Much ado about nothing: The Anglo-Irish Agreement (1986)

From the February 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

By the time this article appears, the "Ulster Says No" election will have passed. The reader will know whether the alliance of "Democratic" and Official Unionists conned enough members of the working class. Did Sinn Fein — who don't want Ulster to say "Yes" and are opposed to those who want it to say "No" —take enough votes to win a seat at Westminster (which they have refused to accept) or did they simply ensure that the SDLP — who want to say "Yes" — was defeated? Did the so-called Workers' Party — more-or-less in the "Yes" camp — save all. or any, of its deposits? Did the Alliance Party — strong on unionism but tentatively in the "Yes" group — win a few more votes from imagined "middle-class" Unionists whose political stomachs are upset by the surfacing of anti-British violence in the Unionist camp? In the best tradition of soap operas, all this will have been revealed by now.

Generally, politicians take elections very seriously. It is true that, following an election, irrespective of which group of political con artists get elected, the condition of the great majority of people, the working class, remains unaffected. Be that as it may, before an election it is the business of politicians and their parties to convince us that the elections are about our problems; about unemployment, poverty, slums — indeed, about any of the mass of social ills that affect society in general and the working class in particular.

The fact that all these social ills continue to exist after countless elections and the implementation of the policies represented by all the political parties — somewhere, if not in Northern Ireland — clearly demonstrates the failure of conventional politics and politicians. Nevertheless, unless politicians wish their business to be reduced to the level of a beauty contest or a dog show, they have got to go through the motions of trying to convince us that their election or rejection has some relevance to our problems.

Not about facts

On the 17 December last, the Belfast Telegraph published Thatcher's views on the Anglo-Irish Accord as given to its London correspondent. Her views are significant in one respect: they reveal that the whole exercise of the Anglo-Irish Accord is wholly unrelated to the facts of life of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. "We are dealing" said Thatcher, "not with facts, but with perceptions".

It would be difficult to find a more contemptuous way of telling the working people of Northern Ireland that the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Accord is to kid them about the future. Here, straight from the mouth of the messiah of British capitalism is the message: the Accord is not concerned with facts — that is, with the realities of our lives. It is merely concerned with "perceptions" — that is, with the way we see things.

Of course Thatcher is right; the Accord, and the election it caused in Northern Ireland. is not about facts. It is not concerned with the fact that more than one in five people in Northern Ireland have no job or that, in some working class areas, a man with a job is a curiosity; it is not concerned with the fact that those who are working are paid, on average, some £20 a week less than workers in the rest of the UK or with the fact that wages in Northern Ireland are among the lowest in western Europe; it is not concerned with the fact that some 40 per cent of the population are wholly or partially dependent on social security payments in order to live or with the fact that slums and insanitary hovels are more prevalent in Northern Ireland than anywhere else within the EEC. Nor is it concerned with the fact that, if there was real peace in the province and all those currently engaged in jobs associated with the troubles were stood down, the miseries that are facts for the great majority of working people in Northern Ireland would be extended to many more people.

The Accord

The purpose of the Accord is. as Thatcher says, to make people in Northern Ireland see things differently. It establishes a Ministerial Conference under the joint chairmanship of the British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs in which the two sovereign governments, the British and Irish, will be equally represented. Both sides will have an input into the Conference which may make recommendations to the British and, effectively, the Irish governments on matters related to Northern Ireland. The British government undertakes to give reasonable consideration to such recommendations but is not bound by the Accord to accept them. Within the Accord, the Irish government recognises the right of the majority within Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom and the British government recognises the right of the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland to identify without proscription or legal encumbrance with their "cultural" aspirations and to engage in nonviolent political activity to promote a united Ireland.

The Accord provides for the Conference to relinquish to the control of an elected Northern Ireland Assembly all or any of the matters within its competence providing that such an Assembly enjoys wide cross- community support — effectively, from catholics and protestants — and is desirous of taking over all or any of the matters within the brief of the Conference. In other words, should the local politicians reach a political accommodation that would allow them to establish a power-sharing Assembly and should that Assembly agree to deal with the matters presently within the consultative competence of the Conference, the latter is agreed to hand over such matters to the Assembly and. should all such matters be handed over, the Conference will become redundant.

Changing perceptions

How do the British and Irish governments see the Accord working? What perceptions do they wish to change and what effect would such change have in Northern Ireland? More importantly, especially since some Unionists and the loyalist paramilitaries have intimated that loyalists should, if necessary, be prepared to sacrifice their lives and freedom resisting it — what real difference will the Accord make to the lives of the working class?

It was hoped that the loyalists would accept the Accord, however reluctantly, because it contained the Irish government's effective repudiation of its constitutional claim to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. On the other hand, it is hoped that catholics and nationalists will see their interests protected by the Irish representatives within the Conference and would, accordingly, be more willing, or less unwilling, to identify with the Northern State and co-operate with the forces policing that state.

Given a degree of success in this direction. it is hoped that elements within the northern nationalists who support the IRA will increasingly withdraw their support. Not only would this retard the IRA's capacity for waging terrorist warfare, it would also help to create a political climate in which the Northern and, more especially, Southern authorities could take the necessary steps to deal with terrorism. This, more than anything else, must be the desired purpose of the Accord; terrorism continues to destabilise authority both north and south of the border and, of course, the ever-present threat of bombings in Great Britain is a constant dread for the British authorities. The cost of maintaining security in both parts of Ireland is now astronomical and is especially damaging for an Irish government beset with persistent economic problems and a growing cash crisis.

The Northern Ireland problem, as far as the various authorities are concerned, is the IRA. In keeping with the naive logic of government, it is unnecessary to deal with the social realities behind political violence; a few cosmetic changes, a simple change in perceptions, and the terrorists will be isolated and banished. This is the why and the wherefore of the Accord; it has nothing to do with the problems of poverty, unemployment. slums or the frightening insecurity which bedevil working class life in the province — the very problems that fuel sectarianism. hatred and political violence.

According to the Accord makers an end. or even a substantial diminution, of IRA activity would be followed by a loss of influence on the part of the more extreme brands of Unionism. The currently enfeebled Official Unionists could regain the centre stage and. freed from the necessity of looking over their shoulders, these "moderates" would be able to do a power-sharing deal with the "moderate" nationalists. A power-sharing government could emerge in Northern Ireland, the Anglo-Irish Conference could be ended and the British and Irish governments allowed to return to the serious business of running a troubled capitalism in their respective territories.

In effect, the perceptions that Thatcher and Fitzgerald are concerned with changing the bigotry, hatred and patriotic rubbish that they wish to adjust — are those that their political forebears, together with the Ulster Unionists, developed out of the slime of Irish history. The perceptions of both Unionists and nationalists in Northern Ireland the way the working class see things — was originally fashioned by the English authorities in the interests of English and Irish landlords in Ireland and was refined — if one can use such an expression for the deliberate promotion of hatred and division among the poor — during the 18th and 19th centuries. Later, the political representatives of a divided Irish capitalist class, Unionists, constitutional nationalists and Sinn Fein, developed that bigotry, hatred and patriotic rubbish as a weapon to promote the interests of the conflicting sides of Irish capitalism in the present century*. Now, with a united capitalist interest, north and south, the old slogans and shibboleths that form the present perceptions of the working class have become an expensive embarrassment. It is these, and only these, that the Accord hopes to adjust.

War of the big battalions

If a change in perceptions did result from the Accord and if these proved effective in ending violence and "normalising" politics in Northern Ireland, the World Socialist Party would acknowledge something that kept our fellow workers out of the cemeteries and the jails and. obviously, the difficult task of spreading our socialist image would be rendered easier without the shadow of the gunman official and unofficial — and in circumstances where less emotional bitterness prevailed. Unfortunately, perceptions are hard to change when the economic conditions that underpin them remain and grow stronger every day.

