Labour Party Politics: A Confused Jumble. (1907)

From the June 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., Chairman of the Independent Labour Party, Secretary of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, writer on capitalist politics in capitalist newspapers, has, according to the Morning Post of May 8th, written to the Leicester branch of the Church Socialist League as follows :—

 “I give my episcopal blessing with much pleasure. The Church Socialist League ought to flourish, for upon what more congenial soil can Socialism grow than the ethics of the Gospel and the maxims of the Fathers? Moreover, I think, when we know each other better, it will be found that the materialism which the Church is always saying that she is warring against is precisely the thing that we Socialists are warring against. The dross of life is oppressing us. It is in our eyes and we see not ; it is in our mouths, and we cannot speak the truth ; it is in our hearts, and we cannot worship what it is meet that we should worship. We are striving for all sorts of rights—the right to hold acres and to enjoy incomes which we have never earned ; the right to have drink on Sunday; the right to be fleeced by bookmakers; the right to starve our children ; and we do not seem to have the faculty to discriminate which of these are of God and which of the Devil. So our politics are a confused jumble of futilities at their worst and an ineffective striving after vague desires at their best. We have to discover the qualitative things of life, and it is because your Church Socialist League is going to strive to do that that I readily respond to your request to bless you.”

This letter is such a “confused jumble” that one has a difficulty in understanding it, but we will try. “We Socialists” of course refers to Mr. MacDonald and his fellow members and supporters of the Labour Party, Independent or otherwise. These cannot speak the truth because the dross of life is in their mouths and is oppressing them. It was not known before that this was the reason, but a note can now be made of their excuse. It is hoped they will succeed in their attempt to secure the right to drink on Sunday. To do so is very refreshing especially after an hour or so’s open-air speaking. When they have secured this right may they be oppressed by sufficient of the dross of life to exercise it—to afford a decent drink and plenty of it. It may interest them to know that a prominent Liberal Statesman, now deceased, is credited with having declared that “bitter beer is the finest drink that has been invented since the nectar of the gods went out of fashion.” Be that as it may, they are of course at liberty to select their own “pizen” from the various kinds on tap.

Undoubtedly their politics are a confused jumble at their worst, and one may go farther and declare that they are usually at their worst.

They may think this is due to the seeming absence of the faculty to discriminate which of these rights are of God and which of the Devil, others think it is due, in some cases, to their ignorance of the working-class position, and in other cases to their desire for political aggrandisement.

In the columns of the Socialist Standard, month by month, have been given evidence of this confused jumble. The writers have not got the dross of life in their eyes and can see.

The Independent Labour Party, of which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., is chairman, claim to be the proud parent of the (Parliamentary) Labour Party, of which Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, M.P., is Secretary. The electoral policy of the two parties is, on paper, identical. It is also identical in practice, but whilst on paper it is understandable, in practice it is a “confused jumble.” The paper policy is summed up in the following clause of the Declaration of the Labour Party : “To abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or promoting the interests of any section of the Liberal or Conservative Parties.”

Although subscribing to this policy several members of the Labour Party threw it over at the General Election, when they saw that by adhering to it they would fail to secure election. Amongst them were Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. Parker at Halifax, Mr. T. F. Richards at Wolverhampton, and Mr. Stuart at York. Details of the compacts made with the Liberals will be found in the Socialist Standard for March and July, 1906.

Mr. W. Crooks, M.P., has signed the Declaration, but that did not prevent him attending the Banquet to Mr. S. L. Hughes at the Trocadero Restaurant on April 7th, 1906, organised by “some of the best known names in Liberal politics” because “the great Radical victory which had just been won was due to men like Mr. Hughes.”

Mr. W. Thorne, M.P., has signed the Declaration but yet supported Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal member for Tottenham, at the General Election in company with Messrs. Will Crooks, John Burns, H. H. Asquith, Herbert Gladstone, and others.

