To the Editor.

Dominion Executive Committee,
Vancouver, B.C. Aug. 2, ’09.
In view of the fact that a demand has been made in various quarters that this committee take steps to affiliate with the International Socialist Bureau, it has become necessary that the committee define its position on this question.

Whereas, the I.S.B. has seen fit to admit to membership and representation certain non-Socialist bodies, particularly the British Labour Party ; and

Whereas, such parties are not only ignorant of Socialism, but practice openly the most shameless policy of fusion and compromise with capitalist parties, advocating at most a number of petty, and, in many cases, misleading reforms ; and

Whereas, such endorsation of the I.S.B. can only result in the encouragement and fostering of “fake” Labour and pseudo-Socialist parties to the detriment of the Socialist Party proper, and the misleading and betrayal of the working class ; and such action also affords encouragement and justification for that element existing to a greater or less extent in all Socialist Parties, which is in favour of opportunistic methods and compromise ; and

Whereas, this committee considers that the Party funds can be expended more usefully for purposes of propaganda and organisation than in a way that has little more than sentimental value if any ;

For these reasons this Committee declines to consider any affiliation which entails the slightest suspicion, of fusion or compromise. Such action would, moreover, be a direct violation of the constitution of the Party, which expressly forbids any such action.

This resolution, in the above terms, to be forwarded to the International Socialist Bureau, to the affiliated Socialist Parties, and to the Provincial Executive Committee. In point of fact, to be given the widest possible publicity.


[We reprint the above as requested and are pleased to note that the British Labour Party is appreciated in Canada at its true worth. —Ed. “S.S.”] .


To the Editor.

Returning from my holidays a few days since, my attention was drawn to a letter which appeared in the Socialist Standard of July over my signature (there being only one Jno. Rhind of Old Trafford). Now I wish to entirely repudiate it and to state that this is the first communication you have ever received from me or by my authority.
To my mind it is a very mean trick, and unworthy of any man, more especially if he professes to be a Socialist.
I may further state that I consider life too short to waste my time over such side-tracking questions as who pays the rates.
Trusting you will give this repudiation the same publicity as you gave the letter referred to,

[We regret, of course, that Mr. Rhind should have been—as it appears—”tricked” ; but from information to hand we gather that he has not been misrepresented. The “side-tracking” is all with the Tories, Liberals, Labourites and pseudo-Socialists of no matter what stripe, who seek to interest and keep busy the workers with the amount of the rates rather than with Socialism.—Ed. “S.S.”]


H. Harrison (Salford) asks :

“How does a Trade Unionist stand in respect to membership of your Party seeing that he supports palliative measures—8 hours day, etc.—and in many ways upholds the present system ?”

A member of the S.P.G.B., like others, has to live, and in some trades cannot do so without being a member of a trade union. He is often warranted in adhering to a trade union because it to some extent slackens the tendency of working-class conditions to worsen : it offers the means of somewhat more effectively resisting the employers than were he isolated.

But your S.P.G.B. member remains a Socialist though a member of a trade union, and will not fail as opportunity offers to point out the weakness of the trade union position, its lack of understanding of capitalism and its consequent faulty tactics. He will oppose the support of “Labour” M.P.s as far as possible and generally carry on the work of a Socialist, which is, at the present juncture, mostly the work of propaganda. How much of his time and energy may be advisedly spent with the trade union his experience will decide.—Ed. ” S.S.”


Wm. Mutter (Manchester) writes :

“Can member of the S.P.G.B. (1) stand for his trade union as a delegate for the L.R.C. ?
(2) Take the chair for a Free-thought lecturer ?”

(1) No. For in doing so he would be joining another political party—an anti-Socialist party, and therefore breaking our Principles and Rules.
(2) Yes—IF the meeting has no political character.—Ed. “S.S.”


Sir,—The philosophy of the S.P.G.B. as I understand it from your platform and literature is as follows: “The workers must become class-consciously organised for the capture of the political machinery, and by so doing gain control over the armed forces. They would then be able to work out their own emancipation.” But the capitalist class, seeing this organisation growing, may hand over control cf the armed forces to a private company. Ought not, therefore, the workers organise industrially as well as politically, so that if we fail with one we can fall back on the other ?—S.H.

The question is briefly answered in the affirmative in our Manifesto; not, however, that the failure of the political means is contemplated, but for reasons given in our answer to H. Harrison. In the light of history our correspondent has surely allowed his imagination to play tricks with him when he supposes the armed forces passed by the capitalist class “to a private company.” The thing is to make our class Socialist: the rest follows—Ed. “S.S.”]

Leave a Reply