Has the Labour Party lost its way? (2003)

From the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

With trade unions and left wingers now talking about the re-formation of a Labour party, socialists ask why bother? The history of the Labour Party has been one long disaster for the working class. The short answer to the question of whether the Labour Party has lost its way is, no. Because what is currently the direction of its leaders has been part of its thinking throughout its existence. In power, as now, Labour has been a radical liberal party. This has not been a betrayal of its core principles or “values” but reflects its origins.

New Labour’s obsession with neo-liberal economics might seem like something of a new departure but the early Labour Party was tied to liberalism in a similar way. This argument should not be taken too far, as at least the collectivist currents in the early Labour Party made it feel like it was part of a movement to create a better society and many thought they were working towards a vaguely defined socialism. A collection of anecdotes of life in the Labour Party, Generating Socialism (Sutton, 1997; edited by Daniel Weinbren, foreword by Tony Benn, who else?) shows that many Labour members, however mistakenly, thought that socialism could be reached through Labourism. The optimism which could hold with Labour’s “rise” up to the mid-twentieth century, has turned into a marked pessimism associated with the supposed decline of the working class.

Nonetheless, the Labour Party was established not for socialist aims but to achieve political representation for working men. It was related to class struggle in that despite the trade unions’ reluctance to break away from the Liberal Party, industrial militancy and the Taff Vale decision which put their funds in danger meant that a strong feeling developed on the need for independent “Labour” representation in parliament. However, its socialist credentials were weak, as the Social Democratic Federation acknowledged when it withdrew from the Labour Representation Committee (which became the Labour Party in 1906) in 1901. Its social outlook was informed not by class-consciousness but, on its left-wing, by ethical protest at poverty and inequality as “wrong” and, on its right-wing, by an awareness that social dislocation caused by unregulated capitalism effected economic (capitalist) efficiency.

The Labour Party struggled to gain wide electoral support during its first ten years, gaining around fifty MPs by 1914. Its big break came with the first world war, which split the Liberal Party. Labour was active in the national government, supporting the war, but not tainted being tainted with its results. By the early 1920s, the Labour Party had emerged as the “progressive” party in British politics. While attracting such ex-Liberals at this time as Clement Attlee, it refused the affiliation of the Communist Party.

So why has the Labour Party been associated with the name of socialism? Largely because of its history of supporting nationalisation, often misleadingly called “public” or “social” ownership. This was the major problem for socialism in the twentieth-century—the standard dictionary definition being that nationalisation is socialism. The Labour Party’s commitment to nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange dates from 1905 but was adopted most famously in Clause IV of its 1918 constitution. Its acknowledgment that exchange would continue after nationalisation demonstrated that the wages system, and thus capitalism, would continue after nationalisation, albeit state-run. In effect Clause IV was translated as state ownership of the “commanding heights” of the economy. Quite what was hoped to be achieved by bringing industry into state instead of private ownership was not very clear apart from as a vague and fuzzy means to “greater equality”.

With central planning nationalisation was supposed to transform capitalism into something that could be controlled by the state. This did not happen of course. On transferring coal, steel, iron, fuel, power and transport to state ownership after 1945, the performance of British industry in the world market still continued to decline and the state sector remained an arena of industrial struggle. The remarkable blind faith of the Labour Party in nationalisation was reduced from the Attlee government onwards. Sadly, this decline in the faith of nationalisation has been represented as the death of socialism.

There are still some in the Labour Party and in the various left-wing organisations who claim that vast swathes of British industry should be re-nationalised. This is why many see “New” Labour as a dramatic break with “Old” Labour. Jim Mortimer (an ex-Labour Party general secretary) describes New Labour, in a recent pamphlet The Formation of the Labour Party – Lessons for Today (2000), as apologists for capitalism and the new Clause IV as “a symbolic change to mark the abandonment of Labour’s traditional advocacy of a widening area of social [state] ownership”. However, as socialists, we would prefer to see declining faith in nationalisation and the Labour Party as a positive development. The results of Labour governments are no longer clothed in the misleading garb of collectivism but show what they essentially are—managers of capitalism. Electoral imperatives, present from early in Labour’s existence, have triumphed over reforming rhetoric.

It is often argued that state welfare and social security provision are examples of Labour’s success in “doing something”, legislating against poverty and providing municipal housing and so on. Such measures have no socialist credentials but, on the contrary, were developed in their post-war form by the Liberal Beveridge. Moreover, regulating legislation has been a feature of all capitalist government since the Factory Acts of the 1840s. The simple case is that systems of social welfare do not change the exploitative character of capitalism or even touch the surface of its symptoms. Poverty has not been reformed away and poor housing, unemployment, job insecurity and related ill-health remain very real concerns for the working class. In fact, New Labour, rather than betraying Labour’s welfare extension tradition, has merely continued previous Labour retrenchment begun in the 1970s.

The democratic record of the Labour Party reads equally dubiously. It has always had a very limited acceptance of party democracy. The block vote, for example, allowed the trades unions to dominate the party conference, initially to the advantage of Liberal moderates but more recently to that of the left-wing, whereupon it was replaced. Also, Blair is not new in being a “strong” leader. Before 1922 the Labour party did not have a formal leader but a series of chairmen. After Ramsay MacDonald assumed chairmanship in 1922, however, the party adopted a leadership that exercised strong control over the party, especially as the Parliamentary Labour Party did not, and still does not, have to obey its conference. As has often been observed, the Labour Party has always had a strong cult of personality, of loyalties and bitter rivalries over who was best to lead a passive working class.

At its formation and in its early years the Labour Party had little connection with the growth of a socialist minority or even with the more militant sections of reformists. There were always some trying to build a “fairer” society but what emerged from years of effort was not a slowly evolving socialism but a Labourism which increasingly judged itself on its electoral success, which depended on its ability not to rock the capitalist boat it was trying to steer.

Those who want another century of reformist advance and retreat can go ahead and form a new Labour Party. Those who, learning from the failures of the past, desire the socialist alternative should join those who have rejected reformism and sought instead to make socialists and work for socialism-and-nothing-but.

