Keir Hardie (1894)
Publication History: First
published in the Labour Leader of Saturday, August 8, 1896, p. 3 as
part of the weekly Editorial by Keir Hardie; reprinted with the title
Looking Backwards in the ILP’s Full Report of the Proceedings of
the International Workers’ Congress, London, July and August 1896, pp.
92-6
Source: Transcribed from the
Labour Leader, with additions to the original article made in the
Full Report shown in [square brackets].
Note: This article documents
the clash within the ILP between Keir Hardie and the group around the
Marx-Avelings over the presence of anarchists and anti-parliamentary socialists
in the Congress.
Transcription and notes: by Graham Seaman for MIA, January 2021
The treatment of the Congress(1) by the press does not reflect credit on British journalism. The Daily News, so far as I saw the papers, gave by far the most impartial record; the Chronicle, for wilful misrepresentation and bigoted malice, easily took the premier place on the other side. The Congress was neither a bear garden nor a cockpit. Save the unfortunate incident when Delessalle was thrown from the platform—and for which Bouillon afterwards apologised—there was no violence. Even the House of Commons has had its fight, as I well remember. I repeat what I have said before, that whatever excitement there was betimes arose entirely from misunderstandings. The German bosses were intolerant and unsympathetic towards their opponents, who in turn felt that they were being treated unjustly, and manifested some natural resentment in consequence. No sooner, however, did the “Anarchist” section find that they were not to be left to fight their own battle single-handed, but that a portion at least of the British delegates were determined to see them have fairplay, than they became one of the most orderly divisions of the Congress,
A good deal of misunderstanding seems to exist over this “Anarchist” question. Keir Hardie and Tom Mann came in for a good deal of abuse in connection with their attitude towards it, and the word was freely passed round among the Continental delegates—who, knowing nothing of our language, were fain to believe what they were told—that these two gentlemen were Anarchists in disguise. This impression was heightened by the issue in the press of the following document:
Sir.—
Certain delegates of the Independent Labour Party desire it to be made known that the attitude and speeches of Keir Hardie and Tom Mann on the Zurich Resolution are in no sense official as representing the general policy of the Independent Labour Party, the question not having been submitted to the branches for their consideration. A considerable number of the delegates present are opposed to the policy advocated by Keir Hardie and Tom Mann as being inconsistent with the policy of the Independent Labour Party. And as they are precluded by the ruling of the chairman from expressing their dissent, they take this opportunity of soliciting the good offices of the press in making these objections known.(Signed)
ARTHUR FIELD.(2) LESLIE A. TOKE. ROBT. ALEC PEDDIE. ENID STACY.(3) ED. AVELING.(4) F. BROCKLEHURST.(5) P. WIDDINGTON. J. R. MACDONALD,(6) THOS. M. WATT. L. M. BYLES. JOSEPH BURGESS.(7) JOHN LISTER.(8) SHAW MAXWELL.(9) M. E. GLADSTONE. A. HICKMOND. W.H. DREW.(10) J. FRED. GREEN. SAM BRIERLEY. A.BICKER-CAARTEN. E. J. NEVILL. R. HAWORTH. R. A. MUNCEY. J. A. DYSCHE. F. LESSNER.(11) H. B. SAMUELS.(12) J. WHETTER.
Now, what are the facts of the case? At a meeting of the N.A.C.(13) at Manchester, two weeks or so before the Congress met, the whole question was debated at much length, and in the end a resolution was carried in favour of supporting the admission of all Socialist delegates who were in favour of political or industrial organisation. Then on the Sunday evening preceding the meeting of the Congress the I.L.P. delegates met, and after a full debate rejected by a large majority a resolution of Joe Burgess the meaning of which—I have not the exact wording beside me—was that only those Socialists who believe in parliamentary action be admitted. Thus the N.A.C. and the delegates to the Congress were of opinion that all Socialists, whatever their opinion on parliamentary action, should be admitted. From first to last the question of admitting Anarchists was not in dispute, and was never raised. The whole question was whether Socialists who preferred trade-union and co-operative action to parliamentary should be admitted. Keir Hardie and Tom Mann and the bulk of the N.A.C. and I.L.P. Congress delegates said yes, the protestors said no. It will be for the party to decide at its next Conference which was right.
The question arose in this way. On the Continent there are two schools of Socialists. Their aim is the same—the socialisation of all forms of property. Their methods, however, differ. One set, chiefly the Germans, believe in State Socialism; the other, like Domela Nieuwenhuis, prefer a free co-operative Communism. The interview with Domela which appears elsewhere explains his position. The Germans, however, declared beforehand through their paper, the Vorwarts, and elsewhere that the latter section were Anarchists, and as such should be kept out. When the Congress met it was found that Holland had sent 20 delegates, 15 of whom were Free Communists and only 5 parliamentarians; France sent 113, of whom 57, mostly trade-unionists, were in favour of admitting the Free Communists, and 56 against. If the German interpretation of the Zurich resolution had prevailed, the majority in each of the above cases would have been excluded from the Congress. The action of Keir Hardie and Tom Mann alone prevented this injustice from being done.
