The Rise and Fall of Clause Four (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

In 1918 the Labour Party transformed itself into a national organisation. At the same time it adopted a list of Party Objects, the fourth of which read: ‘To secure for the producers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry, and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible, upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry and service.”

This was the nearest the Labour Party ever came to committing itself on paper to Socialism, since this could be interpreted as a somewhat wordy definition of real Socialism not all that different from the Object we in the Socialist Party adopted when we were founded in 1904: ‘The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.”

However, since it was drawn up by the Fabians Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and since the Fabians stood for a state capitalism run by an educated elite, it was meant to be understood as a reference to state ownership, or nationalisation, i.e. state capitalism.

This was confirmed when in 1929, as a result of left-wing pressure to commit the Labour Party to the nationalisation of the banks, the words “distribution and exchange” were added after “the common ownership of the means of production”. This made it absolutely clear that what was envisaged was not real socialism but state capitalism.

To talk of the common ownership of the means of exchange is a contradiction in terms. Where there is common ownership there can be no exchange since exchange can only take place between separate owners, i.e. where private ownership not common ownership exists. In a socialist society based on common ownership goods are simply distributed not exchanged, so there is no need for money, banks and the rest of the financial system.

After Labour lost the 1959 election the then leader Gaitskill tried to get rid of Clause 4 on the grounds that it was an electoral liability, but had to back down in face of the opposition. Now Tony Blair is going to try again, with more chance of success it appears.

In a sense he his right: Labour does not stand for state capitalism – it stands for working within the present profit-driven market system dominated privately-owned companies. It stands for capitalism pure and simple. The dropping of Clause 4 will merely make this absolutely clear.

50 Years Ago: Labour’s Lost Chord (2010)

The 50 Years Ago column from the January 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

Against all the precedents, and to the surprise of many Labour supporters, the Tories have won their third election in succession; and have even managed to increase their majority. The most interesting aspect of this was not Supermac’s victory, but the changed attitudes and moods of the electorate, that were revealed more clearly than before. These changes affect the Labour Party far more than the Tories, and in some ways appear to be a major disaster for Labour, causing much heart-searching and what John Foster Dulles called “agonising re-appraisals.”

In spite of high polls and a fairly steady Labour vote, something has gone from British politics, and gone for ever. This “something” might loosely be called “left-wing idealism.” Where is the enthusiasm of Labour’s early years; where the desire to make the world a place of dignity, free from slavery and oppression; where the striving to make man master of the machine instead of its mere adjunct Labour in the past expressed, however incoherently, all these aspirations of a working class just out of its infancy, crying out, not for charity and mercy, but for political power with which to change the world.

The Labour Party was formed in 1906, yet despite its recent emergence (as compared with Liberal or Tory) its appeal is already fading, its policies old-hat, its ideals threadbare and increasingly lost in vague verbiage. Fifty-three years have seen the rise and decline of that sincere idealism that sent hundreds of thousands of workers onto the streets campaigning, not for “we can make ‘ You have never had it so good’ even better,” but to build a society worthy of Man’s sense of his own dignity. Left-wing idealism has died, and all the trumpeting of Bevan, Barbara Castle, Mikardo and “Tribune” cannot bring it to life again. Labour today can only mimic its former styles; and the result, with even the rebels supporting H-bombs, rearmament and the trade struggle with foreign powers, sounds as hollow as an old biscuit-tin.

[From article by F.R.I, Socialist Standard, January 1960.]

Socialism or Capitalism (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The one vital issue is the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism

Have no illusions about the sham fight between Tory and Labour or the pretensions of the Liberals, at this Election. All stand for the retention of capitalism.

The one vital issue that should concern the workers of Britain is the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This is not the aim of the Labour Party. State capitalism or nationalisation is not Socialism. The attempts to run capitalism under price controls and profit controls are not Socialism. In the Labour Party election manifesto of 1945 the false claim was made that the “Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it.” Even this lip service to Socialism has now been dropped and replaced by meaningless references to the “welfare State” the building of a “just society,” and "equality of opportunity.”

Capitalism, whether run by a Labour Government, a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or (as in Russia) by a Communist Government cannot solve your problems. Capitalism means endless poverty and insecurity for the working class. In addition, its inescapable international rivalries are the cause of war which no United Nations can prevent. The only way out is to establish Socialism. This requires the conversion of the means of production and distribution from their present function of producing profit to common ownership by the whole of society. Goods and services would then be produced solely to satisfy human needs, and by ridding society of the waste of armaments and of all the financial and other operations inseparable from capitalism human society would for the first time be easily able to provide all the needs and comforts of life.

The achievement of this great purpose waits only on the recognition of its necessity by you, the working-class, and on your understanding of the democratic political action necessary to carry it through.

Do not be deterred by the magnitude of the problem or by the timid argument that world-wide agreement to achieve it is impracticable. The workers of all other countries are harassed by the same capitalist evils that make your lives a burden. They are no less anxious than you to find the way out. They are as able as you are to grasp the great truth that humanity can be saved only by the co-operation of the workers of all countries. Like you they abhor capitalism's wars and long for real peace that only Socialism can provide.

At present the number of Socialists in this and other countries is too small to determine the results of elections. In recent Parliamentary elections the Socialist Party of Great Britain has put up one or two candidates and, as we knew would be the result, they received the votes of only the very small number of Socialists in the constituencies chosen. On this occasion we have one candidate in Bethnal Green but in other constituencies, if you have finally turned your back on the parties that put forward different methods of trying to run capitalism you will be able to register your vote for Socialism by writing. “Socialism" across the ballot paper. This will serve to advertise the number of those who have realised that the use of the vote to support any other candidate no matter how he describes himself, is a vote for capitalism.

Study Socialism. Become Socialists. Resolve thal you will help to make the Socialist Party strong enough to be the decisive factor at future elections.

Election Address (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Working Men and Women of Bethnal Green.

Fellow Workers,

As candidate for the Socialist Party of Great Britain I am asking you to consider only the case of the organisation that I represent—that is, the case for Socialism.

The viewpoint of my organisation is one that is fundamentally different from those of the other parties taking part in this election. It is different because the Socialist Party of Great Britain is concerned with the interests of the working class, whereas all the other parties represent the interests of the ruling, or employing class.

It may be objected that the Labour Party, too, is concerned with working class interests, but their record conclusively shows otherwise. In their period of office in the six post-war years they introduced "wage-freeze" and “wage restraint" schemes which resulted in workers finding themselves worse off in 1951 than they were in 1945: the Labour Party used troops in strikes; they are the party who introduced the largest peacetime re-armament programme in history; it was they who promised to solve the housing problem and dismally failed.

Not that the Tories have done any better. These two parties, and the Liberals too, exist to preserve the existing social system—the system of capitalism. Even if you do feel in sympathy with the Labour, Liberal or Tory Parties, I do suggest that you do not put this address to one side, but read on; for I know you will find it interesting and worth-while.

Pie Crust Promises

You have been promised peace, but there are still wars.

You have been promised prosperity, and are told that prosperity is here, but it is not prosperity for you.

You have been promised security but it still eludes you.

