The Middle East and Historic Rights (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is no question that individuals do influence society and that without an emphasis on the background and nature of outstanding individuals a complete picture of their times is not possible. The problem is, simply, that too much is made of their importance in the fashioning of history. As Karl Kautsky puts it in Foundations of Christianity:

. . . in terms of historical epochs, their influence is only transitory, merely the outer ornament which strikes the eye first in a building but says nothing about its foundations. But it is the foundations that determine the character of the structure and its permanence . . .

To put the proposition in another way: to understand the basic structure of a society is to grasp the underlying significance behind the actions of outstanding individuals. Take, for example, the apparent earth-shattering decision of Egypt’s President Anwar Sadat to parley with the Israelis for “peace” and the return of Arab lands to their former owners. Consider, too, the stiff-backed arguments of Israel’s Menachem Begin on the “historical right” of the Jewish people to return to Samaria and Judea (commonly referred to – but not by Begin – as the West Bank).

Were one to base one’s understanding on popular belief, the new development in Middle East politics is the brainchild of Anwar Sadat. Millions of words are churned out by the media on his and his lovely wife’s personal backgrounds, their devotion to Allah and to the pressing economic problems of the Egyptian masses. Sadat is widely termed “courageous” excepting, to be sure, in some parts of the Arab world where he is labelled “traitor.” Whatever the appellation, however, he is thought of as the instigator of Egypt’s current political moves.

Now, it is not necessary to construct a theory based upon conspiracy to understand that the business class of Egypt and of Israel have orchestrated the present politics of “peace” in their immediate orbits. The symphony does not have to sound, upon original completion, as a finished work and is subject to refinement. Even the master composers of the classics were known to change their scores from the originals. And so it is with the bourgeoisies of Israel and Egypt. There is a constant urge, a need, in capitalist society for trade and capital investment that transcends historical prejudices. That such activity leads, inevitably, to further ruptures and war is but a contradiction of capitalism and beside the point. Business must go on, somehow, but it is not easy-to whatever extent it is possible — for nations to carry on profitable relations with one another when in a legal state of war.

As a matter of fact, the bourgeoisie, as a whole, is never really pleased with a perpetual need to build armaments and wage war with one another. It is costly and the experiences of the West German and Japanese capitalist class since their defeat in World War II prove how much more profitable it is when huge military establishments do not have to be maintained.

The point is that, whatever the outcome of current negotiations, one should learn more by examining Israeli and Egyptian business needs than by studying the personal characteristics of their heads of state.

Now, what of that “historical right” of the Jewish people to settle in Samaria and Judea (the West Bank)? There are, of course, two main opposing points of view: the area, in biblical times, was Jewish and is thus part of the traditional Jewish homeland; Arab occupancy for a couple of thousand years – more or less – makes it Arab territory. Upon analysis, both views are unsound and unfounded. In the first place, there is no real essence behind the premise that those who espouse Judaism (willingly or not) in our times are descendants of those early Jewish inhabitants of Samaria and Judea. Aside from the intermarriage and general miscegenation between Jews and non-Jews in mediaeval and modem times Judaism, in very early times, was a proselytising religion, particularly so in the early years of Rome’s imperial greatness. As Kautsky puts it:

  Among the many religions that came together in the Roman world empire the Jewish was the one best suited to the thoughts and needs of the time. It was not superior to the philosophy of the ‘heathen’ but to their religions — no wonder that the Jews felt far superior to the Gentiles and that the number of their supporters grew rapidly. ‘Judaism wins over all men,’ says the Alexandrian Jew Philo, ‘and exhorts them to virtue; barbarians, Hellenes, men of the mainland and men of the islands, the nations of the East like those of the West, Europeans, Asiatics, the peoples of the world.’ We expected Judaism to become the religion of the world. This was the time of Christ. (Foundations of Christianity).

And Kautsky goes on to say in his next paragraph:

. . . as early as 139 B.C. in Rome itself Jews were expelled for making Italian proselytes. It was reported from Antioch that the larger part of the Jewish community there consisted of converted Jews (rather than born Jews). It must have been so in many other cities as well . . .

Is it not preposterous, then, to relate present world Jewry to the historical inhabitants of Samaria and Judea or of Palestine, generally?

On the other hand, neither Jews nor Arabs, for the most part, could lay claim to meaningful ownership of the land on which they lived in biblical times any more than they can today. Throughout the period of recorded history the land in any part of civilization has been, mainly, the property of a small minority of any national population. The lesson is still to be learned: “Our land” so far as the vast majority is concerned is ours only in philosophy, poetry, and song — not in actuality. And the only historic right enjoyed by working people anywhere in the civilized world is the right to be exploited (when they can be “used”) by, and subject to, a ruling class and its state.

Harry Morrison

WSP (US), Boston.

Seeing Through Jim (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jim Callaghan on the steps of Number Ten, greeting some foreign dignitary seemingly come to tea. Jim Callaghan garlanded, walking among the dumb-struck people of India. Jim Callaghan allowing a quotable aside to be picked up by the journalists’ microphones. Jim Callaghan on the television screen, his face beaming out like some benevolent moon.

As one day succeeds another, the question becomes whether there is anything this man, who was once thought to have been beaten out of sight by Harold Wilson, cannot persuade the working class of this country to accept. To begin with there is the extraordinary political sleight of hand which keeps this Labour government, although in a substantial minority in the Commons, in being. At one time this would have been intolerable—for example the Attlee government after the 1950 election never intended to keep going for long with a small majority, as did Wilson in 1964 and again in February 1974. Callaghan’s government survives by ignoring the arithmetic and by putting survival at the top of their priorities, whatever this may do to their policies and actions. Labour Party members who applaud such powers of endurance may reflect that at one time they claimed to be a party with some political principles.

Pay Policy

Then there is the matter of their pay policy. Like all their predecessors, the present Labour government made no secret of their intention to force down working class living standards. What is noteworthy is the magnitude of their success and the uncomplaining, even grateful, way in which the policy has been accepted. Former pay policies (which, in case there are any people sufficiently naive to think otherwise, are not policies for increasing pay) have succeeded for only a limited time, to be followed by a rush of pay claims which has done something to catch up on the lost ground. But Callaghan’s government intend that no such thing will happen; as the unions accept, even if with a few groans of complaint, each turn of the screw, Healey takes this as an invitation to give it another twist.

Treasury Minister Joel Barnett, whose jovial moustachioed face conceals a temperament with a steeliness useful to British capitalism, has recently talked about next year’s pay claims being kept within a new low of six per cent. And all of this without the need yet to resort to the formalities of a statutory pay policy, said by some to be the favourite doctrine of the permanent civil servants at the Treasury but which has been avoided so far by Labour ministers for political (that is, vote winning) reasons.

Among the government’s triumphs in this field has been their defeat of the firemen, whose job has an obvious social and human usefulness and whose strike enlisted a lot of support among the rest of the working class. And now, avoiding a confrontation, the miners have accepted a pay deal in line with the pay policy, leaving the likes of Arthur Scargill and Mick McGahey to gnash toothless gums in frustration. Each challenge to the pay policy is either beaten or circumvented and Healey and Callaghan continue, apparently unruffled.

It is not so unruffled on the Stock Exchange, whose members’ labours can be distinguished from those of the firemen by a marked lack of social usefulness. There, excitement reigns at the optimism of profits, for which Labour government policies can take some of the credit. Some typical comments from a typical City Page:

    Record first half results from . . . British Electric Traction . . .
   A big profit turnround . . by Associated Paper Industries . . .
   Dixons Photographic . . . pre-tax profits rose by 6.7 per cent . . .
   Westinghouse . . . pre-tax profits showed a £1.1 million gain, to a record £5.62 million . . .

