The City (1938)

A Short Story from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

He was very proud of his city. As one of its honoured citizens he had an “ open sesame " to most of its places of interest and he had invited me to spend a few days in examining its treasures. There it lay, bathed in sunshine, on a beautiful morning in early summer. Magnificent. Glorious. Wonderful was the view it presented on both banks of a famous river. Our first visit was to the Cathedral for, as he said, “ It was most fitting that we pay our respects to the House of God before we went further afield to the houses of man."

Presently we emerged from a long avenue of delightful trees which were already showing well in their new dress and, Oh! what a poem in stone confronted us with the sunshine lighting up its delicate traceries.

It would take a facile pen and a ready writer to describe its many charms and the marvel of its fashioning. Even its gargoyles were pleasant to look upon, whilst the entrance and its towers were extractors of cries of sheer delight. We entered, and as the light fell softly through the stained-glass windows on the eastern side one felt a delicious calm and restfulness in the joy of it.

Here was a masterpiece of Art which put to shame the crudities of Nature. A pile of splendour raised to an Idea. “ What say you of it?" cried he with rapture. “ Exquisite,” said I, “ but lead on."

From the House of God to the palace of the reigning monarch was but a few moments' journey, and my friend having secured permission to enter passed with me into the splendidly laid-out grounds, and later into various parts of the palace itself.

The whole ensemble of palace and its environs were gorgeous in the extreme. Acres upon acres of grassy and well-kept lawns.

Flowers rich in colour and delicate in perfume. Plants and vegetables fit to adorn a king’s table and apartments grew in profusion in their allotted beds. Thousands of rooms filled with works of art from the world over. The artistry and intelligence of thousands of human beings resulting in the production of articles to gladden the eye and staggering in their multiplicity and range. What stupendous efforts had been made to build and maintain this wonder palace. A king and queen lived there.

What an auspicious opening to a round of sight-seeing. There was just a promise that one might have a surfeit of good things from the city’s store before one had finished. The princely houses. The ducal mansions. The luxurious abodes of the financiers. The delightful villas of the merchants. The enormous and stately hotels. The towering stores and shopping centres, displaying costly dresses and brilliant gems, were there in enormous number. Of other institutions and buildings which claimed our attention there were many, all of which paid eloquent tribute to the people of the city in their desire to make it the greatest of its kind and a standing challenge to the world.

There were libraries, replete with books and manuscripts, which were a pleasure to its citizens and a source of deep learning to scholars from the rest of the world. Art galleries from which in serried rows spoke the masterpieces of the centuries. Museums which told on their shelves and in their cases the history of the earth and the gambols of the dinosaurs. Zoological gardens which were stocked with animals from every clime, showing their natural habits in conditions as near as possible to the country of their birth. Wooded parks and extensive open spaces in plenty, and sweet gardens were there without stint. Educational facilities were many and eagerly sought after.

Three whole days had been occupied in visiting these places of interest and charm, and what ecstacy one had felt in the doing of it. My friend beamed with pride as he saw my marked appreciation of it all. "What do you think of it ? Does it not exceed your wildest dreams?” he enquired elatedly. “ It does,” I replied, “ but have you shown me all of your city?” “Well! Yes! All that is really of importance,” he said rather hastily. “ Then suppose we spend a day or two in exploring the unimportant," I answered.

Accordingly, on the following morning we set out on a visit to No-matter-land, and this is what rolled before our eyes.

Slummy sites which made one feel sick at the mere passing. Mean streets, filthy hovels, awful abodes, smoke, stench, grime and grit. Miserable-looking brick boxes with a few small compartments, more or less weatherproof, which were called homes and which were fearfully overcrowded. Here and there buildings which aimed at a more respectable status, but which bore without and within them signs of a fierce struggle against poverty and penury. Cheap musical instruments and tawdry furniture. Rubbishy pictures and trashy books, common ornaments, tinsel and glass. Cheap cotton cloth, shoddy dresses. Silks which had never known a worm. Grubby food. Fly-blown meat. Dust and disease-germ-covered eatables of every description attracted your attention as they were exposed in the shops for sale.

Miles and miles of these streets in which underfed and ill-clad boys and girls, dirty arid muck-covered, disported themselves. Graceless women in evident despair, disgust or distress, their pale faces and attenuated forms showing dearly the long one-sided fight against illness, child-bearing and domestic economy.

Men whose heavy labours had sapped their last ounce of energy and intellectual appetite sought escape from the tedium of their lot in many diverse and unedifying ways.

Hospitals and charitable institutions working to limit endeavouring to give adequate amelioration and convenience to humans whose whole existence was united to the demon pain.

Prisons, workhouses, mental homes and semi-State-aided philanthropies all busy administering to the needs of a vast community living perpetually in economic distress. My friend was dumb as we passed through these places, and he was relieved when the journey was over.

I had not forgotten the fashioning of the House of God, nor the aesthetic splendours of the Palace, nor the hundred and one pleasing things which had been our first delight.

Turning to him, I said: “ Who are the people who spend their lives amid all this squalor and poverty?"

Lowering his head to hide his pain-stricken face he answered: “ These people, my friend, are they who have built the House for God, the Palace for the King, and filled The City with its treasures."

B. F. L.

East Ham Parliamentary Area (1938)

Party News from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

In the late 1930s, it was the intention of the East Ham branch of the SPGB to contest the East Ham North parliamentary constituency at the forthcoming General Election and, as evidenced above, serious and systematic activity was undertaken to target the area with socialist propaganda. Frank Grainger was selected as a  Party candidate - only to be replaced later by Clifford Groves when he dropped out of Party activity - and a General Election would have been held in 1940 at the latest. However, war intervened and the next General Election did not take place until 1945, by which time the SPGB had switched their attentions to Paddington North in West London, where Clifford Groves had the honour of being the first SPGB parliamentary candidate.

