Editorial: The Importance of Elections (1968)

Editorial from the November 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

This month, a lot of the Socialist Standard is devoted to the question of elections. One article deals with the American Presidential election, another with the campaign which led up to the Reform Act of 1867. There are two contributions about Votes for Women.

One hundred years ago this month, the first British general election in which most of the voters were workers was held; fifty years ago there was the first general election with women voters.

Elections are important because the party—and the class—that wins them thereby controls political power. It is a sad fact that ever since workers have had the vote the vast majority of them have chosen to support capitalist political parties and so helped to keep in being the system which exploits them and deprives them of liberty, abundance and security.

This has led some to question the usefulness of elections and to turn to so-called “direct action” as an alternative. “Direct action” usually means marches and demonstrations — sometimes violent and provocative-sit-ins, takeovers of colleges, factories and so on. The organisers of these activities hope that in some way they will lead to the overthrow of capitalism.

The one fact which this hope leaves out of account is that “direct action” is necessarily the tactic of a minority; a majority has no need to demonstrate for its demands because it can use its power as a majority to get them.

At the moment the majority are expressing their demand —or preference—for capitalism. They vote for representatives of capitalism who go to the various legislative bodies throughout the world to run society in the interests of the capitalist class, to protect the property rights of capitalism, to administer the state machine and to maintain the “law and order” with its basis in the privileges and exploitation which are part of property society.

There can be no opting out of this. Any threat to “law and order” will be met by the capitalist state, but that state does not act in isolation. The majority of the electorate—which means the majority of the working class—support with their votes the police cordons, the flailing truncheons, the bayonets of the National Guard, the water cannons of Belfast. The experiences of the demonstrators, far from proving the futility of political action, show its power—and (he need to control that power.

Does “direct action”, then, achieve nothing? In practical terms, these are some of its recent results. In France, after the May riots, the Gaullist government came back with an increased majority and so with a clear mandate from the French workers to deal firmly with the insurgents. In America there is a similar story; George Wallace won a lot of votes in unexpected areas from workers who wanted to see the ugliest measures taken against anyone they saw as a threat to the stability of capitalism.

British politics have also been affected; is probably true to say that every demonstration provokes the same sort of reaction among workers here as in America and France and so increases the support for politicians like Enoch Powell with his own particular appeal to working class ignorance and frustration.

Are the demonstrators, then, to stay silent and docile? Must we never protest against the bestialities and degradations of capitalism? No socialist would accept that proposition. But we want our protest to be effective, as no protest can be unless it strikes at the roots of the system— at the political power which keeps the capitalist class in their position of privilege and from which all else flows.

At the moment, in many capitalist countries, the workers have one of the essential tools for this—they have the vote. The capitalists fully recognise the importance of elections; that is why they at first opposed universal suffrage and why they now spend vast sums of money in hoodwinking the voters.

The other essential tool — socialist understanding — is at present lacking. And the way to stimulate it is not by spreading confusion, nor by opportunism, nor by provoking ignorance. There is only one way—the establishment and propagation of the case for the alternative society of Socialism.

Activity in Ireland (1968)

Party News from the October 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Socialist Party of Ireland, under considerable difficulties, is carrying on the struggle. They rushed out a leaflet (“under very odd conditions", they report!) on the Czech crisis, of which this is an extract: 

   “The different political regimes involved—Russian, Bulgarian, Polish or even the Czechs themselves—claim that they are “socialist". This is a lie! If Socialism is to have the only possible worthwhile meaning, that of a classless society to replace capitalism, as envisaged by Marx and other socialist pioneers, there is no ‘socialism' in these countries any more than in Labour government Britain or slate capitalist Yugoslavia."

Over one thousand cm these leaflets were distributed at a “protest" meeting in Belfast, where a member of the WSPl managed to get five minutes on the platform to state our case against the confusion of the Young Liberals, National Democrats, N.I. Labour Party, Young “Socialists" and so on. The comrades in Belfast hope this event may have helped to convince the authorities that the streets are now safe for political meetings again. The new address of the WSPl is 13, Queens Square, Belfast 1.

A Marxist Text Book (1968)

Book Review from the August 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Theoretical System of Karl Marx, by Louis Boudin. (Monthly Review Press. 50s.)

It is welcome news that Louis B. Boudin’s book has been republished after being out of print for many years.

The new edition is identical with that published by Charles H. Kerr of Chicago in 1918, based on a series of articles written by Boudin for the International Socialist Review in 1905 and 1906.

In spite of the particular purpose for which it was originally written, in spite of the lapse of time, the intervening wars and revolutions, and the fact that Marx’s writings are now more readily available in the English-speaking world it is still an excellent introduction to the study of Marxism.

In his preface Boudin explained that he started with the intention of giving an account of the movement to revise Marxism, conducted by Bernstein and other Social Democrats in the 1890’s, but found this impossible except at great length because so much of the background was unfamiliar to English readers. He decided instead to provide “an exposition of the teachings of Marx”; not a text-book or detailed statement of economic theory, “but rather an outline of the Marxian system of thought”, with special emphasis on the relation of the different parts to each other and the unity of the whole.

He succeeded admirably, and though the names of the critics of Marx with whom he dealt are now of less interest, many of the points he made are as useful today as they were then.

Of course not all of his views have stood the test of time. He was for example over-influenced by the phase capitalism was going through in the early years of the century and appears to have accepted that the trend towards heavier unemployment was bound to continue.

In Chapter VI Boudin dealt at length with the way in which, consistently with the Marxian theory of value and surplus value, some commodities sell above and other below their value, and all capitals whether in the sphere of production or of circulation tend to receive the average rate of profit. Having explained how each capital shares in the surplus value produced in the whole of society and does not just receive surplus value produced by the workers in the particular firm, Boudin even anticipated by half a century the seemingly difficult poser presented by the automationist dream of a workerless factory. He showed that the individual capitalists can receive profit “notwithstanding the fact that their workingmen created no surplus value whatever or that they employed no working-men at all”.

