The General Election: Our Manifesto to the Workers. (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

FELLOW MEMBERS OF THE WORKING CLASS,

Once again the various political parties are seeking your support in a General Election. The Liberal Government, who are appealing to you to retain them in office, were boasting in January last of their “great victory” at the polls. They pointed to the anti-Lords majority of 120 as a proof of their clear mandate and sufficient backing to abolish the Lords’ veto. Yet within a few months of this “great victory”, they are again asking you to return them for the same purpose.

Hardly had the Liberals been elected when Mr. Asquith admitted that he had not got the “guarantees” without which he promised at Albert Hall  he would not hold office.

The history of the Liberal party shows that the House of Lords has nothing to fear from them. Besides acting as a trysting place for their financial supporters, it does duty as an excuse for their broken promises and procrastination. They have raised the bogey election-cry of “Down with the House of Lords!” ever since the rejection of their 1832 Reform Bill, but though in power a dozen times since then with large majorities, they have not once joined issue with the peers. Instead of “ending or mending”, they have been extending, the Second Chamber. A far greater number of peers were created in the 19th century by the Liberals than by the Tories, and they are well ahead, with a total of 40, in the 20th century. In fact, the necessity of rewarding with peerages the great contributors to the party’s funds is, doubtless, one of the reasons for the Dissolution.

After indulging in the most violent denunciation of the Lords the Liberals arranged to patch up their quarrel by holding a conference, which, after five months existence, has been abandoned “for the present” – to use Mr. Asquith’s phrase. During these months a truce was called and we told not to disturb the little game of coddem evidently being played by the wily “eight”. The Government, if returned again, obviously intend to continue the sham-fight ’til the Coronation, when we may expect another General Election – or another conference.

Although the Liberals admit that the reform in the composition of the House of Lords means strengthening it against the people, the preamble to the Government Veto Bill states that “it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists, a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of a hereditary basis”. This Bill gives the Lords power to reject every bill twice. Even one of their own members has admitted the hypocrisy of his party. Writing to the Daily Chronicle (June 20th) the Hon. J. Martin, Liberal M. P. for St. Pancras, said: “The Government have changed front several times on the House of Lords question, and on account of their wobbling since the Election, I have no hesitation in saying that I have no confidence whatever in them.” During the Dissolution debate (18.11.10) he said: “I do not believe the Government are in earnest in their fight against the Lords. With a majority of a hundred members like myself to stand by them, I do not believe there was any need for a dissolution.”

All this goes to show how fraudulent the Liberals are; but even were they sincere on this question of the Upper Chamber it would not concern you, fellow-workers. Mere political changes do not affect your economic condition. The Liberals say that there is not such a reactionary Second Chamber abroad as the British, yet you know that poverty and unemployment abound there as here.

The poverty and insecurity from which you suffer has its roots, not in political forms, but in the class ownership of the means of life. No reform, whether of Tariffs, Franchise, or Poor Law, can touch the cause; consequently the effects persist though social reforms are continually passed.

Even Lloyd George confessed, in his City Temple speech (17.10.10), that “before we succeed in remedying one evil, fresh ones crop up. We are hopelessly in error”. That is a very significant admission. But the very reforms that fail to touch the evils they are supposed to remedy are, the “wicked Lords” notwithstanding, being made the issues by the Liberals at the present election.

Very Old Age Pensions for those on the verge of the grave (adopted because they are cheaper than Poor Law relief); Labour Exchanges (organised to smash strikes and reduce wages); a specious promise to qualify the legal effects of the Osborne judgment (a sop to catch the votes of the trades unions): these are the futilities with which the Liberals mock the care-worn wage-slaves of capitalism.

The Labour Party, as we have continually pointed out, is merely a wing of the Liberal party. It is composed of job-hunters who, like Shackleton, are seeking office in Liberal administrations. Said their chairman in the House of Commons (18.11.10): “It was because the Labour Party believed the solution of the House of Lords question would be a step forward that  they supported the Government”.

Your masters are seeking your suffrages in this election because upon their control of the political machine their supremacy depends. Liberal and Tory alike are out for the maintenance of this system, which means for you a continuation of your slavery. While pretending to be in deadly enmity, they are united as one against you when you try to better your lot. They combine in Masters’ Federations and try to starve you into submission by locking you out when you seek to make your wages cover the increased cost of living – as in Lancashire. They bring the armed forces into your midst to bludgeon you and menace your very lives – as in South Wales. Through their political supremacy your masters control these forces of repression, and if you are to change the conditions under which you work and live, you must fight to get control of the machinery of Government.

In that fight you cannot take sides with any section of the capitalist class, because it is to their interest to maintain this system which means luxury and idleness for them. Neither can you support those parties which, like the Labour Party and the Social-Democratic Party, are parties of compromise and reform. (The latter of these organisations has, in its election manifesto, advised the workers to stultify themselves by voting for the Tories. Their only candidate is a champion of “a strong navy”!) Your interests, being opposed to those of the capitalists, must lead you to ally yourself with a working-class political party waging an uncompromising battle against all the forces ranged in opposition to your class.

Your emancipation can only be achieved by converting the instruments of production from the property of the few (who use them to exploit you) into the common property of society, so that they can be used to produce the requirements of life in abundance for all; in a word, Socialism must be established.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is the only party in this country that consistently works for this end: and as the realisation of Socialism depends upon the conversion of the workers, your place is within its ranks, striving to bring your fellow-workers into line, helping to hasten the day when the fratricidal warfare of capitalism is supplanted by the fraternal co-operation that Socialism alone can ensure.

Pending the time when the workers rally in greater numbers to the Socialist Party, and so enable it to take its proper place in electoral contests as the only working-class political party in this country, it has no candidates in the field. Hence all candidates before you at this election, whether they be openly and avowedly capitalist, or slink at the heels of the Liberals under the title of I.L.P., S.D.P., Labour or Socialist, stand for the maintenance of capitalism, and from the position we have outlined your duty is plain.

ABSTAIN FROM VOTING

on this occasion, and, lest the enemy impersonate you, go to the ballot-box and inscribe “SOCIALISM!” upon your voting paper. Above all, the work that lies before you is to enlist the support of your fellows in the fight for Socialism, for that alone can deliver you from the misery which to-day you endure.

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

The Harrying of Haggerston. The Burial of Burrows. (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poor Haggerston ! It had burrows and warrens enough in its half square mile of mean and congested streets, surely. To have another of each added to the already intolerable burden was too much. That it fired both Warren and Burrows out was therefore hardly surprising. Nor was it more surprising that such a land of unutterable poverty preferred guineas (pardon — Guinness) in the hand to a couple of empty rabbit holes in the bush. Haggerston will none the less find that its Guinness is not current coin in days of want. For the working class ignorance never works out in bliss.

-+0+-

Guinness had a “long pull” over both his competitors from the very start. He knew that the constituency that elected a Randal Cremer must be fairly full of political sinners. The association of publicans and sinners has the authority of the scriptures. The association of bible and beer is equally notorious, if of a somewhat later creation. Moreover, all things work together for good to they who love the lord. And who has more reason to love the lord than Guinness ? Is he not the son of the lord ?