Messrs. C. W. Bowerman, M.P. and John Hodge, M.P., have signed the Declaration, but identified themselves with the Liberals (masquerading as Progressives) at the last London County Council Election. Mr. Bowerman was advertised to speak at Risiughill Street Schools, Pentonville, and Mr. Hodge was announced to take the chair at Maryon Park Schools, Charlton.

On April 21st last, Mr. A. Henderson, Whip of the Labour Party, was one of the chief speakers at Ilford Town Hall, at a “Temperance” meeting. Every student knows that this “Temperance” brigade is a wing of the Liberal Party. Mr. Henderson declared that they did not intend that the Government should put off “Temperance” reform in favour of Land Reform, or Home Rule or anything else. They must tell the Government straight that “Temperance” must be first.

When the Stepney Bye Election took place last month Mr. Ben Cooper was adopted as the official Liberal Candidate. He declared the issue was simply Free Trade versus Tariff Reform. According to the Daily Chronicle Mr. Bowerman was one of the first to write and offer his services in support of the Liberal nominee. The Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress endorsed his candidature. Messrs. Shackleton, Gill, Barnes, Bowerman, Wilkie and Thorne, all Labour M.P.’s who have signed the Declaration of the Labour Party are members of the Parliamentary Committee.

Mrs. Philip Snowden was a delegate to the Annual Conference of the Independent Labour Party at Derby this year. During the Wimbledon bye-election last month she was one of the hardest workers for the Liberal candidate, the Hon. Bertrand Russell, who “supported tie Liberal Government in everything excepting its attitude on the question of Women’s Suffrage.”

In view of these facts there can be no question that the politics of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and his Labour Party friends are a “confused jumble of futilities.” Mr. MacDonald’s phrase “touches the spot.”

Jack Kent

Party Paragraphs. (1910)

Party News from the March 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our SIXTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE will be held at Easter and promises to be satisfactory in every respect. A splendid suite of rooms consisting of two halls, cloak rooms, etc., have been secured at 

FAIRFAX HALL,
PORTLAND GARDENS,
STANHOPE GARDENS,
GREEN LANES,
FINSBURY PARK,

for Friday and Saturday, 25th and 26th March. Conference will commence each day at 10.a.m. On the Friday evening a SOCIAL EVENING will be held (doors open 7.30, commence at 8) and our North London Comrades guarantee a triumph.

The Hall adjoins Harringay Park Station (Midland), and is a 1d. tram ride from Finsbury Park Stations (Great Northern, Piccadilly and Brompton Tube, and Great Ninth and City Tube).

Teas will be provided at the Conference at 6d. each, and catering will be continued throughout the evening.

* * *

Socialists willing to join the proposed Kennington Branch are invited to communicate with

W. McCartney,
20, Manor Place,
Walworth Road, S.E.

* * *

Socialists in Croydon who desire the formation of a branch of the Socialist Party in that district, are requested to communicate with 

P. G. Barker,
7, Corporation Road,
Woodside.

* * *

The debate between Mr. P. Alden, M.P., and our comrade Anderson has been arranged to take place on Friday, April 1st, at the Earlsmead Road Schools, Tottenham.

* * *

Our Tottenham comrades are again contesting two Wards in the forthcoming District Council Elections and will win—ultimately, of course.

* * *

Our exposure of the Social Democrats in our February issue seems to have caused a more than usually lively flutter in their camp, and while the truth of our statement is not denied, the endeavour is being made to discredit its worth by shouting “Tory newspaper ! ” It may therefore be as well to state that the “Coventry Sentinel’’ which we quoted is no more a Tory paper than is “Justice,” the “Clarion” the “New Age,” or the “Labour Leader.” The following, taken from its leaderette on the S.D.P. will make this clear.

  “Our readers will share the regret we feel that a wing of the Socialist party which once wielded a fair amount of influence has suffered the humiliation of rejected proffered services. In attempting to run in harness with a Liberal at Northampton, Mr. Quelch and the Social-Democrats have made an unwise step. Their resolve not to fall from grace again comes too late. . . . Jealous as we are for the honour of the movement, we deplore the decadence of the S.D.P., which appears to be due to a determination to secure office at any price.”

