SPGB Meetings. (1909)

Party News from the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For December. (1908)

Party News from the December 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For November. (1908)

Party News from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For October. (1908)

Party News from the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, September. (1908)

Party News from the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1908)

Party News from the August 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For June. (1908)

Party News from the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For May. (1908)

Party News from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings. (1908)

Party News from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note.

The speakers at the S.P.G.B. Club in Ilford (Romford Branch) in March 1908 were not as well known as the speakers featured that month at the Battersea and Islington Branches, so here's a wee bit of background on them:

H. C. Phillips was a founder member of the SPGB. The following information about him is from Kaz's document on the founding members of the SPGB:

"Phillips [of Fulham Brnach] was a member of the Provisional Committee of May 1904, of the EC in 1904-6 and was an outdoor speaker from 1904 to 1908. Previously he had been secretary of the SDF Mile End branch (1901-3). He is presumed to have lapsed membership around 1914. He rejoined Central branch on 3rd November 1931, finally leaving through being lapsed on 1st December 1936."

J. H. Kennett was a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in May 1905. 

W. A. Cole was also a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in April 1906.

Myles O. Bartley was also a member of Romford Branch, joining the Party in September 1907.

A. Reginald was, of course, Augustus Snellgrove. He originally joined the Peckham Branch of the SPGB in September 1905. In 1908 he would have been a young school master, which may explain the subject of his lecture. He resigned from the SPGB a couple of years later over the 'W. B. of Upton Park affair',  rejoining the Party in April 1933.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For February. (1908)

Party News from the February 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For January. (1908)

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Practical Policy (1938)

From the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard are far greater in numbers than the membership of the “Socialist Party.” At this time of the year especially, when more meetings are held and more of our literature is sold, the official organ of our Party reaches a still wider circle. The result of this activity reflects itself in wider discussions at our meetings and in the letters we receive from critics.

Now there is one very curious thing about certain of our critics, whether well or ill-acquainted with the Socialist Party’s case. They show as keen a desire to agree with the Party position as they do to disagree with the Party’s exposition of it. A few words in explanation will illustrate the apparently unconscious mental contradiction. Every issue of the “S.S,” includes a statement of our Object and of our Declaration of Principles. The latter, to all but very simple minds, is bound up with , the Object — Socialism. These are a lucid and logical statement of the essential facts about capitalist society, and describe the basic action necessary for its removal and for the establishing of Socialism.

The type of critic referred to often shows some acquaintance with the doctrines and teachings of Socialism to the extent that they will not quarrel with our definition of Socialism nor our Declaration of principles. They will even compliment us on their clarity and will express approval of them —“but” and it is the qualifying ‘‘but” which exposes our critics. In fact, they show that what they agree with is a form of words. They completely fail to interpret the Declaration of Principles in the light of the realities of the modern political world.

What is Policy ?

Consider some of the familiar arguments of our opponents, remembering, too, that they are also the arguments of some professing friends. “The Socialist Party has been in existence for thirty-four years and has done nothing . . .” “After thirty-four years the S.P. has only one candidate for. Parliament . . . ." “The Socialist Party has no policy—has never had a policy.” Like the proverbial Irishman who is “agin the Government,” the obstinate negator offers the same difficulty as trying to get to grips with a shadow. But never let it be said that we evaded the job. We will try to be simple, to avoid phrases, to avoid giving offence by appearing to be clever when really we are merely stating an accurately tested truth. Now: The Socialist Party is organised for Socialism. It has defined Socialism. The definition of our Object, “. . . the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth . . . " appears in every Party publication. The attaining of that Object is the task of the Socialist Party. Logically there could be no other. To achieve this object the Socialist Party must first concentrate upon the making of Socialists. There can be no other policy at this stage, because, simply, there can be no Socialism without first there are Socialists. Nor do our critics who profess to agree with us, "but”— tell us what they consider the policy of a Socialist Party should be. They do not because they cannot or dare not. They cannot because to deny the obvious necessity for the making of Socialists before Socialism can be established would stamp them as being incapable of interpreting the political world with the .weapons of Socialist understanding. They dare not because any alternative policy would reveal its reformist and capitalist character and expose the ignorance of its supporters. Let us not be misunderstood. The making of Socialists is not the end all in Socialist policy. But it is the only policy for the moment. There will come a time when the detailed working out of the necessary steps for the dispossessing of the capitalist class will have to be made. But this will only be practical policy when there are sufficient Socialists for the task. The need for it will, in fact, quite obviously, arise out of the conditions of the time. Just as now the first essentials of Socialist policy, the making of Socialists, arises out of the conditions of the present. Doubtless the working out of a detailed policy for the future, aimed at and showing the step-by-step process by which a Socialist working class would effect the dispossession of the capitalists and the overthrow of their system, would be an interesting task. It would, however, in view of the smallness of the Socialist movement and the fact that the structural administration of capitalism is subject to change, be almost purely academic, and most certainly useless. Even the working out of a tactical policy for pursuing the fight with our opponents in the political field is not even an immediate practicable question because: (1) there can be little struggle with opponents who mostly choose to ignore us and (2) because we have little effective backing from the workers. With regret, but without pessimism, it must be admitted that the immediate task of Socialists is chiefly propagandist, that is to say, explaining and interpreting the events of the capitalist world with Socialist knowledge and understanding. This burden we carry out with all the difficulties of voluntary organisation. We have, therefore, no time for unreal grandiose planning. We are busy working-men who, with Engels, would say: "The man who has something serious to say cannot compete with those who have all day to gossip in.” It is, however, the absence of detailed plans which confuse would-be critics (many who style themselves Socialists) of the Socialist Party.

