How to be independent. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the General Election came the L.C.C. elections. The Labour Party and I.L.P. ran candidates in eight constituencies, but it is not true to say contested, as in only one of the eight did they run a full ticket.

As is well known, each constituency has two seats, yet the “Independent” Labour Party ran only one man in each of seven districts. Why ? Because they knew their position was hopeless without the help of the progressives (Liberals). They ran two candidates at Woolwich only, where the Progressives had none. Even then they lost.

In Bermondsey and Kennington where the Progressives ran two official candidates, the I.L.Peers were defeated. In Bow and Bromley, North Lambeth, and Poplar the one-and-one idea was followed with the result that Lansbury, F. Smith and Ensor were elected. And Mr. Robert Williams claims these as Socialist victories and calls the three a “Socialist group” !

Another I.L.P. member—C. L. Jesson—followed the example of the Fabians and ran as a Progressive in Walworth, and was returned.

Evidently the I.L.P. idea of “independence” embraces bargains and joint candidatures with their supposed enemies. These are their boasted “glorious victories,” the fruits of their superior tactics and ability. But the workers may be sure that the “Independents” will support the Proressives every whit as heartily at Spring Gardens as the Labour Party does the Liberals at Westminster, and for the same reason—their seats are the gift of the capitalists.

Jack Fitzgerald

From the Fighting Line. (1907)

Party News from the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

West Ham.—Fair to middling. Little to rejoice at except increase of membership, and little to complain of but the apathy of the workers. Our success, of course, is equal to our power to command it, and that both may increase we have now reason to hope. The central classes for which we have yearned and worked are now an accomplished fact, and so far we can confidently recommend them to the careful consideration of the comrades who are still young or at least are not too old to learn. The Hammers look forward to meeting members of all the branches at this intellectual venue of the Party. We already feel the benefit in our own classes of the stimulus of “something done,” in the way of co-ordination of intellectual effort.

G. C. H. Carter

Tooting.—The working class can be united in demanding Socialism, but the reform has yet to be named that does not succeed in dividing their interests more or less. The I.L.P. manifesto on the L.C.C. elections which contains as one of its principal planks that revolutionary reform “A Municipal Milk Supply” is a case in point. Four Tooting milkmen, who had just commenced to take an interest in Socialism, saw this reform alluded to in the daily Press as “a Socialist demand” ; and knowing full well that it would mean that at the most only one fourth of their number would be required to deliver milk under that system, they, on meeting one of our speakers recently, charged him with seeking reform which would put three-fourths of their number out of work. It will take our comrade more than one evening to convince those milkmen that neither municipal capitalism nor the I.L.P. have anything to do with Socialism except in so far as the I.L.P. preaches confusion under that name.

The Wandsworth Trades and Labour Council are affording ample justification for the attitude of the Party in running candidates for the Borough Council against theirs last November. According to the aforesaid Labour Council neither the Progressives nor the Rev. Anderson (Tory) were then able to represent the interests of the workers, so they opposed them with candidates of their own. Somehow the L.C.C. elections have altered the complexion of affairs. First the Trades Council held a meeting for the purpose of hearing an address by Mr. Kellaway, the Progressive, candidate. This not affording complete satisfaction, they invited the Rev. Anderson to run in their interest. He declining they finally decided by 21 votes to 14 to support the Progressive, Mr. Kellaway !

This is independence as practised by Labour groups alliliated to the Labour Party. Opposition to all sections of the capitalist class at all times is the only attitude that will ever release the working class from its present bondage; and many outside our membership are beginning to see the impregnability of our position, in which mental transformation they are being assisted by the vacillating policy of the Wandsworth Trades Council, who have shown so completely that they neither know where they are nor where they are going.

Paul Dumenil

Paddington.—Once again the Paddington Borough is seething with political manifestations, having arisen out of the Slough of Despond into which it had been plunged since the last general election. Progressives and Moderates, aspirants for municipal honours, appear before the working class in this and other districts, clamouring for votes, each party stirring up the emotions of the working class with vague promises that can never be fulfilled while capitalism lasts, even if they wanted to fulfill them.

When the polling day arrives the climax will be reached, the Progressives or the Moderates will be announced as the victors. The glib-tongued politicians having had their purpose served (viz., the perpetuation of capitalism) will, disappear from the public gaze, and the majority of the working class having trusted their own interest to another class, will consider their duty done and await another general uprising in capitalist politics.

In distinct contrast to this flash in the pan, we, the Paddington members, assemble every Sunday morning throughout the year at the junction of the Walterton Road and Elgin Avenue, for the purpose of discussing political and economic questions of vital interest to the working class. We make no promises as to what we will do for them, we solicit no favours from them, nor ask them to support us, but to support themselves by combining with us. For working-class emancipation can only arise from working-class activities being directed in a scientifically organised way by that class itself. We invite all, of every shade of political opinion, to come and analyse the position we take up, and to ask questions of us. For the conclusion we draw from past experience is that the future belongs to us, for ours is the way, the truth, and the light.

