Bebel and the S.P.G.B. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondence arising out of a telegram on the results of the Parliamentary elections, sent by the leader of the German Social Democratic Party to “Reynolds’s Newspaper.”

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

17th February, 1906.

A. Bebel,

Per Addresse “Vorwaerts,” 

68/9 Lindenstrasse, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am instructed by the Executive Committee to forward to you the enclosed cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper of Sunday, January 28th, 1906, containing text and translation of a telegram alleged to have been sent by you to the paper in question.

The Executive Committee will be glad if you will kindly state whether such a telegram was sent by you, and in the event of a telegram having been sent, whether it is correctly reproduced in the attached cutting.

Awaiting your reply,

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane,

General Secretary.

______________

HERR BEBEL .
TO “REYNOLDS’S.”
IMPORTANT TELEGRAM. —YESTERDAY.

Herr Bebel, the famous leader of the Social Democratic party in the German Parliament, sent a telegram yesterday to Reynolds’s Newspaper, in reply to a request for his opinion on the results of the General Election. His reply was as follows :—

I welcome the result of the elections as a genuine sign of the desire of the British people for a friendly understanding in foreign affairs, and as a progressive development in domestic affairs. In any case the decision of the voting implies a cold douche for Jingoes with us and with you. On the other hand, with regard to the signs of progress in domestic affairs, I dare not, after old experiences, express an opinion until I know more.

______________

German Imperial Parliament,

Berlin, February 20th, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

The telegram corresponds with the wording of that sent by me. By way of explanation I wish to state that concerning “progress internally” I have above all in mind possible progress in the amelioration of the working class position. Here I also regard the Liberal Party with distrust.

With fraternal greetings.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

London, 9th March, 1906.

A. Bebel,

German Imperial Parliament, Berlin.

Dear Comrade,

I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th ult. regarding your telegram to Reynolds’s Newspaper.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain wishes to enter its emphatic protest against your action in this matter. The opinion you expressed in the telegram is not in accord with the Socialist position in this country, as set forth in the manifesto (entitled “Why Vote?”) issued by this Party in January last, copy enclosed. Reynolds’s Newspaper is a capitalist organ which has used your telegram against the Socialists and in support of the Liberals.

The Executive Committee regrets that occasion should have arisen to evoke this protest, but the sentiments to which you have given utterance in welcoming Liberalism to political power as an indication of progress in foreign or domestic affairs are such as to leave no other course open. Nationally and internationally there is but one Party to which we can look for progress, and that is the Socialist Party, but Socialism will triumph only by the overthrow of Liberalism in Britain and elsewhere.

Copies of this letter are being forwarded to the German Social-Democratic Party, International Socialist Bureau, and “Vorwaerts.”

Yours fraternally,

(Signed) C. Lehane, 

General Secretary.

______________

Translated from “Vorwaerts” of March l5th, 1906:

Relating to this matter Comrade Bebel writes us:—

Immediately on the conclusion of the English Parliamentary elections, I received a telegram from the Editorial Department of Reynolds’s Newspaper requesting me to communicate to them my views concerning the result. For this purpose a prepaid telegram form that afforded me the scope of 120 words for my reply was placed at my disposal. As the character of Reynolds’s Newspaper was known to me as that of a bourgeois paper, I at first entertained misgivings as to the advisability of sending a reply. Eventually I dispelled these doubts and sent off the telegram reprinted above.

But I am not a little astonished at the importance the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain attaches to my telegram. When describing the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people in favour of a peaceable development of affairs externally and conducive to progress internally, I could not, had I been, dreaming, have understood by that only the result in favour of the Liberals, and could not possibly have overlooked the result of the elections in favour of the Socialist Party. The total effect of the elections has the result pointed out by me—the protest raised does not in any way alter my views, which may be characterised in three directions:—

1. Definite disavowal of the protective tariff proposals of Mr. Chamberlain and his colleagues.

2. Renunciation of Jingoism and Chauvinism which have developed more and more under the Conservative regime.

3. Furtherance of progress in the social legislation of England, mainly due to the entrance of representatives of the Socialist Party into Parliament.

In the concluding sentence of my telegram, I certainly expressed distrust as to whether hopes of this kind would be realised in face of the Liberal majority in Parliament.

How the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain could gather from my telegram that I failed to recognise that real progress, internationally and at home, could only be achieved by Socialism, is also a riddle to me. Let no one ascribe to me what, in consideration of my past career, nobody dare impute.

I am not aware in what way Reynolds’s Newspaper has used my telegram against my comrades in England. The loyal interpretation of my telegram that I had reason to expect from the Editorial Department of that journal would have made it impossible. If I have been mistaken in this respect, I am sorry.

(Signed) A. Bebel.

Schoeneberg-Berlin, March 13th, 1906.

______________

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, 

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

22nd. March, 1906.

To the Editors, ” Vorwaerts” Berlin.

Dear Comrades,

The questions raised in the telegram sent by Comrade Bebel to Reynolds’s Newspaper and further elaborated by our Comrade in his reply published by Vorwaerts to the protest which the Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain felt constrained to enter, are of such serious importance to us here in England and we believe also to the whole international Socialist movement that the Executive Committee desires through the columns of Vorwaerts to deal with the position taken up by Comrade Bebel in this matter.

Let us say at the outset that far from desiring to inconsiderately impute to Comrade Bebel sentiments out of harmony with his record as a fighter in the ranks of Socialism, it was with feelings of pain that we found it necessary to send our protest, recollecting as we did that it was Comrade Bebel who at the International Socialist Congress (Amsterdam, 1904) strongly supported the ”Dresden Resolution” which decisively affirmed our tried and victorious policy based on the class struggle, condemned every attempt to mask the ever-growing class antagonisms, rejected all responsibility of any sort under political and economic conditions based on capitalist production, and discountenanced any measure tending to maintain the dominant class in power; but, having regard to the position laid down in the Dresden Resolution, we deemed it our imperative duty to call attention to an action, to which Comrade Bebel does not appear to attach much importance but to which Reynolds’s Newspaper gave the greatest possible prominence, in the hope that we would in future be saved from the humiliation of seeing the lesson which we have been hard endeavouring to inculcate into the minds of the British working class repudiated by a prominent continental Comrade in the columns of one of the most dangerous organs of Capitalism in this country.

Here we wish to observe that although we called Comrade Bebel’s attention to the manifesto (“Why Vote ?”) issued by The Socialist Party of Great Britain in January last, he has not even hinted at the truth or falsity of the arguments therein set forth. A correct comprehension of the nature of our protest is perhaps impossible unless the position taken up in iliai manifesto is known and appreciated.

Regarding the telegram which is the subject of this correspondence, there is absolutely nothing in it to suggest that the sender was a Socialist, and had it not been announced by Reynolds’s Newspaper that the message had been sent by Comrade Bebel no one would have suspected that this was a pronouncement made by a recognized spokesman of Socialism. On the contrary, the telegram might well be supposed without taxing the imaginative faculty, to have been sent by an ordinary bourgeois radical. Indeed, far from crediting this message to have emanated from Comrade Bebel, and well knowing how erroneous it might be on our part to rely on the mere assertion of a journal like Reynolds’s Newspaper that the published wording was the actual text of the telegram sent, we decided in the first instance to send direct to our Comrade the complete cutting from Reynolds’s Newspaper in order that we might ascertain the authenticity and accuracy of the published message.

We received from Comrade Bebel a letter confirming the telegram and at the same time volunteering the information that as to “progress internally” he had particularly in mind possible progress in the betterment of the position of the working class. The fact that our Comrade thought it necessary to explain a certain part of his telegram would seem to indicate that he himself realised that his message was not explicit in at least this particular, and the further fact that in his statement already published in Vorwaerts he introduced matters not referred to in the telegram serves to shew that he recognises the incompleteness of the position he at first laid down.