Through all of this—pay restraint, chronic unemployment around 1½ million, a happy Stock Exchange, all of them features which the Labour Party would once have condemned as symptoms of capitalism’s decadence—Callaghan’s composure remains. His air of relaxation is well established; according to one close observer (Joe Haines—The Politics of Power) Callaghan from the start was ". . . not trying to break into the Guinness Book of Records for the amount of work done in twenty-four hours.”

There is, of course, sound precedent for this. Twenty years ago Harold MacMillan had just taken over the Premiership, as Eden cracked under the combined strain of his own ill health, a turbulent Tory Party and his efforts to keep up the power of British capitalism in the Middle East. MacMillan preceded Callaghan in the technique of doing the opposite of what the party faithful expected of him, carrying it off not by appearing to be a human dynamo but by assuming an air of indolence which the workers found strangely reassuring.

MacMillan’s political end was not as sticky as it might have been and as he went down he was able to justify himself as a man whose high principles, not to say naivety, failed to equip him to deal with the worldly intrigues of the Profumo scandal. And he is still there, in the background, occasionally pontificating upon some issue, or reminiscing, or turning up at the funeral of some contemporary of his. In our wilder moments it seems that he will go on forever— but of course that is an illusion; it is only the deception and the cynicism and the acceptance of it by the working class which endures in face of all reason to do so.

Political parties come into power on promises to do something to alleviate the nasty bits of capitalism. In their election programmes they assure us that it is all very possible for this social system to be organized in such a way that our lives become a succession of sunlit, happy days. Naturally, there are one or two problems to deal with first—the balance of payments, or the threat from Russia, or inflation, or the dollar gap, or unemployment, or something else. But the solution, they tell us, is pretty simple. We need only to vote for them and such is their strength, honesty, knowledge, skill, that very soon everything will be put right. They emphasize their own, personal abilities; for example in the last general election there was an especially effective Labour Party broadcast in which one Minister after another told us how cleverly he or she had been grappling with the problems of British capitalism, with Wilson at the end proudly telling us that we had just been watching Labour’s team. Enough workers fell for it almost to put Labour back into majority power and millions more fell for the same line from the Tories. The whole thing was a massive vote of confidence in capitalism and for the theory that the system can be made to work in the interests of the majority of its people.

Confidence Trick

What this theory amounts to is that capitalism can be persuaded to act out of character, in an unnatural way. Put like that the confidence trick seems transparently obvious. So how do the politicians get away with it? The answer is partly in persuading the working class that they can securely support capitalism because the leaders are specially able people. This explains the mighty public relations campaign which surrounds and escorts the leaders wherever they go. A few years age this process was exposed as The Selling of the President and while the voters may agree that their leaders are sold to them in attractive, but opaque, packaging with some deceptive sales literature, they have yet to realize that they are in any case buying rotten goods.

They might also count the cost to themselves of the transaction. Capitalism costs its people their freedom, their health, their security, their hope of realizing themselves to the full extent of their human abilities. In return it gives them a shoddy, repressive world in which they consistently under-achieve to the point where ambitions are distorted or utterly withered. No used car was ever so bad a deal as this.

And then the workers might consider whether it need happen at all. This entire rotten system rests on the assumption that we can’t do any better. So the majority prefer to trust a few leaders to do it for them. The case for a new society insists that we can do better—so much better that we can barely conceive of it. But first of all we must trust ourselves.

Or will the working class go on, falling for the confidence tricks of the likes of Big Jim, who is represented by his publicity men as everyone’s favourite uncle but who in reality stands for anything but a happy, worldwide family.

Ivan

Coming in to the cold (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the environmentalist there are a number of environmental aspects within society today which give cause for concern, and the number is growing daily.

Everywhere he looks, some segment of the environment is under threat. For every one of these that the environmentalist attempts to influence, a number more erupt.

The environment has always been under attack during the development of the capitalist system of production and distribution. Today’s concerns are seemingly fraught with far more potential disasters than those of the past, but even then, threats (such as war and its associated weaponry) had seemed, at that time, potentially just as disastrous.

At the present time, two typical concerns are the danger of sub-clinical lead poisoning caused by inorganic lead being emitted from car exhausts and the possible Fast Breeder Nuclear Reactor programme.

The Lead in Petrol Concern

Organic lead such as tetraethyl, itself a very dangerous substance, is added to all British petrol to increase the octane rating. In itself it is dangerous because it can easily be absorbed through the skin and can attack the nervous system with serious consequences, including possible brain damage. This fact was originally discovered the hard way, when workers working with the substance displayed behavioural changes and some even went mad.

The increase in octane rating of the petrol is achieved by adding tetraethyl or similar lead compound to the petrol to inhibit the violent explosion that would result in the cylinder chamber using lower octane fuel. This violent explosion, noticed as ‘pinking’ is thus reduced to the gradual burn necessary for smooth engine performance.

This means, as far as the petrol manufacturers are concerned, that a standard octane fuel (89.5) can be produced, the higher the octane rating needed, the greater the quantity of lead added.

Having done its job, the lead, now inorganic, would cause engine trouble if left in, so it has to be got rid of—emitted through the car’s exhaust. To increase the efficiency of lead emission, so called ‘lead Scavengers’ are also added to the fuel. ‘Scavengers’ such as Chlorine and Bromine keep the lead more volatile, easing emission. But chlorine, as most schoolchildren know, becomes hydrochloric acid during combustion which, obviously, does wonders for the car’s exhaust system!

The emitted lead enters humans via the lungs through the air they breath and via the gut through the food and drink they consume. Food, particularly large leafed plants like cabbages, have air-borne lead land on them as well as absorbing the lead that lands on the ground around them via their root system. Lead lying in roadside gutters etc. is washed into rivers where drinking water is taken from. Washing and purifying does not remove all the lead.

This form of petrol production is profitable. Selling car exhausts is profitable. Lead in petrol will remain a concern within capitalist society until it becomes unprofitable perhaps through human workloss due to sickness. This is unlikely—the British government at present does not accept sub-clinical lead poisoning. They believe that below a certain level (Threshold Limit Value, TLV) lead is inert and harmless. Also, the illness caused by this lead is subtle and not easily attributed to lead. Or there may be pressure from foreign competitors: already abroad, including within the EEC, TLVs are set far lower than in this country and this type of lead poisoning is causing serious concern. Meanwhile lead to the tune of some 11,000 tonnes is emitted from car exhausts in the United Kingdom each year and every individual continues to breath polluted air and eat polluted food.

The Fast Breeder Reactor Concern

Regarding the Fast Breeder (FB) Reactor programme, at the time of writing the result is awaited of a recent public enquiry held at Whitehaven into whether to build the first experimental FB reactor and whether to extend the reprocessing facilities at Windscale in Cumbria. The enquiry itself was called supposedly due to public concern and outcry over the possible consequences of such a venture (or could it possibly be a safety valve for the capitalist government, the programme going ahead anyway when the economy permits?).

The Fast Breeder Reactor as its name implies, ‘breeds’ more fuel as it reacts. The ‘Fast’ however does not mean that it quickly produces more fuel, it means it makes use of the fast neutrons emitted during reaction. This does however increase the efficiency of the reactor over its present day counterparts, the Thermal Reactors like the Magnox. However, there are disadvantages, the main one being the increased production of a bi-product known as Plutonium. Plutonium is a man-made element not found in nature that is highly poisonous and highly radioactive. It is this latter property as well as the fact that a small quantity plus some easily accessible knowledge and determination could be used to make a bomb, that is causing such concern, not only environmentally but militarily also.

