Fifty Years ago
The birth of the Socialist Party
advocates of better conditions were treated as felons, there
was some ground for engaging in secret societies and for
defending internal deliberations from prying eyes. Towards the
end of the Nineteenth Century the fetters upon revolutionary
activity had been so considerably loosened in England, and the
path to power opened by means of electoral action, that secrecy
was no longer necessary and only became an obstacle to
progress.
But the tradition of secrecy still persisted in the social
democratic parties, and, along with the fetish of leadership, placed
in the hands of small groups of leaders power to influence the
policy of parties in the directions they wished. The result of this
was that policy was decided by a few people in prominent
positions. This had a retarding influence upon the growth of the
workers’ understanding and upon the real progress of the
working class movement. Those in the forefront of the movement
felt that they were the nature-designed leaders of a great cause,
and they were impatient to build up a large following, believing
that this in itself would bring about the emancipation of the
workers; the familiar picture of leaders selling out for pelf and
place only existed in outline. Moreover, those who were at that
time determining the policy of the movement in different
directions were tied to reformist programmes; some of them
denied the existence of the class struggle and saw in Socialism
nothing more than the establishment of eternal principles of
justice and morality.
Inside the Social Democratic Federation, the most advanced of
the English radical parties, dissatisfaction with the reformist
programmes and the temporary agreements with capitalist
parties was growing and had already been responsible for an illfated
breakaway led by William Morris, Belfort Bax, Frederick
Lessner, and Marx’s daughter Eleanor at the end of the eighties.
They had formed the Socialist League which had the blessing of
Frederick Engels. Unfortunately the “League” went to the other
extreme and abandoned parliamentary action, eventually coming
under the control of anarchists.
During the early days of the present century a group of young
people began to form which aimed at clarifying the position and
transforming the Social Democratic Federation into a genuine
Socialist organisation, free from the fetters of reformism. They
made fierce protests against reformism, leadership, private
agreements and political trading at meetings and conferences.
Their efforts, however were paralysed by the power, influences
and secret arrangements of the official leaders, who dubbed the
militant group “Impossiblists” on the ground that their proposals
were unpractical, unsound, and would make the movement
impotent. About the same time the ideas of the American Socialist
Labour Party, headed by a very able speaker and writer, Daniel De
Leon, were making some headway amongst youthful radicals in
England and Scotland in spite of the fact that this organisation was
also crippled by a reformist bias and by a leaning towards
industrial unionism.
In 1903 and 1904 the “Impossiblist” group made desperate
efforts by “boring from within” tactics to head off the reformist
policy of the leaders, but without success. The latter became so
incensed at the attacks upon them that they finally arranged at a
private meeting to deal with the opposition by persuading
conference to give them power to expel those militants who
would not toe the line laid down by the Executive. The militants
refused to withdraw from the position they had taken up, in
favour of revolutionary political action on the class struggle basis,
and the expulsions by the Executive then commenced. One section of the militants, in
see next column
themselves into a section of the Socialist Labour Party in 1903;
accepting all that was stultifying in S.L.P. policy. This secret action
was not revealed by them to the rest of the militants until 1904.
The other section held a meeting in London at which it was
agreed that any further attempts to bring the Social Democratic
Federation in line with a genuine class struggle policy would be
fruitless, and the only alternative was to form a new political
organisation.tent.
At a meeting in London on June 12th, 1904, this new
organisation was formed – The Socialist Party of Great Britain.
The new party was forced into existence without premises, a
party journal, literature or funds. The members immediately set
about framing a Declaration of Principles and a set of rules to
guide them, and also collecting funds to publish a monthly journal.
In September, 1904, the first number of the new journal, the
Socialist Standard, appeared and the editorial column contained
the following statement.
“In the past two bodies of men have put forward the claim
to be Socialist parties, viz., the Independent Labour Party and
the Social Democratic Federation. We who have for many
years taken a share in the work of the latter organisation, and
who have watched the progress of the former from its
initiation, have been forced to the conclusion that through
neither of them can the Social Revolution at which we aim be
achieved, and that from neither of them can the working class
secure redress from the ills they suffer.”
This first number of the Socialist Standard also contained the
Object and Declaration of Principles that had been drawn up and
agreed upon by the membership.
The last paragraph of the Principles, in particular, was opposed
to the practice of all the social democratic parties of the time,
and yet the accuracy of this Principle should be obvious. There
cannot be more than one Socialist party in any country because,
if it is a genuine Socialist party, any other parties that are formed
must increase the confusion in the minds of the workers and
therefore retard the march to Socialism.
In spite of this obvious truth many, who claimed to be
Socialists, were members of more than one organisation; some
were members of the Fabian Society, the Independent Labour
Party and the Social Democratic Federation, as well as, later, the
Labour Party. It was their mutual adherence to reform policies
that enabled members of these parties to do this without finding
anything contradictory in their conduct. When the Socialist Party
of Great Britain was formed its members were so conscious of
this weakness that they declined to accept anybody to
membership who belonged to any other political party and
refused to permit its members to speak on any other political
platform except in opposition.
Owing to the bitter experience of the undemocratic methods
of the Social Democratic Federation the new party framed rules
that gave the whole of the membership complete control of the
organisation, and, in order that workers could be under no
delusion about the aims and activities of the Party, all meetings,
whether Branch Meetings, Executive Meetings, or Conferences,
were open to the public; anyone was free to enter these meetings
and listen to the discussions.
This was a revolutionary departure from custom and a severe
blow to the cult of leadership, as well as eliminating any suspicion
that the Party was engaged in any secret or conspiratorial
activities. This policy of open meetings the Party has adhered to
ever since.
Such were the circumstances that gave birth to the party that
this year celebrates its fiftieth anniversary; fifty years of the
consistent advocacy of Socialism without turning aside for
anything.
GILMAC