Back to the USSR (2026)

Book Review from the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Marxist Analysis of the Soviet Economy. By Erwan Moysan. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy.

At one time ‘the nature of the USSR’ was a burning issue. That was before 1991, while it still existed. The regime itself and its supporters in other countries claimed that it was ‘socialist’, a view that had to be refuted. The Trotskyists couldn’t decide whether it was a ‘degenerate workers state’ or a new class society of ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ or a form of ‘state capitalism’. Eventually they split into rival factions over the issue. Today the question is largely of academic and historical interest. However, there is one aspect that can usefully be addressed: why did it collapse?

Our view was that the USSR was capitalist because the defining features of capitalism (class property, wage-labour, production for the market, and capital accumulation) all existed there and that, given that most industry was state-owned, ‘state capitalism’ was the best description. Moysan has essentially the same position and, like us, notes that ‘Marx and Engels’ understanding of socialism as a worldwide society without classes, state, wage labour, commodity production, value and surplus-value, money, or competition of capitals is directly in contrast to the Stalinist view’. Chapter 1 is a very good description of the ‘capitalist mode of production’.

The view that the USSR was socialist or that it was a ‘degenerate workers state’ is easily disposed of. Unless you redefine socialism (as the ‘Stalinists’ did) then the existence of widespread (and spreading) wage-labour was proof that it wasn’t socialist; while the fact that the workers there were oppressed and exploited refuted the claim that it was a place where the workers ruled. Little wonder then that more independent-minded Trotskyists came up with the idea that it was either a new class society or a form of state capitalism.

The collapse of the economic system in the USSR was not something that the alternative Trotskyists expected; they — those who talked of ‘state capitalism’ as well as those who saw a new class society — thought that the system was more advanced than classical capitalism. Some of them saw that this was where the rest of the capitalist world was heading.

Moysan rejects this — which in any event was disproved by events — and argues that the USSR was less advanced and that the greater role of the state in the economy was a sign that ‘the Soviet economy was a catch-up economy’, writing that ‘countries that develop later must, in order to compete with countries with a high organic composition of capital, “catch up”, and this entails brutal state-led accumulation of capital’ (p. 111).

His explanation for the collapse of such state-led capital accumulation was that in the USSR it led to a ‘crisis of absolute overproduction of capital’ — and so to a slowing down of capital accumulation — due to a labour shortage caused by agriculture being so backward that not enough workers were being released to work in industry.  The only way out was abandonment of the type of state capitalism that existed in industry there and a move towards the sort of capitalism that existed in the other capitalist countries.

We get a brief mention in a footnote referring to a debate at our conference in 1969 about the nature of the ruling class in the USSR. During the debate, Moysan notes, some members argued that ‘the private sector was more important than commonly thought, and that the Soviet Union was going towards a Western-style capitalism’, which turned out to be what happened.

Adam Buick

Correspondence: Oath of Allegiance. (1910)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oath of Allegiance.

R. Von Berg (Queen’s Park).—The oath of allegiance to the King required of M.P.s would not prevent a Socialist M.P. taking his seat

Letter: Soviets and Socialists (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Soviets and Socialists

I thought that the article in your December issue on the International Socialists made a lot of good points. But one point I am not yet convinced about is your preference for Parliament as a means for the Socialist working class to take power over and transform society.

Parliaments as institutions don’t seem to me to suit the practical work of delegates, under the direct control of their constituents and recallable by them. Parliament is geared to the deliberations of so-called representatives, controlled not by their constituents but by rival Party bureaucracies who make all important decisions behind the scenes.

“Soviet” is only a Russian word for “council”. If by Soviet we genuinely mean a council of direct delegates, then surely this would be a better way of establishing a society in which we all take an active rôle in social affairs. If they were based on workplaces of all kinds, educational institutions, neighbourhoods and so on, they could easily be made as universal and democratic as you think Parliament is. Of course, you could convert Parliament and other State bodies into the form of workers’ councils, or you could develop the councils independently in the course of the struggle, or maybe some of both — I don’t think that is the crucial point.

The Soviets which existed in 1917 were not real Soviets in the direct democratic sense, but often little parliaments in which different supposedly Socialist parties — Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs and so on — competed for power. The Party leaders took the decisions, like in present-day Britain, not the workers. Otherwise how could Lenin and Trotsky have taken part in the Soviets — as delegates of fringe journalism? Lastly the Soviets were not a Bolshevik tactic, but a form of organization that Russian workers set up to cater to their needs. The Bolsheviks manipulated them (because the workers were not conscious enough to prevent them, and not because Soviets are particularly fishy organizations) and then suppressed them into tools of their Party dictatorship.

As far as State power is concerned, both your idea of capturing and using it, and the Bolshevik or anarchist idea of “smashing” it, seem to assume that the armed forces are things which must be seized or destroyed. But isn’t State power not a thing, but a form of social behaviour by which we all allow ourselves to be things, the blind tools of others? Surely conscious organized Socialists won’t allow themselves to be used against the revolution — in the armed forces (if they still exist) or in the industries and services which support the forces? State power would fade away.

By the way, do members of the SPGB have views on this or other subjects (Women’s Lib. etc.) which are different from the Party line — or have members differed on interesting issues in the recent past? If so, do they have the right to express minority views, clearly labelled as such, in the Socialist Standard? It would improve your journal still more if the ideas were sometimes discussed from more than one point of view. Otherwise some readers may gain the false impression that Socialists are all identical in their attitudes, without variety.

Cicely Joyce 

London N.10

Reply:

The capitalist class have economic power because they have political power and not the other way round. They control the state machine and the armed forces through Parliament and are confirmed in their control by the working class at election times.

We are organized as a political party not out of preference (which implies that there are other ways of achieving our object) but because all the evidence of history and an analysis of capitalist society shows that this is the only way to achieve working-class emancipation. Without first gaining control of the state (the public organ of coercion and repression) through which the capitalists maintain their privileged relationship to the means of life by keeping the working class in its propertyless position, any minority movement seeking to challenge them will inevitably be beaten by the armed forces and the police who remain under the control of the capitalist class.

It does not follow that because Parliament is at present an institution of so-called “representatives” it must necessarily remain so. Once a working class who know what they want and how to get it send their delegates to Parliament with a mandate to capture political control of the state machine, it will cease to function as an instrument of class rule and become the indispensable instrument for our emancipation.

Soviets cannot establish Socialism

1. because they are economic organizations and not political; and
2. because they are based on the workplace, not on the centre of political power (See Gilmac’s articles in the Socialist Standard for January and February, and Horatio’s article in the October Socialist Standard.)

Before an electoral demonstration of a Socialist majority, Socialist ideas will have penetrated all strata of society — including central and local government, the police and the armed forces and this would strengthen the growing demand for Socialism.

However, control of the state machine is necessary

1. to lop off its repressive features; and in order:
2. to prevent any possibility of their being used in desperate attempts by counter-revolutionary groups to frustrate the wishes of the majority.

Armed forces will continue as long as capitalism because capitalism needs them. The capitalist class won't simply give up armed forces in the face of opposition. That is, they will still exist until consciously done away with.

On your final point we must point out that membership of the SPGB is dependent on acceptance of our aims and object set out in our Declaration of Principles. No-one is forced to join or prevented from leaving through disagreement. What for example would be the point of an advocate of minority action attempting to join the SPGB, other than possibly to be disruptive? Such a person is at liberty to join organizations which advocate his or her views. Party members finding themselves in disagreement with the Declaration of Principles invariably leave the Party — what would be the point in remaining in an organization dedicated to a method and object with which you disagree?

New situations faced by the SPGB have to be thrashed out, e.g. the Russian revolution of 1917, the rise of CND etc. The Socialist Standard is under the control of the whole of the membership and must reflect the democratically arrived-at Party case. The Socialist Standard does not exist to propagate anti-Socialist views — these are to be found in abundance elsewhere.

Editors.

The Passing Show: The Congo (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the February 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Congo

U.N. officials report that 300,000 people are slowly starving to death in the Congo, with two hundred dying every day. This is still further proof, if it were necessary, that it is not enough to be merely against capitalism, or colonialism, or the rule of a particular imperial power; one must have constructive proposals as to what is to replace the system to be destroyed—one must, in short, work for the achievement of Socialism, not merely for the destruction of any other economic and social system. A year ago, there were those who criticised the Socialist Party because it would not join in movements for “colonial freedom”, such as the one that aimed to throw the Belgians out of the Congo. We pointed out that this would only entail the Congolese people exchanging one set of masters for another. And this is what has occurred. It would be hard to argue, in face of the mass-starvation, in face of the pictures of Congolese children who are nothing more than skin and bone, that the Congolese people are better off today than they were a year ago. In fact the new Congolese masters, to whom the Congolese people were exhorted to give their support, cannot even agree among themselves. And in the squabbling and fighting among the various sections of the new Congolese ruling class—each of which calls in help from foreign states, Russia, America, Ghana, and Belgium among them—it is the ordinary Congolese who suffer. The system of food-growing and food-distribution has in some parts (notably Kasai) almost entirely broken down. And every day more people starve.

Land of opportunity

Feeling depressed in a monotonous job? Worried about the endless struggle to keep the weekly budget down to the size of your pay packet? Thinking about emigration—perhaps to Canada, land of opportunity?

