The Nationalisation of Railways and Other Services. (1908)

Book Review from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A copy of the most recent book on the nationalisation of railways, by Mr. A. Emil Davies (A. & C. Black, 125 pp., limp cloth, I/-), has been sent us for notice. The question is one that is again occupying considerable public attention, and some examination of the case for this and kindred reforms is therefore called for from those who regard anything less than Socialism as something approximating to a delusion and a snare from the point of view of the working class.

If, first of all, the nationalisation of the railways were as important as Mr. Davies would have us believe, we would very readily admit that Mr. Davies’ book is as handy a presentation of the case against the present system of private ownership as we have seen. It manages to compress the essential arguments of the railway nationaliser into 120 pages of easy setting, without leaving the impression of a scamped job. It is not so exhaustive an examination as that published by Mr. Clement Edwards some years back, yet the reformer will find most of what he wants in it, including matter of as recent a date as February and March of this year.

From the Socialist point of view, however, the only value the book has resides in the evidence it adduces of the incapacity of the railway capitalist to manage his own

DIRTY PROFIT-MONGERING BUSINESS,

and in the proof it provides of our continuous contention that nationalisation and municipalisation as such have nothing in them advantageous to any section of the working class that is not considerably out-balanced by the disadvantages that result from them—even if, which is at least arguable, they have any advantage at all.

The advantage, contended generally, is in the higher wages and better conditions obtainable under municipal or national control. This may result—sometimes. But it is just as probable that it won’t, seeing that the service municipalised or nationalised is still under the control of capitalist administrators, who are dominant in legislative and administrative affairs. While this condition holds, as it will while the capitalist system lasts, the paramount desideratum is the realisation of profits. It is merely an exhibition of economic stupidity to urge that these profits, used as they may be to reduce rates, go back to the pockets of the community. Even if this were true the fact remains that the profits have been realised from the labour of a section of the working class, and in going into the pockets of the community, they have gone in part into the pockets of the capitalist class that forms part of the community, and to that extent have been diverted from the rightful owners—the working-class producers. But although the argument has been extensively used by those who presumably should know better—the Clarion crowd, the I.L.P., the Fabian Society, etc.—it is simply not true that the relief of rates is a relief of the working class. If it were true, the working class of Nottingham and Glasgow, and other places where many services have been municipalised, should be in a flourishing condition, seeing that most of their public services are realising large profits. In point of fact the working class there is not one whit better off than is the working class in towns that haven’t a single municipalised undertaking, for the very simple reason that the labour-power which the workers have to sell, and must sell, in order to live, is bought like any other commodity at its average cost of production. So that, assuming such a relief of rates in any given district that a material reduction in the cost of living is effected, the cost of production of the commodity labour-power would be less, and the price of its purchase—wages—would also be less. Why is it that the

“STANDARD RATE OF WAGES”

is higher in some districts than in others if it is not because cost of living is higher in some districts than in others ? Moreover, it does not even follow that low rates will imply low rents, nor that a reduction of taxation on any other commodity will reduce the price of that commodity—although this point is not germain and has already been adequately dealt with in these columns on previous occasions.

So much for the alleged advantage of a municipalised or nationalised service. But what of the disadvantages ? The case of the railways is before us. In the chapter on “Waste,” Mr. Davies gives, inter alia, a list of things in the administration of which economies could be effected under nationalisation. The cost of the present competition is due to separate offices, separate stations, separate lines, separate engines, wagons, and carting services, light loads, unnecessary haulage, an enormous advertising and canvassing staff, a great clearing house system, and so on. Given nationalisation there follows the concentration of traffic, the closing of offices and redundant stations, the abolition of the canvassing and clearing house departments, and, to a large extent, the abolition of the advertisement department, the reduction of trains, etc., etc., etc. In short, the elimination of “waste.”

Now the working class under capitalism is not concerned with the elimination of waste. To the orthodox person such a statement is no doubt dreadful. If so, the further statement that the working class is a distinct gainer by waste must be the very devil. Yet it is obviously the case. The working class must live. To live it must sell its labour-power. Does “waste” increase the demand for labour-power ? If so, it is good for the immediate purpose of the working class. There is nothing more immediate than

THE CLAMOUR OF THE EMPTY STOMACH.

We are dealing with the railways. The elimination of “waste” there means the abolition of the clearing house rendered necessary by the conflicting interests of many private companies. The clearing house has a staff of about 3,000 clerks. The demand for the labour-power of 3,000 clerks no longer exists and—the 3,000 clerks no longer exist. The same thing holds in the case of all the other departments mentioned. The saving is effected every time at the expense of the workers who have found employment through economic “waste.”

Therefore, under capitalism “waste” is positively a good thing to the workers to the extent that it provides them with the means of living. The South African War, notwithstanding the lamentations of the “moral” Jeremiahs directed against national “waste,” created a demand for labour. If that war had not happened a large number of the workers would have had to take in their belts another hole. If the nationalisation of railways happens a great army of the workers will be without visible means of subsistence.

The railway nationaliser seems to see the difficulty as through a glass darkly. Mr. Davies. says

“It would be a great mistake to measure the advantages of State ownership solely from the point of view of the yield per cent. on the sum invested. Under an equitable, reasonable, and uniform system of rates, trade would be stimulated to an extraordinary degree, and regard would be paid to the social needs of the nation, as is done in Belgium, Germany, and other countries, so that masses of even the humbler town workers would live in the country, and the depopulation of the countryside, with all its attendant evils, would be checked.”

Hope, says the sage, is very cheap. Trade is to be stimulated to an extraordinary degree—by a reduction, to the extent of the thousands of railway workers displaced, of the demand for the commodities that “Trade” supplies !

IT’S AS EASY AS THAT !

But the prospect of regard being paid to his social needs, and of an opportunity of living in the country where the work he requires is not, must be sweet solace to the man in danger of being thrown on the unemployed market by the elimination of railway “waste.”

No, the fact must be faced that, until the working class understand the reasons why it is. in a position of dependency upon the fluctuations of trade for even a precarious living; why it must sell its labour-power for wages that represent not the value of the wealth it has produced, not even a third of that value, but the bare cost of the sheer necessities of existence ; why it must stand starving in the market places of the world at the very moment when, all the requirements of happy, healthy life are piled in riotous profusion on every hand—until the working class has understood the causes of these things and expressed its determination to remedy them by capturing the political machine, in order that the capture of the economic machinery may follow, questions of the nationalisation of this, or the municipalisation of that, undertaking, are only of interest to the extent to which the change may affect the pockets, or the stomachs of the workers immediately concerned. For the working class as a whole, there is nothing in them except danger of being sidetracked in an endeavour to get at the solution of the economic problem.

That danger still needs considerable emphasis. If any section of the workers is persuaded that in some such reform movement as the nationalisation of railways there is salvation, it will come to itself in the final reckoning, sick and sorry, with apathy bred of disappointment and despair born of withered hopes. It will be more difficult material for the Socialist leaven to work upon. It will retard the advance of the workers toward the Co-operative Commonwealth that lies at the end of our journeying. It will, until the effect of its painful experience and knowledge of its wasted energies have grown small, be a stumbling block and a rock of offence in our path.

WE DO NOT WANT STUMBLING BLOCKS.

Therefore we do not want, reform agitations. Therefore we will do what, we may to counteract the possible influence of Mr. Davies’ book by indicating the narrow limitations of its working-class potentialities, and pointing to that more excellent way—the straight, narrow way—of whole-hog, revolutionary, uncompromising demand for the working-class ownership and control of all the means of life, along which alone the party of the proletariat may march to victory.

“But,” says the earnest reformer, ”you will not be able to get control of the means of life all at once. You must walk before you can run. It’s all a matter of evolution.” The dear child ! If a man wants bread shall he assiduously pick up stones ? Shall he endeavour to gather figs from thistles ? The worker wants what Socialism alone will give him. He must therefore make for Socialism, aim at Socialism, concentrate on Socialism. Under Socialism the municipality will probably supply him with dough-nuts and hob-nails, while “blood-alleys” and commoner marbles will doubtless be available for his children. Shall he, therefore, wanting Socialism, cry aloud to-day for the municipal supply of blood-alleys and hob-nails and dough-nuts ? Why not ? Because they are not important ? Neither is a nationalised railway.

