It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Some historical figures are
deservedly neglected but Guy Aldred is not one of them. His influence, though not extensive, is important.
Although Aldred is a problematic figure in
many ways, his attempt to carve a niche for himself as anon-aligned revolutionary socialist in the early twentieth century, was significant.
That Nicholas Walter called his "main problem - that "he belonged to
no viable organisation is precisely what sheds important light on the nature of
socialist factionalism, illuminating the difficulty of bridging the gap between
Marxism and anarchism.
Moreover, Aldred's defence of individualism and the centrality of
his activism provide a useful vantage point from which to observe contemporary
divisions within anarchism. For all these reasons Aldred deserves to be rescued
from obscurity. 'n this article, after a brief biographical sketch, ' analyse
his political thought and the development of his communism, placing it in the
context of the important dispute about federalism and individualism which divided
Marxists and anarchists in the years leading up to the First World War.
Aldred’s political
development
Aldred was born in London in 1886 and died in
Glasgow in 1963 just before his seventy-seventh birthday. By the time of this
death some of his would-be comrades thought that he was living in something of
a time-warp. Albert Meltzer left this portrait.
“He was an old-fashioned
socialist agitator, who struck to Victorian-type knickerbockers rather than
trousers, and who early in life conceived his career as a professional
street-corner speaker. 'It is something now inconceivable, and reliance on collections
made for a hard struggle with poverty for most of his days “
Aldred, Guy A Glasgow:The Strickland Press [&] Bakunin Press,1940. 71p., wraps, front wrap chipped, paper slightly browned and edgeworn. "The word" library, second series, no. 1. Cat.No: 154526 Price: $10.00
Hardly a street-corner site in Glasgow did not know Guy Aldred's great resonant voice belabouring the evils of society. Hardly a Glasgow voter for three generations did not have the opportunity of electing him to the city or national government he despised so much - and vowed to enter only on his own terms, if elected. But he never was elected, although he once stood simultaneously for 14 city wards. He claimed there was better company in Barlinnie (which he knew well) than in the Corridors of Power. Guy Alfred Aldred was born on November 5th, 1886, and died on 16th October 1963. He had just 10 pence in his pocket when he died. Born a Londoner, he settled in Glasgow in 1919, although he was well known in the city before then. He spoke and wrote many millions of words in his unending drive towards what he believed to be the liberation of mankind from economic and philosophical bondage. Boy-Preacher, Social Democrat, Prisoner of Conscience (repeatedly), Conscientious Objector, Anarcho-Communist, orator, writer, publishing - Guy Aldred never ceased struggling for those things in which he believed. John Taylor Caldwell was the man who carried the banner for Guy Aldred. He left Guy's death-bed to carry on the work, and continued the struggle for several more years.
Feb 25, 2018 - Meanwhile one of the pioneers of Anarchist Communism, the Russian ... whilst Socialist League members like Alfred Marsh and John Turner joined ... Here Guy Aldred, a young man who had started out as a Christian ... putting a revolutionary case against capitalism and the State as the root causes of war.
The Commune was a periodical edited by the Glasgow-based anarchist and communist Guy Aldred. It was printed by the Bakunin Press which was based in Aldred's house in Woodside. The periodical was the official journal of the Anti-Parliamentarian Communist Federation which was founded in 1921 when the Glasgow Communist Group and the Glasgow Anarchist Group joined forces.
Aldred was a Londoner who moved to Glasgow in 1912. As a teenager he had been an evangelist but he lost his religious faith and turned instead to anarcho-communism. He edited a number of radical political broadsheets and championed many left-wing causes until his death in 1963.
Why Jesus Wept, The rebel and His Disciples, etc., is a book about Jesus next to none. A Jesus that belonged to human history but who was used by the corrupt powers of history to further their own ends. A book about the message of Jesus unfettered by church rituals. A book that should be read by everyone who thinks that they too have something to say about the world and its religious and political development. WHY JESUS WEPT is an attempt to bring out the message of the man Jesus that has been overlooked owing to its stark contrast to the political and religious powers that have so far given history its 'colour' and traditions. When we read WHY JESUS WEPT we are immediately tempted to continue with THE REBEL AND HIS DISCIPLES and HISTORICAL AND TRADITIONAL CHRISTIANITY. These essays by Guy A. Aldred take us back to a time when there was a meaning in social development that encouraged new strengths for new challenges.
THE RIGHT WING PRESS ATTACKS DANGEROUS ANARCHIST COMMUNIST
George Orwell’s 1984 defines the booming genre of dystopian literature, but Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World provided a more accurate prophecy of the future. In another of his works, Ends and Means, Huxley offered deep insights into why people choose to become atheists. In a time when 26 percent of Americans are unaffiliated with any religion, and the number of atheists and agnostics in the U.S. has doubled in the last 10 years, people of faith must pay heed to his observations. Huxley wrote that he and “most of [his] contemporaries” saw atheism’s moral vacuum as their “instrument of liberation,” because it allowed them to embrace sexual hedonism and socialism.
There is an undeniable correlation between socialism and secularism, but does it prove causation? A strong case is made by analyzing the “Nones” at different stages of their flight from faith. Pew Research asked “Nones” in late 2017 the reason they no longer affiliate with a religion. The overwhelming majority of atheist “Nones” (75 percent) said they do not believe in God, while a plurality of agnostic “Nones” (38 percent) said they “question a lot of religious teachings.” Those “Nones” who still believe in God are equally motivated by two factors: They question religious doctrines (25 percent), and they “don’t like the positions churches take on social/political issues” (21 percent).
Further, the data show that “Nones” are becoming increasingly secular as time goes on. The percentage of “Nones” who do not believe in God increased by half from 2007 to 2014. This leads to an inescapable conclusion: The social and political issues that drive a wedge between young people and traditional Christianity – including the envy that drives socialism – eventually blossom into full atheism.
For most, the transference of faith is not so coldly transactional as it was for Huxley. Instead, faith in the transcendent gets crowded out by faith in socialism’s utopian promise of equality-of-outcome on earth. This path transformed Michael Harrington from a daily communicant volunteering in the Catholic Worker movement to the atheistic founder of the Democratic Socialists of America. After seeing India’s ghettoes, he wrote in The Vast Majority that “if he were half the God he claims to be, he would leave his heaven and come here to do penance in the presence of a suffering that he as God obscenely permits.”
A lesser-known case can be seen in Guy Aldred, a London “boy preacher” at the turn of the twentieth century who became an outspoken socialist and atheist. He belittled Christians who “never realized that charity, even continuous and genuine charity, is not enough. It can never compensate for social injustice and inequality.”
The socialist path to atheism begins by substituting a temporal, class-based morality for divine revelation. Collectivists reject the notion that God’s acts of mercy and providence give us our daily bread, that differing talents result in different economic results, and that wealth acquisition funds charity so that “your abundance at the present time should supply their need” (II Corinthians 8:14). Instead, Harrington blamed God for an inequality that he believed should never exist,
and Aldred believed the only remedy lay outside the means sanctioned by Christianity.
The cultural revolution has succeeded in changing millennials’ conscience. Nearly four-in-10 millennials believe it’s “immoral” for society to allow people to become billionaires, however they earned their money. People under the age of 30 are 30 percent more likely to resent wealthy Americans than those over age 65, although Christianity teaches that envy is one of the seven deadly sins. They are more likely to agree that “very successful people sometimes need to be brought down a peg or two even if they’ve done nothing wrong.” And the Cato Institute study found that “resentment against successful people is more influential than compassion in predicting a person’s support for … redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor.”
Rev. Ben Johnson is a senior editor at the Acton Institute. His work focuses on the principles necessary to create a free and virtuous society in the transatlantic sphere (the U.S., Canada, and Europe). He earned his Bachelor of Arts in History summa cum laude from Ohio University and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.
Photo “Minnesota Atheists” by Fibonacci Blue. CC BY 2.0.
THE ACTON INSTITUTE IS FUNDED BY THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA AND CANADA AKA THE DUTCH REFORMED CHURCH (ZA) AS WELL AS BY NEO-CALVINISTS AND EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT RIGHT WINGERS. IT IS A POLITICAL INSTITUTE THAT LOBBIES FOR THE RIGHT WING FUNDED BY TAX FREE CHURCHES. THEY ARE ALSO PART OF THE RIGHT WING CABAL OF CLACWORK RESEARCH INSTITUTE, NOW KNOWN AS CC, AS WELL AS THE WESTERN TRINITY UNIVERSITY AND ITS COHORT OF NEO CALVINIST POST SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IN BC, ONTARIO, ALBERTA, AND THE USA
Though born in London and spending the early years of his life there it was Glasgow that he spent most his adult life and in Glasgow that he died. Because of his popularity in the City we can rightly claim him as one of the City's Sons.
Guy Alfred Aldred was born in Clerkenwell London on the 5th of November 1886 as a result of a short liaison at the beginning of 1886 between his father, a 22 year old Naval Lieutenant and a 19 year old parasol maker, Ada Caroline Holdsworth. Ada was socially unacceptable to the young Lieutenant, however he did the "respectable thing", marrying Ada on the 13th September 1886 but leaving her at the church after the wedding to return to his mother. On Guy Fawkes night the 5th November 1886 Ada gave birth to a son, hence the name "Guy", his middle name Alfred was after his father. Guy was brought up in the home of Ada's father, Charles Holdsworth a Victorian radical.
BOY PREACHER.
In 1902 at the age of 15 he printed his own leaflets and set about London as a "boy preacher" handing out leaflets and receiving ridicule and disdain in return. He eventually found work as an office boy with the National Press Agency in Whitefriars House. Soon he was writing articles for the agency and was promoted to position of Sub-Editor. At this time Guy met an evangelist called McMasters, together they founded the "Christian Social Mission". Five days after his 16th birthday the Mission opened with Guy as the "Holloway boy preacher", giving his first public sermon however It did not go down too well with his audience nor the other preachers due to its non-conformist approach.
