Bho àm gu àm bu mhath leam tùs ann am Beurla a roinn a tha dha-rìribh inntinneach dhomh agus a tha a’ cur ri ar tuigse air eachdraidh na radaigeachd air a’ Ghàidhealtachd. Tha na colbhan seo leis an Dr Gavin Brown Clark (1846–1930), gun teagamh a’ dèanamh sin.
Bidh cuid de leughadairean eòlach air Clark mar fhear de Bhuill-Phàrlamaid nan Croitearan, agus e a’ riochdachadh Ghallaibh eadar 1885 agus 1900. Mar a leughar gu h-ìseal, bha e gu mòr an sàs ann a bhith ag eagrachadh an Highland Land Law Reform Association (HLLRA), agus ga sgaoileadh air feadh na Gàidhealtachd. Às dèidh an taghadh a bhuannachadh ann an Gallaibh, ‘[he] became the most strident and radical of the crofter MPs’ (Cameron 2016). Tha e fhèin ag innse, gu h-ìseal, ‘I look upon the Crofter movement as one of the most useful in which I have taken part’.
B’ fheàrr leinn gun canadh e tòrr a bharrachd mun ùine aige ann an gluasad nan croitearan – ach tha deagh theans gum faigh sinn tuilleadh chuimhneachan am measg nan sgrìobhaidhean sgapte aige, gun luaidh air na h-òraidean aige ann am Pàrlamaid. Mar a tha Cameron (2022) air argamaid, bha na buaidhean, beachdan is seasamh aig Clark gu math eadar-dhealaichte bhon fheadhainn eile a riochdaich na croitearan. Ghabh e pàirt tràth na beatha, ann an Glaschu is àitichean eile, ann an radaigeachd. ’S ann a chì an seo nach eil Aimhreit an Fhearainn ach mar phàirt de ghnìomhachd tòrr na b’ fharsainge ann an iomairtean airson Fèin-riaghladh Albannach, nàiseantachadh an fhearainn, sòisealachd, an aghaidh ìmpireileas agus eile.
Tha a’ chiad cholbh a’ cur nam chuimhne air na chaidh a sgrìobhadh mu shòisealachd thràth ann an Glaschu le John Bruce Glasier (1859–1920) – agus leughar tuilleadh mu dheidhinn-san a dh’aithghearr; Willie Nairn (1856–1902); agus deagh threis na b’ anmoiche, Harry McShane (1891–1988). Ach, air sgàth ’s gu bheil Clark de ghinealach nas sine tha e comasach air innse dhuinn mu dheidhinn daoine a bha nan Cairtich (Chartists), Owenich agus fiù ’s fo bhuaidh Thòmais Paine!
Chan ainmich mi a h-uile buidheann anns an robh e, ach seo cuid dhe na daoine air an robh e eòlach no còmhla ris am biodh e air obair: Keir Hardie (a bha na dheagh charaid); Karl Marx, agus tha e coltach Friedrich Engels; riochdairean Breatannach a’ Chiad Chomainn Eadar-nàiseanta; Henry Hyndman; tha mi an dùil William Morris; Robert Cunninghame Graham; Iain MacMhuirich (John Murdoch); mòran de shòisealaich ainmeil an ILP; agus bha e fiù ’s na shùil-fhianais aig coinneamh ainmeil nan sòisealach Ruiseach ann an Lunnainn, 1907, anns an robh Lenin, Trotsky, agus Stalin, a stèidhich na Boilseabhaich mar bhuidheann fa leth!
’S dòcha nach biodh ùidh aig a h-uile duine an-diugh ann an tòrr dhen fhiosrachadh gu h-ìseal a tha a-mach air seann deasbadan poileataigeach, pàrtaidhean agus gluasadan a tha air falbh bho chionn fhada. Ach, chì sinn anns na sgrìobhaidhean seo mar a thuig Gavin B. Clark a chuid poileataigs, agus dè bha ann an sòisealachd dha-san. Tha e ag argamaid gu bheil leantainneachd ann, agus nach do chuir e cùl ri gnè de dh’‘Oweneachd’ (Owenism) a-riamh. Bha nàiseantachadh an fhearainn agus frith-ìmpireileas riamh cudromach dha cuideachd. Agus, gu h-inntinneach, tha e a’ cur an cèill, an aghaidh na chanadh a nàimhdean, gur e sòisealach ‘measarra’ (.i. moderate) a tha ann an taca ris na Marxaich agus, na b’ anmoiche, na Leninich.
Mhìnich e sòisealachd mar seo: “the possession and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange by the community for the community” (Forward 3 Iuchar, 1920). Bha e an aghaidh a bhith a’ cur cus earbsa anns an stàit, agus a’ cur cuideam air com-pàirteachadh deamocratach, a’ gabhail a-steach bhoireannach. Ann an 1920, bha e fhathast dòchasach gun rachadh adhartas a dhèanamh a dh’ionnsaigh sòisealachd leis an ILP (Am Pàrtaidh Làbarach Neo-eisimeileach), agus le stèidheachadh ùr dhen Chomann Eadar-nàiseanta. Às dèidh nan uile: ‘The present Capitalist system has had its day. It is coming to an end’ (ibid). (Thoir fa-near, cuideachd, gu bheil e a’ dèanamh fàisneachd treis ron Ìsleachadh Mhòr ann an 1929 gur dòcha gun tuit calpachas ‘with a terrible crash, causing widespread ruin and misery’, ibid.)