You have been promised an end to poverty, but it is still with us.

You have been promised houses, and you are still being promised them.

You have been promised cheaper living costs, but the cost of living is now higher than ever before.

You have been promised anything that seemed a good vote catching stunt.

Now look at the literature that the other parties are distributing and note that the same old things are still being promised, just re-arranged and dressed up in different words. Yet all these problems still confront you.

Our Common Cause

We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are, like you, members of the working class. Whether we earn our living in overalls or in a white collar and pin-stripe trousers: whether we are paid by the hour, day, week, month or contract; whether the price we receive for our ability to work is called a wage or a salary, we are all members of a class that needs to find an employer in order to live. Our problems are identical. We have a common cause.

All industry today, whether private or state-controlled, is run for the purpose of producing profit. When you and I go to work we produce a wealth of commodities that we leave in the hands of our employers. We receive a wage that enables us to continue to go to work and to rear our families of future wage earners, with very little over. The surplus that we produce over and above what our wages will buy is the store of wealth from which landlords, investors and industrialists draw their rent, interest and profit. In the perpetual pressure to increase that surplus we are goaded to work harder and to produce more.

It is this profit-making basis of society that is the root of all our problems. There is no solution to be found by dealing only with the effects.

Glance at some of the tinkering reforms that arc offered by our political opponents.

Houses, Rents and Slums

First the ever-present housing problem. There have been innumerable Acts of Parliament aimed at solving the workers' housing problems since (he Earl of Shaftesbury introduced the first Bill, in 1851. Despite the efforts of Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties, the problem has become more acute with the passing years.

You are now told that rent control has failed and rents must go up because of the hundreds of thousands of neglected houses falling into dilapidation and slumdom.

The Fallacy of Full Employment

Why do we fear unemployment? Not usually because we like our jobs but because we cannot live without our wages. The wealthy capitalist has no fear of being out-of-work. For him it is leisure, for us it is hardship.

Although unemployment since the war has not reached pre-war levels in this country and although the Tories boast that employment is now increasing, do not forget that in January of this year there were nearly 700,000 registered unemployed; if the unregistered were added, the total would probably have been a million.

That fact alone shows how hollow is the claim that governments can maintain “full employment"; the next world trade recession would send unemployment up again.

Who Wins Wars?

Certainly not you and I. Out of the profit that we make for our employers, millions are used to maintain the armed forces, police, law courts, prisons, and all the state machinery necessary to protect interests of the rich. But before that profit can be used for this purpose it must be realised into pounds, shillings and pence—the goods must be sold in a market.

In world markets there are competitors from other countries. The rivalry between different groups of capitalists driving for markets gives rise to friction between states, and when diplomacy fails to ease the friction, war becomes imminent.

Then you and 1 arc subjected to a spate of patriotic propaganda to whip us into a frenzy of hate and we, or our sons, are sent to slaughter our fellow workers in the rival countries.

War is another evil that springs direct from the wage-labour and capital base of present day society and will remain whilst that base is intact. Nuclear weapons and germ warfare are part of this evil, and campaigns directed against them leave the problem of capitalism and war untouched.

Reforms beget Reforms

Much ill-health, most crime and nearly ail malnutrition can be traced to poverty which is a product of capitalist society. Reforms to alleviate poverty may ease the lot of some of the poor, but no reforms can remove the cause of poverty. A reform that eases one outstanding evil frequently gives rise to others. Just as new houses can help some workers who desperately need homes, they find that rents are so high that the larder must suffer. Only a complete change in the basis of society can produce a lasting improvement in the lot of the working class.

Non-Socialist “Socialists"

We are not the only ones in this election who call ourselves Socialists.

The Labour Party claims to be a socialist party but it enters this election, as it did every election in the past, inviting your support for scores of reforms and promises designed to make you believe that capitalism can be re-organised to give you what you want from life.

The Communist Party is not one whit different in that respect. It competes with the other parties of capitalism in offering bigger and better reforms.

The Lesser Evil

Some people say that they agree with us, but, as there is no immediate prospect of achieving Socialism, it would be better to choose the less of two evils by supporting one of the Capitalist parties. There is only one evil, that is Capitalism. From it your problems flow. No matter which political party you choose to operate it. the results will differ but little. Offering you the choice of capitalist parties is like offering the Christmas goose the choice of being baked or boiled. As far as you and I are concerned our goose will be cooked whichever you choose.

What Can Nationalisation Do For Us?

Nothing. But the Conservative and Labour parties, and the Communist party, are in favour of some measure of state control of industry; they differ only in degree. State or private industries are all of a kind. Shareholders may become bondholders and trade union officials may have top jobs in nationalised industries, but the terrible twins, wage-labour and capital, are still there. There is still wealth for the few and a bare living wage for you and me.

Nationalisation was formerly the main plank in the Labour platform but the experience of the past ten years has brought disillusionment among those who expected so much from it.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain never supported nationalisation.

Permanent Sacrifice

We are called upon to make sacrifices to safeguard democracy, to “defend our living standards,” to “defend our way of life,” and for many other high sounding and meaningless reasons. You and I have done nothing other than make sacrifices, first to build up armaments, then for a war effort, next for post-war reconstruction and then to help over the bad times between wars. There is always an excuse for demanding sacrifices from the workers. It is time you stood on your feet and made some drastic changes in a world that could satisfy your needs with plenty but provides only plenty of needs.

What Must Be Done

You and I have only our energies to sell; we can only live by finding employment from those who own the land, mines, factories, machines, tools and transport system and all the things necessary to produce the necessaries and comforts of life. This ownership must be ended, these things must be converted to the common property of everyone and democratically controlled in the interests of all. Wealth will not then be produced for the profit of a few but will become common-wealth, available to all.

Why It Must Be Done

Science and discovery have made it possible for everyone to have a fuller life but capitalism bars the way. Millions now engaged in unnecessary tasks such as making bombs and bus tickets, or counting other people’s money and advertising catch-penny products, as well as the unemployed of both classes, can be brought into the field of useful production when the capitalist system is abolished. Hours of work can be shortened, wars ended and economic security achieved.

How It Can Be Done

Members of the capitalist class can go to Bermuda or Balmoral, confident that their interests are secure so long as you continue to support the parties that ensure the continuation of the Capitalist ownership of the means of life.

When a Socialist working class in all countries decides to reconstruct society in keeping with its own interests by dispossessing the Capitalist class, it must first gain control of the machinery of government. It is with that object that the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN enters this electoral contest.

Now Is The Time

During this campaign you will see no posters or window tickets urging you to vote for me. We shall indulge in no ballyhoo or electioneering stunts. We appeal to your understanding and intelligence and not to your emotions and prejudices.

If you want Socialism you have got to set about the task of achieving it; no one is going to present it to you on a plate. All we ask is that you consider our case and. if you agree with it. help us to fight for it. We have built our political party in order that you can use it to achieve Socialism. This election is your opportunity, don't waste it.

Comradely yours.

Jack Read.

