Wake up! Wake up! Oh, sleepy British people! The new war is in full blast, and you are called to fight in it; you cannot escape; you must take part!

Out of the old inter-capitalist war between the Allies and the Central Empires, the war, the actual crude, cruel fighting between the workers and the capitalists has emerged. Soldiers who enlisted, or were conscripted for the old war have been quietly kept on to fight in the new war which began without any formal declaration. They have not been asked: 'Do you approve this war; do you understand it?' They have merely been detained and will now fight against their comrades.

Officially the British Government is not at war with Socialism in Europe, though in actual fact British and other Allied soldiers have been fighting it for a long time, and British money and munitions are keeping the soldiers of other governments in the field against it. There has been no official declaration of war, but the House of Commons, on April 9th, expressed its opinion in support of the war on Socialism in general, and on Russian Socialism in particular. This expression of opinion the Home Secretary claims to have been unanimous, and certainly when he challenged Members to express a contrary opinion no voice of dissent was audible enough to reach the columns of Hansard or the press. No Member of Parliament has written to the newspapers to make his protest.

Some Socialists tell us that the floor of the House of Commons is a splendid platform for propaganda; but the trouble is that when they get into the House, their courage seems to evaporate like a child's soap bubble. We have heard of Labour Members of Parliament being ready to do and say all sorts of heroic things to get themselves put out of the House, to arrest the world's attention on some appropriate occasion. That is not much, of course, as compared with running the risk of death in the horrible trenches or with being incarcerated for years in prison; but here was an opportunity, if ever there was one, for Members of Parliament to display all their pluck! Clem Edwards, the notorious anti-Socialist, moved the adjournment of the House, 'to draw attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the alleged overtures from the Bolshevik regime in Russia to the Peace Conference in Paris.'

In the debate Brigadier-General Page Croft and Lieut. Col. Guinness suggested that some Members of Parliament support the Bolsheviki. Did any man cry out: 'Yes, we are proud to stand by our fellow workers in their fight for Socialism'? No, on the contrary, the Labour Members broke out into cries of protest against the suggestion that they had any such sympathies. Bottomley rewarded them by an assurance of 'the profoundest and most affectionate respect'. The Home Secretary hammered in the point, saying the debate had called forth 'from every quarter of the House an indignant repudiation that the House contained a single Bolshevik sympathiser.' He described the Soviet Government as 'a mere gang of bloodthirsty ruffians,' and said it would strengthen the hands of the Government to know there is no quarter' for any Soviet supporters, 'at any rate in the British House of Commons.'

Even then there was no protest! Where was the lead to the country, and especially to the lads who may mistakenly enlist in the counterrevolutionary armies, which our 'leaders' in Parliament might have given? Of what were the opponents of the resolution afraid? Either they are cravens, or their opposition to the new war is of a very lukewarm character. The real work for the Socialist revolution must be done outside Parliament.

On April 10th, the day after the House of Commons has thus expressed itself, the first contingent of volunteers set sail for Russia. (à)

The British men who are in the army of the Government are fighting against the Workers' Socialist Revolution just as are the men who are fighting in the armies of the capitalist Government of Germany, France, Italy, America, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and any other governments which are joining in the strife. In all these armies the truth that they are fighting Socialism has dawned on some of the soldiers, and many of them have deserted and joined the Red Armies of the working-class Socialism.

Many who are not actually in the fighting rank have nevertheless ranged themselves against the capitalist governments and on the side of the Soviets. Philips Price, who is editing a Bolshevik newspaper in Russia and many other British people are aiding the Soviets over there. In this country we can also help by working with might and main to establish the British Soviets, by telling the soldiers, sailors, and workers the issues that are at stake in the International Civil War.

That war has now spread far beyond the boundaries of Russia. General Smuts has left Hungary abruptly, finding that Soviet Hungary stood firm for Communism. Shall we presently see the armies of capitalism marching on Hungary? The Evening News reported that the Serbs had refused to obey the order of the Big Four to send their troops to attack Hungary, because the Allies has not yet recognised the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. But the Allies will presently secure a capitalist army from somewhere to carry on the fight. Paderewski is reported to have refused to send Polish troops to fight Communism, unless Dantzig and other territory is conceded to Poland. The Allies will bargain with Paderewski till they have bought his support or substituted a Polish ruler who is more amenable.

