Halo Halo!: Catholics and Aliens (2015)

The Halo Halo! Column from the September 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

A question in the Guardian G2’s ‘Notes and Queries’ column (where Guardian readers respond to each other’s queries on anything that happens to be puzzling them) recently asked ‘If  there is intelligent life out there, what are the chances that it might believe in God?’

Following the recent news that exoplanet Kepler 452b appears to be remarkably Earth-like, the Vatican appears to have the answer. The Pope, it seems, is way ahead of the rest of us on this and has been prepared for the possibility for some time. In addition to the squad of exorcists the Vatican keeps on the payroll to deal with earth-bound satanic beings, they apparently also have their own astronomers to keep an eye out for aliens who presumably, if not already Catholics, could be converted.

‘If there was intelligent life (on another planet) I don’t see that as a contradiction with the Christian faith’, said one Vatican astronomer. ‘If God created aliens somewhere out there, then the Vatican is in no position to say Jesus wasn’t for them too’. (Independent 2 August). And another, back in 2010, informed us that ‘aliens who seek baptism should receive it from the church, because any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul.’

And according to another 2008 Independent article, Fr Jose Gabriel Funes, the Vatican priest in charge of the stargazing department announced that ‘Alien life would be part of God’s creation’ and aliens would be ‘our brothers’. So in partial answer the Guardian’squestion of whether they are believers, any aliens planning to visit us can rest assured that they are already being eyed up for baptism into the Catholic Church. No doubt a few can be recruited into the priesthood too. They’ll fit in well.

How the aliens will react to this news though, if it turns out they are already devout Martian Mormons, Moonies or Moslems for example, Saturnalian Salvationists or Jews and Jehovah’s Witnesses from Jupiter we’ll have to wait to find out.

To clarify the situation then, let’s visit www.ufointernationalproject.com/latest-news/5th-june-2015. They sound as if they’ve got their finger on the pulse of the latest alien/ufo facts.

‘The Catholic church has been pondering over whether there indeed is a far more technologically and intellectually advanced sentient species elsewhere in the galaxy’. They tell us, ‘Pope Francis, apparently, believes so and according to rumour he will not only announce his intentions to prepare the human race for ET contact, BUT he will (according to many rumours) denounce the international corporate capitalist system, that is currently contaminating the planet with toxic consciousness and greed and making us all slaves to the dollar’.

Well, that sounds interesting. These ‘far more technologically and intellectually advanced’ aliens probably won’t need any lessons from the Pope about capitalism, but once their conversion to Catholicism starts, what will they make of the bible account of creation? Fr Funes, the chief stargazer, doesn’t think that will be a problem though. ‘The bible should not be held to account for its lack of scientific accuracy’. He says.

They’re obviously counting on the aliens being as gullible as they think the rest of us are.

NW

Trotsky and Stalin: rival leaders (2003)

From the March 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Despite presenting themselves as mortal enemies, the camp followers of Leon Trotsky and Josef Stalin were competing government management teams operating under the same basic philosophy – that the workers could not, as a whole, come to socialist consciousness and bring socialism about for themselves.

Trotsky himself can be seen as being one of the main causes of Stalin's ascendancy. As Trotsky's hagiographer Isaac Deutscher points out in his The Prophet Armed, Stalin began his dominance of the Soviet government as part of “a special faction the sole purpose of which was to prevent Trotsky having a majority which would enable him to take Lenin's place.”

This faction was aided by the fear that Trotsky as commander of the Red Army (with a predilection for being seen in public in dashing military uniforms) could assume the role of a military dictator. Such fears would have been stoked by his support, in 1921, for the militarisation of labour (in effect placing the workers under his personal direct command).

Leadership worship

Trotsky was comprehensively out-manoeuvred by Stalin, and eventually driven out of Russia, whereupon he tried to position himself as head of the loyal opposition to the Bolshevik regime. His writings from 1929 onwards are full of criticisms of the leadership of the Comintern and their policies, especially regarding his own faction. Typically, he wrote: “Under the treacherous blows of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the Left Opposition [i.e. him and his followers] maintained its fidelity to the official party to the very end” (Trotsky, 'The Tragedy of the German Proletariat: The German Workers will Rise Again – Stalinism, Never', March 1933). The debates between Trotskyists and Stalinists always revolved around such questions of leadership – if only the leaders had acted in such-and-such a way, things would have turned out better.

Tactics, said Trotsky, should have been framed so as to win workers over from their Social Democratic leaders, under the command of the Communist Party: “We must understand how to tear the workers away from their leaders”. According to Trotsky, the official Communist leaders would not follow his policies because they were constituted of “not a few cowardly careerists and fakers whose little posts, whose incomes, and more than that, whose hides, are dear to them” (Trotsky, 'For a Workers United Front Against Fascism', December 1931) .

Two years later the Stalinist leadership did adopt Trotsky's tactics – specifically of the “United Front” of labour organisations against fascism – but only by surrendering leadership of the movement to the leaders of Social Democracy. The issue remained one of leadership, backed up by a notion that the workers were incapable of developing broad socialist consciousness in anything like a majority, and so that the “Communists” would have to work with reformists in order to influence them, and draw off the active workers into their own ranks.

“Could the Communist Party succeed, during the preparatory epoch, in pushing all other parties out of the ranks of the workers by uniting under its banner the overwhelming majority of workers, then there would be no need whatever for soviets. But historical experience bears witness to the fact that there is no basis whatever for the expectation that...the Communist Party can succeed in occupying such an undisputed and absolutely commanding position in the workers' ranks, prior to the proletarian overturn” (Trotsky cited by John Rees in 'The broad party, the revolutionary party and the united front', International Socialist Journal, Winter 2002).

It is, John Rees claims in the article this quotation comes from, the “uneven consciousness” among workers that necessitates the need for leaders, and for an organisation that can bring it together with non-socialist workers in the name of immediate given ends, be those organisations trade unions, or – as above – workers' councils. Thus, the Soviets beloved of Leninists, and trade unions too, become locations for 'united front' work. This admirably demonstrates that Julius Martov's accusation in his State and Socialist Revolution that Bolsheviks supported soviets in order to help seize power as a minority was acknowledged by the very leaders of the Russian coup d'état.

Reformists

For almost all of their existence, both Trotskyist and Stalinist organizations – thoroughly convinced that the workers could not come to understand and want socialism – have orientated themselves towards working with official reformist organisations. Instead of standing clearly and forthrightly for socialism, they ape the manoeuvres and sounds of official Labourism, seeking to influence non-socialist workers through tactical manipulation, rather than convince them to change their minds.

