To the Socialist Working-Class. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has received a communication from the Secretary of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, asking, among other things, whether the Party favoured the holding of a Conference with a view to forming in England a National Committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress. We have declined to take part in any such Conference on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that judging by the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, at which the Party was represented, the proposed Committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialist. Elsewhere in this number we publish the correspondence at length, and take the opportunity of addressing the Socialist working-class concerning the grave issues therein raised. To those who have followed intelligently the deliberations of past International Congresses, it is apparent that these Assemblies have been characterised by a lack of definiteness in their organisation with the result that considerable confusion still exists as to the real nature of the decisions arrived at.

It is of course true that certain dangers and difficulties are inseparable from International Congresses, but we contend that these regrettable results are in a great measure due to the participation in them of organisations and men possessing neither the knowledge nor the right to voice the cause of the working-class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is strengthened in this opinion by facts well known here which show clearly the principles animating many who took part in the recent Congress at Amsterdam. Our delegates thereto found such organisations as the Independent Labour Party, the Labour Representation Committee, the Social-Democratic Federation, and the Fabian Society claiming and obtaining admission as Socialist organisations. Thus were seen the defenders of Capitalism, the upholders of Child-slavery, the friends of Compromise and Reform, and the cats paw of the Bourgeois reaction generally, masquerading as Revolutionists, prostituting the name and spirit of Socialism, and confusing the workers on questions of vital importance.

The I.L.P. and S.D.F. both support representatives of the Capitalist Class in the political field. The I.L.P. in its official organ definitely repudiate the class-war, while it is admitted in "Justice" by the S.D.F, that there are occasions when the existence of the struggle maybe forgotten with advantage by the workers for the emancipation of their class. The Fabian Society is not a working-class organisation and stands for State Capitalism. The L.R.C. is but the left wing of the Liberal Party and declines to recognise any Socialist Candidate.

The S.P.G.B. declines, therefore, to betray the working-class or to stultify itself by taking part in the proposed Conference when to do so would be to admit the right of those organisations to deal with the findings of the Congress of the International Socialist working-class.

With the object of placing future International Congresses on a definite Socialist, basis, and securing proper and proportionate representation of all bona fide Socialist Parties thereat, the S.P.G.B. is preparing a memorandum for the consideration of the International Bureau and the Socialist Parties affiliated in the hope that measures will be adopted to as far as possible prevent the recurrence of past confusions and place the working-class of the world on a united and revolutionary platform.

The Executive Committee,

The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

London, January, 1905.

À La Classe Ouvriere Socialiste. (1905)

From the January 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Camarades,

À propos de la formation en Angleterre d'un Comité National pour traiter des affaires du Congrès, International, The Socialist Party of Great Britain, vient de recevoir un communiqué du secrétaire de la délégation anglaise au Congrès d'Amsterdam en envitant le Parti à lui faire savoir s'il nous était convenable d'assister à une conférence pour discuter ce projet. Nous avons refusé de prendre ancun part à cette entreprise croyant que le Parti Socialiste seul doit traiter de ces questions, et en considérant la constitution de la section anglaise au Congrès tenu à Amsterdam, où le Parti était représenté, un tel comité ne saurait pas être en salle façon socialiste. Dans un autre part de ce numèro se trouve la correspondance en son entier, et nous profitons de l'occasion pour adresser la parole à la classe ouvrière Socialiste touchant les questions graves dont elle s'agit.

À coux qui ont snivi d'une manière intelligente les délibérations des Congrès Internationaux antérieurs, il est clair que ces réunions sont dans le besoin d'un caratère déterminé vu qu'il y a encore beaucoup de confusion dans l'interprétation des résolutions prises.

Franchement nous admettons que le Congrès International court de grands dangers er difficultés, par suite d'une organisation telle qu'elle est, mais nous sommes d'avis que ces malheueux résultants sont inevitables puisqu'il y a des organisations et individus qui participent aux délibérations du Congrès sans avoir ni les connaissances ni le droit de prendre la parole dans le parlement de la classe ouvrière.

Des faits bien connus ici affermissent le S.P.G.B. dans cette opinion et démontrent clairement les sentiments qu'animent quelques-uns des délégués qui ont pris part au Congrès d'Amsterdam. Nos délégués y ont trouvé des organisations telles que The Independent Labour Party, The Labour Representation Committee, The Social Democratic Federation, et Fabian Society, réclamant le driot de séance dans cette assemblée et parvenant à se faire accorder ce droit comme des organisations socialistes. Ainsi se virent les défenseurs du Capitalisme, de l'exploitation des enfants; les amis du compromis et de la réforme; et les marionettes de la réaction bourgeoise se déguisant en Révolutionnaires pour confondre les ouvriers et prostituer le nom et même l'espirit du Socialisme.

The Independent Labour Party et The Social Democratic Federation, tous les deux soutiennent des représentants de ls class capitaliste dans le champ de politique; le I.L.P. rejète dèfinitivement la lutte des classe dans son organe official, tandis que le S.D.F. admettent dans "Justice" qu'il y ait des circonstances on la classe ouvrière militante pourrait avantageusement mettre de côte la doctrine de la lutte des classes. The Fabian Society n'est pas une organisation de la classe ouvrière et tient pour le Capitalisme de l'Êtat. The Labour Representation Committee n'est que l'extréme gauche du Parti Libéral et refuse d'appuyer aucun candidat socialiste.

Le S.P.G.B. refuse donc de trahir les intérêts de la classe ouvrière ou de se rendre ridicule en prenant part à la conférence proposée vu que d'y assister serait d'admettre le droit de ces organisations de s'occuper au nom du Socialisme des résolutions du Congrès de la classe ouvrière internationale.

Dans le but d'établir les Congrès Internationaux prochains sur les bases solides du Socialisme et d'assurer la representation équitable de tous les Partis Socialistes de bonne foi, le S.P.G.B. s'occupe de préparer une note pour la considération du Bureau International et tous Partis Socialistes dans l'espoir que l'on prendra des mesures pour éviter en quelque sorte le retour de la confusion d'autrefois et réaliser l'unification de la classe ouvrière du monde fondée sur les véritables principes du Socialisme.

Le Comité Exécutif

du The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

London, Janvier, 1905.

