Backwaters of History - 10 (1954)

From the August 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

Barcelona 1937

Just before three o'clock on the afternoon of May 3rd, 1937, three lorries were threading their way through the streets of Barcelona, heading for the huge Plaza Plaza Cataluña in the centre of the city. They emerged into the Plaza, pulled up outside the Telephone Building and a body of police guards climbed out. Their leader, Rodriguez Salas, Commissioner of Public Order, went into the building, accompanied by a few guards. As he climbed to the first floor of the ten-storey building shots were fired from the windows of the upper storeys. Reinforcements of police were rushed up and a cordon was thrown round the building; thousands of people gathered in the Plaza whilst excitement ran through the streets to all corners of the city. The tension that had gripped Barcelona during the past few weeks now broke out into street fighting.

Far away, around Madrid and in other parts of Spain, Spanish Government forces were fighting desperately against the armies of the rebel General Franco. The Government forces were re-inforced by the International Brigades whilst  Franco was assisted by arms and troops  from Germany and Italy. But the fighting in Barcelona was not the outcome of a Fascist rising; that had occurred and had been subdued a year before.

Barcelona is the principal town in the Spanish province of  Catalonia. It has a long history of revolt, insurrection and rebellion. In 1931 a Catalan Republic was proclaimed, the Spanish Republican Government issuing a decree whereby the Catalan Government was given a free hand in the organisation of the four provinces forming Catalonia, which thus became autonomous in respect of its own domestic affairs.

The Fascist insurrection which had broken out against the Republican Government of Spain in July, 1936, had met with success in some districts but had collapsed within forty-eight hours in Barcelona. Army officers had marched out the troops from the Atarazanas Barracks in Barcelona and deployed them in the streets and in the Plaza de España and the Plaza Cataluña. They occupied the Telephone Building and the Hotel Colon opposite.

In the Calle Cortes and the Via Layetana the troops were resisted by small detachments of police and civil guards. In a very short time the whole of the population of Barcelona, men, women and children, joined in the fight. Barricades went up, buildings were seized, roofs and strategic positions occupied, machine-gun nests were established and the battle spread all over the city. As soon as the troops realised that they were being used by their officers to effect a coup-de-main, they broke ranks and fraternised with the people. From that moment the Fascist cause was lost in Barcelona, for a year or two at least.

The first shots were fired at five o'clock on the morning of Sunday, July 19th, and by Monday evening, except for some desultory sniping from the roofs, the battle was over.

A general strike all over Spain had been called in a radio announcement by Largo Caballero, President of the Union General de Trabajadores (General Workers' Union led by Labourites and Communists). When the fighting was over in Barcelona the strike still held. All shops, cafes, workshops, factories, etc., were closed, and dead bodies lay out in the streets amongst the battle-scarred buildings.

The various trade unions and political parties set about re-organising and recruiting their militias, at the same time taking over the control of the city and surrounding district. Public eating-houses were opened, supplies were arranged, transport requisitioned and a system of passes and permits out into operation. Most goods were obtainable except cigarettes; looting was nil. Each of the trade unions and political parties took a prominent building for its headquarters and the red and black flag of the Confederation Nacional de Trabajo (Anarchist Trade Union) and the red flag of the Partido Obrero de Unificacion Marxista (party of united Marxists) flew from factories, printing establishments, municipal offices, hotels and the buildings of other industrial undertakings. The proprietors of cafes, hotels and industries, were given an opportunity to work at some suitable task, side by side with their erstwhile employees, on a co-operative basis. If they declined they were dismissed.

During the struggle against the Fascist rebels and immediately after, thousands of workers flocked to join the "left" political parties without any definite understanding of the political principles involved. The enthusiasm of was immense. The Olympic Games teams, due to perform in Barcelona at that time, paraded through the city. The Federación Anarquista Ibérica (Anarchist organisation) became the most popular party. The differences between many of the organisations that existed became indistinct and there was much federating and amalgamating. All the major organisations had their own armed militia and a Militias Committee was set up with representatives from each. A Supplies Committee was formed in a similar way. As these committees commanded the only armed force remaining in Barcelona, they assumed most of the governmental power.

The official Catalonian Government was composed of Liberal Nationalists, moderate Labourites and Communists. Public services such as education and the administration of justice were left in the hands of this government whilst the committees made decisions on other matters, but in order to re-assure foreign governments, the committee's decrees were sent to the government to be officially stamped.

This dual form of control caused complications and it was eventually decided to solve the problems by reconstructing the official government so that it included representatives of all the workers' parties and the trade unions. Both the anarchists, who were anti-parliamentarian, and the P.O.U.M., which was opposed to the united front, entered this new government. On July 31st, the new government was formed with Luis Companys, a Liberal, as president. Almost immediately conflict broke out between the various political groupings. The Anarchists and the P.O.U.M. wanted to keep military power in the hands of their own organisations, whilst the Labour and Communist parties claimed that all armed forces should be under governmental control.

The Communists were anxious for support from Russia which the Russian Government was prepared to give providing such support did not conflict with its foreign policy of seeking friendly relations with Britain and France. Labourites and Communists, urged by the fear of foreign intervention in the civil war, argued that the war against Franco must take precedence over all other considerations. They called for the disbanding of the workers' armed patrols and the surrender of all arms to the government.