No plan appears to them to mean no policy.' They are wrong and misled by interested leaders whose positions depend upon producing plausible plans purporting to aim at a short cut to social salvations What is not recognised is the irrefutable fact that the subject social position of the worker is bound up with' the Capitalist social system and will only disappear with capitalism, and that any policy which is not directed to bringing capitalism to an end is useless from the Socialist point of view.

The Day-to-Day Struggle

Almost a term of abuse now is the charge that the Socialist Party does not take part in the “day-to-day struggle.” The charge is, of course, untrue. In relation to our numbers our members are engaged in trade union activity comparable to those in any other political organisation. Some of our members hold official positions in their trade unions. Heavy demands are made on the time of our speakers in visiting trade union branches in order to state the case for the Party. Trade union activity is encouraged to its fullest extent. At all times Socialists enter the struggle on the economic field conscious of its limitations. But more often our critics have in mind the struggle on the political field when they charge us with ignoring “the day-to-day struggle.” In that field the struggle is represented to centre around the struggle for peace, democracy, and so forth. We are represented as having no interest in these things because we refuse to line up with the conglomeration of parties in the Labour Movement which is organising to demand them. It is not understood that the amount of democracy possessed by any section of the workers is the result of its struggles with its own capitalist class and independent of the struggles between sections of the capitalists; that when workers are able to impose peace upon the capitalist world they will have achieved such a degree of understanding that they will be in a position to impose far more than that. There is never peace in the capitalist world, only Socialism can guarantee peace. But let us look at the so-called working-class parties with whom it is assumed we should have some common interests and a common policy.

The Communist Party: It is committed to the policy of advocating the military alliance of Great Britain, France and Russia. This has been interpreted by one British Communist writer (T. A. Jackson) as willingness to defend the British Empire. In France the same policy found its expression in Communist advocacy of a Popular Front, which in reality is a premature anticipation of the war-time need of a coalition of all parties in order to defend French capitalism. Though Maurice Thorez has gone further and has said: 

“ Our policy of the People’s Front was not a transitory or temporary tactic, or an electoral pact, but an application of the fundamental principles of Marxism and Leninism, an alliance that will last between the working class and the middle classes'' (Discussion [Communist monthly], July, 1937).

Imagine a parallel picture applied to England. The Communist Party, the Liberals (including Mr. Lloyd George), and “progressive” Conservatives, like the Communist Party’s new sweetheart, the Duchess of Atholl, all included in a Popular Front which is represented to be an alliance between the working class and the middle classes that will last, and as an application of Marxism!

So far as the Labour Party is concerned its difference with the Communists seems to be that it will not have anything to do with them. But, like the Communist Party, it is committed to "Collective Security.” What that means can be measured by the statement of the Minister of War in the British Government that “Britain would only fight in ? future war with allies, that is to say, within a system of Collective Security.” All that need be said about the I.L.P. is that they are at present attempting to negotiate electoral arrangements with the Labour Party. These “working-class” parties are certainly engaged in the day-to-day struggle— but for the benefit of the capitalist class, not for the working class.

It is sheer self-delusion and a misrepresentation of Socialist principles to suggest that because these parties have their origin in the working-class struggle and screen their reform activities with high-sounding working-class sentiment and what appear to be Socialist phrases and slogans, that Socialists can make common cause with them.