Campaign News (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Election Headquarters have been obtained at 4 Westgate Street. Hackney. E.8. just off Mare Street and opposite King Edward Road. London Fields Station 2 minutes. Bethnal Green Tube Station 5 minutes. Buses No. 6, 106, 170, 277, Trolley buses 555, 557, 653—all pass the door.

Help from members and sympathisers is urgently required. Literature needs distributing. Canvassing must be done. We are open every day and shall be pleased to see you. Telephone: AMH 5010.

Do not delay ! (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

This Election Campaign is going to cost a lot of money — to be more precise £500 is the minimum sum we shall need. This will cover literature, deposit, Committee rooms, etc.—-in fact, the lot. Needless to say, we haven’t got it. In fact the Parliamentary Fund stands at £308, just now. We’ve got to find the balance of £200 from somewhere. We’ve had the floorboards up at Head Office, but there is no hidden treasure. So we come back to you. We’ve never been let down in the past, and feel sure you won’t disappoint us this time. Please see what you can do. No sum is too large or too small, but we must have it now. Please send all donations to E. Lake, S.P.G.B., 52 Clapham High Street, S.W.4, and earmark it “Parliamentary Fund.”

Capitalism or Socialism? (1959)

From the front page of the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Parliamentary Fund Appeal (1958)

Party News from the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Party needs money for many things, but one of the most pressing problems facing the Party today is the state of the Parliamentary Fund. At the moment, it amounts to £68 odd. That, as you will appreciate, is but a drop in the ocean. We need money for this Fund and we need it quickly. The present Government is nearing its end and may at any time announce its dissolution.

We are contesting the Bethnal Green constituency; the candidate has been appointed and Hackney branch is proceeding with plans for indoor meetings in the autumn.

We need £500 immediately. The donations of members and sympathisers are our mainstay and we ask you to give generously and quickly so that this effort can be a worthwhile one.

Send your donations to the Treasurer, 52, Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.

50 Years Ago: The Use of the Vote (2009)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The power you have

In the weeks of electoral excitement before polling day you will have been made to appreciate, at least a little, that you are, for the moment, important people. Between elections you look up to politicians and big business men as important, but during elections it is they who go to endless trouble to influence you and win your support for them and their policies. It is you who can make or mar the career of a politician and you who can place power in the hands of a government which during its term of office can. by taxation and tariff policies or by subsidies, raise some industries to prosperity and bring others to their ruin. It is you who give power to governments in whose hands rest decisions about peace and war.

Power for no use

Since the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed there have been fourteen general elections in this country: this is the fifteenth. Fifteen times the Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties have appealed to you to help them with your votes. Fourteen times you, the workers, have used your votes against your own interests.

 

Although the parties we have mentioned use different names for their programmes and promises of legislation, there is very little of importance dividing them. They are all concerned with trying to administer British capitalism as well as may be in a troubled world of rival capitalist groups. In any big emergency like the crisis of 1931 or in war they come together and form coalition governments

Whichever of them, you, the workers, vote for in an election, it is a defeat for you. a betrayal of your own interests.

(from Editorial, Socialist Standard, October 1959)

Party Politics (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a well-known series of advertisements which advise any young man who has his eye on a girl looking like a model from Vogue that his chances are much improved by wearing a suit from a certain mass production tailor. When the competition is stiff, we are told, appearance counts. Political parties learned this lesson long ago; with a general election expected during the next few months they are all busily straightening their ties, smoothing their hair and adjusting their buttonholes.

Take-Over Bid

The Labour Party has been trying to make something over the recent spate of take-over bids, which forced up some share prices and yielded a nice profit to those shareholders who sold at the right time. In the House of Commons on 29th June, Mr. Harold Wilson moved a Labour motion which described takeover bids and excessive speculation as undesirable. He attacked the “golden handshake" which displaced directors receive and contrasted this with the compensation which a redundant miner or mule spinner could expect. A simple soul would conclude that the Labour Party really opposed the privileged access to wealth which is part and parcel of capitalism. Yet what effect did their last period of rule have on this problem? At a meeting in Leeds on 3rd May, 1953—two years after the fall of the Labour Government—Mr. Hugh Gaitskell stated that there were 9 million people with an annual income of less than £500—and two thousand who were getting at least £20,000 a year.

The H-Bomb

The Labour Party is also in something of a fix over the hydrogen bomb. Several large trade unions have decided in favour of Great Britain abandoning nuclear weapons and it seems safe to say that a lot of Labour Party members think likewise. But there are two big snags. Firstly, the Labour leaders probably feel that, if the unilateral and unconditional renunciation of the bomb were adopted into their programme, they would certainly lose the election.

Secondly, if they did decide to abandon the bomb and then won the election, the diplomatic emergencies of British capitalism could force them to break their promise. Mr. Bevan, who fancies himself as a Labour Foreign Secretary, has summed it up, by pleading that he did not want to be sent naked into the international conferences.

To overcome these problems, the Labour Party have revised an idea which they rejected some seven months ago; they will try to get an agreement with countries which have no bomb, or are about to test one, not to test, manufacture or possess nuclear weapons. Nothing in the history of disarmament conferences encourages us to think that this scheme would solve the problem of nuclear warfare. Indeed, the Labour Party recognise that France and China want a bomb of their own and “we can hardly deny these nations the right to follow our example." Apart from this, Russia and America would keep their nuclear weapons and American bases—presumably armed with hydrogen bombs and missiles—would still be allowed in this country. In straightforward, human terms the problem of the hydrogen bomb is simple—to destroy ourselves or to live. But organisations like the Labour Party, which have the responsibility of running British capitalism, cannot judge things in human terms. That is why their statement ends with “. . . we realise the importance of not tying the hands of a future Labour Government or committing them to any precise or detailed diplomatic plan.” If British capitalism needs it, Mr. Bevan will have his nuclear clothing, even if a lot of human beings lose their skin as a result.

Unemployment

Lest we forget, the Tories have also been putting on the style. Apart from having their laugh at the Labour Party's difficulties, they have been throwing some meaty blows of their own. Replying to Mr. Wilson on 29th June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the numbers of registered unemployed had fallen to 413,000. This was harsh medicine to the Labour Party, for they once gave a lot of heavy warnings about the Tories deliberately provoking unemployment. But most workers, whatever other problems capitalism may dump on them, are happy in their work; the decrease probably meant a lot to them. The Chancellor did not mention that 413,000 unemployed is still about 150,000 more than when the Tories took over; to have done so would have been out of keeping with the joy of the occasion. And the Tories are joyful; even confident, as the days go by and the statistics come in and Labour squabbles with itself and Mr. Macmillan seems more and more in control of things, more and more elegant and, but for the grey hairs, almost like the young man who gets the girl in the tailor's advertisement.

At the next election, the working class will decide which party's appearance is the most appealing and we shall have a Labour or a Conservative government and capitalism will stay with us. Some voters think that only certain politicians make a mess of things; in fact, the whole of the capitalist system is a mess. It is working class ignorance and apathy which keeps that mess there; and, ironically, it is the working class who are left to pick the bones out of it.

Ivan.

