial unionism,” and to reject a second article because it asked for the same thing, is equal to saying that a union “based on the class struggle,” etc., is not a Socialist union.

(11) The statement that Kent’s resolution did not say an industrial organisation “affiliated to and controlled by the S.P.G.B.” is a distinct suggestion of falsification. The facts are that these words were added to Kent’s resolution as an amendment by Anderson. The resolution as amended was carried, and Kent himself voted for it. If the S.P. attitude is not one of “boring from within” when it allows its members to hold office in existing unions that deny the class struggle, thus helping to build them up and extend their influence, we should like to know what is. They have some members who have denied the need for economic organisation at all.

(12) With regard to the I.W.W. excluding men on account of high dues, when first established the Executive Board had power to lower and forgive them if it so wished. The S.P. likewise conveniently overlooks the differences in the money rate of wages in America and here. Since Sherman & Co. were kicked out, the I.W.W. has organised men who were on strike without the payment of initiation fee or dues. The Paterson silk workers had their dues reduced 25 per cent., and they won their strike. In their official organ for July 27th, ’07 they report the winning of the Paterson Locomotive Workers’ strike, and in the same issue report Local 95 as exempted from paying assessments. Bridgeport I.W.W. machinists won their strike. The big strike in the mills of Skowhegan was won by the I.W.W. Case after case can be given proving it a lie to say that the I.W.W. has never won a strike, and also that it makes dues and initiation fees so high as to keep workers out. In Schenectady the I.W.W. had only 3,000 men : the rest of the 12,000 in the Works were in craft unions, and it was these remaining at work blacklegging on the I.W.W. that lost the strike. In Buffalo several new unions have been started. The I.W.W. has won more strikes than it has lost. Even if it had not, it does not prove industrial unionism wrong, because anyone with sense knows a union must have a certain proportion of workers inside to strike successfully ; while young and weak some strikes are sure to be lost. The S.P.G.B. has never won an election, therefore it is a fraud.

(13) With regard to the split, the S.P. should be the last to talk of splits seeing that it is simply the result of a split from the S.D.F. itself, and has since had splits at Islington and elsewhere in its own ranks.

(14) We attend workers political bodies, trade union branches, trades councils, etc., at their invitation just as the S.P.G.B. was prepared to let Lehane go to the Parliament branch U.I.L. when there was a chance to go. To drag in the S.L.P. is quite irrelevant as this is a debate with the A. of I.U. and not the S.L.P. The S.P.G.B. allows its members to hold office in unions that deny the class struggle, that are going to moralise the capitalists like the O.B.S., establish mutual relations between employer and employed, and that are affiliated to the bogus Labour Party which is supposed to be fought by the S.P. If industrial unionism is so bad and against Socialist principles why does the S.P.G.B. fail to tell us the methods on which a union should be organised, and then set about organising it to prove their honesty ?

S.P.G.B. answer to Advocates.

(1) Both on the platform and in our paper we continually point out to the working class the necessity for political and economic action and for building up their organisations from their class basis. To call a new organisation an “industrial” union merely conveys to the average worker the idea of a union similar in most respects to the existing unions and differing only in some details. Call it a “Socialist” union and attention is at once directed to the fundamental differences between that and the present unions. If the Advocates are in favour of a Socialist union why do they attempt to start unions that sectionalise the workers according to industry and then try to hide their stupidity by saying that this sectionalism is on a class basis ?

(2) As people usually live in different localities, geographical subdivision of organisation becomes necessary, and the I.W.W. has been compelled to adopt this form despite their denouncing this method as wrong. The S.P. is an organisation with geographical sub-divisions, but the I.W.W. is composed of Industrial and Local Unions—that is, of complete organisations or entities—not branches of an organisation, and is merely a conglomerate similar to the General Federation of Trade Unions.

(3) This is answered by No. 2 above.

(4) This is so clumsy an evasion of the truth that we can only suppose the Advocates to imagine their opponents know nothing of the facts. When the I.W.W. was formed it claimed 100,000 members. At the next Annual Convention these figures had dropped to 60 or 70,000. Now they are given as 28,000. Nor is this the most important fact. The union that formed the back-bone of the I.W.W., and was lauded in their press and speeches as the most clear-cut revolutionary union in America, is the Western Federation of Miners ; and it is just this union, stated to number 30,000 members, that has withdrawn from the I.W.W. No talk of “alleged splits” can cover the seriousness of these facts and figures.

If the existence of so-called industrial unions on the continent of Europe proves the efficiency of this form of organisation, then the so-called ”craft” unions must be immensely more efficient as they exist with a far greater membership.

But the truth is that these industrial unions are Anarchist unions and fight Socialism at every opportunity. The strongest and most important of them all—the General Federation of Labour of France—has for years bitterly opposed the Socialist party and propaganda there ; while— a curious fact —the Australian S.L.P. has withdrawn from the Socialist Federation in Australia that endorsed (not started) the I.W.W. there.

(5) Utter inability to refute our case showing how the A. of I. U. adopt the Anarchist position is proved by the absurd paragraph in question. To talk of conducting an economic strike through the ballot box is sheer idiocy.

(6) While this paragraph is the first attempt to come to anything like close quarters in the discussion, it carefully evades our previous statement. In the first place they have utterly failed to show how unarmed workers could prevent the armed “hired assassins” from using the immense stores that are under the control of the capitalist class, in the Arsenals, victualing yards, etc. ; and in the second place the only “demands” granted the railway workers in Italy were doses of lead in Milan and Barra Bridge. Far from the men winning they were completely routed by the use of the soldiers in running—and compelling the men to run—the services in question.

(7) This paragraph shows how completely the Anarchist notions have bitten into the Advocatee, as the only alternative to an economic struggle they appear capable of grasping is the Bakunine position of street riots with such arms as the workers can secure by purchase or theft. They fail to see that with the control of the political machinery there is control of the ordering departments, and therefore control of the fighting forces already in existence ; and until this control is obtained by the workers they cannot hold the means of production.

(8) This reiterates the same old fallacy that, “industrially” organised, the workers are invincible, the absurdity of which we have shown above.

(9) The contention that the capitalists in the seventeenth century were only able to control the Army because they had the means to purchase munitions of war and pay soldiers is entirely inaccurate. Leaving out the point, so well established in the Thirty Years’ War, that an Army can support itself while production exists at all, the bourgeois class obtained their army in the first place from the militia existing in England and which was under the control of Parliament. When they had conquered political power in the Commons they were able to use this militia to protect themselves, while the King had to rely upon his courtiers and their retainers for an army to fight them, showing in a striking manner the importance of the working class gaining control of the political machinery to accomplish their emancipation.