Towards the end of April 1937, the situation became tense. Parties accused one another of being "Fascist spies" or "Fifth Columnists." In an endeavour to discredit one group or another and to alienate support from opponents, acts of sabotage were perpetrated which endangered the success of the war against Franco. On April 25th, Roldan Cortada, leader of a Labour Youth Movement, was murdered by persons unknown near Molins de Llobregat, a suburb of Barcelona. Two days later the anarchist mayor of Puigcerda, Antonio Martin was shot and killed. Each faction looked accusingly at the others. On May 1st, all May Day demonstrations were banned for fear of disturbances. Then came the incident at the Telephone Building on May 3rd.

The Telefonica building had been in the hands of the Anarchists since they first occupied it in the early days of the Fascist uprising and they had a sentimental attachment to it. The government claimed that the Anarchists were tapping the telephone the telephone lines but the manner of government police occupation of the Telefonica on May 3rd was undoubtedly provocative.

Shooting broke out in all parts of Barcelona; practically all workers ceased work; trade union offices and political party headquarters were sandbagged; barricades were erected and machine guns placed. Luis Companys issued an order to disarm the workers' patrols but the police could not finish what they had started. The news and the trouble spread to other towns in Catalonia.

"The details of the street fighting which lasted from May 3rd. to May 7th, and cost some 950 dead, some 3,000 wounded and millions of pesetas' worth of ammunition in the worst street fighting in Europe since the Paris Commune, are still open to dispute. The general line is not."

(Civil War in Spain, by Frank Jellinek, page 545.)

The Anarchist leaders protested that they were not responsible for the fighting and, together with leaders of all other parties, appealed over the radio for a cease fire with orations that "drew tears but not obedience." (Jellinek). The Anarchist trade unions issued an order to return to work, but fighting continued. Leadership in the fighting passed into the hands of the youthful enthusiasts of the smaller extremist organisations on both sides.

The Spanish Republican Government, which had moved to Valenica from Madrid, now sent General Pozas, with 4,000 police, to take over the military governorship of Catalonia. Armed police and soldiers withdrawn from the front at Jarama, arrived in warships at Barcelona harbour. The British warship, Despatch, headed full steam for the city. The fighting subsided but an occasional incident it to flare up in odd places. The Valencian police finally suppressed all resistance ruthlessly. The rising faded out and Catalonian independence went with it. Franco finally conquered Barcelona, to which the Spanish Government had withdrawn, on January 26th., 1939, after months of heroic defence and terrific slaughter by air bombardment and naval blockade.

No capitalist government, whatever its composition, be it Liberal, Labour, Communist, Anarchist, or any mixture of them, can allow the armed forces of the state to pass out of its control. An armed working class is a menace to the system. In class society the dominant class must have at its disposal the power to maintain "law and oder" amongst the class that it dominates, even when it is divided within itself.

Bibliography:
"Civil War in Spain," by Frank Jellinek
'The Truth about Barcelona," by Fenner Brockway
"The Truth about the Barcelona Events", by Lamda
"Murder in Spain," by Roberto (Article in International Review, June, 1937)
"Spain", International Press Correspondence Special Edition, May, 1938

W. Waters

Must the Workers Control Parliament? (1928)

From the September 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the July issue of the Commune, Mr. Guy Aldred devotes some space to a criticism of the Socialist policy of gaining control of Parliament. He takes a number of passages from the report on the debate with Mr. Maxton (published in the June "S.S.") and appends his comments. He quotes correctly enough the statement that the "armed forces are provided for annually by Parliament," and then devotes a paragraph to "proving" that "Parliament does not provide the armed forces by annual voting." By the substitution of the word "provide" in place of "provide for," he is able to disprove something which we did not say. It is true that Parliament does not vote each year an Act to sanction the existence of an armed force. What it does have to do each year is to pass the Army (Annual) Act without which the maintenance of discipline would become impossible, and it has to vote each year the monies needed for the upkeep of those armed forces. If Parliament did not pass the Army Act and vote supplies, the armed forces would cease to exist.

He admits the correctness of the statement that "those who control Parliament control the armed forces," but adds the comment that the Capitalists "are the controllers of Parliament because they are the owners of surplus-value." This is simply not true. Capitalist candidates are placed in control of Parliament (as Mr. Aldred admits) by working-class votes, and the Capitalist class do not exercise, and have no means of exercising compulsion on the workers to make them vote for Capitalism. Unfortunately, the workers vote for Capitalist candidates from choice.

Mr. Aldred's statement that "every person who is elected to Parliament and participates in its work is an agent of Capitalism" requires some explanation.

What does he mean by "participates in its work"? Socialist candidates will be elected to Parliament to use it for the purpose of instituting Socialism.

Mr. Aldred denies that it is necessary for the workers to obtain control of the political machinery in order to establish Socialism, but beyond an unsupported assertion that it is contrary to the "common sense of the working-class experience" and to the materialist conception of history, he avoids giving any reason why control of the political machinery will not serve the purpose of a Socialist Party. As the working-class have never attempted to use Parliament for the purpose of establishing Socialism, it would be interesting to know of what experience Mr. Aldred is thinking.

