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.]

Obituary: W. G. Killick (1910)

Obituary from the August 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

With great regret we have to record the death at the age of 39, of our comrade W. G. Killick. Our deceased comrade was a member of the S.P.G.B. from its inception, having taken a prominent part in the revolt of the so-called impossibilists within the ranks of the S D.F. (as it then was) previous to the formation of our Party. Of highly artistic temperament and great intellectual capacity, capitalist conditions of life and work proved exceptionally repulsive to him, and, despite a frail physical frame, he was one of the most untiring and devoted fighters in the cause of Socialism. His funeral was attended by many members of the S.P.G.B., and in accordance with his expressed wish he was interred without any religious ceremony but with the simple, heartfelt tributes of comrades who knew his worth. Our sincere sympathy goes out to our late comrade’s widow and to his young son, in whom we are sure his father’s revolutionary temper will live again.

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peckham.

Peckham and adjoining districts were once described officially as “a huge dormitory.” The observation contained more truth than it was intended to convey. To awaken the workers out of the slumber of hopeless apathy which capitalist politicians, aided by reformers and pseudo-Socialists, have induced, we of the Peckham Branch are advocating the principles of the near approaching social revolution, especially by insisting on the necessity of a clear recognition of the class-war, in working-class political action, in practice as well as in theory. If in the determined pursuit of the object we have before us we have been compelled to regard and to treat as opponents the speakers of the S.D.F., the I.L.P., and the L.R.C. or other persons aggrieved, let them understand that we never shall cease to oppose them so long as they continue to obscure the plain teaching of Socialism that the political ascendancy of the working-class is the prime condition of working-class emancipation, or even of the alleviation of the miseries suffered by the workers.

Meetings have been held at Elm Grove on Thursday evenings when speakers were available, otherwise we have attended the meetings of the local Trades and Labour Council, and effectively elucidated the class-war principle by means of questions and criticism. The meetings of the S.D.F. have also been attended with the same object, notwithstanding unsuccessful attempts in this quarter to prevent criticism by the S.P.G.B. “Let truth and error grapple” is evidently no motto of the S.D.F., or why should they be so particularly anxious to avoid opposition? At the Kenuington Triangle on Sunday mornings good meetings have been held. This spot must have persistent attention if the mischievous advocacy of nostrums, based on the assumption that the capitalist-class may be persuaded to legislate itself into political oblivion, is to be counteracted. No more fitting term than “impossiblism” could be applied to the wretched reform propaganda upheld by the S.D.F. speakers here. Large and successful meetings on Peckham Rye on Sunday evenings have to be recorded. The sustained interest shown at these gatherings proves how the straightforward exposition of revolutionary Socialism by our speakers is better understood than the delusive “palliation” propaganda.

On June 27th several members attended a lecture on Labour Representation by Mr. J. J. Stephenson (treasurer, L.R.C.). According to Mr. Stephenson, the election of Messrs. Crooks and Shackleton foreshadows the coming triumph of Labour in Parliament. Evidently conscious of his utter inability to meet the criticism offered, this protagonist of Labour evaded the points raised by deliberately bantering and irritating those who disagreed with him. We have publicly challenged Mr. Stephenson to debate, under conditions in which his discreditable tactics will not enable him to conceal the significance of facts or to ignore the soundness of Socialist principles.

The mass meetings of Sunday, June 18, on the Rye, addressed by Anderson, Belsey, and Lehane, were highly successful. About 800 persons attended the evening meeting, which was justly described in the Dulwich Post as “one of the best Socialist meetings ever held to our recollection.” The report referred to concludes: “So finished one of the most intellectual treats we have ever had to listen to from young men supposed to be in a hurry. These young workmen are in earnest.”

Indeed, we are in a hurry; we are m a hurry because we are in earnest.

W. G. Killick

Islington.