Before you go, have a look at MacLean’s magazine (it calls itself Canada’s National Magazine) for November 19th, 1960. It carries an article telling you about Canada’s rich. A favourite place for their holidays is Frenchman’s Creek in Jamaica, where millionaires and their wives can have peace and privacy for two thousand dollars a week. Last year a Calgary oil millionaire flew a party of his friends to England to watch his horse run in the Derby; the bill he paid covered a week’s stay at the Ritz for the party and Rolls-Royces for his friends’ trips. A Toronto manufacturer had two swimming pools put in his backyard, complete with lighted fountain, hi-fi music and Japanese teahouse, for 30,000 dollars. A Montreal construction business tycoon often flies to Florida or the Caribbean for weekends in one of the family’s two private planes (a DC-3 and a flying boat); once he couldn’t get a favourite Chinese dish in Miami, so he rang up his usual restaurant in Montreal and got them to make it and fly it down to him. A multi-millionaire distiller had his house festooned with fifteen thousand lilac blooms for his daughter’s wedding; the total wedding bill was reported at 100,000 dollars. Twenty-five upper class wives dress entirely in Paris and London creations at an annual cost of up to forty thousand dollars.

The other side of the coin

You’re keen to? Have a look at the next page. This carries the stories of some of the families of Canada’s 327,000 unemployed workers. (If we had the same percentage of unemployment in Britain there would be nearly a million out of work.) It tells of the bitterness of men trying to make ends meet on unemployment pay. “Today the boss wants a twenty-year-old man with forty years’ experience”, some of them said. A fifty-three-year-old steamfitter suggested, “Why don’t they shoot us old men? Digging graves for us would make jobs for the younger men”. The stories are much the same—mounting bills which cannot be paid, threatening letters from hire-purchase companies as the payments fall behind, the despair of men combing the town every day for jobs and being everywhere refused.

Still, there it is. In a system run by the capitalists you would expect the capitalists to be well off. And you would expect the workers to be badly off. In other words—capitalism in Canada works out much the same as capitalism in Britain. Emigration will give you a change of scenery, but it can’t change your class-position in society.

Unfair to the rich

In the current number of Oxford Tory, the Conservative undergraduate journal, there was a surprising item. One writer commented “To say that we have a just society would be, to say the least, an exaggeration”. Clearly a true statement, but what a place to find it. However, the very next words dispelled the astonishment. “Look”, the writer goes on, “at Schedule A, and the absurd level of death duties”. So it isn’t the ownership of all the country’s factories, and mines, and land by a small ruling class that this Tory finds “unjust”, nor the fact that the workers have to labour to support idlers in luxury: he was only concerned with the arrangements made by the capitalist class to pay for the State which looks after their interests. Perhaps if he examines the nature of society a little more closely, he will be able to find some more penetrating criticisms of the “just society”.

Flogging

Sir Thomas Moore, the Conservative M.P. for Ayr Burghs, is again agitating for the introduction of flogging for crimes involving violence. Sir Thomas said that “peace and justice” were the “keywords” of Hitler’s policy, and also that “Herr Hitler is absolutely honest and sincere,” at a time when Hitler had already set up a dictatorship and begun his campaign to “solve the Jewish problem” with every circumstance of brutality. Socialists do not join in the debate about how criminals should be punished: we go to the root of the problem, By attempting to end the society which gives rise to crime and to criminals. But if Sir Thomas thinks that a man who injures a single other man ought to be flogged, what does he think should be done with political leaders who support dictators whose declared policy is the “liquidation” of millions of their fellow human beings?

Alwyn Edgar

Blogger's Note:

"A year ago, there were those who criticised the Socialist Party because it would not join in movements for “colonial freedom”, such as the one that aimed to throw the Belgians out of the Congo. "

This is in reference to the 'Hackney 13' who resigned from the SPGB in 1960. Hackney is in reference to the fact that they were members of the Hackney Branch of the SPGB. From 'Kaz's paper on SPGB disputes down the years:

The Hackney thirteen, 1960 (13)

Thirteen members of Hackney appended their names to a circular, dated 25th May 1960, announcing their resignation. The letter noted that those listed were “deeply concerned about racialism, about South Africa, about the hydrogen bomb, living standards and other things” and that the resignations were a protest against what they saw as the “unconcern” of the Party with these issues and its “refusal to consider…the welfare of the working class.” 

Connolly, Leo (5929)

Coster, Mrs M (5075)*

Crome, Jack (5735)

Dane, S (5551)

Gleason, J (5856)

Ivimey, AW (5572)

Ivimey, F (5573)

Jarvis, R (5885)

Lawrence, JW (5835)

Temple, MF (5008)

Walby, Dennis (5906)

Walby, S (5292)

Wood, AH (4724)

One name missing from that list was Robert Barltrop ('R. Coster'), who was part of the same dispute within the Party, and resigned from its ranks around about the same time.

Letter: Not peas in a pod (1996)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not peas in a pod

Dear Editors,

I am very disappointed with Graham Taylor’s interpretation (August Letters) of my letter to the July issue.

Not once in my letter did I say that I supported the Newbury rallies, and I do not believe it is very comradely either to suggest that I might hold Trotskyite or SWP views.

I am a member of the Socialist Party because I sincerely believe in the abolition of the capitalist system. The other views I expressed in my letter are quite clear, that I think some Socialists appear to make a fetish out of not demonstrating or showing solidarity with other workers. Socialists are people, individuals, not so many peas out of the same pod.

Heather Ball, 

Norwich

Letter: Put baldly (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

With regard to Dave Perrin’s letter in the September Socialist Standard, at the risk of engaging in pedantry I am bothered by the use of the phrase “the Socialist Party therefore encourages workers to struggle where necessary to establish political democracy under capitalism". Even allowing for the caveats in the preceding comments which make clear our purpose in utilizing this democratic facility (severely flawed though it be from a socialist point of view), to urge workers to put an end to capitalism, it seems to me that the phrase "encourages workers" put baldly this way would indicate that the Socialist Party has this as a definite plank in its policy whereas, of course, as David Perrin himself points out, we are concerned with capitalist political democracy only as a means that can be used to end capitalist society and this must be our clear caveat always.

M. Judd,

Keston, Kent

Reply:

Our policy on this question was reaffirmed at our 1990 Annual Conference: "that the Socialist Party of Great Britain wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression. Whilst we avoid any association with parties or political groups seeking to administer capitalism we emphasise that freedom of movement and expression, the freedom to organise in trade unions, to organise politically and to participate in elections, are of great importance to all workers and are vital to the success of the socialist movement" - Editors.

Letter: “Not gradualist” (2004)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Not gradualist”

Dear Editors

Congratulations on an excellent centenary edition. I feel I should point out, however, that there were some errors in the article, “Getting Splinters”, in which reference was made to the 1987 discussion document, “The Road to Socialism”, circulated by Guildford branch and which I co-authored.

This circular did not claim “socialists would use their influence politically (through parliament and local councils) to adjust patterns of state income and expenditure in ‘socialistic’ directions, including the provision of free services”. Something like this appeared in the Spanner magazine long after Guildford Branch ceased to exist, but not in the Road to Socialism document itself – even though this statement seems little different from the Party’s own stated position that socialist MPS while still a minority, would consider reforms on their own merits.

Nor is it true that “Guildford’s vision was a gradualist one in which the materialist conception of history as applied to the coming of socialism was turned on its head: the economic structure of society would be essentially transformed before the socialist capture of political power, rather than afterwards”.  To say capitalism would be “essentially transformed” before the socialist capture of state power implies we are no longer talking about a capitalist society. But this is precisely what was not claimed! Guildford acknowleged the commanding heights of industry will still be in capitalist hands despite the predicted erosion of capitalist economic relationships within society, thus still necessitating  the capture of state power.

Also, far from Guildford’s vision “turning the materialist conception of history on its head”, it affirmed the link between material conditions and the spread of socialist consciousness. The latter is unlikely to happen to any significant extent without being driven to some extent by changes in the material circumstances themselves, viz. the development of non-capitalist economic relationships, prefiguring socialism (e.g. LETS, intentional communities, voluntaristic associations  etc). These will not in themselves automatically lead to socialism; they need to be infused by a socialist consciousness which, in turn, will then be able to harness them synergistically to its advantage.

The problem with the traditional SPGB approach is that it concentrates almost exclusively on the role of “abstract propagandism” (political education) as the means of bringing about socialism. While this is necessary it is unlikely to suffice on its own. This is ironic considering the importance the SPGB attaches to the Materialist Conception of History; its own “exit strategy” from capitalism appears to be an idealist one, relying on the spread of ideas only! In contrast, Guildford argued we need also to develop new material practices to help break the ideological hegemony of capitalism and enable workers to develop the necessary confidence that an alternative to capitalism is materially possible.

Finally your writer claims: “While most members readily acknowledged that the growth of the socialist movement would have profound and perhaps unpredictable impacts, and while it was the already established Party position that socialists would be organised on the economic front as well as the political front to ensure the smooth changeover of production and distribution from capitalism to socialism, this did not equate with seeking to mould capitalism into socialism from within, in a gradual way.”

This is misleading. Firstly, as the Guildford circular pointed out, what the Party meant by organising on the economic front (viz. planning for socialism) prior to the political enactment was not at all the same as envisaging the growth of non-capitalist socialistic relationship within capitalism prior to that enactmnent

Secondly, it is not true that what Guildford was proposing was to “to mould capitalism into socialism from within, in a gradual way”. We were not talking about “moulding” capitalism at all (which smacks of reformism) but, rather, the contraction in the extent and scope of capitalist economic relationships in inverse proportion to the growth of non-capitalist economic relationships within society as a whole.