Colin Skelly

Letter: " . . .a sad deluded group of romantics" (2003)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

" . . .a sad deluded group of romantics"

Dear Editors

For a few years I have subscribed to the Socialist Standard and have come to the conclusion that you are either very cynical or a sad deluded group of romantics. It’s all very cosy sitting at your word processor telling us that we should be out there ridding ourselves of the capitalist class and that the world would be a much better place under your brand of politics. (All dictators believe this.)

It is a logical process for those people without resources to vilify people who have wealth. (Just as in Cambodia it became a corrupt thing to have learning.) Hence your tirade against those people who have the imagination and flair to accumulate for themselves some of the Earth’s riches. Capitalism is just a handy label for those who have the get-up-and-go to create wealth. Yes, they are shrewd people – yes, they will exploit others but how else are things to be done?

Get up from your word processors and take a good hard look at the world. You will observe there are varying types in this human planet. The majority is an amorphous mass of Underlings. Their main preoccupation is obtaining food, shelter and pleasure. Their imagination goes no further than these three basic needs. At the top of this heap are the Doers – the leaders – the people with the strength of purpose to get things done. They see this indeterminate mass of Underlings with their three needs so they set out to provide them.

So don’t give us all that nonsense about exploitation. The leaders are doing what is necessary. They don’t sit in offices churning out political daydreams. They get off their backsides and do. They are the Doers. They are necessary for society to function by providing food-halls, living accommodation and pleasure-domes. Do you honestly believe the Underlings would manage to do all this on their own? Listen socialists it’s a real world out there with people hungry for food, shelter and pleasure and capitalism is a means to that end. And so what if the capitalist creams off a bit extra for his efforts! Surely he deserves it!

Phil McCormac, 

by email

Reply: 

You omit one detail: are you a Doer or an Underling? We suspect the latter. In which case there is a book about people like you, The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists by Robert Tressell, set in a town called Mugsborough.

Mugs believe that it is capitalists, not workers by hand and by brain, who create wealth and that capitalists are doing us a favour by providing us with jobs. They believe that the world has always been divided into rich and poor, leaders and followers, rulers and ruled and that it always will be. They consider themselves and their fellow workers to be “underlings” incapable of running things ourselves.

Yet who, today, does run things from top to bottom? Who grows the food, who builds the houses, who mines the minerals, who transports them, who processes them, who fashions them into useful things, who does all the paper work for this, orders the supplies, draws up the designs – if not the people you call the “underlings”, we the majority class of wage and salary earners? The shareholding capitalist and the fat-cat company director are completely redundant as far as the actual work of wealth production is concerned – and new wealth can only be created by the application of human labour to materials that originally come from nature, not by speculating on the stock exchange or planning take-over bids. Their social role is purely parasitic: to cream off, as you put it, a part of the wealth created by the rest of us.

But don’t get us wrong. We don’t blame capitalists personally. They are just cogs in the system. If they didn’t exploit us, somebody else would. Either some other capitalist or maybe some state bureaucrat like in Cambodia or the former USSR. We blame the system. It’s based on the exploitation of the majority for profit. That’s why it must go and be replaced by a new and different system, based on common ownership democratic control and production of use, not profit.

What we are proposing is that the people who, today, run production and administration from top to bottom should get together and run things in their own interest, instead of as at present in the interest of a tiny minority. The first step towards this is to stop regarding ourselves as underlings, as eternal followers of those who regard themselves as our betters. Get up off your knees, Phil, don’t be a mug

—Editors 

News from the Madhouse (2003)

From the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statistics

The United States, as the most powerful country in the world, must be the world’s leading producer of statistics. But for some reason the US has been very coy about producing any estimate of the numbers of Iraqis killed during the American attack. However, others outside officialdom are less reticent, and according to a Times (10 July) report on Iraq, “a group of British and US academics said that the civilian death toll from the war was at least 6000.” But the lack of official American figures does mean that all that suffering can be brushed under the carpet. An American writer in the Times (3 June) said that the Iraqi war was “pretty-close-to-bloodless”. The 2800 people killed in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre are fewer than half the probable figure of Iraqi civilian deaths. No American writer would ever describe the 11 September attack as “pretty-close-to-bloodless”. Of course, the twin towers attacks killed mainly Americans, while in Iraq it was mainly Iraqis who died. Perhaps that makes a difference.

Solitary confinement

But if you call your dead “victims”, instead of “heroes”, you may find people asking what is the point of supporting a system which results in so many dead victims. Describing them as “heroes”, or so the authorities hope, is a good way of getting people to rally behind the flag, and continue the merciless carnage which is part of capitalism. Private Jessica Lynch, for example, an American maintenance soldier, was in a vehicle at the back-end of an American convoy in Iraq, which lost its way and blundered into enemy territory. In an exchange of fire, she was badly injured, and captured by the Iraqis. She was taken to a nearby hospital in Nasiriyah, and her crushed arms and legs were put in plaster. The Americans discovered she was there, and decided the chance of rescuing a young, good-looking blonde was too good to miss. By that time Iraqi resistance was crumbling, but the desire for a propaganda coup was too strong. So special forces in helicopters, guns firing, stormed the hospital, capturing all the doctors and nurses and not really helping the patients, and triumphantly carried off Private Lynch.

According to the Times (21 June), the press was fed reports about her heroic resistance, fighting and killing Iraqis before being wounded several times herself. There are plans to make films about this exciting story. In fact, it seems, her gun jammed so she didn’t fire at all. Unfortunately, Private Lynch “has been unable to remember anything about the events which have propelled her into the public eye”, and, said the Times reporter, she is now “living in solitary confinement in the Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington. Outside her door stands a military guard who prevents anyone except her medical helpers and her immediate family from seeing her. Each lunchtime Private Lynch goes to physiotherapy and works out alone.Other patients are banished from the gym for fear that the press will use them as a way to get to her.” A “hero”, kept in solitary confinement! It makes you wonder if they are helping her to remember what she has forgotten, i.e. all about her heroism. As the report said, “She is deliberately and falsely being portrayed as a hero in a war with few genuine heroes because the Americans would like to feel good about a war that has an ambiguous ending, and the entertainment industry needs to please them.”

