Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the May 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day is being celebrated by the Party on an extensive scale this year. The original plan was to conclude large outdoor demonstrations in Hyde Park with a bumper meeting in the Metropolitan Theatre on Sunday evening, May 2nd. Unfortunately, through no fault of ours, we cannot obtain the Metropolitan Theatre this year, and the Sunday evening rally is to take place in the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square. The May Day procession organised by the London Trades Council takes place on Saturday afternoon, May 1st, and our aim is to have at least 100 members selling literature and delivering handbills on the route. We have made application to use decorated trailers as platforms in Hyde Park both on Saturday and Sunday afternoons, and on the Saturday we hope to have an amplifying apparatus at work as well. The whole of our effort is being extensively advertised.. There is every reason to believe that, given reasonable weather, May 1st and 2nd will be something to remember in party history. We hear from the provinces that Manchester, Glasgow and Bristol are well ahead with their own plans for special May Day efforts. The speakers at the London Conway Hall meeting will be Cash, Turner and Groves.

The Summer Outdoor Propaganda Season is now off to a good start, and most branches will have their various stations at work by the time this issue is published. South-West London branch is spreading its wings a bit more this summer with meetings planned for Friday evenings at Comyn Road, Clapham Junction, Saturday evenings at Rushcroft Road, Brixton, and Sunday afternoons at Clapham Common.

Kingston Branch commenced their outdoor season on March 20th at Castle Street, Kingston, with a very successful meeting. During 1947 the Communist Party tried to establish meetings here. They invariably commenced them early, but as soon as our platform was erected their audiences evaporated and ours grew. This year the branch will commence their meetings at 6.30 p.m. to save the audience the trouble of moving from one platform to the other. The branch attempted to hold Saturday afternoon meetings and establish a literature stall in Kingston Market, but they were stopped by the police on the grounds of “Obstruction." When petrol is available the branch is going to organise Sunday propaganda outings to various south coast towns during the summer season.

Manchester Branch recently held a debate with the Stockport Labour Party at the Unity Hall in Stockport. The hall was packed—about 150 being present. The Labour Party’s representative was Councillor Watson, and our man was A. Mertons. Watson was quite hopeless. All that he could say was that the S.P.G.B. might be right, and so, for that matter, might be quite a number of other parties. So far he had been unable to make up his mind, but in the meantime someone had to do the “practical” work! He had great difficulty in filling out his time and seemed relieved when our representative managed to collar an extra 15 minutes. All members present agreed that the debate was very well worth while. Two days after the debate the branch held a meeting at the Rusholme Public Hall where Mertons was again the speaker on “The Struggle for the World.” There were about 120 at this meeting and members were well satisfied. Outdoor propaganda has commenced in Platt Fields on Sunday afternoons, and during the summer the branch aims to revive the Eccles Cross outdoor station. In addition regular indoor meetings are going to be held in the Onward Hall, Manchester. The branch has also an economic class in course of preparation. Without being unduly optimistic it is possible to foresee more and sustained activity by the branch which should result in an increase in membership.

Edgware Branch has recently been in difficulties owing to a shortage of active members, but now appears to be on the up-grade. Sympathisers living in the district will be welcomed to branch meetings.

The Independent Labour Party through one of its organisers in London, has been nagging us to send a speaker to their summer school to talk on something palatable to them like the “Managerial Revolution" or “ Russia.” We replied that we would send a speaker to talk about the policy of our party. There the matter rests for the moment pending an official reply to an official letter sent to the I.L.P. We do not aim to entertain the last few tottering remains of an organisation which has been in the last throes for years and is now dishonourably sinking into oblivion. If they want to hear something about Socialism we’ll give it to ’em.

A Party Meeting is being arranged for members to discuss the question of "Socialism and Violence.” A hall has not yet been booked, but members will receive ample notice.

The Annual Conference is reported elsewhere, but one item of news has just come to hand. In addition to the general success of the conference we learn that party funds will benefit by about £70 as a result of collections, dance tickets, prize draws, etc.

Ealing Branch’s debate at Kensington Town Hall again proved the popularity of this form of propaganda. This debate was with Collin Brooks, Editor of ”Truth,” and Chairman of the Executive of the Society of Individualists. Our representative was the General Secretary. The hall, holding 600 people, was filled to capacity, and literature sales and collection were very good. Brooks, who had agreed to defend Capitalism against Socialism, spent nine-tenths of his time attacking Labour Party state capitalism in spite of strenuous efforts on our part to get him to the point. He refused to get to grips with the real issue of the debate, perhaps through ignorance, or perhaps by choice, one guess being as good as another. Members present considered that good propaganda work had been done by the debate.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the April 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Annual Conference will be over by the time that this edition of the "Socialist Standard’’ is on sale and a report of what took place will appear in our next issue. Last month we gave some details of items which will be dealt with by the delegates, and here are a few more things which are on the agenda. Our Central branch (covering members who cannot attend branches) numbered 162 at the end of the year. Although the members of this branch are handicapped by their isolation a number of them are very active in their areas. During the last few years good branches have been formed by pockets of Central branch members living near to each other. Our Central Organiser reports to the Conference that many branches of the party are increasing their activities, but that a large amount of work falls on a comparatively small number of members. Nevertheless on the whole the condition of most branches seems to be healthier than for some time past. The supply of articles by members for publication in the “Socialist Standard” was considerably better in the last half of 1947 than it was in 1946, and because of this the Editorial Committee were able to give more of their time to working on pamphlets. The number of "Socialist Standards” printed was 6,000 per month up to October, 1947, but owing to unsold copies during the winter months the quantity was reduced to 5,600 for October and November, and 5,400 for December. The party’s Literature Secretary in his report to the delegates points out that copies of "Socialist Comment” (the journal of our companion party in Australia) can now be obtained from Head Office. This paper offers members an excellent opportunity of learning about the local problems of our Australian comrades. Our literature was advertised right through the year in various organs of the press, bringing in a number of new subscribers to the "Socialist Standard” together with some enquiries from abroad. We have also continued to press the B.B.C. for time on the “air” but so far without result. The work of our Overseas Secretary’s department during 1947 increased enormously, and the results of this increased activity are slowly becoming manifest. These results so far consist of closer contacts with groups and parties abroad, interest in our literature in different parts of the world and the growth of an organisation within the party capable of dealing with any socialist development overseas. The delegates will have in front of them details of the activities of all the companion parties abroad. The Overseas Secretary has also tried to get in contact with small groups who have broken away from self-styled working-class parties in Italy, Holland and France, but so far he has nothing of interest to report under this heading. The "Socialist Standard” is now being sent to a large number of groups and workers in various parts of the world, including libraries in Hamburg and Moscow. We have now built up a team of translators and also a panel of linguists who are prepared to represent the party abroad when required. The resolution sent in by branches upon which delegates will vote in accordance with their branch mandates cover a wide field, dealing with the party's propaganda, literature, etc., but the most lively discussions will probably be on the various “Items for discussion" which appear on the agenda. Delegates are not tied down by their branches on these items in the same way as they are on the resolutions, but it is their duty to report back to their branches on the various points of view expressed. Altogether there is every indication that the Conference will have been stimulating, interesting and beneficial to party welfare.

A New Pamphlet reproducing from the “S.S.” from 1918 onwards articles on Russia containing material of permanent value is now ready for the printer. This is not intended to meet the need for an original pamphlet dealing with Russia from our standpoint. The Editorial Committee has other pamphlets in mind for publication when the financial situation becomes easier. We are still waiting for you to make that situation easier. It is a very serious matter and we cannot over emphasise the need for funds.