Are Politicians Honest? (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does anybody expect politicians and other leaders to be honest? To keep their promises? To admit their mistakes and if necessary make way for somebody who can do better than they? The history of capitalism is crowded with examples of leaders who have never done anything of the kind. Of men who have persisted in policies and actions which were obviously harmful—and have lied to justify their mistakes.

Older people will remember the stubbornness of the European politicians in the 1914-18 war, who persisted in futile campaigns which were often costing thousands of lives every day, without achieving even the objects which the generals had set out for them. There as a story that, when the terrible battle at Passchendaele was at last over, a high ranking British officer went up to the battlefield and wept at what he saw there. But Douglas Haig, the man who had planned and defended the whole campaign, did not weep. He was given an earldom. None of the politicians suggested that the war was one great, bitter futility. None of them, when it was over, balanced the dead against what was settled at the so-called peace conferences. They simply rearranged the frontiers of Europe, threw the Germans out of Africa and waited for the next war to start. And when that happened, one of the excuses for it was a dispute over a part of the post-1918 settlement — the Polish Corridor. The treaties of 1945 have had the same effect—they have not pacified, but have irritated and provoked more sore spots in the world.

These are only some of the instances when, although direct and vital human interests were at stake, the leaders of capitalism have been less than honest .They are still at the same game. Last March, President Eisenhower spoke to some American-Chilean organisations in Santiago de Chile. He had this to say:

The suggestion that America supports dictators is ridiculous. Surely no nation loves liberty more. . . . We repudiate dictatorship in any form right or left. Our role . . . stands as a beacon to all who love freedom.

Fine words. They ignore the fact that, in the past few years, the U.S.A. has supported, financially and militarily, dictators like Franco, Syngman Rhee, and Batista. And, of course, they have helped one of the most ruthless of the lot—Stalin, who was sustained in his pitiless rule by the aid which America poured into his country during the war. At the time, the American and Russian ruling classes had common cause against Germany—and when capitalist interests are at stake, principles of freedom and human rights are left to take care of themselves.

Nearer home, we find other examples of political inconsistency. The Manchester Guardian of 15th June. 1959, reporting on the Whitehaven by-election, drew attention to two statements which had been made by the Conservative candidate. One, in February. 1950. when he was standing as a Liberal, called the Conservative Party ". . . a class party . . . which desires to keep power and privilege m the hands of a particular section of the community". The other, in October. 1951, when he had joined the Tories, described them as standing ". . . not for one section of the community, but for all.”

This latter can be a winning line. Most workers deny the existence of a class struggle and vote against a party which they think stands for the interests of any class. The majority of them harbour the delusion that everybody’s interests are the same—and woe betide the "rabble rouser" who talks about the class war. This goes down especially well with the hire-purchasers of television sets and the deferred buyers of cars. So, to win votes and influence people, a party must often claim that it is above class, and that its opponents dabble in the fields of narrow self-interest.

A lot of money can be spent to put over this sort of idea. The recently published The British General Election of 1959, by David Butler and Richard Rose, reveals that between July, 1957, and October, 1959, the Conservative Party lashed out £468,000 on press advertising and posters alone. All of this—and what was spent at the same time by the other parties and by the various industries threatened with nationalisation—to convince workers that capitalism could be better organised by one set of leaders rather than the other. Are the voters flattered? Apparently so; change as they might between Labour, Tory, Liberal or what have you, their support for capitalism is unwavering.

Here is the very centre of the whirlwind. They trust their leaders Field Marshal Lord Montgomery summed it up when he said, on the anniversary of D-Day:

. . . a way can be found by which the East and the West can live together in spite of different ideas and social systems, but the finding of that way is not for you and me—it is for our political leaders.

This surprisingly is not one of the Field Marshal's least sensible statements. The problems of capitalist society can be left to "our political leaders." But workers—the people who make and build, who manage and organise—and who die in capitalisms wars—have a different task. They must realise that the leaders themselves show the wretchedness and brutality of the system. That, even without the mistakes and dishonesty which we have seen, capitalism would still make one hell of a world. That the future is not in putting blind faith in leaders, but in widespread understanding and socially conscious action.

Ivan

The Influence of Television (1961)

Book Review from the May 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Television and the Political Image by Joseph Trenaman and Denis McQuail, Methuen, 30s.

During the last few years, a new word has crept into the English language. Psephology is the name given to the business of putting voters under the microscope and probing their innermost electoral reflexes. Where once people simply voted at election time, now every cross must be checked and analysed.

We might have expected that television would come into this. No self-respecting psephologist can ignore a communication medium which four-fifths of the population have access to. 1955 was the first television election, although at that time sound broadcasting was still dominant. 1959 was different; apart from the enormous increase in the number of T.V. sets, both channels broke with past practice by putting out such programmes as the B.B.C.s “Hustings" and Granada's “Election Marathon".

What were the effects of this? Did, for example, any votes change sides because of the parties' broadcasts on T.V? Did television affect attendance at political meetings, the number of party workers and so on? A Research Unit at Leeds University (working on a Granada grant) tried to find answers to these, and other, questions. They closely studied the campaign on television and at the same time sampled political opinion among the voters in the two Yorkshire constituencies of Pudsey and West Leeds. Television and the Political Image reports their findings.

The authors conclude that television had little effect on the outcome of the 1959 election. Partisan programmes were not as well received as those which hid their propaganda under an informative camouflage. The professional slickness of the Labour Party programmes, which so irked the newspaper reviewers, was not generally resented. Whatever knowledge the viewers had on the issues of the campaign tended to increase as a result of their watching television.

The specific validity of such conclusions may be open to argument. But the overall picture of the voter which emerges from them seems fairly accurate: somebody who is mostly bored with politics and who, when an election stirs him to vote, does so in accordance with his hitherto sleeping prejudices.

Television and the Political Image is not light reading, and it is loaded with statistical tables and graphs which demand close study. Doubtless, we shall see many more such works, for if the power-conscious parties can find out why the working class vote as they do, they are a long way towards winning an election. If Trenaman and McQuail are any guide, Labour's problem in 1959 was to convince everybody that their promises were not rash bribery. The Tories, it seems, must still work hard to persuade us that they really care about the aged and the needy.

This is a dirty game. And the psephologist, busily adding up his figures to discover the reasons for the working class preferring one type of capitalist subjection to another, does not make it any cleaner.

Ivan

Labour's Lost Chord (1960)

From the January 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Against all the precedents, and to the: surprise of many Labour supporters, the Tories have won their third election in succession; and have even managed to increase their majority. The most interesting aspect of this was not Supermac's victory, but the changed attitudes and moods of the electorate, that were revealed more clearly than before. These changes affect the Labour Party far more than the Tories, and in some ways appear to be a major disaster for Labour, causing much heart-searching and what John Foster Dulles called “agonising re-appraisals.”

In spite of high polls and a fairly steady Labour vote, something has gone from British politics, and gone for ever. This “something” might loosely be called “left-wing idealism.” Where is the enthusiasm of Labour’s early years; where the desire to make the world a place of dignity, free from slavery and oppression; where the striving to make man master of the machine instead of its mere adjunct. Labour in the past expressed, however incoherently, all these aspirations of a working class just out of its infancy, crying out, not for charity and mercy, but for political power with which to change the world.