(10) The naive admission made here well shows how the Advocates merely repeat parrot-like phrases and statements used in America even against facts existing here. The American S.L.P. denounces the Socialist Party there for claiming to be “neutral” on the trade union question. Then the Advocates here—formed by, and largely consisting of members of, the Scots S.L.P.—must use the same phrase against the S.P.G.B., although the subject was debated on Peckham Rye with G. Geis in August, 1906 and again at Plumstead in January, 1907, with Allen ; in the latter case the debate was, technically, on the political question, but it was almost wholly taken up with with industrial unionism. This is now the third encounter we have had on the subject, yet the Advocates only discover in their second contribution that we are not “neutral” but in opposition ! This they say amounts to backing up the existing reactionary trade unions. The fact that we have lately had to defend ourselves in a libel action, due to our criticism of some of these reactionaries, is by itself a sufficient refutation of the statement; but in truth, from the publication of our Manifesto onwards, we have always opposed all organisations that are non-Socialist, whether political or economic.

The almost pathetic reiteration of one sentence from an article by E. J. B. Allen is best met by further quotation from that article.

“We must carry on an organised agitation and education within the existing unions to which our members belong, so as to form a nucleus of sound Socialists in each. They should proceed with the educational work … so that they can get a sufficient number of sound men within the unions, so that when we are strong enough and conditions are ripe, we can call them out to form the foundation of the Socialist union. . . . Better do this and build a solid foundation by education . . . than pass pious resolutions instructing the E.C. to form Socialist unions at a time when it is a numerical and financial impossibility.”

In an article two months previous to the above the same writer stated :—

“The question therefore arises can the unions be made of service to the working class ? The answer is undoubtedly, yes.”

And further on it is said :—

“They (the Socialist trade unionists) should, it seems to me, endeavour to effect the sound economic organisation of the workers by systematic propaganda of Socialism inside existing unions—a work which, it must be remembered, has, hitherto, never been seriously undertaken.”

In face of these quotations it is unnecessary to labour the point further.

(11) It is now admitted that Kent’s resolution did not contain the statement questioned. It is not true that Kent voted for the resolution as amended. The next point is “boring from within.” It is stated that “the S.P. allows its members to hold office in existing unions.” So do the Advocates ! G. Geis, a prominent member of both Advocates and S.L.P., has held office in his trade union as late as last November. Evidently everyone but an “Advocate” holding office is only “helping to build them up and extend their influence.”

(12) The opening statement here is entirely false. Nowhere in the constitution is any provision made for remitting dues, nor is any power given to the Executive Board to do so and where this has occurred, the Executive have acted outside the rules. Every union that entered upon a strike has found itself compelled to organise the non-members without payment of dues, as such payment is obviously impossible then. Local No. 95 were exempted from payment to headquarters because they were supporting an organiser entirely by their own efforts, thus saving the centre a good sum.

In Secretary Trautmann’s Report to the I.W.W. Convention it is stated that the “Paterson Silk Workers’ strike is still pending” and up to time of writing no further report has appeared. In their official organ for June 15th it is pointed out that the blacksmiths, hammermen and helpers of Paterson Locomotive Works all belong to an independent union, and that the I.W.W. helpers worked jointly with them when the strike was called. The above is a sample of the bluff indulged in by the Advocates, but more can be quoted. In the report of July 27th it says a telegram was received saying “Paterson strike won” but neither then nor since have the details of the “victory” been published. The Skowhegan strike was so “big” that in his first report, organiser French described the firm as “a cockroach concern that cannot stand for any long period without going into bankruptcy,” and while it was only claimed that the women in the finishing department were in the I.W.W., the whole of the employes came out on strike and received support from various quarters. But here again no details are given of the “victory,” while in the case of Bridgeport Machinists, not only is there no mention of the strike in the secretary’s report, but it is not claimed anywhere that the strike was won, though it is stated it was “settled.” The significance of this silence as to details is vividly shown by the solitary case where they are given and we cannot do better than quote the secretary :—

“In the strike of the smeltermen of Tacoma, Wash., the workers made a splendid showing. The company settled on the terms of the 8 hour day and 15 per cent. increase of wages, but singled out all officers and active workers of the union for the black list. They had to leave the town, after the spokesman of the company had succeeded in having the organisation dissolved. The concessions of the company, however, will not be lived up to, and the misguided few may soon again see the necessity of organising so as to preserve what was conceded on account of the splendid fight conducted by those who were finally made the victims.”

Did ever “craft” union win such a “victory”? It must be left to the imagination to picture what the “victories” were on the details of which they are silent.

We are then told that it was the craft unions remaining at work that lost the Schenectady strike. Secretary Trautmann says it was due to leading individuals, who afterwards received their rewards in the shape of well-compensated foremen’s positions for having delivered the goods (Ind. Bulletin, Sept. 18th, 1907), and later on it is stated that “It was C. W. Noonan” who sold out the strike. Our readers may take their choice.

But superior to all these petty details, however, is the point made in our last contribution, namely, that attempts to form Socialist unions with non-Socialist material was a stupid farce and merely encouraged further labour faking. The Advocates have entirely ignored this point, while, in addition to the quotation given above, the following, from the same report, clinch the argument:—

“But the unions in Schenectady had hardly gone through the transitory stage of development, unions formerly connected with the American Federation of Labour had joined in full force the Industrial Workers of the World without sufficiently understanding the difference in the basic principles. The change of name did not materially change the structure of the organisation, . . .”

And this section of the report closes as follows:—

“It is essential that in every organisation at least a good minority be fully possessed of the knowledge of the aims and objects of the Industrial Workers of the World, so that in times of conflicts this element can assume control of the situation and rise fully to the occasion required in critical and crucial hours.”

So ! not only are the rank and file in mass not required to know the principles of the organisation they join, but not even a majority need know them. All that is wanted is a minority to control and guide the rest. And this is called a Socialist organisation ! Nothing we have ever said is so strong a refutation of such a claim as the secretary’s own statement given above.

Obituary: Ferdinand Czilinsky (1907)

Obituary from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to announce that our Comrade Ferdinand Czilinsky, of the Tottenham branch, died on September 20th after an illness of three days. Our comrade was seventy-two years of age.

A Look Round. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Writing in the Sportsman for October 14th, “Vigilant,” oppressed by a dread that “Sport would go by the board were the Socialists ever to take charge,” says that what is wanted is that men with big incomes not derived from land should come into the swim and assist the projected movement. It is really, he says, an insurance proposal, if they would only understand.