While Rees argues that “united front” work provides an opportunity for “revolutionaries” to discuss and convert reformists, he also states that “the immediate aim of the united front is to provide the most effective fighting organisation for both reformists and revolutionaries”. That is, whatever front is going to be built must always give precedence to the struggle at hand, and its immediate success. This position stands in some contrast to the official Trotskyist doctrine of “transitional demands” – i.e. advocating reforms known not to work, in order to draw workers into “Communist” ranks through their inevitable disappointment.

Thus, we have the present example of the Stop the War coalition whereby Trotskyists are working with pacifists, CND and Submissionists (“submission”: the English translation of “islam”) to try and achieve their immediate aims. John Rees himself appears in the media as a “co-ordinator” for the coalition, his membership of the SWP never mentioned (at all other times he is generally introduced as the “editor of the International Socialist Journal”). Quite how he is supposed to bring people round to revolutionary politics by hiding his affiliation remains a mystery.

The reality is that these fronts can only attain any sort of success by hiding the disagreements between their constituent organisations, specifically about means and motives. That is, they succeed by making demands that are supported by significant numbers of workers, meaning that any “revolutionary” content will be buried into the need for immediate victory. As such, it is small-c conservative, taking political consciousness as it is found, and seeking to manipulate it, rather than change it.

Such a tactic, however, affords the Leninists an opportunity to extend their influence. As a tiny minority, they get to work with organisations which can more easily attract members, and can thus be part of campaigns and struggles that reach out well beyond the tiny numbers of political activists in any given situation.

For example, in the 50s and 60s, many trade union bureaucrats were members of the Stalinist Communist Party (just as today, a good number are former Trotskyists). Likewise, the SWP provide much of the material and personnel for organising the Stop the War Coalition. The salient fact remains, though, that despite providing all this assistance, the “revolutionaries” are incapable of taking these campaigns and trade unions further than the bulk of the membership are willing to tolerate.

Socialists have long argued that tiny minorities cannot, without force on their side, simply take control of movements and use them to their own ends. Without agreement between the parties to a project about what it is and where it is going, leaders and led will invariably walk off in different directions. That means, if the Leninists are right, and the majority of workers cannot achieve socialist consciousness, then they must be committed to using force against the recalcitrant majority in order to achieve their aims.

Nonetheless, the Leninists continue to attach themselves to larger movements in the hope of providing alternative leaderships and of being at the heart of the struggle. Hence, this is why Rees continues to argue that the official Labour Party remains “organically” linked to the working class through its individual members and the link to the unions. Only at the Labour Party conference could a revolt over PFI occur, he claims, because of the link between the unions and Labour.

We argue, however, that since we are capable, as workers, of understanding and wanting socialism, and of going beyond mere 'trade union consciousness' as Lenin called it, we cannot see any reason why our fellow workers cannot do likewise. Further, since the majority are capable of actively building socialism, there is no need for a leadership to impose it upon them – and that the job of socialists in the here and now is to openly and honestly state the case, rather than trying to wheedle and manoeuvre within bigger parties to win a supposed “influence” that is more illusory than real.

Pik Smeet

The New Era! (1929)

Editorial from the July 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government is in office, their photos are in the papers, silk hats and all. The Cabinet is composed of respectable, nice, kind men—we know that, because the papers have told us so. They have started work—we know that because the papers have exhibited photos of them in typical working attitudes—gazing at piles of papers, holding telephones to their ears, etc, etc. We admit that, from the photos, there is nothing to choose between them and their predecessors. They look just as happy and satisfied.

When they were last in power we did not notice any striking change in the general position of the workers. We can confidently prophecy that "history will repeat itself" with slight modifications. What will you, fellow-worker, do then? Will you vote Liberal or Tory next time? Or will you get down to the job of understanding just where you are?

You are poor because you are deprived of the things you produce—because you keep drones to exploit you. You will remain poor until you put an end to exploitation.

Do those smirking, self-satisfied faces that look at you out of the newspapers represent a movement that is going to lift you out of wage-slavery? The movement for Socialism is a serious business, born out of the miseries and enslavement of the multitude; it demands of its votaries hard work, political sincerity, and steadfastness of purpose. It is not a movement to provide an opportunity for brilliant oratory, "statesmanship," swell dinners or joyrides, nor is it a movement to provide a poor man, with a clever tongue, a ladder to climb out of oppressive conditions at the expense of his fellows.

You have voted into a power a Labour Government. You, who are poor, have not done this to amuse yourselves, you have done it in the expectation that your conditions will be ameliorated. Watch the progress of your new Government, see if their acts provide you with any road out of poverty. And when you are disappointed, as you surely will be, do not then sink back into apathy and dejection, but examine again your position in society. If you do this carefully you will come to the knowledge that your emancipation depends upon yourselves and can only be accomplished by yourselves.

The day that you reach this view you will turn to the party that alone has stood for Socialism throughout the whole of its history. That party is the Socialist Party of Great Britain. It is composed of working men and women who, in the course of their daily work, have gained a knowledge of Socialism and held fast to it.

Examine our position; judge us, — join with us in the work of emancipation.

Mancunian monument (1984)

The Place Where I Live Series from the February 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

The traditional music-hall vision of Manchester, as a perpetually rainy city where the skyline is dominated by cotton mill chimneys and heavy neo-gothic architecture, is becoming less true as the larger mills of Ancoats are one by one being demolished. The city centre, however, retains its nineteenth century aspect, as the buildings raised to house the financial side of the cotton trade are now occupied by banks and estate agents. One exception to this, a building which keeps to its original use, is the Town Hall in Albert Square, a huge gothic edifice constructed primarily to house the machinery of local government but also as a monument to Mancunian capitalism's wealth and power.

The source of this wealth and power was the cotton industry, which settled in South East Lancashire in the eighteenth century, in a climate ideal for processing cotton. By 1850 the industry had become centralised in Lancashire and was functionally divided between the northern weaving area and the richer southern spinning districts. Manchester's role in this was twofold, as a fine spinning town and as the major market for yarn and piece goods. Because the cotton industry at this time depended heavily on its export trade the Mancunian capitalists shed their eighteenth century mercantilist preferences in favour of laissez faire and the Anti-Corn Law League, to such effect that a famous building — the Free Trade Hall — was dedicated to their fervent economic gospel.

