S.P.G.B. Lecture List For March. (1911)

Party News from the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

For more information on some of the SPGB speakers listed above, click on these posts for more background.

• December 1910
• December 1912

The position of the I.L.P. A parallel and a moral (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The means by which the defenders of an established order seek to retain supremacy and resist progress are always interesting, not merely from an abstract point of view, but also because of the valuable lessons which can be learned by a thoughtful observer, and applied with advantage in the future. Such a case occurred when the theory of Natural Selection, so intimately associated with the name of Darwin, burst like a thunderclap over the old ideas of a special creation, with each human individual, as distinct from the lower animals, endowed with a “soul” or “spirit”. These modern notions were met on the one hand with a conspiracy of silence, on the other with a venomous outpouring of abuse. But, of course, neither method proved to be any great barrier to the progress of an idea that was bound to grow and spread, by reason of its intrinsic truth and logic. The more astute, though less honest, apostles of ignorance were not slow to realise this, and in consequence they adopted a new method of combating the truth. We are now generally told that there is no real or necessary conflict between science and superstition, or, as it is phrased, between evolution and religion. Science is now invested with clerical garb where formerly it was reviled. By such means do the clergy desire to prevent its real significance being known, and to prolong the life of their creed and therefore the term of their occupation.

The essential features of the reception given to the above mentioned idea are also common to the attitude adopted toward the theories in which we are more immediately concerned. I refer to the principles upon which the Socialist takes his stand. The starting point is as follows:

The way in which wealth is produced and distributed in every social system determines the ideas of the people; in other words, material conditions dominate and form the basis of all the legal, ethical, moral and religious superstructure of society.

In modern society there are two distinct classes, namely, the producers and the possessors. The material interest of the possessing class lies in the direction of more profit, which means more poverty and greater hardship for the producers. The interest of the workers is, of course, against this, and lies in getting all the wealth it produces. Such is the position to-day, and we cannot ignore it. The ideas and aspirations of the master class are rooted in their class privilege — they will not abdicate their favoured position. Their legal and moral codes seek to justify their position as robbers. The man or the party that advises the workers to support capitalist candidates or parties under any circumstances is an enemy of the working class. It is our duty to keep the class issue clear. Either you must engage in the struggle against the capitalist system or else actively or passively support the ruling class. With its cause lying in the private property basis of society, the class struggle cannot be suspended, but must be waged with increasing bitterness until the capitalist class are overthrown and classes cease to exist. We do not cloak these facts, but make their clear presentment to our fellow-workingmen the very first object of our propagandist endeavours.

Realising the dangerous character of these revolutionary theories, the master class and their henchmen first endeavour to keep the working class in ignorance by such clumsy methods as the exiling or imprisoning of men (such as Marx) who discovered and first stated these facts, and by the suppression of their works and the harrying of those who openly accept their ideas. Finding the futility of such a course, they take a lesson from the Church, and resort to the boycott. In this the capitalist class in this country found a useful ally in the Independent Labour Party, and later in the Labour Party. The I.L.P. (as also the L.P.) at its inception completely ignored the fundamentals of working-class organisation, thus playing directly into the masters’ hands. This party, with whom popularity and Parliamentary seats appear to be the only measure of success, is bound in order to maintain its success, to preach and support anti-working-class nostrums which have been popularised by capitalist agencies. An ever-growing number of the working class have pointed out the futility of dropping revolutionary principles for votes and fighting elections on election cries kindly provided by the Liberal party, and specially designed to serve capitalist interests. Naturally enough, the labour leaders have been annoyed at these irreconcilable notions, and when they could not ignore them they have indulged in violent denunciations of the principle of the class struggle and everything connected with it.

After the International  Conference at Amsterdam Mr. J. Bruce Glasier, a prominent I.L.P.er, distinguished himself in this direction with the following (Labour Leader, 26.8.04): “The Class War dogma is a reactionary and whiggish precept certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism”. On another occasion Mr. Keir Hardie showed his “love” for the materialist class-war basis of Socialism by stating that if Socialism was to be achieved on these lines nothing would be changed, except for the worse, adding that it would be “a merely glorified animalism, dangerously akin to bestiality” (Labour Leader, 17.8.01). This sentiment, of course, is merely a variation of the old “religious” wheeze that everything materialistic is inexpressibly vile.