Tha obair Ewen Cameron (2016; 2022) a’ sgrùdadh beatha an Dr G. B. Clark ann an doimhneachd agus, gu h-àraid, na pàirt a ghabh e ann an gluasad nan croitearan agus airson nàiseantachadh fearainn. Tha Cameron (2022) ag innse mu na colbhan fèin-eachraidheil a sgrìobh Clark ann am Forward ann an 1910 fon ainm ‘Rambling Recollections of an Agitator’. Chan eil cothrom agam an-ceartuair na colbhan ud a leughadh, ach tha coltas ann gur e nàdar de dh’ath-fhoillseachadh a tha anns na colbhan seo, foillsichte ann an 1920, le fiosrachadh a bharrachd mu ghnothaichean na b’ anmoiche air a chur riutha. Nì mi coimeas eatarra uaireigin. Cuideachd, tha fios gun do sgrìobh Clark mòran eile do Forward, agus do dh’irisean eile. Chan eil an seo, ma-thà, ach ceithir colbhan a chuir mi ri chèile ann an dòigh a tha reusanta is leantainneach.
San dùnadh, tha grunn cheistean agam mun Dr Clark. Mar eisimpleir, an do rinn e cnuasachadh a-riamh mun chontrarrachd mar fhrith-ìmpireileach ann a bhith a’ cur taic ris na Boers, ri linn Cogaidhean Afraga, agus iad fhèin a’ colonachadh fearann Afraganach agus ri fòirneart air dùthchasaich an àite? Agus tha Cameron (2016) a’ cumail a-mach gun robh Clark na ‘advocate of international peace, but believed the allied cause in the First World War was just’. Chan eil guth air sin anns na colbhan seo, agus b’ ann a thuigeamaid bho na teacsaichean gun do ghlèidh e a phrionnsapalan airson sìth is dlùth-chomann eadar-nàiseanta eu-coltach ris na ‘Jingoes’.
~ ~ ~
Random Recollections & Reflections
I.—The Early Socialist Movement
By Dr. G. B. CLARK.
In my boyhood, I met many Chartists, Socialists and other heterodox thinkers and reformers, as my father was an active member of the Chartist organisation. I was born in Kilmarnock in 1846 and shortly after that event he had to remove to Glasgow in consequence of his having taken a conspicuous part of the agitation. It was in Glasgow that I spent my early years, received my education, and where I enjoyed the friendship of many of the leading Socialists and Chartists of the time, especially that of John Scott, who had been Robert Owen’s secretary, and of James Bowman, the leading photographer of Glasgow. The latter was a particularly dear friend of mine and I called my eldest son after him. I also knew Alexander Campbell, who had been the leader of the Socialist movement in the West of Scotland, and Robert Buchanan, the last of the Socialist Missionaries in Scotland. After giving up his missionary work and when the organised Socialist movement collapsed, he settled in Glasgow as a printer and publisher. He published two weekly papers–the Penny Post and the Weekly Sentinel. His son, Robert Buchanan, the poet and novelist, began his literary career on his father’s papers and my own budding attempts in literature also appeared in the Penny Post. The Sentinel afterwards became the property of my old friend, Alexander Macdonald, who was at that time a miners’ agent and the paper became a miners and general labour organ. In 1874, Macdonald and Burt, both miners’ officials, were elected M.P.’s and they were the first representatives of Labour in the British Parliament. They were the candidates of the Liberal Associations in the constituencies and were elected as Liberals. Burt lived to be the father of the House of Commons, but Macdonald died during his first Parliament. The latter was the more advanced of the two and had strong Socialist leanings, but his health was poor when elected and he was able to do very little in the House. In politics, I worked with James Adams, the last secretary of the Glasgow Chartist Society and with Peter Henrietta, the leader of the Democratic Party. There were two halls used by the advanced thinkers for meetings, discussions, and generally for propaganda purposes–the Eclectic Hall in Dunlop Street, opposite the Theatre Royal (both the Theatre and the Hall were pulled down at the time the St. Enoch Station was built) and the Democratic Hall in Nelson Street, near the Cross. Henrietta used to discuss the events of the week every Saturday night in the Democratic Hall. I have seldom met such an eloquent speaker, though for over half a century I have been privileged to hear some of the best known orators in Europe and America. Henrietta’s lectures and speeches were a delight and to many there were a political education. Quite recently, I met Mr. Richard M‘Ghee, an Iris M.P., who had been one of Henrietta’s students and had formed an even higher opinion of him than my own.
In addition to the meetings in the halls, there were meetings on “the Green,” near Nelson’s monument, where every school of thought had its orators and debaters, and where philosophy, religion and politics were constantly discussed. Some of these speakers showed considerable knowledge of the questions with which they dealt, considerable intellectual power and fluency of expression. Mr. Matthew [Gass] was a very able man though a better writer than he was a speaker, and Mr. Gladstone, when writing on the Vatican question, favourably noticed one of his pamphlets. The smartest of the Green orators was Mr. Henry Alfred Long, the leader of the Orange Protestant section, who was always denouncing the evils of “Romanism.” He wrote rather a clever book on The Names We Bear, in which he examined the sources of both Christian and Surnames. At the first School Board Election in Glasgow, he was elected at the top of the poll. In the area of Freethought discussion, a postman, named Thomson, was the ablest speaker and debater. The leader of the Morrisonians, as the Evangelical Union people were called, was a Mr. Malcolm, who frequently debated with Long, who was a Calvinist. Malcolm was also a prohibitionist, and he was always willing to attack the Calvinists and the publicans. The Universalist ministers often took part in the theological discussions.