The SPGB did eventually contest the East Ham South parliamentary constituency when Harry Young was the  party's candidate at the 1950 General Election.

General Open Air Propaganda, August. (1938)

Party News from the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

More on Harry Morrison . . .

As mentioned in the previous post Harry Morrison ('Harmo') was the principal writer of the WSPUS radio show scripts that made up the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist. 

As he is currently in my thoughts, I thought I'd repost an obituary for Harry Morrison that originally appeared on the old World Socialist Party of the United States website. It appears that when the current World Socialist Party of United States website was relaunched or revamped a few years back, many articles and reviews from the old website weren't transferred over. That, sadly, includes this obituary for Comrade Morrison. I only happen to have a copy of the obituary because I posted it on my personal blog at the time.

There is a shorter obituary for him that appeared in the July 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard which can be read here, but I'm sure readers of the blog will appreciate this longer obituary that goes into greater detail on his background, and on his contribution to both the WSPUS and to the wider World Socialist Movement. 

I'll have to see if I can get a copy of his books, in order that I can scan them in and upload them onto the internet.

Harry Morrison (1912 - 2004)

Born in 1912, Harry Morrison became convinced of the case for socialism as a young man, having been influenced by an older brother who had heard the case for socialism in Toronto, Ontario. Morrison first visited Boston around 1937 but soon traveled west to California.

He returned to Boston in 1939 where he met his future wife Sally Kligman at the Boston Local Headquarters. The couple married in the fall of 1939 and lived in Boston for a couple of years. In 1941 they moved to Los Angeles and made contact with the comrades there. They had a daughter, Anita, in 1942. The family moved back to Boston in 1947, and both Harry and Sally were active members of Boston Local from then on.

Morrison wrote voluminously for the organization, sometimes anonymously but usually under the pen name 'Harmo.' He was a very frequent contributor to The Western Socialist, and, as a member of the WS's Editorial Committee, he also edited many articles submitted by others. He had a real gift for articulating the socialist analysis.

He enjoyed debating, and was a frequent member of the WSP group who engaged in debates with various local university debaters. He was a fine outdoor speaker as well. He was a soap box orator on Boston Common during the 1940s and 50s, and even after the WSP stopped soap boxing as an organization, Morrison continued to speak less formally to small groups along the paths near the Tremont Street side of the Common; he continued this into the 1960s, putting the case for socialism tirelessly and articulately.

For about 10 years during the 1960s and 70s, the WSP had a radio program on WCRB Boston. Morrison was among the comrades who wrote scripts for this program, He also was one of the on air readers. When the Party decided, in 1974, to publish a pamphlet in commemoration of the 300th consecutive issue of The Western Socialist, thirty or so of Morrison's radio essays became The Perspective for World Socialism -- a pamphlet which is still being distributed today. Also during this period he was a guest on another AM radio show hosted by the late Haywood Vincent and on the Adam Burak show on an FM station as well.

Morrison served for many years on the NAC, as well as on the Editorial Committee. It would be hard to overestimate his contribution to the socialist movement.

Harry Morrison developed heart problems when he was in late middle age, and, at the suggestion of his doctor, 'retired' from active work in the WSP. After this, he used his time to write three books, The Socialism of Bernard Shaw (published by McFarland & Co. in 1989 and which we still distribute), and two others for which he was unable to find a publisher, one about Jack London and the other about the Soviet Union. Sally Morrison died in 1987. Harry continued to live in his apartment but no longer participated in Party activities during this period, concentrating, instead, on research for his books and on enjoying his family which now included two grandchildren. He would always accept an invitation to a social gathering, however, and liked to visit with comrades visiting the area, most recently with SPGB Comrades Vic Vanni and Tony McNeil who spent some time in Boston in 2002.

After another heart attack in December of 2002 Cde Morrison moved to a nursing home. A socialist to the end, he gave several talks on Marxism to his fellow residents, which Cdes Fenton and Elbert as well as members of Morrison's family also attended. His death on May 13, 2004 is a great loss to the World Socialist Movement.

He will be long remembered and sorely missed.

The Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

That's the the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist now published in its entirety on the blog. An excellent issue and, for something originally published in 1974, it really hasn't dated as much as I thought it might have when I originally started scanning it in. I also have a higher opinion of Harry Morrison as a writer after reading it. I'd previously thought he was a bit too dry a writer for my tastes. I was wrong.

Hopefully this issue will eventually find its way onto the World Socialist Movement website or the World Socialist Party of the United States website but, for now, here's a list of the contents of the issue with added links.

• "The source of capitalist (national) power . . ."
• Editorial: Once over lightly
• Introduction
• Foreward

1. The Magic Checkbook
2. Canned profits
3. Incentive and initiative
4. In the meantime
5. The Labors of Sisyphos
6. You must like it
7. Who needs enemies?
8. The Mathematics of Race
9. Smashing Capitalism
10. Religion
11. The Gall of Charity
12. What class are you?
13. How to spot a phoney socialist
14. International Socialism
15. What’s a revolutionary?
16. Brains and money
17. Does peace justify violence?
18. Dedication to wasted effort
19. The supermarket
20. Why “World” Socialists?
21. America’s “Radical” Presidents
22. Women’s Liberation
23. Are we “Commies”?
24. Urban renewal
25. Are we Utopians?
26. The Provocateur
27. Impeach Capitalism
28. Shelley
29. Christmas
30. Human Nature and Behavior
31. Words, handle with care
32. A World Without Money
33. Is food produced to eat?
34. Togetherness
35. To market, to market
36. The profits of addiction
37. Who’s on welfare?
38. The blind spot

• Supplement: The object and declaration of principles 

Supplement: The object and declaration of principles (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Included in every copy of The Western Socialist and, indeed on most literature published by the Companion Parties of Socialism is our Object and our Declaration of Principles. It is our studied conviction that, in its entirety, the statement is a scientific generalization of the goal we are organized to attain; the basic reasons why such a goal is of the greatest urgency; and how a socialist working class should go about the business of bringing the goal to fruition. It is an inter-related statement and no single Clause is intended to be analysed in a vacuum removed from the entire statement. With this constantly in mind, let us spell out what we mean, the image we draw, in our Object and Declaration of Principles

OBJECT

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the Interest of society as a whole.