Another instance (out of many) of specific denial of the Socialist principle of the class struggle is contained in The New Theology and the Social Movement, a pamphlet issued by the I.L.P. Publication Department. The brochure is a report of the first I.L.P. meeting the Rev. R.J. Campbell addressed (Hope Hall, Liverpool, March 25, 1907). Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, Labour M.P., wrote regretting his inability to attend and added: “Mr. Campbell’s adherence to the principles of our party is one more proof that we do not appeal to narrow class interests or prejudices, but that we aim at a state of society which commends itself to conscientious and rational people irrespective altogether of social status”. This childishly Utopian notion of a perfect society commending itself to all “conscientious and rational” people becomes merely laughable when tested by the historical fact that no ruling class has ever willingly relinquished its power, no matter how “good” or “rational” such a course might have been.

But in spite of this Keir Hardie specifically endorsed MacDonald’s effusion. “As MacDonald says” he declared, “his (Campbell’s) presence here is one more proof that the Socialism of the I.L.P. is no narrow class movement. It is a great principle which we invite all classes to come into and help to realise”. This is the sort of stuff Hardie ladled out in the name of the I.L.P. as an antidote to Marxian principles, and, be it noted, none of these statements have ever been repudiated or even objected to by his party. In fact, in I.L.P. leaflet Nº 5, ironically called “A Statement of Principles”, the same position is taken up. We are told that the party does not make war upon a class but considers a man’s convictions and not his social status, thus making it plain that they consider the two things entirely separate instead of, as the Marxian philosophy shows, vitally connected.

Considerations of space prevent me quoting further evidence of the opposition of the I.L.P. to Marxian tenets. Sufficient however, has, I believe, been written to prove beyond all doubt the hostile and anti-working-class attitude of the Labourites.

It is becoming increasingly evident that after all neither Utopian day-dreams nor sentimental piffle have much effect upon the steady progress of the Socialist idea. With the deplorable results to the labour “leaders” themselves consequent on the workers embracing the new philosophy, ever before their eyes, the more astute of them have fallen back to their last ditch. The time has gone by when it was profitable to repudiate Marx, and now the wirepullers of the “Labour” movement shift their ground and affirm that the Labour Party is based upon his teaching.

In view of this insidious move it is more than ever necessary for us to point out what position the labour “leaders” and the organisations they dominate have occupied on this question. Let any of these “latter-day Marxists” show, if they can, how a Marxian party could be guilty of such anti-Marxian pronouncements as those quoted above.

It is peculiar that it should have been left to Keir Hardie, who has so vehemently denounced the principle of the class struggle in the past, to introduce the new methods and pose as a Marxist. Yet, relying on the proverbially short memory of the British working class, he has not shirked the task. In My Confession of Faith in the Labour Alliance, a pamphlet issued just after the Edinburgh conference of the I.L.P., Mr. Keir Hardie, among other curious statements, makes the following assertion: “The Labour Party is the only expression of orthodox Marxian Socialism in Great Britain”.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hardie and his gang of political brigands, he neglected, when perpetrating this foul lie, to give his confederates the cue, with the result that some amusing complications have arisen. Father should have said “turn”, for the sake of harmony. As it is some of the party are still declaring that Marx was the last of the Utopians, while others, more up-to-date, are repeating Hardie’s prevarications. For instance, after the latter had discovered that they were a class party, Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald, of the “Brunner Bill” fame, wrote in the Labour Leader of May 21st, 1909: “The Socialist movement knows no class but is drawn from all classes”, and clinched the matter thus: “So I can sum up, the Labour Party is not a class but a community party”.

What a spectacle of contradiction and confusion! Here are two men with unrivalled opportunity of knowing what the Labour Party really does stand for, flatly contradicting each other on the very basis of their movement. If the leaders are so divided on root principles it may be left to the reader’s imagination to determine what state of mind the “rank-and-file” of the party must be in.

