Islington branch pamphlets - Rocks Ahead! (1906) & Another Political Wreck: Being the Sequel to Rocks Ahead! (1906) sound quite interesting.
* Rocks Ahead! Being the reply of the Islington Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to The Statement Presented by the Executive Committee to the Delegate Meeting on Saturday 25th July, 1906 Issued by The Islington Branch, S.P.G.B., 79 Grove Road, Upper Holloway, London, N August, 1906 Rocks Ahead! Reply of the Islington Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain to The Statement Presented by the Executive Committee to the Delegate Meeting on Saturday 25th July, 1906 Note – a sufficient number of copies of this Pamphlet will be sent to each Branch of the S.P.G.B. To supply every Member of the Party with a copy. Members unable to obtain copies from their branch secretary can have them direct, and without charge, from the islington branch S.P.G.B., 79 grove road, upper holloway, london, n. Applicants must mention the branches to which they respectively belong, also their registered numbers. A. E. Pettet & Co. Printers, 218, Seven Sisters Road, N. The Socialist Party of Great Britain. Object Declaration of Principles To the members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Comrades, The Executive Committee having considered it advisable to request the Delegate meeting to take action against the Islington branch, although no charges have been formulated against it, in view of the serious nature of the issues involved, the islington branch deems it its imperative duty to call the fullest attention of every member of the organisation to the dangerous position the party now occupies. In February 1906, the Bexley and District Branch passed a resolution to be placed on the conference agenda, couched in the following terms : – “that the executive committee be instructed to approach the S.L.P. With a view to the union of the two parties.” This the then executive committee ruled out of order, and refused to place on the conference agenda, and instructed the general secretary to reply to the bexley and district branch in light of the declaration of principles. In that letter it was pointed out that any proposals for arrangements, compromises, or fusion with any other party were contrary to the principles of the S.P.G.B. On the first day of the Conference, viz, 13th April, 1906, the delegates, on the initiative of the Romford Division representative, repudiated the action of the EC in declining to place the Bexley “ fusion “ motion on the agenda, and the conference decided to place the item thereon. The only member of the conference who voted against the proposal that, the bexley resolution should be placed on the agenda was delegate from islington. At the first meeting of the Islington branch after the conference, namely on April 23rd, the following resolution was carried and sent to the EC. Resolved “That the Islington branch unanimously and emphatically repudiates the action of the delegates at the Second Annual Conference in discussing a motion which contemplated fusion with another party, such a motion being a direct contradiction to the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. This Branch furthermore endorses the action of the late EC, in ruling the said motion out of order, and calls upon the EC to ignore the ultra vires' instructions of the conference to take a poll of the party on the conference findings of this motion, and moreover requests the EC to obtain from the bexley and district branch a formal withdrawal of the motion in question, if such action has not already taken” This resolution from Islington was received by the EC on April 24th, and is quoted in extenso in the EC report to Branches, dated 28th April. On the former date the EC passed, nem con, the subjoined resolution:-- (B)”Whereas the Party Principles specify a determination to wage war against all other political parties, and whereas a resolution to instruct your EC to negociate towards the fusion of this Party with another was accepted as in order, and discussed by the delegates at the Second Annual Conference, this EC, reaffirms the decision of its predecessor that such acceptance and discussion was contrary to the Party Principles, and calls for a Referendum vote on the question. Did the Conference in accepting as to order the Bexley Resolution exceeded its powers?” The result of the poll, which found that the conference had exceeded its powers, and which confirmed the attitude taken up by the islington branch, was declared at the EC meeting on May 15th. The report of that meeting did not reach the Islington branch until June 18th, on which date the Islington branch passed the following resolution; – (C)”In view of the fact that a referendum of the party has declared the Bexley resolution re fusion out of order, the Islington branch desires the EC to request the Bexley branch to forthwith rescind said resolution standing on their books” On June 26th the EC decided to send the following reply (D)”That Islington be informed that the result of the Party poll was communicated to Bexley in common with other branches and the EC does not consider it necessary to go any further with the matter.” This reply came as a surprise to the members of the Islington branch which as far back as April 23rd had asked the EC to obtain a withdrawal by Bexley of the “fusion” motion. When the EC called for a poll on a question which the EC should never have asked (namely, if a party is declared by its principles to be hostile to every other political party, can it at the same time discuss fusing with a party to which it is pledged to hostility), the Islington branch waited for the result of the poll, expecting that the EC would then face the issue, and request the Bexley branch either to cancel its resolution or to go outside the party. Islington was, however, disappointed to find that although the poll declared the conference out of order for merely discussing the bexley resolution, yet the EC did “not consider it necessary” to declare out of order the Bexley branch, which did more than discuss the question of fusion, for it carried a motion in favour of it. Rule 17 states that it is the duty of the EC to carry out the resolutions adopted by general vote. If the taking of a poll has any meaning at all, it signifies the laying down of a line of action for the party, members and officers. How in this case has the EC carried out the party's decision? By simply declaring the conference out of order, and declining to deal with the branch, which according to the rulings of two executive committees, and a party referendum, had violated the declaration of principles. We in Islington believe in the declaration, but we insist upon it that every branch and member must also believe in it. Either the bexley branch understood the declaration and did not believe in it, or it neither understood nor believed in it; in either case it had no right inside the party. No member is supposed to be enrolled who does not sign the declaration, and pledge himself to the entire agreement with it. Of course, it is quite possible that members may change their minds, but in that case we say that inasmuch as no person is admitted who does not fully agree with our principles, so no member who no longer fully agrees with these same principles should be retained. There is our position. From it we will not budge a hairs-breadth. Better far that the Islington branch should cease to exist; better also that the whole organisation should tumble to pieces, rather than hold together by embarking on the slippery gradient of compromise. Having these views in mind, and fully prepared to meet the consequences, the Islington branch, after allowing ten weeks to elapse since it first requested the EC to take steps to efface the blot placed by Bexley on the Party's Principles, and finding the EC, unwilling to do anything, sent the following communications to all branches. (E)”Dear comrade, I am instructed to forward you copy of the resolution unanimously passed yesterday by the Islington branch, as follows, “In view of the criminal neglect of the EC in refusing to enforce the result of the Party referendum re Bexley resolution on fusion, by not insisting on the removal of said resolution from the books of the Bexley and District branch, resolved that the Islington branch as a protest suspends all propaganda activity pending further developments.' “The Islington branch trusts that the members of the party will take such action as will teach all concerned that the Principles of the SPGB can neither be tampered with by a branch, nor ignored by the EC.” Yours fraternally, T. Bennett. Branch Secretary” Receipt of this communication was acknowledged by the following branches: Battersea, Peckham, West Ham. The resolution contained in above letter was also sent to the EC, which on 3rd July decided:-- (F)”That Islington branch be asked to point out wherein the EC, has been guilty of criminal neglect in carrying out their duties in any direction, and also to point out wherein the answer sent from the 10th EC meeting [June 26th] was in any way a refusal to carry out the Party's decision. Moreover it be pointed out to the Islington branch that a decision to suspend propaganda until their view is accepted is neither in accord with Party discipline, nor helpful to the cause of Socialism.” In the resolution just quoted the EC points out “to the Islington branch that a decision to suspend propaganda until their view is accepted,” is not “in accord with Party discipline.” While we admit that it was, and is in our view that the Bexley branch, and all supporting it, should be compelled to withdraw from their disorderly position, we claim that that view was not alone ours, but also that of the organisation, as per result of poll declared by the EC on May 15th. That view was ours, also that of the EC (see document B) until May 15th, when it was endorsed by the Party. Clearly, therefore, we cannot be accused of having endeavoured to unconsitutionally force “our” views on the organisation. What we have endeavoured to do is bring pressure to bear on the EC to carry into effect the mandate of the party. We suspended our propaganda because our speakers could no longer state with truth that the SPGB held an entirely sound position. Treachery and incompetence within the ranks had effected what all the onslaughts of our external foes had failed to accomplish, and we in Islington at any rate decline to deceive the working class, which we would be doing were we to ask them to support the organisation as long as it could be said that the SPGB did not adhere to its own Principles. Realising that the sending of resolutions, and the suspension of propaganda in Islington were not effective in demonstrating to the EC the gravity of the situation created by their neglect to deal with the Bexley branch, the Islington branch replied to the EC in the terms of the resolution quoted in the following communication sent through the Branch Secretaries to all Party members: (G)”10th July 1906 Dear Comrades, I am instructed to convey to you the following resolution carried at the Meeting of our branch yesterday : – In view of the continued refusal of the EC to request the Bexley branch to rescind their resolution re fusion, resolved that the Islington branch emphasises its charge of criminal neglect against the EC, and calls on the members of the Party to take immediate steps for the removal of the present Executive, and the election of a competent administrative body” “Please let us hear from you as to whether your Branch, or any of its members, would vote for the removal of the present EC in the event of Islington branch getting the support of five other branches so as to call for a referendum. “Would your branch sign a requisition for a poll” Yours fraternally, T. Bennett, Branch secretary Receipt of the foregoing was acknowledged by the Secretaries of the following Branches: Battersea, Tooting, Tottenham, Watford, Wood Green. At the EC meeting on 10th July it was agreed: – (H)That Islington be answered to the effect that, up to the present, they have failed to answer the questions propounded by the