Answers To Correspondents. (1905)

From the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

• F. Meyer (Luxemburg).—Thanks for congratulations. We shall do our best to hold aloft the flag here.
• J. E. (Kirkintilloch).—Back numbers have been sent and your request with regard to future issues shall be complied with.
• Fr. M. (Hamburg).—If you will state wherein we differ as to the tactics to be pursued by the Socialist Party, we shall be glad to discuss the matter with you. We shall welcome the notes promised. The historical sketches showing the development of free thought in this country would of course be of good educational value, and your suggestion will be borne in mind, but The Socialist Standard functions purely as a Socialist propagandist journal, and the calls on our limited space are too great already. When we can afford an enlarged issue the scope of our observations can be extended.
• H. J. H. (Euston).—Business communications should be addressed as per official notice on page 4.
• M. F. (Vienna).—Your request has been attended to. 
• J. H. W. (Denmark Hill).—Your communication is dealt with separately in this issue.
• A. S. (Prague).—Remittances need not be crossed. We have not yet opened a banking account.
• Peckham Branch.—Thanks for sight of document. It is being returned. Please inform your Branch Correspondent that reports should be sent to 5, Arvon Road, Highbury, N. A delay of one week has occurred in the receipt of the last communication owing to this instruction not being observed.
• J. H. K. (Ilford), J. P. W. (Dulwich), and others.—. Matter received.

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

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The first Annual Conference of The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be held at the Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street. London, W., on Thursday, 20th April, 1905, commencing at 7 p.m., and on Friday 21st April, when the proceedings will be resumed at 9 a.m. The constitution of the Conference is defined by Rules 22, 23, and 24.

*  *  *

During March there will be two meetings of the Executive Council, viz., Saturday 4th, at 3 p.m., and Tuesday 21st, at 7 p.m. Usual place. 

*  *  *

A meeting of Speakers and prospective Speakers will take place on Saturday, March 4th, at the Communist Club. Several important matters in connection with the forthcoming open-air propaganda will be discussed. Time —7.30 p.m.

*  *  *

Members and others are requested to note that, a vote of the Party having been taken, H. J. Hawkins was on February 4th, 1905, expelled from membership of The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

*  *  *

Notification has been received from the International Socialist Bureau that V. Serwy has resigned the Secretaryship. Camille Huysmans has been appointed to the position, and the offices of the Bureau are now at the Maison du Peuple, Brussels. 

*  *  *

Will Branch Secretaries and members note that I no longer reside at Birnam Road? All communications should be forwarded to the Central Office, Communist Club, 107, Charlotte Street, London, W.

Con Lehane.

Exhibition Review: '1917 - Romanovs and Revolution' (2017)

Exhibition Review from the August 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hermitage Amsterdam is a branch of the massive State Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg, and mainly displays works from its parent museum. This centenary year sees an exhibition ‘1917: Romanovs and Revolution’, which continues till mid-September. As might be expected, there is a lot of emphasis on Tsar Nicholas II, his family and his own political and military weaknesses and miscalculations. There are display panels, newsreels, paintings, original documents and historic objects (such as one of the swords used to execute the royal family).

For the rich and powerful, St Petersburg in the nineteenth century was a luxurious city, with shopping arcades and Art Nouveau-influenced designs, so it was culturally part of Europe. But the rest of Russia, with its vast impoverished peasant population, was completely different. The Russian press was tightly censored and it was left to poets and novelists to express new social and political ideas, often at risk to themselves; Dostoyevsky spent ten years in Siberia from 1849.

Newspapers were forbidden to mention the deaths of hundreds of people in a crowd disturbance and stampede at Khodynka a few days after the Tsar’s coronation in 1896. Over a hundred demonstrators were shot on Bloody Sunday in 1905; the Tsar and government responded with an anti-semitic campaign. The First World War saw the Winter Palace used as a military hospital; and the Fabergé company shifted from making expensive jewellery to manufacturing army and medical equipment for the war.

The February Revolution was initially sparked by protests on International Women’s Day, and led fairly quickly to the Tsar’s abdication, after which his family were imprisoned and eventually executed in July 1918; recent research has identified bodies discovered in the area as those of the Tsar and his family. The exhibition has relatively little material on the Bolsheviks and their takeover of power. There is a reference to ‘Marxism-Leninism’ and an astonishing claim that Lenin’s ideas were ‘far more radical’ than those of Marx, but there is no explanation of what this is supposed to mean, let alone any justification.

Also in Amsterdam, the Nieuwe Kerk was housing the 2017 World Press Photo exhibition, containing some unforgettable and tragic images, mostly of war and refugees. It closed on 9 July, but it will be displayed in many other locations, including the Scottish Parliament building in Edinburgh from 4 to 26 August. Or look at www.worldpressphoto.org to see many of the photos.        

Paul Bennett

To Young Speakers. (1905)

From the April 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many of our young speakers do their best, and are still disappointed. We can give them one or two tips which, if followed, will assist them.

The very first essential to making a good speech on any question is to have an implicit belief that the side you are talking on is right. That essential is already possessed by all our speakers.

The next greatest essential is to know everything of your subject. If you can’t know everything, know all that you can. Study Socialism, read Socialism, and in order to understand Socialism study capitalism, if you want to make a good speech about Socialism. You can’t know too much about the subject; you can’t possibly know enough. Know all that you can freeze on to.

An old friend of the writer, probably the greatest Socialist speaker in America to-day, once said to him: "My boy, the Worker gets here Friday. On Friday evening when I get home from work I sit me down and read the Worker —every word in it; not the headlines only, not the articles only of news, but every line — and then I know what is doing in Socialism, and I know what to say and how to say it.”

Young speakers particularly should do this. But they should not stop there. Read a book now and then. Read a book worth the reading, and read it carefully. When you have read a chapter, stop and recall all the meat of it that you can. If there is some important part of it that you do not understand, or cannot recall clearly, go back and look it up. Learn to remember things that are worth remembering.

Not only read good books. but if you are a young speaker, read them aloud. Watch yourself. You will be surprised how many words you fail to pronounce distinctly, clearly. When you do that go back and read the sentence over again and again, as many times as may be necessary to enable you to acquire a habit of speaking in a clear tone and sounding every syllable of a word — no slurring.