Glasgow Branch has suffered severely lately owing to the death of members. John Adrian died in February suddenly under very tragic circumstances. He had been making plans for his usual visit to the Annual Conference, an event which he always looked forward to. John joined the party in 1936 and became a very valuable member. He was not a public propagandist, but a very serious student with a thorough grounding in socialist theory. He organised classes on economics and was a source of inspiration to all members. He had all the essential attributes of the revolutionary worker. Fifteen members attended his funeral at which a party member gave a fitting address. The branch has also lost R. D. Robertson who died in February after a long illness. He was a young member who joined us in 1942. He was an earnest and unassuming lad with a keen and intelligent interest in the work of the party.

The branch have been temporarily inconvenienced as a result of being served a notice to quit their excellent shop premises by May 28th—or to buy them at £700 (an impossible sum). This has faced Glasgow comrades with the difficult task of seeking new premises in the city by that date. The shop with its spacious window for displaying pamphlets, and announcing meetings, proved itself a most useful asset during its several years of branch occupancy.

Indoor meetings are continuing, but with the present mild weather and longer light evenings a start on outdoor propaganda is being made this month; probable venues are Queens Park Gate and Brunswick Street. Again a challenge to the C.P. to debate has been issued, this time through their Penilee branch, who await their central committee’s, sanction. It is expected, however, that the C.P.’s usual political cowardice about debating with S.P.G.B. representatives will add but another refusal to efforts to get them on the public platform. Recently the branch organiser travelled 50 miles on invitation to Kelty, to address a meeting composed mainly of miners. The S.P. case was well received.

The Croydon Bye-Election gave our branch there an opportunity of extending its propaganda work. Indoor and outdoor meetings were run, and while the audiences were on the small side we managed to get the ear of a number of workers in the constituency who were not swept away by the reformist barrage of the candidates.

Kensington Town Hall houses another of our debates on April 12th. The Society of Individualists are putting up Collin Brook (editor of "Truth”) against us. Our man is the General Secretary. The straight subject of "Socialism versus Capitalism” has been agreed upon.

“The Socialist Standard” now costs more to produce than we get for it at Head Office. This is due to higher wages of printers and the higher cost of paper. The resulting loss each month increases our financial difficulties.

"The Communist Manifesto" centenary commemoration meeting at the Conway Hall on March 1st brought a very good crowd together. As is usual at our meetings we finished up with plenty of time given to the audience for questions and discussion. The collection was £17 and about £7 worth of literature was sold.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the March 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our 44th Annual Conference is being held at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, W.C.1, on Good Friday, Saturday and Sunday the 26th, 27th and 28th March, commencing at 11 o’clock on each morning. All of the proceedings are open to any member of the working-class who wishes to come along. We have no private sessions like nearly all other organisations who ask the working-class to support them. The last paragraph of the ‘‘Communist Manifesto” states that “Communists scorn to hide their views and aims” and we preserve this democratic principle intact. The main work of the conference will be to review the results of 1947 and prepare our programme for the future. The report of the 44th Executive Committee will be in the hands of branches about four weeks before the conference, and delegates will come mandated with their branches’ instructions. Here are some features from the report. Our membership at the end of 1947 was 979, an increase of 58 during the year. The total number of propaganda meetings reported during the year was 835, of which there were 678 outdoor meetings, 135 indoor meetings, 8 debates and 14 addresses to other organisations. The number of outdoor meetings is the highest of which we have records. Even these figures are not comprehensive, as a number of branches have failed to report all of their meetings to Head Office. It has been a difficult year financially. During the war years we built up a fairly substantial balance, but this has been absorbed by widened activity. Now we have to finance our activities as we go, and our expenditure (particularly on party publications) cannot be curtailed without reducing the scope of our work. This is the last thing we wish to do. A number of branches, are supporting an amendment to party rules which will raise member’s weekly subscriptions from 3d. to 6d. If this amendment is carried the branches supporting it think that it will go some way to ease our financial burdens. One effect of financial restrictions has been that the Executive Committee have had to postpone action in filling the vacant positions of full-time organisers. Two new branches at Kingston-on-Thames and Croydon were formed during the year, and the Dagenham and Romford branch was dissolved. The sales of the Socialist Standard fell off towards the end of the year, and the delegates may well consider ways and means of building up the circulation. Pamphlet sales will undoubtedly shoot up now that the ‘‘Racial Problem” is on sale and our own edition of the "Communist Manifesto” is practically ready from the printers. The first session of our Tutorial Class was a great success, and promises to play a big part in providing the party with a competent body of tutors for future educational classes. As well as the conference there will be our usual dance and reunion on the Saturday evening, and the Mass Rally on the Sunday evening—both at the Conway Hall.

The Publicity Committee is planning some attractive advertisements for the pamphlet on “The Racial Problem.” The E.C. allocates regular sums to this committee to be spent on advertising, but advertising is expensive, and the money in any case has to come out of the General Fund. So please step up your donations so that wider and ever wider circles may get to know of the Party and its policy.

Hackney Branch have sent in some interesting correspondence they had had with various “notabilities” they have approached with a view to public debate. Some letters they receive are long, and some short, but they all add up to the same thing. These “friends” of the working-class won’t have it! Their reluctance to face our speakers is matched only by their eagerness to get into the limelight under what they consider to be favourable conditions. Michael Foot, M.P., is “absolutely full u ” for the next few months (according to Hackney they have had this same reply from him for over two years). Donald Soper, M.A., of Kingsway Hall and Tower Hill finds that his ‘‘diary is fully booked right away through into 1949.” P. Piratin, M.P., regrets being unable to accept our invitation (no reasons given, let’s guess). Richard Acland, M.P., says that he has met members of our organisation and he has to state quite objectively that our processes of thought and of reasoning are so utterly other than his own that he has never believed that there is any effective point of contact between him and us. For this reason he believes that a debate would be an entire waste of our time and his. Mr. Acland seems to have forgotten the audience for whose benefit debates are really organised. Why not, Mr. Acland, let them judge the validity of your processes of thought and reasoning? Or are you just finding a roundabout way of saying that you don’t fancy your chances up against an S.P.G.B.’er in debate?

Radio Luxembourg costs £70 for a 15 minutes broadcast. Some members and sympathisers think a lot of this form of propaganda, but we shall need a lot more money before we can even consider it.

The Assistant Treasurer elected as a result of the second ballot is Kathleen Curzon of Paddington branch.

An E.C. by-election is in process and ballot papers have been issued to all branch secretaries. The nominations received are F. C. Adams (Palmers Green). G. Clark (Islington), H. Collins (Croydon), R. Coster (Leyton), J. P. Edmonds and H. Russell (Lewisham), G. Kerr (West Ham), and J. Read and S. Ross (Hackney). There is one vacancy on the Executive Committee.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Railway Nationalisation (1948)

From the February 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

  “After a century of agitation the railways have became nationalised. The fact is accomplished and will be accepted.
  “In return the public ask one favour. It is to be spared the canting humbug which announces to the harassed traveller: 'They are your railways now.’
  “That is claptrap. The railways no more belonged to him on January 1st, 1948, than they did on December 31st, 1947. If anything, the humble citizen will be of even less account than he used to be.

  “The railways have merely been transferred from private capitalism to State capitalism.” 