EC asking wherein the EC has been guilty of criminal neglect in the performance of any of their duties: moreover the threatened action conveyed in their (Islington's) first letter, was entirely unconstitutional, contrary in their (Islington's) first letter, was entirely unconsitutional, contrary to rule and precedent, that their present action is equally as unconsitutional as their previous one, and that no one Branch has the power to depose the EC. Therefore the EC will lay the whole matter before the next Quarterly Delegate Meeting, for their decision and Party vote. Be it noted that the EC's final reason for laying “the whole matter” before the Delegate meeting was that the Islington branch claimed that one branch had the power to depose the EC, a claim which they describe as “unconstitutional”. Inasmuch as the Islington branch never made that claim, but on the contrary asked the support of the other branches (see concluding sentence in document G) in order that the required number of Branches, as per Rule 26, might sign a requisition for a Poll, it will readily be seen that the charge of “unconstitutional” action brought by the EC against the Islington branch has no basis. That they had committed a blunder in at least this respect seems to have dawned on the members of the EC, for in the concluding summary of the amplified statement of alleged charges against us presented to the Delegate Meeting, there is no mention of our “unconstitutional” action in claiming that “one branch has the power to depose the EC.” This is only an instance of the reckless manner in which the members of the EC, in feverish haste to escape from the “fusion” dilemma, wherein their own incompetence had landed them, struck blindly at the Islington branch. An analysis of document H reveals a lack of that definiteness and precision which members might expect in a resolution essaying to set forth the reasons deemed of sufficient importance to form grounds for expelling a section of the party. The document states that “the threatened action,” and what is Islington's “first letter?” Islington's “first letter” re Bexley (document A) was received by the EC on April 24th, the second on June 26th (document C), the third on July 3rd (resolution contained in document E), and the fourth on July 10th. We surmise that when the EC refers to “Islington's first letter,” what is really meant is the third letter, although the “threatened action” alleged to be conveyed therein is a vain clue in endeavouring to locate the precise communcation which the EC may have had in mind. There was no threat contained in any communication from this branch. We did not “threaten” to suspend propaganda. We suspended propaganda. We did not “threaten” to remove the EC. We took the necessary steps to secure that end. There was no “threat” in either case. Apparently the EC does not see the difference between threatening to take action and taking action. We admit we have taken action, but we deny having threatened. The “present action” having referred to by the EC is doubtless the effort of this Branch to save the party by removing an incapable executive. That this action was equally as unconsitutional as our “previous one” (suspension of branch propaganda?) we readily admit. As neither action was unconsitutional, they are, of course, “equally” so. The constitution has been mentioned frequently, but we here assert that the principles have been flung to the winds, and the rules torn to tatters by this bungling executive. We here protest that Rule 19 has not been complied with by the EC. We protest that the safeguards adopted by the party and specified in Rule 19 have been ignored by the EC. The consequences will recoil on their heads, not on ours. The Executive Committee which complacently stated “it did not consider it necessary” to deal with a Branch (Bexley) which had passed a resolution which the Executive itself stated was contrary to the Declaration of Principles, was moved to immediate action against the Islington Branch, which neither the EC nor anybody else dares charge with contravention of Party principles. Why? Because the Islington branch had called on the Party Members to take steps to remove the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee was unmoved when the Party Principles were trampled on by the Bexley branch, but it was roused to action, and madly set the machinery of expulsion in motion against Islington. Why? Because Bexley merely violated the Declaration of Principle – an action which in the eyes of the EC was not worthy of even censure – but the the Islington branch perpetrated a great crime in charging the EC with neglect and incompetence. The principle of the party are no consequence, but the executive committee deems it an offence of the first magnitude to call its conduct into question. On Monday, 23rd July, the Islington Branch received the EC statement, which contained the reasons for which the Delegate Meeting on 28th July was to be asked to take action for the expulsion of the Islington branch. Only four clear days elapsed between the date of receipt of the EC Statement by the Islington branch, and the date for which the delegate meeting was summoned, and there was no reasonable time allowed us to prepare our reply and get it into the hands of branches prior to the delegate meeting. We will now deal with the EC statement, which omitting the resolutions already quoted in the pamphlet is as follows: – (I) Comrades, “probably you have received a resolution from the Islington Branch calling for the removal of the EC, and the election of a competent body to its place. You will also have seen by the EC Reports, dated June 26th and July 3rd, that the Islington branch has been asking for action to be taken with reference to Bexley Branch, and upon the EC's refusal to take such action, Islington suspended propaganda as a protest against what the branch terms 'the criminal neglect of the EC to enforce the result of the Party referendum.' When asked to substatiate this charge the Islington Branch not only refuses to give any answer to the question, but also reiterates its statement of “criminal neglect,” and asks for the removal of the EC. The EC has therefore decided to place the matter before the members for their consideration and vote thereon. The business arose out of a resolution re fusion with the SLP sent in by Bexley Branch for the agenda of the annual conference. The second EC refused to place it on the agenda, but at the conference the matter was brought up, and the delegates voted in favour of discussing the resolution. Where the third EC was considering the sending out to branches the result of the voting on the question, it was agreed that a referendum be taken as to whether the delegates were in order in discussing the resolution. On a vote the membership decided against the Delegates to the conference, and the result was sent to all the branches, in the usual way. (Here the resolutions contained in documents C, D, E, F, G, and H are quoted.) “Apart from the fact that the Party has already settled the matter by a referendum, and that in that referendum nothing is said about callling upon Bexley to rescind their resolution, the EC would point out that the effect of the Islington resolution would simply be that of asking the Bexley branch to falsify their records, as no matter what alterations were effected in their books, it would still remain a fact that they had passed and supported such as resolution; and if Bexley are to rescind a resolution entirely because it has been defeated, then all other branches should do the same. But the chief point is that while charging the EC with criminal neglect, the Islington branch refuses to answer a question as to wherein such neglect has taken place, while on the other hand, they take it upon themselves the stopping of all propaganda is their district, a power which Rule 17 places in the hands of the EC. This itself is an act of disorganisation and anarchy. While to make charges and refuse to prove them, by no means reflects credit on those guilty of such action. The EC therefore lays this statement before the branches so that they may instruct their delegates to the QDM, and the resolutions passed there be sent to the Branches to vote upon. On behalf of the EC. Yours fraternally WM Gifford, Gen Sec We will take first what the EC considers the “chief point” namely, that we made charges and refused to substantiate them or answer questions relating thereto. Documents E and G each contain both the charges and the proof. Both the resolutions in question were received and acknowledged by the EC. We charged the EC with criminal neglect; we emphasised the charge and supplied the proof as per texts of the resolutions in question. Was there neglect, and if so, was that neglect criminal? Obviously there was no use in a party poll declaring the Bexley resolution out of order as being contrary to the Party principles if the Bexley branch were to be allowed to retain the resolution out of order as being contrary to the Party principles if the bexley branch were to be allowed to retain the resolution uncancelled on its books. The EC never even asked the Bexley branch to put itself right by squaring its position with that of the Party principles. This was a glaring neglect on the part of the EC. When however, despite the efforts of the Islington branch which on two occasions (see documents A and C) reminded the EC concerning its duty as directed by Rule 19, the EC persists in ignoring the offence of the Bexley branch, then the neglect became culpable in the extreme and constituted a crime of omission. We of the SPGB have been in the habit of taking a particular pride in the fact that our principles were maintained at all costs, but the present EC have by their incompetence allowed the position of the Party to be betrayed, for known traitors are tolerated within the ranks. The EC claims that the Islington branch was guilty of an act of disorganisation in suspending propaganda in Islington. If this be so, why has not Edmonton branch been charged with a simliar offence? The Edmonton branch has not held a single propaganda meeting this year. Why has not Clerkenwell Branch been dealt with for not holding propaganda meetings? This branch has not held a propaganda meeting during the whole of its existence. What rule of the party stipulates that branches shall hold propaganda meetings at all? There is no rule dealing with this question. The EC claims that Rule 17 gives them, and them alone, the power to stop propaganda, but there is no mention of propaganda in the rule. In any case, granting the rights of the EC to institute, organise and control propaganda meetings, the islington branch has never interfered with the EC in the exercise of those rights. The EC can hold as many meetings as it likes, anywhere, and at any time, and the Islington branch will not try and stop them. All the Islington branch has decided to do is suspend its own voluntary activities. The functions of the branch, as prescribed by the rules, have in no way ceased. The EC cannot charge any speaker with an act of disorganisation should such speaker, as a few have already done, cease to act as a speaker. Whether a member shall continue to act as speaker is, other things being equal, entirely a matter for that member to decide. Why? Because propagandist activities are purely voluntary. What holds good in the case of the individual member holds good in the case of the Branch. A member is required by rule to pay dues, unless he can show satisfactory reasons to the contrary, but no member is required to speak at propaganda meetings. A member is not even required to even attend Branch business meetings. Branches are required to pay dues, but no branch is required to hold propaganda meetings. Edmonton and Clerkenwell know this very well. Islington knows it also. But the EC apparently does not. The EC states the suspension of Islington's voluntary activities as regards propaganda is an act of anarchy. Without disputing that the present EC may be considered an authority on the subject of Anarchism if not on Socialism, we would point out that an EC which takes a poll of the party