Does inflation fall from heaven? (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

People like Lord Soper tell us that the Christian Paradise will be achieved right here on earth when we get a socialist society. It seems rather a cheek that after all the thousands of years of suffering on the part of the human race, when eventually we do achieve a world fit for humans to live in, the Christian God will take the credit. If he wants any thanks from us, let him lend a hand now. If he is going to keep mum as he has done ever since humanity created him and leave it to us ordinary mortals to win our new world one day, then he can keep off the stage when the bouquets are being handed out. But there is something else. Bad news for Lord Soapbox. There ain't gonna be no paradise. Even when we have achieved socialism, people will not live forever with wings on their shoulders and little harps in their hands. 

We will still get ill and die. Children may still be born with cancer (as many are now). There will still be earthquakes and typhoons which will kill and maim people. True, socialist society will do everything possible to alleviate suffering, but we will never be immune to it.

I indulge in all this preamble because a lot of people cannot imagine a world without inflation. They seem to think it is like an act of god, some sort of primal curse which the human race must learn to live with. It is not the purpose of this article to deal with the subject from a strictly academic or economic point of view. The columns of the Socialist Standard have often featured articles showing that inflation is simply a matter of a government printing an excess of paper currency. Indeed, this seems to be so blindingly obvious as really to brook no argument. Like saying that if you walk out in the rain you’re liable to get wet. Who’s going to argue? The fact is that politicians and economists do argue and quite fiercely. One can only assume they are either dishonest or daft. (They could of course be both and often are). There was a time, and not all that long ago, when the very word inflation was more or less unknown — or restricted to such things as car tyres.

This train of thought occurred to me when reading the remarks of a Ford worker at the beginning of their strike as quoted in the Guardian on Sept. 27. Here are his words of wisdom: “I’m proud of Ford’s in Dagenham, but we’re working like peasants down there. 'Thirty years ago, I earned £6 a week and 1 was a millionaire. 1 could buy a new suit every other month. Now, I’m a peasant’’. Let us ignore the unfortunate attitude of a member of the working class in 1978 who is a self-confessed peasant and yet is proud of his Baron Ford. That could well be the subject of another article—or maybe a book. The thing that struck me was his claim that thirty years ago this ordinary worker could buy a suit every other month.

How can this possibly be true, you may well ask? Surely workers are not worse off now than thirty years ago? But with suits running at nearly £100 a time (£200 in places like Harrods), one suit a year is probably nearer the mark than six. But the funny thing is that our worker is probably not far out and his memory is not playing him tricks. Thirty years ago, do you know what the name was of a huge men’s tailoring chain (second only to Burtons)? Fifty Shilling Tailors. Two and a half quid in modern language. But here I am more concerned with the actual name of the firm than the fact that suits were so cheap in those days. Because there is something very striking about that name. And it is this. No firm could dream of giving themselves a name like that today. How could it tie itself to a price when its price goes up every year? It would be an absurd thing to do. Like the slogan of Woolworths in those days. “Nothing over sixpence in the store”. Two and a half pence in modern parlance.

Now the firm from which our worker had bought his suit thirty years ago had been in existence with the same name for thirty years before that. And the mental process of the capitalist who ran the business (ironically his name was Price and he became a Lord just like Wilson’s raincoat manufacturer today) was clear enough. “I am going to sell suits at fifty shillings. So it must be a fine advertising gimmick to put the fact in the name over the door”. It never even occurred to this smart and very successful capitalist that the time would come when the name would be a source of acute embarrassment and would have to be changed. You arc obviously going to make a fool of your business if it is called Fifty Shilling Tailors when the price is actually fifty pounds — or a hundred pounds. So just about the time our worker is referring to, when inflation first began to be really noticed (inflation has been with us ever since World War II — though it only broke into a gallop in the last decade), they changed their name to John Collier.

So it is clear that neither capitalists nor workers gave a thought to the prospect of price rises in those days. God might send earthquakes. He never sent inflation. And oddly enough, neither did man for many generations. From the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 to the start of World War I in 1914, prices remained more or less stable. This was the first industrial country in the world. So there was nothing which said that inflation was an essential fact of capitalist life. It just didn't happen. Until governments decided to make it happen. And the very governments that do so are those with the nerve to blame it on the workers for being too greedy. They conveniently overlook that if it's greedy to want to maintain, and if possible even improve, their standard of living within the confines of capitalism then workers were always greedy. But inflation never happened. Workers in England were struggling and striking during the thirties but prices, if anything, went down.

There was of course one country where inflation hit hard and has remained a folk nightmare to this day and that was Weimar Germany in the Twenties. The awful days when workers had to take home their millions of marks on Friday in a wheelbarrow. But, of course, the workers did not print all those millions of notes. The German government did. And when it stopped printing, inflation stopped too. Which brings up another thought. When economists and politicians (and socialists too) discuss inflation, one always hears that in Germany today, inflation is not so serious. It is currently running at around 4 per cent and has never hit double figures, even at times when inflation in this country was over 20 per cent. And the reason is always given: Ah you see, the Germans have such dreadful memories of inflation between the wars. They couldn’t let such a thing happen again. And, for a change, the reason is more or less the right one. Any German government which printed notes on a scale like the British or the Italian governments have done over the last few years would be kicked out of office in quick time. The voters wouldn't stand for it. Even as things were, when Brandt was Chancellor and inflation was showing signs of going over 5 per cent, there was a joke in Germany which said that if he was Chancellor over a desert island you would soon notice the sand getting dearer. So, unlike the British government, the Germans decided to keep their inflation within strict limits. It was entirely up to them. The fact that the German workers are just as “greedy” as the British made no difference. It could not cause inflation unless the government wanted it. And, oddly enough, in another very successful capitalist country, even in these days, there is at present no inflation at all. Despite the high wages that the workers earn in Switzerland, their inflation rate is currently nil. So not only did heaven not send down inflation in the last century, it does not send it down in this century either in countries where the governments decide to solve their problems (or try to) without recourse to the printing presses.

The government in Britain (Tory and Labour alike) decided that the workers could learn to live with inflation. And of course, they are right. Capitalism goes on by and large in the same way whether there is inflation or not. It is true that it is worrying to find that every time you go shopping your wages have to stretch further. And a council flat that cost £2 a week quite recently costs £12 today. All this sort of thing is part of the hassle of capitalism which makes life full of stress and strain. Roll

on the day when there won’t be high prices. Or low prices. A moneyless and — within limits — worryless society, too.

L. E. Weidberg

Labour's role in Northern Ireland (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Immigrant Irish workers played no small part in the formation of the British Labour Party in 1906. Labour was hope; hope for the future in the land of their adoption; hope, too, for their loved ones, back on the 'oul sod'. Was not Labour a party of principle? Did not its spokesmen, especially when canvassing the ‘Irish vote’, speak emotionally of the ‘ancient wrongs’ and promise ‘freedom and friendship’ to Ireland?

In the years since 1906, the Labour Party has become a political obscenity that has jettisoned all the lofty principles that attended its birth. Those ‘principles’, begotten of ignorance of the nature of capitalism and the crassest political opportunism, have failed to fight even a rear guard action against the forces Labour claimed it could overwhelm and vanquish. Ironically, the excuses for Labour’s failures, for its total abandonment of principle, are logical only in terms of its continued existence; given its basic premise—that capitalism can operate in the interests of its exploited class—adherence to principle would have cost it its life.

To use the parlance of capitalism, there is no crime against the workers that Labour has not committed; indeed, because of its unholy alliance with the unions, it has often proved a more successful instrument against working class interests than have the Tories. Strike-breaking, racism, assaults on working-class living standards, propping up foreign dictatorships, military murder of defenceless peoples, nuclear weapon proliferation, presiding over poverty, homelessness and unemployment and taking active steps in the interests of the propertied class to extend these miseries. These are some of the crimes of the British Labour Party.

