A Parson Scotched
On December 18th last a letter from the pen of the Rev. C. L. Drawbridge appeared in the columns of the London daily, “The Standard.” In the course of this letter the writer said :
“It is not generally recognised what a very large number of Socialists are Atheists. There is a new Socialist society formed whose speakers are very active in the open spaces, and who put Atheism first in order of importance, and Socialism afterwards. I refer to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
“I have in iny hand their pamphlet No. 6, ‘Socialism and Religion,’ which states on page 6 that: ‘It is not issued as the view of an individual, but as an accepted manifesto of the ‘Socialist Party on the subject.’ ”
The writer later proceeds to give many passages from the pamphlet he had referred to, to bear out his statement that the S.P.G.B. place Atheism first in order of importance, and Socialism second. The matter being brought to the notice of the Executive Committee of the Party, they instructed the General Secretary to reply as follows:
To the Editor of ” The Standard.”
Sir, —At its meeting held on Tuesday evening : the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain had its attention called to the correspondence appearing in your columns of the 18th inst., when the following resolution was unanimously passed and directed to be sent to you for publication :
“That while willingly admitting the truth of much contained in the letter of Mr. C. L. Drawbridge to The Standard of December 18, 1911 it desires to call attention to a serious inaccuracy oa the part of the writer. He says :
‘”It is not generally recognised what a large number of Socialists are Atheists. There is a new Socialist society formed, whose speakers are very active in the open spaces, and who put Atheism first in order of importance, and Socialism afterwards. I refer to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.’
“As a matter of fact, the Socialist Party of Great Britain holds that a Socialist is no more an Atheist than a Theist. The Socialist position on this point is set forth in the following quotation from its pamphlet ‘Socialism and Religion,’ page 45. ‘The workers have, above all, to dislodge the capitalist class from power, and the religious question, and, indeed, all else, is secondary to this.'”
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
S. G. QUELCH (General Secretary), The Socialist Party of Great Britain.
This elicited the following reply from Mr. Drawbridge.
To the Editor of “The Standard.”
Sir,—In your issue of Saturday, December 29, you printed a letter from the general secretary of the Socialist Party of Great Britain containing the text of the resolution which was passed unanimously by the executive committee, as follows:—”That while willingly admitting the truth of much contained in the letter of Mr. C. L. Drawbridge, it desires to call attention to a serious inaccuracy on the part of the writer. He says:—
“It is not generally recognised what a very large number of Socialists are Atheists.”
If this statement is incorrect I will gladly withdraw it, but I consider it to be true. During the last three years I have spent a great deal of time dealing with Atheism in the parks and open spaces, and my statement was born of considerable knowledge both of Atheist and of Socialist speakers. Mr. Quelch continues to quote my letter as follows :
“There is a new Socialist society formed whose speakers are very active in the open spaces, and who put Atheism first in order of importance and Socialism afterwards. I refer to the Socialist Party of Great Britain.”
If my statement with regard to their speakers is inaccurate I will very gladly withdraw it, but I maintain that it is correct. I am pleased to learn that the Executive Committee unanimously decided on Tuesday last that “as a matter of fact the Socialist Party of Great Britain holds that a Socialist is no more an Atheist than a Theist.” In these days of progress one is glad to receive the very latest information with regard to the official opinions of such societies, but the official information upon which my letter was based was dated 1911, and is being sold to-day as “the accepted manifesto of the Socialist Party on the subject” (page 6), and it is aggressively Atheistic on every page. The official definition of Atheism by its exponents to-day is “anti-Theism,” and every page of the Socialist Party of Great Britain pamphlet referred to is simply that and nothing else. [Here Mr. Drawbridge gives many quotations from the pamphlet, and continues :] These extracts are from the official pronouncements issued this year and sold to-day by the Socialist Party of Great Britain on the subject under discussion, and it is with very great pleasure that we learn that the Executive Committee is not now so enthusiastic with regard to anti-Theism apparently as when they issued the pamphlet this year. In his letter, appearing in your issue of Saturday last, Mr. Quelch quotes from their pamphlet, “Socialism and Religion,” page 45 : —”Workers have, above all, to dislodge the capitalist class from power, and the religious question, and, indeed, all else, is secondary to this.” He argues from this isolated quotation, which they have discovered, that his society puts Socialism first in order of importance (and the attack on theism afterwards). Socialism, however, is not mentioned in the above extract, but only class antagonism —down with the capitalists. That is not Socialism, but only a preliminary step in its direction.
