A history of socialism

by Thomas Kirkup

The year 1884 also saw the beginning of a Socialist Society of a nature different from the above. This was the Fabian Society, whose members were mostly young men, clever, full of initiative, and little disposed to bow before accepted authority. They are socialists whose aim has been first to educate themselves in the economic, social, and political questions of the time, and then to educate the English people in their views, or, to use their own language, to “permeate” English Society with progressive socialist ideas. The Fabian Essays on Socialism, by seven of its leading members, published in 1890, a work which has been the chief literary product of the Society, have had a great success. By its popular lectures and discussions, by its tracts and its articles in the monthly reviews, as well as by its activity in the press, the Fabian Society has undoubtedly done much toward the permeation of public opinion with a progressive evolutionary socialism. The tracts, of which there is now a large number, have been always able, generally well informed, and often brilliant. A tract by one of its members on the Workmen’s Compensation Act, issued in 1898, had a circulation of 120,000 the first year of its publication. Important works on a large scale have been The History of Trade Unionism and Industrial Democracy by Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb. The writings of Mr. G. B. Shaw and of Mr. H. G. Wells have done much to startle men’s minds out of the old way of thinking. In 1908 the membership of the Fabian Society had increased to 2500 in the London society, and 500 more in local societies. We give its Basis in the Appendix.

The Independent Labour Party, formed in 1893, was an organisation of socialists with a view to political action. It was to a large extent an offshoot from Fabianism in the provinces, and many of its leading members are Fabians. It has kept itself in close touch with trade unions.

All sections of recent English socialism have included men of real ability and culture, and the movement has been marked by sincere conviction, generous enthusiasm, and hard work in a great cause. For some years after its rise, in 1883, it had considerable influence in the country. Its mission was to rouse men of all classes out of the individualistic routine which had so long been prevalent. Trade unionists and co-operators were the objects of denunciation not less unsparing than that which they poured upon the middle class. The disturbances in Trafalgar Square in 1887 made no little stir; and the Dock Strike in London, which was so ably conducted by John Burns in 1889, for a time gave the movement a national importance. It almost seemed at one period as if English public opinion was veering round to Socialism. The reaction which was bound to set in was certainly due in part to the vehemence and extravagance of the socialistic orators, and to their want of skill and insight in adapting their theories to the atmosphere of the English mind. It is clear that recent English socialism has been too loyal to Marx. This particularly applies to the Social Democratic Federation, now the Social Democratic Party. But even the Fabian basis has implications which are ultra-revolutionary, and hardly consistent with a peaceful and orderly evolution.

At the general election of 1895, the organised socialism in England polled only about 45,000 votes. The mass of the English working men still voted with the old political parties. On the other hand, the Trade Union Congresses, representing over a million workers, for several years passed resolutions of a collectivist nature by large majorities, showing that when the man or men appear that know how to give voice and form to the half-articulate or latent socialism of the country it may have a great future.

In 1900 steps were taken towards the political organisation of labour on a wider scale than formerly. There was formed a Labour Representation Committee in which trade unions, the Independent Labour Party, the Social Democratic Federation, and the Fabian Society were represented. The Social Democratic Federation retired, however, at the end of the first year.

The new committee had been too recently formed to take much part in the general election of 1900. Yet it then returned two members, and two more at subsequent by-elections. At the general election of 1906 it had a great success, and produced an impression even greater on the national mind. As there was no definite dividing line at the election between socialism and labour on the one hand, or between labour and liberalism on the other, it is impossible to speak precisely as to the results. The committee had 323,000 votes and returned 30 members to the House of Commons. There was also a labour or trade-union group, which formed part of the Liberal Party. We may reckon the labour members at 54, of whom about half were socialists.

After the election the Labour Representation Committee transformed itself into the Labour Party, and very wisely decided not to formulate a programme. The new party had behind it a million adherents, of whom 21,000 were members of socialist societies, the rest being trade unionists. Mr. Keir Hardie had taken the leading share in the formation of a Labour Party distinct from the old political parties. In 1908 the trade unions and especially the Miners’ Federation which were represented by the liberal-labour group resolved to join the Labour Party, but this decision was not to be operative with regard to sitting members during the existing parliament. The same year the Labour Party was definitely affiliated to the International. It now represented one and a half million of adherents.

The Labour Party, whose origin we have briefly described, may fairly be regarded as a successful attempt on a worthy scale to form a labour-socialist organisation suited to British conditions. It appears to be commendably free from the excessive Marx influence; but in many important questions it has not thrown off old radical views which are inconsistent with a reasonable and enlightened socialism.

What we may call the avowed and organised socialism has made no great headway in the United States of America or in the English colonies. Books like Bellamy’s Looking Backward have made a great impression, but in a vague way. Labour questions have, on the other hand, attained to a very high state of development. The struggle between trade-unionism and the employers’ combinations is carried on with an energy and comprehensiveness which can hardly be equalled in any part of the old world.

Australia has a Labour Party which is well organised and well led and takes a most honourable place in the recently constituted Commonwealth. It even formed the government in 1904, though it did not retain power long. It is, however, most powerful when out of power, as it then holds the balance between the other two parties. The party is to a great degree socialistic in aim and tendency. It was in power again in 1908.