This is the other face of Callaghan, the plump, stooping ‘father figure', the disgusting paragon of capitalist respectability who pokes gentle jibes at his stage-managed counterpart on the ‘opposition’ benches to the accompaniment of the moronic caterwauling of ‘the House’.

That the Tories are even worse that Labour appears to be the prevailing attitude among the ‘Irish Vote’ in Britain and of the majority of workers in Ireland. No intelligent defence of Labour is offered but, ‘on the Irish Question . . .’ a more sympathetic understanding from the Labour Party than from the Tories is expected. After all, did not the Tories, callously exploit the ‘Irish Question’ and the ‘Orange Card’ to suit their political fortunes? Are they not the true architects of the situation now being paid for with working class lives in Ireland? Might they not, if they came to power, give the governorship role to the dreaded Airey Neave whose ignorant vapourings and sanguine aspirations threaten the Province with lakes of blood? On the other hand, didn’t Harold and Jim and many of their political ilk make speeches and write books acknowledging Britain’s part in the Irish tragedy and holding out the promise of unity and reconciliation?

Contrary to its alleged principles, however, Labour has over the last ten years used the full measure of its governmental authority to enact viciously repressive legislation. aimed at the most impoverished section of the working class in Northern Ireland. It has filled the jails with people who have ‘confessed’ to State torturers, allowed sporting military gentlemen to bludgeon or kill without fear of legal constraint and, finally, set in train the armament of the majority side in the conflict.

After Belsen, Dresden. Hiroshima, Vietnam and all the other horrors of capitalism it is a contemptuous hypocrisy on the part of those who accept this system to condemn the Provisional IRA for using violence. Indeed, were it not so disgusting, the sight of Roy Mason, Labour’s Gauleiter in Northern Ireland, condemning the viciousness of the IRA, would be comic. Mason’s last job was associated with preparations for the destruction of life and property with weapons that make those of the IRA look like toys.

Mason and his fraternity respond to criticism of military murder, torture and violence against the person by the forces of State thuggery, with the argument that those concerned or appalled by such practices are giving aid and comfort to terrorists. It was an argument used by some of those who were charged at Nuremberg in 1946 with ‘crimes against humanity’.

Throughout all its periods of office, the Labour Party countenanced, assisted and, in 1949, reinforced the despotic authority of Ulster Unionism. Only in 1968, when British capitalism’s investment in Northern Ireland was placed in jeopardy and the stench of events here was getting a bit much for the sensitive political nostrils of the ‘free world’, did British Labour act.

It sent in the British Army, literally to hold the fort against the downtrodden who, in a backlash of anger, threatened the future of the politicians with whom Labour had always had ‘amicable’ relations. After the Army, Callaghan, the ‘Irish expert’ arrived and offered the populace his wisdom and expertise: everybody should stop fighting because we were really such a marvellous people and, besides, we knew it made sense!

Subsequently, through Labour pressure to create the illusion of change, the guns were temporarily removed from the largely politically-Protestant police force and the exclusively Protestant ‘B‘ Specials were disbanded. But Ulster Unionism was going to be defended by a fitter and more efficient groups of gunslingers; Callaghan announced the establishment of a new, locally based and recruited. regiment to be known as the Ulster Defence Regiment and, also, established a reserve for the infamous Royal Ulster Constabulary. Both—one by association and the other in its choice of name and intention—were immediately anathema to the non-unionist population and, predictably, became almost exclusively Protestant in their membership. It did not require the ‘expertise’ of a Callaghan to appreciate that this would happen, nor to realise that, in the political climate of the times, both organisations would attract the type of recruits that would distinguish themselves in the practice of bigotry—and worse.

Labour was, of course, only doing what is required of those who offer their services to capitalism. But even with their considerable experience of slopping up capitalism’s messes, the task of backing up the oldest of Europe’s repressive regimes could hardly have been conducive to untroubled sleep. True, Labour only laid the foundations of the new phase of Irish troubles before they were kicked out of office in 1970. The Tories, who replaced them, allowed murder and torture and. finally, took over the management of the whole show. In many respects the thuggery of the Tories was carried on with a little less hypocrisy than Labour had shown, and certainly Whitelaw seemed to enjoy the function of Gauleiter less than the present Labour incumbent.

The Labour Party’s ‘conscience’ must be a very sick joke, to those members of the working class in Northern Ireland who find themselves interned, beaten senseless or made to ‘confess’ to murder or other terrorist offences. Or to those who have their homes broken up and their relatives arrested for hours or days, TWO OR THREE TIMES EVERY WEEK, and even summarily executed by ‘‘security forces” whose assertion that their victims were ‘gunmen’ often proves so untenable that the State eventually pays ‘conscience’ money to the next-of-kin— even if it never manages to identify and punish the murderers.

Richard Montague (Belfast)

Running Commentary: Capitalism in Cuba (1979)

The Running Commentary column from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalism in Cuba
The overthrow of the hated Batista regime in Cuba, and its replacement by that of Fidel Castro, has provided a glut of romantic nonesense on which the left wing has feasted for the past twenty years.

Castro — bearded, bereted, camouflage jacketed — has been a sort of Biggles to these people and his henchman Che Guevera was even more glamourous — after all, he actually got himself killed fighting a guerrilla campaign.

So the Cuban uprising had to be proven good; after all it was supposed to have brought socialism to Cuba and so everyone should be happier, healthier, more free.

What actually happened was that Cuba suffered a fearsome bloodbath, many of the victims being Castro's own supporters. Only now are they being released from gaol.

And now, twenty years after that event, Cuba is going through a process predictable to anyone who can recognise capitalism even when it wears a red star. Cuba concedes that it was not after all a socialist revolution and that its economy operates on the universal principles of capitalist society.

Cuban industries — all of them state owned — now operate under the goad of something called the "economic calculus”, which is another way of saying an obligation to produce profit. Any which fail this test are liable to be allowed to expire, like the industrial lame ducks which the Heath government once said they would abandon to their fate.

Efficiency and economy have now become favourite watchwords in Castro’s Cuba; industrial managers work under an ever heavier threat of dismissal if they fall below the expected standards — and perhaps hope that the sack is the worst that awaits them.

The rcalease of Castro’s political prisoners may well be linked to Cuba's plans to develop a tourist industry, for which they are hoping to attract foreign investment, including substantial amounts from their old enemy the United Slates.

And — the final irony — little Cuba, which once nearly brought the world to its third — and perhaps its last — great war, is now flexing its own imperialist muscles with troops in Africa on the well worn pretext of protecting some small, defenceless power but in reality in order to establish a sphere of influence.

After twenty years of Castro the nature of Cuban capitalism is revealed starkly enough to convince anyone except those who subject themselves to a massive act of self deception.

Lock Outs

There are many ways, apart from referring to the official statistics, of judging the current state of health of British capitalism.

For example in times of rampant inflation many people will buy all sorts of rubbish rather than hold onto money. Hence the boom in the “antiques" trade, which leads to some very ordinary stuff being sold for pounds more than it costs in Woolworths.

Another guideline is the way in which employers deal with disputes with their workers. In the twenties and thirties it was quite usual for workers to be locked out, notably in the great battles in the coal mines which caused such suffering among the miners.

But of course the lock out is something an employer will consider only when trade is bad. When a boom is in swing he will be inclined to give in to his workers’ demands; only when in a slump will he see some advantage in shutting down the works rather than surrender.

The lock out has recently begun to come back into favour. The most publicised example has been the action of the employers at The Times and the Sunday Times; less publicised, but equally interesting, has been the lock out of 1400 branch managers and supervisors by the Provident Finance Group.

The Provident, whose credit cheques are well used — indeed often essential — in working class budgeting, recently offered its managers an 8 per cent rise, which they rejected. The managers began a campaign of obstruction, which the company responded to by sacking the lot.

Workers who get supervisory jobs often become strangely blind to their class standing and to the realities of capitalism. Perhaps the Provident lock out will turn out to be more than another symptom of capitalism's malaises; it may teach a few workers that, although they wear suits to work and sit at a desk all day they are members of the exploited, degraded class who are constantly at war with their employers.

