From the Watch-Tower. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Like Mr. Chamberlain, he (Mr. Lloyd George) is essentially a middle-class statesman . . . Wales looks sorrowfully on. He has passed out of its narrow sphere. The Parnell of Wales has become the Chamberlain of England. The vision of the young gladiator fighting the battle of the homeland has faded. … It is proud of its brilliant son—proud of the first Welsh-speaking Minister to enter a British Cabinet, but it waits with a certain gathering gloom for its reward. Is it not thirteen years since he led a revolt against the Liberal Party on Disestablishment, and is he not now a chief in the house of Pharaoh ? Once it has been on the point of revolt; But he had only to appear and it was soothed.”—Daily News, April 11th.

* * *

The wirepullers of the capitalist parties are too astute to allow promising leaders of dissatisfied factions within their ranks to remain such. When they cannot cajole them, when they do not find it convenient to throw them a sop in the shape of a so-called reform, they find them a job and use them, whether it be the Lloyd Georges, or the Isaac Mitchells, to bully or to soothe those whom they once led.

* * *

It is very sad, but there is some hope, in view of events in the A.S.E., that the working class will shortly throw over these misleaders.

* * *

Mr. W. R. Trotter, of the Canadian Trades Congress, writing from Dragon Parade, Harrogate, sends to theYorkshire Post copies of two letters received by him from the President of the British Welcome League of Toronto (Mr. A. Chamberlain), and an excerpt from the report of the Municipal Committee of the Toronto District Labour Council bearing on the emigration controversy.

In the first letter, dated February 21, Mr. Chamberlain says labour conditions in Toronto are worse than he has seen them during the 22 years’ residence there, and he asks Mr. Trotter to “tell the workers of the old country to go slow about coming to Canada until those already here can be found something to do. Tell them from me not to listen to agents, or even the Salvation Army, for they would not be in the shipping business if it was not for the dollars they make.”

* * *

In the second letter, dated March 6, Mr. Chamberlain says the labour conditions have not changed, and thousands are still out of work. He enforces this statement by mentioning that in reply to a test advertisement inserted in a paper for one day only by the League’s secretary, 1,500 men wrote that they were prepared to go to farms in British Columbia. “My own opinion is,” added Mr. Chamberlain, “that a halt should be made for a while, and an effort made to place the people already here into work before advising others to leave their homes in England to come to Canada.”

* * *

The excerpt from the Municipal Committee’s report calls attention to the unemployed problem in Toronto, and says : “Your Committee would further recommend that this Council places itself on record as holding the Manufacturers’ Association and the Salvation Army jointly responsible for much of the unnecessary suffering among the unemployed of the city, many of whom are victims of the misrepresentation of these two organisations.”

* * *

We also learn that the “Army” are appealing to the charitably disposed in Canada, to relieve the distress there, meanwhile they are advertising to take emigrants to Canada because of the employment to be there obtained. The same old game. And the “unspeakable Stead” says the head of the Salvation Army, General Booth, is a Socialist! What, has Mr. Stead’s friend, the Czar, done that he should be left out in the cold?

* * *

“May I draw the attention of I.L.P. branches to the fact that after 14 years the (Licensing) Bill provides for Local Veto, which has so long been advocated by the I.L.P. ? And may I also urge branches to at once take the matter in hand and follow the example of the Selby I.L.P. in support of this strongly democratic measure.” -W. Farley, Selby I.L.P. in Daily News.

* * *

According to the program of the I.L.P. that body “demands” the Municipalisation and public control of the drink traffic, neither of which will be secured by the Government’s Licensing Bill, either now or in fourteen years time. But probably the I.L.P. wire-pullers fear that if they oppose this “strongly democratic measure” they will lose some of the fat jobs they now secure talking twaddle in Nonconformist pulpits.

* * *

“Modern industry reckons on a reserve of the partially employed.” Daily News leader, 14/4/08. Winnow a full column of the chaff of capitalist-nonconformity and a two line grain of truth is saved. But this grain of itself damns for evermore the Liberalism the Daily News is concerned to maintain as a dominant factor in the political arena. “The partially employed,” is an endeavour to soften the harshness of the term, “unemployed.” A reserve of unemployed is necessary to modern industry. Liberalism is the political expression of modern industry. Lloyd George, the bright particular star and the fiercest democrat of the present administration, has emphasized this sufficiently. Therefore it follows as the night the day that Liberalism, by standing for modern industry, must stand for the maintenance of the reserve of unemployed upon which modern industry depends. Thus we arrive at the unalterable position of Liberalism upon the question of the unemployed, with which, among other things, the present Government proposes to deal at some time or the other. The value of its proposals in this connection may therefore be very adequately appraised beforehand. They represent the exact equivalent of nothing.

What did Welford Say? (1908)

Pamphlet Review from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Poverty : its cause and cure. A Reply to Dr. G. F. Welford’s “Socialism.” By. A. E. Peters and A. W. Kersey. The Palmerston Press, Tiverton. 1d.

The opening sentence, of this pamphlet says : “the writers are both young men in their early twenties,” so the Editor decided to hand it to a young man also in his early twenties to handle in the Socialist Standard. We are unfortunate, however, in not having seen the statements to which it is a reply; for however good it may be as a reply to Dr. Welford, it is most certainly not a good exposition of the principles of Socialism, nor is it by any means an adequate statement of the cause and cure of poverty.

We are left to imagine the circumstances that called it forth, but we glean something like this. Dr. Welford, of Tiverton, fulminated against Socialism, although whether in the Press or on the platform we are not told. Two young men in the district with socialistic tendencies take up the cudgels in defence. Hence the pamphlet under consideration which bristles with points we should be inclined to challenge, and which propounds some flagrant heresies in the name of Socialism.

In discussing the causes of poverty, these are placed under the heads of Insufficient Production, Waste, and Unequal Distribution, and the poverty at present prevailing is attributed to all three. To us the last is alone sufficient to explain our poverty problem, for poverty does not afflict Society as a whole but only a portion of it. And this class nature of modern capitalist society is entirely overlooked by our authors, with the result that the class-struggle, the central guiding factor of the Socialist movement, is ignored. The poverty of the working class is not due to insufficient production, nor to waste, but simply and solely to robbery. The workers produce too much and glut the markets and never get the chance to waste anything to set the market free again. Neither of these factors then can be the cause of their poverty.

The most important portion of the pamphlet, however, is that which explains how Socialism will be established, and here the situation is very imperfectly grasped. The idea of a Socialist government being able to socialise all industries is characterised as absurd, and the counter-idea is put forward that each industry will be socialised by the government getting a fresh mandate from time to time. To us the return of a Socialist government would mean the expression of a majority of opinion in favour of the abolition of capitalism, i.e., the abolition of private property in the means of living; and the work of a Socialist majority would be to carry out that mandate. That a majority of opinion would be in favour of Socialism and at the same time in favour of Capitalism is incomprehensible. The difficulty of our authors, I suspect, is the same as that of the so-called “Socialists” in the Labour Party, who do not represent a majority of opinion in favour of Socialism in their constituencies.

