Now Ready, A New Pamphlet. (1911)

Party News from the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The text of this pamphlet is available at the following link.

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

The advertised debate between CND's Richard Headicar and the SPGB's Melvin Harris was unfortunately derailed. Details of what happened are available at the following link.

As advertised above, Gilbert McClatchie's ('Gilmac') spoke on the subject of his recent political tour of the United States at the Paddington Branch of the SPGB on the 8th November 1961. He also wrote an article on his visit to the United States for the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard.

It's always worthwhile, where one can, to provide some background on the Socialist Party speakers from back in the day that populated the back pages of the Socialist Standard. It's a bit grim, but sometimes the best source of information for those members is their Socialist Standard obituaries. Linked to below are the obituaries for some of the speakers listed above in the October 1961 issue of the Standard.

• Ted Kersley
• Eddie Grant
• Gilbert McClatchie
• Johnny Edmonds
• Jack Law
• Richard Headicar

A Debate with the I.L.P. (1932)

Party News from the March 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. Crooks, representing the Independent Labour Party

Edmund Howarth, representing the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

“Which Party Should the Workers Support: the l.LP.. or S.P.G.B.?” This proposition was debated at Newcastle-on-Tyne on Thursday, January 14th, 1932, 7.30 p.m., at 3, Higham Place.

Mr. J. Yarwood, Secretary of the Newcastle Trades Council, presided. The Chairman intimated that the conditions of debate were : each speaker 30 minutes, followed by a general discussion for half-an-hour, then a closing speech of 15 minutes for both speakers.

H. CROOKS, on behalf of the I.L.P., opened by stating that, unfortunately, at present the workers supported neither the I.L.P. nor S.P.G.B., but hoped that eventually the workers would support Socialism. He would confine the debate to the main issues. The I.L.P. was a workers’ party which believed that Socialism is not likely to be brought about by anything but a mass movement. No sudden transformation would be possible unless the workers realised their class position and subjection to the master class. To achieve Socialism, the workers must capture political power, national and local, and this must be the work of the workers themselves. He stated that the I.L.P. was the “midwife” of the Labour Party, and that he did not believe the Labour Party was ever Socialist, but only a workers’ party. He believed, however, that the Labour Party would take the right steps forward to reach a state of Socialism. As a member of the I.L.P. for 27 years, he believed that Socialism would now come very rapidly owing to recent development. His views as to the imminence of Socialism had often changed during the past few years ; his view of the approach of Socialism had never been static, but constantly changing. He accepted Marx’s principle of wage-labour and capital, and was convinced that the capitalist system would break down through the weight of contradictions in its own systern. Every Socialist was not bound to have read Marx, but must adopt the principles of Marx. Most of the I.L.P. members have the essential sincerity to achieve Socialism, although there had been unfortunate episodes in I.L.P. history through the Party not having been wisely led. Leaders such as MacDonald and Snowden had admittedly let them down. So long as the fight for Labour representation was necessary, Labour members had, unfortunately, shelved Socialism. The Labour Party had shown weakness when it first took office, but the I.L.P., although affiliated, opposed the Labour Party when it dropped Socialism. The aim of the I.L.P. was to convert the Labour Party to Socialism from inside; in fact, because of these activities, the I.L.P. was expecting to be thrown out of the Labour Party. The economic situation shows that the revolutionary period foretold by Marx is on us now. Capitalism is in its death throes. The workers’ part in this must be to organise politically. Capitalism may attempt to re-organise in order to stabilise itself, but he thought that the question of International Debts would stand in the way. Capitalists will not forego their debts ; it is nor capitalist mentality to do so. The workers’ standard of living will fall with the unemployed’s falling standard, but there was no fear that the I.L.P. would not try to maintain that standard as high as possible. The S.P.G.B. does not believe in Parliamentary representation or putting candidates before the electorate until thev are certain of a majority. This attitude was negative and not forcible enough to achieve Socialism. He could prove his assertion by figures. The I.L.P. has 30,000 members; the Communist Party 2,500; and the S.P G.B. about a quarter of that number. He would like to ask Howarth how long it will take the S.P.G.B. to get the support of the workers at this rate of progress? The workers should support the I.L.P. on its past record.

FIRST SPEECH FOR ‘THE S.P.G.B.

EDMUND HOWARTH, on behalf of the S.P.G.B., said that his opponent had merely stated his own views, and not necessarily those of the I.L.P. His opponent had contrived to give the impression that the I.L.P. accepted the. teachings of Marx. That was entirely false. He (Howarth) would read out the stated object of the I.L. P., which was,—

“. . . the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth. The Socialist Commonwealth is that State of Society in which Land and Capital are communally owned, and the processes of production, distribution and exchange are social functions.”