The Socialist attitude on war, as on other major questions, is so fundamentally different from that of these parties that it would be a betrayal of Socialist principles and working-class interests to pretend that there could be any point of contact between them and us which could provide a basis for common policy, and no Socialist has any illusions about it. This position, we know, results in our isolation and prevents us engaging in activity which to masses of workers appears to be in their interests. The plaudits provoked by demagogic appeals to political ignorance and popular sentiment are attractive to the weak and the unstable. For us, for the moment, lies apparent isolation and unpopularity—but independence. The ability to endure it in the face of the attractions of demagogy is a test for real virility.

The Making of Socialists

Spontaneous discontent with capitalism rarely in itself makes a Socialist. Something else is necessary. That something is the assimilation of ideas—Socialist ideas. The extent to which the workers are able to do this depends on many factors, but the chief one is propaganda. In a clear field, without the strains and stresses of capitalist propaganda pulling in the opposite direction, Socialist propaganda would easily win a rapid and decisive victory. Whilst all prophecy is speculative, the facts of history are pertinent. In the earlier days of capitalism capitalist propaganda was brutally anti-Socialist. When the Labour movement came into existence (after two hundred years of capitalism) a gradual change took place. Capitalist propaganda is now more subtle and has learned how to use pseudo-Socialist phraseology to serve capitalist interests. Hitler and Mussolini are excellent examples of the use of this trick. The British capitalist class are able to use the British Labour Party and its doctrines for the same purpose. How far the working class will have to acquire Socialist knowledge to nullify the influence of capitalist propaganda will depend upon how far that propaganda exposes itself. Enough to say that at the moment a worker has to be well grounded to escape that influence. But the capitalist has to be everlastingly on the look-out for new ways of preventing the worker from seeing his social relationship as it really is.

Each new effort on the part of the capitalist class expresses a weakening of its influence. As this goes on it will be easier for the worker to interpret the world in the light of his interests. The stresses and strains of capitalist propaganda will lessen their pull. At a given point the acceptance of Socialist ideas must become more general and consequently develop more rapidly. No one with a knowledge of historical movement would deny the possibility of reaching that historical stage within our lifetime. Those who are Socialists will work for it as tenaciously as the Socialist Party has worked for it for 30 years. We have worked for it, never once betraying Socialist principles nor obscuring the immensity of the task. We have maintained our existence on a voluntary basis and have outlived organisations which had far greater resources in finance and membership. We have never been guilty of fostering disillusionment, like the Communists in 1919, when they prophesied the end of capitalism in Europe in a few months and in America in a few years.

In short, the Socialist Party’s policy is based upon a sound understanding and application of Socialist principles, which expresses itself in the immediate and urgent task of making Socialists.

Harry Waite

Sunday evenings at Battersea Branch. (1907)

Party News from the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tooting Branch Report. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past six months the Tooting Branch has made greater progress than ever before in its history. Formed three years ago by a little band of six, possessing no speaker of their own and having only one member capable of efficiently acting as chairman, it has in its ranks today five members able to place the principles of Socialism before their fellow workers, in addition to another three who can take the chair.

The result of this development has been, of course, more meetings, and the past six months has seen 63 in and around Tooting; about 45 of which have been carried through by local members without assistance from other branches. So persistent and telling has the propaganda been that the Tories have come out “to expose the fallacies of Socialism.” A correspondence in the local Boro News has been carried on for several weeks between Mr. Daw, the Conservative agent for Wandsworth, and one of our members on the aforesaid “fallacies,” with what result may be judged from Mr. Daw’s closing argument here quoted : He states that our comrade “asks for evidence to prove that there is some other factor in wealth production than labour-power. My answer is, there is to be an exhibition of machinery at Olympia soon: let him go there and use his eyes and powers of observation. He will then perhaps realise the source of the rapid increase in the wealth of labour and capital.” A debate has been arranged between Mr. Daw and Comrade Jackson on “Is Socialism Practicable.” We have no fear of the result. A debate took place in June between Mr. Bell, a Tariff Reform lecturer, and Comrade Fitzgerald on the respective theories of value of Prof. Jevons and Karl Marx. We do not think that Mr. Bell is anxious for such another gruelling. At Streatham a Malthusian was also met and disposed of in an impromptu debate.

A record increase of Membership was almost inevitable in face of the amount of work done during the past quarter. We are running now, and shall continue to run as long as the weather permits, five meetings a week, two in Tooting and one each in Earlsfield, Streatham and Brockwell Park. A pleasing feature is the increased sale of literature. Both July and August saw the branch dispose of 30 per cent. more SOCIALIST STANDARDS than ever before, and September has sent the percentage up to 100. The work being done in Earlsfield, Streatham and Brockwell Park will soon show very material results unless we are greatly mistaken.

