Stepping stones to nowhere (1996)

Book Review from the June 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reform and Revolution: Three early Socialists on the way ahead. William Morris, John
 Carruthers, Fred Henderson.
 Edited and introduced
 by Stephen Coleman
 (Thoemmes Press 
£9.75.)

The first organisation in Britain to put forward Marxian views was the Social Democratic Federation which had been founded in 1881 as a federation of Radical (i.e. left-wing Liberal) political clubs and which two years later adopted socialism as its aim and added “Social” to its title. The second was the Socialist League, formed as a breakaway from the SDF in 1884.

The main difference between the two organisation was over reforms (legislative measures within capitalism aimed at improving social conditions or extending political democracy). The SDF believed that a socialist organisation should advocate reforms as "stepping stones to socialism", but the reforms it advocated were the same as it used and to when it had still been a left-wing Liberal organisation.

The concept of reforms as stepping stones to socialism implied that socialism would come about as a result of a gradual accumulation of reforms passed by parliament. The Socialist League disagreed with this position, arguing not only that reforms were not stepping stones to socialism (they were more inclined to regard them as measures to consolidate capitalism) but also that a socialist organisation should not advocate reforms at all but should concentrate exclusively on propagating socialist ideas with a view to building up a mass class-conscious working class organisation to challenge capitalism.

Until now, with the publication of this book which reproduces three contributions by members or ex-members of the Socialist League with a modern introduction, the anti-reformist arguments of the League have not been readily available. Many people have heard of Morris the poet, Morris the craftsman, Morris the wallpaper designer, even Morris the socialist, but few will be aware of the grasp of political realities and analysis that Morris revealed as the main defender of the Socialist League's anti-reformist position, Morris the socialist theoretician, if you like.

In his talk “The Policy of Abstention", first given in 1887 and reproduced here, Morris argues against the SDF position of trying to get elected to parliament in order to get reforms passed as supposed stepping stones to socialism. Socialism, he argues, would not come through parliament (which he regarded as part of the government of capitalism) but through the mass action of workers outside parliament This was why, in his view, socialists should "abstain" from parliamentary action and seek instead to build up a mass anti-capitalist workers’ organisation. This would be political but not parliamentary and have socialism as its aim. As a mass organisation able to organise strikes and demonstrations it would be in a position to extract reforms from the ruling class, though not as stepping stones to socialism but as concessions to try to stop its growth. Reforms, in other words, could be obtained (if that was what was wanted) without needing to go into parliament, as a by-product of uncompromising agitation and organisation for socialism.

Although he came close to it, Morris’s position was not totally anti-parliamentary (he clashed with and opposed the anarchists, who eventually took over the Socialist League and committed it to "propaganda of the deed” as they called bomb-throwing). He always envisaged the possibility, as he repeats here, of the mass Socialist organisation sending delegates into parliament on the eve of the socialist revolution, with a view to neutralising it and depriving the pro-capitalist minority in society of any legitimacy for violent resistance to the establishment of socialism that having a parliamentary majority might give them.

What Morris was saying was that socialists should abstain from going into parliament to get reforms rather than they should abstain from going there altogether. John Carruthers, in his talk on "Socialism and Radicalism" that was published as a pamphlet by the Hammersmith Socialist Society, argues that, even were the sort of reforms advocated by SDF, ILP. the Fabians and others to be achieved (as they had been to some extent in countries like New Zealand), this would not solve working-class problems as their cause—the capitalist ownership of the means of production—would be left unchanged. Carruthers saw clearly that nationalisation of certain industries would only benefit the rest of the capitalist class and not the working class, and so should not be supported by socialists. As to political reforms, he made the point that sufficient political democracy already existed in Britain for workers to be able to use it to gain power peacefully to establish socialism once they had come to want it. So there was no need for socialists to campaign for political reforms either.

The real issue was that most workers didn't yet want socialism, and that was what socialists should concentrate on trying to remedy. Fred Henderson’s contribution—"The ABC of Socialism"—was written some fifteen years later, long after he had ceased to be a member of the Socialist League and indeed long after the League had gone out of existence. By then he was a member of the ILP—he was later to become the Labour Lord Mayor of Norwich—and so was not opposed to campaigning for reforms. But even he argues that as long as the cause of working-class problems remains—the private, or class, ownership of the means of production—then so will the problems. Reforms, in other words, can’t solve these problems; only Socialism can do that.

Henderson’s contribution to this book is in fact a basic exposition of the case against capitalism and the case for socialism, a reminder that before the First World War the argument was not so much about what socialism was but about how to get there. Henderson's definition of socialism is clear enough: "community ownership of the land and of the means of producing and distributing wealth; and the organisation of industry under that common ownership as public service for the benefit of all; directed to social ends and the equipment of the life of the whole people instead of, as now, to the private enrichment of a privileged class of owners".

Adam Buick

Municipal Election Notes. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The S.P.G.B. ran 12 candidates, 9 in Battersea and 3 in Wandsworth.

o o o

The Battersea results were, Latchmere Ward : Craske 117, Moody 117, Money 113 ; Winstanley Ward: Blewitt 57, Roe 49, Witcher 45 ; Church Ward: Greenham 93, Fawcett 88, Hunt 77.

o o o

The Wandsworth poll (Tooting Ward) was, Barker 94, MacManus 77, Dumenil 59. Of these 50 were plumpers, voting solidly for our candidates alone.

o o o

All the candidates fought on the Election Manifesto of the Party published in our October issue, a few of which were distributed in each ward. They had no program of ear-tickling, side-tracking, vote-catching “palliatives” and did no canvassing. The candidates were practically unknown and had not climbed into popularity on the backs of the working class, by posing as “leaders” of unemployed deputations, “right to live” councils, and similar confusionist conglomerations.

o o o

The defeat of the “Progressive” and Labour candidates in London was undoubtedly due to the fact that the promises they had so profusely made had not been carried out. The unemployed problem is still with us, slums are being created at a faster rate than they are being destroyed, the shopkeeper is being pressed more heavily each day between the trusts and the rising rates, and so the pendulum swung round.

o o o

Keir Hardie is reported to have said he regretted the defeat of the Progressives. Progressives are simply Liberals, and Mr. Hardie regrets their defeat ! Why did the I.L.P. help to secure it by running candidates?

o o o

The “Progressive and Labour” candidates in Battersea ran under the auspices of the Battersea Trades and Labour Council, which consists of various trade union branches, Liberal associations, Radical clubs, etc. Many of the T.U. branches are also affiliated to the L.R.C., and therefore, while working with the Liberals, subscribe with the ostensible object of fighting them.

o o o

In 1903, out of the 36 members elected to the Woolwich Council 28 were Labour candidates. This year only 13 Labour candidates secured seats. The Labour Party thus lose their control of the Council. As 72 per cent. of the electors voted it is obvious that the men who voted for the Labour Party at the last election and sent Will Crooks to the House of Commons have now voted for the Moderates. Why ? Because they have no guiding principle to work upon and Crooks, Hardie & Co. have been too much concerned about getting in to endeavour to implant it. Hardie says that the Labour Party have lost at Woolwich because of the Arsenal dismissals, but if the Labour Party had not given the electors to understand that these dismissals would cease and the unemployed problem would be solved if only the workers voted “labour” there would have been no disappointment and no reversal of the position. But you cannot ensure the continued confidence of the working class unless you play the game straight. There is no cure for the evils of capitalism except the abolition of capitalism. Tell the people that at all times and under all conditions, and, although it may take somewhat longer to gain their confidence and support, you will retain it when you have gained it.

o o o

Mr. George Belt, recently the paid organiser of the S.D.F. in Scotland, contested the Starch Green Ward of Hammersmith. He did not run as a Socialist, but under the auspices of the L.R.C. “Labour” was writ large all over his election address. He suppressed his membership of the S.D.F. and described himself as of the “Federated Builders’ Labourers.” But then, of course, it is one thing to be paid by the S.D.F., and another to be seeking the moral and financial support of trade unionists. This is a glaring instance of what the Pearson Paralyser called “The Fraud of Socialism,” but, as a matter of fact, it was only the Fraud of George Belt.