Nor are we impressed by the cynical deception behind the Accord and the contemptuous efforts of its authors to con workers into the belief that it has anything to do with the social realities of working class life.

Perhaps the most disgusting aspect of the Accord is its obvious intention, promoted by the Pentagon, to clear away the difficulties currently preventing the Irish government from becoming a strategically important member of the Western Alliance. It is a typical irony of capitalist authority that an alleged reform is set in the shadow of a grosser evil. Britain, America and Ireland may deplore a shabby tribal conflict in Northern Ireland but, because war is a persistent and glorified feature of capitalism, they will see no contradiction if part of the formula for ending that conflict is to bring Ireland into a war of the big battalions.

Seeing things the way they are

We can with absolute confidence predict the result of the elections as far as working people are concerned. Irrespective of who gets in or the size of their vote, and whether or not the elections have any bearing on the ultimate rejection or implementation of the Anglo-Irish Accord, life for the working class will remain the same. Our poverty, our unemployment. our slums and mean living will still be with us for these are the constant realities of capitalism however we may perceive it.

Richard Montague

*See IRELAND — PAST. PRESENT AND FUTURE. Available now from the SPGB and the World Socialist Party.

Editorial: What We Mean By Socialism (1986)

Editorial from the March 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

In socialism there will be no social organ of coercion — in short, no state, not even a so- called "workers' state" — and so no police, no armed forces, no courts, no prisons, no machinery to coerce people to do what they might not want to do.

Socialism will be a stateless society in which people will co-operate, on the basis of common ownership and democratic control. to produce what they need as individuals and as communities. This co-operation will be entirely voluntary and so will have to be undertaken because people want to, because they realise that it is necessary and in their best self-interest. In other words, because they have socialist understanding.

Clearly, since such a society can only function with the voluntary co-operation and conscious participation of its members, it can only be established by people who want it and who understand all its implications. By definition socialism cannot be established by a minority. It is just absurd — a contradiction in terms — to suggest that some minority could force the majority to co-operate voluntarily.

Socialism will be a stateless society because it will be a classless society — classless because it will be based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. Or, put another way, the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth — the land, the farms, the mines, the factories, the offices, the warehouses, means of transport and communications will belong to nobody. There will be no private or state property rights over them. They will simply be there, to be used by the members of society to produce what they require to satisfy their needs. The concept of "property" will be replaced by that of "use"; legal property rights enforceable by the state will give way to democratically-agreed rules for using the means of production, a situation summed up by the term "democratic control".

Since capitalism — the social system which will be replaced by socialism — is already a world-wide system, so will socialism be. It will be a world community in which all that is in and on the earth will have become the common heritage of all humanity. Territorial rights over parts of the globe will disappear along with property rights.

On the basis of common ownership and democratic control, production can be reoriented towards what is, after all, its natural goal: to providing the useful things that human beings need to live and enjoy life. In other words, production for profit, production for sale, and production for the market will give way to production solely and directly for use. In fact profits, sales, markets — and money, wages, banks and all the other paraphernalia of buying and selling — will completely disappear in socialism. It will be a moneyless society in which goods will be produced and distributed simply to satisfy some human need or other.

In socialism, just as money and monetary calculation will disappear from the sphere of production, so they will disappear from the sphere of distribution too. Here the rule will be free access according to self-defined needs. People will be able to go into stores and take what they need without having to hand over either money or some "labour card" or any other kind of ration ticket. This will be possible, firstly, because the elimination of capitalism will enable society to produce enough to satisfy the material needs of everyone; and secondly because, contrary to the myths maintained by the defenders of capitalism and class society generally, people's material needs are not infinite.

So the main features of socialism are: world community, common ownership, democratic control, production for use, free access. It only remains to add that socialism is an immediate possibility. All the conditions for its establishment are present except one — precisely the majority socialist understanding we have been discussing. In other words, as soon as this last condition is met. as soon as a majority of wage and salary earners want and understand socialism, it can be established immediately, without any so-called "transition period".

Ireland — New Central Branch (1986)

Party News from the April 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Socialist Party has now established a Central Branch. Membership is open to socialists living in areas where there is no existing branch of the Party. Members of Central Branch will be kept in touch with Party activity through a Branch Newsletter and encouraged to attend centrally-organised lectures and training courses designed to help them generate socialist activity in their own areas.

The World Socialist Party is anxious to promote the growth of Central Branch, which is seen as the best way of developing socialist organisation throughout the country. A handbook, giving guidance and advice on the most effective means of getting activity going in areas where no formal branch structure exists, is in course of preparation and will be issued, on request, to any member of Central Branch.

The National Executive Committee of the Party has also agreed to provide Central Branch members with special leaflets, where required, specifically designed to meet the needs of a particular area. Should a Central Branch member, or members, wish to organise a public meeting, the N.E.C. will assist with advice, advertising and the provision of speakers.

There are a considerable number of subscribers to the Socialist Standard throughout the country who may be interested in making a positive contribution to socialism. Central Branch provides them with an opportunity to do this. For details, write to:

V. Polland, Secretary, Central Branch, World Socialist Party, 41 Donegall Street. Belfast 1.

Forcible Entry (1986)

From the May 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The number of reported rapes in Britain rose last year by 29 per cent (Home Office Statistical Bulletin on Notifiable Offences) and the National Society for the Protection of Children estimates that reported cases of child sex abuse rose by 90 per cent in the same period. As with all crime statistics, such figures should be treated cautiously — some of the increase in the rape statistics is likely to be due to a greater willingness among women to report sexual attacks. However, given the widely accepted fact that reported rape and sexual attack is only the tip of the iceberg, it seems reasonable to assume that the incidence of sexual violence is alarmingly high.

The response of the government and the judiciary has been to advocate harsher penalties for rapists and to suggest measures that will afford greater protection to rape victims. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, recently issued sentencing guidelines to judges which are intended to result in more uniformly severe sentences for convicted rapists. Such measures may lead to more women reporting rape; they will almost certainly lead to more rapists being imprisoned. But they will almost certainly not lead to fewer rapes or sexual assaults. The call for tougher measures represents little more than a knee-jerk response to the problem — the need to be seen to be doing something — and reflects a lack of understanding of the causes of sexual violence. Despite the ritual cries of the right, moralists of all political hues and the law and order lobby, rape is not a new phenomenon. It is neither a consequence of a "decline in moral standards" nor a result of the so-called permissive society. Rape has been a feature of most societies throughout history, but what constitutes rape has changed with time, as have the attitudes to both rapist and victim.

Women’s bodies — men's property

The idea that women are (or ought to be) independent and autonomous individuals is a relatively recent one, that is still far from being accepted among much of the world's population. In general women are economically, legally and socially inferior to men. In many parts of the world women have no legal title to property — they themselves are the property of their fathers or husbands. In such situations rape is likely since there is little respect for women, who have no real rights over their own bodies. But the "victim" of a rape is seen to be the father or husband, since it is their goods that have been stolen or damaged by the rapist.

In feudal times peasant women were subject to the rule of both their fathers or husbands and of the feudal lord. The practice of jus primae noctis (the right of the first night) was common in much of Europe. The feudal lord had the right to take the virginity of the bride of any of his vassals or serfs unless the couple paid a certain amount of produce in redemption dues. This practice must have amounted to rape in many instances but was not treated as such because of the nature of the prevailing property relations. More recently in the American South a similar practice was common among white slave owners. Black women were often forced by their masters into sexual relations against their will. Such rapes must have been common knowledge and yet no action was taken against the rapists. In Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries domestic servants were frequently the victims of the unwanted sexual attentions of their employers. There was no direct ownership relationship between the servant and the employer — she was in theory free, an employee not a slave. And yet to refuse her employer might mean the loss of her livelihood. (To agree and risk pregnancy would also effectively mean the loss of her job. Pregnant maids were usually sent packing, many were forced into prostitution as the only alternative means of earning a living.)