In his reply to our letter published in Vorwaerts Comrade Bebel states that his telegram described the result of the English elections as designating a state of mind of the British people ; to this we have raised no objection but we would point out that what we have called attention to was that the telegram also indicated on the part of Comrade Bebel a state of mind which was in our opinion unsatisfactory m so far as it “welcomed” as a sign of progress that result. The concluding sentence of the telegram did certainly express doubt as to whether the expectations of progress would be fulfilled, but similar doubts and in stronger language haver been more than once expressed by Reynolds’s Newspaper itself. That, however, dues not prove the Editor of Reynolds’s Newspaper to be a Socialist. Surely, we are justified in expecting from our comrade an expression of opinion which would convey something more than a doubt as to the power or inclination of the Liberal Party of Capitalism to ameliorate the condition of the working class ? The members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain at any rate entertain no doubts on the matter. British Liberalism is an enemy, and we expect nothing from an enemy but hostility.

Comrade Bebel avers that in sending his telegram he had in mind not merely the result in favour of the Liberals, but also the result in favour of the Socialist Party. Here the result of the elections is regarded as an overwhelming triumph for Liberalism or Radicalism, and as the telegram did not contain any reference to Socialism, it was open to the render to understand that our Comrade sympathised with the Radical victory. We have again perused the telegram and find our impressions in no way altered. In this connection it is well to point out that it is a common practice among capitalist journals in Britain to describe German Socialism as a bourgeois Radical movement, and when we here preach the class struggle they tell us that we are not in accord with the German movement. In the issue of Reynolds’s Newspaper containing Comrade Bebel’s telegram, an editorial article in the column preceding that which was boldly headed by the telegram, points out that “a Socialist in theory is a Radical in practice,” and the publication of the telegram as an ”important” message was calculated to support this position. In that issue, also, is reproduced part of our “Why Vote ?” manifesto, and the obvious contradiction between our advice to the working class to abstain from voting altogether in the last General Election (on the grounds that every candidate appealing for their votes was a conscious or un-conscious supporter of capitalism and that, therefore, whatever the result, it could not be beneficial to them) and the position taken up by Comrade Bebel whose telegram greeted the result as an auspicious sign of progress, was just the. kind of thing which has in the past been used to our detriment by the British Radical press.

Our Comrade says he cannot imagine how we could have thought he did not recognise that genuine progress could be achieved except by Socialism, but there is no mention of Socialism in the telegram and the victory of the Liberal Party is the only result referred to.

Regarding Comrade Bebel’s views with reference to the result of the British elections, we wish to make the following comments :

(1) We agree that it might be described as an expression of determination to uphold the Free Trade system. In view, however, of tho fact that as admitted by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman the head of the Liberal and Free Trade Government, there are in Britain to-day thirteen millions of the working class on the verge of starvation although the Free Trade regime has been established for sixty years, it can scarcely be claimed that the workers have much to congratulate themselves upon. As Comrade Bebel knows, it is difficult to say which are the worst off, the workers of Protectionist America or Free Trade Britain. In Germany where Feudalism is still far from being extinct there doubtless exist reasons for interesting the workers in questions of tariff, but here in Britain where industrial Capitalism enjoys full sway, such reasons are inapplicable. Hence we tell the working class that questions of tariff do not affect them.

(2) If the elections shewed a desire on the part of the British people to renounce jingoism, it is a curious fact that in foreign affairs it is the avowed intention of the Liberal Cabinet to continue the policy of the late Tory Government. On the very day that Reuter’s Berlin telegram containing Comrade Bebel’s view as to the abandonment of Jingoism in England was published, there also appeared in the English press the announcement of the refusal of the British Secretary for War to reduce the standing army which is still on the same footing as it was during the South African War. In this refusal the Government were supported by such “Socialist” Members of Parliament as P. Snowden, D. J. Shackleton and W. Crooks. Indeed, there has been no slackening of Jingoism either during or after tne elections. Comrade Bebel has apparently mistaken Liberal professions for Liberal performances. They profess to be the party of peace, but historical records shew that more wars have been carried on in the name of the British nation while the Liberal Party have been in power than while the Tories have held ollice.

(3) We absolutely deny the accuracy of our Comrade’s assertion that progress is to be expected in the social legislation of England due to the entrance into Parliament of representatives of the Socialist Party. Not a single Socialist canidate was elected. It is not at all clear what Comrade Bebel has in mind when he speaks of the “Socialist Party,” but if he refers to the Labour Representation Committee, which is the organisation that returned the so-called Independent Labour members, we wish to inform our Comrade that this organisation declines to recognise any Socialist candidate : it has no principles, no program, and merely a constitution which states that their members shall be independent of the other political parties. The Independent Labour Party, which ran its candidates under the auspices of the Labour Reprsentation Committee, repudiates the class struggle—see their press. J. Keir Hardie, Chairman of the Labour Party in Parliament, denies the class struggle, and J. Ramsay MacDonald, Secretary of the Labour Representation Committee and Parliamentary Whip of the Labour Party, has recently written a book entitled “Socialism and Society,” published by the Independent Labour Party, repudiating the class struggle and ranking Karl Marx as the last of the Utopian Socialists. Those candidates claiming to be Socialists and recognised as such by the International Socialist Congress or International Socialist Bureau, and who were elected, did not stand as Socialists—they are part and parcel of the non-Socialist Labour Party. The Social Democratic Federation, which is claimed by Reynolds’s Newspaper to be “the only genuine Socialistic organisation in the Kingdom,” did not secure the return of a single Socialist candidate.

The Executive Committee of The Socialist Party of Great Britain notes that Comrade Bebel recognises that genuine progress in both domestic and international affairs can be achieved only by the Socialist Party, but regrets that he did not remove any possibility of misconception by utilising for the specific indication of this belief the remaining scope of the one hundred and twenty words prepaid by Reynolds’s Newspaper. Had he have done this, the London organ of bourgeois democracy would be unlikely to have given his message the prominence it did.

The Executive Committee of

The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

(Signed) C. Lehane.

General Secretary.

Blogger's Note:

From the same issue of the Socialist Standard see:

• Bebel's Incursion Into English Politics
• Rampageous "Reynolds's."

Editorial: Rampageous "Reynolds's." (1906)

Editorial from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

With regard to the splutteringly splenetic comments which Reynolds’s Newspaper appears to think the action of our Party in this matter merits, we need only observe that they do not unduly depress us. Curiously enough, we did not expect Reynolds’s to appreciate our protest. We did not suppose, even, that Reynolds’s would understand it. If the hard, cold truth must be told we confess that it was not in our mind that, even presuming Reynolds’s capacity to understand and appreciate a stand for principle, it would have been delighted that the stand should have been made in this particular case. Because if our action secures a wide publicity, and our view obtains a similarly extended endorsement (as we make no doubt it will from those who accept the principle of the class struggle), Reynolds’s stands exposed as merely the capitalist journal it is. This, of course, would not suit Reynolds’s book. It relies largely upon its ability to maintain the fiction that it is a desperately “advanced” organ, at whose voice Re-action halts tremblingly.

So far, therefore, from being abashed by the somewhat subtle sarcasm of its references to “a body calling itself The Socialist Party of Great Britain,” whose secretary, “a Mr. Lehane” etc., or by its crushing denunciation of us as “an obscure sect of Socialist malcontents,” we are almost inclined to hilarity. We cheerfully admit that we are a body calling itself The Socialist Party of Great Britain. We presume to call ourselves that because as a matter of sober fact we are The Socialist Party of Great Britain ! Our secretary is “a Mr. Lehane,” who, as Reynolds’s will be interested to know, we call Comrade Lehane. Also we are Socialist malcontents because there is no other way. If Reynolds’s knows a Socialist who is not a malcontent we should be glad to see him. He would be worth going a long journey to view.