But the reader can decide the point at issue for himself if he purchases the manifesto in question from Messrs. Hendersons, 66, Charing Cross-road, W.C.
As a clergyman of the Church of England, and as the hon. secretary of the Christian Evidence League, I am officially concerned, not with Socialism, but with Atheism ; not with politics, but with religion; not with the economic theories and political tenets of the S P.G.B., but with their attitude towards theism.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
C. L. DRAWBRIDGE.
The above letter was followed by one from a person who, for purposes of his own, snapped at the opportunity of a cheap advertisement, obtained at the cost of lending himself as the tool of the enemies of the working class, and (as will appear later) exposing his own ignorance.
The Executive Committee’s reply to Mr. Drawbridge ran as follows, and appeared in “The Standard” of 5.1 12 :—
The Rev. C. L. Drawbridge’s reply in your issue of December 27, 1911, again inaccurately presents the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. As stated in the resolution of the Executive Committee, which he quotes, much of his letter is willingly admitted to be true—let him make the most of that. But it is entirely incorrect to say that the Socialist Party “puts Atheism first in order of importance and Socialism afterwards.”
We stand firmly by the quotations he has given from our pamphlet on “Socialism and Religion,” but submit that as they are torn from their context they convey only part of the truth. The whole essay from which they are taken is a scientific exposition of the attitude toward religion which logically follows the acceptance of Socialist principles. That attitude on our part is therefore the consequence of Socialism, which by that very fact is shown to come first in order of importance. Even the quotations given make this plain.
The Rev. C. L. Drawbridge’s error doubtless arises from a belief that “Socialism as a political or economic theory” has no necessary connection with science in general, and can be separated entirely from the theory of life as a whole. This cannot consistently be done. It is beside the point to maintain that some Socialists are Christians. This is only evidence of the spurious nature of their Socialism or the confusion of their minds ; as is proven in the pamphlet under discussion, where the whole argument is summed up in these words (page 46) :—
“There is, therefore, no need for a specifically anti-religious test [on candidates for membership of tue Socialist Party]. So surely does the acceptance of Socialism lead to the exclusion of the supernatural that the Socialist has little need for such terms as Atheist, Freethinker, or even Materialist; for the word Socialist, rightly understood, implies one who on all such questions takes his stand on positive science, explaining all things by purely natural causation: Socialism being not merely a politico-economic creed, but also an integral part of a consistent world philosophy.”
We do not, then, put irreligion first and Socialism afterwards. Yet it is perfectly true, as the Rev. C. L. Drawbridge says, “that Socialists are for the most part anti-Christian.” It is true that Socialism supersedes the supernatural. It is further true that Socialism, although it is neither concerned with Atheism, as such, nor with abstract notions on speculative Theism unconnected with life or conduct, yet inevitably leads to anti-religious views, as these are universally understood. But this is only a consequence of the acceptance of the scientific basis of Socialism, and, therefore, a secondary matter. That is clear, even apart from the pamphlet, from the words of Karl Marx, the founder of Scientific Socialism. He says in his “Jewish. Question” :—
“For us religion is not the cause of social imperfection, but its result. We explain the religious subjection of citizens by their social subjection. We do not pretend that they must shake off their religious chains in order to get rid of their social chains ; we say, on the contrary, that they will get rid of their religious chains by disengaging themselves of their social chains. We do not transform questions of this world into questions of theology, we transform questions of theology into questions of this world. History has been explained by religion long enough, let us explain religion by history.”