The expression “communal ownership of capital” was self-contradictory. Capital is that part of wealth used to make a profit. Socialism meant the elimination of profit-making and profit-taking. The division of society into classes disappears under Socialism. The reference, to “exchange” was also an absurdity. The new form of Society would be concerned only with the production and distribution of material requirements. “Communal ownership of capital” was not Socialism, but a meaningless phrase. The I.L.P. definitely rejected the teachings of Marx, and their notion of common ownership included such futilities as Nationalisation, State Control, Municipalisation and Public Utility Corporations of the type sponsored by Mr. Morrison, the ex-Labour Minister of Transport. The sole object of the Socialist Party was the establishment of Socialism, that is, a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests, of the whole community. The Socialist Party alone had a clear grasp of the principles of Socialism, and were able to correctly define it. The uselessness of Nationalisation to change the economic conditions of the workers was well exemplified in a paragraph appearing in “The Socialist Programme,” published by the I.L.P. in 1923. On page 24 it is stated that : —

“The present shareholders in mines and railways could receive State Mines or Railway Stock, based on a valuation, and bearing a fixed rate of interest.”

Under this magnificent scheme the capitalists continued to exist upon interest extracted from the wage-earners. The Post Office was often held up by I.L.P.’ers as an example of the benefits of State control, which they fondly imagine is a form of Socialism. The Daily Herald made the following significant admission respecting this nationalised institution.: —

(14th December, 1925).—”So far from being a charge on the community, the Post Office has, in thirteen years, 1912-13 to 1924-25, made a profit of 44 million, all of which has gone in the relief of taxation. Since 1914 there has been a decrease of more than 24,000 in staff, while much work has been added to the Post Office. This has resulted in speeding-up and over-work.”

Nationalisation changed the form, but not the substance of capitalist ownership, and was a measure that could be, and was, supported by various capitalist groups. We were told by the late Mr. John Wheatley, Labour ex-Minister of Health and a prominent member of the I.L.P., in a speech reported in the Daily Herald on November 20th, 1925, that : —

“It must be affected without making the capitalists poorer, or lowering their standard of life.”

His opponent had endeavoured to prove that the I.L.P. was something fundamentally different to the Labour Party. The I.L.P. was an affiliated body, and differed only in the number and kind of reforms advocated. The Living Wage proposals, Family Allowances, etc., would leave Capitalism intact and leave the social problem unsolved. That could only be solved by ending capitalism. The futility of the I.L.P. programme was asserted by Philip Snowden, who had been chairman of the I.L.P. for six years and had spent a good deal of his life in advocating the reform theories of the I.L.P. He wrote in Reynolds’, April 24th, 1927 : —

“The I.L.P. Programme does not enthuse me. It is neither Socialism nor a colourable imitation of it.”

The I.L.P. was a party of social reform engaged in the business of enlisting support for various fantastic schemes to catch votes from non-Socialists. The purpose of their “Socialism in Our Time” proposals was candidly admitted by the Acting Editor of Forward in the issue of July 7th, 1928. He wrote :—

“The I.L.P. is certainly not committed to advocating ‘the overthrow of the Capitalist system.’ Its ‘Socialism in our Time’ programme is a carefully reasoned out programme, which, as the I.L.P. states in its resolution, ‘aims at the immediate raising of the standard of life of the working classes and the transference of the key sources of power within Capitalism to the Community.’ That is a line of policy which does not mean ‘the overthrow of the capitalist system.’”

The reference to “Raising the immediate standard of life” of the workers was a phrase that could fit in well with the slogans of social reformers of all brands. Reference had been made to the 30,000 members which the I.L.P. claimed. It would he interesting it learn how many of these understood Socialism. The membership of the I.L.P. had seriously declined in recent years, whilst the membership of the Socialist Party was growing. The Socialist Party is concerned with making Socialists, not enrolling large numbers attracted by reform theories and ignorant of Socialism. The I.L.P. had a large number of M.P.’s, it is true, elected on a programme of reforms by non-Socialists and committed to the support of the Labour Party, which, in turn, was dependent on Liberal votes. Years ago, the I.L.P. made compacts with the Liberal Party at Leicester, Halifax and in other constituencies. At the last General Election the Labour Party exchanged their support for the support of Mr. Lloyd George and his section of the Liberal Party. The I.L.P., a short time ago, allowed Mr. H. N. Brailsford to advocate a definite alliance with the Liberal Party. The I.L.P. was not even united on the merits of the particular reforms to be held out to the workers as a bait for votes. All kinds of views and doctrines were expounded by the I.L.P., but not Socialism. In Gateshead, the Labour candidate, Ernest Bevin, at the last General Election issued a leaflet enjoining Liberals to vote Labour. During the War the I.L.P. allowed its members to vote war credits and to take office in the Liberal-Conservative-Labour Coalition Government. Prominent members of the I.L.P. appeared on recruiting platforms and assisted in the prosecution of the War. Mr. Keir Hardie wrote in the Merthyr Pioneer, November 27th, 1914: —

“I have never said or written anything to dissuade our young men from enlisting ; I know to well all there is at stake.”

