A New World Order (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sunday Observer in an editorial commenting on Mr. Churchill’s address to Congress quoted Mr. Churchill as saying:—

"The British Commonwealth is not prepared to become a State or a group of States in any continental system on either side of the Atlantic.”

And remarks, “He thus ruled out any merger of sovereignty, not only in a European but in an Atlantic context.”

The editorial later continued with another excerpt from the speech. How in the last eight years, "former allies have become foes. Former foes have become allies. Conquered nations have been liberated. Liberated nations have become enslaved by Communism.”

Then asks, “Is that aimless round to go on for ever? Is the world not ripe, both technically and psychologically, for a different system of international affairs, for a new world order?” (Observer, January 20th, 1952.)

The Observer means by “a different system of international affairs” and “a new world order” some sort of political union between the Western countries better fitted “than the present coalition not only to wage war, if necessary, but also to prevent war indefinitely.”

If it is possible “ to prevent war indefinitely ” why that talk of “waging war, if necessary ”?

The Federation of the United States of America and the association of nations united in common allegiance to the British Crown don’t seem to have been very useful in preventing war as the history of these countries show.

Federal union or any other form of union, far from lessening the risk of war, brings with it a greater chance of war—and greater war at that! The present demand for union has only arisen from the threat of war with a rival union of capitalist states. A union of states also involved the risk of a war because some member state wishes to secede.

Mr. Churchill says in the last eight years foes have become allies, allies foes. Conquered nations liberated, liberated nations enslaved. This has not only happened the last eight years. It has happened throughout the last 300 years.

Contrary to the opinion of the Observer editorial, it isn’t the political relationships between states which distinguish the form of the “world order,” but the social relationship men enter into to provide their food, clothing and other needs. Under Capitalism, the present world order, society is divided into two classes. The distinguishing basic social relationship existing between these classes arises because one class, the capitalist class, own and control the means and instruments for producing wealth, and consequently, the other class, the working class, having no other access to the means of living, must sell their labour power to live. To this relationship can be traced the major evil, war. The difference between what the working class produce and what they receive for their subsistence motivates capitalist production. To realise as large a share as possible of the surplus value, as this unpaid labour of the workers is called, the various sections of the world capitalist class come into conflict with each other over markets, where goods can be sold, over sources of raw materials, and over strategic points controlling trade routes. This struggle leads to war. Political states represent the different groups of capitalists, and when the economic interests of any group is at stake the national capitalist state will protect those interested with armed, force, if necessary.

Political union is no solution. The only way to prevent war is to abolish the social relationships which give rise to it The Observer must be taken literally when it expresses the desire for a new world order; but the only new order that matters must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production. Technically the time is ripe for this. Man's control over nature has advanced far enough to enable him to provide sufficient for all without any conflict, nationally or internationally, over the ownership of wealth. But the working class must acquire socialist understanding. They must realise Capitalism is the cause of their troubles and that socialism is the only solution. Bring about the change by endorsing the case of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

J.T.

SPGB Meetings (1947)

Party News from the March 1947 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Old Tales retold (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Propagating Socialism is like spending an afternoon at a fair ground shooting clay pigeons down; you shoot them down, they place them up; you shoot them down again, up they come again. It is the same with arguments against Socialism.

The “you can’t change human nature” argument is an example. Those who put it forward usually know very little about human nature or human history, which is much the same thing. As Marx wrote in the “Poverty of Philosophy” :

“All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.” (Marxist Leninist Library Edition, p. 124.)

The characteristic traits men have expressed in societies based on private property are different from the traits expressed by men in the period termed prehistory. This period, prehistory, has formed by far the greater part of man’s existence on earth. The people who say you can’t change human nature usually give as evidence to support their belief the behaviour of politicians who are all for the working class when standing for election but when in power are different. Whatever we may think of this statement it doesn’t support their contention that human nature doesn’t change, but defeats it, as it implies that people act differently when their circumstances are altered.

Another example is the argument tendered by Mr. Winston Churchill at the Conservative rally in London, quoted in the Observer (13/6/48) : “Socialism is the philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy.”

This argument can’t hold up to a moment’s analysis. Robert Owen, the Utopian, who first coined the term Socialism, was a wealthy textile manufacturer. Frederick Engels, one of the formulators of scientific Socialist theory, was also a successful business man.

The “failure” argument is based on the false assumptions that society is alright and the trouble lies within ourselves.

Those who maintain that the trouble lies within ourselves claim their assertion has a scientific basis in the theories of the psycho-analytical school of psychologists. An essential feature of science is verification by experiment. Otto Fenickel wrote in “The Psychoanalytical Theory of Neurosis,” published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.:

“The application of the general principles of natural science to psychology naturally presupposes the development of new methods of research that are adequate to its subject matter. Attempts to keep the mental realm outside of causal and quantitative thinking . . . thwart real insight as does also a pseudo exactness which believes it necessary to transfer the biological methods of experiment and scientific protocol to a field where these methods are not suitable (astronomy also is unable to resort to experiments and nevertheless is a natural science).” (Page 7.)

To call psycho-analysis a science before these new methods of objective verification have been discovered is to beg the question. Verification of astronomical theories is made when an eclipse or the position of some heavenly body is forecast.

What agreement is there between the various schools of psycho-analysis’? With Freud, the determining feature is sexual interests; with Adler lust for power and organ inferiority; with Jung, racial consciousness and the theory of types, extrovert and introvert. All can’t be correct.

The other assumption is that society is alright. In capitalist society there are two classes. The capitalist class who own the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth and the working class who own nothing but their labour power which they must sell in order to live. According to statistics gathered by Sir John Orr, Seebohm Rowntree and others about one-third of the population don’t receive enough to keep themselves in health. It can’t be unemployment that is the cause of their poverty, because in the years before the war about one-fifteenth of the working class were out of work. This doesn’t account for the plight of one-third of the population. Nor is their poverty caused by buying fish suppers and strong drink, as they don’t receive sufficient money it doesn’t matter how they spend it. It doesn’t make any difference which Party of capitalism is in power, whether it is Conservative, Liberal, Labour or a Coalition, the conditions remain the same.

Statistics don’t tell you anything, opponents argue; or statistics can prove anything. Well, they can’t have it both ways. The every-day business of capitalist society is carried on with the use of statistics, for example, how many special trains will be required on Derby day? How many special postmen for the Christmas week? Society is the laboratory where social statisticians verify the accuracy of their methods.

The social investigators mentioned were all staunch defenders of the capitalist order of society.

The Socialist can accept their figures and conclude from them that the poverty of the working class follows from the fact that the working class must sell their labour power to the capitalist class in order to live. Common ownership of the means of living with free access to all is the only solution to the problem.