Mr. Davies points out that most of the Continental countries and nearly all “our” Colonies have nationalised railways. Wherein are the workers of those countries beneficially affected ? Who are making the demand for nationalised railways in England ? Other sections of the capitalist class. To assist the working class or expedite Socialism ? Not much. Rather to enable them to exploit the working class the more. The nationaliser of the railways of Germany was—Bismarck!

Nationalised railways will be a factor in the Socialist Republic. They will be important—then. But only important because Socialism holds. Socialism is the thing that matters. Let us go for it—and the dough-nuts and blood-alleys and hob-nails will be shied at us in the hope that, because we shall have them under Socialism, we may be stupid enough to turn aside to pick them up now. But Socialism will not be shied at us. We may have everything else at the hands of the good capitalist; hut the only thing we want—no ! The capitalist will do anything for the working class, anything—except get off its back.

If our reformer friend’s difficulty is that, unless we nationalise and municipalise as we go along, we shall be

IN A HOPELESS TANGLE

when we arrive, let him remember one little fact. The evolution of capitalism (he will like that word “evolution”) has placed the workers practically in complete control of industry. From the top to the bottom the whole process of production is managed by—wage servants. The workers are in control in fact but not in name. It’s the product they do not control. The thing necessary, therefore, and the only thing necessary, is to evolve in the minds of the workers the knowledge of the fact of their control and the means by which they may expropriate the present expropriators, so that they may be dominant in name as well as in fact, and secure for themselves the product of their own labours. That evolution of knowledge is quite as easy under private ownership as under State ownership. All that will then be required will be the capture of the political power through which the armed forces are manipulated, and—a notice to quit to the capitalist. The industry socially worked to-day, will have its product socially owned then.

But the publicly-owned service has, anyhow, a good educational effect on the working class, surely ? Perhaps—p’r’aps not. In any case there are enough of them for all educational purposes to-day. But they have been converted to publicly-owned services by representatives of the capitalist class in the interests of the capitalist class. The effect of that outstanding fact to any but the serious student who will take the trouble to dig below the surface of things, will hardly have great educational value. The casual enquirer, such as the worker unfortunately often is, will conclude either that the capitalist is willing to help the worker along the road to Socialism, or that the publicly-owned service is, Because it is a capitalist move, steered clear of completely. In both cases he would be wrong. The educational effect of the fact of Post Office sweating, Clothing Department sweating, Woolwich Arsenal sweating, London County Council-jerry building, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is also likely to be a little dubious.

Are there any other legs upon which the national cum-municipal-Liza can stand ? Probably. Our ”Liza” has as many legs as a caterpillar. But not one of them can support the argumentative superstructural body that it is hoped to stick on it. In the final analysis we come back to the incontrovertible fact that Socialism is the only hope of the workers, and that everything else is mere leather and prunella.

Alec James.

That Blessed Word : Unity ! (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

(Con)Fusion in America.

A few years ago the question of Socialist unity engaged the attention of the two “Socialist” parties in this country. Votes were taken of the rank and file and large majorities voted in favour of fusion, but as the leaders did not desire fusion they did not allow it to come to pass.

Similarly the cry for “unity” has been raised in America, and again those first in raising the cry have been the smallest of the parties concerned.

As in England a knowledge of the mental make-up of the parties enabled many to see through the fake proposal, so will similar knowledge of the American “fusionists” enable us to value their “unity” cry for what it is worth.

In 1896 the Socialist Labour Party of America declared for the “new” Trade Unionism, and started the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance, a union affiliated to the Socialist Labour Party, and out to smash the “pure and simple” trade unions. This caused a “split” in the Socialist Labour Party, a large section leaving and, with the “Social-Democracy” of Eugene V. Debs, forming the Socialist Party of America.

A fight then commenced between the two, most of the fighting being done by the Socialist Labour Party, who long and loudly denounced the prominent members of the latter party— Debs, Carey, Mother Jones, Simons, and so on—as “freaks,” “frauds,” and “fakers,” while the Party as such was in turns termed the “Multi-cocoa Party,” the “Kangaroos,” in fact, anything but a Socialist party, and no Socialist Labour Party member was allowed on their platform except in opposition.

After some nine years of this fighting, and at the same time attempting to organise the working class in the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance, the membership was found to be declining at such a rapid pace that something had to be done.

Mr. F. Bohn, organiser, visiting Chicago, found himself among the “freaks,” “frauds,” and “fakers” that the S.LP. and the S.T. and L.A. were fighting—Mother Jones and A. M. Simons among them—and without instruction from either the S.L.P. or the S.T. and L.A. (his paymasters), he joined with them in signing a manifesto calling for a new union to be formed. In thus proclaiming the failure of his own union Bohn was supported in the Weekly People by such writers as Olive M. Johnson and Dan. De Leon. The Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance was thus crucified, betrayed by the leaders of the S.L.P. into the hands of the “freaks,” “frauds,” and “fakers,” and a new union—the Industrial Workers of the World—was formed. This new union, having for its object the organising of the workers to “take and hold” what they produce, enrolled a large membership, including men of all shades of political thought and of none. Those who had been “freaks” and “fakers” now became honest and earnest comrades on the economic field ; and to hide political differences politics were relegated to the rear, economic organisation and action being given the place of prime importance, and Mr. De Leon, editor of the American Weekly People, “discovered” that Marx had in 1869, said somewhere, sometime, to some one, that “only the economic organisation could set on foot the true political .party of Labour.”

Did Mr. De Leon know this before he helped to form the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance, and before he joined the Socialist Labour Party, or is it now that he is wangling ? As there is no evidence that Marx ever made such a statement, I beg to answer the latter question in the affirmative.

But in case Marx is not sufficient, Engels is dragged in, and one need not be surprised if at any time we are told that Christ talked Industrial Unionism in the Sermon on the Mount, or that even if he did not, what he did say may be “adapted to American conditions.”

When, as a result of capitalist persecution, W. D. Haywood had become the momentary idol of thousands of American workmen, and, while still in prison, was nominated by the Socialist Party as candidate for Governorship, the S.L.P. found itself in a dilemma. Haywood was member and nominee of the “rotten” Socialist Party —yet he was a member of the pure I.W.W. According to the S.L.P. rules they could not support him, but could they risk opposing the popular Haywood ? Eventually the Colorado State Executive decided to call upon every member of the S.L.P. in Colorado to withdraw from the Party until after the election, so that they could vote for Haywood ! This remarkable wangle was supported by O. M. Johnson and Mr. De Leon, and we were told the S.L.P. refused to oppose Haywood politically because they were supporting his “economic side” !

On his release from prison, however, Haywood toured America for the Socialist Party. This roused the ire of the S.L.P., who then denounced him as a coward and a craven.

Meanwhile the I.W.W., which for a time had proved a happy hunting-ground for S.L.P. literature sellers, had had a serious split. Most of its original founders had left it. E. V. Debs, had joined the staff of the Appeal to Reason, an anti-I.W.W. paper, and those who were left were largely inclined towards the Socialist Party. This not suiting the “fighting” S.L.P., who, not content with fighting the “cravens” like Haywood, outside, and the “physical force-ists” like Williams, inside, wanted a new excuse for a declaration of war on the Socialist Party, up went the cry for Socialist “unity.”

The E.C. of the S.L.P. invited the Socialist Party to consider proposals with a view to fusion, knowing they would be rejected. They were rejected, and now the S.L.P. can forget the fond embraces indulged in with the “freaks,” “frauds,” and “fakers” at the funeral of the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance, and clears the decks anew for hostilities.

Had the “unity” proposals been accepted bj the Socialist Party and a juncture fixed up, splits would, of course, immediately have followed; but the chance would have been taken. and the S.L.P. would have been scuttled and swallowed up in a new party, with the consent and approval of its friends, as was the Socialist Trade and Labour Alliance in 1905.

In either case it was a wangle on the part of the S.L.P. leaders, a case of heads I win, tails you lose, but the Socialist Party leaders declined to enter the game.

It will thus be seen that, as in Britain, so in America, the “fusion” trick is but a move in the long game practised by faction leaders at the expense of the principles they are supposed to be advocating. It is therefore, up to the rank and file, as the Americans would say, to checkmate the players, to overthrow the “leaders,” the “intellectuals,” to act on the truly Marxian dictum that “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.” When they will place principles above personalities, and understand the difference between capitalist reform and social revolution, they will find there is but one party for them. Here it is The Socialist Party of Great Britain ; in America it has yet to be born.