-+0+-

In addition to this, however, he knew his Haggerston. He has even risked the dangers of living in it. He is a “Haggerston man”— for a day or two a year, anyhow. This is real courage. Men have been raised to the beer age for less. But then Guinness is a capitalist. And the capitalists will do anything for the workers, anything—except get off their backs. Mr. Warren, the Liberal, didn’t know Haggerston. According to a certain stout enthusiast who orated from the Guinness dray, Mr. Warren arrived in a cab making plaintive enquiries for his constituency ; while Mr. Herbert Burrows, the soi-disant Socialist candidate, seems to have been in such a condition as act to know which constituency he was contesting ! His election literature bore the strange device “Vote for Burrows and no poverty in Hoxton” ! Mr. Claude Hay the Conservative member for that division was doubtless mightily impressed by Burrows’ solicitude.

-+0+-

The Burrovians very early assimilated their leader’s spirit—bumptiousness. They dismissed Warren from their calculations. They then absorbed sufficient of the Burrovian brand of consistency to make themselves ridiculous. Having asserted that Warren did not count, they commenced to bewail the inconsiderate action of the Liberals in running him. After Mr. Burrows so long sacrificed his opposition to Liberalism on the altar of his friendship for Randal Cremer ; after he had done his best to “pull together the whole of the progressive forces in the division in the fight against reaction.” (Burrows’ letter to the Daily News, 1.8.08.) Warren and the Liberals who were running him, ought to have been ashamed of themselves, splitting the “progressive” vote in that way. The Warren who didn’t count polled several hundred more votes than the Burrows who did.

-+0+-

According to Mr. Burrows and his organisation (the S.D.P.), Liberals and Tories are alike the enemies of the workers, and must be fought. “The principles of other political parties are those upon which the present social order is founded . . . As a Socialist I hold that those principles are against the interests of the nation, especially the workers.” (Burrows election address.) “Away with Lords and Liberals — Burrows fights both.” (Election leaflet.)

-+0+-

But as a friend of Randal Cremer, Burrows prefers to let the principles that are opposed to the interests of the working class remain in operation rather than disturb the friendship. ” . . He persistently refused to contest the seat while it was held by the late Sir Randal Cremer.” (Manifesto of the Hackney Working Mens’ Club, issued in support of Burrows.) Burrows doesn’t fight both when he is pally with one of them !

-+0+-

“All my political and social work has that end (the overthrow of the present social order and the parties that maintain it) in view.” (Election address.) He probably means his political and social work—when he does any, which is not very often. And even that is not true. Anyhow, it all depends upon whether he happens to be friends with the enemy. If he is, he suspends the work—and working class interests may go hang. This is a typical Burrows-cremer !

-+0+-

“Myself and the Liberal Candidate will have to fight beer, blankets, coals, doles, and possibly creeds.” (Herbert Borrows, Daily Chronicle, 23.7.08.) No wonder the Burrovians were upset about the introduction of the official Liberal. With the Burrows’ fight identical with Warren’s; with Burrows such a good Liberal, it was surely wrong to oppose him.

-+0+-

“From this condition (of slavery) there is no escape while the whole of the people do not either individually or collectively own the means of production.” “Nothing but . . . ownership by the whole people will abolish this form of slavery.” “Wage slaves you and your children will ever be, unless you use every shred of your political power to advance your social position as a class.” (From Burrows’ celebrated “No Poverty in Hoxton” leaflets.)

-+0+-

Nothing matters—that is except Socialism. Apart from Socialism there is no escape. Yet nine-tenths of Burrows’ election address consisted of “reforms” that do not matter ! Apart from Socialism there is no escape, therefore as a “practical politician and a social reformer” (Election address) I will not go for Socialism, but for “Adult Suffrage,” “Second Ballot,” “Reform of Registration Laws,” etc., etc., none of which will advance the workers’ position as a class, and despite the fact that (vide Burrows’ election leaflet) the political reforms desired have already been largely secured in other countries “yet at this very moment, there as here, the workers are being half-starved in the midst of plenty.”

-+0+-

The great claim of Mr. Burrows’ organisation (the S.D.P.) is that it never has made, and never will make, arrangements with capitalist parties to secure electoral or other victories. “Last week you stated that I had spurned all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals. That is an entirely mistaken statement.” (Letter of Herbert Burrows to Daily News, 1.8.08.) Herbert Burrows “is one of the oldest, best known and most popular members of the S.D.P.” (From “A brief sketch of the life of Herbert Burrows,” issued to the electors of Haggerston.) A prominent member of the Party that fights capitalist Liberalism all the time assevers that it is an entirely mistaken idea that he had spurned all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals.

-+0+-

Well may the Labour Leader wax sarcastic. In its notes of the 7.8.08 it said : —

“We confess surprise that Mr. Burrows should hasten to deny that he had spurned “all attempts to come to an arrangement with the Liberals.” We have always understood that to engage in negotiations direct or indirect with the view to coming to “an arrangement with the Liberals “in order “to pull together the whole of the really progressive forces in the fight against reaction” is precisely what is meant by compromising with the capitalist enemy.

At any rate, had a letter containing an admission of that kind been sent to a Liberal journal by any member of the Labour Party, we can surmise how scathing would have been the comments of the organ of the Social Democrats.”

-+0+-

A shrewd hit and well merited. The Labour Leader can afford to gibe. Not even at Leicester was there a more shameless, a more contemptible effort made to get in at any cost of principle. The Labour Leader knows that Haggerston has shut the mouth of S.D.P. criticism of I.L.P. “tactics” for ever. Burrows and MacDonald — a pretty pair. What has the honest, earnest, S.D.P. man got to say about it all, I wonder.

-+0+-

What has he to say, for example, to the attitude of his Party and his Party’s champion upon the question of Free Trade ? This is an extract from Leaflet No. 2 of the S.D.P. (London Committee) issued as election literature in Haggerston : “Those who cry, ‘Free Trade’ and those who cry, ‘Protection,’ are alike after your flesh and blood, and by listening to them you are only being drawn away from the true and only road which leads to your emancipation. That road is Socialism.” Against that set this, from Burrows’ election address: “I am, as every true Socialist is, a Free Trader.” And then say what conclusion the working class can draw. What effect must such flatly contradictory statements have upon the working-class mind ?

-+0+-

The London Committee leaflet is correct, curiously enough. The cry of Free Trade diverts the working class from “the true and only road to emancipation.” Those who divert the working class from that road are working-class enemies. And all the vainglory, the inflated pretension, the rant and cant and fustian of a Burrows, will hardly prevail against the evidence of his own documents. Burrows is a working-class enemy.

-+0+-

Consider two further points briefly—unemployment and the alien question. Both are referred to in Burrows’ election address. “The gravest question the nation has at present to face is undoubtedly that of unemployment” says the address. But the gravest question is dealt with in that document only after a long list of pettifogging political “palliatives” have been touched upon. That by the way. The unemployed problem will not be touched, dare not be touched, in any appreciable degree, by capitalist legislators or administrators. Capitalism absolutely relies upon that “industrial reserve.” Yet Burrows talks of setting the unemployed (after thorough classification) to work at “decent and reasonable wages” at agriculture, afforestation, and in the production of the necessaries of life, as if that were possible before a Socialist working class captures control of Parliament and local bodies. And then “decent and reasonable wages” will cease to perplex the bureaucratic Burrows and his kidney. The working class will be in power and will conduct their own affairs. There is no cure for unemployment apart from Socialism. Those who, for the purpose of vote-snatching, endeavour to convey the impression that there is, divert the working class from “the true and only road” that leads to emancipation. They are not seeking working-class enlightenment—whatever else they are after.

