Correspondence: Oath of Allegiance. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oath of Allegiance.

R. Von Berg (Queen’s Park).—The oath of allegiance to the King required of M.P.s would not prevent a Socialist M.P. taking his seat

[Quotes] (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Oaths of allegiance and other official oaths are still taken throughout Europe, but experience shows that in time of revolution they are violated with little scruple, and in the case of the United Kingdom it is doubtful whether they have any more practical value than, if so much as, simple declarations.”

—Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 17, p. 702, 9th Edition.

______________ 

"If you can read, you ought to understand ; if you can write, you ought to know something ; if you can believe, you ought to comprehend ; if you desire a thing you will have take it; if you claim it you will not get it; and if you are experienced you ought to be useful to others."

Goethe

Letter: Taking the Oath (1979)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Taking the Oath

From what I understand, after reading the August issue of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB views Capitalism with implacable hostility, and that no compromise with such a dreadful system is possible. It appears that abolition of Capitalism and the implementation of Socialism is the sole object of the SPGB. Further you mean to achieve this desirable state of affairs democratically by means of the Ballot Box.

A condition for an elected MP to take his seat in the House is the swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign and his or her heirs. The dilemma of the first elected Socialist MP will be whether to refuse to take the Oath, in which case he will not be allowed to represent his Constituency, or to swallow his principles and swear allegiance to the popular face of Capitalism.

Why do you advocate membership of Trade Unions, albeit on a voluntary basis? I refer to the August issue of the Standard page 143 last paragraph. Surely it must be clear to everyone that Trade Unions are as much a part of Capitalism as the Board of ICI.

Firstly the TUC is not interested in doing away with the present system as the elevation of several Union leaders, over the years, to the Peerage is proof enough. After several years of covering the ruling class with buckets of manure they rush to don the robes and insignia of a clique they profess to despise.

Secondly most strikes and industrial disputes arise over pay claims. Now if, as you say, we are wage slaves then why ask the workers to support an organisation that merely thickens the chains? Your position on this issue seems to be that if the worker cannot have the whole loaf then a thicker slice will do. This is reform pure and simple towards which you are bitterly opposed. Your reasoning escapes me.

Lastly the closed shop gives the Unions the same power as the factory owner, namely depriving the worker of his livelihood. If the worker doesn’t like the deals cooked up between the boss and the Union reps then the threat of dismissal from the Union is more than enough to bring the disgruntled into line. I have seen this threat applied several times and it is most effective. If the bosses and the Trade Unions ever see the logic of their respective positions and combine then it will be a sad day for the working class. Both sides have the same aim—the efficient running of the Capitalist system. To think otherwise is merely to bring 1984 to reality. It is well on the way.

P Steed

(Tyne and Wear)

Reply:

You correctly state that we are uncompromising in our opposition to attempts to reform capitalism, and that we view socialism as an immediate objective. Our case on trade unionism is not inconsistent with this.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the trade unions have a common origin in the class struggle. The former is the organised expression on the political field of the conscious recognition of the that struggle by workers. So long as capitalism remains it is necessary that workers combine democratically to offer the utmost resistance to worsening pay and conditions. Such action can achieve benefits or preserve living standards from being depressed, but it must be pointed out that this pressure on workers is inevitable. Industrial action in support of a wage claim is not an example of reformism but part of the class struggle, which exists independently of the will of particular groups in society.

It is true that the TUC is steeped in capitalist ideology and that the effectiveness of trade union action has been blunted by support for the Labour Party. It does not follow from this, however, that workers should cease to combine in unions against the employing class and accept wage cuts. (This is not a new phenomenon, incidentally — at the time of the General Strike we praised the solidarity of the workers and condemned the conniving treachery of TUC leaders.) The class struggle involves all workers, whether they are conscious of it or not; our task is to point out that they are only half participating and must organise politically for their emancipation.

The Socialist Party attitude to the closed shop was stated in the Socialist Standard you refer to: “whatever may seem to be the advantages of compulsory trade union membership imposed by the union or the employer, the interests of the working class are best served by seeking to expand union membership on a voluntary basis only”. The existence of the closed shop does not weaken our support for the principle of trade unionism.