A system of society alludes to the sum total of human relationships and is meant to distinguish us from those who seek to organize cooperative colonies, islands within a sea of capitalism. Socialism, as we understand it, is not a colony, not a kibbutz. but a system of society in the sense that capitalism, feudalism, and chattel slavery must all be characterized as systems of society.

The term common ownership should not be confused with such phenomena as state ownership, or "public” ownership, terms used under capitalism to designate a more direct ownership of certain industries by the capitalist class as a whole. Common ownership implies the absence of ownership and we specify that this common ownership is to apply to the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth. We do not speak here of one’s personal belongings as some not too discerning opponents of our case delight in inferring. Democratic control should speak for itself but the point must be made, nevertheless, that In a society wherein the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution are commonly owned it is difficult to conceive of control other than democratic.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 1

That society, as at present constituted, is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labor alone wealth is produced.

In the bulk of the world today, it is self evident that a tiny minority of the population owns the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution, either directly or through ownership in stocks and bonds. Even the sidewalks and public buildings are actually owned by those few members of the population who own the bulk of municipal and government bonds. In the case of sidewalks, and in the Instance of access to public buildings, etc., by the general population, it would be impossible to restrict usage to those who pay a fee. The working class, the slaves of modern times, must not be hampered in their comings and goings as were chattel slaves and serfs in former times. Nevertheless, the majority of the population today remain slaves, chained to a class, rather than to an individual. The lack of ownership of the means and instruments of wealth production and distribution compels the working class to work for those who do own.

The process in those countries that designate themselves Communist or Socialist is not significantly different. A minority of the population, through ownership of government bonds or in some cases by extra - legal means, owns and controls the means by which all must live, compelling the majority to seek employment at wages or salaries.

The point is also made that the working class is the one class essential to production and distribution. This point will reappear.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 2

That, in society, therefore, there it an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce, and those who produce but do not possess.

Explicit In this Clause are facts of life that are hotly denied by all defenders of capitalism. Not alone the fact that strikes and lockouts are but manifestations of a struggle between economic classes, but also the fact that the capitalist class is non-essential to production, is parasitical; and, finally, the fact that the working class does not participate in ownership despite the fact it is responsible for all of production.

Yet despite the rationalizations of the Labor Union brass; despite the Henry Fords and other capitalists who draw huge salaries as "essential management"; In spite of the diffusion of stock, even among sections of the working class, the statement is correct. Labor Unions, although essentially working class organizations, must operate within the framework of the wages system; must cooperate and compromise with the managers of Capital; must support the lie of a common interest between employers and workers. It is useless to cry "traitor” and "sell-out" at Labor leaders. It is the nature of capitalism that they operate as they do.

On the other hand, capitalists who act as managers do so out of individual desire, not because they are necessary. The Institutions of higher learning have long ago instituted departments for the development of managerial brains and the capitalists who prefer to go to the office could hire their replacements with little difficulty. The entire capitalist class could settle on the Moon with no detrimental effects to their industries.

Nor does the possession of stocks to the extent enjoyed by average working people place them in the capitalist class. This is a delusion . . let them attempt to live on the Interest of their shares!

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 3 

That this antagonism can b« abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.

The majority may still quarrel with our assumption that the working class will eventually take such action. They can hardly quarrel with the point that class antagonisms cannot exist where economic classes do not exist. As for the instrument which will enable the whole people to exercise democratic control of the common property of society, such instrument already exists. Intrinsically, there is nothing wrong with institutions where representatives assemble to parley (parliaments, congresses, diets, or even so-called soviets). What is wrong about them today, is that such congresses are controlled by the capitalist class. Remove class society and the assemblies will function in the interest of the whole people. Socialists are not state "smashers!" Socialists advocate transforming the state from a government of rule over people by a master class into an administration of things in the interest of all mankind.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 4 

That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.

Capitalism has narrowed the class struggle to the point at which there are left but two contending classes. It is obvious that once the working class has taken political control from the capitalists there remains no class beneath it to exploit. The very act of stripping the capitalists from control of the state brings with it the end of class society and the resultant emancipation of all mankind.

Scientific socialists do not subscribe to the myth of “race.” The fact that the word 'race" exists does not prove that a non-verbal entity corresponding to the word exists. There are only human beings and they are a single species. There are ethnic and other arbitrary divisions; but there are no races. We of the World Socialist Party use the term “race,” as we do in our Declaration of Principles, in a classificatory sense.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 5

That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself.

There is no minority section of the population, no educated leadership, no vanguard composed of professional revolutionaries from the ranks of the intelligentsia (as Lenin and the Bolsheviks have advocated in this century), that can lead the working class to socialism. Social revolutions are made by those whose immediate interest it is to abolish existing relationships. The concept of leadership (or “correct” leadership) then, is not only unnecessary to a revolutionary working class but harmful to its interests. Leaders, in fact, can never lead masses where they do not want to go. They must advocate policies and action favorable to the followers, which makes of the leaders, followers themselves. When the working class understands and desires socialism it will appoint and elect representatives, not leaders, to do its bidding.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 6

That as the machinery of governments, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organise consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government. In order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and overthrow of plutocratic privilege.