Fishy story

In legal circles, there is a well-known story about a barrister, appearing for the defendant, who listened to the other side’s allegations, and wondered how on earth he was going to reply to them. At length his solicitor passed him a note: “No case; attack the plaintiff’s attorney.”

Ten Downing Street is acting on exactly the same principle in the aftermath of the Iraqi war. Much of the media—newspapers, radio, television—has been questioning some of the stories the government put out to justify their action in invading Iraq along with the Americans. Not having a convincing reply to many of these questions, Alastair Campbell (the Prime Minister’s main public relations adviser) decided to seize on one allegation broadcast on BBC television, to the effect that he had “sexed up” some of the information the government got from its so-called “intelligence services”, before issuing it as part of the government’s propaganda drive to persuade people of the necessity of war.

Whether this or that claim is one hundred per cent justified is of minor importance besides the government’s efforts to obscure the basic facts of the matter. America attacked and overthrew the Saddam Hussein regime because it needs to import a great deal of oil to keep its productive and distributive industries functioning. Saudi Arabia, with the world’s largest reserves of oil, is already firmly within the American sphere of influence; Iraq, with the world’s second largest reserves, was hostile to the United States, so had to be brought into line. Britain, and a few other countries, supported the United States because it is by a long way the most powerful country in the world. Some European countries have reacted to this enormous American power by stepping up their attempt to build a capitalist European federation which might in the future hope to rival the United States, and share in world leadership. Others, including Britain, think that a better bet is to go with the country which now has the leadership: in the jungle of world capitalism, the British rulers think, perhaps safety and prosperity lie in cosying up to the most ferocious predator.

Each group of capitalists, ruling in a particular country, does whatever it thinks is best for its own interests. Lots of advice is given, but the decision rests with each country’s ruling class. In Britain, there was a lot of feeling against going to war. Tony Blair, in his present role as right-hand man to the British ruling class, and administrator of British capitalism, ignored the widespread anti-war feeling, and did what he thought the British capitalist class would want him to do. So he went along with the American rulers, hoping that it would help to ensure the oil supplies which British industry needs and will need in the foreseeable future.

Whenever anyone makes an open, honest decision, he adds up all the possible reasons for and against, and arrives at a conclusion. When anyone reaches his conclusion first, and then has to make up his reasons afterwards, there are often a lot of problems. Tony Blair couldn’t announce that he was going to send British soldiers to fight in Iraq, which would involve killing and injuring Iraqi soldiers and civilians, as well as deaths and injuries among the British invading force, simply because he thought it was safer in the modern world for the British ruling class to ally with the single world superpower, and at the same time make sure British capitalism didn’t run out of oil. So reasons had to be made up afterwards. Hence the sudden discovery that Saddam Hussein is a nasty man, running a barbarous regime. Quite true, of course, but not enough to excuse a war which was almost impossible to square with capitalism’s own “international law”. The problems were, firstly, that the British government has supported and traded with this barbarous regime in the past, and, secondly, if that was the reason behind the war, Britain would have to attack many countries round the world, which have regimes just as tyrannical and murderous as Saddam’s. If only the “enemy” country would attack first, then the excuse for war would be obvious—resistance to aggression, which was trumpeted as a complete justification throughout the Second World War. But that wouldn’t do in this case, since America and Britain were going to be the ones committing the aggression. And it wouldn’t be very convincing to claim that Iraq, economically feeble after the Gulf War and the years of sanctions since then, was somehow going to get powerful enough to send an invasion fleet down the Persian Gulf and round the Arabian Sea, up the Red Sea and through the Suez Canal, then through the Mediterranean and past Gibraltar, and across the Bay of Biscay before finally invading Cornwall.

What could be done? So in comes the killer excuse—Saddam has weapons of mass destruction: nuclear or chemical or biological weapons which could be sent on a rocket across Europe to land on Basingstoke or thereabouts—and which would be ready for action in only forty-five minutes! (Exactly forty-five, apparently—not forty-four or forty-six minutes: or, as W. S. Gilbert put it, “corroborative detail, intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative”.) All this is jazzed up in two official-sounding dossiers, which seek to prove the imminent danger. In due course awkward facts start to emerge—some of the material was taken from an ancient thesis which a student had submitted for his degree (and put on the internet), borrowed without acknowledgement and improved to make it more exciting; and allegations about Saddam trying to import uranium from the Niger republic in West Africa, which turn out to have been based mainly on forged documents.

When all this comes out in the newspapers and the media generally, no wonder Ten Downing Street try to defend themselves by picking out some uncertain bits of the criticism and demanding apologies. But since the Labour Party convinced millions of voters at the last two elections of the gigantic lie that they could run the capitalist system for the benefit of the working class—the great majority of ordinary people—then perhaps these other terminological inexactitudes seem to be very small beer.

Alwyn Edgar

50 Years Ago: Capital’s Coronation (2003)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since we may not, without dire consequences to the life of the Socialist Standard, record our view on what has been called “the greatest show ever,” we may at least refer readers to what our late and lamented comrade Jacomb wrote on the occasion of the crowning of George Wettin as King George V. (See Socialist Standard for June 1911.)

Those to whom it may seem remarkable that in spite of 10 years of devastating war there should be such a tremendous increase of wealth as illustrated by the present show, should bear in mind that with production and consumption of war material at top scale and speed profits and fortunes for factory owners and shareholders who formed this vast congregation of titled gentlemen and bejewelled ladies, were correspondingly big and easily capable of defraying whatever cost participation in the show involved.

And what have those who produced this vast wealth and fought for king and country in the past great and glorious wars to end war, what improvement in their material position have they to show in these 30 years of peace and 10 years of war?