In 1780, Manchester's population was 40,000, a figure which increased by over 100,000 during the next fifty years (A. Briggs, Victorian Cities, 1975, Chapter 3). This development brought with it enormous squalor, which impressed even some contemporary apologists for capitalism but which the local government, feudal in style, was unable to ease, even supposing it had shown any will to do so. Fear of proletarian radicalism and a desire for local autonomy led to the local capitalists incorporating Manchester as a borough in 1838, a move supported by the Whig national government which saw municipal boroughs as a safeguard against chartism.

The new elite successfully defeated chartism but the squalor which is a natural accompaniment to capitalism festered on. A severe slump in the early 1860s (wrongly attributed to the American Civil War) exposed the local authorities' inability to cope with such typical problems of capitalism. They were successful, however, in blaming this onto a lack of office space in the then Town Hall in King Street and thus it was decided to build a new town hall, on the grounds that this would enable a more effective administration of Manchester's wedge of British capitalism.

The second Manchester Town Hall was designed by Alfred Waterhouse, whose plan was chosen principally for the amount of office space it allowed. The original estimated cost of £250,000 was over-spent at least four-fold in the nine years that it took to construct the edifice, as the borough decided that their new administrative centre should also be a monument to themselves and to the glory of industrial capitalism which they personified. Proudly, they allowed Waterhouse to add many decorative extras.

The local dignitaries decided that it would be fitting to open so impressive a pile only with a spectacular ceremony spread over three days in September 1877. They at first hoped that Queen Victoria would perform the opening rites but she refused, either as a result of pressure from her Tory ministers at Westminster, who disliked "liberal" Manchester or because if her own antipathy towards the then mayor, Abel Heywood, who had been a chartist. (At the time the press largely favoured the first reason but it is obvious from contemporary broadsheets and recollections of the event that Victoria's non-appearance was the result of her opposition to chartism. In 1877, as today, the press were ready to suppress a story which could damage the royal figureheads of capitalism.)

A most depressing aspect of the opening ceremonies was the role of the working class. On the first two days they assumed the part of onlookers, cheering their masters who were being honoured in the ceremonies. Finally, on the third day they clamoured impatiently to be allowed to participate in a trade societies' procession, rigidly controlled by the bourgeoisie, and so were able to offer their slaves' contribution to the lauding of their masters and of the system which condemned them to squalor.

This happened in spite of a general air of industrial unrest. Mancunian joiners had been on strike for four months before the Town Hall opening and a wage cut imposed on the spinners in Bolton had precipitated a strike by 10,000 of them. Thus, many of those who gave homage to the bourgeoisie on those days were in direct and open dispute with them over their very lives.

It was also known how vastly expensive the new building was (only the police force had more spent on it during the 1870s). It was also common knowledge that deep and widespread deprivation existed in the city, especially in Ancoats and Ardwick. Yet there was little uneasiness expressed at the all-too-obvious contrast between opulence and squalor, even among the working class crowded into the slums and herded each day to their exploitation in the mills.

This—to any class-conscious person—illogical behaviour was the norm as the late nineteenth century saw a great rise in what is known as civic culture — the attempt by a local elite to smother class awareness with provincial loyalties — the success of which may be measured by the fact that the working class are often so eager to honour their exploiters.

Nowadays, provincial or civi loyalties still make good copy for the media, which exhorts to attend the Manchester Show, to cheer for City or United or to get concerned with the latest real-life drama among the cast of Coronation Street. In the same way, national loyalties are promoted through pictures of the Prince and Princess of Wales on the ski slopes or by assuming that we will all cheer our local "hero" from the Falklands. The intention of all this is to create a false identity between employers and employed, helped on with mixtures of local and national chauvinism. In Manchester, as elsewhere, the working class co-operate in their own deception, which may enable them to temporarily forget such acute social problems as poverty, nowadays often harshened by unemployment; currently 16 per cent of the population of the North West, and 20 per cent of adult males there, are out of work (Employment Gazette, 1983). It may also help blot out the dreadful housing conditions in the horrific Hulme Crescents, in the crumbling Fort Berwick or one of the many decaying and vandalised estates. The popular ignoring of such symptoms of capitalism's inability to provide properly for its people is an obstacle to workers seeing through the falsehoods of capitalist ideology to the true cause of their problems.

The process of smothering class consciousness with local or national chauvinism has been going on for a long time now. It has been very successful and has become smooth and sophisticated in its operation but can only last as long as the working class fail to question their relationship with their exploiting class local, civic, national and world wide.

John Critchfield

Nationalism - Poison for the Working Class (2002)

Editorial from the April 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Across the world nationalism has been rearing its ugly head again, most notably in the cockpit of violence that is the Middle East. As we write Palestinian and Israeli workers continue to butcher one another in a senseless round of tit-for-tat atrocities. As the shooting of Palestinian children and the suicide bombings aimed at Israeli workers in Jerusalem continue, socialists have no hesitation in stating that this violence is in no way, shape or form in the interest of the working class of wage and salary earners.

Many on the political left will argue that Palestinian nationalism is somehow progressive and different to Israeli nationalism and should therefore be supported (in a similar way to why they often think Welsh and Scottish nationalism should be encouraged in Britain and Irish Nationalism in Ulster). As socialists, we say that this is a dangerous poison that is being spread by the left and that no side engaged in such conflict can either speak for the working class as a whole or be an example to it.

History is replete with minorities in existing states using terrorist methods so that a new state may be formed or territory transferred from the “ownership” of one state to another. The working class of wage and salary earners is never in a position to benefit from this process, it is only in a position to suffer. The working class – by definition the class that does not possess any significant titles to land or private property, including capital – has quite literally nothing to gain from a situation where one group of rulers and owners is replaced by another group.

In the nineteenth century when the modern capitalist system was expanding across the globe “national liberation” struggles, typically led by a local growing capitalist class against the old autocratic empires, were part of the process which swept away the old political arrangements and opened the way forward for liberal democracy and the development of capitalist methods of production. It was often argued that it was in the interests of the working class during this time to take the side of the capitalists against the old autocracies like the Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire, etc. It was said that this process would open the way up for working class organisation and for the development of an advanced industrial system which is a prerequisite for a socialist society of abundance and free access to available wealth.

Since then, the capitalist system has become a world system. The alleged justification for the working class taking sides in 'national liberation' struggles has now gone if ever it existed and today all such struggles are just deadly battles between sections of the capitalist class, even though it is the workers – imbued with nationalist poison – that naturally enough end up doing the fighting and dying.

We argue that every nation state is by its very nature anti-working class. The “nation” is a myth as there can be no community of interests between two classes in antagonism with one another, the non-owners in society and the owners (the workers and the capitalists). And the state ultimately exists only to defend the property interests of the owning class at any given point in history – which is why modern states across the world send the police and army in to break strikes and otherwise seek to protect the interests of the capitalists and “business” at every turn.