There is a type of radical thought that turns this proposition on its head. Anarchists, syndicalists, industrial unionists of IWW and also of DeLeonist sort, contend that capitalist power resides basically in industry rather than in control of the state. One is either admonished to ignore the state entirely while advocating general strikes, individual acts of terror, armed insurrection; or one advocates the organization of “socialist” industrial unions which would “back up” a socialist majority at the polls.

The problem here would be that the capitalists (in their vying sections) must be playing some sort of a game — an expensive game, indeed — with their political campaigns. Either that, or they are misled into believing that control of the state brings with it a control over Industry. And oddly, it is not due to lack of evidence in contemporary American history as to the function of the political state. There are many examples of orders from a state governor, or orders from the President of the United States, for the mobilization and use of National Guards, or U.S. Army units, or even of the conversion of the first into the second to thwart a recalcitrant state governor.

Yet, despite the palpable truth that armed forces, from city police to U.S. servicemen, move only at the command of those in control of the political seats of power, the confrontations by angry, self-styled revolutionists go on.

But how. then, should the working class organize to end capitalism? Naturally it must be on the political front but it must certainly be more than merely politically. And that is why our proposition has before the word "politically” the term “consciously.” This is the key. The working class must not leave the thinking to “wise” leaders, political messiahs, etc. They must know what they are doing. Once in control of the seats of power a victorious socialist working class can immediately declare the end of class ownership and immediately convert the government over people into an administration over things. The capitalist class will cease to exist as a class category and without control of a state will be in no position to do anything important about it excepting to retire gracefully, or otherwise.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 7

That as all political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party.

The proposition points to the fact that political parties exist as the expression not alone of class interests but also of the interests of different sections of the capitalist class. It will have been noticed how eagerly capitalists will enlist the aid of workers, even the more militant type of radical workers, when their particular interests are involved. Capitalists who have their investments in retail merchandising, for example, will unite with leftists in a struggle against high rents. There are, after all, only so many dollars of wages and salaries to go around and why should the landlords get more of it? Landlords, on the other hand, are quick to sympathise with a resistance against high prices in supernarkets, department stores, etc. And each section within the capitalist class tries always to shift the burden of taxation onto the shoulders of the other sections, and goes all out to convince the workers that this is their fight, too.

There cannot be more than one socialist party in one country because there is but one reason for the existence of a socialist party: to get rid of capitalism and right away. It follows then that the socialist party “must be hostile to every other party."

Should another party appear on the scene with the same views as the World Socialist Party, steps would be taken for consolidation. We are not in competition with others for the establishment of a classless society.

PRINCIPLE NUMBER 8

THE COMPANION PARTIES OF SOCIALISM, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labor or avowedly capitalist, and call upon all members of the working class of those countries to support these principles to the end that a termination may be brought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labor, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom.

There are different ways of “waging war.” Socialists wage war by building an arsenal of socialist information and using this arsenal to the fullest extent of their capabilities to counter the propaganda of the capitalist class. But this “war" must be directed not only against the avowedly capitalist political parties such as Republicans and Democrats, Progressive and Independent, or any other designation that may be adopted by those who advocate their particular theories of how capitalism should be operated. Our "war” is also directed against those organisations who falsely style themselves socialist or communist and who, at the same time, seek votes through the advocacy of reforms within capitalism or violence by unarmed workers against those who control the arms of the state.

We ask the support of the working class for the immediate abolition of the wages system and the immediate institution of world socialism and for no other reason.

AND A FINAL NOTE 

Those who read this article with care will notice on several occasions there are re-iterations of points made previously. This was not done inadvertently. The entire statement is designed, as we have said above, to tie together. We would disagree, then, that one can accept some points and reject others. The statement stands, in its entirety, on sturdy feet and on solid ground.

The blind spot (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

There Is a blind spot in thinking, under capitalism, that affects the most brilliant minds in almost every field, a blind spot having to do with the basics of commodities. Let us illustrate our point by looking at the question of food, of feeding the hungry populations of the world.

Recently, a Nobel Prize was awarded an expert in the science of wheat growing. This scientist, by his research, had so contributed to the knowledge of wheat that it now becomes possible to raise enormous crops of that basic food in areas in which it was hitherto impossible. Wonderful! But there is one serious problem, one flaw in the ointment that isn’t even considered and this, despite the many, many examples in the past of the same problem. Wheat is not produced principally with the idea of feeding hungry people. It is produced for sale on the market with view to profit. No profit, no wheat production. It is as simple as that.

Do you think there is anything untrue about this statement? Then let us remind you of miracle rice, for example. Only a year or so ago a new hybrid rice, several times more prolific than traditional rice, had been developed by the International Rice Research Institute and financed by the Ford and Rockefeller foundations. Did this result in the masses of people in rice-consuming areas of the world now being able to get enough to eat? Of course not. What happened was that the vastly increased harvest flooded the rice market and large quantities of that food had to be destroyed because of inadequate storage and marketing facilities. As reported in The Western Socialist of July-August, 1969, a United States aid official in the Philippines remarked: “We never thought about marketing — we were concentrating on production.”

Or take the subject of oranges. We are told by nutrition scientists that the vitamins contained in oranges are vital in maintaining good health. Is there anybody who actually believes that every child in America is able to get all of the oranges they need? The potential for distribution of oranges In the United States — the richest country in the world — is far, far greater than orange production. Yet the orange growers of Florida, according to a recent news story, are searching for new markets for their commodity other than food because they are producing far more of the fruit than the food market can possibly absorb and this spells disaster for their prices. (One remembers those vast mountains of oranges that were plied up In California during the Hungry Thirties, doused with gasoline, and burned, while armed guards stood watch to keep needy people away.)