If in writing on the show in June, 1911, our late comrade Jacomb referred among other thing to

“. . . the bestowing of a meal upon thousands of little children whom hunger makes glad to accept even such a trifle from hands so heavy-laden with wealth that they cannot feel the weight of the charitable grains they scatter, . . .”

here is what a London daily paper reported in connection with the 1953 show:-

“At East Grinstead the children who go to the Coronation party will, after they have had their tea, be stamped on the wrist with indelible ink. This will prevent them from getting more than their share of the refreshments.”

(Article by “R”, Socialist Standard, August 1953)

Debate: SPGB v. International Socialists (1975)

Party News from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate was held at the Clarendon Press Institute in Oxford, on Thursday 3rd July 1975. The SPGB was represented by J. D’Arcy and the I.S. by P. Gerhardt.

SPGB Opening Speech

The SPGB in opening defined their sole object, a system of society based on common ownership and distribution. They had no secondary object. During the past 70 years a number of organizations had claimed to be Socialist but on examination had different objectives. It was not only necessary that the working class should accept Socialism by definition, but also that they should understand its implications. An understanding of the implications was the test of Socialist understanding.

The SPGB case rested on 3 main points:- 1. Knowledge of the implications of Socialism; 2 Political organization within a revolutionary Party without leaders; 3. The conquest of political power through Parliament or International equivalents. The workers’ understanding of Socialism implied that they rejected the world of wages, prices, profits, employers, money, etc. The SPGB asked workers to re-think the whole purpose of their lives; this was revolutionary. Socialism could not be established by non-Socialists. Socialist workers would then make the SPGB a social force, an agent for revolution with the single purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing Socialism, and seeking political power on this mandate. Political power was necessary, and Socialism could not be established without it. The way to political power was through Parliament and the vote.

I.S. (International Socialists) was a self-styled socialist party. It did not stand for Socialism but for State capitalism. Their pamphlet The Struggle for Workers’ Power (p. 8) describes Socialism: “Under Socialism the means of production are Nationalized without compensation and transferred into the hands of the workers”. They also refer to a workers’ State under workers’ control, that relies on the armed power of the workers’ militia. The Workers’ State defends the right to strike, the rights of Trade Unions. Socialist “wages” will be paid. Armaments expenditure will be cut and foreign debts cancelled. The SPGB regard this as State capitalism—borrowed from the early Bolsheviks who carried out the non-Socialist Russian revolution. I.S. believe the Russian revolution was Socialist, in 1920 under Lenin and Trotsky, but counter-revolutionary in 1928 under Stalin.

In fact Lenin led Russia to capitalism in 1918 and Stalin carried on the process. This unsound position of I.S. in relation to the Russian revolution is reflected in their general propaganda. They have been directly involved in every reformist campaign since their inception; recently in the anti-abortion Bill, the Common Market, Repeal of the Industrial Relations Act; support for Clay Cross councillors, rent strikes, squatters’ movements, Claimants’ Union, Shrewsbury pickets, Students’ Grant Campaign, Troops out of Ireland, and numerous other campaigns. In addition, they attach themselves to every industrial dispute uninvited and usually unwelcome. They hold the view that trade unions could be revolutionary organizations under proper leadership.

The SPGB say non-Socialist trade unionists cannot establish Socialism. I.S. reject the parliamentary road to Socialism, and talk of “smashing the State”, but do not say how this is to be done. The only thing which can smash the state is another state. Is the state to be smashed by armed revolt, general strikes, civil disobedience, or subversion? All these methods have been used here and abroad and have failed. They speak of workers’ control and workers’ councils, consisting of industrial workers running social affairs under Socialism. Why should industrial workers or any other section determine social need? Socialism means the democratic control by the whole community not just a section.

If I.S. reject the need for Socialist understanding how can we get Socialism? Advocacy of reforms does not promote Socialist understanding. On the contrary. Militancy and revolution are not the same thing. The economic conditions of capitalism tame the militant, but never the revolutionary. I.S. like the Communist Party, International Marxist Group, and other Left parties, are the small shop-keepers of social reform. The chain stores are run by the Labour and other large Parties. Posing as Intellectuals they have a contempt for the working class.

This can be summed up in a quotation from the Socialist Worker of 7th April 1973 during the election campaign: “The socialist case for voting Labour does not depend on any assumption that it will carry out its pledges. It will not, nor indeed cannot, carry them out, because it is committed to making capitalism work. We know it but millions of workers disagree . . . Power is the test, and we urge all our readers to swallow their distaste and vote Labour—vote Labour without illusions, but vote Labour.”

Considering that the is openly acknowledge that the Labour Party is a capitalist party, urging workers to vote for it was an act of treachery.

I.S. Opening Speech

The I.S. said that the SPGB was not Marxist and therefore was not a revolutionary party. The SPGB regarded political demands as a cul-de-sac. The I.S. worked for immediate partial demands and were also politically active in the trade unions. Marxism must be related to immediate demands. Marx supported this view in 1865 (First International and Communist Manifesto). Day-to-day participation in workers’ struggles helps them to Socialism. The struggle for reforms is clearly class struggle. Marx said the 10-hour bill had changed middle-class political economy to working-class political economy. Lenin claimed that it was not enough to be a revolutionary, workers must grasp every link in the chain. A quotation from the Socialist Standard stated that the SPGB did not support reforms. They lacked confidence in the working class, and showed idealism by assuming that capitalism can carry on reforms independently.

Marx recognised the revolutionary nature of trade unions; he never criticized their conservatism. Engels stated that trade unions and strikes were schools of war. Struggle could be pushed further beyond wages struggle. Marx and Engels over 100 years ago said that organization in trade unions was a sign of the maturity of the working class. How could the SPGB support wage demands and oppose reforms? Rent increases, wage freezes, cuts in public expenditure, were hidden wage reductions.