The Eclectic Society, which had its hall in Dunlop Street, was composed of Socialists and Secularists. George Jacob Holyoake had been a Socialist Missionary but, when Robert Owen became a spiritualist and modified his religious views, a section, led by Holyoake, left the movement in order to work for practical and secular reforms, such as co-operation. Robert Owen coined the terms Socialist and Socialism and Holyoake those of Secularist and Secularism. I never met Robert Owen but I have always been one of his admirers and a supporter of his philosophy. I had often the pleasure of meeting his grand-daughter when she was in this country, staying with Mrs. Lucas (John Bright’s sister) and I heard a great deal of his work in his old age. In his early days, as a social reformer, Owen had many influential supporters. At one of Owen’s meetings in London, King George’s great-grandfather, the father of Queen Victoria, took the chair. But when Owen insisted that all religious systems, including that of Christianity, embodied doctrines, regarding the origin of man and the forces which make his character and constitution, which science and experience had alike proved to be false, then the support of the Church and of society fell from him. Though anti-Christian, his movement became a religious as well as a social and political one. Owen taught what was then called the doctrine of Circumstances–“that man’s character was made for him and not by him,” that the future of a child depended upon its environment, that virtue or vice in the child could be developed in accordance with the conditions in which it was placed and that the evils of the world grew and flourished because the soil supplied was of a kind in which only weeds would grow. Hence he demanded a new Moral World. He demanded a world in which wealth and education should be more equally distributed and it was with this object in view that he carried out his Communist experiments in this country and in America. When in America, he was converted to Spiritualism through the influence of his son, Robert Dale Owen who wrote a book on the question called Footfalls on the Boundary of Another World. This son was afterwards the American Minister to the Kingdom of Naples and the father of Rosamund Dale Owen, who married Lawrence Oliphant.
I am still an Owenite and in favour of bringing about a “new moral world where justice and equity shall reign.” It is quite possible that Owen went too far in his theory that environment is the determining factor in the causation of character and that he did not fully realise the great influence wielded by heredity. Both are important factors in the formation of character and it is difficult to adjust their relative importance. It has been well said that the character of man is beaten out on the anvil of heredity by the hammer of environment. For many years I have read a great part of what has been written on the subject and I still stand by Owen and Darwin, doubtung Weissman’s theory that acquired characteristics are not inherited, although I have to admit that is accepted by the majority of naturalists. The experiments of the Abb[ot] Mendel have thrown much light on the laws that affect variation, but it is dangerous to base sociological conclusions on biological experiments. Owen did well to insist that the individual has no control of his heredity nor, in those early years which so deeply affect h[is] future life, of his environment. He can neither choose his parents nor the country or state of civilisation into which he is born. The millionaire and the pauper are both the bad result of the unfair distribution of wealth and it is not possible to base a high civilisation on foundations so hazardous and insecure.
I remember the “Noddy Kirk,” as the last Socialist meeting place was called. It was in Great Hamilton Street and either Robert Buchanan or Lloyd Jones was its last lecturer. The Eclectic Society sprang from it, as eclectics, both Socialists and Secularists worked together in it, but in the sixties the Secularist element began to predominate, principally through the influence of Charles Bradlaugh. The National Reformer was the weekly paper patronised by the Eclectics. It was owned by John Watts, whose nephew now runs the Rationalist Press Association and it was edited by Iconoclast (Charles Bradlaugh) and Melampus (Dr. George Sexton). On Watt’s death, I believe it became the property of Bradlaugh. Sexton is not so well known as Bradlaugh although he was an abler man and played some strange parts during his lifetime. He was Wilfred Wisgast of the Era, and wrote poems and books under the name of George Hollingsworth. He was also Dr. Khan of Khan’s Museum in Leicester Square. He was originally a Methodist Minister, but his course of study in a German University, where he took the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, made him a Freethinker. Like Owen, he became a spiritualist and was finally a lecturer for the Christian Evidence Society. He was a great friend of Karl Marx and with Maltman Barry, helped Marx to kill the first International. He was the last permanent lecturer of the Eclectic Society. I remember Keir Hardie’s father as one of the members of this Society and a constant reader of the National Reformer. He had been a sailor as well as a miner and had more ability than the majority of his contemporaries among the workers. In religious matters, he and his son, Keir, were poles asunder–the father was a freethinker and a great admirer of Bradlaugh, while Keir was a follower of Dr. Morrison and a member of the Evangelical Union Church. I knew Keir from the time he was a lad and remember making him a Good Templar.
In the Eclectic Hall there were two busts–the one of Robert Owen and the other of Thomas Paine. On the birthdays of these notables, soirees were held to commemorate the lives and the work of these great reformers and teachers whose doctrines the Eclectics were organised to propagate. We have no special occasions upon which we honour their memories to-day, but the history of the last three quarters of a century show us that many of these doctrines considered so heterodox in the middle of the nineteenth century, are, in the first quarter of the twentieth century, no longer the special discovery of “Eclectics” but are among the generally accepted principles of political theory. We are still, however, looking for that new world, which was promised to us after the war and we have been shown that freedom of thought, which this generation considered to be its birthright, may again be in question. It is well to remember the warning that “The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance.”