In Finsbury Park “the happy hunting ground of quack theorists and freak showmen, ranging from the riddlers of perpetualism to the riddlers of Sissle, Frissle and Fryers of the soul in torment,” we have carried on our propaganda of discontent with and revolt against wage-slavery and capitalist profit-squeezing. Whilst having opposition from and debate with representatives of both Liberal and Tory tricksters, we have practically given the “order of the boot” to those pseudo-Socialists, who, after many years of vain effort, have had to quit the field. All the capitalist champions and political fakers have strutted up nobly week after week to defend their “honorable” and ''religious” system of pauper-making, and to quash this (small?) party of straight hitters and straight thinkers. We are desirous not so much of vanquishing our platform opponents, as to win the working-class by logic, reason, and common sense to a consciousness of their position in this class-struggle, and eventually to swell the ranks of the S.P.G.B. “The harvest is great and the labourers are few.”

Our audiences have ranged from 200 to 800 in Finsbury Park, while the interest manifested at our Wednesday night meetings at Highbury corner, gives us great encouragement. Other branches please note that our one endeavour is to be the strongest branch of the Party, both numerically and financially, and to capture the “Northern Heights” of London for Socialism and the S.P.G.B.

"Forward."

Watford.

In reply to numerous enquiries (kind and otherwise) I beg to state that Watford stands pretty much where it did and the Watford Branch is moderately well, thank you. Not very strong, perhaps, as men count strength (i.e., by the number of heads that can be paraded), but strong enough to keep in good evidence through the medium of public meetings of our own and others, — the latter providing us with opportunity for awkward question asking, of which we gladly avail ourselves. Indeed, so awkward do these questions appear to be that speakers on platforms which were once claimed to be “free,” are fearful of dealing with them (although they are intimately connected with the subject matter of their addresses) preferring rather to take the damaging course of refusing to answer. Thus it will interest many to know that Mr. Daniel Irving, S.D.F., declined to reply on the ground that he knew the questioner (who happened to be Comrade Fitzgerald) so that we were reduced to fetching a platform of our own out and addressing a large audience from that. Mr. Glossop, S.D.F., questioned on the subject of the help his organisation has given to capitalist candidates, replied that he was prepared to support “Masterman, Dan Leno, or any other fool against a scoundrel like Rutherfoord Harris.” Thereafter, with the connivance of his chairman (a local character afflicted with hysteria) he declined to deal with the matter further, or to our discuss in public the unhappy position to  which his organisation has brought itself, notwithstanding that he was appealing to his audience to join that organisation. They do not, they say, propose to wash their dirty linen in public, failing to see that a public organisation can wash its dirty linen in private only at the expense of any reputation for honesty and straight forwardness they may have, and failing to understand that the statement involved the admission of the dirty linen's existence, which hitherto they have been concerned to strenuously deny.

However, the editorial injunction (forcefully imposed) is that brevity should be the first law of branch reporters. Therefore I cannot give further incidents of the position here. But space may be allowed me to say that whatever our numerical strength may be, we can he relied upon to the last man to carry on the fight against capitalism and its supporters—cynical or sycophantic, conscious or unconscious — to the best of our ability.

Ess. Rationis.

Wood Green

Without a doubt the past two months have been marked by earnest hard work so far as propaganda is concerned. Our usual meeting place — Jolly Butcher’s Hill — has witnessed some really good enthusiastic gatherings. The way our Party speakers encourage questions and opposition is highly appreciated, and has been taken full advantage of. The latest development of the Branch activity is the opening up of meetings on Friday night at High St.. Hornsey, which, so far, are a notable success. Our paper and the Manifesto sell readily, the first issue of the latter having already been disposed of.

In concluding this very brief report we record the satisfaction we have, in common with our comrades in other parts, in seeing the worker waking up to his true interest, and surely beginning to understand the hopelessness of the old capitalist political parties, and all those sections that are dragging at their tail. Our confident hope is that our Party membership will be considerably increased in the near future from this district.

John Crump

Fulham.