Chinese Deal

Ar there any simple minded people left who still think that there exists between powers like China and Britain an ideological divide and that, until the Triumph of Right (whatever that may be) the twain shall never meet?

If so, recent events must have caused them a lot of discomfort. When Callaghan announced that Britain was going to sell the Harrier jump jets to China (in the teeth of opposition from Russia) he was showing only a fraction of the picture.

Trade between the two countries has been running at about £166 millions a year, with a big balance in China’s favour. Among the exports from Britain are heavy capital goods — chemical processing equipment, coalmining machinery and a steel plant from British Steel.

Last November a cheery Chinese Vice Premier, Wang Chen, took back to Peking a draft agreement which was designed to increase the trade between China and Britain to between £4,000 millions and £5,000 millions a year and to put British industry on a more equal fooling with the French and the West German.

The Harrier deal was a dramatic confirmation of these developing trade relations. No wonder Callaghan, as he left the Guadelope meetings with the other leaders of Western capitalism, could say “we have welcomed China into the community of nations . . .”

What Callaghan meant was that he welcomed China into the normal day by day trading — which also means the normal competition and disputes — of international capitalism.

He was also saying that China is just another capitalist power (although one which threatens to be a lot more powerful than many of its rivals) interested in the customary commerce of imports and exports, of investment and the building of factories where workers will be exploited, and in developing its armed forces to fight the wars of its ruling class.

He did not mention that at one time the contact between British and Chinese capitalism was supposed to be inhibited, even prevented, by great differences of principle over issues like democracy. In face of the facts, that would have been too much even for Callaghan.

Correspondence: Does Parliament Matter? (1979)

Letters to the Editors from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does Parliament Matter?
As a lifelong dissenter from the parliamentary system extolled as democracy I totally disagree with SPGB contention that the only road to socialism can be the parliamentary one, as your September issue—The Power of the Vote—propounds.

Parliament since its inception just over 700 years ago under Simon de Montfort has never been anything but the visible manifestation of the power of vested interests—be these rapacious sovereigns, pillaging barons, extorting merchants or exploiting capitalists. Mistaking the accidental for the substance can in certain circumstances have fatal consequences for the unwary!

Parliament has ever been a purely administrative instrument devised by ruler and ruling class for wielding power. But it is not an indispensable instrument, as a study of history testifies, nor can it in any way be described as "the seat of power”. Kings have ignored it in the past, transnational corporations do so now. When “sanctions" can be circumvented quite simply, though decreed by Parliament, and "unauthorised” military or police actions are either ignored or, if impossible to do so, retrospectively “legalised” then clearly the notion that Parliament is the scat of power is a mistaken one.

R. Cox—“The Parliamentary Road to Socialism” — whose championing of the cause of parliamentary democracy (as in a previous issue) is such as to produce a most un-Marxist statement “this fallacious belief that class rule is based on economic power,” holds that “parliamentary democracy is sustained by a general concensus of support for such a tradition." Another instance of mistaking the accidental for the substance. Given an anti- or extra-parliamentary TV network, a mass circulation newspaper and a paperback publishing house the superficiality of such "concensus” would quickly be seen. The pre-conditioned "turn outs" at elections and the media contrived "interest" in Parliament belie the widespread cynicism and contemptuous scepticism about it which most people feel.

Even with 600 plus candidates, which is a necessary prerequisite for winning an election in order to bring about socialism (your theory), how is it envisaged that the working class can see through the one-liners, the potted cliches and the TV-pop press electioneering standards to understand and embrace the socialist case? For the "how" and "why” of the SPGB formula that the great majority of the population will be disposed favourably to socialism before the final election is always glossed over.

More reasons are adduced by ALB, to his own satisfaction, for the need to vote our way to socialism in "Violence and the State." While clutching at a single straw to insist that Marx recognised that workers can achieve social revolution by peaceful means the writer makes a preposterous claim in refuting Lenin’s view that violence was inescapable by suggesting that political changes in the last 100 years have been "in favour of using ‘the force of law’ rather than the ‘law of force’. . .” There has been no change of system in any country where force has not prevailed during this period whereas the converse is true. Every political change, outside of North America, has on the contrary been either a direct or an indirect consequence of world war, civil war or armed insurrection since 1870. But in debasing his argument, poor as it is, with cheap sneers at those who oppose his ‘peaceful road’ theory AI.B forfeits respect and the right to be taken seriously.

In conclusion I would suggest that every objection and criticism made of the anarchist position (in an unconvincing side-swipe at them in your "election issue") can be levelled at the SPGB. What will the police and armed forces which maintain and defend the capitalist status quo be doing when the working class is voting in socialist delegates—playing football against each other? What will the owners of capital and the transnational corporations do when the socialist majority decrees the abolition of money —play Monopoly with pounds sterling?

"As long as capitalism lasts, workers will be plagued with well-meaning idealists who rebel against the double standards and violence of the system.” A fitting description of the SPGB today.

B. J. Clifton 

Cardiff.

REPLY
Of course Parliament cannot make something happen simply by passing laws: otherwise there would be no crime. And some laws — for example, parking regulations — are widely ignored. (It is not yet safe to class "sanction busting” along with these however — there may still be prosecutions.) But Parliament has the power to enforce its decrees and to punish those who go against them; if Parliament chooses not to use its powers, that is not evidence that that power does not exist.

Parliament controls the state machine, which means the armed forces, the police, the prisons, and so on. If socialists were to ignore this and seek to seize power by some means other than capturing Parliament and so controlling the state machine. we would be courting disaster.

The passage from the article "The Parliamentary Road to Socialism” should not be read out of context; the article went on to point out, correctly, that the capitalist class have economic power only because ". . . . the immense majority support capitalism by voting for capitalist parties . . .”. If the working class ceased to vote for capitalism, the economic power of the capitalist class would also cease.

If there is cynicism and scepticism about political activity and about the power of Parliament (which is not borne out by the large turn-out in important elections) this is a side effect of the evident futility of what Parliament does. And far from "glossing over" the problems of persuading the working class to see through the propaganda for capitalism and to consciously opt for a new society, this is our preoccupation (and at times a frustrating one) as the only socialist party.

Whatever the circumstances surrounding former revolutions, the fact is that they have all been in the interests of one minority against another (we assume that by "political change" is meant “revolution"). The overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by Socialism must be the act of a conscious majority of the working class and will therefore be democratic and not based on violence — although, if a minority were to try to obstruct the will of the majority, they would of course be dealt with.

Workers who are in the police and armed forces are as susceptible to the case for Socialism as anyone else. With the development of socialist consciousness the state machine’s power will progressively decline to the point at which, when the majority are socialists, it will disappear. The few policemen or soldiers who are left may well prefer to play football to trying to defend a discredited inhuman system at death’s door.

Finally, the case for socialism is based on a materialist interpretation of the evidence of history. Idealism, well-meaning or otherwise, it certainly is not.


Smug Self-Righteousness
Where are you SPGBers? OK, your paper is excellent, your theory is excellent. But while you are sitting around discussing the social surplus value, Asians are being stabbed, women are being attacked and gays are being intimidated. While you are sitting on your backsides in a smug, self- righteous way, the National Front could win electoral power and your paper and meetings will be smashed like those of other organisations who are working for a humane society. You may be right in saying that capitalism breeds racism, sexism etc., but capitalism also breeds parties like the National Front and the threat of the removal of the limited freedoms we now have.

You have a wealth of knowledge and understanding — don't be selfish and keep it to yourselves. Hardly anyone has heard of the SPGB, let alone supports its principles. You can't expect the people to seek you out, you must go to them. Get involved with those who care what is happening even though they may be confused as to why it's happening. Move yourselves before they remove you".