The idea of women as property to be sexually exploited continues to the present even though the law in most modern westernised nations formally recognises women as independent. Sexual harassment of female employees by their male employers is commonplace. Again women are faced with the choice of suffering in silence or risking losing their jobs. The idea of women as men's property is reflected in the fact that in many countries rape within marriage is not a crime. The marriage contract is such that it is considered to effectively represent permanent consent of the wife to her husband for sexual relations. In the recent Ealing vicarage rape case the tabloid press seemed to regard the offence as especially despicable (and hence newsworthy) for a number of reasons. Firstly, the woman who was raped was a clergyman's daughter and therefore "respectable"; and secondly the rape took place in front of her boyfriend and father an affront not only to her but to them. Implicit in the reporting was the idea that they had suffered an injury not just because they were forced to witness a despicable act and themselves suffered physical injury, but because the rapists were taking something that rightfully belonged to them.

A weapon of war

Throughout history rape has featured significantly in war. Although in recent times rape of women by an occupying army has been officially outlawed, it is often unofficially ignored, condoned or even encouraged. The examples are numerous and provide a ghastly indictment of the brutalising effects of war.

During the First World War. as the Germans advanced through Belgium and France in 1914, their progress was accompanied by a deliberately mounted campaign of terror: looting and burning of houses and rape. If these tactics were intended to cow the "enemy" into submission then they partly backfired since the Allied powers used the rumours of the "depraved Boche" as a useful propaganda tool to stir up nationalistic sentiment among workers and encourage them to enlist in defence of "their women" against the Germans. During the Second World War the ideology of fascism led more directly to an acceptance of rape: the exaggeration of masculine values, the frequent depiction by the Nazis of Jews (and also Slavs) as weak and effeminate and the denial of humanity to these racial groups, made rape almost inevitable. Mob rape of Jewish women made its first appearance during Kristallnacht in November 1938 but as the German army moved through Europe, homes were looted and women raped despite the fact that sexual relations between Germans and Jews were officially prohibited on grounds of racial defilement. For some German soldiers a conflict was created as a result of their acceptance of the ideology of racial superiority: on the one hand it dictated that they remained separate from Jews and on the other it dictated that since Jews were sub-human they were fair game for all sorts of brutal behaviour including sexual humiliation and rape. A woman survivor from Bergen-Belsen describes the consequences of such conflict. Held at a police station in her German-occupied Polish village, she was forced to strip in front of the Gestapo, was knocked about and then dragged by one man into an adjoining room:

    I was in a small office and the German had a long heavy whip in his hand. "You don’t know how to obey. I'll show you. But I can't have you. scum, because you're Jewish, and filthy. What a shame! He swung the whip across my breasts. "Here's what you can have for being a dirty Jew — instead of me — this!" He lashed the whip again and again and I fainted. (Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will, Penguin, p.51)

Sexual humiliation and violence of this kind was commonplace to men and women. Jewish and non-Jewish, both inside the concentration camps and outside.

But it was not only the Axis armies that raped during the Second World War. When the Allied forces moved into Europe driving back the Germans, women were again raped, but most especially in Germany. As the Allies occupied Berlin rape was so common that one commentator wrote: The fear of sexual attack lay over the city like a pall'' (Brownmiller. p.66), and there are accounts of German women who dressed in army uniforms since they felt it would be safer to be mistaken for a German soldier than a German woman.

The use of rape as a weapon of war combined with the traditional view of women's bodies as man's property in the war in Bangladesh — with tragic consequences for the women concerned. During the nine month conflict an estimated 200,000 Bengali women were raped by Pakistani soldiers. Husbands and fathers in village societies frequently ostracised the raped women — they were now defiled and regarded as damaged property and therefore unmanageable. Many were pregnant as a result of their attack and were forced to leave their villages.

During the war in Vietnam the South Vietnamese army did rape but fewer attacks took place while they were fighting in "their" country than occurred during the invasion of Cambodia in 1970. Among the Viet Cong there were both stern injunctions against rape and severe reprimands for those who did. The reason was that as a guerilla army the Viet Cong were dependent on villagers for food and protection. They could not risk alienating villagers by raping the women.

For the American army in Vietnam rape and prostitution were inextricably linked. Most US army bases had military brothels nearby, set up in the full knowledge and with the full support of the officers. The women who worked in them were South Vietnamese for whom prostitution was an economic necessity. (Economic need is almost as effective as physical coercion in forcing women to have sex with men against their will). Brownmiller writes:

   . . . as the American presence in Vietnam multiplied, the unspoken military theory of women's bodies as not only a reward of war but as a necessary provision like soda pop and ice cream, to keep our boys healthy and happy turned into routine practice. And if monetary access to women's bodies did not promote an ideology of rape in Vietnam, neither did it thwart it. (ibid. p.92)

Rape then has been, and continues to be. a horrifying aspect of war. The maleness of the military, the total environment of violence and the brutalising effects of that violence are breeding grounds for rape. But rape in war has an important symbolic quality too: it is a symbolic occupation, a forced humiliation and imposition of subordinate status. Rape is the act of a conqueror and women's bodies merely part of the spoils of victory.

A culture of rape

Most men see rape as an offence committed by other men — sick, pathological deviants. But rape is at one end of a continuum of sexual behaviour much of which is characterised by, at best, insensitivity and at worst brutality and coercion, and forms part of a masculine sexual culture. Sexual success measured in terms of the number of "conquests" and the frequency of the act, rather than the quality of the experience, is an important element of what it is to be "a man" in our society. Most men don't live up to the macho image and hide their own fears and insecurities about their sexual relations behind a mask of sexual bravado. To admit to fears or anxieties about their sexual relations would only compound the feelings of inadequacy: the expression of emotion is considered a sign of weakness for men.

For most men this may have no more effect than to make them unhappy or anxious. For others sexual relationships become less risky if the emotional content is removed — the aim of relations with women then becomes a quick screw rather than a relationship which recognises that a woman is a person, not just a vehicle for sexual pleasure. For some men pornography serves a similar purpose — safe sex from a distance. Not only emotions are removed from the experience but women themselves are disembodied passive objects available for men's use. But for some men the conflicting feelings about sexuality and their emotional response to women will be acted out through sexual violence or abuse of women (or children). Rape represents the end of this continuum of impersonal sex — the emotional content of the sexual relationship removed entirely or distorted into something like hate, the feelings (and indeed, in many cases, the identity) of the woman irrelevant; the woman herself dehumanised. This is not to say that there is a necessary causal relationship between, say, pornography and rape, but that they form part of a total sexual culture which encourages rape.

In a society where relationships between people in general are dehumanised — employer and worker, buyer and seller it is not surprising that sexual relations too are so often dehumanised. Sex becomes just one more arena for the expression of conflict or the exercise of power. In certain situations like that produced by war; in societies where women are still regarded as inferior to men, in cultures where racial superiority is part of the dominant ideology, then rape is likely to be prevalent. But in our society too. rape is an implicit part of our sexual culture. Think of the language used to describe sexual relations (men talk of "having" a woman); the depictions of women in tabloid newspapers (sexually available and passive objects for male pleasure); the jokes that are told which are demeaning to women and glorify aggressive masculinity; the popular wisdom that is handed down — that women say "no" when they really mean "yes", or that women play hard to get; the comments made by judges hearing rape cases (that women contribute to the offence by wearing certain clothes or by being in a certain place at a certain time); and finally the stereotypes that we are brought up on — the passive, yielding female and the aggressive male driven by uncontrollable sexual desire. All these factors contribute to a cultural environment in which rape and other forms of sexual abuse and violence are likely to occur.