If you will do these things — inform yourself on the subject, saturate yourself with it, read aloud, clearly, distinctly; read good, well-written books, so as to get the habit of speaking correctly, strongly, elegantly — do these things, and there is no reason why a young man of strength and good lungs and voice should not become not only a speaker, but an orator.

The Worker

Ishmaelites. (1905)

From the May 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has often been charged—and rightly too—with being a party of political Ishmaelites. It is so because the only logical position in the political world that a genuine Socialist party can take up is that of opposition to all other parties. There is room for but one Socialist party in any country and, therefore, we cannot be in opposition to ourselves, and we must be in opposition to all other political parties. Thus we have to stand out clearly and distinctly from other “Labour" or "Socialist" bodies in this country. There is not one of the multitudinous array of these that we cannot at once show, by the position it takes up, to be in opposition to the principles of Socialism, and acting, consciously or unconsciously, as the catspaw of the capitalist-class. For any party that dares to claim the support of the working- class is acting as their enemy if it does so on any other ground than that of a clear recognition of the class war that is being waged in all civilised society, and that the goal of those workers who are acting their part consciously in the class war, must be the complete overthrow of the capitalist system of private ownership in the means of life, with its method of production for profit. This goal can only be attained by the capture, peacefully or otherwise, of political power, national and local, by those class-conscious workers, so that by its control they can substitute public for private property, and co-operative production for use for production for profit, and thus transform the working class from being mere hewers of wood and drawers of water for the parasitical capitalist-class, into the nation itself.

By this change in the basis of Society the workers will have destroyed the power by which they are kept in their present position of wage-slavery, and it naturally follows that the capitalist-class., as such, which exists because of this power, will have ceased to exist. The civilised nations then, instead of being divided into two classes—workers and capitalists—will contain but one class, a working-class, which will be the nation itself. All history of society, from the breakdown of primitive communism (a system of common ownership of the necessaries of life) is but the history of class struggles between those who controlled the means of life (and because of that fact dominated all political and social institutions) and those who did not own these means. In every instance where society has progressed, it has only done so because the underneath class has overthrown the class above it, and has substituted the particular political system best suited to its particular method of building and producing the necessaries of life, until now, for the first time in the world's history, society has reached the stage where all the means of life are held by the capitalist-class, and, on the other hand, the workers own nothing but their power to labour. The working-class can only free itself from its ignominious condition by the overthrow of the capitalist class and system. By virtue of the fact that the working-class is the last class, that is, that there is no class below it that can possibly be subjected: working-class emancipation is the emancipation of all mankind. That emancipation can only be accomplished by the establishment of the Socialist Republic. Any party that has less than this for its object is not worthy of the support of the workers. Any party that deludes them into believing that the re-legalising of the strike or picketing, or the safe-guarding of Trade Union funds, or anything short of the establishment of the Socialist Republic will be effective is acting as the enemy of die working-class, confusing the only issue that is of importance, and so assisting to perpetuate the capitalist system, with all its infamies. The only principle on which a working-class party can progress is on the lines of the class war, and strenuous opposition to any party not based on those lines. Thus The Socialist Party of Great Britain resolutely opposes Liberal, Tory, “Labour,” and all those, including certain professing Socialists, who, directly or indirectly, support capitalist politics, which comprise all politics other than the revolutionary politics of the Socialist party.

The position taken up is based upon sound and logical conclusions, and is supported by science, whether it be in history or economics, and, what is still more valuable to the “practical" English mind, is supported by political experience as well. Because we oppose all political bodies, especially those claiming to be "Labour" or "Socialist" which are gulling the workers by their cries of "something at once," cries which have simply had the effect of leading them into the political shambles of capitalist reform politics, we have been dubbed the “Political lshmaelites.” May we always deserve it! The principles on which the working-class must organise demand this policy, and as the only party here that is based on these principles and has this policy is The Socialist Party of Great Britain, we call upon those of the working-class who desire emancipation to enrol themselves in our ranks, to form the nucleus of the revolutionary army of the workers, to prosecute the class war to the successful issue of the Social Revolution.

E. J. B. Allen

What George Learnt (1905)

A Short Story from the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

George — “You class-conscious Socialists want too much. You ought to he more reasonable.”

Frank — "Well. Socialism being justice, isn’t it reasonable to want it?”

George — “Oh, yes! But you demand the lot. I reckon that half a loaf is better than no bread.”

Frank — “Granted, my boy; but a whole loaf is better still. Besides, why ask for half when you want the whole?”

George — "Because I think you are more likely to get it. In a bargain both sides must make concessions.”

Frank — "Must they? Well, in a bargain according to your curious plan, though the article you have for sale is worth 20/- and you want that amount, yet you would make it known that you would be jolly glad to get half for it. Do you think you would stand the ghost of a chance of getting what yon want? ”

George — “Maybe not; but we would get something.”

Frank — "Would you? In any bargain with the ruling-class the workers’ claims would obviously only be respected when the workers are in a position to take what they ask for. Therefore a bargain would be unnecessary except to enable the capitalists to stave off the workers’ victory.”

George — “But wouldn’t you bargain with them? ”

Frank — “Of course I would not. Look here: the country round a certain small town in Italy was infested by a band of brigands who waylaid and robbed those who came to and from that town. The town folk were too lazy to undertake the extermination of this band, so they bargained with the brigand chief that on payment of a yearly sum his band would cease to molest them. The brigand agreed, but feeling his power, he increased year by year his demands for money, and his insolence became unbearable. The town folk, driven to desperation, organised an attack on the brigands and finally succeeded in breaking up the band. The townsmen lamented bitterly, but too late, that they had not made war on the brigands sooner, but had instead supplied them with the means of becoming more powerful.”

George — "Very pretty, and the lesson is, I suppose, that the longer we bargain with the brigand capitalist-class, the longer they will be on our backs and the harder it will be to dislodge them? ”

Frank — "Not only that. Remember that it takes two to make a bargain, and if the masterclass are not going to gain by it, a bargain won’t come off. In fact the ruling class will only bargain when they know that if they don't concede a little, the people will take the lot. The people lose at that game all the time.”

George — “I didn’t think of that.”