* * *

The “insurance proposal” emanates from Epsom. It is “a practical scheme for not merely opposing the pernicious doctrines of Socialism, but with further suggestions for providing agricultural employment and enabling the labourers to share in profits.”

* * *

Why should “Vigilant” be afraid that “sport” will be non-existent under Socialism ? In the old English definitions sport was a game, pastime, or amusement, a play, a diversion, a merry-making, a frolic. The word was also used to describe collectively such out-of-door recreations as grown men indulged in, more especially hunting, fishing, racing, shooting, and the like. It was likewise a comprehensive term embracing all forms of athletics and games of skill in which prizes were competed for. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that, under Socialism, sport will be taboo. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that it will flourish as it has never done before.

* * *

Of course, sport has been prostituted under capitalism, like most other things. “Sports” (mainly of the Hebrew persuasion) have entered the arena and have fastened themselves on to sport for profit-making purposes. They regard sport as a legitimate Tom Tiddler’s ground, and speculate in it in the same way as the jobber makes a “book” on stocks or the Mincing Lane merchant speculates on the price of petroleum months ahead. These gentry will be unable to play the game under Socialism, and will not need to, because Socialism will provide enough and to spare for all—will establish the Right to Live. The only condition will be that those who desire to live shall recognise and fulfil their obligation to do their share of the necessary work, and as this will be reduced to a minimum and will be joyous and health-giving ; as all will have leisure and opportunity for mental and physical development of the highest order, sport, in its truest sense, will no longer be prostituted, but will form part and parcel of the daily life of the people.

* * *

“I write” adds “Vigilant,” because “I know how racing would suffer under socialistic schemes.” But he knows nothing about it. There is no reason at all why racing should not exist under Socialism, but it will not be subverted to suit the purposes of men on the make, who regard it to-day, not from the point of view of sport, but as a means whereby the “ready” may be transferred from others’ pockets into theirs.

* * *

What should be noticed in particular is the appeal to the sporting fraternity to join with the opponents of Socialism in their efforts to fight Socialism by palliating capitalism. When the S.P.G.B. has pointed out to misguided members of the S.D.F. and I.L.P. that as palliatives tend to perpetuate capitalism they should not be advocated by Socialists ; that the master class would vie with each other to pass laws “to improve the condition of the working class” when they really believed the latter were accepting the principles of Socialism, its members have been denounced as “wreckers,” ”impossiblists,” etc., whereas, as a matter of fact, it is the advocate of palliatives, the striver after reforms, who is the real impossiblist, and is side-tracking the working-class movement. Now that this position is being proved by the defenders of capitalism, is it too much to hope that the aforementioned misguided S.D.F. and I.L.P. members will be honest enough and brave enough to “come out from among them” and join the only Socialist party in this country,—the S.P.G.B. ?

* * *

The apologies of the “palliators” are amusing. A prominent member of the I.L.P. recently took the platform in Manchester in opposition to an S.P.G.B. lecturer and asserted that owing to their lack of education and to their chronic underfeeding and bad housing the working class cannot understand Socialism and it is therefore necessary to work for palliatives in order to fit them to understand it. That, of course, was an admission that one of the charges brought against the I.L.P. by the S.P.G.B., viz., that it does not preach Socialism, is justified. But as the I.L.P. does not preach Socialism, how can it know whether the working class can understand it or not ?

* * *

Moreover, if it is necessary to give the working class better conditions so that they may understand and accept Socialism, districts such as Port Sunlight and Bournville should be hotbeds of Socialist agitation. But are they ? It is just as illogical to assert that revolutionists can only be made out of a well-fed people as it is to say that they can only be made out of a starving people.

* * *

“Education and an empty belly are the raw materials of revolution” writes “Vanoc” in the Referee for to-day (Oct. 20th). I think this as near to the truth as one can get because education is put first. It is not imperative that the individual should have both the education and the empty belly. It cannot be questioned that an increasing number of the wage-earners, amongst the rising generation in particular, are seizing every opportunity to widen their mental outlook, as is evidenced by the enormous demand for scientific (which, of course, includes economic) and classical literature now prevalent, and by their attendance at public meetings, lectures, and debates. (There is a lesson here which the publicans might learn with advantage, as some few have already done, instead of wasting their time bewailing the emptiness of their unattractive, seatless, sawdust-floored horse-boxes, and cursing the clubs). The wage-earners are therefore obtaining education of the real kind, and capitalist development, with its facilities for disseminating information relative to industrial conditions all over the world, and its production of empty bellies in increasing numbers, is doing the rest. Education is enabling the wage-workers who are in employment to recognise that a very slender partition separates them from their “empty-belly” confreres.

* * *

When a sufficient number have educated themselves, when a mental revolution has been accomplished, the way will have been prepared for the social revolution that shall end the struggle for existence between man and man, and relieve human beings of the fear that oppresses the majority of them under capitalism, viz, that at any moment they may be, through no fault of their own, thrown on to the industrial scrap heap or forced into that flotsam and jetsam of humanity which one can observe running to seed day by day.

* * *

The secretary of the Liberty and Property Defence League writes to the Press from 25, Victoria Street, Westminster, that twelve months ago the League published a sixpenny volume of papers entitled “Socialism : Its Fallacies and Dangers” in which every phase of Socialism— economic, social, and political—is discussed by writers who have made the subject the study of their lives. They have two new pamphlets in the Press: “The Socialist Spectre” and “The Impossibility of Socialism.”

* * *

What a lot of noise over a spook and a thing that cannot be ! But, as the poet says :

“Such tricks hath strong imagination,

That, if it would apprehend some joy,

It comprehends some bringer of that joy;

Or, in the night, imagining some fear,

How easy is a bush supposed a bear” !

* * *

Speaking at a meeting of Liberal Registration Agents at Aberdare on October 1st, Mr. D. A. Thomas, M.P., suggested that if the I.L.P. would help the Welsh nonconformists in their fight for religious liberty (whatever that is), he would help them to oppose candidates “of the Whig or neo-Tory type who attempted to sail under the Liberal flag.” In view of Keir Hardie’s tactics when he contested Merthyr and the facility with which I.L.P. atheists became Christians during the Kirkdale election, the deal proposed by Mr. Thomas should appeal to them “in once.”

* * *

At a meeting held at Manchester on October 5th, under the auspices of the Ancoats Healthy Homes Society, Mr. J. Grime said the Medical Officer of Health had reported that during the past two or three years no other part of the city had improved so much as Ancoats (possibly no other part needed it so much). Where the people lived and worked, he said, were the important parts of the city to be cared for.

