Women's Lib
At your 70th Annual Conference a resolution was passed that membership of the Women’s Liberation movement is incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party. Is this due to the fact that Women’s Lib. strives for equality within the capitalist society, or is there more?
Catherine Spence,
Cramlington, Northumberland.
Reply:
The SPGB has as its sole objective the establishment of Socialism.
Membership of the SPGB is dependent on the acceptance of and compliance with our Declaration of Principles which declares:
That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interests of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.
In pursuit of their objectives Women’s Liberation must put pressure on or come to some agreement with capitalist political parties. Reforms of capitalism rarely if ever benefit the working class and the outcome of workers struggles in this direction are not worth the time and effort spent on them. They leave the workers in precisely the same position as before — the dispossessed class in society.
The Socialist Party must therefore be hostile to all reformist political parties and pressure groups and membership of any of them (e.g. Women’s Liberation movement) must be incompatible with membership of the Socialist Party.
If all the reforms demanded by Women’s Liberation were implemented the vast majority of women would still be members of the propertyless class having to sell their ability to work to the capitalist class for a wage or a salary.
The political history of capitalism is littered with the remains of those reform movements which attempted the impossible task of establishing “equality within the capitalist society.” Having failed many reformists dropped their illusions and went on to administer capitalism in the only way it can be administered — in the interest of the capitalists.
Social equality is only possible in a classless society. Women’s Liberation by accepting the class basis of society. (whatever some of them may claim) help to confuse workers and thereby help to perpetuate capitalism with its mass of economic and social discriminations. Have you read Women’s Lib has got it Wrong in the July Socialist Standard ?
Workers and wages
"We . . . do not . . . exhort workers to try to attain 4y wages where before they only had 3y wages. An above average wage in one industry necessarily implies a below-average wage in another”.
This seems to suggest that the Socialist Party of Great Britain does not urge workers to struggle for higher wages on the grounds that a wage increase for one group of workers necessarily involves a wage decrease for another.
The Socialist Party has always urged workers to try to get the highest possible price for the sale of their labour-power. And Marx long ago exposed, in Value Price and Profit, the "wages fund” theory accepted by the Owenite Weston that, as the amount that could be paid out in wages was limited, one group of workers could only obtain a wage increase at the expense of the rest of the working class, and that therefore trade union action was to be opposed. As Marx showed, it was sometimes possible for workers to take advantage of favourable labour market conditions to obtain a real wage increase, even if only a temporary one, at the expense of the profits of the capitalists and without harming other workers. For Marx Socialists had not to oppose the struggle for higher wages, but rather to point out its severe limitations and to urge the adoption of the revolutionary, socialist slogan “Abolish the wages system”. Marx also made the point that workers have to struggle for higher wages, even if they don’t obtain them, just in order to realise the value of their labour-power. Workers should struggle to get 4y wages in place of 3y because if they don’t they won’t even get paid 3y.
A. Buick
Brussels
Reply:
The interpretation placed on this extract by A. Buick appears to have been an over-reaction to what was stated. The term “above average wages” derives from the IPC statement itself and it should be remembered that this is a statistical concept. It should also be remembered that the statement relates to a specific company and those workers within it. This is not meant to imply that because it is a specific company, that we take no interest in the workers concerned, but more to mean that we do not approach these workers and their part both in the class struggle, and in their understanding of Socialism, exclusive of all others.
As was pointed out in the article, Mr. Roberts (the Managing Director of IPC Newspapers Ltd.) refers his employees to their high standing in the “Pay relativities League Table.” The graph (re-printed from the Financial Times) represents the average rates of pay throughout many industries, and Roberts is telling IPC employees: Look how much higher up this scale are your wages compared to those of other workers. This is a blatant appeal to his men to be thankful, for what are in the end, extremely small mercies. It is relevant however, to draw the reader’s attention to the fact that if Roberts pays his workers wages which are above a norm, then those of other workers must be below it. Clearly not all workers can obtain “above average wages,” for an average is necessarily the mean between high and low.
This reference was made to point out the limitations of Robert’s own emphasis on above-average wages as an indication of “success” and to remind IPC workers that they should not consider being “above-average” as a satisfactory position. In short, “above average” as a class view. It was certainly not intended to endorse the theory that there is a given pool from which wages are drawn, and consequently one man’s wage increase, is another’s decrease. The clause A. Buick has omitted from the extract quoted in fact points to the source from which an increase in wages would come i.e. the capitalist’s profit.
