The Monument - Chapter 02 - Principles first

Submitted by jondwhite on May 29, 2019

The ‘Impossibilists’ had become a party. The Inaugural Meeting adopted the Object and Declaration of Principles that the Provisional Committee had drawn up, and voted for the organization’s name. There were three other suggestions: the Social Democratic Party, the Social Democratic Party of Great Britain, and, proposed by a young Irishman who was to become Father of the House of Commons and finally Lord McEntee of Walthamstow, the Socialist Party of Great Britain and Ireland.
The Party’s Object was to 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 interests of the whole community.’
This was not dissimilar from the Social Democratic Federation’s, or even the 1918 Labour Party’s, summary of the socialist aim, but it was precise and legalistic. Correctness of definition and theory was all- important: in the minds of the men of the new party, the failures of the existing organizations were simply the fruits of false theories. For the same reason, the Object did not mention the means of exchange. It was held that under socialism, with free access to everything, there would be no exchange of goods; hence, to talk of common ownership of the means of exchange was to show misunderstanding from the start.
The Declaration of Principles was a series of associated statements describing the capitalist system, the class struggle, and the steps to be taken for the achievement of socialism. It ran as follows.
“The Socialist Party of Great Britain holds:-
1. That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class by whose labour alone wealth is produced.
2. 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.
3. That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipat¬ion of the working class from the domination of the master class, by the

conversion into the common property of society of the means of pro¬duction and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.
4. 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.
5. That this emancipation must be the work of the working class
itself.
6. That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capi- i talist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including those forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.
7. 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 work¬ing class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
8. 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 j freedom. ’
The influences of the time are plain. The capitalist class were visible figures symbolizing riches and privilege in a world where the majority of people were deprived and degraded. Only six years earlier Thorstein Veblen had published The Theory of the Leisure Class, analyzing the ritual and symbolism of inequality and dramatizing the wasteful, useless life of the privileged class. Almost until 1900 the cities of London and Westminster had been largely owned by a handful of great lords who maintained, as well as vast country ‘seats’, town mansion with regiments of uniformed servants, and went to the opera in state- coaches.
This majesty was founded on the exploitation of the poor; not simply in landlordism, but in their enslavement in the factories and the crude profits which were the wide margin between their poverty and the

products of their labour. In 1910 B. Seebohm Rowntree published his
finding that between 25 and 30 per cent of the population lived either
below the level of what was ‘absolutely necessary for the maintenance of merely physical efficiency’, or in ‘a state of poverty, i.e. in obvious
want and squalor’. The skilled and better-paid workers earned as little as thirty shillings a week, and the average family in this group had 4.03 children.7
Thus, the Principles said, there were two classes: the wealthy owners of the means of production, and the enslaved sellers of labour- power. A socialist must be ‘class-conscious’, recognizing his identity as a member of the working class and understanding his interests as permanently against those of the master class. The phrase ‘two classes in society’ was to become the Party’s first and last aphorism, the unanswerable answer to every argument. It implied something else which the Party was to assert strenuously — the non-existence of any middle class. If other groups existed, they derived from false consciousness; the only categories with economic reality were the ones of ownership and non-ownership of the means of life. There were only two classes in society.
The proof that the outcome of the class struggle must be victory for the working class lay in the Marxist dialectic. Hegel had developed Fichte’s idea of the mystical synthesis into a universal principle: Marx had made it the law through which the class struggle operated to make history. From the earliest forms of property society, the owning class had always been in conflict with a developing class — thesis and antithesis, When the opposition of forces produced at last new owners with new economic motives, another social epoch was born — the synthesis.
Throughout history classes had eliminated one another in this way, until under capitalism there remained two classes face to face in a final cataclysmic struggle which would end in the establishment of the classless society.
It is true to say, however, that the dialectic was never embraced in any real sense by the Socialist Party. Historical materialism, Marx’s demonstration of social superstructures standing on economic bases and the drive to change arising from the compulsion for every class to pursue its interests, was advanced as confidently as the labour theory of value. For the dialectic no such confidence existed. It carried a tinge of mysticism from its philosophical origins. At the popular level it meant very little, even in phrases like ‘the historic mission of the working class’. What gave far more weight to the conviction that socialism was inevitable was a widespread belief in the progressive tendency of history,
summarized as ‘social evolution’.