The SPGB said self-emancipation was the lynch-pin of Socialism. Do the uneducated masses have to wait to be educated by the SPGB? Engels on Feurbach said the workers got revolutionary ideas through revolutionary practice. The same point was made in The German Ideology. It is revolutionary acts which will enable workers to find the road to Socialism, not the SPGB. Marx and Engels dealing with the Paris Commune stated that the workers had taken revolution into their own hands. I.S. stood by Marx, and later Lenin, on the concept of workers seizing state power under workers’ control, which the SPGB denounce. The SPGB version of working-class self-emancipation through Parliament by merely voting for Socialist delegates was a wrong interpretation of Marx. Power did not reside in Parliament, it was merely a rubber stamp which can be snuffed away. Look at Portugal and Chile. The SPGB is a propaganda sect which abstains from the class struggle. Marx supported the Paris Commune, although he recognised it was not Socialist, because he wanted to keep up the morale of the workers. When has the SPGB been concerned with the morale of the workers on wage freezes, etc., Vietnamese revolution and the Portuguese revolution?

The SPGB originated from the SDF, and had carried over the inactivity of that organization in the class struggle. Members of the SPGB should leave it and join a real revolutionary organisation—the I.S. Action is the greatest educator on the face of the earth.

SPGB Second Speech

In reply, the SPGB stated that the issue of the debate was “Which party should the working class support?”, not what Marx and Engels said. I.S. must deal with the case of the SPGB as presented. The SPGB understands and accepts the main theories of Marx, the law of social growth, evolving class struggle, and the analysis of capitalism. Dealing with trade unions, Marx always maintained that if workers were unable to amalgamate to protect their living standards they would be incapable of forming a larger movement. It was Marx who used the famous phrase “the abolition of the wages system”, instead of the trade-union slogan of “a fair day’s wage for a fair day’s work”. The entire energy of trade unions was used for higher wages and better working conditions. They bartered with capitalism about the terms under which they would work. It should be remembered that trade unions exist for the benefit of their own members and not for the benefit of the working class as a whole. The wages struggle was never ending, and in over 150 years had not produced a single revolutionary Socialist attitude. They were more entrenched behind the Government. The TUC was nothing other than a political party representing the industrial wing of the Labour Party. Trade Unions are not revolutionary — good or bad leadership made no difference.

The implication that Marx imagined that the workers need not obtain political power was nonsense. In an address to the First International he stated: “To conquer political power is the great duty of the working class”. This was consistent with his historical theory that class struggles are struggles about political power. The class which has political power controls society. If that is so, how do the workers get political power other than through Parliament? Why did the I.S. urge workers to support the Labour Party to political power? Why did they say power is the test, if political power is useless? Parliament is still the centre of the state machine. We are not interested at the moment in the Paris Commune—our case depends on the conditions of today. Does the advocacy by the I.S. of political demands lead to Socialism? There is nothing partial about the abortion and Common Market campaigns as advocated by I.S.. They went the whole hog. The entire literature of I.S. was devoted to these demands. They were too busy putting forward partial demands to the detriment of Socialism. The result was that workers became reform-minded. The SPGB consistently refused to engage in non-Socialist political activity for any reason. The issue was not whether a reform was good or bad, but the misguided efforts to get them. Non-Socialist reformist actions of any kind were detrimental to Socialism. Raising the morale of the worker, to which is referred, meant that you kept up his morale by offering reforms in the same way that the donkey was attracted by the carrot. It could be better if the worker had Socialist ideas with low morale rather than reformist ideas with high morale

I.S. Second Speech

Marx was concerned with the morale of the working class, and this is important. The Paris Commune is important for the lessons it gives to workers today; it still haunts the capitalists of Europe. The SPGB falsified Lenin about the smashing of the State machine. Lenin in fact was interested only in smashing the capitalist State machine. The SPGB also accused Lenin of falsifying Marx. The I.S. would not say here and now how workers could get control of the political machinery; they would have to find their own organs of power However, they should be warned against the futility of seeking their emancipation through Parliament. This was an illusion. There were many ways the worker could take away the property of the capitalist class; for example at the point of production.

SPGB : Conclusion

is nothing useful in trying to resurrect historical events like the Paris Commune unless you can apply them to the conditions of today. The Paris Communards did not smash the state, it was the state which smashed them. The seizure of power in similar circumstances today is impossible—the days of the barricades are over. The I.S. do not want to establish Socialism; they want the system of state capitalism with workers’ militia, nationalization and workers’ control. Workers with Socialist ideas can dispossess the capitalists through control of Parliament, and it is a lack of Socialist knowledge, not the failure of the parliamentary machine, which is responsible for the continuance of capitalism.

So They Say: Rogues All (1975)

The So They Say Column from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Rogues All

In the great search for the source of inflation, politicians and economists have felt at liberty to express all sorts of fanciful conclusions. How refreshing then that Harold Wilson has applied himself to the task. After careful examination he appears to have identified a hitherto rare specimen — the capitalist who pays too much and it is the antics of this benevolent creature which, he thinks, are at the source of the trouble.

We reject, as we have always rejected, the idea of statutory policies based on criminal sanctions against workers who, misguidedly, perhaps short-sightedly, perhaps acting out of fear, went on strike for higher wages than the nation could afford. The Government might need to take reserve powers. It will take the form of a power directed against a recalcitrant employer, a rogue elephant who sought to wreck the policy of the whole community.

Times 7th July ’75

The roguery being that these unspecified capitalists may be prepared to pay greater wage increases than the £6 a week Government limit.

It is a pity indeed that these fabulous benefactors have to be checked in this way from gaily distributing their wealth on application; they would say no doubt — as several Labour MPs have recently been saying concerning their own pay increases — that any increase would only represent the “rate for the job.” The catch being that however high the rate for the job, the capitalist assesses it against another rate, the rate of his profit.

Official Swindle

The idea that all mankind can co-operate in producing and distributing the means of life is regarded by some as an unreal proposition. We disagree, but point out that it is not the only “staggering proposal” in existence. The British Medical Association’s Junior Hospital Doctors’ Council had an emergency meeting recently in Leeds to discuss the new 40-hour contract which the doctors have been offered by the Department of Health and Social Security. Their chairman, Dr. David Bell, described the contract as “vicious.” Dr. Angus Ford, chairman of their negotiating committee pin-pointed their objections more precisely when saying:

The Department had introduced the staggering concept that the first units of medical time after 40 hours should not count for payment. From 40 to 56 hours we should, they say, work for nothing.

