J. Keir Hardie, August 1904
Source: Labour Leader, August 26 1904, p. 248;
Transcription and notes: by Graham Seaman.
It should have been noted last week that the General Federation of Trade Unions was represented by Isaac Mitchell, its general secretary, and Pete Curran, its chairman—the latter of whom was selected as the chairman of the Congress for one day, with Jim Saxton as vice-chairman. In future, the Trade Union section of the British movement will, I hope, put itself more in evidence at these Congresses. Its practical way of looking at things, together with the excellent business methods of its officials, would form a valuable offset to the impulsiveness and haphazard methods of so many of the delegates from other lands.
When the last Congress was held in Paris in 1900 we in this country were in the thick of the General Election, and so were but sparsely represented. As a consequence, many of us on this occasion found ourselves out of touch with those currents and cross currents which are al ways at work in the great ocean of Continental Socialism, and as a consequence were once or twice near running aground. It is, for instance, a eertainty that the Dresden resolution, of which more anon, would never have been endorsed by the British section had it been realised that we were thereby committing ouselves to taking sides in a quarrel between two sections of the movement in Germany and France, but which has no counterpart in this country. Since the advent of the Labour Representation, Trade Unionists equally with the Independent Labour Party and the Social Democratic Federation, are committed to political independence. Besides, it is only in those countries in which the Labour Party holds the balance of power, or is at least a force to be reckoned with in Parliament, that the question of tactics becomes one of urgency. Unfortunately, this is not yet the case in the British Commons, and there is therefore no room for serious difference of opinion anent the wisdom of building up the Labour party on rigidly independent lines. Once there is a strong party, the question of how to utilise its strength so as to secure the advantage to the nation will be one for consideration. For the moment it simply doesn’t arise.
But it is otherwise in Germany, France, Italy and Belgium. In the first-named nation there is a school who believe that reform which intends to improve the condition of the working class is a hindrance to the progress of Socialism. They are therefore opposed to lending countenance to any such reforms, and were, until recently against the party taking any part in municipal affairs. They assume that the lot of the worker must keep going from bad to worse until it grows unbearable, when the worker will rise in political revolt, and overthrow the entire system. Herr Kautsky, an able if somewhat doctrinaire exponent of Marx, is the leading representative of this faction. Another section of the party, headed by Herr Volmar, takes the opposite view, that Socialism is inevitable, and that the more reforms the better since the comfort and intelligence of the people and not their poverty are the main essentials in qualifying them for the wise application of the Socialist principles. At the Dresden Congress of the German party, Kautsky succeeded in carrying a resolution in favour of his side, and it is this which bulked so largely in the Congress proceedings as the Dresden Resolution[1].
In France the dominant section of the party, headed by Jaurès, keeps the Republican in power by its votes. Not only so, but one of its members, M. Millerand, for a time had a seat in the Cabinet as Minister of Commerce . During his tenure of office he took part in the official reception to the Czar of Russia when he visited Paris, and condoned the action of the Government in sending troops to shoot down strikers during a dispute. As a consequence, the French party, after a good deal of wrangling, finally expelled Millerand from its ranks, and he resigned office. At the International Congress in Paris in 1900 the whole question was discussed at length, and finally, on the motion of Kautsky, a resolution was carried to the effect that no Socialist should join a Capitalist Government save upon the aithority, and, as the delegate of his party, and then only for some specific reason. The smaller section of the French party, ied by M. Guesde, takes the same attitude as does the majority of the Germans described above. In Belgium, there is a tendency on the part of the Labour party to work with the Liberals for the full extension of the franchise, and quite one-half of the Italian party sides with Jaurists in France. These were the issues upon which delegates from other lands, including our own, were asked to take sides and pronounce judgment.