The most important point, however, is just that the labour “leaders” have in the past first ignored and then opposed the theories of Marx. Only recently have they attempted to “revise” these great scientific truths. The “revising” process is merely an endeavour to emasculate the Socialist doctrine, to rob Marx’s terms of their meaning and so make them fit in with the confusing and contradictory propaganda of the Labour Party.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the new plan has already caught on. The official organ of the I.L.P. for September 9th last tells us that no one can have a complete knowledge of Socialism unless he is acquainted with the theories of Marx. Incidentally it has taken them seventeen years as a party to find this out. But they go on to say that Marx’s work belongs to the pioneer stage and requires some restatement. In this way they seek to impose upon the credulity of those of their readers who do not know that Marx’s work was the laying bare of the economic foundation of society – which remains the same now as when his labour was accomplished. Consequently they do not suggest a study of Marx’s works, but advise the perusal of a pamphlet written by a pseudo-Marxist of the Labour Party type, who can be depended upon to suppress awkward truths and distort inconvenient theories.

It is not my special purpose here to show that the class struggle has nothing in common with licensing bills, capitalist budgets, Free Church councils and P.S.A.’s, even were it necessary to do so; but I shall be satisfied if I enable my readers to see through the shame enthusiasm of the Labour “leaders” for their perverted Marxism. Just as the clergy opposed the theory of evolution until its progress made it imperative to smother it with embraces, so too the changed attitude of Hardie and his gang toward the principle of the class struggle is forced on them by the rapid spreading of the idea among the working class. Hence it is a hopeful sign, signifying that the Labour tricksters are being forced into their last resource.

When the facts are known, the insincerity and double-dealing of the Labour “leaders” are plain. It is not surprising that their fight against progress runs on parallel lines to that of the clergy for they have much in common. Both are the servile tools of the capitalist class, and their function is to mislead the workers and so postpone the day of reckoning – hence the Socialist Party spare no pains to effect their exposure.

R. Fox

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (London District.) (1910)

Party News from the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

 

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on a few of the speakers missing from the sidebar is posted below. You can also check out these older posts which covers the same ground:

• F. Dawkins was a member of the Romford Branch of the SPGB, joining in August 1905. His wiki page goes into extensive detail on his background and on his political journey from Methodism (and the ILP) to Marxism (and the SPGB). Later in life he was a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the Hampstead constituency at the 1929 General Election.
• J. Kelly was a member of the Tottenham branch of the SPGB. There were two 'J. Kellys' in the Tottenham Branch of the SPGB (father and son?), both joining the Party in late August 1909.
• F. Leigh was Fred Leigh. He was a founder member of the SPGB. His membership lapsed from the Paddington Branch of the SPGB in January 1914.
• R. Fox was R. M. Fox. He joined the SPGB in Tottenham in September 1906. Better known after he left the SPGB, his 1937 autobiography, Smoky Crusade, sticks the boot into his old SPGB comrades. He should the offending excerpts from his book on the blog some time.
• G. Holmes was probably Johnny Holmes, who joined the Earlsfield Branch of the Party in August 1909, and who subsequently rejoined the SPGB (Tooting Branch) in April 1921.
• R. Kenny was Robert Kenny. Though not a founder member of the SPGB, he joined the Edmonton Branch of the Party on the 26th June 1904. That was two weeks to the day after the SPGB  was founded. His membership lapsed in late August 1914, but he rejoined Edmonton Branch in October 1916. He resigned his party membership in December 1931 on the grounds that he felt "he was too old to be active".
• J. Kemble was possibly John Kemble. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in November 1907. There's no details of when he left - or why - but a John Kemble joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in January 1918, lapsing his membership in July 1923.
• H. Cooper was H.J. Cooper. He joined Earlsfield Branch of the SPGB in September 1908, and his membership was lapsed in December 1915.
• A. Jacobs was Alf Jacobs. There is more detailed background on him in this feature which appeared in the September 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (London District.) (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Once again, I don't have enough room in the label section to include all the listed speakers, so some brief information on some of the speakers missing from the sidebar.