The class-struggle is openly repudiated when they say “the method of Socialism is not to try to force the will of one class upon another class.” The method of Socialism must be, and can only be, the working class expressing its determination not to be exploited any longer, and it is extremely doubtful that the exploiting class will agree with them. The working class is in opposition to the capitalist class and cannot be successful until it has educated itself and organised its forces to be powerful enough to overthrow the political representatives of capitalism and force its will upon them.

The final portion discusses the outlook for Socialism, and we observe the Labour Party is included among the list of parliamentary groups of various nationalities as representing Socialism. Again we should not agree. The Labour Party is most emphatically in no way representative of Socialism, and it is quite untrue to say that each of the workers they represent is a worker for Socialism. We should be more inclined to agree with the actual conclusion if it were correctly quoted, as follows: “The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, unite!”

D.K.

Profit versus Wages. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many railway stocks have (1) been deliberately watered, and (2) risen in price on the market, so that while railway men are badly paid, the present holders of the stocks are apparently making small profits. Many railway companies have enlarged their ordinary capital by the delightfully simple process of multiplication by two. £100 of original stock has been changed into £100 of “preferred” and £100 of “deferred.” This has not been done behind the scenes, but boldly and with the permission of our rich men’s parliament. As a consequence it is made to appear that the net receipts of railways are only about 3½ per cent. of their “paid up” capitals. But the nominal capitals have not been “paid up” ; and even in so far as the original capital is concerned much of it is unreal. Thus the magnitude of the injustice which they suffer is hidden from railway servants. They risk their lives for the public every day and what do they get for it? In 1904, the 27 leading railway companies paid in wages only £29,000,000 or only 25/- per employee per week ! These 27 companies own nearly all the railway lines, employ nearly all the railway servants and make nearly all the profits assessed by the Inland Revenue Commissioners. And what do these profits amount to ? As I have shown, they amount to nearly £40,000,000 per annum, or far more than is paid in wages in one of the most dangerous and most useful of all occupations. 

– Chiozza Money, M.P., in “Riches and Poverty.”

Answers to Correspondents. (1908)

From the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

T. Swan (Manchester) — Later.

S.P.G.B. Lecture List For May. (1908)

Party News from the May 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blog update: A proposed overhaul

What with the blog recently hitting 20,000 posts, I've become increasingly aware of the fact that the blog is becoming a bit too unwieldy and overblown and, in its current format, more difficult to navigate. For example, if you were to look to the right hand side of the blog's homepage, to the label section, and scroll down to 'Book Review', it will tell you there are currently 1961 posts listed under that label. Now, that's a mind-boggling number . . . so many book reviews, so little time . . . but it doesn't really assist the reader in finding a particular book, a particular author or a particular subject. 

So, in light of this, I'll be adding some new features on the blog in the coming weeks and months which will hopefully assist visitors in being able to find what they want to find on the blog. This will include the following: 

• Specific pages for individual Socialist writers. 
• Following on from the special pages at the top of the homepage for current Socialist Standard columns such as Pathfinders, Material World and Cooking the Books, individual pages dedicated to regular monthly columns of yesteryear from the Socialist Standard. 
• A page giving a chronological list of all the short stories which have appeared in the Standard and other socialist publications down the years.
• A page giving a chronological list of all the poetry which have appeared in the Standard and other socialist publications down the years.
• Individual pages dedicated to the various publishers that have been featured and reviewed in the Socialist Standard over the course of its history.
• And also, when time permits, occasional posts which seek to cover certain subjects with a list of links of articles and reviews that go into more detail. I've done something similar in the past with posts on the 1924 Labour Government, Orwell and Spain, May Day and the Socialist Standard  . . . and, cough, Socialists and Christmas.

In the meantime, carry on with using the label section on the right hand side of the homepage as it becomes increasingly bloated and, if that doesn't work for you, use the search box in the top left hand corner of the homepage. That can provide more information than the label section but don't come crying to me when you type in "Stafford Cripps" and it spews out 148 posts in no particular order.

Hell's Alley (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

Hell's Alley

(Dramatization of events preceding to, and from "Bloody Saturday", June 21 1919, arising from the Winnipeg General Sympathetic Strike)

Note: I have taken a few liberties with the events of this time in order to best condense the events and feelings of the time. For example: Secretary of the Seattle Trades and Labor Council, James Duncan, had actually made his address a couple of weeks earlier. And those of the Central Strike Committee as were arrested had been arrested days earlier. So Sam Blumenburg, soldier Bray and Helen Armstrong would not be present. However, Helen did take lumps on occasion and is useful in conveying sentiments of Strike Committee. The Socialist, Blumenburg, was actually a dry cleaner but rates being written in, not just for his classic (genuine) one-liner but to show problems of "enemy aliens". The secret police reports are of various times and sometimes condensations of more than one report to give the idea of the hysteria and paranoia that existed in some official circles. Likewise with government officials. The beating is as nearly accurately reproduced as possible. There is some controversy as to whether the workers did or did not destroy some of the interior of the streetcar, so I left it out. They did not, as some historians have claimed, tip over the streetcar. They tried, but it was too heavy. So are a lot of things.

Larry Tickner

Cast, in order of appearance:

COMMENTARY: Relates happenings and statements of others away from scene. As he gives wide cross-section of views of various elements it is important that his face not reflect conflicting emotions and should be blanked out with makeup. It is occasionally necessary that he be able to call on a booming voice that will shake the rafters.

"WORKERS": All somewhat apolitical, reflecting the general situation of the time. The common headgear of workers, at the time, was the bowler hat. But as such is not likely to carry the desired impression upon today's audiences it is perhaps better that they wear tweed or cloth caps. 

WORKER 1: Generally more than average social awareness. Experienced. Knows he is in a tough fight but prepared to hang in there no matter what. 

WORKER 2: Considerably less aware, but not lacking in courage. Slight foreign accent.

WORKER 3: Probably would have given in at the first blush if not carried by the tide of determination amongst his peers.

WORKER 4: Highly idealistic (more than the others). Still retains the original religious fervor. Prepared to act first and think later.

(Soldiers all in uniform)

SOLDIER BRAY: Active supporter of the strike.

OTHER SOLDIERS: As many as can be comfortably accommodated on stage. An attempt to attain an approximate balance between them and workers.

HELEN ARMSTRONG: Wife of socialist and carpenter union organizer George Armstrong. A socialist speaker in her own right. A proud upright woman. Femininely attractive enough, but dressing in such a manner as to neither hide nor exploit the fact.

SAM BLUMENBERG: Socialist, slight Jewish accent, but quite articulate. Fellow metal worker with Russell.

JAMES   DUNCAN:   President   of  Seattle   Labor   Council.   He   is   not unsympathetic  to groundswell  of need for industrial  unions  but is attempting to achieve it by reforming the American Federation of Labor (AFL).

MESSENGER BOY

ACT 1

(Open Set)

Market Square, opposite Winnipeg City Hall. Center stage is a raised platform suitable for speakers. There are a few chairs on the platform for the speakers. At extreme stage left and extreme downstage stands Commentary. He holds a scroll before himself. He can use it for cues, but it is preferred that he memorize his lines. He remains still when not speaking and when he speaks the "participating" players freeze, except where otherwise noted. (Note: All entrances and exits are made from amongst the audience.)