The Labour Party was formed in 1906, yet despite its recent emergence (as compared with Liberal or Tory) its appeal is already fading, its policies old-hat, its ideals threadbare and increasingly lost in vague verbiage. Fifty-three years have seen the rise and decline of that sincere idealism that sent hundreds of thousands of workers onto the streets campaigning, not for “we can make ‘You have never had it so good’ even better.” but to build a society worthy of Man’s sense of his own dignity. Left-wing idealism has died, and all the trumpeting of Bevan. Barbara Castle, Mikardo and “Tribune” cannot bring it to life again. Labour today can only mimic its former styles; and the result, with even the rebels supporting H-bombs, rearmament and the trade struggle with foreign powers, sounds as hollow as an old biscuit-tin.

Labour’s Lost Image
Images—religious, military, national or political have nothing precise or rational in their make-up. A political image is created by a thousand-and-one vague impressions gained from speeches, articles (and even catchy phrases remembered out of context), the personal appearance and integrity (real or assumed) of the politicians, and the manner and methods of presenting promises to the electorate. The practiced politician is aware of this, and seeks more to create a favourable image than to present a coherent political programme. The measures presented must likewise have quick appeal, the thoughtful must make way for the sensational. The image which Labour built was of the working-man turned politician who by a judicious use of Parliament would strike a blow for the workers against the forces of exploitation and oppression. Labour became the embodiment of “Us.” “Them” being not just the ruling class, but the whole Establishment, right down to the foreman. With this image Labour could rely on millions of votes from embittered workers who were never sufficiently politically aware to state any specific revolutionary aims.

In furtherance of this image, Labour became a political Father Christmas offering something to every shade of radical, reforming opinion. A political pap, made of Reformism, Fabianism, Pacifism, Nationalisation, Cooperation, Patriotism and Christianity, provided a diet for everybody—almost. This diet may not be very nourishing, but the promise of working-class victory was enough to blind many to Labour’s defects. Five-and-a-half years of Labour Government helped to disillusion many, but the malaise of the Labour Party goes deeper. Times have changed, and the changed attitudes of workers are posing a big problem for Labour. It seems that in an era of full employment their message has become irrelevant. Since 1950, they have had difficulty in finding a policy that marked them off from the Tories. A rather damaging thing to say about a party whose prominent members are fond of talking about “Principles of Social Democracy”; “Public Ownership”; and “Co-operative Commonwealth.” Big words, and words that are extremely obscure as used by the Labour Party. They have in any case lost a lot of their old appeal, and Labour might as well drop them.

The Rise of the “Middle Class”
It is the spread of what is called the “middle class” and its ideals that has so much changed the character of British Politics. “Middle Class” is not a valid term in the economic sense; the middle class or rising Capitalist class of Marx’s day have vanished from the scene. A rough definition of them today would be “all those members of the working class who, for reasons of tradition, snobbery and aspiration, identify themselves with Capitalism and its institutions.” They are a part of the Establishment; seeking social solidarity in the pretences that their employments are valuable and that they form the backbone of society. The correct ethics and morals must be observed, the correct sort of clothes worn, and the right sort of house occupied. Income is to some extent secondary, though the most lowly-paid workers cannot qualify. The £12 a week clerk is frequently “middle class” in outlook, while better paid workers on bench or machines are usually “working class.” “Middle class” aims and aspirations are however becoming more widespread, even among Labour’s traditional supporters.

One change is the growth of the unproductive tasks. This process is continuous, but it has received fresh impetus in the boom conditions prevailing since the War. New office-buildings thrust their outlines into every city skyline, and they are much bigger than the bombed or demolished buildings they replace. More and more office staff are required, and their activities are mechanised and organised on a large scale. Capitalism requires more and more people to calculate, organise, publicise and litigate.

As the office-workers have grown, so the industrial workers, considered as a proportion of the population, have declined. In industry, too, important changes are taking place. The technicians, designers, draughtsmen, and supervisors become increasingly important, and are becoming cut off from their proletarian roots. Many such people are “middle class” in outlook, and are usually on the side of the “Supermac” angels.

Most important of all is the growth among all sections of what D. H. Lawrence called “the new money pleasures.” The past sixty years has seen tremendous changes in consumer goods. Modern Capitalism, with its mass-production of pressed-steel and plastic gadgets, its electronic marvels and its motor-cars, has conditioned people to the continual discarding of the old and the buying of new things. No longer need the furniture last a lifetime it must be glossy, bold-as-brass. and changed every few years. Acquisition and coveting are the ruling social ideas, and there has been as a consequence a decline in social life and a decline in interest in real human questions. The furniture, radiogram and T.V. may be new, but the emotional experiences are second-hand, gained from T.V., best-selling novel or film. "You have never had it so good” is a pretty accurate, and cynical, summing-up of attitudes in the 1950's This is not a triumph of higher wages and improved social conditions, it is a triumph of things over human relationships. The Commodity reigns supreme, and Humanity is hardly anywhere. There is a constant barrage of T.V.. press and film advertising to help keep the Commodity secure.

What can the left-wing idealists of the Labour Party say against this? The Labour Party, with its catchpenny prosperity schemes, its sensational appeals, its exhortations to workers to work harder in the cause of increased prosperity, its support of the trade struggle, contributed its share towards Man's enslavement to the Commodity.

What Labour failed to see was that Capitalism could be modified again and again—and still remain Capitalism. Poverty is a permanent feature of Capitalism. However many gadgets workers acquire (and the process need not be continuous, for slumps can return again) they remain workers; and the ruling class are still there—on top.

The Squawking, Chattering Jay
Labour need not be stuck for an answer. There is the quick gloss, the clever evasion, the downright lie; all useful weapons in politics. There is the Jay approach, a truly cynical one: cast away the old ideas, keep up to date, be in with the times! It doesn't matter what you do so long as you kick wicked old Mac out of office! The argument is of course justified by the cry: “spare a tear for the poor electorate under Tory rule!” Labour members are certainly confused, but this kind of argument hasn’t gone down very well. They have, after all, an attachment to what they call their “principles.” Many would like to see more Nationalisation, but are prepared to admit it hasn’t made much difference so far. And why and how should it?

The bulk of the Party will probably come round to Gaitskell’s views on the subject which are: keep a fair smattering of high-sounding phrases for the more thoughtful (but Keep it Vague!); an abandonment or modification (or in any case soft-pedalling) of the garbled and obscure definition of Socialism in the Party’s 1919 constitution: and plenty of gloss on those policy statements. Labour’s post-election conference suggests that for the time being they will be satisfied with a patchwork job. with Uncle Nye (how genial the old firebrand is getting!) suavely proclaiming the Party’s essential unity. Labour's next programme might be envisaged as promising a thousand miles more motorway than the Tories, bigger and better Hire-Purchase and house buying facilities, and a suggestion that Labour is an up-to-date slick Party in a slick world. They might on the other hand become the victims of their own traditions and go into a gentle decline. In any event Socialism will become more and more distant, the “principles” more and more obscure and more and more a cloak for ruling class ideas.