Mr. Ramsay MacDonald contrived to give the appearance of opposing the War, but his attitude merely showed that he did not believe that “national interests” were at stake. On August 3rd, 1914, he said in the House of Commons :—

“I want to say to this House, and to say it without equivocation, if the Right Hon. Gentleman had come here to-day and told us that our country is in danger, I do not care what party he appealed to, or to what class he appealed, we would be with him and behind him. If this is so, we will vote him what money he wants. Yes, and we will go further. We will offer him ourselves if the country is in danger.”

The attitude of the Socialist Party to the War was clear and definite. We opposed it from the commencement and stated the Socialist position. We were the only party to remain steadfast to Socialist principles. The principles of the Socialist Party were erected upon the teachings of Marx, upon the basis of the Materialist View of History, the recognition of the class struggle, and the necessity for the enlightened and conscious aim of the workers to capture the political machinery for the institution of the Socialist Commonwealth. We had no reform programme, like the I.L.P., to deflect the workers from the need for emancipation, and had no use for leaders, good or bad. The I.L.P. by their activities sidetracked the workers by promises of tangible benefits now, which could not be obtained. They therefore showed their affinity to all the other parties of capitalism. It was a party helping to maintain capitalism, and therefore useless to the workers. The Socialist Party alone were concerned with the need for emancipation, and pointed the way to the ending of wage-slavery and exploitation in all its forms.

(At this point a general discussion of 30 minutes took place, in which members of both parties joined. Persons unattached to either party also spoke.)

(To be continued in next issue).

A Debate with the I.L.P. [Continued] (1932)

Party News from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Continued from the last issue.

LAST SPEECH FOR THE I.L.P.

Mr. CROOKS, in his closing speech, stated that he was delighted with the trend of the debate, and pleased with the fair way in which Howarth had put his case. There had been a complete absence of abuse, which he much appreciated. However, Howarth’s quotations from papers and periodicals had tried to indicate that the I.L.P. were a bad lot. He considered the actual difference between the principles of the I.L.P. and S.P.G.B. was small. The real difference was one of method, and in all ideas of method there is bound to be a disparity of opinion. Are you going to get Socialism by preaching, which is the only method of the S.P.G.B.? The S.P.G.B. certainly did not carry out its policy to run candidates. If they did get their candidates into the House of Commons, what would these members do? Sit with folded arms and not attempt to better the conditions of the workers at present? Education must be followed by practical work, and it is in practical work that men come into conflict. The I.L.P. will go forward and achieve Socialism in spite of the fact that they might sully orthodox Socialist principles. While you live by bread, you must not forget the bread. The revolutionary period is here, so all workers should support the I.L.P., which is a real practical force for Socialism, and not a negative force like the S.P.G.B.

LAST SPEECH FOR THE S.P.G.B.

HOWARTH, in winding up the debate, pointed out that the open discussion had shown that there were many misconceptions as to the object and principles of the Socialist Party. The terms of the debate had been dictated by the I.L.P., and he (Howarth) had protested that not sufficient time had been allowed to enable the speakers to state their cases adequately.

The notion that the Socialist Party refrained from putting candidates forward until they were certain of a majority was ridiculous. Candidates for municipal elections had been put up, and advantage had been taken of these elections to spread the knowledge of Socialism. It is true that we have not secured the election of candidates, but that is because there are not sufficient Socialists to elect them. No doubt our candidates would be successful if we ran on the same basis as the I.L.P. by promising immediate benefits. As Socialists, it was not our desire to secure office by false pretences. I.L.P. candidates were elected by pandering to the ignorance of the workers. I.L.P. members elected to public bodies are powerless to state the Socialist case. They have no mandate to do so, as they were elected by non-Socialist votes. The Socialist Party has no programme of social reform to dangle before the workers. The immediate need of the workers is emancipation. Palliation merely serves to keep capitalism in existence, and invariably fails to palliate. The complete failure of the Labour Government in Britain and also in Australia demonstrates the utter absurdity of expecting to get rid of the evils of capitalism without getting rid of the system from which these evils spring. The notion that members of the Socialist Party ignore the need for bread is fantastic. Members of the S.P.G.B. were forced to take part in the every-day struggle for bread. They did so as members of Trades Unions, but we never failed to point out that the workers are always at a disadvantage under capitalists. It was because we realised the need for bread and all the amenities of life that we realised the limitations of Trade Union action and pointed to the abolition of capitalism as the sole means of access to the means of life. The idea that a party can work for Socialism and Social Reform at the same time is entirely contrary to fact. The I.L.P.’s activities in the direction of social reform measures completely overshadows any interest in Socialism. Besides, if reform measures could give the workers security or substantially better their conditions, all interest in Socialism would be killed. The adoption of the entire Labour programme would leave capitalism intact, with all its corresponding defects. In spite of the enormous energy spent in promoting social reforms, more persons are cornpelled to seek parish relief than at any other time in history. The differences between the I.L.P. and the Socialist Party are not superficial, as suggested by Mr. Crooks, but fundamental. The I.L.P. chases the will-o’-the-wisp of social reform, while the Socialist Party opposes all sections of the master class. The I.L.P. imagine that Society is at this moment in a state of transition from capitalism to Socialism, and many of its proposals are put forward as transitory measures. The transition to Socialism can only commence after the capture of political power by the conscious efforts of the workers. That is the beginning of the transition stage. Reform measures merely strengthen the existing system and assist its smooth running. That is why the capitalist class support and institute reform measures. The terms of existence for the workers are dictated by the possessing class. The I.L.P. cannot alter that with all their practical measures. The Liberal and Conservative Parties could outdo the I.L.P. or Labour Party at the game of reform. The capitalists could safely adopt many items on the I.L.P. programme without endangering their social system. That is what they have done, and will do, to stave off the demand for a fundamental change. He (Howarth) submitted that sufficient had been said to encourage those present to undertake a full investigation of the Socialist Party’s case, and he would invite all to read the Party’s literature with a view to acquiring the requisite knowledge.