Thirdly, the Guildford circular went to great lengths to point out that the kind of “socialistic” or non-capitalist relations it envisaged as developing within the interstices of a capitalist society did not constitute “socialism” but only prefigured socialism and then only to the extent that they were infused with socialist consciousness. “Socialistic” in our terms did not equate with “socialism” proper.

Finally and perhaps most disappointingly, no attempt was made to address the key arguments Guildford adduced to demonstrate the implausability of the traditional “Big Bang” theory of revolution held by the Party – dubbed  thus because it assumed capitalism would remain completely unaffected in its scope and extent by the growth of the socialist movement. But if you agree that the “big bang” theory is unsound you are logically bound to accept something rather like the vision that Guildford Branch articulated in its original discussion document.

Robin Cox, 

World in Common

Reply:

The ‘Getting Splinters’ article dealt with six political tendencies which broke away from the Socialist Party during the course of the last 100 years, with a section devoted to each. The particular section entitled the ‘Guildford Road to Socialism’ was – like the others – a brief description of the key events involved and an articulation of the main points of disagreement that lay behind them. It was not intended to refer solely to the initial discussion document called the ‘Road to Socialism’ but to the line of thinking as a whole and its differing conception of the socialist revolution to the Party’s traditional one. The initial Guildford circular was followed by others and its meaning was clarified further in the journal Spanner produced in Guildford by the same elements.

One essential point is that Guildford/Spanner believed – among many other things – that socialists in parliament and in councils should use the state to redistribute wealth and provide services for free. This was most certainly the group’s stated view. Here’s Spanner’s own explanation of (and justification for) the initial Guildford ‘Road to Socialism’ document, published in its very first edition:

“The document went on to argue that the growth of the socialist movement would nevertheless facilitate the development of non-capitalist or ‘socialistic’ relations which prefigured socialism itself. A variety of forms in which these socialistic relations might invade the capitalist economy have been tentatively proposed. These include: “A massive expansion of free (subsidised) services provided by the state in response to the growing number of socialist parliamentary delegates who would be able to wield increasing influence over the patterns of state income and expenditure.” (‘The Road to Socialism’, in Spanner (1), p.39).

While the Socialist Party has always accepted that, faced with a growing revolutionary socialist movement, capitalist governments may well offer all sorts of reforms such as free services in a bid to ward off their complete expropriation, we have never argued – as Spanner did here – that any Socialist MPs should use any influence they might have to actively seek and promote such reforms, still less hail them as “socialistic”.

When we cut through the semantics, the other points you make about the materialist conception of history, etc merely reinforce what we said in the article. Guildford (and then Spanner) believed that socialism was impossible unless capitalism was ‘invaded’ by what they termed ‘socialistic’ relations of production, i.e. co-operatives, LETS schemes and ‘free’ state services. This is based on completely muddled thinking about these types of productive activities within capitalism – as well as about the general relation between productive relations and social structures – and why they should be labelled ‘socialist’ or ‘socialistic’ when they are nothing of the sort.

As for the supposed ‘Big Bang’ theory, this simply does not represent our views accurately. We certainly do not believe that the growth of the socialist movement will leave capitalism completely unchanged until a cataclysmic revolution occurs. But we cannot now predict in any meaningful way the various ways in which capitalism will change as socialist ideas spread, so we do not think it is possible or advisable to incorporate some version of these changes into our political position. And it is certainly not true that rejecting the caricatured ‘Big Bang’ scenario means accepting the gradualist views put forward in ‘The Road to Socialism’.

Editors.

Trade Unionism. S.L.P. versus S.P.G.B. (1907)

From the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

To prove our proposition in this debate we shall first state the true Socialist position on the trade union question and then proceed to show how the wanderings of the S.P.G.B. away from that position have landed them into great confusion.

In this paper the word “political” will cover all action affecting the state, including the political ballot, the political strike and the political rising. “Economic” will be held to mean “on the field of industry.” The basis of all Socialist tactics is the class struggle, which arises economically and is developed into politics.

Every member of the working class is employed by a member or members of the capitalist class. The antagonism of class interests in the workshop, mine, or factory, arising from the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production, is expressed by the formula “more wages, less profits ; less wages, more profits,” and is the basic, the original and the most obvious expression of the class struggle. When this is thoroughly grasped by any worker, he will readily proceed further to understand that just as he and his shopmates have a common interest against their employer, so he and his class have a common interest against the employing class as a whole, organised in the state. Therefore from the point of view of making Socialists, revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means.

The class antagonism in the workshop forces itself more or less clearly on the notice of all the workers and drives them to unite in unions the better to carry on their side of the contest.

Trade unions in this country had their origin in an age when the handicraft industry was only beginning to be supplanted by machine industry, and they therefore took the form of unions of craftsmen. As the development of machinery is rapidly making the craftsman as extinct as the dodo, these craft unions have gradually lost all the usefulness they ever had, to the working class at least; and now by artificially dividing the workers along the lines of supposed craft interests, they obscure their common class interest and so are stumbling blocks in the way of working-class emancipation. These craft unions are constantly quarrelling and blacklegging on each other ; they foster and encourage that mischievous division of the workers into mechanics and labourers, which is such an obstacle to working-class solidarity. Again they have become a great vested interest and have brought into existence a powerful group of permanent officials whose chief interest in life is to keep their jobs intact and who dominate the great mass of the workers on both the industrial and political fields. By truckling to the craft unions and their officials more than one revolutionary movement in this country which started out full of promise, has been finally engulfed in a bog of opportunism and compromise.

Economic organisation then, being necessary and inevitable, must to fulfil its proper functions, be based on class not on craft lines, and must have as its object the real interest of the working class, namely, the overthrow of the parasite capitalist class and the taking over and holding the means of production by and for the workers themselves. In other words, the economic organisation of the workers must be a revolutionary class union. To be a class union it must unite all wage workers according to industries, in other words according to their actual economic groupings. Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union which would form part of the Union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to start in Great Britain, and we claim that, without it, the overthrow of capitalism will be impossible. History teaches very clearly that economic power invariably precedes political. It was only after they had gained complete control of the means of production, that the capitalists attained political power, and so must the working class. The bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property, but the working class who have no property, can only do so through organisation. It is they that carry on every operation of production, and, if organised industrially, they can control every productive process.

The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism, and usher in the Socialist Republic. Whatever of good there is in electoral action, it is obvious that the master class will never surrender their privileged position to votes alone, unless behind those votes stands the organised might of the workers, ready and able to enforce the mandate of their ballot.

The industrial union is then necessary to the workers under capitalism, and is necessary for the overthrowing of capitalism, and its existence must precede effective political action of any kind. It is therefore the clear duty of every revolutionary Socialist to join us in forming such an union.

And now what is the position of the S.P.G.B. ? Their Manifesto, issued in 1905, states that trade unions should be supported if they act on sound lines, and opposed if they act wrongly—a neutral position, which, when applied to politics, the S.P.G.B. repudiates. Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism. No clear and definite tactics are outlined for the guidance of a party which above all else prides itself on the clearness and definiteness of its position, as witness the phrase—now well-worn even to shabbiness—anent “clear and unmistakable principles interpreted in plain and unequivocal tactics.” On the other hand a facing-both-ways attitude was adopted which leaves every situation, as it arises, open to doubt, discussion and hesitation.

At the first Conference of the S.P.G.B. a motion in favour of a straight and uncompromising position was rejected, and a vague and indefinite resolution adopted instead.

In as much as all articles in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD were first approved by the executive committee, who made a practice of rejecting matter they considered unsound, the appearance of Allen’s article on “Boring from Within” in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD for November, 1905, was hailed by well-wishers of the Party as a sign that they had at last come down from the fence on the union question and had adopted a straight, uncompromising attitude. In this article, we find the following :

“We Socialists want to see industrial unionism, that is, we want to see all the workers in each trade organised, and the various trades in each industry affiliated, thus forming one huge, cohesive organisation of the workers.”

But, however bright the hopes raised by the publication of “Boring from Within,” they were doomed to be dashed to the ground. A further article by Allen on the same lines was in March, 1906, rejected as unsound, and at the annual conference of that year, a motion in favour of revolutionary industrial unionism was defeated and the question referred to a Party meeting.

This was held in four instalments in May—June, 1906. Several resolutions were put on the agenda, including one by the then Bexley branch, which gave expression to the position outlined at the beginning of this paper. All were, however, defeated but two—Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s. Space is too short to recite these in full, but their mutual contradictions may be summarized as follows :

Kent’s resolution

(a) declares war on existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist industrial union. (Though insisting that such union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B.),

(c) adopts as method, therefore, what is known as “boring from without,”

Fitzgerald’s resolution

(a) does not declare war against existing unions,

(b) advocates the formation of a Socialist craft union—”the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation,”

(c) adopts as method “boring from within.”

It had been decided by the 1906 Conference that a poll should be taken on any resolutions passed by the Party meeting. This was not done till the beginning of the present year—the S.P.G.B. being left for 6 or 7 months in the extraordinary position of having provisionally adopted at one and the same time two mutually destructive positions.