Here the influence of Herbert Spencer showed itself. His analogy between the social and the biological organism had a profound effect on numbers of socialists. The theory of evolution had played a vital part in developing socialist thought by crushing the supposition that man’s existence was divinely ordained. Its incorporation into the theory of society was highly acceptable, and even when Spencer’s following had declined there remained the doctrine that socialism was both revolution¬ary and evolutionary.
Up to this point the new Party’s Principles were sharper in form but little different otherwise from those which might have been suited by any group of the same period. From the fifth clause onward, however, they laid down a policy and a standard of independence that deliberately set their adherents apart from all others. The establishment of the new society required no leaders and no mere gathering of support; it would take place when the majority of the working class had been converted to an understanding of ‘scientific socialism’. This electoral majority would send representatives to parliament for the single purpose of declaring the owning class dispossessed and capitalism abolished. There was a slap in the face for the founders of the SLP who said that parliament did not lend itself to the purpose of socialism: in this revolutionary act it would be turned into ‘the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege’.
Most decisive of all was the ‘Hostility Clause’. With its iteration in the final avowal of determination to ‘wage war against all other political parties’, it meant far more than a reaction against the com¬promising and alliance-seeking of the Social Democratic Federation.
It meant, in fact, what it said: the new party claimed that its defined end and means were the only correct ones, and would oppose everyone and everything else. The ills of society were irremediable except through the socialist transformation. Any other attempt to cure them must fail, but worse, it must also delude the working class and turn their minds from socialism. Reformers were ‘confusionists’ and ‘fakirs’; hostility there must be.
How closely the new party had followed William Morris is seen when its Declaration of Principles is compared with the Principles published by the Socialist League in the first issue of The Commonweal.
‘As the civilized world is at present constituted, there are two classes of society — the one possessing wealth and the instruments of its production, the other producing wealth only by means of those instruments but only by leave and for the use of the possessing class.
These two classes are necessarily in antagonism to one another. The possessing class, or non-producers, can only live as a class on the

unpaid labour of the producers — the more unpaid labour they can wring out of them, the richer they will be; therefore the producing class the workers — are driven to strive to better themselves at the expense of the possessing class, and the conflict between the two is ceaseless.
. . . The sole possession of the producing class is the power of labour inherent in their bodies; but since, as we have already said, the rich classes possess all the instruments of labour, that is, the land, capital, and machinery, the producers or workers are forced to sell their sole possession, the power of labour, on such terms as the possessing class will grant them.
These terms are, that after they have produced enough to keep them in working order, and enable them to beget children to take their places when they are worn out, the surplus of their products shall belong to the possessors of property, which bargain is based on the fact that every man working in a civilized community can produce more than he needs for his own sustenance.
This relation of the possessing class to the working class is the essential basis of the system of producing for profit, on which our modern Society is founded. ’
After insisting that neither nationalization of the land nor so- called state socialism would be of any use, the manifesto ended:
‘The Socialist League therefore aims at the realization of complete Revolutionary Socialism, and well knows that this can never happen in one country without the help of the workers of all civilization.’
The conviction in Morris and in the founders of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was, overwhelmingly, that want and misery were integral to the capitalist system. The Declaration of Principles was intended not simply for 1904 but for as long as capitalism lasted. Fifty years later, in September 1954, a writer in the Socialist Standard affirmed that it remained ‘a clear, concise and accurate summary of the case for Socialism. This stability,’ he continued, ‘is to be explained by a corresponding stable feature in capitalist society . . . the exploitation of the wealth producers under wage slavery. While capitalism lasts, that exploitation will continue, and until it is ended the Object and Declaration of Principles of the Party, which stem from that exploitation and are directed to its abolition, will remain valid. ’8
One other item in the Principles that is worthy of note is the phrase ‘without distinction of race or sex’. Today it might be a platitude; in 1904 it was astonishingly forward-looking. Anthropological knowledge persuaded even the most enlightened that vital racial differences existed.
In 1894 Engels wrote, replying to questions from Starkenburg: ‘We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines

historical development. But race is itself an economic factor’; and a passage in Plekhanov’s Fundamental Problems of Marxism, written a little later, indicates considerable uncertainty over race. Likewise, though the movement for female political emancipation had begun by 1904, the claim for unqualified freedom was remarkable in its boldness.
What kind of people were the hundred and forty-two who gave in their names at the meeting in 1904 ? The names themselves are of more than slight interest; some were to become famous in the movements to which they now swore hostility. They were, as the Secretary wrote them down:
Miss H.Aitken, Mrs Annie Albery, A.S.Albery, Victor Albery, Arch. Alcock, E.J.B.Allen, Mrs Allen, T.W.Allen, Sydney T. Alston, A.Anderson
G. Anslow, Isaac Asher, Will L. Auger, J.T.Bacon, B.G. Bannington, A.Barker, Wm. Bartlett, Hy. Belsey, John Benford, W.Betts, J.Blaustein, A.Boggis, A.R.Brooker, R.J.Buckingham, H.J.Bull, A.H.Burton, F.Cadman, Miss L.E.Campbell, John Chislekoff, W.Chown, Robt. Collins,
F. C.Collings, R.Compton, Mrs E.Craske, F.Craske, Harry Crump,
A. Daintree, H.T.Davey, John W. Day, John Donovan, A.C.Dowdeswell, Paul Dumenil, W.Eayrs, Minnie Eden, Stanley Eden, R.Elrick, Edward Fairbrother, E.Fawcett, J.Fitzgerald, G.Fletcher, Haris Fogel, W.Fox,
B. Galloway, John Gordon, C.Goss, A.J.M.Gray, A.Groonham, R.C.Gross, Edwd. Hammond, E.Hardcastle, G.R.Harris, H.J.Hawkins,
Miss K.Hawkins, G.Hicks, Geo. H.Hobbs, G.J.Hodson, Mabel Hodson,
Wm. Holford, Mrs Holford, Mrs Holgate, Miss Homerton, H.E.Hutchins, A.W.Ingham, T.A.Jackson, A.E.Jacomb, 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, Wm. Lee, C.Lehane, F.S.Leigh,
Hy. Martin, Valentine McEntee, J.McNicol, F.Meicklejohn, G.F.Moody, E.C.Moore, A.Morrill, H.Neumann, D.R.Newlands, John Nodder,
Charles Orme, J.Oxley, Alex Pearson, Miss M.Pearson, H.C.Phillips,
Alf. Pilbeam, A.Pyrke, W.Pyrke, F.Quinney, D.A.Reid, C.Richards, A.Ridgewell, S.J.C.Russell, Walter Russell, Mrs L.Salaman, Hy. Salter,
H. Severn, Wm. Sills, F.G.Simco, Frank Sinfield, H.J.Smith, C.V.Sparks, H.O.Sparks, T.Spooner, G.Streak, G.Sweeting, T.Tarrant, L.Thurston, R.Triggs, C.Turner, Annie Walker, R.H.Walker, J.Wallis, F.C.Watts,
T.Wilkins, E.Wilkinson, G.H.Wilson, T.A.Wilson, W.Woodhouse, Walter Wren, H.J.Young.
(The names Gordon, Chislekoff and Fogel were later claimed to have been false; and three men were asked to leave the Inaugural Meeting who dissented from the founding resolution, ‘as the invitation to attend was extended only to those who were prepared to co-operate in forming the Party’.)