o o o

Our old friend, Free Maintenance, received a very severe twisting at the hands of S.D.F. candidates. Belt made no reference to it. Fulham S.D.F. candidates declared for State Maintenance, as did also those of Battersea, Islington, and parts of West Ham. Rogers and Wilkinson at Southend whittled it down to “The provision of at least one good meal daily to all scholars.” The Southwark men favoured free meals to all destitute children attending the public schools, whilst in Camberwell State Maintenance was boldly advocated. In Lewisham, however, it got back to “Free Meals for Necessitous Children.” It is quite evident that these people have not made up their minds about their beloved palliatives.

o o o

At Northampton the S.D.F. ran 6 candidates, but only one (J. Gribble) was successful. W. Pitts lost his seat. Gribble is their only representative now. Their total poll was 2,912. Last year it was 3,221 in the same wards,

o o o

After the poll A. G. Slinn said that the more revolutionary the candidate, the more disagreeable he was to the capitalists, the more likely was success. No man was more hated by the opposition than Gribble, yet he had been elected by a majority that struck terror into the hearts of the capitalists,

o o o

This was a little unkind to the other candidates.

o o o

Matters were somewhat complicated in Islington. The S.D.F. branches decided to run their candidates ”on their own,” apart from any other bodies. Two of their members, however, C. Cook and R. E. Jupp, were invited to run under the auspices of the Islington Trades Council, and after consultation with the E.C. of the S.D.F., accepted the invitation. They were expelled by the Islington branches of the S.D.F. and promptly joined another. There will be developments.

o o o

These two candidates were not only endorsed by the E.C. of the S.D.F., but were supported by such tried, trusted and true Revolutionists as W. T. Wilson, M.P., C. W. Bowerman, M.P., W. Steadman, M.P., A. Henderson, M.P., J. E. Gregory, and others. And still they did not win !

o o o

The Stratford S.D.F. ran J. A. Bassett in Park Ward, and J. Andrews in Broadway. Separate and greatly differing election addresses were issued by each. Andrews advocated the provision of free meals as is done in Paris, and Bassett was in favour of Free Meals, and, when necessary, of Free Clothing.

o o o

In South West Ham Ben Cunningham ran as a Socialist, but the S.D.F. refused to support him. J. Jones, A. Hayday, and other S.D.F. men backed a local official (a non-Socialist) of a powerful and wealthy trade union against him. Explanations, votes of censure, alarums and excursions are in the air !

o o o

One of the chief concerns of the I.L.P. candidates in East Ham was the cheaper burial of the dead. Said they, “The making of personal profits out of the dead is certainly anything but ethical. Our dead should be interred as cheaply as possible, and any profits accruing to go to the community.” So cheer up ! we’ll soon be dead ! and if only a sufficient number of us die quickly, why, look how the rates could be reduced !

o o o

Justice points out that its members in Burnley, who ran under the auspices of the L.R.C. all ran as avowed Socialists. It is somewhat amusing when a body, claiming to be Socialist has to draw attention to the fact that certain of its members ran as “avowed Socialists.”

Jack Kent

Doubts and Difficulties: Why We Oppose Other Parties. (1906)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Stanley Villa,

92, Duckett-road, Harringay. 

16/9/06.

To the Executive Committee, S.P.G.B.

Gentlemen,—I am writing to you, to express my thoughts on a matter that has given me much food for reflection lately, and anxiety moreover that the cause may suffer. I put the question to Comrade Anderson the other night at Harringay, asking whether he “ignored the efforts of any Socialist not connected with the S.P.G.B.,” even though they may be successful in making class-conscious converts ; also whether he would help, or receive help from, them or not.

His reply was that the S.P.G.B. does not recognise any Socialist not connected with them.

That is pretty definite, but has it never occurred to you that that is a rather dogmatic position ? Can it be reconciled ? Now before we go any further let us understand one another.

I am a class-conscious Socialist, opposed to the two orthodox parties. I accept your Declaration of Principles as a sound basis of waging the class war. I have been instrumental in my small individual way, more or less of influencing others on those lines. There are hundreds of others also the same as myself.

Leaving out of the question for the present whether they belong to any party or not, the fact remains that the result to be achieved is the awakening of the proletarian mind, to which class they belong.

That being so then, it matters little how a man is converted, or by whom, so long as he understands Socialism, and can be relied upon to vote for a Socialist, and not a Liberal or Tory.

The one who taught him, and who was successful in converting him, may have been a member of any other Socialist organisation, or none at all, or he may have been converted in instalments, by different persons, members of different organisations and various unattached, each one contributing to the sum total of information and conviction.

In the face of possibilities like this, and it is a possibility, is it not absurd to ignore the efforts of anyone not connected with the S.P.G.B.? There are many such, totally ignorant of its very existence. There may be members of Socialist organisations who do not see the wisdom of forsaking their society and joining a new party, formed by their comrades, who, dissatisfied with certain tactics in the existing organisations, decide to do so, and wage war on the very parties under whose auspices they formerly carried on propaganda, and for whom they possibly secured many new members.

Just imagine the ridiculous position of a member of the S.D.F. of four years ago, for example, who is now a member of the S.P.G.B., turning round and denouncing the very members of the S.D.F. who may have been the means of his conversion, and some whom he may have converted, which members, moreover, are using the same arguments as he used, and is using, to convert others now.

What sense would there be in his saying:—”You’re no Socialist: you’ve been converted by the S.D.F., and the S.D.F. is not a Socialist party” ? Now, gentlemen, although you may have some reason for your actions and position, you will admit it looks very ridiculous in the eyes of the uninitiated and illiterate mob, such as were congregated around Anderson on the night in question, who, by the bye, were asking some of the most absurd questions, besides belching forth torrents of obscene invective, and giving me the depressing impression that progress seems almost impossible with such awful ignorance prevailing amongst the very class whom we rely upon to help us in the social revolution. And that is the very thing that should be most guarded against. Are not the opponents and the unthinking continually throwing that up in our teeth, that “they are a house divided against itself” and “that is the happy state of affairs that will accrue under Socialism,” etc.? Besides, where is this procedure likely to stop ? It is just possible that there will be members in your party, who will not agree with certain actions or tactics decided upon at a Conference in reference to trade unions, e.g.—and may kick over the traces of the S.P.G.B., and start yet another little band of “determined and vigorous revolutionists,” and they in their turn may also have a split, so that in the end there is a conglomeration of infuriated, over anxious sections flying at each other’s throats, and making the already existing confusion worse confounded.

I hope you see my point: pray don’t think I am going for you or bearing you any animosity. Far from it, I sincerely admire your little party, for the earnestness and pluck that is displayed, sometimes against such disheartening odds. My only object is to reason together for the good of the cause we have at heart. Every Socialist worthy of the name has the sincerest desire to do something for the realisation of his ideas; and if those ideas are Socialistically sound, who, pray, is in the superior intellectual sphere (otherwise than self appointed) to dictate as to whether he can correctly teach others ?

But you will say, “Oh, yes, so-and-so is a very good lecturer, but then he only does good from the standpoint of such and such a party.” Well, for the life of me I cannot see the reason for hostility on that account. I suppose if he were to deliver the same lectures from an S.P.G.B. platform he would be a fine chap, an able exponent, etc. It would seem that the party is the thing, not Socialism. Is he likely to make more converts on your platform ? Indeed, how do you know that he may not have been instrumental in converting some of your very members. In fact every member owes his conversion to an evolution of influence external to his party.

Surely you do not expect to get the whole of the proletariat converted, and members of your party by such means. Even if you maintain that the revolution can only be accomplished by every Socialist joining your ranks you will have to use the arguments of those parties you denounce to convert the “snobbishly” respectable wage slave residents of modern Suburbia forsooth : they cannot be converted by the same tactics or argument used in Lambeth or East Ham for instance.