A. W. Pearson

Cuttings and critiques. (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Mr. Ritzema, J.P., of Blackburn, recently delivered himself of a scheme to “Nationalise and suppress the Liquor Traffic.” So impressed is he with his scheme that he has had it printed, and the Socialist Standard has received a copy. Let me say at once that I also am impressed by the scheme—in spite of the fact that it was first launched upon a long-suffering public from Paradise Church, Blackburn.

#    #    #    #

The background having been laid on with the brush of a Stiggins, incorporating the usual denunciations of drink as a greater curse than war, pestilence and famine, the cause of 80% of crime. 50% of lunacy, pauperism, etc, Mr. Ritzema talks of buying out the brewers at about 300 millions, imposing a tax of 20s. in the £ upon all intoxicants, selling them at cost to the town and county councils—who will provide public-houses and managers out of their own funds, 9-l0ths of the cost of which, and the loss on the sale of liquor, the Government would refund. Of the profits stockholders would receive 4%, and 2% would be set aside to redeem the capital. This would leave large sums for social work, such as “finding immediate work for the unemployed,” the drink traffic would be gradually extinguished under the benign influences at work, the money diverted from beer would buy the workers bread and boots, trade would be stimulated, lunacy, crime, and pauperism almost obliterated, the churches saved, and a sober, educated, and intelligent democracy would be evolved.

#    #    #    #

A beautiful scheme, savouring of the scheme for old age pensions to commence 20 or 30 years after the potential pensioner is a box of cold meat. The poverty of the proletarian is due to his exploitation at the source of production, and from that exploitation all things flow. The investigations of Chas. Booth, the Tory, show 75% of drunkenness to be due to poverty and its inseparable conditions. It is the degradation wrought by poverty that expresses itself in alcoholic excess, and the righteous Ritzema, living under the normal conditions of the lower paid worker, might find the atmosphere of Paradise Church less congenial than the mild excitement of the “Pig and Whistle.”

#    #    #    #

These morality-mongers prefer to potter with effects; yet this question must strike the stupidest in the face, if drunkenness exists why is it? What answer has the blue-ribboned army to that? It is, they say, when they are not dumb, due to the opportunities that exist for drinking. Oh, blind and sons of the blind! Abolish drink tomorrow—what then ? Happiness, they say, prosperity, joy in living. Yet the most abstemious, thrifty, careful living people in the world are the most poverty-stricken—the people of India.

#    #    #    #

No ! it won’t do. If the conditions of existence drive people into deplorable excess, that excess, that craving for excitement, for some break in the hideous monotony of their existence, must manifest itself somehow. Close all the public-houses—have you then exhausted all the media through which the craving will express itself ? No !

#    #    #    #

I wish I had space to deal with Mr. Ritzema’s little scheme. It would be interesting to try and discover how his blue horror fades to a lighter blue when it is dispensed by town council managers rather than rubicund Boniface, and how the craving for drink is to languish and die out when the liquor is served in pewters engraved with the council’s arms, and how the deep damnation of the whole business is reconciled with the payment of the authors of it (the brewers) and its continued existence under the management of a government that regards it as an. unspeakably reprehensible thing, more accursed than war, plague, or pestilence.

#    #    #    #

At the recent bye-election for Montrose Burghs a Mr. Joseph Burgess sought election, claiming to stand for Independent Labour and Socialism. In the first paragraph of his address he said, “If I have the honour to secure your suffrages I shall consider it my first duty, as the representative of all classes and industries, to do all that lies within the power of a Parliamentary representative to advance the general interests of all the Burghs and their citizens.”

#    #    #    #

By “all classes” Mr. Burgess really meant all sections of the only two classes there are—the master class and the working class. He was therefore admittedly prepared to go to the Commons to represent the master class—the landlords, employers, financiers, lawyers, the officials of the army and the civil forces!

#    #    #    #

In his next paragraph he said, “all textile trade questions would find in me a zealous and intelligent Parliamentary advocate,” and in the following, “I believe I could be helpful to all who are therein concerned, whether they be employers or operatives.” So here you have an “Independent Labour Socialist” candidate endeavouring to convince the employing class that he could be of great assistance to them. Apparently Mr. Burgess is far from accepting the impossibility of serving two masters faithfully. How he can serve the interests of the masters without opposing or neglecting the necessarily conflicting interests of the workers Mr. Burgess does not say.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Burgess would, further, nationalise all forms of industrial capital, evidently thinking it better for the workers to be exploited by Government departments than by individual capitalists or joint-stock companies. It is the same to us whether we are robbed by the Post Office, or the L.C.C. Tramway Department, or by Sir Clifton Robinson, or the National Telephone Co. It is a matter of complete indifference to us that the distraint for rent is levied in the name of some local teetotaller or Bible basher, or the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, or a Government Land Department. Capital is wealth used for the exploitation of labour. We do not wish to nationalise that exploitation, but to abolish it.

#    #    #    #

Mr. J. W. Benson is the Parliamentary candidate for Pudsey Division, “at the unanimous invitation of the branches of the Pudsey Division I.L.P.” He claims that he is “an earnest student of the cause of poverty” and “convinced that Socialism is the only real and permanent remedy”; that “bad trade, unemployment, and poverty at present exist under a Free Trade policy, and therefore Free Trade is no remedy for these evils.” After this avowal one would expect (not knowing these I.L.P. chaps) that Mr. Benson would point out that Socialists took no part in the fiscal controvacy, being concerned only with the abolition of poverty, through Socialism, “the only real and permanent remedy.” Not so Mr. Benson. “I am in favour,” he says, “of the continuation of Free Trade.” So there you are. The evils of bad trade, unemployment and poverty exist under Free Trade, therefore let us have some more Free Trade. Let us hoodwink the workers into believing that it matters to them whether they are robbed by Protectionist crows or Free Trade kites. Such is I.L.P’ism.

#    #    #    #

In this respect, however, the I.L.P’s vis-a-vis, the Social-Democratic Party, has nothing to shout about. In a pamphlet written by its secretary on “Social-Democracy and the Zollverein” it pointed out that the great danger was that the working class might be induced to take sides. Agreed. And yet every S.D.P. candidate, from H. M. Hyndman downwards, has endeavoured to induce them to take sides, by declaring for Free Trade as against Protection. Take its very latest wild-cat candidature, in North-West Manchester. On the front page Dan Irving declared for “no tariff barriers to make dearer the food of the people,” although in the body of his address he described the Tariff Reform agitation as “a sham, political warfare on the fiscal arrangements of the country,” after which he said, “as a Social-Democrat I am in favour of Free Trade.”

#    #    #    #

Dan’s address was funny in other respects. “Whatever party may be in power,” he said, “I shall always be found giving my support to any measure which makes for the benefit of the people,” and then, in his concluding paragraph, “Workers, remember that in all times of industrial struggle” (which, of course, means every minute of day) “the members of the master class use the power you give them in Parliament and on public authorities to compel you to submit to their will.” And it is suggested by this “worker for the Labour Movement for twenty-four years” that the master class, possessing and using the power of compelling the workers to submit to their will, will introduce measures which make “for the benefit of the people”! Really, these fellows must be abysmal idiots or—— (missing word. Suggestions invited.)

#    #    #    #

“Do not the working class pay the rates and taxes ?” is a question asked in the “Catechism of Socialism,” and Messrs. E. Belfort Bax and H. Quelch, both of the S.D.P., answer “No.” The worker, they add, has “nothing wherewith to pay taxes, and whether these be high or low, and whoever has to pay them directly, his position remains the same.” Generally speaking, they say further, the reduction of rates is of no benefit to the working class, and to devote the proceeds of municipal undertakings to the reduction of rates is simply to use them as means for making profit for the propertied class. After which Mr. Dan Irving, in his election address, “in the interests of Labour and Socialism,” declared for the “Nationalisation of Education and Poor Rates so that the financially strong may help to bear the burdens of the weak.” Very ‘OT—what ?

