1 June 1980, Opening remarks of Steve Coleman – The Socialist Party of Great Britain
Well some of you will have heard what Herbert Butterfield criticised as the, what he called, the Whig interpretation of history and it has he asserted I quote ‘often been an obstruction to historical understanding because it has taken, been taken to mean the study of the past with direct and perpetual reference to the present, through this system of immediate reference to the present day, historical personages can easily and irresistibly classed into the men who furthered progress and the men who tried to hinder it so that a handy rule of thumb exists by which the historian can select and reject and make his points of emphasis.’
Now what Herbert Butterfield is rightly condemning is the approach to history which sees all of the events of the past as part of an inevitable process leading to the present. Now I shall have more to say about historical inevitability in the next lecture but it will do to point out now that any historian can only perceive the past in terms of the present is not only a bad historian in that his bias towards the present distorts his feel for the atmosphere of the past but worse than that he is a fundamentally conservative historian because he allows past social developments to suggest to him an inevitable and inescapable path to the present.
Now the Marxist conception of history is not a theory of inevitable determinism according to a grand pattern of material development although if you listen long enough to some vulgar Marxists you will think that it is. The history of all societies is the history of class struggle as Marx said and the outcome of class struggle is clearly not susceptible to dogmatic prediction. History is the story of people making choices. Sometimes they make what can be retrospectively seen as the wrong choice from the point of view of their own material class interest. The anarchists who helped bring the Bolsheviks to power in 1917 and were then thrown into prison. The german Jews who supported Hitler in the hope that their support would make him rethink his anti-semitism, the freedom seeking women who fought for the Ayatollah in Iran. They make have been unforgivably stupid in having supported movements that were against their own interests but the role of the historian is not to judge stupidity in which case he would have to be making moral judgments all the time about what people are up to but it is to examine what has happened and to try to explain why.
So the two approaches to history conflict and on the one side the Whig interpretation judges where we have been from the point of view of where we are now. And on the other the Marxist theory is more concerned with the dynamics of struggle and with how this changes things much more than with the contingent outcomes of those struggles. Now what you might well ask has any of this got to do with the historical place of the Socialist Party of Great Britain? Well in fact there is an important connection because I would argue that the history of the organisation of the working class has suffered from what I have described and Butterfield described as Whig history writing. What I mean is that historians of the labour movement have traditionally divided political trends within the working class into those which are right and those which are wrong, practical or impractical, possibilist or impossibilist and the right thinking practical possible movements were those which became popular. And those which remained relatively unpopular are left to what Lenin described as the dustbin of history.
Now according to this theoretical Whiggism the reformist, Methodist, trade unionist ILP, that’s the Independent Labour party, was destined to flourish whereas the revolutionary secularist politically minded Social Democratic Federation was bound to fail. The Labour party would inevitably succeed, it would inevitably catch on. The Socialist Party of Great Britain inevitably wouldn’t. Marxism, it is dogmatically asserted, by these Whig historians was alien to the thought of British workers as if inhabitants of the British Isles somehow evolved from the apes with a built in adversity to the labour theory of value.
Now this process whereby unpopular trends are ignored is clearly dangerous and also dishonest. It partly stems from what somebody at Reading University, perhaps known to party members, has called the size fallacy, as he says in one of his papers and I quote ‘the historian of ideas does not judge the worth or interest of the theories of Plato by the number of Athenian votes he was able to muster nor those of Rousseau by his following among the Genovese. The criteria are not those of th market place where the huckster with the loudest voice attracts the most attention.’ The size fallacy is part of the cause then, of movements which are unpopular which are not large and do not gain widespread support, being ignored.
But another reason I contend has been a conscious effort on the part of some historians who support the popular abuse of the term socialism especially those who identify with the Communist party to ignore reference to ideas and organisations which don’t fit in to their comfortable and conservative beliefs about socialism. The way in which the Socialist Party of Great Britain has been ignored by historians must have involved some very strenuous manoeuvres on the part of a number of writers.
G. D. H. Cole for instance, the leading theoretician of the Fabian Society and one of the first able British labour historians mentions the Socialist party only once in his history of socialist thought. He mentions that is was formed as the result of a breakaway from the Social Democratic Federation which was led, led - a term he must have known to be inappropriate in the case of the party, by somebody called Fitzgerald. However a few pages earlier he mentions another Fitzgerald who led another breakaway from the SDF, only this time a right wing breakaway. No indication is given either in the text of the book or in the index that the two Fitzgeralds are different men. And to add insult to injury, in his one reference to the party, Cole says that it was formed in 1903 instead of 1904 but maybe that is just one example that can be raised.