Writing at the time he did, Boudin had no occasion to deal with the problem of a seizure of power (as in Russia in 1917) allegedly with the object of imposing Socialism on a population not ready for it. We can however read what he had to say about the conditions necessary for Socialism, the vital role of the proletariat and the anti-socialist outlook of the peasantry. It is therefore interesting to read what he said years later in May 1921, in a lecture to the New York Socialist Education Society:

One does not look to a poorhouse for Socialism and it is my belief that when a revolution has occurred in a backward country where the productivity of labour is low, either one of two things must happen; either the productivity of labour must be developed to a point where the prerequisites of Socialism, that is that the workers have sufficient leisure to educate themselves to a point where they are fully capable of administering their own affairs, are in existence, or else classes will appear . . . Private property is not abolished in Russia, and if Lenin has said so then he is mistaken and I must disagree, but what I have read of Lenin’s says just the contrary.

Edgar Hardcastle

To the Workers of France (1968)

From the July 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following manifesto (for distribution in France) was adopted by the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Gt. Britain on 28th May. This is the English translation.

We address you not as citizens of one country to citizens of another but as world socialists to fellow members of the world working class.

We reject frontiers as artificial barriers put up by governments. All men are brothers and the world should be theirs. All men should be social equals with free access to the plenty that could be if only the means of living belonged to a socialist world community. We oppose governments everywhere, all nationalism, racism and religion, all censorship, all wars and preparations for war.

Workers! We support your class struggle for better wages and conditions against the employers and the government. But do not be taken in by the ease with which you have occupied the factories. They allowed you to do this because they know that in time you must give in. Political power is always in the hands of those who control the machinery of government, including the armed forces and the sadistic CRS. Do not be misled by those who say that universal suffrage is a fraud. Learn from your masters. You too must organise to win political power if you want a new society. Do not let cunning politicians or the discredited Communist Party return to power on your backs. Ignore those who would be your leaders. Rely on your own understanding and organisation. Turn universal suffrage into an instrument of emancipation.

Students! We share your distaste for the indignities and hypocrisies of the present order. We share your wish for a new society with no exploitation of man by man. But do not underestimate what a task it will be to change society. It will be a hundred times more difficult than changing the government. A democratic world community, based on common ownership with production for use not profit, can only be set up when people want it and are ready to take the steps needed to get it up and keep it going. Democratic political action is the only way to Socialism. There are no short cuts. We must have a majority actively on our side. Do not be misled by student demagogues, those who praise Bakunin, Trotsky, Mao or Che Guevara, who would use you for their own mistaken ends. They think that an elite should use unrest to gain power and then set up a classless society. What dangerous nonsense! Look at state capitalist Russia where a new privileged class rules, with police intimidation and censorship, over an increasingly restless population. Look at state capitalist China where power-hungry bureaucrats cynically manipulate the people in their own sordid squabbles. Learn the lessons of history: elite action leads to elite rule. No Socialism unless by democratic political action, based on socialist understanding.

The task you face in France is the same that we face in Britain and our brothers in Germany, Russia, the United States and other countries: to build up a strong world-wide movement for Socialism. What is needed more than anything else in this period of social unrest is a clear, uncompromising statement of the case for a socialist world community.

If you agree, please write to us. We will be glad to help you ensure that the voice of Socialism is again heard in France.

Workers of the world, Unite!

Russia and Britain (1968)

Book Review from the June 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Impact of the Russian Revolution in Britain, by R. Page Arnot (Lawrence and Wishart, 45s.)

Page Arnot's book is a well-documented account of the way events in Russia in the period 1917-1921 were received in Britain—the reactions of the government, the Press, political parties and trade unions. It deals with the Communist seizure of power in Russia, the new government’s withdrawal from the war with Germany, its handling of desperate economic problems, the civil war, and the armed intervention by the British and other governments, and shows in parallel how different groups in this country opposed or supported the Russian Government, organised protest demonstrations and so on.

Undoubtedly in 1917 large sections of the propertied class were badly frightened (just as their predecessors had been at the time of the French Revolution) by the thought that the example of the overthrow of Czardom and confiscation of property, added to war-weariness and industrial strife, might endanger property rights in Britain. Even if they had known then (and most of them did not) that in the long run Russia just like France, would settle down as part of the world capitalist order, they would have feared that in the short run they could expect a few very troubled years. This book will help those who want to recapture the political fears and hopes of the time.

What it lacks is an understanding by the author of what was really emerging out of the confusion of those early years. He shared the common delusion that 50 years ago Socialism was just about to emerge in Russia, Britain and elsewhere.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Challenge to Debate (1968)

Party News from the May 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the days when the Independent Labour Party counted its MPs by the dozen the Socialist Party often gave them a scare by issuing a challenge to debate. The ILP had a special technique for dealing with us. They normally sent back a haughty reply along the lines that “no useful purpose would be served by such a meeting". We were not a little surprised, then, to receive a challenge to debate—dated September 22, 1967—from the general secretary of what remains of the ILP. The Socialist Party replied on October 12, 1967 accepting the challenge and we added that we looked forward to receiving the ILP’s proposals as to the details of the meeting.

Since nothing had been heard from them by the end of December 1967, we wrote a further letter offering to help out if they were having difficulty in securing a hall. At the time of writing we are still awaiting a reply. On two occasions we have telephoned their head office and both times they have answered that they were too busy to consider a debate until some indefinite time in the future! All this seems rather strange when it is remembered that it was they who issued the challenge. If nothing else, this shows consistency. The ILP has been dithering ever since its formation in 1893 and its present members are obviously ably maintaining their party's tradition.

The Review Column: Facts on Race (1968)

The Review Column from the April 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

Facts on Race

With another Immigrants Act; with the searing report on last year’s riots in Newark, New Jersey; with the legal battle over the condemned Africans in Rhodesia; with the preparations in the United States for another long, hot summer; race is once more making the news.

In pubs, bus queues, workshops, offices and homes a variety of theories — if they can be graced with the name — is being propounded. It is time, then, for yet another statement of the facts on race, which all workers should bear in mind.