* * *

That’s a good capitalist dictum, and one in which Sir John Gorst, among others, firmly believes. He supports the S.D.F. agitation for free meals in order to make more efficient profit producing workers.

* * *

Commenting on Mr. Keir Hardie’s visit to Bengal, the Statesman (India) says the fact that Mr. Hardie was the guest of the Maharajah of Mymensingh disposes of the suggestion that he has been guilty of anything serious. Apparently, the Statesman thinks that a man will not speak ill of you after having fed at your expense. Is the same view held by English Liberal and Tory M.P.’s who invite Labour members to banquets ?

* * *

Mr. Herbert Burrows, of the S.D.F., will contest the Parliamentary division of Haggerston at the next election providing the present Liberal member is not a candidate. Thus the S.D.F. again shows that while it professes to be equally opposed to Liberal and Tory, it really believes there is a difference between the two, a difference in favour of the Liberal, whom it therefore refuses to oppose.

* * *

“It is a good thing for employers,” said the Daily Chronicle on October 9th, “that Labour should be organised, for organisation tends to promote a higher sense of responsibility. That truth is so obvious that in France the Socialists for whom M. Hervé and M. Jaurès speak, deprecate the formation of strong trade unions on the ground that by their very strength and wealth they operate as a restraint on rashness, and tend always to be pacific.”

* * *

The last stage of democratic evolution has generally been a conflict between the Haves and Have Nots, and to this goal democracy seems to be moving slowly in England, in France, and in the United States.—Daily Mail, Oct. 5th.

* * *

What the country wants is a more proportionate representation of organised labour—not a revolution.—Mr. GRAYSON, M.P., at Liverpool, Oct. 6th.

* * *

The pioneers of the co-operative movement, in trying to reconcile capital and labour, were dealing with the root cause of social evils and inequalities.—Mr. SNOWDEN, M.P., at Birmingham, Sept. 28th.

* * *

A teetotaler is an infinitely better man than even a moderate drinker, physically, morally, and intellectually.—Mr. H. QUELCH at Luton, October 2nd.

J. Kay

To the Death. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are going, dear friends, to have a very hot time. We shall soon, we understand, be fighting for our very lives. So far we have had an easy time of it. Up to now we have been left severely alone. The “Constitutional” forces have held their hand. We have been allowed plenty of rope. We have enjoyed unfettered liberty; unrestrained license. And we have used our opportunities. We have insinuated our delusive doctrine into the working-class mind. We have inoculated the working class with the poison of our principles. We have preached an unreasonable discontent with things as they are. We have sown dissension between master and man. We have upset the harmony between Capital and Labour. We have dammed up the river of progress. We have throttled industry. We have choked the breath of life out of enterprise. And, if we may loan the chaste expression of the ”Constitutional” poet, Kipling, we have played hell generally.

But now we are to be taken in hand very severely. Our pernicious propaganda is to be scotched. Our license is to be endorsed. Reason, my friends, is to be re-seated on its throne, and gems of knowledge will be scattered broad-cast as chaff before the wind. The confidence of the “working classes” is to be restored. They will no longer go abroad with the canker of Socialism gnawing at their vitals. Fear for the safety of their little hoards will no longer haunt them. The millions in the Post Office Savings Bank will be rescued from danger of the avaricious maw of the professional agitator. Trade will return from the exile to which we have banished it. There will be plenty of work. Bellies that to-day are filled with the East wind will then be soft and sleek and with fat capon lined. And sweet Peace and happy Content will brood o’er the smiling land of “Wiggin” and “Snellin” and “Owdam” and Manchester, and may even, although this would be expecting too much, come as far South as London and Watford !

So, if we are to maintain our hold on the people; if we are not to be deprived of our comfortable jobs; it we are to continue in the enjoyment of our riotous debauchery; if we want to batten upon the credulity of the workers in the future as now and heretofore, it behoves us to re-organise the forces of brigandage, to look to the joints of our devilish harness, to sharpen our swords and test our bucklers ; to strengthen our outworks and our outposts, so as to be ready when the slogan of the “British Constitution Association ” and the shrieks of the Shanghai Press herald the imminent attack.

Verily the outlook is dark and full of fearsome portend. But, thank God! the Daily News is still to be relied upon. It is going to stand by us in the hour of trial. “And who shall say at close of day which side will have to mourn” while our weakness is voluntarily augmented by its strength ? It gives us heart, this chivalrous offer of the noble News. We have no words wherewith to frame our thanks—so, on the whole it will be well not to attempt it. But we take courage knowing what we have behind us in Fleet Street, and feel as if we might, much daring, even venture to open the attack. And indeed, that course would, haply, be the best. It would bring our waiting suspense to the issue of action. Yes—we will chance it. We will risk our all on this hazard. We will enter the lists. We will pick up the gauntlet—if it has been thrown. We will throw it ourselves if it hasn’t. We will. Now! Up ! herald. Hang our banner on the outer wall. And you there, you with the trumpets, blow! you beggars, blow !

So. ‘Tis done. And now, soft, while our champion speaks. Sh-s-ss—

To the Lord Balfour of Burleigh, President of the “British Constitution Association,” the Lord Northdiffe (of the Daily Mail), the Lord Burnham (of the Daily Telegraph), the potential Lord Pearson (of the Daily Express), and all others whom it may concern; give ear. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, the head and front of that which stands to you for offence; the only party in this land that fights consistently and unwaveringly for Socialism; the party that preaches relentless war upon the capitalism for which you stand ; the party that is organising the working class of this country to the end that shall spell the extermination of the capitalist; the party that is inciting the worker to revolt; that is urging him to seize the control of the political machine in his own interest so that he may the more surely capture and hold the factory and the railway and the workshop against the power of the employer ; this Socialist Party of Great Britain gives you defiance and bids you select your champion—the mightiest man amongst you—so that he may do battle in the lists of rhetoric on your behalf and in your defence. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, will meet you in hall or street or Press ; its champions will combat yours one at a time or—or all at once ! They will take you on seriatim—one down t’other come on—or en bloc. They will oppose a working man to the most skilful of your professors, in the largest hall or the smallest, in London or the provinces, on Sunday or any other time, in season or out of season, on any question that will bring to a direct issue the relationship of the working class to the capitalist class. Name your man or men, my lords, or if their valour is out weighed by their discretion, come on yourselves. You will receive the warmest of welcome, but—your case will be slaughtered to make a working-class holiday. The god of Capital help you in that day, my lords, for verily, you will want it.

AGRA.