J. T.

A word of advice to Labour Party supporters (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party is searching for a policy. The nationalisation of the basic industries and the extension of the social services have been brought about and still the position of the working class remains unchanged, the workers must sell their ability to work for a wage that scarcely buys the necessities of life. At the last general election a large number of workers showed their discontent with the Labour Party’s administration by placing the Tories in power. To rally the support of the workers next time, a host of publications have been issued recently by the Labour Party and groups within it. All attempt to find some new solution to the problems of Capitalism, since nationalisation and the welfare state have failed to solve them.

One of these publications, the “New Fabian Essays,” was reviewed in the Economist (May 25th, 1952). The reviewer wrote:—

“Mr. Crosland presents a skilful analysis of the mixed economy, neither Capitalism nor Socialism, that war and six years of Labour rule have created. Mr. Strachey thinks rather well of the result and Mr. Crossman, naturally, dismisses it contemptuously as ‘welfare capitalism.' Neither manages to define the Socialism which he wants to evolve from it. Mr. Crosland himself effectively challenges the stock Left-wing assumption that the mixed economy is naturally transitory and must pass quickly into some sort of Socialism; and he dismisses several of the orthodox lines of advance—more social services, more nationalisation, more controls, more direct taxation—without making the alternatives at all clear . . . 

“. . . . The gross result is certainly not even the beginnings of a new philosophy either of socialist change or of consolidation in the welfare state."

The Glasgow Forward (23rd August, 1952) commented upon another of these publications:—

“The Labour Party's latest policy statement—ironically titled 'Facing the Facts'—has met with all-round criticism. It tries to please everybody in the party and ends of pleasing nobody. At the moment the Labour Party is suffering from too many personalities, too many platitudes—and too few policies."

Another pamphlet published by the Socialist Union, “Socialism—A Restatement of Principles,” is called by the Tribune (11th July, 1952) “ Sunday School Socialism.” According to the Economist (June 28th, 1952), the pamphlet argues that “The Labour movement is not . . . concerned with overthrowing Capitalism and replacing it by something called Socialism . . . All the social and economic changes from the Capitalism of the nineteenth century cannot be seen as part of the transition to some definite socialist system . . .” 

From this the pamphlet goes on to protest against the class war as an instrument of socialist advance: it declares roundly that the programmes and thoughts of socialists “have all grown out of the discontents of the past, and were designed to meet the injustices of a past age it not only objects to the identification of nationalisation with Socialism, but asks whether anyone knows what “socialisation” means. . . .

“All this is, of course, destructive,” wrote the Economist. “Positively, socialist union offers as yet ethical, not political, principles; and the best of ethics can lead men to almost any practical conclusion.”

Over 70 years ago. Frederick Engels had something to say about the relation of ethics to Socialism which was later published as “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Here Engels traced the origin and development of Socialism, its historical conditions and philosophical ideas. He called those who sought to bring about a better society by appealing to ethical principles. Utopians. He wrote:

"The ‘Utopians” mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the nineteenth century. and still governs some of them. Until very recently all French and English socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling was of the same school. To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding. his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive one of the other. Hence from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion, a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of the different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition, a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed, the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

“To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, pp. 117-8, Marx Engels' Sel. Works, published by Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd.)

As the foregoing comments on the Labour publications show, Engels’ words also describe the Labourites of the 20th century.

Engels pointed to the working class struggles in the early 19th century and argued that these ’’facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of the interests of capital and labour. As to the universal harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence of unbridled competition . . .”

"The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange—in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as the religious, philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period. . . .”

"The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticised the existing capitalist mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitation of the working class, inevitable under Capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it arose. But for this it was necessary—(1) to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection and its inevitableness during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; and (2) lo lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret. This was done by the discovery of surplus value. It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist buys the labour power of his labourer at its full value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis this surplus value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up the constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and production of capital were both explained.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, M.E.S.W., pp. 123-5.)

After tracing the development of modern social production from small handicraft, Engels wrote:

“The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialised. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to the market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

“This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonism of to-day.” (M.E.S.W.. Vol. II. pp. 128-9.)

Engels explained in detail the social antagonisms that follow from this fundamental contradiction and pointed out how it would be eliminated ”with the seizing of the means of production by society.” (P. 140.)

By this Engels didn’t mean nationalisation. He claimed that

"the transformation . . . into state ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces . . . the modern State . . . is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as the individual capitalists. The modem State, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers—proletarians.” (P. 136.) 

Members and sympathisers of the Labour Party seeking a policy to which they can give their support should lay hold of ”Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” and read it carefully. They can find it included in “Marx, Engels, Selected Works,” Vol. II. The language may reflect the conditions under which it was written, but as an exposition of the rise and development of capitalist society and the solution to its problems. Socialism, it is right up to date.

We hope that many of them would then realise that the object of their policy should be the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production and that to ” thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.”

J. T.

SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1950)

Party News from the August 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In search of a policy (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a front page article, the Daily Herald on Saturday, 15th October, 1949, derided Mr. Churchill and the Tory Party for having no policy. The headings read “Give me Blank Cheque—Churchill,” and in slightly smaller print, “ Still no Tory Policy.”

In a front page article in the Glasgow Forward, Mr. Emrys Hughes, the ex-editor and Labour M.P., demanded of the Labour Party a programme and policy for the tasks ahead. He writes: —

“But in our fight to keep the Tories out it is absolutely essential for Socialists to know where they are going and to have a programme and a policy for the tasks ahead.” (Forward, 8.10.1949.)

Of course, Mr. Hughes when he writes “ Socialists ” means members of the Labour Party. Then, writing of the problems confronting the capitalist class, he continues :—

“If we are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery, and to cut our costs to meet those of Poland, Belgium, France, Germany and Japan, how can we maintain our standards of life, maintain full employment and build up a sound economy in this country.”

He finishes his article with: —

“We want to win the General Election, but we have to answer these questions too.”

Why does Mr. Hughes want to win the General Election? Certainly not for the benefit of the working-class. These questions are not of any interest to the working-class.

The Tories haven't a policy. Labour hasn’t a policy. Then what are Mr. Hughes' reasons for supporting the Labour Party? If neither of the parties have a policy why should any of them be supported?

Mr. Hughes, who claims to be on the extreme Left Wing of the Labour Party, shows plainly which class interests he represents. “We are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery.” The working-class, comprising about nine tenths of the population, have no coal, no textiles, no machinery to sell. They can’t buy sufficient coal or textiles to keep themselves warm. And what standards of life does he want to maintain? Surely not the standard of the working-class when about half of them barely have sufficient to live a healthy life. As for “full employment"; we are poor because we are employed. Employed by the capitalist class to produce wealth for them, and receive in return a bare subsistence wage.

No Party can offer a policy for the workers under capitalism. With the development of capitalism, the condition of working-class in relation to the wealth they produce grows steadily worse.

The only policy in working-class interests is the establishment of Socialism and in the oncoming General Election the only action that can be taken in working-class interests when a Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate isn’t available is to state the desire for one.