If we are to refuse to take Oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. Socialists are not simply waging war against detailed grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to establish socialism we cannot stop at taking Oaths imposed upon us by the ruling class. The taking of Oaths has never prevented them being ignored when interests dictated it; if it did, the ruling class could keep on imposing conditions which they think socialists will refuse.

Editors.

Letter: Silly ceremony (2008)

Letter to the Editors from the January 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

“I, […], do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and successors, according to law.”

The above is the Affirmation of Allegiance required to be taken by applicants for British citizenship, at one of New Labour’s more inane gifts to the nation, the Citizenship Ceremony. Any applicant for British citizenship has to attend such a ceremony within six months of their application being accepted. Failure to do so means that one’s application is deemed unsuccessful, and that the whole tortuous process must be started again.

I recently found myself attending such a ceremony as a guest, struggling to keep a straight face as the Lord Mayor of Bristol, in his full regalia, informed us, while standing in front of a picture of the Queen, that, in Britain, “No-one is above the law.”

Twenty-three new citizens, plus their guests, were present to hear the Lord Mayor eulogise about the Greatness of Britain and its democratic institutions. Tellingly, however, he opened his speech by reiterating a couple of questions from the Citizenship Test (analogous to the Theory component of a driving test), which all of the new Citizens were required to have passed before reaching this stage. Unaccountably, not one of them could remember the literal meaning of Prime Minister or how many members the Welsh Assembly has.

I took some small encouragement from the fact that slightly more citizens chose to take the Affirmation of Allegiance, rather than the Oath (which beings, “I […] swear by Almighty God). However, the overall effect reminded me of nothing more than a school assembly, with a hall full of bored students intoning words to prayers which they find more or less meaningless.

And this, of course, is the point. The whole process has less to do with “citizenship” per se than with reminding workers who have often overcome massive difficulties and obstructions in order to be allowed to settle here (admittedly not the case for the person whose guest I was) of precisely who is the boss, and showing that they are expected to be good little boys and girls.

Needless to say the proceedings ended with the playing of the National Anthem. Not wishing to embarrass my partner, I confess that I did stand up for the wretched dirge (albeit with my fingers firmly crossed throughout!).

Surely the world can be organised more sanely than this? Why should it not be the birthright of every human being to settle in any part of our planet (or even to continuously travel around it, should one so require), and be accepted as an equal member of one’s community without having to participate in silly ceremonies to prove one’s worthiness to do so? Why should we have to swear (or affirm or whatever) Allegiance to anyone? As Leon Rosselson wrote in his song “The World Turned Upside Down”, “This world was made a common treasury, for everyone to share.” However, until the world’s working class unites consciously and politically to ensure that the treasury can indeed be shared, a minority class with retain control and the rest of us will continue to be expected to be grateful when we’ve passed enough of their patronising “tests” (and, of course, have sufficient funds) to be able to relocate from one part of the planet to another.

Shane Roberts,

Bristol.

Our electoral activities (1954)

From the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of my cherished papers is an Election Manifesto dated the first of November 1906 entitled Battersea Borough Council Election, Latchmere Ward; underneath this title are the words, Battersea Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, followed by the object of the Party, and at the bottom of the front page, the words Socialist candidates' Election Address. Inside is an article, addressed to the Electors of Latchmere Ward, which explained the struggle for political supremacy, the necessity for class organisation, and exposed Municipalism (a now forgotten issue). The bogey of the rates was dealt with, the article ending as follows: “The Socialist Party of Great Britain therefore enters into municipal contests as a step in the work of capturing the whole of the political machinery. Fully realising and pointing out to workers the strict limitations of the power of local bodies, making no promises that are beyond our power to fulfil, we ask the members of our class, when (but not before) they have studied these facts, and realise their correctness, to cast their vote for the candidates of the S.P.G.B., who alone stand on the above basis”.

Finally appear the candidates names, George Frederich Moody, Frank Craske, George Money.

This was the first Election Manifesto issued by the Party, and is a reprint from the front page article in the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard.

It was also used in the other Wards, at Battersea, and the Tooting Ward of Wandsworth.