Frank — “Besides, the capitalist-class has in its pay, and can buy, the most cunning brains in the nation, whilst the workers have, in comparison, but homely common-sense. Who are likely to get the best of bargains under such conditions? ”

George — “The capitalist politicians of course.”

Frank — “You’ve guessed right. In a game of cunning or hoodwinking, the master-class, having in its pay the lawyers and commanding by its wealth the smartest wits, will always win. The workers can't play successfully at that game. But in an open political battle the workers have the advantage of mass and numbers, which the capitalists have not.”

George —  “I see."

Frank — “Glad you do. The workers’ advantage lies on the side of au open struggle with the forces of capitalism, for in strategy and cunning the owning-class is first every time. To urge the workers not to adopt the class struggle basis of action, is to play the capitalists’ game, and to deliver the workers, ready scalped, into the hands of the enemy. Now that you understand the position you will of course apply for membership in The Socialist Party of Great Britain.”

F. C. Watts

Editorial: The Raunds and Leicester Marches. (1905)

Editorial from the July 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The striking bootmakers of Raunds have marched into London and have marched out again, and, thanks to the fine weather experienced, the astuteness of the Liberal Party politicians en route (who tried, with considerable success, to make party hay while the sun shone) and the fact that the capitalist press had no other sensation to write up at the moment, they seem to have had a moderately good time.

Encouraged by their example, 500 unemployed workers set out from Leicester on a similar pilgrimage. But their time was not so happily chosen, and their numbers were unwieldy. So that they were reduced to sleeping on straw after marching in rain.

That the action of both parties enlisted a good deal of public sympathy at the moment is clear. But public sympathy butters few parsnips, and already the historic marches are among the faint memories of those districts that were covered, while outside of them they have faded from most recollections.

The Conditions of Successful Demonstrations

What good purpose, from the point of view of the working-class, was served, cannot be clearly seen. Had the men set out in the full knowledge that the capitalists of London had interests in no way differing from the capitalists of Raunds or Leicester; had they commenced with no delusions on the score of the reception they would get at the hands of the representatives of the master-class in the House of Commons and Buckingham and Lambeth Palaces; had they understood that their position was the inevitable result of the private ownership of the means of life; and had their march therefore been frankly a demonstration of class-conscious workers in revolt with the object of stirring their class to revolt also, good work would have been accomplished. But to set out ignorant of their class position, and under the impression that if they were very peaceful and law-abiding and abstemious, and sang their grace before meals with becoming reverence, the capitalist-class would help them, as they appear to have done, was a folly that will bear fruit of disappointment and despondency for themselves; while by accepting the interested and much advertised hospitality of their enemies of the Liberal Party, the Raunds men have contributed materially to the confusion of their class, whose discriminating powers may not unnaturally be unequal to the task of grappling with the problem of why the Liberal Party, who helped the workers of Raunds, are not the friends, but the enemies of the workers of Raunds.

Pioneers of Confusion

How far the Raunds leader, Mr. Gribble of the S.D.F. (whose action, by the way, the S.D.F. made many pathetic attempts to exploit for their own party purposes with equally pathetic results), understood the dangers of the movement to the working-class whose interests he ostensibly serves, we do not pretend to know. Having undertaken the task of organising the march he had, of course, to find lodgment and food for the men, but if he had the knowledge that is claimed to be in the possession of all members of the S.D.F., he must have known in the first place that the appeal to capitalism in London would be as profitless as the appeal to capitalism in Raunds had been, and he must have seen in the second place how inevitably the class struggle would be obscured by apparent fraternisation with the representatives of the capitalist-class in the Liberal Party.

The Leicester leader, Mr. Sherriff, of the I.L.P. (whose action, by the way, the I.L.P. also made pathetic attempts to exploit for their own party purposes), seems to have endeavoured to make his contingent's march a demonstration in support of the Government's "Unemployed" Bill, which Mr. Burns says, and for once says rightly, is not worth crossing the street for, let alone tramping a hundred miles to support.  And Mr. Sherriff should have known that under present conditions any “Unemployed" Bill must be a capitalist dodge to rid themselves of responsibility while endeavouring to convey the idea that they accepted it and were prepared to bear the burden of it.

The Position of the S.P.G.B. 

We are far from desirous of creating the impression that we are out of sympathy with class manifestations of the working-class. The Socialist Party of Great Britain is a working-class party; and is therefore concerned to do everything possible to arouse the class it represents from indifference into organised action against the present form of industrial organisation to which can be traced the evils under which the workers suffer to-day, But we well know that no working-dam manifestation can he effective, no successful conflict with capitalism can be entered into except it be based upon a clear understanding of the class position. Upon this basis alone can be built the fighting organisations, political and industrial, of the working-class which by concentrating upon the conquest of political power and the substitution of the common ownership and control of the means of life for the present private ownership thereof, shall achieve the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the Socialist Republic. And it is because we know, what apparently the Raunds and Leicester men did not know, that nothing short of Socialism can materially affect the condition of the workers, and because we know that all attempts to secure a betterment in working-class conditions that do not take full cognisance, and are not made in the full knowledge of this fact, are foredoomed to failure, and must tend to retard rather than to expedite the realization of Socialism, that we deprecate the actions of the persons responsible for the Raunds and Leicester marches.

A. J. M. Gray

Editorial: Year One of "The Socialist Standard." (1905)

Editorial from the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

With this number we achieve the completion of our first volume and the first year of our existence. We have gone the round of the seasons, we have successfully negotiated the initial difficulties always attendant upon the issue of a new paper, and we have settled down to our work as the literary mouthpiece of The Socialist Party of Great Britain with any tremors on the score of our ability to keep on which a few of us may have started out with, at rest

When we remember the number of journals appealing to a far greater constituency than we, unfortunately, can hope to affect for many a day, journals with a financial backing almost fabulous by contrast with our puny revenue, yet which have succumbed to the pressure of adverse circumstances probably not greater than those we have combatted, we are conscious of a not unpardonable feeling of satisfaction and elation at the results of our year’s work— a satisfaction and elation that we have good reason for knowing is far from being shared by those who so confidently anticipated the early demise of the Party that came into existence as a protest against their defamation of the name of Socialism. We refer, of course, to those pseudo-Socialist organizations—particularly the Social-Democratic Federation—which, by compromise with capitalist parties and by pandering to working-class ignorance make such material contribution to working-class division and confusion. The advent of our little journal killed the hope they entertained of the speedy dissolution of the Party, and they will, we conjecture, regard the celebration of our first birthday with feelings that will not be improved by the knowledge that the Party’s literary offspring is a sturdy, robust youngster who has already intervened in English working-class affairs with marked effect and whose voice has penetrated if not to the uttermost parts of the earth, at least to those parts where any Socialist movement exists and who has succeeded, therefore, in giving wide circulation to the strong, plain case The Socialist Party of Great Britain has made out in justification of the attitude it has adopted.