-+0+-

The same argument and the same conclusion holds in regard to Burrows’ references to sweating and its prevention. “Its worst forms, however, can be dealt with by Wages Boards and the Minimum Wage.” “Dealt with,” yes, as unemployment can be “dealt with,” but “sweating is a part of our present social system and can NEVER be entirely abolished till that system is changed.” (Election address.) In short, you may patch here, and trim there, so that the appalling, disgusting, degrading effects of this pillar of the Empire’s greatness may not be so patent to the eye of delicacy ; but the problem will remain, the same grim conditions will environ the lives of the unpaid workers. They will still be robbed, crushed, sweated, because “sweating is a part of our present social system, and can never be abolished until that system is changed.” The “entirely” is just dirty, vote-catching dodgery. “Wages Boards and the Minimum Wage” are piffle, sheer, unlovely, unwholesome piffle, and Burrows either knows it or is a fool.

-+0+-

And “both of these (Wages Boards and Minimum Wage) if properly applied, would go far to solve the alien question.” (Election address.) More dodgery, more low cunning. The Haggerston workers have had it pumped into them that the alien problem is the cause of their unemployment and poverty. Burrows therefore drags in the alien question, not to put the truth of it, but to pose as the man having the solution of it, and to scoop in votes on the strength of that. What is this alien question and why does it require solution? The untutored elector of Haggerston is not informed. He is left with the same prejudices, the same false ideas—he is encouraged in them by the cowardice of Burrows. But what matters that so long as Burrows can appear as his saviour from this evil of the alien and collect his vote?

-+0+-

There is plenty more, equally illuminating, equally nauseating, equally helpful to the cause of working-class enlightenment in which we are informed Burrows has spent his whole life. Poor Haggerston, to have to choose between a Burrows and a Guinness and a Warren. If the voters had been obliged to vote (as they were not) and had gone to the booth blindfold (as they largely did), the result would have been the same as now, even if Burrows’ hole received the greatest number of crosses. Between the three of them there was not the equivalent of a tinker’s cuss in difference from the point of view of working-class interests.

-+0+-

And Burrows is typical of the organisation he represents. “I would accept the help of Satan himself,” he said (Shoreditch Town Hall meeting). And he would, even though he knew that Satan’s help would only be given for further Satanic purposes, as the capitalist help Burrows endeavoured to secure and did secure in Haggerston (“Liberals and Radicals are throwing themselves into the fight for me.”—Letter of Burrows to Justice, 1.8.08) was given to further capitalist interests. The S.D.P. knows that the education of the working class depends upon its recognition, and acceptance, of the fact of the class struggle. The S.D.P. knows that the recognition of the class struggle by the working class is hindered, thwarted, often rendered impossible, by compromise, by arrangement with capitalist political parties, by action at complete variance with profession, by confusionist tactics such as were the outstanding feature—the only feature indeed—of the Haggerston election. Yet in face of Haggerston the S.D.P. denies that it is party to any arrangement with capitalism, or is the cause of any working-class confusion !

-+0+-

The case of Haggerston is only another count in the indictment against such organisations as S.D.P., I.L.P., and the rest of the pseudo-Socialist, reformist groups.

-+0+-

The difference between us and them is that we are after the education and organisation of the working class on class-conscious lines ; they, on their own confessions, are after office and the plums thereof , and they are not at all particular how they get them. The candidature of Herbert Burrows was not endorsed by a single Socialist—although the list of organisations backing him necessitated a special bill. The S.P.G.B. repudiated him in the public Press and Haggerston placed him at the bottom of the poll. If our action contributed to that result we take full responsibility. Our hands at any rate shall be kept clean.

-+0+-

The resolution passed by the Executive read as follows : —

“In response to many enquiries as to the attitude of The Socialist Party in the bye-election pending in Haggerston, the Executive of the Socialist Party of Great Britain desire to make clear that they are in no way responsible for the canditure of the alleged Socialist—Mr. Herbert Burrows, Mr. Burrows, who is not a member of the Socialist Party, is standing as a free trade, social reform candidate, accepting the support of the capitalist party in the shape of sections of the Liberal Party in Haggerston. His candidature could not be endorsed by the Socialist Party, he being in no sense of the word a Socialist, or representative of Socialist principles. The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, repudiates him and the organisations responsible for his appearance in the field, and warns the working class of the Haggerston Division against being deceived into voting for Mr. Burrows under the impression that his return to Parliament would in any way benefit them. Finally, the Socialist Party desires to point out that between the three candidates there is no difference from a working-class standpoint. The working class of Haggerston, therefore, are urged to abstain from voting on this occasion altogether.”

-+0+-

Well, isn’t it nearly time the serious student of politico-economic problems, the earnest champions of working-class interests, considered themselves and their position ? Are they content to let their work go for nothing, for worse than nothing, for ever ? Or are they prepared to cut themselves free from the trammels and responsibilities of parties whose work either leaves the working class unaffected entirely, or contributes to its continued enslavement by keeping it in ignorance, strengthening the power of the capitalist class to that effect—are they prepared to cut themselves adrift and come over to the only Party in Great Britain that has an impregnable position in the political field, that acts consistently and logically, and that refuses to be turned from its purpose by any side-wind of reform whatsoever? It is “up to” them to decide. “Choose ye this day whom you will serve”—the working class through the S.P.G.B. or the enemies of the working class through “reform” organisations.

James Alexander

Manifesto To the Proposed International Congress. (1917)

From the July 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain

To the proposed International Congress

COMRADES,—

Residing as we do under the control of the “democratic” British Government, we are not permitted to send Delegates to the Congress to state our views, present our case, and defend our policy, as we so strongly wished. All the more is this to be regretted as our organisation is the only one in the British Isles that takes its stand upon a definite and avowed Marxian basis and follows a policy logically deduced from that basis.

We hold that the Working Class must march to its emancipation from wage-slavery and the domination of the Capitalist Class, by the conquest of political power. In the British Isles the means wherewith to accomplish this are already in the hands of the workers, as, despite certain anomalies in our franchise, the workers have the overwhelming majority of the votes at their disposal when an election takes place. Hence the great, immediate, and pressing work requiring to be done is the education of the Working Class to an understanding of Socialism—to a realisation of their slavery and the method of their emancipation.

The Working Class are slaves to the Capitalist Class. While the Workers produce all existing wealth by applying their labour-power to the materials provided by Nature, this wealth, and the instruments necessary for its production, along with the great storehouse of Nature’s materials -the earth- are owned and controlled by the Master Class under a system of private ownership that necessitates the selling of the bulk of the products upon the markets. But while powers of production increase by leaps and bounds, the markets grow but slowly. Hence the struggles between the various groups of Capitalists for the control of these markets and the routes thereto so that they may dispose of the commodities the wage-slaves have produced. Practically all the wars of the last three centuries, from the struggle against the Dutch and Portuguese in India to the present colossal carnage which is devastating the whole world, have had their essential causes rooted in the demands of the various groups of Capitalists to control these markets and routes.

The Workers’ share of these conflicts has been to slaughter each other in their Masters’ interests, to find a grave if killed, or be offered the degrading and comfortless shelter of the workhouse if disabled or maimed. The hardship, misery, want, and suffering following these wars fall always upon the Working Class. Thousands of cripples and tens of thousands of men with constitutions ruined by military service will feel the horrors of the struggle for existence with tenfold bitterness after the war. In the midst of the conflict the Pensions Minister, Mr. G.N. Barnes – a member of the ILP and of the “Labour Party”, and “Labour” Member of Parliament for Blackfriars Division of Glasgow – has admitted that over 100,000 men have been discharged from the British Army as medically unfit for Service without allowance or pension of any kind. To soothe the ruffled feelings of these unfortunate victims of capitalist brutality this so-called representative of the Workers said:

“It has been claimed that these men should be put on pension . . . . inasmuch as the doctors have passed them in . . . . I want to say that they will not get it while I am in the office.”—Official Report, col. 254, March 6th, 1917.