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor, Lord Lorebrun, member of the Liberal Cabinet, said at a dinner at the Newcastle Gladstone Club on May 29th, that “The Conservatives represent the constant apprehension that change will do harm to vested interests. YOU WILL FIND, IF YOU LOOK BACK, THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VESTED INTEREST INJURED BY ANY REFORMS THAT HAVE BEEN PASSED IN OUR DAY. You need never be afraid that things will go too fast in this country. In the last fifty years there has been an unparalleled advance in industrial progress and in the material domain of human effort, but nothing of the kind in the least degree corresponding has been done in regard to the improvement of the condition of the people.”

#    #    #    #

The Lord Chancellor has blown the gaff. No wonder that only one newspaper gave a full report of his speech. But what the frank Chancellor admits is undoubtedly true. No Socialist expects the master class to legislate against its own interests, and as we see, they do not so legislate. Hence the position of the S.P.G.B. Before the workers can get anything from the master class they must be able to take it. Therefore the work before us is to educate and organise the workers in these truths for the political supremacy of the workers. Then, and then only will the wealth producers find their burden lightened.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Ben Tillett, in an eulogy of the work of Tom Mann in Australia, writes, “the present leaders of the Labour Parties (of Australia) are blind to the revolutionary work going on apace and the trend of capitalism, falling back upon worn-out political shibboleths, fiscal fooling, sectarianism and religious intolerance and with the usual clap-trap of temperance opponents.” Well, Ben, what fooling, fiscal or other, beats your own fooling as emigration tout in England for the Australian Capitalist ? Was that fooling or something worse ?

#    #    #    #

The local Branch, S.D.P. indulges in Justice (6/6/08) in a great chuckle because they were able, by lying low and saying nothing, to secure that their nomination for the Leigh Union Board of Guardians should be the only one, so getting their man returned unopposed. They rejoice in beating Liberals and Tories at their own game, “and Lees is inside the board room, where we have not the least doubt that he will make his presence felt.” A victory for Socialism indeed—of the S.D.P. brand ! The educational effect on the workers locally must be stupendous !

Alegra.

The Old Age Pension snare. (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Pursuant to their policy of buying working-class support with spurious coin, the Liberals have added another to their list of cheap sops. They raised a “working man” to the Cabinet, and it has been counted unto them for righteousness at the ballot-box. They have given a Small Holdings Act to enable those poor devils of workers who have saved a trifle under capitalist slavery, to get back to the slavery of petty enterprise and lose it. They have announced with temerity (later overwhelmed by trepidation) a measure to save the worker sending his “soul to hell” with hops (?) and arsenic. And now they have decided to administer another dose of “The Mixture,” the antidote to Socialism, from the bottle labelled “Social Reform”—Old Age Pensions to wit.

What has led them to this act of magnanimity concerns us little here. Our business is to show how hollow is the claim that the realisation of this great item of the programs of the S.D.P., I.L.P. and other reform bodies masquerading as revolutionaries, contributes one iota to the material advantage of the working class. Well indeed can the capitalist captains quell the murmurings which the seeming waste of so much good provender calls up among the more ignorant of their own hosts with the cynical assurance: “Dear brethren, it is entirely compensative.”

Entirely compensative it certainly is from the point of view of capitalist interests, and it is because of the vital importance of the workers understanding this that this criticism is penned.

“Now to dip the test-rod in.”

Viewing the working class as a whole we see a mass of workers living by the sale of a mass labour-power for a mass of wages. This “mass” view of the workers becomes daily more imperative as the development of capitalist production daily eliminates the personal from human affairs, crushing individual opportunity, disfranchising individual skill, reducing all to the mean level on the workers’ side, as it obliterates the individual on the masters’ side, depriving capital of a personal owner, of nationality even, and making the productive machinery of the world less and less private property in the sense of separate and detached ownership, and increasingly a class possession.

Karl Marx has clearly shown the commodity nature of this labour-power, and has proved that the wage (apart from temporary fluctuations which cancel one another) is merely the equivalent of the labour-power which it purchases in respect of one quality common to both—the only quality common to both—that is, embodied necessary human labour.

Man creates nothing—he merely alters forms. He labours at the plough and in the mill, produces necessaries of life, and consumes them. And consuming them he produces latent energy, or labour-power, which he sells. And just as, when the woollen manufacturer consumes coal in his furnaces, the value of that coal lives again in the woollen fabric, so the value of the necessaries of life socially necessary to the production of labour-power is resurrected in that labour-power. Again, man labours in the gold-mines and produces gold, and this gold preserves in full—not the value of the necessaries consumed by the miner to enable him to produce his labour-power, oh, no. That was represented in the miner’s wages, and if the gold had no greater value than was paid in wages for its production there could be no profit for the employer. Between the cost of production of labour-power and its power of production—what it costs to create it and what in turn it is capable of creating—there is a vast difference. The day’s labour-power which the mine-owner bought cost only the product of a quarter of a day’s labour to produce. A quarter of a day’s labour, then, is the value of a days’ labour-power, but this labour-power expended (with utility and prevailing economy), a day’s labour-power is converted into a day’s labour, and that which reappears in its product—gold—is the same that appears in labour-power, viz., the cost of production in units of human labour time.

We see, then, that the labour-power which the workers sell and the wages they sell it for are equivalents when they exchange at par. They are equal values by virtue of the congealed labour they contain, as the two-pound loaf and the two-pound weight are equivalents by virtue of their one common quality, weight. And just as no other commodity owner can force the price of his goods (or shall we say sell them) above their value in the face of competition, so can the workers obtain for their labour-power no more than its average necessary cost of production. Less will not suffice to reproduce the requisite efficiency and maintain continuity of supply : more is debarred them by competition.

The crude statement that wages tend to sink to the level of subsistence under the prevailing “standard of comfort,” faulty though it is in view of the fact that the wages of the workers as a body are never high enough to enable them to provide subsistence—fresh air, pure food, maternal knowledge, and the like—necessary to rear more than half their children to the age of six years, is a fair shot at the truth. But the mystifying element, of course, is contained in the idea of a Standard of Comfort, for this seems to indicate a power in the human will that one can hardly credit, to defy the operation of the laws of competition. What, one asks, is this Standard of Comfort ? How is it established and how maintained’?

The Standard of Comfort is, as Karl Marx says, the creation of an historical process, but today the most potent factor in its determination is the advance of capitalist production itself. The growing intensification of labour, the increasing insecurity of livelihood, the rising tide of unemployment, the herding of vast numbers in slums, the stripping of every rational pleasure from life—all these things make stimulants and intoxicants a necessary part of the Standard of Comfort, as does the more general education demanded by modern capitalism render literary and other “refined” indulgences a part of the necessary bill of fare, and therefore a part of the necessary cost of production of labour-power, into the value of which they enter, to demand an equivalent in its price—wages.

Theoretically wages, since they are the equivalent of the necessary cost of continued production of labour-power, are paid in order that labour-power may be produced. When therefore they are spent on expensive food when cheaper would do as well, on white bread when brown would afford as much sustenance at less cost, on meat when vegetarian diet is so much more economical, on whisky which conceivably gives no sustenance at all, on maintaining the aged whose period of usefulness to the capitalist is passed, then Capital is aggrieved, and capitalists look askant and wonder why all this leakage.

Long ago they discovered that if they reduced the workers’ drink bill they lowered the cost of production of labour-power, and hence cheapened it. Now they have discovered that if they in some measure relieve the workers of the burden of their aged they once more reduce their cost of subsistence and depreciate their wages. It is entirely compensative.

The workers have to learn that so long as their labour-power remains a commodity, remains an article produced for sale in a competitive market, it can command no more than its cost of production. Indeed, they are not robbed here (except in the sense that the sale is compulsory), for it is an exchange of equivalents. (It is in the conversion of that labour-power into labour that they are robbed—robbed of the difference between the value of the one and the other, which the masters call profit.) They have to learn that all those things which the conditions they live under render necessary to the production of their labour-power, in such volume and quality as the labour market needs must be surrendered to them out of the wealth they produce. The woollen manufacturer aforesaid supplies coal for his boilers in order to get motive power, but if his engineer makes a first charge upon it for other purposes, if he takes part of it home for the kitchen grate, then the deficiency must be made up. It is a law of mechanics that we cannot get more out of a machine than we put in, and the same applies to the human machine. If the wages which are paid to the workers as a body (we are taking the “mass” view, not the individual) for the purpose of continuing the supply of labour-power is generally expended upon things which are not fundamentally, but only conditionally necessary to that purpose—on whisky, appearance, maintaining the aged and incapable, and so on—then the fuel for the labour-power still must be provided. Therefore, what does it matter to the workers as a class whether these things which circumstances make so necessary to them that they are ready to make them first charges upon their means of subsistence, are allowed to them as wages or as “State assistance”? They might be “State” housed, “State” clothed, “State” educated, “State” doctored, “State” washed, lathered, shaved and shampoo’d, but still, while the last essential—food—is withheld from them, they must fight in the labour market for work, be overworked and unemployed, hungry and anxious and toil worn, just as much for the remnant of the necessaries that they cannot exist without as for all.

