50 Years Ago: Who likes facing Labour’s future? (2026)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

A generation of workers have placed their trust and wasted their lives on the pie-crust promises of ambitious politicians. More than thirty years have passed since the Labour Party issued its post-war election manifesto: Let us Face the Future. People like Barbara Castle, who were rising ‘stars’ of the left, when Aneurin Bevan was chief demagogue, have lived to stand in the crumbling ruins of all the misguided hopes which they themselves helped to build. Once again the ludicrous spectacle is one where the reformers proposed and capitalism disposed. We are now living in their future.

Every group of workers in the NHS has been (and will continue to be) ruthlessly exploited by their Labour government overlords. (Yes, we know and by the Tories.)

The nurses, whose devotion to their patients has been mercilessly used by successive governments, were forced to organize, demonstrate and threaten strike action. Then the ambulance crews were pushed into the same position. The ward orderlies and laundry workers caved in under the weight of increasing drudgery and near starvation wages. The extreme reluctance of any of these workers to add to the suffering of the sick and aged, has been cynically played on by the Tory and Labour governments.

The latest miserable episode is that of the junior doctors. Driven by being on duty or on stand-by for as much as one hundred hours per week and working for as many as eighty hours with virtually unpaid overtime, they banned overtime. This brought about the closing down of wards, casualty departments and even entire hospitals. If this reads like a nightmare, that is what capitalism does to dreams of reformers. (…)

Aneurin Bevan once said the Tories were ‘lower than vermin’. What does that make the Wilson, Castle and Foot mob? Regretfully, calling names however well deserved, does little to raise the level of class-consciousness. When the working class wake up, they will contemptuously brush aside these petty upstarts and, in fact, dismiss all leaders. Ultimately the responsibility rests with the workers. Their political maturity (or lack of it) is reflected in how they vote. The power to continue the agony of capitalism derives from the votes of the workers. The power to end it will come from the same source.

[From the article, 'Who likes facing Labour’s future?' by Harry Baldwin, Socialist Standard, February 1976.]

The real Michael Foot (1982)

From the December 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

Could it be that in Michael Foot the Labour Party have elected someone who will never rise any higher than Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition? As Foot fumbles on, questions are beginning to be asked about him, and hopeful contenders for his job are making careful speeches. One version of Foot is the sick, half blind, scabrous, dishevelled bookworm, accident-prone in more senses than one — the sort of person who would wear a donkey jacket at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Sunday. Another is the former left wing firebrand who has come to betray his principles and his friends and now hunts the Militants out of his party like mediaeval witches. Another, more despairing, is that he is a tousled intellectual, so unsuited to the political rough and tumble that he is quite unable to put the Tories, three million unemployed, Norman Tebbit and all, out of their misery.

Foot comes from a a well-heeled family with famously liberal traditions. Until he was upstaged by his tempestuous nephew Paul he was the wayward son, the brainy darling of the Labour Party rank and file who was greeted at the conference rostrum with rapturous applause before he had so much as uttered a single word. Of course he went to Oxford and of course he occupied there that position, so coveted by all aspiring politicians among the dreaming spires, of President of the Union.

Of course he was involved with Tribune and with the old TUC/Labour Party newspaper the Daily Herald. His brilliance so impressed the crusty imperialist Lord Beaverbrook that, in spite of his reputation, Foot was given the job of editing Beaverbrook’s paper the Evening Standard. Just after Dunkirk Foot, with Peter Howard (who later joined Moral Rearmament) and Frank Owen (who later joined the Liberal Party) wrote the book Guilty Men. This cleverly caught the mood of the time; it argued that many of the problems in pre-war Britain, and the war itself, were the responsibility of a bunch of complacent, arrogant Conservative politicians. Guilty Men, with other similar books published by Victor Gollancz, quickly became fashionable reading among people who were looking for an explanation — or more accurately a scapegoat — for the dreadful things that had happened since 1918.

In the 1945 election, Foot was a notable boulder in the landslide to Labour, capturing Plymouth Devonport which had been the seat of Lady Astor. This was indeed a symbolic victory — the dazzling young intellectual sitting where once sat a Tory who personified much about pre-war Britain that had become despised — and had been denounced in Guilty Men. Foot had no intention of allowing the glamour of his victory grow dim. He quickly busied himself in the appropriate causes, in particular the Keep Left Group, whose manifesto attacked the basis of the Attlee government’s foreign policy, which was the alliance with America and the cold war antagonism towards Russia.

To a government which was fighting the cause of British capitalism on several fronts at once. Foot was something of a nuisance and there was small prospect then of him ever joining the Front Bench. He came to represent much of the frustrations of Labour supporters who wondered why their government was failing so signally to introduce the Promised Land into Britain; he was the evidence that cleverer, more sincere, more radical ministers would do a more effective job of transforming society. The working class in Devonport did not see it quite like that however; in the 1955 election Foot lost his seat and remained out of Parliament until 1960, when Aneurin Bevan's death left a vacancy at the mining seat of Ebbw Vale. Foot was Bevan’s worshipping biographer; he seemed the obvious choice as Labour candidate which, in a place like Ebbw Vale where Tories were as rare as fumbling fly-halves, was tantamount to being the MP.

No eyebrows were raised when he was passed over by Wilson during the 1964/70 governments but when Labour came back to power in February 1974 Foot was given charge of the Department of Employment. His first brief was to settle the miners’ strike. In her diaries. Barbara Castle describes this as a brilliant appointment; Foot would use his standing among the miners to get them back to work and Wilson would defuse a potential critic. Foot's start was not all that promising because when he went to get his seal of office and to kiss the queen he was dressed as if he had been camping. But the queen need not have worried; her new Minister of Employment soon showed that it is not necessary to wear formal clothes in order to protect the interests of the class she represents.

Labour’s programme in the first 1974 election was very embarrassing because it talked about “socialist aims” and declared an intention to “. . . eliminate poverty wherever it exists in Britain . . .” Just in case they did not manage to get rid of all poverty, the Labour programme had as a fail-safe a rather less ambitious aim, which was to “. . . achieve far greater economic equality in income, wealth and living standards . . . bring about a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families . . .” Denis Healey, their Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed that he meant business, and that he was not to be easily embarrassed by little considerations like election promises, by threatening to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked. What with all that, and with the tearaway lefty Foot at the Department of Employment, workers who thought that any shift in the balance of wealth might begin with a rise in their wages could well have concluded that their day had come.

Illustration by George Meddemmen

But the first message of that government was that there must be some delay. World capitalism was fast sliding into recession and the Labour government’s response, to which they were by then well conditioned, was an assault on working class living standards. The conflict was sharpened by the fact that after Labour had abolished the statutory wage restraint of the Heath government there was a flood of wage claims. It was then that Foot showed the true mettle of a left winger in power; with some gusto he bent to the task of holding back the flood. The coal strike settled, he quickly decided that further miners' wage claims were “excessive", although by what standards he did not make clear. In January 1975 he told the TUC that there should be no argument about the official “guidelines” on pay (the Labour government's new name for wage restraint) but that they should ". . . merely apply them as they stand". Barbara Castle thought that “He is taking his role as guardian of the Pay Code so seriously that he is becoming more rigid than Jim Callaghan was in his Chancellor days” (she was commenting about an argument over a rise for the nurses) and she later explained “Mike is obsessed with the need to win the next election”.

The record of that government, whose return was Foot's obsession, is set down now in a disreputable history. They quickly abandoned the professed aims of their manifesto and concentrated on organising a more efficient and intense exploitation of the working class — or of those of them that remained in employment as the dole queues grew longer. Public expenditure, which many Labour supporters saw as the key to any change in the balance of wealth, was cut in absolute and relative terms and Chancellor Healey, trying to hold wage rises below those in prices, turned his attention to squeezing the poor. There were some bitterly contested strikes, in which Prime Minister Callaghan encouraged workers to break through picket lines and urged the police to immediately arrest any picket they thought was making threats against blacklegs. Meanwhile, the pips of the rich remained conspicuously unsqueezed; the signs were that their share of national wealth, which had actually fallen under the Heath government, increased under Labour.