By persistent writing to the Reverend Charles Voysey - BA, Guy was eventually granted an audience on the 20th December 1902. The 74 year old well-to-do Voysey was taken aback when confronted with a coarsely dressed 16 year old working class boy as his letters had indicated otherwise. After cautious preliminaries on the part of Voysey they settled down to a discussion that lasted three hours. The friendship was to continue until the old man's death in 1912.
In January 1903 the Reverend George Martin an Anglican Minister arrived at Guy's home holding one of Guy's leaflets from six months earlier and asking to meet the "Holloway Boy Preacher". Martin was a gentle, compassionate and learned man who lived and worked in London's worst slums. Guy joined him in his work with London's poorest. Many nights were spent in long discussions in Martin's damp attic, the friendship lasted six years and had an immense impact on young Guy. At the end of January 1903 the "Holloway boy preacher" gave his last sermon from the pulpit and left the "Christian Social Mission".
AGNOSTIC.
During 1903-1904, Guy was speaking at the "Institute on Theism" but felt it was time to set up his own organization. He called it the "Theistic Mission" , it met every Sunday and drew a considerable though not always friendly crowd. Guy was becoming known as a forceful young orator. He was also shifting towards atheism. August 1904 the meeting banner changed, it now read "The Clerkenwell Freethought Mission". Meetings from then on were on some instances extremely hostile. On one occasion the crowd charged the platform, knocked Guy to the ground and started to beat him, as he tried to regain the platform they again pulled him off with the police intervening to put an end to the meeting. Around this time he was reading "The Agnostic Journal" and became friendly with its editor "Saladin", William Stewart Ross, a Scotsman. It was at the Journal's office that he met another Scotsman John Morrison Davidson, these two men introduced Guy to Scottish affairs.
SOCIALISM.
1904 Guy heard Daniel De Leon speak on Clerkenwell Green, this lead him to the "Socialist Labor Party". These meetings confirmed his belief in socialism, in 1905 he joined the "Social Democratic Federation". Though only nineteen Guy was an accomplished orator and a tremendous gain to the Socialist platform. 1906 he was appointed Parliamentary Correspondent for "Justice", the organ of the SDF. Guy, an anti-parliamentarian, approached the job with hint of cynicism. Also in 1906 he relinquished the job. Shortly after this in June of the same year he broke with the SDF. The split was in part due to airing his atheist views from the platform when the federation did not want religion, anti or otherwise to muddy the socialist message.
ANTI-PARLIAMENTARIAN.
He was now a confirmed anti-parliamentarian and socialist. In October 1906 the "Islington Gazette" published his "Revolutionary Manifesto" in which he proposed to stand at the next election but refuse to take the Oath. Guy Aldred was by now a well know speaker at Hyde Park. An eloquent speaker with extremist views his platform always drew large crowds. He was also contributing to several socialist papers and contributed to all thirty issues of "The Voice of Labor" an anarchist paper, this lead him to the anarchist club in Jubilee Street.
ANARCHIST.
While visiting the "Jubilee Street Club" during 1906 Guy became more acquainted with Anarchist ideas and with many Anarchists of note from that period. He wrote two articles for "Freedom", the Anarchist paper. The Anarchist Rudolf Rocker referred to Guy as one of the promising young men of our time. It was at the "Jubilee Club" that Rocker asked Guy to stand in for Kropotkin who was to speak but could not attend. Guy's leanings were towards Proudhon and critical of Kropotkin. By now Guy was speaking every night at different places in London and three times on a Sunday in Hyde Park. The Sunday meetings were under the banner of the "National Secular Society". In January 1907, approaching the age of 21, saw Guy leave the "National Press Agency" for the "Daily Chronicle", six months later he left the paper and journalism intent on being a full-time propagandist, relying on collections and donations for his living, printing and any other expenses. At the "Jubilee Club" in 1907 he was introduced to "Rose Witcop" younger sister of"Milly Witcop", partner of Rudolf Rocker. The friendship developed but not to the pleasure of Guy's mother.
BAKUNIN PRESS.
In 1907 Guy in conjunction with John Turner and others formed the "Industrial Union of Direct Action". A union opposed to reforms its purpose was to organize for social revolution. In a short period there were branches in Dover, Liverpool, Leeds and Weston-super-Mare, plus six branches in London. Shortly after this Guy founded the "Communist Propaganda Group". The group spread rapidly, first with several branches in London, Wales, the North of England, then to Scotland with branches in Glasgow, Paisley, Fife, Aberdeen, Dundee and several towns in Lanarkshire. In 1921 all these groups federated into the "Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation". It was also around 1907 Guy, in the basement of his home, set up the first of his "Bakunin Press". Continued disapproval and resentment from Guy's mother about his association with Rose, she referred to her as "...that bloody Jewess", eventually forced Guy to leave home in January 1908. The two of them entered a period of extreme poverty with all its entailing problems. Rose Witcop was taken from the midst of the May Day parade of the 2nd of May 1909 to Queen Charlotte's Hospital where she gave birth to a boy. Due to the fact that she gave her name as Miss Witcop and did not wear a ring her treatment was cold and what the staff deemed fitting a fallen woman. Guy was not allowed to see her or receive any information about her until her discharge. The baby was called "Annesley", as a mark of respect to their friend the Reverend Voysey.
PRISON.
On the 2nd of July 1909 the Secretary of State for India, Sir Curzon Wylie was assassinated by Madan Lal Dhingra. On the day he was sentenced to death the printer of "The Indian Sociologist" was also sentenced to six months imprisonment. The Lord Chief Justice at the trial stated this was a warning that printing this sort of matter was a serious breach of the law. The "Times" in an article stated, nobody would dare print this sheet again. Guy, though not in favor of assassination and no advocate of nationalism was very much against suppression of opinion. So he duly printed the August issue of "The Indian Sociologist" and was arrested on the 25th of August; the trial was set for September the 10th at the Central Criminal Court. Guy conducted his own defense, was found guilty and sentenced to twelve months hard labor. Sir William Strickland heard of the trial and sent Guy a telegram congratulating him on his stand for freedom, he also sent him £10. This friendship lasted until Strickland's death in 1938. Guy was released from prison on the 2nd of July 1910.
GLASGOW.
It was the "Clarion Scouts" that brought Guy to Glasgow. In 1912 he accepted their invitation to speak at the City's Pavilion Theater. The theater was packed His fellow speaker was "Madam Sorge" with "Willy Gallacher" in the chair. Guy then went on to speak at nine "Clarion Scouts" open air meetings with a final rally at the Charing Cross fountain. He also spoke at the Renfrew Street Hall of the "Socialist Labor Party" and accepted the "Glasgow Anarchists" invitation to come back to speak at a series of meetings. Guy's skill on the platform and his intellectual breadth went down well with the Glasgow Anarchists. The Clarion had asked him back to Glasgow in 1913 but Guy arrived six weeks early to speak for the Anarchists. During the 1913 Clarion tour Guy spoke at meetings in Paisley, Dumfries, Dundee, Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Leith and Kirkcaldy and after that he spoke every night for two weeks for his newly formed "Communist Group". Guy was by now a familiar figure in Glasgow drawing large crowds at street corner meetings throughout the City. 1914 saw Guy back in Glasgow to speak for the Anarchists on May Sunday. It was a grand affair, twenty thousand people with representatives from over 100 organizations set off from George Square accompanied by bands, banners, drums, whistles and singing they merrily marched their way to Glasgow Green.
COURT MARTIAL & PRISON.
In the early hours of April 14th 1916 a police sergeant called at Guy's London home and asked if he had received his call-up notice. Guy stated he had not and did not expect to receive the said notice as he was a married man. The sergeant asked for proof. The obvious proof, the presence of Rose and the child Annesley was not accepted. Guy and Rose on a matter of principle had no certificate to offer. Without summons or warrant Guy was arrested. He was charged with failing to report for Military Service, in spite of the fact that he had never been asked, and as a married man he was not yet due for service. He appeared at West London Police Court later that day. The Magistrate expressed surprise at the informal nature of Guy's arrest, but said that he " was here anyway". Scott Duckers acting for Guy stated that Guy was a married man by Scots Law of Habit and Repute and was not due to receive his call-up with the present batch. The case was adjourned until the 27th April. Guy continued his anti-war campaigning. The resumed hearing was brief. The Magistrate had still not been advised on Scots marriage law so the case was again adjourned until May 4th. When the Court convened on the 4th of May Guy conducted his own defense. The Magistrate fined him £5 and handed him over to the military authorities. He was taken under escort to Davis Street Barracks. His treatment at the Barracks was typical of the way the military treated conscientious objectors, brutal to say the least. On May 16th Guy was handed a sheet of paper on which to write his defense. It was a long and passionate defense based on his principles and beliefs. This his first Court Martial was to be held on May 17th. After the Court Martial he was held in his cell for two days before sentence was pronounced, six month military detention. On May 26th 1916 Guy appealed against his sentence. The Commanding Officer turned it down. On Monday 16th June Guy was ordered to parade, he refused and was taken before the Colonel who remanded him for court martial (his second). This took place at Fovant Camp on Tuesday 27th June. Guy's defense was that he was not a soldier but a civilian since he never received call-up notice. He was found guilty and sentenced to nine months hard labor. Later at a tribunal Guy was granted a "Certificate of Discharge". On the 4th of July 1916 Guy was moved to Winchester Prison then on August 25th he was transferred to the village of Dyce in the north of Scotland where a camp of tents had been erected in a granite quarry on a sea of mud. In these work camps a total of sixty nine conscientious objectors died. Guy walked out of the camp and returned to London but on the 1st of November he was arrested and sent to Wormwood Scrubs prison. Despite his having a Certificate of Discharge from the Army dated September 21st Guy would face another two cases of Court Martial and a further two years six months hard labor. March the 28th 1917 Guy was released from prison and taken under escort to Exeter Military Camp, his Certificate of Discharge ignored. He was given another order but he refused and was confined to the guardroom. Due to filthy conditions in the Guardroom Guy contracted scabies. He was returned to Deepcot Military Camp at the beginning of May then on the 9th of May he was ordered to parade which he refused and was therefore remanded for Court Martial. In spite of his Certificate of Discharge, he was deemed a soldier and went on to face his third Court Martial. It took place on the 17th of May 1917 with the very short proceedings resulting in Guy being sentenced to 18 months hard labor and sent to Wandsworth Prison. During this period there had been considerable unrest and protest by the conscientious objectors in the labor and work camps and in prisons. Wandsworth was probably the worst from the point of view of the authorities. A work and discipline strike had been planned. The ringleaders which included Guy were sentences to 42 days 'No.1' punishment. This consisted of 42 days solitary confinement with 3 days on bread and water and then 3 days off while locked in a bare unheated basement cell. After 3 days they were transferred to Brixton Prison, from their arrival at Brixton they continued their struggle against cruel and unjust treatment of conscientious objectors.
