SPA and the Australian Seaman’s Union

[twc]

Some preliminary pages from a very long document written by W. J. Clarke in the late 1980s that covers the founding of the Socialist Party of Australia, and its association with the Australian Seamen’s Union.This has been transcribed today, and tidied with minor editing.  I will deposit all the originals with the SPGB.pgb, I believe Johnson’s son Desmond collected his father’s papers upon his death in 1961 in order to edit and publish them in some form.  Bill Clarke requested access, but access was declined.  I have no idea where they are now, hopefully (not as you suggest) at the bottom of the harbour.HISTORY [Forerunners (to come)]FoundingThe foundation meeting of the (World) Socialist Party of Australia was held on 22 January 1924 in the meeting room of the Theatrical Employee’s Association in Melbourne.  The hall had been made available after discussions between the Secretary of the Association and comrade Jack Temple, and it was accepted free of charge.Those present were comrades:   C. (Charley?) Wardley,  J. (Jack) O’Brien,  C. (Con) O’Brien,  A. (Gus) O’Brien,  W. (Bill) Delaney,  J. (Jack) Temple,  R. (Ron?) Buchanan,  Y. London,  J. (Jack) Gillies,  J. Grant.Com. Temple moved:

Quote:

That a Socialist Party be formed in Australia to be named the Socialist Party of Australia.

Com. Gus O’Brien seconded the motion and the resolution was carried unanimously.Com. Temple gave a preliminary talk on the object of the Socialist Party of Australia (SPA).  He then moved:

Quote:

That the object of the Party 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.

A statement of guiding principles for the Party, based upon the principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB), but with necessary geographical alteration, was presented and discussed in meetings held over about 14 sessions, and then accepted.These foundation meetings attracted more members, often from ships trading on the Australian coast.The first secretary was Gus O’Brien, one of three brothers, who had a long-time association with the Party.  Con’s wife Edith, and their son Peter, later became life-long members.  Gus O’Brien was elected Secretary–Treasurer after Jack Temple had declined nomination for Treasurer, on the grounds of uncertainty over his employment.Membership of the Party was fixed at a rate of 1/6d [7½ p] per week.Standing RulesCom. Young drew up a set of standing orders, and these were adopted, with minor amendment.  Having experienced the chaos that plagued other organizations, members agreed to lay down rules of guidance, among which were:

Quote:

No member shall issue or accept a challenge to debate other than on behalf of the Party; any further action shall rest with the Party.No member of the Party may take the platform of any other party except in opposition.No member can also be a member of any other political party.