Yvonne Howard 

Hendon NW4

REPLY

In the left's view, Socialist Party members are intellectual theorists, indifferent to the struggles and sufferings of workers. From the time of the foundation of the Communist Party, through the years of war and CND, to the Campaign for "The Right to Work", the accusation has been levelled that we are divorced from the "real” class struggle; pressing problems of the day had to be tackled before, or to assist, the Fight for Socialism. To-day we are asked to "Rock against Racism".

The reason for the constant repetition of this false picture is to be found in comparison of our and the Left's respective political positions and our contrasting definitions of what is called “a humane society". The Socialist Party stands for the interests of the working class as a whole and not for particular sectional interests within the class, real though these concerns may be. People struggle for socialism because they understand as well as feel strongly about the effects of capitalism. Far from ignoring the latter, our propaganda tries to relate particular social problems to the way in which society is organised. Since the rise of the National Front is a symptom of disease and not the disease itself, the only effective method of opposition is the propaganda of socialism (see the editorial in our January issue).

So while we stand uncompromisingly for socialism, Asians, women and gays may be attacked: but millions of workers are also without jobs, stockpiles of nuclear weapons grow, millions live in slums, the elderly die of cold or work for a pittance to survive, prisons and mental hospitals overflow, and workers' lives are bought and sold like cattle at market. What is there to be complacent about?

What is a Nazi?

In Hyde Park on a recent Sunday, I found myself getting quite friendly with some Israeli questioners until 1 had to point out that the Zionist ideal was as hopeless as any other in the face of the capitalist jungle. I found myself showing the following irony. The father of the Israeli Prime Minister was murdered by Polish Nazis who tied a millstone round his neck and threw him in the Vistula. A Nazi atrocity. Agreed. The victim's only crime was that he was a Jew. Seven years later, in 1948, Begin was himself the leader of a terrorist gang who drowned innocent men, women and children by throwing them down a well in a village near Jerusalem called Deir Yassih. Their only crime was that they were Arabs. When I said that this was just another Nazi atrocity, these friendly and reasonable Israelis just stormed off saying I was “meshugah" (mad).

L.E. Weidberg 

NW3

Political Notebook: Gormley the Scab (1979)

The Political Notebook column from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Gormley the Scab
It must be a hard life being a trade union leader. The endless meetings with the Government and the bosses in which they sell out their members’ interests, all those speeches to conference telling the workers to pull their belts in for the sake of the Right For Callaghan To Work campaign. And then there’s the insufferable inconvenience of delegations abroad, especially unmanageable when you consider the five-star hotels, the massive banquets and the tours around the workplaces to observe the sterile lives of those who put their trust in leaders. It is a well known fact that such visits are especially favoured when they are to East European state capitalist countries. Joe Gormley, leader of the National Union of Miners, returned not long ago from an outing to Poland where he met up with his counterpart, the leader of the State-controlled Polish miners’ union. Between cocktail parties the two workers’ representatives discussed the case of a certain Polish miner who was the foreman in a mine and was disturbed by the appalling conditions under which his men were forced to work which were in breach of the union regulations. Needless to say, his union failed to support his complaint so he attempted to set up an unofficial union to fight for better conditions of work in the mines. But real unions aren’t allowed in the People’s Democracy of Poland and the man was thrown into a psychiatric hospital. Recalling the heroic struggles of British workers to form unions like the NUM, one might have expected Gormley to have had a few tough words to say to his Polish counterpart. But. according to a report in the Observer, Gormley accepted that this man’s incarceration was quite legitimate on the grounds that he was an adulterer and a jew — crimes against the people, indeed! Internationalist solidarity and freedom for wage labour to struggle against capital clearly mean less to Joe Gormley than the petty comforts of a free holiday in Poland. By remaining silent while fellow miners arc locked up for demanding the right to organise in a free trade union Gormley has shown himself to be an enemy of the working class. Trade unionists have a name for the likes of Gormley: he is a scab.


Conspicuous Silence
When is a ‘ruthless imperialist invasion’ (Morning Star on the Americans in Vietnam) a case of freedom fighters (equipped with Russian tanks) extending the frontiers of socialism? When it’s Russian-aided Vietnam attacking China-backed Cambodia. Any comments from the Morning Star on this ruthless capitalist invasion in which many innocent people have been slaughtered for the sake of territorial expansion? How about a demonstration outside the Vietnamese embassy? Or even a ’Hands Off Phnom Penh' campaign? Communist Party hypocrisy?


Front Bench Socialists
Here’s a story which might turn a few faces red in the corridors of power. Not long after his resignation. Sir Harold Wilson was due to appear on a certain BBC radio programme for young people in which he was to answer questions from members of the public who made up the audience. Like most BBC operations, the audience was not entirely unselected and members of the ’youth sections’ of each of the major parties were invited to attend. At least, that’s what the BBC think happened. In fact, the producer of the programme mistakenly phoned the Head Office of the Socialist Party instead of the Labour Party. He asked for a bunch of ‘keen young socialists' to go along to Broadcasting House for the recording of the programme. He even said that Wilson was particularly anxious that the socialists should sit in the front row where he could see them. Never ones to disappoint the old and needy, a group of young members of the SPGB turned up at Broadcasting House. Wilson’s smile temporarily dropped when one SPGBer asked him how he had the nerve to call himself a socialist. Oddly enough, no one else from the front row was asked to speak after that.


Nothing To Fear
Another man who wouldn’t have much faith in Wilson’s ‘socialism’ is Peter Tebbutt. Writing in the January issue of Socialist Organiser he says:

   Over and over again Labour in office shows a distinct leaning towards capitalist organisation. Ministerial advisers and appointees are drawn from the ranks of the business and professional classes. Little wonder that the aspirations of the working classes (sic) never reach fulfilment. Capitalism certainly has nothing to fear from a Labour Government . . .

Mr. Tebbutt is prospective parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party for Falmouth and Camborne. Come the next General Election he will be asking workers to elect a Labour Government which will never fulfil their aspirations. The SPGB agrees with Mr. Tebbutt that Labour cannot solve the problems of the vast majority. But we. oddly enough, advise workers not to vote Labour. Perhaps it’s because we put political honesty before personal ambition.


All Honourable Men?
With the police hoping to persuade Lord Kagan back to England to help with their enquiries into some very large currency fiddles, yet another of the businessmen ennobled in Harold Wilson’s resignation honours list is receiving some unwanted publicity.

The last of Wilson's noblemen to suffer this was Eric Miller, a property tycoon who shot himself as the Fraud Squad were closing in on him.

The Labour ex-Prcmier seems to have had a mutual help arrangement with the likes of Kagan and Miller. Wilson’s affection for his Gannex mac probably did a lot for Kagan's raincoat business and the happy friendship was scaled by his making Kagan a Life Peer.

It was only a few spoilsports like backwoods aristocrats and nasty-minded newshounds who wondered whether this sort of thing was a misuse of the Honours List. Wilson might have reminded them that it was all in tradition: the English aristocracy was largely born from the more successful pirates and bandits of mediaeval England and grew up on such inhumanities as the slave trade and the Industrial Revolution.

Honours are awarded for long service to British capitalism, which is why trade union leaders often find themselves, in the twilight of their days, sitting in the House of Lords. Capitalism is itself a massive crime—the depriving of the majority of people of the wealth they produce—a fact which, to say the least, tends to blur the distinction between what capitalism says is lawful and that which it outlaws.

By capitalism's standards, the likes of Kagan and Miller were ripe to receive some entitlement to dress up in outdated and inconvenient clothes, as a formal recognition of what they represent. Their support for the Labour Party—and the reward they received for it—may give food for thought to that dwindling band of Labour supporters who still think their party has something to do with a society where people will stand in equality.

Steve Coleman

A French CPer on the SPGB (1979)

Party News from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our attention has been drawn to the fact that a book published in French in 1977 entitled L’extreme gauche en Grande-Bretagne (The Extreme Left in Great Britain) devotes a couple of pages to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The author, Claude Journés, is a member of the French "Communist” Party and most of the book is an unashamed eulogy of the British CP. But, oddly enough, it gives an accurate enough account of our history and views derived from a reading of the Socialist Standard and our pamphlets rather than from what he would have been told by the CP hacks, Betty Reid and James Klugmann, he mentions.