When at last the poll was taken the party rejected both the resolutions. For this we commend them. But to destroy what is unsound is not enough ; construction is needed. The rescinding of Kent’s and Fitzgerald’s resolutions simply brought the S.P.G.B. back to the nebulosity of the 1905 Manifesto, and there, so far as we can ascertain, they still remain.

The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party meeting last year to define their attitude on the union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined. After the best wisdom of the Party had been expended during the four sessions of this meeting in adopting, not one but two positions, the membership has by its action declared both of these to be also unsatisfactory. But instead of at once endeavouring to define a sound policy, they have been satisfied to return to an attitude, which by their action they have already declared to be unsound.

We therefore maintain that on the question of trade unionism, the position of the S.P.G.B. is one of hopeless confusion.

LONDON ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

____________

REPLY TO ADVOCATES OF INDUSTRIAL UNIONISM.

To talk of the S.P.G.B “wandering away” from the true position practically asserts that the S.P.G.B. at one time held the true position—otherwise they could not have wandered away from it—a thing the “Advocates” deny later on.

After a reference to the position of employer and employed, we are told by our critics that “revolutionary propaganda in the workshops is by far the most potent means” though they are curiously silent as to how this is to be done today under the strict supervision that exists in most modern factories and where any attempt to propagate Socialist ideas, or push literature, is usually followed by dismissal.

Paragraph 6 says—

“Economic organisation . . . must be based on class not on craft lines”

and then goes on to say—

“To be a class union it must unite all the wage-workers according to industries (!)”

Perhaps this is a specimen of New Scots humor but the contradiction in talking of forming a “class” union according to “industry” should have been obvious even to the “Advocates.” It is then said—

“Thus all the workers in a particular workshop or factory would form one local union, which would form part of the union of the particular industry in question and this again would be a department of the general union which would unite in itself all the industrial organisations. Such an union the A. of I.U. are endeavouring to form in Great Britain.”

From the above jumble of local unions, departments, industrial organisations, etc., forming finally a general union one can only draw the conclusion that the time thus occupied will be wasted since the General Federation of Trade Unions is in the field to carry on that work.

In paragraph 7 we are told that—

“The power of the organised workers to carry on or stop production at will is the power that will overthrow capitalism and usher in the Socialist Republic”

This is begging the entire question for it is exactly the question of what power that is in dispute. The Anarchist claims that the strike, particularly the “general” strike, is the method to be followed—an attitude to-day re-christened “direct action.” If the “Advocates” mean the power of the economic organisations on the industrial field they are preaching the same stupid fallacy. The power of the workers to carry on or stop production depends entirely upon their control of the fighting forces, and even if all men were inside their industrial unions they could no more “take and hold” the means of production and distribution by that form of organisation than by the present ones. With the modern weapons of precision and rapid death-dealing, the unarmed and undrilled workers would be easily driven out of the mills and factories, while, with the large stores at their command, the capitalist class could sit down and let starvation complete the work.

Just previously the “Advocates” stated that “the bourgeoisie gained control over the means of production through the possession of property” (as though means of production were not property) while as a matter of historical fact the bourgeoisie laid the foundations of their control by first building up an army under Cromwell and Fairfax to fight the Army of the Feudal Aristocracy.

After what we have stated paragraph 8 is quite gratuitous as not one of the so-called “necessary” things have been shown to be even useful, let alone necessary.

The criticism of the S.P.G.B. position then begins. We are told that this position is “neutral.” This must be another joke, for how a position that opposes one side and supports another can be “neutral” will puzzle the “Advocates” to explain. They state—

“Nothing is said in this Manifesto about the necessity of revolutionary economic organisation for overthrowing capitalism”.

But the Manifesto on p. 10 says:—

“The basis of the actions of the trade unions must be a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism and the class-struggle necessarily resulting therefrom : in other words they must adopt the Socialist position if they are going to justify their existence at all.”

Can the “Advocates” put the position better ? Yet they call this a “facing both-ways attitude.”

The quotation from THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, in paragraph 11, is carefully selected, for the whole of the article with the exception of that sentence is devoted to advocating a Socialist union, and when Allen openly advocated industrial unions in his next article it was rejected.

At the Annual Conference, when the industrial union resolution was moved, it was the “Advocates” who opposed having an open discussion on the matter and wanted it rushed through there and then. Space is too short to give the resolutions in full they say. This must have been fortunate for the “Advocates” as it enables them to make false statements under the cover of want of space.

The resolutions are given in full in the July, 1906 and February, 1907 SOCIALIST STANDARDS, where it will be seen that Kent’s resolution did not state that the union must be controlled by the S.P.G.B., while Fitzgerald’s advocates a Socialist union on a class basis—the rest being matters of detail—and urges propaganda outside as well as inside the trade unions and cannot be called “boring from within” in any sense of that much abused phrase.

The “Advocates,” in commending us for rejecting these resolutions, seem unaware that the reasons given for this rejection were that the position laid down in the Manifesto, coupled with the Declaration of Principles, was a sufficiently clear exposition, of the Socialist position on Trade Unionism.

The next paragraph says:—

“The S.P.G.B. in holding a Party Meeting last year to define their attitude on the trade union question, were admitting that up to that time, despite the Manifesto, their attitude on the union question had not been satisfactorily defined.”

This is a piece of cheap, specious pleading that will deceive few. At every one of our propaganda meetings we invite discussion of the Principles of Socialism. Does this admit that those Principles are not satisfactory ? Certainly not. When a few members had been bitten with the I.W.W. fever and tried to get their views adopted without adequate discussion, then the meetings were called to openly discuss the position and see if these supporters of the I.W.W. could show any flaw in our standpoint. This they entirely failed to do and the vote of the Party resulted as above. In face of these simple facts the rest of the paragraph is sheer nonsense and on the whole question they have completely failed to show that any confusion or unsoundness exists on the side of the S.P.G.B.

But what is the position of the “Advocates” ? Why are they so peculiarly silent on the question of existing industrial unions ? It may be said that none exist as yet in Great Britain. If for the sake of argument we assume this, then whence does Industrial Unionism arise ? The answer is America. When the Industrial Workers of the World Union was formed in Chicago in 1905 certain persons in this country adopted the idea without examination or discussion and tried to form a branch of that organisation here through the Advocates of Industrial Unionism.

At the beginning the I.W.W. was endorsed in full, its literature distributed, and phrases and terms used in America imported here. And one of the chief arguments used by the I.W.W. supporters in America was that the present unions manufactured their own blacklegs by their high initiation fees, dues, etc. which must be paid or the member is excluded.

Any union that excludes members for non-payment of dues—which non-payment is largely due to unemployment—manufactures its own blacklegs, and this is exactly what the I.W.W. does. Its entrance fee and minimum dues are larger than several English unions, while its period for arrears of dues ordering exclusion, is 60 days as against the 180 days allowed by the majority of existing unions.

Tho I.W.W. therefore tends to make its own blacklegs faster even than the ordinary unions mentioned and accentuates the very evil complained of. This point by itself is sufficient to condemn the I.W.W., but it is not all. The organisers and officials of the I.W.W. tell the workers that their “pure and simple” strikes are failures because conducted on “craft” lines but that an I.W.W. strike would be victorious because their position is invincible. Yet every strike they have undertaken has been a failure ! The Buffalo Garment Workers’, the Wichita Bakers’ and the Schenectady Electrical Workers’ strikes—all organised and run by the I.W.W. —were complete victories for the employers. A split has lately taken place and we have the encouraging spectacle of the workers being indivisibly and economically united into two I.W.W’s. Inability to decide which Workers of the World they should endorse is perhaps responsible for the attempt to form a third—and British—Workers of the World here, and curiously enough by the very means so readily condemned in others. Not only are they ready and willing to attend any craft or other union for the purpose of advocating their views, but as in the case of members of the S.L.P., they appear upon the platforms and support men and organisations, (under the cover of it being a meeting for Industrial Unionism) that at other times they condemn as misleaders of the working class. Such actions would not be tolerated for a moment by the S.P.G.B. On this point our position has been clear and consistent. No deliberate support of capitalists or capitalism has been allowed, and in one or two cases where such occurred the members offending were at once put outside. No excuse—trade union or other—has been allowed to cover any voluntary action in support of capitalism, but adherence to the Declaration of Principles insisted on in every case.

The fact that Industrial Unionism is the latest of many attempts that have been made to form a Socialist organisation with non-Socialist material is not only bound to produce failure, but, as is shown in America, also adds another organisation to the long list of those that provide a field for, and give encouragement to, the “Labour Fakir” and misleader. The position of the S.P.G.B., on the contrary, is to carry on Socialist education towards the building up of the Socialist economic organisation that will aid the Socialist Party to abolish capitalism.

A Fakir Floored. (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Small incidents often illustrate large truths. Constantly the Socialist urges upon the working class the necessity for depending upon themselves and their own efforts to accomplish their emancipation, and to drop the superstition, so widely taught by the agents of the master class, that “they must have leaders,” “somebody at the head,” etc., to guide them on their way.

The formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was an important instance of the understanding by those who formed it, of the folly of relying on “leaders,” and of the determination to rid themselves of such hindrances. But the potential “leader” is always wandering round looking for his opportunity, and the S.P.G.B. seemed to offer such an opportunity to one of these persons of the name of C. Lehane.