Upon settling matters of Party machinery, the Party attended to questions of means of propaganda, meetings and lectures, debates with other organizations, and educational classes.Literature recommended for members’ reading included  “The Communist Manifesto”,  “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific”,  “Wage, Labour and Capital”,  “Value, Price and Profit”,  Socialist Standard (the SPGB official organ),  and the “SPGB Manifesto”.ActivityCom. London became tutor of the economics class.  Com. Temple lectured on social evolution.By now, Coms Barney Kelly and Jim Fitzgerald, both seamen, had joined and were active in meetings.  H. McEllen and J. Lamb had also joined.W. (Bill) Clarke and W. (Bill) Casey and other “forerunners” were active in Sydney, where a second branch was soon to be formed.CredentialsOne of the first challenges to debate came from [communist] Joe Shelley.  The Party instructed the secretary to write to the Communist Party, checking his credentials to represent it.  This was a necessary condition of debate, owing to the number of disaffiliated individuals then falsely claiming to represent various parties.There was a different twist to arranging debates with the Australian Labor Party [ALP].  Frank Anstey (MP), Maurice Blackburn, (MP) and Don Cameron (later ALP Senator), squibbed arranged debates or challenges, either by choice or by instruction of the Labor Party.Yarra BankOn 6 May 1924, Young and Temple were appointed speakers to address gatherings on the Yarra Bank, where open-air meetings were allowed on Sundays.  [twc: The Yarra river flows through Melbourne.]  Buchanan and McEllen were elected as chairmen to the meetings.LiteratureOn 2 July 1924, Fitzgerald, who was sailing to London, was credentialed to obtain back numbers of the Socialist Standard for free distribution in Australia on his return.  He was also to obtain other material from the SPGB that was unavailable in Australia.Growing MembershipOn 25 November 1924, S. (Stan) Willis made application to join, and was accepted into the Party.  [twc: His son, Ralph, though groomed to be Australian treasurer (like Chancellor of the Exchequer) under Prime Minister Hawke, was thwarted by Labor Party factionalism, but later became Australian treasurer under Prime Minister Keating.]Willis was one of a number of Victorian Railways employees that included boilermakers, train examiners and assistant station masters.  For a time, seamen and railway men formed a large proportion of the membership.Street CornerNaturally, at this very early stage, there were few members qualified to present the Party’s case on its behalf.  Speakers were first required to pass a stiff test in order to speak for it.  Lack of speaker qualification did not preclude members from chairing Party meetings.  (Note: Eddie Ward’s opinion on this.  [twc: presumably it was scathing, coming from Ward.])By October 1927, the Party had developed (numerically) to the point where it could apply to the Melbourne suburban councils of Prahran, Fitzroy, Richmond, South Melbourne, and the Melbourne City Council for permits to speak at certain street corners.  Application was also made for permit to stand on the Yarra Bank.  That was the procedure in those days.Two more members were placed on the speaker’s list — Willis and Gillies.DebatesChallenges were made to or by the W.I.I.U., the Communist Party, the I.W.W, the Henry George (Single Taxers) League, and other organizations.The W.I.I.U, was asked to show “How is Industrial Unionism a very important and powerful weapon for working class emancipation”, and “How the Russian Revolution of November 1917 demonstrates this”.There was a debate between C. Wardley (Socialist Party) and Bob Brodney (Communist Party).  Of course, the SPA rejected a request from the Communist Party to join one of its publicity demonstrations.A feature that plagued any arrangement for debate was constant procrastination on the part of opponents in arriving at a decision to accept.Open air meetings were now held regularly, and the Melbourne suburbs of Elsternwick and Brunswick were added to the list.An Open Air Meeting at Brunswick — The Brunswick Bell-RingerIt was at a Brunswick meeting, when Com. Clarke was speaking, that Frank Anstey (ALP) took umbrage over the assertion that the Labor Party was a supporter of the capitalist system.  “It’s a damn lie!” yelled Anstey as he rushed madly at the platform.  There was a large crowd in attendance, and several in the crowd managed to restrain Anstey.Clarke responded “This is the first time I’ve heard a politician call himself a liar.  I will give you the facts.”  Continuing, “In theory, the Labor Party opposes capitalism; in practice, it is its supporter and subsidizer”.“The man who said that was Mr Frank Anstey himself”.  Anstey was referred to his very own statement in Hansard.Now, the Labor Party used to speak at this same street corner on alternate Friday nights to the Socialist Party.  At election times, a very solid ALP supporter used to arrange their platform, and vigorously ring a large bell to herald the start of ALP meetings.  He was present on the night when Anstey rushed the Socialist Party platform.The solid bell-ringer approached our platform, and asked permission to speak from it for a few minutes.  We agreed, as it was always Socialist Party practice to let anyone take our platform to disagree with us should they wish to do so.He mounted the platform, and we prepared ourselves for a blinding attack on the Party.  Instead, to the utter disbelief of all present, he passionately proclaimed “I have been an Anstey supporter for many years.  I have rung my bell dozens of times to announce ALP speakers from this very spot.  After what I have seen tonight, I'll never ring that bell for the ALP again!”He attended our meetings several times afterwards, but never expressed a desire to join.  He couldn’t break with many long-time friends in the ALP.JournalAt the meeting of 10 August 1929, the Executive Committee recommended publication of an official party organ.  [twc: It was later called Socialist Comment.]Parliamentary ActivityOn 10 March 1931, it was agreed “That the E.C. consider the advisability of contesting the Melbourne seat at the next Federal Election”.On 24 March 1931, it was agreed to set up a Parliamentary Fund, and that the Press be notified of the Party’s intention to stand a candidate for the Federal seat of Melbourne Ports.In consequence, the Party decided “That in the event of any member being elected to Parliament his emoluments shall be under the control of the Party”.[To be continued]