As A. Buick says, it is quite possible for a group of workers to achieve a wage increase without affecting the amount of wages received by other workers Their relative positions on a statistical graph will of course change, but as was pointed out, these relative differences will not change the basic class position of workers, or their problems. It is worth bearing in mind that there have been a considerable number of strikes in post-war years over wage relativities. As such we cannot be expected to approve a claim by any group of workers that at all times they must have more than some other group of workers.
A. Buick’s letter states “For Marx Socialists had not to oppose the struggle for higher wages . . ." and so on. However it seems a somewhat large (and inaccurate) mental leap to conclude from the passage quoted, or the article as a whole, that we were advocating opposition to workers struggling for higher wages. The class struggle between worker and employer results from the capitalist system, and wage claims are manifestations of this struggle. It would indeed be contradictory to claim that the SPGB represents the political interests of the working class on one hand, while actually advocating opposition to intelligent efforts aimed at improving or maintaining standards under Capitalism by struggles in the industrial field. The article did not put forward this point of view, and Marx explains fully why this would be a contradictory position:
(Writing about the tendency for the average standard of wages to fall)
. . . is this saying that the working class ought to renounce their resistance against the encroachments of capital, and abandon their attempts at making the best of the occasional chances for their temporary improvement? If they did, they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation . . . they would certainly disqualify themselves for the initiation of any larger movement.(Wages, Price & Profit. Chapter 14).
In practise, where gains are made by workers in industries, generally it is due to these “occasional chances” and not to the number of strikes they engage in.
Regarding A. Buick’s opinion of how our case should be expressed in relation to the struggle for higher wages, it would not be true to claim that the SPGB is better placed than the workers, or Trade Unions involved, to identify such "occasional chances” for improvement, or to usurp their particular functions in this respect. It would be a considerable and alien extension of our own function to assume that we should act either as some form of Advice Bureau, or Clearing House for various wage claims. Such a conclusion would be hard to avoid were we to blandly assert that all those IPC workers receiving (in the article’s terms) 3y wages, should be taking action to attain 4y wages.
Apart from elementary considerations such as the likelihood of such a claim being met or not, or to what extent and duration of industrial action can be taken, it should be remembered that workers (not the SPGB) advance wage claims in terms of £’s and pence. Apart from these other considerations it would be unrealistic to prescribe the numerical formula put forward by A. Buick to the IPC workers, and even more so, to all workers at all times. The extract complained about was expressly inserted to make clear to the reader that we are not able to give specific advice on the formation of particular wage claims. We certainly do not exhort workers to act in such a way, we exhort workers to achieve Socialism.
Although Mr. Roberts might view such a formula as an attempt to be “realistic”, if a little immoderately, the SPGB would take a view which he, and millions of workers at present regard as “un-realistic,” namely, if we are to talk in terms of figures, why just struggle for 4y, why not 5 or 6 or 10y ?
It is possible that A. Buick means his formula to be interpreted in a more general way to read that workers should continue to struggle for higher wages. If this is so, he is acknowledging what is occurring daily under capitalism. The SPGB has frequently put forward the view that workers generally (not just Trade Unions) should recognise the need to achieve not only the best wages, but also the best conditions that they can, although we have not always seen as beneficial some of the methods employed in this respect: For example, the use of industrial action to preserve the “Closed-shop,” inter-unions disputes, or racially motivated strikes etc., because their result has been to further divide and embitter sections of the working class. If A. Buick is concerned lest the IPC workers, or other workers, become unaware of increasing costs of daily necessaries, or of greater exploitation by the capitalist class, his reminder is timely.
While recognising that the capitalist class will constantly seek to lower wages to the minimum level required to ensure the maintenance and reproduction of a work force, and pointing out to the working class that this is a most undesirable tendency, which, if not resisted, will result in a fall of their standards, the SPGB’s task is to urge workers (employed or not) to recognise their class position, and, as Marx points out in his following paragraph from Wages, Price & Profit (Chap. 14).
not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the cause of those effects.
Our exhortation must be therefore for workers to adopt a class view and establish a system of society in which high, low or average wages will only be sought and found in history books.
Could do better?
There are some cases where workers have got out of the position of being workers and made a bit of a fortune by some means or the other — hook or by crook — and Socialists are the first to oppose them doing this! Namely because Socialists give no incentive to workers in getting out of the position of being workers.
What comments have you to make on this ? Don’t be aloof and good. What are your comments, in detail ?
F. S. Steele
London N.4.
Reply:
Have you confused us with someone else ? If we should hear of any working men or women making “a bit of a fortune” and escaping from wage-slavery, we don’t oppose it: we (individually) wish them luck
However, the belief that anyone can do it or have it happen to him is part of the mythology which sustains capitalism. Anyone cannot; very few can. If you were thinking of football pools the chances of a quarter - million - pound win are statistically about the same as those of being struck by lightning. If you were thinking of famous men who have “advanced by their own efforts”, such stories have practically never been true.