COMMENTARY: Saturday morning, June 21st, 1919. Market Square, opposite Winnipeg City Hall. The war to end all war is over. Wartime restrictions are still in effect. The Social Democratic Party has been declared illegal. The journal of the Socialist Party of Canada has been banned, as have the works of Marx and Darwin, and some of the plays of Gilbert and Sullivan. The men who fought four years for a "glorious new world" return to find it the same one they left — widespread unemployment, with all too familiar grinding poverty, aggravated by rampant wartime inflation. Nationwide discontent reflects itself, in Winnipeg, in the form of a six-week General Strike.

[Enter Worker 1. He briefly shuffles around at the base of the platform until he is joined by Worker 2.]

WORKER 2: Where's the Strike Committee?

WORKER l: Don't know. Guess we're a bit early.

WORKER 2: Storm bother your place much?

[Enter Worker 3]

WORKER l: Blew off a few shingles. Fixed them. But I sure don't want to see a storm like that again. 

WORKER 3: Blew a big piece off the roof of the Children's Hospital. What the hell? Strike or no strike we don't want to see children suffer. [Others nod in agreement] Me and a mate offered to fix it. Hospital

Director said he'd see us roast in hell first. 

WORKER 2: What the hell's the matter with them? Why do they hate us so? Don't they see all we want is a decent living? 

[Enter Worker 4] 

WORKER 3: Don't know. Say we're all Bolshevik or Reds or something. Whatever that is. Enemy aliens getting German gold to ruin the country. 

WORKER l: That's nothing. Been saying things like that about us for 20 years. Longer. Far as I can remember. Anything to keep our wages down. Been through it three times now. Try to get a union, decent wages. Each time, they use the police and scabs to break our strike — Courts to fine and imprison our union leaders. Forced to go back to work, at worse conditions. Alongside scabs. [Spits] 

WORKER 4:  But this time it is going to be different. We are better organized now. All workers together striking for each other. Worked last year. Got three wage settlements by threats of general strikes. 

COMMENTARY: With the workers properly organized there is nothing they may not successfully demand from the capitalist, by means of a general strike. 

WORKER 2: But without a general strike the metal masters beat the workers down within a month. That's why we had to support them this year. Make things better for all of us, too. 

WORKER 3: But maybe we should not have all gone out. It's been 6 weeks now and things are getting bloody tough. Don't know if there will be enough food for my family. 

WORKER l: Don't lose heart brother. The Strike Committee says that as long as there is one crust of bread amongst us we'll share it. We must be strong, to win. 

WORKER 2: Why do the metal masters hold out so long? Even they admit the men cannot live on their present wages. Why can't they see the justice of our case? 

WORKER l: We don't even get the minimum conditions just laid down by the League of Nations. 

COMMENTARY: I worked hard to establish my business. As a logger. In the sawmills. Worked to get an engineering ticket. I alone am best qualified when and whom to hire and fire and how much an employee should be paid. And no bloody Red is going to tell me different. 

WORKER 4: [In almost dreamy nostalgia] Remember, six weeks ago, when we came out? Labor Council called on all unions to support the Metal Trades. Eleven o'clock in the morning, as arranged, I took off my apron, put on my hat and left the job. The streets were full of people. 'Twas like a Roman holiday. Not just union people either. As many without unions came out in support of the metal workers' cause. Even soldiers changed over to our side.

WORKER 2: Even the Strike Committee was surprised. In the afternoon went to their favourite restaurant. It was closed, of course. [All laugh]

WORKER 4: Even police voted to come out.

WORKER l: Agreed with Strike Committee though. Stayed on to keep order. Even said they'd bust our heads if we got outa line. Never needed it though. Strike Committee cooperated to see everybody kept calm.

WORKER 3: [Apprehensively] But now they have fired all the police for being sympathetic to the strikers. Replaced them with boss's goon police.

WORKER 4: Dumb buggers are no good for anything anyway. Just say boo and they fall off their horses. Think we should run 'em outa town. Worse scab herders yet.

COMMENTARY: Sawing, sawing, sawing. What the hell we sawing up these old oxen yokes for anyway? We hire on to be policemen, not bloody woodcutters. [Pause] Don't know. Don't care. For six dollars a day I'll do anything. Don't need oxen yokes no more anyhow. Got tractors now.

[Immediately enter Soldier Bray. He is readily recognized and accepted by the workers. As he steps upon the platform other soldiers begin to mingle with the crowd.]

BRAY: Comrades, the soldiers are with you in your demands for collective bargaining. We also demand an allowance for returned soldiers.

WORKER l: How can we trust the soldiers? You have not always been with us.

BRAY: I know what you mean. Last winter some of us did act against workers. Beat up on foreigners. Even destroyed the Socialist Party's headquarters. We now know we were wrong. But we had been misled by newspaper nonsense that screamed about enemy aliens, red menace and such. Strikes financed by German gold.

COMMENTARY: Secret Police Agent 57, reporting from Vancouver, B.C. There is reason to believe Bolshevik agents have landed on our shores. 5,000 of them are training under arms in Canada and the United States. They have violet rays and know how to use them to blind people.

BRAY: [Continuing] Then the Union members convinced us your interests are our interests. That is why we are here today, to stage another parade. When the soldiers' support is shown the justice of our case will be seen and we will win.

[Most of crowd obviously restless and leaning towards action.]

WORKER l: [As he speaks Helen Armstrong mounts the platform.] But the Mayor has forbidden more parades. And the Strike Committee says we should avoid confrontation. [Quoting the Strike Committee] The best thing to do is nothing. Go to the beach. Make love.

HELEN: That's right Comrades, I beg you wait for the advice of the Strike Committee. They should have been here by now. I was to have met my husband . . .

WORKER 4: We can't wait any longer. It's been six weeks now.

HELEN: Wait. Here comes Sam Blumenburg. [As Sam mounts platform] He's on the Strike Committee.

SAM: Sorry I'm late. I was to bring a visiting speaker but he didn't show up.

SOLDIER 2: [In a badgering manner but the rest not too sympathetic with him.] You sound like an enemy alien. How do we know the papers aren't right? How do we know you ain't gettin' German gold?

SAM: [Not in any way intimidated, scoffingly laughs.] What is this enemy alien? And German gold? Workers see damn little gold of any kind. In my country it was very bad — very poor. Then the Canadian government says, Come to Canada, Land of Big Opportunity. Shows a poster; Woman with a nice white apron, waving to husband coming in from field. So I come. What do I find. All the good land gone. Even farmers who have it can hardly make a living. Long unemployment lines. Miserably low wages. Then I get a job with Bob Russell. He says he wants to make a union that gets good wages for everybody. Not just craftsman. I think, maybe this is the big opportunity government talks about.

SOLDIER 2: Russell's a socialist. How do we know you are not using the strike to make a revolution, like the papers say?

SAM: You crazy? Socialism could never happen that way. Sure Bob wants a new society. Me too. One with no money, no wages, everything free. But it can only come by majority action. Right now all we want is enough wages so we can live to see that day.

SOLDIER 2: Hah, what country do you come from?