That is why I for one contend that a united party is neither practical nor desirable at present, when a person is not allowed to think or say what he or she conscientiously believes, but must rigidly adopt a party ticket, they are more likely to remain hostile. But if they can they can be approached through sentimental channels, their prejudices may be overcome, their sympathy aroused, and finally their enthusiasm gained. Thus a much broader field of propaganda is open at present.

Let each section do their work in their own way : they are all aiming at the same goal, only have different roads of getting there, forsooth, if some are farther round, well, they arrive in the end and pick up some strangers on the way that otherwise might never have come.

I do most grievously deplore the confusion that is caused by this and that party wanting to claim all the intelligence, and warning customers not to deal at the shop next door, so to speak. To everyone that is converted I venture to say there are a dozen embittered or disgusted. And where does the freedom of thought come in? We say we want the workers to think for themselves, and then they are told that they must not think that they can realise their social emancipation by belonging to any but, the S.P.G.B. What are they to think of that?

Do let us be reasonable I beseech you, allow every man the right to belong to what party he fancies most; assist everyone who is aiming at the emancipation of humanity from the galling chains of monopoly and capitalism, no matter of what party, religion, race or colour he may be. Then and only then shall we succeed in convincing the world that we stand for freedom, justice, and universal brotherhood.

Apologising for writing at such length and trusting you will see the reasoning of my appeal to you in the name of the cause, and wishing you, one and all, every success, I remain,

Yours fraternally,

Fred W. Tod.

Reply:

We welcome criticism. We are therefore glad to have the opportunity of publishing Mr. Tod’s letter. The more so as we think his difficulty is shared by many.

* * *

Mr. Tod tells us that he views our Declaration of Principles as a sound basis on winch to wage the class struggle. But the whole of his letter is a plea for the abrogation of that portion of the Declaration which declares hostility to every other political party. The S.D.F. is a political party even as the Liberal Party is. So too is the I.L.P., and the Labour Party. The acceptance of our Declaration of Principles, therefore, signifies a refusal to help those “other Socialist parties” in the way Mr. Tod suggests.

* * *

We cannot think that Mr. Tod is justified in saying that we should recognise everybody and everything which is making for Socialism. We do not. We fully recognise that every action of every political party, of every person, and of every economic force is making for Socialism. We know that a political party may be what is termed re-actionary, but to-day the re-action reacts in the direction of progress toward Socialism. This is not, however, what Mr. Tod means. His idea is that there are Socialist parties outside the S.P.G.B. ; that the aim of those parties is the realisation of Socialism ; and that, therefore, those parties should receive the support of the members of the S.P.G.B.

* * *

Through the action of the members of those parties people are converted to Socialist views, and any person securing the conversion of people to Socialism should be recognised by the S.P.G.B. So runs the argument. But how are we to recognise them ? My conversion to Socialism was mainly the result of reading the works of Mr. Herbert Spencer, and of seeking to apply the principles enunciated therein to the conditions of the working class with whom I lived. Mr. Spencer was a militant opponent of anything trending towards Socialism. How is he to be recognised by the S.P.G.B., and are we to help those of whom he is the type ?

* * *

But, says Mr. Tod, how absurd you are,—you who have within the last four years been members of the S.D.F.—to attack that body and its members, and amongst them those whom you yourselves have converted. This is entirely fallacious—false premiss, false conclusion. In the first place we do not attack the members of the S.D.F. because they are members of the S.D.F. We simply criticise such political actions of theirs as are inconsistent with membership of a sound Socialist party. We only condemn the S.D.F. in so far as they have departed from a clearly defined, class-conscious, working-class party. We do not criticise those whom we have converted, for, in so far as they are open to our criticism, they have not been converted.

* * *

The time, says our correspondent, is not yet ripe for a united Socialist party. So we must live and let live. But why ? On the contrary we think the time is ripe for a united Socialist party, but it must accept the Declaration of Principles of the S.P.G.B. There can be no possible justification in any country for the existence of more than one sound, class-conscious, working-class party, and in Great Britain we find that there is but one—the S.P.G.B. We should be pleased to hear of converts being made to Socialism, whatever the cause of conversion. Possibly the S.D.F., the I.L.P., the Fabian Society, the Liberal Party, or the Tory Party may aid in the conversion of men and women to Socialism. So far so good. But when once they are converted they must recognise that the S.P.G.B. is the party which they must join, as this is the only party with a sound Socialist, organisation.

* * *

“What sense,” asks Mr. Tod, “would there be in saying, ‘You’re no Socialist: you’ve been converted by the S.D.F., and the S.D.F. is not a Socialist party’?” But has this ever been said ? What we do say is “You say you have been converted to Socialism by the S.D.F. The S.D.F. is a body whose ‘Socialism’ is peculiar. Do you believe that your belonging to a party like the S.D.F., which does not run its candidates on purely Socialist lines, which allows its own trade union members to break its own rules, which has supported capitalist candidates and made bargains with capitalist parties, is in the best interests of the Socialism in which you profess to believe ? If so your Socialism is tainted and may prove a hindrance rather than a gain to Socialism.”

* * *

The justification offered by our correspondent for the existence in this country of more than one Socialist party is that different arguments must be put forward to meet different minds ! The arguments which appeal to Suburbia do not appeal to Slumurbia. We are, of course, very well aware of this. We know that the interests of the dwellers in the one locality are not the same as the interests of those in the other. Circumstances, however, alter. The trust is rearing its head in this country and will make the interests of the Suburbians the same as those of the Slumurbians. They are all being crushed into the same class with like interests, like aspirations, like ideals. And the argument of class interest which appeals to one must appeal to the other.

* * *

Our friend then goes on to insinuate that in the S.P.G.B. the members must not give utterance to their own opinions. He remarks “When a person is not allowed to think or say what he or she conscientiously believes, but must rigidly adopt a party ticket, they “(the public)” are more likely thereby to remain hostile.” In the S.P.G.B. the members certainly vent their own opinions. The freest expression of opinion is tolerated. When, however, that opinion is contrary to the Principles on which the Party is based it is felt that the reasons which induced the member to join the Party no longer exist. The member thereupon ceases to have a right of membership and must go outside.

* * *

In the S.D.F., on the other hand, freedom of speech is anathema. It is only a few years since that Federation (sic) sent a circular to its branches saying that further criticism within the organisation must discontinue. But even with them where they lose in freedom of speech they gain in freedom of action, especially at election times, when the methods of action of the various members are as diverse as if each were a law unto himself.

* * *

We of the S.P.G.B. are in the position of the Scotsman who said “Honesty is the best policy—I’ve tried them baith.” We have sampled the tactics of the S.D.F. and found them wanting, and we are now trying a policy of unswerving adhesion to the organisation we have formed and of militant hostility to every other. At the same time we know that many of our future members must come from the ranks of parties it is necessary for us to attack. We are opposed to the action of Mr. Tod, which we believe to be pernicious, but we should be pleased to welcome him to our Party as soon as he is able to subscribe to our principles and policy. We have no quarrels with individuals. We believe in the possibility of political redemption for most of those we criticise, and know that before we found the true path we were ourselves possessed with our modicum of political original sin.

* * *

It is, of course, possible that our Party will not succeed, but Socialism is inevitable, and the party which will bring it into realisation will be organised on our lines, with our policy, our principles, and our methods. Believing this we can only think that it is futile to fritter away our energies in helping unsound organisations. We must decline to lower our flag. We are out for Socialism, and this can only be gained by weeding out error, pointing out mistaken tactics, converting people to our ideas, and organising them upon a proper basis. I hope this will go some way to explaining our point of view to Mr. Tod, whose further criticisms we shall be pleased to deal with.

Economicus.