Because the nuclear waste containing Plutonium has to be stored in cooled tanks in isolation for something like 25,000 years, this represents to our unstable society today a huge security risk and a future society, forced to maintain such tanks and security, does not represent a pleasant prospect. As well as this consideration, there is the prospect of more and more transport of waste from all quarters of the country and possibly of the world converging on the reprocessing plant at Windscale. The risks of accident, theft, hijacking or sabotage of such vehicles represents yet another security risk. Already armed guards are being used at Windscale and other establishments associated with the Nuclear Industries.

Other Concerns

There are just two of the numerous environmental concerns of today. In the seas, for instance, plankton, the basic start of the food chain through fish to our tables, is also giving cause for concern. This concern stems from the fact that the plankton can absorb low level nuclear waste (and for that matter other pollutants) which are then concentrated up the food chain to us humans. The whale, tiger and other creatures are being slaughtered out of existence mainly for the commercial produce that they represent. Valuable agricultural land is being swallowed up by the 1,000s of acres to build multi-lane motorways for larger and larger juggernaut lorries to use, these lorries travelling to and from such motorways having to use totally unsuitable roads, thundering perilously through villages and towns. Chemical waste is poured by the thousands of gallons into rivers daily, stretching to the limit the biosphere’s ability to cope with such problems. Raw and partially treated sewage is pumped into the seas while oil-based chemical fertilisers, with their own production pollution, are used in ever increasing quantities on the land which will result, some say, in the eventual breakdown of the delicate natural structure of arable land. More and more information is coming to light on such substances as asbestos and fibre-glass with workers in such industries being informed that their health, in some cases, is already beyond repair.

The more he looks into such problems the more the environmentalist is convinced of the inevitable long-term result of such seemingly careless attitudes throughout the modern world—disaster. So why, he asks himself, are such policies and production methods continued?

The Answer — come into the Cold

The answer to this environmentalist’s question and the root cause of all the above problems is the system which gives rise to such policies and production methods — capitalism. The unfortunate truth in the world today is that it is profitable to pollute.

The basic philosophy of the environmentalists is to slow down growth which, they claim, will lead to a stable society. But capitalism is fuelled by growth and must strive for larger and larger growth rates. Listen to the media’s concern, if growth is only being forecast as a small increase. We must have bigger growth rates say the Government, Trade Unions and the CBI — higher productivity. And as to a stable society — capitalism is far from stable, it fosters competition, waste, alienation, frustration and war.

So-called environmentalists (and for that matter all other workers) should study the Socialist’s case. Production for need not profit—and we certainly do not need pollution! A society not owned by a small minority who, supported by the working class, run a society geared to the buying and selling of commodities including our labour power. Until workers, including the environmentalists, use the vote to oust the capitalist system and install Socialism, the environmental movement is a lost cause, another blind alley for genuinely concerned individuals to travel up only to find at its end a blank wall to bash their heads against. At best the environmental movement can act as a brake, a brake easily released when economic constraints permit. At worst it engages enthusiastic, vigorous individuals in a futile struggle for reforms which even if ‘won’ only lead to further problems.

Environmentalists take note — come into the cold, the cold light of realization. Join Socialists the world over who are also trying to prevent the disastrous future that capitalism represents.

Mel St Pier

Now He Tells Us! (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

  "Progress from private enterprise capitalism to State capitalism does not change the fundamental status of workers in society".Will Paynter, former National Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, in an article on the 30th anniversary of the nationalization of the coal industry. (The Miner, Nov-Dec, 1977).

Money Will Go (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why do so many members of the working class find it difficult to understand the Socialist case? Certainly not because of its complications. On the contrary, it must be because of its simplicity. So accustomed are they to having placed before them the complicated plans, programmes and policies of other political organisations that the simplicity of the Socialist proposition makes them suspect that there must be a flaw somewhere.

The detailed plans of reformist labour parties, the hotch-potch of incomprehensible “immediate demands” of the communists, the cunningly conceived schemes of currency reform cranks and the elaborate domestic and foreign policies of all kinds of governments gives them the idea that politics is a most profound business. Then to be told that all their problems have a common origin in the capitalist system of society and that the solutions lie in the abolition of capitalism, leaves them somewhat bewildered and suspicious. Like a woman who, on entering a shop to buy a certain commodity, finds it on sale at a price so much below her anticipations that she suspects that it must be faulty and refuses to buy.

The socialist declares that the workers have it in their power to build a society wherein the wealth produced shall be freely available to everyone without the need to buy, sell or exchange everything that is required. To imagine themselves having access to the goods that they have worked to produce without having to ask “How much?” or "Can I afford it?” makes many workers smile and shake their heads. They recognise everything as the property of some person or persons. They accept without question the fact that goods are only available to them when they can afford to buy. The proposal that there can be a condition of things where the institution of buying and selling does not exist, makes them look for a flaw.

One can well imagine children, having grown accustomed to the practice of producing a ration book, a coupon or a permit before a purchase can be made, looking askance at any proposal that may suggest that such coupons and permits be no longer necessary. All the arguments advanced in support of a rationing system when it was introduced would then be trotted out against those who advocated its abolition, and by the very people who stood to gain by the change.

But one cannot imagine adults of today opposing the abolition of a rationing system. They have recent recollections of the days before rationing and a return to those conditions would not seem at all strange to them. Having experienced a certain condition they would know that it is practicable.

A number of those workers who pooh-pooh the idea of making the wealth produced available to the producers, are men and women who have served in the army, navy or air force. At socialist meetings they will ask in a surprised tone, “Do you mean that we can just walk into a place and eat without paying?”, “Do you mean that we don’t have to pay rent? ”, “Are you suggesting that we can go into a shop and get a suit of clothes and walk out without paying?”, "How will the boot repairer or the bus driver or the canteen waitress live if we do not pay for the goods that we have?”

Yet, quite recently, these ex-service people have lived in conditions wherein they did not have to put their hands in their pockets and produce money in order to eat, dress and sleep.

What happens when the soldier wants his boots repaired? He takes them to the unit cobbler. And when the unit cobbler wants a meal he goes to the cookhouse. Does he pay for his dinner? Of course not. Neither does the cook pay for the battle dress suit that he gets from the quartermaster’s stores. The army lorry driver does not pay for the petrol that he draws from the petrol depot or for the spares and tools that he uses. And when he drives his truck on a recreational journey, do his passengers pay a fare? Not likely. The storeman does not charge for the blankets that he issues, neither does the medical officer charge for his services. If the service man was asked to pay rent for his billet, barrack room or bunk he would regard the idea as preposterous. Despite this "non-payment” arrangement, or because of it, the whole military organisation is effective. Men do not eat greedily when they do not have to pay for their meals. Soldiers do not obtain umpteen pairs of boots just because they do not have to pay for them. In fact they often regard one of the two pairs with which they are issued as an encumbrance. Requirements are satisfied as far as stocks and stores allow.

We are not suggesting that the army form of distribution is an example of socialism in operation. Far from it. The goods that are available to the soldier have been bought. They were produced, as are all goods where the capitalist mode of production prevails, for the purpose of being sold or exchanged with a view to a profit being made. Having been through the buying and selling process they are finally placed at the disposal of the army and made accessible to the troops. All things are not freely available. In fact army life is notorious for its lack of variety and its uniformity. We use the illustration to show to those who are unable to appreciate the possibility, how goods produced for use could be distributed without having to pass through a market as far as the actual consumer is concerned.