The usual vote of thanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.

C. S. Bates

Socialism on tape (1991)

From the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

From the above list, the following recordings are available on the SPGB website:

• Capitalism or Socialism? DEBATE between The Socialist Party (E. Hardy) and the Conservative Party (Arthur Johnston). (1983)
• 'Looking forward': The way ahead for Socialists. DEBATE between The Socialist Party (Steve Coleman) and Socialist Organiser (Simon Pottinger). (1983)
• Is Britain Worth Dying For? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Lady Olga Maitland (Women and Families for Defence) (1984).
• After The Miners Strike — Which Way Forward For Socialists? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party (speaker Colin Tipton) (1985).
• Did Lenin Distort Marx? DEBATE between The Socialist Party and Monty Johnstone (Communist Party. Marxism Today) (1982).
• The Crisis In Capitalism — What Is The Next Step? DEBATE between The Socialist Party (speaker Clifford Slapper) and Bill Etherington (General Secretary. Durham Mechanics NUM) (1986)
• The Politics of Rosa Luxemburg, Speaker Vic Vanni (1983)
• Marxian Economics And Capitalist Textbooks. Speaker Adam Buick. (1987)
• Marx's Conception Of Socialism. Speaker E. Hardy (1987)
• The Gulf Crisis — Another War for Oil. Central London rally with panel of speakers (1990).

Education Conference on Working-Class Culture (1986):

• Folk Music and Workers' History. Speaker: Sandy Easton
• Educating the Workers. Speaker: Brian Rubin
• Soap Operas and Working-Class Life. Speaker: Gary Slapper

Education Series on Marxian Economics. Speaker: E. Hardy (1980).

• Labour Theory of Value.
• Crises and Depressions. (Part 2, Part 3.)
• Productivity.
• Rent, Interest and Profit.
• Marxist and Monetarist Theories of Inflation.
• Taxation and the Working Class.

Islington Branch (1910)

Party News from the January 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Though the spelling is different in the advert, I'm pretty sure the SLP speaker, 'Budgeon', was Frank Budgen. I suggest that you click on Budgen's wiki page. He was an interesting man who lived a full life.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Debate: "Which way to Socialism?" (1986)

 Party News from the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

I've posted this notice for the debate with the CPGB separately on the blog — away from the other meetings advertised in the December 1986 Socialist Standard  — for the rather mundane reason that I only just now spotted the notice in the original PDF. It was hidden away . . . which makes you wonder how many people saw the notice at the time when the Standard originally came out?

Unfortunately, I've no idea if there is an audio recording of the above debate but there is an audio recording of an earlier debate with Monty Johnstone. It dates from November 1982; the subject of the debate was 'Did Lenin distort Marx'; and the SPGB representative in that debate was Steve Coleman.

Monty Johnstone was an interesting political figure because he was, to the best of my knowledge, the only member of the Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party (1944-49) who returned to the official Communist fold. Interestingly, Eric Hobsbawm doesn't mention Johnstone's lost Trotskyist weekend in his 2007 obituary for Johnstone in the Guardian. Maybe he didn't know? Or, maybe, Hobsbawm right to the very end was doing that CPGB thing of always taking the opportunity to marginalise and hide any mention of the Trots.

Light, More Light ! (1912)

Party News from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

An Economic Class is held at the Head Office on Friday nights at 8.