Times 10th July ’75

Now here is an unethical approach to things, surely? Trying to have doctors working for nothing — this really is pulling a fast one. Imagine if this sort of concept was spread even further afield, why — the entire working class would be working some of the time for free, for no-one’s benefit but the employers’. Truly a staggering proposal — but one which makes capitalism tick.

Pay Disparities

Coal miners in the capitalist system which is misleadingly termed “socialism” have recently been in disagreement with one another over the amount of wages each man should receive for his work:

A veteran engineer said that young miners sometimes resented the higher pay given to older men although they did less work. But an older worker said that this was an aspect of socialism and anyway, the senior men were needed for their greater experience.

Times 15th July ’75

The newspaper refers to the moves for equalization of pay as “an informal debate going on among the miners.” The disparities in earnings “vary from the equivalent of £8 to £30 a month.” We point out that these figures relate to the total earnings of miners — not to the amounts of difference between them. Recalling the recent push from members of the NUM for the “£100 per week miner” readers may suspect a misprint but this is not the case. The miners referred to, live in that other “socialist” country, China.

All responsible officials insist that the campaign is still at the stage of discussion and no changes in the wage scales are envisaged for the immediate future. There is no extra pay for overtime, but there is strong moral pressure on young workers to do labour voluntarily in their spare time as well as attend political study classes two or three times a week.

The Labour Party must be casting an envious eye at such an apparently well-oiled process of exploitation.

With Planners Like These . . .

We were treated to the Sunday Times Economics Editor, Mr. Malcolm Crawford, revealing “new moves to allow better economic forecasting” on 20th July. The measures proposed arose from dissatisfaction at the “sharp stops and goes, the blind lurches of policy, of past years,” and are aimed at removing them. Towards this elusive end several MPs have tabled three amendments to the Industry Bill (two of which have been accepted by the Treasury) calling upon the Treasury to reveal more details of its method for forecasting capitalism. It is hoped that this could lead to a better understanding of how to control production, unemployment, government spending, etc.

The proposal is that the Treasury prepare a “macro model” for the future, and the Government together with certain firms will draw up their own “sub-models” to fit within the larger framework. The result of this happy alliance would be that capitalism could at last run smoothly. Not only firms with Government agreements are permitted to join this brotherhood:

This clause also requires the Treasury to provide its model to outside users, on a fee charging basis, so that they can make forecasts based on assumptions of their own, which may be different from the Treasury’s.

It may sound a bit like the horoscope fan who — not approving of his Stars for the Day in the Mail — buys a copy of the Mirror instead, but it isn’t, this is official. We leave for the moment the fact that the needs of capital have not been controlled in the past by models — Macro or Sub — on the contrary, Capital has roared and its would-be-tamers have jumped. Instead we observe more closely the business-like approach of the forecasters. One amendment requests that the Treasury

must also publish a retrospective analysis of its forecasting errors . . . to extract an estimate of the error due to mis-forecasting, after separating out the effects of changes in policy and external factors. It also requires estimated margins of expected error to be published. The trouble here is that figures of this kind which could be understood by more than a few specialists would be meaningless, and perhaps misleading. It is however important to establish the principle that errors are to be expected.

This all sounds somewhat confusing. What use, for instance, are estimates of errors separated from external factors? Come to that on what basis will estimated future error be forecast — even if only to produce figures which are meaningless and misleading. We do however, readily accept the principle that “errors are to be expected.”

. . . Who Needs Problems ?

We move on to the “most radical” of the three proposed amendments. This, Crawford forewarns, “I daresay only about a dozen people understand” (the Treasury itself is opposed) and we are appropriately grateful that he has felt it timely to invite us into this knowledgeable clique:

It means that the Chancellor should adopt a new economic discipline called Optimal Control or Policy Optimisation. Much research has been devoted to this in the US and, apparently in the Soviet Union. The Treasury has someone studying it at present.

The new “economic discipline” is also being intensively researched at Queen Mary and Imperial Colleges. Obviously it is worthy of careful attention, but what actually is it?

The basic premise of Optimal Control is that something is always bound to go wrong. Moreover when it does, we will surely move from that mess into some neighbouring mess: so contingency plans of a highly sophisticated kind should always be at hand to steer us into the least bad mess.

After this eloquently worded proposition has been considered, the working man or woman will soon see that things are always best left to the economic experts.

A minor point of inaccuracy in the report occurs when Crawford comments that more research is required before Optimal Control may be used on any more than a trial basis. We were under the impression that the sort of planning (?) he had outlined above was the only kind possible under capitalism.

Alan D'Arcy

'Their honours' (1975)

From the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the many unpleasant aspects of a society divided into owners and non-owners (i.e. class society) is the consequent existence of governors and governed and rulers and ruled. The majority of people accept private property and therefore agree to the systems of governments, rulers, bosses etc., and this means having some people elevated to the position of “judges”.

The concept of a group of people sitting in judgment on their fellows is anathema to the Socialist who wants a free society. Socialism as a voluntary society with no private wealth to protect will not need to disguise old men with wigs, gowns and legal mystique in order to frighten elements of the population into submission to the interests of a small minority.

One of the strangest points about the idea of judges is that instead of their jobs being regarded as odious, they are looked upon with respect not only by the capitalist class (who need them to preserve their monopoly of wealth and to sort out disputes between various competing sections of their class) but by workers too. Everyone under capitalism is “judged” from birth to death by their “price tag” i.e. the size of their wage or salary, or their ownership of wealth. Partly because judges have such a high price-tag, their lengthy boring) speeches in and out of courts of law are listened to with awe and reverence.

The tragedy is that they have nothing to say of any interest to the working class. They can’t even help administer capitalism very well. Witness the controversy the House of Lords (the highest court in the land) recently caused over the law of rape. However, "I thought she consented” is the capitalist’s apology for exploiting everybody. When a judge freed a double rapist on the grounds that he had strong sexual urges, he gave voice to the “human nature” justification in which capitalism is only expressing the strong acquisitive urges which we’ve all (likewise) got.