Hoist with his own petard. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The concessions, such as they are, which have been made have been much less due to our agitation than to the pressure of circumstances. . . Would the agitation have been carried on, would there have been any need for either agitation or concessions, if normal agencies—private charity and soon—had effectually grappled with the unemployed difficulty, and unemployment had not, in spite of these agencies, grown and developed into a chronic social disorder? Again with free education. Neither the first compulsory Education Act of 1870 nor the abolition of fees in elementary schools was the work of people who believed in the justice of either measure as an abstract principle ; and neither would have been adopted except that in no other way was it possible to remove that ignorance of even the bare elements of education which had come to be a national danger.

The same too with old age pensions and municipal trading. . . The trade unions are now, with practical unanimity, demanding old age pensions, and many of the great friendly societies are joining in the demand. Why ? Partly, let us modestly admit because of our agitation ; but mainly because of the impossibility of securing decent maintenance for old and incapacitated toilers in any other way. Why, in spite of the avowed hostility of the people in power to the principle of municipal ownership and municipal trading, have municipal ownership and municipal trading grown ? Partly, we may once more admit as a result of the persistent and active propaganda of our energetic minority, but very much more as a result of the utter failure of private enterprise. . . The latest case in point is the report of the Select Committee on the Bill for Providing Meals for School Children. That is a poor half-hearted report on a poor half-hearted measure ; but it does at least recognise the need for giving hungry children one meal a day. That is something; a concession made in the hope of winning over the Socialists, says Sir George Livesey. Partly perhaps. But the chief factor in bringing about this concession lies not in Socialist agitation, but in the circumstances that private enterprise has not been able, in this land of plenty, to prevent the horror and disgrace of the starvation of little children.”

H. Quelch.

And that is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. We reproduce it, despite its length because it may stand as a strong justification of our attitude in relation to reform agitation. We urge the danger and the stupidity of hitching working-class energies on to palliative propaganda. We emphasise the futility of anything less than Socialism and the necessity therefore for concentration upon Socialism alone knowing quite well that all other things will be added unto us either under stress of economic pressure, or because a growing working-class determination to be satisfied with nothing short of the whole product of their labour has struck fear for their safety deep into the hearts of the capitalist class and impelled them to offer anything, everything, but their power to rob, in an endeavour to turn the workers from their purpose. And we are sneered at therefore and are, if you please, “Impossiblists” on the word of Mr. Quelch himself and the Party he partly leads ! Mr. Quelch’s party has practically abandoned the revolutionary position of which we claim to be exponents, and become, largely under the direction of Mr. Quelch himself, a mere reform organisation. Yet Mr. Quelch and his friends continue to utter (on special occasions) the sentiments of revolution as though they had not strayed one hair’s breadth from the straight but narrow way and continue to pose (when it is good business to do so) as the stern relentless champions of the uncompromising policy. Mr. Quelch has framed a strong indictment of his own party’s methods—not to mention his own and as such we commend the article to the attention of our readers.

Correspondence in brief. (1906)

From the December 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

H. C. (Plaistow) asks if A. Hayday, whose name appears on the Concert Program of the S. West Ham Liberal and Radical Club, as President of the Club, is the S.D.F. Councillor. He is. W. Thorne is also a member, but we are not sure about J. Jones.

W. S. (Stratford.) asks why leaders of the S.D.F. have been glorifying J. J. Terrett at a complimentary banquet when on the 26th Oct., 1905, H. W. Lee, sent round a recommendation from the Sub E. C. to S.D.F. branches not to invite J. J. Terrett to speak for them, in view of the attacks which he had recently made upon the S.D.F. in West Ham. Perhaps “Joe” could explain.

Blogger's Note:

More on J. J. Terrett from the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Editorial: Justice or Jaundice. (1906)

Editorial from the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Justice or Jaundice.

Our respected contemporary the organ of the S.D.F. has replied to a correspondent thus :— 

“We have neither the space nor the inclination to reply to the slanders of insignificant creatures who only maintain a temporary and parasitical vitality by venomous attacks on the S.D.F. Such attacks are usually absurd and always beneath notice. The statement in question is absolutely untrue. Lady Warwick has never been to a meeting in Battersea nor been invited to a meeting there, nor sent a telegram to any meeting there.”

Not being in the confidence of the Editor we cannot, of course, say definitely who these slanderers are who maintain a parasitic vitality upon the S.D.F., although there is good evidence for supposing that they are leading members of the I.L.P. who, we notice, are rather given to expressing themselves in terms intended to be hurtful to the feelings of leading S.D.F. men. But if this is to maintain a parasitic vitality on the S.D.F., the I.L.P. may fairly retort that the vitality of the S.D.F. (assuming its existence) has been derived parasitically from the I.L.P., seeing how readily S.D.F. leaders and the S.D.F. organ (which isn’t the S.D.F.’s) fall to giving forcible tongue to their detestation of the I.L.P. But however this may be, and whoever may be the slanderers in question, we suggest in all friendliness that the Justice writer should endeavour to prevent his anger (even the artificially stimulated variety) betraying him into venomous attacks—particularly upon insignificant creatures. Vulgar abuse is no argument, and the slandered one does not strengthen his position by reducing himself to the level of the slanderer. As it is, the language of the paragraph, common as we are afraid we must say it is in our contemporary, impels the idea that there is some peculiar quality in the literary atmosphere of Clerkenwell Green which prevents a man expressing himself—upon certain subjects at any rate in any other than cultured Billingsgate. We confess we know of no other spot in the British Isles so apparently provocative of adjectival splenetics excepting always, of course, Edinburgh !

On misrepresentation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, however, we have considerable sympathy with Justice in its protest against misrepresentation and abuse the more because we are ourselves heavy sufferers from the same cause. Throughout the whole course of our short history we have been made the subject of as much vilification, misrepresentation, and all the other “ations” of contemptuous and vituperative reference, as any party ever was, or, probably ever will be, with results which must have been detrimental to our progress as a Party seeing that, we are in the nature of things, unable to overtake in order to effectively combat, as we can, every product of the tongue and pen of malice, envy, and uncharitableness. Nevertheless, we can say as Justice with honesty cannot, that we have within the limits of our opportunities, dealt with our slanderers and shown them to be such unmistakably. Justice, on the other hand, has preferred we have observed, to complain of slander without attempting to show wherein the slander consisted. This is, of course, by far the safer method when the alleged slander embodies the inconvenient truth ; but unless Justice can succeed in fooling all its readers all the time, it is a method that will, sooner or later bring the grey hairs of Justice in sorrow to the grave. However,

“While the lamp holds out to burn, 

The vilest sinner may return."

And there is still the chance that Justice will repent.

For the present, as it has been represented to us that the statement respecting Lady Warwick may be regarded as in the nature of a reply to the note on the same matter which appeared in the June number of this journal, we will content ourselves with pointing out,—

(1.) that we never said Lady Warwick was invited to attend a meeting at Battersea:

(2.) that we never said Lady Warwick attended a meeting there : but we did say that

(3.) Lady Warwick sent a telegram to John Burns’ meeting there regretting her inability to be present and we gave our evidence for the statement—evidence that Justice will have to meet if it wants to deal with the point at all.

So that (assuming that the reference was, as suggested, to our statement) Justice has missed three chances of stating the truth upon this particular matter and only escaped missing a fourth by the fact that a fourth was never presented to it !

Still we make no doubt that presently we shall have it laid to our charge that we did deliberately and of malice aforethought malign Our Lady of Warwick and other comrades “who have borne the heat and burden of the day”(!) by bearing false witness against them in this connection.

A gem from Justice. (1906)

From the October 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Trade Union Congress of 1906 will remain long in my memory having brought me in touch with a set of earnest comrades whose economic basis is absolutely sound” !

By which we are reminded of that little knowledge which is proverbially dangerous.

A Look Round. (1906)

From the September 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A municipal bye-election has just occurred at Northampton. The Liberals and Conservatives united upon a candidate, who was successful with 1,021 votes. The unsuccessful candidate stood as a Socialist, but polled only 463 votes.