Whom shall we blame? The orange growers? The wheat growers? The rice growers? Ridiculous! Why should one blame them? Are they their poor millions of brothers’ and sisters' keepers? Or should we blame the Government? But the Government is the executive committee of the ruling class, the capitalist class, regardless of which political party forms the Government. This is capitalism. the market economy, the system of society in which all of the things people need to survive and to make life worth living are produced in order that surplus value may continue to be produced. To blame individual capitalists or the Government makes as little sense as handing out Nobel Awards to scientists who discover methods of producing food in abundance in an economy where food must not be produced in abundance.

The problem will be solved when the majority of us stop supporting political parties that promise to make capitalism operate uncapitalistically. For political parties and governments do not operate capitalism, capitalism operates them. And that is why the World Socialist Party of the United States does not want your support for anything short of an outright abolition of capitalism and the institution of a system based upon production for use by all who inhabit the earth. Examine your blind spot and investigate world socialism!

Who’s on welfare? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Everybody seems to be upset these days about Welfare. The percentage of Americans who live — somehow — on Welfare monies seems to be steadily mounting and a rising outcry is heard against the imagined throng of lazy rascals among them who simply do not want to work but who would rather live off the backs of the taxpayers.

Now there are a couple of interesting oddities about this and about other conclusions, by many, on the issue of Welfare. Take, for example. the case of the so-called lazy bums who do not work simply because they do not want to work. Nobody would argue that 100% of the unemployed are simply too lazy to work. There are always a few, it is acknowledged, who are honest and industrious, but who cannot find jobs. The worst diehard enemy of Welfare would admit to this.

But the strange thing about this assessment is the fact that immediately one wonders why those few honest and industrious among the Welfare recipients cannot find jobs. If 90% of the unemployed don’t work only because they do not want to work it should follow, logically, that there must be a great number of jobs that are available. Why, then, would the 10% find any difficulty in locating the anxious, would-be employers of their labor? Something funny about that argument, isn’t there?

What upsets socialists about Welfare, is something altogether different than the usual complaint. We do think it a shame, of course, that so many Americans must get by on the skimpy income allotted by Welfare while it is continually drilled into their heads that they live in the richest country in the world And yet this is not nearly so upsetting to us as is the knowledge that the real recipients of Welfare are not at all those who make up the official roles. The one in seven or one in six, or whatever the figure may be, who wait from month to month for the Welfare checks are working class people, even though they may be unemployed for reasons of physical disabilities or for any other reasons The real recipients of Welfare, and WHAT welfare they receive! are the members of the capitalist class. And here is no 1 in 7, or 1 in 6 figure, either. In this case the percentage is 1 in 1 or 100%. Let's look into this proposition.

There is only one way to create wealth. That is by applying physical and mental energy to raw materials. Now this sort of activity is the function of the working class, not the capitalists. The function of the capitalist class is to own the Industries and to employ those who don't own the means of wealth production to work in them. True, there are capitalists who work and who draw salaries. But they do not work for a living. They could, and, in fact, do, employ substitutes for themselves for less than their own salaries — substitutes who have degrees In Business from the finest schools In the world. The $50,000, or whatever, per year they draw from their business as the salary of management would hardly pay their liquor bills. Any capitalist worth talking about can — and frequently does — spend far more on one social gathering than a Welfare recipient could gross In an entire lifetime on Welfare.

So what, you may ask, is the point? The point is that if people do not work — and most of the able-bodied adult members of the capitalist class either do not work at all or occupy some managerial function as a hobby — then somebody must be supporting them. They don’t eat their money or their certificates of wealth-ownership. They are supported, and in style, by those who do all the work many of whom, from time to time, must hold out their hands for crumbs of tax money during periods of unemployment. Let’s straighten out our perspective. Let’s organize to abolish Welfare for unemployed workers and for the permanently unemployed capitalist class. Let’s unite for world socialism.

The profits of addiction (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

It is interesting to observe that there is a direct correlation between the problems that shake society and the economics of capitalism. Lurking In the background, compounding the ills of any serious problem is capitalism, itself. A good Illustration of this point is to be found in the drug problem.

The existence of drug addiction, to a noticeable degree, is not new. One novel aspect, however, is the fact that It has spread beyond the ghetto areas into the better neighborhoods and it is becoming prevalent among school children of teen and even pre-teen age. Another new fact is the widening adulteration of drugs to the point at which researchers are not certain whether the harmful effects are the result of the drugs or of the adulterants. Adulteration, of course, is directly connected with the drive for profits. To the degree one cuts down the percentage of actual drug — the expensive element — and adds other ingredients, to that extent one increases one's margin of profits which should be the goal of every aspiring capitalist. So what if the adulterants might be more dangerous, even, than the drug? That's not the concern of the entrepreneur and shouldn't be. under the jungle-type economics of capitalism

But an even more insidious—if such is possible—connection between drug addiction and capitalism is the fact that the addiction leads Inescapably to other crimes for the workers who are hooked. Unless one is wealthy, the kind of money needed to maintain a drug habit must come from shop-lifting, picking pockets, burglary, or what have you. As one N.Y. judge once was quoted: “In all my years on the bench I never had a wealthy addict before me." So it would seem that there might be benefit derived from research into the effects of drug addiction among members of the capitalist class, those who can afford to take their pot. their cocaine, their opium neat rather than contaminated by adulterants. Not that knowledge gained from such testing would make a noticeable difference in the quality of the drugs marketed. The drive for profits would remain paramount and just as there are high grade cigars and alcoholic beverages for those who can afford them, with cheap rot-gut for the poor, there will continue to be high quality drugs for the rich junkies and Junk for the poor ones.

There are those who argue that the problem of drug addiction would be solved were the traffic to become legal and controlled by the government. We would be free, they believe, from the nefarious practices of the underworld that now controls it. The drugs would be. at least, readily and legally available and their ingredients subject to government supervision. And we wonder at the seeming naivete of those who offer this argument. In the face of government-regulated patent medicines and prescription drugs (only about 20% of which totally live up to their claimed effectiveness, according to the Food and Drug Administration); government-regulated rot-gut-type liquor and wines; even government-regulated, but inferior, grades of food; we still get the argument from those who would save us from the evils of drugs while retaining the economic system that makes them an evil: let the government control drugs, they tell us, and all will be well.