Had the question been presented to us in the form of a concrete case, I don’t say the Congress should not have been asked to express an opinion. But this was not done. What we were asked to do was to accept the Dresden resolution, originally framed and passed to meet the circumstances which were supposed to have arisen in Germany and which was couched in terms which, whilst perfectly understood in Germany, were without meaning for other countries, and which might have been used to condemn tactics say in England with which those who passed the motion in Germany were in fullest agreement. This point of view was powerfully presented to the Commission, to which the resolution had been by referred, by J. Ramsay MacDonald, who, with Belfort Bax, represented the British section thereon. As an amendment to the Dresden resolution, Vandervelde, the leader of the Belgian party, and Dr Adler of Austria, moved an amendment, which, whilst afferming the whole doctrine of Socialism, and the tactics of the movement, left out portions of the Dresden motion which condemned revision and the like. Ramsay Macdonald spoke in support of this, although, by an unfortunate vote of the section on Monday, he felt himself bound to vote against it. All the great orators spoke at the Commission, and there was quite a dramatic scene, which looked at one time as if it would come to blows, between Jaurès and Guesde, In the end the Vandervelde-Adler amendment was defeated by 16 votes to 24. The whole question had now to come before the Congress, and the British section had to meet to consider its further action. MacDonald and Bax reported the proceedings on the Commission, the former pointing out that the discussion had shown that the Dresden resolution was being submitted to the Congress really as a vote of censure upon Jaurès, Volmar, and those who sympathised with them, and he moved to rescind the resolution which bound the British section to vote for the motion. During the course of the discussion H.M. Hyndman intimated that the Bureau, which was acting as a Standing Committee to the Congress, had decided that only the Dresden resolution could be discussed by the Congress. This ruling was resented by the Congress, and, finally at Hyndmanºs suggestion, Isaac Mitchell moved, as an amendment to MacDonald’s motion, that two of a deputation should approach the Bureau and protest against this, and claim the right to move an addition to the Dresden motion to the effect that it was not meant to censure anyone. This was carried, whereupon S.K.Hobson moved a further addition, declaring that the British section was in favour of the Vandervelde resolution, and should vote for it if it came before the Congress. This also was carried, and the section thus stood committed to supporting both resolutions, with a preference for the Vandervelde-Adler one. In the end an arrangement was arrived at by which both the British votes were to be cast for the Vandervelde resolution, and then, if that did not carry, that the vote should be divided for and against the Dresden one. Dan Irving and Keir Hardie were appointed to speak for the section in the Congress.
As the debate threatened to drag along all night, and as the Congress was getting weary of the subject, the British delegates agreed to forego their right when it came to their turn to speak, provided the Congress agreed to closure. This was accepted thankfully, and the voting took place at once. In order to show the full meaning of the vote I append the figures in detail. Each nation had two votes, and was at liberty to divide them if so minded. The first vote taken was for the Vandervelde-Adler resolution, as against that of Dresden. For the former the following nationalities cast both their votes, Great Britain, the British Colonies, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Switzerland; and the following gave one vote: France, Norway, Poland. Total, 21 votes. On the other side, Germany, Bohemia, Bulgaria, Spain, United States, Hungary, Italy, Japan, and Russia, gave two votes, and France, Norway, and Poland one vote. Total, 21 votes. Thus the result was a tie, 21 for, 21 against. The amendment consequently was declared not to be carried, and the Dresden resolution was put. The votes cast against the amendment were all cast for the resolution, one British vote was given for it, two by Austria, and both Poland votes. Total, 25. One British vote was given against it, two by our colonies, and one by France and Norway, whilst Argentina, Belgium, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, and Switzerland refused to vote at all. It will thus be seen that the Vandervelde-Adler resolution was defeated by the votes of nations, which either have no Parliamentary system or which have no strong Labour party in Parliament. The only European nations having Parliamentary institutions which voted against it were Germany and Italy. This is a fact of the first significance, and indicates clearly what the future has in store for the movement.
It must be self-evident that with the growth of a Socialist party, and corresponding change in political circumstances which that implies, there must be some degree of freedom left to the movement to adapt itself to its ever-changing environment. Otherwise, it must die. The Dresden resolution seeks to stereotype the tactics which have proved successful in the early days of the movement in Germany, and impose them upon all countries for all time. This of course is absurd, and unless each country is to be left some degree of freedom in the adaptation of its tactics to the prevailing conditions the International movement will go to pieces. Another resolution passed by the Congress worthy of special notice was that calling for unity within the movement. It, needless to say, was carried unanimously, and was hopefully spoken to by different members of the French section to whom it was specially intended to apply.