FACT ONE: Although there is any number of racial theories, and of racialists, nobody has yet been able to fix conclusively the dividing line between races, nor indeed the number of races that exist 

FACT TWO: There is absolutely no evidence, despite exhaustive and persistent attempts to get some, that human beings whose skin is of one colour are superior or inferior to those whose skin is of another colour.

FACT THREE: We live in a capitalist society which is world wide and which divides its people into two classes — capitalists and workers.

FACT FOUR: These two classes are also world wide and cut across any other divisions of race, sex or religion. Thus there are “coloured” capitalists as well as “coloured” workers, “white” workers as well as “white” capitalists.

FACT FIVE: The interests of workers are opposed to those of the capitalists.

FACT SIX: All capitalists have a common interest and so have all workers. The workers’ is in unity — as long as capitalism lasts to improve their conditions and, more important, to organise for the abolition of capitalism and its replacement by Socialism.

FACT SEVEN: Racial theories and prejudices, because they are false and because they operate against working class unity, are a barrier to the understanding of Socialism. They are, therefore, against the interests of the workers and should be rejected by them.

FACT EIGHT: Only when we have Socialism will all human beings be able to cooperate freely for the benefit of society. Only Socialism will end the pernicious scourge of racism.

Wages Still Frozen

One of the more famous examples of Harold Wilson’s cynicism is his saying that in politics a week is a long time.

Clearly, it is this principle that has guided the government’s policy on wages. Each time the stop has been put on rises it has been on the understanding that it was only a temporary restraint. Every turn of the screw has been justified on the argument that it was necessary for a time —six months, a year—to ensure greater prosperity to come.

Every restriction on the unions has been represented as a preliminary to greater freedom in the future. On the principle that a week is a long time—that the promises made last week will be forgotten by this—the government has broken every promise on wages.

If their original assurances were worth anything, we should by now be free of the freeze. In fact, restraint is still on; last month’s meeting of trade union executives spent most of their time discussing the pointless issue of whether they would co-operate voluntarily or compulsorily with holding down wages.

The Prices and Incomes Act still hangs over the unions and if the busmen, for example, carry through their campaign for a rise, we may see some prosecutions under the Act. Under Jenkins, as under Callaghan, the clamp down continues. So, too, does the policy of letting prices rise, and of inflating the currency so that the whole operation can tick over.

What this all means is a depression of working class living standards. It means that our wages, held down, will buy less and that the necessities of life will be that much harder to come by — and the luxuries that much fewer and further between.

This is what the government's economic policies have been aiming at, behind the smokescreen of promises, all on the cynical premise that voters' memories last no longer than'a week. Well, do they? That, of course, is a matter for the workers themselves.

How Big a Villain?

Even before David Frost got at him, Emil Savundra was high on the list of public villains. Savundra was skating on very thin ice. The motor car, with all it implies about the economic status of its owner, is an object of almost neurotic pride among the working class. Anything which threatens to upset this little dream world— inadequate roads, higher road tax, unstable insurance companies—is likely to call forth wrath appropriate to frustrated pride.

How big a villain was Savundra? He is, apparently, a man of compelling personality and some ingenuity; when he was sentenced there was the usual regret that he had not turned his talents to some business within the law. That, of course, would have been perfectly alright; capitalism's legal robbery has founded many fortunes and there are many men with honours thick upon them as a reward for running the system.

Indeed, insurance is a part of capitalism's big swindle — as anyone can find out if they fail to read and understand the small print on a policy, or try to cancel a policy before it is fully paid up and expect to get back something like what they have paid in premiums. Savundra broke capitalisms's rules and his mistake was to do so in a way and on a scale which was almost certain to be discovered.

Of course the collapse of Fire Auto and Marine damaged a lot of workers, many of them, as the judge said, “from a modest income group” who could afford only the sort of cut price premiums offered by FAM.

But capitalism is damaging workers all the time. By taking from them the full product of their labour, and giving back only a portion, the system robs and swindles millions of people. Beside that, and beside capitalism's record of repression, Savundra is very, very small fry.

It needs no legal and financial expert to expose capitalism's crime against humanity. The indictment of the system was prepared a long time ago but so far there has not been enough interest in bringing a prosecution.

Labour's Left-wing (1968)

From the March 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party is a party of capitalism; one of the two political machines that the working class in Britain regularly elect to control the government in the interests of the capitalists. Of this there can be no doubt. The Labour Party have never had Socialism as their aim. It is true that in the past they did use, or rather misuse, the word socialism more than they do today. But to them Socialism meant nationalisation or state capitalism. Now they prefer to speak of the New Britain — a fact which we Socialists welcome as it means that the name of Socialism will be dragged less through the mud by being linked with the war-making, strike breaking, anti-union laws and wage freezes of the various Labour governments.

The Labour Party is organised to run the machinery of government. Their programme and policy is decided by the Leader and the leaders of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It is controlled from the top downwards. In other words it is not a democratic party and the membership do not lay down its policy. The aftermath of the 1960 Scarborough Conference decision in favour of unilateral disarmament is a glaring example of this. The parliamentary leaders and the Leader refused to accept this decision and justified this refusal on the ground that they were responsible not to the Party but to the electorate. As the electorate did not in fact back unilateral disarmament this was a telling point. In fact it gives us a clue to the reason for the ineffectiveness of the Labour Party generally and of its left-wing in particular.

Labour MPs are elected on the votes of people who are not Socialists and so are effectively their prisoner. They cannot go much further than those who voted for them are prepared to go, and certainly they can do nothing for Socialism. For Socialism cannot be established over the heads of a working class who do not understand it. Socialism can only be established by people who understand and want it and who democratically set out to get it. The Labour Party does not—and never has—seek support at elections on a Socialist programme. It has always done so on a programme of trying to reform capitalism. The left-wing also suggest a reform programme, only one less practical than that of the parliamentary leaders. But they are elected, not on their own programme, but on that of the leaders—a fact which gives these leaders the whip-hand. They can use the passive voters who backed their programme against the programme suggested by the parliamentary left-wing and the constieuency activists.