(From the Daily Mail, 2/1/48).

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the February 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The election of Party Officers and Executive Committee members for 1948 resulted as follows: General Secretary, C. C. Groves (Ealing); Assistant Secretary, A. Fisher (Lewisham); Treasurer, E. Lake (South West London); Literature Secretary, F. Lawrence (Bloomsbury); Auditors, F. Lawence (Bloomsbury) and R. Stovold (Paddington); Trustees, R. Ambridge (Islington) and I. Groves (Ealing). 45th Executive Committee: A. Turner (Paddington), E. Hardy (Bloomsbury), C. May (Paddington), C. Groves (Ealing), E. Lake (South West London), G. McClatchie (Bloomsbury), R. Ambridge (Islington), H. Waite (Marylebone), C. Lestor (Leyton), A. Young (Bloomsbury), S. Hampson (Ealing), P. Howard (Bloomsbury), W. Kerr (West Ham) and D. Fenwick (Ealing).

A second ballot is now taking place for the position of Assistant Treasurer, where the candidate with most votes did not get a majority over the other two.

The Treasurer says that our income is now just about sufficient to cover routine expenditure, but that enough money is not coming in yet for our greatly expanded pamphlet publication campaign. We need donations urgently. Please do whatever you can. The new pamphlet on the “Racial Problem” is now on sale, and our own centenary edition of the “Communist Manifesto” is not far behind, and a pamphlet on “Russia” is well on the way. 

“Socialist Standard” sales campaigns have been undertaken by some branches lately with very gratifying results. One branch sold eight dozen in a one-hour canvass of streets in their area the other Sunday morning. Regular contacts can be developed in this way and the branch benefits generally. Why not put this item on your branch agenda? Good results can be guaranteed if the job is tackled in the right way. Branches which have organised canvasses recommend that at least six or eight members should systematically cover the houses in selected streets, keeping records of purchasers so that they can be revisited the following month. The time has arrived to prepare for when paper restrictions will be lifted, and branches which have a small margin of Socialist Standards left over each month are asked to consider the suggestion of a canvass.

Hackney Branch have now heard from Hamm of the British League of Ex-Service Men that they are now prepared to withdraw the conditions they originally imposed for a debate, and will debate with us on our usual conditions, and further that they agree that we shall provide the chairman and steward the meeting. We are now trying to find a hall for this meeting.

The League of Individualists have challenged Kingston branch to debate at the Surbiton Assembly Rooms on February 19th. We gather that the issue will be “Socialism versus Capitalism” and that Waldron (come to Jesus) Smithers, M.P., speaks for the “Individualists.” Our man is Cyril May. We learn that there is a possibility that our opponents may suggest putting two M.P.’s up in the debate, but this is not definite. The hall is large and comfortable and Smithers is a born entertainer.

Greenford is expected to be Ealing Branch’s best district for indoor propaganda and in spite of a breakdown in advertising arrangements the branch’s first indoor meeting at the Library there was successful. Further meetings are being arranged. On February 5th the branch are running a debate with the Trotskyists at Ealing Town Hall. Hansen speaks for them and H. Young for us. A review of outdoor propaganda during the summer shows that this branch held 54 outdoor meetings in various places.

The Annual Conference agenda is now being prepared, and branches have been asked to submit items for this. These items are Amendments to Resolutions and amendments to rule which have already been submitted, and also “Items for Discussion.”

Newport (Mon.) Branch maintains regular Sunday evening lectures. The difficulty in Newport lies in outdoor propaganda where there are serious barriers against meetings imposed by the local authorities.

H.O. Library recently received a number of very useful books sent by the widow of Jack Butler, our late Treasurer.

Glasgow Branch are keeping well in action in 1948. They are strong with the determination to make the very best use of their resources this year in socialist propaganda among the teeming wage-slave population of Glasgow. The branch had a very successful mass meeting on Sunday, January 11th, in the Central Halls to commemorate the centenary of the “Communist Manifesto.” Three speakers addressed the audience who were packed tightly in a hall with a seating capacity of 160. Members gave solid support as stewards, literature sellers, etc. A branch social committee is now busy arranging a theatre evening or smoking concert for members and friends as soon as accommodation can be reserved. Correspondence is being maintained with the Workers’ Socialist Party of U.S.A. at Boston and with comrades in Dublin and Belfast. Branch meetings are held on Wednesday evenings at 7.30 p.m. at the branch headquarters, 43, Maryhill Road, Glasgow, N.W., and the Sunday evening programme of lectures at the Central Halls, Bath Street, continues. These commence at 7 p.m. The February programme is as follows: 1st February, “The real crisis,” F. Duncan; 8th February, “Socialism and Morality,” J. Thorburn; 15th February, “The affairs of our masters,” J. McFarlane; 22nd February, “ The workers’ party,” T. Mulheron; and 29th February, “Dictators and Socialism,” J. Prout. There is, of course, no charge for admission to these lectures, and plenty of time is reserved for questions and discussion from members of the audience.

Centenary of the Communist Manifesto. The centenary of the publication of the Communist Manifesto is being commemorated by a meeting to be held in Central London at the end of February or the beginning of March. Final arrangements are not yet completed. Watch for announcements.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary

Party News Briefs (1948)

Party News from the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Metropolitan Theatre meeting on Sunday, December 7th, gave us an indication of the effect of our propaganda in the London area. All of us felt that this meeting was something of an experiment as our meetings in this theatre previously were of a special character, as during election campaigns in North Paddington, or to celebrate May Day. This was an ordinary propaganda meeting, and it was held on one of London’s miserable, cold, foggy evenings when the weather seemed even grimmer than capitalism under a Labour Government. Readers will understand how heartened we were to have an audience of about 1,000 people there to listen to us. The majority of them showed warm sympathy for our clear cut and uncompromising attitude to the Labour Government’s failure to solve working-class problems and to our appeal to join in the revolutionary movement for the emancipation of mankind. We have no illusions about the task we have set ourselves in persuading our fellow- workers of the necessity of socialism, but meetings like this stimulate us to increasing effort. We gave an hour of the meeting to the audience for question and discussion, but we could have carried on much longer. The meeting was rounded off with a very acceptable collection of over £66.

The Editorial Committee is now working on a pamphlet on Russia, and the draft is well on the way to completion for approval by the Executive Committee. This is something else for which we need donations, but we do not anticipate that our loyal body of members and sympathisers who have kept us going in the past will let us down in the future. By the way we still need money to pay the final cost of the two new pamphlets on the “Racial Question” and the "Communist Manifesto” which are at the printers. Send your New Year’s gifts to the Pamphlet Publication Fund.

A Methodist parson asked Bloomsbury branch if he and a few of his flock could come along to one of their discussion meetings to show that Christianity was not incompatible with Socialism. The branch agreed and not only explained Socialism to Wesley’s disciple but also told him something about Methodism of which he apparently was unaware.

All branches are asked to send in to Head Office immediately their financial and propaganda reports (Forms “C” and “E”) for the quarter ending December 31st so that the annual report for 1947 can be issued without delay.

The result of the Executive Committee bye-election was that no candidate succeeded in getting a majority over all the remaining candidates, and as there was not sufficient time for a second ballot the position remains unfilled pending the annual election of party officials and the Executive Committee.

Dartford Branch is building up a useful body of sympathisers in their area and hope to get some of them into the party soon. The branch recently held a propaganda meeting at their headquarters when it was explained to sympathisers how urgent it was for all who understood socialism to undertake organised activity in the party.