[pgb]

twc writes: pgb/ wrote: I think the quote on Marxism he (Frank Roydon) took from Lucien Laurat's 1940book is spot on for his purposes, and quite properly he uses it to argue acase to "re-examine all our assumptions and see if they are still sound."twc wrote: That is sheer nonsense when one is dealing with a political party whosecondition of membership is acceptance of its /Object/ and /Declaration ofPrinciples/What exactly is going on here? We are talking about an article written almost 70 years ago in a publication of a tiny socialist group in Melbourne in which the writer, reflecting on the failure of socialist revolution in the centenary year of the publication of the Communist Manifesto, suggests that "our little group in Australia (the SPA) should try and re-examine all our assumptions and see if they are sound". The reason I referred to Roydon's quote from Lucian Laurat was that Laurat eloquently makes the case for Marxism as a "living tradition" – an intellectual tradition which requires continual questioning "even of truths already acquired". As one who continually proclaims the virtue of the scientific method, I thought the Laurat quote would particularly appeal to you. Instead, you say it is "sheer nonsense when dealing with a political party whose condition of membership is acceptance of its Object and D of P". So if you are a member, you can never question the Object and Dof P. Right? It is disingenuous to believe that a world socialist party's“assumptions”* are anything other than its Object and Declaration of Principles. If they aren’t, please explain what they could ever be. Our Object and Declaration of Principles are not mere "assumptions”. They are scientific abstractions from the concrete phenomena of society,  You make an awful lot out of Roydon's innocent use of the word "assumptions". You equate "assumptions" with the Object and Dof P. Yes, the D of P is full of assumptions. Here are a few: that the working class is a revolutionary class (the historical subject); that the only division in society significant for working class political identity is class division; that the ending of class division means the ending of other social divisions eg. "race"/ethnicity, gender . Like any assumption these are contestable, they are all open to rejection. Eg: the history of the past century would surely make anyone doubt the truth of the first assumption above. These are not, as you say, "scientific abstractions from the concrete phenomena of society". They are abstractions, but not scientific ones. Nor should we expect them to be. Their significance is not derived from the relationship in which they stand to evidence of the kind that scientists use (or historians). They are ideological statements whose significance derives from their intention and capacity to mobilise workers for social and political action, as is quite explicit in principle 8 of the DoP: "The (socialist parties SPGB, SPA etc) therefore enter the field of political action…….and call upon the members of the working class to muster under their banner…etc" All other political parties are different from the parties of worldsocialism. Most have no clear Object at all, and none have Principlesworthy of human support. To the man-in-the-street it seems highly reasonablefor them to go through continual soul searching, all other parties do it allof the time, except that none of them has a soul like our Object and Principles to find. We obviously hold fundamentally different views about the significance of the Object and DofP. From other posts of yours which I have read, you give them almost mystical status. To say of other parties that they don't have a "soul" like the Object and DofP is unusual to say the least for a materialist. It seems that you have bought the idea that Roydon's piece was an "obituary" for the SPA because you believed he was disagreeing with the DofP (he wasn't) which in your eyes amounted to "sabotage from within". And this, presumably, marked the beginning of the end for the SPA in 1948. "What was done was done" you say, and.."the consequences were devastating". What consequences? Who or what was devastated?

[twc]

Soul SearchingThe language of religion doesn’t bother me at all.  English is deeply indebted to the language of the King James version.Religion is a reactionary part of the social superstructure, and is now largely subservient within the capitalist superstructure, which itself is subservient to the capitalist social base.The capitalist social base, rather than religion, is what we are determined to replace.With a socialist base, religion [which in the West now persists mainly by permission of the capitalist base] loses the foundation that supplies its need.To return.  I wrote that, unlike the socialist parties, other parties go through continual soul searching all of the time.  That’s the terminology they use.I continued my line of thought, in consistent terminology, saying that:  unlike us, other parties are continually forced to search their souls because they ain’t got no soul there to find.  We already found ours in our Object and DOP. We ain’t no need to keep on searchin’.  Big deal about the religious terminology.Australian IdeologyYou observe that you and I hold fundamentally different views about our Object and DOP. Too true.  To you they are ideological.  To me they are scientific.  They result from Marx’s science.If they are ideological, as you aver, how do you decide which ideology to accept? If they are ideological, as you aver, where do they come from?If they are ideological, as you aver, what hope does anyone have that our Object and DOP, or any other Object and DOP, will help us attain socialism and, once we’ve attained it, help us sustain socialism as a viable world social system?On the other hand, I claim that our DOP is the road to socialism [though others may doubt its central role, which I’ve argued is absurdly inconsistent with the DOP itself].I hold that our Object is the central scientific consequence of the materialist conception of history.  I hold that our Object is the conclusion of Marx’s critique of the capitalist social system — his towering achievement, to which all else he achieved is subservient.  Marx wrote it himself.Our Object defines socialism as a social process and, if attained through our DOP, supplies the ultimate “proof of the pudding” that social being determines consciousness, and thereby materialistically guarantees  the viability and sustainability of world socialism, whose determined conciousness is truly up to running a world-wide social system worthy of mankind.