* * *

A Central Speakers’ Class has been established in order to equip more comrades for the platform. The classes are held at the Head Office, 193, Grays Inn Road, every Saturday evening at 7.30. It is urged upon all comrades to attend.

* * *

BATTERSEA BRANCH are holding a course of economic lessons on Wednesday evenings at 8, at 184, High Street, Battersea. Non-members invited. No charge.

* * *

TOTTENHAM BRANCH are holding discussion classes every Wednesday evening at 8.30 in Branch Rooms at 224, High Road, Tottenham. Strangers welcome.

* * *

TOOTING BRANCH are holding an Educationn Class on Saturday evenings at 8 o’clock, at 15, Gassiott Road, Tooting, commencing on November 30. Comrades from other branches invited.

* * *

NEW S.P.G.B. PUBLICATION. We have to announce that we have in the Press for publication in the course of a few days, a report of the debate which took place at Tooting on May 21st between our comrade, J. Fitzgerald and Mr. Samuel Samuel, prospective Conservative candidate for Wandsworth, on the subject of “Socialism v. Tariff Reform.” The pamphlet consist of 48 pages, and the price is—for democracy sale, 1d.

The Bury debate. (1908)

From the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Executive Committee have received the following communication from Mr. Allan, who signs himself the General Secretary-Treasurer of the British Advocates of Industrial Unionism, with a request for publication. We have asked our comrade Fitzgerald for his remarks on the matter and append his reply.—ED.

____________

After a debate between the S.P.G.B. and the S.L.P. in Bury on August 2nd, in which the S.P.G.B. representative was Mr. Fitzgerald and the S.L.P. representative was W. Davis, the former gentleman endeavoured to slander the I.W.W. by stating that while the Industrial Unionists made a point against the Trade Unions in that they created their own scabs by expelling members who were out of employment and who allowed their dues to lapse for a period of say one year or so, the I.W.W. did so still the more because it had a rule expelling members out of employment who were sixty days in arrears. In proof of this he read from Article VI., Section 10, of the Constitution :—

“All National Industrial Departments, National Industrial Unions, Local Unions and individual members of the Industrial Workers of the World that are in arrears for dues and assessments for sixty days, counting from the last day of the month for which reports and remittances are due, shall not be considered in good standing and shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or payments from any fund of this organisation.”

He claimed that the term “shall not be considered in good standing” was an Americanism which involved expulsion, and although the rule does not specifically state that members who are out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he gratuitously assumed this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W., that they shall be kept in the organisation by being excused payment of dues.

However, as I always like to be doubly sure, I wrote to W. E. Trautmann, General Secretary-Treasurer of the I.W.W., and this is a copy of his reply, which should effectually ram the lie back in Mr. Fitzgerald’s teeth if he intended purposely to slander the I.W.W., or gently correct him if he was only mistaken.

____________

COPY OF W. E. TRAUTMANN’S LETTER.

Chicago Ill., U.S.A. 

Aug. 17, 1908.

Comrade and Fellow-Worker,

In reply to yours of August 3rd, I wish to state that there is no occasion for anybody to drop out of the I.W.W. when once a member, as those out of a job are exempt from paying any dues, etc; but if those who work and earn money so that they could pay their regular dues to the organisation, neglect their duty, they thereby suspend themselves, after three months lapse of time, from the organisation (Note, they suspend themselves.—W.G.A.).

The Constitution, of which I enclose a copy, does not state that members out of work are exempt from payment of dues, but that has been the rule since the inception of the organisation, and is especially now of great benefit to the organisation, as those without jobs are allowed to continue the agitation for the I.W.W. as members thereof, although they do not pay dues and are receiving exemption stamps to show it. 

(Signed) W. E. Trautmann.

Further comment is needless, and if Mr. Fitzgerald is honest he will tender his apology and admit he was wrong.

Yours for Industrial Freedom,

W. G. Allan. 

20.9.08.

___________

TO THE EDITOR

5th October, 1908.

Dear Comrade,

Beyond a further point of explanation of the occurrence at Bury I can add no evidence to that so conclusively embodied in Mr. Allan’s own letter as to the truth of my statement.

I stated that the Constitution of the I.W.W. by excluding members for a shorter period of non-payment of dues than the ordinary trade union, helped to make its own blacklegs faster than those they (the I.W.W.) denounced, and pointed to unemployment as the chief cause of this non-payment. Mr. Allan first denied that such a rule existed, and when confronted with a copy of the Constitution, and the rule he quotes in his letter was pointed out to him, he tried to escape by saying that there was another rule exempting those unemployed from payment of dues. He was at once handed the Constitution and challenged to find such rule, and, of course, failed to do so. The letter purporting to come from W. E. Trautmann re-emphasises this fact by stating that “The Constitution does not state that members out of work are exempt”—the only point in dispute. What fancy, unwritten laws may prevail in Chicago—or in Trautmann’s mind—have no bearing on the point, seeing that the I.W.W. was formed in 1905, has had a convention each year since, and is still without such a rule in its Constitution.