The goal of the socialist movement is not to assist in the creation of even more states but to establish a real world community without frontiers where all states as they currently exist will be destroyed. In a socialist society communities, towns and cities will have the opportunity to thrive – and people will no doubt feel an attachment to places that are real and tangible – but the 'imagined communities' that are nation states will be consigned to the history books where they belong.

Our message to the workers who call themselves Israeli and the workers who call themselves Palestinian is to cease the slaughter. As workers you have no real community of interests to gain from your present struggle. You do, however, have an “imagined community” you should lose and an entire world to win instead.

Who said the Class Struggle was Dead? (1974)

From the January 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who accept present-day society see strikes and industrial conflict as an avoidable mistake. Wilson and the Labour Party, for instance, accuse the Tories of "splitting the nation" as if what they call the nation has ever been united. Tory backwoodsmen, on the other hand, see all sorts of "leftwing agitators" behind strikes. Industrial psychologists blame it all on outdated attitudes. None of them face up to the fact that industrial conflict is built into present-day society and is quite unavoidable as long as it lasts.

The purpose of production today is not the satisfaction of human needs but profit. So a car factory is not essentially a place where cars are made but a place where profits are made; and the same goes for shipyards, coal mines, railways, docks, warehouses, offices and all other workplaces, irrespective of whether they are private or State owned, The source of these profits, as of all wealth, is the labour of all those who work. Industrial psychologists and others may regard this as one of their "outdated attitudes" but, argue as they may, they cannot refute the fact that wealth can only be produced by human beings working on nature-given materials and that therefore any non-work income such as profits must come out of the labour of those who do work.

Workers are paid as wages or salaries about enough to keep them and their families in efficient working order, but can and do produce much more than this, the surplus over and above their wages being the source of profit. Workers accept these terms because, having no other source of income, they are compelled to work for wages for those who own and control the means of production.

Present-day society, capitalism, then, is based upon the exploitation of the working class. Trade unions were formed to try to mitigate this exploitation since experience showed that, if workers put up no resistance, employers take advantage of this weakness to increase profits at the expense of wages. The trade union struggle is basically a defensive struggle against such downward pressures on wages or, what amounts to the same thing, a response to money prices rising faster than money wages.

In 1972, after all, the miners only claimed to be fighting to restore their standard of living of four or five years previously. And most trade union struggles are the same: to maintain, rather than improve, their members' standard of living. Figures confirm this. According to New Society (25 February, 1971), in the period 1959 to 1970 the net real income of the average wage-earner (that is, his take home pay plus family allowances) rose only 19 per cent, or less than 2 per cent. a year. Hardly a confirmation of the claim that trade unions are responsible for rising prices, growing unemployment, etc., etc., because of the huge wage increases they are alleged to have got for their members. Rather it is a confirmation of their limited role of maintaining standards; that, in fact, despite strikes and tough bargaining, trade unions have to run fast just to stay still. Present-day society, in other words, forces workers to struggle just to maintain their standard of living, let alone improve it.

But the wages struggle is just one aspect of the class struggle. Ultimately this is a struggle by the workers for the ownership and control of the means of production, whether or not they realise this (and most of them at the moment unfortunately do not). The logic of their position in society as an exploited, wealth-producing class compels them to struggle for this, at first unconsciously and later consciously.

This working-class struggle of which the struggle over wages and working conditions is bit the industrial aspect, will go on as long as workers are the subject class in society. The logic of the workers' social position dictates this. This is why strikes are built into present-day society and cannot be abolished by psychologists or repressive laws; not even state capitalist Russia and Eastern Europe, for all their police state dictatorships, have been able to prevent the workers struggling against their exploitation.

To win, however, the workers' struggle must move beyond the spontaneous industrial level and become conscious and political. For capitalist ownership of the means of production is in the end maintained by their control of political power which the political backwardness of the working class gives them. Let there be no doubt about this. The workers, including those who from time to time have to take industrial action to maintain their living standards, vote for political parties which, in practice, always act to confirm capitalist control of the means of production: for Labour or the Tories, both of which have no desire to change the system of accumulating capital out of the profits produced by the working class.

What is needed is a conscious political movement aimed at ending capitalist class ownership and control of the means of production, thereby abolishing classes (including the working class). This done, a new society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interests of the whole community will have been established. On this basis production for sale with a view to profit can be replaced by the planned production of wealth solely to satisfy human needs and, given modern technology, a society of abundance achieved with free access to goods and services in accordance with the old Socialist principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Adam Buick 

Editorial: “Nasty Party” or Nasty System? (2002)

Editorial from the November 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Conservative Party Chairwoman Theresa May recently said at the Party conference that the Tories were perceived as being the “nasty party” the media leapt upon it as an admission of guilt. The political opponents of the Tories in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties described it as striking confirmation that they'd been right all along: the Tories were a peculiarly sorry and vindictive lot.

That the Conservative Party has long held some rather unsavoury assumptions and has revelled in the distasteful political practices consequent on them is without dispute. From single mothers and the unemployed to Afro-Caribbeans who do not support the England cricket team, the working class in Britain has felt the wrath of the Tories (and their media friends at papers like the Daily Mail) longer than most of us care to remember. That their assumptions were tainted by rank hypocrisy from the start to finish (such as with the “back to basics” of John Major) made their political swagger all the more difficult to take – and their demise when it came all the more satisfying.

But if the Tories were the “nasty party”', what do we have now? Are New Labour the “kind and cuddly” party? Or are they at least the “lesser evil” – the “not quite so nasty” lot? Socialists have an uncompromising view on this and we can illustrate it through an analogy.

If there are two other people in a room with you and the first one of them is openly hostile, abuses you at every turn and is obviously working for interests diametrically opposed to your own, you would have to be crazy to consider them a friend. But if the other person in the room keeps telling you that they are on your side, sympathises about how awful the first person is being, and says you should trust them instead – while all the while they are pursuing interests just as opposed to yours and will proceed to stab you in the back at the first opportunity – then who is your real friend? Neither of them is the answer, of course, though we can say that you are less likely to be deceived by the openly hostile one.

The function performed by the Labour Party is always to appear as the benign friend to the workers in distinction to the “wicked” Tories. In the 1950s Labour hero Nye Bevan said the Tories were “lower than vermin” and in more recent times ex-Labour MP Frank Haynes called Margaret Thatcher “a wicked, wicked woman” to her face. But at least you could say Thatcher and her cohorts were straightforward about their support for privilege and their subsequent contempt for the workers – indeed, rather more straightforward than the Labour Party.