In spite of sixty years of “inevitable gradualness": in spite of increasing Government interference in the running of almost everything: Capitalism is still carried on for the benefit of a ruling class. Its hold over people’s minds appears as strong as ever. “Appears” is used deliberately; although people still support Capitalism, it is support on a rather cynical level. Outright enthusiasm is becoming rare. Perhaps in a way this is an advance; perhaps disillusion comes all the quicker. .

Capitalism, in spite of “improved” education, better social services, motor-cars and other gadgets of all sorts, remains an unworthy system: throwing its peoples’ lives away in futile battle; damaging the very basis of Man’s biological inheritance: submitting its peoples to the rat-race scramble for jobs and favours; subordinating Man to the machine and productive method: crushing individuality; battering at peoples' consciousness with hideous advertising, and misusing language in the same process (adding “triteness” to “brightness” is one of Capitalism’s more subtle and insidious crimes): and fostering avarice, envy and hatred where there could be human cooperative happiness.

Out in the Cold
More and more motor-cars and motor-ways, and more intricate gadgets, do not suggest Wonderland to the Socialist. They suggest that Mankind is going mad over mere things, over what should be simply aids and adjuncts to living, and in the process are forgetting how to live, forgetting their own humanity.

Not being interested in cadging votes (though we would certainly like to see more workers supporting Socialism, at the Polls and elsewhere); not wasting our time in collecting the crumbs of Reform; not trying to resolve the impossible by offering a Foreign Policy that will reconcile Eisenhower, Khruschev, De Gaulle and the British Government; we are in a position radically different from any other Party, and our problems are different. We are the victims of the general hostility and apathy towards politics. People dismiss all politicians—including Socialists—as frauds, even though our views are not “politics” in the sense that other Parties use the word. We have to break through a thick armour of apathy and hostility, to show people that we are really different. Still, we find few Labour supporters left prepared to argue, and perhaps out of the apathy and cynicism will come a more positive attitude, an attitude favourable to Socialist ideas. In the meantime we remain unrepentant, and to Labour jeering we can reply “we would rather be in the Political wilderness than have supported a Government that began the biggest peace-time armaments programme in this country’s history” (where were the left-wing mixed-up kids then? Cringing under the lash of three-line whips!)

Petrol-station, sham-Tudor house and shiny gadgets provide an unworthy material setting for mankind; just as irrational politics, reformism, “publicity” sensationalism and herd-appeals provide an unworthy ideological setting. Along with all this and the other rubbish that Socialism will consign to the dustbin will go the Labour Party. For they are a symbol of working-class political immaturity, and the sooner discarded the better.

F. R. Ivimey

General Election — Appeal for Funds (1959)

Party News from the March 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party needs money urgently for the General Election.

In East London our members have already been working for months, preparing an all out campaign in the Bethnal Green constituency. Meetings are being held, canvassers are going from door to door, the local papers are advertising our activities.

This work is going on NOW. Every week we are spending more money in Bethnal Green—and this is only preliminary to the final attack in which the candidate’s deposit alone will cost us £150.

We have great hopes for this campaign. Last year’s LC.C. elections in the same area gave the encouragement we needed. This time we believe we can achieve still more for the Socialist cause in this constituency.

But—we only have a fraction of the money we need. If you want to strike a blow against Capitalism with us, please send whatever you can to E. LAKE, S.P.G.B., 52 CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, S.W.4, and earmark it "'Parliamentary Fund.”

We shall not hoard it. We shall spend it almost immediately on more work for the next election’s only Socialist campaign.

The General Election (1959)

From the April 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a window in Stockwell, and doubtless many other places, can be seen two huge propaganda posters. One is from the Labour Party, the other from the Conservatives, side by side. With the election fever hotting up, old lies and newer lies (but mostly the same old lies) are poured out frantically in the quest for working-class votes. The one really major issue in the election, whenever it comes, will be, whether in the light of all their past experiences, workers will still be kidded into voting for the continuation of Capitalism.

For although this system robs the workers of the fruits of their labour, condemns many of them to live in barracks or slums, periodically murders millions of them in wars, while in peace time they live in fear of dole queues and the problems of hire-purchase and overtime, the ruling-class politicians know that if this system is to stay, workers must vote for it.

Counting 1945, there have been four General Elections since the war. At each one of these the excuses have been varied, but the problems have been the same.

If the Labour Government from 1945-51 had solved anything for the working-class they might still be in power. Instead, having accepted responsibility for running Capitalism, although they said in 1945 they were the high-wage party, they froze wages and broke strikes. They also launched the present arms build up and prepared the Atom-bomb. They stood for Nationalisation, but now that this policy of State Capitalism has disillusioned many workers and is no longer a vote-catcher they are having second thoughts. The Socialist Party of Great Britain have always pointed out that Nationalisation would change nothing for the workers but would guarantee an unearned income to bond-holders. Labourites are, however, gluttons for punishment and still think that Capitalism can be made to work in the interest of those it exploits.

So, with a black and inglorious past, their present poster reads: "Safeguard the Future with Labour.” Since the future envisaged by the Labour Party means that the present system will remain, the best safeguard for the working-class would be to understand their real position and bring about Socialism.

The seven years which have passed since the Conservatives took power have been the same as any other period under Capitalism. In 1951 they had a huge poster saying: "It’s Time for a Change at Westminster.” so the workers changed the office boys, but nothing else changed. Still war preparations (in the name of peace, of course) still attacks on wages, still strikes, and slums, pensions, prices and fear of dole-queues. Now they have a poster urging us—"Forward in Freedom with the Conservatives.” That word "Freedom” has a highly emotional ring about it and it might be appropriate to add that the workers will be making their usual mistake if they expect it from the Conservatives.

Freedom, whilst a privileged few own the means of living and the majority must hire themselves on the Labour market for wages in order to live, is a hollow mockery. Whilst the profit motive dominates every social relationship, and access to the things of life is determined by money and not by need, freedom will remain in its infancy. It is alright to say, as people so often do. that we are “more free here than they are in Russia,” etc., but the fact that our fellow workers in Russia have not yet obtained the very limited elbow-room workers have here only indicates that Capitalism is older and more experienced here than in Russia. It is no excuse for workers here to accept their shabby lot simply because elsewhere it may be worse.

So far as this election is concerned none of the reformist Parties—Labour. Conservative, or so-called Communist — has anything to offer worth a single working- class vote.

None of them challenge the existence of Capitalism. They all ask for voles on programmes based on continued Capitalism. Therefore since all the problems facing workers arise from Capitalism none of them has any answer. The S.P.G.B. alone challenges the present system. Our one object and sole programme is its removal and replacement by a Socialist system.

That we are not very strong in numbers is the fault of workers who, despite repeated disappointments, continue supporting Capitalist Parties. We are, however, contesting the election in the Bethnal Green constituency. We wish very much that more workers were Socialists so that we could contest more seats.

Meanwhile to make the best of present circumstances we must have funds. We get no large donations from trade unions or big business, but we are confident that as workers begin to realize the need for a real change our funds will grow in proportion to the growth of Socialist understanding.