1918 August the 20th Guy, with two others, their sentenced served according to a government ruling should have been returned to their respective Army Units for formal dismissal. Instead they were transferred to Blackdown Barracks, Farnborough where they were given an order which they refused and were once more on remand for Court Martial. Guy Aldred's fourth. Throughout his terms of imprisonment Guy managed to write and was able to smuggle out several articles which were published in his paper the Spur. In his absence the articles edited by Rose Witcop.
Guy's fourth Court Martial saw him speak for himself and the other two prisoners. In spite of showing that their sentences were in contravention of the Army Act and other illegalities in their treatment, a few days later he received a further two years hard labor. During the short period between August and September 1918 Guy managed to have several articles smuggled out and published in the Spur. Among these were "All for the Cause", "Shall we Deny", and "Militarism and Woodland". Another article smuggled out was "Socialism, Unity, and Reality". It was read at the Brixton branch of the ILP on the 14th of February 1918.
GLASGOW AGAIN.
On January the 7th 1919 Guy was released on license and was expected to make his own way back to Wandsworth Prison to be re-admitted on the 3rd of February. Instead he boarded a train for Glasgow. He said he was attracted to Glasgow by its citizen's truculent attitude, rebellious spirit and disrespect for leaders. The Glasgow Anarchists held a welcome meeting in St Mungo Halls, York Street, where Guy spoke on "The present struggle for liberty". The following month he spoke again in Glasgow then on to Wales, back to London; speaking at the Clapham Labor Party, Walthamstow British Socialist Party and then moving north again touring the North of England and Scotland as far north as Aberdeen. He returned to London and on the 10th of March and while speaking on Clapham Common he was arrested and taken to Wandsworth Prison. He stated that he would not eat or work until he was released from his illegal and vindictive imprisonment. In Guy's absence trouble at Wandsworth had not abated, he arrived back in the middle of an inquiry and continued his strike as he said he would. He was released after 4 days, that evening he was back on Clapham Common.
BAKUNIN HOUSE.
A conference under the auspices of the ILP and the BSP formed a "Hands of Russia" committee and on this platform Guy Aldred spoke with Bertrand Russell. Prior to 1921 the words "Communist", "Socialist" and "Anti-parliamentarian", went hand in hand. It was only after that date, after the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain that you had to differentiate. At the time of leaving prison Guy associated himself with the newly formed Communist League, becoming its organizer and editor of its paper "The Communist". Guy was now working ever closer with Glasgow Anarchists, who had their head quarters in an old Victorian terraced house which they called "Bakunin House", it remained an open political center for about twelve years. Guy and his colleagues continued to strengthen the anti-parliamentary groups especially in Glasgow.
SINN FEIN TACTIC.
The "Glasgow Communist Group" produced its own paper "The Red Commune" and in February 1921 it carried an article by Guy called the "Sinn Fein Tactic". This was a reference to the tactic of standing for election but not swearing the oath or taking your seat. Because of the times, the authorities took the term "Sinn Fein" very seriously. On March the 2nd Guy's London home was raided by the police and special branch, after four hours searching they found nothing. Never the less they decided to arrest Guy, who pointed out that they were acting on a Glasgow Magistrate's Warrant and it was not valid in London. They took him and locked him up anyway and three days later formally arrested him in his cell. The Glasgow police also raided Bakunin House arresting Jane Patrick - the secretary, Douglas McLeish - group member and Andrew Fleming a printer. Guy Aldred was charged with conspiring with Patrick and McLeish to "excite popular disaffection, commotion, and violence to popular authority". They made a formal appearance before the Sheriff on March the 7th and were remanded in custody for two weeks before appearing before Lord Chief Clerk who released Andrew Fleming on £200 bail, Douglas McLeish and Jane Patrick on £150 bail each but remanded Guy Aldred in custody. He remained in custody until the trial at Glasgow High Court on June 21st 1921. The jury took a few minutes to reach a guilty verdict. Lord Skerrington passed sentence; Guy Aldred 1 year, Jane Patrick 3 months, Douglas McLeish 3 months, Andrew Fleming, 3 months and a fine of £50 or another three months. Guy Aldred and Douglas McLeish went to Barlinnie Prison while Jane Patrick and Andrew Fleming were sent to Duke Street Prison. Guy served the full year plus the four months remand, the authorities stated that the remand did not count, the first time ever.
FAMILY PLANNING.
December 22nd 1922 Guy was prosecuted for publishing Margaret Sanger's family planning pamphlet "Family Limitation". The authorities deemed it an attack on the nation's morals. Conducting his own defense, he called as a defense witness Sir Arbuthnot Lane, consultant surgeon at Guy's Hospital London. Sir Lane stated that every young couple about to get married should have this pamphlet. Never the less, the Magistrate, "in the interest of the morals of society", ordered the pamphlet to be destroyed. Rose Witcop continued covertly to produce it.
GLASGOW GREEN.
Guy Aldred brought out a new paper, The Commune, it appeared on May 1923. One of its tasks was to challenge the Glasgow City Council on the matter of free speech on Glasgow Green. On April 13th 1916 Glasgow Corporation passed a bye-law withdrawing the right of assembly on the Green, but it was not enforced until 1922 and then challenged by John MacLean, Guy Aldred and others. There were numerous attempts to have the bye-law repealed, it was not until March 3rd 1932 that the struggle found success.
In 1933 Guy left the Anti-parliamentary Communist Federation, he was later to form the Glasgow Townhead Branch of the ILP formed the United Socialist Movement. The group met in a hall in Stirling Road with the indoor meetings being held on a Wednesday and Sunday with a fund raising social on Fridays. Guy worked under this banner for the next thirty years. The Group would use elections to discredit the ballot box. At one election Guy managed to get nominated as candidate for 14 of the city's 37 wards managing to get over a thousand votes. An astonishing result as a referendum on less than half the city.
FREE ADVICE.
Guy always lived on the very edge of poverty, never taking fees for speaking, relying on money from sales of papers and pamphlets. Around this time he opened a secondhand book shop in Buchanan Street. No business entrepreneur he was more inclined to "lend" rather than sell books was soon left without stock in the shop and had to close. He opened an "Advice Bureau" in a dingy little office in Queen Street; with no toilet, no lighting and no heating and from here he offered legal advice, letter writing and typing. He never charged leaving it to the client to make a donation. Most of the clients being poor and in debt never left a donation or at most a shilling (10p). Financially it was a failure but was possibly the forerunner of today's Citizen's Advice Bureaus.
STRICKLAND PRESS.
Sir Walter Strickland died on August 1938 having left most of his money to peace causes of which Guy was the executor. Due to Strickland's hatred of Imperial Britain most of his money was invested in countries that would be at war with Britain before the will was probated. Guy received £3,000, with this he bought some secondhand printing machinery and Bakunin Press - renamed Strickland Press in memory of Sir Walter - moved into 104-106 George Street Glasgow. Strickland Press set about republishing many of Guy's pamphlets and the Word, which would appear every month for 25 years, for 22years of this period a free copy of the Word was sent to every Labor MP.
POST WORLD WAR 2 ACTIVITIES.
At a meeting on 7th of April 1946 in Central Halls Glasgow Guy put forward his ideas for world government. His office at George Street became the headquarters of the World Federalists, some Anarchists objected to his use of the word "government".
In May 1945 Guy was asked to stand as a "peace candidate" by the Scottish Union of Ex-service Men and Women. The election was July 5th 1945 and Guy stood as 'Independent Socialist'. During the campaign Guy sometimes addressed three meetings on the same day but in spite of this he polled only 300 votes and Labor won a landslide victory across the country. In the Bridgeton bye-election on the 29th of August 1946 Guy again stood as Independent Socialist against four other candidates. Although the ILP won, Labor, still running high was 2nd and Guy this time polled 405 votes. Another bye-election in January 1947; the district of Camlachie, a win for the Conservatives, this time Guy gained a few more votes and came in above the Liberals. Guy stood in three more elections, February 1950, Octber 1951, and November 1962.
During the 1950s the Word had a fairly good circulation by postal subscription around Glasgow and Lanarkshire, but Strickland Press was always in financial trouble. A problem that aggravated the situation was the Scottish Typographical Association's refusal to allow suppliers to serve Strickland Press because it employed women. This was not true as nobody was employed, it was a working partnership of two men and two women and was in no financial position to employ anybody. The late 50s and early 60s saw the demolition of large tracts of Glasgow and the premises in George Street were due for demolition. The building was more or less pulled down around his head as Guy sat tight, with no offer of alternative premises, trying to continue in a building that leaked, had plaster falling on the printing machinery and began to smell foul. Eventually the council, in February 1962, gave him the keys of a small shop in Montrose Street and the Press moved in on March 1962. Guy still addressed meetings on the first Sunday of every month in the Central Halls Bath Street and on occasions spoke at the Workers Open Forum in Renfrew Street Halls and he also continued to take on cases of personal injustice, all without a fee. At the age of 76 Guy stood for the Woodside District in the general election of Thursday 22nd of November 1962. He had spoken every night of the campaign plus interviews and questions while continuing with the next issue of the Word. Sadly he only polled 134 votes. The cold damp fog of the November weather, cold stuffy halls and excessive work load, the press physically falling apart and mounting debts, was beginning to take its toll. As a very cold winter moved slowly on to February 1963 Guy caught a cold but continued to work. His condition deteriorated and at one point was taken to hospital but signed himself out next day. Informed that he had a heart condition and warned against public speaking, he continued his monthly meetings. A compromise was made, he would sit at home and record his speeches and have them played at the meeting but Guy decided that if he could sit at home for an hour speaking into a microphone he could sit for an hour on the platform. His last meeting on Sunday the 6th. of October 1963 left him physically exhausted. On Wednesday the 16th he was admitted to hospital, he died on Thursday the 17th of October 1963.