There were twelve candidates put forward, at the 1906 municipal Elections, nine in Battersea and three in Wandsworth. The Battersea results were Latchmere Ward, Craske 117, Moody 117, Money 113. Winstanley Ward, Blewett 57, Roe 49, Witcher 45. Church Ward, Greenham 93, Fawcett 88, Hunt 77 (incidentally Comrade Roe is still with us, and was a delegate for his branch at the 1954 Conference). At Wandsworth Tooting Ward, it was Barker 94, MacManus 77, Dumenil 59; of these votes fifty were for our candidates alone.

The Socialist Standard for December 1906 commented: - “All the candidates fought on the Election Manifesto published in our October issue, a few were distributed in each Ward. They had no programme of ear-tickling, side tracking, vote-catching “palliatives ” and did no canvassing. The candidates were practically unknown and had not climbed into popularity on the backs of the working class, by posing as 'leaders' of unemployed deputations ‘right to live’ councils, and similar confusionist conglomerations”.

Arising out of these Battersea contents, the question of non members signing nomination papers for candidates, was raised. The Executive Committee ruled that in future only Party members should sign nomination forms, which was later embodied in Party Rules.

The opening paragraphs of the election leaflet for the general election of this year was as follows:—

“Fellow members of the Working Class! at the present moment you, or those of you possessed of votes, are being urgently reminded of a fact that you may be pardoned for having forgotten—you are of consequence; then you, who but yesterday were 'hands,' dependant, hirelings, articles of merchandise are today dictators, history-makers, freemen, you are the power in the State. You hold the destiny of the Empire in the hollow of your hand. Yesterday, those of you who were unemployed were whining wastrels, scum unemployable, treated as children on the one hand and dogs on the other, Today if you have votes—you are the bone and sinew of England's greatness. ‘You count.'

“It is a fact you may have forgotten. It is some time since you were so generally and emphatically reminded of it. It may be some time before you are so reminded of it again."

“But sufficient for the day, is the fact of your greatness— if you have votes. If you have not you are still clods cyphers, ‘hands’ merchandise. Get back to your hovels, your single room tenement, your sweat shops, back to your wage-slavery if you are fortunate enough to be employed, back to your whining wastrelism, to the outer darkness of impotent despair—if you are of the hungry multitude who lack the means of sustenance. Back, scum, to-day has nothing for you.”

“But, if you have votes ‘men of England, heirs of glory’ you ‘hardy sons of Labour.' then—England expects that every man this day will do his duty! And what is your duty?”

The leaflet went on to deal with the Political Parties, and their programme. This quotation is an example of the style of writing, and also a reminder of the fact that universal adult suffrage is quite recent.

In December 1906, Battersea Branch, proposed to contest the London County Council Elections. Comrades Fitzgerald, and Jackson, were chosen by the E.C. as candidates.. This action was challenged by the Edmonton Branch on the grounds that the policy of contesting these Elections was one for a Delegate Meeting to decide. The Delegates confirmed this form of activity at the January Meeting. It was later found that Jackson was not eligible as a candidate the final choice being J. Fitzgerald and M. Neuman. There is no evidence of these comrades having gone to the polls, so one presumes L.C.C. Elections have not been contested.

September of 1908 provided the next opportunity, with a Bye-Election at Haggerston, where a candidate named Burrows was standing for a reformist organisation. An article in the Socialist Standard carried the title “The Harrying of Haggerston and the burying of Burrows.” The article is too long to quote. It should be read as a fine example of political writing of the period. It had humour and sarcasm and is a joy to read, even to-day long after the event it is dealing with has been forgotten.

In 1908 it was the provincial Branch of Burnley having a go. They sought, and obtained, permission for Comrade Tamlyn to contest the Gammon Ward, and Comrade Schofield the Whittleford Ward of Burnley. The total poll was 15 votes between them. The December Socialist Standard said “ We do not claim to have won either a numerical, or a moral victory, although our poll was minute we claim to have done some good, and are not dissatisfied with the results.”

About the same time Tooting Branch put forward Comrades Cooper, Joy and Barker for the Tooting Ward, the result being 60, 58 and 56 respectively. The Socialist Standard’s comment was: “We think we found fifty six supporters for the Revolution, and are encouraged in the hope that it is not altogether hopeless to appeal to the Electorate on the straight issue—Socialism.”