Manchester Branch's second series this winter of Sunday evening meetings at the Rusholme Public Hall has now concluded. The meetings have been well attended throughout in spite of some special “Manchester” weather. The branch is holding fortnightly discussions on Friday evenings at it’s branch headquarters, and is covering economics and history. A special Socialist Standard canvass was very successful. The branch expect to book Rusholme Public Hall for Sunday evening meetings in the New Year.

Ealing Branch is now running its own General Knowledge class for branch members on Monday evenings and about fifteen members attend weekly. The difficulties of obtaining tutors has been overcome by calling upon resources available in the branch. The first series of classes is dealing with Marxist economics and history. This branch has now recommenced its Sunday morning Socialist Standard canvass in the area round the branch headquarters.

Islington Branch have opened their winter propaganda season at the Co-operative Hall, Seven Sisters Road. The Islington Central Library has also been booked. They are also continuing the Sunday morning outdoor meetings at Finsbury Park when weather permits. The branch is providing its own speakers for this station. The membership of the branch is growing (they now have more than 40 members) and they expect a number of sympathisers in the district to join soon.

Kingston-on-Thames Branch's debate with the Trotskyists turned out to be a much larger affair than they anticipated, as quite a number of non-members of the organisations concerned came along. The Trotskyist representative trotted out the usual authentic "Bolshevik-Leninist” rubbish which died a natural death here and in every other country many years ago.

Preparations for Annual Conference, 1948, are now well in hand. The conference will be held at Easter at the Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, London, W.C. Branches now have from Head Office a call for items for the Preliminary Agenda. The items called for are Resolutions and Amendments to Rules. A call for items for the Final Agenda will follow later. Any London members who can put provincial delegates up over Easter are asked to get in touch with the Social Committee at Head Office as soon as possible.

Leyton Branch have now arranged a series of indoor meetings at the Lloyd Park Pavilion, Forest Road, Walthamstow. They will be held on alternate Fridays commencing on the 16th January. They hope to have a debate on one of the evenings.

Comrade Prince Vallar, of Glasgow Branch, died December 1st. Many Socialists all over the country knew Vallar’s sincere comradeship and unflagging devotion to the cause of the working-class. While he did not join the party until 1938 he was for many years before a practical and moral bulwark to the small handful of enthusiasts who kept socialist principles alive in Glasgow against frightening odds. He played a great part in the formation of the Glasgow branch in 1922 with his generosity and unfailing optimism. He sought no reward and was unassuming in his party work* He later had the keen pleasure of seeing his two sons and daughter-in-law become members of the large, virile branch which Glasgow is today. His wife and family have suffered an irreparable loss and the party has lost a staunch member. The working-class owe Vallar a debt, and lie would ask that payment should take the form of ever-increasing struggle for the emancipation of the working-class.

Clifford Groves,

General Secretary.

Running Commentary: Cause for alarm (1981)

The Running Commentary Column from the January 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cause for alarm

A recent report by the Greater London Council makes quite clear that those who control London’s fire brigade have more than one eye upon their balance sheets!

  The cost of running the Brigade has risen considerably in recent years — from the net revenue estimate of £53.2 million in 1978-9 to nearly £65.3 million in 1979-80. Of the £65.3 million estimate for 1979-80 staff costs account for almost £54.2 million, emphasising the labour-intensive nature of the Brigade. (The Future Development of the London Fire Brigade -Discussion Document).

The GLC has responded to the government’s concern to cut public expenditure by reducing the number of operational appliances, reducing the level of manning (from that settled between the FBU and the GLC in 1974) and proposing to shut down the River Station at Greenwich. All this is bound to result in inferior fire services. The reduced number of firemen and fire appliances will affect the speed with which emergency calls can be dealt with. And emergency fire calls in London are increasing: in 1965 there were 39,566, by 1974 the figure had increased to 87,307, it was 111,520 in the drought year of 1976 and the London Fire Brigade Management Study Group have projected that by 1985 the number of emergency calls per year will reach 168,000. Is this the time to start cutting services?

Lord Denning, speaking in the Court of Appeal in 1971, stated that: “The snatching of a fellow human’s life from a terrifying death may easily turn on a quarter of a minute—a matter of seconds”.

In the same case, Joseph Milner, then Chief Fire Officer of London, pointed out that: “It is well known in the Fire Service that the speed of attack is crucial to the control and extinguishment of a fire, and that the driver of a fire appliance knows that the risk to life and property is increased by any delay in getting to a fire.”

Workers in the fire service will freely tell you that cuts spell delays. In London there are extra reasons why services will be deficient. Firstly, the fire cover for the new Docklands Industrial complex has been reduced, meaning that less money has been allocated to protecting the massive industrial area than was advised by fire experts. Secondly, the expanding tourist industry involves the existence of thousands of hotels and these are notoriously prone to catch fire. Faced with the need to send fire appliances to a burning warehouse containing millions of pounds worth of commodities and to attend a small fire in a council flat, if there are reduced services, priorities will have to be made.

If readers are in any doubt about the callousness of the capitalist administrators towards human life they need only think back to the 1977 Firemen’s strike. Remember how they brought in inexperienced blacklegs from the army to break the strike? Remember how the Labour Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees, refused to meet the wishes of the FBU? Remember how the media tried to portray striking firemen —who only the week before were shown as dedicated, brave men-as irresponsible, anti-social militants? It is quite possible that declining conditions in the fire brigade will cause the FBU to call another strike. If they do, and if lives are lost as a result, workers should not condemn the firemen for their necessary participation in the class struggle. They should blame the social system which leads to strikes and other events which result in public suffering.

What next in Poland

Socialists welcome the heroic efforts of the working class in Poland to achieve trade union and other rights. Freedom of speech and freedom to organise politically are essential for the existence of a socialist party. But the chief essential must be a working class which understands and wants socialism. Sadly, that is not yet present in Poland (any more than in Britain).

In an interview in the Guardian (3.11.80) “Eva, a leading dissident intellectual, was asked what sort of society does Solidarity really want?” Eva hesitated. “I suppose people differ, but very few of us could be called socialists at all. We would even welcome multi-nationals and big combines. In theory we would not mind having capitalism back —not on the American pattern but like Sweden or Denmark.”

It has to be admitted that while people like Eva imagine that they could have capitalism “back” —as though Poland has ever had anything other than a society of wage slaves producing goods not for use but for sale on a market —the idea of socialism hasn’t yet got off the ground.

Jesus Napoleon Brezhnev

Those readers old enough to remember the days of Stalin will readily recall the sycophancy which surrounded the Great Leader. After his death, the Bolshevik gang went through the motions of deploring the Cult of Personality — of which they had all been the leading exponents. They are now building, at a place called Malaya Zemlya —the scene of a battle which nobody has heard of — a vast monument which will show the great martial deeds of the present Stalin, Brezhnev, who indeed has been created a Marshall.

The battle was of minor consequence but is now being upgraded to the rank of a Stalingrad as a turning point in the war. Brezhnev’s part was unknown at the time but his heroism is now the subject of a book which won the top literary prize in Russia. Real authentic stuff, that was. Brezhnev wrote it himself.