The parliamentary left-wing, of course, have a well-earned reputation for ineffectiveness. Many put this down to the peculiar atmosphere of the House of Commons which is supposed to entice them away from their principles. This is not the case at all. They have been elected on the official Labour programme and not on one of more nationalisation, less defence and the like. They are the prisoner of those who elected them, and also of those who share the views of those who elected them. They know this, and so do the parliamentary leaders who thus can treat them with utter contempt. To repeat: it is not the fact that they are in parliament that makes leftwing MPs spineless. It is how they got there. The lesson is clear: if Labourites are forced even to water down their reform programme, to expect Socialism to be established through the Labour Party is just plain stupid.

Despite the antagonism between the left-wing and the parliamentary leaders and the odd situation where the Leader is really hated by many members, the left-wing does play a useful and essential role for the Labour Party. That role is to persuade doubters that the Labour Party does have the interests of the workers at heart. When talking to party activists even the official leadership will talk of Socialism. Once again this is to reassure doubters who may be beginning to see through the Labour Party.

Seeking support on the basis it does, when elected the Labour Party has no choice but to run capitalism. And capitalism cannot be made to work in the interest of those who work for a wage or salary. It can only work in the interests of the owning class. Any party which takes on the task of running capitalism is sooner or later brought into direct conflict with the working class. The economic forces of capitalism smash the grandiose social reform schemes to pieces. This has happened with every Labour government. After the war troops were used to break down strikes; strikers were put on trial; production of the atom bomb started and the Korean war backed. Labour governments act only as they can: as caretakers for capitalism.

Socialists would never think of joining such a party as Labour any more than they would the Liberal or Tory parties. Labour has always in practice stood for capitalism and even its theory of how to improve the lot of the working class was hopelessly mistaken. Once again, Socialism can only be established by people who want it. No gain can come to a Socialist party from opportunism or compromise. To achieve Socialism a Socialist party must seek the support only of convinced socialists. This is the policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is the only sound way to build a Socialist party, as the history of the Labour Party well shows. 

Adam Buick

Let Them Eat Cake (1968)

From the February 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

In their Open Letter to the Party (see the Socialist Standard, December 1967) Jacek Kuron and Karol Modzelewski analysed the living conditions of workers in “communist” Poland. Using official, Polish-government data they produced a devastating criticism of the state capitalist system in that country. One passage in particular stands out in my mind—that dealing with meat consumption in working class families.

 Polish food physiologists established 4 norms for meat consumption. Norm A, hardly adequate and not recommended for a long period, requires a monthly per capita average of 3.7 Kg. Norm B, adequate and permitting a normal functioning of the organism over a long period, requires 4 Kg. The data on family budgets reveals that in about 23 per cent of working class families the consumption of meat and meat products is below the hardly adequate norm, and in 18 to 19 per cent of such families, it is within the hardly adequate norm but still below the adequate norm.
  According to a research project conducted at the Warsaw Motorcycle Factory in 1957, 23 per cent of the workers ate meat for dinner once a week or less, and 25 per cent ate it twice a week. One might suppose that data seven years old are no longer true, but in fact consumption of meat and meat products in 1957 was 43.9 kilograms, a level higher than that of 1960 (42.5 kilograms) and not much below that of 1962 (45.8 kilograms).

As can be seen, the statistics used by these two imprisoned ex-Communists go no further than 1962. But a recent article in the Economist (2.12.67) has presented figures for succeeding years. It shows that the trend in Poland at present is for family incomes to rise. This has resulted not so much from pay increases as from the tendency for more members of the average family to go out to work; thus-the labour force has increased by 1,900,000 in the past seven years. As a measure of the poverty of these working class families it is significant that little of their extra money has been spent on so-called luxuries. Instead they have concentrated on buying more of the basic essentials such as foodstuffs. In fact, food products still account for 47 per cent of total consumer expenditure, the same proportion as before. Due to their new-found “affluence” Polish workers have been eating more meat and it is estimated that in 1967 the average working man just reached the adequate level (norm B). The figure given is 4.3 kilograms/month (52 kilograms/year) for per capita meat consumption, compared to the norm of 4 kilograms/month (48 kilograms/year).

Production in state capitalist Poland, however, is not carried on in order to satisfy the people’s needs and the supply of meat products for the market has lagged behind the new demand. This has meant, in classical capitalist manner, rocketing prices of the different types of meat—increases of 16.7 per cent on average, but even higher in some cases (the price of veal, for example, is up by a third). The effect of all this is, of course, quite obvious. It must once more force per capita consumption of meat down below the level which healthy diet demands. The average worker will now only be able to afford 3.7 kilograms of meat each month (44.6 kilograms/year) — the “hardly adequate" norm — if he spends the same money as before on his food. With working class budgets stretched just as tightly in Poland as they are elsewhere, this means he has little alternative than to tighten his belt.

We could not end without mentioning Stefan Jedrychowski, the chairman of the state planning commission. According to the Economist he has “blamed the current shortages in meat supplies on the Poles’ insatiable appetite for meat”! As always, the barbarities of the capitalist system are only matched by the cynical insolence of those in power.

John Crump

What Price Charity (1968)

From the January 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

That the face of society is becoming increasingly more scarred by the demands being made from charity organisations is now only too painfully clear. That the social problems which these organisations were formed to alleviate are becoming more acute also is only too clear.

That there is no new thinking on the question of ends and means only shows the extent to which emotionalism rather than rationalism governs the actions of both those who beseech our support and those who are morally blackmailed into giving their support to charity organisations.

We are bombarded from all directions to support this appeal, or that cause; accusing fingers thrust their way into our faces reminding us that one day age too will menacingly envelope us. That illness, or loneliness, or worse incapacity might strike us down. We are informed that there are homeless children, and homeless aged. Not so very long ago we were seduced into filling tin boxes with metal coins to help the homeless children in China. In yet a later decade the labels on the collecting boxes were changed to the homeless children of Korea. Yet again the labels change to show that the Vietnam children should be the recipients of our help. No Cooks Tour of the world need remind us of those in need in the many parts of the globe. This function is well served by the rattle of little tin boxes. Christian Aid reminds us that millions are hungry. The National Food Survey Committee tells us that 500,000 children live in poverty in England, living on inferior diets. There are fund raising campaigns for diseases of the heart, polio, cerebral palsy, cancer and many others. Money raising is big business, quite often competing one against the other. The Aberfan fund did much to deplete the tin boxes of other charities.

