Weeping and Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth. S.L.P.’s Cry From “Outer Darkness”
A great thing has happened. Those in charge of our contemporary, “The Socialist,” who promised to reply to our attack upon the Socialist Labour Party’s attitude to the war, if they had room, have found room. Yes, in spite of the pressure on their space caused by the demands of the “New Machinery Fund” cadge, in spite also of the fact that space had to be reserved for “A.E.C.” to confuse working class readers with absurd and unsound economics, they have found room to take the matter up.
Of course, they have been very kind to us. They were going to “prick the S.P.G.B. bubble,” but they have not had the heart even to try to do so. The “bubble” still floats above their heads—a cussed nuisance nobly borne for sweet charity’s sake. They are an injured party, like the camel, and they complain in the patient voice of that ill-used quadruped. We spread our attack over a page of our official journal (sorry !) ; we criticise “now regarding a discussion on the war which took place in 1914″ (profuse apologies ! We ought to have forgotten all about it long ago) ; we “criticise where mistakes are made,” and “keep criticising because mistakes are rectified” (what a lot of beastly habits we appear to have contracted in our short span of existence !) ; and we have done other things which hurt.
And how different has been the conduct of those against whom we have launched “such a massed and elaborate attack” ! They, in that kindness of heart which can find an excuse for any villain, “entered the present discussion” on behalf of the I.L.P. and B.S.P., and, they inform us, have “defended the S.P.G.B. and their paper” (they don’t say now whether they are referring to the Small Party of Good Boys [vide August “Socialist”] or us) “against what we considered to be an unworthy slight on the part of the “Labour Leader.” Nor is this all. In spite of the fact that in this case virtue has had to be its own reward, they have promised to do it again should occasion demand.
This is heaping coals of fire on our unworthy head. We smote them on one cheek, and instead of hitting back, instead even of doing up their breeches and “‘oppin’ it,” they simply turn the other ! But how can one smite again in the face of such childlike faith ? Their magnanimity abashes us ; their humility disarms us. Give us the sackcloth and ashes and put tin-tacks in our shoes—we will do penance.
No ! a better idea. We will hie ourselves to the place where, as “The Socialist” put it in August, “The Socialist Party of Great Britain happens to take his meals” and there get a skinful of humble pie, comforted by which, upon our return we shall be in in the beneficent humour to heal wounds and wipe away all tears.
Will he, the old fool ! When he comes back he will find that WE have done the job for him. Now then, where are we ? They say that their charge against us “rankled.” If that reflection comforts them we can afford to leave them in possession of it ; if it was their object it should help to swell the “New Machinery Fund.” Our opponents’ next point is that we spread our reply over a page of our journal. This may or may not be a sign that their charge against us “rankled,” but since events have shown that they cannot answer it, we may say that it would puzzle them to fill a page with unanswerable criticism of our actions, not since the war only, but during the whole thirteen years of our existence.
“It may seem strange to most of our readers that we are criticised now regarding a discussion on the war which took place in 1914” we read. But the few may remember that in the August “Socialist” we were invited to “compare the S.L.P. and the S.P.G.B. in their actions,” and told : “Our actions back up our words.” We compared their actions by invoking the words which they backed up. It is not our fault that our opponents forgot to put a time limit.
In last month’s “Socialist” it is claimed that “the S.L.P. as an organisation has never been divided regarding its attitude towards war.” In this statement there are two wriggles. The first is the use of the phrase “as an organisaion.” It is quite clear that under such a qualification, used in the way they use it, division ia almost a physical impossibility. The second wriggle is the omission of the definite article before the word “war.” We are not concerned for the moment with the attitude of the S.L.P. “as an organisation . . . towards war.” We claim that the S.L.P. was divided in its attitude towards the war. The Editor of “The Socialist” himself said : “That there are differences in the S.L.P., as in other parties, on the question of the war must have been apparent to most readers of “The Socialist.” We are now told that the party repudiated that. But the facts are there and cannot be got rid of by repudiation—after they “got wise.”
Our opponents’ latest argument is really comic. “It is true,” they admit, abandoning the lie that the pro-war writers were “in every case non-members of the party” (“The Socialist,” Aug. ’17) “that a discussion took place in the columns of the ‘Socialist’ regarding the war. It is true that some of the disputants urged the party to declare for the war. But the very fact that these pro-war writers sought to win the rank and file to their view is the proof that the views of the writers were not the views of the party membership.” And by the same token, the very fact that others of the disputants, urging an opposite course, tried to win the rank and file to their view, is the proof that their views were not the views of the party membership ! Well, we said they did not know where they were.
“The editorial note of which our critics make so much play,” we are told in our opponent’s latest effusion, “was repudiated by the unanimous decision of the party.” Then why doesn’t the party purge itself of the man who, two years after the date of the party decision (presuming that the statement is not another lie), had so little respect for it and for party discipline that he could write : “This note was quite in order” ?
As for the S.L.P.’s implication that we are lacking in magnanimity in our attacks upon our foes, if we were out for compliments we should thank them for that one. That an offence committed in 1914 may have been rectified in 1915 neither closes our mouths concerning it nor secures our congratulation. In itself the offence is a symptom of something else—ignorance or roguery. No working class political party firmly grounded on the class struggle could possibly lend its official organ, with or without an official pronouncement of policy, to the support of capitalist war, whether such support comes from members or non-members of the party. That is the salient point. We attack the S.L.P., not to “rankle,” but because it is rotten at the base and stands between the workers and the light. Further proof of this is provided by the statement that its criticism of the B.S P. and I.L.P. is “inspired by the fervent desire of linking together the Labour forces and giving them a revolutionary objective.” Nice revolutionaries, those who would build for revolution with such material.
ED. COM.