1910 was a busy year for the Party in the Electoral field. In January 50,000 General Election manifestoes were printed and distributed. Space prohibits quotations from this leaflet so only a brief reference is possible. Like all leaflets of this type it deals with the political parties of the period, Tories, Liberals and Labour Party, and gave the Socialist Party attitude to the points raised.

Tottenham Branch was in the field of municipal Elections in April that year. With Comrade F. W. Stern for the High Cross Ward, and Comrade A. Anderson, F. G. Rourke in the St. Anns Ward, of the local Urban Council. The voting was Anderson 143, Rourke 67, F. W. Stern 63.

A Bye-Election at Walthamstow provided the local branch with the opportunity to issue a fine Election leaflet.

In the same year there was a meeting of London members at Battersea, to discuss the action of Party members, if elected to local bodies, there does not appear to be any record of results of the discussion.

The Oath of Allegiance.

At the Annual Conference of 1910 electoral matters had a long discussion on a resolution from Manchester branch. "That any member elected to Parliament shall not take the oath of allegiance.” That this resolution was tabled in spite of a decision by the 1909 Conference, “That the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, in reference to the oath of allegiance to Parliament, is that oaths and forms imposed by the constitution shall not be allowed to prevent elected representatives from taking their seats,” showed the interest aroused by the issue. A resolution to send the question to branches was lost by 14 to 13 votes. Conference finally endorsed the 1909 ruling, and this was endorsed by a poll of the party and still stands as the Party position to-day. Since that year there have been no candidates put forward at municipal Elections.

Leaflets were, however, issued for the municipal elections of 1913, by the Watford Branch.

During the war years 1914-18 the party had a hard struggle to survive and there were no electoral activities. For the general election in December 1918 the front page of the Socialist Standard, reproduced at the beginning of this article, showed the position of the Party.

The Move to Contest Parliamentary Elections.

The next move in Electorial Activity came in 1928. At a meeting of Party members, held in Friars Hall on Saturday, Feb. 25th, with seventy-nine members present, a resolution was moved by Higgs and Cash: “That this meeting of Party members declares itself in favour of running Socialist candidates, at Parliamentary Elections at the first opportunity, and, therefore, endorses the action of the EC. in inaugurating a fund for that purpose” It was carried 41—18.

From this meeting can be traced the later developments in Electoral activity.

At the next General Election, in 1929, the E.C. agreed that Comrade Barker, of Tooting Branch, should be the prospective candidate for North Battersea, in opposition to Tory, Liberal, Labour and Communist candidates. An attempt was made to get the necessary funds, but it was hopeless, as the Parliamentary fund at that period showed a balance of £21 1s. 2d.

Battersea Branch were able to get in a good meeting at the local Town Hall, by using Comrade Barker in what has become known as a challenge meeting, at which the Tory and Liberal candidates put in an appearance. There was an audience of about nine hundred. This was the first gesture on the Parliamentary field.

For the next ten years Electoral activity was confined to issuing an occasional leaflet.

Electoral Activity in 1937 was a decision to contest one of the East Ham constituencies. Much work was done by bands of comrades in door to door canvassing. Meetings were held and Committee rooms were obtained, but activity was brought to an end by the outbreak of war in 1939.

After the Second World War.

The small amount of active work the Party was able to indulge in during the war years was followed by the 1945 election when, in Paddington North, the Party for the first time contested a Parliamentary Election. Members gave of their best to make the campaign a success. The weather was good, making outdoor meetings possible, and members were able to use the long June and July evenings for literature distributing and canvassing. The high spot of the Election, for those of unengaged in it, was the hiring and filling from top to bottom, of the Metropolitan Music Hall; a thrill which the writer of these words will never forget, thousands of men and women to hear the Socialist case. Finally, on July 5th, 1945, for the first time in the history of the working class movement, a Socialist offered himself for Parliamentary election, when the name of our Comrade Clifford Groves appeared on a voting paper.

The remainder of the story of the Party’s activity in this field, is recent; the contesting of each By-Election, as they occurred in Paddington North, and the contesting of two seats at the 1950 Election. Paddington North, with Comrade McClatchie as the candidate, and East Ham South, with Comrade H. Young. Finally the last By-Election of November, 1953, with Comrade Waters as the candidate.