Although we have not reported for the last few months, it is not because of dry-rot by any manner of means. We have had some splendid meetings, our ordinary audience several times outnumbering the attendance at the mass meetings of other bodies claiming to be Socialist. Our straight propaganda, our keen criticism of the local “Labour” party, combined with an outspoken attitude on Trade Unionism, is beginning to tell. The sales of The Socialist Standard have increased and a large number of Manifestoes have been disposed of. Our progress is slow but sure. We believe in making Socialists first and members afterwards. We hope by the time the propaganda season is over that we shall show an increased membership. Our Economic Class, though small, is regularly attended, and the knowledge gained is sure to be valuable to the Comrades attending.

E. J. B. Allen

West Ham.

We have had a lively month in West Ham, winding up with a visit from that promising young comrade, Dick Kent, who told us that he could not speak, and straightway got up on the platform and made himself out the biggest fabricator of the truth in the party. Keep a watch on this young man, Mr. Lecture Secretary; send him out into the highways and byeways. We are getting considerable opposition now, and needless to say we regard this as a most valuable aid to us in our work, and we are nursing it and nurturing it with tenderest care and affection. Efforts are being made (not by us) to organise this opposition, and if these efforts are successful, “That will be Glory—” We have lately had two striking illustrations of the internationally fraternising power of the Socialist Movement. A short time ago a comrade from Poland, a member of the Polish Socialist Party, claimed the fraternal handshake and greeting. He understood very little English, but he understood that Socialism breaks down all national pride and prejudice, jealousy and hatred, that our platform is a barricade erected against the enemy that drove him out of his own country, and does not cease to grind his face in this, and that all are brothers in arms who march and serve faithfully under the red flag. It was sufficient for him that we are doing that, and for us that he was doing that, even if we could not understand a word of each other’s tongue. The second instance occurred on the last Sunday in the month, at Forest Gate, when a young fellow came forward and said “I’m an American, and I’m a Socialist.” “Shake!” says one comrade, “All round” says another, and all round it was. The new chum is a cowboy from the place that is said to be separated from hell by a sheet of brown paper, and he says he might feel “prutty wal at home en London ef ther durn brown paper edn’t took fire.” He was constrained to speak to us because he found us, to put it in his lurid language, "goin' fer it bull-headed en buck-eyed.” which linguistic caper from the Wild West is not altogether unintelligible even in prosaic West Ham. The wild and woolly one has had our position made clear to him, and he seems anxious to ”take a hand in the great ‘round up.’ ” Having got the East Ham Branch into working order, we are leaving them to their own resources what time we look round for new worlds to conquer. We have put aside the spade and are taking a steam plough to the virgin soil at Leytonstone and Woodford. There is good prospect of our being established in both these places by the end of the present season.

A. E. Jacomb

P S. Does any branch want that spade?

From Our Branches. (1905)

Party News from the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Peckham.

The condition of the Peckham Branch is very satisfactory. A few open-air meetings have been held when weather permitted. Our members meet regularly for economic study and discussion and are preparing themselves for the season of open-air propaganda. The tone of the membership is admirable: the idea is to steadfastly advocate the social revolution and to leave to compromisers their rose-water for the plague.

Mr. Herbert Burrows, lecturing recently in Camberwell on the unemployed question, argued at the outset that until the workers become class-conscious, and understand the nature of the class-war, no project intended to remedy unemployment can succeed, and then preceded to advocate the institution of farm colonies, in conjunction with communal workshops in urban centres, mutual exchange of produce, and distribution of surplus amongst the producers. Then, seemingly aware of the incompatibility of his contentions, the lecturer endeavoured to show that, while his proposals were not the solution, they were the “seeds of the solution” of the problem. These colonies and workshops, once established, would by their extension and development—one almost sees the S.D.F. sowing and some helpful capitalist administration supplying the water—“dislocate capitalist industry”! Replying to criticism by our comrades the lecturer condemned as futile his own scheme by pleading that it was advocated "only as an infinitesimally small and temporary” measure of relief at the present time. A report of this meeting appearing in “Justice,” designated those who failed to be charmed by Mr. Burrows’ utopian illusions, “impossibilists” ; and the honest reporter was so “amused” by the criticism that he appears to have forgotten that Mr. Burrows was twice challenged to debate the unemployed question, but made specious excuses and declined. The lecturer, however, less discreet than his reporter, asked how he would classify one who, proclaiming the class-war, votes for capitalist candidates, emphatically pronounced such person a fool. Mr. Burrows should be more careful of his public utterances in Camberwell! Vive la Commune!