No matter which group of the Masters win the struggle, the Workers remain enslaved. The division of interests is not between the peoples of the world, but between the classes — the Master Class and the Working Class. Not, therefore, in their fellow Workers abroad, but in the Master Class at home and abroad, are the working-class enemies found.

What interest have the Workers, then, in either starting or carrying on war for their masters? Absolutely none.

Every Socialist must, therefore, wish to see peace established at once to save further maiming and slaughter of our fellow Workers. All those who on any pretext, or for any supposed reason, wish the war to continue, at once stamp themselves as anti-Socialist, anti-working class, and pro-capitalist.

Moreover, where the Working Class have the necessary means —the franchise— for their emancipation within their grasp it is clearly an anti-Socialist and treacherous act to urge them to use those means for the purpose of placing political power in the hands of the masters. The flimsy excuses so often used to cover up such acts of treachery to the Working Class merely add evidence to support the truth of this statement.

Applying these tests of real understanding of Socialist principle and correct action to the organisations in this country claiming to be Socialist, we find all of them except the Socialist Party of Great Britain failing to stand that test. The Fabian Society, with Mr. Bernard Shaw and Mr. Sidney Webb at its head, merely wishes for an extension of the Civil Service system under the control of a bureaucracy, and is opposed to the Workers being emancipated from their slavery. In addition to supporting the carrying on of the war, both the society and its individual members readily support the return of Liberal Capitalists to Parliament.

The so-called Independent Labour Party is ready at all times to make political bargains with the Capitalists and to urge the Workers to place power in the hands of the masters. Thus Mr. Ramsay MacDonald at Leicester, Mr. Philip Snowden at Blackburn, Mr. F. Jowett at Bradford, Mr. James Parker at Halifax, Mr. G.H. Roberts at Norwich, Mr. G.N. Barnes at Glasgow, and Mr. Clynes at N.E. Manchester all owe their seats in Parliament to bargains made with the Liberals, in return for which they gave their support to Liberals in these and other constituencies. While protesting — in some forms — against the war, and now urging “Peace by negotiation”, the ILP allowed its members like Mr. Parker and Mr. Clynes to assist in the recruiting campaign.

In a letter sent to his constituency on 11th September, 1914, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said:

“I want the serious men of the trade unions, the brotherhoods and similar movements, to face their duty. To such it is enough to say ‘England has need of you’ and to say it in the right way.

“They will gather to her aid; they will protect her.” Daily Chronicle, September 9th, 1914.

In the Merthyr Pioneer for 27th November, 1914, the late Mr. Keir Hardie, another ILP Member of Parliament, said:

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

How is all this different from assisting in carrying on the war? How clearly it shows the treachery of the ILP leaders and Members of Parliament!

Moreover, the ILP has allowed its members to accept office in a Capitalist government without making any protest or repudiation. It is true that their 1917 Conference passed a resolution dissociating the organisation from Mr. Parker’s action in taking a Government office, but not only is Mr. Parker allowed to remain a member of the ILP, but no protest at all is made when other members, as Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Roberts, accept office under similar conditions. While protesting against German Social-Democrats voting war credits in the Reichstag, ILP members have steadily voted for war credits here.

The claim of the ILP to be a Socialist organisation is fully repudiated by the actions of its members, of which the above are but examples.

The British Socialist Party has been just as ready — if with less success — to try and enter into arrangements with the Capitalist parties for seats and offices. At General Elections they have shown their impartiality by advising the Workers to vote for Capitalist candidates of the Tory brand in some constituencies — as South Hackney, Norfolk, etc. — and for Capitalist candidates of the Liberal type in other constituencies. The one MP who until recently was a member of the BSP — Mr. W. Thorne owes his seat to the Liberals and Tories in West Ham combining to make him a present of that constituency. In the early days of the war he, with Mr. Hyndman, Mr. Hunter Watts, and others, took a prominent part in the recruiting campaign, calling upon the Workers of Great Britain to take up arms for the slaughter of their fellow Workers on the Continent, although Mr. Hyndman admitted that whichever side won the Workers would not benefit a single jot. Just lately Mr. W. Thorne has returned from a trip to Russia, taken, along with Mr. O’Grady and Mr. W. Sanders, on behalf of the British Capitalists, to persuade the Russian Workers to continue the war on the Eastern side.

In the ranks of the BSP a division of opinion has developed, resulting, after a struggle between the two sections, in the secession of the defenders of the war – Hyndman, Hunter Watts, Lee, Irving, and the rest — and the formation by the secessionists, of the National Socialist Party. The absurdity of the title is balanced by the merit it has of showing how completely pro-Capitalist and anti-Socialist these individuals are.

The BSP has now joined hands with the ILP in a so-called peace propaganda, but the confusion and double-dealing lying behind this movement is shown most glaringly by the fact that both these organisations remain affiliated to the Labour Party that has whole-heartedly supported the war from its inception.

One of the rewards given for this support was the appointment of Mr. J. Hodge, “Labour” Member for Gorton, as Labour Minister. Within a week of his appointment he tried to show his utility to the masters by threatening to use the powers of the Defence of the Realm Act against the Boilermakers of Birkenhead, who were protesting against the rotten conditions imposed upon them by the employers.

The organisation calling itself the Socialist Labour Party has never understood how the Workers are enslaved, and for years has propagated what it calls Industrial Unionism as the method of emancipation. Its attempts to reconcile this position with its claim to be a political party has led to such confusion in its ranks that when the war broke out it was divided as to whether it should support or oppose it.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN alone takes up the Socialist position here. At the beginning of the war we pointed out the essential factors forming its cause which we have given above, and we have steadily and consistently pressed this view by all the means in our power, and maintained it upon all occasions without change or deviation. Thus we said in the first issue of our official organ to be published after Britain’s entry into the war (Sept. 1914):

“THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN . . . whilst placing on record its abhorrence of this latest manifestation of the callous, sordid and mercenary nature of the international capitalist class, and declaring that no interests are at stake justifying the shedding of a single drop of working-class blood, enters its emphatic protest against the brutal and bloody butchery of our brothers of this and other lands, who are being used as food for cannon abroad while suffering and starvation are the lot of their fellows at home.

“Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity . . .”

While in the February 1915 issue we said:

“We . . . declare again that there was nothing in the conditions of any country which justified Socialists voluntarily supporting either side in the war, and record our condemnation of such action as a betrayal of Socialist principles arising from lack of political knowledge and unsound political organisation.”

So, with our own hands clean and our every action in accord with the CLASS struggle and the solidarity of the interest of the Working Class the world over, we bring before the international proletariat our DEMAND FOR PEACE without any change of attitude or re-adjustment of policy. We stand for PEACE without reference to terms, since the fruits of Capitalist war are the Masters’, and only the pains and penalties thereof the Workers’.

The grim humour of the claim that Britain is fighting to “crush Prussian Militarism” is clearly shown by the fact that a Bill is being passed through the liberty-loving, democratic British Parliament establishing “Militarism” in a far worse form than either the present Prussian or the late Russian rulers ever attempted. Men who have crossed the seas because they refuse to accept military service are to be forced into the army of the “allied” country they may be in or brought back to serve in the army here!