In all Elections the Party has entered, the results, judged by votes, have been very small, but that, of course, is not the standard by which Socialists judge the value of these activities.

This review of Party activities in the electoral field started out on a personal note, appropriate to the fact that it has been written for the Jubilee issue of the Socialist Standard. May I, as one, who has had the good fortune to work on every Parliamentary Committee since 1929, send greetings to all those comrades, who by their efforts have made possible the work that has been done in this field, and hope they found joy, as I have in working together for our cause, Socialism

R. Ambridge

Swearing (2023)

From the June 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

7-ish am on 6 May. I awoke to a cascade of royal drivel gushing from my radio. At that moment one of the most beneficial technological innovations was the ‘OFF’ button (preceded by an appropriate invective).

Before my censorship of the impartial BBC there was a report that Canterbury had recanted. The Archbishop was no longer going to invite the goggling masses to do verbal homage to their newly anointed king by swearing allegiance before God and the TV.

The previous day, in an interview, a friend, confidant and biographer insisted the monarch had no wish for anyone to pay such formalised respects except, perhaps, as a joke. Not much of a stand-up routine in my opinion.

However, the nation need not be struck dumb when the moment in the coronation ceremony came as there would be an invitation by the Anglican head prelate for viewers to join in with the declaration, ‘God save King Charles’. Who then would be dumb?

To voice such a sentiment is at least a tacit acceptance of inferiority, of subjection, of being a subject of the crown. The Lords will still be called upon to pay homage, binding them closer to the monarch than the vassals excluded from direct attendance.

This recognition of divine right to rule does not, of course, confer arbitrary powers upon the King. While he may well still consider himself answerable to a divinity, the engines of the state through which crown power is actually exercised are answerable, ultimately to capital.

The notion of inviting the nation to express its loyalty through swearing an oath of allegiance is an indication that a liberal bourgeois democracy is by no means a society of equals. Perhaps it would have been a too blatant expression of inequality which led to it being substantially toned down.

Whether Charles lll was in favour of it or not is beside the point. It is a demonstration of the careful and meticulous management of public perception by which capitalism ultimately maintains its ideological hold.

There may well be further demonstrations by republicans, vexed at having an unelected head of state foisted upon the nation. While there is no pretence of democracy by having a monarch chosen by birth not the ballot box, election does not substantially change the role of a head of state.

A president may be able to serve only a fixed term, but that merely means that the person in office changes regularly, not the office. Nor is there any compelling evidence that suffrage guarantees meritocratic excellence. The example of the USA shows financial clout not ability is the determining factor in selecting an incumbent for the White House.

Nor does America demonstrate any significant social egalitarianism for all its rejection of monarchy and formal aristocracy. Can there be any doubt that the nation is in thrall to the lords of capital even if they don’t grant them such formal titles.

The swearing of allegiance, right hand earnestly pressed to the heart, is certainly a feature of American pomp and circumstance. The form of address may be Mr. President rather than your majesty, but the effect is the same.

The swearing of oaths has an honourable working class pedigree. In the early days of British industrial capitalism workers responded to their harsh conditions through trade union organisation. This was duly criminalised by the Combination Acts of 1799/1800.

Workers continued to organise, but as a response to illegality and a need for secrecy an oath of allegiance to the union and its fellow members was often required, a condition known as being twisted in.

Following the repeal, in the 1820s, of those pernicious acts workers began to further develop their organisations. However, the use of oaths of allegiance did not immediately disappear. Worker solidarity and the seriousness of their unions were on occasion emphasised through formal ceremony.

An initiation into membership could involve an individual being blindfolded and required to swear an oath of loyalty before a skeleton painting, a reminder of mortality and the seriousness of the undertaking.

It was for such a procedure the Tolpuddle Martyrs were convicted under the Unlawful Oaths Act, 1797, originally passed in reaction to naval mutinies at Spithead and Nore. The use of oaths obviously depends on who is swearing them and for what purpose.

The crown and its agents are not so enamoured of oaths taken for the purpose of reinforcing working class solidarity. Such, it seems, trespasses upon the royal prerogative designed to ensure everyone accepts society as it is organised and each person’s relationship with the status quo.