The Tooting Scribe.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, October, 1907. (1907)

Party News from the October 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List, September, 1907. (1907)

Party News from the September 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For August. (1907)

Party News from the August 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For July. (1907)

Party News from the July 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

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

“Under term of reference No. 1

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

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

Under term of reference No. 2

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

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

If term No. 3 be considered

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

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

Under term of reference No. 4

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

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

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

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

Kent said to enter into detail questions was premature.

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

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

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

Neumann opposed the I.W.W.

The meeting then adjourned.

_____________

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

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

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

The amendment was lost by 9 to 5.

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

The amendment was lost by 9 to 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution was carried by 13 to 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The amendment not being seconded, fell through.

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

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

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

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

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

The amendment not being seconded fell through.

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

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

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

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

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

The resolution was carried by 19 to 4.

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

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

Carter concurred.

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

Anderson moved the following resolution :

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

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

Betts seconded the resolution.

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

The adjournment was moved and defeated.

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

The resolution was lost by 15 to 5.

[Conclusion.]

The Socialist Party and Trade Unionism. (1906)

From the August 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

[All Resolutions adopted during the course of this discussion have to be referred to the Party Membership through the Branches for ratification or otherwise. The. decision of the Party will he published after the full Report of the Debate has appeared.]

(Continued from July issue)

R. A. V. Morris moved the following resolution on behalf of the Bexley Branch :

“Whereas the S.P.G.B. in its Manifesto recognises the necessity of Trade Unions under capitalism,

And Whereas Trade Unions, as at present organised on sectional or craft lines, serve only to disunite the workers, and to give power and influence to a class of so-called labour leaders who betray and mislead the working class on both the political and economic fields.

And Whereas the only sound form of economic organisation is a union that shall (1) unite all sections of the working class on an industrial or non-sectional basis, and (2) organise them on the economic field for the complete overthrow of capitalism and the taking possession of all the instruments of production and distribution, as a necessary adjunct to the action of The Socialist Party on the political field,

Resolved that The Socialist Party of Great Britain hereby declares war on all Trade Unions as at present organised, and calls on its members to carry on an active propaganda as a preliminary to the establishment of a Socialist Union.”

Morris said that Trade Unions organised on craft lines had the dual effect of misleading and dividing the working class and giving power to so-called labour leaders. The S.P.G.B. had beea attacking the leaders on the political field, but it was from the economic organisation that they derived their power. We had to choose between the present Trade Unions and a union which would unite the workers on the basis of the class struggle. The idea that we should support the unions at times and oppose them at others was the famous S.D.F. position.

F. Leigh seconded the resolution. He said it appeared that the only party which could take any definite Trade Union action was that which advocated a revolutionary industrial organisation without affiliation to a political party. The economic condition was the basis of all working-class action. The L.R.C. was merely the reflex of the pure and simple Trade Unions which had put its men into power. The pure and simple Unions were playing into the hands of the capitalist, and were based on the perpetuation of the wages system. If the Trade Union is class-unconscious on the economic field the only logical attitude was to come out and fight them. The idea of domination by a political party was putting the cart before the horse. If you once create a revolutionary organisation on the economic field then you would have a united revolutionary political party. Political unity would follow. The economic organisation was in the forefront of the battle. We should be prepared to sacrifice a little against present unions.

Jackson said the people who had formed the I.W.W. were very fond of saying that the labour leaders were in the pay of the capitalist class. The following was the latest:

“The striking silk weavers of Kaltenback and Stevens’ shop have won the fight. Yesterday afternoon a committee had a conference with the employers, the result of which was the sanction of all the demands. The bosses granted the demands under the provisions that the weavers should try to organise all other silk mills also and bring them to the same scale of wages as Kaltenback and Stevens’ shop.”

The capitalists granted their demands on condition that they should organise the others. Would the capitalist class be prepared to support a union which was organising to fight it ? The only way was to bring into existence an organisation based on class consciousness and it was only possible to make sound class-consciousness by a sound political party.

The meeting adjourned until the following Saturday.

SATURDAY, MAY 19th.

VIENNA RESTAURANT, CLEVELAND ST.

Discussion on Bexley Resolution—Continued.