to ascertain if the declaration of principles really means what it says, and then allows a branch to retain on its books a motion which two EC's and one party poll have declared in conflict with that declaration, is apparently out of place in a socialist organisation, islington was insisting that the bexley branch should be disciplined and the EC charge Islington with anarchy. We are sorry for the EC. In connection with this wild charge of anarchy, we would ask the members of the SPGB to bear in mind that the Islington propaganda was this year in no way assisted by the EC. We in Islington undertook the self-imposed task of organising five open-air meetings per week, and this we did without requiring any aid other than the voluntary efforts of our own members. If there is any meaning in the EC contention that when, in a final effort to rivet the attention of the party to the grave danger in which we deemed the party to be, the islington branch suspended its propaganda operations, then it follows that the islington branch was guilty of an act of anarchy when it initiated those activities. Why did not the EC charge us with anarchy when of our own accord, providing our own speaker for every meeting, and publishing our own advertising matter, we started propaganda in Islington this year? Obviously if it was an act of “anarchy” on the part of the Islington branch to “stop” propaganda, it was equally, an act of “anarchy” to commence it. If, then, we were anarchists in organising the Islington meetings, the EC should have been gratified to find that our anarchism had subsided with the cessation of our propaganda efforts. Instead of which they charge us with an act of anarchy when we ceased doing what, according to the EC, we had no right to do. Verily the ways of the EC are difficult of comprehension. We have no doubt, however, that every member of the party with an elementary knowledge of the significance of terms, will see that the EC has couched its random statements in very extravagant language. The EC alleges that the result of the party poll was “communicated to Bexley in common with other branches” (see document D), and again that it was “sent to all branches in the usual way” (see document I). This is an entire evasion of the issue. Bexley branch passes a resolution which is admitted by the EC to be “contrary to the Party principles” (see document B), and which a poll of the party declares to be outside the pale of even discussion. How does the EC deal with the Bexley branch? By sending a statement to bexley “in common with other branches” that they had violated the Declaration of Principles. Nothing more was considered necessary by the EC! So that branches may violate the Declaration of Principles as often as they like, the EC will take a poll to find out whether the violations have really taken place, and when assured by the poll that the principles have been broken, the EC will communicate the result to all branches in the usual way! The Branches found guilt of breach of Principles are to be treated in the “usual way” by being simply told “in common with other branches” that they have violated the party principles, and any branch which asks that the guilty branches be dealt with will be told that “the EC does not consider it necessary to go any further with the matter!” (see document D). We will now touch on the point raised by the EC that the effect of the Islington resolution asking the EC to request Bexley to rescind their resolution, “would simply be that of asking Bexley branch to falsify their records.” Is this seriously meant as an argument? If it is, then it is most remarkable that the EC has previously forced at least one Branch to falsify their records, if to use the EC's definition of the word, to rescind a motion is to falsify records. We quote the following from the EC report to branches, dated November 11, 1905:-- “Jackson moved, 'That the Tottenham branch be requested to rescind their resolution debarring him from speaking on their platform.' Neumann seconded. Carried by 6 votes to 2”. If the EC thought that the rescinding of the Bexley resolution would simply be the falsification of records, “as no matter what alterations were effected in their books, it would still remain a fact that they had passed and supported such a resolution,” why did not the previous EC rule similarly in the case of the Tottenham branch, “as no matter what the alterations were effected in their books, it would still remain a fact, etc” The EC's argument re falsifying records is simply a childish quibble. The EC knows very well the significance of rescindment of a resolution. Has the EC ever rescinded any of its own resolutions? It has on several occasions. We will quote their own communcations for proof: – “Deciding to rescind resolution accepting resignation of E.J.B. Allen [See EC report of Meeting held on January 9th, 1906] That Islington be informed that No 22 The Socialist Standard was delayed in issue owing to the fact that at an EC meeting held on the 29th alt, it was decided to rescind a resolution passed the previous meeting, to insert a three column instalment of report of Trade unionism discussion, thus leaving the paper at a late date without the necessary at a late date without the necessary matter being ready.” [Letter dated 30th June 1906, from General Secretary to the Islington branch.] A former executive rescinded its own resolutions, and “falsified” its books, and insisted on the Tottenham branch rescinding the resolution it passed on September 20th 1905, thereby “falsifying” the Tottenham branch books, the present EC rescinds its resolution to insert in the official organ of the Party certain literary matter previously proposed and accepted by resolution to insert in the official organ of the Party certain literary matter previously proposed and accepted by resolution of the EC for inclusion therein. Were the books of the EC thereby falsified? We would like to call attention to another point. The second sentence in the EC statement to the Delegate meeting commences by saying, “You will also have seen by the EC reports dated June 26th and July 3rd that the islington branch has been asking for action to be taken with reference to Bexley branch, but we would refer the members to the EC report dated 28th April (see document A), from which it will be observed that the Islington Branch had been asking for action to be taken since 23rd April that is two months farther back than the memory of the EC appears to extend. In the statement under consideration the EC further puts forward in justification of their refusal to accede to Islington's reiterated request “that if Bexley are to rescind a resolution merely because it has been defeated, then all other branches should do the same.” What are we to think of the calibre of the deliberative body which seriously advances this as a reason for their inaction to the matter under consideration? We should think that, at the present time, the merest tyro in deliberative work of any kind should recognise the distinction in procedure and effect, between a resolution having on the one hand been defeated, and on the other declared out of order. The EC has made desperate and unsuccessful efforts to explain certain inexplicable courses of action. Perhaps its collective wisdom would be equal to the task of giving a plausible explanation as to how a resolution – which in the most decisive and emphatic manner possible had been declared out of order, and so on which was therefore impossible to vote – could have possibly been defeated. The members of the party will readily recognise the ridiculous and untenable nature of the argument here put forward by the EC and must further realise that the mere fact of the EC finding it necessary to adopt such clumsy methods of burking the issue raised by this branch, shows the desperate straits to which that body is reduced, by the call to “halt” in the downward path which has now gone out to the movement from islington. Bearing on this phase of the question, we would impress on our Comrades that the paltry nature of the expedients resorted to by the EC must be regarded as constituting an exact measure of that body's appreciation of the intelligence of the members of the party. But while pettifogging stupidity, clumsy shuffling, and inartistic wobbling are relied on by the EC to defend their failure to enforce the Party rules, and keep inviolate the Party's declaration of Principles, we, on the contrary, have no hesitation in placing, clearly and unequivocally, our position on this matter before the party, and thereby appealing to the enlightened honesty and devotion to principles of our comrades in this movement, to stand by us in this our effort to rescue the party from the desperate plight to which incompetence has now reduced it. Throughout these pages we have closely kept to the issue between the EC and this branch. In doing so, we have studiously refrained from giving expression to any sentiment which can possibly be regarded as being either personal or offensive. For the credit of our Party and the dignity of the Socialist movement, we regret that a like courtesy has not been extended to some individuals in our branch by certain prominent members of the executive. Again so convinced are we of the absolute correctness of the position we originally took up, so assured are we now of its fundamental soundness, so impressed by the irrefutable logic with which it is defended, that we have not sought to strengthen it by reference in detail to later developments within the bexley branch, since that branch's infidelity to the declaration of principles had been condoned by the EC. However we can claim, in passing, that events have proved that the Islington branch had a clearer conception of the danger to the movement then imminent, than had the EC. As we have already seen (vide the EC report, June 26th) the EC did not then consider it necessary to go any further in that matter than to communicate “in the usual way” to the Bexley branch the mere detail that a poll of the party had declared that branch to have violated the declaration of principles on which this party was founded. By noting the drastic nature of the punishment here meted out to the Bexley branch, the members of this party can see therein that Branch's justification for all its subsequent actions. With that subsequent action we are not particularly concerned here and now, as we have no intention of following the bad example of the EC in confusing the issue by any more detailed reference thereto. We have dealt with the statement regarding Islington branch submitted to the EC to the DM of July 28th; we claim to have pulverised every argument, or substitute for argument, contained therein; we claim that if the English language has any definite meaning, the “chief point” in the alleged indictment was met when the original charge was made; and finally, we submit that sufficient evidence has been adduced by us to convict the EC of incompetence; of begging the whole question; of playing with the trust that has been reposed in them, and of grossly insulting the intelligence of the members of the Party to whom they appeal for support. When we first took our stand on this question, we were fully aware of the difficulties which confronted us. By our original resolution on the question we tested the EC's attitude towards the principles of the party. We are now not surprised at the inability or reluctance of the EC to face the question of principle involved, as consequences decidedly unpleasant to some well-known members of the Party may ensue. Bexley is not the only place within this party where treachery has been tolerated, and compromise has reared its head! As we could not succeed in getting the EC to take such action as the gravity of the situation then demanded such action as the gravity of the situation then demanded we now appeal to the membership of this Party to keep steadily before them the real issue involved in this struggle. We claim that said issue is that the Declaration of Principles on which the Party is founded, and all thereby involved , shall be rigidly adhered to in the case of every member, and