So to look at another, Walter Kendall in his ‘The Revolutionary Movement in Britain: 1900 to 1921’, this contains one disparaging reference to the SPGB, in the whole of a book dealing specifically with Marxist revolutionary ideas in Britain between 1900 and 1921. Now you might wonder what else he found to put in the book, but the one reference to the SPGB is as ‘a party unwilling to enter the political fray even to the extent of adopting a program of palliatives retaining its political virginity only at the cost of failing to reproduce anything at all.’ Now the fact that Kendall was a member of the Labour party may or may not have coloured his historical analysis.
Another person Henry Pelling the Oxford liberal academic, he has managed to studiously managed to stay clear of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in all of his writings even when he has landed bang on top of it, he has made a point of moving elsewhere. But probably one of the most athletic feats of intellectual dishonesty surrounds the character of somebody who was a party member, T. A. Jackson who was an early member of the party and a member of the one of the first executive committees of the SPGB. Now Jackson’s awful poverty forced him to accept an offer from the ILP to be a paid speaker on their platform. His letter of resignation from the Socialist Party of Great Britain is a reminder of the indignity that poverty can sometimes bring. Despite still agreeing with the party wrote Jackson he would go and I quote ‘bleed the swines ‘til I am expelled.’ That is referring to the ILP. In fact Jackson was not expelled from the ILP but left in the 1920s to join the newly formed Communist party. He became a leading speaker and theorist of the Communist party and later in life he wrote his autobiography called Solo Trumpet. In it he manages to exclude mention of his SPGB membership, his association with the men who gave him his early ideas on Marxism or his reason for becoming reformist.
So it is significant also that Jackson’s daughter who was in the party married the famous Communist party historian A. L. Morton. Yet when Morton wrote the entry for T. A. Jackson in the dictionary of labour biographies published two years ago, no mention of the SPGB appears. So again here we see a case of conscious dishonesty in relation to mention of the party.
It is noteworthy that the only historian who has ever written a serious account of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was Chūshichi Tsuzuki who came from Japan. The reason for this is that Tsuzuki was relatively unbiased by the prejudices of British labour historians and he saw the Socialist Party of Great Britain for what it actually is – a very important aspect of working class politics in Britain and a tradition in its own right.
Now I now, or at least in a moment, want to turn to my own account of the tradition of which the Socialist Party of Great Britain is a part. But first let me briefly summarise the conventional story of the mainstream populist possibilist movement. Now you will remember that in the last talk I took the story up to the 1850s. Chartism had collapsed and the workers were without any political objectives at all. The New Model Unions had turned trade unionism into the reserve of the labour aristocracy and strikes were very infrequent. The capitalist class instead of beating down protest with sticks were bribing the workers into submission with reforms and the result of all this was a widespread acquiescence on the part of the working class to the capitalist system.
It was for this reason that the formation of the International Working Mens Association in 1864 which Marx was a prominent participant was largely disregarded by British workers. It is true that some trade union leaders were on the executive committee of the First International such as Howell, Applegarth, Hodger and Crimer. But they were mainly interested in it as a means of defeating international blacklegging rather than a political force for socialism. Incidentally and I won’t go into it but as a force against international blacklegging the First International was very successful, a very successful international trade union movement of the like which I think many people would agree hasn’t been seen since. But at its formation, Marx together with Weston, the famed citizen Weston of Value, Price and Profit incidentally and Le Lubez of France were put on a subcommittee, so it is interesting that Marx was on a subcommittee of the EC with Weston, to draw up some rules for the International, the preamble to the rules were drafted by Marx and I quote from them ‘that the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves. That the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies but for equal rights and duties and the abolition of all class rule.’
Now most workers however radical or even socialist they claim to be did not accept Marx’s statement that socialism means the abolition of classes as such. That is what he says in the preamble. And I think that puts the debate about the dictatorship of the proletariat into some perspective. He says it is not to do with class privileges or monopolies but it is to do with the abolition of all class rule as such. But the majority of workers saw the gaining of concessions by the working class as being what socialism is about and from 1864 to the present day, those who have called themselves socialist have traditionally accepted the one thing which every dot and comma of Marx’s writings repudiates and that is reformism. They have accepted the belief that socialism is not a system of society in which every social characteristic of capitalism is overturned.