W. G. Killick

The Socialist Party and the Second International (Part 2) (1968)

From the June 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month we described the early attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to the Second International when we saw ourselves as part of the intransigent wing of international social democracy.

There was a good deal of discussion on the question of the International by the delegates to the Socialist Party's first annual conference in 1905. T.A. Jackson pointed out that the British delegation had been the largest of all at the Amsterdam Congress and that it was "composed of persons opposed to the principles of this Party." For all that, Fitzgerald argued that the Socialist Party "should keep steadily fighting at the Congress for the principle that only Socialist parties should be admitted to the Congresses. When this had been done for two or three Congresses many of the other parties would adopt this view" (!) This, of course, was nothing more than wishful thinking. Parties like the SPD were not likely to adopt policies which, if applied rigorously, would have excluded themselves from the International. The only chance of their taking this step would have been for them to first adopt a Socialist programme—but this would have meant somehow overcoming the objections of the vast majority of their members and supporters, who were committed to capitalism almost to a man.

In the end the Conference instructed the executive committee to draw up a series of resolutions embodying the following points:

1. That only Socialist organisations recognising the class was in theory and practice should be represented at International Socialist Congresses.
2. That disputes between the carious parties in each country as to the genuine Socialist nature of their organisations should be settled by the Congress itself.
3. That the Socialist Party should endeavour to raise these questions on the floor of the Congress.

The executive committee carried out its orders and a statement along these lines was sent to the International Bureau in July 1905. Particularly interesting was its explanation, for the benefit of the Bureau, of just what features distinguish a Socialist party.

Socialist bodies (must) accept the essential principles of Socialism: socialisation of the means of production and distribution; union and international action of workers; Socialist conquest of public powers by the proletariat organised as a class party, recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates upon this basis, and adopting an attitude of hostility, under all circumstances to all individual members and sections of the Capitalist Party.  

The next few months saw a number of clashes between the Socialist Party and several leaders of social-democratic parties abroad. The first was in October 1905 when Paul Brousse and a group of municipal councillors from Paris, all members of the French "Socialist" Party, were entertained by the Liberal-controlled London County Council during a visit to Britain. A protest telegram was sent to the National Congress of the French party and this was backed up by a letter in which the general secretary explained that this "interchange of capitalist municipal courtesies" would be utilised by the Liberal party to obtain the votes of the British working class at the approaching general election. In fact, this election sparked off a much bigger row when, after the Liberals had been returned, Bebel of the SPD sent a telegram to Reynold's News saying that he "welcomed the result of the elections". The executive committee's first reaction was to give Bebel the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was being misrepresented. After the general secretary had written to him, however, he replied that he had been correctly reported and that "by the way of explanation I wish to state that concerning 'progress internally' (a phrase which had appeared in Reynold's) I have above all in mind possible progress in the amelioration of the working class position."

On receiving this the executive committee passed a resolution with the ominous wording "That action be taken regarding A. Bebel  . . . " Nonetheless, measured against the Socialist Party's normal handling of this sort of dispute, Bebel was treated very gently. Although an "emphatic protest" was sent to the SPD leader and the German party's daily, Vorwaerts, the editorial in the Socialist Standard (April 1906) suggested that "our comrade Bebel" has "allowed himself to be betrayed into an act calculated, because it lent the countenance of approval to what was merely a capitalist victory, to defeat the purpose of Socialist propaganda . . . " This was a rather charitable explanation when it is recalled that Reynold's sent Bebel a pre-paid telegram form inviting him to write whatever comments on the elction he chose. Bebel's reply to the Socialist Party's criticism was characteristic. He made matters worse by attempting to justify his talk of progress with a reference to the "entrance of representatives of the Socialist Party into Parliament". By this he meant that a few members of the Labour Representation Committee (the Labour Party's forerunner) had been elected. He also fell back on the bluff and boast technique which the frock-coated leaders of the SPD always used when their arguments ran out: "Let no one ascribe to me what, in consideration of my past career, nobody dare impute." (6)

Shortly afterwards Lafargue was taken to task for an article he had written in the SDF's Justice along the lines that Socialists throughout the world recognised that the election of the Labour MPs was a "victory of International Socialism". The Socialist Party's reply was something of a classic and still bears repeating sixty two years later.