Tùs: Dr. G. B. Clark, ‘Random Recollections & Reflections: I.–The Early Socialist Movement’, Forward (May 8, 1920), 5.
SOCIALIST MEMORIES
II.—The Fall of the First International—The Park Marx Played—The I.L.P.—Keir Hardie and Mid-Lanark
By Dr. G. B. CLARK.
The two men in th[is] country who helped Marx to destroy the First International were Maltman Barry and Dr. George Sexton. I had been elected to represent the Central London Section at the Hague Congress of 1872, and Sexton came to ask me to support the policy of Marx. We had been friends in Glasgow when he ministered to the Eclectics, and our friendship continued when we were both living in London in 1870. I had no desire to take part in the faction fight between Marx and Bakunin. As far as Marx was concerned, I was not a believer in the materialistic theory of history or of the Hegelian conception of the State. Nor had the bulk of the British Socialists any faith in the deification of the State. They wanted a condition of society in which there should be the maximum of liberty for the individual and the minimum of control by the State, and they considered that this was only possible under a wise system of Socialism. On the other hand, they had equally little sympathy for the Anarchist theories of Bakunin and Pia Margal. They were agreed that organisation and law were necessary, though most of them were ready to admit with John Stuart Mill that, while freedom and liberty were the most valuable of all human rights, and laws were clearly a limitation of liberty, they were a necessary evil in the present state of civilisation[.] But, as still pointed out, as the Christian believed in the Millennium, so the philosopher believed that in the future a condition of civilisation would be evolved of so high an order that laws would become unnecessary. I refused to help Sexton and Barry, believing that, as far as our own country was concerned, the policy of the Trade Union leaders was the only possible one. It was clear that each country must work out its own social salvation in its own way.
At our Nottingham meeting we had adopted a programme and a policy for Great Britain, and it was necessary for the other nations to do the same to suit their individual conditions. I had some weight with Sexton, but none with Barry. He was a whole-hearted supporter of Marx, and was going to the Congress with a bogus credential from a Chicago Humanitarian Society. In 1872, at the Hague, he arranged matters well for Marx. The so-called American delegates were all Englishmen: none of them had even been in America. By packing the Credentials Committee with men who were ready to pass the credentials of those with whom they agreed in policy, and refusing to pass those of the delegates who were their opponents, they managed to obtain a majority, and finally to carry a resolution changing the office of the Executive from London to America, where the movement had neither supporters nor money.
It was by means of these machinations that a fatal blow was dealt, and the First International met its end. It had been first organised by Englishmen in London, who found the money to carry on its work. In so-called histories of Socialism, I frequently see it stated that Marx was the founder of the International. This is not the case: he joined it after it was formed. The man who was most active in founding it was Mazzini, though it took a different course from that which he intended, and developed on economic rather than on political lines. The first leaders in the movement were followers of Robert Owen and Trade Union officials.
Marx was an active leader, and had considerable influence in Germany, and in some of the Continental countries, though he had but little in this country. He only attended one of the Congresses of the International, i.e., the one held at the Hague in 1872, where he dealt it its death blow. Barry was a Tory agent, and when I first knew him he was a salesman in a shoe shop in Holborn. He afterwards became a journalist, and was used by the Tory Party to find Labour candidates when wanted by the Conservatives. He twice stood himself for the House of Commons. I often met him during his career, and he once told me that he hated both the Liberals and the Tories, and that the conflict between them was really a fight between the Landlords and the Capitalists, and that of these he hated the Capitalists the more. Hence he took the part of the Tories, and was ready to play their game, and do their dirty work. His sympathies, he said, were really with the workers, and, like the apothecary, “his poverty and not his will consented” to the adoption of a course which was in his own personal interest.
After the Hague Congress of 1872, there were great dissensions in the sections of the International, both in this country and on the Continent. The great majority supported the old policy, but in this country the Marxists, led by Barry, formed an opposition party. The faction fighting drove many of the members away, and the majority of the Trade Unions and affiliated Societies withdrew, so that, in a short time, all effective organisation ceased. A similar course was followed on the Continent with a like result. Historians tell us that it was the excesses of the French Commune and the legislation passed against the International by so many of the European Governments which destroyed the movement. But the effects of these were only subsidiary: it was the internal warfare which led to its destruction. The fundamental philosophy of men like Marx and Engel[s], Bakunin and Pia Margal, Odger and Cremer, was so divergent that it was impossible for them to work together for any constructive purpose. A permanent organisation could not exist when Collectivists, Anarchists, and Radical Trade Union leaders were all striving for the mastery. They were only united to effect the destruction of the present system; on questions of reconstruction, they were as the poles asunder.
The International did good work in organising the workers on the Continent, and it helped to raise their wages both on the Continent and in this country, but an organisation cannot be a success unless it has common aims of a constructive character, and that was certainly not the case in the First International. A condition of affairs exists at present in the I.L.P. which is in some ways similar to that which confronted us in our International Sections in the early 70’s. An active section of its members are out of touch with the objects which the founders of that organisation set before them, nor are they in sympathy with its philosophy. These men are more in agreement with the views and philosophy of the B.S.P. and the S.L.P.