• C. Elliott was a member of the Tooting Branch, originally joining the SPGB in September 1909. There is no record of when they lapsed their membership.
• F. J. Rourke was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in June 1909. Their membership was lapsed in February 1914. ("Moved away".)
• F. Stearn was a member of the Tottenham Branch. There were actually two 'F. Stearn's in the branch at the time - possibly father and son - so I don't know which one was a listed speaker for this month.
• H. Joy was a member of the Tooting Branch.
• William Lewington was a member of the Tottenham Branch, originally joining the SPGB in March 1907. He resigned from the SPGB but no date is given for his resignation.
• J.M. Wray was a member of the Wood Green Branch, originally joining the SPGB in May 1909. He resigned from the SPGB in June 1924.

A few of the names featured in the lecture list are not listed in the early membership records, This could be explained away in two ways: 1) Further confirmation that the membership records to hand are incomplete. 2) A number of SPGB members were operating under pseudonyms in their visible party activity because of the threat of blacklisting.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1911)

 Party News from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July. (London District.) (1911)

 Party News from the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

My usual moan when posting the lecture lists from the Pre-WW1 period: Not enough label space on the blog for all the speakers listed, so it becomes an SPGB Sophie's Choice at my end. (Poor taste? Just a tad.) Anyway, here's some brief info about some of the speakers who missed the cut:

• H. Joy: A member of Tooting Branch. Joined the Party in October 1907.
• C. Parker: A member of West Ham Branch. Joined the SPGB in May 1906, and was lapsed from membership in October 1929.
• F. Stearn: A member of Tottenham Branch. Lapsed during the war.
• H. Cooper: A member of Earlsfield Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1908 until 1915.
• F. J. Rourke: A member of Tottenham Branch. Was a member of the SPGB from 1909 until 1914.
• C. Ginger: Another member of Tottenham Branch. Charles Ginger was one of those SPGB members who joined the Party more than once. There's a suggestion that C. Ginger could also be Frank Grainger, who had originally left the SPGB to join the Herald League. (See Ken Weller's book). Frank Grainger eventually rejoined the SPGB in the 1930s, and was actually selected as the Party's parliamentary candidate for the East Ham North constituency, which the Party was planning to contest at the probable 1940 General Election. (WW2 intervened.) According to Ken Weller, after he resigned from the SPGB, later worked for the Economic League.
• J. Nightman: Here's a wee mystery. J. Nightman is listed 6 times in the July 1911 lecture list but there's no record of a 'J. Nightman' in the membership records. As I've mentioned previously on the blog, the membership records are incomplete and it's possible 'J. Nightman' is one of those missing members. Alternatively, it could have been a nom de guerre that a socialist had had to adopt whilst fighting the class war. We'll never know.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1910)

Party News from the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For June. (1912)

Party News from the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July (1912)

Party News from the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mutineers (2015)

Book Review from the February 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Mutinous Swine'. Past Tense, 2014

This adapted reprint from John Taylor Caldwell’s biography of Guy Aldred Come Dungeons Dark records the story of the resistance of the conscientious objectors in Wandsworth Prison towards the end of the First World War. Thankfully, it is largely devoid of Caldwell’s obsessive hero worship of the disputatious and divisive Aldred, focusing instead on the industrial unionist and ex-SPGBer RM Fox. It is, however, still marred in places by Caldwell’s Strange Misuse of Capital Letters. If the point of the pamphlet is to demonstrate the efficacy of direct action, the prisoners seeking by means such as hunger strikes and refusal to obey prison regulations to obtain concessions, it fails signally. Although direct action can be of use in achieving limited objectives, the results here were minor to say the least, redress being only obtained by the post-war amnesty. Nonetheless, the pamphlet is a good read, as indeed are most publications of the group, and provides a valuable antidote to the 1914-18 blood-and-mud remix currently peddled elsewhere.

Kaz

Some Members (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The history of the Socialist Party is of the men and women who have made it. Remarkable as many of them have been, there are no high places or orders of merit. All Socialists are equal, and none is more equal than others. The jokey justification for obituaries in the SOCIALST STANDARD is that this is all anyone gets from the Party. Not true, of course: we get marvelous camaraderie, and loyalty and the job well done are appreciated. Nevertheless, the point is made.