Disgruntled Labour supporters now describe those years as a time of mistakes and missed opportunities. They assert nostalgically that the aims of the 1974 manifesto are still relevant, which is another way of saying that the problems Labour claimed to be able to deal with then are still here today — that, in other words, the manifesto was worthless.

Any sense of betrayal in their ranks, as Labour recovered from the shock of their defeat in 1979, can only have helped Foot beat Healey for the leadership in 1980. In spite of the responsibility he bore, Foot seemed to be considered somehow blameless while Healey acquired the reputation of a beetle-browed political thug. Since then Foot has continued to play the double game. The conference rhetoric is as readily available as ever, to excite the delegates who have come all that way to the seaside to be cheered up: “I am a peacemonger!” Foot raved to thunderous applause at Brighton last year. “An inveterate, incurable peacemonger." The value of those rousing words could be assessed a few months later, as the Task Force was being prepared for the assault on the Falklands: “I believe the government is right. . . I support the despatch of the Task Force” were the words with which Foot urged the government on to quicker and more brutal bellicosity.

The man who once marched in support of CND’s demand for immediate unilateral nuclear disarmament now craftily fudges the issue: “I agree with the programme . . . for trying to get a non-nuclear defence programme for this country as speedily as we possibly can. . . (Weekend World, 3 October 1982). “The greatest task which this Labour Party will have to take is . . . securing nuclear disarmament in this country and throughout the world" (Labour Conference, 28 September 1982). In more direct words. Foot was saying that he favours nuclear disarmament eventually. when all the other nuclear powers have also disarmed — the sort of noncommittal policy to attract Tories, Liberals. SDP members and all floating voters everywhere.

These developments are not accidental; they are exactly consistent with Foot's record in government and out of it. Neither is he himself exceptional; he is only the latest example of the processes of capitalist leadership, which passes through stages of extravaganza, reality and disintegration. This unavoidable process reflects the fact that capitalism's problems — like poverty which Labour promises to abolish, like weapons of war which Foot once wished to abolish — do not respond to the dramatic speeches of political leaders. Foot is typical in that his followers invest him with a power which he does not have, nor can have; their political ignorance and his impotence are components in the basic fallacy of the entire principle of leadership and the theory that leaders are indispensable.

So will the real Michael Foot stand up? To show us that, after all the learning, the speeches and the writing he has at last come into his own? And then would some of his followers also stand up. to show that they understand that it is all a noxious mockery of their human interests.

Ivan

Confusion on the left (1965)

From the November 1965 issue of the Socialist Standard

In his time, Mr. Harold Wilson has been cast in many roles. One of the latest, as this year’s Labour Party Conference made clear, is that of the master surgeon who, by skilful use of anaesthetic and scalpel, has amputated the Party’s Left Wing.

The operation has left a stump, which will probably grow and once again become a seat of infection. But for the moment all is as Mr. Wilson intended; what there is of the stump is a feeble thing—indeed, some of the observers at the operation were not even sure of where to look for it— and the patient is just becoming to come round.

It is as well if, before we go any further, we try to be clear about what we mean by Left Wing. First, let us say that the term has no real validity, in the sense that it does not describe a particular, permanent political viewpoint. Some politicians are said to be “left wing” on some issues and “right wing” on others. Even the Conservative Party is supposed to have members who are “left wing”—for example. Sir Edward Boyle. It is apparent that, although it is an expression which is in constant use, nobody is very anxious to pin down the meaning of “Left Wing” in a definition.

At the same time, we all know that there is a section of the Labour Party which is always nagging about banning the Bomb, or raising pensions, or getting out of Vietnam, or getting into the Congo. At any and every time, this section is in a ferment of protest—demonstrating, marching, resolving, even resigning. Sometimes, under the lash of Labour’s Right Wingers, they are called rebels, or other less complimentary things. Usually, and conveniently, they are called the Left Wing, and for the purposes of this discussion we may as well accept the term, although we recognise its drawbacks.

The Left Wing claim that the Labour Party’s rank and file are behind them and, if we take the annual vote of the constituency parties for members of the National Executive as our only guide, this claim is true. In their eagerness to return Left Wingers to the Executive, the constituency parties have sometimes braised the ego of Labour’s famous leaders. The late Lord Morrison was one who was spurned in this way, and he neither forgot nor forgave.

It is not, however, true that the constituency vote always goes left. This year, for example, a majority of it apparently supported the Government's prices and incomes policy, when it was under fire from the Left. The constituency vote for the Left Wingers is a different matter; they vote for them because they regard them as men of honour and principle, who will keep what they think of as the ideals of the Labour Party unsullied.

Perhaps they never reflect upon what happened to the famous Left Wingers in the past. There was Stafford Cripps, once the hottest of firebrands, who switched so smartly from Left to Right when the call came. There have been others who have committed themselves behind the scenes to supporting the policies they once attacked, and who have announced this to their astounded followers, as Aneurin Bevan did over the Bomb at Brighton in 1957. And there have been others who have simply joined up and shut up—taken jobs in the Government and sat mute while their followers of yesterday have thundered their protests. This year, for example, the constituency parties elected Barbara Castle, Anthony Greenwood and Richard Crossman to the Executive—all of them Left Wing rebels of the past, all of them now members of a Government which infuriates the Left. 

It is clear that the Labour Party are still under the ether which was administered to them in October last year. Everything about the 1965 conference — the “composition” of hostile resolutions, the prominence given to Ministers, the hero-worship of the Government, the rough handling which the delegates got from chairman Mr. Gunter—showed how stupid the Labour Party has now become. What remains of the Left is leaderless. Even Michael Foot, once the busiest of rebels, was silent; “. . . no Left-winger,” wrote Anthony Howard of him in the Sunday Times, “Has defended the Government more loyally.” To this point we shall return.

The lack of leadership is a serious matter for the Left Wing, because if there is one thing they love it is a leader. The sort of man who can rouse the annual Tribune rally, with a speech of mixed hypocrisy and nostalgia is an absolute essential to them. They must have fiery speeches full of demands which the speakers (and perhaps a large part of the audience) know have not the faintest chance of becoming reality. Take away their leaders and the Left is lost. That is what Harold Wilson has done. Indeed, he has taken away the greatest hope the Left has had for a long time; himself. For he once encouraged the rebels in the Labour Party to regard him as their leader (at the same time, of course, as he did as little as possible to discourage the Right Wing from regarding him as their leader). Perhaps this is why the Left are in such a fury over Vietnam, the Bomb and the other issues on which the Labour Government have disappointed them.

It would be an interesting exercise were the Left to ask themselves why they are always being betrayed in this way. Much of what they demand sounds sensible enough. Who doesn’t want the war in Vietnam to end? Who doesn’t want to scrap nuclear weapons? Who doesn’t want better pay and working conditions? It is easy enough for a politician or a rebel to give voice to these demands. The big snag is that they are difficult, not to say impossible, to obtain under capitalism. That is why, if a Left Winger gets a job in the Government he always seems to be able to forget the heady days of rebellion and get down to the job of running the system. Conscientious objectors become Ministers of War (like Mr. Shinwell), trade unionists go to the Ministry of Labour (like Ernie Bevin). The Left Wing, betrayed again, has to look around for new leaders.

What do the realities of capitalism make of the Left Wing’s policies? What about Vietnam? The Americans are fighting there not in the interests of the Vietnamese people, but to protect the substantial military and economic interests which they have in the area. Ever since the defeat of Japan, Washington has been determined that only one power should control the Far East. Any challenge to American domination there must provoke the same result, as we saw in Korea and as we are seeing now in Vietnam. The results are unpleasant, but inevitable.