Men and women in the armed forces produce a variety of services. They cook and cut hair, repair boots, drive trucks and lorries and sweep out barrack rooms, etc. Each in turn takes advantage of the service provided by others without thought of making payment. It should not be difficult to visualise a society where such procedure prevailed. Goods and services would be produced as they are today. The difference being that many who now are engaged in socially useless tasks and those who are not engaged in production in any shape or form, would then contribute their share of effort, thus making the task lighter for all. All the things produced, food, clothing, houses, transport facilities, entertainment, furniture, etc., all the things necessary to make life comfortable, would then be at the disposal of everyone, according to their requirements.

People could eat by entering the appropriate building, sitting down, and being supplied with food just as the soldier is supplied in his cookhouse. Or they might prefer to collect their foodstuffs and take them to their dwelling place to prepare and eat them. Such details as how people will prefer to eat, in public halls or in private dwellings, we are unable to forecast. We cannot attempt to map out in advance the detailed plans of organisation of a future society. Society is not a piece of architecture, it grows like an organism, and organs develop as the need for them arises. The prevailing conditions will determine such details in a socialist community.

The same applies to the distribution of other goods. Just how clothing will be distributed we cannot say. It may be in like manner to the quartermaster’s issue or it may be by mail order or by distribution from shops as today except that the payment business will no longer exist.

With travel it is easier still to visualise. It should not be difficult of comprehension to realise that one could board a bus, a train, a coach or an aeroplane, travel to one's destination and alight without the necessity of paying a fare. In all these instances the collectors of money will he freed from those jobs and made available for a more useful contribution to the social effort. They can be free to assist in the production of more goods or the rendering of more and better services.

The socialist does not advocate such a system of society just because it would be nice to live that way. He recognises that the present system of producing things in order that they may be sold, and that someone may make a profit out of the process, is the cause of all working class problems. From this root cause arises the poverty of the workers with its attendant problems of housing, malnutrition, overwork and unemployment, economic insecurity, crime, etc. Also from the same source comes the greatest of all catastrophes, War. To eliminate these evils it is necessary to remove the cause. So what must we do? If the cause is private ownership with its production for sale, what stands in the way of abolishing this condition? Private ownership. Only things that are owned by someone can be sold or exchanged. When goods are produced they are not made available to the producers. They remain in the hands of those who own the tools and machinery which are used to make them. By virtue of their ownership these people have the right to say what shall be produced, how much shall be produced and how the goods and services shall be distributed. The whole of the structure of present day society is directed towards maintaining this order of things. The majority of the workers accept this system, governments administer it, police, judges and jailers enforce it, soldiers, sailors and airmen fight for it, and the owners of the land, mines, factories, transport systems, workshops, etc., thrive on it. Only the socialist challenges it

Many workers try to find ways and means of remedying the evil effects of this system without even realising the fundamental cause of these evils. To them it seems a very complicated affair, requiring complicated plans. To them the simple socialist proposition of converting the means of production from private or state ownership to common ownership, and thus making all the wealth produced freely available to everyone according to their needs, is difficult of comprehension. But there is no problem thrown up by society that does not have its solution portrayed in that society. If we seek an example, a lesson or an illustration of a future social development we can always find it in our present circumstances.

To those who boggle at the idea of having the needs, comforts and luxuries of life made available to them; to those who take fright at the idea of a society without goods for sale, we would say this: Our proposals are not the result of a dream. They are the product of a scientific study of social development and a recognition that socialism is the next stage in that development, not merely because we wish it but because it is inevitable if society is to continue. There is nothing difficult or incomprehensible about socialism once you cease to regard it as too simple to be true or as an idea of men who seek to trick you. All that is necessary is for you to give up seeking arguments in favour of maintaining the system that keeps you in subjection. Give a little earnest thought to the socialist case in a sympathetic manner. We know what the result will be. Then bring your actions into line with your ideas and the job of establishing Socialism is as good as done. 

W. Waters

The above article appeared in the February 1948 edition of the Socialist Standard.

Listen ecologist . . . (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

You are right to argue that the choice of technology to generate electricity should be a matter of public discussion and democratic social decision and not left to capitalist enterprises or government bureaucrats. Where you go wrong is in believing (or behaving as if you believed) that this is possible within the framework of existing capitalist society.

The economics of Electricity

Capitalism is based on the ownership and control of the means of production by a minority, either privately or through the state. It exists not just in the West but, in the form of state capitalism, in Russia, China and similar countries. Under capitalism production is carried on to make a profit. Capitalist firms and states compete to sell their goods profitably. If an enterprise can produce its goods cheaper than its competitors it can make an extra profit until they too introduce the cheaper method. There is thus a stimulus under capitalism to continually introduce cheaper methods of production.

Most industry today is electric-powered so an important element in the cost of goods is the electricity used in their production. One State can win a competitive edge over its rivals if it can cut down on the costs of generating electricity. Because of the huge investment costs involved in constructing a network of generating stations, this has fallen in most cases on the state. The power stations are run as state-capitalist enterprises to enable private and state industries to compete profitably on world markets. Decisions on the technology to generate electricity are constrained by this capitalist framework. State-run power stations, just as much as private enterprises, are subject to the law of profit.

Nuclear Power

At the moment (apart from hydro-electricity) there are three main methods, all based on raising steam to turn giant turbines: burning coal, burning oil (or natural gas), and splitting atoms of uranium. All three are open to criticism from an ecological point of view. Instead of being literally burned up into useless gases, the limited coal and oil resources of the planet would be more rationally used as raw materials for the manufacture of plastics. The dangers to the environment of using nuclear fission, in particular the disposal of the radioactive waste, are now generally known as a result of your protests.

But environmental considerations only enter marginally (to the extent that other capitalist interests might be harmed by the pollution) into decisions about which method to use. The prime consideration is cheapness, the competitive position and profits of enterprises which consume the electricity. The cheapest method at the moment is to use oil, but strategic considerations (security of supply) and estimated price trends over the coming years, have led those who run the power stations to turn to nuclear fission.

Despite what is suggested by some of you, atomic power is an obvious future source of energy, preferably in the form of nuclear fusion (the fusing of atoms of light elements such as hydrogen or helium) rather than fission (the splitting of heavy elements like uranium). Nuclear fusion, using atoms of heavy hydrogen which exist in plentiful supply in the oceans of the world, promises virtually limitless energy which would be “clean”, i.e., without the dangers of radiation associated with nuclear fission. But the technical problems connected with its use have not yet been overcome and, given the limited funds now made available for research, are not expected to be for about twenty years.

Nuclear fission is a different matter. On the evidence, the long-term environmental effects of using it would outweigh any short-term advantages in releasing coal and oil for other uses. But nuclear fission reactors are already in use and more will be built as time goes on since they promise a cheaper and strategically more secure method of generating electricity than does oil. As long as capitalism continues this will happen, despite your protests, peaceful or otherwise. It is the logic of capitalism, its law of profit, which dictates this and which all governments must apply or risk hampering the competitiveness of goods produced in their countries.

A single-issue Campaign?

But are the dangers of nuclear fission a sufficient reason for singling it out for particular opposition? We say “no”, for the following reasons. The two alternative methods—burning coal or oil—are also open to objection from an ecological and environmental point of view so that a mere moratorium on building nuclear power stations (or even closing down existing ones) will not stop pollution of the environment nor waste of the world’s non-renewable resources. Single-issue campaigns of this sort divert attention from the need to get rid of capitalism before anything meaningful can be done to tackle the problems of the environment.

Some objections you raise against nuclear energy are to the use to which it is put or might be put in capitalist society. That it can be used to make weapons of mass destruction, or could fall into the hands of some terrorist group, only makes sense in the context of capitalism. If the world were not divided into capitalist states where military strength is a factor in economic competition not only for markets but also for sources of raw material and trade routes, there would be no need for armed forces or weapons of destruction, whether nuclear or “conventional”.