We cannot agree that the election of the nominees of the Labour Representation Committee were working class victories. We have shown them to have been achieved partly in alliance with capitalist Liberalism, and wholly by a class-unconscious vote. Does our comrade believe that because Trade Unions stimulated into political activity by certain legal decisions having the effect of endangering the financial reserves of their organisations, have entered into a loose association for the purpose of recovering a position they had thought themselves secure in, that, therefore, they have established themselves upon a definite class basis in opposition to the political expressions of capitalist interests? Why, every indication gives a flat denial to the supposition . . . it is idle and mischievous to endeavour, as both Bebel and Lafargue have done, to invest the movement with an importance that may only be correctly applied to an enlightened proletarian organisation on well defined class lines.(7)

The boot was on the other foot when, the following year, Neumann analysed the results of the German elections in the March 1907 Socialist Standard. While social-democrats throughout Europe were rejoicing at the quarter of a million extra votes which the SPD had secured, the Socialist Party of Great Britain was pointing out that this was no indication of a spread of Socialist ideas among the workers in Germany. Neumann emphasised that the reformist rubbish in the SPD's programme would have induced countless supporters of capitalism to vote for social-democratic candidates. Therefore "the German Socialist Party have pursued and are still pursuing a policy taht has resulted in conveying a false impression as to the real extent of class-consciousness among the German proletariat." Yet there was still a conciliatory tone in all this: 

Let us hope that the criticism given in a fair, comrade-like spirit, will be of some assistance in bringing the oldest section of the international labour movement to the reconsideration of their tactics and their adopting in the near future a position of 'no compromise', and of hostility to capitalism every time and all the time.

The Socialist Standard was also hopelessly exaggerated in its estimates of the number of Socialists in the  SPD. As well as referring to "the pleasant fact that a small but steadily growing faction of the German Party has for some years put forward a tremendous effort to induce the Party to abandon its policy of reform and compromise", it was suggested that "there is every reason to believe that in at least the twelve constituencies where the Socialist vote was in 1903 between 52 to 58 per cent of the electorate, and where at the recent elections there has been throughout an increase of 2 to 3 per cent, that there are many who thoroughly understand the working-class position." All the same, the trend was for a definite hardening of attitude and there was a good indication of how far this had gone when, a few months later, Bebel was again attacked in the column of this journal. He had given an interview to a French reporter in which he had argued that, as long as the danger of war existed, every country must have armed forces to defend itself against invasion. Watts' reply in the Socialist Standard(8) appeared under a headline of "German Party Leader as a Jingo"; this time there was no references to "our comrade"!

Once again there was a lengthy discussion on the International at the third annual conference of the Socialist Party in 1907. This mainly centred on whether delegates should be sent to the 1908 International Congress in Stuttgart. Some members argued strongly for representatives at the Congress. Fitzgerald was one of these and his point was that in this way we could gain information about parties in other countries similar to ourselves. Neumann went further, suggesting that "if we could get in contact with these others we could organise the nucleus of an International Congress that would that would be Socialist". But a majority of the delegates were doubtful that anything useful could be achieved in light of our previous experience and Killick probably spoke for most when he argues that if men like Ferri, Michels, Guesde and Lafargue really were thinking along our lines then they, being stronger, would have taken the initiative. Bearing in mind what eventually became of the "left wing" of the social-democratic movement, this showed a good deal of insight. At any rate the Conference decided not to send delegates to Stuttgart but recommended the executive committee to "use their best endeavours to get in touch with those abroad who occupy our position".
(to be concluded)

John Crump

NOTES

6. Vorwaerts—15/3/1906. Socialist Standard—April 1906.

7. Socialist Standard. May 1906

8. Socialist Standard. June 1907.