SAM: [With all the confidence of someone who had dealt successfully with the question many times before] ... It is not necessary to ask where I come from. My face is the map of Palestine and my nose is Mount Zion. [All laugh and that ends the matter].

[Enter James Duncan. He takes to the platform as he is welcomed by Blumenburg.]

SAM: Here is the visiting speaker I was to meet. James Duncan of the Seattle Labor Council.

[A lot of booing and hissing from those in attendance. But sentiment not shared by Bray, Blumenburg or Helen Armstrong.]

WORKER 4: Yankee Craft Union Snob.

BRAY: Wait. Let's hear what the man has to say. [All quieten.]

DUNCAN: Brothers and Sisters. I am sorry I am late. Got a bad time from the border guards. Said if I'd been a day later they wouldn't have had to let me through at all.

COMMENTARY: Honorable gentlemen of the house. The legislation before you will permit us to scourge the country of the enemy alien red menace once and for all. It will permit us to deport any of them. Reds of any kind, even British born reds, without trial. And once again make our country free. [Speaking rapidly] House of Commons: First Reading — all in favor say aye. Second Reading: all in favor say aye. Third Reading: all in favor say aye. Senate: First Reading — all in favor say aye. Second Reading— all in favor say aye. Third Reading — all in favor say aye. Signed by the Governor-General Total time elapsed 40 minutes

DUNCAN: I understand your sentiments. They are not unlike my own. [As he speaks the crowd begins to warm to him giving each other nudges and nods of approval]. We have just had a general strike in Seattle for almost the same reasons as yours — low wages and refusal of the employers to recognize joint industrial bargaining. I am now on my way to the AFL Convention. [Boos and hisses]. If I cannot get them to reform their organization to embrace all workers I will join with you to help found one big union to represent all workers. [Enthusiastic cheers from all and applause from those sharing the platform] I wish I could stay longer and help your strike but I am late and must go to the AFL Convention. My heart is with you. [Exits to applause].

BRAY: Hear that, comrades. Our case is just. Workers everywhere are sympathetic to us. Many are striking in support for us.

COMMENTARY: Secret Police Agent 98 reporting from Ferni, B.C. You do not have to worry about the union leaders here becoming revolutionary. They don't want to lose their soft and cushy jobs.

BRAY: Vancouver is out, Calgary is out, Lethbridge, Edmonton —

COMMENTARY: Dear Mr Prime Minister, as your Minister of Labour I must respectfully advise that, this is not an opportune time to make a declaration in favor of the principle of collective bargaining as it would be grasped as an excuse by the strikers to claim they had forced the government and thereby proved success of the sympathetic strike.

BRAY: Saskatoon is out, Regina, Prince Albert, Brandon, Port Arthur, Fort William, Toronto.

COMMENTARY: Edmonton out two weeks — Vancouver a month.

WORKER 3: [Apprehensively.] But there is talk of getting scabs to run the streetcars, If that happens the strike is broken.

WORKER 4: Don't worry Comrade. [He uses this address for the first time, reflecting the increased pitch of anxiety.] We know how to look after scabs.

COMMENTARY: Secret Agent 67, reporting from Calgary: What the new union policy will be, will depend on how dangerous things may be to their personal liberty. Already their fear is making them hesitant and, as far as possible, they will tone down their program. I recommend reformed labor laws, which would meet with the approval of the Conservative labor element, aiming at the elimination of basic grievances and a satisfactory settlement to the returned soldiers and simultaneously the deportation of alien trouble makers. Decisive and concerted arrest of the leaders, a quick trial with a sentence making release or confinement dependent upon their future policy.

BRAY: Comrades, it is time to begin our parade.

HELEN: No, no. Wait for the Strike Committee [Blumenburg nods, in agreement.]

COMMENTARY: [Continuing] Unionism, rightly organized, is the very basis of national unity and strength. Especially will this be proved when the inevitable international complications ensue. With regard to this new movement, only two courses are open — either crush it ruthlessly or reform the labor laws of the country [while Commentary is finishing a boy messenger hands Helen a note and hastens nervously away.]

HELEN: [Upon reading the note shrieks] God! They've arrested my husband. They're arresting the whole Strike Committee. [In her sobbing grief she awakens to the danger to Sam.] Oh, Sam they'll be after you too. You have no family to hold you. Run!

SAM: No, I must stay with my Comrades and help the strike.

.HELEN: [Bray and the crowd showing sympathy and anxiety for Sam.] Don't be a fool. You're the only one on the Strike Committee without an English background. They are deporting foreigners who didn't even have anything to do with organizing the strike. You can't help us from jail or deported. Run .. . run! [Hesitantly and reluctantly Sam exits to the well wishes of the crowd.]

COMMENTARY: Sam Blumenburg escapes to the United States where he is active in Socialist and labor organisations for the rest of his life.

BRAY: Now the soldiers are in charge. We will begin our parade. [Steps from the platform to take his place at the head of forming parade.]

HELEN: No! No! Wait!

WORKER 4: [They are all in an ugly mood.] I'm bloody tired of waiting. [Helen runs beseechingly from one to another. Her helplessness is symbolized by lack of dialogue. Each pushes her gently but firmly aside.]

WORKER 3: Look! Here come the mounties. [Note: the ensuing confrontation with police is somewhat pantomimed. Crowd begins mocking and jeering. Mockingly hold their backs upright, stiff and hands in front as though holding horses reigns. As the mounties "go through" the crowd turns in unison to watch them pass (a bit of choreographic talent needed here). Helen, and to some extent Bray, are not out of agreement with the sentiments expressed but their apprehension shows as things begin to get more and more out of control.]

WORKER 1: Bloody mechanical men!

WORKER 2: Can't you understand the workers' needs?

WORKER 4: [As they pass through] Bloody scab herders! [All looking down the street.]

BRAY: [In relief] They're gone. Now we can begin.

COMMENTARY: [In a voice that rattles the rafters] COMPANEEE! Fall in! [Following lower volume but with military precisioness]. Ninetieth Winnipeg Rifles ready for action at a moment's notice, Suh! 100th Winnipeg Grenadiers, ready at a moment's notice, Suh! 106th Infantary ready at a moment's notice, Suh! 79 Cameron Highlanders, ready at a moment's notice, Suh! Twenty machine guns on mobilized units. Ready at a moment's notice, Suh!

HELEN: [Looking in direction of mounties.] Wait, they're turning. They're coming back. [Crowd all jeer as they part ranks as though horses going between them. As the eyes of the crowd follow the mounties away. Worker 4 picks up a rock and makes ready to throw it after the mounties. Helen tries to stop him but is brushed aside. The others aghast, at first, but then start picking up rocks and hurling them after the mounties. All except Helen and Bray, curse the mounties as they pass.]

BRAY: [As things get out of hand.] Let's not lose control of ourselves. Let's be orderly.

Worker 3: [In relief] They're gone.

WORKER 2: Here comes a streetcar.

[They all crowd around. Helen and Bray are quite helpless now. Worker 4 jumps as though to grab the trolley line.]

WORKER 4: I've got the trolley cord. It's stopping!