Churchill has revealed the fact that Germany is ordered, as one of the peace conditions, to fight Communism, and that the Germans may buy their way into the League of Nations by doing this efficiently. Indeed, the entire policy of the Paris Conference is dominated by the policy its members are pursuing in the war between the capitalists and the workers. Both false and foolish are the stories, so industriously circulated, that the British and American politicians at the Peace Conference are the pacifying influences and that they are working against a peace of annexation and oppression; whilst the French and Italian politicians are the greedy Jingoes, who, by demanding all sorts of advantages for themselves, are preventing the peace. The plain fact is that British and American capitalists have got what they set out to gain by the war with the Central Empires and the French and Italians have not. (...)

It is stated now that Germany is to pay the Allies between ten and twelve thousand million pounds and that the payments will be spread over fifty years, during which the Allies will occupy Germany, we suppose. Evidently it is thought that fifty years will not be too much for the crushing out of Bolshevism. Moreover, after such a period of occupation, history teaches us to anticipate that the occupying Powers will consider it inexpedient to withdraw. Ireland, Egypt, and India all stand as landmarks calling us to this conclusion.

To this pass has capitalism brought us. Europe, neutral and belligerent alike, is starving: not a household in our country, or any other, but mourns some of its members who lost their lives in the last war; and the world, in order to maintain the capitalist system, stands on the threshold of a time of still more extensive war.

British workers, which side are you on in the International Civil War?

Published in Workers' Dreadnought, 19 April 1919. Taken from the Antagonism website.

During the war the men living in the Bow streets formed themselves into patrols, keeping vigil night after night in case of air raids. When the Armistice put an end to their labours they held a party for the children of the neighbouring streets in the W.S.F. Hall at 400 Old Ford Road. But now the mothers are giving parties—Peace Parties—to the children, not in a hall [in] this lovely weather, but in the open street, and the idea is spreading like a fever from street to street. Last Saturday we saw the wonderful party that the mothers of Appian Road had organised. We could hardly believe our eyes. All the greyness was gone. From innumerable strings stretched across the street hung numberless paper pennants, all in pale colours -— white, pink, lilac, green, blue—so many, so many of them, as gay and light as a forest of almond blossom. The walls of the houses were all covered with decorations, from as high as the top of the ground-floor windows one could see no bricks at all, they were covered by lace curtains, striped muslins, of many colours, and all sorts of draperies, and hanging from all the windows were the bright, strong, primary colours of the Union Jack and other national flags. There were mottoes over the doors, such as: “Peace, Peace! All are Welcome.” Beside the open doors stood small tables, which had been brought out to serve as stands for flowers, photographs, and other ornaments. Right down the street, in the middle of the road, were trestle-tables, covered with white cloths decorated with flowers, and loaded with cakes and bread and butter. 172 children, all dressed in clean pinafores, were at tea, and the mothers were waiting on them, whilst fathers, grandparents and other friends were sitting in the doorways watching them. Two men, with highly painted faces, dressed in curious gay garments and posing as a country man and woman, were strolling up and down amusing everyone. Some of the mothers were wearing best dresses and clean, white aprons, but some had a wonderful fancy costume, having a mob cap, a bodice of broad red and white striped cotton material, a short, blue cotton skirt, with the name “Britannia” stitched upon it, and low shoes tied, with red white and blue.

There were no parsons, district visitors, or social workers amongst the throng: the whole affair had been organised by the mothers of the street. One of them was now reading out to the group at each table in turn a bunch of letters and telegrams of good wishes, which had been received. She said that she had written to Buckingham Palace for a message. The King’s Secretary had replied that it was a most unusual thing for the King to send a message to a public gathering of that kind, but that if a telegram of congratulation were sent to him no doubt it would be replied to, “So if the King wants a telegram,” she said, her voice broken by annoyance, “he has got it, I sent one off at two o’clock, but I haven’t had an answer yet.” But neither the children nor the majority of the adults were worrying about a Royal greeting. This was their very own party, organised by themselves, and they were charmed by its prettiness and gaiety.

We, too, were well pleased, for we saw in these parties the germ of the co-operative life that will arise when the Social Revolution comes.