_______________

Since writing the foregoing the Daily Express (October 10th, 1907), the exponent of what may fairly be called the “bad-egg and flour-bag” method of argument, has come out with a woefully frank, and, for the Daily Express, an amazingly honest expression of the importance of the British Constitution Association and the anti-Socialist propagandist generally. Says Pearson’s Pride—

ANTI-SOCIALIST TACTICS.

The anti-Socialist winter campaign is again in full swing, and the battle will shortly be joined all along the line. There is one tactical feature of the Socialist plan of campaign which is worthy of close attention. It is now the order of the day in the enemy’s ranks to issue challenges to anti-Socialist speakers to take part in joint public debates. The motive of this particular procedure is well defined, and, from our opponents’ point of view the result is likely to be profitable to the movement. 

To accept these challenges—except in special cases and for particular reasons—would be to play into the enemy’s hands. What anti-Socialists want is to put Socialism on its own defence. It behoves us, therefore, to point out quite candidly that, as matters now stand, the average Socialist speaker is better primed on Socialism than the average anti-Socialist. The London Municipal Society will probably make a point of organising a department whose duty it will be to provide text-books as well as speakers to meet the Socialists on their own ground. When that is accomplished we shall probably hear no more of Socialist challenges.”— Daily Express, 8/10/07.

Tlie italics are our own.

Observe, “the battle” is to be “joined all along the line,” but—the join must not be made too effectively. The enemy must be engaged—at a respectful distance. Socialism must be put upon its trial, but for heaven’s sake don’t let the trial take place upon a B.C.A. platform unless the prisoner is muzzled and gagged ! If you do it will surely be to the advantage of the Socialist Movement, because, don’t you see, the Socialist has the facts and the Constitutionalist hasn’t. The Socialist, of course, is all wrong. He hasn’t a leg to stand on. He hasn’t a shred of evidence to support his case. His objective is a chimera. His principles are an outrage on common sense. His methods are fanatical and dangerous to the well known peace and prosperity of this our land. He is a fool where he isn’t a fraud. Put upon its trial Socialism must fail upon every count, but whatever you do, don’t let its champions defend themselves upon your platforms. And don’t get upon the Socialist platform. That would be quite as bad—in fact worse. Join “the battle all along the line,” but—caution, eager hearts ! the Socialist is an artful person and you are artless. When you get that text book you will be all right, but until then put Socialism on its trial—and may the spirit of stern resolve and lofty purpose that animated our Drakes and Whitaker Wrights and Nelsons, Lord Cowleys and the rest of our Empire builders strengthen your arms and direct your aims so that your flour and eggs and other such arguments may speed true. As it is, as it will be until the arrival of that text book, the B.C.A. gentlemen are on the clear confession of the enlightened Express, without even the means of combatting the ‘”absurdities,” “illogical sophistries,” evidence-less postulates and reasonless conclusions, of that danger to the Constitooshion, the Socialist. Did ever army march out to join “the battle all along the line” with such rotten equipment ?

AGRA.

The Proletariat (The Working Class). By Karl Kautsky (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2.

Specially translated for The Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

5. The Industrial Reserve Army.

The introduction of the labour of women and children into industry is, as we have seen, one of the most powerful means for forcing down wages.

But at times other means have an equally powerful effect: the importation of workers from localities backward in economic development, where the population have but few wants, but possess labour-power that has not yet fallen under the ban of industrial enterprise. The development of large industrial enterprise, especially of machinery, not only makes it possible to use unskilled in place of skilled workers, but also affords the opportunity of obtaining them cheaply and quickly. Development of the methods of transit proceeds hand in hand with the development of production ; transit on a large scale develops side by side with production on a large scale, transit not only of commodities but of persons. Steamships and railways, these highly praised bearers of culture, not only carry rifles, whisky, and syphilis to the Barbarians, but they also bring the Barbarians to us and with them their barbarism. The migration of agricultural labourers into the towns is assisted by this development; and from ever greater distances swarm the persevering masses, who have but few needs and little power of resistance. Slavs, Swedes, and Italians go to Germany and drag down wages; Germans, Belgians, and Italians go to France; Slavs, Germans, Italians, Irishmen and Swedes to England and the United States; Chinamen to America and Australia, and perhaps in the not too distant future they will to Europe. On German ships Chinamen and Negroes are already taking the places of white workers.

These foreign workers are, partly, expropriated small peasants and petty bourgeois, who have been ruined and driven from hearth and home by the capitalist mode of production. Gazing at the numberless crowds of imigrants we may well ask the question whether it is Socialism that thus makes them homeless and is responsible for men and women leaving their native land.

By expropriating small peasants and petty bourgeois, by importing crowds of workers from distant countries, by the development of woman- and child-labour, by shortening the term of apprenticeship (which becomes merely a period of initiation) the capitalist mode of production effects an enormous increase in the number of workers at its disposal. Hand in hand with this increase proceeds the ever growing productivity of human labour in consequence of the uninterrupted progress in technical improvements and inventions. And not alone this, but capitalist exploitation increases also the power of utilising the labour-power of the individual to the utmost degree, partly through extending the hours of labour, but also by speeding up the workers, especially in those cases where the organisation of the workers or legislation prevents the former course being pursued.

And at the same time machinery has the effect of reducing the amount of manual labour required. Every machine displaces labour ; if that were not so there would be nothing gained in having the machine. In every industry the change from manual labour to production by machinery causes the greatest suffering among the manual workers affected, who, whether they be handicraftsmen or factory workers, become redundant, and are turned into the street. It was this effect of the machine which the workers felt first of all. The numerous instances of revolt in the first decades of the nineteenth century showed the great suffering and despair which were caused by the introduction of machinery. The introduction of machinery, and every subsequent improvement thereof, is always detrimental to the interests of certain sections of the workers : sometimes, of course, other sections may benefit—as, for instance, those employed in the engineering trade. But this knowledge will hardly be a consolation to the displaced workers faced with starvation.

The effect of the introduction of every new machine is that as much as before is produced with fewer workers, or more than before with the same number of workers. If, therefore, the number of workers employed in one country is not to diminish, in consequence of the growing development of machinery, then the market must be extended in the same proportion in which the productivity of labour increases. As, however, economic development causes at the same time the quantity of labour performed by the worker to grow and the available labour-power to increase rapidly—and much more rapidly than the population—it is necessary, if unemployment is to be avoided, that the market be extended much more rapidly than in a ratio that would merely keep pace with the growing productivity of the workers owing to the introduction of machinery.