To-day, with confidence in the correctness of our position and enthusiasm for the great cause we champion, unabated, strong in the strength that comes of the knowledge of our stability and perceptibly growing power, we send fraternal greetings to our comrades the world over and record anew our unwavering determination to prosecute relentless war against all the forces of capitalism in whatever guise they come; against working-class oppression, against obscurantism  and sectionalism and all that makes for working-class delusion and impotency; to keep in the forefront of our advance the red flag under which the workers of all nations must marshal themselves if they would win to their freedom ; to keep that flag unfurled and aloft and boldly emblazoned with the object of our mighty mission and to lower it never; to march by the undeviating road that leads direct to the goal of our desire, turning neither to the right hand nor to the left to curry favour with ignorance or to secure place and power at the cost of principle — to do, in brief, all that men may to educate and organize the working-class against the day when the germ of destruction inherent in the capitalist mode of production, shall have rotted the heart of capitalism itself and broken down the social superstructure erected upon it, to the end that they may the more readily and surely enter into their heritage.

Party Notes. (1905)

Party News from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Stirring reports of successful propaganda work have come in during the month. Several Branches record increased membership and in almost every district in which a Branch exists the activity of our members meets with encouraging response.

*  *  *

In Finsbury Park particularly, our Islington comrades appear to have swept the field, their meetings, entirely sympathetic, numbering from 500 to 1,500 people. At one such gathering 200 copies of The Socialist Standard and the Manifesto were sold.

*  *  *

The Manifesto with its admirable resume of the historical development of the modern wage slave, its trenchant criticism of contemporary parties claiming to represent working-class interests and its clear-cut arguments in justification of the existence of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, has evoked an interest far greater than our most sanguine expectation. Requests for it have reached us from most unlikely quarters all over the United Kingdom and the first edition of 5,000 copies is well on the way to exhaustion.

*  *  *

It will be unnecessary for me to emphasize the importance of every effort being made to maintain and increase the sales of the Party literature. Members will be fully aware that this is perhaps the most effective weapon in our armoury.

*  *  *

Another useful method of spreading our principles is through the medium of public debate. Before this paper is in the hands of readers, Comrade Fitzgerald will have upheld the position of the Party in opposition to Mr. Humphreys, S.D.F., upon the proposition. “Does the S.D.F. deserve the support of the working-class ? ”

*  *  *

Another debate has also been arranged with Mr. Wilson, Cobdenite, and our Peckham comrades are settling the preliminaries fora similar encounter with Mr. J. J. Stephenson, treasurer of the L.R.C.

*  *  *

With a regret that every member of the Party will echo I have to announce the resignation, through business pressure, of C. Lehane from the position of General Secretary. Our comrade has discharged the duties of his important office with an efficiency that could not easily be excelled and although the work of no member can be extolled above that of another when all are doing their utmost within the limits of their capacities and opportunities, the action of the E.C. in recording their high appreciation of Lehane's services will, I am sure, be most heartily endorsed.

The Acting General Secretary.

The Social Democratic Federation: Does it deserve the support of the working class? (1905)

From the October 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sydney Hall, York Road. Battersea, now in the possession of the Battersea Branch of The Socialist Party of Great Britain, was crowded on August 31st, the occasion being a debate upon the question asked above, between Mr. W. H. Humphreys, an accredited lecturer of the S.D.F, and Comrade J. Fitzgerald, representing the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B.

Mr. George Hicks, O.B.S., presided, and after explaining the object and conditions of the debate, called upon the opener.

Mr. Humphreys said that it mattered little to him whether the workers joined the S.D.F., S.P.G.B., or I.L.P., as long as they joined some Socialist organisation. The members of the Battersea Branch S.P.G.B. had gone to S.D.F. meetings and by their bickerings had undone the good work of the S.D.F. He maintained that the S.D.F. deserved the support of the working-class, although he strongly favored the formation of a United Socialist Party. The S.D.F. had helped to raise the physical and mental conditions of the workers. He did not always agree with its tactics. Politics was a dirty game and left its marks on those who played it. Years ago, when he joined the Army, he had belonged to the Socialist League, and did not believe in political action. When he left the Army the Socialist League was dead, while the S.D.F. still lived. This fact converted him to political action. The S.D.F. had produced much valuable literature and altogether had done an enormous amount of educational work. By backing up palliatives the S.D.F. kept the flag of Socialism flying. Some reforms might throw things back, hut other reforms were also the means of getting better conditions for the workers and of dispelling superstition. The feeding of the children and secular education would make for the social revolution, as they would physically improve the race and abolish superstition. If we took political action the electors demanded a certain attitude on all questions. He was an anti-vaccinist because he objected to having his child poisoned. This was not Socialism, but a question of human well-being. He was an Internationalist and therefore considered that it was the business of Socialists to prevent the Capitalists setting the workers of the world against each other. He was glad of the cordial relations existing between the French and English fleets. It seemed to him that The Socialist Party of Great Britain was opposed to the feeding of the children only because some capitalists now advocated this reform. The S.P.G.B. argued that feeding the children meant making better wage slaves of them. The S.D.F. on the other hand held that the children when fed became more physically and intellectually fit. The workers could not at the present time control the political machinery. In order to do that they would first have to abolish plural voting and obtain payment of members and of election expenses. The second ballot would also be of advantage to the Socialists, as in three-cornered fights many would not risk their votes by voting for Socialist candidates as they would much rather back the winner. When the lecturers of the S.P.G.B. alleged that the workers were bought and sold like pieces of merchandise it amounted to backing up the bourgeois political economists. According to Karl Marx the workers only sold their labour-power. He held that material interests did not control all actions, as was easily proved by the action of the Japanese at Port Arthur, the Communards of Paris, and the Socialists who, owing to their revolutionary propaganda, were sent to Siberia. Principles very often controlled man's actions. Mr. H. M. Hyndman rightly denied that the workers could emancipate themselves, they must be taught and guided by such middle-class men as marx, Engels, Hyndman and William Morris. They must not place too much reliance in working-class labour representatives. Battersea would have done much better if it had one such middle-class man as its Parliamentary representative instead of John Burns.