The point is, to socialists, that the reasons for the desire to use drugs should be better researched. We maintain that there is something real rotten in the state of capitalism when millions of men, women, and children seek escape, or release, from their problems through the use of opiates. The question is by no means one of how to provide only high quality and safe drugs for all. The task is to organize for the abolition of an economic society that encourages—either directly or indirectly — the use of drugs. We urge you to investigate socialism.

To market, to market (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Have you ever been on a cattle ranch and watched thousands of tons of beef on the hoof stampeding in a single corral? You must have at least seen such a sight in the movie theatres or on your TV. Those animals are being prepared for the market and pretty soon they will be herded into railway cars to be transported to the slaughter houses.

Now what about that other sight we see at least five days a week in the mornings and evenings? Thousands of tons of labor-power on the hoof being herded into surface cars, subway trains, buses, automobiles and trucks, being transported to the labor market and home again for the rest and recuperation needed for the next day's toll.

There are differences, of course. In order to realise the profit in the beef, the steer must first be slaughtered. Humans, on the other hand, have no exchange value when they are dead (excepting to the funeral directors, embalmers, cemetary Industry, etc.) It is that value-creating labor power they generate, while alive, that is of importance to the capitalist class. They don’t want to own our bodies — as was the case In times of chattel slavery — they just want to buy our labor power for stipulated time periods And they also want our votes, on election days, to give approval to their system by electing those who wish to continue it. We are not slaves, they tell us, but free men and women.

Is this a gross exaggeration? It certainly is not and the very language of capitalism underscores its truth Take the word market, for example. Merriam Webster defines it as "a meeting together of people for the purpose of trade by private purchase and sale usually not by auction." In light of this, a labor market would be a place where labor-power (mental and physical) is bought and sold. The only reason the workers must bring their bodies to work is that there is no way — as of now — to ship the abilities without the carcasses. In other words, those who must work for a living in the industries of the capitalists are regarded mainly as the owners of a needed commodity and little more. If their particular abilities are marketable, they work at them. If not, they find something else, go on welfare, "mooch on the stem.” or starve.

As an Illustration: recently there was a feature story in the New York Times of the plight of newly-graduating school teachers. There are few jobs at the profession available today. The market for general school teachers became glutted, the story tells us, and the future of these recently-trained purveyors of capitalist- oriented education is grim. Most of those who do find jobs will be working as waitresses or in other unskilled fields far removed from their intended careers. So what happens now in the school teacher manufacturing industry? The same thing that happens in any other industry under the same circumstances. There will be a shrinkage for a number of years in the production of new school teachers, a falling-off of interest in going to such schools. Eventually, say about 1980 or ’85, a new shortage of teachers will have been created and there will be another rush of applicants to that discipline necessitating a new expansion of the industries — referred to as colleges — that manufacture school teachers.

They might just as well be so many sausages or legs of lamb, those bright-faces and starry-eyed youngsters who clutch those sheepskins so proudly. — Is there any sanity to such a system of society? The vast majority seem to think so or at least take it for granted as the only possible way of doing things. Socialists disagree and offer a whole new way of life, a sane world — World Socialism. Won't you join us in trying to bring It about?

Togetherness (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

There are undoubtedly a great many words in the English and other languages that are improperly used with frequency. As an example of such misusage take the little pronoun “we." How natural it seems to be for all of us to employ that word so as to carry with it the implication of togetherness. All 220 million Americans and, in fact, the entire population of this planet, are supposed to have a common interest; to be joint beneficiaries of all that is in and on the earth, and to share a joint responsibility for whatever goes wrong. And this, of course, is sheer poppycock.

Where is there an area — aside from the few remaining and remote tribal societies — where the land and all the means for producing and distributing wealth does not belong to a small minority of the population? Even in those lands where legal constitutions state, in print, that all property belongs to “the people", the real situation puts the lie to such language if "the people" is used synonymously with the entire population. And there is another example of a misused expression in that “the people" — whether in the so-called socialist and communist world, or in America and western civilisation — certainly does not imply everybody, or even a majority, but a relatively small minority who control and benefit from the means of wealth production.

Especially now. during this energy crisis, do words such as “we" become commonplace. “We" have got to cooperate to save gasoline, heat, and light. This is our America, they tell us, in expensive advertising and editorials in the press and over the airwaves. We're all in this together, is the message and the testament.

Well, there is no doubt that the great mass of the population is suffering great inconvenience. Long lines at the gas pumps, to a great extent made up of workers of all types who must have gasoline to perform their jobs, attest to this fact. Even sections of the capitalist class are being hurt badly as they watch others of their class brethren reap a golden harvest from the world-wide shortages. But despite this, there is a simple test one can make to determine the accuracy of the implied “togetherness". Ask your employers to Include you in the distribution of their profits at the end of their fiscal year. If General Motors, U.S. Steel. Standard Oil and Anaconda Copper; If the Rockefellers, DuPonts, Fords, Mellons and the rest of the capitalist class, are partners with the 200 million odd working class members of this society, this America of "ours," then why should they continue to exclude 90% of America’s population from actual and factual ownership of this great land?

The World Socialist movement has a proposition to make. Not to the capitalist class, because we have but so much time and do not wish to waste it. Our proposal is to our fellow workers, the 200-odd millions in this country. You can help put real meaning into that pronoun “we" and into that phrase ‘the people." The system of society known as capitalism is world-wide in scope, even including that part of the world mistakenly termed socialism or communism. To put an end to all of the problems that prevent 90% of the population from enjoying the fruits of production, a new social order is necessary. What is needed is a system based upon common ownership of and common access to all that is in and on the earth, by all mankind. To achieve this end, the working class of this and of all other nations must organize and unite for the sole purpose of ending world capitalism and introducing world socialism. It is our contention that the same section of the population that carries on all of production for an owning class can do the same thing for all mankind. But class society must first be abolished. Let us organize for this goal.