To the Socialists of other countries we extend our fraternal greetings. As soon as conditions will permit us to do so we shall endeavour to join forces with our Comrades for the purpose of establishing a Socialist International Congress where Socialist policies shall be decided, where misleaders and tricksters who use the name and fame of Socialism will be exposed and denounced, where the message of Socialism will be sent forth to the toilers of all countries in clear and unmistakable terms, where the gage of battle against the Capitalist Class will be thrown down to the clarion call:

“WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE! YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT YOUR CHAINS; YOU HAVE A WORLD TO WIN.”

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN

193 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1

20th June 1917

The Greater War: Our Appeal For Recruits. (1914)

From the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the members of the working class: —

For the moment the anti-Socialists have triumphed, and Europe is plunged in anarchy and bloodshed, while over the seas pillage and death have spread their wings. The much vaunted “intellectual development of society,” the great “progress of capitalist civilisation,” the “directive ability” and the “administrative powers” that the master class are supposed to monopolise, have resulted in a vile and vicious struggle between them as to which can murder most of OUR class—the WORKING CLASS.

This is your reward for trusting your enemy; for when either or both sides become exhausted in this conflict, the master class will patch up their little difference, but will continue the Greater war—the subjection and robbery of the working class.

“Peace, perfect Peace,” sing the churches; but “pieces, golden pieces,” chirp the masters, and in their fight for markets in which to realise the wealth stolen from the workers, the Christian croakers and peace praters find their answer as the bullets find their billets in the sons of God, and leading church divines draw dividends from the sale of powder.

This is the reward of those who have foolishly placed reliance on religion.

But meantime the workers have suddenly become important, and particularly the strong, young men. To them appeals are being made; threats even, and hints of probable unemployment are given; while the “superior persons” vie with each other in flattering the possible recruit to their murdering machine. “Your country is in danger, fight for it and maintain your liberties!” Such is now the cry of the masters to the young men of the working-class. Strange, is it not, that the masters should now be so concerned with our country and our liberties? The perjured, lying hypocrites! It is their own country and their own interests that are threatened.

The working class have no country (they must go where they can get a job), nor have they any liberties it would hurt them much to lose.

The lot of the working class in this and other countries is just to be allowed to exist for the convenience of the master class. The workers’ portion, in England as elsewhere, is to be ground down in the struggle to gain the pittance to eke out a miserable existence.

Under the Union Jack or other national flag the workers are the slaves of those, who own and control the means of life. Here, in times of peace, THE GREATER WAR still rages: the relentless, bitter struggle against poverty and starvation. Here we have sweating, low wages and brutalising toil, child-labour and cheap female-labour, unemployment, shoddy clothing, slum dwellings, and adulterated food.

Here we have strikes and lock-outs, and the military machine used in the interests of the masters when the workers, fighting for a living, are batoned, shot, and starved into subjection. Poverty and prostitution ever increasing—degradation ever deepening : such are the liberties, such is the system you are asked to risk your lives in defence of. But a far better thing to do is what we ask of you—that is to stay at home and think.

Realise that the only party of the workers in this country is the Socialist Party of Great Britain—all other parties have misled and betrayed you—all other parties are at present betraying you. Get to understand the economic enslavement of your class. Enlist in the army of the Social Revolution. Your OWN class needs you, let the master class see to itself.

Rouse ye!

The Executive Committee.

‘The great appear great to us because we are on our knees! Let us Rise!’ (Desmoulins)

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.

How They Dealt with the Election Paper Ration (1945)

From the July 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the House of Commons on the 9th May the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, in answer to a question, said :

“The Government have given instructions that paper …. is to be made available for the General Election at the rate of one ton for each candidate …. the quantity to be increased by one quarter for independent candidates. . . . The headquarters of the established parties will, in addition be allowed paper at the rate of one ton for each candidate run by the party. In the case of the small parties, an additional five tons will be licensed. . . .”—(Official Report, 9th May, 1945).

The party having already decided to run a candidate in Paddington North, an application had been made for additional supplies of paper prior to this date.

On the 22nd May we were informed by the Ministry of Supply that:

“. . . . The allocation for Party Headquarters is restricted to the recognised parties having representatives in the House and the Socialist Party of Great Britain as such is not therefore entitled to any allocation for this purpose. . . .”

In a further letter dated the 29th May, the Ministry of Supply said that if we decided to put up a candidate he would “be entitled to a quota on the basis allowed to Independents. . . .”

It is not the purpose of this article to complain at the treatment meted out to us by the parties of capitalism, who, in possession of governmental power, have always been prepared to use it to suppress wherever possible the views of their opponents. Knowing them, we do not expect them to do otherwise. We do, however, place on record the purposeful ambiguity of the statement in the House of Commons which, when subsequently amplified by the Ministry of Supply, excluded from the ranks of “established” parties an organisation which has been in continuous political existence longer than most of the political parties at present represented in the House of Commons.

The care which the large political parties of capitalism claim to have for democratic institutions becomes a mockery when they use their governmental power to withhold from a minority organisation a large part of the material which they themselves consider to be necessary for the presentation of their own points of view.

Finally we wrote to the Speaker of the House of Commons drawing attention to the facts set out above and received from the Speaker’s secretary, Mr. Ralph Verney, the following negative reply.

“Dear Sir,

The Speaker asks me to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd June.

The Speaker’s responsibility to give opportunity for the expression of the views of a Minority is confined to the House of Commons; he cannot interfere with the decision of a Government Department, such as the Ministry of Supply, as to whether the issue of any particular commodity can be extended.”

Readers of the Socialist Standard will appreciate from the foregoing statement the difficulties under which we labour in making known the Socialist case at this Election.

Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.

The Late Dispute in Islington. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statement by the E.C.

R.B. (Goodmayes.)—The matter stands thus—A number of members of the Islington Branch were found guilty, by a party vote, of action detrimental to the interests of the organisation and injurious to the cause of Socialism, and they were expelled therefore. They now refuse, we understand, to accept the Party’s decision, and still pose as members of the Islington Branch. This is ludicrous enough, but when at the same time that they are asserting their membership, they proclaim to the world that the Party is rotten and corrupt, the matter becomes sheer farce. We regret exceedingly that our late comrades should place themselves in so deplorably ridiculous a position, but that is their business, not ours. Our business is to warn everybody concerned against the false pretence they make of membership of the S.P.G.B.

The above paragraph which, in answer to a correspondent, appeared in the Socialist Standard of December, 1906, caused several other enquiries to reach this office, and in reply to them we publish the following statement in accordance with the notice which appeared in the January issue. The facts of the case are as follows : A certain branch—the members of which have since been expelled and the branch dissolved—submitted a certain resolution to an annual conference of the Party. The resolution after being discussed was defeated. A vote of the Party was afterwards taken as to whether the conference was in order in discussing the matter at all. The Party vote ruled the conference out of order, and this decision was submitted to and accepted by every branch of the Party. The Islington Branch was not content to leave the matter thus ; it first of all requested a formal withdrawal of the resolution in question. The E.C. answered that as the branch concerned had accepted the finding of the Party vote it was unnecessary to proceed any further in the matter. The Islington Branch was not satisfied with this, however, but instead of requesting the E.C. to take a vote of the Party as to whether the branch in question should be asked to rescind the resolution complained of, or endeavouring to obtain the support of five other branches to compel the E.C. to do so— both of which alternatives were open to it within the constitution of the Party—the Islington Branch, because the E.C. would not insist on “the removal of the said resolution from the books of the branch concerned” (which would have involved the falsification of the branch’s records), accused the E.C. of criminal neglect, and forthwith stopped all propaganda work, thus violating the Party’s rules, which reserve to the E.C. the supervision of the work of the Party. It then proceeded to endeavour to depose the E.C., but signally failed to get the necessary support from the Party membership. 