By the same token, nuclear weapons are essential to capitalism in the Sixties. The disputes which capitalism throws up require every competing nation to be in readiness for war, and the wider a country’s interests and its domination, the more frightening its preparation will be. It is thus no coincidence that the United States and the Soviet Union have the world's most advanced and destructive weapons. The results, again, are unpleasant—but nobody has yet been able to put a stop to capitalism’s arms race.

Nobody, either, has been able to put a stop to the persistent battle between workers and employers over wages and working conditions. The fact that the majority of capitalism’s people have to work for wages in order to live means that they will always have to struggle to get the highest wages possible, and to protect their other conditions. Governments may do their utmost to control the situation, with legislation and appeals, but the conflict will go on and the results of it, although not as spectacular as those of a war, are unpleasant enough.

The frictions and the malaises of capitalism are an unavoidable product of the system. The Left Wing does not recognise this—they live under the delusion that a Labour Government, suitably purged and reformed, could run capitalism without war, without strikes, without poverty. None of them has ever shown how this could be done, and the evidence says that it cannot be done. The evidence is there, in the records of the Labour Governments and it is there in the persons of people like Michael Foot and Barbara Castle, who loyally support a Government which on most issues is indistinguishable from the Tories they have castigated for so long.

We said we would return .to the matter of loyalty. Where, we may wonder, will the loyalty of the Foots and the Castles lead them? Labour is their Government, right or wrong, but how much wrong are they prepared to accept? Will trade unionists in the Government stomach all and every attempt at imposing the Early Warning system on wages? Will Ministers who in the past spoke out against racial intolerance stay silent while the colour bar on immigration gets stronger, and while Labour panders more and more to the racist vote? Will those, like Anthony Greenwood, who once marched from Aldermaston, be at Mr. Wilson’s side if he ever has to press the button? Loyalty to a government can cover a multitude of sins, and there is no reason to suppose that loyal Labour men will abandon their Party, no matter what it does. As Woodrow Wyatt (no Left Winger, of course) put it: “It is when we are wrong that we need the backing.” Perhaps this means that the louder the appeals for backing, the more the Labour Party realise they are wrong.

If the Left Wing are confused, and often hypocritical, they are only one group among many. Their faults are typical of all the other organisations which support the social system which breeds confusion and thrives on hypocrisy. In the so-called Age of Enlightenment the need for the facts to be stated clearly is as great as ever. Capitalism is a social system which by its very nature produces a host of antisocial problems such as war, poverty and clashes of interests. Any government trying to run capitalism will come up against these problems and in the end will have to run the system in the interests of its ruling class. No government can let wages run riot, or willingly surrender a position of power and influence in the world. These are the realities, distinct from the dreams of the Left. When the Labour Party come to power, they do so on a promise to reform capitalism, to be different, to be more humane and efficient. But they, too, have to run the system as it demands. As Labour forgets many of its promises, as it does many things which it once swore never to do, it disappoints and outrages its own supporters. For comfort, and as a way of assuring themselves that there is nothing basically wrong with the Labour Party and that somehow, somewhere, it can be changed, they cluster around the Left Wing.

But they will find no peace. In some ways they are useful to the Labour Party. Apart from the fact that Left Wingers are often among the most zealous of party workers, they also keep the Labour Party in touch with its past and the romance of its pioneers. It gives the active members the chance of having a good, old-fashioned demonstration once in a while, when they can almost hear again the cries of the victims of Peterloo. The Left Wing gives the Labour Party a certain standing among workers who sincerely want a better world to live in.

And perhaps—and this is its greatest condemnation—the Left helps to convince people that the Labour Party is not the cynical, vote-grabbing machine of capitalism that it actually is.

Ivan

50 Years Ago: Tory and Labourite agree (2024)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Simpletons in the Labour Party who take at its face value what the Party says about the Tories and about itself will expect the outcome to be, on the Tory side, a publicity campaign to prove that capitalism is really quite all right as it is, and, on the Labour side, a promise to end capitalism. Barbara Castle tried to comply a few months ago by asserting that Labour was the only party “committed to remove capitalism” (Times, 3rd July 1973). But the reality is quite different, as will be seen from two speeches by party leaders published in The Times and the Financial Times on 2nd February. One speech (Times) was by the Tory, Mr. Peter Walker, Secretary for Trade and Industry. The other (Financial Times) was by Mr. Edward Short, deputy leader of the Labour Party.

The interesting thing about the speeches is that most of Walker’s speech could have been put over by Short, and vice versa. The speeches have a common theme — a promise to keep capitalism but to give it a facelift. First the Tory:

“A transformation of the capitalist system in the next 25 years was forecast yesterday by Mr. Peter Walker. Secretary for Trade and Industry . . . He said that in Western Europe a big part of the system consisted of free enterprise and private capital. A dramatic period of change was beginning. In Britain, the government had done much already to transform the basis of capitalism, yet it had passed almost unnoticed.”

Now the Labourite:

“He warned that the next Labour administration must arm itself ‘to act decisively’ when any company or industry fell short of what the national interest demanded and this would involve ‘a major change in the capitalist system’.”

The two had no disagreement about the method. “Much greater public control over industry would be necessary’’ (Short). “We are doing this . . . by the power of the State — a new kind of interventionism’’ (Walker).

Both indicated that there was no intention to end capitalism, but with subtle differences of emphasis. Walker intends to make capitalism “more responsible, more responsive, and therefore stronger”, while Short said that “the assertion of control would be partly by an extension of public ownership where it was absolutely necessary . . . and by planning agreements between the Government and some of the major companies”. Lest this should sound rather too drastic, Mr Short reassured his listeners by explaining that the latter means “a system which has been very successful in France”, and that “most industrialists [are] public-spirited people who would co-operate”.

[From the article, 'Tory and Labourite agree' by Edgar Hardcastle, Socialist Standard, February 1974]

Democracy in the unions (1985)

From the June 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

For many years governments, the media and members of trade unions have concerned themselves with the way unions manage their internal affairs. Some of the concern, particularly that of union members. has been simply about establishing democratic methods but there have been other motives behind the Tory governments Acts of Parliament requiring ballots for the establishment of the "closed shop", for the election of union officials, for renewing the unions' right to have political funds, and for ballots to be held for strike action. Failure to hold pre-strike ballots may render the unions liable to action for damages brought by employers and to other financial penalties. The government has made no secret of their intention, by these Acts, to curb and weaken the unions. The Tory Party and the Liberal-SDP Alliance also hope that some of the political levy ballots will vote to end the levy and the Labour Party, dependent for 85 per cent of its income from that source, will be in difficulties. In line with the pattern since the unions were first legalised, of alternate tightening and relaxing of the laws governing them, the Labour Party hopes to gain votes at the next general election by its pledge to repeal these Acts.

Some Tory politicians supported compulsory strike ballots in the naive belief that they would reduce the number of strikes. The Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations in its Report. 1968, came out against them. It had looked at American experience and noted "That strike ballots are overwhelmingly likely to go in favour of strike actions" (para 428). The Tories were not the first government to consider compulsory strike ballots. The Wilson Labour Government of 1964-1970 adopted In Place of Strife, drawn up by Barbara Castle. as basis for an Industrial Relations Act. For official strikes it took the same line as had the Royal Commission, but with an additional argument:

In major disputes union members are very often more militant than their leaders and are likely to be less closely in touch with the progress and prospects of the negotiations. If the union leaders were always obliged to hold a ballot when using the strike threat in negotiations. they might well find their hands tied by a vote to strike in support of a claim intended merely as a bargaining move at an early stage of negotiation. If on the other hand the union leaders are ready to call a strike without backing by their members but there is no doubt about their support, nothing would be gained by demanding a ballot.