When tin gods come out of their natural environment (law courts) and comment on all sorts of things, the fun really starts. For example, what child would suggest a solution to the traffic problem on these lines:

Lord Salmon Lord of appeal in ordinary has hit on a way to fight the menace of juggernaut lorries in his home town of Sandwich, Kent without breaking the law. He says citizens should sail boats constantly on the river Stour, which would force authorities to keep the town’s swing bridge open and effectively jam all road traffic. (Sunday Times, 20th October 1974)

What a way to analyze a social problem springing from profit-motive society.

The real function of judges is to help in the dirty job of keeping the workers in subjection. This is made clear when they attempt to analyze society. For example, Lord Devlin was reported in The Times (26th June 1975) giving an address whose theme was a rejection of criticism “that the English judiciary was torpid, inactive and unwilling to develop the law to fit changing times”. But the same article reported Devlin as saying:

Those who took up the law . . . tended to be of the same type who did not seriously question the status quo and who wanted to serve the law and not be its master. Lawyers were not naturally interested in social reform.

Those people who “serve the law” know full well whom the law serves—the owners of wealth. It is the instrument by which their monopoly is preserved. Devlin is merely saying the law and those who practise it are going to do their best to maintain that system. And he makes it perfectly clear that he wants the boundary between the haves and have nots to remain just where it is:

The first mark of a free and orderly society was that the boundaries between the rulers and the ruled should be guarded and that trespasses from one side to the other should be independently and impartially determined.

Devlin argues that it is not the judge’s job to change the rules of capitalism. Another judge, Lord Lawton recently argued the opposite case. Describing what the judges learnt from seeing poor wretches brought before them he said:

This experience enabled judges to give a lead to public opinion in many matters affecting the lives of ordinary men and women . . . (Law Society Gazette, 18th June 1975)

One wonders how any one who has ever been in the frightening, artificial atmosphere of a law court can seriously suggest as Lawton does:

Judges learned from the cases they tried how people lived and the attitudes they held in every part of England and Wales.

The judge’s message soon became clear. Judges are not there to change society but to preserve it. In some thing of an understatement he says of judges:

They tend to doubt the wisdom of tearing institutions up by their roots and starting afresh.

Clearly proud of a system of society that has produced nothing but wars, poverty, unemployment, shortages, pollution, mass starvation etc. on a scale no previous society could match, he comes out with the oldest of fallacies:

Crime would continue to increase until it was recognised that its prime cause was wickedness . . .

Nothing like a well-fed judge to blame the workers for all the problems around and call them wicked. We can only suggest to this one that he analyze the class basis of society. This would show him that people are the products of the society in which they live and a society based on the common interest of all could not produce the sort of “wickedness” (e.g. thefts of private property) that he talks about.

In Shakespeare’s Much Ado, Conrade when confronted with an officer of the law, says “Away. You are an ass, you are an ass”. We would add, that people should retort “Away!” with the outdated social ideas the spokesmen of the capitalist class foist on them. And next time that puny objection to Socialism is brought up, “Who will do the dirty work in a Socialist society?” you might remember that a good deal of it such as the work of police forces, armies and judges, won’t need doing at all.

Ronnie Warrington

Letter: What capitalism depends on (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard welcomes letters for
 publication, putting questions about the Socialist case 
or commenting on articles.

What capitalism depends on 

I have been a reader of the Socialist Standard for the past three years and would not hesitate to call myself an SPGB sympathiser. However I sometimes doubt whether Socialism will ever come about. I have no doubts that it is the only logical and democratic society, but it seems that the capitalist class through its control of the means of socialization — the television, the press, in advertising and the educational system, together with its control of the means of production can continue to dominate indefinitely.

It also appears that capitalism can ride crises which it creates and even come through the same as ever without causing the working class to realize its follies and become politically conscious and support the SPGB. As E. Hardy said in the debate with Sir Keith Joseph "There has been a growing recognition that perhaps Marx was right. Then in the years between the wars a blight fell upon the world. Its name was Keynes . . .” Thus it seems that it was quite easy for the capitalist politicians to talk of "interest rates," “the circular flow of income," and "Government investment" in relation to unemployment instead of the crucial theory of surplus value, neatly avoiding the truth.

Obviously Socialism cannot come about overnight as it requires the understanding of how the capitalist system works by the working class. However, is it not true that we are no further along the road to a society based upon common ownership of the means of production than we were in 1904?

Finally, in relation to what I have already written do you endorse the view of the SPGB in The Nature of Politics by J. D. B. Miller when he writes "They are not daunted by smallness and ineffectiveness, arguing that everyone will come round to their view in the end, or that mankind is, in general, too stupid to see what is good for it” ?

Adrian Walker

Liverpool, 8.

Reply:

On the points raised by the quotation you give, it is true that we are not daunted by reason of our size: we have no need to be with the strength and accuracy of the case supporting us. Although Socialism has by no means been attained, it does not follow that the SPGB is ineffective. Wherever our literature is read, or our position put at meetings of all sorts, many people express — as you have done — a sympathy with our Object and often an agreement with our analysis of capitalism.

The last two points of the quotation are contradictory, yet, if either were correct, the SPGB would need to carry out no more activity. We argue that once workers understand our ideas fully, they will desire and work for Socialism. This is not put forward as a proposition to reach "in the end” but now. This is why we are active now. The quotation’s sneering rejection of workers’ ability to attain the necessary understanding must represent the personal view of its writer. It has never been our view.

You say "capitalism can ride crises which it creates” but remember that in practical terms it rides them only with the active support of the working class. Capitalism cannot carry on without this support, whether in crises or not. Workers are hoodwinked and misled to this end. The point being that the stronger our voice, the more workers will recognize the real alternative to be attained.

Editors.

The Illusion of National State Capitalism (1975)

Pamphlet Review from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Politically, the world is divided into states, but economically it is one unit. Wealth today is produced by the labour of people all over the world, as can be quickly seen by taking any object of everyday use and considering all the kinds of labour that have gone into it from start to finish. Wealth today is also produced for sale and directly or indirectly, it is world market conditions which determine the amount and kind of wealth that is produced.