And finally, to clinch the matter, we would point to the preface to the penny publication on “Socialism and Religion” that we publish, wherein it is plainly said :—
“The fact that the attitude outlined in this pamphlet is an integral part of the Socialist view of life guarantees that the religious question will not be allowed to overshadow the main issue. It indicates, indeed, that the necessary work of a general Socialist education (which includes the position here laid down on religion, as the greater includes the less) will be unflinchingly continued.”
It is, therefore, evident that while Socialism is definitely anti-Christian and fundamentally anti-religious, yet it is entirely false to say that the Socialist Party of Great Britain “puts Atheism first and Socialism afterwards” ; for its whole attitude toward religion is but the logical outcome of the Socialist principles upon which it is founded.—Yours, etc.,
S. G. QUELCH, Gen. Sec.
Mr. Drawbridge replied in the following letter, which appeared| in the columns of our contemporary on January 13 :—
Sir,—In your issue dated January 5 the secretary of the Socialist Party of Great Britain again accused me of inaccuracy, but produced no evidence to substantiate his accusation. I said, and I repeat, that speakers of the Socialist Party of Great Britain put Atheism first in order of importance, and Socialism afterwards. He has twice attempted to refute this by stating that the official teaching of his organisation places Socialism first in order of importance.
It is not for me to dogmatise upon that. When, however, the Socialist Party of Great Britain forwarded to “The Standard” the resolution of their executive on the point, Mr. Guy Aldred, a thorough-going Socialist and Atheist, and editor of a Socialist paper, replied (“The Standard,” December 29): “The resolution seems to me tc be hypocrisy from beginning to end. To say as he (Mr. Quelch) does, that a Socialist is no more an Atheist than a Theist is to give the lie direct to the main argument of the Socialist Party of Great Britain’s pamphlet on Socialism and Religion, which has been boomed by Atheists who are not Socialists.” He goes on to say: “I write as a Socialist and an Atheist, as one who believes that Socialism is founded on Atheism.” There are other Socialist organisations which, with more justification than the Socialist Party of Great Britain, can claim that Atheism is no essential part of their official teaching and yet whose speakers and members are for the most part Atheists. Last Sunday at an open air meeting a Socialist speaker who opposed me took me to task for what I wrote to “The Standard,” and said that I had no more right to judge Socialism by the attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain than he had to judge Christianity as a whole with sole reference to the opinions of the Plymouth Brethren. I asked : “Are most of the members of your organisation (the Independent Labour Party) Atheists ?” He replied : ” Yes, undoubtedly, but Atheism is not part of our official Socialist creed.”
But to return to the communication from the Socialist Party of Great Britain which appeared in your issue of the 5th inst. The secretary accuses me of tearing my quotations from their context. Well, I could hardly quote the whole 48 pages verbatim, but I recommended your readers to secure a copy of the pamphlet “Socialism and Religion,” and I gave the name and address of the publisher. I have before me a letter from one who took my advice and sent sixpence for the penny pamphlet, but has had no reply. He writes to ask how much more money he ought to send. If I have been unintentionally reticent with regard to the contest from which my quotations were ”torn,” apparently there is also some lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Socialist Party of Great Britain with regard to the context.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain continues, in your issue of the 5th : “The Rev. C. L. Drawbridge’s error doubtless arises from a belief that Socialism as a political or economic theory has no necessary connection with science in general, and can be separated entirely from the theory of life as a whole. This cannot be done.” To which I reply that if I have made any error in my estimate of the attitude of their speakers—which I do not admit—it is due to a misconception of the relative importance which they attach in their own minds to their dual message of Atheism and Socialism. Of course, every theory, political, economic, astronomical, etc.. should form an integral part of one’s philosophy of life, and thus tend to shape one’s “total reaction” to one’s environment, but it is not easy to see what relationship the theories of the Socialist Party of Great Britain bear to science in general. Science means knowledge. What knowledge has the Socialist Party of Great Britain of the non-existence of God ? Science presupposes evidence. What evidence can Mr. Quelch put forward of the non-existence of God ? To my mind it shows muddleheadedness to argue that either Theism or Atheism is the foundation of either individualism or collectivism.