(Para 97)

It proposed, however, that if a major official strike involved "a serious threat to the economy or the public interest" and it was doubtful whether the union's members were in favour of the strike, the Secretary of State should have power to order a ballot. After the unions had objected to parts of In Place of Strife an Industrial Relations Bill was presented to Parliament but it had not been passed when the Labour Party lost the 1970 general election.

The issue of the pre-strike ballot came to the fore in the recent coal strike because the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers refused to hold a national ballot, presumably because they were not sure that it would get the 55 per cent majority required by rule. The strike therefore came into conflict with the law but the National Coal Board decided not to take the issue to court. Instead. court action was taken by working members of the NUM who obtained an injunction preventing the NUM claiming that the strike was an official one. The NUM was fined £200,000 for contempt of court. Through another action by working members of the NUM most of its funds were sequestrated and placed under the control of a receiver appointed by the court.

Union voting methods have recently featured in reported cases of "ballot-rigging", leading to the Transport and General Workers Union reluctantly deciding to hold a new ballot for the appointment of their General Secretary. The media presented the issue of ballot-rigging in the TGWU in terms of a struggle between "left", and "right" and recalled the case of the Electrical Trade Union in 1961. when the High Court found that there had been massive rigging by members of the Communist Party designed to keep a fellow communist in office as General Secretary. The court held the defeated candidate to have been validly elected. At the time the Communist Party of Great Britain disclaimed all responsibility for the action of their members in the ETU and proclaimed their adherence to democratic methods. The disclaimer had a hollow ring in face of Lenin's explicit guidance to his followers to get control of the unions by any and every means:

It is necessary . . . if need be, to resort to strategy and adroitness, illegal proceedings, reticence and subterfuge, to anything in order to penetrate into the trade unions, remain there and carry on communist work within them at any cost.

(Lenin, Left Wing Communism, published by CPGB. page 39.)

However the CPGB in a letter to The Times (16 September 1976) did make one valid point about ballot-rigging: that members of the Labour Party and Tory Party had, on occasion, been equally guilty. The ETU case led to that union adopting a new system for ballots to prevent abuse, the whole ballot being conducted by an independent body, the Electoral Reform Society.

It remains to consider what is the attitude of socialists on all these issues. Firstly, we favour democratic organisation and methods in the unions and elsewhere; we do not aim, by vote-rigging or other trickery, to capture control of the unions and we are in favour of ballots to decide all issues. But the socialist attitude goes far beyond this and is unique among political parties in this country. Socialists are not interested in choosing between "good" and "bad" leaders but in persuading the working class to abandon the whole concept of leadership. As we said in the Socialist Standard of May 1912:

All their militant might must be based upon the knowledge of their class position and the logical course dictated by that position. Therefore at the outset the need for leaders does not exist. Only those who do not know the way need to be led. and this very fact makes it inevitable that those who are led will be entirely in the hands of those who lead.

The article went on to argue that the leader depends on the lack of knowledge of those who are led and has an interest in maintaining that lack of knowledge, not in getting rid of it.

On the trade union field the Socialist Party's attitude was highlighted by a libel action brought against party members by the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, on the ground of a statement in the Socialist Standard that the leaders had betrayed their members, the executive of the union having agreed to a settlement against the vote of members employed on the North Eastern Railway. In spite of the fact that the executive did not consult the whole membership, the judge held that the action of the executive was covered by union rules and was justified by the obligation to look after the interests of all the membership. The judge awarded in favour of the union.

The socialist view has always been that the members of unions should at all times keep control of union policy and actions in their own hands and not allow freedom of action to executive or officials. Not only should the decision to strike be by ballot of the members but also the decision to accept terms of settlement of a strike. This acceptance of full responsibility by the members of unions involves the need for them to understand the workings of capitalism and the resulting "economics" of strikes and to take into account the fact that over-riding power rests with those who control the machinery of government, including the armed forces, and that state power is always available to back the employers in the defence of capitalism. As it was put in an article in the Socialist Standard (April 1919): "On the economic field the masters are in a far stronger position than the workers and can beat them any time they decide to fight to a finish".

Whether the government and the employers will think it desirable to "fight to a finish" depends on a number of factors, including whether trade is good and profits steady or whether there is a depression. When trade is good employers do not want the flow of profits to be interrupted by a strike. But when sales and profits are falling, the unions have little hope of putting pressure on employers by threatening to close factories which the employers are closing anyway, either temporarily or permanently.

This can be illustrated by comparing the successful coal strike of 1974 with the failure of the recent strike. In 1974 British capitalism was booming. Profits were high and rising, unemployment was at the very low level of 600,000, less than one-fifth of what it is now. Employers generally did not want their flow of profits to be stopped by the coal strike. So much so that a small group of wealthy capitalists met together secretly (it was reported in the press without disclosures of names) and offered a gift of £2,500,000 (equivalent to £9 million at current prices) to the NUM as an inducement to settle the strike. The offer was declined. The outcome in the situation as it existed in 1974 was that in a short strike of four weeks the NUM gained a substantial wage increase, whereas in the very different situation of 1984-5 the strike lasted almost a year and was a total failure. It should be noted that what is "short" or "long" in connection with strikes depends on the industry. A power-station strike or a telephone strike makes its impact instantly, but with a strike in industries where there are large stocks in the pipe line, as with steel and coal, it may take weeks before the union can see whether the cessation of production is likely to exert pressure on employers generally.

It only remains to add that, in the nature of capitalism, what trade unions and strikes can achieve is always limited. In particular their action cannot lead to the emancipation of the working class and the establishment of socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

The N.H.S.—Was it worth it? (1975)

From the May 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are still many people who will tell you that the British NHS offers the best medical attention, for patients of all social strata, in the world. In fact, nearly all its original claims have proved to be miserably false.

When discussing the “welfare state” one still often hears the completely false claim that “nobody starves to death in Britain any more.” Thousands of people die here every year from lack of food, clothing, blankets and fuel. The respectable term for this starvation is ‘hypothermia”. Strictly translated this means “low heat” and indicates that the victims suffer from an insufficiency of calories to support their basic vital metabolic needs. They starve from lack of calories.

An article in the November 8th 1974 issue of the periodical General Practitioner reads as follows:

Dr. Geoffrey Taylor, of Ilminster, near Taunton, retired Professor of Medicine in Lahore, India, and a leading campaigner in the nutrition and problems of old people, plans to ask local health officials and Somerset County Council to help him set up a team of volunteer street wardens.

These wardens, armed with room thermometers, will check the homes of old people to make sure the rooms they are living in have a temperature of at least 70°F. If necessary, they will block draughts, check insulation and advise the old people to live entirely in one room. “Very large numbers of old people suffer heart attacks as a result of extreme cold”, he said.

“About 700,000 have core temperatures of 95.5°F, and are on the verge of hypothermia in mild winters. In cold winters there must be three or four times that number. It is a question of action now. Our problem is getting volunteers”.

But the warden scheme is only a short-term answer. Dr. Taylor is hoping to persuade councils to back his long term scheme for district heating. He explained: "District heating uses waste material now thrown away to boil water which can heat homes.

Elderly invalids living alone are often victims of loneliness and depression. Rightly, they should have constant nursing attention and company. They often need frequent cleaning and changing and assistance with feeding and using the toilet. In the enormous numbers of homes that have no fixed bath or inside lavatory this is very difficult. Relatives with their own family responsibilities often just cannot properly cope with these cases. Yet there is a great shortage of hospitals for the frail and old — with waiting lists which will become even longer — since Mrs. Barbara Castle has intimated not only will there be no increased expenditure in this field but expenditure will have to be less for some years to come. An article in the General Practitioner of July 13th 1973, reads:

Strongly associated with chronic disability were low income, age, widowhood and living alone. More than a third of all persons living alone were chronically limited by disability and this proportion rose to 44% in the over sixties.

The proportion of chronic sick varied between 35% and 41% in families with a total income of £5 to £12.50 a week.