Comrade Fitzgerald pointed out that the subject of debate was “Did the S.D.F. deserve the support of the Working-class", it must be clear that an organisation to deserve the support of the working-class must strenuously work on behalf of that class, and that class alone. The declared object of the S.D.F. was the emancipation of the working-class from the thralldom of capitalism, but in their political action they were going contrary to their principles. If it were true that under capitalism the workers had to sell themselves, their emancipation could surely only lie in becoming free men who could establish and control their own conditions of labour. To do that they must first capture the present political machinery, which was the means of entrenching the capitalist-class so firmly in their citadel of economic domination. He would like Mr. Humphreys to explain how a man could sell his labour-power without selling himself. Man was therefore a commodity, and differed from other commodities only in one respect. In the case of other commodities you could separate the seller from the commodity, whilst the worker was inseparable from his labour-power. And as the worker was bought by the capitalist to produce a profit, he must be robbed. The most important thing in life was to obtain the means of living, and this material fact must of necessity be the dominant factor in human movements. If that were so then the interests of capitalist and labourer must be irreconcilably opposed to one another. And if in order to become economically free the workers must get hold of and control the political machinery, then it stood to reason that any assistance given to the capitalists or their henchmen was decidedly taking antagonistic action to working-class interests. In 1894, Mr. H. M. Hyndman said that Socialists must not bend their knees to any capitalist party. In 1897, when there was a slump in the Socialist Movement, the S.D.F. at their Conference resolved that no candidates should be run unless there was proof of their command of at least 10% of the votes. In 1898 their Annual Conference empowered the E.C. to decide the policy of the organisation, subject to ratification by the branches. In 1899 the Conference decided that the members of the S.D.F. vote Tory, in order to smash the Liberal Party, in 1900, when the Boer War was on, they considered that they could not very well support the Tories; so they passed a resolution to support several Liberal candidates, viz., Labouchère at Northampton, Philip Stanhope at Burnley (Hyndman's candidature being withdrawn), Lionel Holland at Ilford, and John Burns at Battersea—a member of the E.C. of the S.D.F. working for Burns on his election day. In 1897 the S.D.F. ran W. G. Pearson for the London School Board and he polled 12,000 votes. After the death of Pearson they again contested the seat, with George Hewitt as the candidate, in 1900. The largest branch in the district. Bow and Bromley, fell out and so disrupted two other branches, viz., Whitechapel and Poplar, that they also fell out and subsequently collapsed. The Mile End Branch alone was left to carry on the campaign. All that disloyalty and disruption were due to the fact that Hewitt stood for Secular Education, which, G. Lansbury and his followers complained, would lose Lansbury the Non-conformist support for his Parliamentary candidature for Bow and Bromley. Mr. Cluse, au S.D.F. lecturer, stated that supporting capitalist candidates was not supporting the capitalist party, as the issue in 1900 was the Boer War. But he (Fitzgerald) would like to point out that this excuse could not hold water as the total casualties in the Boer War were less than 60,000, while the official returns for one year in four trades in the United Kingdom showed over 100,000 victims. Moreover, after the War was over, J. Hunter Watts supported Masterman, the Liberal candidate at Dulwich, and Will Thorne supported Percy Alden at Tottenham against the wish of the local Branch of the S.D.F. This labour leader also signed the Free Trade Manifesto of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress. If Socialists held that the cleavage between Capital and Labour was growing wider and that the workers could only obtain their emancipation by means of capturing the political machinery it was worse than madness to support capitalists or their nominees. The rank and file of the S.D.F. could obtain no information as to the doings of the E.C., as that body claimed that the members ought to have confidence in the elected men and trust them implicitly. Because some members of the S.D.F. had kicked against the Kautsky Resolution at the Paris International Congress they were accused of having inspired the letters that appeared in the New York People on that subject. When at the S.D.F. Conference at Blackburn, H. W. Lee and H. Quelch were accused of withholding from the Organisation a certain letter Lansbury had addressed to the E.C., both denied having done so. When, later, the letter was published and could no longer be denied as in existence, Quelch stated that he was not present when it was read although the E.C. minutes stated he was present at the meeting where the letter was read, and if he came in late, it was absurd to suppose that so important a letter was not shown to him. At Shoreditch, H. W. Lee admitted having told a lie and in justification said that under similar circumstances he would so again. Lansbury's letter had announced his resignation as S.D.F. Parliamentary candidate for Bow and Bromley because lie could see no good coming of it unless the S.D.F. made common cause with the Liberals. When Socialists fight straight their political game is clean, when they back up Liberal hacks it becomes a dirty game. It was on account of their not fighting straight that a great number of members, some of the oldest members among them, came out of the S.D.F. and formed the S.P.G.B. The facts mentioned showed clearly that the S.D.F. was neither Socialist nor Democratic and therefore did not deserve the confidence of the working-class.