The E.C. meantime could do nothing but place the matter before the Party. Our rules do not allow our E.C. to expel any member or any branch, but provide for the Party members settling all disputes themselves.

The E.C., therefore, under the only rule of the Party’s constitution governing disputes between E.C. and branches, (Rule XIX) placed the matter in the hands of the Party. In accordance with this Rule the case came on for hearing at the next Delegate Meeting of the Party. Islington was officially represented by its own delegate, and six of its members were present. No delegate of any branch had instructions to vote for Islington’s expulsion, but when the case for the E.C. was heard and Islington’s delegate would not even try to defend the branch’s actions, and when the six members who were present were asked to speak either for their branch, or on their own behalf, and further when one of them (Mr. Lehane) was told that he was the prime mover in, and cause of, all the trouble, and was challenged to deny it and defend himself and his branch, and when he and the others were unable to say a single word in defence either of themselves or their branch, or in support of the charges they had made against the E.C., the delegates present took their silence as evidence of their having no defence, and as an insult to the whole Party.

Acting under rule XXII, the only rule in the Party’s constitution governing Delegate Meetings, the delegates proposed a resolution calling for a vote of the Party as to whether the members of the Islington Branch supporting its attitude should be expelled the Party. Every delegate present voted for this except the Islington delegate. The resolution was submitted to the Party vote and an overwhelming majority voted for expulsion.

The E.C., therefore, had to declare them expelled the Party.

Even this did not satisfy them, and. refusing to accept the majority vote of the Party, they proceeded to “expose” the Party to the general public, and. while declaring the Party to be rotten and corrupt, etc.. still claimed and boasted of membership in it.

Two pamphlets, compiled by Mr. Lehane, have been issued to expose the “rottenness” of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. These pamphlets carry their own refutation, and as we have no intention of lowering the tone of the Socialist Standard—a tone Mr. Lehane was justly proud of when he was in the Party—to the level of the “Political Comic Cuts” or the “Penny Prevaricator,” nor any desire to insult the intelligence of our readers, we respectfully decline to treat seriously the garbage served up in those productions. This much only need we add : Mr. Lehane was for a considerable time our general secretary. In office he proved a good servant to a party which, however, could not and cannot tolerate a master, good, bad or indifferent. Being, however, in that position, Mr. Lehane knew the Party thoroughly from its very centre, and therefore we can only accept the weakness of his “exposure” as a glowing-testimony to our strength. The whole dispute was as unfortunate as it was unnecessary, and we have no wish to prolong the agony or embitter personal feelings in the matter. It has, however, proved that the membership of the S.P.G.B., much though it may appreciate and love its public champions, loves the Principles of Socialism more, and that hero worship, or on the other hand, personalities, can have no place in its propaganda.

Knowing this, we are confident that many of those with whom we have had so recently to differ will soon be with us again, fighting in the ranks where all are fighters but none are leaders.

Letter: Workers and Leaders (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

I have two basic questions about Party members and one question about a statement in the 70th Anniversary issue of the Socialist Standard, which I read avidly.

Question 1: Are any Party members wage-workers? Question 2: If not, how do you pay for food, accommodation and the other basic needs of life under the capitalist system?

On page 90 of the 70th Anniversary issue is printed a picture with the statement “No Leaders — the Executive Committee in Session, 1956”. I wonder how you qualify what seems to be a double-standard statement?

I am a sympathizer with Socialism, common ownership, but I am not yet a member of the only Socialist party, the SPGB (my age is 17). But I hope to become a member and learn much more about Socialism in the near future.

Barry Phillips

London SW9

Reply:

Nearly all the members of the SPGB are wageworkers. That is why we are Socialists. Socialism is the expression of the material interests of the working class, the nine-tenths who under capitalism have no choice but to sell their labour-power and be exploited. Having to “pay for food, accommodation and the other basic needs of life” is capitalism’s atrocious arrangement by which wage-workers perpetually go without; Socialism means free access by everyone to whatever is produced.

Leaders are people with followers. The Socialist Party has an Executive Committee and a General Secretary and members who do various other named jobs. They are elected by the membership, and none has a hope of exercising special influence or making our decisions for us; the constitution of the Party is framed to prevent that. The EC’s function is to put the wishes of the membership into effect and see to the Party’s routine business. That’s all.

Incidentally, Executive Committee meetings on Tuesday nights are, like all transactions of the Party without exception, completely open. If you want to know how it works you may walk in and see and listen.

Editorial Committee.

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Branch has received short notice to vacate its present meeting place at the Co-op Hall in Mare Street, Hackney, owing to a scheme for re-building. Future branch meetings will be held at the Bethnal Green Town Hall on Friday evenings until further notice. The Mile End Baths have been booked for a debate with the Conservative Party candidate for the Mile End (Stepney) Division, on Monday, February 13th, at 8 p.m. Application has also been made for a further booking of the same hall to hold a Social and Dance sometime early in March.

The Manifesto of the S.P. of Ireland is at the printers. We are expecting copies to be available before the next issue of this paper.

The W.S.P. of U.S. has moved its National Headquarters from Boston to Detroit. The address is now World Socialist Party of the United States, 3000 Grand River, Detroit 1, Michigan, U.S.A. The previous headquarters at 27 Dock Square, Boston, Mass., will remain the centre for publication of The Western Socialist, and all matters concerning that journal should be addressed there. All matters for the National Executive Council should be sent to Room 307 at the first-mentioned address.

The Report of the 45th Executive Committee to the 46th Annual Conference (1950) is now in the hands of the branches. The Conference will be held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, W.C.l, on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, 7th, 8th and 9th of April. The report is a very detailed one covering 22 foolscap pages. From it we learn that membership figures are still slowly increasing. At 31st December, 1949, we had 1,071 members. The Executive Committee, acting on a 1949 Conference resolution, agreed on a procedure for enabling members of our Central Branch (comprising those members who reside in an area where no branch of our Party is established) to vote at Annual Conferences. The procedure is being implemented. The Central Organiser reports on a series of meetings held in the provinces at Derby, Nottingham, Edinburgh and Bristol, and says: —

“ At the. moment it is difficult to assess the value of these meetings, but they must contribute to the ultimate formation of branches in the areas mentioned. In 1950 attempts will be made to hold meetings in other parts of the Provinces and it is hoped that our increased speaking strength will make this a practical possibility."

Since the increase in the size of the Socialist Standard from its war-time 12 pages to its present 16 pages, our Head Office has suffered a loss with the publication. Figures are given in the report which show that the normal monthly deficit is approximately £18 10s. 0d. and this does not take into account the expenditure connected with posting and packing of library copies, free issues, etc. Objection is raised to any increase in the price of our paper to offset this deficit. It is suggested that increased sales are the remedy. A 1949 Delegate Meeting resolution recommended that the cover design of the Socialist Standard be changed. This matter, together with proposals for a new lay-out, is receiving attention.

Detailed statistics of the year’s propaganda meetings are included in the report. The total number of outdoor meetings reported to Head Office during 1949 was 950. Other figures are as follows: Indoor meetings, 108; Debates, 14; Addresses to other organisations, 21. Total for all meetings, 1,093. Not included in the report, but for readers who are interested, we give comparative figures for the past few years. These are for meetings that have been reported to Head Office. It has been estimated that approximately 33 per cent, are not reported.