Guy Alfred Aldred had worked ceaselessly at his propaganda, writing, publishing and public speaking, he took on injustices wherever he saw it. He had spoken at every May Day for 60 years except the years he spent in prison. He never once asked for a fee nor sought personal gain, throughout his 62 years of campaigning his principles never faltered.
Some of the writings of Guy Aldred.
Posted by John Couzin. The book Radical Glasgow. The website Radical Glasgow.
SPANISH CIVIL WAR
Trabajadores: The Spanish Civil War through the eyes of organised labour
The Spatial Politics of Red Clydeside:Historical Labour Geographies and Radical Connections Paul Griffin Submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Abstract Red Clydeside was a period of increasing industrial, political and social unrest during the early twentieth century. These perspectives consist of intersecting aspects of working class movements, including parliamentary left activism, anarchism and the suffrage movement.
To develop an understanding of these diverse perspectives the thesis engages with multiple case studies. These include key labour strikes, such as the 1911 Singer strike and 1919 Forty Hours Movement, political individuals, such as Guy Aldred,Helen Crawfurd and James Maxton and longer organising processes of the labour movement. The thesis argues that these examples contributed towards an overall working class presence, which was characterised by diverse and dynamic labour practices. These histories relate closely to more recent debates regarding labour, particularly within labour geography. Overall, the thesis pushes labour geography in new directions by stressing the capabilities of working class agency to actively shape spaces and places, and builds upon this field by reasserting the importance of labour histories and a broader conceptualisation of labour experiences.
ALDRED, Guy Alfred (22, publisher) ; unlawfully and seditiously printing and publishing and causing to be printed and published in a certain periodical called the "Indian Sociologist" a seditious libel of and concerning the Government of our Lord the King of and in the Indian Empire and the administration of the laws in force in the said Indian Empire.
The Attorney-General (Sir William Robson, K. C., M. P.), Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted.
Reference may be made to the trial of A. F. Horsley at the July Sessions (page 458) and the trial of Madar Lal Dhingra at the same Sessions (page 461).
Prisoner's connection with the "Indian Sociologist" commenced with the publication of the August number. On the conviction of Horsley prisoner communicated with Krishnavarma, the editor and proprietor of the paper, residing in Paris, and volunteered to continue the printing of the paper. He actually printed the August number. That issue contained articles by Krishnavarma advocating the view that "political assassination is no murder," and proclaiming Dhingra "a martyr in the cause of Indian independence"; it also contained a violent article by the prisoner, justifying the methods of Indian "Nationalists."
Chief-Inspector JOHN MCCARTHY, New Scotland Yard, attached to the Special Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department. It is my duty to keep observation upon and to attend meetings of Anarchists in London. I first knew prisoner about two years and a half ago. On August 25 I arrested him on a warrant for this offence. He banded me a number of letters from Krishnavarma to himself; I asked him whether he had any manuscript (articles); he said, "No; my own I tore up, and that I received from Paris was sent back." He produced 369 copies of the August number of the "Indian Sociologist"; he said he had printed 1,500 copies, sent 1,000 to Paris, kept 500, and had sold or given away 41 copies. There were no appliances for printing at prisoner's house, 35, Stanlake Road, Shepherd's Bush. I asked him, "Do you do any printing here?" He replied, "No, I cannot tell you anything about that; I must not give other people away." At the door of the house there was pasted on, "The Bakunin Press." (Bakunin, it was explained by the Attorney General, was the name of a well-known Russian Anarchist.)
To Prisoner. I have heard you speak at Anarchist and Socialist led Freethought meetings.
Prisoner put in the following letter, which he said he had received from Mr. Krishnavarma from Paris, dated September 5, 1909: "Dear Sir,—I was glad to receive your letter of the 3rd inst. and learn from it that it would keep by all that was promised. In view of your difficulties I am prepared to release you from all liability with reference to the sum of £12 advanced by me for your undertaking to print off wren issues of my paper (only one of which has appeared up to date) is the terms of your agreement of July 22 last. I shall be happy to remit to you £2 for the September issue on hearing from you that you or your representative can receive the manuscript thereof for printing off the same.—Sympathising with you heartily, I am, yours truly, SHYAMAJI KRISHNAVARMA.—A. Aldred, Esq."
Inspector FRANCIS POWELL, Criminal Investigation Department, said that he was engaged in the proceedings against Horsley, and produced the number of the "Indian Sociologist" upon which Horsey was indicted.
To Prisoner. Horsley pleaded guilty and urged that he hail acted in ignorance, because, owing to pressure of business, the proofs of the incriminated articles had been passed by his assistants. I have seen other publications of the Bakunin Press, but nothing has come under my notice worthy of serious attention.
Detective WILLIAM SAUGE, Criminal Investigation Department, spoke to writing, in an assumed name, to prisoner for four copies of to incriminated number, enclosing stamps for same, and receiving to copies.
Detective HAROLD BRUST, Criminal Investigation Department, gave similar evidence as to a parcel of 12 copies.
Detective-sergeant MATTHEW MACLOUGHLIN, Criminal Investigation Department, said that on August 5 he had prisoner under observation and saw him post a certain letter (referred to in one of Krishna Anna's letters.)
To Prisoner. You made no attempt to evade my observation. I have heard you address various meetings; I agree that you have not directly advocated violence, but have "sought to inculcate an educational idea which should find expression at some future time—perhaps in rebellion."
ERNEST ARTHUR TOOKE , formerly in the employ of Horsley, proved the posting to Krishnavarma of copies of the July number of the "Indian Sociologist."
ANNIE GARRY , 35, Stanlake Road. Prisoner and his wife have been lodgers of mine since January, occupying two rooms. There were never any printing appliances there.
Prisoner, having stated that he had no witnesses to call, and that he thought it unnecessary to give evidence himself, made a long address to the Jury. He denied emphatically that he had ever advocated political assassination; on the contrary, he had always deplored it. He had always sought to inculcate the importance of moral suasion, which was the only thing he looked to for remedying the evils which existed in this country and in India. He desired to see the spread of education, as by that means the need of political assassinnation would be removed. He pointed out that the circulation of the "Indian Sociologist" was only 1,000, whereas the population of India was 300 millions. He had never said that Dhingra was a hero. A Socialist newspaper, with a circulation of 25,000, had said that the Indian people would be right in regarding him as a hero. That paper had not been prosecuted and was allowed free circulation in India. He had printed the "Indian Sociologist" because he claimed the right of an enlightened race to have a free Press. Krishnavarma had publicly stated that if the English Courts decided that the publication of the "Indian Sociologist" was illegal he would not publish it in England. He (prisoner) had desired to assist Krishnavarma in obtaining a definite decision on that point.
Mr. Justice Coleridge, in the course of his summing-up to the jury, said: It is not necessary for me in this case to give you a full, accurate, and comprehensive definition of all that could come under the head of seditious libel, because the prosecution have practically limited their case to one form of seditious libel, and that is, that by a publication for which the defendant was responsible he used language implying that it was lawful and commendable to employ physical force in any manner or form whatsoever against the Government of our Lord the King or towards and against the British liege subjects of our Lord the King; and the case has all turned upon that form or that species of seditious libel. Nothing is clearer than the law on this head namely, that whoever by language either written or spoken incites or encourages others to use physical force or violence in some public matter connected with the State is guilty of publishing a seditious libel. The word "sedition" in its ordinary natural signification denotes a tumult, an insurrection, a popular commotion, or an uproar; it implies violence and lawlessness in some form; but the man who is accused may not plead the truth of the statements that he makes as a defense to the charge, nor may he plead the innocence of his motive; that is not a defense to the charge. The test is not either the truth of the language or the innocence of the motive with which he published it, but the teat is this: Was the language used calculated, or was it not, to promote public disorder or physical force or violence in a matter of State? and I need hardly say that anything in the way of assassination would be comprehended in that definition. That is the test; and that test is not for me or for the prosecution; it is for you, the jury, to decide, having heard all the circumstances connected with the case. In arriving at a decision of this test you are entitled to look it all the circumstances surrounding the publication with the view of seeing whether the language used is calculated to produce the results imputed; that is to say, you are entitled to look at the audience addressed, because language which would he innocuous, practically speaking, if used to an assembly of professors or divines sight produce a different result if used before an excited audience of young and uneducated men. You are entitled also to take into account the state of public feeling. Of course, there are times when a spark will explode a powder magazine; the effect of language may be very different at one time from what it would be at another. You are entitled also to take into account the place and the mode of publication. All these matters are surrounding circumstances which a jury may take into account in solving the test which is for them, whether the language used is calculated to produce the disorders or crimes or violence imputed. It is quite true, as the defendant has put before you, that a prosecution for seditious libel is somewhat of a rarity. It is a weapon that is not often taken down from the armoury is which it hangs, but it is a necessary accompaniment to every civilised Government; it is liable to be abused, and if it is abused there is one wholesome corrective, and that is a jury of English men such as you. Having said this much, I should like to say by way of comment upon a good deal that has fallen from the defendant in the speech that he has addressed to you—that the expression of abstract academic opinion in this country is free. A man may lawfully express his opinion on any public matter, however distasteful, however repugnant, to others if, of course, he avoids. Defamatory matter, or if he avoids anything that can be characterized either as a blasphemous or as an obscene libel. Matters of State, Betters of policy, matters even of morals—all these axe open to him. He may state his opinion freely, he may buttress it by argument, he may try to persuade others to share his views. Courts and juries are not the judges in such matters. For instance, if he thinks that either a despotism, or an oligarchy, or a republic, or even no Government at all is the best way of conducting human affairs he is at perfect liberty to say so. He may assail politicians, he may attack Governments, he may warn the executive of the day against taking a particular course, or he may remonstrate with the executive of the day for not taking a particular course; he may seek to show that rebellions, insurrections, outrages, assassinations, and suchlike, are the natural, the deplorable, the inevitable outcome of the policy which he is combating. All that is allowed, because all that is innocuous; but, on the other hand, if he makes use of language calculated to advocate or to incite others to public disorders, to wit, rebellions, insurrections, assassinations, outrages, or any physical force or violence of any kind, then whatever his motives, whatever his intentions, there would be evidence on which a jury might, on which I should think a jury ought, and on which a jury would, decide that he was guilty of a seditious publication.