The resolution has no practical application to this country. It is meant for those countries in the the divisions are so deep and wide that even in the Parliaments there are warring groups and sections all nominally Socialists. There are two separately organised groups in the French Chamber, and these in turn are again sub-divided into two, whilst there are individuals and organisations organised into separate camps, and all engaged in internecine strife. In Great Britain this is not the case. The movement here is represented by the I.L.P. and the Trade Unions who work together within the Labour Representative Constitution. Outside this is the Social Democratic Federation, which withdrew from the L.R.C., not because its candidates were not allowed to call themselves Socialists, but because the L.R.C. was not an avowedly Socialist body. It was in August, 1902, that the S.D.F. Conference, acting on the recommendation of its Executive, decided to withdraw from the L.R.C., and it was not until February, 1903, the the L.R.C. Conference decided that in future all candidates run under its auspices should be designated Labour candidates only. The position therefore is that the S.D.F. is a dissentient body from the general movement, and that the unity aimed at by the International Congress resolution will be realised as soon as the S.D.F. rescinds its resolution of 1902, and frankly accepts the policy—there is no principle at stake—which has now been accepted by every other section of the movement in England.
Karl Mark propounded Socialism as a system of political economy in fundamental opposition to the one universally accepted and acted upon; but he no less strenuously advocated the formation of a Labour party. "Workers of the world unite" was an appeal to the workers as such, and not only to Socialists. The Labour Party of Great Britain, under the constitution of the L.R.C., is as true an application of Marxist teaching as the Socialism of the S.D.F. In personal conversations with Frederick Engels, the friend and co-worker with Marx, he on several occasions expressed his agreement with the policy which led to the formation of the I.L.P., and finally placed the seal of his approval on the movement by becoming a member. Should the S.D.F. frankly accept the L.R.C., that of itself would unify the movement in this country, and the mere question of organisation would then become one of minor importance. M. Jaurès stated an undeniable truth when he said that one reason which explained the comparative weakness of Socialism in England was that it had been kept too much apart from the Trade Union movement. A frank recognition of this truth now on the part of the responsible heads of the S.D.F. will solidify the entire British movement on the lines so long and consistently worked for and followed by the I.L.P. These comrades must now definitely decide whether they will continue to act with the Impossibilists or with their British co-workers. Hitherto they have tried to do both, and the result is failure, and now they find themselves in a very strait place. They are suspected by the extremists in their own organisation which appears to be going to pieces, and have not yet definitely and openly taken their stand with the rational men on the other side. These remarks are not made in any rancorous or censorious spirit. At the British section meetings Hyndman and Quelch on more than once occasion threw over their own policy and boldly took that of the I.L.P, If they will now do the same at the next S.D.F. conference they may thereby slightly increase the membership of the badly-led Socialist Labour party[2] by driving out some who are now with them, but would gain the fellowship of the entire movement as compensation. In any case, it is for the S.D.F., and it alone, to say whether the British movement is to be unified in all its parts, or whether it is to retain its dissentient attitude, and thereby give an appearance of disunity.
There are other topics upon which I fain would have touched. I may, with the editor's permission, return to one of them—the Class War and Class Consciousness—next week. In closing I would fain testify to the evident desire there was amongst the British to find common ground of action and to avoid even the appearance of dissension. Harry Quelch in particular shone in this direction. There were times when I thought that the Amsterdam Conference, whilst it marked the outgoing of the old dogmatic intolerance from, and the entrance of a freer spirit of interpretation into, the International movement, might also, in days to come, be looked back to as the point at which British Socialism first became fully conscious of its own existence.
I cannot close without a word of acknowledgment to our Dutch comrades, Henri Polak and his good wife in particular, for their exertions to make everyone comfortable. They were simply untiring in their efforts. It fell to the British section, however, to organise the only social evening of the week, when John Hodge genially presided, anc the Hope of the Workers was sung in turn by the representatives of many peoples. Differences of tactics and methods apart, every worker for the emancipation of the race rom the bondage of Capitalism must have gone away strengthened and inspired by the great gathering, and the harmony which marked the entire proceedings, and determined to work zealously for the coming of the reign of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.
J. K. H.
[1] The Dresden Resolution was passed in the 1903 Congress of the SPD. That resolution, together with the Vandervelde and other resolutions voted on at the 1904 Congress, can be found in the appendices to Daniel de Leon's Flashlights of the Amsterdam Congress (the Dresden resolution is on pages 130-131) [RETURN]
[2] The Socialist Labour Party was a split from the S.D.F., based mostly in Scotland. It had delegates at the Amsterdam Congress, but they did not merge with the rest of the British section. Although the party included well known figures such as James Conolly and John MacLean it never became a major party. Many of its members later merged with the new Communist Party. [RETURN]