I have watched the growth of the Independent Labour Party since its beginning in Scotland in 1888. When Hardie determined to stand for Mid-Lanark in 1887, he consulted me on the matter, and I agreed to take part in the contest, and to speak at the meetings. After a meeting at Rutherglen, the miners’ agent told us that it was his intention to vote for the Liberal so as to keep the Tory out. The Liberals were most anxious to gain the seat, and I saw Marjoribanks, the Liberal Whip, to see if we could come to terms. I saw that, without the support of the miners, Hardie would have no chance. Marjoribanks agreed to pay Hardie’s expenses if he would withdraw in favour of the Liberal candidate, Mr. Phillips, now Lord St. Davids, who undertook to retire in Hardie’s favour at the General Election. After full consideration, Hardie refused to withdraw, and he came to the conclusion that there ought to be a separate Labour organisation on thelines of our Nottingham Congress of 1872.
Some months later, a Scottish Labour Party was organised in Glasgow, and Cunninghame Grahame and myself became its Vice-Presidents. In the following year Threlfall called a meeting of Trade Union leaders at Sheffield, with a view to the formation of a Labour organisation for England. But the Trade Unionists wanted their candidates to be adopted by the Liberal Associations, as Burt and MacDonald had been. They wanted to be Liberals, and they did not desire to be members of a separate Party or to have a programme of their own. The results of the Sheffield meeting were nil.
In 1893, the present Independent Labour Party was formed, and the Scottish Party was absorbed in it. From the beginning it adopted an independent position, and had a moderate Scotialist programme. At the time it was formed there was a national Socialist organisation, the Social Democratic Federation, which had adopted the Marxian philosophy. The leaders of the new Party were more in favour of the old teaching of Robert Owen, and, to a great extent, they may be termed “possibilists” rather than “doctrinaires.” They had no cut-and-dried scheme to reform the world, but they were prepared to adopt such methods as commended themselves as likely to bring about the desired result, i.e., the full return to the workers of the fruits of his labour and the abolition of individual rent and interest. The agitation was to be carried on by constitutional methods, and one of its most important objects was to permeate the Trade Unions and to educate them to accept the Socialist solution of Labour problems.
There is now an active minority in the I.L.P. who desire to affiliate with the new International organisation started by the Communist Party in Moscow. (I use the word “Communist” rather than “Bolshevist,” which merely means “majorirt.”) The object of this Moscow Party is clearly expressed in the resolutions which it has adopted. It desires to attain its objects by force, by Revolutionary means–by what is called “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and by arming the workers and dis-arming the supporters of the present system. In some countries these changes may be brought about by civil war, and a minority may be able to get hold of the powers of the State by force, but, in this country, it is not possible, and, in my opinion its advocacy is retarding some of the reforms which we are now able to secure by the ballot box. The Bolshevik is the bogey of Bye-Elections, as it was of the General Election of 1918, and he is a formidable hindrance to the Labour candidates.
England is the predominant partner in the British Empire, and it is essentially a Conservative country. John Bull does not allow himself to be bullied or threatened into a course of which he disapproves. Indeed, threats only ma[k]e him more obstinate; though he may be persuaded, he will not be driven. It is clear that may of those who desire to affiliate with the new International have had no experience of International organisation or of the results which can be obtained by it. They do not realise the difficulties which are caused by the national differences of language, temperament, physical environment, and racial psychology. They also appear to be ignorant of the work which has been done by the Second International, and to be unaware of the fact that the I.L.P. formed the moderate element in the Congresses, or that it was responsible for the admission of non-Socialist bodies, such as the British Trades Unions and the then Labour Party, who were admitted at the Stuttgart Congress. It was held that they were eligible as they were taking part in the class struggle. Although Sir David Shackleton, who was representing the Trades Union Congress, was not a Socialist, he was given more voting power than the I.L.P. or the S.D.F. The twenty votes of the British Section were divided as follows:–Five to the Trade Unions, five to the Labour Party, four to the I.L.P., four to the S.D.F., and two to the Fabian Society. The I.L.P. was responsible for this arrangement.
It was proposed at the same Congress that a General Strike should be declared when war should be declared. Bebel said that such a course might be possible in England, but that in Germany, on the declaration of war, every man would be a soldier, and would immediately be imprisoned or shot if he struck work or in any way opposed war. Both Bebel and the elder Liebknecht were imprisoned for opposing the Franco-German War of 1871. It must be remembered that France was the aggressor in that war, and that Napoleon III declared war against Germany.
Unfortunately, when war breaks out, it is in the power of the State to make patriotism a [?compulsory] virtue.
Tùs: Dr. G. B. Clark, ‘Socialist Memories: II.–The Fall of the First International–The Part Marx Played–The I.L.P.–Keir Hardie and Mid-Lanark’, Forward (May 15, 1920), 5.
SOCIALIST MEMORIES
III.—The Struggle for the Crofters’ Act—The War—Socialist Jingoes—The Second International
By Dr. G. B. CLARK.