It is not only rape that we should be concerned about but the whole spectrum of sexual behaviour. And we cannot begin to understand that until we understand the nature of the wider society from which it is derived. Sexuality is natural but there is nothing natural about the ways in which we express that sexuality: it is shaped and conditioned by the society in which we live and the kinds of sexual expression that are considered acceptable are a product of particular cultures at particular times. The fact that so many people in our society express their sexuality in ways that are twisted, coercive, violent and brutal should make us very concerned about the nature of the society that produced that sexuality.

Janie Percy-Smith

Are You in Control? (1986)

From the June 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Have you ever thought how much your life revolves around work? Not even the time you spend at home is your own, it is spent recuperating from one day's employment and preparing for the next. You need to regain your energies by eating and sleeping; if you have a bath and iron your clothes, it is mostly for the purpose of turning up at work reasonably sweet-smelling and dressed in a manner that is socially acceptable. This situation was described very well by Karl Kautsky in Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx:

  Thus from the standpoint of reproduction, the worker is engaged in the interest of capital, not only during his labour time, but also during his "free'' time. He eats and drinks no longer for himself, but so that he may maintain his labour-power for the capitalist class. It is therefore not a matter of indifference to the capitalist how the worker eats and drinks. If, instead of resting and recuperating his labour-power, the worker gets drunk on Sunday and has a headache on Monday, the capitalist does not regard this as an injury to the worker's own interests, but as an offence against capital, an embezzlement of the labour power that is due to capital.

One of the most exciting prospects of socialism is that for the first time since the beginning of property society we shall regain control of our time, of our lives. As it is today, the lower you are down the social ladder, the less money you have in your pocket which means limited options and a low level of control. Continent-hopping executives are as much members of the working class as are cleaners at the local school but it is doubtful if they feel the same incentive to spur on the revolution.

   Contrary to popular belief, it is not high-powered business executives who suffer most from stress-related diseases. Unskilled manual workers develop and die more often from cancer, heart failure and chest diseases. Even middle managers have 40 per cent more heart attacks than top executives. Manual workers have to put up with more stressful working conditions, their lack of control over their working lives and boredom with the job they do can reduce frustration and anger. (Guardian, 12 February 1986).

Within capitalism, work is often the only place people's natural need to communicate and socialise with others can be expressed. It may seem a better alternative than home, if home is a constrictive cell consisting of four walls, a TV set and an uncommunicative spouse. It is usually to be preferred to trying to exist on the dole. Commuting between the double prison of home and work you may feel you are fleeing from one unsatisfactory situation into another.

So how do we spend our leisure time? Apart from frantic activity or total collapse at weekends, a lot of our "free" time is spent on what Marx called "animal" activities:

   As a result, therefore, man (the worker) only feels himself freely active in his animal functions — eating, drinking, procreating, or at most in his dwelling and in dressing-up. etc; and in his human functions he no longer feels himself to be anything but an animal. What is animal becomes human and what is human becomes animal.
   Certainly eating, drinking, procreating, etc. are also genuinely human functions. But abstractly taken, separated from the sphere of all other human activity and turned into sole and ultimate ends, they are animal functions. (The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844).

In some jobs, employees sell not only their pure labour power but such things as "appearance". "sociability" and the "right" kind of part-time interests — if they prostitute themselves completely to their employers they will take home unpaid work voluntarily and have few other subjects of conversation but possible promotions/demotions and other goings on at work.

For all this devotion, workers' labour power is just a commodity to be bought on the market or discarded in the best interests of profit and capital. Every year, there is another crop of eager young school-leavers to be picked, at their physical and intellectual peak and usually ready to work for less than more established wage slaves.

Meanwhile, the lid is kept firmly on a discontented and frustrated population, whether it is the police force with their tougher methods of crowd control or GPs prescribing large amounts of tranquilisers. According to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, unemployment and the stress of threatened job loss may increase families' consultation rates with general practitioners by as much as 20 per cent. (Financial Times, 14 February 1986). The article goes on to say that "Prescription rates in Wales, Northern Ireland and the north-west are up to 50 per cent higher than those in areas such as Oxford"

Our life in capitalism becomes more and more fragmented, more and more specialised. There is a specific period in our life for learning, another for working, then some more compartments for "leisure activities" and so on. From an early age we are encouraged to decide what we want to do for "a job" as adults and our time in the education system is spent training for a particular slot in the capitalist machine. Work under capitalism is supposed to be the pinnacle of our lives, the coveted goal reached in young adulthood when our roles as passive consumers can really begin. Many "happy young couples" have been conditioned to expect that their main pleasure and purpose in life is to consume; carpets, sales, best buys, cookers and three-piece suites then, as the old cheap rubbish wears out or they are persuaded that "changing" leads to happiness. the whole thing starts all over again — a life-time revolving around the acquisition and replacement of shoddy things.

Real sensitivity is blurred and genuine human caring has a hard time in the ruthless reality of the capitalist market place. Everything has its price and competition is so much a part of our every day experience that it penetrates and sours even our personal relationships. Greed, ambition and self- interest are held up as virtues in capitalism. Let us be really ambitious and use these so- called virtues against the system that fostered them.

Torgun Bullen

Panic in the Fields (1986)

From the July 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The severity of a crisis cannot always be gauged by a government's public response to it. That is why, at times of obvious threat to our well being, we might be officially assured that there is no great cause for concern.

This is the case with the current level of unemployment, which is tightening the screw of poverty ever tighter on the working class but which merits the attention of only a minor minister, whose main function seems to tell us about the latest additions to the dole queues. It also applies to world famine, which needlessly kills tens of millions a year but which can apparently be left to be solved by charitable joggers and rock music devotees. The unimaginable menace of nuclear war need not deprive us of any sleep because wise Ronald Reagan and resolute Margaret Thatcher have got the balance of power into so fine an adjustment that the weapons will never be used. The explosion at Chernobyl caused a few worried moments but, after all, human beings were being bombarded by natural radioactivity long, long before anyone had even heard of the atom. In any case nuclear power stations in this country are (like Windscale) Made In Britain, which means they will never blow up or leak or run out of control.

So don't worry, is the official message. The public should keep calm. There is no reason for undue alarm.

And then somebody called "the hippy" bursts on the scene, causing feverish panic where before all was tranquil reassurance. Hippies, we are told, are a cause for concern. They are like a plague sweeping across the country. They seem to have taken all those Thatcher speeches about individual liberty a bit too seriously. They choose not to wash or comb their hair, they don't send their children to school to be indoctrinated into an acceptance of wage slavery. They don't live in mortgaged semis or in council high rise estates, they don 't stuff themselves into rush hour trains and buses and traffic jams. They don't have a regular job in factory, office or supermarket. Clearly, they are a menace to civilised society and every right-minded Britisher will agree with the government taking the most stringent measures to suppress them.

It is true that hippies sometimes join up in a convoy of slow, ramshackle vehicles which is liable to block the road and they pitch in fields without the owner's permission, perhaps leaving the place in a bit of a mess. One of the gutter press drew on its resources of instant hysteria to describe them as "the world's most famous blot on the landscape"—worse, presumably, than the effects of the military practising their tanks and guns over vast tracts of the countryside, worse than the ripping out of miles of hedgerows and the ploughing up of ancient downlands by farmers who, in their lust to climb aboard the grain subsidy bandwagon, create huge eyesores of prairies.