Reflecting on the coronation there was a brief radio interview with a woman who’d been honoured for her charity work and was an invited guest at the Westminster service. Her reaction was along the lines that it was marvellous that someone like her, a commoner (her word), had been able to attend.

Actually being there might well have required her to join in repeating the oath of allegiance which essentially confirms her status. Indeed, all who did verbal homage affirmed the notion that one person is elevated over all others.

For socialists, attitudes such as this represent a serious obstacle to the pursuit of socialism. Those who were not fascinated by the carefully stage-managed spectacle are still influenced by it. Thankful for another bank holiday, as if there should be gratitude for the grace and favour of being granted a day off from work.

Even the ones who consciously opposed the coronation such as members of ‘Republic’ are focusing attention on the monarch or the possibility of an alternative essentially fulfilling the same role. Whereas pledging allegiance to a monarch or president doesn’t address the basic issue.

That is, the achievement of a society free of social hierarchy and based instead on everyone contributing to society according to ability, thereby creating the conditions in which everybody’s self-determined needs can be met.

This will only happen if and when the vast majority get up, actually or metaphorically, off their knees and stride towards their consciously created future – socialism.

Dave Alton

Letter: A 'Captain' of Köpenick? (1964)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor,

In a recent addition of Socialist Standard I read of your hopes of winning the next General Election and I wish you luck. But remembering that you have to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown, I wonder whether this is the only way to achieve a Socialist State. One should not forget what happened to Russia in 1905 and Spain in 1936.

Let us trust that your majority in Parliament will not become a 'Captain' of Köpenick with ten soldiers' and cast you out.

I would be obliged if you could settle my doubts in your next issue.

J. Webber.

Copenhagen. 

Reply:

Mr. Weber has started off on the wrong foot. We arc solely concerned with the establishment of Socialism. This cannot be obtained until a majority of the workers want it and work for it. Neither in Russia in 1905 nor in Spain in 1936 did the workers vote for Socialism—because they did not understand what it implied and therefore did not want it.

Once the workers do understand and want Socialism, and without this Socialism cannot be established, then they will vote delegates to Parliament to take control of political power for the sole purpose of establishing Socialism.

If Mr. Weber will read clause 6 of our Declaration of Principles again he will see it points out that the armed forces of the nation are controlled through Parliament, the centre of political power. Once the workers obtain a majority in Parliament, for the purpose of establishing Socialism, they will have control of the armed forces and no captain with ten soldiers will be able to disperse them.

As far as the oath of allegiance is concerned it has little more significance than taking off your hat, if you wear one, when you enter the house of an opponent; or the boxers shaking hands before they set out to batter each other to pieces. Towards the end of last century Irish nationalists, who were openly committed to cut adrift from England, nevertheless look the oath of allegiance because that was the only way they could get into Parliament to carry out their purpose.

Editorial Committee.

Party News (1998)

Party News from the January 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Classic Reprint

Common Ownership in New Zealand have reprinted the 1910 Socialist Party pamphlet Socialism and Religion with a short modern introduction.

This pamphlet, which can be described as a socialist classic, has long been out of print. It proclaimed and argued for the complete incompatibility, in both theory and practice, between socialism and religion and was issued, in the words of the Preface to the 2nd (1911) edition.“not as the view of an individual, but as the accepted manifesto of the Socialist Party on the subject”.

In its time Socialism and Religion was a best-seller not only in Britain but in North America too.There it received a boost from an eccentric Episcopalian bishop. William Montgomery Brown, who reproduced extensive passages from it at the beginning of his book Communism and Christianism, which went through twelve editions between 1920 and 1928, and whose front cover proclaimed "Banish Gods From Skies and Capitalists From Earth".

A limited number of copies arc available in Britain on a first come, first served basis. Send cheque (made payable to "The Socialist Party of Great Britain") for £2 (plus contribution for postage) to: Literature Dept, the Socialist Party, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4 7UN.

What’s in an oath?