The Jewish Board of Guardians was founded 107 years ago. The ambitions which animated the J.B.G. were similar to those of other reformist bodies, namely that inherent in their activity for voluntary work in such fields as housing, health and general welfare for immigrant Jews was the concept “that the amelioration of physical conditions and the relief of poverty was the key to the solution of all social problems.”

V. D. Lipman. in his book Social History of the Jews in England 1850- 1950 tells us that the various Jewish charities, including the J.B.G., were originally supported by large donations from wealthy and generous individuals such as the Rothschilds; he however does not question the origin of the accumulation of Rothschild’s wealth, neither does he question the fact of riches alongside poverty or physical degradation alongside privilege and comfort. These are accepted as part of some vast eternal plan, but somehow or other to he alleviated.

Mr. Lipman suggests that today's welfare state has replaced many of the functions previously performed by charities. Even if this were true, which it is not, he completely fails to understand that the “welfare" state is in itself a reflection of capitalism's inability to provide for those in want. The Observer agony column of 29 October last carried advertisements from 17 charities advertising the sale of Christmas cards on behalf of bodies concerned with cancer research, the deaf and the blind, spastics. diabetics, rheumatism and arthritis. The plight of sufferers from these diseases is pitiful, particularly when it is reported that economies have to be instituted in the Royal Marsden Hospital for Leukaemia (a killer disease). Because of shortages of funds wards will have to close down (Times 22.4.67).

In the same year that the [Jewish] Board of Guardians was founded in 1859, Karl Marx too had some observations to make about social problems. He wrote “that the working class may improve their material conditions in Capitalist society, but they do so at a cost of their social conditions". In the light of the many demands now being made by charity organisations throughout the world, for so many causes, it would seem that Marx was right. One does not have to look very long upon the social scene to see that the efficacy of charity organisations is being frustrated by the very conditions that have given rise to the problems they have set out to alleviate. That this so is substantiated by the charity organisations themselves.

The Jewish Chronicle of October 27 carries an article by a Mr. Mark Fineman, who gives a quotation from the Jewish Welfare Board’s annual report for 1922: “We recognise that bad times, the crushing burden of taxation, the insistence of appeals for our suffering co-religionists abroad, and for hospitals and for other general charities at home, all make it more difficult to support the Board in the generous way of our forerunners”. Mr. Fineman then concludes with the statement “These words are as true today”. This after 100 years!

Oxfam reminds us that 1967 marked their 25th anniversary. Their current appeal does show more realism by asking us to help put them out of business, but it then goes on to say “how many of the hungry will live to see their (Oxfam’s) 26th anniversary?”

That it is utopian to expect charity organisations to make any inroads into the problems they collect funds for is evident by the title of one particular organisation — World Hunger Week — in other words the title is a reflection of the proportion of the problem. They are no longer local in character or isolated “unfortunate incidents in the life of a nation”. On the contrary, they are increasing in dimension and mote acute in their effects. For example, the Jewish Chronicle quotes Browning “Grow old along with me, the best is yet to be” then goes on to say that “for many Jewish citizens old age threatens, fear, illness and isolation at the end.” And then proceeds to tell us that the support Israel fund did much to deplete the funds for the aged and for the infirm! And in another edition God had performed a miracle of divine intervention in order that an Israeli victory was assured, but in his divine inscrutable wisdom failed to intervene on behalf of aged Jews. That must be left to charity!

Neither the supporters nor the organisers are concerned, so it would seem, to establish the cause of poverty in the modern world. They fail to see that the one complements the other. They fail to recognise that sufferers from poverty and social inadequacy, or maladjusted human beings are in the main wage earners, and it is the fact that they are wage earners first, living in a highly competitive industrial society which renders them immediately vulnerable to all the slings and arrows of a rapacious system.

One other aspect of charity worth dwelling upon which organisers themselves might consider is the degradation of being the recipient of charity. Oscar Wilde observed in his essay The Soul of Man under Socialism that “it is safer to beg than to take, but it is nobler to take than to beg.”

Socialism being the conversion of private property into common property replacing competition with co-operation will restore society from one of wanton waste into one of plenty, where human beings will take from society according to their need, freed from the necessity of having to live for others but where man can finally live for himself but in cooperation with others.

Harry Hamme

Party Notes. (1904)

Party News from the December 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the present month there will be two meetings of the E.C., viz., Saturday. December 3rd, 3 p.m. and Tuesday, December 20th. 7 p.m. These meetings will be held at the Communist Club, and any member, by presenting his membership card, is entitled to be present during the transaction of the business.

The practice, initiated by our Provisional Executive, of throwing the Sessions of the E.C. open to the members, is now a rule of the Party and is giving every satisfaction, not only to the members who, residing in London, have the opportunity of attending, but also to those living in provincial centres. A short time ago I received from a member in the midlands a letter from which I quote the following:

   "I am exceedingly well pleased with the tone of our paper. It has the genuine ring about it. I was especially interested in and greatly pleased with your report at the General Meeting. The policy pursued, as indicated in your report, is the very essence of Democracy. No Tammany Hall here! Let everything be done openly and above board. That is Socialism.”

Largely owing to the efforts of our Edmonton and Wood Green comrades, there is every likelihood of a Branch of the Party being soon established in Tottenham, where our comrades have been conducting a successful out-door propaganda. Last Sunday two of our speakers held a meeting at West Green Road at which the names of several new members were obtained. Two persons (not members of the Party) moved a vote of confidence in our organisation which was carried without dissent by the audience.

Our Islington comrades are active, and have not the slightest intention of being excelled by Paddington or any other Branch. They have obtained, since my last “Notes” appeared, more new members and are again at the same rate of increase as Paddington. Of course, mere numbers is not all that is required.