* * *

In the report of the contest appearing in the Northampton Pioneer, a writer says, “The inaction of the workers was most deplorable. Thousands of them refrained from going to the poll. . . Many of the Socialists even abstained from voting. This, I have ascertained, was due in many instances to their belief in the impossibility of Cde. Wright’s success. In one street alone six or seven Socialists would not go to the polling booth, because they thought our candidate was bound to be defeated.”

* * *

Personally, I believe that Socialists, when a definite policy has been decided upon, will pursue that policy, without regard to the prospects of immediate success. When once the workers become class-conscious, understand the one and only cause of their universal poverty, and that nothing but the Social Revolution will effect a change, there will be no occasion to complain of their inaction. But to induce a man to vote for a “Socialist” candidate because his program contains a number of “reforms” which it is hoped the capitalist class may be induced to concede, does not make him class-conscious.

* * *

The fact that a candidate’s program may have a “Socialist objective” does not alter the position. In the canvassing and campaigning generally that usually receives very little reference. It is the “immediate reforms” that are kept to the front, with the object of tickling the ears of the electors sufficiently to induce them to record their votes. One man votes “Socialist” because the candidate favours a minimum wage of 30/- a week; another because he advocates that children should have one free meal a day, and so on ; but it can’t be claimed that they understand the principles of Socialism, and therefore they are an unreliable quantity.

* * *

And often candidates with a “Socialist objective” do not understand the principles of Socialism how to translate those principles into intelligent action. When such are elected they are hampered by lack of knowledge as well as lack of opportunity, and the cause of Socialism thereby suffers.

* * *

As with individuals, so with societies. It is claimed, for instance, that the Gas Workers’ Union and the Engineers’ Society have a “Socialist objective,” but that has not prevented the E.C. of the former sending W. Thorne to support capitalist candidates, thus acting as a decoy duck for the master class, nor the latter subscribing to John Burns’ Wages Fund. Merely having a “Socialist objective” does not make a society, political or industrial, a class-conscious, revolutionary Socialist organisation, whatever high-sounding title may be given to it.

* * *

John Knight & Sons, Ltd., Soap Makers, Silvertown, have just declared the result of the second year’s working of their bonus scheme. The Managing Director pointed out that they had had to face exceedingly severe competition and they could only meet it by trying their very utmost to reduce the cost of manufacture and distribution. “Their idea was to encourage all those associated with them in business to expend all the energy they were capable of in order that they might attain the object they had in view.” The bonus arrangement is that for every one per cent. over six per cent. that the Company earn, the employees in regular employ receive one week’s wages. The bonus this year, as last, was three weeks’ wages.

* * *

It was stated at the meeting that in the works they had 18 different departments, each of which had to show by weekly profit and loss accounts what it was doing. This also enabled them to see how the different employees in the various departments were turning out their work. But for three departments, owing to the severe competition and the high price of raw material, the bonus could not have been paid. With those three departments the workers had really nothing to do.

* * *

The Directors, in their generosity, decided to renew the bonus scheme for another year, and hoped the men would show their appreciation of it in the way that they should.

* * *

It is all so very simple. For twelve months the workers are to “expend all the energy they are capable of.” They are to risk getting squeezed out and thrown on the capitalist scrap heap earlier than usual, with the object of getting two or three weeks’ wages as a bonus at the end of the year, if trade has been sufficiently good to provide them with regular employ. The wages bill must, of course, be kept down, and in busy times the men must work sufficiently hard to keep the unemployed at the gate. At the end of twelve months they may succeed in adding a shilling or so a week to their wages for the whole year, at the expense of a few years of their lives, and, on the other hand, having slaved hard all the year, circumstances over which they have no control, unfavourable markets, competition, and bad management, may prevent profits reaching the necessary percentage, and the reward after all the slaving is—a lecture.

* * *

Sir W. B. Forwood, presiding at the half-yearly meeting of the Liverpool Overhead Railway, gave as one of the reasons for the present unfortunate state of the concern, the concentration of ships and steamers into few hands. The result of this was, he said, that instead of a large number of individual owners, each of whom employed his own stevedore and gang of men, steamers were now worked by staffs attached to a particular dock, and not only was it not necessary for these men to make use of the railway, but a further trouble was that the increasing adoption of mechanical means for loading and unloading vessels had very largely reduced the number of hands employed.

* * *

Economic evolution is the term applied by Socialists to this concentration of capital into fewer hands, the extension and adoption of mechanical appliances, the sub-division of labour, etc. If some of those who are groping about to discover why there is an unemployed problem would study this economic trend they might be enlightened somewhat.

* * *

Last month, for the first time in the history of the Port of London, a cargo of tea was discharged by electricity. On August 1st the “Huntsman,” of the Harrison Line, laden with tea from Calcutta, was unloaded by a system of continuous rollers worked by electricity. The chests were placed on the rollers and conveyed from the ship’s hold to the storage shed, without intervention by men or the existing hydraulic machinery. The new process obviates breakages of the chests, hitherto very numerous, and reduces the number of men employed.

* * *

It is such instances of economic evolution which justify the attitude of the S.P.G.B. to the reform parties. They prove “The Futility of Reform.”

* * *

Mr. Edward Tregear, Secretary for Labour, Department of Labour, New Zealand, writing under date Dec. 14, 1905, said, “Every advantage in wages, etc., gained for the workers by arbitration is being exploited and neutralised by robber rents.”

* * *

It is a far cry from New Zealand to Woolwich, and yet Lord Goschen, a Tory Cabinet minister, declared in the House that whenever the wages of the Arsenal workmen had been raised the landlords had raised rents and left the working class as before.

* * *

It is impossible to get out of the vicious circle of capitalism, excepting by the complete abolition of the capitalist system.

J. Kay

S.D.F. apologist and S.P.G.B. critic. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Speaking at Watford on June 24th last Mr. A.S. Albery, of the S.D.F., a one-time member (for a few months) of this Party, in answering questions put to him from the audience, stated

1. That he was not a consenting party to the appearance of his name on the manifesto issued by most of the active London members of the S.D.F. prior to their withdrawal from that body (because it had ceased to be the political party of the working class) to found The Socialist Party of Great Britain.
2. That he protested against the use of his name in that connection and that a Party must be corrupt that would use names in such away without authority.
3. That he was no sectarian Socialist and did not therefore withdraw from the I.L.P., of which he was a member, during the period of his association with The Socialist Party of Great Britain.
4. That he was a Marxian Socialist.
5. That the S.P.G.B. did not seem to understand what Marxian Socialism was.
6. That it was true that members of the S.D.F. were members also of the National Liberal Club, but only for social purposes. Membership of that club had no political significance.

We take the trouble to deal with these statements because Mr. Albery is a fairly prominent member of the S.D.F. whose methods we attack and may be accepted as representing the views of that organisation upon the questions raised. Also because Mr. Albery’s brief association with the S.P.G.B. may incline some to the view that he has special knowledge of this Party’s position and has expressed that knowledge in the statements recorded above. Further, because we welcome any criticism of our position and are glad of any opportunity to reply to it and remove any misapprehension that may exist, our desire being to discuss plainly and properly all matters of working-class concern and vindicate the correctness of our attitude thereupon or acknowledge our error.

Our replies to these assertions therefore are, (1 and 2) that the individuals who drew up the first manifesto containing an indictment of the S.D.F. position and a justification of the attitude of the protesting members, included A. S. Albery, who framed part of it himself; that he was present at the several meetings, held at his own house, at which the manifesto was discussed in detail and finally approved of; that Albery was a member of the Provisional Committee which arranged the matters preliminary to the formation of this Party ; that as a member of that Committee his name appears upon a second manifesto issued prior to the establishment of the Party, a document which confirmed the first manifesto in every particular and added considerable additional evidence for the conclusion that the S.D.F. was politically corrupt. This second document also called the meeting at which the Party was inaugurated. Albery was present at this inaugural meeting. He said no word of opposition to the formation of the Party, nor of protest against any unfair use of his name. He accepted nomination for membership to the first Executive Committee and was elected. He approved the Declaration of Principles, which all members must sign, and we have his signed form in our possession. As a member of the E.C. he endorsed the attitude of the Party, and undertook the administration of the Party policy and the application of the Party rules. He never questioned, because he could not then and cannot now, the accuracy of any statement appearing in the two manifestoes (which, as we have said, he was part author of), nor can we find any record or recollection of any protest of the sort now entered.