every branch of the party, and that such adherence shall be invariably and impartially enforced by the administrative body of the organisation. Further, as no charge either of breach of rules, or disloyalty to principle has been, or could have been proved against this Branch, we claim that it is the EC and its conduct of the organisation that is now arraigned before the Party. We have shown that while we charged the EC with condoning open treachery within the ranks of the party, their defence has been a mere tissue of quibbling inconsistencies, ridiculous subterfuges, and transparent humbug, as would do credit to a broken-down police court lawyer, but which is a positive disgrace to a body claiming to be democratice, and abusing the title Socialist. Comrades, previous to the formation of this Party, we saw the disastrous plight to which the cause of Socialism was reduced in this country. We saw that in every country in the world cursed by the presence of the capitalist system of wealth production, there erect, and defiant, was springing up side by side with that system, a militant and determined Socialist Party, seeking by political action the political and industrial emancipation of the working class. Of all the great industrial nations of the world, Britain alone took no proper part in the marshalling of forces for the final struggle for the overthrow of the capitalist system, for which the organised proletariat of the world is now preparing. To anybody acquainted with the recent history of the working class movement in this country, a reason for this lamentable state of affairs is not far to seek. In every working-class organisation hitherto founded in this country, cowardice and compromise have been allowed to creep in; self advertising and quackery took the place of devotion to principle, and the spread of scientific education, with the inevitable consequence that organisations which should have been a tower of strength to the working-class have degenerated into a source of confusion, disorganisation and weakness. This process had been at work unchecked until the formation of this Party, under circumstances which are, no doubt fresh in the minds of many members. We have in the Party founded on the Declaration of Principles held by the SPGB, such a rallying point round which we may centre the political energies of the working-class, such a training ground where these energies may be directed and disciplined, such a field whereon can be marshalled the forces that make for the emancipation of our class, as has never previously been afforded in the history of this country. This Party having been constituted for the purpose of effecting the political and economic emancipation of the working-class, must of necessity exist as the political expression of the diametrically opposed interests of the working-class and master class, and in entering the political field as the champion of working-class interests must of necessity adopt an attitude of unvarying and uncompromising hostility to every other Party, either now in existence or in future to be formed. Any other basis of organisation and policy is impossible in the cause of a militant working-class political party, and in view of the interests involved, and the necessity of giving the working-class a straight policy directed along the lines of the social revolution by class-conscious political action, any departure in whatever degree from our basic principle of hostility, or any step which would open the way to such departure, must be fatal to the influence and prestige, the very life and continued existence of the Party. Whatever measure of success has attended our party, and we in Islington have reason to be satisfied with the result of our labours, has been due to clearness of the issue presented to the members of the working-class by the SPGB in contradistinction to the shuffling and confusion-mongering of the other parties claiming to be Socialist. The clearness of issue must inevitably disappear if the basic principle of uncompromising hostility which determines that clearness be swerved from in the least particular. This danger now confronts the party, and, if not met by prompt and efficient action, must inevitably lead to the disastrous results which have attended the lack of adherence to principle, of scientific organisation and direction – the taint of treachery, the curse of compromise, and the conscious or unconscious betrayal of the working-class position – by every political organisation of labour hitherto formed. Comrades of the Socialist Party of Great Britain! You who founded our fighting organisation, and you who since have mustered under its banner, all you who still possess unshakeable faith in those principles enunciated on June 12th, 1904! You who are still prepared to carry on the war against all other political parties without exception, neither asking you to granting quarter! The issue is now before you. It rests with you to decide whether through the machinations of a few disaffected members, coupled with the neglect of your central administration, the vessel which you launched two years ago is to terminate its journey on the rock of disaster; or whether, heeding the note of warning, you will resolutely set to work of cleansing the organisation from the elements of incipient rottenness recently imported into our Party by the tools of an unscrupulous and despicable faction. Signed on behalf of Islington branch, John Donovan (237) Thos. Bennett (312) A. Craig (252) E. J. Ford (327) Denham Ford (359) Geo. Philpott (225) Charles Thorp (330) George Bazin (351) Fred Thiele (80) Cornelius Lehane (171) H. W. Pearson (280) D. Rogers (349) A. Coobes (275) P. J. Harkin (350) G. Marshall (285) W. Wicks (284) A. Bull (120) R. Triggs (98) A. Pilbeam (177) F. Satoe (293) George Harris (313) W. Tokins (225) J. O'Connor (370) G. G. Sutton (249) G. E. Pettet (338) H. Wilson Adopted unanimously by the Islington branch, SPGB, at its regular meeting on Monday 30th July, 1906
* [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Another Political Wreck Being the Sequel to “Rocks Ahead!”[/FONT] To the Working Class [FONT=Arial, sans-serif]Table of Contents[/FONT] The Issue 1 The Delegate Meeting 2 Machine-made resolutions 3 Distinction without difference 4 EC members considerations 4 West Ham's bridge of gold 4 Jury Packing 5 The Meaning of Rule 19 5 Delegate Meeting's Logic 6 The Unit of Organisation 6 Five Breaches of Rules 6 Political Assassination Decreed 7 The “Faked” Poll 8 Pistol Presented 8 Islington prepares for action 9 West Ham Again 10 Embodiment of Political Filth 11 Bogus Branch Formed 12 Clerkenwell to the Front 12 From Edinburgh to Edmonton 12 A Pilgrim from Peckham 13 Peckham's Records “Falisfied” 13 Plight of the SPGB 13 The Tradition of Compromise 14 The Issue It will be within the recollection the membership of The Socialist Party of Great Britain that as long ago as April, 1906, the Islington Branch demanded action to be taken by the E.C. in the case of the Bexley Branch of that organisation, which had carried a resolution in favour of fusion with another political party. This resolution the Islington branch rightly construed as a violation of the 'Declaration of Principles,' and called on the EC to take such action as would cause the Bexley branch to fall into line with the principles and policy of the party. After waiting for two months, whilst the EC shuffled and quibbled over this matter of basic importance, it was borne in upon the Islington branch that the EC was either unable or unwilling to take such action as would enforce the unwavering acceptance of the Party's 'Declaration of Principles', by every branch and every member of that Party, and was consequently guilty of criminal neglect in the discharge of the functions for which it was created. It was not until this was perfectly clear to members of the Islington branch that the latter – as the only effective form of protest left – resolved to suspend propaganda meetings in its district until such time as the organisation had cleared itself of any suspicion of treachery or compromise, and had again become one beneath whose banner they were fully justified in asking the working class to muster. Instead of facing the issue raised by the Islington branch, the members of the EC, to divert attention from its own dereliction of duty, and to effectually silence the opposition of the Islington branch to the policy of muddle and drift, proceeding to rig out a Delegate Meeting which could be depended on to expel the disturbers of the official peace without any observance of the safeguards embodied in the Rules and Constitution of the party. The Delegate Meeting That our suspicions regarding the impartiality of the Delegate meeting were more than justified was apparent to the members of the Islington branch when the report of our delegate to that meeting was received by the branch. This report read as follows;-- “13 Dunloe Avenue, S. Tottenham, N July 30, 1906 To the members of the Islington branch S. P. G. B. Comrades, Having been furnished with credentials by your branch. I attended the Delegate meeting of the S. P. G. B. on Saturday 28th July, 1906. There was a small attendance of Delegates, about twelve altogether. I was elected provisional Chairman and afterwards Chairman, although the Edmonton candidates nominated a candidate against me. The business of the meeting was to receive and discuss the Report of the Executive committee. This report containing erroneous information, as admitted by the General Secretar,y, it was moved and seconded that the EC Minute Book be accepted by the Delegate meeting in place of the EC Report as far as the particular matter under discussion was concerned. I ruled this motion out of order on the grounds that the Delegates could only discuss the EC report as submitted previously to the branches as per Rule governing Delegate meetings. For giving this ruling, the Edmonton delegates moved that I leave the Chair, and the motion was carried. Kiltick of Peckham, was then elected to Chair, and the motion was carried, Kiltick of Peckham, was then elected Chairman. “The main business arising out of the EC report was the respective positions of the Bexley and Islington branches, the matter having been referred to the EC to the DM, under Rule 19. With regard to the Bexley branch, which was charged with violating the Declaration of Principles by selling the official organ of another political party, I asked why the Bexley branch was not charged with contravention of Party Principles by passing a fusion motion which had been specifically declared out of order by a Poll of the Party. To this question I got no definite reply. The Edmonton delegate then drew from his pocket a paper whereon was written a resolution calling for a poll of the Party on two questions: (a) shall the Bexley branch be dissolved? This resolution was seconded and carried. “On asking the General Secretary to allow me to inspect the above resolution, I discovered that it was written by A. Anderson, and that the signatures [A. W. Pearson and S. Arty] attached thereto were in handwriting of the same individual. “The meeting then proceeded with the EC case against the Islington branch, and the Edmonton delegate moved that the same motion which had been carried about anent Bexley be applied to the Islington branch. This motion be subsequently withdrew in favour of a proposition moved by the Wood Green delegate, as follows; – “That this Delegate meeting condemns the recent action of the Islington branch in connection with the Bexley branch dispute, and also considers their conduct in violating Party discipline by stopping their propaganda, if condoned, will prove detrimental to the SPGB. Therefore the delegates here assembled feel it is their painful duty to herewith resolve that the Party should expel the members of the Islington branch who support their present attitude; and that this resolution be submitted to the Branches, as per Rule.' “This was carried by 11 to 1. “I may mention that the West Ham delegate (G. C. H. Carter) tried to get a motion carried to the effect that, as instructed by his branch, the Islington dispute