Douglas Hurd, who is said to be a kindly, moderate man. did his kind, moderate best to stoke up the panic about the hippies by likening them to medieval brigands. This phrase should come easily to an aristocratic, ex-Etonian, member of the British ruling class, who may be gratefully aware that some of his class owe their privileged position to the activities of medieval brigands. Others came to riches through the pitiless enclosures and clearances of the land in other words, stealing it from the local people Then there was the slave trade, which enriched ports such as Bristol. London and Liverpool, which built many an opulent mansion among lush landscaped estates and which provided some of the capital for the Industrial Revolution, with its slums and its ruthless working of pregnant women and children, literally to the point of exhaustion or even death.

It is an affront to all workers, that a member of the class whose position originated in these offences against humanity should presume to denounce this small band of ragged people.

In any case, what does this hippy threat amount to? There is no evidence that they are dangerous criminals; so far none has been arrested for murder, or mugging a pensioner. or raping a child. Even their efforts to claim Supplementary Benefit are hardly likely to bankrupt the DHSS. So why has there been so hysterical a response? Even a government as quick as this one to harvest the votes which sprout from the issue of Law and Order can hardly justify the large, relentless and meticulously organised police operation to drive hundreds of people, including their children, into homelessness. How can a government which has pledged itself to "fight crime" justify sending hundreds of police to deal with these uncriminal. unresisting people? In such situations, it is not uncommon for the police to commit illegal acts and for Chief Constables to reveal some alarming ambitions about curtailing civil liberties. But even at that the government have some very far-fetched plans, including a new law which promises to be so catch-all as to affect the tradition that a hunt may trample wherever they will.

The hippies will reply that all this is happening because, yes, they are a threat to property society. They have, they say, seen through it all and have dropped out of the sham material obsessions which dominate the lives of the majority. No-one can be criticised for doubting the morality of capitalism, based as it is on the class ownership of the means of life, the production of wealth for sale and profit and the exploitation of the majority by a parasitic minority. But it is not possible to opt out of the system, in fact the hippies don't even try, since they know they depend on many things—modern communications. services like clean piped water, the internal combustion engine—which capitalism has developed. They must buy and sell, or scrounge, in order to survive. In spite of what they think, somewhere they are on file. Like some other socially peripheral groups, the hippies attempt to blanket their confusion with religious and mystical obscurities, in idle debates about ley lines, reincarnation, the phases of the moon . . .

But none of this can be remotely construed as a threat to capitalist law and order — to the property rights which it is the job of the police to uphold and defend. It is difficult to believe that any government would seriously regard this pathetic, impecunious bunch as any more than a minor eccentric nuisance, not worthy of being spoken of in Downing Street as public disrupters in the same breath as miners or print workers. The real menace of the situation is more likely to be that hippies have made themselves available as convenient scapegoats for workers who are mindful of poverty, famine, the nuclear threat and who are too ready to displace their fears and confusion onto someone. Scapegoats, like royal weddings, like the sick hypocrisy of the media, are useful to capitalism because they divert attention from the real problems of this society. That is why the hysterical panic about the hippies will be matched by a hysteria of false joy when the two foolish parasites Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson—who live off a different type of social security—get married.

The problem with setting up scapegoats, however, is that the campaign against them may get out of control and lead to capitalism being organised almost exclusively in panic. Nazi Germany is only one example of this. All workers, then, would do well to ponder what is implied by the persecution of the hippies. So should the hippies themselves; whatever it is they aspire to, cannot be realised under capitalism, which dragoons us all into some measure of wage slavery. Indictment of what this society does to people is not enough; opting out is an admission of failure. Success means organising together to end it and all its inhuman works.

Ivan

New Pamphlet: Women and Socialism (1986)

Party News from the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

For thousands of years and in most societies in the world, women have had a worse deal than men. Even today, in the "advanced industrial nations", where physical strength has ceased to have any real value on the labour market, men still get the jobs with more pay. more prestige and more power. Feminists have pressed for, and won, the vote and various pieces of legislation designed to give women equality in education, property rights and employment, but the basic inequalities remain.

Why has feminism failed to bring about women's liberation? A condition which affects half of the working class like this is of major importance to socialists. The new pamphlet produced by The Socialist Party and issued this month re-examines the whole question, looking afresh at the origins of sexual inequality, and then at all the disappointing attempts to rectify it The Russian revolution, which was supposed to be ushering in sexual equality with socialism, did neither; and the pamphlet draws out the inescapable conclusions about Russian society which follow from the present condition of women there.

Particularly valuable to socialist speakers and writers is Chapter Two. which analyses the three main strands of feminist theory and endeavour. Full credit is given to those elements of social analysis which are accurate and unique to feminist thinking And one cannot help but admire the dedication and self-sacrifice of so many of the campaigners for "women s rights" But the fact that so little real advantage has been gained after all this time and effort is, in the end, clearly the result of a fundamental fault in the feminist theory of sexual inequality and discrimination.

Socialists, male and female, are striving for the real emancipation of women. Our analysis shows, however, that this is not an aspect of society that exists in isolation and can be dealt with separately. The last chapter of this new pamphlet demonstrates in detail that the oppression of women can only be effectively ended by eradicating the underlying conditions which cause and perpetuate it. It is a pamphlet which fills a long-standing gap in socialist exposition.

RC

Obituary: Bert Fletcher (1986)

Obituary from the September 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bristol Branch reports with great regret the death of Bert Fletcher. For personal reasons Bert had never joined the Socialist Party, but he was entirely in agreement with our principles, had been a regular attender of branch meetings for several years and took part in branch activities. He had recently been invited to address the branch, as a guest speaker, on Rosa Luxemburg. His careful, well-researched and witty talk produced a lively discussion. Bert was a cheerful, likeable comrade and his presence will be sadly missed. We extend our deepest sympathy to his wife and family.

Keith Graham

Rogues, Liars and Fools (1986)

From the October 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The general election is coming and the dinosaurs of capitalist politics are making their way to seaside towns, there to think up ways of winning votes from wage slaves. Out will spew the cliches and the promises and the rhetoric of reformist hope. Into the homes of the working class, via TV and press, will come the speeches of sterile minds locked into a system long past its historical usefulness. Capitalism is outdated: it is out of line with what we could produce to satisfy needs, with how we could live if only we threw their system onto the scrapheap.

At the party conferences those who believe in capitalism — the utopian form which they think will result from their schemes — talk themselves into beliefs which are defied by experience and logic. The Tories proclaim that all we need is a few more years of Thatcherite toughness. The Liberals giggle among themselves, consoled with vague hopes about forming a different kind of government — with the SDP to lend a bit of extra indecision to their confused outlook. Then the Labourites — nice, new slick Kinnocky types —make speeches about how it will not be easy under them, but at least the suffering will be administered by men who know how to look like they care.

At every Tory conference at least one nutter is allowed up to give the troops what they want: whipping soccer louts (back to public school perversions for a few backbenchers) and giving the school kids a few more Victorian values to screw them up. Anything to please the old ladies with blue rinses: after all, the silly old ducks will be leaving their fortunes to the Smith Square coffers before too long. At the Liberal conference they usually put up at least one philosopher each year: invariably a bearded chap from Yorkshire who drones on about fairness in the rural areas and better bus services for the disabled. Liberals clap and think of Gladstone who by all accounts was a right old swine. Every year the Labourites allow up one — sometimes more — r-r-r-revolutionary who yells about Clause Four and betrayals by the leadership and dire warnings that the kids in Liverpool can only take so much. These are the exceptions, allowed to get near the microphone so that the believers can be heard.