After roundly condemning the Socialist Party (among other things, Mr. Aldred makes the lying statement that we advocate "the Nationalisation" of the I.L.P., under which the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer") he goes onto offer to support our candidates at election provided they pledge themselves "to challenge the oath of allegiance." So Mr. Aldred can swallow the "Nationalisation of the I.L.P.," provided the pill is sugared with a meaningless pledge to challenge the oath of allegiance. Mr. Aldred's place would appear to be in the I.L.P.

Edgar Hardcastle

Cooking the Books: “We are the 99 percent” (2011)

The Cooking the Books Column from the December 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

So proclaim some of those who called for the occupation of Wall Street, explaining: “We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to choose between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are suffering from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we’re working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything. We are the 99 percent” (wearethe-99percent.tumblr.com).

A powerful appeal - the sort of thing we might say ourselves. But who are “the other 1 percent” that are getting the best of everything? According to WeAreThe99percent, “they are the banks, the mortgage  industry, the insurance industry”, by which they presumably mean the rich people who own and control these financial corporations. But is that all of them? Apparently. But if so, this is wrong.

In 2010 CoreData research calculated that the number of millionaires (defined as those having a £1 million in addition to their principal residence) in Britain was 284,317 or 1.1 percent of households. So, the figure of 1 percent of those who benefit from the present system is more or less correct. However: “The study found that the majority of millionaires’ assets are held in shares at 34.2 per cent, while 32.2 per cent is invested in property and 13.2 per cent is held in cash. Just over 5 per cent of their money is invested in physical items, such as antiques, collectibles and art” (Daily Telegraph, 30 September 2010).

So they are not just bankers. In fact, at least in Britain, the biggest group seems to be property speculators and landowners. And the shares will be held in all sorts of capitalist corporations, not just banks and insurance companies. In other words, the 1 percent are capitalists in general. In suggesting that they are just the bankers WeAreThe99percent have got it wrong. It’s a mistake insofar as it suggests that if the bankers are dealt with (whether through banking reform or nationalisation) then the problems facing the 99 percent will go away, which of course they won’t as they are not caused by greedy bankers and the like but by the whole capitalist system.

It’s obviously not the intention, but to say that the 1 percent who exploit the rest of the population are just the bankers is to imply that non-financial capitalists are part of us, the 99 percent, when clearly they are not as they don’t face problems over housing, healthcare, inadequate pay or finding a job. “We Are The 99 percent” is an appealing slogan, but misleading if it means “everyone except bankers”. It should  mean something more like “everyone except the capitalist class”.

A wit once accused us of defining the working class as “everyone apart from the fat controller”. This is because we define the working class as everyone who, owning no means or instruments of production, is obliged by economic necessity to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary to live or, otherwise, to depend on state handouts. In a developed part of the world such as Britain this amounts to about 90 percent of households and this is the group we look to end capitalism because they have a material interest in doing so. The other 10 percent is made up of the 1 percent of capitalists and 7-9 percent of “self-employed” (not that we’ve anything against most of them as they don’t exploit the working class). The trouble is “We Are The 93 percent” is not quite so snappy a slogan.

Robbed blind (1993)

Book Review from the March 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dare To Be A Daniel—A History of One of Britain's Earliest Syndicalist Unions. by Wilf McCartney. Kate Sharpley Library, BM Hurricane, London WC1 3XX.

The misery of wage slaves exploited in the catering business has always been particularly bad. Although Wilf McCartney's twenty-four page booklet on the subject, written originally in 1942 and published in 1945 with a preface by Orwell, is written in a workmanlike, sometimes poorly-crafted style, it expresses well the plight of the catering workers then and now. Reading it, what is clear is just how little has changed. It has always been a notoriously hard occupation to unionize, based mainly on casual and cheap foreign labour, and McCartney shows how little the official trade unions did to support catering workers. Reports of minor successes in rank-and-file strikes are written up encouragingly, but the hard fact is that catering workers are still being robbed blind by hotel and restaurant bosses despite earlier militancy.

Politically, McCartney's radicalism was of a pretty confused nature. Of relevance here is that he joined the SPGB in its early (not as a founder member) and makes the following critical comments about his experience:

I and others joined this party to learn socialism, but later, along with H. Maslin [surely, H. Martin—editors] and others, we left because of a letter in the Socialist Standard signed "Upton Park". The questioner wanted to know what would be the action of a member of the SPGB elected to Parliament, and the answer was that the Socialist member, backed by the revolutionary votes outside, would consider capitalist measures on their merits! This was quite enough for us.

McCartney is here referring to one of the most historically interesting formative conflicts in this party. The Socialist Party was formed to advocate socialism and nothing but. We have always rejected any compromise with the capitalist system. In 1910 some members, interpreting this principled anti-reformism as a dogmatic opposition to all reforms under capitalism, put their point by writing a letter to the Socialist Standard signed "W. B. of Upton Park". The reply given to them was that a single socialist or a minority of socialists elected to parliament on the basis of whether such measures benefitted or harmed the working class. For example, if measures extending the freedom of socialists to disseminate ideas or reducing election deposits or banning religious control of schooling were on the agenda it is quite possible that a socialist minority would be instructed to vote for them.