Having gone to this trouble to assure Reynolds’s on these points, perhaps we may now venture to ask a favour for ourselves. That it will be quite an easy request for an organ like Reynolds’s to comply with we are quite ready to believe, although there does seem to be an incomprehensible number of apparently insurmountable difficulties in the way of other, less eminent, organs and persons satisfying our small requirements in the same regard. All we ask is that Reynolds’s will be good enough to slightly abbreviate a few of its Divorce Court reports so that it may find an inch or two of its invaluable space for the publication of the evidence in support of the allegation it has made against us of having sent a misleading letter to Bebel and of largely occupying ourselves with abuse. We should be so much obliged for proof of either or both charges. Would, for example, the extracts from this paper which Reynolds’s has often reproduced with approval contain the abuse? We are sorry to say that we cannot accept, such allegations even from Reynolds’s without some proof.

As it is we are compelled to admit that a complaint of abuse from Reynolds’s comes as refreshingly humourous to us as its rather lumbersome essays in irony. Reynolds’s protesting against abuse is as if the Prince of Darkness protested against the heat !

Editorial: The Second Annual Conference. (1906)

Editorial from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Second Annual Conference of The Socialist Party of Great Britain will gather at the Communist Club at Easter, to review the work of the year and draw from it the lessons which will enable us to avoid any mistakes of the past and perfect our organisation for the future. The delegates will find the Party stronger numerically than it ever was, and growing rapidly. The propaganda work being confined in the main to the metropolis, our progress has, of course, been made principally in the metropolitan area. Nevertheless, in most of the large and many of the small provincial centres we have now either members of the Party or subscribers to our official organ, THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, and we think we are quite justified in saying that without being extravagantly sanguine over the matter, we have no doubt at all that the near future will show branches forming around the existing nucleus in those districts. At present Watford to the North and Bexley to the South stand as our Branch outposts. A year hence, with the maintenance of that enthusiasm and determination which have endured unabated with our membership during the two years of our existence—and may therefore fairly be regarded now as constant and even an increasing quantity—and we shall surely be heard of further afield. We are young, but in our short two years of life not one single fact, not one isolated incident, has inspired a doubt in our mind as to the correctness of the attitude we have assumed in opposition to all other parties. On the contrary, everything has confirmed us in our faith, and demonstrated the dangers that, attend even the slightest deviation from the line rigidly dictated by the conditions of the class struggle. We have seen how the most honest of men may only traverse these side-tracks and seeming shortcuts at the imminent risk of danger from the pitfalls and gins that beset them. We do not know of an instance where an honest man has escaped unscathed. Knowing therefore what we know, we may go forward with added confidence, satisfied that if our honest man remains honest he will, directly he has discovered his error, make all haste to extricate himself from the difficulties of the political cul-de-sac into which he has unwittingly strayed and follow after along the path of our progress. Let those who gibe at our youth (as though truth had any relation to old age) take what measure of poor consolation they may from their own decrepitude. Let those who sneer at our size (as though truth and bulk were interchangeable terms) make as merry in their hearts as they may. Time, whose inexorable advance none may stay, will cure us all too speedily of our youth, as it will cure our sneerers and gibers of their delusions. For them there is nothing but a painful awakening or—dissolution. The future is with us. Therefore, Comrades of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, let us utilise the opportunity presented by our second Annual Conference to cement again our resolve to follow the straight track at whatever cost, and may our gathering together serve to inspirit us, and nerve us, and strengthen our arm for the work which remains to be done before the last entrenchment of capitalism is rushed, the last rampart scaled, and the forces of Labour, so long held in subjection, come into their own.

The valour of discretion. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Southend S.D.F. prefers to ape Brer Rabbit.

In our January number we referred to and answered certain charges made against the Socialist Party of Great Britain by Mr. Doody, speaking for the Southend Branch of the Social Democratic Federation. These charges were the only answer Mr. Doody appears to have been able to make to questions touching the confusing and unsatisfactory tactics of the S.D.F., which were put to him at a public meeting by our Comrade Rogers. As we were, without difficulty, able to shew, the charges were as devoid of foundation as the allegation that Mr. Doody fully understands the only logical position a Socialist Party can adopt. But as Mr. Doody proceeded to challenge our Comrade Fitzgerald to public debate (in an exuberance doubtless born of the knowledge that Fitzgerald was many miles away), we were content to leave the further presentation of our case in justification of our opposition to the S.D.F. and all other similar capitalist adjuncts in the hands of Fitzgerald, confident of his ability to supply those inhabitants of Southend interested in the matter with all the evidence they might require.

Since then, we have been endeavouring to induce the Southend S.D.F. to give effect to the challenge their champion threw out. We publish the correspondence below from which it will be seen that after much hesitation, they elected to deprive Southend of the pleasure of hearing a local character—as we understand Mr. Doody is—attempt to demolish our case. We can only assume that having some not unnatural misapprehension on this score, they sought to stave off possible catastrophe (and us) by proposing to transfer the discussion from Southend to London. But we are always glad of the opportunity a debate offers to vindicate our position to the working class, and we accepted the changed venue. Since when we can get no further communication from them.

This seems to be a case of a challenge in haste repented at leisure and we ask the workers of Southend where we are pleased to know THE SOCIALIST STANDARD has a very good circulation—to observe what manner of men our opponents are and what manner of method they pursue.

The point that Mr. Doody issued the challenge is, it will be seen, disputed, but as our Comrade Rogers sends details of the incidents leading up to the challenge and has a clear recollection of the whole matter, there seems little doubt that Mr. Doody’s memory is faulty. However, the point is probably in the minds ot the audience of the meeting referred to, and need not be laboured.

_______________

1a. Caledonian Road, London, N.

December 27th, 1905.

Dear Comrade,

We are informed by our member Miss Laura Rogers, that a member of the Southend Branch of the Social Democratic Federation, viz., Mr. Thomas Doody, has publicly expressed his desire to meet our comrade John Fitzgerald in public debate and I shall, therefore, feel obliged if you will inform me as soon as possible, as I understand that you are the Secretary of the Southend Branch of the S.D.F., what proposals you have to make with respect to the challenge.

—Yours fraternally.

R. H. Kent. Asst. Sec.

Mr. S. Howard.

Point Loma, Cromer Road. 

Southend-on-Sea.

_______________

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

January 17th, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

Will you kindly favor us with an early reply to our letter of the 27th December last, respecting the public, challenge issued by your Mr. Thomas Doody to debate with our Comrade Fitzgerald. 

—Yours fraternally.

R. H. Kent. Asst. Sec.

Mr. S. Howard.

Point Loma, Cromer Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

_______________

Point Loma, Cromer Road, Southend-on-Sea.

Jan’y 20th, 1906.

R.H. Kent,

Assist. Sec’y.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Dear Comrade,

In reply to your letter dated the 17th inst. (to hand last night), I wrote a letter to your office on the 18th inst., but not having your letter of the 27th ulto. before me, I inadvertently addressed it to “Miss Kate Hawkins” as Assistant Sec.! However, the following is a copy of it :—

“I much regret the delay in acknowledging the receipt of your letter of some days ago, with reference to a proposed debate. The question put to Mr. T. Doody by your Miss L. Rogers was, ‘Are yon prepared to defend the tactics of the S.D.F.,’ to which the reply ‘ Yes’ was given; and I am instructed to inform you that he is prepared to do so at any time, and anywhere, in London".

Yours fraternally,

S. Howard,

Branch Sec. S.D.F.

_______________

la, Caledonian Road, London, N.

24th January, 1906.

Mr. S. Howard,

Secretary,

Southend Branch, Social-Democratic Federation,

Point Loma, Cromer Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

Dear Comrade.

I am directed by the Executive Committee to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 20th inst., and in doing so to express their very great surprise at the attempt to change the venue of the proposed debate from Southend to London. They instruct me to point out that the challenge arose out of a public meeting held at Southend under the auspices of the Southend Branch of the Social-Democratic Federation, and was accepted, by Mr. T. Doody who, we presume, was your accredited representative at that meeting.

My Executive, therefore, see no reason why the debate should not be held in Southend, and they suggest that it would not be fair to the members of the public who were present at your meeting when the challenge was given and accepted, if they were deprived of the opportunity of hearing the differences between us fully discussed.