be considered settled, provided the Islington branch would pay for copies of 'the Socialist standard' which it ought to have taken from Head Office, and pay to the EC 25 per cent of the collection it would have taken at open air meetings had such been held since the date on which the Islington branch had decided to suspend its propaganda. Carter explained that the West Ham branch was desirous of building a bridge of gold over which the Islington branch could pass from its anarchistic position. This proposition was laughed out of court by the delegates. “At this point I asked the General Secretary to state the charge against the Islington branch, and to mention the date on which the charge was submitted to that Branch, in accordance with Rule 19, “the General Secretary (W. Gifford) replied that it was true there was no charge against the Islington branch. But before he had time to proceed further J. Fitzgerald (a non-delegate, being member of the EC) promptly got on his feet and contradicted the General Secretary by informing the DM that there were two charges against the Islington branch – namely (1) Charging the EC with criminal neglect and refusing to substantiate same; and (2)Anarchy “Among the branches whose delegates stated that they had instructions to move or support the expulsion of the Islington branch were Edmonton, Tooting and Tottenham. “During the course of the discussion the point was raised that the EC had no power to request a Branch to rescind a resolution, as it would be a falsification of Branch books. I asked why it was that the previous EC had insisted upon the Tottenham Branch rescinding a resolution re T A Jackson, whereupon A. Anderson (a non-delegate, being member of the EC) rose and glibly denied that the EC had ever called on the Tottenham branch to rescind any resolution. He explained to the meeting that what had occurred in the Jackson affair was that the EC passed a comprehensive resolution which satisfied all parties, and the matter was allowed to drop. “I pointed out then that the matter was allowed to drop only when the Tottenham branch had actually rescinded the resolution in question, in accordance with the request of the EC, and I point out now that A. Anderson was lying to the DM when he made the above explanation. I say this for two reasons: (1)A. Anderson was present and voted at the EC meeting, when it was decided to make that request to Tottenham; (2)A. Anderson himself framed the reply of the Tottenham branch to the aforesaid request. In fact, I may here mention that the entire correspondence emanating from Tottenham branch in its dispute with the EC in the Jackson affair was drafted by A. Anderson, a member of the EC. Most of the then members of the Tottenham branch (I could name at least a dozen) heard him claim at a meeting of that branch that he was 'the man who did the dirty work of the branch' in connection with the Jackson case. “Generally speaking, the alleged charge or charges against Islington were supported by arguments of the wildest and most childish deception. As an instance I may quote the following allegation made by AW Pearson, the Edmonton delegate. This individual proceeded to show that the Islington branch had been acting in such a manner as to block the work of the party in North London, and he clinched the argument by informing the Delegate meeting that some members of the Islington branch had absented themselves from a tea party in Dovecote Hall, Wood Green. Men like that had better be outside the organisation altogether. Yours fraternally, Signed Leslie Boyne Machine-made resolutions As showing the constitution and temper of the meeting, we would direct special attention to that paragraph in the report wherein our delegate states that at least one resolution proposed thereat was, even in the matter of the signatures of the proposer and seconder, written in the handwriting of A. Anderson, a non-delegate and member of the EC. The fact of machine-made resolutions, emanating from members of the EC, which body's conduct of the organisation as set forth in its quarterly report was under review, would effectually serve to vitiate the entire proceedings of the delegate meeting. Distinction without difference It will be noticed, while the Bexley branc was ordered to be dissolved on the grounds of its having sold the official organ of another political party, the entire statesmanship of the assembled delegates was unable to give a “definite reply” to our delegate's question as to why that branch was not charged with a contravention of the 'Declaration of Principles' when it passed a motion for fusion with another party. It requires a degree of prescience, which was exhibited at its best at that delegate meeting of the SPGB, to fully appreciate the all-important difference between a branch having, on the one hand, passed a motion for fusion with another political party, and, on the other, having carried that motion to its logical conclusion by publicly supporting the party, with which it desired to fuse. To the ordinary individual, who may have a fair working regard for principle, the distinction would seem to be one without a difference. Yet our brilliant EC regarded the former offence as merely calling for a communcation in the usual way to the offending branch, that its action was regarded by the party as a violation of the 'declaration of principles' while the equally brilliant delegate meeting regarded the inevitable result of that offence as meriting expulsion from the party. It was, we presume, so that no element of farce may be wanting, that the Delegates decided at the same time to expel those members of the party who first directed attention to the dangerous position which the organisation occupied as a result of carrying the bexley motion. EC members considerations During discussions on the resolution re Islington branch the general secretary of the party distinctly admitted that there was no charge preferred by the EC against the islington branch. Before any further damaging admissions of this nature could be made, J. Fitzgerald of the EC interrupted the speaker, and presumably on behalf of the EC, proceeded to specify the charges which he alleged to have been made by that body. These charges were Anarchy, andAccusing the EC of criminal neglect and incompetence. The former offence could probably be condoned: but the latter is the only thing within the bounds of human imagination which could induce our militant executive to put up a fight. It is not necessary for us to notice here the bitterness and personalities introduced by J. Fitzgerald in his speech preferring these charges. The charges themselves are exhaustively dealt with and completely refuted in “Rocks Ahead” pages 11-13. West Ham's bridge of gold In order to completely demonstrate the incapacity of this meeting to adjudicate on a matter of principle, it is only necessary to refer to the proposal of the West Ham delegate that the Islington branch's alleged anarchy and breach of discipline should be condoned for cash consideration. Yet the proposal was seriously made, and introduced a welcome element of comic relief into the sordid exhibition of personal bitterness and manufactured opinion, supported by lying and misrepresentation. However, there may be more method in the madness of the proposal of the West Ham Delegate than appears on the surface. The West Ham Branch is, in a special manner, concerned in the sale of the party organ: and during, the quarter with which the report before the meeting dealt, the sales of literature by the Islington branch exceeded the combined sales of any two other branches of the party. Hence the proposal of the “bridge of gold” by which the efficiency and ability which characterised Islington's propaganda could be again exploited to make up for inefficiency and neglect elsewhere. Jury Packing It will be remembered that at this time no statement of its position had been made to the party by the islington branch. It was evident however, that the members of the EC had devoted more energy to the misrepresentation of that position to the branches than they ever did to the effective working of the organisation, which they were supposed to administer. Proof of this is supplied in the fact that Delegates of certain branches – among which were Edmonton, Tooting and Tottenham – stated at the meeting that they had instructions to move or support the expulsion of the Islington branch. The connection of certain members of the EC with the Branches indicating would explain the very judicial attitude of those delegates who attended the meeting with instructions to expel the members of the Islington branch, without having heard one word of what the latter could urge in justification of their attitude. Reference to Rule 19 will at once show that delegates acting in this manner had not a correct appreciation of the functions of the delegate meeting, as prescribed by the rules of the party. Both the EC and the delegate meeting acted on this occasion in direct contravention of the spirit and letter of this rule. Rule 19 reads “Should the action of any Branch or member be deemed by the EC to be an infringement of the principles, policy, or Rules of the party, the executive committee shall at once refer full particulars of the matter to branches, at the same communicating the charges in writing to the branch or member concerned, and enclosing copy of this rule. The branches shall instruct their delegates to the next delegate meeting or conference to hear the case of the executive committee, and of the branch or member concerned and report. Branches shall then take a poll of their members and decide whether the alleged infringement merits expulsion from the party or otherwise, and the result of the poll shall be final. The Meaning of Rule 19 This rule, in the first place, distinctly lays it down that If the conduct of a branch is in question, the charges shall be communicated in writing to it;if individual members are concerned, each such member shall have a written statement of the charges supplied to him; anda copy of Rule 19 shall be enclosed in all cases brought up under that rule. Any proceedings therefore undertaken by the EC in which these provisions are not complied with are null and void and any “expulsions” carried out in violation of the prescribed regulations and procedure are simply judicial murders, examples of which are, unfortunately none too rare in the history of the Socialist movement. Now, be it known, that the Islington branch was never charged in accordance with Rule 19 -- the EC did not enclose copy of that rule with any charges, nor did it intimate in any way that the proceedings were instituted under that rulenot one member of the islington branch at any time received any written charges from the ECin neither the case of the branch nor of any individual member was copy of rule 19 enclosed with charges Rule 19 in the second place, instructs the delegates to HEAR THE CASE. This implies that they are to come with an open mind. How are they to HEAR THE CASE if they attend the court with the verdict already decided upon? What kind of jurymen are they that go to a trial with the verdict, IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE PROSECUTING PARTY, stowed in their pockets ready for use? In “ROCKS AHEAD!” page 9, we pointed out that Rule 19 had not been complied with by the EC but our protest was disregarded. The consequences are recoiling on their heads not ours. Delegate Meeting's Logic The delegates had before them a statement from the EC purporting to contain charges against the Islington BRANCH. No such pretence had been made that charges had been submitted to any Islington MEMBERS whatsoever. Instead of taking one of only three course open to any ordinary assembly of reasonable persons ina simliar situation – viz., that of throwing out the charges against the branch on the grounds of irregularity:finding the branch guilty and dealing with it; orfinding the branch not guilty – the delegate meeting ignored the islington branch and the alleged charges against it; and altogether exceeded its functions by presenting the EC with a blank cheque to be filled in at any time