He was one of the original members of the Party, and was is first secretary, in which position he worked hard for some time. Then he began his scheming. Resigning his post as secretary he indulged in some underhand work to push one of his satellites into the position he had vacated. The attempt failed and Lehane began his intrigues at the Islington Branch of the S.P.G.B. that ended in his being expelled the Party, by a Party vote, along with several members of that Branch The facts of the case are set out in an article in the February, 1907 issue of the “Socialist Standard.”

Even then his attempt did not end, for he and his followers claimed still to be members of the S.P.G.B., although in the same breath they denounced the Party as “rotten,” and “corrupt,” and further ran. meetings etc. against us; but their farcical situation fizzled out in a few weeks.

The memory of this incident is revived by some newspaper cuttings from America, added to some notes from a couple of correspondents there. Some months ago Lehane left England for America, and a farewell supper was given to him that was attended by a number of notorious Labour frauds and leaders.

Evidently the name of the S.P.G.B. and its reputation were important assets in Lehane’s estimation, for shortly after reaching America, in an interview published in the “New York Call,” we find the following paragraph:

“He [Lehane] led the revolutionary wing of the English Socialist movement during the internal struggles of 1904, and founded the Socialist Party of Great Britain, whose first secretary he became. He founded and edited for the first two yeas the London ‘Socialist Standard’.”

All the statements in the above paragraph are false with the exception of the one stating that he was the Party’s first secretary, while with a modesty somewhat unusual in Lehane, he quite omitted to tell the reporter that he had been expelled from the S.P.G.B.

The formation of the S.P.G.B. was not due to any individual, but was the result of the agitation by a section of the rank and file inside the old Social Democratic Federation (now the B.S.P.) for a straight Socialist policy. This agitation had been going on for some years before Lehane came to England, and so far was he from “leading” this wing, a thing they refused to allow any one to do, that he sat on the fence most of the time apparently trying to judge where the best chance of a job existed, and only threw in his lot with the seceders from the S.D.F. at the last moment. Neither did he found the “Socialist Standard.” This was done by the Party at the suggestion of the 1st Executive Committee, and R. Elrick was first editor of the paper. Neither then nor at any other time had Lehane any hand in the editing or making up of the “Socialist Standard.”

The “Call” reporter stated that Lehane showed him “credentials” from Bob Williams, Jim Larkin, Ben Tillett, Jim Connolly, Harry Lee, etc. Every one of these names stinks in the nostrils of the Socialists here because of its notorious record. Tillett’s slimy fakirism and dirty capitalist crawling is known the world over, and has reached its present limit in the cowardly, lying recruiting campaign he is conducting to-day.

The reporter opens the interview with the remark: “We usually associate the qualities and character of a man with those of his friends”—a wordy paraphrase of a terse Irish saying: “Tell me your company and I’ll tell you your character.” The application in the present instance is striking. The association with such glaring frauds upon the working class as those given in the list above is a fair indication of the character and attitude of those deliberately seeking such association—as Lehane has done.

One of our correspondents sends us some statements Lehane made at a meeting in Detroit, Michigan, and they bear out completely the character one would be led to expect from such companions. Thus he is reported to have said, among other things:

“We do things different in Ireland, There we have ONE GREAT UNION, which includes everybody, from bank managers to the ordinary labourer.

For instance, this is the way we organise in Ireland. In Sligo there are docks, and instead of having the members go out to find the jobs they go to the union headquarters, and the bosses telephone for the number of hands they want. We then send the men, and when the work is finished the men DON’T GET PAID, but the union gets the money and DIVIDES IT BETWEEN ALL THE MEN, WHETHER THEY WORKED OR NOT.”

If such a travesty of a union should ever exist it is clear that it would only be an agency of the masters, as, apart from other points, it would be quite illegal to pay such wages to the union. Of course, no one on this side of the Atlantic has ever heard of such a comic-opera organisation, even in Ireland, while the ruthless and  successful actions of the bosses in Belfast, Dublin, etc, where the men were completely defeated under Larkin’s leadership, show how stupid a liar is Lehane.

When he said he “knew France well” because “he had been in Brussels,” he was simply illuminating his appalling ignorance, that would appear to be matched only by his colossal conceit.

Another absurd statement was that: “Before the end of the war we are going to establish the Co-operative Commonwealth in Ireland,” and “in case we have to fight we will be able to use our Citizen Army which consists of 4,700 men armed with Springfield rifles and 3 machine guns.” To give the measure of this statement it is only necessary to say that England has over 4,000,000 men under arms at the present moment; large numbers are also joining every day—either from fear of the sack or conscription—her navy is larger now than ever in its history; her munitions of war, despite all the muddling, are amazing in quantity; and her credit good in all neutral countries. To pretend to pit 4,700 men, even if armed with Springfield rifles (that are inferior to the British service rifle) and 3 machine guns against this powerful combination of forces is not even farcical—it is utterly idiotic.

The cream of the joke, however, is the ironic fact that, except for the purpose of putting a rapid end to the rising, the English Government need not move a single soldier or gunboat to crush it. When the Home Rule Bill was passing through Parliament a great deal of bluff and bluster was indulged in by both “Unionists” and “Home Rulers” and both sides began to raise and arm “Volunteer” forces to fight over the question. Large claims were made as to the numbers each had—sometimes figures of over 100,000 men on each side being given. The War came and then these “opposing” forces joined in their declaration to fight the German and sent men to the Front. In a newspaper controversy a short time ago each side claimed to have sent over 30,000 men. to the Army—a rather nasty knock to their previous bluff. The important point, however, is that these 60,000 “Volunteers” would readily combine to shoot down the 1,700 men of the “Citizen” Army to whose objects and views they are strongly opposed. The English Government could therefore easily win by merely setting one set of Irishmen against the other, as they did at Dublin and elsewhere.

The “New York World” of July 3rd, 1915 quotes from an address by Lehane to the American Labour unions where he states that: “The moment that the first British officer places his hand on the shoulder of an Irish working-man to draft him for war will be the moment when the socialist revolution which has been brewing in Ireland for years will break out.” This statement shows either an astounding ignorance of the conditions in Ireland or else the lengths to which Lehane is prepared to go in his attempts to bluff the workers of America.

In the fulsome flattery poured out, in the interview published in the “Call” we are told: “Perhaps no man of his time has brought more worthy recruits to the ranks of the International Socialist movement.”

It would be interesting to know the reporter’s reasons for such a claim. How baseless is the boast is best shown by the fact that the recruits Lehane could in any sense claim to be responsible for were those members of the Islington Branch who, sheep like, followed him into—and out of—that Branch without ever having understood the principles of Socialism.

Doubtless the difficulty he found in getting hold of a soft job over here has been the decisive factor in his journeying to the wider land of the West, where, thousands of miles from those who know him, he may fancy himself free from any danger of exposure while gulling and exploiting the workers there. And for a time, under the peculiarly suitable patronage of the “Socialist” Party of America he may succeed in his mission. But sooner or later the truth will catch him up and our repudiation of his claims upon our work and organisation lay him bare for what he is.

Ed. Com.

Blogger's Note:

Some further biographical information on Lehane — from a non-party source — at the following link.

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Week-end Summer School, held at Tree-Tops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, near Guildford, Surrey, on September 17th and 18th, was generally claimed a great success. Many of the members who attended arrived early on the Saturday afternoon and spent that afternoon and evening indulging in various recreations and social activity. A swimming pool, tennis court and a selection of indoor games were available and a dance was organised. On Sunday morning at 10 a.m. Comrade Hardy gave a lecture on “ The Lessons of Four Years of Labour Government.” Those who attended this lecture were enthusiastic in their commendation and a call was made, and unanimously supported, for steps to be taken to put the subject matter of the lecture into print so that it could be made available for party propagandists. At 2 p.m. on the Sunday an open discussion, “Socialism, What Will it be Like? ” was commenced, and continued up to tea. time, 4.30 p.m. The discussion was opened by Comrade Cash and started mildly, the early contributors only sparring with the subject. Arguments warmed up as the discussion proceeded and many of the ideas propounded were still being hotly debated when the local bus came to collect members for Guildford Station and their homes. The food, sleeping arrangements and general facilities were considered to be very good and the charge of 18/- per visitor for the week-end was extremely moderate. A number of members present expressed a wish to see the camp used again for similar purposes.

The Half-yearly Delegate Meeting was held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, on Saturday and Sunday, September 24th and 25th. Consequent upon a resolution passed at our last Annual Conference this Delegate Meeting was a two day assembly instead of a one day meeting as heretofore. The maximum attendance was 42 delegates representing 23 branches. The more distant of our provincial branches were not represented. The attendance of visitors on the afternoon of the second day brought the total gathering up to approximately 150 members and friends. It was apparent that the hall in which the meeting was held was overcrowded and that we shall need more spacious accommodation for future Delegate Meetings.

Discussion on the first day centred around the proposal to afford an opportunity for Central Branch members to vote at Conferences. The plan submitted by the Executive Committee received the support of the meeting. A recommendation to adopt a system of proportional voting at Conferences was considered. It was pointed out as an example, that a branch with a membership of 40 might decide in favour of a resolution by 21 votes for, and 19 votes against, and send its four delegates to the Conference to vote for the resolution. Another branch of only 20 members, and. in consequence, only sending two delegates, might vote unanimously against the same resolution. This would make the voting of Party members 21 for the resolution and 39 against it, but the voting at the Conference would be 4 votes for, and 2 against. It was hoped that a scheme of proportional voting would eliminate this anomaly.