If in the face of all this Albery asserts that he did not acquiesce in the publication of the document referred to, he either deliberately fabricates or is the victim of a woeful mental aberration. If it was not issued with his full knowledge and approval, he has to explain his large participation in the subsequent development of that document. If, on the other hand, the recital of particulars contained in the foregoing enables him to remember sufficient to justify the withdrawal of the statement now made, he has to explain when the S.D.F. ceased to be the corrupt organisation he asserted with good evidence it was, two years ago. So much for numbers 1 and 2.

(3) The Declaration of Principles (see page 1 of this paper) signed by Albery pledges opposition to all other political parties. If, therefore, he was a member of the I.L.P., which he was pledged to fight as a member of the S.P.G.B., Albery is correct when he says he is not a sectarian Socialist—he is merely a fraud.

(4) Actions speak louder than words. The acts of Marxian Socialists express consistent and unwavering antagonism to Capitalism and the capitalist class. The acts of the S.D.F. which Albery claims membership of, do nothing of the kind on Albery’s own shewing in the second manifesto previously referred to. Albery, therefore, either does not know what Marxian Socialism is or asserts what he knows to be untue.

(5) This statement certainly lacks the only thing that can give it weight—evidence. Albery was challenged to produce his and could not.

(6) The subscriptions of members to the National Liberal Club are used for Party purposes. The Club is the Head Quarters of Capitalist Liberalism and its sycophants. It is directly concerned with the organization of the Liberal vote and the direction of the Liberal forces. Its act in donating £100 to John Burns wages fund in the old days was chock-full of political significance. Every member who joins it is a supporter of the Liberal Party if only to the extent of his subscription.

That is our answer to Mr. Albery’s allegations. In defence of his present unfortunate, not to say ludicrous, position as a member of a Party whose actions on his own shewing will not bear analysis, he may be making the same or similar charges and assertions in other places. We shall always be glad to deal with any such directly they reach us. Misrepresentation and inaccuracy are exceedingly difficult to overtake and we prefer to give them as short a start as possible. We are, therefore, obliged to our Watford Comrade for his prompt action.

We only need add that if Mr. Albery has any desire to communicate with us direct upon any point which may constitute a grievance with him or a charge against us, we shall be happy to hear from him.

The Note Book. (1906)

From the July 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

It’s come at last ! I knew it would if we only kept at it long enough. When you call a man say, a thief, and prove it, he has no reply except perhaps “you’re another.” When we say a Party has sold out to the capitalist class and prove it, there is no reply possible except perhaps “so have you.” After Camborne it is therefore not surprising that we should hear from the S.D.F. that we are financed by the capitalist class. The allegation comes from Bradford. I understand it’s quite a common sort of charge against us there in the S.D.F. branch. Deponent sayeth that this paper is run by a wealthy American gent (name and extent of financial resources unknown) who pours his wealth into our party exchequer to the end that we may break up the Socialist movement in this country. We are, it seems, bold bad persons of no delicacy, and we are also, at last, discovered—in Bradford.

o o o

It’s such a pretty story that I am fain to withhold my hand from writing that which will burst it. Yet must I. Therefore be it known to all men that, like so much of the information that cometh out of the S.D.F., this story is entirely untrue. Unlike the S.D.F. this Party’s Treasurer is not allowed to issue all-embracing items of expenditure such as “Ink and Sundries £50,” or similar statements. He must give to all the membership a full detailed return of income and expenditure. These returns, supplied quarterly and annually, can be inspected by arrangement with any of our Branch secretaries, or through the Head Office. That should, I think, dispose of our American millionaire. Will the S.D.F. allow the same inspection of their books ? or the I.L.P.? or any other party claiming to represent the working class as against the capitalist class ?

o o o

Speaking for the S.D.F. at Tottenham, on Sunday, June 25th, Mr. Whitlock of the Stratford Branch, said “I would not have crossed my doorstep to vote for Will Thorne at the last election.” Referring to an interview he had had the previous week with Mr. H. M. Hyndman he said “Mr. Hyndman declared himself utterly disgusted with the present Executive Committee of the S.D.F.” Here’s a pretty kettle of fish !

Mr. Hyndman utterly disgusted with his Executive and Mr. Whitlock utterly disgusted with Mr. Thorne. It’s a great Party !

o o o

“Socialists don’t desire to get into Parliament quickly : they desire to make Socialists. And they can make Socialists best by teaching Socialism, not by masquerading as ‘Labour’ men.” This is not an extract from a back number of the Socialist Standard—it is from the “Answers to Correspondents” column of the Clarion, of all papers in the world ! And the Clarion is a thick-and-thin supporter of the gentlemen masquerading as “Labour” men, and says that what the workers want is more of ’em ! Well! Well ! If consistency is a jewel the Clarion men must have realised on theirs very early in their career, if, indeed, they ever had it.

o o o

In reply to a question put to him in the House of Commons on May 23rd, Mr. John Burns said it was not true that he stated in 1886 that there were five millions of people in England on the verge of starvation. We fear that John Burns’ memory, like most other official memories, has grown very short. Speaking from the Old Bailey Dock when on trial for conspiracy on April 9th, 1886, Mr. Burns said, “I say we cannot have in England as we have to-day, five millions living on the verge of pauperism, without gross discontent.” This speech was published at the time in pamphlet form, and was sold widely. It has been sold by Burns’ supporters and by Burns himself. A copy of it, unless I am very mistaken, is at the present time among Mr. Burns’ collection. I have never heard of Burns repudiating the accuracy of his reported remarks before. It is only now, when it is brought up in evidence against his official view of the poverty problem that he denies it. Which brings us to this : either Burns was disseminating a falsehood then or he is disseminating a falsehood now. On the evidence of the supporters of the Party he belongs to, like Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. Rowntree, the statement made at the Old Bailey must have been well within the mark. Therefore it is now that Mr. Burns is fabricating

o o o

The question referred to was asked, I observe, by Mr. Will Thorne and Mr. Thorne is a regular reader of this paper, as I happen to know. And in this paper for May we reproduced extracts from Burns’ speech in the Dock. The source of Mr. Thorne’s information, therefore, is clearly the Socialist Standard ; and not a bad source either. I commend Mr. Thorne’s example to the other “Labour” members. A regular and careful perusal of the Socialist Standard would, I am sure, do them a world of good. The terms, gentlemen, are 1s. 6d. per annum, post free.

o o o

When Mr. Burns denied the accuracy of Mr. Thorne’s statement, Mr.Thorne replied that he had the evidence in his pocket. A thousand pities Mr. Burns did not challenge its production.

o o o

I observe that the S.D.F. have endeavoured to secure kudos from the incident by reprinting the speech referred to. We published a few extracts only in order to effect a sharp contrast between the Burns of the eighties and the Burns of to-day. The possibility of reproducing the whole speech was discussed by us several months ago but, although we could see that it would find a ready sale, the idea was rejected because there would be no propagandist value in the document by itself. Like most of Burns’ speeches (in this respect at any rate the gentleman has consistency) it was largely wind and bombast. Apart from their educational possibilities we have no concern with the publication of pamphlets. Because it had no educational possibilities we rejected the Burns’ speech pamphlet. For the same reason, apparently, the S.D.F. seized upon it. They are very welcome.