Already since their re-election in 1997 Labour is the Party that has hit the benefits of single mothers and the unemployed, has introduced tuition fees for students (something the Tories were unable to get away with) has set its face against so-called “wreckers” and militants in the trade union movement, has allied itself with the world's greatest superpower at every turn and is now preparing to unleash war upon tens of thousands of unsuspecting Iraqis in the name of “saving” them from military dictatorship. It is tempting to ask that “with friends like that, who needs enemies?”

But does this make the Labour Party any more “nasty” or “evil” than the Tories? The answer is irrelevant. Both organisations (just like any others wishing to take over from them like the LibDems) are “nasty” parties in effect because they are attempting to run a thoroughly nasty system which pits human being against human being in a never-ending struggle for existence. Even if the Tories and the Labour Party had the best of intentions they would be unable to operate the system in any other way than that demanded by its internal logic. And its internal logic is what leads to the wealth of the privileged few being placed before the satisfaction of the needs of the many, to a crumbling society where community is destroyed by rampant individualism and competition, and to constant warfare across the world over trade routes, spheres of influence, power and profits.

Hoping that the Labour Party will behave differently to the self-styled “nasty party” – or hoping that the “nasty party” itself will behave any differently in future should it form the government is an unrealistic – indeed utopian – expectation. Any party that tries to run capitalism gets its hands grubby, as a matter of course, in what is a very dirty business.

Socialists are revolutionaries and that means we recommend struggling against the capitalist system as a whole rather than just one or other of the various parties that support it. A democratic socialist revolution would relieve the Tories of the embarrassment of unloading their guilt and hypocrisy in public any more and Labour of having to do the same the next time they're kicked out of office. Indeed, a socialist revolution can help build a society where honesty and mutual respect are the norm rather than the headline-grabbing exception to it. And for that reason alone, it must be an option worthy of consideration.

Activities at Home and Abroad (1933)

From the March 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

Excitement in Stepney
On Friday, January 20th, Stepney Branch held a meeting at Whitechapel Library. The speaker, Comrade Cash, took as his subject, "Why I left the Communist Party." A large audience assembled, some of whom were Communists, who did their best by heckling and shouting to prevent the speaker getting a hearing. When the Chairman asked the leader of the disturbers to leave the meeting he (the Chairman) was threatened with a baton, and, for a while, pandemonium reigned. However, the Socialist Party members present proved themselves more than capable of dealing with the situation, and, in spite of this display of organised hooliganism, the meeting was a success, many people being turned away through lack of accommodation.

It is clear that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is beginning to make its influence felt in Stepney.

*    *    *    *

On Sunday, February 5th, literature-sellers from Southwark Branch attended the T.U.C. Unemployed Demonstration in Hyde Park and managed to sell nearly 100 copies of the SOCIALIST STANDARD.

*    *    *    *

Gateshead
The newly-formed Gateshead Branch is leaving no stone unturned to make Socialism and the Socialist Party of Great Britain better known in that district. The demand for Socialist literature has been met and encouraged in Gateshead and neighbouring towns. Although open-air meetings have had to be suspended owing to inclement weather, good work is being carried on in other fields of propaganda. The Gateshead I.L.P. and the Bensham Grove Settlement have been addressed on "The Principles and Policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain."

Publicity for the Socialist Party was secured by the publication in The Gateshead Weekly Star of a letter on socialism and religion, which mentioned our pamphlet, "Socialism and Religion," and drew attention to the SOCIALIST STANDARD and its purpose.

*    *    *    *

The S.P. of Canada
The Socialist Party of Canada continues to make good progress. Two economic classes and a history class are held each week at N. Battleford, Sask., and have a regular attendance. Whist Drives and Raffles have been arranged to increase funds.

Half-a-dozen study groups have been formed at small points out West, resulting in a considerable demand for our literature.

*    *    *    *

New Zealand
The Socialist Party of New Zealand has had its difficulties increased by the ban on public meetings, but this has not prevented propaganda activities being carried on in other directions. Two study classes are held, one at Head Office and one at Wellington, both of which report excellent progress.

The Labour Party and Communist Party were challenged to debate, but both declined. The Labour Party claimed a "common objective" (though it would be interesting to learn on what grounds), and the Communist Party refused to give "Socialism a hearing at their own expense," after accusing one of our members of running away from them.

*    *    *    *

Debate with a Conservative at Canning Town
A debate took place on Monday, February 13th, at the Public Hall, Canning Town, between Mrs. Tennant, for the Conservative Party, and the S.P.G.B., represented by Comrade Hardy.

The Hall was full to overcrowding. A group of Communists in the audience kept up a running fire of interruption while Mrs. Tennant was speaking, and, towards the end of the debate, they prevented both speakers from being heard by a continual chorus of shouting.

*    *    *    *

Battersea
As the possibility of sustained outdoor propaganda is always diminished during the winter, the only alternative is indoor meetings, and these present serious financial problems to a party such as ours. The possibility of covering the expenses incurred with, perhaps, over a half of one's audience in serious economic distress, is very remote.

On Sunday, February 12th, the branch held a meeting in the Lower Hall of the Town Hall, at which Comrade Bellingham spoke on "Socialism and Unemployment." The meeting was well attended, some 150 persons being present. The questions asked and the criticism entered took the usual form, that is, in the main, they consisted of an attempted I.L.P. cum C.P. criticism of the Parliamentary method without the advancement of any alternative line of action.

Literature was sold to the value of three shillings and eightpence, and specimen copies of our party organ were given away at the door as the audience left.

All things considered, the local branch are satisfied with this meeting. 

Political Notebook: Thorpe is Guilty (1979)

The Political Notebook Column from the August 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

THORPE IS GUILTY

The Thorpe Trial is over. The newspapers desperately search for a new scandal with which to divert workers from what really concerns them. Readers of the Socialist Standard and readers of Private Eye No. 458 will be relieved to discover that contrary to its letters page, no analysis of the Thorpe et al. case appears in this issue, not have we played any part in the journalistic voyeurism which organs of the capitalist press have indulged in. Whether Thorpe was found 'guilty' or 'innocent' in accordance with the sickening laws of capitalism makes not the slightest difference to the working class. Secondly, Thorpe, like all upholders of the system which condemns a person for not conforming to conventional sexuality but glories in the murder of innocent workers for the sake of winning markets in time of war, is guilty of a crime against the working class which is far greater than any for which he was tried at the House of Hypocrisy, the old Bailey. We should be concerned to remove the disease, not pick off the unsightly scabs. When that job is done, Thorpe and his fellow political scabs will be found guilty of the conspiracy to defraud which is the keystone of capitalist legality.