Although the international organisation of Socialits ceased in the early seventies, many of the national organisations still continued their work. There had been two Parties in Germany–one led by Lassalle on the lines laid down by Owen, and whose policy and principles are represented to a considerable extent by the Guild Socialists of to-day; and the other Party composed of followers of Marx, who were State Socialists. After the death of Lassalle, who was killed in a duel, the two Parties united, and the movement made great progress in Germany. When the Communards were allowed to return to France, the Socialist movement developed there and the Socialists became an important section of the community. From 1873 until 1881, when the Democratic Federation was formed, there was little Socialist organisation in this country.
The Democratic Federation originated in an organisation to oppose the Coercion policy of the Gladstone Government in Ireland. It represented Radical Clubs, Magna Charta Associations (an organisation formed by [Dr] Kenealy), and it was joined by some old Socialists. When the Coercion Act was passed, the Anti-Coercion League, of which I was the Chairman, sent out a circular pointing out the reactionary character of the Liberal Party, and the desirability of the formation of a Progressive Party to oppose the treacherous Liberalism of the day. When the Conference met there were three delegates representing Democratic Toryism–Mr. Henry Myers Hyndman, Mr. Butler Johnson, who had been M.P. for Canterbury, and Dr. Karl Pearson. Hyndman became the leader of the new Party. He had adopted the philosophy and economics of Marx, and these he popularised in a volume, called “England for All.” I remained a member of the Council of the Federation until 1882, when I resigned in order to devote my whole time to the Crofter movement in the Highlands of Scotland. I had always opposed the policy of Marx, and on some matters I could not agree with Hyndman, though it is possible that I was prejudiced in my dislike to Marxism, and I regretted that the Federation adopted the State Socialism of Marx and Engels.
At the time I left the Federation the opportunity presented itself of striking a blow at landlordism. The Nationalisation of the Land had been one of the points in the Chartist programme, and I have been a keen land nationaliser all my life. In 1867 I had written a pamphlet, entitled “A Plea for the Nationalisation of the Land.” At that time a big land movement was taking place in Scotland, led by Ernest Jones, the old Chartist leader, and I took part in it. The Irish Land League had considerable influence in the Highlands, and, in fact, the first £50 sent to support the Highland movement came from the Irish Land League. Many Highlandmen in London were desirous of helping the crofters and cottars, and we had a splendid meeting. None of these men had any experience of political organisation, and great pressure was brought to bear upon me to induce me to take up the work of organising the Highlands and Islands. To this I finally agreed, and became the Chairman of the Highland Land Law Reform Association. We immediately demanded that a Royal Commission should be appointed to report upon the subject, and this was granted by the Gladstone Government. I then went North to form Branches of our Association, and to see that witnesses should be ready to give evidence before the Commission.
The Royal Commission reported in our favour, and, at the General Election of 1885, in consequence of our agitation, we were able to carry seven of the nine seats. In the first session of that Parliament we carried a measure to create a Land Court to fix fair rents, and the Act gave fixity of tenure to the tenants, vesting in them all the improvements which they had made, which, until then, had become the property of the landlords. During the first two years of its operations the Land Court reduced the rents in Caithness (the county I represented) by 50 per cent., and the arrears of rent due by 90 per cent., and this fact shows how great a boon the Act was to the poor rackrented tenants. I look upon the Crofter movement as one of the most useful in which I have taken part.
As the Socialist movement developed in the different countries, the desire for international organisation increased correspondingly, and in 1889 a Conference was held at Paris, when the Second International was formed. The basis and constitution of the First International had been very vague and all-embracing. It was open to all who were in favour of ameliorating the conditions of labour. The Second International limited its membership to those taking part in the class struggle, and this was also a vague basis, as Trade Unions, which were not Socialist bodies, were allowed representation. It held Congresses every three years in the different countries of Europe, the last having been held in 1910. One would have been held in 1913, but unfortunately it was postponed until 1914, that it might be a jubilee meeting, the old International having been formed in 1864.
The war prevented the Congress arranged for 1914 from taking place, and it caused great dissension among the Socialists of Europe. From their inception the Internationals had recognised the evils of war, and, at most of the Congresses of both the First and the Second International, resolutions in favour of the settlement of disputes between countries by other means than those of war had been adopted. The Second International met only once in this country. This was in the year 1896 when it met in London. At the public demonstration in Hyde Park during the Congress, the only resolution was one against war. In July, 1914, when the possibility of war was recognised, great meetings of protest were held in large towns of Germany[.] In this country, on the Sunday preceding the declaration of war, a demonstration was held in Trafalgar Square, London. In both countries some of the Socialists, who protested so vehemently against war at these meetings, became afterwards equally strong in its support. In this country the only Socialist organisation which, from the first, persistently and constantly opposed the war was the I.L.P. The B.S.P. was very much divided, and finally many of its best known leaders resigned from it and founded a new society to support the war policy.