I am accordingly instructed to make the following definite proposals to you: —

That the, debate between Mr. T. Doody, representing the Southend Branch of the Social-Democratic Federation, and our comrade J. Fitzgerald, representing the Executive Committee of this Party, should be held in a public hall at Southend at as early a date as can conveniently be arranged:

That admission to the meeting shall be free : that it shall be well advertised by means of posters and handbills ; and that the total expense shall be borne equally between yourselves and this Party.

Kindly favour me with an early reply, so that arrangements can be made without delay.

Yours fraternally,

R. H. Kent,

Asst. Sec.

_______________

Social-Democratic Federation,

Southend-on-Sea Branch,

Southehurch Road.

Feb. 1st, 1906.

Dear Comrade,

Your letter of the 24th ulto. received, and the same shall be laid before my Branch on the 7th inst.

Yours fraternally,

S. Howard,

Branch Sec.

_______________

Social-Democratic Federation,

Southend-on-Sea Branch,

Southehurch Road. Sunday,

Feb. 18th, 1906.

The Secretary,

Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Comrade,

I reply to your communication of the 24th January. I am instructed to say that my Committee do not see that any good can be gained by having a debate here. Your Party has no branch, and under all the circumstances, if the debate is to take place, it must, as stated in a previous letter to you, be somewhere in London where you have a branch or branches.

Yours fraternally,

P. Pro Branch Committee,

J. Adams.

_______________

la. Caledonian Road, London, N.

24th Feb., 1906.

Mr. J. Adams,

Southend-on-Sea Branch.

Social Democratic Federation, Southchurch Road,

Southend-on-Sea.

Dear Comrade,

Your letter of the 18th inst. was laid before the Executive Committee on Tuesday last, and in reply I am instructed to inform you that the correspondence will be published.

I am further directed to state that the E.C. accepts your offer to debate in London, also your offer to debate in Southend as soon as a branch of this Party is formed in Southend.

Please let us know the dates on which your Mr. Doody could come to London, in order that arrangements may be made for the debate here.

Yours fraternally,

C. Lehane,

General Secretary.

Letter: The Enfranchisement of Women. (1906)

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

To the Editor of “The Socialist Standard.”

Dear Sir,—May I appeal to your readers, men who have fought and won a great victory for Labour, to stand by the women who have now begun in earnest their struggle for political existence?

Working women realise at last that just as Labour men had to agitate and fight to secure their right to be represented in the State, so they must now agitate and fight to win their enfranchisement, for the sake of their homes and their children—for the sake of justice and honour.

Our experience of every agitation for a wider suffrage is that at the last moment women have been left out of the question. We want first to get sex disability abolished, and then to work with all those who desire a broader basis of democratic representation, and a fuller measure of social reform. We shall welcome very gladly all the help we can get from men, and we hope to collect a fund that shall enable us to carry out an organised, vigorous campaign.

Yours etc,

Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence.

Hon. Treasurer,

Women’s Social and Political Union.

Central London Committee.

Reply:

We do not hold the recent election of “Labour” men to Parliament to be a victory for Labour. In our March issue it was shewn to be a victory for confusion.

For the rest Mrs. Pethick Lawrence has reversed what we regard as the correct order of things, and it is for precisely this reason that we are opposed to all the reform school of politicians, whose method is to focus attention upon some supposed ameliorative measure in the hope that by it they may be advanced one step, more or less short, on the road to a more or less distant goal. The goal is subordinate to the steps. We claim that by crystallizing attention on the goal, the possibility of losing our way among a multitude of stops is obviated. It is the goal that matters.

On the question of women’s franchise, for instance, it is the step that concerns Mrs. Lawrence. The goal is a very indistinct and shadowy “fuller measure of social reform.”

Our goal is Socialism. We know that the working class cannot obtain Socialism ’til they understand their class position and the reasons why Socialism alone will materially benefit them. It is our business, therefore, to instruct them so far as we may in their class position and in Socialism. When they understand ; when they are class-conscious, they will fight with us for Socialism. Short of that there is nothing that will avail. The fact that they strive for something less is proof positive that they are not class-conscious. We have therefore class-un-conscious workers to deal with, and if we harness their untutored spirit of revolt to the chariot wheel of reform, we are simply deluding them and wasting energies which might just as well and just as easily be focussed upon the essential—Socialism.

Therefore we are not concerned with electoral reform, howbeit we are of necessity Universal Adult Suffragists. The present franchise which gives the male workers sufficient power to effect any purpose, has been utilised to maintain capitalist domination in politics. That is to say the working-class vote has been used by the working class against working-class interest—why? Because, of working-class ignorance. To an ignorant working class, therefore, the weapon of the vote is useless. Only an intelligent working class can use that weapon to working-class advantage. Why are the workers ignorant? We reply because to a considerable extent their energies have been consumed in unimportant reform agitations such as this of the women’s franchise. How may their ignorance be dispelled ? We answer, by Socialists telling them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth particularly the whole truth.

And the whole truth is that the extension of the franchise to women is not an important matter ; that the important matter is working-class-consciousness—the full appreciation of the absolute and irreconcilable hostility of interest existing between the capitalist class and the working class. When that has been achieved and the workers have organised themselves into a political force translating their industrial antagonism to the capitalist class into political antagonism to all the political forces of capital (which would, of course, be the necessary and inevitable result of class-consciousness), the extension of the franchise to cover women workers and that great body of at present vote-less males, will be effected without difficulty— if, indeed, in the process of organisation, the capitalist class, dismayed by the determination of a rapidly growing working-class party to be satisfied with nothing less than the extinction of capitalism itself, have not enacted a measure of complete enfranchisement in the hope that it might side-track the movement, or at any rate, stay its progress temporarily. If there is one fact that obtrudes upon the attention of students of industrial history more than another it is that the larger the demand preferred by organised determination, the larger the concessions made. We do not, therefore, demand the half-loaf (if it is a half-loaf) of a woman’s vote, nor even the whole loaf (as they regard it) of the more advanced reformer. We demand the whole baker’s shop of Socialism, and it is our business to endeavour to harness the might of the working class to our demand. We have hitched our waggon to a star, and we do not propose to uncouple.

The text for Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and for all who earnestly desire working-class emancipation should be, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of Socialism and its righteousness, and all the other things will be added unto you.”

We hope we have without offence made it clear why we cannot respond to the appeal made for help. We have important work to do.

More Confusion. (1906)

From the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have before us a copy of the Agenda for the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the United Government Workers’ Federation, which was held on the 15th and 16th of March: a document that illustrates very clearly the confusion existing in the minds of the workers as to the class struggle.

The Agenda consists of about 50 Resolutions on Education—these are tucked away at the bottom of the Agenda and consist of something less than the familiar list of pious aspirations on the subject usually voiced at the Trades Union Congress. The Executive put forward a motion congratulating local organisations on the return of Messrs. Crooks, Bowerman and Jenkins and regretting the failure of Messrs. Quelch and Saunders. And another congratulating the Labour M.P.’s and asking them to ballot for motions for bringing the question of improving the position of State employees before the House of Commons.

Nearly all the rest of the Agenda consists of Resolutions “calling on” “urging,” “respectfully urging,” “requesting,” . . the Government to concede some special points interesting one or other of the local organisations. These or similar motions have doubtless been passed hundreds of times before by working class assemblies with exactly the same result—just nothing at all. How much longer will the workers continue to beg cringingly, each little section for itself, instead of boldly standing up as a class and taking what is their own.

A. R. V. M.

SPGB Meetings. (1906)

Party News from the April 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Pauperism versus Poverty. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Rt. Hon. John Burns, in the picturesque language characteristic of him, once said ”Figures never lie, but liars sometimes figure.” During the late election, however, in contradicting the figures of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, Mr. Burns did a little figuring of his own.

He said

“In 1849, when the country had just emerged from Protection, there were 1,088,000 paupers, or 62 per thousand of the population, in 1900 there were 25 per thousand. In 1849 the able-bodied poor numbered 13 per thousand of the population, but to-day only 2 per thousand of the paupers were able-bodied.