with the name of a member whom it had or may become convenient to the EC to expel. The Unit of Organisation Rule 7 states that the branch shall be the unit of organisation. The responsible unit has thus been disregarded in the same way as the rules and provisions of the constitution. In “ROCKS AHEAD!” page 12, when we stated that we should not dispute the fact of the present EC being an authority on anarchism, if not on Socialism, we knew that, if given sufficient opportunity, the EC would justify our words. We see that in this struggle from its inception every rule and safeguard of the Party have been ignored by the EC; the ordered development provided for in these rules has never been observed, and finally, the anarchist attitude is unequivocally exhibited in the attempted overthrow of the branch as the unit of the organisation. On reading the report of our delegate, and having become aware of the methods by which at the Delegate meeting a majority was whipped up to vote the expulsion of the Islington members, we had, we submit, sufficient justification for assuming that similar methods would be employed to confirm at the poll the victory for unscrupulous trickery which was gained at the delegate meeting. But even if this were not so, the violations of the rules and constitution of the party, already enumerated, both by the EC and Delegate meeting, rendered it impossible for the Islington branch to recognise the validity of the poll then instituted or to take part therein. Consequently, at the branch meeting held on August 13 the resolution contained in the following communcation and expressing this attitude was ordered to be sent to the general secretary: – Five Breaches of Rules To all Branch Secretaries SPGB (Islington branch) 79 Grove Road, upper holloway N 28th August 1906 “Dear Comrade, I am instructed to send to your branch the following copy of letter forwarded to the general secretary of the party: – COPY OF LETTER, 14th August 1906 Dear Comrade, I am directed by the Islington branch to acknowledge receipt of resolution re Islington passed at that Delegate meeting on 28th July. I am instructed to state that the Islington branch protests against the action of the Delegate meeting regarding the charges brought against that branch, on the grounds that the resolution passed in that connection is altogether unconstitutional. The EC essayed to make charges against the Islington branch and the delegate meeting, instead of dealing with these charges, proceeded to set the machinery of expulsion in motion against certain UNNAMED MEMBERS of said branch. I am further directed to point out that rule 19 expressly instructs the delegates to the DM to report to their branches, and should a poll be instituted, it is provided that the poll shall be taken without the intervention of the EC. The Delegate meeting had, therefore, no power to instruct the EC to this matter. Moreover I am to inform the EC, that Rule 19 does not empower that body to take any further action in conjunction with a member or branch, once the EC, has referred the matter to the branches prior to the delegate meeting or conference. Furthermore, I have to state that Rule 19 expressly stipulates that charges against any member shall be submitted in writing to the branch and a copy supplied to the members accused. We hold that the delegate meeting exceeded its powers in bringing charges against members without naming them. To pass a resolution calling for the expulsion of some unnamed members is placing arbitrary power in the hands of an unconstitutional tribunal, a process contrary to the spirit and the letter of the rules of the party. Finally I am directed to state that the EC is not empowered by any rule of the party to fix the date for the closing of a poll instituted by the delegate meeting, said power resting alone with that meeting. For these (among other) reasons the Islington branch repudiates the poll re Islington now being taken, and declines to record any votes in connection therewith. Yours fraternally (signed) C. Thorp, Branch Secretary (pro. tem. 3) Note In the 6th paragraph of the letter quoted in the above communication. Rule 19 is inadvertantly mentioned in place of rule 5. Such Rules however, are very explicit in stating that charges must be submitted in writing to the member or members accused. “We send you the above letter showing the illegality of the whole proceeding. We are not, however, so much concered as to what may happen to Islington Branch or its members as we are that the efforts of the EC to raise a new issue (expelling Islington) should be frustrated. Remember it is not the Islington branch, which is on trial. It is the conduct of the EC that is in question. Yours fraternally, T. Bennett, Branch secretary” Political Assassination Decreed In order to completely justify the repudiation of the poll contained in this document, it is only necessary to realise the unconstitutional nature of the whole proceedings and the farcical conduct of the entire affair at the Delegate Meeting. First, we had the General Secretary's admission that the Islington branch was not charged with anything in particular. That was perfectly correct. No charge of any kind had been received by the branch in the manner prescribed by the rules. Next we had Fitzgerald's official, or semi-official, assertion that there were charges preferred – which charges he proceeded to specify. The Delegates had thus before them two totally contradictory views expressed by the EC on this question; and, to show their logical appreciation of the case, they totally disregarded the alleged charges against the Branch, or the implied lack of charges, and introduced an altogether new element in voting the expulsion of certain unnamed members of the Branch. This action, we claim, opens a question of the most momentous importance. If the right be granted to any Executive to expel any members of an organisation, without naming or charging such members, then the way is open immediately to political assassination, and the efficient working of a democratic organisation becomes impossible. If for no other reason than to place on record our sense of the vital importance of the due observance of the constitutional procedure of the organisation, we in Islington would feel justified in repudiating the poll, and in consequently refusing to abide by its findings. The “Faked” Poll When we come to consider the actual poll – the conclusive nature of which has been made so much of by the EC – we find that the methods by which the poll was instituted are faithfully reproduced in the procedure by which that conclusive result was obtained. Thus we find that the Tottenham branch – which sent in nearly half the entire number of votes recorded – voted twice on this question – i.e., took a poll on each of the two seperate occasions, and added the results together. This action was a direct infringement of the regulation governing the taking of a vote. The method to be employed has been specified by a poll of Party during the term of office of the first EC; thereby it was decreed that those members only should vote who were actually present at the branch meeting where the subject was discussed and decided upon. Of course, having regard to the influences that dominate the Tottenham branch, it would be too much to expect that any expedient, however shady, should be left untried to ensure that Tottenham voted straight, voted early, and voted often, at the bidding of the individual who previously claimed to have “done the dirty work of the branch” In another matter. It may be probable that similar favours were expected by the branch from the same source in the future. A sense of gratitude together with its corollary – the lively anticipation of favours to come – seems to be studiously cultivated by the members of the Tottenham branch. It would, we presume, be regarded as “irrelevant and impertinent” if we were to enquire how many votes, emanting from the big battallions on this occasion, were cast by men who, according to the Rules of the organisation, had a right to vote at all. The return for the quarter ending June, 1906, issued by the Head Office, throws an instructive light on the qualifications of those Branches whose members built up the conclusive vote. Thus we see that Islington paid dues on thirty-six members, and is credited with twenty-eight votes, whereas Tottenham paid dues on thirteen members and can contribute forty votes to any “decisive result” demanded by the EC. Comment is needless. Pistol Presented Acting on the unconstitutional demand for a poll, and relying on a majority secured by the methods to which we have referred, the EC, on September 8th, sent an unauthenticated communication to the individual members of the Islington branch, which, after quoting the resolution passed at the Delegate Meeting (see Document a) and the statement of the EC (see Document I, page 10 of “Rocks Ahead!”), winds up with the following paragraph:-- (c) “I am directed by the EC to request you to state whether or not you continute to support the attitude taken up by the Islington Branch, of which, I believe, you are a member. If you cannot see your way clear to dissent from the attitude taken up by Islington, the EC will have no other course open to it but to expel you, in accordance with the voice of the party, which as you will see by the result of the voting on the question, was very decided. It is regrettable that this state of affairs should have arisen, especially after the vigorous and persistent propaganda that has been carried on in Islington by the Party, but nevertheless it is absolutely necessary in the interest of the Party discipline, which must be maintained if we are going to be an effective organisation. This must be answered before September 17th. Send answer to Head Office, 28, Cursitor Street, EC.” We may mention in passing that we were so well accustomed to the business methods prevailing at Head Office that we were not in the least surprised that such an important document should not be authenticated by the signature of the General Secretary, from whom it purported to emanate. No doubt, in sending out this communication the EC had clearly realised the relative values of discretion and valour in this matter. The Islington Branch had up to this given an exhibition of solidarity and discipline on this question that was not lost on the EC, and which will not, we hope, be lost on the Socialist movement of the future. Hence the charges of anarchy and worse so recklessly preferred against the BRANCH were quietly dropped, and the less heroic but seemingly easier and safer course adopted of taking each individual member in detail, and presenting the pistol of expulsion to his head in order to induce him to desert the fight, which was raised by his comrades for uncompromising Socialism, efficient administration, and political decency. The EC soon discovered, if it did not already know, that with that fight the members of the Islington branch were then, as they are now, proud to be associated. Islington prepares for action At a meeting of the Islington branch following the issue by the EC of the foregoing document the following communication was instructed to be sent to the Branches: (d) SPGB Islington branch 79 Grove Road, N 10th September 1906 To the Secretary, Branch SPGB Dear Comrade, I am instructed to forward to your branch the following copy of resolution sent by this branch to the EC:-- “WHEREAS at its meeting on September 10th 1906, several members of the Islington branch have produced threatening letters purporting to come from, although not signed by, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the Islington branch reiterates its repudiation of the entire proceedings instituted by the EC; from their inception down to the present time, and furthermore CHALLENGES to the EC to utilise its BOGUS POLL and FAKED MAJORITY by proceeding with the “expulsion” of any member whatsoever of this Branch. The Islington Branch, moreover, having allowed adequate time to elapse since the issue of its statement entitled “Rocks Ahead,” is determined that if within 14 days from this date steps have not been taken by the