Journés quotes from our Object and Declaration of Principles, notes that we oppose the Labour Party and are not interested in reforms, that we regard Russia as state capitalism and are "thoroughly committed to a peaceful conquest of power by way of parliament once a majority of the population has been won to socialism”. He omits to mention our opposition to the First World War, though, and makes a couple of tendentious comments about us being a legacy from the past, one of which ("The Socialist Party of Great Britain is an outdated survival from the past which has not absorbed Lenin's contribution to Marxism") is really an unconscious compliment since Lenin contributed absolutely nothing to Marxism but distorted it to try to justify the State capitalism dictatorship the Bolsheviks had set up in Russia under his leadership.

Journés also contradicts himself when he calls us (p.197) "reformist” like the Labour Party whereas earlier (p. 127) he had got our position more or less correct:

  The SPGB is generally hostile to reforms and committed only to revolution. According to it, socialists who want to achieve reforms within the framework of capitalism arc caught in a trap which leads them to fight the working class.

On the whole, being an apology for the latest CP line, the book is not up to much but if it introduces some people in France to the ideas of the SPGB it will not have been completely useless.

50 Years Ago: The Coming General Election (1979)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The year 1929 is the most tremendously important year the world has ever seen. Perhaps that is an overstatement. It could be the most profoundly momentous year the human race has experienced. This year that portion of humanity which inhabits the British Isles will be asked to decide whether it wishes the reign of King Capital to continue or that it should come to an end. The preliminary call has gone forth, and those who say it should end and a saner social system established have banded themselves together in an organisation called the Socialist Party. We cannot, honestly speaking, say the response has been overwhelming. Had it been of sufficient magnitude, the year 1929 could have been the most epoch-making year in the history of mankind.

If . . . you decide that Socialism is desirable and practicable, do not fold your arms and wait for something to happen, but do the only logical thing and join our organisation and help to get it.

(From an article “Imagination” by W. T. Hopley, Socialist Standard. February 1929).

Mattick Again (1979)

Book Review from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Anti-Bolshevik Communism by Paul Mattick. Merlin Press. London, £2.50.

This is a collection of articles written by Mattick over the past thirty or so years. Despite his sometimes convoluted style Mattick is always worth reading as on a number of important points his views are very close to ours (though on others, such as using parliament in the establishment of socialism, there arc fundamental differences). He did in fact write occasionally for the Western Socialist in the 1950s though none of these articles arc reproduced here.

Particularly good is his 1947 article on "Bolshevism and Stalinism" in which he shows how Lenin and Trotsky had laid the foundations for Stalin's dictatorship and that Trotsky’s basic complaint against Stalin was simply that it was Stalin rather than Trotsky who had succeeded Lenin. And we can only but agree with the view expressed in the Introduction that "the revolutions which succeeded, first of all, in Russia and China, were not proletarian revolutions in the Marxist sense leading to the ‘association of free and equal producers'. but state-capitalist revolutions, which were objectively unable to issue into socialism. Marxism served here as a mere ideology to justify the rise of modified capitalist systems, which were no longer determined by market competition but controlled by way of the authoritarian state".

Adam Buick

Lenin's Legacy (part 2) (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lenin as revolutionary leader 

Last month’s article outlined Lenin’s failure as a political thinker. In particular, it took two aspects of Lenin’s work (the need for a transition, and the question of whether socialism must be preceded by capitalism) to show that Lenin failed to understand the nature of the problem facing the working class. This month, we deal with Lenin as a leader of a party claiming to be revolutionary. And it should be remembered that Lenin was not just a revolutionary theorist. He seized a unique opportunity that history presented, and by doing so captured the imagination of many workers both at the time and since. It is therefore important to correct the illusion that Lenin’s method is capable of introducing a socialist revolution. (All page references unless otherwise stated are to the one Volume Selected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975 printing.)

Leadership

The first thing about Lenin’s theory of a revolutionary party is that it is based on leadership of the “masses”. This is the reverse of the socialist principle which holds (with Marx) that socialism will be a society of voluntary co-operation. This means that in order to run socialism, the workers have to be aware of what is necessary to make the new society function. And it follows from this, that it will not be possible to establish a voluntary society unless those seeking to do so are in fact the majority of people in society, and those people know what is involved and can work conscientiously for socialism.

Lenin’s theory of leadership was based on several grounds. The most important is probably his opinion that the working class did not have the necessary ability to get to grips with socialist ideas; he developed this idea in his early work, What Is To Be Done? (1902) Where he draws the distinction between revolutionary activity (for the hard core of professional revolutionaries engaged in full time political activity), and trade union activity, (a task to be engaged in by the working class as a whole.)

The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own efforts, is able to develop only trade union consciousness . . . The theory of socialism, however, grew out of philosophical, historical and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied class, by intellectuals. (Selected Works, 3 volume edition. Progress Publishers, 1970 Vol 1 p. 119).

Now it is true that Lenin is here dealing with the specific conditions of aristocratic Russia at the start of the twentieth century. Nonetheless, this passage does demonstrate one of his most essential concepts as revolutionary. that of a “vanguard”. Because of the inability of the workers to think for themselves, according to Lenin, it is necessary for socialism to be introduced for them. Although this is quite impossible, the idea stayed with Lenin in theory, and above all in his political practice (the seizure of power by a small minority). He never abandoned it.

The Worker's Role

It is worth pursuing What Is To Be Done? a little further. Lenin lays down three principles for the workers' organisation:

The workers organisation must in the first place be by a trade union organisation: secondly it must be as broad as possible: and thirdly it must be as public as conditions will allow, (ibid p.207)

This delegation to the workers of the “menial” tasks of wages struggle is of course the reverse of the attitude taken by Marx, who pointed out that the struggle over wages and working conditions (trade union activity proper) was essentially defensive. It concerned the working class in that it was a constant battle to try to prevent the capitalist class lowering wages. But Marx made it absolutely clear that this was not sufficient; workers also had to take steps to abolish the wages system, to end capitalism altogether. There is no hint in Marx that workers should seek leaders to end capitalism for them. Notwithstanding this sound policy, Lenin wrote a little later in What Is To Be Done? that his anti-majority action propositions, “I shall defend no matter how much you instigate the crowd against me for my ‘anti democratic’ views etc.” In a speech in 1920 Lenin repeated this view. He said: "We do not hold the utopian view that the masses are ready for a socialist society.” (p. 618)

Given this arrogant and contemptuous view of the ability of the working class, certain fairly obvious conclusions must follow. Take for example the vital work of education of the working class. Now this task is essential for the reason, that until the working class abandon their support for capitalism as the only form of society possible. the socialist revolution cannot take place. This is why so much work of the socialist is concerned with showing the way capitalism causes problems for the majority. and how it is incapable of solving those problems. At the same time the socialist puts forward, in as concrete and definite a way as possible, the solutions to the problems of capitalism. Lenin too talked about the necessity of educating the working class. Indeed it was Lenin who stressed the vital importance of his party running a mass circulation newspaper, and put down much of the Bolsheviks’ ultimate success to this vital propaganda vehicle. In 1905, twelve years before the revolution, Lenin was writing that: “our main attention will be fixed on propaganda and agitation, extemporaneous and mass meetings, the distribution of leaflets and pamphlets, assisting in the economic struggle and championing the slogans of that struggle.” (Two Tactics of Social Democracy etc. p. 119). In the same year, Lenin urged his comrades to get to work: “to organise a broad, multiform and varied literature inseparably linked with the Social-Democratic working-class movement.” (Party Organisation and Party Literature, p. 152)

But what is the point of all this party literature if there is no need for the working classes to understand anyway? If all the workers need is some limited trade union understanding, then that can be achieved without education from a vanguard. After all. the workers throughout the capitalist world have learnt a trade union consciousness without the intervention of the Bolsheviks. One answer that Lenin might give to this is that it is necessary for the revolutionary party to "join” with the masses. "A vanguard performs its tasks as vanguard" Lenin wrote in 1922, "only when it is able to avoid being isolated from the mass of the people that it leads and is able really to lead the whole mass forward.” (p. 653) 

And for those of the masses who want to graduate to the honour of being the vanguard. Lenin warns in his Left Wing Communism—An Infantile Disorder that he is not going to have too many of the masses getting in the way. He writes that “We are apprehensive of an excessive growth of the party . . .”. (p. 532) This apprehension is caused, says Lenin, because of the fear of invasion from “careerists and charlatans.” It is all part of a principle of leadership designed to keep the “masses" where they are—as wage-slaves, divorced from the spoils of office which the ruling bureaucrats of the communist party keep for themselves.