Is food produced to eat? (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

So! You thought all along that food Is produced because mankind must eat That this is the one really important reason for existence of farms, food processing plants and supermarkets. Oh certainly you have heard it said, chiefly by those who disparage the profit motive, that food — like all goods and services in capitalist society — is produced mainly for sale and at a profit. But somehow this didn’t seem to be such an earth-shaking bit of information. You probably tucked the thought away, and went about the business of stretching your food dollars in the markets.

But suddenly you find your dollars shrinking almost from day to day. You stand at the meat counters and gaze, emotionally, at the price tags. You have a family of growing boys and girls who can put away quantities of that food, and you wonder how you can possibly put meat on the table more than once a week, and maybe not that frequently. Or maybe you are a pensioner on a modest fixed income, and you are painfully aware that your check is not designed to include very much of what you might have been used to eating in your more affluent days.

What is it all about’ Why can’t cattle, hogs and fowl be raised in sufficient quantity, as they once were, to make prices more reasonable? And you remind yourself of what you have read in the papers and heard on the newscasts. The growers and processors are either holding back, going out of business or threatening to do so. Why? Because feed grains, it seems, have become so expensive that those producers cannot continue to operate normally under present price freeze conditions. No profit, no food production, they tell us, and so they smother their baby chicks instead of raising them for the table, because it would cost them more to raise them than they could get in their market, and one cannot run a business on losses.

So! It is true then what socialists have been saying all along. The prime reason for producing food — or anything else under capitalism — is not to satisfy the needs of mankind but to sell at a profit. True enough, it is explained today, that there have been serious crop failures due to drought conditions not only in America but throughout much of the world. And there have been those big grain sales to Soviet Russia and Red China that have added to the shortages here. And these are behind those ridiculous prices in the supermarkets.

But then another nagging thought hits you. How about those times, and there were many of them over the years, when there were none of those problems, and when all sorts of grains and vegetables and fruit were grown for the market, and when great quantities of these vital necessities were dumped in the oceans, plowed under, or burned? There was such an abundance that the growers and processors could not get a price that made it profitable for them to sell the food. Oranges, mountains of them, in California in the Thirties, were burned. Potatoes In Idaho, thousands of bushels of them were dumped, even in recent times. Coffee in South America and fish in New England destroyed. Why? Because of Government price freeze policy? Of course not. There was no need for Government intervention then. The problem was glutted markets.

So the difficulties in the supermarkets today are not caused by drought conditions, previous crop failures, big business deals with the so-called Communist nations. It is not that it is impossible to produce enough feed grains or vegetables or fruit or meat. The problem is that the owning grower-capitalists must make a profit, and economic conditions are such that they are being squeezed by rival capitalists. Would it not make sense, then, to get to the source of the trouble, the capitalist mode of production, abolish it, and introduce a socialist society in which the things mankind needs to survive are produced only because mankind needs them? We think it does.

A World Without Money (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Time was, when the idea of a social system operating without a medium of exchange was held only by a relative handful of scientific socialists Today, one hears the concept kicked around a bit more on talk shows and by people who do not necessarily consider themselves revolutionary in the sense of the World Socialist concept of revolution. But one gets the impression that there is not too much understanding of the economics of the question even among many of those who favor a moneyless society. They do openly disagree with the popular notion that no social order could operate without money of some sort but they seem to believe that it is going to be a case of a government of one sort or another proclaiming the abolition of money.

In order to understand why such an act will be not only unnecessary, but impossible, it is all important to comprehend why a medium of exchange, money, is necessary within the present system. Production, under capitalism, is carried on primarily for the purpose of sale on a market with view to profit and, as a result, we have an exchange or a circulation of commodities. Now it stands to reason that if eggs, shoes, whisky, houses, automobiles and all the other commodities exchange on a market in certain proportions there has to be a medium for effecting the circulation. This medium must be, itself, a commodity and one that is universally acceptable as an equivalent of the values of all commodities. So we have the commodity gold acting as the universal equivalent behind the various nominal monies of the world. And unless some other commodity with the necessary properties and the universal acceptance of gold comes along, gold will continue to act as real money.

Besides acting as a medium of circulation, money must exist, then, as a means of payment and as a measure of the values of commodities. Much of this may even be learned in a college economics course.

But the system, today, in the whole world is one of production for sale on a market with view to profit whereas the system advocated by socialists is something quite different. In a socialist world there will be no production of commodities. Goods and services will be produced only for the purpose of satisfying the needs and wants of the population. Eggs, shoes, whiskey, houses, automobiles and whatever else is wanted by society will be produced only because these things are wanted and not to sell. There will be no buying and selling at all and in such a situation there could be no need for anything to act as money.

Two questions might immediately leap to mind. First: do socialists advocate a return to simple barter? and Secondly: when has a moneyless system ever existed, at least in recorded history. The answer to the first question is “No” and to the second. “Never!” But with a but.

Obviously, barter could not exist under socialism any more than could money exist. There is just no need to exchange goods. We produce and we consume and the only difference that would be really noticeable from what takes place today would be the absence of cash registers and private or state ownership of the means of production. Should production of a particular item be inadequate to satiety the needs of the population, production of the item would be increased. If more than enough, it would be decreased.

As for the point that money always existed throughout recorded history: Yes, but not for most of the population. In previous social systems most people never had occasion to require money. Production was mainly geared to the needs of a slave or serf population and their masters. Money appeared only among a minority of the population, in trade.

