50 Years Ago: Conference Report (2022)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1972 Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was held at Conway Hall, London, over Easter and was attended by delegates and visitors from many parts of Britain. Among the resolutions passed were ones criticising the format of the Socialist Standard for being too formal, calling for consideration of publishing Russia 1917-67 in German and committing the Party to contesting at least one seat in every General Election. (…)

At one point the proceedings were undemocratically interrupted by a group calling themselves “the London Situationists” who noisily stopped a discussion on the need to develop Marxist theory in order to hand out An Open Letter to the SPGB. This turned out to be a peculiar amalgam of Freudian pseudo-psychology (both Marcuse and Reich, despite their opposing views), some organisational ideas and an ill-informed criticism of our policy of conscious political action, via the ballot box and Parliament, to establish Socialism. The organisational criticism boiled down to saying that the time was not yet ripe for a formal, centralised socialist group, while the political criticism failed to take into account that the Socialist Party has never said that the establishment of Socialism involves just a few million X’s for Socialism followed by a parliamentary resolution. We have always said that Socialism can only be established by a conscious, participating working class organised not only politically to capture and destroy the State machine but also outside parliament ready to take over and run industry and society generally.

The best—and most readable (most of it is written in mock political French)—part of the document which called for “the automated economy of abundance’’ was clearly influenced by our thinking anyway. Unfortunately, though they will the end they don’t will the means. The spectre of the Russian Revolution still haunts them: their alternative of our policy is “workers’ councils”, i.e. soviets!

(Socialist Standard, May 1972)

Editorial: Our Eleventh Conference. (1915)

Editorial from the April 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 11th Annual Conference of the Socialist Party was held in circumstances unique in its history, the delegates meeting to review the work of a year in which the task of spreading Socialist knowledge has been greater, whilst the tendencies of the capitalist system of society have probably been made clearer, than ever before. It may be objected that the main tendencies of the capitalist mode of production and the present system of society have been quite well understood long before the outbreak of that system's latest horror. Let us explain, therefore, to whom those tendencies have been made clearer. It is to the apologists of modern civilisation, and to those who have been misled by those apologists.

The idealistic opponents of Socialism and the peace prophets who knew that no more great wars would be fought have had their lesson, which will serve also as a useful example for their colleagues who maintain that revolutions in society belong only to the past, and for those who would persuade themselves and others of capitalism's power to live for ever. In fact, had we less experience of our opponents, we might expect to hear from them in the future rather less about the stability and adaptability of the system of society that is responsible for— that demands as a condition of its continued and full development—the slaughter of its only useful units on the scale that has recently obtained. After all, there is a limit to human endurance, and the reaching of that limit by the working class is a powerful inducement to thought and action—those deadly enemies of working-class enslavement.

One of the most striking phenomena brought into prominence by the world-conflagration now raging is the utter confusion existing among the apologists of modern civilisation as to the cause of the war, its probable results, and economic phenomena in general. This confusion is of first-rate importance to the Socialist, and is brought out in greatest relief when compared with the clarity of vision and well- defined attitude of those workers who have understood the Socialist criticism of the existing régime. These latter are, admittedly, few, and the number of those who still follow the capitalist apologists many. But the confusion of these apologists grows always greater, and always the number of their working-class followers becomes smaller, with the increasingly difficult nature of the task before them—the defence of the existing order. And it is the every-day facts of proletarian existence that are responsible for that increased difficulty: the ever more hated, because ever greater, insecurity of employment, resulting from the introduction of more efficient machinery; the consequently tighter hold of the master class on the workers and greater strain on the latter in resisting their encroachments; and, last but not least in importance, the growing number of recorded failures of measures alleged by the dominant class and their "labour" hacks to have been aimed at the betterment of the conditions of working-class life.

The economic development, then, makes harder the task of those agencies which would support capitalism by attempting to show identity of interests between masters and workers, and by endeavouring to show an improvement in proletarian conditions of existence.