It is no use saying that the Socialist case is alright but the Labour Party is better than the Tories; that it is the lesser of two evils. Is it? Could the Tories get away with wage-freezing? It would have been a harder job for the Tories to convince the T.U.C. to restrain their wage demands.

J. T.

SPGB Meetings (1949)

Party News from the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Week-end Summer School, held at Tree-Tops Holiday Camp, Farley Green, near Guildford, Surrey, on September 17th and 18th, was generally claimed a great success. Many of the members who attended arrived early on the Saturday afternoon and spent that afternoon and evening indulging in various recreations and social activity. A swimming pool, tennis court and a selection of indoor games were available and a dance was organised. On Sunday morning at 10 a.m. Comrade Hardy gave a lecture on “ The Lessons of Four Years of Labour Government.” Those who attended this lecture were enthusiastic in their commendation and a call was made, and unanimously supported, for steps to be taken to put the subject matter of the lecture into print so that it could be made available for party propagandists. At 2 p.m. on the Sunday an open discussion, “Socialism, What Will it be Like? ” was commenced, and continued up to tea. time, 4.30 p.m. The discussion was opened by Comrade Cash and started mildly, the early contributors only sparring with the subject. Arguments warmed up as the discussion proceeded and many of the ideas propounded were still being hotly debated when the local bus came to collect members for Guildford Station and their homes. The food, sleeping arrangements and general facilities were considered to be very good and the charge of 18/- per visitor for the week-end was extremely moderate. A number of members present expressed a wish to see the camp used again for similar purposes.

The Half-yearly Delegate Meeting was held at Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, on Saturday and Sunday, September 24th and 25th. Consequent upon a resolution passed at our last Annual Conference this Delegate Meeting was a two day assembly instead of a one day meeting as heretofore. The maximum attendance was 42 delegates representing 23 branches. The more distant of our provincial branches were not represented. The attendance of visitors on the afternoon of the second day brought the total gathering up to approximately 150 members and friends. It was apparent that the hall in which the meeting was held was overcrowded and that we shall need more spacious accommodation for future Delegate Meetings.

Discussion on the first day centred around the proposal to afford an opportunity for Central Branch members to vote at Conferences. The plan submitted by the Executive Committee received the support of the meeting. A recommendation to adopt a system of proportional voting at Conferences was considered. It was pointed out as an example, that a branch with a membership of 40 might decide in favour of a resolution by 21 votes for, and 19 votes against, and send its four delegates to the Conference to vote for the resolution. Another branch of only 20 members, and. in consequence, only sending two delegates, might vote unanimously against the same resolution. This would make the voting of Party members 21 for the resolution and 39 against it, but the voting at the Conference would be 4 votes for, and 2 against. It was hoped that a scheme of proportional voting would eliminate this anomaly.

The Executive Committee was urged to hasten the publication of a pamphlet stating our attitude to war. It was pointed out that we have no literature to-day that specifically deals with this aspect. A brief leaflet or manifesto on the subject was considered to be inadequate, the nature of our case making it advisable to deal comprehensively with the subject in a pamphlet. Delegates also called for the publication of leaflets of a lively and interesting nature to attract the attention of workers to our case. The Editorial Committee, amplifying its report, stated that it was essential that writers should submit articles for publication in the Socialist Standard by the first week of the month prior to the one of publication. Notices of meetings were required by the 15th of the previous month or there could be no guarantee that they could be inserted.

The pièce de résistance of the meeting was the item in the report headed “Electoral Activity.” The Executive Committee was criticised by some branches for the method of appointing prospective Parliamentary candidates. After considerable discussion the following resolution was carried.

“That this Delegate Meeting recommends that the whole question of appointment of Parliamentary candidature be re-organised as follows: —

(a) That a panel of Parliamentary candidates be drawn up composed of members who have been examined by the E.C. and not through a sub-committee, and that the E.C. invite nominations from this panel.

(b) That the branch in the constituency concerned in the election have the right to freely ask members of the panel to be their candidate."

The Parliamentary Committee drew attention to the serious state of Party funds in view of the coming electoral campaigns. If we have an early election, as some seem to expect, we shall be in a disastrous position. The Parliamentary Fund contains only £219 and we need at least £900 to make a success of the election effort. There are tentative plans for the issue of a quantity of literature in connection with the campaign, but the rate of increase of funds will determine whether such plans can be operated.

There was a tussle between delegates over the relative merits of suburban as opposed to central London propaganda meetings. Some claimed that prominent Party speakers who are frequently to be found at Central London meetings should distribute their time around the suburban and provincial branches giving help and advice to new speakers.

The question of disciplining Party members, especially speakers, came up for discussion, but the difficulty of imposing any sort of discipline on members of an organisation that is run entirely by voluntary work, was appreciated.

The meeting was scheduled to finish at 5 p.m. on the second day, but delegates called for an extension to 7 p.m., and a number remained even later to discuss items on the agenda that could not be considered by the meeting because of pressure of time. Collections taken at the meeting totalled £9 11s. 3d.

Ealing Branch has had a much better outdoor season this year than in 1948 and it is intended to continue the meetings at Richmond and Ealing until the end of October. A prominent factor in the success at Ealing Green has been the introduction of a new and higher platform allowing the speaker's voice to carry further and enabling the branch to hold some excellent meetings in spite of the usual Tory opposition. In Richmond the efforts are bearing fruit. Enquiries have been received regarding the local Kingston Branch and the discussion group at Hounslow.

Ealing Branch trip to Southsea on September 18th exceeded the most optimistic expectations when an audience of over 200 listened to a three-hour peroration by our speakers, showed a great deal of interest, and contributed well to literature sales and collection. The Ealing members were impressed by the appreciation shown by the local sympathisers who wanted to know why our trips were so few and far between. It is certain that Southsea presents a ready soil for Socialist propaganda.

The Greenford and Hounslow discussion groups, sponsored by Ealing Branch, are both making satisfactory progress. A recent lecture given by Comrade Thorburn at Hounslow attracted an encouraging number of non-members.

Efforts to extend Ealing Branch’s literature sales are still doggedly and persistently being made. There has been an increase in pamphlet sales and, with the approach of winter, the monthly canvass should send literature sales to a higher level than on any previous year.