[Helen and Bray have the same feeling toward the scab but do not take part in what follows, for slightly different reasons. The crowd make actions that indicate pulling the scab out of the streetcar.  They make a cordon, ironically similar to the one the mounties passed through. They in turn take a punch at the scab and shout obscenities at him as he runs the gauntlet and runs away. There is a great amount of noise from crowd.] 

HELEN: Listen! The mayor's reading something. 

WORKER 3: Who can hear?

WORKER 4: Who cares anyway. Bloody boss's stooge. 

COMMENTARY: In the name of the security and protection of the King all herein assembled are instructed to disperse .. . [Drowned out by the noise.] 

HELEN: The mounties are returning. They have their revolvers out. 

COMMENTARY: [Military voice] At the READY . . . AIM . . . FIRE! [Pause] [regular voice] One bystander is killed instantly.

[All paralyze looking in direction of Worker 2 as he holds his leg in pain. Half crawling to extreme stage right where he lays down dying. Remains there for remainder of scene.]

WORKER 2: Hide me. No, do not call the doctor. I am foreign born. They will deport me. [Dies] 

COMMENTARY: Dead of gangrene. [Now all begin to jerk and fall as though being shot and clubbed and trampled by horses. Helen goes to the help of a half-dazed worker.] 

HELEN: Here Comrade. I'll help you. [Screams in pain as head jerks back from clubbing. Arises from momentary unconsciousness] Run! .. . Run!

[As commentary speaks all in unison go through a slow motion act of running. First stage front then left, then right, raising their hands in horror at what they "see" in each street.] 

COMMENTARY: Blockaded across each street are the special police. In the right hand of each is half an oxen yoke. In the other hand some have revolvers.

[All go through action of being clubbed, being shot; falling; getting up; stumbling in every direction.] 

HELEN: [Half dazed] Come Comrades. Hide in this alley. We'll be safe here. [All go to centre stage stage and crouch as though hiding.] 

COMMENTARY: Mommy. Why do people call that little street hell's alley? Come along dear. Don't ask such things.

[In a few moments they are startled by something at stage left.] 

ALL: The goon police!

[They all retreat to stage right but again are confronted.] 

COMMENTARY: At each end of the alley cordons of special police, clubs in hand.

[They all go through action of being beaten.] 

WORKER 4: [Going through action of fighting back]. Fucking bastards!

[But  he  is  clubbed from  one  side  and  then  another.   Crumples unconscious, as they all do, in tortured heaps.] 

COMMENTARY: Scourge the streets! Find them, find them! Punish! Punish! Punish! Beat! Beat! Beat! Law and Order! Law and Order! [Slight pause].

[As strikers begin crawling off stage helping each other, carrying the unconscious and the dead worker, Commentary continues.]

We return to work like whipped dogs. Work alongside scabs. Lose seniority. Pensions. Sign allegiance oath. [With vengeance] Sign! Sign! Sign! [Some exiting workers resentfully go through action of signing. Some spit in hatred.] Some are permanently blacklisted. [Slight pause] Troops arrive to take over the streets . .. Trucks with mounted machine guns patrol back and forth. But the streets are empty of strikers. Bloody Saturday is over.

ACT 2

COMMENTARY: Same qualification as Commentary in first act [could be same performer but recommend the part be divided.]

JUDGE: Complete with those mysterious robes they are prone to wear.

[Commentary 2 assumes the same position as Act 1. The judge is at his bench fiddling with papers as Commentary speaks.]

COMMENTARY: History books will largely by-pass the participants in the events of these days. Worse. Some will write in heroes who had very little to do with the struggle. This is not to say there were not key martyrs and heroes. There were. And their bravery and suffering matched any. But the genuine ones would not have had it that they were so heavily written in, nor that the rest be so easily passed over.

JUDGE: [Forcefully banging his gavel] Order in the court!

COMMENTARY: Many "aliens" have been deported. The vast majority of them are unknown to the strike leaders. Those of British backgrounds get a trial. As to fairness? The trial is by a jury. The jurists are mostly farmers with little in common with the accused. It is doubted, by many, that a similar jury could be found anywhere else in the country.

JUDGE: The seven of you: A.A. Heaps; Reverend Wm. Ivens; R.E. Bray; George Armstrong; John Queen; R.J. Johns; W.A. Pritchard, have been jointly charged on six counts of seditious conspiracy which we have spent these many weeks reviewing but may be briefly summarized as follows:

Count 1: A general form of seditious conspiracy to bring hatred and contempt to excite disaffection against the government, the laws and the constitution and generally to promote ill-will and hostility amongst the people and between classes.

Count 2: Seditious conspiracy in overt acts; in the calling of seditious socialist meetings and distribution of seditious socialist literature; Participation in the founding of the One Big Union with syndicalist objectives; The prosecution of an illegal strike, to discommode and inconvenience the inhabitants of Winnipeg and the paralyzing of all industries and business in Winnipeg and endangering the lives, health, safety and property of said inhabitants.

Count 3: Seditious conspiracy to carry into effect a seditious intention to endanger human life and to cause serious bodily injury and to expose valuable property to destruction and serious injury. 

Count 4: Seditious conspiracy to organize an unlawful combination or association or associations of workmen and employees to get demands by unlawful general strikes which were intended to be a step in a revolution against the constituted form of government in Canada. 

Count 5: Seditious conspiracy to undermine and destroy confidence in the government, laws and constitution. To persuade workmen to form unlawful associations for the purposes of obtaining control of all industries and of obtaining the property rightfully belonging to other persons.

Count 6: Seditious conspiracy to unlawfully bring about changes in the constitution and to enforce the "Soviet" form of government in Canada through means similar to those used in Russia. 

Count 7: Committing a common nuisance by use of an unlawful general sympathetic strike in which various employees walked out illegally and which endangered the lives, health, safety, property and comfort of the public and obstructed the exercise and enjoyment of rights common to all His Majesty's subjects.

Aug 1, 1919: The Winnipeg Eight at Vaughan Street Jail 

COMMENTARY: In making his charge to the jury the judge makes it clear that he believes in the guilt of the accused. The defense protests the method of choosing a jury and the prosecution attorney confides to a colleague that with any other jury in the country a conviction would be unlikely. Upon reconvening the jury renders its verdict.

JUDGE: I have the jury's verdict before me. [pause] A.A. Heaps. Not guilty on all seven counts.

COMMENTARY: A labor alderman in the City of Winnipeg. Member of the Strike Committee. Upholsterer by trade. Only one of the seven to be acquitted on all seven counts. Defended himself. His address to the jury took all of one day.

JUDGE: Reverend William Ivens. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Had been ousted from the Methodist church for his pacifist views. Subsequently founded a labor church in the Winnipeg Trades and Labor hall. At the time of his arrest was editor of the Western Labor News. Defended himself. His address to the jury took 14 hours. While in prison, elected to the legislature for the Independent Labor Party, where he served 16 years.

JUDGE: R.E. Bray. On six counts of seditious conspiracy, not guilty. On the charge of committing a common nuisance, Guilty. Sentence: six months in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Soldier. Member of the Strike Committee. Representative from the Soldiers Committee. Philosophically a pacifist. Only joined the army to get work. Subsequently becomes an organiser for the newly-founded One Big Union. Spends his reclining years in Vancouver growing gladiolas.