But the recognition on the part of the workers on the falsity of these claims; the increasing discontent at their own impoverishment and their master’s enrichment: these alone do not indicate a remedy ; do not not of themselves point out the path to freedom. More is necessary: a knowledge of the great generalisation that human society evolves, and that the existing social order will no more be the last than it was the first; the realisation that the proletariat is today the only class that fulfils a useful function in society; the recognition that the means of production have already reached a stage where their manipulation is capable of supplying fully the necessaries of life for every member of society ; and the understanding of the means by which the dominant class of to day maintains its ascendancy. The rise to power of the working class and the establishment of Socialism become possible only after the acquisition of this equipment, this knowledge of its own strength and of the prize to be won—to supply which equipment must be in large part the work of the Socialist Party.

And although, as stated, our Conference met this year in unique circumstances, to review the work carried on during a particularly difficult period, we are safe in recording that its determination to carry on that work is as firm as ever. This was shown by the enthusiasm of the delegates, their reports of our members activities in so many directions, and the sales of our literature, particularly the Socialist Standard,

Second Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. (1906)

Party News from the May 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the Communist Club. Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, the S.P.G.B. held its 2nd Annual Conference on Good Friday and Saturday.

It wan unanimously agreed early in the proceedings to admit the press and the public.

Twenty-seven delegates attended, representing 13 branches. R. Elrick (Islington). was appointed chairman on Friday, and L. Boyne (Tottenham) on Saturday.

The report of the Executive Committee (which showed a gratifying increase of membership, an improved financial position, many enquiries from the provinces and prospects of the formation of several provincial branches, an extended circulation of The Socialist Standard and the holding of 600 propaganda meetings) was approved and adopted nem. con. Arising from its discussion the E.C. were instructed to organise a cycling corps to further extend the area of Party activity, 

Some considerable discussion arose over the election of officers. Eventually it was decided that as the only nomination for Secretary, and some of those for the Executive and Auditors, had arrived at Head Office late they were therefore invalid.

The following officer were then declared duly elected:

Treasurer: A. J. M. Gray.
Executive: A. Anderson. A. Barker. J. Crump. H. Davies. T. Dix. P. Dumenil. J. Fitzgerald. W. Gifford, W. T. Hopley. A. Jones. T. A. Jackson. H. Neumann.
Auditor: J. H. Kennett.
T. A. Jackson was elected General Secretary  pro. tem.

The voting on Amendments to Rules resulted in the alteration of seven Rules. The amendments will be included in further issues of the Party Manifesto and will be forwarded to Branches as soon as printed.

A keen and interesting discussion centred upon a resolution moved by J. J. Humphrey (Fulham) and seconded by W. T. Hopley (Paddington) respecting Trade Unionism, during which both supporters and opponents realized that very wide issues needing careful consideration were raised. The resolution was defeated by a card vote and it was unanimously agreed on the motion of H. C. Phillips (Romford) and F. Blewett (Battersea), "That the E.C. be instructed to call a Special Party Meeting to discuss our position re Trade Unionism, and that a poll of the Party be taken on all resolutions arising therefrom."

It was agreed on the motion of the Paddington Branch that an organiser be appointed.

The audited Treasurer's statement was, after discussion, unanimously adopted.

After the adjournment on Friday, a Social and Dance was held, lasting until midnight, at which many comrades and several friends of the Communist Club assisted the Amhurst Quadrille Band to entertain a crowded and well satisfied company.

The 2nd Annual Conference showed to all whom it may concern that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is moving steadily forward to the attainment of its ideal

THE WORLD FOR THE WORKERS.

Copies of the Photograph of the Conference may be obtained at Head Office, price 2/- each, postage 3d.

Conference Report (1972)

Party News from the May 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1972 annual conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was held at Conway Hall, London, over Easter and was attended by delegates and visitors from many parts of Britain. Among the resolutions passed were ones criticising the format of the Socialist Standard for being too formal, calling for consideration of publishing Russia 1917-67 in German and committing the Party to contesting at least one seat in every General Election. Conference again discussed the Party’s attitude to reforms and the following resolution was carried:

That this Conference affirms that the Socialist Party of Great Britain has as its sole object the establishment of Socialism. It is a revolutionary Party based on the class struggle. All reforms are put into operation on behalf of one section or another of the capitalists in their own interests, even though some may contain incidental advantages to the workers. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is opposed to the workers wasting time and energy in attempting to improve capitalism by means of reforms, thus obscuring the class struggle. Consequently, the Party cannot support any action aimed at gaining or maintaining a reform as such support would not only confuse the workers but it would overlook the fact that the Party’s sole object is the establishment of Socialism. We must therefore confine ourselves directly to the furtherance of that object and not take any steps up the blind alley of reformism. This statement deals with reforms, not with the Party’s attitude to the struggle of the workers on the industrial field.