Verdict, Guilty.
Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment as a first-class misdemeant.
Guy Alfred Aldred, the son of a lieutenant in the Royal Navy, was born in Clerkenwell on 5th November 1886. He was named by his mother after Guy Fawkes.
Aldred attended Iron Infant's School in Farringdon Road and Hugh Middleton Higher Grade School. At the age of ten he formed an Anti-Nicotine League among his classmates and he later joined the Band of Hope, the junior wing of the Temperance Society.
After leaving school he found employment as an office boy with the National Press Agency. In 1902, at the age of 16, he co-founded the Christian Social Mission and became known as the "boy preacher". His friend, John Taylor Caldwell described Aldred's early sermons: "He was pale complexioned, one-eighth Jewish, large-eyed, generous-lipped, holding in leash a merry smile, like that of his grandfather incarnate. He wore a Norfolk jacket, pleated and high-lapelled. He had a starched Eton collar and a starched shirt front. The ends of his black bow tie were tucked under his wide collar. He wore knickerbockers, thick grey stockings and heavy, hiehly polished black boots."
In December 1902 he met the Reverend Charles Voysey. This seventy-four year old preacher argued that Christianity was organised atheism. He spent a year debating this issue with Voysey before writing: "I think that fundamentally the Christian Church is an atheist institution. Jesus as the son of man is a glorious protest against God the upholder of Crown and State and Church, the advocate of war. I begin to realise that Christianity should not be an attempt to explain the creation of the world, but a living atttempt to recreate human society."
Aldred became an atheist and in 1904 he founded the The Clerkenwell Freethought Mission and spoke under the banner: "For the promotion of Religious, Scientific and Secular Truth, and the advocacy of the right and duty of every man to think for himself in all matters relating to his own welfare and his duty to his Brother Men." This created considerable hostility and on several occasions he was beaten-up by devout Christians.
In 1904 Aldred also met William Stewart Ross, the editor of the Agnostic Journal. Ross predicted that Aldred would become an important preacher: "This Guy, born on Guy Fawkes' Day, and intent on an argumentative blowing up of the House of Priestcraft, has done so much at eighteen that I am sure the readers of A.J. would all like to see what he will have done by the time he is eighty."
Later that year Aldred heard Daniel De Leon, the leader of the Socialist Labor Party, speak on Clerkenwell Green. He wrote in his autobiography, No Traitors' Gait (1955): "De Leon saw and taught that the system of government based on territorial lines has outlived its function: that economic development has reached a point where the Political State cannot even appear to serve the workers as an instrument of industrial emancipation. Accumulated wealth, concentrated in a few hands, controls all political governments."
Aldred was sympathetic to the anarchist views of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Peter Kropotkin and began contributing articles for The Freedom newspaper. Aldred, like Kropotkin, rejected the idea of using violence: "'The genuine anarchist looks with sheer horror upon every destruction, every mutilation, of a human being, physical or moral. He loathes wars, executions and imprisonments, the crippling and poisoning of human nature by the preventable cruelty and injustice of man to man in every shape and form."
During this period he became friendly with Rudolf Rocker, the leader of the anarchist movement in England. His also met Emma Goldman, who had been deported from the United States, and Annie Besant, the leader of the Theosophy movement in Britain.
In January 1907, Aldred began work for The Daily Chronicle. Soon afterwards, he met Rose Witcop. She was the sister Milly Witcop, the free-love partner of Rudolf Rocker. Rose convinced him of the need to support the campaign for women's suffrage. As John Taylor Caldwell pointed out, Witcop argued: "The vote meant little to working-class women. She would not qualify for it anyway, so why should a woman who slaved all week in an ill-conditioned factory for paltry wages care whether middle-class women had the vote or not? Even if she had the vote, how many working-class women would bother to use it? And if they did use it, would it make any difference? What was required was the organisation of working women in an agitation for general emancipation; to make women understand that it is not the want of voting rights that creates bad conditions for her, but thasocial attitude which regards her as a slave, both in the factory and in the home."
Aldred's mother disapproved of her son's relationship. The first time he took Rose home she shouted: "Get that bloody Russian Jewess out of my house!" As he wrote in his autobiography that he decided to become "associated more intimately, wisely or unwisely, with Rose Witcop". His mother was so upset that she told him that she never wanted to see him again.
On 6th November 1907 Aldred was visited by Detective-Inspector John McCarthy, who revealed that Aldred's speeches had been reported to Scotland Yard. During the course of his Special Branch career, McCarthy arrested Aldred several times for his political activities.
On 2nd May, 1909, Rose Witcop gave birth to their son, Annesley. Later that year Aldred was sentenced to twelve months hard labour for printing the August issue of The Indian Sociologist, an Indian nationalist newspaper edited by Shyamji Krishnavarma. Aldred was released from prison on the 2nd July 1910. Soon afterwards he established the monthly journal, The Herald of Revolt.
After the death of a patient during childbirth Margaret Sanger, a nurse working in New York City, decided to devote her life to making reliable contraceptive information available to women. She published the Birth Control Review and persuaded Lou Rogers and Cornelia Barns to be co-art editors of the journal. The main theme of her articles was that "no woman can call herself free who doesn't own and control her own body." After advice about birth-control appeared in her newspaper in 1915, she was charged with publishing an "obscene and lewd article". Sanger fled to England and for a while she lived with Aldred and Rose Witcop in London.
Aldred was a strong opponent of the First World War and publicized his views in his newspaper The Spur. He joined forces with the No Conscription Fellowship and during 1914 and 1915 he took part in several anti-war protests and spoke on the same platforms as John Maclean and James Maxton. He wrote: "The world is at war. The puny rulers of the world have coerced their subjects into dancing at the feast of death. And whoever will not indulge in the orgy, the same shall not enjoy the kiss of nature's sun."
Due to heavy losses at the Western Front the government decided in 1916 to introduce conscription (compulsory enrollment). The Military Service Act of January 1916 specified that single men between the ages of 18 and 41 were liable to be called-up for military service unless they were widowed with children or ministers of religion. Conscription started on 2nd March 1916.
On 14th April 1916, Aldred was arrested and charged with failing to report for Military Service. When he appeared in court he explained that he refused to fight because he was a conscientious objector. On 4th May he was fined £5 and handed him over to the military authorities. At his Court Martial on 17th May he was sentenced to six month military detention.
Aldred refused to comply with military orders and on 27th June he was sentenced to nine months hard labour. On the 4th July 1916, Aldred was moved to Winchester Prison and the following month he was transferred to the village of Dyce in the north of Scotland where a camp of tents had been erected. Over the next few months a total of sixty nine conscientious objectors died in these work camps.
Aldred escaped from the camp but was arrested in London on 1st November 1916 and sent to Wormwood Scrubs prison. On 28th March 1917, Aldred was released from prison and taken under escort to Exeter Military Camp. He was given another order but he refused and was confined to the guardroom. Two months later he was taken to Deepcot Military Camp and when he refused to parade he was once again remanded for Court Martial.
On 17th May 1917 Aldred was sentenced to 18 months hard labour and sent to Wandsworth Prison. Over the next few months there was considerable unrest and protest by the conscientious objectors. The ringleaders, which included Aldred, were sentenced to 42 days of solitary confinement with 3 days on bread and water and then 3 days off while locked in a bare unheated basement cell.
Aldred continued to refuse military orders and on 20th August 1918 he was transferred to Blackdown Barracks and was once again placed on remand for Court Martial. Throughout his terms of imprisonment Aldred managed to smuggle out several articles to Rose Witcop who published them in their paper The Spur.
The First World War ended on 11th November 1918 but he was not released on licence until 7th January 1919. He travelled to Glasgow where he addressed a large meeting in St Mungo Halls, York Street, where he spoke on "The Present Struggle for Liberty".
On 10th March, 1918 Aldred was arrested while speaking on Clapham Common and was taken to Wandsworth Prison. He stated that he would not eat or work until he was released from his illegal and vindictive imprisonment. He was released after four days.
Willie Paul argued strongly against the strategy suggested by Lenin that the CPGB should develop a close-relationship with the Labour Party. "We of the Communist Unity Group feel our defeat on the question of Labour Party affiliation very keenly. But we intend to loyally abide by the decision of the rank and file convention." Aldred agreed:"Lenin's task compels him to compromise with all the elect of bourgeous society, whereas our task demands no compromise. And so we take different paths, and are only on the most distant speaking terms".
Aldred summarised the position in 1920: "I have no objection to an efficient and centralised party so long as the authority rests in the hands of the rank and file, and all officials can be sacked at a moment's notice. But I want the centralism to be wished for and evolved by the local groups, a slow merging of them into one party, from the bottorp upwards, as distinct from this imposition from the top downwards." He added: "It was hoped to create a communist federation out of those remaining groups. The principle of federation - a federation of communist groups developed voluntarily from below, rather than an imposed centralism from above - was always an important and consistent part of the anti-parliamentary movement's proposals for unity."