So much for the Welfare State. Did we really “never have it so good?”

It was once boasted that the NHS would provide free specialist treatment for all, and that the needy would not have to suffer ill health any more because of their poverty. But now, with waiting periods of months for specialist appointments and years for routine operations, this is an empty promise. When told of these waiting lists workers often ask how much it would cost to “go private” and so have their case dealt with much sooner. When told the probable fee, some struggle to find it and others turn away amazed and disappointed. Yet another example of the broken promises and boasts of the NHS was that patients would be able to receive treatment without having to pay the monstrous prices of drugs. Yet now, being handed a prescription, poor patients sometimes ask if one or more of the items prescribed for their health can be deleted because finding the extra 20p is beyond them.

The profits of drug manufacturers are enormous but they claim that these are necessary, to plough funds back into research for new drugs. But it is well-known that many drug companies manufacture and sell products introduced by other firms under different proprietary names. Their subsequent propaganda often points out that their product is more than just a pharmacological equivalent because, say, it is better absorbed or has less side effects. This one drug may be bought at different prices, in different make-up and under different proprietary names. Admittedly some companies spend a lot on research and introduction of completely new drugs. Nevertheless, far more of their returns are spent on advertizing their own brands in opposition to the pharmaceutical equivalents made by others. Figures vary, but it has been said that in certain cases five times as much is spent on advertising them as on research.

In a sane order of society research would be made finding the most efficacious and side-effect-free product and this alone would be manufactured and used. Such massive duplication with its attendant wastage would then be pointless.

R. B. Gill

Running Commentary: Barbara’s response (1983)

The Running Commentary column from the July 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Barbara’s response

In their widely used double whole-page advertisement the Conservative Party claimed that “putting a cross in the Labour box is the same as signing this piece of paper” and one of the items on the imaginary piece of paper was: “I waive my right to choose any form of private medicine for my family”.

This was of course completely untrue but, on the basis that if you are going to tell a lie you might as well tell a big one — in letters half an inch high — it might have frightened some readers into voting Conservative if they had not already decided to do so.

One response was an article in The Times (26 May 1983) by Barbara Castle who was at pains to point out that "What Labour’s manifesto actually says is: ‘We shall remove private practice from the NHS’.” In other words. Labour has no objection to people queue jumping (her expression) provided they do it in Harley Street but not under the noses of the workers who build and run the hospitals and who might feel that they are entitled to as good a health service as anyone else.

But then, it has always been Labour’s policy to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds in the scramble for votes. Those workers who yet again voted for the Labour Party were voting for second class NHS treatment when they could receive of the best in a socialist society.

Exit with dignity

Len Murray, General Secretary of the TUC, is like a lot of other people. He is keen that everyone should have a job because, he thinks, anyone who is unemployed is not just penniless and hopeless: “These marchers,” he cried at a People’s March for Jobs demonstration in June, “have been cheated of their dignity by not being given a job".

Christopher Smith, devoted husband and father, was dignified alright. He had had the same job since he left school fifteen years ago and had been raised to assistant manager at the supermarket where he worked. One drawback to being assistant manager was that, as the company cut back on the staff forcing a lot of people into the indignity of the dole queue, Christopher was left to run the shop on his own.

In what the company probably thought of as his leisure time Christopher took the paperwork home to wrestle with. The responsibility and pressures became so great that a judge later described them as an “overwhelming terror”.

One day Christopher left the shop early, went home and stabbed his wife and daughter to death. He tried five times to kill himself and then told the police what he had done. At the Old Bailey the judge, probably reasoning that even for capitalism this man had been punished enough, put Christopher on probation with a condition that he accept medical treatment.

Employment, which is the process of being exploited for the benefit of a class of social parasites, is an outrageous indignity. One measure of this is the fact that, if it is not profitable to employ workers, they are brusquely thrust away onto the scrap heap. Those who arc kept on have to cope with the pressures of a fiercer exploitation.

Some can manage this without too much damage to themselves. Others fall ill, sprout ulcers, suffer heart attacks and strokes. A few. like Christopher Smith, in one way or another destroy their lives. For them, there is often a final indignity — to be told that it is they, and not this wretched social system, who are sick.

Ah, yes: which firm was it, to do this to this man? They call themselves Your Sharing, Caring Co-op.

Target practice

Like someone at a fairground shooting gallery, Margaret Thatcher has now picked off two Labour leaders and is probably at present squinting along the barrel waiting for the next target to come into view.

The Labour and Conservative parties continually tell us that political processes are something of a shoot-out between two intellectual Titans. For example the 1983 election was reduced at times to a personal battle between Foot and Thatcher, which implied that they are two specially capable people and that there was some reason to make a choice between them.

This theory of the need for leadership is essentially exclusive. Running modern society is so difficult and complicated a matter that it can be understood by only a small minority of specially gifted men and women. The rest of us must leave it up to them and be satisfied with an occasional opportunity to express our gratitude and admiration at the polls.

Well there may well be a rare technique in running a social system in which millions of people are idle in spite of the fact that there is an urgent need for wealth to be produced and distributed. A system in which every week human beings die on the scale of Hiroshima but not from a nuclear assault — from starvation in spite of the fact that huge amounts of food arc stockpiled and destroyed. A system which gives priority, not to the production of useful and constructive things but to weapons of mass destruction.

But to understand this society is not a difficult or an exclusive business. The knowledge is easily available for the Marxian analysis of capitalism, exposing its foundations, its development and its workings, is as vital and relevant now as it was when it was first set down over a century ago.

There is every reason for workers to understand that capitalism cannot satisfy its people's needs and that it must exploit and debase the majority who do all its useful work. They can easily grasp the fact, because the evidence is all around them, that none of the political parties who appeal for their support to continue capitalism can effectively deal with the problems of the system.

From that understanding it is a simple, logical step to the conclusion that only a democratic revolution to establish a society with a different basis, and different social relationships, will be effective. And this revolution cannot come about through leaders; it must be the act of a conscious, participating majority of the world’s working class.

For most workers — which means for most of the world’s people — this is suspiciously simple. They prefer submission, keeping their place in society as surely and predictably as the targets moving across the fairground booth.

Keeping a promise

It took rather a long time but at last, it seemed, something happened as a politician had promised. When he was the minister responsible for housing in the 1945 Labour government, Aneurin Bevan one day pronounced that housing would not be an issue at a future election. And in 1983, sure enough, it was hardly mentioned.

Of course Bevan meant that his government would have been so successful in dealing with housing that there would no longer be any reason to discuss it. What happened in the election was that it was overlaid by other matters of current interest to the voters — would Thatcher or Foot be the more futile leader, how should British capitalism deploy its nuclear weapons, which party would most effectively get those three million unemployed back into active, full time exploitation? Such developments in political debate are sometimes known as the onward and upward march of the working class.

It was in the background, then, that Shelter announced its opinion that one of the urgent matters awaiting the new government is a “shortage" of 800,000 homes, which is another way of saying that millions of people are without a decent place to live.

Now this is not really a shortage. For a long time bricks and other building materials have been stockpiled and among the three million on the dole are many skilled building workers. This situation exists because, for one reason or another, it is not profitable to use the materials or to employ the workers. However desperate people’s needs may be, capitalism does not produce unless there is the prospect of profit.

Then there arc those people whose housing problem consists of difficult decisions about which one of their homes they should live in at any one time. These are the people in whose interests production is carried out, the people who accumulate the profits without which there is no production, the people who live parasitically on the workers who suffer in the housing problem.

Much water has flowed under Westminster Bridge since Bevan made that claim all those years ago, and much suffering has been endured by the homeless, the slum dwellers and by those who exist in the social deserts of the high rise and the council estates or in the pressured neurosis of suburbia. And the problem is still there, as troublesome as ever. It may have been ignored in the election but as long as capitalism lasts it will not go away.