Party members to remove the present incompetent Executive, it will forthwith effectively terminate the farce now being conducted by the EC. The Islington branch desires an acknowledgement of this communication, together with a statement as to what action, if any, the members of your branch propose to take for the removal of the present incompetent executive and the cleansing of the party in accordance with the position laid down by the islington branch [as clearly defined in the Declaration of Principles of the party, in its admonitory pamphlet, 'Rocks Ahead,' Yours fraternally, T. Bennett, Branch Secretary” As the communication containing the threat of expulsion was received with a dignified silence by the Islington members which must have now become exasperating, the EC proceeded to fill in the blank cheque by expelling twenty-three out of twenty-six signatories to “ROCKS AHEAD!” The notice of the expulsion was contained in the following circular : – “28 Cursitor Street, EC 22nd September, 1906 As no reply has been received from you to the circular sent from above address, dated September 8th, you were, at the EC meeting, held September 18th, declared expelled the SPGB, in accordance with the vote of the party. WM Gifford, Gen Sec, SPGB” West Ham Again The Branches of the Party exchanged several resolutions on the question at issue between Islington and the EC, but amongst them the West Ham branch enjoys the distinction of being the only one which introduced the names of individuals into the matter. When challenged by Islington to produce evidence, the West Ham Secretary informed us that they were too busy just then, but that they would consider Islington's request early in October. Nothing further has been heard from them. As indicative of the methods of the West Ham branch, and incidentally as showing that the repute of the hero of the Edmonton horse-trough had extended to West Ham, the following document may be of interest: – 107 Ham Park Road, Stratford 4th January, 1906 “Dear Lehane, I was instructed by the West Ham Branch SPGB to ask if you would allow yourself to be nominated as General Secretary, of course on the understanding that you could use a nom-de-guerre should you not care to put your own name forward, for business reasons. I did not have your address, so failed to carry out the wishes of the Branch, but I have made sure of it now, especially on account of having heard that Anderson has been nominated. This makes it an important question, and I urge upon you the necessity, in the interests of the Party of allowing yourself to be nominated as General Secretary, whether active or passive does not matter. We have no personal objection to Anderson, but in the interests of Socialism we do not think it advisable that his name should be put prominently forward. Kent, I am sure, would be willing to do a large part of the work, as you heard yourself at that meeting when I resigned, but he is unable to have his name used in the manner which might lead his employers to suppose he was using too much energy on Socialism. Let me hear from you at your earliest convenience, and allow me to hope for an affirmative answer, so that I may have the pleasure of laying it before the branch next Monday. Our eyes are upon you – as the doggered hymn says, 'All our hopes are built on thee' Yours fraternally (signed) GCH Carter Secretary West Ham branch, SPGB” Peckham Falls into Line The subjoined document explains how the Islington Branch, having been visted by three members of the Peckham branch, who pledged themselves unreservedly to our position, dealt with the unconstitutional EC “SPGB, (Islington branch) 79 Grove Road, London, N 24th September, 1906 To all Branch secretaries, Dear Comrade, At the regular meeting of the Islington branch, held tonight the following resolution was carried: – WHEREAS, contrary to every Rule of the Party dealing with the question of the discipline of Branches and members, the Executive Committee has decided to send notices of 'expulsion' to several members of the Islington branch, and WHEREAS, three members of the Peckham Branch – namely Benford, Morrill, and Wren – have this night visited the Islington branch and informed its members that they, in conjunction with other members of the party, had been, and still were, taking steps for the removal of the present incompetent EC, in accordance with the position laid down in “Rocks Ahead” (with which position the aforesaid Peckham members expressed their entire agreement), and in compliance with the terms of the resolution passed by the Islington branch on the 10th inst. RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that the Islington branch refuses to any longer recognise the present Executive committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and defers further action for the period of one calendar month from this date, after which, provided the present EC has not been removed, the Islington Branch will call on the members of the working class to pass judgement on the issue Yours fraternally, T. Bennett, Branch Secretary.” Embodiment of Political Filth It was, we presume, in order that no irregularity, or inconsistency which could possibly be indulged in should be left untried by the EC, that the latter refrained from using its decisive vote to expel all members of the Islington branch who supported the recent attitude, as well as those members of other branches who have indicated their approval of that attitude. Thus, amongst others, Comrade Innes, of the Tottenham branch, who had in that Branch an opportunity of seeing some of the methods by which the decisive vote was obtained, challenged by the EC to carry the farce to its logical conclusion by expelling him. The challenge was couched in the following rather uncomplimentary terms : – (b) “27 Hartham Road, tottenham, London, N. 24th September, 1906 Sir, Having been informed of the 'expulsion' of several members of the Islington branch, in direct contravention of the Rules of this Party, and, further, as no answer has been forthcoming to 'Rocks Ahead' or the position taken up by the Islington branch which I endorse in its entirety, I hereby repudiate the action taken by the EC in 'expelling' said members, and challenge the executive to continue the farce by proceeding with any 'expulsion'. In the event of the EC not seeing its way clear to logically conclude its proceedings in this matter by 'expelling' every member of the organisation who supports the position of the Islington branch, please note I do not consider myself any longer a member of an organisation such as the SPGB, in which the embodiment of political filth has now full sway. W. Innes” “W. Gifford, Gen. Sec., SPGB” The EC was unable to take up Comrade Innes' challenge, although he expressly states he is in the same position as the “expelled” members! Bogus Branch Formed Having all the time carefully refrained from coming to close quarters with the Islington Branch, as a branch, the culminating point in this exhibition of statesmanship and diplomacy was reached when Fitzgerald, Neumann, and Anderson were appointed by the EC to reply to “ROCKS AHEAD!” (a sub-committee previously appointed to do the job being only able to report progress), and to reorganise the Islington branch. It will be remembered that the EC never attempted to dissolve the existing branch; but as has been pointed out, served a bogus expulsion notice on certain individual members. On the question of the organisation of a new branch in Islington – even if we accept as legal the expulsion of the members affected – there yet remained five of the original members, whose standing in the Branch was unquestioned. This number constitutes five times the entire muster-roll of the Clerkenwell Branch! We do not hear of any re-organising schemes being launched in Clerkenwell. Clerkenwell to the Front Is it possible that the organising abilities of J. Fitzgerald could not find profitable employment in this district, where, after two years of persistent effort, he has succeeded in building up a Branch of the Party having the unique distinction of consisting of himself alone? After having organised the home district with such thoroughness and efficiency, it is not to be wondered at that J. Fitzgerald should sigh for new worlds to conquer, and transfer those abilities (which have made the Clerkenwell Branch what it is) to the benighted neighbourhood of Finsbury Park! In the latter district there had previously built up a branch of the party differing in every essential from that existing in Clerkenwell. This was altogether the results of the efficiency of the Islington members' work and their strenuous propaganda of uncompromising Socialism. From Edinburgh to Edmonton Regarding A. Anderson's work in connection with the proposed re-organisation of the Islington branch, it is only necessary to refer to his well-known and deeply rooted aversion to the holding of propaganda meetings in the district from which his branch (Edmonton) takes its name. This reluctance is no doubt justified by the high appreciation of his character and attainments, which is universally entertained in the district referred to. The bottom of Edmonton horse-trough would constitute an undignified and uncomfortable rostrum from which to defend the ethics of the Andersonian system or to engage in the congenial task of villifying the members of the Islington branch. It is regrettable that A. Anderson did not avail himself of the opportunity of retrieving in the SPGB, the character which he lost in the ranks of the SDF. The members of the SPGB, were prepared to py but little attention to the charges of embezzlement of Branch funds preferred against him by those who knew him in Edinburgh. The London comrades thought that A. Anderson's past evil record would have been compensated by a period of clean service in the SPGB, but instead of mending, he has conclusively proven his utter unfitness for any movement wherein political decency is a desideratum. If in the SDF, he earned a reputation as a financial swindler, in the SPGB he has established a record as a liar and political cheat. The socialist movement of the future will have to spurn such dregs. The man whose name stinks in Edinburgh, and whom the working-class of Edmonton threatened to immerse in the horse trough should dare to obstrude his presence on any platform in their locality, will do well to give the working class movement a wide berth for the future. A Pilgrim from Peckham Regarding the other luminary deputed by the EC to assist in leading the forlorn hope on Islington's entrenchments, it is probable that in the immediate future H. Neumann will have his hands full in endeavouring to stamp out the disaffection which has made itself evident in his own branch at Peckham. The latter branch has officially associated itself with the position taken up by Islington branch, and has followed Islington's now historic precedent by suspending propaganda. Verily the troubles of our sorely tried EC are only beginning! It is earnesty to be hoped that with that courage and consistency which have always characterised its action, the EC will use those extensive and convenient powers of expulsion, with which the decisive vote surely provided it, to expel those members in Peckham and elsewhere who have joined with Islington in the unpardonable enterprise of defending the 'Declaration of Principles' of the party. In this way only can unity be attained; but it grows increasingly likely that when the disciplinary process is completed there will be nothing left of the SPGB except its EC. Peckham's Records “Falisfied” However, it has been communicated to us by Comrade Betts, of Peckham, who visited the Islington branch on 1st November, that in the present instance the EC has adopted the less desperate course of inducing by the direct intervention the Peckham branch to rescind its resolution suspending propaganda. The EC has now so long wallowed in inconsistency that one more indulgence cannot materially affect its record. When cornered by Islington's unanswerable demand that Bexley branch should be caused to square its position with that laid down by the Party principles, the EC's