Dictatorship Over The Proletariat

Lenin’s double standards should be made clear. For Lenin’s claim, that his revolution would, and did, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat sounds as though he intended to have a dictatorship of the majority (whatever that might mean). In fact Lenin at other times makes it quite clear that the dictatorship is intended to be by a minority, with firm control by the party over the working class who are to remain workers. In The State and Revolution (1917) Lenin issues grim warnings to the workers that if he captures power he will rule with an iron hand (in the interests of the workers of course!). He wrote that they will establish “strict, iron discipline backed up by the state power of the armed workers.” (p.296) A little later in the work Lenin writes: “And the Dictatorship of the Proletariat i.e. the organisation of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy.” (p. 324. emphasis ours). Note the subtle change here. Now the workers are being told that it is not the workers who will do the ruling, and therefore be the "dictators”, but the vanguard.

But if the warning was not heeded prior to the revolution, Lenin certainly made it clear afterwards. In his appendix to Left-Wing Communism, etc. he talked about revolutions being impossible without "the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, without a rigorously centralised party with iron discipline, without the ability to become masters of every sphere, every branch and every variety of political and cultural work.” (p. 577/8)

Before the revolution. Lenin was never in much doubt that his party would both take part in government and, if it could, run its own government. And if there was any doubt about this prior to 1917, there was no doubt after. The Communist Party has ruled Russia since 1917 and justifies itself by appealing to Lenin’s authority. (It also appeals to the authority of Marx—only the Russian revolution is as much related to Marx, as the lamb is to the wolf.) Lenin knew what he was doing—he was seizing power.

The art of politics (and the Communists’ correct understanding of his tasks) consists in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully assume power . . . and when it is able thereafter to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule by educating. training and attracting open broader masses of the working people, (p. 535)

Lenin seems to have come a long way from Marx, whose ideas he says he is applying. In Capital, Marx makes it clear that the changes from primitive society to the first forms of class society were bloody and violent struggles; whereas the transformation from capitalism to socialism will not be that sort of struggle. "In the former case, we have the expropriation of the mass of the people by a few usurpers; in the latter case we have the expropriation of a few usurpers by the mass of the people.” (Capital Volume 1, Lawrence and Wishart printing 1970, p.764) Lenin’s revolutionary party merely replaced one set of usurpers with another.

Ronnie Warrington

(concluded)

Margaret Thatcher is a woman (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

However much the Conservative Party pay Saatchi and Saatchi it is very hard earned money because the job they have — selling Margaret Thatcher as a vote winner — is enough to make any sensitive adman take up roadsweeping for a living.

Thatcher won the Tory leadership four years ago this month, leaving Ted Heath to sulk and snipe and to await an electoral debacle to bring him back into favour. At the time the Tories might have chosen Willie Whitelaw, whose style as a political con-man is rather like that of Harold MacMillan; he does not castigate the workers but seeks to persuade them that happy capitalism is simply a matter of everyone knowing, and keeping, their place.

To elect Thatcher was very daring because she is a woman, or at least she seemed to be at the time. She can also, despite being a woman, think and learn, with a degree in chemistry and a qualification as a barrister. Even more, she is a wife and a mother (Mr. Thatcher keeps a respectful, shadow like place in the background) which means she can converse with ordinary mums in Tescos about the price of soap powder and corn flakes.

Why, then, is she so hard to sell? The working class do not ask a lot of their political leaders—certainly they don’t reject them for being unable to cure capitalism’s problems — but they do react against the sort of tight laced personality which Thatcher projects. Above that mask of make up, the Thatcher hair is as carefully sculptured as an expensive meringue. Her clothes, never rumpled or in disarray, might have been pasted on her like wallpaper. Her bird-like face concentrates in a formidably level stare on the tricky questions of the TV interviewer.

And when she opens her mouth her voice falls with the spaced out emphasis of so many strokes of the cane. If Macmillan came over as the confident, relaxed country squire, and Callaghan as everyone’s favourite uncle, Thatcher is a figure from our childhood nightmares — the stern headmistress. In her presence we all mentally bend over and await six of the best.

Recently she has been having the trade unions into her study to lecture them on how irresponsible they are, to try to get better wages for their members:

Parliament has placed them above the Law. Anyone who does not use power responsibly must expect his position to be reconsidered by Parliament.

Her detailed proposals to keep the unions in check — for example by making social security and tax rebates harder for strikers to get — seemed to delight some Tories (if she ever makes it to Number Ten, Thatcher will have some plum jobs to hand out to anyone who has avoided upsetting her). Others were uneasy, remembering how Heath virtually threw away power in 1974 by provoking the chaos of the three day week.

Heath also presented as a tense, gritty personality. As the election draws near, is Thatcher trying to unlace a little, to fit in more easily with what working class prejudices say a woman should be like? Keen observers of her recent appearances on television will have noticed that her hair has been ever so slightly ruffled. On one historic occasion she smilingly allowed her legs to be photographed.

That happened at the Boat Show, when an enterprising photographer nipped in beneath her as she was swung, legs demurely crossed at the ankles, high over the floor in a harness. Although the picture appeared in the Guardian, where most of the photographs come out looking like a foggy day on the Embankment, there was no question but that it showed Thatcher’s legs and so introduced an alarmingly sexual element into her personality.

What, the conscientious voter wondering where to place his cross might ask, next? Will Thatcher now appear on television looking as if she has been ravished by Brian Walden? Will we see her in a bikini? Or on Page Three of the Sun?

Politicians have been known to stoop as low in their desperation for votes. Lord Hailsham was once fond of putting us off our breakfasts by being photographed romping in the sea in bathing trunks. Fortunately he ceased to be a serious contender for the Tory leadership and so could stop his disgusting public displays.

How much of this sort of thing should be taken seriously? Well the most important thing for the working class to consider is the nature of the choice which Thatcher claims to offer. One possible effect of a woman being a contending political leader is that, when it comes to considering the choice, the debate may be diverted from the real issue into a phoney one over the alleged merits and demerits of women against men.

Which misses the point, that capitalism, whether women or men hold the big jobs, has to be run against the interests of the majority of its peoples. The real issue, then, is whether capitalism continues or whether we have a society in which all human needs are satisfied and in which people express their freedom in an absence of prejudice, including that known as sexism.

It may be late in the day for Thatcher to prove that she is a woman and successfully seduce the working class into voting for her party. Let us hope that any sense of outrage is directed against the system she represents and not against her.

Ivan

Music and history (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The key to the understanding of social change is the materialist conception of history. Applied to music we find that the changes that have come about in this form of art reflect conditions of different social systems.

Ideas about music being the flower of Western culture have long since faded. Today it is generally accepted that music originated among primitive people, that it is linked to the cultivation of the earth, and that its basis is rhythm. We get the same evidence from China, Africa. India, and all parts of the world. The Hamites of the Nile Valley, for instance, used two joined sticks to chase away pests from their crops. Later these clappers were used to accompany dances to ensure the fertility of the crops and to aid work on the land.