“As to the cost of the Poor Law Administration, the increase was due to the fact that as under Protection the standard of comfort of the whole community was low, so under Free Trade it was correspondingly better. They had better workhouses, many of them almost palatial whereas formerly they were almost a cross between a penitentiary and a prison.” (The italics are ours.)

That the standard of comfort of a section of the community has improved is, of course, true ; but this cannot be said of the mass of the workers. They toil harder and can buy no more with their wages. Their employment is less secure and their out-of-work spells are longer. The average worker’s wage is barely sufficient to enable him to continue in working condition and reproduce his kind; whilst there are 12 to 13 millions of the working class who cannot obtain even that bare sufficiency. This too, in face of the fact that the labour of the people has increased the wealth of the “country” by leaps and bounds.

We have, it is true, if we have the misfortune to outlive our usefulness to our masters, permission to end our days in those palatial residences which Mr. Burns said are due to Free Trade.

But what of Mr. Burns’ figures ?

They only show an increase in well-being if the Poor Law administration has not been made more severe. Let us see whether the Poor Law regulations have been made stricter, for if they have, the veriest tyro would know that the value of the figures is thereby destroyed.

The Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834 abolished the grant of relief in aid of wages, and considerably modified the Act of Settlement, it also laid down the principle of the Workhouse Test. Parliament, however, left the gradual introduction of the principle in the hands of the Central Department. Nevertheless the refusal of relief in aid of wages and the partial imposition of the workhouse test in order to discourage applicants for relief caused a continuous decline in pauperism from 1834—twelve years before the inauguration of Free Trade.

The Poor Law was further strengthened by the Amendment Act of 1844 ; but it was not (says the “Encyclopaedia Britannica”) until 1867 that the local administrative bodies took the matter up with much enthusiasm. The Pauper Inmate Act of 1871, and the Casual Poor Act of 1882 made conditions of relief more onerous by increasing the compulsory stay of vagrants and by other means.

Regarding this, Ashcrott and Preston Thomas say in their work, ”The English Poor Law System,” p. 285,

“The marked increase of indoor paupers (accompanied, of course, by a still more marked decrease of out-door paupers until recently is due to the movement beginning about 1865 in favour of the workhouse principle.”

Again, p. 288,

“It is clear that in the case of this class of paupers (able-bodied adults) it was mainly by the rigid enforcement of the workhouse test that this improvement was secured.”

The facts clearly show that the statistics of pauperism for the past 70 years are in themselves no guide to the condition of the working class, but they illustrate that poverty is inseparable from capitalism, be it Free Trade or Protectionist. Indeed, in defiance of tests and restrictions there has been a marked increase in pauperism during the past decade.

In spite of Mr. Burns, decreasing pauperism has not been due to diminishing poverty, but to the application of the golden rule of capitalist poor “relief,” to give the poor exactly what they don’t want, so that they would rather starve than come again.

It is, indeed, in consistent application of this golden rule that Mr. Burns himself is being used. The fact that he provides an excellent means of decoying some with vague labour aspirations into the toils of Liberalism, is not the only merit he posesses in capitalist eyes. Few have made it more peculiarly their business to dilate upon those virtues which the capitalist desires in his wage-slaves that they may work cheaper and harder, and none have so vehemently championed the capitalist view of the poor as the new “Labour” minister.

No course moreover, leads so easily to popularity and patronage as the flagellation of working class vices, provided always the fact is blinked that these are the product of a vicious system. Nothing wins the applause of the interested and the superficial more easily than the loud-mouthed opprobrium of the loafer, the outcast and the unfortunate, so long as attention is diverted from the condition of things that created them. Mr. Burns has repeatedly disclaimed any sympathy for these victims of the capitalist juggernaut. He has “none to spare” for these. Even the “Pall Mall Gazette” was led to exclaim that he might be trusted to deal with the “whining wastrelism” known as the unemployed.

In the “Charity Organization Review” he said in 1894 and repeats it in varying phrases,

“Every man who has been out of work cheers the man who is in favour of out-door relief. Every loafer at the street corner who lives on it says: ‘Three cheers for a pound a week out-relief.’ I have always been against it except when administered with the greatest rigidity.”

No wonder, therefore, that the capitalist press proclaim him as the “Right man in the right place,” for as President of the Local Government Board he has found his vocation in the administration of the Poor Law in the interests of the master class.

We who know the utter futility of charity, know also that the only hope of the working class lies in Socialism, and, therefore, concentrate our efforts on that, necessarily in hostility to the capitalist class and all who become its willing tools. The interests of the master class demand that the Poor Law shall be administered with the “greatest rigidity,” so that the poor may be compelled to submit to the most inhuman conditions rather than accept its “shelter,” and the ruling class have found a man after their own heart, one also who does not shrink, when juggling with their statistics, from concealing awkward facts.

F. C. Watts

Socialism. What it is and the Conditions for its Realisation. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In spite of the arduous years of propaganda—or perhaps because of them—of Socialist ideas and Socialist thought there exists an immense amount of ignorance of what Socialism really implies. Constantly during the last few weeks of political strife I have met with “Socialists” who have had not even the remotest idea of what really constituted Socialism; “Socialists” whose entire end and aim was the taxation of ground values ; “Socialists” who saw in Tariff Reform and a general support of Tory candidates, the surest method of furthering their ends ; “Socialists” who recognised that politics was all a farce, but must need canvass for Liberal Candidates; members of “Socialist” organisations who ran as “Labour” candidates, and members of “Socialist” organisations who ran as Liberal candidates ; “Socialists” of the S.D.F. and the I.L.P., of the Fabian Society and the Guild of St. Matthew : such were and are some of the causes of the confusion of what Socialism really is which exists among the working class to-day.

What these men cannot see is that for a rapid acceptance of Socialist principles a clear expression of those principles is required. The believer in Socialism must go to the working class and tell them the underlying ideas of Socialism ; must show them that Socialism is a distinct political and economic aspiration, capable of being explained in a manner at once brief, clear, and lucid, and remarkably fitted for practical adaptation to present-day needs ; must show that as the Liberal works for Liberalism, the Tory for Toryism, and the capitalist for his own individual gain, so too must the Socialist work only for Socialism, must support those candidates only who are pledged to Socialism and run as avowed Socialists on a Socialist platform, and so must the working class work in its own class interest.

To do this, however, clear thinking is expedient and, alas ! the gentry who form the membership of such bodies as the S.D.F., I.L.P., and the Fabian Society are seldom guilty of thinking clearly where the subject matter of their thought is Socialism.

I am forced to these remarks by the astounding spectacle which has been witnessed during the recent change in the personnel of our government bureaucracy. Men of all shades of “Socialist” opinion have been carried off their feet, and have been found openly and avowedly supporting the candidature of members of that party “which is in no sense more likely to do anything for the working class than is the Tory Party.”

One thing stands out clearly in the mind of the average worker, and that is that any “Socialist” who works for Liberalism or Toryism or in aid of the candidature of any member of either of the capitalist parties, might as well not be a Socialist for all the practical good he is to The Socialist movement. To those of us who are members of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, who have never in any measure compromised our Socialism, they stand condemned as not merely useless to the Socialist movement, but a constant and increasing danger to it.

With every fresh day comes a furthering of the industrial development of capitalism, comes the hastening of that perfection of the capitalist system which means its downfall. It therefore behoves each and all of us who have the cause of Socialism at heart to avoid any confusing of the issues in the minds of those whose suffrage we seek. And this can only be done by keeping aloof from any party, movement, or tendency which is not, clearly Socialist.

The real reason why the members of the S.D.F. and the similarly constituted I.L.P. are not clear as to their methods of realising their avowed ideal is that they have never clearly grasped the meaning of what constitutes the class struggle. A lip homage they have given, and nothing more. A nominal adherence to the teaching of Marx they give, but a clear knowledge of Marx’s teaching they have not. Having failed to base their political policy upon the sound principle of the class struggle they have been at the mercy of every political current and thus, failing to understand their own position, they have failed to make others understand it.