It is precisely because capitalism is a world system that the SPGB insists that Socialism too can only exist on a world scale. Socialism can only be a world without frontiers in which the world-wide network of production have become the common heritage of all mankind, used not to produce wealth for sale with a view to profit, but to satisfy human needs .

The fact that capitalism is economically a world system restricts the actions of the various states into which the world is divided. Governments have to react to and be guided by capitalist economic forces and pressures. Many people mistakenly attribute the normal workings of world capitalism to the machinations of "imperialist powers” and of multi-national corporations, and imagine that if governments are determined enough they can overcome these supposed machinations. In effect they believe it is possible for a single country to isolate itself from the effects of world capitalism. Among those who make this mistake are the four Cambridge academics who have written Spokesman Pamphlet no. 44 on Britain's Economic Crisis.

These academics are fully aware of the policy the Labour Party has always pursued. This is what they have to say on the subject:

Labour’s willingness to act as an administrator of British capitalism shows its lack of understanding of the contradictions of such a position. To act as the administration of a capitalist economy means to maintain and reinforce a system built of inequality, hierarchy and the alienation of the working class. Whatever humane and egalitarian ideals the party may have had, in administering the system it has not only attacked the class from which it gains mass support, but has attempted to incorporate the trade union leadership into this attack. For example, fig. 1 [not reproduced in this article] shows how Labour has repeatedly attempted to solve crises by freeing real wages in 1951-56 and 1970-73, have been won under Tory governments: while Labour governments in 1948-51, 1964-70 and 1974 have held them down in a vain attempt to solve the capitalist crisis by adopting capitalist policies. It has often appeared as if Labour's objectives were to integrate the working class into capitalism and to apply reactionary policies which would be violently opposed by the unions if attempted by the Tories, (p. 11).

However, they attribute this failure to the fact that the Labour party has not been prepared to go far enough with its policies of state ownership and control. If it were, they say, then things could be different. In effect they are advocating national state capitalism (which they mistakenly call "socialism”) as a solution to Britain’s economic crisis. They want nationalization of big business, state control of foreign trade, and planning.

Assume for a moment that this programme had been put into practice; how would this isolate Britain from the effects of world capitalism? The government of British state capitalism would still be faced with the same problem: to sell British exports on the world market at a profit. According to these four academics this is easy; all you have to do is “to take international trade out of the hands of market forces” and plan it, “especially by developing new markets with ‘socialist’ and third world countries” (incidentally, this reference to socialist countries, by which they mean Russia and the Comecon countries, betrays the political views of the authors as supporters of the so-called Communist Party). But even in order to "plan” foreign trade, as for instance by long-term trade agreements, British export prices would have to be competitive, i.e. in line with world-market prices. For if they were above this level, Britain’s trading partners, even in the so-called Socialist (really state-capitalist) countries would go elsewhere for their purchases. To be and remain competitive, industry would have to be continually kept up to date by new investments of capital. The source of such investment could only be the surplus labour of the working class of state-capitalist Britain.

Indeed, if the government of a state-capitalist Britain were to pursue a policy of trying to improve the lot of the working class, then it would soon be in desperate economic trouble. The fact is that, so long as capitalism exists, there is no way of overcoming the economic law which dictates that working-class consumption as a whole cannot rise much above what is needed to keep them efficient producers of wealth. The belief that more state ownership and control can overcome this is an illusion. Only the replacement of world capitalism by world Socialism can provide a framework within which today’s social problems can be solved once and for all.

According to these academics, however, people who hold such views as these and argue that trying to solve working-class problems on a national scale "diverts attention away from the basic task of establishing Socialism”, have been taken in by a "starry-eyed internationalism.” In fact, however, it is rather they who are the starry-eyed idealists for believing that capitalism can be reformed, by wide-scale state ownership and control, into functioning in the interests of the working class.

A pamphlet like this at least makes one thing clear: that the gap between Socialists and leftists is as wide as that between Socialists and right-wingers. The only thing we have in common with leftists is, unfortunately, an overlapping vocabulary. But once you get behind their words, it is clear that they stand for something quite different from us. They stand for a national state capitalism where goods will continue to be produced for sale at home and abroad by a class of wage-earners.

(foot of next column)

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, on the other hand, stands for world Socialism where, on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, wealth will be produced solely to satisfy human needs by the co-operative efforts of free and socially equal men and women. Money, the market, profits, buying and selling and the wages system will disappear because they all reflect the fact that mankind does not control its social and economic environment. Once it does, by converting the means of production into their common property, then these economic categories must disappear, giving way to genuine democratic planning for use.

Adam Buick

50 Years Ago: Problems of the Labour Movement (1975)

The 50 Years Ago column from the August 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unity, Unity, Unity is the keynote of Mr. Braun’s attempt at outlining a policy for working-class action But one is compelled to exclaim Words, Words, Words.

*

All the talk in the world about ‘Unity’ is so much claptrap, unless it is clearly stated what the workers are to unite for.

*

Despite his adverse criticism of the Labour Party he tells us that ‘the trade unions must organise an influence on the policy of that party’ and among other things they are ‘to try to cleanse the Labour Party of lords, bankers and merchants’. What a revolutionary proposal!

*

As though the average trade unionist in his present state of political and economic ignorance of his class position could make any fundamental difference on the policy of the Labour Party. Whilst, as far as the lords, bankers and merchants are concerned, cleanse the Labour Party of these people and that organisation remains what it has always been, a hindrance to working-class emancipation.

*

Let Mr. Braun and all those who talk so glibly about ‘Unity’ take note that, as the fundamental problem confronting the workers is how to get rid of their exploitation and poverty, the basis for the organisation of the workers, must be the ending of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. But this means Socialist education, something more than opposition to the trickery of MacDonald, Thomas & Co.

*

(From a review by R. Reynolds of a booklet “Problems of the Labour Movement” in the Socialist Standard, August 1925. The booklet was published by the Communist journal “The Labour Monthly” and written by P. Braun.)