JUDGE: George Armstrong. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Member of the Strike Committee. Member and one-time organizer of the United Brotherhood of Carpenter and Joiners of America. Prominent lecturer for the Socialist Party of Canada. While in prison elected to the Manitoba Legislature on a reformist ticket. Subsequently returns to write and speak for the Socialist Party in relative obscurity.

JUDGE: John Queen. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: A silver-tongued labor orator. Alderman of the city of Winnipeg. Advertising Manager of the Western Labor News. While in prison, elected to the Manitoba Legislature and subsequently reelected the rest of his life. Serves seven terms as the mayor of Winnipeg.

JUDGE: R.F. Johns. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Railroad machinist. Active member of the Socialist Party of Canada. During entire strike was in Eastern Canada involved in other union activities. His imprisonment results in an undue strain on his wife causing him to drop all Socialist activities. He returns to school to become a machinist teacher and ultimately the Manitoba Director of Technical Education.

JUDGE: William A. Pritchard. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: one year in the Manitoba Prison Farm.

COMMENTARY: Vancouver organizer for the longshoremen's union. In Winnipeg on a four-day visit as executive representative of the Vancouver Trades and Labor Council. A prominent speaker for the Socialist Party of Canada. His address to the jury, two days, from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. each, becomes a classic in judicial circles. Pressures from his imprisonment have tragic effects upon his family. He is subsequently several times elected the Reeve of Burnaby and is a key factor in the founding of the reformist British Columbia CCF Party. For this latter act some of his fellow socialists never forgave him. In 1979 three years before his death at the age of 93, in his home in Los Angeles he wrote "Had the government carried out its initial move there would not have been any trial. . . Andrews, principal counsel for the crown went one evening to the Penitentiary and announced: By tomorrow you will all be deported to Britain — wives and children to follow. . . . But Armstrong at once called out: Hey, Alfie! What are you going to do with me? Send me to Alaska? He was born in York, Toronto. This put the kibosh on the hurriedly devised scheme."

COMMENTARY: Two others are tried separately.

JUDGE: F. .J. Dixon. For your part in writing and circulating articles in the Western Labor News you are hereby charged with seditious libel.

COMMENTARY: A labor member of the Provincial legislature, undertook the publication of Western Labor News when the others were arrested. Made a stellar performance of conducting his own defence and despite hostile charge from the judge, after 40 hours the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty.

COMMENTARY: R.B. Russell is charged on six counts of seditious conspiracy and one count of common nuisance.

JUDGE: R.B. Russell. Guilty on all seven counts. Sentence: two years in Stoney Mountain Penitentiary.

COMMENTARY: Secretary of Canadian Railroad Machinists. Esteemed to be leader of the strike. Prominent member of the Socialist Party of Canada for which he runs while in prison. He is narrowly defeated by fellow strike supporter, Dixon, on the second count of a preferential ballot. Labor throughout the world demands a pardon for him as far away as Glasgow, Scotland, threaten a general strike if he is not released. He is pardoned. Upon release, he becomes secretary and main organizer for the newly founded One Big Union. It is Russell's expressed intention to fight for workers on the industrial field, while at the same time educate them in socialist ideas for the ultimate abolition of capitalism. For a while the OBU makes an impressive impact upon labor scene; its presence being felt in a wide spectrum, including Nova Scotia miners, textile workers in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in New York and San Francisco and amongst western lumber workers. For fifteen years it publishes a weekly journal with union business interspersed with socialist theory. But the writing is on the wall. The OBU has to fight on too many fronts: employers with an understandable mutual antagonism; government; police; and other unions — first there is the international craft unions, then the international industrial unions — and the Communist Party, whose worm-within and Moscow-obedience policy is scorned by the OBU. Ultimately the OBU withers to a mere Winnipeg base. After 43 years, at the founding of the Canadian Labor Congress in 1962 what remained of it is officially disbanded. On Labor Day 1964, four weeks before his death, Bob Russell is officially recognised as the father of labor in Manitoba. A school and a wing of a children's hospital are named after him. [Pause]

In the words of Pritchard at the time ". . . in my own mind I rest assured that the historian of the future will drive the knife of critical research into the very bowels of the bogey that has been conjured forth out of the imagination of certain legal luminaries of this city; and placing everything in its proper position will appreciate at their worth each fact and each factor; and will appreciate at their proper worth all those persons who have become part and parcel of what has been conceded to be the greatest case in the history of Canada."

Classic Reprint: Socialism: a simple exposition (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

The article which follows this one is a dramatization of an incident that took place during the Winnipeg General Strike of May-June 1919. This strike was basically over wages, and hence only a defensive action in the class struggle, but many of those active in it had pronounced socialist views. To illustrate this we publish below extracts from a pamphlet written and published over fifty years later in Los Angeles by one of those sentenced, as the play records, to one year's imprisonment for his part in the strike.

A few centuries old, capitalism emerged from a static, clerical, feudal society into one of voyages of discovery, of exploration and conquest of foreign lands, into one of burgeoning trade. Following the voyages of discovery of Da Gama, Columbus, De Soto, Magellan and others, trade bloomed tremendously and the initial steps were taken for the development of regional markets into a world market, and the capitalist system from a European (chiefly) restricted economy into an ever-expanding world-wide system.

It must be admitted that capitalism, historically considered, is a higher, superior social system than any of its predecessors. It broke the restraints that feudalism placed on society's productive forces and thereby developed the increasing productivity of labor.

One could enter many areas to show how capitalism rapidly improved industry, providing an ever-increasing volume of useful vendible goods. Without doubt this was a great social advance. It should be noted here, however, that this increasing volume of goods, while useful, was not produced primarily with this usefulness in mind, but for sale on an ever-expanding world market with profit as the ultimate objective. The main question before any promoter of a new article, etc, is: will it sell?

From simple factories powered by windmill and water-wheel to the use of steam, capitalism has developed huge plants with fast-moving assembly lines, employing thousands of workers in each plant. Today this mere mechanical production is giving way to the electronic and the use of the computer. All this means, as time goes on, more and more wealth will be produced with less and less labor. The button-pusher replaces the skilled mechanic.

One thing is definitely revealed as we study capitalism in its genesis and growth. Problems which once confronted society have disappeared. In times past famine occurred because not enough could be produced or conveniently transported. Capitalism has developed the forces of production to the point where an over-abundance now becomes the source of human distress. Famine and want are with us today as a result of too much production. Those in greater need invariably lack the purchase price. Yet the fact stands out: society can with its present means of producing useful goods supply an abundance for all. Famine (shortage) can become as obsolete as the windmill and the water-wheel. The means exist that can make this abundance for all a living reality. But this is prevented by the very structure and nature of the capitalist system. "Production for Sale" is the obstacle. Capitalism, however, should be credited with having so developed the means of production and increased the productivity of labor that this abundance can be apprehended. No previous society carried within it this potential.

Further, it has created potentials whose nature and function foreshadow possibilities for much greater use in a future society wherein these potentials could be developed to their fullest. The growth in logistics indicates there should be no cause to fear the absence in such a society of the necessary distributive agencies. In the modern army logistics have been developed to a high degree, and in this alone appears the potential for a satisfactory distribution of society's products. It is the highly destructive competitive nature of capitalism which prevents the full growth and use (for society's good) of these agencies and potentials.