An extraordinary change was witnessed in some of the men who had been extreme Pacifists, and who became equally extreme Jingoes, e.g., Gustave Herve and Jules Guesde, in France, J. F. Green and Stanton in this country, and many prominent Socialists in Germany. In his paper, La Guerre Sociale, Herve had taught that patriotism was a vice, that armies must be abolished, and that militarism must be utterly annihilated. At several Congresses of Peace and Socialist organisations which I attended, he proposed extreme and rash motions, but on the outbreak of war, he turned round and became a Jingo of the wildest type. During the war he ran another paper, supporting the policy of the last man and the last franc, and was one of the most ardent of the adherents of the “Jusqu’au[-]boutiste” policy. Jules Guesde had also been an anti-patriot, and had led an extreme section against Jaures. He had been opposed to having any dealings with the bourgeoisie, but he actually joined a bourgeois Government in order to support the war. J. F. Green was so extreme a Pacifist that he left the S.D.F. when it supported the principle of a Citizen Army and resigned his office as Treasurer. For over a quarter of a century he was the Secretary of the International Arbitration and Peace Association, but during the war this extreme Pacifist became an ardent patriot, and was an official of an organisation of workers founded to support the war. He ran as a candidate against Ramsay MacDonald in Leicester, opposing him because he was a Pacifist. Green was elected, and, like the other Labour men of his Party, he has supported the reactionary policy of the present Government. Stanton was a leader of the Welsh miners, and known as an extremist. He is now a reactionary, cursing what he had hitherto blessed. Many of these men, who changed their views with regard to war, changed them also in regard to questions of politics and political economy. They are now to be found on the Conservative side.
When the war broke out, the Parliamentary Labour Party determined by a majority to support the Government in its war policy. In consequence, Ramsay MacDonald resigned its leadership, and was succeeded by Arthur Henderson. A similar condition existed in France and Germany, and in both these countries a majority of the Socialist Members of Parliament supported their Governments and voted the money to carry on the war. The minority, who opposed it, have held two Congresses in Switzerland, but the attendance at these was small, and they cannot be said to have been of much importance.
The office of the Second International was in Belgium. The Chairman of its Executive was Emile Vandervelde, and its Secretary, Camille Huysman. They both left Belgium in consequence of the German occupation, and Vandervelde became a member of the Belgian Coalition Government that was established in Havre. He was appointed to look after Belgian affairs in this country. Huysman had an office in the building of the Labour Party in London, and both of these men came more or less under the influence of the Labour Party in this country. They found the Socialist organisations weak and divided, while the Labour Party was strong and well provided with money. As in Germany and in France, the Labour Party in this country entered into a coalition with the other Parties to continue the struggle. Henderson, who succeeded MacDonald as Chairman of the Parliamentary Party, was appointed a Cabinet Minister. He was sent to Russia, but found himself out of sympathy with the Russian policy of the Cabinet, and he resigned office. From that time the minority in the Labour Party has grown until, as in France, it has become the majority.
Tùs: G. B. Clark, ‘Socialist Memories: III–The Struggle for the Crofters’ Act–The War–Socialist Jingoes–The Second International’, Forward (May 22, 1920), 5.
SOCIALIST MEMORIES
The Problem of the International
By Dr. G. B. CLARK.
My former articles on this question were written in Italy and in France, and I had no documents to which I could refer. Since my return, and in consequence of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald’s letter, I have looked up some of these, and have discussed the matter with Delegates who were present at the Stuttgart Congress. The result of these interviews confirms my statement that the admission to the International of the British Trades Union delegates and those of the Labour Party, and the arrangement made regarding the division of the votes were due to the efforts of the leaders of the I.L.P. The first attempt to effect this inclusion was made at the Amsterdam Congress, and the work was finally consummated at Stuttgart. Hardie worked hard for its accomplishment, which was in accordance with the policy of permeating the Trades Unions with Socialism. Before the meeting at Stuttgart, he had obtained the support of Jaures and of some of the German leaders. Ramsay MacDonald was himself a supporter of the policy at Stuttgart.
The inclusion of the Labour Party and the division of the votes in the British Section increased the influence of the moderate party and the I.L.P. The S.D.F. was hostile, and the Fabian Society benevolently neutral. The I.L.P. could depend upon the votes of Sir David Shackleton, and of Hudson, of the N.U.R., who, I think, were the sole representatives of the Labour Party. MacDonald was one of its officials, but I think he represented the I.L.P. Will Thorne and some of the Trades Unions representatives were more inclined to the policy of the S.D.F., but others might have agreed with the I.L.P. Several delegates were members of more than one of the organisations represented at the Congress. From the conversation I had with Hardie at the time, I have no doubt that he considered good work had been done for the I.L.P. and for the future of Socialism. I was inclined to agree with him at the time, but subsequent events have thrown doubt on the wisdom of the action taken.
The Jubilee meeting of the International could not be held in 1914 in consequence of the war. Its Central Offices were at Brussels, where the meetings of the Executive were held, but, owing to the German occupation of Belgium, the Chairman (M. Vandervelde) and the Secretary (M. Huysman) spent a considerable portionof their time in this country. M. Vandervelde joined the Belgian coalition Ministry, and came over to London to look after Belgian interests. M. Huysman had a room in the offices of the Labour Party in Eccleston Square, and no doubt both were much influenced by the leaders of the Labour Party in London.
As a member of a local Labour Party, and as the offical of a Trade Union, I have attended both the Annual and Special Congresses of the Labour Party. These meetings have always been dominated by the delegates of the Trades Unions, who, upon a division, are able to cast the great majority of all the votes. Many of the delegates are old Union officials, who are ignorant of the philosophy of Socialism and of the economic system resulting from it. Some are even opposed to that philosophy and to the changes which it demands. At one of the meetings of the Labour Party in London a resolution was adopted that all meetings of the International in the future should be limited to the delegates from the Labour Party. It is true that nearly all the Socialist Societies are affiliated to the Labour Party, but they are a small minority in that party, and have practically no control over its policy.