A song about the battle is now frequently played on Moscow Radio. It is not made clear if Brezhnev also wrote the words and music and performs it at the Bolshoi in person. According to a newspaper called Babinsky Rabochy (which no doubt exists even if you’ve never heard of it), Brezhnev is “the outstanding Marxist-Leninist political figure and statesman of the modern age”. No, he didn’t write that himself, there being no shortage of Communist hacks (this one was called Geidar Alieyv) to do the jobs for this latter day Stalin.

Inflation again

One charge that cannot be laid against Enoch Powell, with regard to his views on inflation, is that he is not ruthlessly logical. Despite being no supporter of trade unions, he is quite prepared to admit, even proclaim from the rooftops, that you cannot blame inflation on workers’ demanding higher wages. Speaking at a conference in London on 14 November he denounced the new 6 per cent limit on pay rises in the local government sector as “folly”. After saying that governments alone cause inflation by increasing the money supply (a view the present Tory government is supposed to accept), he went on:

  On that view, pay rises generally, like other price increases generally, are not the cause but the inevitable consequence of inflation, and you might as well try to stop the rain by screaming at people not to get wet as to try to combat inflation by telling pay and prices not to respond to it. (The Times, 15 November)

If the rate of price rises has been falling in recent months, this is partly because the government has been inflating the currency less (for the government is, despite what it says, still inflating the currency) but also partly because in a slump such as capitalism is now going through the general price level tends to fall.

Political Notes: Shirley Williams agony (1981)

The Political Notes column from the January 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shirley Williams agony

One thing which has always been clear about Shirley Williams is that she has never had any ambitions to be famous as the Best Dressed Woman of the Year, nor as the Hairdressers’ Best Friend. Passionate devotion to principle, she suggests, is more important than fussy appearance. Workers who are irritated by Thatcher’s steely perfection of grooming might have been deceived.

But Shirley’s passion seems recently to have run amok. Since May 1979, when she lost her Parliamentary seat at Hertford and Stevenage (when the voters showed what they thought of her principles by converting a Labour majority of over 9,000 into a Tory one of nearly 1,300) she has been absorbed in a game of political poker in which she deceives herself that holding a pair of twos justifies her continually raising the stakes.

This has now persuaded her into a commitment that she will not stand again as a Labour candidate if the party persists in disagreeing with her over the EEC, defence, the leadership and other issues. If she carries this through, Williams has probably seen the last of Parliament and her fans are desolate; “Please Shirley”, wailed one in the Guardian, “What do you want your supporters to do?”

Well perhaps Shirley doesn’t care, which brings us to the question—should anyone care? Her career as a member of former Labour governments read almost like a crusade to disprove the feminist fallacy that women would run capitalism a whit more kindly, tolerantly or compassionately than men. But Shirley is tough; she emerged from this experience as a politician intact enough for her defeat to be a shattering blow to those who had spoken of her as a future Prime Minister.

No worker, with an inkling of how their class interests are best protected will mourn the end of those governments, nor the political demise of any member of them. Capitalism was not changed —it was not ameliorated, humanised, tempered — by Shirley Williams’ rise and it will not be changed by her fall. For beneath those shapeless dresses and scarecrow hair is a being thoroughly devoted to the dirty work of perpetuating the social system which represses, degrades and slaughters millions of people.

Tory troubles

Poor Denis Thatcher, bearing the brunt of the Prime Minister’s frustrations that British capitalism will not work as she thinks it should and her wrath at her supporters’ dismay over the deepening slump. His only outlet is a fortnightly letter to his friend Bill and even that gets leaked to Private Eye.

With each upward twist of the unemployment figures, Tory hearts beat yet fainter. Official statistics on price levels, public spending, the notes issue, indicate that Thatcher’s government is not fulfilling its promise to control these things — although all their plans about greater prosperity for British workers were based on an assumed ability to.

Daily, Keith Joseph looks more distraught, like a man troubled with fundamental doubts. Geoffrey Howe has committed the cardinal sin of putting up an incompetent performance in the House of Commons, where they will accept almost any deceit provided it is articulated with elegance and confidence and bolstered with some mannered humour. Ted Heath glowers smugly and, forgetting the chaos and misery of his own time of the Three Day Week crisis, waits for the call to overthrow the Iron Lady.

Even worse, the traditional political heartland of the Tory Party — the small business people (or rather those of them who are still able to evade the Bankruptcy Court) is in revolt. “What disappoints our group most”, whines an open letter from the Merseyside Builders Action Group in the Guardian (3.12.80) “is that we are all small/medium sized businesses who supported your party at the last election . . .” This is a familiar experience to anyone whose memory extends beyond last week’s newspapers. During times of Labour governments similar agonies are expressed by trade unionists. Every new government arrives in office in a flush of enthusiasm, declares that there is much to do to sort out the mess left by its predecessors and gets down to work.

For a time its supporters bask in rosy optimism. Then doubts creep in, as reality exposes the empty pledges, hardened into disillusionment and panic. At times the very party seems to be on the point of disintegration. There is no reason why a Conservative government should not suffer this. Any party trying to run capitalism will quickly find that it is attempting the impossible and that its crisis-ridden fumbling promotes dismay and cynicism.

The Tories, as Denis might put it, are deep in the rough without the clubs to get out of it.

Godless Foot!

Those who are worried about Doing Things In the Proper Way will not have welcomed the election of Michael Foot to the Labour leadership. There must be anxiety in such circles that, if Foot ever gets to be Prime Minister, he will go to Buckingham Palace and try to kiss the Queen’s hands dressed in one of his donkey jackets.

Even more threatening is the fact that he would be the first avowedly atheist in Number Ten. How, to begin with, would he fill in those bits of the speeches all Prime Ministers make when they are  appealing for greater sacrifices from the workers in the interests of British capitalism — those bits which up to now have been reserved for a prayer that god should be on “Our” side? And what would happen to the nation’s moral fibre, if atheist Foot refused to appoint bishops when the posts became vacant? Would there be nobody to preach to the workers on their duties to uphold the exploitation and the parasitic privileges of the capitalist system?

Well the British Humanist Association which might have been expected to rejoice over Foot’s election, got it right: “. . . In the sense of day-to-day issues such as inflation and unemployment, it is perhaps not very relevant. We are still going to have inflation and unemployment . . .” Because it doesn’t matter whether the leaders of capitalism are religious or not, or which religion they preach, or whether they drink or gamble or smoke or lead promiscuous sex lives. What is important is that they hold their positions at the behest of the working class who support capitalism.

If he ever becomes Prime Minister Foot will oversee this social system in basically the same way as his predecessors. And if that is anything to go by, perhaps the workers had better start praying without further delay. It may soon be all that’s left for them.

Women walk in fear (1981)

From the January 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Everyone, whatever their political views, will have been disturbed by press reports of the brutal killings performed by the man the media have labelled “The Yorkshire Ripper”. Since the murder of student, Jacqueline Hill on 18 November “the 4,000 women students at Leeds University were coming to terms with the fact that they must not walk alone at night”, (the Guardian 21.11.80.) The police warn that the killer’s “record of street attacks shows that the main danger comes anywhere within dragging distance of a dark and secluded place —open land beyond the range of street lighting, a dark alleyway, backyards, a patch of wasteland. Those are the places to avoid, and there are far too many of them for a woman to walk safely by herself at night”. This restriction on the liberty of women to walk in safety after dark has been a feature of life in West Yorkshire since October 1975 when the “Ripper” first struck. For some working class women in the Leeds-Bradford area this has meant an almost total dependence upon male protection during the conventional leisure period of the day.