Down the drain

Speaking in Bolton during his election campaign, Michael Foot was reported as promising that Labour would create 500,000 jobs during its first year in office. 

We are not setting impossible targets. When we reduce unemployment to the level we left it in 1979, it will save the government enough money to pay for the whole of Labour’s emergency programme (The Times, 28 May).

In other words, during a Labour Government’s first year half a million workers would be paid with money later to be saved by an imaginary reduction in unemployment of more than two millions.

Leaving aside the “spend now, pay later” aspect of this form of book-keeping, one is left wondering why, with this remedy for unemployment available, there was anybody at all out of work during the period of the last Labour government.

It is of course a fallacy to suggest that jobs can be created just by taking workers off the dole and paying them with the money saved in benefits.

The kind of work Labour politicians had in mind (such as new sewers) shows no financial return on expenditure. One might almost say it is “money down the drain” which will have to be found by increased taxation. But this proposal would not have attracted many votes.

Review: January 1972 (1972)

The Review of the Month column from the January 1972 issue of the Socialist Standard

At Home

It was fitting that, in the season of good-will and hand-outs, everyone should get so alarmed by the terrible news about the straitened circumstances in which the queen has been forced to live recently. It was rumoured last year, when she did not make the usual Christmas appearance on the box, that she had virtually gone on a genteel strike for more pay. Many workers must have taken time off from their efforts to balance their own budgets to give a sigh of relief that the figurehead of British capitalism will now be able to scrape by on the more comfortable wage of a million a year and that it will not, after all, be necessary to put up any of the castles and palaces or any of the other symbols of royal penury for sale.

Similar relief must have been felt at the news that our Members of Parliament and our Ministers are also to get a hefty rise. Apparently the inflation of the currency has meant that all these people in Parliament find the buying power of their wage getting less as time goes by. But what sympathy can there be for them, since they are constantly getting their jobs as MPs on the solemn promise that they can control inflation? A prime example of someone being hoist with their own petard, or whatever we might call it.

At the other end of the wages spectrum, the 280,000 members of the National Union of Mineworkers were voting for an official strike to start on January 9. The strike —the first national industrial action by the miners since the lock-out of 1926 — was decided on after three years of mounting militancy among the union’s activists, which forced the executive to drop their previous "moderate” policy of concern for the finances of the state capitalist National Coal Board. The miners’ demands may seem to be high but in fact they are asking for no more than enough to maintain or re-establish their standard of living. The press are unable to use one of their usual lies —that strikes are forced upon unwilling workers by their union — since in the secret ballot 59 per cent of miners (75 per cent in the largest coalfield, Yorkshire) voted to strike. In this latest battle in the continuous class struggle, the miners should have the full support of every member of the working class. They’ve got a better case than the queen.

Abroad

The war between India and Pakistan, as part of the long struggle they have waged against each other, was predictable from the earliest days of independence which was, let us remember, sold to us as a step towards peace and prosperity for the sub-continent. Both these nations are regular rattlers of the begging bowl, pleading their inability to support refugees, victims of natural disasters, famine and so on. Yet both seemed to find little difficulty in financing a war, which says something about the order of capitalism’s priorities. The conflict is of course more than a minor matter, since the three leading powers of world capitalism, as they all quickly showed, are vitally interested in what happens there. Russia in particular is determined that this shall be her exclusive area of influence. Altogether an ominous situation, showing again that this is no time of peace and security.

As the statesmen patted themselves on the back when they drew the borders of India and Pakistan in 1947, so they were busily congratulating themselves over their latest "settlement”, this time in Rhodesia. Of course this was a sellout but it was almost impossible, given the facts of life under capitalism, to see any other way out for the British ruling class. Those who were angry at the terms of the settlement should remind themselves that betrayals, of varying degrees of cynicism, are a constant feature of capitalist diplomacy.

Politics

The newspapers were almost damp with the tears of the leader writers, as the news came through that the Parliamentary Labour Party had turned down Barbara Castle as a member of their Shadow Cabinet. (In the event, as must have been expected, Wilson appointed her to his team anyway.) The theme of the comment was to regret this scurvy treatment of so fine and clever a woman. Yet Castle was one of the most prominent tricksters of the late unlamented Labour government; in her role as boss of employment she planned to restrict the bargaining power of the unions. This was her most famous achievement; apart from that she was always ready to defend all the Wilson government’s anti-working class measures on the grounds that she, a “left-wing socialist”, could be trusted to stand against anything which harmed working class interests. What this means is that she. was among the most cynical of this bunch of quacks and liars. Except for the fact that she would simply be replaced by another, equally cynical, politician, no member of the working class need mourn her departure.

Reflections On Argument (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Early in the New Year the B.B.C. started a weekly series of half-hourly talks between opposing members of the House entitled "Argument." The first contestants in the ring were Dr. Chas. Hill (Lib. Cons.) and D. Houghton (Labour). The talks were originally scheduled to run three consecutive weeks but this was extended to four "owing to the wide range of interesting matters under discussion." Next came Barbara Castle (Labour) versus Lord Hailsham, followed by Tom Driberg (Labour) versus Randolph Churchill. At the time of going to press the last team have two more weeks to run so the Arguments continue. The B.B.C. announced the series as "discussions between two controversialists from opposing sides of the House on topics of interest." The whole thing boils down to a weekly half-hour of verbal skirmishing, the theme song of which should be "Anything you can do I can do better." The modus operandi consists of making derogatory remarks in varying degrees of intensity regarding the opposing Party’s misdeeds past and present Also digging up an incorrect or indiscreet statement made by a member of the opposing Party, thus setting him at a disadvantage and generally "taking the mickey."

The series have served one useful purpose, namely to emphasise how trivial are the points of divergence between the two Parties and how little these "topics of interest" need concern the workers. The second of the Hill-Houghton talks receive attention in the February issue of the Socialist Standard. In their fourth venture a rather subdued Dr. Hill addressed Houghton as "my dear boy" almost as if he were soothing a nervous and highly-strung patient in his surgery. He suggested incentives and rewards for work "well done," and bemoaned that overtime was sometimes cancelled out by Income Tax. He pointed out that before the war, miners only worked three days a week and now they cannot work long enough. The story of boom and depression was lobbed up and discussed, as if it were a new and startling discovery.

The subject matter of the first argument between Barbara Castle and Lord Hailsham was the branding of “Red" China as an aggressor, and the lady was in a terrible twitter because “it could do no good to stick a label on China." Lord Hailsham addressed her in the tone of one humoring a wayward and fractious child. His drawling repetition of "my dear Barbara" must have caused listeners to speculate as to whether he was endeavouring to gain time in order to muster his argument or waste time because he was experiencing difficulty in formulating one. Their second talk was on the "Shortages under Socialism." We must digress a moment to once again nail the lie, whether deliberate or due to ignorance that the present Government is or ever will be, Socialist. To continue, Hailsham sneered at the “Socialist Government” and said that present day shortages were due to their inefficiency and bungling. Barbara Castle not in the least discomposed nattered away and told us several times over in various ways that the shortages were due to more of the people having more under “Socialism.”

At their third meeting they discussed that “very important subject, should W. Germany be re-armed now?” Barbara Castle gave a decided negative and Hailsham dramatically posed the question, “How long will it be before you forgive them?” (The Germans.) He then got around to the necessity of arming against Russia, and sounding very blood thirsty he averred that we should "arm and arm and arm,” whilst having talks with Russia. The lady was of the opinion that we should have talks first. Their fourth and last argument was an inquest on the “Dark days of Tory misrule,” the period between the two wars. To do Barbara Castle justice, she said she would have preferred not to dig into the past but to argue on a topical subject. However the inquest went forward and unemployment figures were quoted for that period as 14 per cent., against 1 per cent, to 1½ per cent. present day, which according to Barbara Castle was entirely due to Labour planning. Lord Hailsham begged to differ and said the lee-way of the war has taken up the slack so no credit was due. He also attacked the Government as being responsible for the “steadily deteriorating international situation.”