Mr. Allan says that “although the rule does not specifically state that members out of employment shall be dealt with likewise, he (Fitzgerald) gratuitously assumes this in defiance of the well-known principle held by the I.W.W.” It is a pity Mr. Allan did not read the rule he himself quotes, as it there states ” ALL. . . . individual members,” etc. This admits of no exception, and therefore I assumed nothing in the matter. As to it being a “well-known principle,” so little is it either a “principle” or “well-known” that it, is embodied in neither the Preamble nor the Rules.

The only lie in the case is Mr. Allan’s assertion that the I.W.W. had a rule in its Constitution exempting unemployed members from payment of dues, the falsity of which is fully proved by his own letter. The only apology due is one owing to your readers for having to go over ground already fully dealt with in our debate with the Advocates published in the August and November, 1907, issues of this journal.

Fraternally yours,

J. Fitzgerald

SPGB Meetings (1984)

Party News from the November 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

The March 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard carried a report of the SPGB's debate with Tom Sackville, the Conservative MP for Bolton West. The SPGB speaker in that debate, Howard Moss, revisited that debate in his Life and Times column in the November 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard.

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

A number of the meetings listed are actually available as audio files on the SPGB website. Click on the links:

Debate: Did Lenin distort?

‘Yes’ – Steve Coleman, SPGB

‘No’ – Monty Johnstone, CPGB & ‘Marxism Today’

Venue: Islington Central Library, London

Date: 11th November 1982

Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

A series of talks by Steve Coleman and held by Islington Branch between 3rd October 1982 and 26th December 1982.

The venue was the Prince Albert pub in Islington.

Plekhanov and the Materialist Conception of History 

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 3rd October 1982

Dietzgen and Dialectical Thought

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 17th October 1982

Kautsky and the Critique of Religion

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 31st October 1982

Bronterre O'Brien and Working-Class Radicalism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 21st November 1982

Belfort Bax and the Ethics of Socialism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 28th November 1982

William Morris' Vision of Socialism

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 12th December 1982 (Part 2)

Martov and the Anti-Bolshevik Approach to Revolution

Part of the series Socialist Thinkers – People Who History Made

Date: 26th December 1982

Bar room rebels (1986)

From the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

We hear that Red Action, mentioned in the article Bar Room Rebels in the August Socialist Standard, will reply to our criticisms of them. We hope to publish their response in the near future.

Blogger's Note:

To the best of my knowledge, Red Action never did reply in print to the article.

SPGB Meetings (1992)

Party News from the September 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1982)

Party News from the August 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

No debate by the Economic League (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

A short while ago the Economic League, an organisation which opposes Socialism and defends capitalism, accepted a challenge to debate, subject to certain conditions laid down by the League. When arrangements came to be discussed, we learned that the League was only prepared to debate subject to still further conditions, which included reserving admission to ticket holders, and having no literature sold or distributed in the hall, or advertising matter or announcements. As our policy has always been that our meetings and debates shall be free and open to any member of the public who cares to attend, and as we enter into debates in order that our principles and policy shall be publicly contrasted with those of our opponents, we were not prepared to accept these restrictions. It is evident, as indeed was made clear during the negotiations, that the Economic League does not consider that any very useful purpose to.itself is served by the public presentation of its case against the Socialist case.

SPGB Meetings (1948)

Party News from the August 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

• The SPGBer speaker for the debate with the IWW was Bill Waters. There was a report of the debate in the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard. It'd be interesting to know how big the IWW was in Britain in the late 1940s.
• I'm intrigued about the notice for the special meeting of Party members on the subject of "Socialism and Violence". I wonder what prompted the meeting? I cannot see any report of the meeting in later issues of the Standard from that period,
• I included details of the Dublin Socialist Group 'cos it gives me another excuse to post a link to the obituary for Mick Cullen from the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard. Another stalwart from our tradition. Sounds like an incredible bloke.

The Ilford Socialist Party. (1908)

Party News from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The adjourned debate at the S.P.G.B. Club, 27, York Rd., Ilford, on Feb. 2nd was “funked” by the members of the Ilford Socialist Party, although the date was fixed to suit their convenience. Only three attended, one of whom declared that he didn’t see they could do any more than agree upon general principles and then allow the members liberty of action ! Since then, one of the I.S.P. leaders, Mr. S. H. Sweetman, has publicly supported the candidature of Mr. W. P. Griggs, a local Conservative, for the Cranbrook Ward of Ilford, moving the resolution of confidence at a public meeting held at Cranbrook College on February 4th !

Mr. Sweetman may be remembered as having once occupied a seat as a "Socialist” on the West Ham Town Council.