[twc]

pgb wrote:

So if you are a member, you can never question the Object and D of P. Right?

Right.WhyIf a member conscientiously disagrees with our Object and D of P that member puts himself outside the party.Should you find yourself in this position, you have no honourable choice but to join another party with a different Object and D of P that you do agree with, where you are consistently at liberty to attack the original party for its shortcomings as seen from your newfound position.How on earth can you attack principles by adhering to them, unless you aim for reductio ad absurdum.  But adherence to what is absurd, makes it absurd to adhere; absurd to belong.A principled thinker should logically depart.If a physicist disagrees with one of Newton’s laws he puts himself outside of classical physics, say, into relativity or quantum physics.  If a geometer disagrees with, say, Euclid’s fifth postulate (his parallel postulate) he puts himself outside of classical geometry into hyperbolic or elliptic geometries.In practice, non-newtonians and non-euclideans undermined their science inside of it, before they established their new science outside of it.  Then they logically moved on to adopting new principles.  [Thomas Kuhn gives the classic account (thoroughly Hegelian resolution of the struggle of ideas) of this process of paradigm shift.]Non-newtonian physics and non-euclidean geometry prove as logically consistent as the originals.  They must be or they are scientifically useless.  [Coherence , or scientific consistency, is essentially the argument against dualism, or syncretism, as a scientifically useful position, but merely the type specimen of temporary expediency.]No more than this is being said of the socialist party.  It sticks to its principles, or it is replaced by another with better principles.  It must be politically coherent to be politically useful.The real question you must answer is — what are these better principles?  Roydon feared 100 years of disproof.  You and alanjjohnstone fear another 70 years of disproof.What are the better principles that bury the party and, like the Phoenix, rise anew out of its ashes?If you ain’t got ’em, you’re merely absurd and dishonorable.Socialism, despite the cynicism bred of capitalism [in fact, in spite of the cynicism bred of capitalism] can only be achieved by opposing absurdity and dishonour, or it is doomed from the start.The party too presents itself as a coherent entity, that is logically consistent with its foundation principles. Its Object and D of P embody the party.  They mark it out as what it is, and what it is not.  Just like the principles of physics and geometry.Many avowed socialists have expressed conscientious doubts over, what is essentially, the party’s Object and D of P.  Bernstein was the first from within.  The Fabians scoffed at them long ago.  The anarchists ignore them.  The Trotskyites give them lip service.  And, from his Socialist Standard interview, Andrew Kliman cannot perceive their coherence.  [Poor old David Harvey hardly counts.]All who conscientiously disagree with our Object and D of P are perfectly free to hold, without needing our permission, their own principles [such as they are] and belong to their own organizations that adhere to their own principles [such as they do], and then from their own position [such as it is] attack our principles and us.Since you choose to do so from within[?], please tell us just where our Object and D of P are deficient?