—“Coventry Sentinel,” 25.12.1909.

* * * 

The receipt of a copy of this paper is an invitation to subscribe.

Some Indiscretions of Wm. Thorne, M. P. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our old friend, William Thorne, M.P., writes a very nicely typed letter, on Gasworker Union note, in reply to questions addressed to him by a correspondent relative to certain actions of his own and the position of the “Labour” Party. The letter deserves a wider publicity and it, or most of it, shall have it.

#    #    #    #

William writes: “I beg to say that I have never actually supported Mr. Percy Alden during the last Parliamentary election, but I remember attending a meeting at which I was chairman, which was held at Tottenham sometime prior to the General Election, when Mr. Alden was the adopted Parliamentary candidate, and I spoke a few words in his favour.”

#    #    #    #

That’s clear enough, isn’t it ? When you take the chair for a man and speak in his favour you are not actually supporting him, you’re only— well —it’s ridiculous to say that’s support! Good old Bill. Let’s try some more.

#    #    #    #

“I have known Mr. Alden for many years . . and I have always found him a very good man in advocating the claims of the workers, both in regard to hours and wages, etc., and he was one of the most active men upon the Central Committee in forcing the hands of the local authority in bringing about better sanitary conditions for for the workers.”

#    #    #    #

But Bill wouldn't support him for that. Not actually! Don’t support good men, Bill, don’t. Only say a few words in their favour.

#    #    #    #

The letter proceeds: . . . "I am a member of the Labour Party in the House of Commons, and all members of that Party are pledged to abstain from identifying themselves or of promoting the interests of the other great political parties, and I carry that principle out so far as possible. I believe in perfect discipline in regard to organisation and political parties, and in my opinion the Labour Party in the House of Commons would be absolutely useless if it did not preserve its entire independence of the other parties, in the House. I do not believe that any of the members of the Labour Party are prepared to support candidates of the other political parties, but if they do, they are committing a breach of the Labour Party’s constitution.”

#    #    #    #

Lovely! Bill believes in perfect discipline — as far as possible, He is fixed and immovable— except now and again. He is stern and unbending—not ’arf he aint — only in places he gives. The Labour Party would be absolutely useless if it did not stick to its constitution and refuse to support candidates of other political parties, and Bill didn't support such a candidate. He only gave him a little assistance'

#    #    #    #

Good old William. I wonder if he read that letter over before he let it go.

A. James.

Formation of The Socialist Party (1987)

From the June 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades,

In a recent circular we drew your attention to the position of the SDF and the particular conditions surrounding some of its prominent members.

For years those who hold the views given in our previous manifesto have been working inside the Movement with a view to bringing the various facts before the members of the rank and file, and up to the issue of that circular we were hoping that even yet it would be possible to remodel the SDF and bring its policy into line with its principles.

Against this, however, was the fact that the Executive Council, largely influenced by H. Quelch, who, as we have shown in our previous circular, is dominated by the Trade Union leaders and others who have a financial grip upon the Twentieth Century Press, opposed in every way free and open discussion of our position. All criticisms of the policy or the actions of the Executive Council were turned into questions of personal abuse in order to hide the real issue.

The EC have now completely cast off the mask in this matter. Not only were the expulsions engineered at the Conference entirely without justification, evidence or notice — unless the endeavour of those expelled to lay the facts before their fellow-members is considered justification —but the EC have since expelled four other comrades for merely protesting against this action, and in their latest circular they again purposely obscure the issue, decline to discuss, and express their intention of expelling, without right of appeal, those members who dare to advocate the adoption of an uncompromising policy.

Breaches of Socialist discipline have been alleged against us. True! breaches of Socialist discipline have occurred, but these have been on the part of members of the Executive. officials of the Federation and supporters of the Opportunist policy against which we have protested.