BOOT PEOPLE V. BOAT PEOPLE

On a warm Saturday afternoon last month a few thousand boneheaded bootboys marched through the streets of London waving Union Jacks. Members of the army earning their pay, perhaps? No, these were members of the National Front protesting that their culture (sic) is being swamped by a mass influx of Vietnamese refugees to Britain. And what did these promoters of international brotherhood, the Communist Party, have to say about such nonsense? Unsurprisingly, not much. Their silence is not unrelated to the fact that they support the Russian control of Vietnam and that the refugees are fleeing from the tyranny which the Communist Party exists to defend. Both the Communist Party and the National Front are nationalists of one kind or another; they both serve to divide the working class.

MARXISTS AGAINST MARXISM

Anyone who went along to a recent meeting at the North London Polytechnic could listen to some 'Marxist' wisdom being dispensed  by speakers Ken Livingstone (ex-Labour candidate for Hampstead) and John Ross of the International Marxist Group. The subject of the meeting was 'Why Labour Lost'. Needless to say, the answer to the question was never given, but the audience was told that the workers need more class struggle — the one thing that all workers are involved in whether they want to be or not. When one of the super-radicals urged us to unite for a minimum wage of £60 a week, one of the audience pointed out that Marxists don't want any wages at all, but the abolition of the wages system. The super-radical pseudo-Marxist replied: "You might not need wages, but we need them in order to live." Audience response: loud laughter and universal agreement. Political conclusion: these clowns know as much about Marxism as they know about why Labour lost.

FREEDOM OF PRIVILEGE

If you listen to the left wing for long enough they'll have you believe that capitalism never existed until Maggie Thatcher moved in to Number Ten. Indeed, Socialist Worker's first issue after the election had the headline: 'Capitalism Is Back In Office'. Presumably the SWP would describe the previous government as something other than capitalism. The Callaghan fan club from the SWP might actually swallow their own shallow propaganda but those with capital at stake seem to be less certain about the major differences between the two main parties. For example, a report published before the election by the British United Provident Association, the largest of the private health insurance schemes, was markedly sceptical about the differences in the Labour and Tory health policies. Of Labour it says:

During the era of the present Labour government, private practice, especially in the independent sector, has flourished and it is likely that if the Labour government is returned with a large majority in 1979, or even if it remains a 'hung' government, its attitude towards private practice in the coming three to four years will be a moderate one.

And the Conservative Party:

. . . In spite of offering considerable incentives to the insurance side of private health care, [a Conservative government] could seriously undermine the independent sector if its policies on the provision of facilities were implemented. There were strong indications to suggest that health care was high on the list of Conservative priorities and that action would be taken shortly after the formed a government.

Which means, in short, that neither Labour nor Tory will make a scrap of difference to the system in which the rich have the privilege of superior health care and the poor wait in the long queues of the NHS.

CAPITALISTS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

The Guardian (29.6.79) reports that "The Biggest Soviet-American trade deal ever is brewing", which involves a joint American-Japanese-Russian 50 million dollar investment to extract natural gas from the vast field beneath the Yakutia republic. For those who still believe that Russia is socialist, that it opposes American capitalism and that profits are things of the past in the land of Tsar Brezhnev, we are sorry to have to announce that the deal will not be finalised until each of the partners can be sure of obtaining a profit from the deal.

Steve Coleman

Why The Light of Truth Should Be Extinguished. (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

There recently appeared a new weekly devoted to matters of interest to those who patronise the Cinema. Its title is "Film Flashes," and one of the plashes that illuminated its first number is reproduced below. It is worth noting as a manifestation of the class war: as one of the methods employed by the master class to suppress anything that would tend to enlighten the workers. The cutting follows.

We should regret to see exhibitors give much prominence to the new Metro picture, "The Bigger Man," recently exhibited at a trade show at the Shaftesbury Pavilion. "The Bigger Man" introduces the highly controversial subject of Capital and Labour, and shows a fight in progress between Strikers and Strike-breakers, which culminates in the appearance of a large body of troops under orders to fire on the mob. It is obvious at a time like this it would be very unwise, if not dangerous, to awaken thoughts of the old and bitter strife of past years, and we sincerely hope that Ruffells will reconsider their attitude in regard to the release of this picture. Many of the scenes, which are intended to contrast the great gulf existing between the master and man, are overdrawn and although these things may portray American labour life correctly enough, they are happily not true in regard to this country. (Italics mine.) 

Choice, isn't it?

In these days it is "very unwise, if not dangerous," to comment too freely upon the doings of our masters. (I believe it is considered treason even to whisper to your next-door neighbour that you always preferred Kiel butter to British waggon fat.) Else the writer would dearly like to quote from a few other sources, material is never wanting with which to confute the case for capitalism. Further that this the writer makes no comment, preferring to leave it to thinking readers to provide their own.

May Field

Edinburgh: Working Class Housing (1961)

From the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

How many boxes of shortbread have caught the customer's eye with a gaudy picture of Edinburgh Castle? And very nice, too: they would not sell much shortbread by showing Edinburgh's slums, although there are enough of them.

Yes, Edinburgh has a slum problem, just like any other great city. Panorama went there a few months back, showing up the damp and rotting houses around Arthur Street, where the workers pay rent to live with the rats and broken sewer pipes.

And like a lot of other places, Edinburgh also has dwellings which are not classified as slums, but which are not much better; it has its prefabs. These, as the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch said recently, are " . . . the relics of the immediate post-war housing crisis . . . " which are " . . . still with us, although when they were built they were intended to be only temporary makeshifts."

Are the prefabs likely to come down soon? The Edinburgh City Council Housing Committee has said that, because the process of removing them is long, and because alternative housing has to be promised for the tenants before the sites can be cleared and new dwellings erected, the prefabs will be with us for some time yet.

Let nobody be deceived that as the slums come down new housing is bound to take their place. Sometimes the land on which they were built has what is called a high site value. In narrow Kirkgate and the surrounding streets a lot of tenements, some of which have been standing for a century or more, have been demolished. No new houses have gone up on the site; instead, a whiskey bond store is being built there and Woolworths are putting up another of their red and gold shops.