In 1921 Aldred established the Anti-Parliamentary Communist Federation (APCF), a breakaway group from the Communist Party of Great Britain. He edited the organisation's newspaper, The Communist. The authorities began to invistigate this group and Aldred, Jenny Patrick, Douglas McLeish and Andrew Fleming were eventually arrested and charged with sedition. After being held in custody for nearly four months they appeared at Glasgow High Court on 21st June 1921. They were all found guilty. The Socialist reported: "Lord Skerrington then passed sentences: Guy Aldred, one year: Douglas McLeish three months: Jane Patrick, three months, Andrew Fleming (the printer), three months and a fine of £50, or another three months."
Patrick Dollan, wrote in The Daily Herald: "Guy Aldred, in prison for exercising the traditional right of free speech, was imprisoned four months before his trial, then sentenced for a year and not allowed to count the four months he had already served as part of this imprisonment. The brutality of this sentence is a disgrace to the country, and nothing can remove that,disgrace except the organised power of Labour."
After his release from prison Aldred and his partner, Rose Witcop, joined the campaign for birth-control information that had began by Marie Stopes publishing a concise guide to contraception called Wise Parenthood. Her book upset the leaders of the Church of England who believed it was wrong to advocate the use of birth control. Roman Catholics were especially angry, as the Pope had made it clear that he condemned all forms of contraception. Despite this opposition, Stopes continued her campaign and in 1921 founded the Society for Constructive Birth Control. With financial help from her rich second husband, Humphrey Roe, Marie also opened the first of her birth-control clinics in Holloway on 17th March 1921.
Aldred and Witcop published several pamphlets on birth-control and on 22nd December, 1922 he was prosecuted for publishing Family Limitation, a pamplet written by Margaret Sanger. Aldred conducted his own defence. Among the witnesses he called was Sir Arbuthnot Lane, a leading surgeon at Guy's Hospital. He argued that the pamplet should be read by every young person about to be married. Despite this, the magistrate ordered the books to be destroyed "in the interests of the morals of society."
In 1924 Aldred and Rose Witcop parted. However, the following year the Home Office who threatened to deport her as a Russian national. As a result the couple arranged a civil marriage in order to confirm her citizenship status and prevent any possible deportation.
On the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War Aldred immediately gave his support to the Anarchist Brigade. He sent Ethel MacDonald and Jenny Patrick to Spain as a representative of the USM. Patrick worked in the Ministry of Information in Madrid and MacDonald became the English-speaking radio propagandist in Barcelona.
Eventually Ethel MacDonald was arrested by the authorities. She later told the Glasgow Evening Times: "My arrest was typical of the attitude of the Communist Party... Assault Guards and officials of the Public Order entered the house in which I lived late one night. Without any explanation they commenced to go through thoroughly every room and every cupboard in the house. After having discovered that which to them was sufficient to hang me - revolutionary literature etc."
In September 1937 MacDonald managed to escape from Spain. After leaving the country she made speeches on the way the Communist Party (PCE) had been acting in during the Spanish Civil War in Paris and Amsterdam. She returned to Glasgow in November, 1937 and in a speech to 300 people at Central Station she said: "I went to Spain full of hopes and dreams. It promised to be utopia realised. I return full of sadness, dulled by the tragedy I have seen. I have lived through scenes and events that belong to the French revolution."
Ethel MacDonald also argued that Bob Smillie had been killed by the officials of the Communist Party (PCE). According to Daniel Gray, the author of Homage to Caledonia (2008): "she did her utmost to convince the public that Bob Smillie had been murdered, alleging that the secret police had assassinated him in cold blood."
Sir Walter Strickland, a long-time supporter of Aldred, died on 9th August 1938. He left Aldred £3,000 and with this money he bought some second-hand printing machinery and established The Strickland Press. Over the next 25 years Aldred published regular issues of the United Socialist Movement organ, The Word and various pamphlets on anarchism.
After the Second World War Aldred became a supporter of world government and his office at 106 George Street, Glasgow, became the headquarters of the World Federalist Movement in Scotland. He argued: "In a world growing smaller we must develop an all-embracing world outlook. We must propagate the idea of a world republic, with a world citizenship. Nationalism must be ended... And so must inter-nationalism, for internationalism implies nationalism, and the representation of national governments. What we require is the direct representation of the people of the world as world citizens in a non-national assembly."
John Taylor Caldwell later recalled: "Near the end of February 1958, Ethel Macdonald had what seemed a slight accident. She fell from a box on which she was standing to make an adjustment to one of the machines. She was more distressed than the accident seemed to justify, as if she knew that this was the onset of dreadful illness. She continued with her work at the Press, though within a few weeks she needed the aid of a stick. One of her legs seemed to be gradually losing its power." Ethel MacDonald was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. Ethel moved in with Aldred and Jenny Patrick. Aldred wrote: "Having rendered her legs useless, the disease spread to her arms. First her left arm, then her right - as though the virus possessed a malicious consciousness that caused it to gloat over its dastardly work. It was a painful business to serve her so anxiously and yet so purposelessly."
Within three years she died in Glasgow's Knightswood Hospital at the age of 51, on 1st December 1960. Aldred wrote about her death in The Word: "I see no kindness, no friendship, no regard for mankind, no purpose in the universe. It is a miracle that cannot be explained. It seems to be a wonderful evolution from cause to effect, although there seems to be no cause and the effect is without intelligence or aim. So, for for my part, I do not believe in God. That was also the belief of Ethel... Yet for some strange reason a contradiction arises within us. We do change the world. One generation merges into another. The hopes of yesterday's heroes and martyrs become the inspiring slogans of today, passed on to the heroes of tomorrow ... In this frame of sorrow I turn from the lifeless body of my comrade to associate with those in whom still dwells the consciousness of being."
Aldred continued to campaign against injustice. He played a leading role in the efforts to persuade Francisco Franco not to execute Julián Grimau. He also published an important article entitled The Evolution of Stalin's Communism. He wrote several articles in favour of civil rights in the United States. Aldred also wrote to John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev urging restraint during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Early in 1904, discussions in Hyde Park and at the Peel Institute, references to Professor Huxley at the Agnostic Journal office, my own dissatisfaction with mere metaphysics, caused me to study Thomas Huxley. As he was noted for his popularising of science and of Darwin, his Romanes address of 1893 on Evolution and Ethics had a special appeal to me. It made me into a complete socialist .... In his Romanes lecture, Huxley insisted that "the influence of the cosmic process on society is the greater the more rudimentary its civilisation." He spoke of social progress checking the cosmic process at every step, and substituting it for the ethical process. It thus repudiated the gladitorial theory of existence, and permitted Huxley to rebuke "the fanatical individualism of our time" for attempting to apply the analogy of cosmic nature to society....
Social life, and the ethical process in virtue of which it advances towards perfection Huxley defines as being, strictly speaking, "part and parcel of the general process of evolution." Readers of Kropotkin will see in this a support of the latter's view of "mutual aid" as a "factor in evolution". It must be remembered, however, that Huxley's "Ethical process" is developed by its author into a plea for sentimentalism and loyalty to the interests of an abstraction termed "the community". I believe in the community - in a different social order - but I see only two classes today. Huxley sees no classes, only a`community". And Kropotkin's mutual aid tends to create faith in the same paralysing and fatal abstraction.. All this was not clear to me at the time. Huxley has pleaded powerfully the grandeur of the anarchist ideal .... I became emancipated from Neo-Darwinian fears. Capitalism and the struggle for existence were not the last words in social evolution. Equity, mutual aid, freedom, justice, etc. did represent realisable ideals... .This vision of the coming social harmony, this conviction that the new era would dawn, filled me with new energy. I knew that I had to leave the capitalist parties and enter the real movement; that of socialism and working-class emancipation. So I turned my back on compromise and radicalism, on liberal labourism, and pure-and-simple secularism, and joined the Social Democratic Federation.
Owing to the bigotry and monopolising tendencies of an East End divine, the rights of free speech are being jeopardised at Leman Street East, near the railway arches. On Sunday last, Mr. Guy A. Aldred, a freethought and communist writer and lecturer, and General Secretary of the "Industrial Union of Direct Actionists'" convened a meeting there, but came in conflict with the local police. On his affirming his right to be heard, the intervention of eight policemen notwithstanding, a temporary truce was concluded, Mr. Aldred agreeing to give up his meeting on the condition the police at once closed down the Christian meeting. This was done. Mr. Aldred will organise a series of meetings at this spot, and thus challenge the right of the police to interrupt the right of free speech.
(3) The Liverpool Porcupine (September 1907)
It is only a young man - a very young man - who could swallow all that (Free Love, Anarchism, Impossibilism, etc.) at once, and at the same time have the courage - we almost said audacity - to expound so profound a doctrine from the public platform. What it all means no-one - unless exceptionally gifted - can understand, but at all events it strikes at the very roots of organised society. So let the capitalists beware, Mr. Aldred is very much in earnest, and he.... means to turn the world topsy-turvy, so it is just as well that he commenced young... He is in his person a fascinating study and his lectures are delivered with a gravity of style which is in singular contrast to his youthful appearance. He is by turns cynical, argumentative and humorous, and he shows his ability by the manner in which he controls his audience - especially when antagonistic. Altogether one whose career will be watched with interest. But what a programme!
(4) Guy Aldred, No Traitors' Gait (1955)
There is no doubt that 1907 was a most important year in the development of my life and thought. It was a period of political and revolutionary research and stocktaking. Then I associated more intimately, wisely or unwisely, with Rose Witcop. A domestic crisis confronted me because I had stalked out of Fleet Street with all its promise, and decided on an independent life. This completed the breakdown with my mother, who knew nothing of free-lance activity and was horrified at the thought that I should refuse to work at the office of a great London newspaper. Such a terrible thing to do!