Under the heading “Education” the Executive Committee makes a statement in reference to a 1949 Conference resolution calling for the setting up of machinery “ . . . to more effectively utilise the energies of those members who have passed through the tutorial classes at Head Office.”

“The view of the Executive Committee is that it should be borne in mind that the production of speakers, writers and tutors is not simply a matter of attendance at classes. These kinds of Party work, like others, produce themselves, as always, by doing work and keeping on with it and this would happen, better or worse, if there were no classes. What the classes do provide (in addition to a general survey of Party theory) is a more systematic training and encouragement They also help to sort out Party members leanings, and provide refresher experience for older hands, and their existence as a permanent part of organisation helps to maintain the general level of Party work in various fields.”

The report then reviews the work of the Introductory Class, the Speakers' Class, the Writers’ Class and Special Classes together with the arrangements for an Advanced Economics Class.

The difficulties experienced by the Committee that was to inaugurate the Research Bureau are reported. It had been hoped to publish a regular publication composed of the material produced by the Research Committee, at least once a quarter and possibly once a month. Unfortunately plans did not materialise, not because the response by branches was lacking or that the matter was insufficient, but mainly because the members of the Committee, for reasons of employment and pressure of other work, could not continue the job. Under “Electoral Activity” we are informed of the nomination of G. McClatchie as prospective Parliamentary candidate for North Paddington by the Paddington Branch and of H. Young for East Ham South by the West Ham Branch. Following a Delegate Meeting resolution calling for a new procedure in the manner of appointing Parliamentary candidates, the Executive rescinded the two previous candidate appointments. The new nominations from the two branches concerned were approved (C. Groves being unable to stand for health reasons and W. Waters expressing a desire to withdraw).

It is not possible to deal with all the matters covered by the report. It must be sufficient to say that it is a clear statement of the condition of our organisation, containing no false encouragement, but a plain explanation of what has been done, what has been left undone, what it has not been possible to do and what it is intended to do in the future. Altogether it is good reading and gives one a feeling of satisfaction with the progress made.

The Publicity Committee reports that the Star has declined to accept an advertisement for the Socialist Standard. No reason given.

W. Waters

General Election, 1931. (1931)

From the November 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

[The announcement that the General Election was to be held came too late for us to publish a statement of our views in the October issue. For the information of new readers and for purposes of record we reproduce below the leaflet which we distributed during the election.]

You are baffled and confused. You are asked to vote, but you do not know what to do. You have voted before and have waited in vain for results. You had faith in your leaders, and you believed them when they told you that you were on the eve of better days. You have been deceived, not once but many times. Government after government has come and gone, but they have failed to improve our conditions. Again and again you have been assured that the remedies were being applied, but all to no purpose. Your pressing problems are still unsolved. When you are in work your health and vitality are sapped by overstrain, the happiness of your dependants is marred by poverty. Your peace of mind is fretted away by the fear that you will be the next to lose your job. You had faith in the integrity of Baldwin, the ability of Lloyd George, or the loyalty of MacDonald. But experience has taught you that none of them can give you what you seek. In the days before the War the Liberals failed utterly to keep their promise to abolish want from this land of plenty. You have had years of suffering under Tory governments. But you reaped your most bitter disillusionment when the Labour Government, instead of easing, aggravated your distress. You then realised that the Labour leaders and the Labour Party are no better than their predecessors. Now you are getting mistrustful of parties and politicians. In your disappointment you ask whether there is any road left that is worth travelling.

The Problem Stated.

There is no lack of statesmen, journalists, and business men telling you the cause of your troubles. But their explanations do not ring true. They tell you things that in your own knowledge and observation you recognise to be false. You have lived under Free Trade and you know that it does not mean “peace and plenty.” You or your parents can recall the pitiable poverty of the years before the War. You can assert, therefore, that the workers’ troubles did not begin with the War and the War debt. You have read of the huge armies of unemployed in the tariff countries such as Germany and the United States. You have been told that industrial efficiency and rationalisation are the cure for unemployment and low wages ; but your own experience teaches you that “labour-saving” machinery does not give you ease and prosperity. Again, during recent weeks, you have been asked to believe that “going off the gold standard” will bring you relief. But when you recall the wage-reductions, the trade disputes, and the heavy unemployment of the years between the Armistice and 1925—years when, we are told, we were “off the gold standard”—you will see through that deception. You must go more deeply into the question if you wish to understand what is wrong. There is something rotten at the root of things. It is that the greater number of us have no “stake in the land of our birth.” In this country that we call ours, the fields, the factories and work shops in which we toil, the railways and steamships, even the places of amusement and recreation, are not ours at all. They do not belong to the workers who constructed them and work them. Nor do they belong to society as a whole. They are—stop and consider the importance of this—they are private property under the private control of a small class of people. Because of that our lives are not our own. We produce wealth for others. We produce it in abundance so that the world groans under the burden of what is called overproduction. But all that we get out of industry is a wage just sufficient to provide a working-class family with the cheapest food, cramped quarters, and the least attractive clothes. After paying all the expenses of production, the goods left in the hands of the propertied class are in quantities so vast that they can not all be disposed of at a profit. The workers have not the money to buy more than a modest amount, and the rich, living in luxury, yet spend only part of their enormous incomes. The result is stagnant trade, closed factories, idle shipping, abandoned mines, neglected farms, and everywhere strife and instability. For millions the consequence is semi-starvation and unemployment.

There is only one remedy for this chaotic and avoidable state of affairs. The means by which we all live must belong to society as a whole; to be used and controlled democratically for the common good. Production for use, not for the profit of a propertied class.

The Labour Party is not a Socialist Party.

One popular error must be corrected at this point. Nationalisation, or State-controlled capitalism is not Socialism. The Labour Party is not a Socialist Party. Whether in this country or abroad Labour Governments have always and everywhere failed to justify themselves. In the 1929 General Election the Labour Party roused your hopes with promises of better times. In office they did not redeem their promise. On the contrary they brought ridicule upon themselves and destroyed the enthusiasm of their supporters. Propped up on Liberal votes in the House of Commons, for two years they staggered from one political crisis to another. Reluctant to give up office they prolonged the miserable life of their Ministry by secret bargaining with the Liberal Party. Instead of using Parliament as an arena in which to wage a fight for the workers, they earned by their spineless conduct the contemptuous sneer of Winston Churchill that there was “no fight” in progress, “only a lot of politicians leaning up against each other.”

In the present election the Labour Party have the support of the notorious anti-socialist, Mr. Lloyd George ; again showing that they do not intend any fundamental social change. Mr. Henderson had a private meeting with the Liberal leader on Saturday, October 10th (“Reynolds’s,” October 11th), and the Carnarvon Boroughs Labour Party has decided not to oppose his candidature.

The “Daily Herald” (October 10th) says :—

“Mr. Lloyd George’s manifesto gives a lead to Liberals to vote Labour.”

The Labour Government failed to stop wage reductions in the textile mills, on the railways and farms, and in the co-operative stores. They reduced still further the miserable pittance of their own lower-grade post office and other employees. While they were in control unemployment rose to a record figure. Finally, when there developed one of the periodic crises which are the inevitable outcome of our present social system, they rushed into the economy campaign which the National Government has carried on. Except for the 10 per cent. reduction in unemployment pay, against which a minority of the Labour Cabinet made a belated stand, the whole of the National Government’s economy programme had been agreed to “provisionally” by the Labour Government. In 1929 they promised the workers improved social services; in 1931 they were demanding “sacrifices.”