Both the Labour and Conservative posters have pictures of children to underline the emotional level of their appeals. No understanding is necessary; just vote and they will do the rest. By coincidence, the two propaganda posters appear on the same display site as a notice of a "Clean Air Exhibition” but, unfortunately, the political smog put out by the two major Capitalist parties is not on the list for dispersal.

As the election draws near the promises will roll out faster and faster. As in the past, each Party will be trying to apply a thicker layer of sugar-coating than the other. The sad aftermath of every election is that workers find their diet of promises not very fattening.

It must be seriously understood also that Capitalism is international, so Capitalist parties which cannot solve so-called national problems internally, certainly have no solution for world problems brought about by the system they uphold.

All parties of Capitalism accept the national set-up, and when elected, form governments for the purpose of maintaining the interests of their national propertied class. It is this which bring the various nations into diplomatic and military conflict. When one ruling class feels that its possessions, such as markets, oil resources, trade routes or vested interests is threatened by some rival group, they call upon the propertyless workers to fight and die for them.

Capitalism sets workers at one another's throats both nationally and internationally. Only the S.P.G.B. and its companion Parties appeal to workers as a world-wide class with common interest. The common interest of all workers is to end Capitalism with its poverty, insecurity, war, crime, and exploitation. The world can be run on a basis of commonly-owned means of production without wages or profits. The workers can run the world as they do now, only they do it for the few who own. To run it for the benefit of everyone means that they must first understand Socialism. The promotion of this understanding is the only worthwhile issue of the coming election.

Harry Baldwin

The General Election (1959)

Party News from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party needs money urgently for the General Election.

In East London our members have already been working for months, preparing an all out campaign In the Bethnal Green constituency. Meetings are being held, canvassers are going from door to door, the local papers are advertising our activities.

This work is going on NOW. Every week we are spending more money in Bethnal Green—and this is only preliminary to the final attack in which the candidate’s deposit alone will cost us £150.

We have great hopes for this campaign. Last year’s L.C.C. elections in the same area gave the encouragement we needed. This time we believe we can achieve still more for the Socialist cause in this constituency.

But—we only have a fraction of the money we need. If you want to strike a blow against Capitalism with us, please send whatever you can to E. LAKE, S.P.G.B., 52, CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, S.W.4, and earmark it “Parliamentary Fund.”

When Will It Be? (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reflections on the Election

Mr. Macmillan's government cannot live much longer. Its term of office expires in May next year, so the Prime Minister must already be thinking about dissolving Parliament. Doubtless, he will try to choose the date most advantageous to his party; he has recently been offered a lot of journalistic advice on this.

Last year, when stating that he would not call a general election for some time, Mr. Macmillan said that he was putting the Labour Party out of their agony. Certainly, they were then very eager for an election, for the Gallup Poll gave them a significant lead and the bye-elections were running their way. Since then, if these things are a reliable guide, the Labour Party has lost some ground. Now, with a general election in the offing, the agony must have returned.

The Budget

The 1959 Budget is the last before the General Election; it was, therefore, widely expected to be a popular one, intended to upset as few voters as possible and to please as many as possible. Mr. Amory came up to expectations. The cuts in income tax, although no worker will benefit by more than a few shillings a week, were soothing balm on a sore spot. Income tax is a constant grievance amongst the working class, who weekly sigh, over their decapitated wage packets, for the days when they were not qualified to pay the tax. The fact which is forgotten is that they were really no better off in those days than they arc now; the source of their poverty is not in any tax but in their social situation. The reduction in the price of beer was an earthy touch, guaranteed to make the headlines and proving that Old Etonian Cabinet Ministers are aware of what the “lower classes” drink.

Another Tory ace is made up of Mr. Macmillian’s journey to Moscow and his promotion of what are called talks at the summit. Nothing new about this—but what better face can a politician show than that of a man of peace? It seems to escape notice that they have often been so described when actually preparing for war. Never mind—it is claimed that Mr. Macmillan’s diplomatic efforts are restoring Britain’s international prestige. This must strongly appeal to those workers who are ignorant of the international poverty and interests of their class and who yearn to see Great Britain again a leading world power, almost as people who live in Highbury long to see the Arsenal at the top of the League.

The Labour Party

The Labour Party has had to work hard to break down these images of Conservative success. Their spokesmen have displayed all the usual ingenuity in attacking the Budget, playing down the parts which they think may win votes and asking awkward questions about the others. In the House of Commons on April 8th Mr. Harold Wilson said that, although the Tories have reduced the price of beer (“condescending” he called this), three years ago they increased the price of school milk. He also made the usual sympathetic noises about old age pensioners and the chronically sick. This must have gone down well in some places but, at a guess, was not generally as effective as Mr. Amory’s Budget.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party has been busily designing its policies to appeal to the voters. At last year's Annual Conference, opposing a resolution in favour of land nationalisation, Mr. Tom Williams, M.P., said:—

  To win power is our first duty . . . Don't commit political suicide by importing additions into this policy statement that may destroy our chances at the next general election.

Mr. Richard Crossman, the party executive's spokesman in this debate, wound up by asking the mover of the resolution, in the words of the Manchester Guardian,” . . . whether she thought her assertion would help to win a constituency."

This cynical attitude is matched by the Conservatives. The fact that the Prime Minister will deliberately time an election to give his own party the greater chance of winning, and that a Chancellor of the Exchequer will always try to produce a popular Budget before a general election, is an indication of their desire to win votes.

Optimistic

Whilst the two great parties are sparring with each other and courting the electors with their peacock programmes, it is as well to face a few facts. Capitalism is capitalism, whether administered to Tory or Labour governments. It has an unpleasant habit of upsetting the best laid schemes of the smoothest politicians and of persisting in throwing up the same problems. Insecurity? A few months back unemployment in this country was higher—600,000. War? Towards the end of this month the dispute over Berlin, which has been going on for more than ten years, may erupt into something more serious. These are not problems which politicians can solve, even politicians like Mr. Macmillan, who is said to be the most optimistic prime minister we have. The late Earl Baldwin also had his optimistic moments; he once said:— 

  If we have not conquered unemployment, we are in process of conquering it, and if there is no great disturbance shall complete its conquest.

Those words were reported in the Morning Post of 5th April, 1929, a few months before the great crash.

Despite their failures—and even though their successes are futile—the appeal of the politicians persists. Workers vote for them in their millions with, apparently, hardly a thought for an alternative They are content to be exploited to keep the capitalist system running, whilst the political parties squabble over the spoils of power. The Manchester Guardian of 4th March, 1957, reported Dr. Charles Hill, M.P., a member of the Tory Government, as saying, ". . . that the most riotous fun he had ever had was in opposition.” The Doctor went on to say:—

  Then we could make speeches without responsibility and make proposals that hadn’t got to be carried out.

Well. Labour have had their fun: if they win the next election the Tories will be waiting to give them the full treatment again .A merry game. Who cares if it’s the spectators who always get injured?