The Socialist Party of New Zealand has sent us a few sample copies of the recently issued pamphlet, “Introducing the Socialist Party of New Zealand.” It is a small eight-page pamphlet in a bold yellow cover and is for free issue. The chapter titles will give an idea of the scope of this small but very useful addition to socialist literature. The pamphlet opens with an introduction over the stamp of the Party's Executive Committee, pointing to the futility of Labour Government as a means of achieving Socialism and emphasising the importance of Parliament. The body of the pamphlet then deals with the founding of the S.P.N.Z., “Piecemeal reforms do not lead to Socialism,” “The fundamental problem of our age,” “"What Socialism Involves,” “Socialism is necessarily an international conception,” “The Road to Socialism,” “The Future belongs to the Socialist Movement.”, and “ The S.P.N.Z. and ‘Promises'.” We commend it to all readers of the Socialist Standard as a useful introductory pamphlet, but please do not send to our New Zealand comrades for a copy unless you enclose a donation. We know the cost of producing such a pamphlet, and. although it is for free issue, we ask you to remember that all our work is voluntary and our pockets, in New Zealand as well as in Britain, are like all workers' pockets, very, very shallow. Pay heed to a phrase from the end of the pamphlet, “ Our bugbear—lack of funds.”

The Socialist Party of Ireland is getting on with its task with determination and is collecting around itself a useful group of contacts from whom it is hoped to make new members. Indoor meetings in Dublin commenced at the Boilermakers' Hall in Lower Gardiner Street on September 11th with an address by the Party's General Secretary, Comrade Walsh. Further meetings have been held weekly since, each addressed by a different member of the Dublin Branch, and with satisfactory literature sales and collections. Catholic and Communist opponents have not attended or have not made their presence known. The Dublin Branch has sent out offers to various organisations to supply speakers and has issued challenges to debate, all without result to date. It is further hoped to be able to get a large hall in Dublin later in the season for a good large meeting. The Belfast Branch is also having success. Outdoor meetings in Belfast have been getting bigger and bigger. At two outdoor meetings during a recent strike, an audience of over 1,000 gathered around the platform. Belfast comrades have challenged the N. Ireland Labour Party to debate, but the challenge was not accepted. Indoor meetings began in Belfast on September 28th, and the initial meeting was a success that gave encouragement and promise for the future. The S.P.I.’s manifesto is now complete and we are told that we shall receive the draft as soon as the Belfast comrades have passed it. There is a friendly rivalry between the branches that speaks well for future activities.

W. Waters.

SPGB General Election Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Only War We Want" (1952)

From the August 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The editor of the Glasgow Forward (June 14th, 1952), in a front-page article with the above title stated that forty human beings are born every minute, condemned, if they reach adult life, to face, with two-thirds of their fellow men, “an existence oppressed by poverty, racked by disease and blinded by ignorance.”

" Yet,” continued Mr. Morgan Thomson. “ in a privileged corner of the earth’s surface like Britain, we find socialists worried over the question, ’Where do we go from here? ’ We have removed in our own small community the most glaring inequalities between man and man, and we feel sometimes that we have removed the very conditions which gave Socialism its drive. What next?  

’’Surely the answer is to make the British people aware that the next round in the battle against poverty has to be fought internationally, that there are privileged and under-privileged nations, and that the socialist principles which have made a more just society in Britain should now be applied to wipe out the inequalities between the white and the coloured races of the world.” 

Other members of the Labour Party don't agree with Mr. Thomson about conditions in Britain. Mr. S. Silverman, M.P. for Nelson and Colne, said, at the Labour Party Conference of 1950, “ There are hundreds of thousands of workers whose wages make a bitter mockery of our claim that we are providing fair shares.” (Daily Herald, 4/10/50.) And Mr. J. Griffiths, Colonial Secretary in the last Labour Government, also said at the same conference, M the ownership of wealth has by no means been adequately shared out. Far too much of the nation's wealth is owned by too few people.” (Daily Herald, 4/10/50.)

Dr. Campion, in his book "Public and Private Property,” showed that in 1946-7 one per cent of the population owned fifty per cent, of the wealth. (The Economist, 24/2/51.)

In another of the “privileged nations,” the United States, a Senate sub-committee set up to investigate the problems of lower income families found that about 10 million families had incomes insufficient to provide an adequate diet (Glasgow Forward, 6/10/51.)

Some members of the Labour Party even claim that the extreme poverty in individually backward countries may be the cause of war. In fact, the Labour Party entitled the chapter dealing with their plans for the development of these areas in “Facts and Figures for Socialists, 1951,” "Peace through Plenty.” It seems to be forgotten that the major wars of the past were fought between the industrially advanced countries7

The Labour Party, in their policy for the development of backward areas, the “World Plan for Mutual Aid,” express the interests of the British capitalist class. British capitalists depend on the Commonwealth and the colonies for markets for their goods and as sources for raw materials, therefore, must strive for friendly relations with these and other rising capitalist countries where the vital sea and air links which connect Britain with her markets are situated.

But the good will of some sections of the British capitalist class doesn't stretch to investing their money in these countries. They fear that elements in the native community, imbued with nationalist ideas, may gain power, and confiscate their investments, without giving them adequate compensation.

And the Labour Party, by comparing working-class conditions in the advanced capitalist countries With conditions in the more backward, draws attention away from the position of the workers in the "privileged nations,” what they receive in relation to what they produce, the way they live and the way they could live if their present productive capacity was used to the full.

These plans, consisting of loans and technical aid to backward areas, which the Labour Party want coordinated into a world plan for mutual aid, just mean developing Capitalism in those countries, reproducing the conditions which exist in the more advanced capitalist countries. No doubt the development of Capitalism in these under-developed areas will get rid of quite a lot of the disease, and much of the ignorance. Modern Capitalism requires a working class reasonably healthy and with some education.

Owing to the traditional standard of living in the backward countries working class requirements are very low. Again the British Labour movement gives support to working-class organisations in these countries that are struggling to improve conditions not because it is in the interest of the working class to do so, but claim that in these countries the capitalist class can compete successfully with the British capitalist class because of the low wages of these native workers.

Investing money in the form of loans to these less developed countries, means using it to employ workers at a wage sufficient to buy what it takes to keep them, and at most this would mean a wage and social services just enough to provide the necessary education and state of health called for by modern capitalist production. What the workers produce over and above what they receive enables the investors to live in the greatest comfort and also to carry on the productive process which keeps them in their privileged position based upon the exploitation of the working class.

There are no privileged nations and unprivileged nations as far as the working class are concerned just a privileged class, the capitalist class, who own the means of living, and an exploited class, the working class, which can only gain access to the means of living by selling their capacity to work. The Labour Party’s "World Plan for Mutual Aid" would not alter this basic condition but would perpetuate it.

The task facing the socialist is, nationally, to build up an organisation with the object of abolishing capitalism, and establishing socialism, and, internationally, to spread socialist knowledge to the workers in the more backward countries which would induce them not to waste their energies supporting rising nationalist movements, miscalled “Socialist" or “Communist,” but would compel them to expend these energies setting up a Socialist Party which could collaborate with its companion parties throughout the world in bringing to an end the system which gives rise to their problems.