At one point the proceedings were undemocratically interrupted by a group calling themselves “the London Situationists” who noisily stopped a discussion on the need to develop Marxist theory in order to hand out An Open Letter to the SPGB. This turned out to be a peculiar amalgam of Freudian pseudo-psychology (both Marcuse and Reich, despite their opposing views), some organisational ideas and an ill-informed criticism of our policy of conscious political action, via the ballot box and Parliament, to establish Socialism. The organisational criticism boiled down to saying that the time was not yet ripe for a formal, centralised socialist group, while the political criticism failed to take into account that the Socialist Party has never said that the establishment of Socialism involves just a few million X’s for Socialism followed by a parliamentary resolution. We have always said that Socialism can only be established by a conscious, participating working class organised not only politically to capture and destroy the State machine but also outside parliament ready to take over and run industry and society generally.

The best—and most readable (most of it is written in mock political French)—part of the document which called for “the automated economy of abundance’’ was clearly influenced by our thinking anyway. Unfortunately, though they will the end they don’t will the means. The spectre of the Russian Revolution still haunts them: their alternative of our policy is “workers’ councils”, i.e. soviets!

Editorial: Violence and Fraud - and The One Ray of Hope. (1916)

Editorial from the May 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The few days previous to going to press have been full of moving incidents, none of which can be given the attention they merit owing to the little time and space available—and other things. A grave armed revolt in Dublin against English rule is raging at the time of writing. It is a revolt doomed from the outset, both because of the futility of its narrow nationalist aims, and the utter hopelessness of such a revolt against the mighty organised force of the political State. It is, apart from the fact that Socialism alone is worth fighting for, yet another illustration (if such were needed) that the organised Socialist conquest of the political power of the State is the only way, and that mere mob violence plays into the hands of the oppressor and strengthens the gyves that fetter us.

Such a revolt, however, is the natural result of centuries of alien oppression, which has forced the ideas of Irishmen into nationalist channels and blinded them to its futility. And it is at the same time a fitting commentary on the perfervid declarations of the British champions of "honour” and "righteousness” that "they” are fighting, above all, for the "rights of small nationalities”!

Contemporaneously with the above there have been secret sessions of Parliament, and following these have come proposals for body-snatching on a wider scale, and a renewed farce of "voluntary” enlistment for the married, even more farcical than those pilloried in our April issue. At first sight it was astonishing that proposals which had apparently been agreed upon were rejected by all sides as soon as put forward in open sessions, in favour of something even more drastic, but a closer inspection reveals again the deliberate fraud. The whole question has been staged again on an elaborate scale only in order to make complete conscription inevitable. And it has succeeded.

Nevertheless the role of the Labour Party has been particularly despicable. Many of its apologists have claimed that secret diplomacy was the cause of the war; yet they are the servants of State tyranny who actually demanded a secret session! Was it to cover their hypocrisy and enable them to argue, in favour of "Prussianism,” that military tyranny is necessitated by the grave needs of the situation about which they must not speak? Socialists will draw the obvious conclusion.

And what are the pseudo-Socialist organisations doing? Their conferences have just been held, and the brief news of their proceedings available at the time of writing sufficiently indicates their position. The letter of the National Council of the Independent Labour Party to the Zimmerwald International Anti-war Conference is significant. In it they say:

The Independent Labour Party neither condemns or condones the action of those who have voted the war credits. It realises that the pressure of circumstances in each of the belligerent countries, the different situations of the Socialist Parties, and the Parliamentary and military systems can only be fully understood by the comrades in those countries.

Such is their contempt for the fundamental principles of Socialism!