The people of the poor, little streets of Bow have begun by organising children’s parties: some day they will organise the Soviets.

Text transcribed for Prometheus by L Wilkinson where the text and intro is taken from:
https://prometheusjournal.org/2025/01/08/two-pieces-by-sylvia-pankhurst/

In The Call of February 12th Albert Inkpin, secretary to the BSP, gives an account of private unity negotiations to form a Communist Party of the four organisations which at present declare affiliation to the Third or Communist International, inaugurated at Moscow.

Before dealing with the general principles involved, which are of very much greater importance than the mere details of the negotiations I will add a little to Inkpin's account and make also some corrections in it.

The beginning of the negotiations dates a good deal further back than Inkpin puts it; in fact, from the summer of 1918, when members of the WSF Workers' Socialist Federation, led by Pankhurst, hearing that almost the whole of the BSP Executive would be affected by the raising of the conscription age, approached the BSP in a spirit of comradeship, with a tentative offer of fusion which was very cordially received. The WSF, however, drew back from the negotiations, because in the course of them, E. C. Fairchild stated that he did not think the organisation should decide between Parliament and bourgeois democracy and the Soviets and the proletarian dictatorship, as the goal towards which our propaganda should be aiming. Inkpin and Alexander who took part in the negotiations, did not dissent from Fairchild's statement, and as it was proposed that Fairchild should be co-editor of the proposed joint organ of the new party, it was evident that a revolutionary Socialist body, like the WSF, could not possibly agree to fusion.

At Whitsuntide, 1919, the WSF annual conference instructed its Executive to open negotiations with the BSP, SLP, and South Wales Socialist Society, for the formation of a united Communist Party. The BSP had by this time declared for the Soviets, though it was still waiting to ballot its members on the subject of affiliation to the Third International. Messages had in the meantime come direct from the Third International urging the formation of a Communist Party in Britain and, as Inkpin says, a unity conference was called shortly afterwards.

The proposed unity compromise
As Inkpin further says, a proposal for unity emerged on the basis of the following planks:-

(1) Affiliation to the Third International.

(2) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

(3) The Soviets instead of Parliament.

(4) A Referendum of the new party to be taken three months after its formation to decide whether it should affiliate to the Labour Party.

The WSF contends that it was also decided to take a referendum on the question of Parliamentary action three months after the formation of the new party, a question of great importance in this country, as the letter from W. Gallacher, which follows this article, will plainly indicate to those not already aware of it. As I was at the time acting in a secretarial capacity to the unity conference, I took notes of the conference and wrote to each of the societies embodying these notes. The five points, enumerated above, were set forth in my letter. Nevertheless the BSP and SLP, though they did not dissent from my version of the proceedings at the time, seem to have overlooked the Parliamentary point and did not add it to the ballot of their members, which they took later on.

Rank and file refuses Labour Party affiliation
The BSP ballot paper, as Inkpin points out, grouped the three main planks with the question of a referendum on the Labour Party affiliation, as the condition of forming a united party, and asked its membership to vote 'yes or no.' The result was a majority for unity on that basis.

The SLP asked its membership, as Inkpin says, for two votes; (1) on the question of unity on the basis of the three main planks; (2) on whether a referendum should be taken of the new party on affiliation to the Labour Party. (...)

The WSF ballot asked the views of its members on each of the five questions separately, and also inquired whether the members would agree for the sake of unity to the suggested referendum on the Labour Party and Parliamentary action. The result was an overwhelming majority for the three main points, and against Parliamentary action and affiliation to the Labour Party. On the question whether the referendum should be agreed to in order to secure unity of the four parties, the voting was equal.

Inkpin goes on to explain that whilst the unity negotiations were proceeding between the four organisations, the BSP privately make special endeavours to enter into relations with the SLP, but these failed.

Inkpin next refers to a further conference on unity, called by it in January. As a matter of fact there were two January Conferences; one on January 8th, one on January 24th. The SLP did not attend the conference of January 8th, and at the time the result of their ballot was not known; the conference was informed that the SLP had not replied to the invitation.