Ivan

A Straight Talk on the Election (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

As the general election campaign gets under way, we shall probably see more and more posters of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Gaitskell, gazing in fatherly protective benevolence upon the passing voters. Each party will say that they are more able, more sincere, more knowledgeable than their opponents. The Tories will say they will give us good government — the Labour party that they arc the party with working class interests at heart. In fact, the intention and ability of politicians can have little effect on the problems which they try to solve. We shall hear a lot, during the election, about war and insecurity; these are just two of the problems which exist not because any government wishes them to, but because capitalism inevitably produces them.

Capitalism and War

Capitalism is a social system in which all the things which are necessary to make and distribute the worlds wealth —such as land, factories, railways and steamships—are owned by a small section of the world's population. This class, because of their ownership of the means of production, can live without having to work for a wage. On the other hand, the working class are compelled to sell their ability to work to an employer, for they have no other method of getting a living. The capitalists invest money in industries and, because they must have a return on their investments, those industries produce wealth with the motive of profitable sale. This means that industries throughout the world are constantly seeking cheap, abundant fields of raw materials, profitable markets for their products, and trading routes to connect them to their overseas markets and sources of supply. When "peaceful" competition cannot win these, a war breaks out. That was the cause of the last two world wars and of the minor outbreaks in Korea, Egypt and so on. A future world war will quite possibly be fought with nuclear weapons. These have been developed because each capitalist power must always strive to arm itself more powerfully—which means more destructively — than its rivals. This has made war an even more urgent problem, which cannot be solved by a conference between prime ministers and presidents. There is only one way certainly to abolish war. That is to abolish capitalism.

Capitalism and Poverty

The Conservative Party have been telling us that we are all prosperous. Yet the latest figures show over ten million people in this country getting less than £10 a week. (Contrast this with the 700 who share £6 million a year after paying tax!) It is true that workers are buying houses, motor cars, television sets and so on; the fact that we must resort to mortgages and hire purchase to obtain these things is proof of our restricted access to the good things in life. Whatever personal possessions we have, we always find that our wage packet is, generally, roughly sufficient to keep us in food, clothing, housing and entertainment with very little—if anything—to spare. That is why we always have the cheap and trashy—the pre-fabs and council houses, the mass produced clothes and furniture; we just can't afford anything better. Because our livelihood depends on our wage, we are the people who really suffer in a slump, or if we lose our jobs through sickness or old age. The Manchester Guardian of 21st April, 1959, reported the case of a 70-year-old lady who lived in an attic and who. after paying her rent and part board, fuel and 2s. 6d. for a wireless relay, was left with 7s. 9d. a week for everything else. That sort of tragedy is never removed by a Budget or a national insurance scheme, because it originates in the economic depression of the mass of society. It can only be removed by ending capitalism.

Until this happens we shall continue to suffer the insecurity which drives many people into mental hospitals and transforms others from co-operative human beings into anti-social criminals. Crime and violence will flourish and with them the escapist drugs and tranquilisers. This inhuman system is supported by the Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Communist and other parties. What has the Socialist Party of Great Britain to offer?

Socialism

We invite you to consider the case for Socialism. This is a social organisation based on the ownership of the world’s wealth by the world’s population. When it is established, everyone—man or woman, whatever the colour of their skin —will have completely free access to society's common pool of wealth. There will be no privileged class enjoying the best things in life whilst the majority of people make do with the shoddy. There will be no wars to settle the competition between opposing capitalist groups. There will be no division of interest, such as exists today between employer and employee, to cause strikes and other social dislocation. Everybody’s interests will be the same—to co-operate in producing the best and happiest world which humanity is capable of, for the enjoyment and benefit of the whole of mankind.

This is no empty dream. Socialism can be established tomorrow, if the people of the world understand it and want it. Then they can send their delegates to the seats of power—such as Parliament—to carry through the formal process of establishing Socialism. That is why we are a political party. Our membership and funds are small, which prevents us nominating more than one candidate at this election. He is not a great leader who promises to work miracles. He is not a leader at all for we do not believe in leaders. He is an ordinary member of the working class and of our Party who holds with us that only Socialism can solve the world’s problems. That never has been popular —the millions have so far always preferred their Macmillans and Gaitskells, the reformist programmes of their parties, and the troublous world that they stand for.

Ivan

From The Branches (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bethnal Green Campaign
Comrades will have been well informed regarding wavs and means in which the Party’s election campaign can best be served. The week before the election will be the busiest, so—apart from the work that has been done—please leave plenty of time and energy for the first week in October, to support meetings, sell literature and generally assist in Party work. Comrades not in London can make full use of the additional literature available to circulate it as far as possible and so acquaint workers of the Party's case and the work to be done for Socialism. Turn to pages 146/7 for more election news.


Hyde Park
On Sunday afternoon, September 6th, a poster drive was held, mainly to advertise the evening's meeting and Party literature. Several comrades paraded with the posters and over ten dozen Standards were sold. This activity was likened to a miniature May Day, and there is no doubt that whenever possible the Central Literature Sales Committee will organise similar events.


Denison House Meetings
At the time of going to press the first of the two meetings on War was held on September 6th. Comrades Coster and Grant addressed an audience of over 100—75 per cent. being non-Party members. Collection and literature sales were very good indeed. The meeting on September 27th will be reported in the next issue of the Standard.


Paddington
Paddington Branch organised a propaganda trip to Nottingham on Sunday, September 13th. Several members from the Branch travelled by road. A general get together was held at a Comrade's house in the afternoon—about 20 members and sympathisers were contacted and the outdoor meeting with an audience between 300 and 400 people was addressed by Comrade May. Literature sales were £2 and the audience was very interested.

The Nottingham members have made plans to continue their good work during the winter months. One of the schemes is to hold introductory discussions after branch business every Wednesday evening. Comrades and sympathisers are keen and are working enthusiastically for the Party.


The Central Branch Secretary would like to contact Comrade W. Reynolds, of Hatfield, whose address has changed. The Secretary has had letters returned.


Delegate Meeting
The Delegate Meeting date has been altered to Saturday, October 31st, and Sunday, November 1st, due to the General Election date. Members will be fully occupied until October 8th, and it has been agreed that the postponement would be advisable. Will Comrades noting this please pass on the information to others.


Hackney and Islington Branches
The Branches are holding Saturday evening meetings in Hyde Park from 8 p.m. Members and speakers are invited to assist and support the meetings.


Ealing Branch
Ealing Branch has just finished its most successful outdoor season at the Gloucester Road station. The line weather has enabled meetings to be held regularly without interruption and attendances and literature sales have been consistently good.

The Branch's propaganda trips to Southsea have also been most successful. The meeting held on Sunday. 13th September. run in conjunction with Islington and Kingston branches, was particularly good. Speakers spoke for about six hours all told to good attentive audiences. Useful literature sales are reported.


Members are asked to note that an Economics Class is due to begin on Friday, 30th October, and will continue on alternate Fridays afterwards. Tutors will be Comrades Hardy and Coster.


We have been notified of the death of Comrades Snellgrove and Atherton. Both these comrades had been members of the party for a long time and did a great deal of work for Socialism. Obituaries will appear in a later issue of the Socialist Standard

Phyllis Howard