Jim Thorburn

SPGB Meetings (1946)

Party News from the October 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Philosophical Digression (1952)

From the May 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Zeno of Elea was an early Greek philosopher who denied the existence of motion. He said that the change and movement going on everywhere was illusory, had no real existence, and he devised some very subtle arguments to try to prove this. One of those “proofs” was that if an arrow is shot from a bow, the arrow must, at every point in the line of flight, occupy space; therefore it is at rest at those points. If it is at rest it can’t be in motion. The Eleatics, the school of philosophy to which Zeno belonged, were the first to question the senses as a reliable source of knowledge, and their arguments prepared the way for the view that only through reason alone could real knowledge be attained.

Readers who haven’t read the philosophers and don’t know the questions they have asked may think it absurd to mistrust the senses. Those readers may say that the philosophers have had a lot to think about and that if they had some practical work to take up their time they wouldn’t be asking such silly questions. There is some truth in this opinion as such questions could only be asked when a leisured class had arisen and had the time to think about them. Taking no part in the practical work of producing society’s needs, these philosophers would exaggerate the part played by reason in the understanding of the world. But those questions and the answers given to them have been steps in the development of human understanding. And those readers who think such questions absurd should note that to-day many scientists claim that the qualities perceived in things, like colour and taste, have no real existence, the real world being a whirling mass of protons and electrons.

Since the days of the Eleatics, succeeding ruling classes, once they had become firmly entrenched as the State power, found the belief that the senses are false witnesses very useful. The subject class or classes may reject this view when it is stated simply and clearly yet accept it when it is applied in particular instances.

For example, in present-day society, the evidence of the senses indicates that the working class are exploited. They are compelled by economic necessity to produce wealth for the capitalist class and receive back insufficient to allow them to live decently, while the capitalist class don’t have to work and yet live in luxury.

Those who wish to preserve capitalist society say it only appears as if the working class are exploited, and, like Zeno, they provide many arguments to attempt to show that appearances are deceptive. They attempt to explain the “seemingly” privileged position of the capitalist class.

They argue that members of the capitalist class work also. This may be true in certain very small concerns, but not for the giant companies which produce most of the wealth in modern society. The shareholders in these companies take no part in production at all.

And it is argued that the large shareholder with investments in dozens of different companies earns his huge dividends because of his organising ability. It is impossible for one man to have the knowledge of the complicated processes involved in running one company, let alone trying to run several. The capitalist class employ workers to do their organising for them and even employ members of the working class to advise them how to invest their money.

Another argument put forward is that the capitalist class are entitled to their large profits because of the risks they take with their investments. What risk is involved buying State bonds? And in these days of “increased” crime is the person who keeps his money at home not taking a bigger risk of losing it? And what about the meagre compensation the working class receive though they risk their lives and health in such industries as mining, transport, etc.

Another aspect of the “risk” argument is that for saving his money and sacrificing present pleasures the capitalist must have some recompense. To talk of the Rothschilds, the Ellermans or the Nuffields foregoing pleasures because of their investments is absurd. Again to abstain from the pleasures of present spending is to indulge in the pleasure of making more money for future spending.

The capitalist class also claim that by investing their wealth they provide the working class with the means to live. Many a black page has been written describing how the rising capitalist class dispossessed the majority of the population of the means to live. The capitalist class invest their money to procure profit. They buy the workers' physical and mental energies by the week or the month and after the workers have used their energies for the specified period producing wealth for the capitalist class they receive back just sufficient to enable them to live. The difference between what the worker produces and what he receives is the source of the capitalists' wealth and is the object of the whole process.

The senses do provide dependable information, but the arguments based on it by the supporters of Capitalism are deceptive.

Man evolved from some ape-like ancestor between one million and 500,000 years ago and his survival is proof that the senses are reliable. Millions of years before man's arrival on earth other living things not endowed with the faculty of abstract thought existed depending on their senses. Many of these species are still in existence.

Reason, though it can be deceptive, does provide true knowledge when it interprets sense-experience accurately. But reason is often led astray by overlooking certain facts because of prejudice or through not being acquainted with a sufficient number of facts. And reason is also limited by the circumstances of the time. Just as the telescope and the microscope extended the range of the senses so the new facts brought to light enlarged our ideas and increased our understanding, and the only way that reason can be trusted to give accurate information is if it is continually tested by the evidence of the senses.

J. T.

Party News Briefs (1951)

Party News from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bloomsbury Branch which is meeting on July 13th and 27th (Fridays) is arranging a series of discussions after branch business when the Autumn session commences. These discussions will be held every Thursday at the Branch room (North Room, Conway Hall, Red Lion Square) on and after September 6th. The discussions which will all be opened by Branch members, are dealing with subjects of political and social interest over the last hundred years.

Ealing Branch trip to Southsea on June 3rd was a success both from the social and (more important) propaganda viewpoints. In brilliant sunshine, Comrades Thorburn and Bryan held forth to a large crowd for over two. hours. There were some excellent questions and discussion, and literature sales were most encouraging. What a pity there is no group or branch in this area to carry out regular activity. Two more trips to the same spot are planned for July 15th and August 26th.

Bad weather has hampered the usual outdoor propaganda at Ealing and Richmond. Those meetings which have been held, however, have been generally good, with a marked improvement in the standard of questions and discussions over previous years. Audiences are somewhat smaller but show much greater interest than in the past.

Edgware Branch has changed its Branch meeting place to “The Blue Danube Cafe,” 153, Finchley Road, Hampstead. (Between Swiss Cottage and Finchley Road, Met. Station). The name of the Branch is being altered to “Hampstead” and members and sympathisers are invited to attend the Branch meetings which are held every Thursday evening at 7.30 p.m. Outdoor meetings are held every Sunday morning at 11.30 at Whitestone Pond, Hampstead Heath.

Hackney Branch would like members and sympathisers to note that their branch meeting on July 12th will be held at 8 p.m. at Bethnal Green Library instead of Bethnal Green Town Hall.

High Wycombe Branch report that good meetings are being held at their new station, Frogmore, High Wycombe. Literature is selling well, and the speakers sent by the Propaganda Committee have created lively local interest in the Party’s case.

The Week-End Summer School was held at “Treetops,” Farley Green, Surrey, on Saturday and Sunday, June 9th and 10th. Eighty members and friends and eight children attended and had a very enjoyable time. A lecture on “Production and Overproduction” was given on the Sunday morning and on Sunday afternoon an open discussion on Trade Unions was held. This time the attendance was amply sufficient to cover the cost of the week-end, without calling upon Party Funds. It is hoped that arrangements will be made for another visit to “Treetops” in September.

Phyllis Howard

A Labour of Sisyphus (1951)

From the April 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

The position of the working class in capitalist society is like that of Sisyphus, the mythological king of Corinth, who was condemned to constantly roll a huge stone to the top of a hill, and when he got it there, it always rolled back down again. His task was unceasing. To-day a minority of the population, the capitalist class, own the means and instruments for producing wealth. It necessarily follows that the vast majority of the population, the working class, must sell their labour power to this minority. In return they receive barely enough to keep them at the customary standard of living. If they were to receive more than was sufficient to keep them they would attempt to free themselves from that economic enslavement. The working class then must produce wealth for the capitalist class and receive in return just sufficient to bring them back to the factory to produce more wealth for their masters—a labour of Sisyphus.