Any such reforms as State Maintenance of School-children, Old Age Pensions, and so on, are mere shuffling of the cards, and can add nothing permanent whatever to the material wealth of the workers. Indeed, some of them may have the reverse effect, for under the present arrangement the teetotaler has some monetary advantage from the fact that a modicum of the cost of the generally necessary stimulants appears in the value of his labour-power, while the single man with no children outside the workhouse is the better paid because provision is made for the (capitalistically necessary) children in the general wage instead of in “State Maintenance.” Even an overwhelming Socialist majority in the House of Commons could not increase the “return to Labour” by reforms, for all the reforms still leave the competitive labour market untouched. The only way is to abolish that labour market by abolishing the property condition out of which it arises, by substituting, that is, common for private ownership in the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth. That is revolution, not reform. That is ending the capitalist system, not mending it. That alone is the object of a Socialist party and of working-class politics.

So we denounce the Old Age Pension Bill as a useless and mischievous reform measure—useless because it leaves the workers where they were, mischievous because of its power for misleading them. Unfortunately the “mind’s eye” is peculiarly subject to optical delusions. As the sun appears to travel round the earth, as the water seems to race past the ship, so to the untrained “mind’s eye” of the average worker the so-called palliatives appear to palliate. As when “General” Booth finds a job for one poor downcast wretch, it is forgotten that without his interference another would have got the job who must now be work-less, and the impression is created that unemployment has been lessened by this “invaluable agency,” whereas all that has been effected is a shifting of the suffering, so these paltry reforms, so fondly hugged and cuddled by all other parties in this country claiming to be Socialist save the S.P.G.B., seem to be ameliorative, and so seeming capture the popular fancy, revive and strengthen the working-class belief in the goodwill and magnanimity of capitalist politics, ay! serve even to lure our own from beside us, and range them, bitter and militant, against the very cause they profess to revere—Socialism.

And this is why they are such powerful instruments in the hands of the master class for diverting the gaze of the proletariat from the revolutionary proposal. Truly “social reform” is perfectly summed up in the sententious description of that astute politician, Mr. A. J. Balfour—”the antidote to Socialism.” For this reason we cry out upon all those reform parties who, falsely, describe themselves as Socialist, and denounce them for what in truth they are—misleaders of the working class, and therefore adjuncts of the capitalist parties.

A. E. Jacomb

The Capitalist Class. By Karl Kautsky (continued) (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Continued from the June 1908 issue.

Specially translated for the Socialist Party of Great Britain and approved by the Author.

6.—The fall in the rate of profit.

Simultaneously with the development aforementioned, the total amount of capital which the capitalists invest in their various undertakings with the view to profit shows the tendency to growing more rapidly than does the exploitation of the workers and the amount of surplus-value produced by them.

We cannot enter here into the details of the reasons for the appearance of this phenomenon, as the comprehension of such supposes some wider knowledge of economics. An example will illustrate the above statement.

Let us take a case of most convincing character. Let us compare a hand-spinner of a hundred years ago, who, we will say, was exploited by a capitalist as a worker carrying on home industry, with a machine-spinner of to-day. How much capital there is necessary to make possible the work of the latter ; and how small comparatively the capital has been which the capitalist used for the purpose of spinning by hand. He paid the wages of the spinner and gave him the cotton or flax to spin. With regard to wages little has altered, but the machine-spinner to-day uses up perhaps a hundred times as much raw material as the hand-spinner; and what enormous buildings, motive power, spinning machinery, etc., are necessary to carry on spinning by machinery.

Yet another circumstance has to be considered : the capitalist of a hundred years ago, who employed the spinner, invested in his concern only the outlay for wages and raw material ; there was scarcely any standing capital—the spinning wheel was not to be reckoned. His capital was quickly turned over—say in three months—hence he only needed to invest and advance in his concern one quarter of the amount of capital he used in the whole year. To-day the amount of capital required for machinery and buildings of a spinning mill is enormous. Though the period of turnover of the amount of capital advanced for wages and raw material may be equal to that of a hundred years ago, the period of turnover of the other portion of the capital, which a hundred years ago scarcely existed, is a very long one.

A number of causes act in the opposite direction, as for instance, the credit system, but especially the fall in the value of products, which is a necessary consequence of the increase in the productivity of labour. But these causes are by no means able to entirely put an end to the development in question. This development proceeds in all branches of industry, in some more, in others less rapidly ; with the result that the amount of capital advanced every year and reckoned at so much per head of the industrial workers, grows rapidly.

Let us suppose that this amount of capital a hundred years ago was £5 and to-day has grown to £50 ; let us further suppose that the exploitation of the worker has increased in the proportion of five to one so that if the surplus-value which a hundred years ago he produced each year amounted to £2 10s., it would to-day, given an equal amount of wages for the year, be £12 10s. The amount of surplus-value has thus in this case, as absolute surplus-value, risen enormously ; but in proportion to the amount of capital which the capitalist invests each year, the surplus-value has fallen. A hundred years ago this proportion was 50 per cent., to-day it is only 25.

That is, of course, only an example, but the tendency explained thereby actually exists.

The total amount of surplus-value produced each year in a capitalist country is increasing continually and rapidly; but more rapidly still increases the total amount of capital invested by the capitalist class in the various capitalist undertakings over which the surplus-value is distributed. If one further bears in mind the fact, which we have already observed, that for the requirements of the State and for ground-rent an ever increasing amount comes out of the total of surplus-value produced each year, one will comprehend that the amount of surplus-value which each year, on the average, falls to a given sum of capital is ever on the decrease, although the exploitation of the worker is growing.

The profit—that is to say, that portion of surplus-value which is left to the capitalist owner of the concern—thus shows the tendency to fall in proportion to the total capital advanced by him ; or, expressed in another way, in the course of development in the capitalist mode of production as a rule, the profit falling to a given amount of capital decreases continually. A sign of this fall is the unceasing decline in the rate of interest.

While thus the exploitation of the worker has the tendency to rise, the rate of profit of the capitalist shows the tendency to fall. That is one of the most peculiar contradictions of the many with which capitalist production abounds.

From this fall in the rate of profit the conclusion has been drawn that capitalist exploitation would end by itself; that capital would finally yield so little profit that the capitalist, in a starving condition, would be seeking something to do. But such would only be the case if the rate of profit would continually fall and the total amount of capital remain the same. That is, however, by no means the fact. The total capital in the capitalist countries increases more rapidly than the rate of profit falls. The increase of capital is one of the presumed conditions of the fall in the rate of profit, and if the rate of interest falls from 5 to 4, or from 4 to 3 per cent., the income of the capitalist, whose capital has in the meantime increased from one million to two or more millions, is not reduced.

The fall in the rate of profit or interest does by no means signify a reduction in the income of the capitalist class, because the bulk of the surplus-value which they obtain increases continually ; this fall in profit reduces the incomes of those capitalists only who are not in a position to increase their capital accordingly. In the course of the economic development the limit is ever extended from which a certain amount of capital begins to suffice for the maintenance of its owner in accordance with his social position. It is an ever larger amount of income which becomes the minimum required to enable anyone, without working himself, to live upon the labour of others. What fifty years ago was still a big fortune, to-day has become relatively a mere trifle. The fall in profit and the rate of interest does not cause the extinction, but merely thte decrease in the numbers of the capitalist class. Every year small capitalists are squeezed out of their ranks and brought face to face with the same death struggle that handicraftsmen, petty dealers, and peasants have to pass through ; a death struggle of a briefer or longer duration, which, however, ends, either for them or for their children, in their merging into the proletariat. What they endeavour to do in order to escape their fate, mostly only hastens their ruin.