Most people who attend party conferences are followers. Their political function is to clap, cheer and. on special occasions, give standing ovations. On very special occasions — like the cabinet being almost blown up they're allowed to offer standing ovations before the speech has even been made. Saves listening to it. These are the political fools: the men and women who have been conned by hopes for capitalism. Some of them lose their foolish illusions and stop clapping; more of them will. You can't listen to politicians for very long without having a few doubts.

Apart from the fools there are the rogues. The climbing boys of politics — nothing to do with chimneys, but twice as dirty. Their task in life is to get power. Not power to share or power to help or power to teach, but power to dominate the powerless. They look at it this way: it's a filthy bloody rat-race out there, so I had better aim to be the top rat. Life in a capitalist political party is not. as many outside them believe, mainly about distributing leaflets and debating policies. Such trivial pursuits are left to the fools. The real struggle in politics is between the rogues: the committee manipulators; the infiltrators; the rule-twisters; the gasbags who know how to squeeze a few votes out of someone else's misery. To be a successful political rogue involves back-stabbing, petty and less petty corruption, and deviousness turned into an art form or a perversion. If you want to succeed in politics (as opposed to being a following fool, which is free and open to any sucker) have no illusions about principles or honesty or decency. They are not the qualities required for winning the race to become a governor within capitalism — they are the characteristics required for losing it.

Then there are the liars: the ones who pretend. These political know-nothings are either the victims of bad memories or. more often, they live in the expectation that workers are suffering from a collective loss of memory. There are Labourites who talk about the good old days of social justice when hospitals never closed down and it was a pleasure to be a wage slave. Or the Tories who tell us how much better off we are now that Britain has had seven years of "sensible'' government. We are expected to swallow these myths, like kiddies who are told that if they go to sleep early on Christmas Eve Santa will deliver the goods. The liars are only happy when workers are half-listening, half-observing, half-remembering. Then they can catch us with their speeches, crammed to the top with well-flavoured deception. The fools like it; the rogues use it; Kinnock, Thatcher, Owen and Steel are doing "very nicely, thank you" out of it. The workers have nothing to gain from putting up with it. Let them have their sterile conferences and immerse themselves in the dogmas of an anachronistic social order. The conscious working man or woman will see through the illusion, and seen through by enough of us it will not be there.

Steve Coleman

Society doesn't owe you a living . . . (1986)

From the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

How many times have you heard apologists for capitalism spout such slogans as "the jobs won't come to you", "a fair day's work for a fair day's pay" or "on yer bike!"? They're all akin to the offensive adage "society doesn't owe you a living". Capitalism is a society which owes the majority nothing, and anything we need must be worked, if not fought, for by prostituting our mental and physical abilities to the whims of the market system.

The most disturbing thing about the idea that capitalist society doesn't owe us a living is not so much that it is undeniable reality, but that it often originates from the lips of workers themselves. They might as well say "the system is at liberty to wring out of me everything it can get". So why is it that the majority of people are willing to abide by capitalism's rules and expect no more than a subsistence of relative poverty in return?

One reason is that it's not the majority, the wealth producers, who make the rules. Instead the rules, enshrined in the edifice of the legal system, are made by the ruling class which legally owns and controls most of the wealth and wields economic power over the working class. These rules do in fact guarantee the members of the ruling class a living, but because of differences in the way such regulations apply to the two classes, there is no promise of due recompense for us.

As far as workers are concerned, the rules apply something like this:

• Provided they agree to be used by an employer, workers shall be entitled to a paltry amount of the wealth they produce in return.
• If they are unable, or do not agree, to serve employers workers may be entitled to a pathetic "benefit" designed to barely maintain them in a state of readiness to be utilised at some future time.
• The taking from others of the tokens known as money, which entitle the bearer to a claim on wealth, is prohibited, even though others may possess copious amounts of these tokens.
• When bereft of the necessary tokens, appropriation by workers of commodities by any other means is also strictly prohibited.
• There shall be no guarantee of shelter and workers are required to place themselves at the mercy of landlords, building societies and council housing waiting lists.
• Workers are expected to keep good order at all times and violent outbursts will be dealt with severely. (This rule should be ignored when the government decrees otherwise, especially in time of war).
• Anyone found breaking the above rules will be punished.

These are the regulations as experienced by the majority of individuals and are clearly more than a little biased. Here roughly is how the rules apply to capitalists:

• Wealth and profit are the ultimate concern of the system and there is no need to consider human needs (except of course, your own).
• Capitalists should be free to employ workers for the minimum possible wage in return for the maximum possible number of hours worked. Capitalists need only return to the workers a small proportion of the wealth produced approximate to the survival, health and proliferation of the work force.
• Capitalists may compete collectively with those of other countries over markets, resources and trade routes. Should diplomacy and business strategy fail to resolve disagreements, violence may be resorted to. Naturally, the job of actually fighting shall be left to the workers.
• When a law does not suit capitalists or the politicians who represent them, if possible the offending law should be repealed or changed.

So the statement holds true: capitalist society doesn't owe us, the working class, a living. In fact, the hideous reality is that it is we who owe the capitalists a living, through no choice of our own. Capitalists, through their legal claim to wealth, are ensured of a privileged and comfortable existence without ever needing to dirty their hands on a tool or machine. They are not obliged to sell themselves to an employer, to have a proportion of the wealth they produce stolen from them in the form of profit. (Theft is of course against the rules for workers). The prosperity of the few is indeed founded on the exploitation. coercion and acquiescence of the many. We'll never get "fair play" or "compassion" or "equality" when the rules are stacked against us. Play by the rules and you'll be left alone to squirm; buck against the rules and you'll be dealt with severely.

One day, society will owe to all an equal and undeniable right of access to the wealth produced, in a world where everyone works to benefit the needs of all. But our just deserts won't be owed to us by way of a legal contract, but because all will contribute voluntarily and co-operatively and take what they need because everything will belong to humanity as a whole instead of being the property of a parasitic minority class.

Nick Brunskill

Murder on the High Seas (1986)

Theatre Review from the December 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you are looking for a contemporary indictment of super-exploited jingoism, Sink the Belgrano, a play by Steven Berkoff (Mermaid Theatre) is a devastating exposé of this ferocious and lethal cancer.

Britain 1982, demoralised by the effects of economic recession, looks to its leaders for guidance. They could provide none. Conveniently and for not dissimilar reasons, the Argentine Junta decided to raise the international stakes. This allowed "Maggot Scratcher" (Margaret Thatcher) to play the patriotic card and so manufacture a badly needed consensus around which the bourgeois political opportunists in Westminster could cluster, like flies on dung.

From these heaving decks of collective insanity the play ignites into a searing attack on one of the most obscene episodes of the Falklands Campaign, targeting the manipulations of power politicians with such precision that they are contemptuously blown out of the water. Gotcha!

Harvey Harwood

Ourselves and the Socialist Labour Party. (1913)

Editorial from the January 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the fifth edition of the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain we point out, in reference to the S.L.P., that “its founders did not comprehend the real significance of the revolutionary struggle,” and a glance at the rambling record of that organisation will prove conclusively that, as a party, it is to-day as ignorant of the revolutionary rôle as were its founders at its inception.

Pinning its faith to political action alone, and advocating a series of capitalist reforms, the S.L.P. for a time tried to ignore the “economic field,” then, realising the error of this, they declared for Socialist Trade Unions, and instructed their Executive to proceed with the formation of the same.

They also realised the stupidity of reform-mongering, and, dropping their palliatives, they denounced all reforms as useless and reactionary. At this stage there seemed to be a slight prospect that the S.LP. might see the Socialist fight, but, unfortunately, a few Anarchist spasms in the “Labour movement” in America gave birth to an “ Industrial Workers of the World.”