o o o

Mr, Thorne has, it seems, nearly arrived at the conclusion that if anything is to be done in the matter of the unemployed, they will have to do it themselves. “They,” I presume, means the “Labour” members. William must have been very muddle headed if he thought the Government was ever likely to do more than the exact equivalent of nothing. And William must be still more muddle-headed if he thinks the “Labour” members can do anything worth talking about. If William wants reasons and has preserved his back numbers of the Socialist Standard, he will find any number of them have already appeared in our columns. If he wants any more, a note to the Editorial address will receive prompt attention,

o o o

On the authority of The Labour Record, this—”while Parliament sits in the sweltering heat of these summer days discussing dogma, trifling about tittles and often failing to take occasion by the hand, J. R. Clynes, the Labour representative for North East Manchester, sits quiet, emotionless, imperturbable, noting everything and forgetting nothing ! Someday he will arouse himself—and then !” Lor ! Someday he will arouse himself. Note that, impatience ! Someday—and then? Well, frankly, I don’t know what then ; but I conclude, there’s a good time coming boys when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. We may wipe away all tears from our eyes—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. And we shall have a time—when Mr. Clynes arouses himself. But why, oh, why! does he sit quiet, emotionless, imperturbable ? Why doesn’t he arouse himself?

o o o

Quoth the Daily News in adverse criticism of that prince of political judges Sir William Grantham (whose judicial calm and serenity by the way, appears to find highest expression in speech husky with emotion and watered with the bitterest of tears !)—”We do not complain of the Bodmin decision as it stands by itself. The serious part of the business is that the election at Bodmin should be declared void while the elections at Yarmouth and Maidstone are allowed to stand.” The naiveté is charming. The serious part of the business, the part that really matters is that two Conservatives retain their seats while the poor Liberal loses his. If now, it had been two Liberals who had maintained their positions and a Conservative who had failed, it wouldn’t have been nearly so serious a matter. Indeed, there would have been nothing at all calling for comment except, perhaps, the skilful discrimination and the even-handed justice of the be-wigged and very learned exponent of law on the Bench. As it is, the really serious part of the business to the Liberal Daily News is that all three Liberals have failed—two in their efforts to unseat their opponents and one in his effort to himself remain seated !

o o o

In the matter of the Daily News—can anyone tell me why its “Life and Labour” column now appears only about once a week ? Was the writer too out-spoken, giving offence to too many good Liberals and true ; or has the need for the maintenance of the fiction which the Daily News was so assiduous in disseminating about the time of the General Election, that the Liberal Party is the Party of the workers, the Party of Progress and industrial reform, etc., etc., ad nauseam, now ceased to exist ? Many of those who take in, and are taken in by, the Daily News, incline to the first view. I accept the second. The good Liberals and true, don’t mind the “Life and Labour” column fillips so long as the writer is always careful to muddle the real issue of the irreconcilable antagonism existing between working-class interests and the interests of that section of capitalism represented in the Liberal Party.

o o o

It is time the good Liberals aforesaid could always rely upon the good Liberals in the editorial and sub-editorial chairs deleting anything particularly objectionable, but I don’t think there would have ever been serious occasion for their intervention. Those who are familiar with the writings of the “Life and Labour” column man know how adroitly he can steer himself out of the danger zone while leaving in the mind of the casual reader the impression that he has faced the whole problem and arrived at the only conclusion. They know too that it is inconceivable that a man can get so near the truth without seeing it, and they know, therefore, that the writer referred to can be relied upon to say just enough and no more. It may consequently be fairly concluded that the Daily News does not now think it necessary to particularly emphasize the fiction mentioned. When the time comes again, as it surely will, the “Life and Labour” column or its equivalent will surely reappear as a regular feature.

Editorial: The Countess of Warwick and John Burns. (1906)

Editorial from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A considerable amount of interest appears to have been aroused by a statement which appeared in a recent number of this journal to the effect that the lady who came down from her exalted position to become a member of the lowly S.D.F. (the Countess of Warwick) sent a telegram to the gentleman who left his lowly position as a member of the S.D.F. to ascend to an exalted sphere (the Right Honourable John Burns) regretting her inability to attend one of his election meetings, and wishing him success. We have received quite a number of communications on the subject, and have been requested to state the grounds upon which the statement was made. Our correspondents appear to be astonished that a member of the S.D.F. should have taken a course so entirely opposed to the attitude of that body, and apparently are unable to understand why, if such a telegram was sent, the organisation has taken no steps to repudiate either the member or the action. So far as we are concerned, however, the only cause for surprise lies in the fact that there is evidently still a number of persons who see in the incident something incongruous—persons who, it would seem, are students of, or at any rate interested in, contemporary English politics. We can only commend to them a perusal of back numbers of the Socialist Standard and the pamphlet called the Manifesto of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, wherein they will find a record of many incidents of a similar character. Not only are members of the S.D.F. continually taking public action opposed to the policy for the time being of that organisation, but the organisation itself is continually taking action in flat contradiction to its professed principles. In the matter of John Burns its attitude to-day is one of virulent denunciation, but to-morrow it would not be a surprising thing if it were the complete opposite. On the contrary, it would be strictly in accordance with precedent. In the past it has roundly trounced the Right Honourable gentleman and a week or two afterwards supported him, although his attitude was unchanged, just as in the past it has been engaged in roundly trouncing the capitalist party Burns is a member of, while its members and branches have been actively engaged in assisting the candidatures of representatives of that party. Sufficient evidence to satisfy the most hard-shelled unbeliever can be found in the file of this paper and the Manifesto mentioned.

Therefore we may say that neither the present action of the Countess nor the lack of action of the S.D.F. is ground for incredulity. Indeed, there is less ground in this instance than in many others of a similar nature, because in the other cases the members concerned were just common or garden persons while the Countess is an exceedingly valuable asset. Her personality and associations secure for the S.D.F. most useful advertisement (much to the very pronounced disgust of the I.L.P., which regards itself as the refuge par excellence for all aristocratic and plutocratic persons with bees in their bonnets or democratic yearnings in their hearts, and is naturally incensed that the S.D.F. should have poached upon its preserves to such good purpose). Besides which has it not been told in Gath that “a mere drawerful of jewels” has been at the S.D.F’s disposal ? Very well then ; why should the S.D.F. take action ? Why should it risk a trump card ?

But if our correspondents want the evidence they may have it. We only hope its publication may serve as a further justification for our opposition to the S.D.F. and similar bodies, and by establishing a fact in proof of the supine, vacillating and confusing attitude of that organisation, help to direct the working-class mind to the consideration of the only principles and the only policy upon which a working-class party capable of effecting those social changes which alone will remove poverty and all its concomitant evils from out of working-class experience, can be built up—the principles and policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, as summarised on the front page of this paper.

This is the evidence :—

1. Several members of this Party were present at the meeting and heard the telegram read (names and addresses can be supplied if desired).
2. Our Comrade Fitzgerald, speaking at Battersea on the Sunday following, was challenged by Mr. Archer, a prominent supporter of Burns, who, under the impression that Fitzgerald was a member of the S.D.F., demanded to know why he (Fitzgerald) was opposing Burns when the Countess was supporting him according to the telegram he (Archer) heard read at Burns’ meeting.
3. The written statement of Mr. J. H. Brown, Hon. Sec. of Burns’ Election Committee, who informs us that he received application to reserve seats on the platform of Burns’ meeting for Lady Warwick and friends ; that Lady Warwick was unable to attend and sent a telegram of regret etc.
4. A written communication from Mr. W. Rines (Mayor of Battersea) whose recollection was that some such telegram was received and read.
5. The report of the Battersea Borough News, Jan. 12th, 1906, which concludes “Telegrams expressing regret at their inability to attend were received from Lady Warwick and Lady Collins.”

For our purposes statements 1 and 2 (the reports of our own members of public incidents well within the knowledge of the large audiences of both Burns’ and Fitzgerald’s meetings) are good enough. Statements 3, 4 and 5 only confirm and amplify those reports. Our correspondents may consider all of them in conjunction with the fact that another prominent member of the S.D.F. (its treasurer, Mr. J. F. Green) speaking at Hammersmith on April 22, informed his audience that they had only one “working man” in the Cabinet who could not do much by himself, and that what they wanted was to send another six working men to help him from, which we conclude that, according to Mr. Green, the S.D.F. is all wrong, and that there is nothing deplorable about Mr. Burns’ position except that there is not more of him !