The support by H. Quelch and C. F. Davis, of five Liberal-Labour candidates for the London County Council, viz.. Ben Cooper, W. Steadman, H. Gosling, G. Drew and J. Gregory. when these men were nominated at a meeting of the London Trades Council, (of which since then H. Quelch has been appointed Chairman) the support of capitalist candidates for Parliament, e.g.. D. Naoroji (a large shareholder in the Twentieth Century Press), by J. F. Green, sanctioned by the Executive Council; Percy Alden by Will Thorne (a Parliamentary candidate of the SDF) in spite of the determined opposition of the Tottenham Branch of the SDF, the support of Will Crooks by the same SDF representative, the canvass by J. Hunter Watts of various members of the SDF on behalf of Masterman, Liberal candidate for Dulwich; the repeated declaration by Quelch that he should ask to sanction the EC to support W. Steadman, the Liberal candidate for Central Finsbury; the support of the late EC. of Tillett and Burgess; and by the present EC by J. Hill, Liberal-Labour candidate at Govan; the support by H. Quelch of J. J. Terrett, a thrice expelled member of the Federation, at North West Ham. against the known desires of the two local branches; — these are a few recent instances of the breaches of discipline encouraged and condoned by the official SDF. It is these men who now have the audacity and sought to enforce Socialist discipline upon the leaders and officials and officials of the body.

Now, Comrades, in building up a strong Socialist Party it is indispensible that the fullest discussion on all matters affecting the position of the Organisation should be allowed, and it is also obvious that the members of a Militant Revolutionary Party cannot consent in any way to have their opinions stifled by the actions of their EC. But it is now evident that all further education of the members, either in relation to the facts of the situation, or in the essential principles upon which the Federation is based, is impossible within that body.

Realising this, the signatories to the aforementioned circular met together with others at Sidney Hall. Battersea, on Sunday, May 15, 1904,  to consider the whole position. and carried with enthusiasm the following resolution:

  That this meeting has arrived at the conclusion that the only way to put the principles and policy embedded in the circular into operation is to leave the SDF in a body and send a manifesto round the branches explaining our position and calling upon all those who are in favour of the same to join us in forming a straight, uncompromising Socialist Party.

In pursuance of this resolution, we appeal to all comrades who believe that the economic forces working through the development of capitalist society demand the formation of a Revolutionary Socialist Party; who believe that the emancipation of the working-class can only be obtained by the combined action of the members of that class, consciously organised in a Socialist Party, and who recognise that the Class-Struggle can alone be the basis of such a party; that therefore Social Democrats must avow themselves in opposition to all non- Socialist parties and politicians; and who realise that the SDF has ceased to merit the name of such a party, to throw in your lot with us and help us in building up a strong and healthy fighting party, organised on definite class lines for the emancipation of the working class from wage-slavery under which they exist — from the capitalist society of which they are the victims.

Comrades, in London we have with us most of the active workers in the SDF — so much so that that organisation can no longer provide a lecture list, owing to the lack of speakers — and from the provinces we have a number of promises of support.

Conscious of the rectitude of our principles and the soundness of our policy, we ask you to help us to carry them into action, to cease to belong to a body which is fast becoming compromised beyond redemption. and to refuse longer to place men or traditions above the soundness of your principles or your party.

Signed on behalf of the Battersea Meeting

A. S. Albery,
E. J. B. Allen,
R. Elrick,
J. Fitzgerald,
H. J. Hawkins,
T. A. Jackson,
C. Lehane,
H. Martin,
H. C. Phillips
Provisional Committee
        Secretary (pro tem)
Sidney Hall, York, Battersea

Dated. May 28. 1904.

NOTE — The following Branches have already withdrawn: Battersea. Peckham and Dulwich, Watford. Wood Green. Kensal Town. Central West Ham. Also minorities from several other Branches.