Mr. Humphreys in continuing the debate again asserted that the capitalist did not buy the worker but only his labour-power. If he bought the worker he would look after him, as, however, he did not purchase him he let him go to the devil. In spite of the bad conditions of the workers they could revolt against brutality. The desire to do good induced Hyndman, William Morris and others to fight for the working-class. It does not matter what class men are born in but what class they fight for. Henderson, Bell, and similar men were as bad as Liberal Capitalist candidates. It was an important matter to obtain better conditions for the workers as for instance free feeding of the children and secular education. Mr. Straus, the late Liberal candidate for Mile End declared himself in favour of Socialism. Socialists accepting the co-operation of capitalists in obtaining reforms must make sure that these capitalists were earnest in helping forward those palliatives and there were some who were earnest. One must judge candidates on personal grounds. If the Tory candidate in Battersea declared in favour of feeding the children he would support him against Bums. Mr. Hunter Watts supported Masterman because Rutherford Harris had the blood of the South African farmers on his hands and it was not a question of mere numbers of victims; but Hunter Watts was wrong in supporting the Liberal candidate because that candidate was not in favour of the S.D.F. palliatives. That was a great mistake. All parties make mistakes. It was not in the material interests of the working-class in 1897 to have displayed their great loyalty to the Royal family. He had looked up Hansard and had found that in 1900 eight Radical members had voted against supplies for the Boer war. If they supported these men individually they did not support the Capitalist Party. It was true that a member of the E.C. of the S.D.F. supported and worked for Burns during the election in 1900. This was, however, done in conjunction and with somebody, who is now a member of the S.P.G.B. Will Thorne was called over the coals by the E.C. for supporting Percy Alden. If the rank and file of the S.D.F. did not get to know anything of the doings of their E.C. it was due to the fact that their organisation was poor and their full E.C. met only once a quarter. Their organisation had no money to waste and therefore were wise in deciding to run candidates only when they were sure of 10 per cent. of the vote in a constituency. Their expenses were heavy as it was. Golden sovereigns were hard to get. It was better to spend money on literature than on hopeless candidatures.

Comrade Fitzgerald in replying said that be had taken 25 minutes to bring the facts, points and arguments to show that the S.D.F. was acting against the interests of the working-class, but Mr. Humphreys had made no attempt at refuting his statements. The capitalist buys the worker’s Labour power bit by bit, hence had to buy his body. Under chattel slavery he bought the slave right out, but to-day he only bought the wage slave piecemeal, and owing to the number seeking sale was able to disregard their welfare. If some of the capitalist class act contrary to the interests of that class that does not prove that that class fights for the interests of the working-class. Mr. Hyndman had said that no slave class had brought about its own emancipation — the class above it had emancipated it. Therefore the middle-class would emancipate the working-class. Those who voted for individual capitalist candidates supported the capitalist party in the most effective manner, viz., politically. Capitalists were all in one camp, and must be the enemies of the working-class, if Socialist principles were true. Mr. Hunter Watts’ defence for voting for Masterman was absurd. If Rutherfoord Harris had the blood of the South African farmers on his hands, Masterman, as a Liberal, had the blood of the murdered Featherstone miners on his, which was worse. Two and two were four, even if the accountant made a mistake in adding up. Apparently the S.D.F. did not mean to learn by all their blunders and mistakes of the past. H. W. Lee, their Secretary, said in the current number of the Social Democrat that twenty years ago the Radical advocated payment of Members of Parliament, now the S.D.F. must do that work. The E.C. of the S.D.F. not only make mistakes but deceived the workers in regard to their tactics, which were not Socialist but Radical. At the last Annual Conference of the S.D.F., at Northampton, Mr. Dan Irving threatened to leave the Conference if his motion were not carried. When L. Cotton, at the Shoreditch Conference, insisted that his vote had been falsified, Mr. Irving refused to go into the matter. Mr. J. P. Lloyd had moved that some scheme should be devised to let the members know more of the work of the E.C. Members of the S.D.F. were kept in ignorance of things, and when information came to them and they revolted they were at once branded as impossible. He (Fitzgerald) was described as a danger. At Burnley when he called for evidence, Quelch declared he had none. The S.D.F. having broken its pledges by backing up the capitalist position, directly and indirectly, did certainly not deserve the support of the working-class.

Hans Neumann

Socialism and Respectability. (1905)

From the November 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is the political expression of the recognition by the working-class of their suppression and oppression under the present form of society, based as it is upon their exploitation, and politically administered as it is solely with a view to conserving, and, as far as possible perpetuating their exploitation and subjection.

Like every other social ideal in which men expressed their wants and aspirations, Socialism has its history, its stages of growth. The working-class, oppressed from birth, have made manifest their desire for human conditions—for liberty—in stages which correspond with the stages of social development by and through which the working-class have arrived at their present numerical proportion to the rest of the population, their present degree of want and suffering, of interdependence and of knowledge, and their present fast developing determination to have Socialism, and with it liberty, and to have it now. The first vague conception of Socialism was born in the study of the leisured philosopher—a suggestion thrown out by men of culture for the better drilling and re-organisation of the non-cultured, common people. And for long it remained the plaything of Culture.

The working-class struggle for emancipation was at first weak, spasmodic, vague. Here a rick-burning, there a machinery-smashing riot; here a tempestuous revolt, there an abject petitioning of king, kaiser, or local magnate, for pity on the poor. But as the working-class grew with the development of capitalism, they learnt the lessons which are best learnt and longest remembered by those who have eaten the bread of affliction and drunk the waters of bitterness. They had tried individual revolt, and by its failure learnt the necessity of organised collective effort. They had tried by begging to obtain concessions, and had been treated as beggars. They had tried political efforts aimed at reform, had had reforms promised by capitalist politicians, had used their votes and voices to help these capitalist politicians wring the last vestige of political power from the aristocracy—only to find that promises have a proverbial use that the little finger of Rehoboam was thicker than the loins of Solomon. Thus the working-class learned that their emancipation could only be achieved by a collective effort, organised and intelligently aimed at the conquest of the political power and the effecting in the teeth of their oppressors of a Socialist Revolution. The intelligent movement of the working-class towards emancipation reached maturity in the struggle for Socialism and the lessons learnt in their life of struggle and suffering are crystallised in the Principles of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Bearing in mind this process by which Socialism was brought into being, nourished and developed, we have a scientific touchstone by which to discover the real inwardness of any one of the many volumes (professing to expound Socialism) which have been launched upon a suffering public.

And the “latest born and (more or less) loveliest far” of these is “Socialism and Society” by Mr. J. R. MacDonald, a leader of the I.L.P (a body whose ruling delusion is that it is a Socialist Party) and secretary and high priest of the L.R.C., whose “independent” “working-class” Members of Parliament hang loyally on to the tail of the Liberal Party.

The book seems to have been written in order to justify the round-about road to the Liberal rump which these two bodies conjointly think it necessary to follow, but probably few even of his friends will be able to unreservedly congratulate Mr. MacDonald on the result of his efforts, while an entirely unbiased critic may well set to marvelling why he wrote the book at all.