One wonders at the great number of stupid people who are induced by swindlers to entrust them with their money on the promise that they will receive a high rate of interest. As a rule these persons are not so stupid as they appear to be : the swindling undertaking is the straw to which they cling in their desire to obtain adequate incomes from their small means. It is not so much their greed as their fear of want that blinds them in that way.

[To be continued]

Letter: Poverty: Its Cause and Cure. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A criticism criticised.

The review of our pamphlet “Poverty: Its Cause and Cure,” which appeared in your May issue, has been brought to our notice, and as your reviewer accuses us of propounding some flagrant heresies in the name of Socialism, we would like, with your permission, to defend our position in regard to certain points he has dealt with in the review.

In the pamphlet we stated that the causes of poverty were insufficient production, waste, and unequal distribution, all of which causes were in operation in England to-day. Your reviewer differs from us here on the ground that poverty does not afflict society as a whole, but only a portion of it, and he asserts that the poverty of the working class (which appears in his opinion to be the only class afflicted with poverty) is due neither to insufficient production nor waste, but wholly and solely to unequal distribution. Now we contend that poverty afflicts society as a whole, but we are quite willing to agree with your reviewer that only a portion of the members of society feel the effects of poverty ; and the reason of this is unequal distribution. We contend, however, that if an equal distribution of necessaries could be effected, there would still be poverty because of insufficient production and waste. It was therefore in our opinion necessary to show that Socialism, besides ensuring a more equal distribution of income, would increase production and diminish waste.

Your reviewer differs from us as to the manner in which Socialism will be established. He objects to our characterising as absurd the idea that a Socialist Government would be able to socialise all industries within its term of office ; but, having regard to the enormity of the task of socialising all industries, we must confess that we fail to see how any Government, however anxious it might be to establish Socialism, could complete the task within say five or seven years. This does not imply that a majority of opinion could be in favour of capitalism, as your reviewer seems to think, but, nevertheless, we do hold that it would be possible for a majority of the people to be in favour of certain Socialistic measures and at the same time not in favour of the whole of the means of producing and distributing wealth being owned in common and democratically controlled. As we have stated in the pamphlet, there is reason for thinking that Socialism will be realised by the socialisation of such industries as are authorised to be socialised by mandate from election to election.

We are next accused of repudiating the class struggle when we say that the method of Socialism is not to try to force the will of one class upon another class. Now it seems to us impossible to find a section or class of society to which Socialism would not be beneficial, and we think that as the tendency to Socialism becomes stronger it will also become wider, and that the spirit of Socialism—the universal brotherhood of man—will extend not only to members of the working class, but to members of all classes, and unite them on a common ground in the cause of the common good.

A. E. Peters.

A. W. Kersey.

Reply:

In this reply to my criticism of their pamphlet which appeared in the May issue, it is worth noting that no position is advanced that is not contained in that pamphlet, and, moreover, no new evidence is brought forward to uphold the position there taken up. In repeating that poverty is due to insufficient production and waste in addition to unequal distribution, the authors agree “that only a portion, of the members of society feel the effects of poverty, and the reason of this is unequal distribution.” Although this practically amounts to granting me the first point of my criticism, let me state the facts. The estimated total of the wealth produced in this country varies between 1,125 millions and 1,800 millions sterling. The population is about 43 millions. Were the distribution equal the income per head would be, on the low estimate, about £26, and on the high estimate about £42; which for the average family (5 persons) would be equal to a sum of £130 per annum in the one case, and £210 per annum in the other. So far as necessaries are concerned, therefore (and all references to poverty have been references to a lack of.necessaries), the unequal distribution is sufficient to account for poverty, quite apart from waste. Regarding their references to the increase of production, and the decrease of waste, under Socialism, I am quite prepared to agree, remembering that capitalism has been called a system for preventing production rather than a system of production. That, however, was not the point.

In the pamphlet originally under notice, the authors say “the majority of the people must first be converted to Socialist ideas” and “until then, Socialism must be to the legislator not a State, but a guiding principle, and he is prepared to co-operate with any political party which will introduce measures leading in the right direction.” The explanation of this appears in the reply to my criticism, wherein it is stated that “as the tendency to Socialism becomes stronger it will also become wider . . . and will extend . . . to members of all classes.” Here it is assumed that the capitalist class will assist in the realisation of Socialism. With us the assumption is that the capitalist class will fight in defence of its position of social and economic privilege as all previous privileged classes have done, and that the working class must work out its emancipation in the teeth of the opposition of the class which enslaves them. At present the capitalist class is prepared to use any means to safeguard its position, and even if we were to assume that, when the Socialist movement is strong enough, it will, making a virtue of necessity, bow to the inevitable, even then we should be compelled to insist that the movement is primarily that of the working class towards its emancipation, and any member of any section of society must adopt the standpoint of the working class—the socially useful class—to take part in that movement.The idea of Socialism being a guide to the legislator pending the conversion of the majority to Socialism is, therefore, extremely improbable, while the contrary seems much more likely: that the legislator, being a capitalist legislator, will do all that lies in his power to strengthen the position of his class, pending that Socialist majority which will inevitably mean the abolition of the system, the class, and the legislation he stands to support. The establishment of Socialism is dependent upon the majority, when the case will be altered and the majority, through the political machine as being most convenient, will establish Socialism, and not the Government legislating “Socialistic measures” on an unconverted people.

D. K.

Foundations. (1904)

Cross-posted from the Reasons To Be Impossible blog

"Since some people are talking about Party foundation arrangements, I reproduce below the minutes of the foundation of the SPGB:"

The Socialist Party of Great Britain Minutes of Inaugural Meeting held at Printers' Hall, Bartletts Passage, Fetter Lane, London, E.C. at 6pm on Sunday 12th June 1904 In accordance with the instructions of the Provisional Committee, R. Elrick and C. Lehane acted as Provisional Chairman and Secretary respectively, and the other members of the Provisional Committee acted as stewards. 

There was a good attendance, and the meeting opened with the singing of "The Red Flag". The Chairman briefly explained the object of the meeting, read the notice convening same, and then moved the following resolution:

"That we hereby declare our membership of and thus form the new Party, the constitution of which it shall be the business of this meeting to formulate". 

The resolution was carried, with three dissentients, who were requested to leave the building, as the invitation to attend was extended only to those who were prepared to cooperate in forming the Party. 

After these persons had left, the Chairman called on those present to give in their names and addresses for enrolment as members, and as a result the following one hundred and forty two names were handed in: 

Miss H. Aitken, Mrs Annie Albery, A.S. Albery, Victor Albery, Arch. Alcock, E.J.B. Allen, Mrs Allen, T.W. Allen, Sidney T. Alston, A. Anderson, G. Anslow, Isaac Asher, Will L. Auger, J.T. Bacon, B.G. Bannington, G. Barber, William Bartlett, Hy. Belsey, John Benford, W. Betts, J. Blaustein, A. Baggis, A.R. Brooker, R.J. Buckingham, H.J. Bull, A.H. Burton, F. Cadman, Miss L.E. Campbell, John Chishekoff, W. Chown, T.C. Collings, Robert Collins, R. Compton, Mrs E. Craske, F. Craske, Harry Crump, John Crump, A. Daintree, H.T. Davey, John W. Day, John Donovan, A.C. Dowdeswell, Paul Dumènil, W. Eayrs, Minnie Eden, Stanley Eden, R. Elrick, Edward Fairbrother, E. Fawcett, J. Fitzgerald, G. Fletcher, Haris Fagel, W. Fox, B. Galloway, John Gordon, C. Goss, A.J.M. Gray, A. Greenham, R.D. Gross, Edward Hammond, E. Hardcastle, G.R. Harris, H.J. Hawkins, Miss K. Hawkins, -- Hicks, Geo. H. Hobbs, G.J. Hodsau, Mabel Hodsau, William Holford, Mrs. Holford, Mrs. Holgate, Miss Homerton, H.E. Hutchins, A.W. Fugham, T.G. Jackson, A. Jacobs, Hyam Jacobs, S. Jacobs, A. Jones, A.C. Jones, G. Jones, Mrs L. Jones, J. Kent, R.H. Kent, W.G. Killick, G.T. King, Mrs King, William Lee, C. Lehane, F.S. Leigh, Hy. Martin, Valentine McEntee, J. McNicol, F. Mecklejohn, G.F. Moody, Moore E.O., A. Morrill, D.R. Newlands, H. Neumann, John Nodder, Charles Orme, J. Oxley, Alex. Pearson, Miss M. Pearson, H.C. Phillips, Alf Pilbeam, A. Pyrke, W. Pyrke, F. Quinney, D.G. Reid, G. Richards, A. Ridgewell, S.J.C. Russell, Walter Russell, Mrs L. Salaman, Hy. Salter, H. Severn, William Sills, F.G. Simco, Frank Linfield, H.J. Smith, H.O. Sparks, C.V. Sparks, T. Spooner, G. Streak, G. Sweeting, T. Tarrant, L. Thurston, R. Triggs, C. Turner, Annie Walker, R.H. Walker, J. Wallis, F.G. Watts, T. Wilkins, E. Wilkinson, G.H. Wilson, T.A. Wilson, W. Woodhouse, Walter Wren, H.J. Young. 