The Social Democratic Federation: Does it deserve the support of the working class? (1905)

From the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sydney Hall, York Road. Battersea, now in the possession of the Battersea Branch of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, was crowded on August 31st, the occasion being a debate upon the question asked above, between Mr. W. H. Humphreys, an accredited lecturer of the S.D.F, and Comrade J. Fitzgerald, representing the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B.

Mr. George Hicks, O.B.S., presided, and after explaining the object and conditions of the debate, called upon the opener.

Mr. Humphreys said that it mattered little to him whether the workers joined the S.D.F., S.P.G.B., or I.L.P., as long as they joined some Socialist organisation. The members of the Battersea Branch S.P.G.B. had gone to S.D.F. meetings and by their bickerings had undone the good work of the S.D.F. He maintained that the S.D.F. deserved the support of the working-class, although he strongly favored the formation of a United Socialist Party. The S.D.F. had helped to raise the physical and mental conditions of the workers. He did not always agree with its tactics. Politics was a dirty game and left its marks on those who played it. Years ago, when he joined the Army, he had belonged to the Socialist League, and did not believe in political action. When he left the Army the Socialist League was dead, while the S.D.F. still lived. This fact converted him to political action. The S.D.F. had produced much valuable literature and altogether had done an enormous amount of educational work. By backing up palliatives the S.D.F. kept the flag of Socialism flying. Some reforms might throw things back, hut other reforms were also the means of getting better conditions for the workers and of dispelling superstition. The feeding of the children and secular education would make for the social revolution, as they would physically improve the race and abolish superstition. If we took political action the electors demanded a certain attitude on all questions. He was an anti-vaccinist because he objected to having his child poisoned. This was not Socialism, but a question of human well-being. He was an Internationalist and therefore considered that it was the business of Socialists to prevent the Capitalists setting the workers of the world against each other. He was glad of the cordial relations existing between the French and English fleets. It seemed to him that The Socialist Party of Great Britain was opposed to the feeding of the children only because some capitalists now advocated this reform. The S.P.G.B. argued that feeding the children meant making better wage slaves of them. The S.D.F. on the other hand held that the children when fed became more physically and intellectually fit. The workers could not at the present time control the political machinery. In order to do that they would first have to abolish plural voting and obtain payment of members and of election expenses. The second ballot would also be of advantage to the Socialists, as in three-cornered fights many would not risk their votes by voting for Socialist candidates as they would much rather back the winner. When the lecturers of the S.P.G.B. alleged that the workers were bought and sold like pieces of merchandise it amounted to backing up the bourgeois political economists. According to Karl Marx the workers only sold their labour-power. He held that material interests did not control all actions, as was easily proved by the action of the Japanese at Port Arthur, the Communards of Paris, and the Socialists who, owing to their revolutionary propaganda, were sent to Siberia. Principles very often controlled man's actions. Mr. H. M. Hyndman rightly denied that the workers could emancipate themselves, they must be taught and guided by such middle-class men as marx, Engels, Hyndman and William Morris. They must not place too much reliance in working-class labour representatives. Battersea would have done much better if it had one such middle-class man as its Parliamentary representative instead of John Burns.