Our case is simply that workers who think on these lines are like the beast of burden following a carrot on a stick in front of it. Escaping from wage-slavery is a most desirable aim, and the only way for the great majority — with exceptions so rare that they don’t matter — to achieve it is by abolishing the wages system, i.e. establishing Socialism.
For the present
Until socialism is established, we have to live under the present capitalist system.
Features of this system are institutions such as Building Societies, Insurance Companies and banks, all of which many workers invest money into and unwittingly aid capitalism.
Seemingly they do not have a choice. There is not enough rented property in the private or public sector to meet the demand, despite years of government by the Labour Party. The Building Societies do offer a way out at a price
Insurance schemes are contributed to, understandably, by many workers who want to provide safeguards for their families should misfortune occur.
The banks use people’s money to finance their existence and keep the system rolling, for that, they provide the service of looking after our money.
All three institutions under the present system exist because of human needs. How do people at present obtain the necessities of life without contributing to a system that exploits them? The obvious need is for Socialism; until it arrives where does the Socialist Party stand on this problem ?
Kevin Parkin
London S.E. 1
Reply:
Banks, Building Societies, and Insurance Companies do not exist to satisfy human need. They are features of capitalism — a system of commodity production based on the class ownership of the means of life. As such they only exist to make a profit and only too often stand between human beings and their means of subsistence. They are “necessary” only in a money-dominated society which has profit as the motive for production.
While capitalism lasts the working class will need to sell themselves on the labour market, use banks and take out mortgages and insurance. Because they own no property they must work for wages and in so doing they will be contributing to the profits of the capitalists. Socialists realise this only too well, that under these circumstances workers have no option but to be involved in the whole sordid business simply in order to live — after all, we are in the same position ourselves. It is Utopian to believe that workers can isolate themselves from or opt out of these and other oppressive features of capitalism.
What the Socialist Party continually points out, and urges working people to act on, is that the society we live in can be done away with. When the majority of the working class realise this they will need to take upon themselves the task of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism through democratic political action. This is the only real choice facing the working class. Why not join with us and help to bring the establishment of Socialism that much closer?
Religion & railings
A reading of your interesting 70th Anniversary issue has left me with the impression that the SPGB has no satisfactory explanation for the failure to get through to the working class. I ask you to consider the following hypothesis.
A more propitious ethos must be generated by capitalism, which has already demonstrated its ability to induce a more rational view of the social scene. Remember the blow it has dealt religion. Masses of workers who have never heard of the SPGB or read a secularist tract have involuntarily succumbed to a more materialist view of the world about them. This dynamic power, identified as the ethos, could ultimately produce the untutored, the spontaneous Socialist. The existence of the SPGB is evidence enough that some workers have understood the Socialist case. My belief is that these workers are of a special “type”.
An example of a social trend I see currently unfolding: Many of the restricting inner railings in a large park near here have been removed. The perimeter fence remains — soon this barrier will be seen as an affront. Down it will come (where traffic and safety hazards allow) permitting at last, free and unrestricted access. This changing attitude will widen and deepen until it embraces the whole economy. Workers will then be more readily aware of the restraints on their lives. I visualize conditions in which workers will leave your meetings convinced at a first hearing of the need for Socialism.
To summarize, I am saying the SPGB can’t achieve its aim without a riper ethos, itself a product of evolving capitalism. In the spin-off of an ever-accelerating technology I see many signs which encourage me in the belief that, although at the rather advanced age of 61, I shall yet witness the triumph of Socialism.
F. C. West,
London E.2.
Reply:
Your letter has had to be shortened for space reasons, but its chief point is that we have to wait upon capitalism itself creating certain trends.
Unfortunately, your examples do not lead us anywhere. In the absence of Socialist understanding people who give up religious beliefs have, generally, only exchanged them for other fruitless ones. You are right in suggesting that capitalism needs religion less now; but it is not short of opiates. And if railings being taken down creates ideas of freedom, that is depressing news because of the number of railings being put up now in the streets and therefore (on that argument) conditioning people to more restraint.
There are simpler, more prosaic reasons why we can “get through to the working class” to only a small extent. In the forthcoming General Election Wilson, Heath, Thorpe and their party programmes will fill the television screens and the newspapers all day every day for three weeks non-stop; our “coverage” will be a flash on TV, if we are lucky, and a sentence or two in the papers.
But do you mean that at 61 (not an advanced age at all) you are waiting to see Socialism brought about? We have active members old enough to be your parents; we are not waiting for Socialism, but working for it. Why don’t you ?
No comments:
Post a Comment