The Executive Committee was urged to hasten the publication of a pamphlet stating our attitude to war. It was pointed out that we have no literature to-day that specifically deals with this aspect. A brief leaflet or manifesto on the subject was considered to be inadequate, the nature of our case making it advisable to deal comprehensively with the subject in a pamphlet. Delegates also called for the publication of leaflets of a lively and interesting nature to attract the attention of workers to our case. The Editorial Committee, amplifying its report, stated that it was essential that writers should submit articles for publication in the Socialist Standard by the first week of the month prior to the one of publication. Notices of meetings were required by the 15th of the previous month or there could be no guarantee that they could be inserted.

The pièce de résistance of the meeting was the item in the report headed “Electoral Activity.” The Executive Committee was criticised by some branches for the method of appointing prospective Parliamentary candidates. After considerable discussion the following resolution was carried.

“That this Delegate Meeting recommends that the whole question of appointment of Parliamentary candidature be re-organised as follows: —

(a) That a panel of Parliamentary candidates be drawn up composed of members who have been examined by the E.C. and not through a sub-committee, and that the E.C. invite nominations from this panel.

(b) That the branch in the constituency concerned in the election have the right to freely ask members of the panel to be their candidate."

The Parliamentary Committee drew attention to the serious state of Party funds in view of the coming electoral campaigns. If we have an early election, as some seem to expect, we shall be in a disastrous position. The Parliamentary Fund contains only £219 and we need at least £900 to make a success of the election effort. There are tentative plans for the issue of a quantity of literature in connection with the campaign, but the rate of increase of funds will determine whether such plans can be operated.

There was a tussle between delegates over the relative merits of suburban as opposed to central London propaganda meetings. Some claimed that prominent Party speakers who are frequently to be found at Central London meetings should distribute their time around the suburban and provincial branches giving help and advice to new speakers.

The question of disciplining Party members, especially speakers, came up for discussion, but the difficulty of imposing any sort of discipline on members of an organisation that is run entirely by voluntary work, was appreciated.

The meeting was scheduled to finish at 5 p.m. on the second day, but delegates called for an extension to 7 p.m., and a number remained even later to discuss items on the agenda that could not be considered by the meeting because of pressure of time. Collections taken at the meeting totalled £9 11s. 3d.

Ealing Branch has had a much better outdoor season this year than in 1948 and it is intended to continue the meetings at Richmond and Ealing until the end of October. A prominent factor in the success at Ealing Green has been the introduction of a new and higher platform allowing the speaker's voice to carry further and enabling the branch to hold some excellent meetings in spite of the usual Tory opposition. In Richmond the efforts are bearing fruit. Enquiries have been received regarding the local Kingston Branch and the discussion group at Hounslow.

Ealing Branch trip to Southsea on September 18th exceeded the most optimistic expectations when an audience of over 200 listened to a three-hour peroration by our speakers, showed a great deal of interest, and contributed well to literature sales and collection. The Ealing members were impressed by the appreciation shown by the local sympathisers who wanted to know why our trips were so few and far between. It is certain that Southsea presents a ready soil for Socialist propaganda.

The Greenford and Hounslow discussion groups, sponsored by Ealing Branch, are both making satisfactory progress. A recent lecture given by Comrade Thorburn at Hounslow attracted an encouraging number of non-members.

Efforts to extend Ealing Branch’s literature sales are still doggedly and persistently being made. There has been an increase in pamphlet sales and, with the approach of winter, the monthly canvass should send literature sales to a higher level than on any previous year.

The Socialist Party of New Zealand has sent us a few sample copies of the recently issued pamphlet, “Introducing the Socialist Party of New Zealand.” It is a small eight-page pamphlet in a bold yellow cover and is for free issue. The chapter titles will give an idea of the scope of this small but very useful addition to socialist literature. The pamphlet opens with an introduction over the stamp of the Party's Executive Committee, pointing to the futility of Labour Government as a means of achieving Socialism and emphasising the importance of Parliament. The body of the pamphlet then deals with the founding of the S.P.N.Z., “Piecemeal reforms do not lead to Socialism,” “The fundamental problem of our age,” “"What Socialism Involves,” “Socialism is necessarily an international conception,” “The Road to Socialism,” “The Future belongs to the Socialist Movement.”, and “ The S.P.N.Z. and ‘Promises'.” We commend it to all readers of the Socialist Standard as a useful introductory pamphlet, but please do not send to our New Zealand comrades for a copy unless you enclose a donation. We know the cost of producing such a pamphlet, and. although it is for free issue, we ask you to remember that all our work is voluntary and our pockets, in New Zealand as well as in Britain, are like all workers' pockets, very, very shallow. Pay heed to a phrase from the end of the pamphlet, “ Our bugbear—lack of funds.”

The Socialist Party of Ireland is getting on with its task with determination and is collecting around itself a useful group of contacts from whom it is hoped to make new members. Indoor meetings in Dublin commenced at the Boilermakers' Hall in Lower Gardiner Street on September 11th with an address by the Party's General Secretary, Comrade Walsh. Further meetings have been held weekly since, each addressed by a different member of the Dublin Branch, and with satisfactory literature sales and collections. Catholic and Communist opponents have not attended or have not made their presence known. The Dublin Branch has sent out offers to various organisations to supply speakers and has issued challenges to debate, all without result to date. It is further hoped to be able to get a large hall in Dublin later in the season for a good large meeting. The Belfast Branch is also having success. Outdoor meetings in Belfast have been getting bigger and bigger. At two outdoor meetings during a recent strike, an audience of over 1,000 gathered around the platform. Belfast comrades have challenged the N. Ireland Labour Party to debate, but the challenge was not accepted. Indoor meetings began in Belfast on September 28th, and the initial meeting was a success that gave encouragement and promise for the future. The S.P.I.’s manifesto is now complete and we are told that we shall receive the draft as soon as the Belfast comrades have passed it. There is a friendly rivalry between the branches that speaks well for future activities.

W. Waters.

Correspondence: Request for a debate (1955)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

I trust you will afford this letter space in the columns of the Socialist Standard.

Whilst 1 was a member of the S.P.G.B. I developed views which were critical of the declaration of principles of the Party. Early this year the members carried a resolution which made it impossible to express those views within the party and retain membership.

I resigned my membership.

A few weeks ago 1 wrote to the Executive Committee, asking them to appoint a representative of the Party to debate with me publicly. I was fobbed off with the lame and untrue statement that the S.P.G.B. does not debate with individuals (during my 25 years membership I was officially appointed to debate several “individuals”) It was also stated that if and when I join another organisation they would be pleased to debate with me as a representative of that organization.

Now I have very sincere and serious criticisms of the S.P.G.B. principles and policy, I suggest that such a debate would have greater value than the debates with Sir Waldron Smithers. I do hope that the S.P.G.B. will back up the statements of those members who said that they would be pleased to debate with me when I left the Party. I have pleasure in accepting their challenge.

As I stated in my letter to the Executive Committee, I am quite prepared to leave the choice of title to them, providing it will permit the following issues supported by the S.P.G.B., to be debated.

1. That a Socialist Party must be a working-class party.
2. That the working-class must capture control of the machinery of Government.
3. Violence.
4. Materialist Conception of History.

Also that I can defend my positive position as laid out in the article appearing in the April, 1955, issue of “ Forum,” and any other article appearing over my name in the “ Forum ”

A. W. L. Turner

Reply:

The letter of May 1st, in which A. W. L. Turner asked for a debate, was replied to as follows:

“If and when you can get the support of another political organisation, we would be happy to debate with you as their representative, and, that until such times as these conditions arise, you can use the same method of attacking the Party as is open to any other member of the public in opposition."

To his further letter, reproduced above, the following reply was sent:

“Replying to your letter of July 11th, we wish to inform you that the Party is prepared to debate with you through the columns of the ‘Socialist Standard’ on the question of the validity of our object and Declaration of Principles.”

The first statement in Turner’s letter is inaccurate. In fact, he “developed ideas” opposed to the Declaration of Principles of the Party. The resolution he refers to was a question put to a poll of the membership. The question was as follows: —

“Shall members of the Party who do not accept its Object and Declaration of Principles be asked to resign, and if they refuse to do so their membership be terminated?”

The majority of the members answered “yes” to the question.

As a late member of the Party Turner is well aware of the fact that be can put his opposition to the Party in writing for publication and reply in the columns of the Socialist Standard. In this way the statements of both parties to the discussion or debate are set down in writing and the reader can check arguments and statements if in any doubt. This is the most satisfactory way of making the position of each side clear, and gives Turner all the opportunity he should need to state his case.

As Turner is constantly on our platform stating his case in opposition, which is more than equivalent to a formal debate, we are puzzled at his unnecessary request for an oral debate.

Executive Committee.

Correspondence: The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

[To the Editor of the Socialist Standard]

Sir, —Re your article in the February Socialist Standard : “The Late Islington Dispute,” wherein you make a statement that no delegate had instructions to vote “Islington’s expulsion,” which is not true, as I was present at the Tottenham Branch meeting, when the delegates got instructions to vote for the expulsion of Islington.