What has this insecurity got to do with socialists? Is it not simply an inevitable result of an inherent mile urge to have their way with women? Should we not leave such cases to the police and confine ourselves to discussion of political economy? And aren’t attacks on women an issue for feminists rather than socialists? We are obliged to respond to these questions and the only answer we can give is that the problems facing approximately one half of the working class are very much the concern of the only party which stands solely for the interest of the working class as a whole. The insecurity which women face cannot be solved within capitalism.

Capitalism has historically created a role for working class women as the attendants to male wage slaves. Not all working class women conform to this role, but most still do. This position has been sanctified by religion (it is the woman’s holy duty to be a wife and mother); by morality (the unmarried woman is seen to be either promiscuous or incomplete); by the education system (girls are still segregated in terms of what they learn at school and what opportunities they have when they leave school); and by law.

The conditioning of male and female attitudes to womanhood goes on all the time. The adverts state what the ideal woman should look like; the fashion and cosmetic industry tell her what to wear; the cinema helps influence her speech and her style; women’s magazines trivialise her experience; problem page hacks inform her as to whether or not she is a “proper” woman. Men’s attitudes to women are similarly conditioned. Young boys soon learn to talk about females as sources of satisfaction. Notions of virility traditionally imply dominance, aggressiveness and ruthlessness—the very characteristics which, if frustrated in conventional social contact, can produce the brutality of a vicious attacker. Porn magazines and sex movies teach men to idealise a submissive, consumable womanhood. Women are to be won, bought or coerced: married, hired or raped. In a society where pleasure is a commodity to be bought, and sold what else can be expected than what Marx rightly called “a system of prostitution both public and private”? (The Communist Manifesto). The private prostitution referred to was discussed in an article in the January 1908 Socialist Standard entitled, “No More Family Life”:

  The present social system is based upon the ownership of private property, and the marriage contract is in essence a property contract. The single sentence from the Marriage Service, “with all my worldly goods I thee endow” is indicative. of this, especially as the recipient of this cornucopean shower immediately surrenders all control over it by promising to “love, honour and obey” the benevolent “bestower”.

The Guardian, reporting the recent murder of Jacqueline Hill, who was a religious Sunday School teacher, made an indicative comment:

  The killing points to a worrying change in the Ripper’s victims. He first murdered a Leeds prostitute in October 1975, but the last time he murdered a known prostitute was two and a half years ago. His last two victims . . . were both respectable girls (20.11.80).

The assumption here is that if women are not “respectable” it is less “worrying” for them to be murdered. Respectability through the editorial eyes of the Guardian, which supported two world wars in which millions of people were killed, is not the best criterion for the right to be free from sexual assault.

We would do better to think about the kind of sick society which produces men like the “Ripper”. He has been driven to his perversely anti-social behaviour by a system of living which on the one hand treats sexual activity as a social taboo and on the other trivialises and sensationalises the sexual act, so producing neuroses in those who do not conform to the image. If you have a social order which glorifies war there is no point in crying out in indignation at the violence of modern youth; if you have a society which turns sex into a commodity, don’t be surprised if some take without paying.

Feminists are mistaken if they believe that the need for social change is a women’s issue. Not all women are in a position of social inferiority: capitalist women who travel about in chauffeur-driven cars have no need to go on marches to “reclaim the night”. The problems facing working class women are rooted in their class position. The basis of their insecurity is their alienation from the means of wealth production and distribution. Wage slavery is not in the interest of either male or female workers, although admittedly, for some women being the slave of a wage slave amounts to even greater insecurity and powerlessness than that faced by working class men.

To demand that male and female workers stand in equality as wage slaves is an impoverished and futile reform because wage slaves can never attain real social dignity, even if men and women workers are treated the same by their employers. It may be utopian to want a society in which people never offend against one another, but it is not utopian for socialists to want a society which does not give rise to the brutal behaviour which is an everyday feature of capitalism. In a society where all men and women stand in equal relationship to the means of life, where norms will not be dictated from above, where there will be sexual freedom and diversity, such cases as the Yorkshire Ripper will be a nightmarish reminder of an uncivilised past.

Steve Coleman

The Super-Opportunists: A Criticism of Bolshevist Policy (1920)

From the August 1920 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Fatuous Policy
The Bolshevik leaders are opportunists. They start out with a definite programme and policy but change it completely when they find the world’s workers do not support them. Lenin, Trotsky, Radek, and the other officials denounced Kautsky, Henderson, Longuet, and others for their reformist policy, but we now have Lenin and Zinoviev advising the Socialist workers of England to take parliamentary action and join the Labour Party.

The report of the Executive of the Communist Party of Russia to the 1920 congress of the Third International lays down the position that we should get inside the Parliamentary Labour parties. This advice is anti-Socialist, as anybody with a knowledge of the history and composition of the Labour parties know.

The Bolshevik leaders told us that the workers of the world were ripe for revolution and their support of Bolshevism was expected and depended upon. Now that it is plain that workers do not understand socialism and fight for it, Lenin is pandering to the ignorance of the world’s workers. In defence he says that by supporting the pro-capitalist Labour Party and helping to establish a Labour Party government, the workers will learn the uselessness of the Labour parties.

The Logical Conclusion
If that policy is to be adopted, then it is necessary for the workers to follow every false road, to support every reactionary measure, and to join every movement and learn from their mistakes—in other words, exhaust every possible evil before they try the right road. If this policy is right why did not Lenin support Kerensky’s policy of capitalism for Russia and let the workers painfully learn its uselessness? Such nonsense as supporting parties and Governments to gain power to learn their misdeeds is not the road to Socialism, it is the path to apathy and despair, and lengthens capitalism’s life.

The Coat Turned
After spending much ink and eloquence in denouncing parliamentary action Lenin tells us in his interview in the Manchester Guardian that it is necessary in modern capitalist countries.

In his telegram to the British Socialist Party Lenin calls upon them to support parliamentary action by means of a Labour party. After all the attempts of Lenin to show that Marx and Engels believed in smashing the State power, Trotsky tells us in A Paradise for the Workers that we have to get control of the State power and use it instead of abolishing it. Radek, in his Communism—From Science to Action, denounced parliamentary action and majority rule, but in a recent letter to a German Communist he completely changes round and advises parliamentary action.

The Opportunist Weathercocks
Lenin, in his letter to the German party, supports Parliamentary Action and the winning of the masses in defiance of all his previous advice and previous praise of the Spartacan minority action. The Amsterdam Bureau of the Third International was abolished because it told the English Socialists not to engage in Parliamentary Action or to support the Labour Party. All this demonstrates the absence of any principle and simply to veer with the changing winds.

We have been denounced for our attitude of insisting upon the need of Socialists making a revolutionary use of parliaments. Our position, however, was based upon Socialist principles and a recognition of the facts of history, not a desire to pander to popular prejudices such as support of a dangerous and fraudulent Labour party.

We have opposed Kautsky’s reformism and opportunism because it is not Socialism and is against the principle of the Class Struggle. We are equally opposed to dangerous teachings if they come from Lenin, Radek, or any other man who sets himself up as a teacher of socialism. Our position is that taken up by Marx and Engels and made plain by them in their writings. Engels says in his last (1890) preface to the Communist Manifesto that we must gain the minds of the masses. Bolshevism, however, has depended for its triumph upon the minority, who ignored the majority of workers. So true is this that Radek in his pamphlet ridicules anything else in minority action for Socialism.