The first foray between Tom Driberg and Randolph Churchill posed the burning question (which is keeping us all awake at night!), whether it was right that an American Admiral shall have supreme command over the Atlantic Fleet. Tom Driberg defended his Government's policy in this matter and agreed that it was of “ vital importance.” He pointed out that the Western operational part would be under a British Admiral, and recalled that Winston Churchill put “our” Pacific Fleet under an American Admiral during the last war. Randolph Churchill scrubbed round that one and instead sobbed over our present day small Fleet which he said was entirely due to the Labour Government's lack of planning. He also deprecated Attlee's leadership as “not good enough” with America, and Driberg pointed out that he (Attlee) had succeeded in moderating American policy regarding the branding of China as an aggressor. The Chairman called the controversialists to order for making it a duet and Driberg informed the world in general that he was not going to lose his temper. However all was calm and serene at their next meeting which posed the question, “Are we better fed under Labour Government than we were before the War”? This gave Randolph Churchill a chance to take a pot shot at that sitting target, the meat ration, which he said was due to the Government's mismanagement. He admitted hardship before the war, but said it was not due to any one Party. He attacked bulk buying and said that Webb had been “unlucky” but that he had also miscalculated. Driberg said that stock piling in America, due to the Korean War, caused the meat muddle and pointed out that the world population was increasing at the rate of 20 million a year and that food production was only just making up lee-way after the destruction due to the war. Randolph Churchill put in a plea for private traders, not bulk buying and sang Lord Woolton's praises as Minister of Food during the war. He also fired a final shot at the Government by pouring scorn on their payment of millions of pounds in compensation to butchers.

Taken by and large the arguments are becoming progressively more genteel. The slight differences in policy of the two Parties become more apparent with each broadcast and this must be obvious to Labour supporters. As their first uncritical enthusiasm has died down it must become increasingly clear that however much the Government may wish to consider the interests of the workers, Capitalism is too strong for them and in addition to Party differences they are drawn into international disharmony along the road that eventually leads to war. The worker who understands the socialist position is not distracted by the stew pot of Party politics or international rivalries. These fat red herrings across the trail of politically ignorant workers postpone the day of true understanding when all workers will tread the only road that leads to peace and security for all.

F. M. Robins

Opt For Socialism (1969)

Editorial from the June 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day this year saw what the press claimed was "Britain’s largest and most sporadic political strike since 1926". The Communist Party congratulated "the hundreds of thousands of workers" who were downing tools and Socialist Worker (IS) was so confident that "this May Day’s political strike confirms a willingness to struggle" that they wanted it to "mark the start of the fight for workers’ power”. But the Revolutionary Socialist Students’ Federation didn’t think it was as simple as that; first we had to decide whether we were witnessing merely "a massive rise of Trade Union consciousness" or was there instead "some glimmer of systematic revolutionary politics emerging from the militancy”?

Reading this sort of comment you could have been forgiven for not noticing that, at a time when trade unions and the right to strike are being openly threatened by the Labour government, less than one per cent of the labour force was prepared to stop work for a single day. Even in those areas where a relatively high proportion of workers turned out (Sheffield, for example, with 10,000 or 4 per cent of the work force on strike) the marches and demonstrations were poorly attended. In Sheffield 500 men and women gathered at the City Hall to listen to Labour MP Norman Atkinson calling for different policies from the government; in Manchester perhaps a similar number marched to the Labour Party’s headquarters; in Hull (with 3,000 dockers out) about 20 made the effort to demonstrate.

The facts, then, argue quite plainly that—such is the lack of even trade union consciousness among the vast majority of workers—they will accept some form of Industrial Relations BiU. In fact, Labour and Tories both recognise anti-strike legislation as a vote winner with the working class and vie with each other in portraying strikers as bloody-minded wreckers intent on sabotaging industrial output.

No delusions

Faced with this situation socialists do not take refuge in the sort of romantic delusion which the Left comforts itself with (“. . . the working class begins to move decisively onto the political scene .. .’’ writes the May Day edition of the Newsletter (SLL)). Members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in the industries involved were, of course, on strike on May Day. This is because, as workers ourselves, we support efforts by groups of working men and women to defend their wages and working conditions. We also support actions such as that taken by the employees at the Broadheath industrial estate near Manchester who passed a resolution at their May Day meeting calling on the AEF executive to conduct a ballot on the withdrawal of financial support from the Labour Party. Socialists have always refused to pay the political levy and have consistently advised other workers to do the same. And at our union branch meetings socialists put forward the sort of arguments which expose the government’s lies. So when Barbara Castle’s white paper In Place of Strife suggests that the class struggle can be eliminated from capitalism we show that the measures she proposes are futile. In America, for example, where the president can impose much longer ’cooling- off periods’ than Castle's 28 days, the average worker loses over four times as many days through strikes as in Britain; while in Australia, where strikes are virtually illegal, there are still many more stoppages per worker than in Britain.

But what distinguishes the Socialist Party from all other organisations is that our members constantly pose the socialist alternative to capitalism at their workplaces, at their trade union meetings, in bus queues—in fact, whenever and wherever we come in contact with other workers. We point out that far more than trade union activity or political reforms are needed to achieve a decent world; one without money or a wages system where the means of production will be owned by society and can therefore be used to satisfy people’s needs instead of being cramped by the dictates of the market.

Majority needed

Now the new call is for a work stoppage when the TUC meets on June 5. Groups like the Socialist Labour League are calling on the TUC at that meeting to organise a general strike in order to "halt Wilson". They write:

  But our cowardly critics will ask — ‘would a general strike be successful?’
  This is not the question (!). The task of revolutionary leadership is to provide the type of political leadership which is necessary in order to prepare the working class for what lies ahead. Since only a general strike would halt Wilson the task of all trade unionists and Marxists is to fight for it.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain argues that what is needed is not merely to "halt Wilson" but to "halt capitalism". This will not be achieved by any amount of loud-mouthed adventurism or super-revolutionary leadership. What is needed for such a social revolution is a majority of working men and women understanding what Socialism entails and determined to establish such a system. This understanding will grow (is growing) out of the collective experience of workers under capitalism —a process which socialists attempt to encourage by their propaganda activities. So even while socialists are engaged in the struggle over wages and working conditions, they never cease putting forward Socialism as an immediate demand. Far from standing back from the day-to-day struggles of the working class, socialists are involved in these efforts —and complement them with a socialist perspective. On the other hand, it is the Left which opts out of the basic task confronting the working class —by failing ever to put forward socialist ideas. We opt for Socialism.

Immunisation or Pain-killers? (1969)

From the June 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

The difference between the aims of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and all other political parties (except our companion parties) is somewhat comparable to the difference between immunisation and treatment in medicine.

The Socialist Party strives after the creation of a new kind of society—Socialism—in which such problems as famine, poverty, war, and inequality could not conceivably arise, Socialism is a way of life based on, as our object says, “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”. This is to be taken literally, not as meaning nationalisation, or any other such phoney system, which has been amply proved in places such as Russia and here in Britain to be as offensive to the workers’ interests as open private ownership.

The Socialist Party seeks the removal of class society where the minority capitalist class exploits the majority working class and which has brought about the conflicts and problems we have listed. The other parties, however, do not seek to remove the cause of these problems, which is capitalism, and therefore cannot succeed in removing them. Instead, they accept the present capitalist system and try, allegedly, to make these problems felt less acutely Barbara Castle in her notorious White Paper on industrial relations recognised that there had to be conflicts in this society: ''The object of our industrial relations system, granted that there are necessarily conflicts of interest, should be to direct the forces producing conflict towards constructive ends” (emphasis added). But how she hopes to make the robbed work hand in hand with those who are robbing them is beyond comprehension.