If you object to nuclear energy on the grounds that it is employed to manufacture nuclear weapons then logically you should be struggling, as we are, to end the society which perverts science in this way.

World Socialism

So what is our alternative? It is world Socialism. Already a number of writers on ecology realize that there are no national solutions to the problems of the environment, pollution and waste. The planet forms a single ecological system so it is only on a planetary scale that ecological problems can be solved. Unfortunately, this world consciousness does not go farther than demanding a world government or world bodies to deal with environmental problems, without changing the capitalist basis of society. This is why the solutions they propose can at best only be palliatives; they deal with effects while leaving the cause—the ownership of world resources by a section only of mankind and the production of goods to be sold with a view to profit—intact.

Only when freed from the vested interests of capitalism, can mankind deal rationally with the question of its relationship to the rest of nature. The production of wealth would then be under democratic social control and would be geared not only to satisfying, in accordance with the principle “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”, mankind’s material needs but also to protecting the environment and sensibly conserving resources.

What could be done on the basis of the common ownership and democratic control of the world’s resources can be sketched (we emphasize that this is not in any way a blueprint). The burning of coal and oil could be phased out and, in addition to the development of clean nuclear power, alternative sources of energy such as water, winds, tides, the earth’s heat and the sun’s rays could be properly investigated. Coal and oil could rather be used as raw materials for manufacture. The sea, as well as much more of the land, could be farmed by methods which fit in with the balance of nature.

Such a world plan presupposes that commercial and nation-State interests have been swept away and that all the world’s resources, man-made as well as natural, have become the common heritage of all mankind. In short, world Socialism. This is why we concentrate all our efforts towards the spread of socialist consciousness without which Socialism cannot be established. Socialism can only be established when working people want and understand it and take the necessary democratic political action to achieve it. We feel that this is a much more worthwhile activity for you who are concerned about the environment than negative and ultimately futile protests at the effects of capitalism. We invite those of you who want to know more about our viewpoint to contact us.

Adam Buick

Forthcoming Pamphlet: An Urgent Appeal (1978)

Party News from the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have prepared for publication a new edition of our pamphlet “Questions of the Day”. The previous editions of this work have been extremely popular because of its many chapters on a range of subjects. The new one contains freshly-written additional chapters on inflation and unemployment, left-wing organizations, the women’s movement, and China. “Questions of the Day” is packed with material vital to every worker.

Most members of the SPGB and readers of the Socialist Standard will regard its reappearance as an important event. It depends on one thing: we need money.. The printer’s bill will be £1,500. Our experience has always been that when we ask for money for something like this, it is quickly provided by socialists. We are sure that will be the case on this occasion.

Please send your contributions to the Treasurer, “Questions of the Day”, Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London SW4.

Letters: Are Unions Useless? (1978)

Letters to the Editors from the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are Unions Useless?

From time to time through the columns of the S.S. you have made the following points:-

1. You warn workers to beware of reforms and illusions.
2. You acknowledge the importance of trade union organisation for the defence of wages and working conditions.
3. You state that taxes is not a working class issue.

Here are my views; would you please comment on them.

1. I agree that workers must become aware of the uselessness of reformist action, which leads me to
2. I believe that the trade unions are as much a part of the state as the DHSS or the Housing Department. Like them they are reformist in as much as they can only secure for the worker that which capitalism will allow. The unions are also a hindrance to the workers’ material advancement and political awareness due to their allegiance to the Labour Party and the concessions they give this capitalist party, on behalf of the workers, by agreeing to and helping the workers to swallow pay restraint etc. They also foster among the workers the notion that people can be led to socialism (the leaders being the TUC and the Labour Party). They would have us believe that the only barrier to socialism is the Conservative party and Idi Amin.
3. You hold the view that wages are a working class issue (hence your support of the unions on this); then how is a tax cut any less a wage rise than say the equivalent amount on your hourly rate?

George McCabe
Glasgow.

Reply

We agree entirely with much of what you say; for example about trade union support given to the Labour Party and Labour government, and the workers’ belief in leadership, but not withstanding all the erroneous policies of trade unions it is not true that union organization cannot serve a purpose useful to the workers.

While it is true, as you say, that trade union action is limited by the conditions of capitalism, that does not mean that the wages and conditions resulting from the struggle are simply what the capitalists would like them to be. If workers gave up organization and struggle entirely their standard of living would certainly be worsened. In Marx’s colourful words ’’they would be degraded to one level mass of broken wretches past salvation”.

When you equate a wage increase with a tax cut you overlook the fact that the worker’s standard of living (the purchasing power of his take-home pay) is the result of the struggle; again quoting Marx, “the respective powers of the combatants”.

This was dealt with in the Reply Taxes and Labour in the January issue.

Editors

Too Young

I am writing to you because I would like your views on these points:

I am sixteen years old, have left school and now go to work. I do not pay tax, but will be doing so next year!

What I would like to know is, if at 16/17, 1 can get married and have children, pay tax, and N.I. I can own a car and pay the insurance, tax etc., have a home, or business, and own a passport, also possibly, smoke, just like may I add an adult.

Then why is it that 1 cannot vote, buy alcohol in a public house, gamble, i.e. horseracing, bingo, etc., see ‘X’ films, and even enter certain clubs, discos?

I think this ’law’ is pathetic. Why should a person between the age of 16-18 have the burdens of an adult and not have the ‘pleasures’? They are still legally children or is the word youths??

I, and many people of my age will never agree to this ridiculous law!!

I have written to various political parties, and 1 cannot wait to read the various reasons for this ‘mockery’ of a law.

I would appreciate a reply.

Stephen Johnson

London, E.2

Reply

It looks as if you are unfamiliar with the case put forward by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, so we recommend that you read the Object and Declaration of Principles printed on the inside cover of this journal.

The discrepancies which make you angry are, in general, between laws which governments have passed on different accounts at different times, all in the interests of capitalism. Those which aim to make adolescents “independent” for purposes of government finance come in conflict with others concerned with “public morality”. It is quite likely, particularly if pressure groups arise, that a revision of legislation will eventually be attempted to remove some of the anomalies.

If that happens, don’t imagine that you (or those who are your present age at that time) will be emancipated. Legislation is not carried out for “fairness” or on ethical grounds; the enticing promise is to get you on a more appropriate kind of chain. To give an example, the demand for the voting age to be reduced from 21 to 18 arose largely from military service and the 1950 Korean war in which Britain was involved. The anomaly pointed out was that young men could kill (or be killed) but not vote at 18. Well, then . . .

Why not raise your sights? In the world of capitalism the great majority of people between 18 and the grave would tell you they do indeed have the burdens of adults but haven’t had much chance of the “pleasures”. Socialism offers a world of equal access to everything society can provide, without any section excluded or dependent on permission by authorities.

Editors

How Much Has 
Production Increased?

Can you say what the output or production of goods and consumption of same are in England today? Are they ten times what they were in 1925? Money is now ten times that of 1925 and prices are up ten times. After all it is the products we get for money.

W. Popplewell

Cheshire.

Reply

Prices were falling from 1925 to 1938 and have been rising continuously since then. The current retail price level is about ten times the level of 1925. (About eleven times the level of 1938).

Official estimates of the “gross national product” give a figure for 1976 about twenty-five times what it was in 1925; but most of this is merely a reflection of higher prices, not a real increase. In real terms GNP may be about three times what it was in 1925. Against this has to be set the fact that the population of the United Kingdom has increased from 45 million in 1925 to 56 million.