Bertrand Russell, who accompanied the Labour delegation to Russia in June, records his interview with Lenin in the Nation (July 10th and 17th), and Lenin there admits the opposition of the peasantry. Lenin in reply to Kautsky (The Dictatorship and the Betrayer Kautsky) does not attempt to deny Kautsky’s charge that the Menshevik and Social-Revolutionary delegates to the Soviets were suppressed in order to maintain Bolshevik majorities. Russell states the Soviets are moribund and that any other delegates than Bolshevik ones are denied railway passes and so cannot attend the Soviet meetings. He also says that the All Russian Soviet meets seldom, that the recall is exercised for minor offences, such as drunkenness, and that the delegates continually ignore their constituents. We do not accept Russell as an authority, but much of his report agrees with Bolshevik writings.

We have always contended that the Bolsheviks could only maintain power by resorting to capitalist devices. History has shown us to be correct. The January 1920 Congress of the Executive Communists in Russia abolished the power of workers control in factories and installed officials instructed by Moscow and given controlling influence. Their resolutions printed in most of the Labour papers and the Manchester Guardian here show how economic backwardness has produced industrial conscription with heavy penalties for unpunctuality, etc. The abolition of democracy in the army was decreed long ago, but now that the army is being converted into a labour army it means rule from the top with an iron hand.

Russia has agreed to repay foreign property-owners their losses and allied Governments their “debts.” This means continued exploitation of Russian workers to pay foreign exploiters.

With all the enthusiasm of the Communists they find themselves faced with the actual conditions in Russia and the ignorance of the greater part of its population.

There is no easier road to Socialism than the education of the workers in Socialism and their organisation to establish it by democratic methods. Russia has to learn that.

Adolph Kohn

Romford Division Branch. (1908)

Party News from the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Previous to the present season we were not permitted by the stamp-licking brigade to hold a quiet and orderly meeting in Ilford. All through last year we endeavoured to wear down the turbulent opposition which greeted us night after night. It was impossible to sell literature or take collections. The fight would have discouraged some, but did not have that effect upon us. We renewed the contest this season, and although the earlier meetings were somewhat lively we soon wore down that kind of opposition. We started the season with a heavy debt, but not only has this been paid, but a large quantity of literature has been purchased from Head Office and paid for. Sales and collections have been good and at the end of September quarter we were enabled to donate £3 to the Head Office. Outgrowing our Club Room we have taken a house at 27, York Road, Ilford, on a three years' agreement, on the ground floor of which lectures will be given. Several pounds have been spent in furnishing and any comrade or friend or opponent who cares to look us up will be welcomed. The Club is open every evening at 7.45.

J.

Snap Shots. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Speaking at the Manchester Coal Exchange, the Rev. Conrad Noel said there were times when it would be perfectly right for Socialists to be Tariff Reformers. Socialism was an international movement and a tariff would be quite justifiable if a nation put up a barrier against the importation of sweated goods manufactured in another country.

—++—

An international movement! And yet the producers in one part of the world are to put up tariffs to protect themselves against the producers in another part. Try again, Mr. Noel.

—++—

“I ask them (the Labour Party) where would they have been but for free trade, education, Chinese labour, etc. Many of them were elected by Radical enthusiasm. Liberal votes and trade union funds.”

—++—

Thus spake John Burns at Leeds on December 9th. Does he fear the Labour members will prove ungrateful to their Liberal allies?

—++—

“The problem of Socialism is what to do with the unemployed rich.” That may be the problem from the Rev. Conrad Noel’s point of view, but as under Socialism there will be neither unemployed nor rich, all being employed and well- to-do, it is no problem for us.

—++—

One more of Mr. Noel: "I think that possibly spending my time trying to urge stupid people to reorganise Society on a just foundation is productive work ; at any rate it is the very bed-rock of the work of a priest of the Church of England.

—++—

The stupidity and cupidity of people are the parson’s opportunity, of which he takes full advantage.

—++—

Politicians here, writes the London correspondent of the Manchester Guardian, are greatly interested in the prospect held out by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald of the union between the two Labour parties in Parliament. But not much alarm has been caused by the announcement.

—++—

Why should there be any alarm? One Labour party will be quite as harmless to the master class and quite as useless to the working class as two or two hundred.

—++—

As to the Labour Party, they had every reason to be proud of those who had been sent to Parliament. They had done their work loyally and fairly, and he did not regard the Labour members as by any means the most dangerous section in the House of Commons. Colonel Kenyon-Slaney M.P.. at Liverpool. Sept. 24th, 1907.

—++—

Mr. W Crooks. M.P, who has signed the L.R.C. declaration, was present last month at a dinner at the National Liberal Club to mark the revival of "Progressive" activity in London affairs. Other Liberals present included Lord Carrington, Dr. Macnamara, etc.

—++—

Messrs. T. Glover and W. T. Wilson, both L.R.C. M P.’s, supported the National Liberal Federation at a meeting held on December 14th at the Memorial Hall, Manchester, to explain the provisions of the Small Holdings Act.

J. B.

The receipt of a copy of this paper is an invitation to subscribe.

West Hull Election Notes. (1908)

From the January 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Jas. Holmes, the “Labour” candidate, did his best to let folks know he was not a Socialist. He had never disguised the fact, he said.

#    #    #    #

And yet he was supported, not only by the I.L.P., which openly advocates such a course of action, but also by the S.D.F., which claims to be “uncompromisingly revolutionary.”

#    #    #    #

At the candidate’s meeting at the Beverley Road Baths on November 23rd, the chair was taken by Dr. J. Nelson, S.D.F.

#    #    #    #

Mr. Holmes’ election address was like any other Radical’s. He believes that the national ownership of our rail ways, the taxing of unearned increment, the abolition of royalties on our mineral wealth, the re-assessment of the land tax, the freeing of the land from monopoly together with leasehold enfranchisement, are “ the real remedies against poverty and unemployment."

#    #    #    #

“What Labour Leaders really think of the Liberal Party” was the frontispiece of a card issued by the Liberals. It contained the following five pars.

#    #    #    #

1. Mr. Keir Hardie, M. P., says: (Labour Leader, Jan. 1907.) I have a profound distrust of party newspapers eulogies of Ministers on coming men, but in common fairness I must say that Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman has earned and fully deserves all the praise which is being heaped upon him.
2. Mr. David Shackleton M.P. says (Oldham. Oct. 1st., 1907.) The Labour Party has had experience of two Governments and I must say that the atmosphere of the House of Commons has changed. To-day we find ourselves, with very rare exceptions, supporting the measures brought in by the Government which are in the right direction.
3. Mr. A. Henderson, M.P. says : (July, 1907.) In spite of the House of Lords there remains to the credit of the Government an output of legislation benefitting the condition of the millions they represent, greater than ever had been accomplished by any session of parliament.
4.  If these things are true, why should Mr. Holmes split the Progressive vote? Don't be the catspaw of the Tory party.
5. Mr. A. H. Gill, M.P., President of the Trade Union Congress, in his Presidential Address, on September 3rd. 1907, made allusion to the legislative output. He said that the Act safeguarding Trade Union Funds and the Workmen's Compensation Act, were thorough and splendid pieces of constructive legislation. He thought the thanks of the workers were due to the Government for this valuable legislation.

#    #    #    #

As Mr. Holmes, in some of his literature, even dropped "Labour” and asked the electors to "Vote for Holmes, the real Progressive," Mr. Wilson’s reference to the splitting of the Progressive vote was not out of place.