The first obstacle to front him is the Revolutionary ferocity of the angry working-class, and the old, old, scientific lumber is trotted out; the blessed word “evolution” is many times invoked to show that “revolution” is a dark impossibility, and that the class-struggle does not exist and, with much magical muttering of “science” and “Darwin,” that the establishment of the State of Socialism must be the work of a select company of cultured persons, elected by a grateful working-class who will wait patiently while the Elected Persons solemnly proceed to discuss, and perhaps to pass, a series of measures of experimental amelioration—“laboratory experiment, not revolution, is the method of Socialism emerged from its Utopian and pseudo-scientific stages.” (p. 179.) “Public ownership, after all, is Socialism.” (p. 59, footnote.)

In writing a complete explanation of what Socialism is and bringing it to this conclusion, Mr. MacDonald is compelled to fall foul of most of the recognised classics of Socialism. Especially is he dogged at every step by the grim and terrible spectre of Marx. At least a fourth of the book is given up to a detailed attack upon Marx and Engels, but, as usual, the criticism does not betray even a nodding acquaintance with the writings criticised. Mr. MacDonald reads “the emancipation of the working-class must be the work of the working-class itself.” This is enough. It is revolution! It is Utopian! It is not scientific! It is vulgar! It is not “respectable!” Marx, it seems, is not the first of the scientific Socialists: he is the “last of the Utopians.” And the first of the scientific Socialists is Mr. J. R. MacDonald, who has made Socialism respectable!

Mr. MacDonald has put into words the thoughts of the small middle-class. To understand what this class think it is necessary to look at the relative social position they occupy, viz., sandwiched between the working-class on the one hand and the capitalist-class proper on the other. They are threatened with extinction from both sides. Every move forward of capital flings a section of them down into the ranks of the working-class. Every day that brings the working-class closer together and impels them to the grimly inevitable battle for emancipation threatens them with extinction. Hence the small middle-class (the class of small producers, shopkeepers, house-owners, journalists, and professional Respectability generally) is in word the most Insurrectionary, and in deed the most Reactionary of all existing sections. They shriek against capital—because of their imminent bankruptcy—and call upon the workers to help limit its power. They shriek at the working-class for its revolutionary tendency, and call upon capital to help them preserve “Law and Order,” “Property, Religion, and Respectability.”

And the nearer their end the louder their screams.

To this see-saw striving of this class can be traced all the elements of confusion in present day politics:—Single Tax and Land Nationalisation, Free Meals and Farm Colonies, Passive Resistance and Municipalised Milk. And hence also Mr. J. R. MacDonald’s self-contradiction is the clearest proof that his “Socialism” and his “society” are the “Socialism and society” of the Respectable Small Middle-Class. Mr. MacDonald denies that a class-war exists on one page and on another proves its existence:—“Thus we see how machinery which might lighten labour, supplants it when used in the interests of a capitalist class. . . . Thus we see how tools, a dead factor, rule men, the living factor in production, and how a class engaging in production for profits controls the class which takes part in production in order to maintain life. ... A pillar of Sabbatarianism can prove satisfactorily to himself that his works must . . . go seven days in the week. The owner of the land and the means of production is the owner of the lives of the people. He holds society in the hollow of his hand.” (pp. 52-53). And of course there must be no revolution: the working-class must patiently endure while MacDonald & Co. “experiment.”

I should have liked to have gone over Mr. MacDonald’s critique of Marx in detail, but the Editor of T.S.S. says he doesn’t want serials. However, Marx has retorted on MacDonald and his light by prophetic anticipation:

“He wished to be the sympathiser; he is a composite error. He wished to soar as a man above the Bourgeoisie and the proletariat; he is only the petty bourgeois, tossed about continually between capital and labour, between political economy and communism.” The Poverty of Philosophy.

And again:—“A part of the bourgeois is desirous of redressing social grievances, in order to secure the continued existence of bourgeois society. To this section belong economists, philanthropists, humanitarians, improvers of the condition of the working-class, organisers of charity, members of societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, temperance fanatics, hole and corner reformers of every imaginable kind. This form of Socialism has, moreover, been worked out into complete systems.” We may cite Mr. J. R. MacDonald’s “Socialism and Society” as an example of this form. “The Socialistic bourgeoisie want all the advantages of modern social conditions without the struggles and dangers necessarily resulting therefrom. They desire the existing state of society minus its revolutionary and disintegrating elements. They desire a bourgeoisie without, a proletariat. . . . Bourgeois Socialism attains adequate expression when and only when it becomes a mere figure of speech. Free Trade: for the benefit of the working-class. Protective duties: for the benefit of the working-class. Prison Reform: for the benefit of the working-class. This is the last word and the only seriously meant word of Bourgeois Socialism. It is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois—for the benefit of the working-class!”—Communist Manifesto.

The ethics of Socialism, says J. R. MacDonald, are provided by Evangelicalism; its politics by Liberalism. We leave the courteous reader to the task of picturing a Holy Trinity compounded of “General” Booth, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, and Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald!

T. A. Jackson

Editorial: The Clarion Vanner vs The Truth. (1905)

Editorial from the December 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the "Clarion Van" was in the neighbourhood of Paddington, the speaker, E. R. Hartley, was asked whether it was true that Keir Hardie accepted the class-struggle when in Amsterdam in order to gain admission to the International Socialist Congress, and immediately denied the existence of that struggle upon his return to this country.

Hartley replied that it was not true. Our readers may judge of his ignorance or dishonesty from the following facts.

The resolutions agreed to at the Brussels Conference of 1899, which complete the conditions of admission to the International Socialist Congress as adopted at the London Congress, are as follow:

Are admitted 

1. "All associations which adhere to the essential principles of Socialism : socialisation of the means of production and exchange: union and international action of the workers: Socialist conquest of political power by the proletariat organised in a class party."
2. "All corporate organisations which, placing themselves on the ground of the class-struggle and acknowledging the necessity of political action (legislative and Parliamentary) which do not, however, participate directly in the political movement.”

Keir Hardie's renunciation of the basic principle of modern Socialism — the class-struggle — on his return to the country in which a Liberal capitalist pays part of his election expenses, shows him to be playing a double game; for he acquiesces in the class-struggle only in order to pass muster with the international proletariat.

Will Hartley apologise ?