Comrade Fitzgerald pointed out that the subject of debate was “Did the S.D.F. deserve the support of the Working-class", it must be clear that an organisation to deserve the support of the working-class must strenuously work on behalf of that class, and that class alone. The declared object of the S.D.F. was the emancipation of the working-class from the thralldom of capitalism, but in their political action they were going contrary to their principles. If it were true that under capitalism the workers had to sell themselves, their emancipation could surely only lie in becoming free men who could establish and control their own conditions of labour. To do that they must first capture the present political machinery, which was the means of entrenching the capitalist-class so firmly in their citadel of economic domination. He would like Mr. Humphreys to explain how a man could sell his labour-power without selling himself. Man was therefore a commodity, and differed from other commodities only in one respect. In the case of other commodities you could separate the seller from the commodity, whilst the worker was inseparable from his labour-power. And as the worker was bought by the capitalist to produce a profit, he must be robbed. The most important thing in life was to obtain the means of living, and this material fact must of necessity be the dominant factor in human movements. If that were so then the interests of capitalist and labourer must be irreconcilably opposed to one another. And if in order to become economically free the workers must get hold of and control the political machinery, then it stood to reason that any assistance given to the capitalists or their henchmen was decidedly taking antagonistic action to working-class interests. In 1894, Mr. H. M. Hyndman said that Socialists must not bend their knees to any capitalist party. In 1897, when there was a slump in the Socialist Movement, the S.D.F. at their Conference resolved that no candidates should be run unless there was proof of their command of at least 10% of the votes. In 1898 their Annual Conference empowered the E.C. to decide the policy of the organisation, subject to ratification by the branches. In 1899 the Conference decided that the members of the S.D.F. vote Tory, in order to smash the Liberal Party, in 1900, when the Boer War was on, they considered that they could not very well support the Tories; so they passed a resolution to support several Liberal candidates, viz., Labouchère at Northampton, Philip Stanhope at Burnley (Hyndman's candidature being withdrawn), Lionel Holland at Ilford, and John Burns at Battersea—a member of the E.C. of the S.D.F. working for Burns on his election day. In 1897 the S.D.F. ran W. G. Pearson for the London School Board and he polled 12,000 votes. After the death of Pearson they again contested the seat, with George Hewitt as the candidate, in 1900. The largest branch in the district. Bow and Bromley, fell out and so disrupted two other branches, viz., Whitechapel and Poplar, that they also fell out and subsequently collapsed. The Mile End Branch alone was left to carry on the campaign. All that disloyalty and disruption were due to the fact that Hewitt stood for Secular Education, which, G. Lansbury and his followers complained, would lose Lansbury the Non-conformist support for his Parliamentary candidature for Bow and Bromley. Mr. Cluse, au S.D.F. lecturer, stated that supporting capitalist candidates was not supporting the capitalist party, as the issue in 1900 was the Boer War. But he (Fitzgerald) would like to point out that this excuse could not hold water as the total casualties in the Boer War were less than 60,000, while the official returns for one year in four trades in the United Kingdom showed over 100,000 victims. Moreover, after the War was over, J. Hunter Watts supported Masterman, the Liberal candidate at Dulwich, and Will Thorne supported Percy Alden at Tottenham against the wish of the local Branch of the S.D.F. This labour leader also signed the Free Trade Manifesto of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. If Socialists held that the cleavage between Capital and Labour was growing wider and that the workers could only obtain their emancipation by means of capturing the political machinery it was worse than madness to support capitalists or their nominees. The rank and file of the S.D.F. could obtain no information as to the doings of the E.C., as that body claimed that the members ought to have confidence in the elected men and trust them implicitly. Because some members of the S.D.F. had kicked against the Kautsky Resolution at the Paris International Congress they were accused of having inspired the letters that appeared in the New York People on that subject. When at the S.D.F. Conference at Blackburn, H. W. Lee and H. Quelch were accused of withholding from the Organisation a certain letter Lansbury had addressed to the E.C., both denied having done so. When, later, the letter was published and could no longer be denied as in existence, Quelch stated that he was not present when it was read although the E.C. minutes stated he was present at the meeting where the letter was read, and if he came in late, it was absurd to suppose that so important a letter was not shown to him. At Shoreditch, H. W. Lee admitted having told a lie and in justification said that under similar circumstances he would so again. Lansbury's letter had announced his resignation as S.D.F. Parliamentary candidate for Bow and Bromley because lie could see no good coming of it unless the S.D.F. made common cause with the Liberals. When Socialists fight straight their political game is clean, when they back up Liberal hacks it becomes a dirty game. It was on account of their not fighting straight that a great number of members, some of the oldest members among them, came out of the S.D.F. and formed the S.P.G.B. The facts mentioned showed clearly that the S.D.F. was neither Socialist nor Democratic and therefore did not deserve the confidence of the working-class.