Correspondence: I.L.P. compacts in Manchester. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

I.L.P. compacts in Manchester.

Comrade,—On November 20th Mr. T. Swan of the I.L.P. asserted in debate with J. Marsh (S.P.G.B.), that a member of the S.P.G.B. had stated that the I.L.P. had been parties to a compromise with the Liberals during the General Election ; but this statement was a deliberate lie, as no such compact had taken place. If, he added, the S.P.G.B. were proved locally to have made a statement that could not be verified, of what value were the statements made in their Manifesto and elsewhere ?

Now for the facts upon which the charge was made. On the 28th July, 1907, Swan was announced to debate with Kitson, on “Socialism versus Anarchism.” Wishing to know something more of the Anarchist position, I went to the meeting place, but found Swan holding forth, Kitson having failed to turn up.

At the conclusion of Swan’s address questions were asked for. After I spoke of the compromise referred to above. Swan denied that it had appeared in the Clarion, and, as I spoke then only from memory of 18 month’s previously, I let it pass. After, however, it was referred to by Swan on Nov. 20th, I bought the Clarions for the last three months of 1905 and found “The Clarion Post Bag ” for Nov. 10th, 1905, contained the following :—

”EAST MANCHESTER,  

To the Editor of the Clarion. 

Dear Sir,—Your article in Clarion of October 27 re Socialist candidate for East Manchester Parliamentary Division, was considered by our executive committee at their meeting on November 2, and I was instructed to inform you that the above committee was created by the Manchester and Salford Trades and Labour Council for the purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates in Manchester and Salford at the next General Election.

The committee is representative in character, consisting of trade unions and branches of the Independent Labour Party, and the constituencies they have selected to be contested are South-West and North-East Manchester Divisions.

Our candidates, Mr. G. D. Kelley and Mr. J. R. Clynes, have been before the constituents some time, their prospects of success are excellent, and they have received the endorsement of the National Labour Representation Committee.

Our executive committee are strongly of the opinion that the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in East Manchester would seriously damage the good prospects of their candidates in S. W. and N.E. Manchester Divisions, and would tend to upset the cordial relations at present existing between the trade unions and Socialist organisations for independent political action, which has taken many years to bring about.

In view of these circumstances, they feel it would be a mistaken policy for the Clarion to put forward a Socialist candidate for East Manchester, and one which they, as the representative body of the Labour and Socialist bodies in the district, appointed for the specific purpose of running Parliamentary Labour candidates, could not countenance. 

Yours sincerely,

J. Nuttall

Secretary, M/c & Salford Lbr. Rpn. Committee, 29, York Street, Broughton, Salford.”

J. Butterworth, of 7, Royal Street, Ardwick, Secretary of the Ardwick I.L.P.,had a letter in the same issue of the Clarion in which he states in reply to A. M. Thompson’s “I wait now to hear from the constituency,” (Nov. 3/05), that “I or someone else may have something definite to say upon the matter,” “in the course of a few days.” What that “something definite” was we gather from the Clarion of Dec. 1st, 1905, when there appeared the following in a letter, dated November 27th, 1905 :—

“The following resolution was moved by Councillor Fox and seconded by Councillor Sutton:—

That this meeting of the members of East Manchester branches of the I.L.P. cannot consent to the candidature of Bramley without the consent of the M/c and Salford L.R.C. After discussion, the following amendment was moved by Comrade Hunt (of the Bradford branch), and seconded by Comrade Jones (of the Ardwick branch) :—

‘That we, members of the Ardwick and Bradford branches of the I.L.P., although, on account of our affiliation with the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester, cannot withhold our consent to the promotion of the candidature of F. Bramley for the division by the Clarion Board.’ ”

In explanation, A. M. Thompson said “The resolution conveyed in this letter shows misunderstanding of the situation. No candidature is, or can be, promoted by the Clarion Board.”

F. W. Jowett, in the Clarion for December 15th, 1905, points out that “There is one thing, however, which is beyond doubt, and that is the duty of our members in constituencies where a candidate is being run by any of the organisations affiliated to the L.R.C., as an L.R.C. candidate. The cohesion of the Labour movement largely depends upon the thoroughness with which the sections in each constituency concerned unite on the man in the field, to whatever section he may belong.”

Now, I maintain that the I.L.P. as a party affiliated to the L.R.C. are, as a matter of moral obligation, compelled to agree to any arrangement the L.R.C. may arrive (or connive) at. That they did act loyally to their L.R.C. confederates is shown by the words “we, on account of our affiliation to the L.R.C., are unable to promote any candidature in East Manchester” (their “consent” without support would have been useless to Bramley, as a candidate). Therefore it was a mere pious resolution. Had they supported Bramley they would have been false to their L.R.C. friends, because “the introduction of a Socialist or Labour candidate in M/c would seriously damage the good prospects” of Kelley and Clynes in S.W. & N.E. Divisions. (vide Sec. Nuttall of the L.R.C.) They were, on this showing, as members of the L.R.C., parties to the compact I spoke of.