Such a rapid expansion of the market has scarcely ever taken place under the domination of capitalist industry on a large scale, certainly never for any considerable period in a large field of capitalist industry. Hence, unemployment is a permanent feature of capitalist industry on a large scale, the one being inseparable from the other. Even at brisk periods, when the market experiences important extension and trade is flourishing, industry has not room for all the unemployed. In periods of slackness, when trade is dull, their number grows immensely. They, together with the workers of the superfluous petty undertakings, form a whole army—the Industrial Reserve Army, as Marx called it—an army of labourers always at the disposal of capital, from which the latter is always able to draw its reserves as soon as the industrial struggle shows signs of becoming animated.

The reserve army is invaluable to the capitalist. It serves him as an important weapon to keep in check the army of the employed and to make them more submissive. Since the overwork of some causes the unemployment of others, the unemployment of these latter becomes the means for sustaining and intensifying the overwork of the former. And yet in face of this fact it is asserted that we are living in the best of all possible worlds!

While the expansion of the industrial reserve army fluctuates with the fluctuations of commercial life, its general tendency is to move in an upward direction; for the technical revolution proceeds ever more rapidly, extending continually to wider spheres, but the expansion of the market on tbe contrary becomes ever more limited. We shall have occasion to refer to this point again in another connection. It suffices here to have drawn attention to it.

But what does unemployment mean ? It not only means want and misery for its victims, not only intensified slavery and exploitation for those in employment, but it means also insecurity of existence for the entire working class.

Whatever the fate of those exploited under former systems of exploitation may have been, they were certain of one thing—security of livelihood. The sustenance of the slave or the serf was assured at least so long as the existence of his master was secure. Only the ruin of his master could deprive him of his security of livelihood.

The misery or want that under any former mode of production was at times experienced by the population was not the consequence of production, but a disturbance of production through bad harvests, cattle plague, floods, invasion by hostile armies, etc.

The existence of the exploiter is not bound up with that of the exploited. The worker and his wife and children can at any moment be turned into the street, with starvation staring them in the face, without causing the slightest change in the position of the exploiter who has fattened on him.

And the misery of unemployment is to-day rarely the consequence of disturbances in production through external, overpowering influences, it is now in fact the natural consequence of production itself. Disturbances in production under present conditions often increase the opportunities for work instead of lessening them: one need only call to mind the consequences of the war in 1870 to the economic life of Germany and France during the immediately succeeding years.

Under the domination of petty enterprise the income of the worker producing on his own account grew larger the more industrious he proved to be. Laziness ruined him and caused his unemployment. To-day the longer the workers work the more unemployment increases. The worker causes his unemployment by his own work. Like many another maxim from the world of petty enterprise, the one that the worker’s good fortune depends upon his being industrious has been changed to its opposite by the large capitalist enterprise. And another maxim still mouthed to-day by many a Philistine, presumably for the benefit of the worker, has become an untruth, namely, that anyone willing to work can find work.

Just as little as a small property is a sure protection against want and misery, so is possession of labour-power. While the ghost of bankruptcy is continually hovering over the peasant owner and the handicraftsman, the ghost of unemployment haunts the wage-worker all his life. This continual insecurity is, of all the evils of the present mode of production, the most tormenting, and also the most atrocious, the evil that stirs up the feeling of the worker unspeakably and scatters completely to the winds all his conservative notions. This eternal insecurity of his own position undermines his belief in the security of the existing state of things and extinguishes his interest in its retention. And he who continually dreads the existing state of things finally loses all fear for new conditions.

The capitalist mode of production brings in its train overwork, unemployment, and dissolution of the family for the working-class, and it has at the same time the effect of forcing proletarian conditions upon further sections of Society, thus visibly making these conditions the general conditions of the great mass of the population.

Blogger's Note:

It was the German SPGBer, Hans Neumann, who translated Kautsky's writings from the German into English for the Socialist Standard.

A Travesty of Socialism. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

Inventors as Trust Hirelings. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The applications for patents come mainly from professional inventors. The largest number of applications come from the great trusts—the United States Steel Company, the great electrical companies, the harvester trust and the automobile trust. These trusts employ hundreds of inventors to devise improvements of their machinery. They are paid large salaries in many instances, and the business is gradually falling almost completely into their hands.”

Report of Asst. Commissioner of Patents, U.S.A., 1907.

Another solution that won’t solve. (1907)

Pamphlet Review from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Railway Difficulty and How to Solve It” is a penny pamphlet by Thomas Johnston and Hugh Adam. The writers advocate Nationalisation as immediately practicable. But they assert that it would mean a saving of at least 20 per cent. in working expenses. In other words, the Nationalisation of Railways would intensify the unemployed problem, as Mr. Bell, M.P., pointed out at the Annual General Meeting of the A.S.R.S. The authors claim to be “unhesitatingly and uncompromisingly Socialist,” and in their conclusion admit that Nationalisation of Railways would not be of any avail, but we must have Socialism. Why, then, waste the time and fritter away the energies of the working class in going for something that will not affect their position as the subject class in the community ?

Answers to Correspondents. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A.B. (Portsmouth).—No, we do not get tired of criticising the individuals you name—it is one of the things we exist for.

L. Bourne.—As you say, the conducting of this paper is a matter for the Party members, still we welcome both criticism and suggestions, and will have an article prepared on matter you mention.

E. Elliot.—At some future date.

Party Notes. (1907)

Party News from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Quarter ending September saw a record in the number of new members. It is scarcely to be hoped that the winter quarter can see that record broken, but the opportunity of the winter season should be taken advantage of to inaugurate branch discussions and thus assist in turning out new speakers for next year.

* * *

On October 8th the E.C. passed the following resolution : That this meeting of the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, in view of the public pronouncements of the British Constitution Association hereby challenges that body to appoint a representative to meet a representative of this, the only Socialist party in this country, to publicly debate the following proposition : That as Capitalism involves the exploitation and economic subjection of the working class, the only necessary and useful section of the community, it is necessary and desirable to speedily attain the Object of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, viz., the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community.

* * *

As yet no reply has been received from the champions of capitalism.

* * *

Since this resolution appeared in the Press, Mr. H. M. Hyndman has written to the Daily Telegraph that the S.D.F. is the “only international Socialist Party in this country.” So that, not satisfied with their own brand new name, the S.D.F. wish to annex ours, and also our reputation.

* * *

An enquiry was received from Brighton, on the attitude of the S.P.G.B. to the question of National and Imperial Defence.

* * *

The reply contained the following: The object of the S.P.G.B. implies the assumption of political authority by the working class. Until that object is attained, the capitalist class will control the armed forces of the nation for the defence of capitalist interests. The attitude of the Socialist working class when politically supreme on the question of national defence (should such a question then remain for solution) will depend upon the deliberations of the Socialist Commonwealth in the circumstances of the time.