The minority within the SPGB formed a Provisional Committee to oppose this policy. Like dogmatic sectarians, inspired by doctrine to dismiss social reality, they went as far as to argue that no reforms have ever helped or could ever benefit the working class. The exchange of documents between the Executive Committee, expressing the position which we maintain today, and the ultra-sectarian Committee, of which McCartney was possibly a member, is highly educative and explains well why our party is opposed to reformism but not to reforms.

Many of our opponents on the Left, embarrassed by our unceasing exposure of their own rotten reformism, have tried to attack the Socialist Party by attacking what is actually the position of the few members of the Provisional Committee who left this party precisely because we do not hold the view in question. McCartney did hold that view, left the SPGB and went on to join the Syndicalist Propaganda League which was soon to disappear into the mists of history. What a pity that a man of such evident passion and union militancy did not stay within the ranks of the one revolutionary party committed to the abolition of the wages system.

Steve Coleman

A New Magazine (1962)

From the December 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing that is new can be dismissed out of hand. If that sounds like a truism, it is at least one that bears and needs repetition. Ignorance and prejudice still stalk the world, and the untried, the unknown, are ruthlessly annihilated.

The approach of the Socialist is completely opposite to this. Our approach is and always must be scientific. In that spirit then, we examine yet one more journal, amid the welter of journals that fill the bookstalls, which claims to spread enlightenment.

October saw the launching of New Society, described as the social science weekly. The general layout is excellent, while the actual printing is a model to many of its contemporaries. Some idea of the range of subjects can be seen in a few of the articles in number one. "Softening the Sack" deals with redundancy and job security. "New facts on Teen-Age Marriage" with considerable detail. Barbara Wootton contributes "Socrates, Science and Social Problems" — a plea for the scientific approach to social problems. The Home Secretary is interviewed by editor Timothy Raison on his approach to crime, and Robert Bierstedt, head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology of New York University, gives a report on the various papers read to the recent meeting of the American Sociological Association.

Taken in all, there is much to interest and inform. But a word of warning. The leading article endeavours to explain the aims and methods of New Society, thus:

We shall not ignore ideas and theories; indeed we see their interpretation as one of the principal challenges to us. But we aim above all to link the study of society with practice; to tell the manager what the psychologist has to say, to make the town planner aware of what the social anthropologist is revealing, to inform the local government official or councillor of the trends revealed by the demographer, to enable the magistrate to know what the criminologist has to offer and—in each case equally important—vice versa. The experience of the practitioner and the research of the academic are complementary, and our contributors will be drawn from both groups.

We can be under no illusion then, of the path that will be taken. However scientific the approach may be in intention, the sciences must be kept within the bounds of the existing social order—capitalism. This makes a mockery of the very name of the science and means that just one more hunter joins in chasing a will-o-the-wisp, for we know that the problems of society can only be solved by the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Nevertheless, there will be much worth studying in this journal if the early issues live up to their promise.

H. J. W.

Proper Gander: Court On Camera (2015)

The Proper Gander Column from the February 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

Watch some of ITV’s output during weekday afternoons and you’ll feel like you’re being punished for having nothing better to do. One such guilty displeasure is Judge Rinder, the UK’s version of American ratings magnet Judge Judy. A TV studio has been turned into a mock-up courtroom, complete with a public gallery, clerks, and a non-authentic gavel. The cases are real; the sort heard in small claims courts. Someone is trying to get their money back from builders for unfinished work; someone else is trying to get an ex-friend to repay a disputed loan. Presiding over the court is Judge Robert Rinder, who grills each claimant and defendant, then decides how the situation should be resolved.

The programme carefully doesn’t dwell on the lack of legal weight the judge’s judgements have. Instead, it’s all about how waspish he can make his remarks. Judge Judy’s amiable-as-barbed wire approach has been replaced by Rinder’s prissy sarcasm. He very much enjoys playing to the camera, grabbing hold of each defendant or claimant’s mistakes and wringing out a chuckle or a gasp from the studio audience. Trust and generosity are often dismissed as ‘stoopid’, while among his other witticisms are ‘listening doesn’t mean I’m believing’ and ‘I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing near you’. Rinder’s attitude reminds us that the law is there to put us ‘in our place’. Blot out his snarky wisecracks, and the programme gives a sad picture of how the way we relate to each other often boils down to a financial transaction. So, when money isn’t paid, relationships get broken. For all that Rinder aims for a common sense resolution, the contracts and rights of ownership involved are often ridiculously convoluted. Society tangles us up in these knots and then, as even Rinder acknowledges, the law can’t repair the damage caused to friendships and families. What the show does is package this hurt into what’s meant to be entertainment.