In addition to the above some trade unions had sent well-known Anarchists as their delegates. These, too, were to be turned out. Now, I repeat here what I have already said several times in these columns. Anarchist groups, as such, were not entitled to be represented at the Congress, On that point there is no dispute. But if the members of a bona fide trade union desired to select as their delegate a person holding Anarchist opinions that was their lookout, and for the Congress to resolve itself into an Inquisition to examine the opinions of all who sought admission is too awful for contemplation. And yet this is what was proposed. Finding that this would not work, a new device was hit upon by the Germans and their allies, Dr. and Mrs. Aveling. It was to irritate the anti-Parliamentarians by refusing all discussion on the question of their admission, and then either eject them by force or burst up the Congress. Again the chairman and secretary of the I.L.P. successfully intervened, and secured two speeches of ten minutes each from each side. The result was that the vote was taken without the least trace of disorder, and the conduct of the much-maligned “Anarchists” was from that moment onward a model which other sections of the Congress might have followed with advantage.
In considering this question we have to remember the conditions which prevail on the Continent. In this country the Anarchist movement has no terrors for anyone. In France, Italy, and Spain, however, where savage repression of all forms of advanced thought has produced a corresponding spirit, the bomb and other outrages with which members of the Anarchist Party have been associated, makes it imperative that the constitutional Socialist should clearly define his position in relation thereto, else his Government will class him with the much hated and feared Anarchist. Bomb-throwing and outrage, however, are no more a necessary part of the Anarchist than they are of the Socialist propaganda, and the leaders of the Anarchist movement cannot be held responsible for the acts of their fanatical followers. If trade-unionists, for example, were to hold the S.D.F. guilty for everything said and done by members of the organisation, a certain leaflet, headed “To Hell with Trade-Unionism,” would be tolerably strong reason why they should hold no converse with them. Still, I quite understand why the Continental Socialist should desire to purge himself of all sympathy with the Anarchist movement. But when he proceeds, as the Germans do, to class all who disagree with parliamentary action as Anarchists, a stand must be made. In 1889 William Morris and his fellow-delegates to the Paris International Congress were anti-Parliamentarians, and had the German interpretation of the Zurich resolution been in force he would have been expelled. Domela Nieuwenhuis and his colleagues of the Socialist League in Holland occupy exactly the same position now as William Morris and the Socialist League of this country did in 1889. By meeting and conferring with others Morris found that the differences which separated him from them was more a question of words than of principles, and in like manner Socialists who to-day appear to differ as to methods have but to meet and learn face to face what each other is thinking to find their points of disagreement dwindle and their points of agreement enlarge. To treat such men as Domela Neuwenhuis as enemies, debar them from our councils, say hard and bitter things about them, is but to make a breach where none should exist, and divide into warring factions a movement which must be one before it can succeed.
I am not an Anarchist, but neither am I a cast-iron State Socialist. We need both sections to maintain a fair equipoise. In Germany freedom is unknown, and so far as I can see the leaders of the Socialist movement in that country conceive Socialism as a system under which Liebknecht and Singer would take the place of Kaiser William and Bismarck. They in power would be quite as intolerant towards all who disagreed with them as their official opponents are towards them to-day. They alone, they believe, hold the key to all wisdom in the Socialist movement. Those who disagreed with them at the recent Congress found it next to impossible to enter; those who supported them had, when necessary, special illegal privileges provided to facilitate their admission! [as in the case of the French minority, where despite Tuesday's vote, the standing orders were ridden through rough-shod, to meet their wishes.] When Singer and Liebknecht could not be present at the Congress, the Congress—as on Wednesday morning—was not allowed to meet. To me all this is hateful as being anti-democratic and a real menace to the Socialist movement. Freedom can only be begotten of freedom, and injustice can but bring forth injustice. These sentiments may not be—are not, I know—of the revolutionary order, but they are mine; and if the I.L.P. has any distinct mission in this country they will be found to be its sentiments also. The Labour movement is too big to be bossed by a clique in the interests of a section.
It is self-evident that a Congress on the present lines is largely a farce. Nearly 1000 delegates come together and find the arrangements such that discussion of big questions is impossible, What it seems to me would be an ideal arrangement would be something as follows: That the delegates assemble on the first day of the Congress and agree upon a series of sectional congresses for say three days. Thus, the trade-unionists would meet in their own hall and discuss their own questions; the Social Democrats in another; the Free Communists (including the co-operators) in a third; the Anarchists in a fourth. Then on the fifth day the whole united Congress should meet to receive and consider reports from each division, In this way friction would be avoided, the gathering would be international in every sense of the word, and a very few such gatherings would, I am convinced, bring the entire Labour movement into line, and present a solid front to the enemy. So long as every one is penned off from his neighbour, unprejudiced consideration of each other's opinions is impossible, and wrangling takes the place of fair debate.