In the House of Commons on 18 November Tory MP Alan Clark said that Sinn Fein MPs Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness should be able to take their seats in the House of Commons despite refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance to the Queen.They refuse because they would prefer to swear allegiance to a different capitalist state, an Irish Republic in 1904:

It is perhaps worth recalling the Socialist Party’s position on this question as worked out in the early years following our formation in 1904:

"At the Annual Conference of 1910 electoral matters had a long discussion on a resolution from Manchester Branch, 'that any member elected to Parliament shall not take the oath of allegiance'. That this resolution was tabled in spite of of decision by the 1909 Conference, 'That the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, in reference to the oath of allegiance to Parliament, is that oaths and forms imposed by the constitution shall not be allowed to prevent elected representatives from taking their seats’ showed the interest aroused by the issue. A resolution to send the question to branches was lost by 14 to 13 votes. Conference finally endorsed the 1909 ruling, and this was endorsed by a poll of the party and still stands os the Party position to-day. ”

(Socialist Standard, September 1954).

Letter: Some questions on Socialist policy. (1924)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent (F. L. Rimington, of Leicester) in sending us his views on current politics, asks some questions relative to Socialist policy. These matters have been dealt with in the Socialist Standard before, but as they may be of interest at the present time we are replying to the questions here.

(1) Does the S.P.G.B. take part in Municipal Politics?

The answer to this question is contained in our Declaration of Principles, which declares for the conquest of the powers of government, local and national.

The master class spend huge sums to control local bodies, as these are a sub-division of the government of capitalism. It is important for the masters to control these councils, etc., and therefore it is equally important to dislodge the capitalists from power wherever they control.

The waging of the class struggle involves the conquest by the workers of the institutions of control, and hence Socialists must fight for conquest of local and national machinery of government. We do not take part in municipal elections to administer capitalism, but to advance the, interests of Socialism. The Socialist Party municipal election address tells the workers how little could be gained in improvements while capitalism lasts, and therefore in local as well as national elections we ask for votes from those alone who realise that the abolition of the present system and replacement by Socialism is the only hope of the working class. Socialists if elected to municipal bodies would use them as vantage points in the class struggle and to sound the message of Socialism to the unconverted workers.

(2) What is our opposition to the S.L.P.? 

The answer is contained in our Party Manifesto, and in many articles in the Socialist Standard during the years when the S.L.P. was an active body. Our opposition to the S.L.P. may be summarised thus : (1) Their lack of understanding of the class struggle shown by their reliance on industrial action as the workers’ remedy. (2) Their muddle-headed and continually changing views on fundamental points of policy, such as war, soviets, unity stunts, etc. (3) Lacking sound views on Socialist policy, they have simply followed the ups and downs of the American S.L.P., and are not evidently able to take up a consistent and firmly grounded Socialist position.

(3) What about taking the oath of allegiance in the House of Commons?

The answer to that question is implied in the Socialist need for getting political control. If we are to refuse to take oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. The questioner does not fully realise the implications of the class struggle. Socialists are not simply waging war against detail grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to workers’ triumph, Socialists cannot stop at taking oaths imposed upon them by the ruling class. There is nothing revolutionary in fighting against oaths, and by concentrating the electorates’ attention on the oath, Socialism is left aside as the issue. Republicans and Atheists like Bradlaugh can refuse* to take oaths, although they are bitter anti-Socialists.

The taking of oaths imposed by ruling classes has never prevented them being ignored when interest dictated it. The English Revolution of the 17th century was carried through in Parliament by men who took oaths to Kings they beheaded or drove from the throne.

Constitutionalists in Russia took oaths to the Czar and his Government in several Dumas, but that did not prevent them from breaking their oaths when opportunity presented itself, and so abolishing the Czar’s rule. In times of revolution in every country oaths have been broken by those who have been compelled to swear allegiance to the ruling power of the time. If Socialists are to keep out of Parliament because of formal matters of procedure, then the ruling class can keep on imposing conditions which they think you will refuse.

Our correspondent’s idea is that the propaganda value of refusing to take the Oath would be great. Possibly he is correct in this. But it would not be propaganda for Socialism or for the working class. It would be propaganda against the oath, and would not rouse or involve a class issue.

It would appeal to reformers, anti-monarchists, anarchists, and atheists, etc., people generally who are busy fighting effects or dealing with one aspect of capitalism.

The Editorial Committee

* Bradlaugh refused to take the oath at first but was willing afterwards. Then, however, the Government refused to let him take the oath.