But in addition to keeping well abreast as far as Branch membership is concerned, the Islington Branch has shown the lead in the number of prepaid subscriptions obtained for The Socialist Standard. Comrade Sator, alone, has sent in eight Annual Subscriptions and is no doubt looking for more. Here is an example that could with advantage be emulated by many more of our members.

The sale of the Party Organ will, of course, not be so large during the next two or three months as it has been during the open-air propaganda season. But any possible diminution of income from sales can be to a certain extent compensated for by an increase in the Annual Subscriptions. Now is the time to secure them.

In Battersea the Sunday Night Lectures at Sydney Hall are being continued. I have not yet received the Syllabus for December, but am in a position to announce two subjects. On Sunday, 4th December, C. Lehane will speak on “Ireland, To-day and To-morrow," and on Sunday, 11th Dec., J. Fitzgerald will lecture on “Reform or Revolution.” Time, 7 p.m.

Rumours are afloat that several of our members have quitted the Party and gone back to the S.D.F. This is not so. I am not aware of a single case where this has occurred. But we can readily understand that in circulating the rumour the wish is father to the thought.

Con Lehane

Party Notes. (1904)

Party Notes from the November 1904 issue of the Socialist Standard

A member whose first name is Sydney, now rusticating in Hellingly, has been good enough to draw my attention to the discrepancy between the announcement, contained in the report of the Executive Committee published in the  October issue, relating to the number of the Party speakers and the number actually contained in the Lecture List.

The report stated “The Party has at its disposal over 15 speakers,” whereas my informant states he has counted the names appearing in Lecture List for October, and finds we have twenty-two "special speakers.” Our comrade is nearly right. I have looked through the list in question, but can only discover 20 speakers.

In any case the number is “over 15,” and the statement contained in the E.C. report absolutely correct. Were we to place on the list every member capable of holding forth from the platform we might perhaps muster 30or 40 speakers, but it is better to under-estimate than to over state our strength. We have no desire to “bluff” anybody by presenting a magnified view of our forces. The Social Revolution cannot be accomplished in a day, and neither can the instrument of that revolution, The Socialist Party, be built up in a few mouths. Our speakers to-day are counted by tens and our supporters by hundreds, but to-morrow these numbers will be increased ten and a thousand fold.

The same correspondent makes a suggestion which may be found useful. This idea is that a good deal of expense would be saved if branch business meetings were, where possible, held in members' houses. Socialists at any time are not very great believers in rent, and with the approach of winter, branches having only a small membership could, with advantage, meet in a comrade's house.

The outdoor propaganda season is now over, but at the Party speaking stations operations will be continued as usual, as for as the weather will permit. During the winter of course many sources of income will be closed to the Branches, and consequently some of our comrades, particularly in the poorer districts of London, may experience some difficulty in maintaining their Branches in a sound condition, financially and otherwise.

These dangers will be minimised if our comrades everywhere make special efforts to push the Party literature. As a clean and clear exponent of Socialist Science, The Socialist Standard has no equal in Great Britain. The sale of our Organ during the winter months will keep alive the local interest, be a means of holding together and securing new members, a source of revenue to the Branches, and finally will prepare the ground for the opening of the spring campaign with renewed vigour.

Things are commencing to move down in Battersea, where our comrades have organised the sale of The Socialist Standard in a really creditable manner. The results achieved are of such an encouraging character that Peckham will soon have to look to its laurels. Hitherto, Peckham has been to the forefront as regards their supply of the Party Organ, but a stride or two more will give Battersea the lead.

In other directions, too, our Battersea comrades are giving evidence of their earnestness in the Cause, indicated in the announcement contained elsewhere in this issue. They have organised a series of indoor lectures, to be delivered in Sidney Hall at 7.30 p.m. every Sunday in November, when various aspects of the Movement will be treated by comrades Elrick, Kent, Watts, and Anderson. Comrades not on duty elsewhere will do well to attend these lectures.

Although our Paddington comrades appear to be quiescent, it would be a great mistake to suppose they are inactive. Since the General Meeting the Paddington Branch has enrolled more new members than any other Branch of the Party. What on earth is Islington doing? Day after day I am seized with great fear and trembling as I open the despatches from the “Vale” containing the signed Declarations of new members. I fear and I tremble because with each upward motion of the Paddington membership barometer recedes the Islington promise to be the best Branch. If our northern comrades do not bestir themselves their Branch will indeed be the “greatest thing on earth”--except Paddington.

Comrades, everywhere, let us be up and doing. Let us pull steadily together. Let there be no resting on oars till, having conquered the adverse winds and the deceptive currents of Capitalism,  our craft is safely anchored in the haven of the Socialist Republic. Comrades, everyone; pass the word along. Onward!

Con Lehane

The Socialist Party and the Labour Party. (1907)

From the March 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Wing of the Liberal Party
We of The Socialist Party of Great Britain have cherished no fond delusions concerning the Labour Party. From our inception we have consistently opposed it, and the proceedings at its recent Conference confirm us in our antagonistic attitude.

In our Declaration of Principles, adopted on June 15, 1904, we declared “war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist,” and in that reference the Labour Party (then the L.R.C.) was included. In the first issue of the Socialist Standard (Sept. 1904) we described the L.R.C. as the working-class wing of the Liberal Party, [It is amusing to note that "Justice" has lately arrived at the same conclusion.] with whom the I.L.P., who had neither the courage to proclaim themselves Socialists nor to disavow Socialism, were coquetting. After two and a half years not a word of our description need be withdrawn.

As might be expected, the President’s address at Belfast was a model of moderation, well reflecting the conduct of the members in the House of Commons. Referring to the artist who, at the end of the General Election cartooned the leader as "Queer Hardie,” he said : "We were a queer party, and a queer party we have proved ourselves to be. Absolutely mistrusted at the beginning of the year, we finished the year with the praise of all impartial critics. For sensibility, adaptability, and respectability, the Labour Party stood first in the British House of Commons.” Admirable! No phrasing of ours could better describe them.