Editors

50 Years Ago: Industrial Peace (1978)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again we are being regaled in the Press and from the platform with unctuous rubbish concerning the desirability of “peace” in industry. The overwhelming fascination which the topic appears to possess for capitalist representatives and labour leaders alike only speaks for their mental bankruptcy and the fatal readiness of the workers to be deceived by promises.

The subject of the industrial conflict is the exact amount of blood, nerve and sinew that shall be sucked dry of energy in order that a small class of idlers may feast and frolic. The cause of the conflict is the fact that the idlers own the means by which alone the blood, nerve and sinews of the workers can be re-energised. Every increase in the blood, nerve and sinew, every corresponding increase in its output, only heaps higher the wealth that the idlers waste.

Never has any capitalist, never has any labour leader, produced a shred of evidence to conflict with this simple, obvious fact. Similarly, not one of them dare deal with the only remedy. If the workers are to enjoy the fruits of their labours, they must own and control the means by which they produce them. The land, factories, railways etc. must be made the common property of all to meet the needs of all. That is what we mean by socialism.

From an article by Eric Boden, Socialist Standard Feb 1928.

The Questions They Ask . . . (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Speaker: Your party has an Executive Committee—right? And yet you say you are opposed to following leaders! Aren’t the EC the leaders of your party then?

Answer: No! The EC of the Socialist Party are not leaders. They could not lead the members if they wanted to (which they don’t) because Socialists do not need somebody to tell them what they should do.

Implicit in membership of the SPGB is an understanding of Socialist principles. In fact, membership is conditional upon this. Therefore the members have the knowledge which enables them to make their own minds up for themselves. It is a fact that the rules of the party are so framed as to guarantee that the members control the EC. First, the EC is elected annually by individual ballot. Each candidate is nominated by a Branch of the party.

Then, the EC is bound by rule to carry out the decisions of Annual Conference. In addition, any six Branches can demand a party poll on any question they deem to be of sufficient importance. Or, if they prefer, they can demand the calling of a general members’ meeting. And perhaps most important of all, every meeting of every committee of the party is open to all members—and indeed to all members of the public. Our door is always open for those who wish to know what’s going on. This, is the guarantee that no group or caucus can seize control of the party.

Contrast this with the intrigues, backstairs frame-ups and underhand double-dealing which are the stock-in-trade of all the other parties. The sort of carve-ups revealed in the Crossman Diaries, the manoeuvring for jobs in the Labour and Communist Parties, for example. All this can only flourish with an ignorant membership. The membership of the SPGB is small—because so far there are not many socialists.

The Failure of Reforms (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

The socialist attitude to programmes of social reform is central to our political position. It is a matter of crucial importance that this attitude be clearly understood. The Socialist commitment is to the solution of working-class problems confronting mankind. The two are inseparable. Socialist policy is not arrived at through obstinacy nor by a deliberate selection of difficult paths. Socialist policy is determined by the facts of the situation as we find them. Our analysis of society is directed first towards a description of the way in which social problems arise and then to a programme of political action which would lead to their solution. This is an objective analysis of the reality of everyday human experience, which leads to principles of action given by practical necessity. If social problems can be shown to be inherent within capitalist society then it follows that capitalism must be replaced by different social arrangements which will not generate the same problems. Programmes of social reform leave the basic structure of capitalism intact. Therefore programmes of social reform cannot hope to solve social problems. This argument is supported by theory which is proved valid by the evidence of real experience.

MISDIRECTED SINCERITY

On the face of it the Socialist attitude of opposition to reformism may seem harsh. We are often accused of being unsympathetic to worthy causes or removed from the centre of important action. Neither charge is true. These charges are superficial responses to a thorough assessment of social reforms which are at best irrelevant and most of the time dangerously diverting. We do not doubt that there is much sincerity and indignation in reformist campaigns, but by itself this is not enough. Of course it is important to care but sincerity can be misdirected and therefore illusory. When indignation is made sterile, it is tragic. Socialists want to avoid this.

The state apparatus has a technique for adapting the aspirations of reformists to its own purposes. This is usually achieved by those who temper sincerity with so-called “pragmatism” — a respectable word for tawdry activity. They often say that politics is the art of the possible. This attempt to justify compromise corrupts art and politics since both require integrity of purpose and action. Socialism is the science of what is possible, and the surrender of principle is totally self-defeating. Whether it be through well-meaning ignorance or opportunism, one thing is certain, the present chaos shows that after a century of social reform, basic social problems remain unsolved. The clear fact is that reformism evades the political logic of economic reality.

Capitalism cripples human possibilities. It does this in every way in which life is important. Materially it limits production to what is profitable. To maintain this human needs are sacrificed. At the level of relationships capitalism is exploitative, men and women are objects to be used, their best potentialities as cooperative human beings remain unrealized.

The condition of our lives is given by the productive relationships of capitalism. This material condition is circumscribed by economic laws which are not merely a product of capitalism, but are inseparable from its nature. Under capitalism the working class must secure its material standards within the limitations of the class ownership of the means of production, and the production of commodities for sale on the market with a view to profit. Within this system the possibilities of employment and the ceiling on wages is determined mainly by the expectation of profit.

In all the circumstances of class struggle in capitalist society, capital and labour pursue their interests against a background of competition and the struggle for markets, control of trade routes and resources, continued capital accumulation, strikes and other industrial action and the expansion and contraction of production which is the trade cycle. Our social possibilities are confined within the general anarchy of capitalist production with all its artificial scarcity.

The total amount of wealth that becomes available in the form of commodities (the social product), is given not by political processes but by economic processes within the framework and limitations of capitalism. The options or governments are as much as any other organization or individual set by existing economic factors. For the most part governments respond to economic pressures which are beyond their control. For example, regardless of their ostensible political complexion, governments cannot control the state of trade. It is the state of trade which mainly determines the social product. It therefore follows that political attempts to improve material conditions within capitalism cannot work.

In describing the economic limitations within which wealth becomes available under capitalism we are at the same time describing forces which prevent capitalism from operating in the interests of the whole community. In reaction to these conditions various protest movements and reformist organizations become active in the hope that either as pressure groups or political parties they can improve the material conditions of life. We have ruled out the idea that such organizations can lead to a greater availability of wealth under capitalism. The organizations best suited to achieve a distribution of the social product more in favour of the working class are the trade unions. But even with their muscle and the pressures that they are able to apply they have to accept that there is little they can do. When trade is expanding trade unions can negotiate marginal increases in wages. In the present time of recession with a high level of unemployment, even trade unions have to accept a lowering of workers’ living standards. They can only wait now until their negotiating hand is strengthened, whenever that may be. This by itself is a sad comment on the way in which capitalist economics is beyond any rational control.

In British political history the Labour Party came to be the organization which held out the highest hopes of becoming a great reforming party. Particularly in the post-war election of 1945, the Labour Party talked about social equality, and a world where unemployment and poverty would be abolished. The history of the Labour Party is not only a lesson in the futility of reformism, it is a good example of how capitalism adopts reformist aspirations for its own purposes. Thus nationalization, which ardent labourites thought of as having something to do with common ownership, was adopted by capitalism as a technique whereby important basic industries and services, which showed no immediate prospect of making a profit, could be taken over by the state, and made a charge on the capitalist class as a whole. In this way the overall viability of British capitalism was improved.