—I am, Sir, yours truly, C. L. DRAWBRIDGE. 2, Hampstead Hill-gardens, N.W.
This letter was answered on behalf of the Socialist Party as follows. Those portions we print in italics, however, our contemporary thought fit to suppress. We ask our readers to take particular note of those passages, concerning which we have something to say in another column.
To the Editor of “The Standard.”
Sir,—The Rev. C, L. Drawbridge is still unwilling to admit his error. He began this discussion by quoting irom an official publication of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and by drawing therefrom the entirely unwarranted conclusion that this party “puts Atheism first in order of importance, and Socialism afterwards.” I showed (1) that our fundamental antagonism to religion (which is not necessarily “Atheism”) was the logical outcome of the basic principles of Socialism; (2) that no religious tests were imposed on candidates for membership of the party ; (3) that the quotations he gave from our pamphlet, as well as others I gave therefrom, proved that we placed Socialism first, and our views on religion second.
Now he dares to say that I produced no evidence ! As a leading light in a Christian Evidence Society, his blindness to evidence when it demonstrates his error is significant. It suggests that “Chistian” evidence is the negation of evidence, just as Christian Socialism and Christian Science are the negation of Socialism and of Science.
However, it having been made clear that the official teaching of this organisation places Socialism first in order of importance, we are now told that “speakers of the Socialist Party put Atheism first.” But not a word from any speaker of the Party anywhere is brought forward in support of this ; indeed, none can be brought. And as if to prove that he is completely gravelled for want oj evidence, he quotes a Mr. Aldred, whose letter showed a complete lack of understanding of the point at issue, and whose opinion is of no value at all in matters concerning the Socialist Party. The Rev. Drawbridge, in fact, himself passed severe but merited judgment on his new found supporter. Mr. Aldred wrote “as one who believes that Socialism is founded, on Atheism; and the Rev. Drawbridge says (rightly this time) : “To my mind it shows muddleheadedness to argue that either Theism or Atheism is the foundation of either individualism or collectiveism.” Obviously so. It is to reverse the natural order of things. The materialist conception of history, which is the scientific, basis of modern Socialism, shows that religious change is an effect, not a cause, of econonnc development. That is why we- are Socialists first and foremost andanti-religious afterwards.
The Rev. C. L. Drawbridge’s suggestion that we do not seem anxious to disseminate our pamphlet on Socialism and Religion needs no refutation. We seek and welcome every opportunity to make its message more widely known, confident that the truth will prevail.
No one vainly sent sixpence for the penny pamphlet to the publishing office. On the other hand, you, Mr. Editor, forwarded a reader’s letter which requested that a copy of the leaflet be sent, and stating that remittance would follow receipt of the publication. The order was, of cours, executed. As stated on the cover of the pamphlet, it is published by ourselves at 10 Sandland-street, W. C. The address given by the Rev. Drawbridge was not that of the publishers, but of a wholesale agent, for the conduct of whose business we are obviously not responsible.
Publicity, indeed, is our chief weapon in the keen fight for scientific Socialism. It is a betrayal of the workers to deny, through. cowardice or dishonesty, that Socialism must inevitably lead, not only to a revolution in society, but also to a revolution in thought in matters of religion.
Your correspondent admits that “of course every theory . . . should form an integral part of one’s theory of life.” And so we recognise that Socialism, being grounded in science, has definite implications in matters of religion, which cowardly timeservers who usurp the name of Snciaiist hide or deny in order to steal votes.
We frankly proclaim the anti-religious implication of Socialism in order to increase working-class enlightenment and to purge the movement of political self-seekers who play fast and loose with Socialist principles and proletarian interests. In our every political act, indeed, Socialism is our first consideration, and all else is secondary to that.
The Rev. C. L. Drawbridge has, up to the present, signally failed to substantiate his statement. And I challenge him now to produce any tittle or jot of evidence from our publications, or any word oj our public speakers anywhere, to prove, his ridiculous contention that the Socialist Party of Great Britain ”puts Atheism first in order of importance and Socialism, afterwards.”
Yours, etc.