They were men and women belonging unmistakably to what Seebohm Rowntree termed ‘Class D’ of the working population:
‘families in which the fathers are skilled workers, or foremen who have risen through superior ability, or men who on account of their high character have been placed in well-paid positions of trust. ’
Indeed, Rowntree’s account of ‘Class D’ conveys accurately the characteristic life-style of those who formed the Party.
‘The houses . . . contain, as a rule, three bed-rooms, a kitchen, scullery, and sitting-room. In the latter are often found a piano, and occasionally a library of thirty books or more. ’ And later: ‘Shut out to a great extent from the larger life and the higher interests which a more liberal and a more prolonged education opens up to the wealthier classes, it is not surprising that, to relieve the monotony of their
existance, so many artisans frequent the public-house . . . The surprise is rather that the exceptions are so numerous. It is from among the thoughtful men in Class D that the Trade Unions, the Co-operative Movement, and Friendly Societies find many of their leaders. ’
Not all of them would have fitted Rowntree’s estimate of 30s. a week as the income of Class D. Unemployment was common; some were too vociferous with their socialism, others too contemptuous of the wage-worker’s lot to care about steady employment. The majority, however, were skilled workers. Fitzgerald was a bricklayer who later became an evening-class teacher of mathematics and finally a full time instructor at the Brixton School of Building. Anderson was a house painter. F. C. Watts was a wood-carver who worked on, among other things, the coronation chair of George V and the decoration in
in the Titanic; McEntee was a carpenter, Jacomb a compositor.
To all of them, knowledge was power — above everything, the knowledge of Marxist economics. Fitzgerald and two or three others had learned the theory of value at classes conducted by Marx’s son-in-law, Dr Edward Aveling, and their propaganda for socialism depended heavily on the exposition of it. If the working class were shown the mechanism of exploitation, their reasoning ran, they would see the necessity for its overthrow. How fervently this was believed is
shownby an anecdote in R. M. Fox’s autobiography, Smoky Crusade.
Recalling the men he met as a member of the Socialist Party in its early years, Fox says:
‘I have painful memories of one man, with bushy eyebrows and an intent look, who would walk home with me and halt under the big lighted clock at the Tottenham Gas Offices while he expounded some point in economics. “This is what I want to do,” he would say, fixing me with a pitiless eye, when I was dropping with fatigue. “Take this

pipe” — he pulled it from his mouth and I surveyed the hateful object with disgust — “Then this pouch. ”I looked with similar loathing at that. “And then that lamp-post” — he pointed with the stem of his pipe at the post in question. “Now what I want to do is explain to the ordinary man the relation between the amount of labour power in these three objects. ” ’
It was understood that no one would be allowed to join the new party whose allegiance to socialism was not clearly established.
For the moment, however, some kind of administration must be found. After adopting the draft rules framed by the industrious Provisional Committee, the Inaugural Meeting voted for party officials. Con Lehane, a handsome young Irishman, became the first Secretary (the meeting’s minutes are written by him in a fine vigorous hand),9 and R.Elrick the Treasurer. Twelve others were elected to form, with these two, the Executive Committee. Fitzgerald did not stand, and the twelve were: A.S.Albery, T.W.Allen, A.Anderson, H.Belsey, A.J.M.Gray, T.A.Jackson, H.Martin, H.Neumann, H.C.Phillips, F.C.Watts, G. H. Wilson, and W.Woodhouse.
The rules laid down that the Executive Committee should meet every week. Thus was pinpointed a fact which was not to change in the lifetimes of the founders: the membership outside London was negligible. The group farthest afield was at Watford, and in 1904 the fares
over even such a modest distance would have been an obstacle had not a large number of these first members been fanatical cyclists too. Fitzgerald went everywhere on short-framed machines which he built himself and, as with the Clarion Cycling Clubs, groups rode considerable distances at week-ends to hold outdoor meetings and sell socialist literature.
The Inaugural Meeting lasted four hours; it was ten o’clock when the Printers’ Hall discharged its excited crowd on the gas-lit pavement. The closing rites had been the singing of the ‘Internationale’ and three rousing cheers for the Socialist Revolution. What hopes there must have been ! Hardly a man or woman could have failed to feel that the new age was close at hand, and to glow with the certainty that had possessed William Morris:
For this at least we know —
That the Dawn and the Day is coming,
And forth the Banners go.

Comments