Mike Foster

Obituary: Jim Glitz (1982)

Obituary from the May 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with great sadness that we report the loss of our comrade, Jim Glitz, who died of a heart attack on 10 March. Jim joined the Hackney branch in 1946 and in recent years was an enthusiastic contributor to the activities of Islington branch. Our comrade was an outspoken opponent of all upholders of privilege, including the "leaders" on the left wing who believe workers are too stupid to do their own thinking. Working in the kitchen of London's most fashionable resting place for parasites, the Ritz Hotel, Jim was able to observe at first hand the sickening class division of capitalism. "Glitz of the Ritz", as he was nicknamed, was a remarkably compassionate man, whose respect for all living beings and hatred of callousness marked him as a real socialist. I travelled with Jim on several speaking tours and was struck by his single-minded dedication to revolutionary change and his constant willingness to lend a hand whenever practical work work was needed to be done. Jim Glitz's repertoire of jokes will go down in history as among the worst on record; but his skill as a chess player will not be forgotten easily by the numerous members who tried, but failed, to win against him. Above all, Jim will be remembered by his comrades as a principled socialist who, compared to the idle capitalists who employed him, was a giant.

SC 

Editorial: Ninety nine percent of politics is crap! (1995)

Editorial from the December 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Millions of people today are angry. Angry that nobody listens as they continue their daily struggle simply to exist. Angry that the professional politicians who seek their votes once every few years seem more concerned with their own welfare, and that of those like them, than with the lives of ordinary people. Angry that while the problems that beset society get worse, nobody does anything about it. The politicians make promises, of course—but then again, they always did.

Disillusionment with the major parties is rife. Who really believes that a Labour government would be any better than a Tory one? People may hate the Conservatives and all they stand for, but they have little confidence in Labour either. They remember all too well that the last Labour government saw unemployment double, inflation take off, and real cuts in social services expenditure together with falling real wages.

The Labour Party, like the Tories and Liberal Democrats, don't really listen and certainly don't learn. They offer nothing today which they haven't offered before in some shape or form, and which only brought failure in the past. No matter which party or parties have been in office, the problems have continued—class division, unemployment, poverty, environmental destruction, war and a whole host more.

The truth is that on their past records alone none of the political parties which dominate politics today deserve the support of the majority in society who have to work for a living, or exist on benefits. They are all a standing joke. The trouble is that the joke is really on us. For as long as they rule, insecurity of life and today's social problems will continue to exist. This is because the system which puts the wealth and power of the privileged before the needs of the majority will still be intact. In the market economy—whether free market or with state regulation—profits always come first and the interests of wage and salary earners a poor second.

We think that it is time to tell the politicians that enough is enough and that they—and the system they uphold—are not needed any more. A real social democracy, where production is for use not profit and where the opportunity for real democratic participation will exist, is up for grabs if a majority of us want it. Do you want real social change badly enough to want to do something about it? The Socialist Party does—perhaps you owe it to yourself to find out a bit more about us.

Money gets in the way (1983)

From the October 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arriving from Glasgow Central on the 6.15am train into Euston, I cursed at my second-class seat which was too uncomfortable to sleep on and too boring to sit up in. I had finally nodded off at 3.45, only to be nudged by the ticket collector who, contrary to description, does not collect tickets, like some people collect model soldiers, but walks around the train picking up all the tickets only in order to deposit them in a bin and destroy them. Clearly, the ticket is of no intrinsic value; one does not see the collector rushing to the driver to pass him the precious ticket fuel. Scraps of old paper which to me represent a passport back to London: no money, no ticket; no ticket, no travel. What was that about the freedom of movement which British workers are supposed to be grateful to possess?

Off the train and straight into a queue for a new ticket. My underground trip will last twenty minutes. In less than half an hour I could be where I want to be, but . . . secure barriers obscure my access to the trains. I fumble for the right coins to put in the ticket machines, but fail and fall victim to a twelve minute queue: it takes 60 per cent as long to buy my way on to the train as to travel on it. I mention to the man in front of me how strange it is that the public are supposed to own the railways yet we have to pay to travel on them. Imagine if you owned a bicycle and you had to pay the government every time you had a ride on it — then it would not be yours, just as the "public services" do not belong to the public. The man in front of me asks me something in Swedish (the way to Pimlico, I think), and as I search my briefcase for an SPGB Swedish introductory leaflet I notice an old man sitting on the floor playing a mouth organ to the tune of his own misery. It is usual to call such men tramps and to hope that they will not come near you. A few travellers threw pennies into his hat, but it was easy to see that money was the disease from which this man was suffering, not the cure. "There's your Victorian values for you" I muttered to the incomprehending Swede, and "Highbury and Islington" I shouted through the glass at the bored-looking London Transport coin collector.

Having exchanged metal for paper I am free to travel. The ticket office could close tomorrow and the trains would still run on time. On the platform I am confronted by an array of wallposter women who offer me everything from the chance to get rich when I'm dead (Life Insurance) to stereo systems which have a different knob for every reason why I can't afford them.

Arrive; throw the indispensable ticket on the floor. I think of my breakfast and reach to my wallet so see how big my appetite is. My stomach presents me with a comprehensive menu, but my wallet is on a diet. Given the choice between chewing into my remaining pound note or exchanging it for some food I decide to give the Queen's head a miss and opt for something tastier.