[alanjjohnstone]

In regards to religion and materialism, and in an effort not to preach to the converted, i managed to post the following on an Indian based website with a wider-ranged audience than this forum.  No doubt there will be parts to quibble about but it part of a longer project to advance the socialist case, articles on war and leadership have already been published and future ones intend to be nationalism, reformism , and utopianism culminating in an open letter. http://www.countercurrents.org/johnstone040414.htm Our Object and Principles add up to absolutely zero if they are not known. They add up to zero if action does not take place to implement them. If we are unsuccessful in communicating their correctness and do not succeed in convincing people to strive for them, then we are little different from those Engels describe in his German Peasant Revolution, premature. We can argue for platitudes that nothing can stop a movement when it's time has come…but many appear to subscribe that our moment has come…if so…where is the evidence?…The material conditions are certainly  here, the crises of capitalism are intensyfying to the point that the existence of life itself is now an issue , but it appears as Royden does touch upon , we over -estimated its impact on ideas. We have not dismissed historical materialism …simply over-estimated the speed and strength it would have on class consciousness and socialist development. The cold fact is that in relation to the number of workers in the world (they are increasing not just by population growth alone but by the proletarisation of rural peasantry) , there has been a regression and retardation in the present year of 2014 than what was the state in 1904. The percentage and proportion adhering to scientific socialism is significantly less, even though the means and methods of communication and education has grown more available. Roydens questions about if we are reaching out to fellow workers effectively still stands. At this present time i see no alternative to the current WSM strategy but it doesn't mean i accept that there isn't one and i won't  stop looking and investigating, beginning with a continual self-assessment and self-evaluation of our organisation.One point i might raise now is calling miniscule groups of socialists "political parties" actually honest or beneficial if they are not performing as political parties. Should we call ourselves socialist study groups (Ouch! that reminds us of another imperfect part of the D of P, adherence to it doesn't mean unity ) or education classes and be realistic in our ambitions? There is at present a call for an online Communist Manifesto readers group. Wouldn't promoting that style of orgainising be perhaps more fruitful for some of us in the world socialist movement  rather than demanding 100% agreement to the D of P? 

[twc]

Al,Our Obj and DOP make us a political party.Nobody disagrees that we are small.  We can thank the possibilists for that [Social Democrats and Communists].Zero is very small indeed, but it is still a number [in most number systems].  We are larger than zero.Do you recall how embarrassing the centenary celebration for Darwin’s Origin of Species was.  Hardly more tepidly enthusiastic than the stunned reception to Lyell and Hooker’s presentation of the original Darwin–Wallace paper at the Linnean Society. Yet, within a few years of the centenary, everything changed.  The mounting evidence suddenly became overwhelming:The Leakeys at Olduvai Gorge, plate tectonics, radioactive rock dating, Punk–Eek (punctuated equilibrium), cladistics, Steven Gould, David Attenborough, Carl Sagan on stunning prime time TV specials that set new presentation and filming standards, and drew huge anticipatory audiences.Now, with genome sequencing, evolution couldn’t be more exciting.  From moribund to the sensation of Jurassic Park in three decades!  Evolution is the hottest science around, with fabulous dinosaur discoveries all the time in China and South America, and all kids just adore dinosaurs.  Marx will simply take longer, but the capitalist class is doing its nasty bit to hurry things along. There will be mounting evidence.  That’s the way scientific change works and, as I hold, we are Marx’s scientific party.Courage and patience.

[alanjjohnstone]

I was intending to support your argument via an Edinburgh Branch member's personal blog, Patience and Perseverance (and you can piss a hole through a stone, as he used to say) but arggg… when i went to his blog to get the link  i noticed he has now added a rider to his blog title – "but now i'm beginning to wonder what for" http://patienceandperseverance.blogspot.com/

[twc]

Joining a Communist Manifesto reading group sounds fabulous.I have some comments to make, which bring in (1) our Obj and (2) our DOPThe Manifesto starts “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”.By then, Marx hadn’t figured out what the class struggle was about.  [Maybe he had, but he doesn’t state it explicitly.  We, of the socialist party, can.]The socialist party knows what our Object tells us the class struggle is about:  ownership and control of the means of life [≡ the means and instruments of social reproduction].If society as a whole doesn’t own and control the means of living, which boils down to society not owning and controlling the means of its own living, then a class of society owns and controls them. Ownership and control is all that makes a social class.  The class doesn’t have to toil with a pick down a mine or smoke cigars in a boardroom. If a class of society owns and controls the means of life then that class of society robs and rules the rest of us.Until people comprehend that they are robbed and ruled by part of society, they have no need to change society.  As soon as they comprehend that they are robbed and ruled, well … [write on the dotted line.]The Immediate Demands are the cause of our modern woes, and most are being whittled away in the interests of private capital.This is where our DOP comes in as the only path for realizing our Obj.