About a thousand years later civilizations entered the valley. A class of priest-kings ruled over a multitude of subjects. Trained musicians in the courts and temples chanted praises to agricultural deities. Isis and Osiris. There were slight changes. New music was brought in when the Hyksos came with their drums and castanets. Other Semitic nomads introduced a form of the lyre.

Similar trends are apparent in the histories of all peoples. Beginning with fertility rites, music undergoes various changes as private property societies develop. It becomes religiously chant-like, a music designed to inspire awe and the acceptance of servitude to a ruling class. In China the starting point of musical theory is the “foundation tone”. It is a sacred, eternal principle, the basis of the state. A note of definite pitch (fa) supposed to give protection against public disorder.

When the Greeks came to the Mediterranean Isles they evolved a system of partially developed maritime commerce based on chattel-slavery. They established a reputation for knowledge and culture. But this was possible only because the vast wealth of the patricians enabled them to lead leisured lives. Beneath all the elegance festered the horrors of slavery. In the proud villas privileged musicians sang to aristocratic families. The teachers of music formulated their doctrine of the “ethos”, their belief in the ethical power of music, its ability to affect character for good or ill. So important did this doctrine become that performances of music were regulated by law.

When Greece became a province of Rome the conquerors adopted Grecian music, but did little to improve on it. The Empire was spread far and wide and there were few periods without war. Consequently the character of music was more martial. Military bands accompanied the army playing brazen wind instruments; the trumpet or clarion for the cavalry, the tuba for the infantry. Massive victory celebrations and gladiatorial combats were orchestrated with suitable sounds.

A few centuries later the Empire began to disintegrate. Rome was torn by class war and many saw salvation in the new religion. Constantine’s Edict of Milan gave Christianity state countenance, but many centuries passed before the new church was firmly established on a new social basis. This was the feudal system, with its hierarchy of power and privilege. The Frankish conquerors— tribal chiefs and petty kings—had castles built; they guaranteed protection (against raiding Vandals) to the freed slaves and others who had acquired a little land. The “protectors” eventually became warrior barons, who often fought one another and even found control by the king irksome. The king himself was continuously at odds with the church.

The earliest forms of western music are closely bound up with the church of Rome. The first forms were taken from ancient Greek songs and the chants of the Hebrew synagogues. Gregorian chant was derived from such sources, and an important factor in the prevalence of this music was the organ. This instrument, a development through various stages of the syrinx, the flute and the bagpipes was put together in Alexandria in the third century. Thus it may be said to have fallen into the lap of the church, and there is nothing surprising in the discovery that the first religious chants reached Rome through the Byzantine church. They were solemn chants in syllables—each syllable having one note. The choirs were not supposed to sing for the sheer love of singing. The expressed ideal was the glory of god.

Whatever this may have meant to the singers there is no doubt about its meaning to the priests. During the middle ages clerical possessions were enormous; churchmen owned at least one quarter of the land.

Towards the end of the middle ages music was still primarily a concern of the musicians employed by the church. However, by the turn of the 14th century composers had the technical means at their disposal to enable them to compose their own works. For a century French and Flemish composers led the way in Europe, and this raises the question why at different periods do some nations appear more musical than others? The answer, so far as the middle ages are concerned, is that the great cities of Flanders enjoyed a prosperity unparalleled in those times. They were great commercial and financial centres. This period in England was a time of disillusionment and disgrace for the established church. The corruption of religious orders was rife. At the same time wealthy merchants endowed large musical establishments, there came a development of instrumental music and practical instructions for the amateurs of the rising middle class. Music was losing its mystery.

At the end of the middle ages we see the more profound effects of the Renaissance on music. Printing had bloomed into established publishing houses, and this increased the chances of musicians. Their works were less anonymous and more correctly performed, and they felt free to borrow from predecessors. New manufactures included the clavichord and the harpsichord. The period is full of such changes. The bourgeoisie had not yet attained political power, but their commerce and wealth grew rapidly and they gained the interested patronage of the king, who soon commanded greater wealth than the merchants. One result of this was the royal patronage of the arts and sciences; another was the Civil War. In the not so distant future lay the Industrial Revolution. But the struggle between religious and secular ideas lasted at least for another century.

The distinction between religious and secular music settled for a period in the baroque, the balancing of contrasting forms. The church leaders saw the propaganda value of the new style. Its most successful form was the fugue. Three or four melodic lines were commonly used, and the main melody subjected to all the tricks of innovation known to the old composers. The king of this style was J. S. Bach. He invented no new forms himself, but used the method of imitative counterpoint. or taking a theme and changing it by adding or subtracting notes . . . He permitted himself almost anything. It was the most inventive form of musical imitation devised. His output was enormous. Handel wras another master of this style.

But it was the 17th and 18th centuries that saw the rise and culmination of the revolution in social and cultural thinking in Europe. The “Enlightenment” was the outgrowth of the continued rise of the bourgeoisie, an attack on established religion, feudal forms of political power, etc.

In music the demand was for ‘naturalness' and a more direct appeal to the emotions. This was the Romantic challenge to Classical music, which had ruled the roost from about 1750 to the first decades of the nineteenth century. Broadly, the Classical stood for political absolutism. the rule of order, nobility and sophistication. The feted composers worked in the employ of kings and wealthy aristocrats, who desired a style that would reflect the grace and beauty of their lives and the permanence of their rule. Haydn's and Mozart’s works were examples of the classical ideals of balance and beauty. Beethoven inherited the forms from them, but he expanded and developed them with skill and energy.

The Romantic movement swelled up in the turmoil of the French Revolution, and the wars that followed. It expressed the ideals of the middle class in the final days of feudalism; of “liberty, individualism, and nationalism”. The rising class took over the power of the aristocracy, became the ruling class. Among other acts they set up their own establishments, including new schools of music and concert halls.

The flow of romantic music had various national flavours as the bourgeois of Europe sought to follow in the footsteps of France. Strangely enough England seems to have been largely unaffected by this movement. But the explanation is quite natural. The England capitalists, having won power a century earlier, were currently enjoying economic growth and prosperity. They were in no need or mood for revolution.

Music has been called an international language. Yet the links with Nationalism still survive, because the national state is a bourgeois structure. It is constructive to read how such a ‘musical heritage' was built up in the United States. Very large sums of money were outlayed on musical colleges, institutes and orchestras, which are now in full bloom. A vast library of American folksongs was collected, mainly Anglo-Celtic in origin. Even Negro spirituals, with words and tunes adapted from Scottish and Irish melodies, were included. The claim is made that it all has an American flavour. The idea is to establish a separate musical identity, something they can make the public believe “this is ours”.

Nationalism as a cultural force certainly fell in influence after the Second World War. Some say this was due to the bourgeois sense of guilt. Enthusiasm for Wagner seemed to have dimmed among the intellectuals. And traditional concepts came under strong attack. Especially is this so in Latin America where musical nationalism has been pushed into the background. On the other hand Russian composers have had to toe the nationalist line. Shostakovich, for example, being bullied into the linking his works with the “achievements” of the USSR.

Of the future of music a fear has been floated that atonality, electronic sound and computerization will destroy the art of music. Will it matter? The pioneers in these fields have expressed the view that all sounds should be at the disposal of all who would like to compose. Such freedom would not be at variance with a socialist society.

Charles Kincaid

The myth of "Great Men" (1979)

From the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main” The message behind these eloquent words of the 17th Century poet, John Donne — that men are interdependent social animals is now widely accepted — paradoxically, at a time characterised by massive social dislocation, the rapid dissolution of traditional forms of closely knit community life and the stark stereotype of the alienated worker cocooned in a private mobile world of his car, family and job.