While the enrolment was in progress, one man refused to join the Party stating that he had not yet decided what to do in connection with the movement, and that he had an "open mind" on the matter. The Chairman again explained the object of the meeting and stated that the persons who had been invited to come were only those who had made up their minds in connection with the object of the meeting, and gently but firmly requested this man to take his "open mind" outside. 

This being done, the business of the meeting was proceeded with. The following letter was read:

Socialist Society, Newcastle upon Tyne 10/6/04 

Dear Comrades, 

Our society has recently had its attention drawn to the controversy between the S.D.F. and a section of its members. Although we are not affiliated to the S.D.F., we consider that, as a Social-Democratic Society, and one in full sympathy with the principles of the S.D.F., we had a title to consider the dispute. After much discussion of the question at issue, on information based on the two circulars of the dissentient members, the Report of the Burnley Conference, the Statement in "Justice" of a fortnight ago, the experience of those of our own members who, in other parts of the country, have been members of the S.D.F., and our own observation of the trend of affairs during the last few years, - we have arrived at the following resolution, "That, believing that the basic principles of the S.D.F. have not been violated by the expelled members and branches, we regret the motion of the conference and executive in relation to these members and branches". 

I remain, yours truly, (Signed) T. Kerr, Secretary. 

P.S. Am sending a copy of this letter to H.W. Lee. The resolution is as far as the bulk of our members are prepared to go at present. Permit me, however, to express my personal and, of course, absolutely unofficial sympathy with your comrades in the action that they have been compelled to take, and to trust that its result will be the rescuing of the S.D.F. from the dangers of opportunism and intolerance which at present beset it and the placing of that organisation on the absolutely straight and unswerving pathway of Social Democracy once again. Personally, I should be sorry to see a permanent second Social Democratic Party established in opposition to the S.D.F., but I quite agree that the action your comrades are taking is such as may well lead to the really closer unity of the Socialist forces in the near future. Would be glad if you would keep me informed of the progress of the agitation. 

The reading of the above letter was met with loud applause, and the Secretary instructed to send a suitable reply. 

The next business was the election of Chairman and Secretary of the meeting, and the election of tellers. On the motion of Fitzgerald and Anderson, the Provisional Officers, viz., Elrick and Lehane, were unanimously elected Chairman and Secretary respectively. Kent, Woodhouse and Killick were elected tellers. Phillips read the minutes of the Battersea Meeting on Sunday May 15th 1904, and on the motion of E. Allen and Jackson they were unanimously adopted. 

Phillips gave a verbal report on the work of the Provisional Committee elected at the Battersea Meeting to draft a constitution for the Party and to make arrangements for the holding of the Inaugural Meeting. 

On the motion of Hawkins and Lehane the report was adopted with unanimity. Anderson and Lehane moved: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain."' 

Neumann and Blaustein moved an amendment: 

"That the name of the Party Shall be 'The Social-Democratic Party'". 

A good discussion followed, Hawkins, Jackson, E. Allen, Turner and Kent speaking in favour of the motion, and Martin, Mrs. Salaman, Killick and Albery for the amendment. On a show of hands, there voted for the amendment 27 against 76. The amendment was therefore deemed lost. Martin and Neumann moved a further amendment:- 

"That the name of the Party should be 'The Social-Democratic Party of Great Britain'." 

After some discussion a vote was taken, and there were 31 in favour and 73 against. The amendment was declared lost. Another amendment was moved by McEntee and Hutchins: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland'." 

This amendment was also lost, only 6 voting in favour. There being no further amendments, the motion: 

"That the name of the Party shall be 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain" 

was put to the meeting and carried by 91 votes to 3. The announcement of the result was greeted with loud applause. Hawkins and Martin moved: 

"That the Object of the Party shall be 'The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community". 

There was no amendment and the motion was carried unanimously. The Declaration of Principles drafted by the Provisional Committee was then read: 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds:- 

 That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (ie, land, factories, railways, etc.} by the capitalist or master-class, and the subsequent enslavement of the working-class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced. 

That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle, between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess. 

That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working-class from the domination of the master-class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and the democratic control by the whole people . 

That as in the order of social evolution the working-class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working-class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex. 

That this emancipation must be the work of the working-class itself. 

That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working-class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic. 

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working-class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master-class, the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other party. 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, therefore, enters the field of political action, determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working-class of this country to muster under its banner to the end that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom. Fitzgerald and E. Allen moved: "That we adopt the Declaration of Principles as read". 

Martin and Blaustein moved an amendment:

"That the statement of Principles be printed and submitted to each member of the Party for consideration and that a Conference of the Party be called in one month's time to adopt same or accept amendments thereto".  

Hawkins, Jackson and Leigh spoke against the amendment, and on a vote being taken only 3 were in its favour, all the other members present voting against. The amendment was therefore declared lost. Martin and Albery moved a further amendment: 

"That the word 'hostile' be deleted and 'opposed' substituted". 

This amendment was also lost, only a few votes in its favour. The motion: 

"That we accept the Declaration of Principles as read" 

was then put to the meeting and adopted with unanimity and enthusiasm. 

The Draft Rules drawn up by the Provisional Committee were then read: 

MEMBERS 

(1) Any person desiring membership shall be required to fill in and sign the application form signifying acceptance of the principles and policy of the Party. Such application shall be lodged with the Branch Secretary, whose duty it shall be to place same before the next business meeting, to which the applicant shall be invited, for consideration, when a majority vote shall decide. 

(2) A member shall not belong to more than one Branch at a time. A member may transfer to another Branch provided a clear record be furnished by his last Branch. 

(3) Each member shall pay 2d per week towards the Branch funds. The payment of dues shall be waived in the case of members when out of employment. Members thirteen weeks in arrears shall be struck off the books after written notices have been sent to them by the Branch and a further fourteen days have elapsed, unless a satisfactory explanation be given, and shall not be allowed to join any other Branch whilst these arrears remain unpaid. 

(4) Members shall have the right to attend and speak at meetings of Branches other than their own, but shall not have the right to vote. 

(5) Charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the Branch and a copy supplied to the member accused. The Branch shall consider the matter, and a majority of two thirds of the members present at any business meeting shall have power to expel any members. An expelled member shall have the right of appeal to the EC or annual Conference. All expulsions must be immediately reported to the EC. BRANCHES 

(6) The Branch shall be the unit of organisation. A Branch may be formed by not less than six persons making written application on the prescribed form to the EC and receiving their sanction. In any Parliamentary constituency there shall not be more than one Branch. 

(7) Branches shall elect their own officers and may draw up such bye-laws as they may deem necessary for their internal management, provided they do not conflict with the rules and policy of the Party. 

(8) Each Branch shall report its numerical strength and financial condition once a quarter to the EC. 

(9) Each Branch shall remit to the centre 1d a member per week. 

(10) Branches thirteen weeks in arrears shall not be allowed to vote upon any Poll nor send delegates to any Conference of the Party. 

(11) Disputes between Branches shall be submitted to the EC, all statements being reduced to writing; copies of all documents in connection therewith shall be forwarded to the Branches concerned. The decision of the EC shall be binding, with a right of appeal to the next Conference. 