Next Congress will I believe show considerable improvement on this. Sidney Ollivier's resolution in favour of having all credentials referred to a commission is excellent, and will remove from the floor of the Congress one of the most controversial topics. Besides, a commission can, if it will, deal fair, and ascertain the truth when credentials are disputed [which is more than can be said of the Congress itself]. Then, again, some reform in the system of voting is urgently needed. Voting by nationalities won't do. Dr. Aveling produces a letter from someone in N.S. Wales on the strength of which he is allowed to sit and vote, and he thereby acquires a power equal to the whole of the 472 British delegates. In future also a strong stand must be made for official interpreters. The Avelings are strongly partisan, as is also Adolphe Smith, and by the turn of a phrase, or by putting in or leaving out emphasis can say practically what they please when translating. I.L.P. members may be interested to know that their organisation is suspect by the Avelings and their friends. At the Sunday Peace Demonstration it was only after a struggle that Tom Mann's name was put on the list of speakers, whilst that of Keir Hardie was kept off. There will be the usual quibble to explain this, but had the I.L.P. officials not been fighting the cast-iron Bismarckism of the Germans, no quibble would have kept them off. Then at the Queen’ Hall meeting on the Thursday, James Mawdesley was in the chair for the Trades-unionists, H. M. Hyndman spoke for the S.D.F., and J. H. Wilson, presumably, for the Labour Electoral Association, whilst no I.L.P.er was asked to take part. The arrangements for these meetings were made before the Congress met, and therefore nothing which took place could account for the omission.
There is much one would like to say, but space and time alike forbid. The discipline of the S.D.F. was perfect, and those who believe in rigidity could not but admire it. I don’t profess to believe in it, and feel sure that it works harm in the end, Several times during the Congress the I.L.P. and S.D.F. fraternised and got to know and to understand each other better than ever before. One thing more I must add: Our friends of the S.D.F. need have no misconception about a split in the I.L.P. over the Anarchist question. The question will be discussed, certainly, and however the discussion may go, individuals will still be left free to hold their opinions. The I.L.P. is too big for a split–has too much breadth. Some members may leave, and were I in an uncharitable mood–which at the moment I am not–I would say a good thing for the I.L.P. if they did.
[KEIR, in the Labour Leader]
1. The 4th Congress of the 2nd International took place in London between the 26th-31st July 1896.BACK
2. Arthur Field founded the Kent Independent Labour Party in 1890. This affiliated to the Marx-Avelings' Legal Eight Hours and International League, and was chaired by Edward Aveling. He was elected to the first NAC of the ILP.BACK
3. Enid Stacy: Former organiser for the National Union of Gas Workers and General Labourers, for which Eleanor Marx-Aveling had been on the Executive. From 1895she was a full-time worker for the ILP, serving on the NAC from 1896 to 1899. She challenged Keir Hardie for the chairship of the ILP in 1898.BACK
4. Edward Aveling was Eleanor Marx' partner. He was elected to the first NAC of the ILP. See the Edward Aveling archive for his other writings related to the I.L.P.BACK
5. Frederick Brocklehurst was the leader of the Labour Church after John Trevor. A member of the NAC, he was arrested for giving a speech for the ILP in a public park shortly before the Congress. Fred. Brocklehurst wrote to the Labour Leader on 15th August:
“It is being urged that the deciding issue was not that of Socialism and Anarchism, but as to whether toleration should be shown towards Anarchist-Communists, Non-Parliamentary Socialists, Revolutionary Socialists, Federalists, etc., etc., ad infinitum. This was, I admit, what appeared upon the surface; but the real issue lay deeper. The true inwardness of all this movement in favour of “toleration” lies revealed in the fact that it was with but rare exceptions instigated and supported by Anarchists of the deepest dye.”
A second letter in the Labour Leader of the 22nd recommends reading Plekhanov to understand the anarchists and ‘parliamentary failure’ Nieuwenhuis.BACK
6. This is J. Ramsay MacDonald, future prime minister. He was a member of both the Fabians and the ILP, and attended the Congress as a Fabian delegate (see Yvonne Kapp's biography of Eleanor Marx, Vol. 2 p. 658)BACK
7. Joseph Burgess was former editor of the Workman's Times and principal founder of the I.L.P. Engels had a low opinion of him: “a provincial who is relapsing into belletrism, is anxious to keep in with everyone and both talks and accepts a great deal of bosh.” (Engels, letter to Kautsky, 20 April 1892). He was elected to the first NAC of the ILP.BACK
8. John Lister was a Christian socialist and early member of the Fabian Society. He was a founder member of the Halifax Labour Union, who he represented on the town council. He was elected to the first NAC of the ILP.BACK
9. James Shaw Maxwell was one of the founding members of the Scottish Land and Labour League (affiliated to the Socialist League), and then of the Scottish Labour Party. Along with most of that organisation's members, he joined the Independent Labour Party (ILP) on its formation in 1893, and served as its first Secretary.BACK
10. W. H. Drew was a weaver and trade unionist who became president of the Bradford Labour Union. He was elected to the first NAC of the ILP.BACK
11. Former member of the Communist League and old comrade of Karl Marx, Frederick Lessner was still polically active at 71.BACK
12. A former anarchist-inclined member of the Socialist League and a physical force anarchist in the early 1890s, Henry Samuels joined the ILP in 1895.BACK
13. The National Administrative Council (NAC) was an elected body which implemented ILP party policy between congresses. BACK