Mr. Humphreys in continuing the debate again asserted that the capitalist did not buy the worker but only his labour-power. If he bought the worker he would look after him, as, however, he did not purchase him he let him go to the devil. In spite of the bad conditions of the workers they could revolt against brutality. The desire to do good induced Hyndman, William Morris and others to fight for the working-class. It does not matter what class men are born in but what class they fight for. Henderson, Bell, and similar men were as bad as Liberal Capitalist candidates. It was an important matter to obtain better conditions for the workers as for instance free feeding of the children and secular education. Mr. Straus, the late Liberal candidate for Mile End declared himself in favour of Socialism. Socialists accepting the co-operation of capitalists in obtaining reforms must make sure that these capitalists were earnest in helping forward those palliatives and there were some who were earnest. One must judge candidates on personal grounds. If the Tory candidate in Battersea declared in favour of feeding the children he would support him against Bums. Mr. Hunter Watts supported Masterman because Rutherford Harris had the blood of the South African farmers on his hands and it was not a question of mere numbers of victims; but Hunter Watts was wrong in supporting the Liberal candidate because that candidate was not in favour of the S.D.F. palliatives. That was a great mistake. All parties make mistakes. It was not in the material interests of the working-class in 1897 to have displayed their great loyalty to the Royal family. He had looked up Hansard and had found that in 1900 eight Radical members had voted against supplies for the Boer war. If they supported these men individually they did not support the Capitalist Party. It was true that a member of the E.C. of the S.D.F. supported and worked for Burns during the election in 1900. This was, however, done in conjunction and with somebody, who is now a member of the S.P.G.B. Will Thorne was called over the coals by the E.C. for supporting Percy Alden. If the rank and file of the S.D.F. did not get to know anything of the doings of their E.C. it was due to the fact that their organisation was poor and their full E.C. met only once a quarter. Their organisation had no money to waste and therefore were wise in deciding to run candidates only when they were sure of 10 per cent. of the vote in a constituency. Their expenses were heavy as it was. Golden sovereigns were hard to get. It was better to spend money on literature than on hopeless candidatures.

Comrade Fitzgerald in replying said that be had taken 25 minutes to bring the facts, points and arguments to show that the S.D.F. was acting against the interests of the working-class, but Mr. Humphreys had made no attempt at refuting his statements. The capitalist buys the worker’s Labour power bit by bit, hence had to buy his body. Under chattel slavery he bought the slave right out, but to-day he only bought the wage slave piecemeal, and owing to the number seeking sale was able to disregard their welfare. If some of the capitalist class act contrary to the interests of that class that does not prove that that class fights for the interests of the working-class. Mr. Hyndman had said that no slave class had brought about its own emancipation — the class above it had emancipated it. Therefore the middle-class would emancipate the working-class. Those who voted for individual capitalist candidates supported the capitalist party in the most effective manner, viz., politically. Capitalists were all in one camp, and must be the enemies of the working-class, if Socialist principles were true. Mr. Hunter Watts’ defence for voting for Masterman was absurd. If Rutherfoord Harris had the blood of the South African farmers on his hands, Masterman, as a Liberal, had the blood of the murdered Featherstone miners on his, which was worse. Two and two were four, even if the accountant made a mistake in adding up. Apparently the S.D.F. did not mean to learn by all their blunders and mistakes of the past. H. W. Lee, their Secretary, said in the current number of the Social Democrat that twenty years ago the Radical advocated payment of Members of Parliament, now the S.D.F. must do that work. The E.C. of the S.D.F. not only make mistakes but deceived the workers in regard to their tactics, which were not Socialist but Radical. At the last Annual Conference of the S.D.F., at Northampton, Mr. Dan Irving threatened to leave the Conference if his motion were not carried. When L. Cotton, at the Shoreditch Conference, insisted that his vote had been falsified, Mr. Irving refused to go into the matter. Mr. J. P. Lloyd had moved that some scheme should be devised to let the members know more of the work of the E.C. Members of the S.D.F. were kept in ignorance of things, and when information came to them and they revolted they were at once branded as impossible. He (Fitzgerald) was described as a danger. At Burnley when he called for evidence, Quelch declared he had none. The S.D.F. having broken its pledges by backing up the capitalist position, directly and indirectly, did certainly not deserve the support of the working-class.