Sitting in the grubby cafe in Upper Street, Islington, I wonder where all the greedy people are — the ones who opponents of free access seem to know so well. The two Securicor men at the next table, who guard gold and eat the cheapest food, do not appear to be indulging in a banquet of gluttony. I ask the Greek proprietor whether he knew any cases of people eating ten or twenty dinners a day. He wishes that he did — such greed would be good for business. Lack of money prevents many workers from getting enough to eat, but where is the evidence that people with free access to food would eat until they were sick? And the so-called lazy people — where are they? Through the window I see hundreds of wage slaves rushing to work. Apart from the odd yawn, probably inspired by the monotony which is to come for many of them, the men and women in the street seem eager to get to work. How much more eager they would be if their incentive was the knowledge that they were running society for the sole benefit of satisfying human needs, including their own. Over the road a queue is forming outside the busiest shop in the street: the Job Centre. The wasteful scene of a queue of men and women who want to work, but are locked out of productive activity because there is no money to be made in employing them.

I turn to the taller of the Securicor men and mention how much saner it would be to live in a world without money. Spitting small lumps of tea-covered bacon into my face as he speaks, Brother Securicor explains the facts of life:

"We've always had money".

"No, we haven't". Now, this throws him. I point out that money is a relatively new invention, arising out of property society.

"Look mate, money makes the world go round. How would you get things without money?"

"But people starve and go homeless and are refused medical attention in a world of potential abundance simply because they lack money". By now I detect that look in my listener's eye which indicates that he thinks I'm mad or — as I like to think — his imagination is being aroused by the idea of a world of common ownership and democratic control. The questions pour out as if they have been waiting to be asked for years, and the answers are responded to with a nod which represents a uniquely human recognition of rationality. I am definitely getting through to this one. After a while Securicor Two, who has been listening and reading the Sun at the same time, begins to become restless: how dare some loud-mouthed crank, without so much as a degree in economics to his name, sit in a cafe and re-organise the world over breakfast. His mate refuses to desist: his brain has shifted from automatic to self-drive and now there is no stopping him. We discuss all the useless jobs which the money system creates: insurance salesmen, cashiers, ticket collectors, bank staff, moneylenders, accountants, security guards. Then we go on to the problems caused by money: no money and starve; can't pay the rent and you're homeless; nearly every worker on earth suffers in one way or another because what he or she needs is beyond his or her monetary reach. During the course of the conversation Comrade Securicor cursed as he recalled his old friend who had been made an invalid while defending diamonds for some idle parasite. Money is dangerous: one only has to think of the victims of muggings whose faces are slashed for five quid and the victims of legalised mass muggings called wars who die for the patriotic plunder of their masters.

In a society where the earth's resources were owned commonly and controlled democratically — socialism — wealth will not be bought and sold. Envisage a moneyless world community where production is for use and access to the common wealth is the equal right of every human being. My friend in the cafe ponders in this thought and, convinced, for the moment at least, that socialism is worth aiming for, he takes a copy of the Socialist Standard and promises to read every word of it. Then he goes off to waste his day risking his life to secure someone else's money.

So satisfied am I with my success at socialist persuasion that I decide to visit the library until it is time to enjoy and early drink in the Cock Tavern. Standing before the bar my thirst grows as I survey the variety of drinks on offer. "What'll it be?" asks the barman. "Nothing" I reply, suddenly remembering that my wallet had taken the pledge. Money makes the world go round? Well, it's about time we let it go round in the other direction.

Steve Coleman

Letter: 'Socialists and War' (2015)

Letter to the Editors from the February 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors

Recently my daughter brought me from England a copy of the August edition of  the Socialist Standard' with the excellent, moving and very informative articles on 'The Old Lie' –  the First World War. (She got it at the Anarchist Book Fair on 18 October)

I was brought up in an English Communist family in the 40s and 50s'. My parents, like thousands of other outraged party members, left the CP over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956.

I come from Dartford in Kent but have lived in Colombia since the mid 80s and before that was over a decade on an Irish island off Donegal. I have been militantly active politically all my life since childhood, especially in the Direct Action branches of CND/Committee of 100 (I worked as secretary to Bertrand Russell as a young woman) and the anti-Vietnam war movement.

Are you a specifically pacifist organization? I don't have access to internet out here as I live in a remote mountain region, but once a week am able to send my computer out on the one-and-only 'bus' to our nearest market town (a village) to send and receive post. So unfortunately I can't look you up on a website to find out more about you.

Congratulations to Richard Headicar, Steve Clayton, and 'Ivan' for their shocking and important articles. Disturbing and necessary reading.

JENNY JAMES, Colombia.

REPLY:  

We are not actually a specifically pacifist organisation. We are opposed to war on socialist grounds in that wars today are fought over rival capitalist interests concerning sources of raw materials, trade routes, markets and investment outlets and strategic points and areas to protect these. This is why we say that members of the majority class of those obliged to work for a wage or a salary for a living have no interests at stake in them and so should refuse to take part in the killing and maiming of their fellow workers from some other country.