What is to the point in all this is that the working class, although they build the beautiful mansions and palaces, can only afford to live in the slum, or the prefab, or the council house, or the little semi-detached. And why is this? Simply because the workers have only one method of getting their living by selling their energies and skills to the capitalist class. These workers own little more than their ability to work. The great cities of Scotland are not theirs, nor are the Lochs and Highlands which they sing about. Sad Irish lads may dream of the Lakes of Killarney, but they are owned by an American capitalist, just as the song said they never could be. Proud Cockneys own nothing of London Town. The working class of the world, in fact, own no country, no city, no land—most of them do not even own the place where they live.

No use to approach that problem with just another slum clearance scheme. It needs a world in which society's first concern is for the security and happiness of the human race. 

The prefabs were supposed to be temporary, but they have been temporary too long. In a way, that applies to capitalism as well.

David Lamond.

Overlords and underlings (1999)

From the November 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

What an extraordinary notion it is that so many members of the human race should be forced to remain on that small section of the earth's surface in which they happened to be born. Who gave the world's rulers the right to tell us which bit of land we should live on?

When journalists write on "the great issues of the day" for the capitalist newspapers, they often seem to have turned their brains off. A lot of noise has been made recently about "foreigners" arriving in Britain, for example on the Kent coast. They aren't really genuine refugees, the cry goes up, only "bogus ones", who have the nerve to try to cross the capitalist-ordained boundaries to make themselves a little better off. The press, radio, and television are full of the protests. Yet all those making such a noise are living here in Britain, the country where industrial capitalism first came to prominence, and which therefore grabbed a vast Empire in all parts of the world—amounting at its height to a quarter of the entire surface of the globe, and to a quarter of the globe's population.

In every continent the British were found, running this enormous Empire for the benefit of the British ruling class-in Asia, in Africa, in America, in Australasia, and even here in Europe. Yet without turning a hair, British politicians and journalists are now trumpeting the idea that everyone should stay at home. Isn't it a bit late in the day for the champions of British capitalism to attack what they have been supporting for the last three hundred years?

It's worth mentioning, too, that when British capitalism sent its soldiers and settlers abroad, they went as conquerors, subduing and ruling over the native populations which had the misfortune to be living in the countries which Britain subjugated. Sometimes, indeed, they not only subdued the original inhabitants, they literally exterminated them. For example, the people who lived in Tasmania when the British arrived to settle there were all wiped out, the last ones in the middle of the nineteenth century.

In contrast, the immigrants who now try to settle in Britain come at the bottom of the social scale, taking the worst houses, accepting the worst conditions. Yet many publicists cannot contain their indignation that they should try to come here at all. It is strange that these propagandists can accept the British ruling class sending its emissaries to annex and govern dozens of foreign countries, yet cannot accept these deferential incomers, coming here merely in the hope of securing the worst-paid jobs.

Conflicts within the ruling class

Like all the other great political questions of which the papers and the airwaves are full, this one is being debated within the ruling class. For no ruling class is ever completely unanimous. It is painfully obvious that the ruling class of each particular state has interests which conflict with those of every other state's ruling class, and that every so often these conflicts ripen into open warfare, in which the rest of us are kindly allowed—indeed forced if we are reluctant—to rush forward loyally and kill the workers (and their families) who support some other state's ruling class. But capitalism also creates conflicts within each ruling class; no two capitalists have interests which are exactly the same.

The question of immigration, for example, causes disputes within the British ruling class. Some property owners want to establish the principle that when a particular industry or trade is short of workers, its owners have the right to bring in workers from any other country, and thus help to counteract the danger of having to raise wages and salaries. Other capitalists apparently feel that the native British working class should not be diluted. After all, our rulers pay for an education system, and a vast media industry, both of which work their socks off to produce a population fiercely loyal to the British ruling class, and which will therefore support its masters to the hilt whether in peace or war. So some members of the capitalist class feel it would be a mistake to let in too many workers from other countries, who have not been conditioned for years by British patriotic propaganda, and which therefore—perish the thought—might not be one hundred percent devoted to the British ruling class.

As a result journalists and publicists charge into the fray to support whatever view is held by the capitalists who pay them—some to attack immigration, some to defend it. Like all other issues, this one will be decided by whichever opinion finally wins the greatest support among the members of the ruling class.

This is not to say that the way these big "issues of the day" are resolved will have no effect on any member of the working class. Capitalism inevitably involves continuous tinkering with the system, as this or that group of capitalists force through changes which they think will benefit them. And some of these changes do affect the position of the working class, or of some sections of it. If a more liberal view is taken of immigration, it could be that some of the immigrants will be prepared to work for lower wages, and thus exert a depressing influence on wage levels. In the nineteenth century, capitalists in Britain welcomed many thousands of Irish immigrants, in the belief that they would keep wages down.

So some English or Scottish workers may have felt that their pay was less than it might have been, without the competition from these Irish newcomers. From this point of view, then, immigration might be a minus for British workers. On the other hand, the arrival of people from other countries, who have not been brainwashed from birth with notions that the British are clearly superior to all other peoples, may make it harder for chauvinists to whip up anti-foreign feeling in wartime. So from this point of view, immigration might count as a plus for the British working class.

Nationalist feeling

Some members of the capitalist class take advantage of any "foreign" immigration to whip up nationalist feeling, which is always valuable to the ruling class in its struggles (in peace or war) with the ruling class of other countries. Without the constant propaganda against "foreigners", where would "nationalist" feeling come from? Such feelings are not inborn. Small children are not hostile to other children with different-coloured skin, any more than they are to those with different-coloured hair, or different-coloured shoes. Why should they be? No two human beings are identical. If each individual member of the human race could not get on with other people despite their differences, then there would be no human society at all. Nationalist feelings arise because of the incessant propaganda of the ruling class in each country to persuade the working majority that they are in some way essentially different from and superior to everyone from other countries. Without this propaganda, each country's government would find it very difficult to get its people to join up and fight in its unavoidable wars with foreign states.

What an extraordinary notion it is that so many members of the human race should be forced to remain on that small section of the earth's surface in which they happened to be born. Who gave the world's rulers the right to tell us which bit of land we should live on? These restrictions apply chiefly, of course, to members of the working class. Members of the capitalist class don't stay put. They travel freely round the world, from London to Paris, from grouse moor to ski slope, from Caribbean island to Mediterranean cruise, from the chateau in Switzerland to the ranch in Arizona. And no-one dreams of telling them that they can't. Like many laws enacted by the ruling class, restrictions on the crossing of borders really only hit at members of the working class. The apologists for capitalism who try to foment ill-feeling towards "foreigners" landing here, whether they come to escape persecution, or to obtain slightly higher wages, never attack those many members of the upper class, including many newspaper proprietors, who swan about the world as if there were no such thing as state boundaries. But then, in a capitalist society, you can't really expect the rulers and the ruled to be judged by the same yardstick, can you?