But that socialism is a trend within capitalism leading towards greater concessions for the working class. In the 1880s came what is called by historians the socialist revival, liberals, Fabians, trade union leaders all convinced that the wages system was right and inevitable began to devise programs telling the capitalist class of Britain how to run the profit system. Then came the emergence of what labour historians have called the new unionism. In the late 1880s the unions became militant but what was the nature of this militancy? They began to strike for more pay, they demonstrated to protest about the unemployed. They drew up political objectives, they even broke down the railings in Hyde Park and established it as a speaking place for which we’re eternally grateful. And there was plenty of movement within the working class. But if you stop to consider were it was going you see that the militancy was fairly hollow. The victory of the match girls, the gas workers, the famous victory of the dockers in 1889 was followed by a period of unprecedented harshness from the employers. The dockers were all but destroyed as a union, certainly the stevedores, the lockouts that began to appear in many part of British industry, the use of police in order to break up picket lines throughout the early 1890s – this is a result of the new unionism and trade unions had not gained much strength after the late 1880s, contrary to the popular belief.
The traditional story of the 1890s concentrates on two things. Firstly the efforts of the unions to free them from legal shackles and secondly the increasingly realisation that an independent working class party was needed which culminated in the formation of the Labour party in 1906. Now for the sake of brevity and if anyone wants to develop this they can later on in the discussion, I won’t go into either of these processes, except to say that the Labour party was never set up as a socialist organisation. From the start it rejected Marx, rejected materialism, it rejected the need for revolution. And an account of the birth of the Labour party is given in the first article in the Socialist Standard series called ‘Against the Left’ which I think was published in August 1978.
Now having pointed out that there are two traditions of labour history to be considered, the possibilist and the impossibilist, I now wish to turn to the origin and meaning of the political theory of impossibilism of which the SPGB plays a crucial role. Now I have got to say at the outset about this two things. One is that I might go on for a bit of a long time in which case people can shout stop when they wish me to because I am going to refer to the text of a paper that I read at a seminar recently and therefore it is a bit long. The other thing that I am going to do is, you’ve got to appreciate, this is something I’ve been working on pretty well full-time for just about over a year now, so I’m, if I get a bit boring or complex you can tell me to move on. That having been said, I now want to look at the origin and meaning of the political theory of impossibilism.
Well Marx was the first to point out that his theory could not be divorced from political practice. The problem is that even while he lived Marx’s theory meant different things at different times to different people. But Marx who was said to have discovered the theory of class exploitation at the point of production and who advocated the abolition of the wages system as a revolutionary watchword of the working class was the opponent of a social system which like all systems could only be changed by removing all and not some of its features. This then was the revolutionary Marx.
Then there was the Marx of the First International who seemed in many ways to allow himself to be motivated or at least involved in economistic demands. And then there was the Marx who opposed Bakunin who seemed at least from some of the arguments he was putting against Bakunin to be a statist. And of course the Marx who advised the European workers to support the war against Russia because it would be a good thing for political democracy. There is also the Marx who if certain scholars are to be believed, spoke through the mouth of Engels so the two minds combined to become one Marx-Engels. Now it is not my intention to contemplate which conflicting brand of Marxism was most genuinely held by Marx in the deepest corners of his mind. But to point out that there does exist a conflict of attitudes in Marx’s political actions which make it futile to suggest that Marxism is simply that which Marx said or did.
This conflict is represented by his theory which concerned a critique of a system and his practice which was sometimes applied to the abolition of the system as such and at other times had different objectives such as reshaping the system in a way that was likely to ameliorate the suffering of the working class or a section of the working class.
The former approach has been referred to by its opponents as Marxist purity or dogmatism. Although it seems to me to be the basis of Marx’s claim to being a scientific socialist. The conflict between purity or scientificity and practicability seems to have underlined most major theoretical disputes within the Marxist movement so that you get Bernstein versus Marx, Lenin versus Martov, Marxists within the British Labour party versus those outside of it. And it was this conflict of attitudes to the theory of socialism which led to the split in the Social Democratic Federation at the turn of the century. In 1884 the Democratic Federation committed itself to the objective of socialism, it then became the Social Democratic Federation. Previous to that it had been an organisation comprising radicals and people who supported Irish independence as well as some who were influenced by Marx. But it became a socialist organisation and in so doing it adopted a Marxist theory of class struggle, the belief in the need to dispossess the capitalist class and for the subsequent creation of a system of common ownership of the means of wealth production. Although it also spoke about the common ownership of the system of exchange.
