Published: Labour Leader, Friday 26th August 1904, pp.248-9
Note: The article describes events in the British section of the 6th Congress of the 2nd International, held in Amsterdam. For a fuller account of the Congress from the point of view of the British I.L.P. see Keir Hardie's account
Transcribed: by Graham Seaman for the Marxists' Internet Archive in July 2025
Last edited: July 2025.
We got to business briskly when we met as a British section at Amsterdam on Monday morning. First, on the motion of John Hodge, we appointed Keir Hardie temporary chairman, and immediately afterward elected him chairman of the section for the week. Then we appointed H. M. Hyndman and J. R MacDonald to represent us on the Congress Bureau, and by acclamation selected Pete Curran to act as chairman of the Congress on the day appointed for the British chairman to preside.Sexton was elected vice-president for the same occasion.
Pleased with the dispatch with which we had done these things, we started smartly upon the agenda of resolutions.
Then it was that our awful plight as a conclave began to dawn upon us. The aberrations of Democracy, which eventually charaterised the rule of the Congress at large, became speedily manifest in the rule of the British section. In the Congress was seen the amazing spectacle of a single delegate from a far-off land neutralising by his vote the vote of a hundred delegates from Britain. In the British section it happened in the course of events that the S.D.F., with a thousand or two members, had 34 delegates present, the I.L.P. with a many times larger membership had only 31 delegates, while the L.R.C., with nearly a million members had only 2 delegates—or, if we include the delegates sent directly by their unions, only 28. Thus the smallest of the three sections had the largest voting strength. In pointing this out I am casting no reflection on the S.D.F.; it is to its credit that it put forward an effort to have its organisation well represented. But the fact has to be noted, as it is clear that any conclave composed of groups of delegates so disproportionate in numbers to the membership of their repsective organisations, cannot be in a position to pass ordinances in the name of the bodies represented. At the most a scratch assembly of that kind may exchange views and make suggestions; it cannot speak as an authoritative delegation.
Yet that is precisely what the British section could not apparently help itself from doing. The agenda was printed in French—a language which only a handful of the delegates understood. The resolutions had never been submitted to any of the organisations represented, and had not even been seen by any but one or two delegates until they met that morning to discuss it. In a moment, however, we found ourselves cheerfully passing clause by clause a terrific papal encyclical by means of which the Bebel-Guesde wing of the movement seeks to have the forward wing of the movement declared heretical. The resolution literally class with phrases of "Class antagonism" and other portentous dogma which happily have not found much way—and I hope never will—into the Socialist or Trade Union movements in Britain. When J.F. Green, who was orally translating the resolution, submitted the third clause, which apparently bore no other meaning than that of condemnation of the Jaurist movement in France, the Revisionist movement in Germany, and the I.L.P. policy in Britain, J.H. Harley, Wherry Anderson, J.R. MacDonald and myself rose to endeavour to arrest the wild downgrade career of the section. Alas, I am not a tactician: the spirit of propaganda is, it would seem, too inveterate in me. What therefore did I do but make a frontal attack on the "Class War" dogma now that I had before me a crowd of fellow-Socialists who were steeped in that awful superstition? I denounced it as a reactionary and Whiggish precept, certain to lead the movement away from the real aims of Socialism. Such class war as exists, I pointed out, was only part of the war between self and society, which exists in the hearts and lives of all men, whether rich or poor, and if the poor as poor be directed to fight the rich as rich, we shall only repeat for a thousandth time the futile rebellions of history.
This statement created consternation in the S.D.F. ranks, and not a little dismay among some of my own I.L.P. and Trade Union friends. 'Twas like a denunciation of the doctrines of Predestination in a Highland Free Kirk, or of the Pope's Infallibility in a Catholic Truth Convention. Quelch, Hyndman, and Irving fell upon me without any bowels of compassion, and pounded at me as though eager to exemplify the intensity of their class antagonism upon my person. "And think of it," cried Quelch, "he was chairman of the I.L.P. for three years!"
It grieves me to think that my too much zeal for the Truth and the righter understanding of Socialism caused our side to lose the votes. Even some of the Fabians (Heaven knows with what consistency!) and some of the Trade Unionists voted with the Marxist revolutionaries. By this decision the British section found itself bound hand and foot for the better part of the week. Our chains clanked upon us day and night like a band of political prisoners under an escort of Cossacks.
At length on Thursday morning the I.L.P. and L.R.C. were resolved to cast off their odious fetters. Mr. Shackleton handed in a note to the chairman of the two bodies, asking the section to say whether, by the resolution carried on Monday morning, any disapproval or condemnation was directly or indirectly implied against the policy to which the I.L.P. or L.R.C. were as organisations committed. This brought forth a remarkable declaration from Quelch. He avowed that neither he nor the organisation to which he belonged had ever condemned the policy of the I.L.P. or the L.R.C. The S.D.F. had always been in favour of working with the Trade Unions. They heartily endorsed the L.R.C. policy, their only objection to it being the refusal of the L.R.C to allow Socialists to be named and run as Socialist candidates! While we were rubbing our eyes wondering whether all our reading of Justice and our hearing of S.D.F. speeches had been merely a nightmare, Dan Irving rose, and, with a tinge of reservation, assented to Quelch's statement, whereupon John Hodge pointed out that the L.R.C. constitution did not, and never had, attempted to interfere with Socialists running as Socialist candidates. It prescribed that all candidates endorsed by the committee should appear before their constituencies under the one common title of Labour candidate, in all other respects Socialist might, if they chose, proclaim their Socialism in every line of their speeches and addresses. Needless to say Quelch's statement was pondered in mute amaze not only by the I.L.P., but by the S.D.F. delegates around him.
That same afternoon, MacDonald, who had powerfully championed the L.R.C. and I.L.P. position in the Commission on Tactics, reported how matters were proceeding in that assembly. He stated that, as was expected, the Guesde resolution was being discussed implicitly as a move against the Revisionist and Jaurist movements, and asked whether that being so, he and Bax were bound to vote for it in the name of British Socialism. He moved that Monday's resolution be rescinded. This was met by an amendment, fathered by Mitchell and Hobson, to the effect that the section should ask the Bureau to allow a less ultramontaine resolution, standing in the name of Vandervelde and Adler, to be submitted [sic. substituted??] for the Guesde one, together with an addition disclaiming any intention of dogmatising on the policy that should be adopted in different countries. This was carried. It was also agreed that the British section should vote solidly for the Vandervelde resolution and the addition, and in the event of its being lost, to vote for the addition being put to the Guesde resolution. It was understood that in the event of the Guesde resolution being finally put to the Congress, the British section would be free to divide its votes for or against it.
Thus at length the section liberated itself from its hasty decision on Monday morning. Let it be a warning. Surely it is evident that no scratch meeting of delegates—some of them representing non-Socialist bodies—can possibly assume authority to define in new terms the Socialism and policy of the British Socialist and Labour movement.
On Saturday the section held its final meeting, and agreed that copies of the minutes should be obtained by all the bodies represented. It was also agreed that Hardie and Green should act as a temporary committee to deal with any matters that might arise out of the preceedings of the section.
J.B.G.