last excuse for inaction had been that the rescindment of a resolution would imply the falsification of records. A careful perusal of “ROCKS AHEAD!” has, it appears, enabled the EC to get rid of at least this one superstition. We note the fact with pleasure, and hope to make such further progress with the political education of that body as the unfavourable character of the material to be operated on may permit. We here merely take the liberty of reminding the EC that “no matter what alterations were effected in their books, it would still remain a fact” that the Peckham branch had passed a motion conveying the information that the SPGB was unworthy of support, and declining to carry on public propaganda in its favour. Plight of the SPGB It speaks volumes for the plight to which the party is reduced that the services of men with such a record of propagandist effort in their own localities should be requistioned by the EC for the purpose of endeavouring to consumate the farce of organising an Islington branch. A semblance of legality could thereby be given to the disqualification of members of the present and regularly constituted branch. However, we in Islington have no intention of recognising the implied disqualification, in the sense of keeping silent on matters affecting the progress of Socialism in this or any other neighbourhood. Indeed, we can assure all concerned that we will immediately take such action as may be necessary in order to demonstrate to the working class that the SPGB has become an organisation unworthy of support. When we entered upon this struggle we did so with a determination to fight the question to a finish. We have not yet wearied of that determination. We realised at the beginning that the question of Principle involved was one on which depended the continued existence of the organisation as a revolutionary Socialist Party. We realised that any tampering with the attitude of uncompromising hostility to all other political parties would inevitably mark the beginning of the end of the period of political usefulness of the party. We have for six months within the Party endeavoured to impress upon the membership the necessity of taking such action as would cause the party to keep straight ahead on the revolutionary course mapped out in 'Declaration of Principles'. The Tradition of Compromise We have found – with regret, if not with surprise – that the tradition of weakness and compromise, which seems to cling to the Socialist movement in this country, is for the present too strong to permit of a sustained and unflinching struggle being prosecuted for the recognition and adoption of principles of Revolutionary Socialism. If the SPGB be the latest party to exemplify that weakness and to shrink from that struggle, we of the Islington branch have a duty, which we owe to our record and reputation in the Socialist movement to dissociate ourselves in the most unequivocal manner from that Party. This we shall do when our work within that Party is completed. When that time comes we shall retire from the ranks of the SPGB, impelled by the same motives as inspired us in joining. We shall retire when we find that within that Party we can no longer advance the great cause of international Socialism to which we have pledged unwavering allegiance. Whatever may be in the action of any Socialist Party in the present, we possess unshaken hope in the final triumph of that great cause. We have implicit confidence that out of the travail and misery of present-day economic conditions, and out of the mistakes and failures of present-day parties will be evolved that efficient revolutionary machine which will prove a fitting instrument for the final emancipation of our class. Fellow members of the working class! – you who through the vicissitudes of proletarian existence have nourished freedom's faith and found comfort in the hope of the coming day! – you whose eyes are yet to be opened to the sight of the unconquerable forces that are even now preparing the way for the accomplishment of the Socialist revolution, with its unbounded possibilities for human happiness! – what though in the storm-tossed sea another bark which set out with such fair promise is added to the rudderless and compassless wrecks therein abounding! The cause, which in the midst of such confusion increases in vigour and vitality each day that passes, is surely destined to a consumation, which will be all the more glorious in that it shall triumph over perfidy within and scorn without. Signed on behalf of the Islington branch (42?) John Donovan, Chairman of Branch meeting (237?) Thos. Bennett, Branch secretary (317?) Denham Ford (237?) Edmund J. Ford (18?) Alfred Pilbeam (312?) A. Craig (471?) H. W. Pearson (336?) George Bazin (89?) Cornelius Lehane (447?) Leslie Boyne (243?) George Harris (749?) A. Coombes (280?) D. Rogers (122?) J. O' Connor (370?) G. G. Sutton (319?) Geo. Philpott (352?) Geo. Marshall (138?) H. Wilson (274?) Laura Rogers (275?) C. Thorp (349) G. E. Pettet (353) F. Thiele (84) Alfred Bull (313) W. Tokins Adopted by the Islington branch SPGB at its regular meeting, held on Thursday 15th November, 1906, at 79 Grove Road, Upper Holloway, London, N
* [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]THE LATE DISPUTE IN ISLINGTON.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]STATEMENT BY E.C.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]R.B. (Goodmayes.)—The matter stands thus—A number of members of the Islington Branch were found guilty, by a party vote, of action detrimental to the interests of the organisation and injurious to the cause of Socialism, and they were expelled therefore. They now refuse, we understand, to accept the Party's decision, and still pose as members of the Islington Branch. This is ludicrous enough, but when at the same time that they are asserting their membership, they proclaim to the world that the Party is rotten and corrupt, the matter becomes sheer farce. We regret exceedingly that our late comrades should place themselves in so deplorably ridiculous a position, but that is their business, not ours. Our business is to warn everybody concerned against the false pretence they make of membership of the S.P.G.B.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The above paragraph which, in answer to a correspondent, appeared in THE SOCIALIST STANDARD of December, 1906, caused several other enquiries to reach this office, and in reply to them we publish the following statement in accordance with the notice which appeared in the January issue. The facts of the case are as follows : A certain branch—the members of which have since been expelled and the branch dissolved—submitted a certain resolution to an annual conference of the Party. The resolution after being discussed was defeated. A vote of the Party was afterwards taken as to whether the conference was in order in discussing the matter at all. The Party vote ruled the conference out of order, and this decision was submitted to and accepted by every branch of the Party. The Islington Branch was not content to leave the matter thus ; it first of all requested a formal withdrawal of the resolution in question. The E.C. answered that as the branch concerned had accepted the finding of the Party vote it was unnecessary to proceed any further in the matter. The Islington Branch was not satisfied with this, however, but instead of requesting the E.C. to take a vote of the Party as to whether the branch in question should be asked to rescind the resolution complained of, or endeavouring to obtain the support of five other branches to compel the E.C. to do so— both of which alternatives were open to it within the constitution of the Party—the Islington Branch, because the E.C. would not insist on "the removal of the said resolution from the books of the branch concerned" (which would have involved the falsification of the branch's records), accused the E.C. of criminal neglect, and forthwith stopped all propaganda work, thus violating the Party's rules, which reserve to the E.C. the supervision of the work of the Party. It then proceeded to endeavour to depose the E.C., but signally failed to get the necessary support from the Party membership. The E.C. meantime could do nothing but place the matter before the Party. Our rules do not allow our E.C. to expel any member or any branch, but provide for the Party members settling all disputes themselves. The E.C., therefore, under the only rule of the Party's constitution governing disputes between E.C. and branches, (Rule XIX) placed the matter in the hands of the Party. In accordance with this Rule the case came on for hearing at the next Delegate Meeting of the Party. Islington was officially represented by its own delegate, and six of its members were present. No delegate of any branch had instructions to vote Islington’s expulsion, but when the case for the E.C. was heard and Islington's delegate would not even try to defend the branch's actions, and when the six members who were present were asked to speak either for their branch, or on their own behalf, and further when one of them (Mr. Lehane) was told that he was the prime mover in, and cause of, all the trouble, and was challenged to deny it and defend himself and his branch, and when he and the others were unable to say a single word in defence either of themselves or their branch, or in support of the charges they had made against the E.C., the delegates present took their silence as evidence of their having no defence, and as an insult to the whole Party.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Acting under rule XXII, the only rule in the Party's constitution governing Delegate Meetings, the delegates proposed a resolution calling for a vote of the Party as to whether the members of the Islington Branch supporting its attitude should be expelled the Party. Every delegate present voted for this except the Islington delegate. The resolution was submitted to the Party vote and an overwhelming majority voted for expulsion.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The E.C., therefore, had to declare them expelled the Party.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Even this did not satisfy them, and. refusing to accept the majority vote of the Party, they proceeded to "expose" the Party to the general public, and. while declaring the Party to be rotten and corrupt, etc.. still claimed and boasted of membership in it.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Two pamphlets, compiled by Mr. Lehane, have been issued to expose the "rottenness" of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. These pamphlets carry their own refutation, and as we have no intention of lowering the tone of THE SOCIALIST STANDARD—a tone Mr. Lehane was justly proud of when he was in the Party—to the level of the "Political Comic Cuts'' or the "Penny Prevaricator,'' nor any desire to insult the intelligence of our readers, we respectfully decline to treat seriously the garbage served up in those productions. This much only need we add : Mr. Lehane was for a considerable time our general secretary. In office he proved a good servant to a party which, however, could not and cannot tolerate a master, good, bad or indifferent. Being, however, in that position, Mr. Lehane knew the Party thoroughly from its very centre, and therefore we can only accept the weakness of his "exposure" as a glowing-testimony to our strength. The whole dispute was as unfortunate as it was unnecessary, and we have no wish to prolong the agony or embitter personal feelings in the matter. It has, however, proved that the membership of the S.P.G.B., much though it may appreciate and love its public champions, loves the Principles of Socialism more, and that herb worship, or on the other hand, personalities, can have no place '• in its propaganda.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Knowing this, we are confident that many of those with whom we have had so recently to differ will soon be with us again, fighting in the ranks where all are fighters but none are leaders.[/FONT] [FONT=Times New Roman, serif](Socialist Standard, February 1907)[/FONT]