The Social Democratic Federation combined its advocacy of this theory with a number of moral and economic justifications of it which were not Marxist but their overall position comprised a synthesis of the lessons of Marxian political economy and also the rigour of English logic which its leaders had picked up in the English public school system. Now having found a theory, how were they to fulfil their political objective? And the root of the possibilist-impossibilist conflict lies in the answer to that question. Some members of the SDF argued that the logical completeness of their position would have to be sacrificed for the sake of winning workers to the cause. So palliatives were advocated, friendly links with trade unions were developed, election campaigns took place with the inevitable advocacy of something now rather than something when the objective conditions are ripe.
Now those who had joined the SDF as radicals and had not been influenced by Marxist theory and those who were won to the SDF by the kind of tactics I have mentioned were happy to sacrifice theory for the sake of growth. But those who joined the SDF primarily because they were impressed by the inherent logicality of the its revolutionary proposition saw the sacrifice of theory as little short of what they called reformist compromise.
Now that these two types of revolutionary socialists were clearly identifiable, can be seen from the description of the SDFs membership contained in Guy Aldred’s letter of application to the SPGB in November 1906. Very few people I suppose know that Guy Aldred actually did apply to join the SPGB and it is something he kept very quiet about in later life. But he said this and it was a very interesting point which I think sums up what was going on in the SDF. He said ‘I have got about a good deal in amongst its rank and file during my membership and I was surprised to find two distinct sets of feelings existing amongst its members. On the one hand there were the frankly revolutionary spirits, good earnest and sincere comrades, on the other tame revisionist and mere social reformers. This being so, the organisation as such could have no policy and hence could not be class conscious.’
Now the French socialist movement had begun its split over the same division of attitudes in 1881 when Paul Brousse led the opposition to the group represented by Jules Guesde and Paul Lafargue in the Federation of Socialist Workers of France. Rejecting the Guesdeist notion that the sole political objective of the working class should be the conquest of state power for the purpose of establishing socialism, Brousse advocated a program of immediate reforms and this policy became known as possibilism. The Belgian socialist party adopted the same program and it openly described itself as a possibilist party.
The split which began to emerge in the SDF in 1900 was not simply the result of one section accusing the other being impossibilist. That is a mistaken idea. On the contrary it was a case of one section accusing the other one of possibilism and the latter retaliating by dismissing their original stance as impossibilism. Now that is an important difference between the standard explanation of what happened and what actually did happen.
The move towards revisionism in the SDF was the consequence of political frustration. By 1901 H. M. Hyndman, the founder of the SDF and its first Marxist advocate had become tired of waiting for the revolution and retired from the federation. It should be pointed out that Hyndman was a man who was a considerable property owner, he had been educated at Eton and then at Oxford. He had come, had stumbled upon Marxist ideas, been rather discourteous to Marx in having printed a book copying a number of the ideas from Volume 1 of Capital and then not acknowledging any mention of Marx in the book and this annoyed Marx intensely and the two of them fell out. And he just got tired about the working class not facing up to the views that he saw as being absolutely logical. His letter of resignation from the SDF is revealing so I will quote it.
‘One, after so long a period of work on the executive, I wish to look at matters from the outside.
Two, I fail to detect among the English workers that class consciousness and that class antagonism without which no good whatever can be done. Even the members of the SDF leave very much to be desired in this respect. As one of the highly educated well-to-do class myself, I am quite astounded at the ignorance and apathy of my country-men and I am deeply discouraged at the result of our long and continued propaganda.
Three, under existing conditions our only hope lies in successful political action, yet the majority of our organisation seems wholly destitute of political aptitude.
Four, I fear I have done all the good I can do in the detailed work of the organisation. When the workers at large or member of the Social Democratic Federation rouse themselves in earnest and show a determination to deal effectively with the dangerous situation around us, I shall be glad to make common cause with them in a vigourous attempt to relieve our country from the corrupt incapable government by gang which now oppresses and degrades us and to help to the best of my ability in the establishment of a co-operative commonwealth of organised socialism.
Until then I remain yours fraternally,
H. M. Hyndman.’
So it was a case of must try harder. In point two Hyndman reflects upon the inadequacy of the working class ideas. In point three he derides their political aptitude and in point four he offers his future services but only if the members of the SDF and the working class as a whole will show more determination.
The possibilists within the SDF responded to this cry of desperation by favouring more theoretical compromise. Their opponents who were not particularly bothered about the fluctuating enthusiasm of members of the highly educated well-to-do class like Hyndman responded by sticking more rigidly than ever to the logic of their principles.