Jack Fitzgerald
Source: The Socialist, August 1908.
Transcription: Socialist Party of Great Britain.
HTML Markup: Adam Buick
Copyleft: Creative Commons (Attribute & No Derivatives) 2007 conference "Be it resolved that all material created and published by the Party shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs copyright licence".
Held at Manchester on May 24th
Representative for S.L.P., comrade DAVIES of BURY. Representative for S.P.G.B., J. FITZGERALD of LONDON. Chairman, J. FORBES KEIR (I.L.P.)
The Chairman said :—That in the socialist movement, as in the religous world, we had the Quakers and the Shakers, although both of them had the same object in view ; and which were the Quakers and which the Shakers, he would leave the audience to decide. He then announced there would be thirty minutes for each opponent, followed by twenty minutes, and then ten minutes each; no new matter to be introduced in the concluding ten minutes.
Comrade Davis, S.L.P., opens and repudiates the Chairman's statement about Shakers and Quakers, denying that he was either Shaker or Quaker. There was only a misunderstanding between the rank and file of both parties, and the purpose of this debate was to clear this up as far as possible in the time. The S.L.P. did not oppose the position of the S.P.G.B. on the political field, as for anything we knew to the contrary, their posture on the political side was correct. It was when they relied on the political weapon alone that we opposed them. They asked the workers to vote for their candidates, and they would, by means ol a parliamentary majority, do the rest.
This the S.L.P. held was a delusion. The emancipation of the workers could not be accomplished by a vote of Parliament. If the workers had the total number of representatives in Parliament (670), they could not bring about the revolution for the following reasons. Without workshop organisation the establishment of Socialism is an impossibility. The Socialist movement is an economic movement, a workshop movement, and without an economic organisation the workng class are split into warring factions and generally disunited. The trades unions to-day were examples of disunity, for when a strike took place it was the trades unions who by blacklegging broke the strike. For instance, when the colliers strike, the A.S.R.S. carry the coal which is got by blackleg labour to wherever the masters require it. The moulders work on scab-made patterns when the patternmakers go out on strike, and vice versa. The S.L.P. contended that any worker or body of workers who helped the employers to win a strike were blacklegging it upon the strikers.
To deal with the masters, we must be united in the workshop. The fight was in the workshop, and Parliament was not the place to bring about the change. After Parliament voted, the workers in the workshops would have to do the actual work, and then Parliament would have to quit; and, although the S.P.G.B. claimed to be revolutionists, so long as they relied alone on the ballot and Parliamentary methods, so long would they be in effect mere reformers, and the utmost they could do would be to bring about some form of State Socialism or State ownership. They would have nothing ready to replace the present system, and thus would be compelled to perpetuate it. It would be disastrous if the workers got a political majority without having the industrial organisation to take the place of the capitalist system, and, in spite of possible capitalist opposition, carry on production. Organised in the workshop as the S.L.P. proposes, there is no power on earth to prevent them capturing the tools of wealth production. The S.P.G.B. was a destructive body without being constructive. The S.L.P. was both, and proposed a way out that would have the framework of Socialism, i.e., the Industrial Union, ready when the political party voted capitalism out. Asking his opponent to show how they could bring the change while the workers were fighting each other in the workshop, Comrade Davies closed his first address.
J. Fitzgerald (S.P.G.B.) then got up to reply, and stated that, although the workers produce all wealth, as a class they own nothing, they only receive sufficient to live, and their condition must grow worse as labour was a commodity. The S.P.G.B. position was that the workers must organise politically and economically, and no class could emanicipate itself without getting hold of the political machinery. The capitalist recognised the importance of the political weapon, and we could not afford to ignore it. The political machinery was the skeleton form of the new society, but Mr Davis said it must be an industrial form.
Why? Industry was dead. Could we point out any industry that was independent of any other? Instead of uniting the workers the S.L.P. was trying to split up the workers into industries. All workers were necessary to every industry. He knew one capitalist concern that owned several industries. Therefore to talk of organising one industry separately was so much humbug. He agreed that, generally, strikes were broken by trade union blacklegging but the 1897 strike of the Engineers was not broken by blacklegging. The unity of the masters throughout the country broke that strike, and the Colorado strike was broken by capitalist opposition and hired Pinkertons. The S.P.G.B. proposed to gain control of Parliament and thus control the armed forces of capitalism. The army was taught to obey, and, strictly-disciplined, they must do or die, and, therefore, they would obey the orders of their superior officers, and when the orders were given the army could spread over the whole area. Asquith sent them to Featherstone. The capitalists have sent them to Hull, Belfast, etc., and therefore it is essential to control the army and navy. The S.P.G.B. does not rely only on the political weapon. See what our Manifesto clearly states (quoting) : "They (the workers) must organise consciously and politically," and let the workers be organised even in a class union, they could not hold the workshops against the army of capitalism. They could blow the workers from the workshops. Mr Davis says, they would not transport the army nor provide supplies. The army can run the railways and transport themselves, and the government keeps seven years' stores on hand, and the capitalist only needed to control one or two industries to paralyse all the others. No ; we must convert the army to our side, and what we can't convert we must control and, in conclusion, he submitted that the S.L.P. were inviting the shambles of bloodshed by their proposed economic organisation.
Comrade Davies then replied for twenty minutes, and said he agreed with what his opponent said about Socialism. Where we disagreed was in the methods proposed. The S.L.P. does not say that the workers must not use political means to emancipate themselves. What we did say was that without the industrial form of organisation the political weapon was useless. The workers must use both. They must organise politically and industrially to take and hold the means of production; the difference was whether political means alone could do it. The S.L.P. Held that it could not, and to rely alone on political methods, as the S.P.G.B. die, was to make certain the shambles of bloodshed, Only the Industrial Unun could prevent bloodshed. The S.L.P. asks the workers to organise industrially, so that in the event of a crisis, such as would be caused by the capitalist closing down production, they could carry on production. We contend it is no use changing one set of masters for another set, as would be done if the S.P.G.B. got control. They would have no alternative other ihan to continue the political system, and thus continue exploitation. We desired to abolish exploitation, and thereby the political system by the industrial workers and the industrial form of representation.
Fitzgerald said : — The trades unions were only benefit societies, and they (S.P.G.B.) did denounce them for blacklegging upon one another. For instance, the A.S.R S. carried the soldiers to Belfast, and the S.P G.B. were carried to the courts for denouncing it. My opponent asks me to show how we are going to do it by political means alone. The workers will not be emancipated by one or the other means. The only means to emancipate them will be the political ones. The workers are already organised socially, and when they get a majority in Parliament, the changed conditions will already have brought about the necessary economic machinery to adapt itself to circumstances ; and when you have settled the matter by civilised methods, by class-conscious votes, you have such a register of strength that the capitalist class may give up, and, if not, the political weapon will be used to control the physical force of the capitalist class. We want them organised economically as a class.
Comrade Davis closed the S.L.P. side by asking Fitzgerald why he beat about the bush ? What did he mean ? If the S.P.G.B. believed in the industrial form of organisation, what had we to de bate about ? If not, then why not say so ? They who supported the craft form of unionism against the industrial form were not Socialists, whatever their professions.
Fitzgeraldthen closed by saying that the S.L.P. had not shown how the workers could hold the tools if the capitalist opposed them, and, therefore, the S.P.G.B. Were the winners. Look at the Socialist Party of America, he said. First, they supported the Socialist Trades and Labour Alliance, then they changed its name to the Industrial Workers of the World, and they keep changing and will change and take up any new idea that presents itself.
With this lucid and relevant conclusion, Mr Fitzgerald modestly retired from the rostrum.