T. A. Wilson

Editorial: London County Council, Ltd. (1907)

Editorial from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Independent Labour Party, who have long supported the Liberals and Progressives on the L.C.C., have issued a manifesto on the coming elections, and have in consequence been repudiated by their friends. It is rather unkind, after the way in which the I.L.P. have worked for and supported the L.C.C. capitalist majority, for the latter, in fear of the prospective Progressive rout, to turn upon and rend their faithful allies. But so it is. The Progressive organ, The Daily Chronicle, in a leading article on the “I.L.P. Bogey,” insists in regard to their manifesto that “the document in question is issued by the I.L.P. on its own account. The Progressive Party have nothing to do with it whatever.” The Progressive organ dismisses the I.L.P. municipal milk proposal as “unnecessary, impracticable and undesirable.” It also says: “One of the Progressive leaders, Sir Edwin Cornwall, happens to be a large coal merchant, and he has very naturally been asked what he thinks of the proposal to municipalise the coal supply of London. He thinks it sheer nonsense, and so, we imagine, will all Progressives.” Moreover it adds that “the County Council has, for the most part, no power to do the things which the manifesto talks about. A whole series of Acts of Parliament would be required to make them possible, and there is no likelihood that the series will be forthcoming.” All of which, to say the least, is base ingratitude toward the I.L.P. For what do the proposals amount to ? Merely the extension of milk and water municipalisation—the substitution of municipal capitalism for private capitalism in certain industries—that is all. Until the working class controls, nationally and locally, the municipal services that are undertaken will only be used for the benefit of the master class, and the L.C.C. policy has been no exception to this rule. The interest of the workers has ever been sacrificed to the interest of the propertied class. Indeed, the L.C.C., far from being a model employer, is noticeably inferior to a vast number of private firms in the treatment of its workmen. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Progressives is as plain as is the futiliy of the policy of the Independent Labour Party, which mistakes municipal and state capitalism for Socialism.

The Quintessence of Socialism.

There are quite a number of people in this country who call themselves Socialists because they believe in the municipalisation or nationalisation of various things. And these good people appear to be oblivious of the fact that the very essence of Socialism is the control of wealth production and distribution by the wealth producers. It is obvious that it a number of thieves are banded together they are not likely to seek less booty, or seek it less effectively, than when isolated ; so, therefore, the capitalist class, who control the national and local administrative bodies, are not likely to seek less profit, or to seek it less effectively, when their businesses come under their collective control than when they control them individually. The end and aim of a capitalist is profit, whether it comes as interest on Metropolitan Water Board bonds or as dividend on shares in the A.B.C.; and the ruling class will not, indeed, undertake municipal or national services at all unless their interests are thereby served and their general profits increased. An industry taken over by the capitalist State, though it may be also of advantage, in other respects, means that more wealth is thereby to be wrung from the workers. The sweating in government factories, the low wages in the Post Office that enable over £4,000,000 to go in relief of capitalist taxation, are an earnest of what State capitalism means. Nationalised industries can only become Socialistic, and can only be of real benefit to the workers, when the working class has obtained control of the administrative machinery. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the political movement of the workers place itself firmly on the basis of the class struggle. Indeed, all who do not recognise this fact, whatever they may call themselves, are emphatically not Socialists, for mere nationalisation, we repeat, is not Socialism at all.

A Nation of Serfs.

Another aspect of the matter that is not often taken note of is the restriction of political liberty which often goes with the nationalisation of a branch of industry. Lord Selborne’s circular (which has been endorsed by Lord Elgin) is a case in point—the railway servants in the Transvaal being forbidden to take active part in the elections there. Railway men in this country who have clamoured for nationalisation, have profound misgivings when they see the Liberal Government cripple the political activity of government railway workers. Mr. Winston Churchill has been approached by them on the matter, but he is inexorable and has said : “It has long been held to be undesirable that regular government servants should conspicuously take sides in party politics, and in consequence the railway servants in both the neighbouring self-governing colonies of Natal and the Cape are expressly forbidden to do so.” Prominent members of the present government have in the past expressed themselves strongly against the exercise of the vote by municipal employees and civil servants. This is, indeed, no new policy. The postal servants have long been expressly forbidden to take active part in politics. Supporters of the existing regime can, indeed, be brutally frank on this matter when it suits them. In a letter to the Daily Chronicle recently, Mr. Arnold White said in praise of the Government, that it had shown that efficiency was not incompatible with economy by its naval policy in abandoning obsolete dockyards, etc., and in “discharging redundant workmen who use their votes to get higher pay.”

The italics are ours.

Though government servants are not, as yet, deprived of the vote, its value is seriously lessened by the restriction of political action. The significance of this matter may be judged from a consideration of its probable effect on the political movement of the working class if all were government servants and forbidden to take sides in political affairs. The political organisation of the workers would be rendered practically impossible, their emancipation would be retarded, and the movement driven underground. The mere nationalisation of an industry gives the ruling class greater power over the workers, and, to take the railways as an example, instead of nationalisation bringing the workers a step near to the control of industry, it is likely to find them with their political wings clipped, and even more at the mercy of capitalism than before. Instead of helping to strengthen the chains which bind them, the workers should at last realise the futility of anything short of working-class supremacy.