From this "positive" side of capitalism it can be argued that a higher and better organized social system, a system of "Production for Use", in which the instruments of production and distribution will be socially controlled and administered is not only desirable but possible.

The question is thus put: "How will production and distribution be carried on in this visualized possible future society?" And, dealing with what we know now, of what is and what has been, peering as well as we are able into the future, all we can honestly say is: "Production and distribution will be carried on as they are now but with the exploiter of labor, the master class, off the scene". But surely by then society will have gained greater knowledge of more than these points. If we can imagine socialism being established, say, tomorrow, the same agencies (but without the self-perpetuating "bureaucracies"), the same techniques, etc, will carry out the necessary work. But those potentials of which we have made mention will no doubt by the time socialism has been established have been developed to a higher degree, the technology of society so increased yet controlled, that the work could be carried out with a greater efficiency, with waste eliminated, and greater social benefits accruing.

The potentials we now observe also indicate that since production will be for the social good and not for profit, wage-labor will disappear and therefore wages (that badge of modern slavery). Goods being distributed on the same basis and not sold, money would become superfluous. "Production for Use" being the objective of social effort, "distribution", as such, would be carried out unrestricted by any elements of "exchange". Thus the socially wasteful efforts represented in banking, insurance, brokerage, etc, would perforce be eliminated. Since society would require from its members contributions to the social welfare "according to each individual's ability", and return to each "according to his needs", those economic rivalries—which even such capitalist spokesmen as President Wilson and President Eisenhower claim to be the cause of modern war—would have become things of the past. The disappearance of these hostile elements would allow the development of more humane and harmonious relations among people. Poverty, as we know it will have gone; industry—whose technological development has produced world-wide pollution—could be so organized and operated that further pollution could be avoided and the present pollution eliminated. It is safe then at least to predict that war and its horrors would have ceased, poverty done away with and a really sane world "created" fit for human habitation.

from Socialism: A Simple Exposition by W.A. Pritchard (1972).

Feminist theory — a socialist critique (1986)

From the Summer 1986 issue of the World Socialist

To attempt to write a socialist critique of feminist theory is difficult. This is not the result of any ambiguity in the attitude of socialists towards the role of women workers in capitalism, but because of the difficulty in finding a single body of theory that can be identified as feminist. While most feminists would agree that women are frequently discriminated against in such areas as employment, education and pay, and by the laws relating to taxation and social security, and would also argue that women feel oppressed in other ways too (for example by their frequent depiction in the media as either sex-objects or housewives), their analyses of the causes of such inequality vary considerably as do the strategies they adopt for overcoming it. Broadly speaking though, feminists can be categorised into three groups: liberal feminists, radical feminists and socialist feminists.

Liberal Feminism: Equal opportunity to be exploited

Liberal feminists tend to regard women's inequality as an unfortunate relic of former, less civilised times at a point in history when such attitudes are no longer appropriate. Their remedy for this situation is large doses of "justice" and "equal opportunities" for women backed up by the appropriate legislation. Such equal opportunities legislation as already exists on the statute books in most developed countries is indicative of this approach and, indeed, shows its inherent limitations. Equal opportunities and pay can be, and have been, granted and then withdrawn in accordance with what employees think they can afford and what they think they can get away with. Since the Equal Pay Act was passed in Britain in 1975 the gap between male and female earnings has actually widened. Liberal feminists seek equality between the sexes but within the context of the existing capitalist economic system. So the division of society into the capitalist class (the minority who own and control the wealth and the means of producing and distributing it) and the working class (the majority of us who produce the wealth through our labour but do not benefit from it) would still remain, together with all the suffering and injustice that that system entails.

It is true that equality of opportunity might result in more women as company directors, judges, politicians, financiers and other capitalist parasites, but this is irrelevant to women in the working class. Most working class women already work, selling their labour power in factories, offices, schools and hospitals. For them it is not equal opportunities legislation which has given them a new "right to work" but economic need which has forced them to do so. While their lives might be made a little easier if they received equal pay for their work and if there were better child care facilities, it should be remembered that their pay and conditions of work could only ever be equal to male members of the working class — they would never be equal to those of their employers, male or female. Similarly the oppressive necessity that forced them into the labour market in the first place would remain. Equal opportunity within capitalism amounts only to the equal opportunity to be exploited.

Radical Feminism: Sex against sex

Radical feminists claim (with little evidence to back up their claim) that there is a fundamental and deep-seated conflict of interests between men and women and that this is the main division of society cutting across divisions of class, race or religion. They maintain that all women are exploited by all men; that men, whatever their status or class, are always in the role of the oppressor and women always in the role of the oppressed; that it is in the interests of men to maintain this system of patriarchy and that they will endeavour to do so at all costs using violence or the threat of violence to defend their privileged position if necessary. Radical feminists have revitalised traditional stereotypes of men and women, suggesting that men are naturally aggressive, competitive and hierarchical while women are pacific and co-operative. As a result they claim that most social ills such as war, violent crime and racism arise out of patriarchy and so the overthrow of male domination would cure not only sexual inequality but also just about every social problem.

The focus of radical feminists has been the sexual abuse of women by men, the use of violence and the threat of violence. Their solution, apart from short-term attempts to draw attention to their cause by means of attacks on sex-shops (seen as symbols of aggressive male sexuality) and the picketing of cinemas showing films deemed to be offensive to, or exploitative of, women, is rarely made explicit in practical terms. Most do not actively seek to bring about the feminist revolution that they advocate in theory, but instead often choose to live within the existing system in separatist, all-women enclaves. This reflects their mistaken analysis of the problem — that is that men are necessarily the enemy. Most women know from their own experience that this is not the case. To suggest that all men are in more powerful positions than all women is clearly ridiculous. Is Margaret Thatcher to be considered to be in a less powerful position than a male factory worker just because she is a women? Is Ronald Reagan powerful because he is a man rather than because he is president of the United States? Are factory bosses more powerful because they are male or because they own wealth and are therefore in a position to exploit the work force? And what of women bosses? Do they have no power over their male employees?

Radical feminists constitute a tiny minority of women; the society they want to bring into being has little appeal for the majority of the population, male or female — not only does it seek to separate the sexes but also to regulate in a totalitarian manner their sexual relations, literature, films and theatre; their analysis of the causes of sexual inequality is crucially flawed with their own "revolutionary programme" such as it is, does not specify what it is to be its motive force.

"Socialist" Feminism: Confusing the issue

"Socialist-feminists" have attempted to reconcile socialism with feminism. On the one hand, most of them would accept the fact that capitalist society is necessarily a class-divided society from which the working class can never benefit. But, on the other hand, they want to incorporate the notion that society is also divided by gender. For this reason they reject the kind of Marxist analysis that the World Socialist movement has found useful in trying to understand the nature of capitalist society on the grounds that it fails to take account of what they see as the specific nature of women's oppression, or their particular position within capitalism. Women workers, they argue, because of their roles as unpaid mothers and domestic workers, do not have as strong links with their class as they do with their sex, and socialism, with its emphasis on class, cannot be the means of achieving their liberation.