This sounded big, and the SLP. were carried further adrift. Denying their previous declaration in favour of Socialist Trade Unions, they endorsed the American I.W.W., and gaily proceeded to denounce all Trade Unions as effete.

The new method — Industrial Unionism — became the Alpha and Omega of their “philosophy.” Political Action was thrown overboard, and the workers were told to “take and hold” on the economic field, and thus emancipate themselves. “Direct action.” “sabotage,” and other Anarchist theories got such hold of their members that a vote was taken to find out how many were Anarchists, but the result was never published.

However, to be in something “big,” the S.LP. on the economic field does not now scruple to call comrades those they previously denounced as fakirs, and who, on the political field, they called “unclean,” while, to allow to enter the S.L.P. itself those they previously strove to keep out, an alteration Iras been made in the hitherto “too rigid” constitution!

How the weak have wobbled ! As the self- styled “fighting S.L.P.” (with uplifted arm and hammer as their motto) they originally claimed to be the only Socialist party, and declared themselves to be out to smash all but themselves. Their fighting propensities however proved to be but vulgar abuse and puerile personalities, and eventually tiring of these, the “fighting S.L.P.” has become the frightened S.L.P., and solicits, cap in hand, the co-operation of all sections of the working class, as the correspondence published hereunder will show.

*      *      *      *      *

SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

53 Waverley Road, Reading.

                                                                                                                               November 1912.

Dear Sir,

I am directed by the National Executive Council of the above Party to write to you with reference to the present situation in the Balkan Peninsular.

The position is admittedly critical, and there is every indication of the European powers being involved, and then a grave danger of a European War.

Such a war would prove highly reactionary to the progression of the Working Class. My Executive are of opinion that every possible means should be taken to prevent such a disaster, and they believe the occasion is one calling forth a strong agitation against war.

Such an agitation to be effective must be carried out on a large scale, and could only be brought about by the co-operation of all sections of the Working Class Movement.

My Committee think the existence of differences of opinion in the various organisations should not prevent a common agreement on this matter.

I am directed therefore to approach the various organisations in Great Britain with a view of securing their co-operation for the following proposals:—

1. The formation of Committees co-opted of members of the various organisations in every district for the dissemination of non-military literature, and for holding meetings and demonstrations in opposition to the butchery of war.
2. The formation of central committees to supervise the agitation and to communicate with the International Socialist Bureau, requesting their assistance upon similar lines throughout the European countries.

I shall be glad to hear from you if your organisation is prepared to co-operate in carrying out snch a scheme. If so, we suggest that a conference be called aa early as convenient, wherein the whole matter might be worked out in detail.

Hoping to receive an early reply,

I remain,

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) L. Cotton,

Nat. Secy. S.L.P.

*      *      *      *      *

THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.

193 Gray’s Inn Road, London, W.C.

                                                                                                                     11 December, 1912.

To L. Cotton,

     National Secretary S.LP.,

                                Reading.

Dear Sir,

Your letter, addressed to us by direction of your National Executive, inviting the Socialist Party of Great Britain to co-operate in some form of an Anti-War campaign, was read to the Executive of that Party at its meeting last night, and instruction was given for the following reply.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain declines your invitation.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain refuses to suspend its propaganda of Socialism, its intelligent prosecution of the Clans War, to join with those who may be prepared to “shout” against wars far away, yet are often found ready to deny the existence of the greater war—the Class Struggle —here at home. The Socialist Party knows that wars are a feature of Capitalism. When the Socialist Party is strong enough to prevent war it will be strong enough to overthrow Capitalism; meantime it can only protest against both, but it dare not betray Socialism by uniting with defenders of Capitalism to protest against a feature of that system.

What simpletons your Executive Committee must be if they seriously believe that those of the master class who have the power of forcing war, or of declaring peace, would be gulled by any protest emanating from such a group of mutually warring elements as you propose to suddenly call together.

Your desire to be in something “on a large scale”—the thirst for publicity and notoriety— should not be allowed to blind yon to the fact that the master class are quite capable of appreciating a protest at its real worth. They know (as we know) that the only protest they need ever fear, is the protest of the class-conscious workers organised in the Socialist Party. That protest has been, and is still being, made in our Press and from our platform, and its effect must not he impaired by our joining with those who do not understand. Those who would be with us must be with us for Socialism ; if not, they are against us, and between such there can be no co-operation, no compromise.

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Great Britain,

A. L. Cox,

General Secretary pro. tem.

The Franchise Fiasco. (1913)

From the February 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “After years of promise the Liberal Party have drawn up a Suffrage Reform Bill. With a long sham fight about ‘Home Rule’ and ‘Welsh Disestablishment’ before them, the measure seems to have had its last and first reading.”
    “The suffrage for women, too, seems to have been left out of this Government measure in the hope that it will help to keep the fires of controversy burning—and perhaps to sufficient effect to cremate the Bill.”

So wrote we in our issue of July last upon the introduction of the now cremated Bill. We wrote the truth because we know the history of this party of cravens—of their contemptible cowardice in the past. We never expected them to do more than dress the political window to catch the eye of the voter in bye-elections.

It is the old, old story—ever new to the politically blind—the story of ’32, ’67, and ’92. Hypocrisy writ large over the actions and speeches of the “leaders of the People.” Just as King Edward conveniently died to prevent them “doing things” to the House of Lords, so now something turns up to help them out of the ditch.

“The Speaker” discovers that if Asquith keeps his promise and allows the Bill ‘‘to be widened in its scope,” it can’t go through. So Asquith pronounces its funeral oration.

They never dreamt of such s thing as the Speaker doing that! Oh, dear, no! Eminent lawyers, too, most of them! The very men, moreover, who make and maintain the laws of procedure in the House of Commons! What a sorry tale of bluff!

It was ever thus with them. They don’t want j to see a wider franchise. They fear its possibilities. They are afraid of political changes—they might lose their jobs. As the passing of a Franchise Bill is coincident with a General Election, they don’t like to take their chances. The story of the fight for the franchise is a story of Liberal and Tory betrayal of the working class. Both parties made use of the Chartist movement, and both helped to smash it. Persecution and broken promisee were the weapons then used, and they served their purpose well. After a generation had passed that grand old humbug, W. E. Gladstone, promised the workers the franchise, but, true to his kidney, he wobbled when the time came. So they went on. Parliament after Parliament voting down franchise Bills.

Yet to-day, relying upon the working class short memories, the lying Liberals boast of having given the toilers the vote.

So now, after years of promise, they deliver their still-born Bill. But just as Household Suffrage was inevitable, so now we believe that in the march of events Adult Suffrage is bound to come. But, true to their historic methods, the Liberals will try it in instalments. A small portion at a time in order to reap the kudos on many occasions. They will go warily, lest they alter the complexion of political life.

We, however, do not regret the death of this Bill. As we pointed out in July last, there was nothing democratic about it. But the way it has gone shows what a fund of ingenuity these cunning lawyer politicians can bring to tbs bluffing of the working class. And is it not significant that we were able to foretell this six months ago ?

Adolph Kohn

Our Attitude Toward The International. (1913)

From the March 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the two following letters from a reader in America, and are glad, in order to make our reply more “strong, official, and efficacious,” as well as to refresh the memory of certain of our critics at home, to give both these letters and our reply the publicity of these columns.

Morgantown, West Virginia,

United States, North America.

December 18, 1912.

To The Socialist Party of Great Britain,

                                           London, England. 

Comrades,—A quarrel has broken out in Socialist circles of our country, and we ask you to settle it.