The tremendous productive capacity of man's labour power applied to modern industrial equipment together with the working class receiving only the necessities of life results in the great difference in income that exists between most members of capitalist class and most workers.

Reformers seeking to bring about a more equitable distribution of income put forward the plea for taxation. They maintain that by taxing the “rich” and establishing social services a large redistribution of income between the two classes could be effected. But Douglas Jay, now financial advisor to the Treasury, wrote in a book called “The Socialist Case,” “ some may argue that whatever the statistics of income and property show, a huge redistribution of income has been achieved in the last twenty-five years' by means of national taxation and the social services. . . . It is consequently rather startling to find, on an impartial examination of the facts, that there has been scarcely any redistribution at all.” (p. 45). A few pages later he quotes the “Economist”:—

  “The poorer classes of the community have therefore received back from the Exchequer approximately as much as their increased contribution. But there is very little sign that the system of taxation has effected any redistribution of income between rich and poor.”

(From Budget Supplement, 13th April, 1935, “The Socialist Case," p. 50.)

Then Mr. Jay sums up with, “All authorities are agreed, however, that the great bulk of the social services are paid for by the working classes themselves, and that there has been only a very slight shift in their favour even since before the war.” (Page 51.)

And the Labour Party after all this experience still cling to the view that taxation and social services will bring to the workers a bigger slice of the “national cake.” After the first five years of Labour's majority Government the responsible ministers claimed that taxation had reached its peak. The rich couldn't be taxed any heavier. All the social services and reforms that had been on the Labour Party's programme since its formation had been brought about. Yet Mr. James Griffiths, Colonial Secretary, said at the Labour Party Conference held in Margate:—

  “The ownership of wealth has by no means been adequately shared out. Far too much of the nation’s wealth is owned by too few people." (Daily Herald, 4/10/50.)

And Sydney Silverman at the same conference said, “There are hundreds of thousands of our fellow workers whose wages make a bitter mockery of our claim that we are providing fair shares ” (Daily Herald, 4/10/50).

The other side of the picture is filled in by the Tribune, a Labour weekly:—

  “Flicking over the pages of those same popular dailies . . . in this grim austerity Britain with its food shortages, housing shortages and labour shortages, the Government’s guiding philosophy of fair shares for all worked out in practice so that one could still have a house in town run by eight servants, a mansion in the country, a cottage by the sea, pocket money on a scale that comfortably covered details such as £3,000 a year on presents to a lady friend, another £1,000 a year thereabouts to the same lady and when after all you decided not to marry the woman, £20,000 to console her for the loss of a good thing." (February 9th, 1951.)

The “Economist” in an article examined the report of the EGA. Mission “Facts about the British Economy” and stated, “since it is the lower income groups which benefit mainly from social expenditure the report says, 'the social expenditures are chiefly financed by transfers of income within the lower income groups in accordance with variations in the patterns of consumption, family size, etc., rather than by transfer between different income level.' " (1/4/1950)1

Labour Party supporters and other apologists for capitalism maintain that even if the wealth the workers produce was divided equally among all members of the population, the increase in the average worker's income would be insignificant.

But this isn't the socialist's argument. He recognises the potential productive capacity of mankind with modern machinery and realises how production is misused in present society. He takes into consideration the waste that goes on under capitalism. In a system based on private ownership where goods are produced for sale a vast number of workers are engaged in all the multiple tasks which arise from the sale of commodities and the realisation of the profits contained in them. The waste of productive effort in the cheap shoddy goods the majority of the community must buy.

In a society based upon common ownership wealth would be produced solely for use. All members of society would be occupied in producing things to satisfy their needs. This is possible with the present industrial machinery. All that is required is that the workers realise this and take steps to bring it about.

Jim Thorburn

From The Branches (1960)

Party News from the February 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

A glance at the meetings column at the front of the Socialist Standard will give a good idea of the propaganda activity of the Party. The Clerkenwell Road (Central Club) meetings are held on Sundays and have been arranged by the Propaganda Committee. As this is a new venue, the Committee especially welcome comrades to give the meetings their regular support. If successful, this hall could be a regular one for the Party to hold meetings, and these become a feature as did the old Trade Union Club meetings which ended with the closing down of the Club.

For members and friends who have easier access to South London, the Film lectures at Head Office, held every Sunday, are another aspect of the Party’s propaganda. It will be seen also that several London branches hold discussions and lectures after branch business.

Woolwich

Woolwich Branch report that they have concluded another year of useful activity. Apart from many discussions on aspects of capitalism and the Party case, branch members have been busy canvassing the Socialist Standard and other Party literature. Visitors are welcome to the Branch meetings, held the second and fourth Friday in each month. (See page 18.) Many good meetings have been held at the local outdoor station, Beresford Square, and with greater support from Branch and other comrades these meetings could play a very successful part in the propaganda work of the Party.

Down Under

A copy of an Air Line magazine has been sent to us and the centre page comprises a drawing depicting the typical Sunday afternoon scene in “The Domain" — Sydney. It states that the “listener may expect to hear almost any cause expounded with passionate conviction.” The reason this is mentioned here is that a large part of the drawing depicts a speaker on a platform, the latter bearing the word “Socialist.” Without doubt the speaker shown in the drawing is none other than Comrade Thorburn, for many years a speaker for the SPGB. He is now a member of the Socialist Party of Australia, carrying on the work for Socialism there that he did when in Britain.

Paddington

Paddington Branch have been running since the Autumn a very successful series of discussions at their regular meeting place, “The Olive Branch.” Russia, living standards, Catholicism, human needs. D. H. Lawrence, the problems of communicating ideas—these among many other topics have stimulated lively debate.The'r branch room is cosy, their members friendly, and the Bar (downstairs!) near enough to provide necessary refreshment. Paddington members’ only real vice is their unpunctuality (note, 8.30 is the starting time), they make up for this by lateness in finishing, and after being turned out by the irate landlord at past 11, they adjourn to a nearby coffee bar and discuss on to midnight. Paddington meets every Wednesday and non-members are especially welcome.

From The West

From Ireland and America too we have had reports of good work and propaganda. It is hoped to have fuller details of the activities in these countries in the March issue, but meanwhile it is heartening to know that the case for Socialism is being so well and widely propagated.

T. S. Hoffman

Comrade T. S. Hoffman died on 13th November, 1959, at the age of 78. joining Bloomsbury Branch in March. 1940, and since then he regularly attended his branch, often walking miles—no matter what the weather—to get there. He was modest in manner and dress and although never publicly prominent, he gladly helped the Party with financial contributions at great sacrifice to himself. A good comrade and a sound Socialist, who served the party well.