And NO! We do not advocate a return to slavery or serfdom. We urge the abolition of all slavery, the end of wage slavery, the establishment of world socialism — a system in which the need for money will vanish.

Words, handle with care (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

Revolutionary socialism must be extremely careful about words. The only way one can convey thoughts is through a vocabulary and it is surprising how quickly the meaning of words change. We have dealt on this program with the word ‘revolutionary” and commented on its adulteration to the point at which the advocacy of political change within the framework of the present system of production makes one a revolutionist. Socialists insist that the vesting of ownership in the state is not socialism and the managers of state-owned industry are not socialist managers. Unless there is a change from production for sale to production for use with the total elimination of a market economy, there is no revolution. Let us examine some other terms commonly used by professed revolutionists.

“Establishment.” The fiery orator thunders his hatred of the establishment and his supporters give wild approval. “The establishment must be overthrown!” They raise their fists in the clenched salute. And what exactly do they have in mind? It seems they mean the existing managers — industrial or political — not the institution itself that vests ownership and political control in private or state hands. The word is not used by socialists because we prefer to be explicit. We are opposed to capitalism and to the ownership of the factories, mines, mills, workshops, land and all other means and instruments of wealth production and distribution by a capitalist class or a capitalist state.

But even here one cannot be too careful because a majority of the world’s population today live in areas where capitalism is declared to have been abolished. Even though nobody pretends that production in those countries is intended for any other purpose than sale on a market with view to profit, it is still popularly believed to be something other than capitalism. So when we declare ourselves to be in favor of the abolition of capitalism we are generally greeted with something like: “Oh you are in favor of the Russian, or the Chinese system, or maybe the Scandinavian or the systems in many of the Arab nations, or perhaps even Israel!”

Nor does it help all that much when we use the term “world socialism” or “scientific socialism” for we find that both terms are embraced by almost all of the so-called socialist world from the USSR to Ghana and Syria.

But there are some terms that socialists can still use that do separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Socialists are in favor of the forthright abolition of the wages system; the prices, money, profit system, the system of buying and selling, the market economy. What about the USSR, China, Scandinavia, Ghana, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Cuba and so forth. Have they abolished the wages system and production of goods and services for sale on a market? Do they even advocate, in their professedly socialist propaganda, such action? If so we haven’t heard about it and we find their commodities from raw materials to finished goods of all types for sale in America as U.S. commodities are finding their way into the so-called socialist world. And who is there today who does not know that workers in those countries are paid wages and salaries as here, even if lower?

But, they assure us, they are in the early stages of socialism and will attain the society of which we of the World Socialist Party speak later. To which we must answer: “rubbish” The very concepts that prevail in the so-called socialist world are anti-socialist and indicative of a growing capitalism. Nationalism and patriotism. thrift, obedience to political authority, are all hallmarks of capitalism and the antithesis of socialist thought. Socialism can only mean one world where all mankind has free access to all of its needs. Speak up, Mr Brezhnev, Mr. Mao. Mr. Castro, Madam Meir and the rest of you so-called heads of socialism. Is that what you advocate? We can’t hear you.

Human Nature and Behavior (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

"Socialism would be wonderful but it won't work. It's against human nature and you can’t change human nature." How many times have we heard that judgment, usually delivered in a tone of finality. And how many more times will we hear it in the future! It seems almost to be ingrained in the thinking of the average individual, as though he was born with the thought. It is universally accepted in all countries and among all age groups and educational classifications. And yet it is so wrong that one can't help but be amazed. Wrong, that is, if by human nature we mean human behavior. And this is what is generally meant because the nature of man to be human hasn't been subjected to change and is not at all what socialists are talking about.

But human behavior certainly is possible to change and there are many examples around the world today and in the history of civilization of changing human behavior. In fact, there is a branch of psychology that is based upon the knowledge that human behavior can be changed. Practically every university worthy of the name, today, offers courses in behavioral psychology.

However, this is not our field, nor are we ready to embrace this science as an ally of socialism other than to note that behavioral scientists certainly agree that human behavior is changeable. The science of socialism is based on the historical fact that social systems, just as plants and animals, have gone through a process of evolution. Just as man was not always man, nor a rose always a rose, the capitalist system of society was not always part of the scene. Capitalism evolved out of feudalism; feudalism and chattel slavery evolved out of primitive tribal societies when they reached a point in their development that made these higher forms of society possible.

The behavior of serfs and peasants in pre-capitalist society was certainly different from the behavior of wage and salaried workers in our times. Serfs and peasants, like chattel slaves, rarely if ever handled money so the variety of behavior common to people who must have money in order to exist could not have been present among most of the population. The ideology of nationalism was not present among them because nations—in the sense we know today—did not exist. Armies in those times were composed of mercenaries — a separate class — and so it certainly could not be said of peasants, serfs and chattel slaves that they were inherently warlike as so many believe workers of our times to be.

In fact, there are all sorts of evidences In more recent history, particularly in the history of American capitalism, of changing human behavior. Americans are, generally, immigrants from countries all over the world. How long does it take them to change much of their old country behavior patterns? It may seem in many cases that they cling to the old customs but all it takes is a trip back to the homeland after having been through the mill of American-style capitalism a few years to bring into sharp focus their changed behavior. The manner of life dictated by American capitalism has brought about many changes in their way of thinking. And despite their traditional hatreds, the melting pot of developed capitalism has a tendency of mellowing and breaking down hostility.

Socialists maintain that capitalism will, ultimately, compel those who toil for wages or salaries, who produce all but possess little more than their ability to produce, to lay aside the differences that capitalist propaganda still seeks to promote. The working class of the entire world will be forced by the very nature of capitalism to unite in the interests of a higher form of social order — socialism. And a new generation, born under socialist freedom, will look back in amazement at the behavior of their fathers and grandfathers.