We are all agreed that the ultimate end of Socialist propaganda must be the establishment of a Socialist regime through the common holding and common control of all the products of labour. This is to be secured by wresting the means and instruments of production and distribution from the possession of the present holders and utilising them for the common good.

To secure this end it is, of course, necessary that a very large proportion of the people must be in favour of the change, whereas to-day a very minute proportion of the people of this country are thus favourable. Hence it is necessary to propagate our principles in such a manner as to induce their acceptance by those who are now hostile or indifferent to them.

To ensure such a change of opinion it is essential that the differences between the Socialist position and every other position should be emphasised rather than minimised. We are something more than merely advanced Radicals, something more than Co-operators seeking cooperation in distribution. These latter are seeking to palliate present day conditions while conserving the present industrial basis of Society, whereas we strive to revolutionise the entire structure of Society by changing its economic basis. We are qualitatively as well as quantitatively diverse from every other political organisation.

At the same time that the preaching of our ideal is necessary we are fully aware that we have the economic forces of industrial capitalism ranged on our side, helping us to fight our battle for Socialism. The enforced introduction of improved machinery, through the operation of free competition ; the development of a complicated credit system ; the lessening of distance between manufactory and market owing to ’the betterment of means of communication ; the internationalisation of industry and trade : these among other causes lead directly to the throwing of men and women out of employment; more frequently occurring trade crises; and monopolies with their control of wages, prices, and the government of the nations.

All these economic changes, while making life more insecure as wealth increases, generate a seething mass of discontent which the Socialist must organise and educate. So, too, the changes towards monopoly are changes in the direction of greater social co-operation among the workers—a co-operation which leads to a constant interchange of ideas. Again, under the monopoly an entire industry is often worked by one organisation for the capitalist’s private gain, whereas the worker is being taught to see that it might as easily be worked in. the interests of the entire community.

It is needful, then, to understand that Socialism is a change from capitalist individual ownership to common social ownership, that the believers in this change must combine in an organisation for educational and political purposes so as to engineer the capture of the political machinery as a preliminary to taking over the economic.

Unfortunately the acceptance of the principle of common holding and common control of the instruments of wealth making does not involve the recognition of the necessity of forming a political organisation absolutely independent of every other. It is so very tempting to think that perhaps something may be done now by utilising the present political parties. Many men, indeed, have thought that they could permeate one or the other of the two political parties with Socialistic ideas. Bernard Shaw and his Fabian Society have endeavoured to secure the Liberals while Maltman Barry has made a similar attempt with the Tories. All such endeavours have failed as they were bound to fail. The political divisions are along class lines. The reason why to-day the lines of demarcation between Liberal and Tory are fading is because the two elements of the capitalist class are fast merging. The aristocratic landed class no longer exist as a separate class from the moneyed capitalist class. Money weds with title and divisions are blotted out. Not so with the working class. Here the line of demarcation is exceedingly clear and the economic division of class must evolve and be reflected in the capitalist division of party.

Marx, in his famous “Communist Manifesto,” contends—and rightly so—that all history is a history of class struggles. Not only this, but the political power in modern nations is being constantly wrested from the hands of prerogative by a class economically inferior which absorbs the class economically higher.

Thus in this country the last century saw the political power taken possession of by the moneyed capitalist class, and the dispossession of the titled landed aristocracy who formerly held it. This new class, with its pride of position, drew towards it the former ruling class, with whom it has gradually merged its identity. They twain have become as one flesh.

Over against this new composite ruling class is the working class, which is slowly asserting itself as an economic and political class. The struggle of to-morrow is between capitalist class and working class, and as the latter is numerically much stronger than the former, and being more in touch with the realities of production possess men of stronger brains and brighter intellects, there is no doubt as to who will ultimately prove the victor in the struggle.

The worker must win, and in his winning wall absorb the capitalist class in his ranks, thus procuring by his political emancipation the final abolition of all class. But this abolition of class can only arise through the removing of all class advantage and class privilege. And the removal of these mean the identification of all wealth as social wealth—the abolition of all private holding of commodities. Thus it is plain, that the final political and economic emancipation of the working class can only arise from the establishing of a Socialist Society.

The deduction I wish to draw from this is that an independent working-class party may start with whatever views it likes, but it must ultimately adopt and fight its battles on a Socialist platform. Its destiny must be to work along the same lines as The Socialist Party of Great Britain—lines of uncompromising Socialism.

Economicus.

God’s Refuge for Poor People. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

In view of the attempts to “monkey with the thermometer” of the labour market by the transportation (for life as it is hoped) of a selected few of the unemployed and their dependents to the 160 acres of man-less land which a benevolent Canadian Government (of capitalists in need of a larger surplus of labour themselves) have set apart for each landless man who can conform to the conditions of the 10 dollar gift, the following extracts from a letter received by a comrade from a friend “in our great self-governing colony” will prove of considerable interest. Their publication may do something to counteract the work of the emigration touts (religious and secular) and the great-hearted philanthropists who are ready and even anxious to sink their hard-earned savings in a fund designed to provide for some of the deserving poor a way out of their unfortunate condition, (and out of the country) to a home beyond the sea pending translation to “the home beyond-the sky” also arranged, we understand, mainly for the reception of the deserving poor. On the evidence we incline to the belief that the latter is very little, if any, more intangible than the former.

Winnipeg.

Jan. 30th, ’06.

Dear Comrade,—I feel that I must give you my views of Canada as this country is just now receiving so much attention in England. . . . The conditions of labour are cruel. The workman is exploited if anything even worse than in England. At the present time there are hundreds of unemployed in this town. Every morning great numbers of men unable to purchase a paper, can be seen making for the “Free Press” office (outside which particulars of situations vacant are displayed) in the hope that something may be going. The cold is very intense and plenty of people are without the clothes necessary to keep them warm, while, although there are large tracts of forest, fires for them are out of the question owing to the high price of wood. Six dollars (£1 4s. 0d.) is the cost of a single case of wood, which is accounted for by the fact that there is only one way of getting it here, viz., by the Canadian Pacific Railway, who have, therefore, a complete hold of the place and charge very high rates of carriage.

The price of most other things is proportionally high—five cents for a 1½ loaf (12 ozs. to the 1b.) ; housing accommodation that would cost 6 or 7 shillings in England costs 4½ dollars (18s.); the lowest tram fare is 5 cents (2½d.); clothing is very much dearer and altogether I estimate that I have to pay a dollar for what could be bought at home for a shilling.

The winter here begins in September and has often not broken up until April, and as the majority of men are thrown out of work during that time, they have to face poverty pretty bare. Just for the few summer months there is plenty of work, but as I say it does not last long. I have met men who have been in the Colony for 20 years and are as far from that big fortune the emigration monger is always talking about as they ever were. Even men with money find the struggle against the large companies too hard and only recently four fairly large business houses went smash in less than a fortnight.

To-day I was at the station when a large number of immigrants arrived from England and it was enough to make one’s heart bleed. What chance do these poor wretches stand in a strange land when so many knowing all the ins and outs of the place cannot get anything to do? The Home Missions have been fined for over-crowding their doss-houses. They charge the out-of-works 10 cents for a bed—such as it is.

All “pubs” and hotel bars close at 8 o’clock and on Saturdays at 6 o’clock remaining shut until 10 a.m. Monday, so that the opportunities for the workers to spend their money (when they have any) in drink are not very extensive.

As a further instance of the state of the labor market, I may say that I was in conversation to-night with a contractor who is putting up a large building by the City Hall and he told me he had 75 men, some of them with the very best references, call to-day looking for work. He could give them nothing being full up. Of course the employers encourage immigration schemes. They want plenty of men in the labour market during the busy summer months so that they may not have to pay the comparatively high prices for labour which were necessary in the past when labour was scarce.

Immigration is good business for Shipping and Railway Companies and the Employers, but the poor propertyless immigrant finds himself between the devil and the deep sea. Those 160 acres may be all right for the man with capital, but when one has no money to buy implements and seed and the oxen for ploughing and the other things necessary, and when one remembers that the land (for which the Government charge 10 dollars) may be, and frequently is, located 40 or 50 miles back from a railway or even a small town where crops can be marketed, it is no great capture.