Phyllis Howard

While Capitalism Lasts (1950)

From the May 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the socialist worker asserted that the condition of the working class in capitalist society grows steadily worse, his work-mates just can't make it out. They compare certain aspects of their way of living with those of their fathers or to their earlier days and disagree. The socialist explains that the difference between the conditions and ways of living in the past and those at present make it very difficult to draw any comparison. It is a very controversial question, whether it is preferable to listen to “Wilfred Pickles" and “Ignorance is Bliss” whilst living under the constant threat of the H-bomb or to be without the radio and occasionally hear the distant rumble of cannon; to succumb to some illness because there are no such things as M. and B. tablets or to live to be shrivelled up by an intense heat many times greater than that existing in the centre of the sun. The Socialist viewpoint is that the only way to estimate the progress made by the working class in society is in relation to the wealth they produce, or in relation to the wealth they could produce with the existing productive forces. From this aspect, what they receive in relation to what they produce, the standard of life they have compared with what they could have, the working class are worse off than they ever were. When workmates hear this they say, “Well, I suppose, looking at it that way, you’re right, but things are a bit better.”

They can't have their cake and eat it. Two Labour weeklies, the “Tribune” of March 5th, and the “Forward” of March 11th, quoted Mr. John Kenney, Chief of E.C A. Mission to Britain, in his report to U.S. Congress as a tribute to the Labour Government’s achievements:—

  “The voluntary policy of restraint in seeking wage increases followed by the Trade Union Congress has resulted in wage increases of slightly over 1 per cent, during 1949, even in the face of a higher cost of living caused by devaluation and a 5 per cent. increase in industrial productivity.” (“Forward,” March 11th, 1950.)

An achievement in the interests of the capitalist class, but, for the working class, a smaller share of the wealth, in relation to what they produce.

And just to make doubly sure that there is no doubt to which camp the Labour Government belongs, the further statements from the report are helpful: —

  “About 20 per cent. of her total resources available in the present fiscal year is being devoted to capital formation.
  “By greatly increasing her total production and by diverting an unusually large part of it into investment, Britain, with foreign assistance, has been making good these war-time losses, and is now approaching the pre-war level of capital. This programme of capital formation is a real stride towards economic recovery.” (“Forward,” March 11th, 1950.)

Capital is wealth used to extract profit. Profit arises from the difference between what the workers produce and what they receive, in other words from the exploitation, the robbery, of the working class. So more capital formation means more working-class exploitation.

Do the parties of Capitalism offer any change to this continuing deterioration of the position of the working class in society? In their election manifesto both Tory and Labour pledged themselves to increase production and lower costs. Labour maintains this can be done better by nationalisation and controls. The Tories claim that free enterprise and a minimum of State interference is the better method.

For the working class, increased production means working harder, and lower costs means less wages, at least less wages in relation to what they produce. While Capitalism lasts these conditions will remain. The only alternative is to study socialist propaganda and equip yourselves with the knowledge necessary to abolish Capitalism and establish Socialism.

Jim Thorburn

Debate with Labour Party: "Which Party Should the Working Class Support?” (1952)

From the March 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

A synopsis of a public debate held at Bexleyheath on Dec. 17, between the Labour Party, represented by Ashley Bramall, and the S.P.G.B., represented by J. Thorburn. The audience numbered 150. In the chair was Mr. Geo. Grieve (I.L.P.).

Thorburn had three sessions of 30 mins., 20 mins, and 10 mins., Bramall having two sessions of 30 mins.

Thorburn (1)
Our claim for working class support lies in our contention that only the abolition of Capitalism can solve the problems of the working class, and that in this country only the S.P.G.B. stands for the object of ending Capitalism and establishing Socialism. Capitalism causes poverty, unemployment and war. To get a living workers are forced to hire themselves to the Capitalist class. Workers are employed in order to produce a profit for their hirers. Only so long as profit is realised are goods produced. Production for profit is in the interests of the capitalists. Raw materials and ready markets are essential to Capitalism. In pursuit of these, Governments are driven to conflict. At best the worker keeps a job, which reduces him to a lifelong struggle to make ends meet, finishing as he started, with nothing. During slumps and consequent unemployment millions eke out an existence in direst poverty and destitution. Such conditions arise from Capitalism, be it democratic or dictatorial, planned or unplanned. It is not possible under Capitalism for workers to be anything else but workers.

According to our analysis it is imperative that Capitalism be removed. If Mr. Bramall and the Labour Party wishes to end poverty and war, does he agree Capitalism is the cause? If so he must agree the ending of Capitalism is vital to the interests of society in general. If Capitalism is not the cause, what is, and where is the S.P.G.B. analysis wrong?

Since 1904 the S.P.G.B. has never deviated from its object. We have always argued that workers in this and other lands must understand and accept Socialism before Capitalism can be abolished. Capitalism is international, so will be Socialism, the nucleus of which exists in the S.P.G.B. and identical parties abroad.

Socialist production will be to satisfy the needs of society. Everyday life will be from each according to ability and to each according to need. Under such conditions money, trade and employment have no place. Socialism does not exist anywhere to-day. The task of the Socialist Party is to make Socialists and speed the day of achieving Socialism.

The Labour Party was not formed to replace Capitalism by Socialism, nor has it ever stood for a socialist object. Herbert Morrison repudiated any suggestion of Labour Government wishing to end the profit system. The Labour Party seeks by reform measures to stimulate Capitalism while trying to curb its harmful effects. Pledged to retain Capitalism, it cannot remove the evils of Capitalism. Of recent reforms, Capitalism’s need for a National Health Service was expressed by parties standing for Capitalism. Nationalisation is not Socialism but an expedient of Capitalism. Openly capitalist powers have nearly all nationalised where necessary. Despite the efforts of Labour Governments, working class problems remain. Housing and health are sacrificed in the preparation for another war. Anyone promising better living soon is dishonest.

Bramall (1)

Socialism is not an end in itself but the means of securing greater happiness for men and women. We are not concerned with some theoretical paradise but with real people who have a right to better lives.

According to the S.P.G.B., workers’ problems are the same now as 150 years ago; are caused by Capitalism. Therefore, since Capitalism can offer no consequents! improvement, Capitalism must go.

It is wrong that present day problems are entirely due to Capitalism. Many are it is true, but it is misleading to suggest that these problems would vanish with Capitalism’s removal. There is fundamentally a struggle of man against nature. Under-use of resources between the wars distorted our thinking and we assume too readily there was enough available to satisfy the reasonable desires of people. It is not just the requirements of this country but of the world over that have to be met. A real problem is general under-use by people outside Capitalism. Another problem is distribution. In large modern societies the division of products according to needs cannot be solved easily. In simple forms of society it was easy, but not today. There are problems of living together; psychological problems. These difficulties existed long before Capitalism and will outlive it.