[twc]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

One point I might raise now is calling miniscule groups of socialists "political parties" actually honest or beneficial if they are not performing as political parties. Should we call ourselves socialist study groups.

Yes, for groups, like the Australians, which no longer perform as political parties.No, for groups, like the New Zealanders, who do perform as a political party.Resoundingly No, for the SPGB.  It is a functioning political party. The SPGB is the political party of world socialism.  It is Marx’s scientific party.Our shared Obj and DOP imply that an adhering group of sufficient size to function as a viable party of world socialism is a party of world socialism, and should be recognized, independent of size, to be a party of world socialism.

[twc]

The 1935 Seamen’s StrikeW. J. ClarkeIntroductionThe following work was intended to be part of a larger [history]¹ but publication [in 1981] of “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”² makes it incumbent on me to publish this extract from the larger work.³I chose to do this because I believe that much of the material in this “History” is not only laced with deliberate departures from the facts of actual history, but contains errors based upon ignorance of many significant details of the subject matter.It is imperative that readers should have an opportunity to ascertain the truth of that part of their⁴ history this extract relates to.Illness and other misfortunes⁵ have delayed my complete history and, in these circumstances, I have chosen the chapter on “The 1935 Seamen’s Strike” for two reasons:It is probably the most important point in the history of the union.It is that part of the work by Fitzpatrick and Cahill which contains the most errors, intentional or otherwise.W.J.C Editor’s Notes¹ I have transcribed the author’s own photocopy of his original typewriter script prepared during the 1980s.  The text is complete.  It contains minor typing errors, which I have minimally edited, solely for readability, in order to do justice to the author’s content.  Where I felt it necessary to amend his text, for more than readability, I have gone further than standard, but silent, book editorial practice, and have placed my alterations inside square brackets, as [here].  These may be checked by future historians against the original, to be deposited in the archives of the SPGB.² Brian Fitzpatrick and Rowan Cahill, “The Seamen’s Union of Australia 1872–1972: A History”, [Seamen's Union of Australia, Sydney, 1981].  Clearly the publication of this work forced Bill Clarke’s hand.³ The remaining chapters are incomplete, and are distributed, non-systematically, among numerous folders and boxes.  It would take considerable effort to compile them into a completed work.The author considered this chapter to be the most important.  It should eventually be supplemented with a transcript of “The Crooks Exposed”, and Bill Casey’s report to the union of the First Red Trade Union International (in the Tom Walsh papers at the National Archives in Canberra).  Originals, or photocopies, to be deposited for safekeeping with the SPGB.⁴ Clearly Bill Clarke intended this chapter to be read by members of the Seamen’s Union of Australia.⁵ Bill Clarke, born in 1899, wrote this work during the 1980s.  His gentle life-long companion, Marie, died suddenly while he was writing it in 1983.  They had been deeply close for over six decades, and he suffered her loss deeply.  Debilitating illness hampered his writing as he approached his 90th year. THE 1935 SEAMEN’S STRIKE — Installment 1

[twc]

Moderator1, if it’s OK with you, I’ll place future instalments in the World Socialist Movement forum, so that they don’t clutter up proceedings here in the General Discussion forum.

[alanjjohnstone]

Lokking forward to these installments. Also hoping that it receives a much wider audience than just this forum. We should locate Australian labour union websites and seamen history websites to link these to once fully transcribed and online Another future project. Wish you well in your venture, twc. 

[twc]

Early Press Photographs of World Socialists Yesterday, I discovered fascinating photographs of World Socialists among the newspaper archives incorporated into the National Archives, in Canberra.  The photographs were taken in 1925–28.They show Jacob Johnson, Bill Casey and Bill Clarke, all members of the [World] Socialist Party of Australia, and officials of the Seamen’s Union of Australia.  In effect, they are photographs of socialists “in action”, even if only on union matters, then of national significance.I have posted these superb-quality images in our World Socialist forum, as Installment 9 of the “1935 Australian Seamen’s Strike”, at: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/world-socialist-movement/1935-australian-seamen%E2%80%99s-strike#comment-12768.

[Author]

Posts