The Labour Party was originally a Federal Union of Trades Unions and Socialist organisations, and each section elected its own representatives on the Executive, but, despite the strong opposition of the Socialists, the Trades Union majority changed the constitution from a Federal Union to an incorporating one–the whole Executive being elected by the delegates at the Annual Meeting, at which the Trades Unions have the preponderating voice. The limitation of delegates to Labour Party representatives has been carried out at some of the meetings which have purported to be meetings of the International. At one these meetings, in London, I saw a delegate from the B.S.P. refused admittance. These meetings were not in truth meetings of the International. The constitution of that body can only be changed or amended at a Congress where all the affiliated Societies are represented, or to which they have been invited.
What is to be the future of the International? It is now ten years since it met, and many changes have taken place since then. The time has come for its basis to be reconsidered. During most of the decade since its last meeting, and certainly during the last six years, it has been impotent, owing partly to want of solidarity and the weakness of many of its leaders. Some of these, like some of our own Labour leaders, have joined Coalition, or Capitalist Governments, and, as a result of contamination, have succumbed to their new environment, and have become weak and lukewarm, and, as we have seen in this country, a few have actually become reactionary. We must get rid of the men who have betrayed the principles we cherish, and find new leaders who will carry on the work for the objects we desire.
What are the ideals we desire to attain, and what ought to be the basis of the International of the future? A profession of our belief in and our participation in the class struggle is an insufficient statement of our aims. Some time ago I proposed “the possession and control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange by the community for the community,” and I suggest that each country should be permitted to take such means as it may consider best towards the attainment of this object. We should also demand the abolition of Conscription and of all forms of compulsory Military Service. We must claim the abolition of tariffs, customs, and excise, in order that goods may be exchanged at their natural value. International commerce must be ordered upon new lines. The present Capitalist system has had its day. It is coming to an end. The seeds of its destruction have been in it from the first, and almost all the grounds of its existence have been swept away as a result of the war. It may soon fall with a terrible crash, causing widespread ruin and misery, and the building up of a new industrial and commercial system will be inevitable.
It is to be hoped that the Congress now being called will unite all Socialists who are prepared to stand by the principle of Democracy. In regard to the war, Socialist opinion was divided, and the action of some of its leaders has been called in question, but fortunately there are new men to take the place of those who have been discredited. A greater difficulty is one of principle, and the determination of the policy to be based upon it. The old question has been raised of Democracy v. Autocracy, of Freedom v. Tyranny. In this country, as far as representative Government is concerned, we have almost attained to Democracy, and the people have the power by peaceful means to obtain any sort of Government they desire. To replace a Government elected by the will of almost the whole adult population, by one based upon force, on the dictatorship of the proletariat, or by the tyranny of any section or class, would be a backward and not forward movement. I cannot say that I desire to see the Trade Unions of the country assuming a dictatorship in politics. While the majority of the Trade Unions on the Continent have a Socialist constitution and have largely taken part in politics from their inception, the Unions in this country have only lately begun to take political action. In their early days, they were debarred from taking any part in politics, and they needed the lesson given to them by the Taff Vale decision before they saw the necessity of using their political power. It is only the younger and more advanced of the Trade Union leaders in this country who see that the Collectivist solution of the Labour problem is the only one worth fighting for, but this section is fast becoming the guiding force in the Unions.
Some years ago, I look down from the gallery of the Brotherhood Church, when the Russian Socialist Congress was debating the question of its method of action, and I saw the division take place when the Extremists became the Bolsheviks (Majority), and the Moderates the Mensheviks (Minority). I little thought then that a similar controversy would agitate our own people. The extreme Marxist Communist Schol has its followers here, though they are not yet very numerous. The dictatorship of the proletariat has been tried in Russia and Hungary. In Russia is has been able to maintain its power by modifying its principles, but in Hungary it has been replaced by a reactionary Government–a Government of Capitalists, under which thousands of Communists have been murdered.
In this country the proletariat could only achieve a position of dictatorship by force of arms, and it is more than probable that the attempt would be followed by the same result as in Hungary. Leninism is Marxism carried to its bitter end. It was said that the King could do no wrong, and, if it is held that the State could do no wrong, so, just as it conscribed the people to fight, whether they wished it or not, so may it compel them to do whatever kind of work it choses, and thus men would be turned into living machines, and the Servile State would be brought into being.
But such a consummation cannot be permanent, since it outrages the highest feelings of which Human Nature is capable–the Hatred of Tyranny and the Love of Liberty!
Tùs: G. B. Clark, ‘Socialist Memories: The Problem of the International’, Forward (July 3, 1920), 5.
~ ~ ~
An tar-sgrìobhadh seo, agus mearachd sam bith, le T. MacAilpein (2024)/This transcription, including any errors, by T. MacAilpein (2024).
Cameron, Ewen A., ‘Clark, Gavin Brown (1846–1930), politician’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2016). Ri fhaighinn aig: https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614
Cameron, Ewen A., “‘Not a bashful man’: Dr Gavin Brown Clark and Land Nationalisation”, ann an Shaun Evans et al., deas., Land Reform in the British and Irish Isles since 1800 (Dùn Èideann: Edinburgh University Press 2022), tdd 95–112.
A' Cheàrdach 