#    #    #    #

Sir George Bartley, the Tory candidate, issued a poster upon which he stated that from 1898 to 1906 the Navvies’ Union paid John Ward and other officials £5.267 16s. 9d. in salaries and expenses and £6,180 3s. 0d. in benefits to members. Also that during 1892-3-4 the salaries of the officials of the Eastern Counties Labourers’ Federation amounted to £2,805 1s. 9d. and the members' benefits to £657 10s. 14d.

Blogger's Note:

1907 Kingston upon Hull West by-election wiki page

The elections in Iraq (2005)

From the January 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

  The indications of a  new social order, or re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, as Iraq slides ever deeper into civil war?

Since the end of the Second World War, when the US forced the Italian government to discharge its Communist Party cabinet members as a prerequisite for aid, to its support for the coup attempt in Venezuela in 2003, the US has been regularly subverting elections around the globe for the benefit of its own corporate elite.

Ever fearful that foreign governments might, among other things, introduce labour and environmental legislation detrimental to US investments, Washington has opposed the principle of democracy on almost every continent, even helping to overthrow democratically elected governments whenever it felt its interests threatened (e.g. Iran in 1953, Guatemala 1954, Congo 1960, Ecuador 1961, Bolivia 1964. Greece 1967, Fiji 1987).

Nor have its methods been peaceable. Indeed its agents in the CIA have carried out assassination of prominent individuals with as much indifference as its embassies have supported right-wing death squads and bloody coup attempts throughout Central and South America. Across the world, the US has backed dictators of every hue, turning a blind eye to their horrendous affronts to the democratic process.

We are now to believe that the US, presently occupying “sovereign Iraq” (for President Bush has declared Iraq is now “sovereign”), a country with sizeable oil reserves, and which has lost 100,000 of its people since the US-UK invasion, will see  that free and democratic elections take place on 30 January. Bush has since informed the people of Iraq – the same Iraq in which the CIA helped Saddam Hussein pull off the military coup that originally brought him to power: “We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave.”

John Negroponte, the US Ambassador in Iraq, has been adamant that the US will not allow a delay in the 30 January vote. Speaking to reporters he stated that the elections would go ahead and that the security situation would be improved by then, and went so far as to say that conditions in 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces were already safe enough for elections to be held.

He said: “I think once they realize that the elections will go forward as planned, then they [Sunni opponents of the election] are going to have to deal with that reality” (Washington Post, 1 December). However the Sunni resistance looks set to spiral, his comments coming  just after it was reported that US deaths in Iraq in November matched the post-invasion record set in April – 135 troops dead.

In Washington and London,  the claim is that the ongoing attacks by insurgents are an all-out attempt to disrupt the coming elections, when in truth the overriding fact is that many Iraqis still see the US as an army of occupation whose presence they have a right to oppose. An opinion poll carried out in September by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority confirmed that opposition to the US presence was widespread. It revealed that just 2 percent of Iraqi Arabs – that is, minus the Kurdish population – agreed wholeheartedly with the occupation. If anything, this shows that in spite of the age-old hostilities between Sunnis and Shiites, one thing that could unite them is their hostility to an occupying army of 138,000 – a figure set to increase before the election.

Securing the peace in Iraq in time for the elections has so far meant installing a pliable puppet regime, and implementing Order 39, which the Economist (25 September 2003) described as “a capitalist’s dream” and which opened up the Iraqi economy to complete foreign takeover. It has meant the deliberate bombing of homes, hospitals and religious buildings by squadrons of bombers and helicopter gun-ships, turning cities into rubble (Fallujah was napalmed), cutting off water, electricity and medical supplies and spreading hunger and disease.

A comprehensive new study by the British-based charity organisation Medact, which looks at the impact of war on health, reveals that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years has increased from 4 percent prior to the invasion to 7.7 percent since the invasion and that about 400,000 Iraqi children are suffering from ‘wasting’ and ‘emaciation’ conditions of chronic diarrhoea and protein deficiency.

Despite such facts as these, Washington would have it that people in Iraq are being irrational in not supporting US-organised elections.

As we go to press, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish politicians are at odds over whether elections can take place on 30 January as planned. Iraq’s 60 percent Shia majority, who clearly suffered worst under Saddam’s reign, are keen for the elections to go ahead on time, knowing they are likely to consolidate the increased power they have enjoyed since overthrow of the essentially Sunni president Saddam. However, as rebels have continued their assaults on other towns since the fall of Fallujah, a campaign led by Sunni politicians has gathered momentum, with Shia leaders claiming that a postponement of the election date would only play into the hands of the insurgents.

The head of the Shiite Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, has insisted that the elections go ahead. He has been backed by 42 mainly Shia and Turkmen parties who have issued a statement to say moves to delay the elections were illegal.

Conversely, Adnan Pachachi, a former Sunni minister, is heading a group of 17 political parties asking that the 30 January vote be delayed by six months because of the violence, fearing the insurgency in Sunni towns will discourage people from voting, thus disenfranchising them. Significantly, the two major Kurdish parties have also signed up to the delay

Alawi, the interim leader appointed by Washington to run Iraq, has said that in centres of resistance like Fallujah elections could be “delayed” until stability existed there, without the vote being invalidated, or in other words Washington-style democracy would will be available in the first instance only to those who did not resist the occupation by US forces.

Alawi, it seems, has no real control over the situation, and though it is said he has the power to cancel the election if he wished, there still exists the US hand-picked seven-member commission set up to run the elections, which can bar any candidate or party from standing and which will be deciding who is and who is not eligible to stand as a candidate.

Under the rules, the Iraqi electorate will vote for a 275-member Transitional National Assembly. Political parties will submit a list of candidates and every third name has to be a woman’s. Those Parties with alleged connections to militias are disqualified from taking part, along with former leading members of the Baath Party.

The US hopes to have 150,000 troops in place in time for the election, evidence if ever it was needed that the crisis in Iraq is escalating. It was not so long ago that Bush was boasting how US troops had been greeted as liberators and projected that the country could be policed with 50,000 troops by the end of 2003. Now military analysts are cautioning that the Iraq army and police force will not be in a position to police the country for another ten years. So much, then for Bush’s claim that once a legitimate Iraqi government is up and running the troops will be on their way home.

And as for the post-election situation, make no mistake, any government elected in Iraq will be permitted to function only so long as it kowtows to the dictates of Washington. Whatever, government is elected to ‘rule’ Iraq on 30 January it will only be allowed to do so with the endorsement of the White House.

Here in Britain, Bush’s sidekick, Tony Blair, is likewise looking forward to a post-election regime in Iraq that has no real say on foreign investment. Moreover, Blair is desperate for elections to take place in Iraq for the simple reason that he needs something resembling a foreign policy success to present to voters in the run up to the election. Indeed any good news at all at the moment would be welcomed by New Labour.

The essential goal of the Bush regime in the Middle East remains the same as that of preceding administrations going back to WWII, and that is to reinforce control of the region’s oil reserves and the profits that arise from them. Furthermore, Washington is well aware that control of Middle East oil gives the US enormous leverage over its economic rivals, Europe, Japan and China, all of whom are more dependent on Middle Eastern oil than the US. China in particular is expected to have the same oil demands as the US within 25 years.

That Iraq has huge oils supplies is the sole reason the US cannot allow a government –  freely elected by its people and one advocating a US departure – to exist.

John Bissett