 We also consider that a socialist majority that has won control of political power democratically should reserve the right to use armed force, if necessary, to deal with any armed resistance to the establishment of socialism by some recalcitrant pro-capitalist minority should this occur. – Editors 

Haringey teach-in (1966)

Party News from the July 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our comrade Grant represented the Haringey (formerly Wood Green and Hornsey) Branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain at a controversial teach-in on Vietnam, sponsored by Haringey Council, on May 21. The local Tories had refused to take part. "We are not interested in the goings-on of a lot of long haired cranks and loonies", declared one councillor.

Our comrade spoke in opposition to Baron Brockway, Richard Gott, a local CND man, Labour M.P. Norman Atkinson and academics Sean Gervasi and Malcolm Caldwell.

The Socialist speaker was the only dissenting voice as he didn't support the Vietcong. After pointing out that many of those who clamoured for "Peace in Vietnam" in fact wanted a victory for the Vietcong, our speaker went on to say that in the 19th century when capitalism had not yet established itself against feudalism as the dominant world system, Marx had taken sides in wars because he held that the triumph of capitalism over feudalism was necessary for social progress. For over half a century now capitalism had dominated the world and the idea that Socialists should take sides in wars was obsolete. What was going on in Latin America, Asia and Africa was the transition from feudal society to capitalism. Movements like the Vietcong, when victorious, led not to the establishment of a classless society but to the rise of a new ruling class. This had happened in Russia and China where state capitalism existed. Socialists did not support such movements nor did they take sides in the Vietnam war. As far as they were concerned wars would last as long as capitalism and there was no solution to the Vietnam war. The task of Socialists could only be to make more Socialists.

How Not To Do It (1969)

Book Review from the February 1969 issue of the Socialist Standard

Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak. (Allen Lane, 35s.)

Edward Luttwak is deliberately deadpan about this book. His aim, he says, is to produce something along the same lines as a cookery book which will enable "any layman equipped with enthusiasm—and the right ingredients—to carry out his own coup . . . if, as a result of this book, a greater number of people learn how to carry them out this is merely a step towards democratization of the coup—a fact that all persons of liberal sentiments should applaud."

In fact, the work is a good deal better than his introduction suggests. Although the second half is largely given to a study of the actual mechanics of the coup and the military strategy needed to make it a success, the earlier sections are an absorbing study of the factors which make a coup d'état possible. Much of this is of indirect interest to socialists.

Fortunately, Luttwak does not ruin his analysis by confusing the coup with social revolution. He goes out of his way to stress that the coup is "a seizure of power within the present system". He also recognises that the essential pre-condition for the coup d'état is economic backwardness and the mass political indifference which results from it. Thus, while the December coup in Brazil succeeded because of the lack of political involvement of the mass of peasants and workers, in an advanced industrial country such a seizure of power could only be permanent if it were accepted by the working class. To illustrate this, Luttwak refers to the Gaullist coup of May 1958 in France, which was successful for this reason, and to the parallel attempt by Generals Challe, Salan and others in April 1961. The latter was aborted by the massive resistance of the workers in France.

In the world today every country is to a greater or lesser extent capitalist, having to trim its economy to the world markets—but only in the advanced areas is this achieved thanks to the working class. In the bulk of what is called the "third world" capitalist economies are being developed without any involvement by the mass of the people; except, of course, as beasts of burden—as producers of surplus product. Luttwak has noticed one symptom of this—the fact that, since almost any form of political awareness is confined to a small fraction of the population, the coup d'état comes into its own. On the other hand, in industrialised areas capitalism is maintained precisely because the working class accepts it as the only possible way of running society and uses its votes to express this conviction.

The implication of this for working class intent on capturing political power go deeper than merely exposing the irrelevance of the coup d'état as a strategy for socialists. It means that before socialism can be established the majority of workers must be committed to setting up a new form of society and must have a clear idea of what this involves.

John Crump

Cooking the Books: What is Capitalism Like? (2015)

The Cooking the Books column from the February 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whatever people think of Russell Brand – and you either like him or you loathe him – he has at least put apologists for capitalism on the defensive. One of these is the owner of a medium-sized business called Ian Baxter who wrote an open letter to Brand in the Times (8 December) under the headline ‘Capitalism is to prosperity what breathing is to life’.

Introducing himself,  he said he was a capitalist: ‘I  invest capital in my business expecting a return. The bigger the better.’ Yes, that is what capitalism is about – investing capital with a view to profit. And a capitalist is someone who lives off profits.

According to Baxter, ‘capitalism is a force for good’. It puts money into the bank accounts of employees. ‘It puts the food on our tables.’  It ‘enabled the world to meet the millennium development goal of halving global poverty by 2015 five years early.’

Capitalist firms do put money into their employees’ bank accounts. But this is not charity. It is payment for something the employees have sold them, namely, their mental and physical energies, their labour-power. It’s not philanthropy either. As Baxter said, firms invest capital ‘expecting a return’. Without the work of employees there would be no returns. In fact, since the only way wealth can be produced is by humans applying their mental and physical energies to materials that originally came from nature, workers create the whole of a firm’s added value, including the return on capital. Their work is the source of profit and that’s why they are employed.

So, you could say that capitalism is to exploitation what breathing is to life.