Editorial: Why Mr. H. Quelch resigned. (1906)

Editorial from the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

We intended dealing with the matter of the resignation of Mr. H. Quelch from the Chairmanship of the London Trades Council last month, but the April issue of the Trades and Labour Gazette, containing the official report, did not reach us until we were going to press.

“Mr. H. Quelch announced his resignation at the ordinary meeting of the Council, held at the Club Union Hall, on March 8th, after a letter had been read from John Burns, sincerely thanking the Council for its expression of congratulations on his appointment to the Cabinet. He (Mr. Quelch) wished to announce that he did not propose to offer himself for re-election to the chairmanship. In his opinion the chairman ought to be the official mouth-piece and representative of the Council as a whole . . In view of the decision of the last meeting, when the Council repudiated the whole of his cherished convictions and stultified itself by repudiating all the principles which had been supposed to guide it during the whole of the period that he had been associated with it, it was obviously incompatible that he should retain his position. … He did not propose to retire from the Council unless the society whom be represented, the Printers’ Warehousemen—he did not represent the Socialists—declined to elect him.” The italics are ours.

Mr. Quelch, editor of “the Organ of the Social Democracy,” member of the S.D.F. Executive, does not represent the Socialists. In his capacity as a trade union representative he has sunk his Socialist principles and has supported Liberal-Labour candidates, both for Parliament and the L.C.C., whilst in his capacity as Editor of Justice and member of the S.D.F. Executive he has opposed them. Could anything be more absurd and more calculated to confuse the minds of the working class ? And seeing that Burns is no worse than Steadman, whom Mr. Quelch and the S.D.F. have supported, why all this fuss over Burns ? Both are “firmly caught in the nets of the Liberal Party.” They were already caught at the election of 1900, when the S.D.F. supported them, and the position at the last election, when Mr. Quelch denounced Barns but supported Steadman, was unchanged.

We are glad, however, to see that Mr. Quelch is beginning to recognise how “obviously incompatible” is his position. It is charged against us that our persistent criticism of his actions in these columns has in large measure contributed to his awakening. We take the flattering unction to our soul and hope that he will soon see further and decline to sit on a body obeying the behests of a trade union when those behests are in flat contradiction to the Socialist principles and policy that he professes. If we have been the humble means whereby one erring Social Democrat, albeit he a leader, has seen the error of some of his ways, we have not lived in vain, and we will go forward hopefully, confident that others, equally erring, will eventually forsake the broad road that leadeth unto personal power but working-class confusion, and plant their feet firmly on the narrow path that leadeth direct to the triumph of Socialism.

Reflections. (1906)

From the June 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A letter in Justice from one whose identity is hidden, reads, “I am one of about 12 Socialists who have decided to study Socialism. We all favour the S.D.F. programme and want to start an S.D.F. Branch here.” Twelve “Socialists” who haven’t studied Socialism want to join the S.D.F. When those twelve “Socialists have studied Socialism and have discovered that they are Socialists, they will not want to join the S.D.F. They will want to join a Socialist Party. At present, as they have not studied Socialism, they cannot claim to be Socialists. Nevertheless, they may, without incongruity join the S.D.F., because the S.D.F. isn’t a Socialist organisation.

o o o

In addition to this, “one of twelve,” there appears to be quite a number of other members of the S.D.F. who want to study Socialism. They write asking for economic classes. Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime.

o o o

Does any one know what has become of the Justice crusade against motor-cars ? There was a time only a few short months ago, when readers of that Journal were urged to walk the roads with loaded pistols in one pocket and bags of calthrops in the other. The calthrops were to spread in the path of the rushing motor. If this did not have the effect of bursting the tyres, the pistol was to be used. If the shot missed the tyre and hit the occupant, so much the better. Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship, however, pistols and calthrops and even tin-tacks are, apparently, taboo ; which may, of course, be only a coincidence, although if political action reflects economic conditions (Socialists who have not studied Socialism may not understand this) there may be something more in it.

o o o

Somebody must have told Justice I was to refer to the foregoing, or it must have been conveyed to Clerkenwell by some telepathic process. Anyhow, it had hardly been written when our contemporary erupted in the same place again. From which it may be inferred that the notorious red motor has followed the “mere drawerful of jewels” to the sale room. If it hasn’t her ladyship must proceed with caution. Otherwise it may occur that she will drive unwittingly into a trap laid by the wily S.D.Fers, out under the inspiration of Mr. Quelch, to treat all motorists in the Swiss fashion (which we understand to be something drastic). Imagine the excitement if, while touring with, say, Bill Thorne, the Countess was to be potted by her own comrades !

o o o

Mention of Bill reminds me that since the day when he achieved fame by making his debut as M.P. at St. Stephens in a very large hat of the uncompromising “Alpine or Trilby” variety, he has dropped almost completely out of sight. This need not necessarily be reckoned against him for unrighteousness. Bill is a big man, and it must have meant a real effort on his part to obscure himself. Moreover, he may have profited by the horrible examples which some of his fellow members of the “Labour” Party in their endeavours to impress their statesmanship upon the House, have succeeded in making of themselves. However that may be, I am sure he has disappointed many of his friends, who expected him to do great things as the only M.P. the S.D.F. can allege connection with. And really the acquisition of a large hat and a readiness to write advertisements for books on the hire purchase system, are not much to show as the result of several months labours.

o o o

This advertisement writing, by the way, does not appear to be regarded favourably by the Labour Leader. The organ of the l.L.P. waxes indignant with those “Labour” members who have lent their photographs and their strong approbation to the firm who are widely advertising the sale of books by easy payments. The Labour Leader does not approve of such action and expresses its disapproval in no mild manner. We fear, however, the Labour Members assailed will not be greatly impressed, seeing that the Labour Leader has itself accepted advertisements from the same firm for the same set of books (as well as from other firms for other commodities), and seeing that its columns have for months contained a puff for a certain musical instrument from Mr. Keir Hardie. The I.L.P. organ should shew cause why the Labour Leader paper may augment its income by advertisements and why the “Labour” leader person may not do the same thing for the same reason. And it must shew wherein a musical instrument puff by Keir Hardie differs from a book puff by Will Thorne. If it does not, Mr. Thorne may fairly dismiss its criticism as, to put it, mildly cant.

o o o

This question of how to raise the financial wind seems, on the surface, to strike “Labour” journals and leaders in different ways. I say on the surface because it is fairly clear that at bottom there is no difference at all. Justice for example is quite frankly unconcerned as to the source of its income. “Get it,” it says, “honestly if you can, of course—but get it.” And Justice is far from satisfied with the success of its endeavours up to the present. The £500 realised by the sale of the Countess’s jewels was very nice and very welcome. But a donation of £1,000 would be better. Justice is sure that the S.D.F. can give better value for the money than any other organisation afloat; which may or may not be true. At any rate, its S.D.F. will have to manage better than they did at Camborne, if they want to inspire persons with thousands of pounds to spare, to donate large sums to its treasury. Large sums are never given without conditions, and when the donor requires those conditions to be kept dark it is unpleasant, to say the least of it, to discover that the recipient of the largess does not possess “political aptitude” sufficient to keep inquisitive noses from scenting the game.

Observer.

Blogger's Notes:

• "Evidently they are unaware that conductors of economic classes are far from persona grata with the S.D.F. leaders. At least one conductor has been expelled the organisation for no greater crime. . . " This is a reference to Jack Fitzgerald, a founder member of the SPGB, who was expelled from the SDF for, amongst others, holding economic classes.
• "Since the advent of the red car and her ladyship . . . " is a reference to the Countess of Warwick who had recently joined the SDF, and was quite the celebrity catch for the SDF at the time.