Perhaps Mr. Swan may use words for a purpose different to that in which words are generally understood. But a compact is “a mutual agreement or contract, a treaty, a league, a confederacy.” (Nuttall). That there was an agreement was made further evident when I saw in the Clarion for December 22nd, 1905 a letter signed “Unification,” in which occurs the following:—

“That there is a great possible danger in the confusion of the word “Labour” with the Liberal Party will be obvious to most people when we read such statements as appeared in a Manchester evening paper—that a certain Labour candidate saw eye to eye with the Liberals on nine points out of ten, and it would, therefore, not be policy to bring out a Liberal candidate and thus create a three-cornered fight. The ambiguity of the term is proving a valuable asset to the Liberal Party ; but when we learn that the L.R.C. are averse to sanctioning the candidature of a Socialist for East Manchester, on the grounds that the Liberals would then contest the two Manchester divisions, where Labour candidates are nominated, we can certainly excuse the outsiders if they consider the Labour Party as a Liberal wing. What other complexion can be placed on such a help-me-and-I’ll-help-you policy ? ”

And furthermore, in the Manchester Courier of December 16th last the following appears :—

“LABOUR AND WEST SALFORD 

Some time before the last General Election the Independent Labour Party displayed an anxiety to contest the West Salford Parliamentary Division, and formally adopted a candidate. As a result of an arrangement with the Liberal Party that Labour candidates should not be opposed in the North-East and South-West Manchester Divisions if the other Manchester and Salford Divisions were not contested by Labour candidates, the prospective nominee of the party withdrew. The Labour Party’s love of Liberalism has not been improved in the last two years, and after the success of its own candidates in Manchester last year a renewal of the arrangement which gave the Liberals six candidates to Labour’s two is not likely.”

What has Mr. Swan to say now?—Yours fraternally,

J. Brough

P.S.—As I did not join the S.P.G.B. Until 28th August, 1907, the statement Mr. Swan dubbed a “deliberate lie” was not made by “a member of the S.P.G.B.,” but that, of course, ia a minor point.

Islington Branch Report. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reorganised in October, 1906, the Islington Branch has made steady progress. Our propaganda meetings have been the means of converting, among others, several members of the I.L.P. to Socialism, who have therefore resigned that body and joined the Socialist Party. The meetings, both at Highbury Corner and Finsbury Park, have well attended. the Socialist Standard sells well here, and we are always sure of a good collection. Several debates have taken place in Finsbury Park, the most notable of which were those with Fred Bramley, late of the Clarion Van, and Mr. Byland, of the Constitutional League. A report of the former appeared in the Party organ, while the latter was given a column in the Islington Gazette. We are now trying to arrange a debate with the Islington Branch of the S.D.F. on the question of “The palliative position of the S.D.F. v. the non palliative position of the S P.G.B.” Finishing up a very successful open air propaganda season, we looked about for a means of carrying on our work indoors, and finally succeeded in obtaining a hall, described by the local press as “the cosy, well lighted, well warmed, cheery-looking Grovedale Hall,” situated in Grovedale Road, Elthorne Road, Upper Holloway, close to Highgate tram terminus. Here we shall continue our work of converting the proletariat of Islington to Socialism. A debate has been arranged with a member of the Islington Borough Council, particulars of which we give from the Islington Post: “The first of a series of meetings to be held under the auspices of the Socialist Party of Great Britain will be the much talked of debate between Councillor Thomas Henry Dey and Mr. A. Anderson, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which will take place in Grovedale Hall on Thursday, February 6th. The Chair will be taken by Alderman T. Wakelin Saint at 8 p.m. Councillor Dey will open for half an hour, and take the affirmative on the question “Would Socialism be detrimental to the interest of the people?” Mr. Anderson will have half an hour to reply. Councillor Dey will have another twenty minutes and his opponent twenty minutes, then a final ten minutes each. Admission will be free to all.” Several debates have taken place from the enemy’s platform on “Christianity v. Socialism,” and on one occasion, in spite of 8 degrees of frost, the audience numbered several hundreds.

Islington, like most other districts, has its poverty problem, and in Pentonville it is most acute. In this district a Children’s Care Committee has been formed “for the relief of children suffering from want of food.” Four schools alone: White Lion St., Risinghill St., Ann St., and Winchester St., have 4,836 children on their roll. The statement of an official in the Pentonville Branch of the Salvation Army that “In spite of all our efforts poverty in Pentonville is increasing,” proves once more that chartity cannot cope with the problem. Neither can any other palliative of capitalism. If you desire to know the only solution come to Grovedale Hall on Thursday evenings.

H. A. Young