* * *

The Watford Branch of the S.P.G.B. questioned E. E. Hunter while speaking for the S.D.F. and challenged him to debate with a representative of this Party. He agreed, but referred us to the Watford S.D.F., who have not up to the present replied to our request.

* * *

It is surprising how the “sweet reasonableness” of those who are not “impossiblists” is sometimes manifested !

* * *

The speaker for the Wood Green I.L.P. was also challenged in a similar way. Again we are referred to the local branch, with, as .yet, a similar result.

* * *

Matters are shaping well in Burnley, and before the next issue is published, no doubt the branch will have been officially formed. Meanwhile sympathisers should communicate with C. H. Schofield, 77, Parliament St., Burnley.

Adolph Kohn

____________

“Art, Labour, and Socialism” should sell well. It can be obtained by branches and other bodies in the ordinary way on the usual terms : 9d. per 13. Half gross orders carriage paid.

A Clarion Vanner Takes the Socialist Platform. (1907)

From the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Sunday, September 15th, while Comrade Fitzgerald was speaking at our Finsbury Park meeting, a member of the audience asked “was it a fact that the Clarion Van speakers had instructions from the London Van Committee to refuse to answer questions put by members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain ?” He put the question, he said, because he was informed that a Clarion Vanner was in the audience, and he wished to give him the opportunity to deny the allegation if he could do so. The questioner was, further, anxious to know why the Clarion Van Committee would not allow their speakers questions from the Socialists. Thereupon Mr. Fred Bramley, late Clarion Van speaker, asked for the platform and his request was, of course, acceded to.

Mr. Bramley said he had never refused to answer questions from anyone, and had always preached the principles of unadulterated Socialism. By Socialism he meant the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Nationalisation or municipalisation were not Socialism, but simply exploitation in another form. He then asked for questions from members of the S.P.G.B., and upon it being pointed out to him that he was not there to ask for questions, but to deny, if he could, the statement that Clarion Van speakers were instructed to refuse to answer questions from Socialists, Mr. Bramley replied that he held the platform, and all the ordinary rules of procedure went by the board.

Comrade Fitzgerald then pointed out that Mr. Gavan Duffy admitted, at Wood Green, that he had received instructions from the Clarion Van Committee not to accept questions from Socialists. Fitzgerald also stated that questions had been refused at Clapham and Wimbledon, and. also by Mr. Hartley at Willesden, and he drew Mr. Bramley’s attention to the fact that Mr. Howard, of the Clarion Van Committee, had openly stated from our platform in Finsbury Park that Mr. Gavan Duffy was not to blame, as he was only acting under instructions from the Van Committee. Our comrade then dealt with Mr. Bramley’s definition of Socialism, and showed the unsoundness of the phrase “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange ” ; the means of exchange being money, which is only necessary under a system of private ownership. Under Socialism, production being no longer carried on for exchange, and the products being owned collectively by the whole of the people, the means of exchange will become superfluous, yet he (Mr. Bramley) talked of socialising it. The Clarion advocated nationalisation and municipalisation, and was therefore a misleading organ, contrary to the principles of Socialism. Moreover, the success of the Clarion Vanners depended upon the number of Clarions sold at the meetings, and seeing that the Clarion advocated nationalisation and municipalisation, Mr. Bramley could not but admit that he assisted in anti-Socialist propaganda. If it was not a personal question why was he not now a Clarion Vanner, seeing that they were advertising for speakers.

Mr. Bramiey, replying, said the questions were not on Socialism. The reason he was not now a Clarion Vanner was a personal one. It was a suggestion of impure motives, he said, to say that the success of a Clarion Vanner depended upon the number of Clarions sold, but it is noticeable that he did not deny the statement. Mr. Bramley still insisted upon having questions upon the principles of Socialism. He was asked if he advised the workers to avoid the I.L.P., S.D.F. etc., as non-Socialist organisations, and to join the S.P.G.B. and replied that he preached the principle of Socialism and left the people to judge for themselves as to which political party to join. Did he advise the workers to avoid the Liberal and Tory parties was the next question given to the ex-Vanner, and the answer being in the affirmative, Bramley was then called upon to explain why he did not preach Socialism and advise the workers to avoid the I.L.P. and S.D.F. as supporters of capitalism. The cases were not parallel, be declared, but he could not show wherein the divergence lay. Mr. Bramley, in answer to a question, said that he believed organisation to be necessary for the attainment of Socialism, and explained his inconsistency in advising the workers to join such anti-Socialist organisations as the S.D.F., and the I.L.P. by saying that he did not agree that they were anti-Socialist. Nevertheless he had to admit that we were the only pure organisation. He agreed that an organisation advocating the support of capitalism was acting contrary to the principles of Socialism, and to the interest of the working class. Having denied that the I.L.P. supported capitalism, Mr. Bramley was asked whether Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, and Mr. Fred Jowett at Bradford supported capitalism when they entered into a compact with the Liberals. Amidst roars of laughter he attempted to repudiate the action of these individuals as not representing the policy of the I.L.P., which, he said, was settled at their Annual Conference. Asked was he not aware that Mr. Keir Hardie at the York Conference of the I.L.P. admitted that this policy had been followed with the object of keeping out the Tories, he answered that he was not aware of this fact. Mr. Bramley was then shown a leading article in the Labour Leader stating that the I.L.P. supported the Liberal candidate at Bury, and he could not deny that as this had never been repudiated it stood as their policy. Was the I.L.P. a Socialist organisation was then submitted, and elicited the reply that it was an organisation that would fulfil a need for a considerable time. (Oh, oh ! from the crowd). The questioner refused to accept this answer and he was then told that the I.L.P. is a Socialist organisation, and amidst interruption and laughter Mr. Bramley said that he had been a member of it for twelve years.

The ex-Vanner was now called upon to show how we can socialise capital. “I cannot tell you,” he said, “the socialisation of capital is an impossibility.” Asked now why he was a member of an organisation the object of which was an impossibility, he denied that the object of the I.L.P. was to socialise capital, and asserted that it was “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” He was then informed that a perusal of the I.L.P. literature would show him that the object of the I.L.P. was “socialisation of land and capital,” so that he was a member of an organisation yet at the same time ignorant of its object. Mr. Bramley had by this time had enough of it and he religuished a platform that for him had proved a pillory.

THE CHIEL.