They were a queer party and they are a queer party. On the one side Mr. H. Quelch of the S.D.F. Executive (who wants to smash the Liberal Party) and lesser lights of that body, not there as represeuiatives of the S.D.F., but sneaking in as trade union delegates; at the other extreme, Mr. R. Bell, M.P., who makes no secret of his Liberalism, risking even his position as trade union official in defence of it, a striking contrast to the servility of Will Thorne and other S.D.F. men, who, because they are trade union officials and might lose their jobs if they refused (so runs the S.D.F. excuse) have been permitted time after time to support Liberal candidates, a crime for which ordinary members of the S.D.F. have been expelled; and between these two, all sorts and conditions of men and women, lacking principle, lacking policy, and therefore an easy prey to the astute and plausible professional politicians who lay in wait for them.

As They Darn Well Please
Readers of the Socialist Standard who remember the extent to which the Labour Party candidates made compacts with Liberals at the General Election, and pledged themselves so many directions in order to secure votes, will not be surprised at the effort made to throw over the Party and leave the members in the House free to do as they “darn well please.” Their original recommendation, however, was even too strong for some of their most trusted (or cutest) supporters, and it was amended ultimately carried as follows: "That resolutions instructing the Parliamentary Party as to their action in the House of Commons be taken as the opinion of the Conference on the understanding that the time and method of giving effect to these instructions be left to the Party in the House in conjunction with the National Executive.” “Respectability and adaptability" indeed! Keir Hardie and A. Henderson complained that the affiliated societies were continually pestering them at their party meetings and, of course, they wished to put a stop to this! Is not this the attitude always taken up by “respectable and adaptable” Liberals and Tories? Conferences may come and go, resolutions may be passed, reforms may be urged or demanded, Newcastle or other programmes may be formulated, but the rank and file, whose votes and work and, in the case of the Labour Party, whose pence have been the means of transforming these “pestered” legislators from mere agitators or carpet baggers into “respectable” esquires, are referred to the exigencies of the political situation and told that, although they may pass resolutions, they must not expect their members (no longer their delegates, but their members) to carry them out. We fear the Labour movement must endure many editions of John Burns before it comes to its senses.

S.D.F. Jesuits
The S.D.F. members made a determined attempt on the second day of the Conference to provide a bridge over which that body might again walk into the ranks of the Labour Party and share its funds for disappointed S.D.F. candidates. These men were not there as delegates of the S.D.F., as we have already pointed out. That body joined the L.R.C. when it was first formed, but afterwards withdrew, for reasons which have been different every time they have endeavoured to explain them. Certain it is they regret their withdrawal and are now pursuing a Jesuitical policy. Despite this withdrawal and despite the fact that the S.D.F. has declared “it is not the business of Socialists to ‘permeate’ a ‘labour’ party, any more than the Liberal or Conservative Party," its prominent members are permitted to attend the Conference and its branches are allowed to affiliate to local Labour Parties. Its members are allowed to break its rules by running as Labour Party candidates, thus securing labour Party Funds, and the S.D.F. itself officially supports “Labour” candidates. The official S.D.F. call this “policy," but neither they nor the rank and file can prove it to be either honest or logical.

A Very Ultimate Object
And so in the names of various trade unions, W. Atkinson, H. Quelch, T. N. Cathrall, J. Gribble, and other S.D.F. men submitted a resolution to make the ultimate object of the Labour Party the overthrow of the present system of capitalism and the institution of public ownership and control of the means of life.” The mover wished the Party to have “something to attain, something to strive for, something worth striving for." only it must be "ultimate.” Don’t frighten people by striving for it now. One by one the I.L.P. men rose “as Socialists" to oppose it. Hardie would have voted for it had it been moved in another way, (Oh! respectable and adaptable M.P.). and so on. But Hardie was certainly right, and none knew it better than Quelch & Co., when he pointed out that the people behind the delegates were not Socialists. And by the same token the people behind the “Labour" M.P’s are not Socialists, the victory of the "Labour" candidates was not a victory for Socialism and therefore not a victory for Labour. but, as we showed in our issue last March, a victory for confusion.

Can it be wondered at that a party such as these confusionists should full victims to the professional politicians and the sections supporting them. The recommendation submitted by the E.C. on the “Temperance” question professed a desire to confer full and unfettered power upon localities for dealing with the licensing question in accordance with "local opinion" and then rendered this impossible by laying down the definite propositions upon which localities were to vote. If a locality desired free trade in drink, for instance, it could not obtain it under the Labour Party’s “full and unfettered power.” In short, they fell into the local option trap, as no doubt A. Henderson, D. J. Shackleton and others intended they should.

Although claiming to be concerned with only “practical politics” the Labour M.P’s would have no programme drawn up by the Conference. Shackleton put the matter in a nutshell when he declared that if candidates were to be tied down their chances of being returned would be reduced. If, for instance, he and Mr. Gill were compelled to put the abolition of child labour on their programmes they might lose their seats and the society they represented might have to withdraw their payment of £900 per year. And, of course, the delegates decided that £900 sterling and the presence of two such "sensible, respectable and adaptable” men in the House of Commons was much more important than the yearly slaughter of thousands of children in the factory towns the gentlemen represent!

Voteless Women, Workless Workers

And so the Conference went on, each resolution that was submitted proving how greatly different were the views of the delegates even upon what they regard as “practical politics". And on the last day there occurred the scene that showed what manner of man Keir Hardie is. At a public demonstration held previously at Ulster Hall, he had declared that “they were democrats, they believed in the will of the people.” On the last day of Conference a Suffrage resolution was passed with which Hardie disagreed. He immediately showed what kind of democrat he was, just as he had previously shown what kind of a Socialist he was. He said that if the resolution was intended to restrict the action of the Party in the House, he would have to seriously consider whether he could remain a member. He could not give up his principles, and so on. This was, of course, very pretty but it was hardly "democratic". Moreover, how greatly Hardie has changed since 1893. In October of that year he was asked to part in an Adult Suffrage Demonstration in Trafalgar Square, organised by the S.D.F. He declined, accusing the S.D.F. of "desertion of the cause of Socialism." "Is the case of the three million voteless workers," he asked, "whose hard lot you are so eager to champion, worse than that of the four million, including dependents, workless workers? By your present action you proclaim it to be so, and in this every sweater in the land will agree with you. Whether the best men among your own members will is another question.” But to-day Hardie, having in the meantime become “sensible, respectable and (particularly) adaptable” is quite prepared to put a few thousand propertied women, whose only lack is votes, in front of millions of men, women and children who lack first, last, and always, food.