Several thousand people have played their parts over seventy years, and we still have members—several—who joined before the first world war. Inevitably the speakers come to mind first. Anderson and Fitzgerald of the Impossibilist generation, who set their different stamps on the Party, are mentioned elsewhere. There was Neumann, who wore a frock-coat to Paris Commune meetings, translated Kautsky, and composed an awful Party song—in Germany when the 1914 war began, he was killed in the Spartacus Rising. Freddie Watts, wood-carver and designer. And a little later Kohn, full of knowledge and wit, and Moses Baritz, whose terrifying rumbustiousness made incongruous the fact that he was a scholar and broadcaster on music.

They were all rumbustious in argument. Ted Lake recalled in 1954 his first sight of Fitzgerald, pushing through the crowd at a meeting and roaring: "I demand to take the platform and speak in opposition!" R. M. Fox in his autobiography Smokey Crusade described EC meetings about 1910 in the room above the shop in Sandland Street, with late-night passers-by "looking up at the windows and wondering when the disputants in the brawl would come to blows". A few fell out with the Party. One, sadly after thirty-five years, was sincere and kindly Jacomb; and with him Reynolds, who spoke and wrote with abrasive erudition.

But none of them was thought, or claimed to be, a speciality. The best speakers took their turn on the rota like the beginners, doing the bad spots equally with the good ones; the platform has always been the Party's, not individuals'. And members who did unspectacular work in Branches and on dull committees were and are valued as highly as anyone. Percy Hallard, who was a Branch secretary for thirty-eight years; Jack Butler, who was the Party treasurer and had an account-book in his lap and a pencil behind his ear when he was killed in an air-raid shelter; the general secretaries—Freddie Adams, Merrison, Hilda Kohn.

There have been others who toiled away for years in unlikely places and circumstances. Dick Jacobs in Swansea until a Branch was formed there; Jonathan Roe in High Wycombe; Lamond and the amazing Agnes Hollingshead in Edinburgh; Eric Boden in Sheffield; and a good many more. Or the members like old Beck who have spent years going round with Socialist literature and selling it at street-corners in all weathers, and those who were always there to carry the platform.

We have never lacked such members. Ever since Great Dover Street there has always been tea and something to eat at the Party office (Conferences as well) because we have had bricks of people who would forgo the excitement to make that their job: Nellie Butler, Mark Miller, Helen Rose, Joe Bell. In that connection, the Socialist Party has never been a "man's world". Women have been EC members, speakers and delegates, without any of us finding implications in it. (Others do, of course. A local paper once wrote up one of our platform people as a "raven-haired, barb-tongued beauty"; we thought she was simply an able speaker.) One of our saddest losses was Lisa Bryan's early death in 1960.

There have been members whom no-one who kew them could ever forget. Charles Lestor—he looked like the redskin chief of a schoolboy's dream, and breathed adventure in tales of Jack London and the Yukon. Clifford Groves of the autocratic manner, flaying opponents in debate. Alf Jacobs, who spoke Sunday in Victoria Park for almost a lifetime. McLaughlin, full of enthusiasm when he was blind and deaf.

Writers are relatively obscure though their work is the most lasting, their initials and pen-names often a mystery. "F.F." stood for years of lucid, well-informed articles in the STANDARD; not so many know today that it stood also for Fred Foan. Some of the most delightful writing which ever appeared was the penetrative, gently witty pieces by "W.T.H.", the initials of Hopley. We have with us today two whose work spans longer than most of us have lived. Comrades McClatchie ("Gilmac") and Hardy ("H") have written for the SOCIALIST STANDARD since, respectively, just before and just after the 1914-18 war and edited it for forty and thirty-plus years.

Last year a still-active member was eighty, and a bunch of comrades went round to her with a birthday cake and a lot of good wishes. She said that though she hadn't seen the establishment of Socialism, working for it had given her a lifetime among the best people imaginable. Even when we are disagreeing with one another, that is what we all think.

Robert Barltrop