Capitalism ‘puts the food on our tables’. Presumably he means that, in pursuit of profit, capitalist firms arrange for food to be grown, transported, stored, and sold to us. This is indeed how capitalism works. Food is produced for sale with a view to profit but only to that extent. Capitalism will only put food on your table to the extent that you can pay for it. The more you can afford to pay the more and better the food you will get, and vice versa, the less income you have the less and poorer quality food you will get. And if you’ve no money at all, tough luck. Capitalism will not put any food on your table and you’ll have to starve or rely on charity.

Which brings us to global poverty. We all know that millions of people in the world are starving. After all, we saw all the appeals over Christmas. Less well known is that the world already now produces enough food, if distributed differently, to end starvation, and that the capacity exists to produce much more so that starvation could be ended without needing to take from some to give to others. So, why, if capitalism is so good, are there millions of people who are starving?

The millennium goal of halving world poverty may have been met but if capitalism did this, why did it stop half-way and not end global poverty entirely? We already know the answer:  it is not profitable to grow food, build houses, provide health care or clean water for people who cannot pay for them.

Baxter can’t have it both ways, attributing to capitalism all the good (or non-bad) things that happen under it while ignoring the bad things. In the 20th century capitalism caused two world wars in which millions died, not to mention the lesser wars and slumps.  So, why not ‘capitalism is to war what breathing is to life’? Why not ‘capitalism is to economic crises what breathing is to life’? Why not indeed.

Confessions of a Dorking housewife (1985)

From the October 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

I was born and brought up in the South of England, in an area where the wealth and privilege of the minority of people are fairly easy to see. Like the majority in the area, however, my background was working-class. Unusually, my father was an avid Labour Party supporter and, as a child, I heard many of the arguments against the capitalist system. I was led to believe that the only answer to the basic injuries of capitalism lay in the hands of a Labour government.

In the years of the Wilson governments in the 1960s it became clear to me that Labour was basically no different from the Conservatives, but I had no idea where to find a real alternative to obviously bankrupt ideas. Then I went to Tower Hill one weekday lunchtime in 1967 to listen to the speakers. There, beside Lord Soper and at a greater distance from a man who swallowed fire and swung a long cain around his head at great speed, stood a speaker from the SPGB. It could hardly be called the still small voice as he was highly voluble, attacking fiercely the hecklers who shouted at him.

I found his arguments cogent and the party case was, in my view, based on sound commonsense. His words were particularly interesting to someone who had been waiting in vain for the Labour Party to tackle the multifarious problems thrown up by capitalist society: poverty, war, racism, famine, industrial relations, unemployment, drug-taking, disease — the list is endless. It is a widely held view that young people are often "left wing" but as they grow older (and by implication, more sensible) they move inevitably towards the "centre" then often on to the "right wing" of the political spectrum. However, if you understand the arguments of the SPGB you are unlikely to move anywhere else.

My experience of work and motherhood has taught me more about a woman's place in capitalism and its intrinsic conflicts and difficulties. So as my life goes on I want to work just as urgently for a socialist world where we can all share the better life. Why don't you join the struggle with us?

Juliet Jeffreys 

Marx and the Sunday Times (1963)

From the November 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some readers of the George Schwartz column in the Sunday Times of September 15th will have been surprised to see a headline “But Marx didn’t say so” and still more surprised at the opening paragraph:

“The process of enlightenment goes on apace, and at such a pace that one is apt to be bedazzled. I say this somewhat ruefully because an article in the current number of the Economica on “Marxian Value Reconsidered” almost persuades me to become a Marxian.”

Schwartz quoted extensively from the article in question to show, among other things, that Marx never believed capitalism would collapse through breakdown in a crisis; on the contrary, as Marx himself put it: “There are no permanent crises,” and that Marx did not accept a theory of general over-production.

“The trouble arises,” says Schwartz, in his paraphrase of Marx, “because the economy does not progress evenly. The very dynamism of capitalist enterprise brings about miscalculations and disproportionalities. The respective equilibriums of the various lines of production are constantly being disturbed and the conflict periodically leads to a crises which necessitates a transformation of the system.”

At this point Mr. Schwartz draws back from his passing feeling of affinity with Marx and offers to discuss amicably with the ghost of Karl the problem of seeking corrective action for capitalism’s maladjustments.

The article from which Schwartz quotes is by Thomas Sowell of Rutgers University USA, and in the August issue of Economica (London School of Economics, 10s) Sowell sets out to explain (with numerous quotations and references to sources) the meaning of Marx’s law of value and its place in the general framework of his analysis of capitalism, and to show how Marx’s approach to economics differed from that of other economists. Sowell also examines Marx’s views on crises and disposes of some common misconceptions-to the surprise of Mr. Schwartz. It may surprise both Sowell and Schwartz to know that recognition of the wrongness of the “collapse” theories is not new for the SPGB. In the 1932 crisis, for example, in a short pamphlet “Why capitalism will not collapse,” earlier crises were examined and the conclusion drawn:

. . . there is no simple way out of capitalism by leaving the system to collapse of its own accord. Until a sufficient number of workers are prepared to organize politically for the conscious purpose of ending capitalism, that system will stagger on indefinitely from one crisis to another.

At that time leaders of the ILP and the Communist Party were hysterically proclaiming the imminent collapse of capitalism.

Edgar Hardcastle