POVERTY DISTRIBUTION

With the welfare schemes of the post-war years, such as family allowances, improved old age pensions, sickness and unemployment benefits etc., the state became more involved in the distribution of the social product. These schemes are part of the distribution of that portion of available wealth which goes to the working class as a whole. These measures were supposed to herald the dawn of a new era of social equality. The only equality about them was that the state organized and administered the more equal distribution of working class poverty. Regardless of the hopes of reformists, these schemes were introduced and are maintained by governments for the purpose of stabilizing and augmenting the general pattern of exploitative relationships. It is important to emphasize that what becomes available for this kind of distribution is given by the general level of exploitation over the whole economic field and again this is beyond the control of reformist governments.

Likewise, comprehensive education was thought of as a measure which would assist a breakdown of social divisions. In effect, comprehensive education, by facilitating an easier mobility of pupils from one grade to another and by concentrating more pupils in larger units, has created a more efficient and cheaper way of producing the next generation of workers.

Successive Labour governments have made no impact on the nature of class relationships, nor even on the distribution of wealth. Can anyone doubt now' that the present Labour government is doing a first class job in steering British capitalism through this recession with minimum disruption. Doubtless, the capitalist class are grateful.

Despite the hopes that have been invested in the Labour Party by its members over the years, its rôle has been to corner discontent and render it politically sterile. Apart from that, the Labour Party has provided a fund of ideas which capitalism has adapted to suit its needs.

With some exceptions, on balance history does not show that capitalism has unwillingly absorbed reform. On the contrary, capitalism generates reform in its own interests. Reform is part of the normal pattern of political administration, its function being to stabilize capitalism. Social reform is the political process through which capitalism continues its own economic development and since government and the state are the political expression of capitalist ownership, social reform will preserve that class interest. Reformism, inevitably then, involves an endorsement of capitalist productive relationships.

If it can be shown that in the aggregate there have been absolute improvement in working-class standards over the years, this again would not be attributable to political reforms. To the extent that workers through technical development and the greater efficiency of their labour, have created a greater pool of available wealth then they are able to negotiate for themselves a portion of that extra wealth.

This does not alter the overall proportions in which wealth is distributed, which is a reason why capitalists approve of productivity deals. In effect they say that provided workers produce more wealth with the same labour then workers can have some of this wealth for themselves. In this way it can appear that workers’ standards are improving, but this stems from the workers’ own productivity and not from the activities of political reformists.

In formulating a political policy our starting point must always be economic reality. It is an undeniable fact that under capitalism man cannot control the productive process. We cannot set up productive objectives and then organize social resources to achieve those objectives. For example the Labour Party has been powerless to act against mounting unemployment and lowering working-class standards. This is the price we pay for private ownership and the profit motive.

The solution is to bring productive relationships into harmony with human needs. The means of producing wealth must be commonly owned, the earth’s resources must be at the free disposal of the whole of mankind. In these relationships, freed from the economic barriers of capitalism, man can co-operate to simply produce the wealth that humanity needs. Socialism will not only achieve productive efficiency, but will establish a pattern of relationships in which the dignity of man’s coming together will be enhanced through equality and co-operation.

This is a positive objective that we can all work for. There is no way in which the internal structure of capitalism can be altered by reform so that it works in the interests of the whole community. We can only break away from the self-repeating failures of reformism by recognizing that the problem is capitalism itself. We can replace disillusion with effective action by working to establish Socialism.

Pieter Lawrence

Euroformism (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eurocommunism, as a word, first came into use in 1975 to describe the policies of certain European Communist Parties, in particular their refusal any longer to take orders from Moscow as they had done for the previous fifty years. The Communist Parties concerned—such as the Italian, Spanish and French— themselves prefer to emphasize another aspect: their claim that they are now committed to using peaceful and democratic methods to achieve their objectives. But this claim is not new. Ever since the 7th World Congress of the old Communist International at the end of 1935 Communist Parties had been proclaiming a commitment to democracy—while at the same time pointing to Russia under Stalin as the most democratic country in the world.

The new factor is the criticism of Russia. This was first made public in 1967 (though, apparently, the Italian Party through its leader, Togliatti, had been making similar criticisms in private for some years previously) when a number of European Communist Parties openly criticized the trial and jailing of the writers Daniel and Sinyavsky and, even more noticeably, when they denounced the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia the following year. In the days of the pre-war Comintern (dissolved in 1943 by Stalin to please his new allies, America and Britain) this stance of the Eurocommunist parties would have been denounced as “rightwing opportunism” and illustrates an ever-present problem for the Russian ruling class in relation to its puppet parties in other countries.

Vague Aim

In order to be an effective agent of Russian foreign policy a Communist Party needs to have a mass following, but such a following can not be built up on the basis of unconditional support for Russia but rather on vaguely stated issues like Democracy, Anti- fascism and Peace. A party built up on this basis will contain a large element, perhaps, even a majority of ordinary members and voters, who are more interested in the vague aim than in supporting Russia. Hence the danger that the leadership of these parties will, in order to retain their mass support, pander to the views of their followers at the expense of furthering Russian foreign policy.

This is more or less what has happened with the two European Communist Parties—the Italian and the French—which did succeed in becoming mass parties, thanks largely to their leading role in the struggle against the Nazis in the last years of the war. The Italian and French Communist Parties have since the war both consistently had the support of between 20 land 25 per cent, of the votes (the Italian party now has an even larger percentage). For ten or so years after the war Moscow managed to retain control of these mass parties. In 1947 with the outbreak of the cold War the Italian and French parties, through the trade unions they controlled, obediently launched a series of political strikes aimed at bringing pressure on their governments to reject the Marshall Plan; then they waged a bogus “peace campaign” designed to give Russia a respite in which to develop its own atomic bomb; and they loyally supported the Russian suppression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. But then, in the wake of Khrushchev's revelations in 1956 and in 1961 of Stalin’s atrocities, the leaders of what in the circumstances could only be described as Russia’s fifth columns in France and Italy, became less obedient, leading in 1967, as we have seen, to open criticisms of acts of the Russian government.

Dictatorial Class Rule

The extent of the Eurocommunist criticism of Russia should not be exaggerated. They still regard Russia as basically socialist and look upon the acts they criticize as isolated incidents, as “breaches of socialist legality”, rather than expressions of a dictatorial class rule. Even Santiago Carillo, the leader of the Spanish party, who has gone the furthest in his criticisms of the Russian regime, still sees Russia as “progressive” and even socialist though not as “socialist” as the Russian leaders claim. In his book, first published in April last year “Eurocommunism” and the State (an English translation has recently been brought out by Lawrence and Wishart), he rejects the official Soviet doctrine that Russia is socialist society developing towards “full communism”, saying that because of its undemocratic features — “serious bureaucratic deformations” and “degenerations” as he puts it — it has not yet reached “full socialism”.

In his discussion of why this should have happened he begins a line of argument that has dangerous implications for all supporters of Lenin and Russia: that “a bureaucratic layer” was able to come to power because, after 1917, Russia was a backward and isolated country faced with the same task as had the developed capitalist countries in the previous century, that of the creation of a modern industry and with it a modern industrial working class recruited from the peasantry, a task which could not be accomplished democratically but only by a minority acting dictatorially.

The implication of this line of argument is that Russia was not ripe for Socialism in 1917 and that the October Revolution could not have been a socialist revolution but was the seizure of power by a modernizing elite which was later to evolve into a new ruling class exploiting the workers. Carillo himself, however, does not see this. He does not regard Russia as a class-ruled, exploitative society. In fact in 1964 a group which did was expelled, for this and other reasons, from the Spanish CP, including Fernando Claudin, the author of an excellent book showing the close relationship between the policies of Communist Parties and the foreign policy of Russia entitled The Communist Movement: From Comintern to Cominform (published by Penguins). Similarly, in 1969, the Italian party expelled a group, some of whose prominent members had come to the (correct) conclusion that Russia was state capitalist. Clearly there are certain limits beyond which criticism of Russia must not go .