BSP proposal
As Inkpin says, he proposed on behalf of the BSP:

that the three bodies accepting the unity proposals should proceed on the lines of the original recommendation, leaving it to the logic of events to bring in the SLP. We suggested the immediate establishment of a Standing Joint Committee of the three bodies, to go into the details of amalgamation -- finance, papers, offices, and staffs -- prepare a draft platform and constitution for the new party, and summon a great national congress to be held at Easter, of all organisations and branches of organisations, local groups, and societies, that were ready to join in, at which the Communist Party should be definitely launched. This Standing Joint Committee should also be empowered, on behalf of the three bodies, to issue manifestos and pronouncements on all matters of national and international importance, act as the British secretariat of the Third International, and conduct a great campaign in the country leading up to the Easter Congress.

As I pointed out at the time, this proposal would have placed the Standing Joint Committee above the Executive of the existing parties in the matter of national and international policy, giving it the right to issue manifestos in their name before the parties had arrived at a common agreement on policy, and before the had decided whether to fuse or not! (...)

I stated that in my opinion unity without the SLP would not be the unity of all the Communist parties which we had set out to effect, and that a further effort to obtain the presence of the SLP should be made. Moreover, I expressed as my view and that of the WSF, that the BSP forms the right wing of the Communist parties, and that unless the three other parties came in together, there would be a danger that the right wing policy would predominate.

The resolution to adjourn was carried. At the conference of January 24th, when I was not present, a letter was read from the SLP stating that as a majority of its members had voted against unity, it could take no part in negotiations.

The South Wales Socialist Society then moved that the conference should adjourn until after the forthcoming meeting of the Third International and should then meet to receive the report of the delegates to that conference. Though in neither case had the WSF anticipated that the South Wales Socialist Society's proposals would take the form they did, the WSF again found the SWSS proposal wise, and our delegates seconded it. The proposal was carried.

Third International declines against affiliation to Labour Party
A very interesting unity conference will now take place, because the Third International meeting, which has just been held, has stated that the affiliation of no Communist party will be accepted which has not completely severed its connection with the social patriotic organisations, amongst which, it declares, is the British Labour Party. Therefore it would seem that if that international meeting can be held to speak for the Third International, the Communists of Britain must either be out of the Labour Party or out of the Third International. This is a matter of great importance to those who are considering the formation of a new Communist party.

The Labour Party affiliation, the principles involved
But let us now proceed to a fuller examination of this question. Inkpin does not seriously argue it. He seems to regard it as a merit not to hold strong views on this, or perhaps on any question that might hinder unity with the BSP, though the BSP policy is of course in a fluid condition and is in process of emergence, under the pressure of circumstances, from the old ideals of the Second International. Inkpin says:

'Personally, I do, because all past experience has shown the stultification that follows isolation from the main body of the working-class movement. But, as I say, I would take my chance. To me the need for the Communist Party is the supreme question -- all others are secondary to this.'

'But would affiliation apply for all time?'

'Of course not. No tactics can be determined now to apply for all time. We are in a revolutionary period, and circumstances might speedily arise to compel the Communist Party to leave the Labour Party. Or it might be expelled. In either case it would be, I think, in circumstances that would witness at the same time the secession of large numbers from the Labour Party, which the Communist Party would absorb.'

It will be observed that comrade Inkpin refers to the Labour Party as 'the main body of the working-class movement.' Another comrade of the BSP, at the Third International, just held, put the BSP position more strongly. He said: 'We regard the Labour Party as the organised working-class.'

We do not take this view of the Labour Party. The Labour Party is very large numerically, though its membership is to a great extent quiescent and apathetic, consisting of men and women who have joined the trade unions because their work-mates are trade unionists and to share the friendly benefits.

But we recognise that the great size of the Labour Party is also due to the fact that it is the creation of a school of thought beyond which the majority of the British working class has not yet emerged, though great changes are at work in the mind of the people which will presently alter this state of affairs.

Social patriotic working class parties of bourgeois outlook, like the British Labour Party, exist, or have existed, in every country; the Noske-Scheidemann Social Democratic Party in Germany, the French Socialist Party, and the Socialist Party of America are typical examples. (...)