(12) Branches shall neither sell nor distribute any literature which has not been approved of by the EC. 

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 

(13) The EC shall consist of twelve members and the General Secretary and Treasurer, and shall be elected by a vote of the whole Party. Nominations shall be made by the Branches. A paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to stand for election to the EC. 

(14) Any member of the EC absent from three consecutive meetings shall thereby forfeit his position on that body, unless a satisfactory explanation be given. 

(15) The EC shall meet at least once a fortnight, seven members to form a quorum, and shall send a report of each meeting to the Branches and a report to a quarterly delegate meeting. 

(16) The EC shall make all arrangements for the Conference of the Party, carry out the resolutions of the Conference and those adopted by general vote, supervise the work of the organisation, establish and maintain communications with the Socialist Parties of other countries, and establish a Literary Agency from which all Branches shall be supplied. 

(17) The EC shall submit an Annual Report to the Branches at least three weeks before the Conference upon their last year's work. The members of the EC shall be entitled to attend and speak at the meeting but shall not have the right to vote. 

(18) Should the action of any Branch be deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the principles, policy or rules of the Party, the EC may expel such Branch, but there shall be right of appeal to the next Conference. PARTY OFFICERS 

(19) The Party Officers shall consist of a General Secretary, Treasurer, and two auditors elected in the same manner as the EC. 

(20) The General Secretary shall send a financial statement to the Branches each quarter, and shall present to the Conference a Balance Sheet which shall have been submitted to the Branches at least three weeks previously. 

 

CONFERENCE 

(21) A Conference of the Party shall be held annually at Easter. A special Conference shall be called on a requisition, signed by six Branches, being sent to the General Secretary. 

(22) Each Branch shall be entitled to send two delegates. Delegates must have been members for at least six months immediately preceding the Conference, except in the case of Branches which have been formed for less than this period. A member of the EC or paid Official of the Party shall not be eligible to act as delegate to any conference. 

(23) A preliminary Agenda shall be submitted to the Branches eight weeks before the Conference. All amendments to resolutions and additional items received within three weeks thereafter shall appear on the final Agenda which shall be issued to the Branches at least fourteen days before the Conference. 

REFERENDUM 

(24) A Poll of the Party may be taken at any time by the EC or at the request of not less than six Branches sending a requisition stating the matter on which the Poll is desired. The result shall have the same effect as a resolution of the Conference. 

 

ELECTORAL ACTION 

(25) A member shall not be eligible for candidature unless he has been a member of the Party for six months. 

(26) A member of the Party shall not stand for any political office except as the official candidate of the Party. All candidates shall pledge themselves to act, if elected, in accordance with the instructions of the Branch in the case of local and of the EC in the case of Parliamentary elections. 

 Jackson and Hawkins moved: 

"That the rules as read be accepted provisionally and that the E.C. be instructed to have them printed and distributed amongst the members in order that they may be fully considered at a Conference to be held in three month's time". 

Neumann and Kent moved an amendment: 

"That the rules be printed and distributed amongst the Branches, any amendments to or additions thereto to be sent to the Secretary within fourteen days, and that a meeting of members be held one month hence to discuss and decide upon them. That a Provisional Executive Committee to consist of twelve members be elected forthwith to do such work as this meeting may instruct them". 

Killick and Wilson supported the amendment and Anderson and Lehane spoke against. On being put to the vote the amendment was carried by 40 to 35 and thus became the substantive motion. Anderson and Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we adopt the Rules as read, any necessary alterations to be made at the Conference of the Party nine months' hence, and that the Rules and Declaration of Principles be printed and placed in the hands of the members without delay". 

This gave rise to a further discussion in which Jackson supported and Kent opposed the amendment. The amendment was lost, 26 voting for and 49 against. Another amendment was moved by Day:

"That the adoption of the Rules be postponed for one month and that amendments to or additions to the draft be received within a fortnight." 

This was carried by 39 to 29 and became the substantive proposition. To this Phillips moved the following amendment: 

"That we accept Rules 1 ,2, 3, 4, and 13. Amendments to the draft submitted by the Provisional Committee to be sent in by July 15th. Rules and amendments to be submitted to a general meeting three months hence. Officers, General Secretary, Treasurer, and twelve members to be elected provisionally as Executive Committee". 

This amendment was carried by 62 to 1 and became the motion before the meeting. McNicol and Albery moved: 

"That the subscription be 1d per week and that Branches contribute at the rate of 1/2d a member per week to the Centre". 

The amendment was lost, only a few voting in its favour. The motion was then put and carried unanimously. Jackson moved and Phillips seconded:

"That C. Lehane be elected General Secretary" 

and there being no other candidates, Lehane was elected with unanimity. Anderson moved and Jackson seconded: 

"That R. Elrick be elected Treasurer" . 

Elrick was unanimously elected Treasurer, and as a first duty called for a collection, which resulted in £1.7/2 being handed in. 

For the twelve other positions in the E.C. there were 15 candidates, viz: 

Albery A.S., Crump J., Neumann H., Allen T.W., Fairbrother E., Phillips H.C., Anderson A., Gray A.J.M., Watts, F.C., Auger W.L., Jackson T.A., Wilson G.H., Belsey H., Martin H., Woodhouse W. 

Ballot papers were issued and the voting resulted as follows: 

Albery A.S., 54 Crump J. 34 Neumann H. 49 Allen T.W. 47 Fairbrother E. 37 Phillips H.C. 67 Anderson A. 61 Gray A.J.M. 44 Watts, F.C. 40 Auger W.L. 24 Jackson T.A. 48 Wilson G.H. 49 Belsey H. 50 Martin H. 63 Woodhouse W. 63 

Accordingly the following were declared elected to the E.C. Albery A.S., Gray A.J.M. Phillips H.C. Allen T.W. Jackson T.A. Watts, F.C. Anderson A. Martin H. Wilson G.H. Belsey H. Neumann H. Woodhouse W. 

On the question of Palliatives, Anderson and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up a statement, to be issued in leaflet form, of the Party's position regarding immediate demands and municipal action and submit same to the General Meeting". 

Agreed without discussion. Neumann moved and Martin seconded: 

"That the question of establishing a Party Organ be considered at the General Meeting". 

To this there was an amendment by Anderson and Hawkins: 

"That the question of a Party Organ be referred to the E.C. who shall have powers to deal with the matter". 

The amendment was carried by 54 to 10 and became the substantive motion. Hawkins moved an amendment: 

"That we elect four members to act as Press Committee". 

This was lost, 10 voting for and 45 voting against. Another amendment was moved by Auger and Lehane: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to open a fund for the purpose of establishing a Party Press and submit a scheme in connection therewith to the next General Meeting". 

The amendment was carried by 45 to 3, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. H.C. Phillips made a statement relative to the financial position and Kent and Fairbrother were appointed to audit the acc's of the Provisional Committee. On the question of raising funds for the Party, Anderson and Martin moved: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to organise a series of Mass Meetings in different parts of London, half the amounts collected thereat to go to the Centre". 

The motion was carried unanimously. Woodhouse and Hawkins moved: 

"That Branches shall contribute to the Centre half the amount received as subscriptions from the members." 

The motion was carried unanimously. 

Neumann reported that with regard to the instructions of the Battersea Meeting, he proceeded to translate the first circular but had come to the conclusion that the circular was not suitable for circulation on the Continent. Neumann's report was accepted and Hawkins and Lehane moved:

"That the E.C. be instructed to draw up and issue Manifestos on the situation". 

This motion was carried unanimously. On the question of the relation of the Party to the Trade Unions, McEntee moved: 

"That consideration of the matter be deferred for three months". 

To this Hawkins and Jackson moved an amendment: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to convene as soon as possible a special meeting of members to discuss and determine the attitude of the Party towards Trade Unions". 

The amendment was carried by a large majority, and becoming the substantive motion was carried unanimously. Anderson and Jackson moved and it was unanimously decided:

"That the Declaration of Principles of the Party be printed and that a copy be signed by each of the members constituting the Party." 

On the motion of Fitzgerald it was unanimously decided: 

"That the E.C. be instructed to arrange a lecture list for the Party." 

The meeting closed at 10pm with the singing of the "Internationale" and cheers for the Socialist Revolution. (Signed) Alex Anderson.