The Eurocommunist position on Russia is in fact very similar to that the Trotskyites have been peddling for years: that it is basically a “workers” or “socialist” country but that it suffers from “bureaucratic deformations”. This is nonsense; how can the oppressed and exploited workers of Russia, who are unable even to organize genuine trade unions, be in any way regarded as the rulers there? It is nevertheless a convenient argument that allows those who hold it to have their cake and eat it; they can support and criticize Russia at the same time!

This ambiguous attitude of the Eurocommunists to Russia inevitably calls into question their sincerity when they proclaim a commitment to democracy as an inseparable part of socialism. For how can they hold this opinion, yet at the same time regard the obviously undemocratic system in Russia as somehow socialist? Only by practising “newspeak”, defining democracy in a different way from normal, just as they did in their bad old Stalinist past.

Reformism and Gradualism

Not, we hasten to add, that a thorough break with Russia and a recognition of the class and state capitalist nature of society there would make them any more socialist. It would merely make them more like the Social Democratic parties of Europe or the Labour Party in Britain. The extent to which the Communist Parties of Europe are committed to the sort of reformism and gradualism normally associated With Social Democratic and Labour parties is not often realized, though the evidence is there.

Consider the following statement made by Enrico Berlinguer, leader of the Italian party, in 1973:

The democratic road to socialism is a progressive transformation—which can take place in Italy within the framework of the anti-fascist Constitution—of the entire economic and social structure, of the values and ideas which guide the nation, of the system of power and of the bloc of social forces in which it is expressed (Les PC espagnol, frahcais et italien face au pouvoir, p. 151, our emphasis).

Much the same view is expressed by another leader of the Italian party, Napolitano, in conversations with Eric Hobsbawn recently published in English by Journeyman Press under the title The Italian Road to Socialism.

The strategy of the Italian CP is based on this perspective of a gradual transformation of capitalism into “socialism” through a series of social reform measures passed by parliament. They even believe that this can begin before their party actually participates in the government, through pressure being put on openly capitalist governments to take measures described by Berlinguer as being “of a socialist type”. So what in practice the Italian CP seeks are reforms, reforms of capitalism which are supposed to lead to socialism but which in fact would only strengthen the state capitalist aspects of the Italian economy.

Co-operating with Capitalism

Carillo’s party in Spain (as indeed the Italian and French parties too) envisages co-operating with sections of the capitalist class to begin the supposed transformation of society from capitalism into Socialism! The programme of the Spanish CP adopted in 1975 states that “on the way leading to the socialist revolution there exists objectively an intermediate step” and that

This step is that of political and social democracy, or of anti-monopolist and anti-latifundist democracy. It is not a question of abolishing bourgeois private property or of implanting socialism but of establishing a democratic power of all the anti-monopolist forces, including the small and middle bourgeoisies . . . . (Les PC, etc, pp. 45-6, our emphasis).

Now, what is this perspective of a gradual transformation of society through parliamentary action in collaboration with sections of the capitalist class but the milk-and-water reformism expounded in 1899 by the German Social Democratic Revisionist Edward Bernstein in his book Evolutionary Socialism?

Eurocommunism is a variety of reformism and as such has nothing whatsoever to offer the working class in Europe or elsewhere. And, as long as their attitude toward Russia remains ambiguous, their commitment to democratic aims and methods must remain open to question

Adam Buick

The Socialist Party of Great Britain (1978)

From the February 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following is from the new 112 page edition of our pamphlet QUESTIONS OF THE DAY which will be available later this month price 50p (65p including postage). There are new chapters on inflation and unemployment, left-wing organizations, the women’s movement and China, together with those on parliament, democracy and dictatorship, revolution, reformism, nationalization and others.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN, which is the only party in this country that stands for Socialism, was formed on 12 June 1904 by a hundred or so members and former members of the Social Democratic Federation who were dissatisfied with the policy and structure of that party.

The SDF had been formed in 1884 as a professed Marxist organization, although Engels who was living in London at the time would have nothing to do with it. At that time the writings of Marx, Engels and other socialist pioneers were hardly known in the English-speaking countries, except to the few who knew foreign languages. The SDF, however, did have the merit of popularizing in Britain the ideas and works of Marx. This was later to bear fruit in demands for an uncompromising, democratically organized socialist party in place of the reformist and undemocratic SDF.

The SDF spent much of its time campaigning for reforms that were supposed to improve working-class conditions. H. M. Hyndman, who played the major role in setting up the party, seemed to regard it as his personal possession and reacted to any criticism in a haughty and autocratic manner. The party journal Justice was owned by a private group over which the members had no control.

The opportunism and arrogance of Hyndman had already led to a break-away in 1884 when a number of members, including William Morris and Eleanor Marx, set up the Socialist League which however soon unfortunately ceased to be of use when it was dominated by the anarchists.

A second revolt led to the formation in 1903 of the Socialist Labour Party, copying the American organization of that name. At first, along with a programme of ‘immediate demands’, the SLP declared its object to be the conquest of political power but soon, under the influence of its American parent it subordinated political to industrial action.

Another revolt against the Hyndman group’s dominance of the SDF was organized by men and women who had a much firmer grasp of Marxist political and economic theory. For their opposition to opportunism they were contemptuously called ‘impossibilists’. At first they tried to use the machinery of the SDF to get the party to reform itself, but they came up against the Hyndman clique who were ready to resort to all kinds of undemocratic practices to maintain their control of the party. Conferences were packed, branches dissolved and members expelled.

Matters came to a head at the 1904 Conference held in Burnley at the beginning of April. At the Conference more expulsions took place. When the delegates of some of the London branches returned they held a special meeting to discuss the situation and approved a statement which, among other things, urged the following:

‘The adoption of an uncompromising attitude which admits of no arrangements with any section of the capitalist party; nor permits any compromise with any individual or party not recognising the class war as a basic principle, and not prepared to work for the overthrow of the present, capitalist system. Opposition to all who are not openly and avowedly working for the realisation of Social Democracy. A remodelled organisation, wherein the Executive shall be mainly an administrative body, the policy and tactics to be determined and controlled by the entire organisation. The Party Organ to be owned, controlled and run by the Party. The individual member to have the right to claim protection of the whole organisation against tyrannical decisions.’

On 12 June most of those who signed this leaflet together with a few others founded the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The constitution of the Socialist Party was formed in such a manner that what had happened in the SDF  would be impossible. The Executive Committee, elected by the whole of the membership, was to run the day-to-day affairs of the party in accordance with the policy laid down at Conferences and was required to report to the membership twice a year. All its meetings were to be open not only to members but also to non-members. The party journal the Socialist Standard, which first appeared in September 1904 and monthly ever since, is under party control through the Executive Committee. An elaborate appeals procedure —first to the Conference or Delegate Meeting and then to a poll of all the members—was written into the rule-book to protect any member charged with activities warranting expulsion.

The rule-book of the Socialist Party lays down a thoroughly democratic procedure for the conduct of party affairs. Control of policy is in the hands of the members; there are no leaders and never have been. Democratic procedure has been maintained throughout the party’s existence and is a practical refutation of those who argue that all organizations must degenerate into bureaucratic rule. In fact a democratic structure without leaders is the necessary form of any socialist party.

At its formation the members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain adopted an Object and Declaration of Principles which, without the need for any change, has remained the basis of membership of the party. Within that framework the party has worked consistently to make socialist principles known and to expose the many erroneous and dangerous theories that have attracted support among the workers.