The attitude of the S.P.G.B. towards the Labour Party remains the same as when our Party was formed. Events have proved that our position is the correct one. We agree with Hardie that you cannot go beyond the position taken up by the people behind you. The people are not yet Socialists. Hardie, Thorne, and the other Labour members did not win their seats on Socialist principles, and therefore cannot fight for those principles in the House. We are opposed to every non-Socialist as well as anti-Socialist party—we are therefore opposed to the Labour Party. Capitalism has nothing to fear from these “sensible, respectable, and adaptable” members of the Labour Party, and the capitalists know it. They are a queer party. A , true party of the workers must be a straight party, not a queer one. It must stand for Socialism at, as well as between the elections. It must endeavour to prevent people who are not Socialists voting for its candidates. Neither the S.D.F., I.L.P., nor Labour Party do this. The workers must therefore reject them. This, the straight, uncompromising policy, is the policy of The Socialist Party of Great Britain. The S.P.G.B. is therefore (he party of the workers. 

Jack Kent

Who's going to clean the sewers? (2002)

From the January 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the idea of a society based on voluntary work is proposed, the question of who would volunteer for "dirty work" is often raised

One of the first questions asked when discussing socialism is "who's going to clean the sewers?" This apparently simple question contains so many actual problems and mistaken ideas about not only socialism but our lives now that it is effectively unanswerable in that form. So let's look at the actual situation, of sewers and work in them.

I saw a film recently, called Enemy at the Gates. One of the most striking things about this film is the amount of time they spend crawling around sewers and other crap-carrying pipes. In fact, in the book from which the film was made one of their comrades is overcome by the noxious gases within the sewers and suffocates. Nonetheless their lives are seen as heroic; they receive awards and medals from the highest sources; their comrades shower them with honours and acclaim; every soldier in Stalingrad wants to join them; and the unit itself has the highest morale possible despite its privations. We as the viewing public are not meant to see any contradiction in this belief or behaviour.

What's going on here? They're in a sewer for christ's sake! They have to lie in crap for hours without moving, at great personal risk, for little material reward: in fact they have all volunteered for the privilege. Something is obviously wrong with the sewer argument.

Perhaps we can narrow down the problem with a real and tragic pair of situations. In the above example their presence in the sewer is secondary to their primary activity, sniping on the enemy. Let's look at the case of cleaning up radioactive waste, which far exceeds the sewer as an unpleasant environment. On the one hand we have the heroic sacrifice of the firemen of Chernobyl who, knowing full well the risks of exposure, nevertheless laboured to bring the situation under control whilst under no perceptible duress. Many suffered from cancer; many died; many are still dying. On the other hand we have the situation of Turks in Germany routinely hired to clean out nuclear reactors under hazardous conditions, according to Gunther Grass. These two groups are performing exactly the same activity, i.e. cleaning an area from radiation, in extremely unpleasant and hazardous conditions, yet the fire-fighters are rightly remembered as heroes and received decorations for valour while the cleaners suffer their cancers in silence without even health care for their incurred diseases.

From this it becomes obvious that the sewer is the conditions of work, and a pipe full of crap is just a pipe full of crap. It's the work that stinks. So what's the difference?

Our heroes are labouring for the good of their community. Their activity confirms their humanity, to themselves, and their community confirms it to them in their respect and gratitude or love as Marx called it in his early philosophical manuscripts of 1844. Marx put it this way:

1. They express and experience their own power to shape the world.
2. They fulfil their human "nature"; they identify the needs of their society and fulfil them.
3. They act for others; they are an essential part of their society, experienced directly by group activity as one acts for all.
4. By expressing their own life they express the lives of their comrades, and of all within their society.

Their lives are like mirrors from which their natures shine forth.

Our Turks perceive their world differently. Their activity is a denial of their existence; they are slaves to their work rather than liberated by it. The purpose of their activity is to obtain someone else's object, i.e. other commodities. They are self-enslaving, their production is a torment, they recreate their social world as one of commodities. Since their needs are only met by other commodities bought with their commodity which requires this torment to continue, they come, says Marx, to resent the well-being of another as their own ill fortune and to minimise their demands on life. Their own minds, mediated by society, become a hellish place.

It's all a bit dialectical (Marx often is), but the meaning is clear. It is producing under the conditions of commodity production that creates work as an unpleasant chore, not the physical conditions themselves. Socialism has no sewers, only pipes carrying crap, since it abolishes this commodity production.

"We choose to go to the moon, and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard". JFK

So, now we're rid of the sewer, what of the pipe? It still doesn't smell that sweet. Should we abolish the pipe as well? Obviously, modern technology has far superseded our Victorian drainage systems, which in the long term would be better replaced. Socialism will entail new applications of technology and the abolition of unnecessary routine work. But we need a focus for struggle, now as humanity to get the best from the universe rather than against each other. Otherwise how will we express our lives for each other? Our first few years, perhaps even the first generation, will have plenty to do, replacing old with new and tearing out the control systems of capitalism, ensuring all existing needs are met. And then? Desires must be cultivated to be fulfilled, struggles must be fought in order to be won.

Simon Wigley

Obituary: John Keir Stewart (1968)

Obituary from the October 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have just received the news of the death of another old Comrade on the other side of the world: John Keir Stewart of the Socialist Party of New Zealand. The 1914/18. war, and the unemployment which followed, played a large part in making Stewart a socialist. After he joined the SPNZ his house was always open to comrades and students of Socialism and there are many in both Australia and New Zealand who were introduced to Socialism within the warm hospitality of John Stewart and his wife Annie.

For about twenty live years Stewart was literature secretary of the Petone and Wellington Branch and only ceased his work for Socialism when illness forced him from the field. He was 73 years old when he died. The host of people who had the privilege of knowing and working with John Stewart mourn his death; they have lost a Comrade in every sense of the term.