Hans Neumann

Party Notes. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the opening of the summer propaganda season, comrades are urged to redouble their efforts. The Party's success continues to inspire enthusiasm in its adherents and dismay among its detractors—this is as it should be. Let the battle be engaged all along the line. Raise the circulation of the Socialist Standard to 10,000 monthly before the season closes and justify your existence.

*   *   *

A branch of the Party has been formed at Woolwich and Socialists living in the neighbourhood should immediately get into communication with Geo. Ayres, 452, Woolwich Road, Charlton, who is acting as local secretary.

A branch has also been formed at Worthing, near Brighton, for details see Branch Directory.

Socialists residing in or around Surbiton are requested to communicate with Wm. Tolton, 50 Douglas Road, Surbiton, with a view to forming a branch there.

*   *   *

While speaking for the Social-Democratic Party at Nottingham recently a Mr. Carmichael of Battersea, London, was somewhat severely tackled by our comrades there. He then threw out a challenge to debate the claim of the S.P.G.B. to the confidence of the working class. Previous experience of S.D.P. bluster led our comrades to request Mr. Carmichael to put the challenge in writing—a thing he declined to do, asserting that he had already issued similar challenges to the S.P.G.B., and it had failed to take them up.

He further stated that if we wanted him we knew where to find him—he was so well known! Exactly, we do know where to find him; and this is to tell him that his statement given above is simply untrue. The only occasion known to us when Mr. Carmichael issued such a challenge was on Sunday, 27th September, 1908. It was at once accepted on behalf of the Party, and our representatives was appointed. Then followed a correspondence culminating on 21st of October in Mr. Carmichael writing that his branch had decided that unless admission was restricted to members of Socialist organisations they should take no part in arranging the meeting. There the matter rests. When Mr. Carmichael can get his party to endorse his publicly uttered challenges he will not have to wait long for our representative. With Mr. Carmichael, or anyone else, representing the S.D.P., we will willingly arrange a debate, but Mr. Carmichael representing Mr. Carmichael must be satisfied to occupy our platform on the ordinary conditions. At all our meetings opposition is welcomed by our Socialist Dreadnoughts. Were the stipulation of Mr. Carmichael's branch accepted there could of course be no debate, as it would rule Mr. Carmichael himself outside.

*   *   *

Writing of debates, the encounter between Mr. Percy Alden, M.P. and our comrade Anderson duly came off on the evening of April 1st, and proved a huge success from our point of view. The hall was crowded and many hundreds unfortunately were turned away, the doors having to be closed before the advertised time of opening the debate. The collection taken up was more than sufficient to cover all the expenses of the meeting. The debate was extensively reported in the capitalist Press, from which we quote the following. "The very spacious hall of the Earlsmead School, Tottenham, was densely crowded on Friday night, the attraction being a public debate on 'Is the Liberal Party deserving of the support of the Working Class?' Mr. Percy Alden, M.P. took the affirmative, and the opposer was Mr. A. Anderson, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain . . . No resolution was put to the meeting on the question debated, but the feeling of those present was obvious in the course of the speeches, Mr. Anderson coming in for considerable applause, and Mr. Alden's statements being greeted often with derision."

*   *   *

Another splendid piece of propaganda work was the occasion of the Celebration of the Commune of Paris. A largely attended and enthusiastic meeting was held in the Caledonian Road Baths, North London, on March 21st. The meeting reflected credit upon the activities of our Islington members.