The social patriotic parties of reform, like the British Labour Party, are everywhere aiding the capitalists to maintain the capitalist system; to prevent it from breaking down under the shock which the Great War has caused it, and the growing influence of the Russian Revolution. The bourgeois social patriotic parties, whether they call themselves Labour or Socialist, are everywhere working against the Communist revolution, and they are more dangerous to it than the aggressive capitalists because the reforms they seek to introduce may keep the capitalist regime going for some time to come. When the social patriotic reformists come into power, they fight to stave off the workers' revolution with as strong a determination as that displayed by the capitalists, and more effectively, because they understand the methods and tactics and something of the idealism of the working class.

The British Labour Party, like the social patriotic organisations of other countries, will, in the natural development of society, inevitably come into power. It is for the Communists to build up the forces that will overthrow the social patriots, and in this country we must not delay or falter in that work. We must not dissipate our energy in adding to the strength of the Labour Party; its rise to power Is inevitable. We must concentrate on making a Communist movement that will vanquish it. The Labour Party will soon be forming a Government; the revolutionary opposition must make ready to attack it.

The BSP sees the division of parties into Communist and social patriotic factions which is taking place throughout Europe, but it still wishes to cling to the Labour Party. Why? Does it hope to capture the Labour Party and secure in it a majority to support the Third International? Such a majority has been secured in the Italian Socialist Party, which seems, on a superficial view, to be one Socialist party in Europe which need not split. But the Italian Party will also split. The Third Internationalists captured a great majority of the Bologna Conference, but the majority of the Parliamentary Party is opposed to the majority of the Socialist Party itself, and will undoubtedly secede, taking with it a certain faction.

The Labour Party fortified against progress
But the British Labour Party is a much more difficult body to capture than the Italian Party. It is said that the Labour Party is not, strictly speaking, a political party at all, because it is mainly composed of affiliated trade unions; but that fact makes it much more difficult to effect changes in the British Labour Party than in the French, German, Italian, or any other Socialist Party. In such parties both the election of the Executive and officials, and the resolutions governing the policy of the party, are voted upon at the party conferences by delegates from the branches acting under branch instructions. Party Executives and officials are seldom changed; apathetic members, unaware of the changing situation, vote to keep people and things as they are and reactionary officials, retained for old services, nullify any forward move adopted by conferences. Nevertheless new ideas may gradually surge upward, and come to the top at some time or other. But in the British Labour Party there are special brakes to prevent even the slow changes possible in the Continental Socialist parties. Officials appointed for life or for long terms of years, immovable fixtures, bar the way to progress. In many unions a proportion of the delegates to annual conferences is appointed by the national executive. The branches neither appoint delegates to Labour Party congresses, nor vote on resolutions. Divisional conferences and national Executives, national and local officials, prevent the opinion of the rank and file from making itself felt. In all Europe there is no social patriotic organisation so carefully guarded for social patriotism as the British Labour Party.

The British Labour Party is moreover less Socialist than any of the other adherents to the Second International. It was the last to join the Second International because only lately had it advanced even thus far. Its dominant figures were loath to take any step even so small a step as joining the Second International, which might appear to divide them from the capitalist Liberal and Tory parties. The man whose policy represents the centre and majority policy of the Labour Party is Arthur Henderson, the friend of Kerensky. (...)

The Communist Party must not compromise
But that is not the mission of the new Communist Party, which must enunciate the Communist programme that is yet to stand when the Soviets are erected and the proletariat dictatorship is in force. The Communist Party must keep its doctrine pure, and its independence of Reformism inviolate; its mission is to lead the way, without stopping or turning, by the direct toad to the Communist Revolution.

Labour candidates
Those who believe that a Communist Party can remain in the Labour Patty and take part in Parliamentary contests, should realise the position of the unfortunate Communists who elect to become candidates under such auspices. They must first present themselves for selection by the local Labour Parties; after which they may be vetoed by the Party Executive. Since the Labour Party is still thoroughly reformist, but few local Labour Patties are prepared to adopt candidates with any Communist leanings, if any Communists succeed in getting adopted as candidates they must run as 'Labour' candidates only; no other title is allowed; they will be held responsible for the Labour Party's reformist programme; they will be expected to have speaking for them reformist speakers; their election addresses will be subject to the approval of the local Labour Party. Should any Communists suffer all this and secure election to Parliament, having duly taken the oath of allegiance to the Crown, they will become members of the Parliamentary Labour Party and subject to its discipline, which is strict.