SPGB Meetings. (1907)

Party News from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Editorial: The Only Socialist Party. (1907)

Editorial from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many comments have been penned by writers in the official organs of bodies claiming to be Socialist to whom the S.P.G.B. is in open and avowed antagonism because of the resolution passed by the E.C. of the S.P.G.B., challenging the British Constitution Association to debate the principles of Socialism. The aforesaid writers are concerned owing to the resolution describing the S.P.G.B. as “the only Socialist Party in this country.” Well, seeing that it is, why should not the fact be announced ? What is it that differentiates the S.P.G.B. from other parties claiming to be Socialist ? It is the only party that, from its formation and ever since, has advocated Socialism, and nothing short of Socialism, at all times and under all conditions. It is the only party that has declined to be side-tracked or to assist in sidetracking the people by concentrating their efforts upon the palliation instead of upon the abolition of capitalism. It is the only party that has refused to attach itself to freak organisations, political or industrial. It is assailed because it declines to advocate palliatives. But what have the opponents of Socialism been declaring recently is the best way to fight Socialism? To palliate the evils of capitalism ! Mr. Levy Lever, M.P., says Socialism must be fought “by legislation dealing with housing, social, and land reform, and old age pensions.” Lord Burghclere declares for “Social Legislation.” Sir George Kekewich, M.P., says “Employ the unemployed. Reform the Poor Law. House the Workers. Pension the Aged.” The Marquis of Northampton is of opinion that the discontent of the working class is owing to the lethargy of successive Governments as regards drastic social reforms. Sir H. Seymour King, M.P., would fight it by granting the legitimate demands of the masses for improved conditions and opportunities. The Hon. Claude Hay, who has supported the S.D.F., financially and otherwise, in their agitation for free meals for schoolchildren, plumps for “bold social reforms,” and others would “give the poorer classes a stake in the country,” thereby admitting, of course, that they possess none at present. But all these proposals are put forward, let it not be forgotten, by those who are out to fight Socialism. And it is these same antidotes to Socialism that the S.D.F., I.L.P., and similar reform bodies are urging the workers to scramble for ! The S.P.G.B., comprehending the real significance of the working-class movement, declines to be side-tracked. It knows that only Socialism will give the wealth producers their freedom and the wealth they produce, and it is therefore out for Socialism all along the line, and has always been. No other party in this country can substantiate a similar claim and therefore the S.P.G.B. is justified in describing itself as “the only Socialist Party.”

Editorial: A Confession of Impotence. (1907)

Editorial from the November 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Confession of Impotence.

Speaking for the S.D.F. at N.E. Manchester on September 28th, Mr. J. R, Clynes, M.P., thus delivered himself amid, we read, loud S.D.F. cheers:—

“The Labour Party in Parliament were doing their best. He thought they should be delegates to carry out the will of the people who sent them there. They only represented a small minority of the workers and could not speak for the whole of the workers. They were told to kick up a row and make themselves a nuisance like the Irish Party. But the Irish Party had nearly the whole of Ireland behind them.”

That comes of being a fierce democrat and the bosom chum of an implacable revolutionary like Bill Thorne. Having fulfilled the first of their desires and “got in” on programmes that, whatever else they may have been, were distinctly not Socialist; and having discovered that being in on such terms they were, as we said they would and must be, impotent, the LABOUR—socialist members now seek to placate the wrath of any of their “advanced” friends by pointing out that they couldn’t kick up a row because, dont y’see, they haven’t the whole people behind them. As unflinching democrats, it was their business first and foremost (after “getting in”) to carry out the will of the people by whose votes they were returned, and as these votes were not given for Socialism, naturally they (the elected persons) couldn’t act as Socialists or preach Socialism.

The thing is as plain as can be. We can’t, they say, run on a Socialist programme because the people, the sovereign people (two hundred sovereigns to be precise), are not Socialists and wouldn’t elect us ; we can’t voice Socialism when we are elected because we must represent the views of our constituents. Of course Socialism is the only thing that materially matters to the workers (“I believe and recognise the class war,” says Clynes), and when the people are Socialists we shall—my word ! how we shall go for the capitalists, and what a row we shall kick up. But until then——And so on, and so on.

____________

Exploiters of Sentiment.

Well, what is the use of Clynes & Co. from a Socialist point of view at all ? And what is the use of the S.D.F. “Socialists” in Manchester who cheered Clynes and moved him votes of thanks ? If Clynes is prepared, as in common with other members of the Labour Group who claim to be Socialists he certainly is, to subordinate Socialism, the admittedly only hope of the workers, to the chance of “getting in,” what use is he from a working-class standpoint ? He may claim that he did not know how impotent his precious “Labour” party would be. He may have been, as many professing Socialists are, under the impression that the great thing is to “get in,” and then use your position as a sounding board for your principles—play the political fraud, deceive the electorate, prepare the way for a Socialism that is impossible without an educated working class by deliberately hoodwinking that class ! We have set our faces against this, the fairly common practice of the S.D.F., I.L.P. and other pseudo-Socialist parties, and earned for ourselves by our denunciations, the epithet “impossiblists.” But this damnable doctrine of doing evil that good may come was, and is yet, widely held, and Clynes may have been innoculated with it.

Assume that he was an honest fool then as against a worse assumption, and went in with high hopes of better work possible under the changed conditions only to find he was tied hand and foot and delivered bound to the “Labour Party.” Assuming that, what would his position be provided he remained honest ? What action would he take ? Surely he would risk his salary, break with the “Labour” Party and its restrictions, and shout his Socialism from the Parliamentary housetop. Such action would not, of course, purge the evil of his election, but it would be evidence of honest stupidity.

But what it instead of this he swallowed his aspirations, pocketed his wages and came along with the explanation that, after all you cannot work in advance of your electorate ? Well, in that case you would know to a very nice exactitude what the price of that man was.

Mark ! this is the case of a man who started into office foolish but honest. But suppose the best of evidence existed to show that he had no delusions as to his powers when he “got in” ; that knowing all the time that Socialism was the only thing that mattered to the workers, he deliberately whittled his policy and submerged his principles until he made himself acceptable to the ignorance of a number of electors sufficiently large for his purposes ; what would then be said when that man came along to explain his impotence on the ground of the ignorance of the electorate ? What would we call a man who, while occupying the standing of a leader in professing Socialist circles, deliberately got himself elected on a non-Socialist programme that rendered him entirely useless to the working class, and who then came to his professing Socialist supporters to explain that he was useless because he had been elected on a non-Socialist ticket ?

Think it over, my friends of North East Manchester and elsewhere, remembering the speech of J. R, Clynes, M.P. And do not forget the loud cheers of his S.D.F. supporters. They at any rate are prepared to be parties to the same game again—if the Manchester S.P.G.B. does not interfere. However, as there is a branch of the S.P.G.B. in Manchester now, the local confusionists can rely upon the interference, as we can rely upon our comrades making that interference effective.