There were moments when worry and study and even propaganda were forgotten. I recall one Saturday when I went out to Chingford Old Mount with Rose Witcop. It was a beautiful day. And there there was an old-world garden and house called Rose Cottage, quaint and very cottagey. There tea and cakes, and eggs boiled or fried, were served in the garden. It was completely old-world and away from everywhere. There one sat and drank tea and romanced. Rose Cottage was run by two old ladies whose charges were certainly not excessive. They exuded beauty in their attitude and their garden was a haven. Alas! they were quite old, and unless they are near one hundred and twenty years of age they must have passed away by now. So ruthless is time and destiny!'
(5) Guy Aldred,No Traitors' Gait (1955)
I explained my attitude. I accepted the idea that marriage was a secular contract and not a church sacrament. Mating was a contract between two people. It need not be registered. There was nothing immoral in two people mating, and not promising to matefor life. The promise was void from the very start, for neither party knew if it would hold for life. Arising out of such mating there were obligations and duties that arose from ethics and self-respect, and had no necessary relation to love. Regard for children, if children resulted, was a duty of affection. Even without affection it remained a duty to be discharged. In current monogamic society, woman was denied equal status with man. Motherhood was not regarded as a service to the community, therefore the man ought to provide the means of support for his children.
This brought me to other questions. In the first instance, I deemed woman the equal of man. Therefore she should retain her birth-name in marriage. In the second instance, I considered that `born in wedlock' a male property disqualification of many children not so born. It was a stigma that some sensitive offspring felt for an alleged "sin" of which they were innocent. It was opposed to sound law and every principle of equity. All children ought to be deemed legitimate. Other things being equal, the mother ought to rank, in every case, as the real deciding parent in law. The man should support all his children equally.
I went further. I stated that it was said that sex relationship was necessary to the physical and mental well-being of every adult person; if this were so, since there were more women than men in society, there must be sex association outside of legal mating. (Mother was horrified.) This meant either some kind of promiscuity, or, even accepted without recognition, polygamy. Actually, legal marriage testified to the truth of this fact. Many women did not mind their husbands associating with prostitutes, or even having mistresses, as long as they could say "Here is my wedding ring! Here are my lines! He belongs to me!"
To my mind all this was immoral, and merely a survival of chattel slavery. I did not believe that the love emotion was exclusive always. It might be better if it were. The fact was that marriage did not work. Hence the scandals in papist society, and the divorce laws in Protestant countries. In any case, neither church nor State could seal men and women in marriage. No woman should substitute her name nor attach a handle "Mrs." or "Miss" to it because she had declared before a Registrar or Priest her intention of sharing her lot with a male companion. And if the male died first her name might change again. In short, her life, in time, would read like a house passing from person to person. A disgraceful state of affairs.
(6) Guy Aldred, The Spur (May 1917)
The other day we strolled from the Higher Barracks to our present residence, the City Workhouse, Hevitree Hill, Exeter. We were under military police escort, and were unable to take that interest in our surroundings that we would have liked. But we noticed a big flaming placard, announcing tht convening of a meeting to celebrate the Russian Revolution. We smiled. In Wandsworth we had Lansbury's Herald announcing meetings in London to celebrate the same event. And we knew that throughout the country the great "British Nation", whatever that entity might be, was rejoicing and waxing exceeding glad at the overthrow of Tsarism. The smile deepened, for we knew something of the celebrators and their antecedents.
(7) The Glasgow Evening News (20th June, 1921)
A somewhat unusual calendar of cases was submitted at the sitting of the Glasgow High Court, which commenced at Justiciary Buildings, Jail Square, today.
In all, there are 29 cases involving 74 persons. Two capital charges are included in the list, but most interest will centre on trials in which a Sinn Fein element is introduced. Several batches of individuals are charged with one or other of the following offences: sedition, illegal drilling, contravention of the Explosive Substances Act, mobbing and rioting.
Unprecedented interest was taken in the Court proceedings. Hundreds of persons gathered outside the Court Buildings.... Demands for admission to the Court gallery were heavy, and the police took the precaution of seaching every person who entered the Court precincts.
A long legal discussion heralded the commencement of the sedition charges against Guy Alfred Aldred.... Mr. Aldred, who was undefended, held that there was nothing seditious in the statements.
(8) The Glasgow Evening News (21st June, 1921)
Aldred, who last night spoke for over an hour, today occupied another hour in his resumed address to the jury. He recalled the speeches made eight years ago by Sir Edward Carson and Lord Birkenhead, speeches that were so well calculated to incite to violence and sedition that they prevented a constitutional solution to the Irish problem, and were responsible for the murders and outrages taking place in Ireland today. Those men were now honoured Judges in England, and what the workers felt was that if you preached sedition in a certain way you might be honoured by being required to fill the highest positions in the land; but the workers, who were without culture and University education, and said things bluntly, found that a different attitude was taken to everything they might say.
In continuation of his defence, Aldred spoke for a futher hour this forenoon, and in an eloquent plea for free speech said that Communism might be wrong, but a free Press was always right. He reminded the jury that the Liberals had threatened to destroy the House of Lords and were not prosecuted. If that was proper advocacy it was equally proper to urge the destruction of the House of Commons as an agency of government.
Guy considered many kinds of responses to oppression and poverty, from social democracy to communism, but finally settled on the revolutionary left. He read Bakunin and agreed that authority itself must be challenged. In the first decade of the twentieth century, he published a series of Pamphlets for the Proletarians, in one of which he asked "Was Marx an anarchist?"
Aldred's thinking on feminism and male power brought him to believe that marriage was a male form of institutional oppression, and it was as an advocate of "free love" that Guy Aldred first hit the headlines. We should remember that that term had different connotations at the turn of the twentieth century than it does today. Aldred's thinking on the matter would be nearer to William Stewart Ross's and Robert Owen's than to, say, Allen Ginsberg's and the counter-culturalists of the -1950s and 1960s, the focus more on eliminating the State's and the Church's involvement in any personal contract between a man and woman, than on the right to multiple partners or promiscuity. Aldred, however, would have defended any person's right to love whomsoever they wished.
His partner from 1907 was Rose Witcop. They were not married, and had a son, Annesley. Unlike Emmeline Pankhurst, Aldred was a conscientious objector during World War I - serving a prison sentence as a result. Rose's cause celebre was family planning and birth control, and for their speeches and writings on these subjects they were both arrested. The government tried to silence Rose by threatening to deport her - Rose, nee Rachel Vitkopski, was Jewish and born in the Ukraine. Deportation was avoided by her marriage - after, in fact, they were estranged - to Guy.
Aldred was next in trouble over a different matter. Naturally an exponent of Home Rule and dismantling of the colonial system, he was arrested for publishing an article by Shyamji Krishnavarma. The Indian nationalist's writings had already been legally declared seditious and were banned; Aldred published the article under his own name, which earned him twelve months' hard labour.
His connections with Scotland were cemented when the Clarion Scouts invited him to speak in Glasgow The Scouts were a youth socialist pioneer group, a progressive take on Christian Fellowships. Launched in the last decade of the nineteenth century, they organised bike rides in the country, camping trips, weekend activities, all of which ultimately led to the formation of Socialist Sunday Schools. At the time they were not allied to any particular party, but worked with the ILP and anarchists alike. The Scouts invited Guy to speak in 1912, and he attracted such a crowd and enthusiastic responses to his ideas on women, free speech and worker self-determination that he was invited on a regular basis.'the connection with Glasgow was put on hold, however, when he was court-martialled for refusing to fight or even drill for the 3rd London Rifles, and spent another spell of hard labour - drilling and digging - in a military compound.
The struggle of the Tolpuddle Martyrs for the right of combination under the Reform Ministry of 1832 marks the beginnings of British Trade Unionism. The glamour of romance which belongs to its origin has contributed to its successful development as a social institution. Eight years after the Repeal of the Combination laws, Trade Unionism was deemed an illegal conspiracy. Today, it is a bulwark of the capitalist system. Something more than tradition is necessary to explain this passage from outlawry to respectability. The explanation is an economic one. Trade Unionism has conquered social power and commanded influence in so far as it satisfied and arose from the social necessities of the capitalist epoch. Because it has answered capitalist needs, the Trade Union has qualified for its modern position as the sign manual of skilled labour.
But the growth in social and political importance of the Trade Union leader has not menaced the foundations of capitalist society. He has been cited more and more as the friend of reform and the enemy of revolution. It has been urged that he is a sober and responsible member of capitalist society. Consequently, capitalist apologists have been obliged to acknowledge that he discharged useful and important functions in society.
This admission has forced them to assert that the law of supply and demand does not determine, with exactness, the nominal - or even the actual price of the commodity, labour power. Hence it has been allowed that Trade Unions enable their members to increase the amount of the price received for their labour-power, without being hurtful to the interests of the commonwealth-i.e. the capitalist class-when conducted with moderation and fairness.
Modern Trade Unionism enjoys this respectable reputation to a very large extent because it has sacrificed its original vitality. This was inevitable, since, in its very origin, it was reformist and not revolutionary. Trade Unionism has sacrificed no economic principle during its century's development. It has surrendered no industrial or political consistency. But it has not maintained its early earnestness or sentiment of solidarity. Had it done so, it would have been compelled to have evolved socially and politically. Instead of stagnating in reform, it would have had to progress towards revolution.
The Trade Union apologist, consistently with his reformist out-look, has had to defend the restrictive tendencies of sectional organisation. He has had to deny the revolutionary solidarity of labour in order to defend the Union manufacture of blacklegs. He has rejoiced in a craft organisation that materially injures the interests of labour as a whole, without even benefiting it sectionally. He has shown no qualms about supporting a representative system of administration, which betrays the worker to capitalist interests.
All this activity proceeds inevitably from the belief that Trade Unionism benefits the worker economically. It follows naturally from the notion that the worker can improve his social and economic status under capitalism.
Trade Unionism, therefore, is intelligible only on the ground that reform is possible and revolution unnecessary. Industrial palliation, like political palliation, is based on the understanding that no epoch ever attains to a crisis. This is the best that can be said for the necessity of Trade Unionism.