Her attitude is similar to that of all other political parties : what they are doing is trying to patch up capitalism to make it less brutal and painful to many people. The failure of successive governments of various political colourings to make any appreciable impact on such problems as poverty and hunger should demonstrate clearly enough that it is time to start tackling such problems from their roots instead of smothering them with meaningless statements and promises.

The policies of the Socialist Party of Great Britain offer immunisation against these problems arising in the first instance whereas all the other political parties offer mere pain-killers—and not very good ones at that.

R.A.S.

Letters: What is productivity? (1969)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is productivity?

Comrades,

What is the socialist definition of this hoodoo that Barbara Castle is using, namely, The Productivity Act? My opinion is that there is no such thing unless applied where material things are produced and distributed. It can never apply to bus drivers and conductors, train drivers and firemen, postmen and sorters, messengers, paper-keepers, those in government offices, police- men, or the army, navy, and air force. But it would apply to miners, bricklayers, coalcarters, and those who work in places where wealth is produced.

M. R. Thorpe 

Brixton, London SW9

Reply:
All Barbara Castle means by 'productivity’ is efficiency at work. So, as far as she is concerned, this can be imposed on all workers whether or not they are engaged in the actual production of wealth. Sales clerks can be made to fill in more forms, reply to more letters, answer more phone calls in the same period of time. If they do, then their ‘productivity’ will have gone up.

‘Productivity’, in this sense, is just a fancy word for ‘speed-up’. It’s the old trick of “if you work harder, we'll pay you more”. The Labour government are interested in promoting this because they are committed to running capitalism in the only way it can be—in the interests of the capitalist class. If workers can be got to work harder, then the capitalists have a chance of regaining some of the overseas markets they have lost in recent years (the prime cause of their economic difficulties).

Wealth is produced by the application of human energy to materials found in nature. All work involves both ‘mental’ and ‘physical’ activity (in fact of course the two can’t be separated) so that it is wrong to regard just what is called ‘manual’ work as productive. The work of design and planning is just as productive as the work of carrying out the plans. So the mining engineer and the architect, whose work is generally regarded as white-collar, are just as much productive workers as the miner and the bricklayer. So are many technical, administrative, and clerical workers. Others are not of course, especially those concerned with buying and selling and with discipline, including the police and armed forces.

Mr. Thorpe is wrong in implying that transport workers are not productive. The labour spent in bringing an article of wealth to market does add value to the product. It is just as much a part of the production process as the manufacturing stage.

Capitalist exploitation is a class matter. The whole of the working class is exploited by the whole of the capitalist class because production already has a social, co-operative character. It is wrong to say that the workers at Fords are exploited just by Ford’s shareholders, just as it is wrong to say that they alone produce the cars. The labour of the millions of workers involved in the production of a car (including the growing and mining and transporting of the original raw materials from start to finish is what produces a car, not just the labour of those in at the finish. Ford’s shareholders merely get a return in accordance with the economic law of average profit—a profit based on the amount of capital they have invested and not (necessarily) equal to the surplus value extracted in their factories. What in effect happens is that all the surplus value extracted under capitalism in a given period is, as it were, pooled and then divided out in accordance with the amount of capital each capitalist has invested. The capitalist system is thus a kind of joint-stock company for the capitalist class.

Those workers engaged in non-productive work are not just a burden on their employers. Far from it. They may not produce extra wealth for him but they do save him money. For their work—say, in balancing his books or selling his goods—is essential to his business. From the employer’s point of view money spent on it is a necessary expense of production. Non-productive workers are exploited in this way: if for example ten hours’ work is needed to calculate workers’ wages, the clerk doing this job will put in this work but will be paid the equivalent of less than ten hours’ labour. He thus saves his employer money and that is why he is employed.

The employer doesn’t see it this way. He knows from experience that his profit tends to be based on how much he has invested, not on how many workers of what kind he employs. As far as he is concerned the wages he pays to all his workers are a necessary expense which he’d like to cut down. He would like them all to work harder. Which brings us back to Barbara Castle and productivity. She too wants us all to work harder.

Editorial Committee

What, NO P.M.!

Sir,

I consider myself a socialist, even if my concept of Socialism differs from yours, and I would like you to answer some questions for me.

1. What alternatives does the Socialist Party offer for a stable economic system from the present one to a system under socialist rule?

2. If the Socialist Party grew strong enough and was generally elected as government (tomorrow);
   a. Who would be prime minister? (Tell me about him).
   b. What ministries would there be, and who would be in charge of them?
   c. What standards of living could the working class be assured of?
   d. Could there be any millionaires?

S. G. Pollard 

Sheffield 9

Reply:
Mr Pollard’s "Socialism” certainly differs from ours if under it there will still be a prime minister, a working class and millionaires! However, lets proceed point by point.

1. In place of the present economic system based on the class ownership of the means of life and their consequent use to provide profits for the owners, we are suggesting that the means of life he vested in the community as a whole and be under its democratic management so that wealth can be produced solely to satisfy human wants. Freed from the barrier of profit, we shall be able to produce in abundance all the things we need. Gone will be the absurd paradoxes of poverty amidst plenty, of food being burned while children starve, of building workers being unemployed while people live in hovels. Naturally. Socialism can only exist on a world scale.

2. If the Socialist Party grew strong enough and a majority of voters backed us then we would not form a government, with a prime minister and cabinet, to administer a system where workers and millionaires would still exist. We do not seek political power in order to run capitalism, but to abolish it. So that, if there were a Socialist majority, steps would immediately be taken to end private property in the means of production and to put in its place common ownership and democratic control.

a. For this we don't need a prime minister, a post generally filled by the leader' of the party that wins the election. The Socialist Party is made up of conscious socialists organised on a democratic basis and so has no leader or leaders.

b. We have seen that a socialist majority would use its power to change the basis of society from class to common ownership. This of course will amount to a social revolution. But this doesn’t mean we’ll be starling from scratch. Socialists have always maintained that capitalism paves the way for Socialism by, for instance, developing the large-scale co-operative production that makes class ownership an anachronism. This large-scale co-operative productive system, including its administrative apparatus, will be the basis of socialist society. The basic function of the state is to be the public power of coercion and for this purpose it is organised as the police, the armed forces, and the prison service. A public power of coercion is necessary only in class society with its built-in class conflict. In Socialism the state will no longer he needed and will be dismantled. However, today the government has itself assumed other, purely technical and administrative, tasks and this aspect of its work is in fact part of the productive system. We have in mind the old Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, or the Ministry of Power. No doubt the administrative apparatus that is these and other ministries can be adapted for use as part of the socialist administration of industry. We can’t go into details (that’s something for the socialist majority, including maybe Mr. Pollard, to work out at the time) but we can say that the adaptions will be far-reaching— everything to do with finance will go, and the internal structure will have to be reorganised on a democratic basis. What we say about these technical ministries applies equally to the large administrative establishments not part of the government machine such as those at the service of firms like GEC and ICI. Obviously, there'll be a certain continuity in institutions between capitalism and Socialism and at the start we'll have to make do with what we’ve inherited. There’ll be more urgent problems than a streamlined administration to be tackled; for instance, growing more food and ending the housing scandal.

c. The 'working class’ won’t be assured of any standard of living because there won’t be any working class. With the end of capitalism will go all classes. Those who used to be workers (or capitalists) will still be around but they will now be free and equal members, of society faced with the problem of organising themselves to provide the food, clothing, shelter, and other things they need to live. The profit barrier gone, how much they consume will depend on how much they are prepared to produce and that’ll be something for society to decide democratically, But the basic rule will be “from each according to his ability, to each according to hi„ needs’’. Every member of socialist society will have free access to the fruits of their co-operative labour.

d. No, there won’t be any millionaires because there won’t be any money. This will have become superfluous with the introduction of production solely and directly for use. Common ownership and democratic control will mean that everybody will be socially equal.

Editorial Committee