This strand of feminism grew from three roots. Firstly, many "socialist-feminists" received their early political education in the left wing political movements and parties of the late sixties and early seventies. Within these organisations women often found themselves subjected to the same kind of abuse and belittling of their abilities that they had come to expect from those on the right of the political spectrum. They felt that their concerns were being dismissed as "women's issues" and therefore as trivial and unimportant. They correctly recognised that such organisations which spoke of freedom and equality but which failed to show respect towards their own women supporters, had little to offer. However, such women unfortunately drew the further conclusion that this was a fundamental shortcoming of socialism rather than of the particular organisations which had mis-appropriated that name to describe a politics which had very little to do with socialism as we understand it in the World Socialist movement: that is, a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by and in the interests of the whole community.

Secondly, many women had seen how, despite some early improvements in their position, women in the Russian empire were no better off under "communism" than they had been before 1917 and in many ways they were even worse off. Again it was wrongly believed that this meant that socialism had nothing to offer women since its apparent application in other parts of the world had so singularly failed to bring about women's liberation: women were still work-horses on the one hand and breeders of the next generation on the other. What they failed to see however was that Russian-style "communism" had not brought about the liberation of the male workers either. This was hardly surprising since the essential elements of the capitalist system remained intact — production for profit and the wages system.

Feminists also looked at the writings of socialist theorists like Karl Marx and criticised them for seeming not to take into account of what they regarded as the different circumstances which affect women as workers, most notably the fact that most women are, at least for part of their lives, not directly engaged in "productive" work outside the home because they are bringing up children and doing the multiplicity of chores that are entailed by "housework". It was felt that this difference between men and women was sufficiently wide to render women's links with the working class at best tenuous.

This is a mistaken view and one which plays into the hands of the capitalist class by causing divisions amongst workers. What was Marx's view of women workers? While it is true that he did not address himself to the question of women's oppression as women, he did consider the role of women in so far as they are a part of the working class, and, where they are exploited in some way differently from men by virtue of their gender, then he also deals specifically with women. Further, Marx thought that women's entry into the production process was necessary, and ultimately progressive, development within capitalism. It was a necessary development in that capitalists constantly strive to reduce their production costs in order to maximise their profits and since women's (and children's) labour could be bought more cheaply than that of men's it was inevitable that they would be recruited as wage-labourers as soon as the level of sophistication of machinery in factories was such that physical strength need no longer be considered. (Indeed, when labour was in short supply, women and children have been, and in some places still are, employed regardless of their physical fitness to do the job and the damage to their health that results.) So far then, it does not seem that women's role in capitalism is very different to that of men's: they are hired and fired, and exploited in accordance with the dictates of capital.

Domestic labour and productive work

Although many women spend a considerable part of their lives engaged full or part-time in domestic labour and child care, this does not make them any less members of the working class. Part of the problem is caused by the fact that housework is under-valued and is frequently regarded as not really work at all. This in turn is partly due to the ignorance of many men as to what is entailed in housework and child care. (It happens in other cases too, that someone else's job seems less arduous than our own because we don't fully appreciate what it involves.) A further cause of confusion is the idea of "productive work". Marx writes:

The only worker who is productive is one who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, or in other words contributes to the self-valorisation of capital (K. Marx, Capital, Vol.1, Chapter 16, Penguin Books, 1976, p.644).

But to say that a person is "productive" in this sense is to say nothing about that person's class position — a person may be productive or unproductive on this view and yet still be a member of the working class if they do not own or control the means to produce or distribute wealth and are forced to sell their labour power for a wage or salary or to draw state benefit if capital no longer needs their labour, or if they must depend for their livelihood on the wages or salary of someone else. Also the first part of Marx's statement quoted above is modified by the second part so that it includes those who contribute to the production of surplus value. Marx saw that as capitalism develops, the production process becomes more co-operative in nature as labour becomes more specialised and the division of labour more highly developed:

In order to work productively, it is no longer necessary for the individual himself to put his hand to the object; it is sufficient for him to be an organ of the collective labourer, and to perform any one of its subordinate functions (K. Marx, Capital, Vol.1, pp.643-4).

Similarly Marx recognised that reproduction of labour power was an important part of this total process:

The individual consumption of the worker, whether it occurs inside or outside the workshop, inside or outside the labour process, remains an aspect of the production and reproduction of capital, just as the cleaning of machinery does . .. (K. Marx, Capital, Vol.1, Chapter 23, p.718).

On this analysis then, the working class should be regarded as the "collective labourer" contributing to production either by making goods themselves, by contributing one of the many services needed to keep the wheels of the capitalist machine running smoothly, or by forming part of the reserve army of the unemployed. Even if we then make a distinction between those who receive a wage for what they do and those who do not (such as housewives) both groups can still be seen as productive in that they contribute to the overall capitalist process.

Domestic workers clearly are productive in this sense but in any case should consider themselves as full members of the working class since they do not have any share in the wealth owned by the capitalist class. It is also important to recognise that domestic work and child care are not in themselves uninteresting or menial (certainly not more so than many paid jobs) but it is often the context in which they are carried out which makes them seem so (e.g. the isolation of many young mothers and their lack of money).

"Socialist" feminists are thus creating a theoretical problem, and divisions within the working class where none really exists. Their tactic of forming women's caucuses, within trade unions for example, is misguided and counter-productive since it both divides the working class, making it appear that men and women have conflicting interests, and also marginalises women and so-called women's issues.

Socialism is for women too!

The extent to which feminist theories have highlighted the ways in which women's subject status is reinforced and maintained through social and cultural conditioning should not be under-estimated. Women need to be confident of their ability to engage in political activity and to believe that they are not the passive, helpless creatures that much of their education and conditioning has encouraged them to be. But to use these insights as the basis for arguments in favour of all-women political movements, or women's sections, however socialist their proclaimed intent, rests on a faulty assumption about society and has politically damaging results. That assumption is that in some way women's oppression is fundamentally different from that experienced by working class men. Whilst it is undeniable that women do experience certain forms of economic, cultural and social oppression and discrimination as a result of their gender, the economic basis for exploitative social relations is not gender-specific. To argue that women's experience of capitalism is crucially different from that of men risks falling into precisely the same trap of sex stereotyping that the feminist movement itself has struggled to resist. That is to say that women's roles as wives and mothers define them more completely than do their roles as workers.

If socialism is to have any chance of success and if the causes of oppression of women and every other oppressed group within society are to be removed for good, then we should seek to emphasise the essential similarities in lives and experiences of members of the working class irrespective of sex or race, rather than to draw attention to any superficial differences between them.

Socialism must include the liberation of women as a crucial part of the wider project of human emancipation, but of course that is not going to happen in an automatic or inevitable way. The World Socialist Movement cannot permit sexism to nourish within itself. For a political organisation to be at all credible it must embody the attitudes, values and practices that it seeks to institute in a future socialist society. Socialism is about liberation of the whole human race, men and women, which is why the socialist movement in theory and practice makes no distinction between people on the basis of sex or race. Our strength lies in unity and co-operation, not in separatism and division.

Janie Percy-Smith