But if, pursuing Donne’s metaphor, no man is an island it might be said that some form the soaring peaks of the “continent” of humanity. A.J.P. Taylor once wrote that “the history of modern Europe can be written in terms of three titans: Napoleon. Bismarck and Lenin”. (From Napoleon to Stalin 1950): Others might portray an altogether different historical landscape. Social values such as patriotism influence the way facts are selected and the interpretation placed upon historical events. Thus E.H. Carr shrewdly observed that, “Germans today welcome the denunciation of Hitler’s individual wickedness as a satisfactory alternative to the moral judgement of the historian on the society which produced him”. Modern “euro-communists” treat Stalin as a scapegoat and for similar reasons the present Chinese regime denounce the “Gang of Four”, all of them setting much store by the theory which interprets history as the “biography of great men" (Carlyle).

However, to revert to our metaphor, an understanding of geomorphology or the study of landforms, is not acquired by merely describing a landscape’s configuration: we must delve into the process of landscape formation, into the geological past. The huge mountain ranges of today are the products of forces operating deep within the earth, deforming its crust over millions of years, giving rise to an immense variety of landscapes differing according to the conditions under which they were formed. Likewise, though with the obvious qualification that men unlike rocks are conscious creatures, influencing and influenced by society, social development can be understood as a complex process during the course of which a few individuals are thrust up into social prominence. The materialist or scientific conception of social development delves beneath the surface of historical events, relating men’s ideologies, superstitions, values and so on to the material conditions from which they issue and which sustain them.

A possible reason for the popularity of the "Great Man" theory is that it is the expression of an authoritarian ideology which a coercive society tends to generate. Work, for example, in this coercive capitalist world is organised on hierarchic principles with numerous levels of decision-making involved. Wage slaves are allotted production roles which confine them to a set of rigid expectations concerning their positions within the hierarchic structure of the firm. It is felt only “natural” that someone should run the show, take decisions and initiate action which others are prevented from doing by the limitations of their occupational roles. This conviction, derived from people’s everyday experiences, is carried over into or reinforces their general socio-political outlook. Hence, such an outlook stems from the class nature of capitalism since the existence of complex authority structures rests on the simple but fundamental fact that a small class of people own and control the means of living. The way capitalism organises people in its social affairs is conducive to them embracing the illusion that nothing of significance can be achieved except through the agency of "great men” — a view admirably suited to the interests of the capitalist class.

History books teach us that Cromwell defeated Charles 1, Wren built St Pauls and so on. Although, this is not intended as the literal truth, the sheer repetition of this manner of speech may well obscure important historical factors and lead one to suppose that the individual, is solely responsible for making history. Plekhanov aptly called this an “optical illusion” and gave the example of Napoleon to prove his point

In coming out in the role of the ‘good sword’ to save public order, Napoleon prevented all the other generals from playing this role and some of them might have performed it in the same way as he did. Once the public need for an energetic military ruler was satisfied, the social organisation barred the road to the position of military ruler for all other talented soldiers. Its power became a power that was unfavourable to the appearance of other talents of a similar kind. (The Role of the Individual in History)

Even Napoleon had to remark:

Mohammed’s case was like mine. I found all the elements ready at hand to found an empire. Europe was weary of anarchy, they wanted to make an end of it. If I had not come probably someone else would have done like me . . . I repeat, a man is only a man. His power 'is nothing if circumstances and public sentiment do not favour him.

Plekhanov however did not go to the other extreme of a fatalistic standpoint which ignores the role of individuals in society, as Tolstoy did in dismissing great men as merely “labels giving names to events”. Society shapes people: however people in a variety of ways with different degrees of significance, shape society, although with the materials society provides.

... by virtue of particular traits of their character, individuals can influence the fate of society. Sometimes this influence is very considerable; but the possibility of exercising this influence, and its extent, are determined by the form of organisation of society, by the relation of forces within it. The character of an individual is a “factor” in social development only where, when, and to the extent that social relations permit it to be such . . .

Thus the significance of Hitler, for example, did not lie in his megalomaniacal “genius” but rather the social position he occupied determined by the "form of organisation of society”, which enabled him to exercise his tyranny, and only because "circumstances and public sentiment” favoured him. Many factors were involved in the growth of the Nazi movement: Germany’s authoritarian political tradition, the discrediting of political democracy by communists, monarchists and nationalists, the Weimar government’s decision to reinstate the reactionary Junker generals (to quell the Spartacist Rising), the failure of Social Democracy to allay workers’ grievances. Interestingly, between 1924 and 1929. a period of relative prosperity, the Nazi movement made little progress receiving 800,000 votes in 1928. However, following the world slump in 1929 which hit Germany particularly badly since its economy was heavily financed by foreign loans, the Nazis received 6,400,000 votes in the 1930 elections which increased to nearly 14 million in 1932 at the height of the slump.

The Nazi movement, and, its leaders, was a product of years of depression. Hitler became its leader because of his connections with military officers like Roehm and Von Epp and his control over Party funds. As for his undoubted gift as an orator (another contributing factor) his book Mein Kampf provides a useful insight into the orators relationship with his audience — “he will always follow the lead of the great mass in such a way that from the living emotion of his hearers, the apt word which needs will be suggested to him and in its turn will go straight to the heart of his hearers”. What could be clearer? Hitler was the creation of those living emotions of a people scarred by economic misfortune, ready to fall for the sheer opportunist policies and jingoism the Nazis offered.

The great man is not an island entire of itself but the product of general social trends which he cannot alter although he can influence events within these trends. Society, as it were, selects its great men. according to prevailing social needs and conditions and furnishes the material out of which they are formed. As Carlyle said: “We can judge people by their heroes”.

Socialism, because of its nature as the “most radical rupture with traditional property forms” (Communist Manifesto) requires for its establishment and operation the conscious and democratic action of a vast majority. As Engels declared in the Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in France:

The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses. When it gets to be a matter of complete transformation of social organisation, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act.

Socialism cannot be imposed by a vanguard elite upon an uncomprehending or unwilling majority who will have to participate in its running. At the end of the day, the deciding factor in the establishment of socialism is not some mythical “’Revolutionary Situation” but whether the vast majority understand and want it.

Robin Cox

Bias on the Bench (1979)

Book Review from the February 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Politics of the Judiciary by J. A. G. Griffith (Fontana 1977) £1.25

"In the traditional view" John Griffith writes, "the function of the judiciary is to decide disputes in accordance with the law and with impartiality. The law is thought of as an established body of principles which describes rights and duties . . . " Essentially, this view rests on an assumption of judicial "neutrality". Griffith's book is an attempt to explode this erroneous view.

It is not difficult to show that the judiciary are a collection of reactionary, narrow minded servants of the existing elite. Indeed some have wondered why Griffith has bothered to write a book just to demonstrate this obvious fact. However, it is worth demonstrating and although proof is not hard to find the book is useful in that it pulls together in a readable lucid style several areas of judicial action which supports Griffith's contention of the bias of the judiciary.

One of the most illuminating and instructive examples is a well known speech by one of England's best known judges, Lord Denning. In a case dealing with the London Borough of Southwark's claim for possession of slum houses against some squatters, Denning made the following remarkable statement:

If homelessness were once admitted as a defence to trespass, no one's house could be safe. Necessity would open a door which no man could shut . . . So the courts, for the sake of law and order, take a firm stand. They must refuse to admit the plea of necessity to the hungry and the homeless; and trust that their distress will be relieved by the charitable and the good" (our emphasis).

In showing the judiciary's bias in favour of property in general and against such groups as trade unions, students and squatters, Griffith has demonstrated the purpose of his book, which he claimed was to look at the ways in which judges have, in recent years, dealt with political cases which have come before them. What is unfortunate (although inevitable) about the book is that Griffith gets no further than pointing out the lack of judicial neutrality. He writes:"to expect a judge to advocate radical change, albeit legally, is as absurd as it would be to expect an anarchist to speak up in favour of an authoritarian society".

This of course is the wrong question. It is not a matter of whether the judges are concerned to preserve and protect the existing order of society, but what the working class are prepared to do about capitalism. Griffith shows little understanding that what is at stake is not the obvious bias of the judiciary, but the bias of the working class in favour of the society that the judiciary defend.

Ronnie Warrington