W. Innes.

Reply:

[Though it was evident that Mr. Innes was entirely in error, it was decided, in order that not the slightest doubt might remain, to request the secretary of the Tottenham Branch to forward a copy of all minutes containing instructions to delegates to the quarterly delegate meeting in question. These Comrade Lobb has sent and they make it abundantly clear that there is no truth in Mr. Innes’ allegation. The following is a copy of the Tottenham secretary’s letter:

Dear Comrade,—Re yours of Feb. 24th. The following is a copy of minutes from the minute book of the Tottenham Branch, dated respectively the 9th and 23rd of July, 1906:—

July 9th—”H. A. Young and E. Stevens were appointed delegates to Quarterly Delegate Meeting.

July 23rd—”Secretary read re Bexley Heath and Islington Branches. After considerable discussion, Kauter proposed and Dye seconded, ‘That delegates defend the action of the E.C. and condemn the action of the Islington Branch.’ Resolution carried. Young and Stevens being unable to attend, Rich and Stowe were appointed, and credentials handed to Stowe.”

The subject under discussion was the stopping of propaganda meetings of the Islington Branch and the instructions given were to condemn same and support the action of the E.C. re Bexley Branch.

Yours fraternally,

T. W. Lobb.

As was stated in the February issue of this journal, “no delegate of any branch had instructions to vote Islington’s expulsion.” The minutes in question are open to the inspection of Mr. Innes upon application.]

Blogger's Notes:

'R. Innes' might be a typo. A 'William Innes' was a member of Tottenham Branch — joining the SPGB in 1905 — and records state that he did resign from the SPGB, but it doesn't give the exact date. We just have to presume it was in the aftermath of the Islington Branch dispute.

The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club, May 26th, with Comrade Gifford in the chair Comrade Fitzgerald moved :

“Under term of reference No. 1

That as under capitalism the workers sell their labour power—inseparable from themselves—as an article of merchandise, and being subject to the same economic laws which prevail in other commodity markets, it is necessary for the workers to debate the fluctuations in price with the employers. Organised action being more advantageous than individual action, be it—

Resolved that the S P G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is a necessity under capitalism, to prevent the workers being continuously driven to sell their labour power below its value.

Under term of reference No. 2

That as the establishment of Socialism will mean ”the administration of things instead of the government of people,” as Engels said, and as the administration of the various detail processes of wealth production can only be carried on effectively by those possessing the requisite technical knowledge being organised for that purpose, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that Trade Unionism is necessary for the establishment of Socialism.

If term No. 3 be considered

That as the position of the workers in modern Society is one of a propertyless class in opposition to the propertied capitalist class, the form of organisation adopted in the economic field must of necessity be based upon this class position as a first principle, while, for the reasons given under resolution No. 2, the chief detail unit of organisation must be the trade or occupation, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. holds that the form of organisation must have a class basis as first principle and the trade sub-division as the chief detail of organisation ; other sub-divisions, either geographical or economic, to be arranged as circumstances demand.

Under term of reference No. 4

That as the economic arm is required to act in conjunction with the political arm to establish Socialism, and as the only form of organisation which is in harmony with the political basis of Socialism is the one given above, be it—

Resolved that the S.P.G.B. urges forward the propaganda of the economic position laid down in conjunction with its political propaganda both inside and outside the present unions with the object of establishing the Socialist Trade Union required for this work.”

The mover said it was not necessary to spend much time here discussing the class basis, as we all realised that it was the lack of class-consciousness which kept the workers divided. The chief detail of organisation must be the trade or occupation because only those in a given trade knew the actual conditions, as was shown in the late strike of Daily News compositors. Moreover the other sub-divisions must depend on circumstances. The Leeds Fire Clay Co. in one district employed workers in several distinct industries, such as coal mining, clay working, building and stone quarrying, while the L.C.C. employed building operatives, tramway men, steamboat employees, clerks and draughtsmen. These were instances where the geographical sub-division was necessary, and where the industrial sub-division would be useless. The firm of David Allen & Sons was an example where the industrial sub-division would be suitable, all their employees being in the same industry.

An amendment was moved by Phillips and Kent to delete words from “while” to “occupation,” and all words after “class basis.”

Kent said to enter into detail questions was premature.

Killick said the question of detail was not essential; Fitzgerald should have made that clear.

Leigh said the question of geographical position did not affect industrialism at all. Are not the clay workers divided into various trades ?

T. W. Allen said Fitzgerald’s illustration could be applied to the building industry. The Socialist parties had failed to unite the revolutionary working class. The I.W.W. would unite the various parties. It was common sense to say the workers will recognise the political position when they are in an economic organisation.

Neumann opposed the I.W.W.

The meeting then adjourned.

_____________

At the adjourned meeting held at the Communist Club June 9th, T. A.Jackson continued the discussion on Kent’s amendment.

Jackson said the object of the amendment was stated to be that the movers did not think the particulars entered into in the resolution were necessary. Leigh and Allen had urged that the details should remain in, since they favoured an industrial form of organisation. But neither Leigh nor Allen knew what they meant by industrial organisation. With regard to the objection of Phillips and Kent, he (Jackson) thought it was necssary to give the details. We had recognised that an economic organisation would be necessary. The question Fitzgerald had considered was how far an economic organisation could be made to take on its proper function of supplementing the work of the Socialist Party in accomplishing the revolution. Under certain circumstances it might be necessary to organise on geographical lines, under others it would be necessary to federate the organisations, but those questions would have to be decided at the particular time when action was necessary.

Let us assume that capitalism was tending to that stage of monopoly when industry could be divided into thirteen different trusts. Even then it would be difficult to postulate what the form of organisation should be. To those who said the economic organisation should be industrial he would point out that even the I.W.W. made provision for certain governing bodies called district councils—purely geographical divisions. When a strike took place and a portion of the workers went on strike it would depend on the understanding of the workers of the class position as to the action the remainder would take. He did not think it advisable therefore, to adopt any a priori scheme of specialisation. The question of federation could only come upon the agenda when a large number of the workers were sufficiently class conscious to perfect their organisation for the revolution.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 5.

Anderson moved the deletion of all the words after “position” down to and including “occupation.” The amendment was seconded by Pearson.

The amendment was lost by 9 to 3.

Fitzgerald in reply to the resolution said Killick had said he did not think it was well to go too much into details in the matter. But we should lay down the broad lines upon which we intended to travel. On a previous occasion he had read out extracts from the I.W.W. convention which showed the position of that party. But T. W. Allen had said that it was yet to be shown that the I.W.W. was not a sound economic organisation. Therefore he had brought along some more extracts dealing with the subject. What he had said about the W.F. of M. in Colorado supporting capitalistic candidates was still further supported by T. J. Hagerty of Butte, Montana. A resolution was proposed to the Executive that the members should not be allowed to support any capitalist candidate or party. Clemensic pointed out that that would put many of the members of the W.F. of M. in a very funny position, because some of them were members of the Republican Party. Hagerty said :

”It is true that back in the State of Montana we have a peculiar condition of things. Some five or six years ago I attended a convention of the State labour movement in the city of Helena, in September, 1890. . . . After the party had been organised the capitalist parties commenced to lay plans to seize upon it. We found the Amalgamated Mining Company on one side and Senator Clark and F. E. Heinze upon the other, at war. There was an opportunity that we could not miss. We seized upon the opportunity. Clark wanted to become a United States Senator, and F. A. Heinze wanted something else, and we knew it. I maintain that we did not go to them, but compelled them to come to us, but nevertheless there was a capitalist combination with a labor party, and hence it became capitalistic. We went to the polls and united our movement to theirs. Twelve men went to the legislative body from that county. In the division we got six of the twelve. We got the sheriff of the county, the coroner, and others. I was nominated for the office of county Commissioner and was elected.” (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Chicago.—Page 272.)

Some said that the W.F. of M., the backbone of the I.W.W., had in it a portion of the Republican Party in Butte, showing how class-unconscious those members were. When the I.W.W. was formed they sent over to what they called the various industrial organisations in France, and Trautmann got a very fine letter from the General Confederation of Labour in France. Here was the reply of the French organisation :

“Our Committee took with pleasure, notice of your Manifesto and call. It is happy at the constitution of your organisation and it hopes that your federative group, which, itself planted upon the field of the class struggle, will have at heart the necessity of conducting the battle upon that field where all equivocation vanishes; upon the economic field.

It is not for us to meddle in your internal organisation : it is for you to constitute yourselves according to the lay of the land where you are called upon to struggle. Nevertheless, allow us to observe that the French economic organisations have had cause only to congratulate themselves for having eliminated from their midst all discussions and questions concerning electoral and governmental parliamentarism. In fact, we hold that the political opinions of a workman are secondary to his class interests. Consequently whatever may be the opinion of a workingman upon that head his interests are ever supreme and, upon the field of interests, in the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, all opinions can blend into one.”—E. Pouget, Secretaire adjoint. (Report of I.W.W. Convention, Page 289.)

They did not, however, get that sort of reply from all the organisations on the continent. Another organisation in Denmark made the following reply:

“As to our own opinion on the economic organisation we, here in Denmark, take the absolute and decided stand that the same must be built—as so well expressed in your Manifesto—upon the recognition of the class struggle in Society. But how that can be accomplished if the unions—as you again proclaim in the Manifesto—will abstain from co-operation with any political party, even with that one which indulges solely in the politics of the working class, we cannot understand. We are of the opinion that everywhere, when needed, the economic organisation and the Social Democratic party must work hand in hand, in order to promote the interests of the working class where the interests of the toilers have to be taken care of. We hold that the passage in your Manifesto where it reads “without affiliation with any political party” has only been inserted to manifest the complete neutrality of the union.” —(Page 290-1.)