The Parliamentary Labour Party decides on most questions; what line the Party shall take, who shall voice its views, and how its members shall vote. The Speaker of the House of Commons is notified by the various Party representatives which of the Party members are to speak in the debates. The Speaker arranges with the Party representatives the order in which the speakers shall be called upon. Until all the persons thus arranged for have been called on the Speaker will allow no other Member to catch his eye. Only if the debate has virtually broken down will the unchosen Communist get an opportunity to speak! And if he does, the other Members of Parliament can silence him by leaving the Chamber, for the debate can only continue whilst 40 Members remain.

Inkpin says that he advocates affiliation to the Labour Party, because he experienced the stultification that resulted when the BSP stood outside the Labour Party. But is Inkpin quite sure that this was the real cause of the stultification? Was it not, perhaps, that the BSP policy and programme were not far enough removed from those of the Labour Party, to create any strong current of feeling in the opposite direction? We ask this, reflecting that many of the men who then led the BSP, and most notably, H. M. Hyndman, are today Social Patriots of a most extreme order, their Reformists being too weak, and their bourgeois Imperialism too strong, even for the Labour Party!

But again, comrade Inkpin, does it not occur to you that the times are changing? Do you not see that the Revolutionary Communism that today is stirring the blood of the workers' advance-guard in every country, and has won through to power in Russia, seemed, in the days when the BSP stood outside the Labour Party, too impossibly remote to gain adherents, except amongst the dauntless daring few, the very dauntless, very daring few?

The War and the Russian Revolution have helped to bring Communism nearer. The increasing consciousness of the Workers, which was developing even before those world- shaking events, is preparing the way for the Communist Party which will one day assume control. But even today, the convinced Communists, those who will work actively to build the Communist Party, and to bring the Communist Revolution, are, in Britain, very few in number.

A sound Party more important than a big one
Do not worry about a big Communist Party yet; it is far better to build a sound one. Do not argue, comrade Inkpin, that the BSP membership is larger than that of some other parties. Do not let us pretend to be big, comrade Inkpin; we are all very small in size; and if some are smaller still, it really does not matter. The great point is, just now, that we should be advancing the propaganda of Communism. When the workers are ready to accept Communism, we shall see a big Communist Party. Until that time comes, the Communist Parties that are really Communist Parties, will certainly be small.

In the meantime, we must persevere with Communist propaganda, and never hesitate lest we should make it too extreme. Let it be clear-cut and absolutely Communist; the more extreme our doctrine is, the more surely it will prepare the workers for Communism.

Comrade Inkpin is right in thinking that we should do propaganda in the Labour Party; yes, and in the Trade Unions Congress, and in the other affiliated bodies. Of course we do, and of course we must, but we can do it without affiliating to the Labour Party. In every industrial organisation, there are some Communists. We must see to it that their number grows, and that they all link up with the Communist Party, and push its programme and policy, they must fight for the acceptance of the programme and tactics of Communism in the Labour Party, in the trade union congress, in the trade union branches, in the workshops -- everywhere. To influence the workers who are today in the Labour Party, it is not necessary for the Communist Party to ally itself with the Labour Party; that they are susceptible to outside influence has been proved time and again -- by Lloyd George, as well as by the workers' advanceguard -- but the future is with us.

How we can influence those who are in the Labour Party
Comrade Inkpin speaks of the Labour Party as 'the main body of the working class movement.' It no longer represents the revolutionary workers. More and more they are congregating outside its ranks! Gallacher's letter shows us the position in Scotland, and the same tendency is at work in England and Wales.

In Italy, which is several stages ahead of us in revolutionary progress (as our Correspondent, in his article, 'Soviets in Italy' shows), the Socialist majority has already recognised that the revolutionary movement must be based on the workshop, and they are preparing the Soviet organisation on that basis; there are differences of detail within the Italian Party, but it is generally recognised that the working class must be reached by a direct appeal within the workshops. An enormous work lies before us there. Until we have done the propaganda necessary amongst the rank and file workers, we shall neither influence, nor expel the officials at the head of the Labour Party and the trade unions.

I shall return to the subject of the new Communist Party next week.

Published in Workers' Dreadnought, 21 February 1920. Taken from the Antagonism website.