It is not surprising, therefore, that according to the figures published by the “Free Press” the other night, only 27 in every hundred homesteads taken are held long enough, to secure the patent. This patent is the title deed which the Government gives after the individual has been living on and cultivating his land for 3 years. But in order to get it he has to cultivate 10 acres at least every year or the plot is taken away from him and sold to the next comer at 20 dollars—the price advancing 10 dollars for every new-comer.

The foolishness of some of the immigrants is surprising. They expect to find a house and everything necessary awaiting them. But they soon discover their mistake and many of them beat a hasty retreat very quickly. Numbers of the men who are walking about Winnipeg without a cent in the world have returned from Homesteads up West. Many of them would gladly go back to England if they could, for however hard their lot was there it was not so hard as it is here. But as they can’t raise the money they have to stop and make the best of it. You should read some of the complimentary remarks about General Booth and his organisation which these miserable folk have written on the walls of the Salvation Army Immigration Hall. You would be amused but you would also be able to see that the writers were far from content.

I hope to be back again in England soon myself. This “Heaven for the poor” is more like Hell with the fire out !

Yours truly,

E.F.

Labour at the Polls. A Victory for Confusion. (1906)

From the March 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the General Election much twaddle has been uttered concerning the result thereof. It has been a “Great Victory for Labour,” the “Triumph of Socialism,” and the like. Let us examine some of the polls, with a view to seeing how far Labour has won a victory and Socialism has triumphed.

The Social Democratic Federation were enabled by the Countess of Warwick and a mysterious “rich sympathiser” down Cornwall way, to contest six constituencies, and allowed some members to run under Trade Union auspices, permitting the breaking of the rules of the S.D.F. where necessary to secure Trade Union and L.R.C. support. It is a significant and satirical fact that this body, claiming to be of and for the working class, could not have sent at least three of its seven candidates to the poll had it not been for the gold of Lady Warwick and the mysterious friend referred to above.

The S.D.F. candidates and constituencies contested, with the polls, were the following : —

The solid vote for Gribble and Williams was 2,214, so the total S.D.F. vote was 17,131. This is rather over the mark, because the S.D.F. Executive only gave the Accrington Branch permission to put forward Irving “subject to the approval of the local Trades Council,” so that Irving’s was really a joint candidature, not an S.D.F. one alone.

Other members of the S.D.F. who contested seats were Quelch at Southampton and Belt at Hammersmith, both of whom ran as “Labour” candidates under the auspices of local Trades Councils, and Thorne at South West Ham, who was originally the candidate of the West Ham Trades Council, but who, on the instructions of the Gas Workers’ Union, signed the L.R.C. Declaration and ran as a “Labour” candidate under its auspices. At Rochdale the S.D.F. supported S. G. Hobson (I.L.P.), who ran as a Socialist. The polls were :—

Only 1,155 of Mr. Quelch’s poll were “plumpers.”

It will be noticed that, with two exceptions, all the constituencies for which an S.D.F. member stood returned Liberals, and in one of the exceptions there was no Liberal candidate. This result is instructive in view of what appeared “Justice” for Jan. 13. Said the editor (H. Quelch), “We have, as the phrase goes, ‘smashed up’ the Liberals in all those constituencies in which, in spite of hypocritical eleventh-hour appeals, they did not leave us a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” Of course, this was sheer brag, and can only bring a Body indulging in it into ridicule. As Mr. Hyndman remarks, “The S.D.F. has stood, and can stand, a lot of ridicule, But ridicule is apt to kill.” Mr. Hyndman is right.

Strenuous efforts were made by the S.D.F. to get the Liberal candidate out of the way and thus leave the S.D.F. “a clear field to try the issue direct with the Tories.” But if the S.D.F. candidates are only concerned to get into Parliament by the votes of the Socialist working class, it should make no difference to them how many capitalist factions put up candidates, excepting in so far as the more candidates to divide the non-Socialist vote, the better chance of the Socialist electors putting their candidate at the top of the poll. And why all this passing of resolutions, breaking up Liberal meetings, and wire-pulling to keep a Liberal out of the field ? Why not move heaven and earth to get the Conservative out of the way and try the issue direct with the Liberals ?

At Burnley, Mr. Hyndman, of course, ran as a Social-Democrat, but was quite willing to get elected by non-Socialist votes. In his election address he appealed to them to elect him so that he might “plead in Parliament for the sad and suffering millions of India.” The prospect of effecting the Social Revolution by pleading to the capitalist class to relieve to some slight degree the “sad and suffering millions” is a very remote one. British policy in India, said Mr. Hyndman, is “destroying, with inconceivable imbecility, the greatest market in the world for Lancashire cotton goods.” Now, this was an appeal to the interests of a section of the working class and their masters, which any non-Socialist could make quite as effectively, if not more so. A drastic change in the direction referred to would tend, if it provided an extended market for Lancashire cotton goods, to give a new lease of life to British Textile Industries, and thus defer the final collapse of Capitalism. Strenuous efforts, also were made to secure the Irish vote. In fact, Mr. Hyndman’s friends and also Mr. Hartley’s at Bradford assert that they lost the election because “the Irish vote was awarded to the Liberals.” We have yet to learn why the Irish should be expected to vote for Socialists, unless they are themselves Socialists. It has also been suggested that Mr. Hyndman would have won had there been a second ballot. But we claim that a vote that will be cast for a capitalist candidate at the first ballot and for a Socialist at the second is in no sense a class-conscious Socialist vote and could not be relied upon to back up revolutionary action taken by Socialists in Parliament.

In his election address, Mr. H. Quelch said, ”Having been selected as their candidate by the Trades and Labour Council, and other working class organisations in the Borough,” and “I and the Party for which I speak, the Labour Party of Southampton,” etc. A leaflet issued contained a cartoon shewing three men, “The Landlord” on the back of “Rates and Taxes,” who in turn was on the back of “Ratepayer.” “Vote for Quelch and get them off your back” ! Another leaflet was headed “A Bad Day for Liberalism,” and probably had some reference to the day when the Liberals of Southampton decided to break their agreement with Mr. Quelch’s “Labour Party,” and run a second candidate. This leaflet urged the establishment of a “Labour Party,” and called upon its readers to “Put the candidates of the Labour Representation Committee into Parliament” ! No mention is made in this literature of the S.D.F., although, according to “Justice,” Mr. Quelch was an S.D.F. candidate. Time was when Mr. Quelch wrote: “We want our men elected as Social Democrats, for the greater glory of Social Democracy. If they cannot be elected as Social Democrats, they had much better remain outside. We want our men elected as Social Democrats, independent of all other factions.”

Mr. J. Jones said he was “defeated ignominiously because he was the victim of lying misrepresentation,” and that “if they knew all the circumstances in connection with that fight they would say he had done a lot better than they expected.” Well, Mr. Jones has been repeatedly asked to tell all the circumstances but he has preferred to be “the victim of lying and misrepresentation” to doing so. He has, however, admitted that he himself did not know all the circumstances as the name and address of the “rich sympathiser” whose money was being so lavishly spent were unknown to him. Not only so, but the members of S.D.F. Executive were equally in the dark concerning this spook-like being, for at their meeting on Nov. 29th, 1904, “The Secretary reported that he had been introduced to, and had had an interview with the gentleman who was prepared to find the money for a Socialist candidate in the mining division of Cornwall ; he had revealed himself to him on the strict understanding that his identity should go no further.” After this one and only “materialization,” the E.C., at their next meeting, decided to run Mr. Jones.

At Hammersmith Mr. Belt, described in Justice as “London’s Socialist Candidate,” though he was careful to keep the word “Socialist” out of his election address, issued a special handbill pointing out that it was not the fault of the “Labour” Party that the “forces of progress” were divided, as they had brought out their candidate on the promise of the Liberal Association to support him, and that the Labour Party were “most anxious to arbitrate” as to which of the “forces of progress,” Liberal or Labour, should nominate the candidate. Thus did Mr. Belt present a clear issue to the working-class of Hammersmith. He, like Mr. Irving at Accrington, signed the L.R.C. Declaration, but neither was adopted by the L.R.C.