The I.W.W. started out with the statement that the present trade unions don’t organise the unorganised. Now in the first place we could point to the experience of other organisations to prove that this was all right in theory, but with the exception of the Gasworkers’ Union when Aveling was organising it, not one organisation had yet organised the unorganised. The I.W.W. was devoting all its attention to try and capture the already organised workers. Again E. J. B. Allen himself had only found a platform for the statement of his position inside a trade union, the O.B.S.

One of the arguments used by the I.W.W. was that the present trade unions built a Chinese Wall round the union. He (Fitzgerald) belonged to what was called a pure and simple organisation. Now the initiation fee of the I.W.W. was two-thirds greater than that of his organisation. Again, in the O.B.S. he could run six months without paying dues, but the I.W.W. members could only run 60 days. Again the I.W.W. made no provision for seeing to its members when they were out of work. Leigh seemed quite lost as to the base given by the speaker as to the formation of the organisation. He had given the case of the Leeds Fire Clay Co. with various industries working together. True those workers were split up into industries, but the point was that there were all these workers working together in one geographical division, under one roof, so to speak. T. W. Allen said it was a credit to the I.W.W. to discuss for two-and-a-half days the meaning of the industrial sub-division. But the Committee had said at the very beginning that they had laid what they had called the industrial principle, and it was no use discussing it any longer because it was going to be railroaded through. As regards the credit due to discussion, the men who favoured the I.W.W. position had laid it down when they first met that “academic discussion would not be allowed.”

A man who refused to recognise political action was not a true revolutionary. Now if he did not declare himself how could it be known that he was a member of the revolutionary working class? So much for the I.W.W. uniting various “Socialist” parties. We did not attempt to reconcile irreconcilable interests, but attempted to form a sound organisation of the working class.

Again, merely being in an economic organisation would not make the workers recognise their position any quicker. Marx pointed out we could learn lessons from countries more advanced, and one of the lessons we could learn was to profit by their mistakes. We take lessons wherever we can get them, but don’t think that what took place in countries more advanced was necessarily right. It often happened that when a strike took place there appeared to be worse conditions when they went back, whereas really they had a slightly better position.

The resolution was carried by 13 to 3.

Fitzgerald, in moving his fourth clause, said for the time being we could do nothing more than be propagandists. How were we going to build up that Socialist economic organisation required ? We should act as Socialist propagandists at every place and time. Seeing that we were at present unable to form an economic organisation we should carry on our propaganda and point out the importance of the political organisation to capture that which would determine the real battle, while pointing out the necessity of the economic and political organisations working together. In this country no real, solid, attempt had been made to convert men inside trade unions. Writing in the Socialist Standard not long ago, E. J. B. Allen said the question of carrying on propaganda inside the trade unions had hardly been attempted, yet in a letter to the Peckham Branch he said that long and bitter experience had proved the futility of trying to change the trade unions. He (Fitzgerald) thought it would be easier to get the trade unions to throw off their old form than to get men to come out and form any new body.

Jackson seconded the resolution and said all we could do was to endeavour to create that class consciousness without which a sound economic organisation could not exist. He would like to point out that this position made it clear that we were to propagate this principle, and point out to the workers that they had got to understand their economic organisation could proceed to use the means of production whilst they were controlled and after they had been taken by the political party. De Leon had said in the address on Preamble of the I.W.W., “It is not a political organisation as the Preamble indicates and I shall prove—that can ‘take and hold’ the land and the capital and the fulness thereof. That—as the Preamble proclaims and I shall prove —is the function reserved for the economic organisation of the working class.”

Anderson said he disagreed with the importance that even in this resolution was being given to the economic side of the question. If we viewed the international concentration of capital all this organisation was proved not only futile but dangerous. We must go on propagating our Socialist principles. We could only teach one great point that the overthrow of capitalism must be the work of the class-conscious workers themselves. If we were going to say we should change the trade unions in the meantime, we must defend those organisations at present—if not we should be pledging ourselves to change in the future an organisation that might disappear in the interim. Why not point out that all economic organisation was futile against the attacks of international capital. Let us carry on our propaganda, and when we have a class-conscious working class we can decide on the most expedient way of establishing the Socialist Republic.

Neumann said Anderson knew full well that those who had been the founders of scientific Socialism had not written in the strain he had spoken in. They had pointed out that the workers should use every means in their power to at least resist the encroachments of the capitalist class. The full teaching of Socialism was not only to teach the working class to go for the transformation of Society, but to form a class-conscious organisation to resist the encroachment of the capitalist class inch by inch. We could not for one moment say that economic organisation under present Society was not just as necessary as political. The resolution showed that we were in favour of economic organisation, but that that organisation should be on Socialist lines.

He wished to either have added to the resolution, or if the mover was not willing to accept the addition to move the following addition :

“And as all organisations, economic as well as political, on a basis other than laid down by the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B., are unsound from the standpoint of our Party ;

Be it further resolved that the S.P.G.B. is compelled to oppose the formation of any organisation of the workers the membership of which is open to non-Socialists.”

We wanted to show that the Socialist trade union should not only be Socialist in name but Socialist in character.

Fitzgerald not accepting the addition, Neumann moved it as an amendment.

The amendment not being seconded, fell through.

W. G. Killick said as the workers became politically revolutionary so they would alter the form of their economic organisations.

Barker said it was just a question of what was the best method of making the workers class-conscious. He believed the best method was by a political organisation. As soon as they became class-conscious they would understand their position perfectly well. Recognising that even trade unions were useful to keep the workers from being driven on the down grade, we could not prevent our members belonging to trade unions.

J. Crump said Anderson seemed to have misconstrued the purport of the resolution. When we had made the workers Socialists the existing trade unions would also become Socialist trade unions. We were not out for the establishment of Socialist trade unions in particular, but for the propagation of Socialist principles.

Pearson said we were told to go inside our unions and prepare to transform them. To do this he thought was absolutely useless.

Neumann moved the deletion of the words “both inside and outside the present trade unions.”

The amendment not being seconded fell through.

Fitzgerald in reply said that at one of the previous meetings it was urged that economic organisation was more important than political, and it had been said that Engels supported that view. Here was what Engels, in his “Socialism Utopian and Scientific,” said:

“Whilst the capitalist mode of production more and more completely transforms the great majority of the population into proletarians, it creates the power which, under penalty of its own destruction, is forced to accomplish this revolution. Whilst it forces on more and more the transformation of the vast means of production, already socialised, into State property, it shows itself the way to accomplishing this revolution. The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property.”

He used the word “state” there, but there was no ambiguity or lack of clearness, for he went on to say with reference to the word “state” :

“But in doing this, it abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State. Society thus far, based upon class antagonisms, had need of the State. That is, of an organisation of the particular class which was pro tempore the exploiting class, an organisation for the purpose of preventing any interference from without with the existing conditions of production, and therefore, especially for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited classes in the condition of oppression corresponding with the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom, wage-labour). The State was the official representative of Society as a whole ; the gathering of it together into a visible embodiment. But it was this only in so far as it was the State of that class which itself represented, for the time being, Society as a whole ; in ancient times, the State of slave-owing citizens ; in the middle ages the feudal lords; in our own time, the bourgeoisie.”

The phrase ”the political . . . state property ” was italicised. Anderson said the capitalists were organised internationally in such a way as to render economic organisation unnecessary. Marx pointed out in “Value, Price and Profit” that if the workers were not prepared to debate the price of their labour day by day in the labour market, they would not be fit material for a future revolution. Economic organisation would have its place all the while under capitalism. With regard to the “capturing” of the trade unionists, that was the old theory of the I.L.P. playing to the rank and file and patting them on the back. We were going to carry on the work of propaganda for Socialism in the trade unions in an open and above-board manner. Boring from within by the S.D.F. had been very erratic. In the main it had consisted of going in and mentioning Socialism only when there was no danger. It was not a question of capturing the trade unions but of educating the workers inside as well as outside. So long as a member of a union had the evidence for every statement he made and fought openly there would be little danger of his being thrown out.

The resolution was carried by 19 to 4.

Motion by Neumann and Carter to rescind Kent’s resolution passed at previous meeting.

Neumann said his reason for re-moving the rescindment was that it was not declaring war on the unions so long as we allowed our members to remain in the trade unions. Again how could a Socialist organisation permit itself to be controlled by another organisation ? We should be as one body.

Carter concurred.

The resolution for the rescindmeut was lost by 14 to 12.

Anderson moved the following resolution :

“That only by political organisation can the workers emancipate themselves.”

Anderson said ever since any one of us became Socialist the question had been, not whether or not we were fighting the trade unions, but how we were to fight them. Trade unionism was concerned with palliating capitalism.

Betts seconded the resolution.

Neumann opposed the resolution, saying that it said something contrary to fact, viz., that the working class could fight the capitalist class without fighting them on the economic field.

The adjournment was moved and defeated.

Anderson, in reply, said just as we told the workers in the trade unions they may fight against a reduction but nevertheless they would ultimately have to suffer reductions, we could point out to them that by political action they could overthrow the capitalist system.

The resolution was lost by 15 to 5.

[Conclusion.]