Jackson moved the following amendment:

“Delete all after “Manifesto” and substitute 

Affirms that the basis of the action of the Trade Unions must be a clear recognition of the position of the workers under capitalism and the class-struggle necessarily resulting therefrom.

This General Meeting of members of the S.P.G.B., in view of the fact that, “as the machinery of government (including the armed forces of the Nation) exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the workers must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery (including these forces) may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation,” calls upon Trade Unionists to recognise that the class-struggle is thus in its full development necessarily a struggle for political power, and that until they have understood this they cannot act rightly.

And furthermore warns the workers of this land against those so-called Revolutionists who, advocating the Anarchist theory of the General Strike (more or less artfully disguised) neglect thus the above-cited, essentially political nature of the class-struggle, and neglecting it, ignore the truth.”

Jackson said this conception of industrialism was either the old Trade Union idea or the Anarchist idea of the General Strike. All through the history of Socialism we had had this difference cropping up. What was the difference in the old International Workingman’s Association between Marx and Bokounine ? Simply that Marx said that the fight of the workers for their emancipation was chiefly a political one whilst the Bokouninists were clamouring for the General Strike which really ended in street riots. In this country then cropped up this new Trade Union movement. The Socialist League and members of the S.D.F. in their time formed what was practically an I.W.W., and laid it down that the struggle of the workers was to be fought on the economic field. And the Socialist League became Anarchist,. In France practically the same thing was going on. He had with him the Manifesto of the General Confederation of Labour. In it was said :

“The French Trades Unions unite the workers on an essentially economic basis, and endeavour to carry out as much as possible the following points: (1) They occupy themselves with ameliorating constantly the existing conditions of the workers by reduction in hours, increase of salary, the sanitary condition of factories and workshops, the moral independence of the workers, etc. They do not forget that the reforms obtained from the employers cannot be a final aim, but only a step towards more radical amelioration. Also in order to be effective all reforms must be accompanied by a curtailment of capitalist privileges. (2) They do not limit their activity to partial and immediate reforms ; convinced that only in the abolition of the wage system is the definite remedy of exploitation and human misery. They prepared the way for the capitalist expropriation, which making the Trades Unions and Trades Councils the centres of the new social life, will give to all the opportunity for integral development.”

That was precisely the argument in favour of Industrial Unionism—that the Trades Unions formed the basis of the future Society. As regards the General Strike they said :

“The General Strike reveals itself under two aspects which complete themselves mutually and both have in a high degree a revolutionary character. The General Strike can have as its aim the immediate conquest of partial ameliorations ; or it may be the equivalent of the proletarian revolution and imply the taking in possession of the whole social organism by the working class.”

And again

“Trades Unions will take as their mission the inauguration of communist property on the ruins of individual property.

“They will take possession of factories and workshops, and the Trades Unions in each industry, putting themselves in connection with their Federation, will regulate the amount of production.”

That was precisely the position of the I.W.W.

The essential aim of the revolutionary working-class party was the capture of the political machinery.

Anderson seconded the amendment. Certain political opponents of ours were ready to sidetrack our Party by this economic fake, and certain members of the S.P.G.B. were trying to do the same thing. Until all the members of the organisation were Socialist you would not have a sound economic organisation at all.

Leigh said he wished to oppose the amendment. He had had conversation with members of the S.L.P., and they had told him that they were ready to send out the men in their party who were keeping the two organisations apart. Jackson’s amendment was purely a declaration against Anarchism, where the political organisation of the working class was condemned. To admit the necessity of an economic organisation of the working class and then to tie them down to a political party was to make the success of the economic organisation impossible. The theory of the economic organisation alone was the Anarchist theory purely and simply, but the resolution advocated a sound economic organisation to work in conjunction with a political party. It was untrue to say that he was being used by another party to break up this party. He had pointed out to Jackson that he was in favour of political action, yet Jackson was accusing him of advocating Anarchy.

Neumann said when we found our men had backed up the S.L.P. position as far as Industrial Unionism was concerned, he thought he was justified in saying that their action had been detrimental to the Party. It behoved members of the Party to set a firm face against this. It had been said by a speaker that some of the people of this hostile organisation were prepared to dispense with their leaders. Well, we had not yet seen much evidence of it. If they would have nothing to do with us politically we could have nothing to do with them economically. If, by any miracle, their new economic organisation should be compelled to take political action, it would be reform action due to the men who formed its membership. If the S.L.P. was as good a political party as the S.P.G.B.; if it had in the eyes of certain members a better industrial organisation, why did they remain in the S.P.G.B.?

[To be Continued.]