That ignominious collapse was not merely the failure of individuals. It was the Labour Party and its programme which had been tried and found wanting. They claimed to make capitalism run smoothly and in the interests of the workers; but capitalism can not be made to run smoothly. Socialist policy is the direct opposite. The Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Not to patch or prop up capitalism, but to abolish it.

The National Parties—Defenders of Capitalism.

The parties led by Mr. MacDonald stand frankly as defenders of capitalism. They say that they represent the forces of order and stability, and Mr. Snowden has inferred that all those who oppose the National Government are parties of destruction and disorder. That is not true of the Socialist Party. Just as the capitalist parties claim to stand for capitalism, conducted as well as they know how, so the Socialist Party stands for a speedy but ordered change-over to a new system on the basis of common ownership. Mr. MacDonald is asking for a free hand for any measures, including tariffs, that the National Government may decide are necessary. But there are no measures that can solve the problem of the workers except measures to establish Socialism. Do you suppose that the politicians and parties which separately have let you down will serve you better in combination?

The Road to Socialism.

There can be no Socialism until a majority of the electors have been won over. The workers form the great majority of the population. Organised in the Socialist Party they have but to use their votes in order to place themselves in control of the machinery of government and of the armed forces by which society is dominated. The urgent task of to-day is to spread knowledge of Socialist principles so that the workers may fit themselves for the winning of power and for Socialism. There is no other way. The Labour Party has preached the policy of pleading for social reforms as steps towards Socialism. But recent events have shown that that road leads only to failure and despair.

To achieve Socialism, elections must be fought, not on a programme of reforms to catch non-socialist votes, as is the practice of the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and Communists, but on the simple, straightforward issue of Socialism versus Capitalism. Beware, then, of those, like Mr. Maxton, who condemn the Labour Party and its programme of reforms of capitalism, but who for years have told you to put your faith in the Labour Party candidates. They told you to trust MacDonald. Now they advise you to trust Mr. Henderson, one of the men who betrayed the workers’ interests in the Great War. They are asking you to enter on a further period of wasted effort and lost time, leading surely to yet another betrayal.

Dangerous advice is given by the Communists. They contest elections but tell you that Parliament is futile. They preach disorder and advocate, armed revolt, thus playing into the hands of the most reactionary section of the ruling class. For their own ends they exploit the miseries of the unemployed. Yet eight years ago they were compelled to admit the ineffectiveness of their mass demonstrations. The “Workers’ Weekly,” the official organ of the Communist Party, wrote as follows in 1923 :—

“The unemployed have done all they can, and the Government know it. They have tramped through the rain in endless processions. They have gone in mass deputations to the Guardians. They have attended innumerable meetings and have been told to be ‘solid.’ They have marched to London, enduring terrific hardships . . .

“All this has led nowhere.“

—”Workers’ Weekly,” February 10th, 1923. (Italics ours.)

Remember that it is only a few years since the Communists, too, were telling you to vote for MacDonald !

What to do with your vote.

If you support one or other of the parties of capitalism, including those parties of reform, the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communists, you will help to prolong your troubles. If you are convinced of the truth of the Socialist case you will not vote for any of these parties. You will realise that the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN is the only party in this country that works on sound lines for the emancipation of the workers. Consistently since its formation in 1904, the Socialist Party has maintained the straight fight for Socialism, at all times giving our present warning that the parties of reform block the road to Socialism.

Unfortunately there are not yet a sufficient number of the working class who desire Socialism, to make it possible for us to run candidates in this election. We call, therefore, upon all those who want Socialism to express their determination by going to the poll and writing “Socialism” across the voting paper. Among other things this will help to advertise the number of those who have made the final decision to have done with capitalism and its defenders. The use of the vote to support any of the candidates in the present election is a vote for capitalism.

Study Socialism. Become Socialists. Resolve that you will help to make the Socialist Party strong enough to run candidates at the next election.

The Executive Committee,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

42 Great Dover Street, London, S.E.1.

October, 1931.

India (2003)

World Socialist Movement News from the October 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

In April a 15-page circular emanating from the e-mail address of the World Socialist Party (India) was sent to various people including ourselves. It contained various allegations against the Socialist Party of Great Britain and other parties in the World Socialist Movement, all based on the conspiracy theory that, with the end of the post-war boom in the early 1970s and the revolutionary possibilities this supposedly opened up, pro-capitalist elements had been infilitrated into the SPGB with the aim of diverting the working class, particularly in the non-European world, from learning about real socialism. The content and tone of the circular revealed that those who issued it did not have the same conception of internal party democracy as the other parties in the World Socialist Movement.

The SPGB Executive Committee sent a detailed and reasoned reply at the beginning of May, refuting the allegations and asking for them to be substantiated or withdrawn and for our reply to be put before the membership of the WSP (India). (For the full texts of the circular and our reply see, in particular, messages 2335 and 2441 at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spintcom/). No reply was received, and those responsible for the circular indicated through third-parties that none would be forthcoming. In these circumstances, at its meeting in September, the EC concluded that the people using the name and address of the WSP (India) had put themselves outside the WSM and called upon socialists in India, Including in particular expelled members of the old WSP (India), to reorganise themselves on a sound, democratic basis.

Blogger's Note:

I don't have the date immediately to hand but the World Socialist Party of India eventually rejoined the World Socialist Movement.

The Essentials of Socialist Unity. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Socialist Working Class

Comrades,

In the January number of our official organ—the Socialist Standard—we addressed you concerning the International Socialist Congresses, and briefly dwelt with our reasons for declining an invitation from the Secretary of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress to take part in forming a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress, on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging by the composition of the British section at the Amsterdam Congress, the proposed Committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialists. That Committee has now been formed and its composition fully justifies the view we took of it in January last.

In accordance with our promise, we have forwarded a communication to the International Socialist Bureau, asking that, in our name, a motion be placed upon the Agenda of the next International Congress, for discussion in open Congress, embodying the following proposals:—

(a) That admission to future International Socialist Congresses shall be open only to all avowed Socialist, bodies that accept the essential principles of Socialism, i.e., socialisation of the means of production and distribution, union and international action of workers, Socialist conquest of the Public Powers by the proletariat organised as a class party recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates upon this basis and adopting an attitude of hostility under all circumstances to all sections of the capitalist party.

(b) That all previous resolutions (defining the basis of admission to. the Congress) be rescinded.

(c) That all matters upon the agenda be discussed in open Congress and that the methods of discussion in Commissions be entirely abolished.

(d) That each delegate shall have one vote, but if a poll be demanded, each Party represented shall be entitled to one vote.

(e) That representation upon the Bureau shall be upon the basis of Parties represented at the Congress, each of which shall be entitled to one representative upon the Bureau.

We have further requested the Bureau to at once consider the advisability of adopting one language in which all the business of the Bureau and of the Congress shall be conducted, with the object of coming to a decision upon the matter in sufficient time for the language decided upon to be adopted as the official language of the Stuttgart Congress.

Up to now the International Socialist Congresses have not considered the composition of the Nationalities represented thereat. At Amsterdam, National matters were entered into, when a resolution was passed in favour of National Unity. If the International Movement is to be placed upon a sound revolutionary basis the Congress must enter into the character of the different National organisations which are obtaining admission to the Congresses and affiliation to the Bureau. When the Congress has, by its resolute action, eliminated all pseudo-socialist organisations, such as deny the existence of the class war, or in any way support the capitalist class or its catspaws in their respective countries, then unity of the Socialist forces in each country will be easily accomplished.

We are, Comrades,

With fraternal greetings,

The Executive Committee,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Head Office,

1a, Caledonian Road, London,

December 1905.