Secondly, there are faults in the Socialist Party’s analysis of Capitalism. They are wrong in assuming no worth-while improvements for workers can be gained short of Socialism. Capitalism has seen an important transformation. We can trace three stages. The first, when wages were ruthlessly low. According to classical capitalist economists, full employment was assured if wage levels were such that all labour could be used. The second stage—during the slumps —dispelled that. All they could say about mass unemployment was it ought not to be there. Such wage levels were, by T.U. action, not acceptable, hence unemployment. To-day, we see where full employment is again possible by regulating the economy without crushingly low wages. Now that represents an advance gained by Trade Union and political organisation. Again, since 1939 the profits of production have been considerably transferred from those who live by rent, interest and profit, to the working class. In 1938, after tax payments, etc., capitalists had 34 per cent of the national income; in 1950 it was 26 per cent That is not Socialism, but an improvement representing extra wealth and happiness. Another instance concerns Rowntree’s Poverty Line, below which desperately low level one quarter of the working class lived in 1939. To-day the proportion is 2½ per cent. In fifty years the number below the Poverty Line was halved. During the last thirteen or fourteen years it has been reduced by nine-tenths.

The Socialist Party insists these things are not worth doing; as reforms they detract from attaining Socialism. There might be something in that argument if one could be so certain of what the result would be once Socialism is achieved. The Socialist Party’s weakest point is Socialism itself. We hear all about what is not Socialism. They say Labour Government is not Socialism, Nationalisation has no connection with it, neither Russia nor Yugoslavia are Socialist. What is Socialism then? And what chance has their method of getting it? It is intended the workers shall by capture of Parliament abolish capitalism and its property relations, beyond which the Socialist Party offers no blue-print of real life. I say it is not possible to have every i dotted and every t crossed. There will be problems.

The Labour Party is learning all the time from its mistakes, but here we have the S.P.G.B. with only a bland confidence everything will be alright. I say that for such an uncertain future it is not worth turning our backs on the unspectacular results of Labour Party methods for real improvements in working class lives. We share common ground in the aim of Socialism. I believe it can be better gained on the road which brings improvements en route.

Thorburn (2)

As for as the Socialist Party is concerned, Socialism is an end in itself. The Party’s work is done with the advent of Socialism. Capitalism is defined by and erected upon an economic base. The superstructure of Socialist society will be built up on the economic base peculiar to it, namely on common ownership and democratic control of the means of life, production for use, and distribution according to need.

Socialism is not a solver of all problems but of the major problems of our time. What are they? Bramall carefully left out mention of war. In 1945 Labour proclaimed the Left could speak at peace with the Left, yet to-day the threat of war grows even greater. The longer the costly preparation for “Defence ” the more devastating the war will be. Wages, up by 20 per cent. are losing sight of prices which are up by 29 per cent., resulting in increased overtime and a halt in the struggle for lower working hours. Man’s ascendancy over nature is by now well established. On the question of Labour’s improvements, Bramall claims more for Labour Government than Herbert Morrison who admits the vital effect Marshall Aid had in keeping unemployment down in this country. The effect of increased production and trade competition would be shown in unemployment returns before now were it not, also, for Korea and “Defence” preparations.

The three stages of any society are Growth, Decay and Death. Capitalism has passed beyond the growing stage, now moving from one crisis to another. If Socialism is a dream. Capitalism is a nightmare.

The Labour Party is not a Class Party and as an admitted “cross section” of the people, is in line with the Tories. It does not aim at Socialism. For all Bramall's claims of its accomplishments, Glenville Hall was in 1949 forced to admit that 10 per cent. of the people still owned 90 per cent. of the wealth, a situation deplored by the Labour Party back in 1918. The Labour Party works for Capitalism. Despite the “bleak” outlook forecasted for workers, profits had risen. The “socialism” of the Labour Party has benefited only the Capitalist group. Contrary to Attlee's prediction that a Tory victory at the 1951 Election would create a boom on the Stock Exchange, the actual result was written off as a slump.

Bramall (2)

It is true the Labour Party has not attained perfection in its method of trial and error. But the S.P.G.B. cannot show the way. The deficiencies of Capitalism may be removed but that will not escape problems which will exist whether under Capitalism or Socialism. Thorburn is a very long way from an answer to what Socialism will be like. Is Socialism really an end in itself? Surely the question is, does it increase or diminish our happiness? It is not sufficient to say Capitalism is bad, but to show what is better.

The S.P.G.B. has it Russia is Capitalist I agree it isn’t Socialist, but who are the Russian Capitalists inside Communism?

The spirit and philosophy of Labour’s Defence programme gained world respect. War is not inevitable. It is a bogus "scientific” analysis to predict that war and unemployment are bound to rise again.

Other European countries had Marshall Aid without full employment. The reason was lack of Governmental planning. Capitalism can be made to benefit Capitalists less and workers more. Agreed, the property relations remain unaltered, but given time, with a socialist objective Labour can alleviate problems and generally make life better. Nationalisation is a training ground for trying out Socialism. Labour is not in line with the Tories. Improvements from Tories were wrung from an unwilling hand, in contrast with Labour's anxiety to make improvements.

The S.P.G.B. avoids the issue of problems under Socialism. It asks us to take a blindfolded route into

something we know nothing about. Their idea of everyday life under Socialism is primitive in conception, leading to chaos and disaster, by ignoring organisational difficulties. Before Capitalism goes the next method must be known.

There is more value in Labour's policy of admitting errors and mistakes than trying to blindly convince the world's workers.

Thorburn (3)

Organisation under Socialism will be the responsibility of society, not of the S.P.G.B. Socialism as a system of society is distinct from a form of government. Our end as a political body is the establishment of that society.

Capitalism has outlived its usefulness. The next stage in Social Evolution is Socialism. We are on the verge of an atomic war and the destruction of industrial Europe. It would probably not be so if the Labour Party had spent its time propagating Socialism. They follow instead, policies leaving Capital and Wage Labour firmly entrenched.

Russia has all the features of Capitalism. If Bramall wants to know a Russian capitalist, I name one Berdvebekov.

We know of no measure of human happiness. Happiness will look after itself following the establishment of its conditions.

The Labour Party, so far from assisting the emancipation of working people, hindered it, in their pursuit of the will-o-the-wisp of Social Reform. For all their reforms the problems remain. It is not bogus science to say that if the factors causing war and unemployment continue that these things will re-appear. The Labour Party does not spread Socialism but disillusion. Its big majority of 1945 was reduced to a wafer in 1950, and to defeat in 1951. As to its “ training ground” of Nationalisation and its “trial and error,” Labour was forced to soft pedal on Nationalisation to get workers’ votes, and is bereft of new arguments to replace those having failed. What can the Labour Party offer now?

The unfulfilled needs of present society demand the end of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Experiences of the past, present and future will continue to hammer that fact home.