The Independent Labour Party “played the game” by running nearly all their candidates under the auspices of the L.R.C. In several cases they contested double-member constituences, and not only got in by Liberal votes, but made arrangements with the Liberals to work and vote together. Here are some of the polls :

Writing in the Clarion after the election, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald said, “We shall remain an Independent Labour Party, absolutely.” We have italicised “remain” because we deny that Mr. MacDonald won Leicester on independent lines.

After the poll was declared a meeting was held at the Liberal Club, at which Ald. Wood congratulated them upon their magnificent victory. He was proud of the Liberals of Leicester, proud of the Labour Party of Leicester and of the unity of action which had brought about that great triumph. Mr. Henry Broadhurst said that Labour and Liberalism had known no difference, an shown by the extraordinary equality of votes between Mr. MacDonald and himself. That is what they did when they had trust in each other. There was one man who had made that grand result possible, and that was Alderman Wood, but for whose years of devotion to unity they might have been a divided people again. Three cheers were given for Ald. Wood.

At the same time a meeting was being held by the Labour Party. Councillor Banton, in opening, said the Liberals had polled with them (cheers) and they reciprocated the fight side by side (loud cheers). Mr. MacDonald said there had been one very significant fact about the contest. Practically every voter of the 14,000 had polled Broadhurst and MacDonald (cheers). The plumping had been insignificant, and consequently—(Voices: “Three cheers for MacDonald and Broadhurst.”)—he wanted to read the following message to them : “I wish you to give my hearty congratulations to the Labour Party on the Progressive victory at Leicester to-day. (Signed) Ald. Wood.” (Voices: “Three cheers for Ald. Wood,” which were heartily given). The Alderman had told him that he would be 67 years of age to-morrow. They had given him a magnificent birthday present (cheers). Let them be perfectly clear. The Mercury had said that the two parties—Liberal and Labour—had been occupying quite independent positions during the whole of the contest, but owing to the great crises that the late government had brought upon this country—the crisis to Trade Unionism and the crisis to industry they had, upon those specific and definite points, co-operated for the purpose of killing the late government, and preventing things from going from bad to worse.

At Halifax Mr. Parker openly advised his supporters to give one vote to the Liberal. The defeat of the Tory, said the Halifax Guardian, was entirely due to the alliance between the Liberal and Socialist Parties, which had occurred for the first time in the political history of Halifax. The figures showed unmistakably that the combination had held good, that Liberal votes by the thousand went for Socialism, and that Socialism reciprocated this support to the fullest extent of its power.

The Guardian, however, is a bit out in calling it a victory for Socialism. Even Mr. Parker only claimed “that the result had shown that Halifax at heart was in favour of progress.” At the Oddfellows’ Hall Mr. M. J. Blatchford said, after speeches from Mr. Parker and others, the result showed that the arrangement made by the Liberals had been honestly carried out by both parties. It had been a magnificent display of confidence. Nothing could be more splendid than the confidence each party had shown in the other. He was entirely satisfied that the Labour Party and the Liberal Party had done what they had undertaken to do and he thought both sides might be proud of it (cheers).

Mr. F. W. Jowett contested W. Bradford and won the seat against both Liberal and Conservative, but according to Mr. Hartley, the S.D.F candidate for the adjoining division, he ran as a Labour candidate because “he believes in getting your man in.”

Amongst L.R.C. candidates who contested two-member constituencies were the following :

After the declaration of the poll at Norwich Mr. Roberts said there were local political factors which had been used to their advantage and the certain promises by the other party had evidently been carried out. He wished to add that they were quite willing to work hand-in-hand with any other section or party of the State who were willing to labour for the realisation of industrial reform.

At York, when it became known that Mr. Stuart was not elected, some strong remarks were passed by his supporters at the Labour Committee Rooms. Because the Liberals had given Mr. Greenwood 2,082 plumpers and Mr. Stuart’s only numbered 421, Mr. Hawkin declared that, it was “the last time that he would ever agree to any compromise with any party whatever.”

It is quite evident that these gentlemen, when they found the election upon them, threw over all the “independence” they had been insisting upon and signing declarations upon previously. It was much more important to most of them that they should he M.P’s than that a clear lead should be given to the working class. Reynold’s asserts that Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald had interviews with one or more representatives of the Liberal Party with a view to an arrangement. We cannot say whether this is so, but it, certainly is given colour by a letter from a Wakefield Liberal which appeared in the Daily News of Jan. 3rd. The writer asserted that the official Liberals would not help the local Liberals to find a candidate because of a compact which the official Liberals had made with the Labour Party.

Mr. Crooks (Woolwich) and Mr. Steadman (East Finsbury) are members of the National Democratic League. We believe, they are both vice-presidents. The N.D.L. exists, “not to oppose, but to help the Liberal Party.” Mr. Crooks was an L.R.C. candidate, and has signed the Declaration of Independence ! Mr. Steadman refused to sign this, and ran as a Liberal-Labour candidate. But Mr. Steadman was put forward by the London Trades Council, which is affiliated to the L.R.C., and whose S.D.F. chairman (Mr. H. Quelch) has referred to Mr. Steadman as “our” (L.R.C.) candidate since his refusal to sign the L.R.C. Declaration. Over the nom de plume TATTLER, Mr. Queleh writes in Justice:

“The London Trades Council is pledged to independent political action, and is affiliated to the L.R.C. John Burns demonstrates his hostility to an independent working-class party by joining the Liberal Government. The London Trades Council endorses the candidature of a number of independent candidates, including, I believe, Quelch at Southampton and Stranks at Croydon. John Burns, as he was in duty bound to do, supported the Liberal candidates at Croydon and Southampton; and then the Trades Council, by 75 votes to 35, congratulates John Burns on accepting an office which made it incumbent upon him to oppose the candidates whom the Council supported, and the policy to which the Council is pledged. It really is very funny !”

Why doesn’t Mr. Quelch complete the paragraph ? Would it be too funny ?

Another L.R.C. candidate has been showing how “independent” he is of the L.R.C. Declaration which he has signed. On Monday, Feb. 12th, at the Liberal Club, Elm Grove, the Peckham Liberals celebrated their victory at the election by entertaining the new member (Mr. Goddard Clarke) at a Dinner and Concert. After a number of congratulatory speeches Mr. C. W. Bowerman, M.P., said he made no apology though a Labour member for being present. As a Labour man he was very much indebted to the Liberals of Deptford for the position he occupied. The best Liberals in Deptford came and supported him. For the first time in political history the workmen had been alive to their own interests. And as long as the Liberal Party will be loyal to them they will be loyal in return.

Mr. Percy Alden, Liberal and Progressive candidate for Tottenham, issued a pamphlet on “His Public and Civic Life,” written by Mr. Will Crooks. At the end are letters from “Labour Leaders,” including Messrs. Will Crooks, Will Thorne, W. C. Steadman, J. Passmore Edwards and George Cadbury. The two first have signed the L.R.C. Declaration of Independence. Mr. W. Thorne is a member of the S.D.F., and in his letter he says, “I come into conflict with many of my comrades for backing up men like yourself, but that I cannot help.” There’s independence for you ! Other supporters who sent letters were Messers. H. H. Asquith, James Bryce, Herbert Gladstone, John Burns, Sydney Buxton and John E. Ellis. What a galley !

Space will not allow us to give details of other alleged “Labour” and “Socialist” candidatures, but sufficient has been said to show the hollowness of the claim that there has been a victory for Labour or a triumph for Socialism. If further evidence is required one has only to take the declarations of the successful candidates as to why they won and what they think should be done. Free Trade, Trades Disputes Bill, Chinese Labour, and the like. There is only one phrase that will express the result. It was a

VICTORY FOR CONFUSION.

Jack Kent