In the business of the Newcastle conference of the I.L.P. the same contempt is visible. The following weak resolution was proposed in connection with those prominent members who openly support and advocate capitalist murder for profit:

This Conference expresses its regret that certain I.L.P. members of Parliament have acted and voted in opposition to the declared policy of the Party regarding the war and Conscription, and instructs the National Council to inform these members of Parliament that a continuance of this opposition to the I.L.P. will make it impossible for the Party to support them at the next election.

On this there were some "brave words,” and then Mr. Ramsay Macdonald spoke :

He admitted that the man who was responsible for the recruiting campaign was responsible for the imposition of Conscription! (Cheers.) The recruiting campaign had encouraged the Government to undertake policies which could not be carried through except by Conscription. But he was not going to say that men who had participated in the recruiting campaign should be turned out of Socialist organisations. (Hear, hear.)

Whereupon the I.L.P. expressed its own rottenness by voting down even that mild censure of anti-Socialism and treachery, by passing to the "Previous Question” by an overwhelming majority!

Next, in view of the open flouting of every Socialist principle by the Labour Party, of which the I.L.P. is a part, and by the Labour Ministers that it supports, the expected also occurred. A resolution to reconsider the affiliation of the I.L.P. to this Labour Party of infamous memory was also defeated by an "overwhelming majority."

The anti-Socialist attitude of the I.L.P. on the war in particular has been exposed in past issues of this journal, but even the increasing hardship, the growing tyranny, and the ever more obvious anti-working class objective of the war advocates does not succeed in opening the eyes of the leader-ridden and reform-blinded rank and file of the I.L.P.

The so-called British Socialist Party is another case in point. By “British” many of them mean anti-German. And they are still falling to pieces. The more extreme war advocates, led by H. M. Hyndinan & Co., have seceded to form a “National” Socialist Advisory Committee. Is its advisory function to further advise the authorities regarding unpatriotic members? As was stated when we abandoned the S.D.F. twelve years ago owing to the ineradicable pro-capitalist nature of that body, it was hardly necessary to expose it because its inherent rottenness would kill it. And so it is proving. It propagates chiefly by fission. Indeed, it appears likely to continue to do so until its only remaining organised phase will comprise Hunter Watts and Hyndman as amateur auxiliaries to the organisation of Scotland Yard !

In direct contrast to all the above was the Easter Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It was well attended both by delegates and members, the public also being admitted. But although a report is not available at the time of writing, the important point may be mentioned that there was not the slightest division on matters of Socialist principle. Regarding the attitude naturally and inevitably taken up by the Socialist Party in complete opposition to all capitalist war, and against every manifestation of capitalism as such, there was no difference of opinion and consequently no discussion, except on points of administrative work. This is a fact of which the Party may well be proud. But that the Party is most keenly alive to its responsibilities was proved by the interest taken in, and the sharpness of, the discussion on the Report of the Executive Committee a discussion which centred largely on questions of organisation and the correct procedure to be used in cleanly and democratically ridding the Party of any who may choose to play fast and loose with the principles of Socialism. The earnestness that prevailed may be gathered from the fact that an extra session of over four hours beyond the appointed time on the Saturday evening was required to conclude this discussion on the important problem of Socialist organisation.

In all respects the conference was a business meeting of Socialists; no electioneering claptrap was indulged in, nor window-dressing resolutions put forward. Indeed, it was clear that the Party regards itself in the most serious light as the nucleus of the revolutionary working-class, and is determined to keep its house in order and its principles free from all entanglement, so that it may adequately fulfil the historic role that lies before it.

This, then, is the ray of hope-that cheers us. And it is not idle to mention further that this cheerful confidence in the future of the working class in the midst of its blackest trouble was reflected even in the great gathering of members and their personal friends who filled the large hall of the Fairfax Halls on the occasion of the Social gathering of Good Friday evening. Never had the hall been so filled, and never with a more cheerful or kindly gathering. And so the new year of party activity opens with good hope. The Party faces the trying times to come absolutely united, fully conscious of the great difficulties to be faced, and of the great distance to be traversed. But it faces the future determined to prosecute the essential educational and organising work in the great class war for Socialism with the utmost intelligent vigour in spite of the difficulties and dangers that surround it at the present time.