Some time ago my neighbor, Comrade Joseph Mras, ordered of you 100 copies of your booklet “Socialism and Religion." I bought of Comrade Mras several copies of the said booklet and quoted it on some occasions. Now the comrades accuse me of insincerity. They tell me that I quoted a booklet, of which I knew that it is of no authority whatever. They maintain that your party has not the slightest connection with the International Marxian Socialism. Your booklet, they say, is the rankest forgery, because page 6 contains the sentence: “ It [the booklet] is issued, not as the view of an individual, but as the accepted manifesto of the Socialist Party on the subject,” whereas it contains only the personal opinion of some individual or small group of individuals. 

The Socialists are treating Comrade Mras not better than they treat me. They tell him he should burn the booklets he ordered off you rather than sell them. They display a genuine fury against the circulation of your booklet.

Comrade Mras wrote to the National Secretary, John Work, of Chicago, asking him for information, and sent him a copy of your booklet. Comrade Work sustains the views of our antagonists, as you see from the enclosed letter.

Now. there is a great deal of insincerity, not on our part, but either on the part of John Work and his followers, or on your part. I have studied many Socialist standard works, and I find the principles contained in your booklet in perfect harmony with the teachings of Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Bebel, Bax, Morris, Hyndman, and the rest of the great Socialist champions. On the other hand, John Work, John Spargo, and Morris Hillquit are trimmers who strive to hide the basic principles of Marxian Socialism, for the purpose of catching votes. We think, however, that you deserve credit for the frankness with which you stated the said principles.

Be this as it may, we ask you to send us a clear, concise, and official statement concerning your attitude to the International Socialist Party and its Bureau. Please make your statement as strong, official and efficacious as possible. We do not like to be abused on account of your booklet, in which we placed in good faith our confidence. Kindly return also John Work's letter.

Please favour us with an answer.

With best wishes and kindest regards, 

Respectfully yours, (Signed)

 C. J. Kluser.

*      *      *      *      *

The Socialist Party (of America).

John M. Work,

National Secretary.

National Headquarters.                                                                                                          

111 North Market Street, Chicago.

               December 9, 1912.

Joseph Mras,

       Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dear Comrade,

   According to the Bulletin of the International Socialist Bureau, the Socialist Party of Great Britain is not affiliated with the Bureau.

The book is apparently the personal opinion of some individual or small group of individuals. It does not correspond with the policy of the Socialist Party of the United States.

Fraternally yours,

(Signed) John M. Work. 

National Secretary.

JMW—GM

*      *      *      *      *

The Socialist Party of Great Britain

                                   193 Grays Inn Road,

                                                   London, W.C.

                                   Jan. 31, 1913.

C. J. Kluser,

Morgantown, West Virginia.

Dear Mr. Kluser, 

  In answer to your query regarding our attitude toward the " International” as represented by the “International Socialist Bureau,” the following points from our official records will be sufficient.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed in 1904 as the culmination of a revolt of the rank and file of the Social Democratic Federation against the reformism and corruption of the official section.

The S.P.G.B. was represented by two delegates at the ”International Socialist Congress” at Amsterdam in 1904. Their report appeared in the official organ of the S.P.G.B. (the “Socialist Standard") for September 1904.

In the "Socialist Standard” for January 1905 appears an address, in three languages, to the “International” stating the S.P.G.B. attitude toward “a communication from the Secretary of the British section of the Amsterdam Congress asking among other things whether the Party (S.P.G.B.) favoured the holding of a Conference with a view to forming in England a national committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress.” The address continues: “ We have declined to take part in any such conference on the ground that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging from the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, at which the Party was represented, the proposed committee would consist of men who are in no sense of the word Socialist.”

Elsewhere in the same number of the official organ the correspondence is published in full and evidence given in support of the above contention, while measures necessary to remedy such a state of things are also outlined.

The matter was then discussed at the Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain at Easter, 1905, and reported in the official organ for May, 1905. At that Conference it was moved ”that the Executive Committee be instructed to draw up a series of resolutions embodying the following points : —

1. That only Socialist organisations recognising the class war in theory and practice should be represented at the International Socialist Congress.
2. That disputes between the various parties in each country as to the genuineness of their respective organisations be settled by the Congress itself.

The scandal of a non-Socialist majority of the British delegation bossing the International relationships of the Socialist Party is also referred to in the leading article of the “Socialist Standard” for June, 1905.

In the "Socialist Standard” for January, 1906, the following manifesto to the Socialist workers was issued by the Executive of the S.P.G B. under the title of "The Essentials of Socialist Unity ” : —

   "Comrades,
    “In the January number of our official organ, the “Socialist Standard,” we addressed you concerning the International Socialist Congresses, and briefly dwelt on our reasons for declining an invitation from the Secretary of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, to take part in forming a national committee to deal with matters arising out of the International Congress, on the grounds that it should be the task of the Socialist Party alone to deal with these questions, and that, judging by the composition of the British Section at the Amsterdam Congress, the proposed committee would consist of men who arc in no sense of the word Socialists. That committee has now been formed, and its composition fully justifies the view we took of it in January last.     “In accordance with our promise we have forwarded a communication to the International Socialist Bureau asking that, in our name, a motion be placed on the agenda of the next International Congress, for discussion in open Congress, embodying the following proposals:
   "(a) That admission to future International Socialist Conferences shall be open only to all avowed Socialist bodies that accept the essential principle of Socialism, i.e., socialisation of the means of production and distribution; union and international union of workers; Socialist conquest of the Public Powers by the proletariat organised as a class party recognising and proclaiming the class war, running all candidates on this basis, and adopting an attitude of hostility under all circumstances to sections of the capitalist party.
   "(b) That all previous resolutions (defining the basis of admission to the Congress) be rescinded.
  “(c) 'That all matters upon the agenda be discussed in open Congress, and that the methods of discussion in commissions be entirely abolished.
   "(d) That each delegate shall have one vote, but if a poll be demanded each party represented shall be entitled to one vote.
  "(e) That representation upon the Bureau shall be upon the basis of parties represented at the Congress, each of which shall be entitled to one representative on the Bureau, etc., etc.
                                               “THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
                                                        THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN.
    “Head Office, London,
    “December, 1905."

This request to the Bureau was not granted.

At the Annual Conference of the Socialist Party of Great Britain held in London at Easter, 1907 (vide report in official organ, April 1907), the first business of the Conference on the second day was a discussion on the International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart. The questions were whether the S.P.G.B. should seek representation at that Congress under the conditions laid down by the non Socialist British National Committee and the International Socialist Bureau, and what was the best method of getting into communication with the known representatives of that uncompromising policy of which the S.P.G B. are exponents in this country. In the result, it was passed that “This Conference of the S.P.G.B. recommends that no delegates be sent to the next International Congress, but that the E.C use their best endeavour to get in touch with those abroad who occupy our position.” (“Socialist Standard.,” April, 1907.)

All along we had, of course, regularly received the communications of the Bureau and published them when necessary. But although the matter of the International Congresses has been reopened in the S.P.G.B again and again, the above resolution still stands, and consequently the answer you received from John Work is partly explained.

No such objection to our literature as the one to which you refer has been, or is likely to be, urged against us in this country, for obvious reasons. J. Work and others are simply exploiting the lack of knowledge which exists on your side regarding political conditions here.

The pamphlet you refer to "Socialism and Religion''; was revised, endorsed, and issued by the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B. As stated in the pamphlet, it represents, not the views of an individual, but the accepted views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

The position laid down in the pamphlet is the Socialist position and nothing else. It is based on the bed-rock of Marxism. The proof that the pamphlet expresses the Socialist position is contained within the pamphlet itself. The paltry subterfuge of those incapable of answering its arguments only succeeds in being ridiculous.

I am returning herewith letter from John M. Work as requested.

Trusting the above explanation will prove satisfactory, I remain, yours respectfully,

A. L. Cox,

Gen. Sec, pro tem.