But suppose that the law of supply and demand does determine, with exactness, the nominal as well as the actual price of the commodity, labour power?
Then the best that can be said for the necessity of Trade Unionism as opposed to revolutionary communist organisation and action has ceased to possess any meaning.
To develop this economic argument in favour of the social revolution, and against Trade Union reform, is my purpose in writing the present brochure.
The terrible massacre of the Kronstadt sailors by Trotsky in March 1921, whom Trotsky had previously termed the flower of the Revolution, and the support of Trotsky by Zinoviev and Dibenko, was a shameless and shameful affair. The fortress and city were bombarded for ten days and it cannot be pretended that the sailors were moved by peasant ideas or that they were other than genuine Socialists or Communists. Trotsky's conduct was defended and even applauded in the Communist press of the world by Radek, who immediately after the October 1917 Revolution boasted a luxurious apartment and maid-servant. Radek's apology no longer carries weight for time exposed him as a panderer. He defended Trotsky's own exile and expulsion and the persecution of Rakovsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev. Radek's 1921 apology was made worthless by his subsequent record and castigation by Trotsky. If we are to accept Radek's apology for Kronstadt in 1921, then we must accept Radek's apology for Stalinism and the Stalinist persecution of Trotsky from 1927 on to the time of his assassination. Radek's own trial and " confession " put him out of court entirely as a witness.
The Kronstadt massacre was succeeded a month lator by the massacre of the Moscow Anarchists when Trotsky shelled their headquarters and finally abolished their propaganda. All this was justified on the ground that Anarchists were counter-revolutionists. Stalin has popularised this cry so thoroughly that no genuine revolutionist takes it seriously. Robespierre assassinated the French Revolution and finally himself by this very same parrot cry of counterrevolution. Men do embrace counter-revolutionary philosophy and they do pursue counter-revolutionary policies; but it does not follow that we must therefore give heed to every clamorous cry of counter-revolution when it is dictated by the hysterical needs of an aspiring bureaucrat, whose aim is to arrest the development of the revolution and to build his sect, or his party, or his clique into the edifice of power.
There were Communist elements, of a definite Anti-Parliamentarian kind, who found no place in the Communist lnternational or else were allowed merely a subsidiary and altogethcr temporary representation at the opening sessions. It may be claimed therefore that the Communist International like the triumph of Leninism in Russia contained in itself the seeds of Stalinism and of later degeneration. That was not obvious at the beginning because the success in Russia of Lenin and Trotsky was an historical success just as the failure of Stalin is an historical failure. The function of Trotskyism is to direct proletarian attention to that failure and in that way to call our attention to the real object and nature of Communist agitation and struggle. For the purpose of comparison, and for this purpose only, and not because we accept the cry, " Back to Lenin," those of us who were Communists before the Russian Revolution of 1917, and remain Communists, now that revolution has passed into history, agree that the Stalin leadership registered the decline of the International to stagnation and death. We differ from Trotskyism in that the Trotskyists think that there was a time when the Communist International really lived as a healthy expression of the workers' struggle. We claim that the Communist International enjoyed only a feverish existence as the after-birth of the Russian Revolution. It was doomed to disaster and to death from the moment of its foundation for its very organisation made it impossible for it to function except as the ramification of the Russian Revolution.
The pet fallacy of Stalinism, "Socialism in One Country," meaning literally, "Capitalism and Dictatorship in Russia," was foreshadowed in every thesis of the Communist International. This fact was not realised by the sections that belonged to the Communist International and it may, therefore, be perfectly true that Trotsky reacted to ideas of Socialism, which were quite foreign to the understanding of Stalin. It is also correct to realise that large sections of the Communist comrades in Russia believed in the proletarian struggle and considered that the Communist International expressed that struggle. To these elements the difference between the two periods of the Communist International will be absolutely real. It is our duty to consider exactly what happened during the evolution of the Stalin leadership.
The Spanish crisis found the Communist International powerless to act because there was no Communist party and no Spanish proletarian policy. Stalinism confronted the fact of the Spanish Revolution with the same blankness of vision as was exhibited by the Second International in August 1914. In every other portion of the globe, even in places where the Comintern had boasted of its mass parties, or its parties on the road to embracing masses, the local section of the International, at the moment of the local crisis, writhed in the agony of impotence.
The Strickland Pres had some hard times financially, for Aldred always worked to the limit of his capacity. He had little sense of "market potential" and over-printed enormously. He never estimated a cost to find a price, and consistently under-charged. He was lavish in the distribution of free copies, and conducted a postal mission which took The Word to most parts of the world where a glimmer of political awareness was manifest. But the price Aldred had to pay was a constant struggle to keep abreast of his creditors.
He had constantly to appeal for funds. This position worsened when, the war over and the soldiers back at work, the Typographical Society refused to allow suppliers to serve The Strickland Press because it "employed women". Those responsible for imposing"the ban knew well that Ethel Macdonald and Jenny Patrick were not "employed" by the Press, and that whatever reason (if there could have been any) for not allowing women to work at the trade, the Strickland Press was a special case. Guy, Jenny and Ethel were veteran socialists, and they had all been in prison for upholding the cause of the workers. The phrase `male chauvinist pig' had not been coined in those days, but it is still not too late to have it engraved on the tombstones of the Typographical Society officials of that time.
(14) Guy Aldred, speech (7th April, 1946)
Consider the world today, and see how stupid, how thoughtless, is all our activity. In this city tonight a meeting is being addressed by a leading freethinker, Joseph McCabe, a man of about eighty years of age. He had travelled nearly five hundred miles in wintry weather to address a meeting in a cinema. And what is his subject? "Can Christiantity Survive?" It shows how far we have fallen when the leader of a once radical movement can travel so far to speak on such an inane subject. What does the survival of Christianity matter when we are faced with the possible destruction of millions of human beings? Amore important subject would be "Can Man Survive?" What we need to consider is, what to do to prevent world chaos.
Surely it is evident that our past propaganda is getting out of touch with the world of fact. We must change our method of approach. In a world where distance is annihilated we must alter the focus of our vision. In a world growing smaller we must develop an all-embracing world outlook. We must propagate the idea of a world republic, with a world citizenship.Nationalism must be ended... And so must inter-nationalism, for internationalism implies nationalism, and the representation of national governments. What we require is the direct representation of the people of the world as world citizens in a non-national assembly.
(15) Guy Aldred, The Word (January, 1961)
I see no kindness, no friendship, no regard for mankind, no purpose in the universe. It is a miracle that cannot be explained. It seems to be a wonderful evolution from cause to effect, although there seems to be no cause and the effect is without intelligence or aim. So, for for my part, I do not believe in God. That was also the belief of Ethel... Yet for some strange reason a contradiction arises within us. We do change the world. One generation merges into another. The hopes of yesterday's heroes and martyrs become the inspiring slogans of today, passed on to the heroes of tomorrow ... In this frame of sorrow I turn from the lifeless body of my comrade to associate with those in whom still dwells the consciousness of being.
(16) Guy Aldred, The Word (October, 1962)
As this paper goes to press news has come that Kruschev has agreed to remove "Offensive" weapons from Cuba. The American people are jubilant. This is hailed as a great victory for President Kennedy. It will be some time before the Americans realise the (for them) chilling truth that Kruschev has run diplomatic rings round Kennedy. Without moving a single Russian soldier, or even raising his voice in anger, he has defeated the intention of the entire military might of the United States, and he has honoured his pledge to go to the aid of Cuba if she were threatened. It should be remembered that the main issue was the invasion of Cuba. The U.S. was building up a force for that purpose before the discovery of the rocket bases. Now they are defeated in that intention. Time will show the Russian leader to have been the better man because (a) he (unlike Kennedy) was not prepared to destroy the world to have rocket bases removed from his doorstep. (b) By building up a secondary point (rocket bases) and then seeming to give way on that, he has scored a victory for the main issue. Krusch¬ev has not lost Cuba. Kennedy has.
(17) Scottish Daily Mail (Nocember, 1962)
He has been called the "knickerbocker politician" because of his unshakeable loyalty to that Victorian fashion (probably the only conservative element in his make-up). He has been hated, feared, reviled and imprisoned for his political beliefs. But today, by the odd switch of feeling that only the British public can manage, Guy A. Aldred, Independent Socialist candidate in the Woodside bye-election, is regarded with a good-natured tolerant affection. None of the other candidates can even begin to match the experience and record of Aldred.... It is impossible to believe that this vigorously articulate man is 76 years old. There is not much grey in the dark hair brushed straight back. The black, fuzzy eyebrows twitch as he emphasises a point. But the real gold is in the flow of words. The voice has the slightly brassy, carrying note of one who has learned his public speaking in the tough, street-corner, pre-microphone days, when a man with message had to make himself heard through his own fervour and lung power... The reason for Aldred's private strength and public ineffectiveness, lies, I think, in the fact that he is always the non-conformist who cannot compromise.
(18) Guy Aldred, speech (2nd June, 1963)
The title of my address is easy to understand. It arises from a consideration of the state of mankind on Earth coupled with Man's ambition to conquer the heavens. Whether this desire to explore the heavens is right or wrong, whether it is useless or useful, I cannot say. It has a touch of romance, and a touch of bravery, but it seems to me somewhat futile... In every generation Man strives to secure one thing - the conquest of the needs of his mortal existence, to extend his life as fully as possible, and also to procure some degree of happiness. He wants to overcome a sense of insecurity that clings to him and oppresses him. Whether he is doing so in these space operations or not I cannot say.
It is said by those who are behind this very materialist concept of the conquest of the heavens, that Marxism is an expression of materialism. But the strange thing is that Marxists - and every kind of socialist for that matter - are moved by an idealism despite their economic interpretation of the basis of life. And the people who claim to be idealists are the very people who tend to continue a social struggle which destroys idealism and makes brutal and evil materialism the criterion of existence.... We live in times of capitalism, that is, in times of self-interest.