Alwyn Edgar

Frederick Engels in Manchester: His Relations with Marx (1933)

Letter to the Editor from the March 14, 1933, issue of The Manchester Guardian

To the Editor of the Manchester Guardian.

Sir, - The note on "Links with Engels" in your issue of March 11 concludes with the observation that "Oddly enough, neither the directories of the time nor the accessible biographies tell us where Engels lived  . . . Here is a problem for some local historian." May I inform your readers that Engels lived at two addresses during his stay in Manchester; first in Tennant Street, then at 86, Mornington Street, Stockport Road?

What the local historian is needed for is something more important. An effort ought to be made to trace the activities of Frederick Engels during his stay in Manchester.

He came here in 1842 from Barmen, where he had been engaged in his father's mill. His transference to the Manchester business, which was under the name of Ermen and Engels (later Ermen and Roby), brought him in touch with the appalling factory conditions and roused him to write his famous book on the question. He contributed to Bronterre O'Brien's "The Northern Star" and Robert Owen's "New Moral World." This before he had seen, met, or corresponded with Karl Marx. Socially he was a bit of a lion, riding to hounds, shooting (he was an expert shot) and participating in the "high" social life of the district.

He returned to Germany for a few years, and, after a series of political adventures in association with Marx, retuned to Manchester in 1850, residing here until 1870. He was a member of the Royal Exchange—that ought to help the "local" historian—and was a frequent contributor to the "Manchester Guardian." On foreign affairs, military matters, and later the volunteer movement, Engels was considered the most authoritative person in the North of England. His contributions to the "Pall Mall Gazette" were on occasion reprinted in the "Times." He was accepted as an expert on the rifle and artillery.

He was a welcome—and constant—visitor to Owens College, being very intimate with most members of the faculty, but particularly with Professor Schorlemmer, who in the late sixties acted as intermediary for the correspondence of Marx and Engels. Despite these activities little or nothing has been gleaned in Manchester about the life of Engels. He was responsible with Marx for the founding of the modern Labour movement. Surely these facts are sufficient to induce some student—or graduate—of Manchester University to undertake the research to disclose the immensity of Engels intellectual attainment.

A careful study of the works of both Marx and Engels convinces me that Engels was the greater genius. Marx time after time admitted this mental superiority. Engels could analyse a situation and come to a scientific conclusion with greater facility than Marx, who never came to a political decision without first consulting his friend. Marx's reference to Engels is appropriate. He said Engels "was a real walking encyclopædia, capable of work at any hour of the day or night, drunk or sober, swift with his pen, and alert as the devil." Though Engels could have been a success at press or literary work, he decided in the spring of 1854 to remain here in Manchester, in this "damned business," instead of undertaking other work in London. As we know, that decision was final.

A survey of Engels' work in Manchester will disclose that he was mainly responsible for brilliant articles written by Marx on foreign affairs and military matters. The shrewd speculations on diplomacy and politics, part of Marx's published works, germinated in the head of Engels. His encyclopædic knowledge was ever at the disposal of Marx. To study any subject Engels would not rely upon a translation. He would learn the language first. He was proficient in twenty languages, these including Russian, Arabic, Persian, Ancient Norse, Anglo-Saxon, and Erse. His linguistic proficiency was much praised by some of the great Owens College professors.

When he became partner in his father's firm, he allowed Marx 350 per year, besides handing over much extra money for other purposes. After Marx's death he enlarged, revised, and prepared the third edition of "Das Kapital" for the issue, supervised the English translation undertaken by Aveling and Moore, and arranged the whole of the material for the second and third volumes. A careful study of these volumes proves that the work was that of Engels, not Marx. Before his death in 1895, Engels was revising the whole of the literary efforts of Marx. Unfortunately his illness in Eastbourne became serious and he returned to London to die. Having no issue he left the bulk of his fortune to Marx's children. It may seem curious to take so much credit from Marx, but these are undeniable facts.

Manchester has something to her credit of which she ought to be proud. If civic consciousness counts for anything, some Mancunian ought to begin research into the life of one of the finest men who ever honoured the city with their presence.

Yours,

Moses Baritz.

2, Alford Road,

Heaton Chapel,

Stockport,

March 10.

Engels — his 20 years in Manchester (1934)

From the October 10th, 1934 issue of The Manchester Guardian

Frederick Engels, the friend and adviser of Karl Marx, lived in Manchester for more then twenty years. But historians, in this country at any rate, have paid little attention to the details of his stay, and some facts which have recently come to light may be worth publishing.

Engels first came to Manchester in 1842. He then held the radical views which later developed into the Socialist theoretical position. He had direct association with the working-class movement and was familiar with the Chartist leaders. He was friendly with Fergus O'Connor and George Julian Harney.

Engels's first known article was "The Progress of Social Reform," which occupied the front page of the "New Moral World." On December 27, 1842, an able analysis of the Corn Laws appeared in the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung." This was followed by his first work on economics, "Umrisse zu einer Kritik der Nationalekonomie" (The Outlines of a Criticism of National Economy) printed in the "Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher," 1844. More important was the "Condition of the Working Class in England." These works, all written in Manchester, expressed the proletarian ideology, at that time time unknown to Marx.

Nevertheless, Engles gravitated to the bourgeois circles appropriate to his social status. He joined the Albert Club, them situated in Clifford Street, Chorlton-on-Medlock, and became a friend of the brothers Ernst and Julius Delius, the latter father of the famous musician.

Engels left Manchester in 1844 for his home at Barmen, visiting Marx in Paris on the way. The next year he and Marx visited Manchester expressly to observe social conditions and stayed several weeks.

Returning to Manchester in 1850, Engels lived at first in Strangeways, at 70, Great Ducie Street; in May, 1852, the number was altered to 44, and in October to 40. About this time both he Marx were held suspect by the authorities, and had to evade the inquisitiveness of the police by correspondence through intermediaries—Marx asked Engels (October 28, 1852) to write to him "c/o A. Johnson. Esq., Bullion Office, Bank of England." Engels, a fortnight earlier, had asked Marx to address him "c/o Dr. J. W. Hudson, secretary of the Manchester Athenæum." Another intermediary was Karl Schorlemmer, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Owens College, to whom the calico printing and dyeing industries are greatly indebted. Engels in one of his letters describes how Schorlemmer openly upheld Marxism in the dining-room of the Faculty—the first eminent scientist to endorse the Marxian position.

MARY BURNS

Engels had during his first visit made the acquaintance of an Irish working girl, Mary Burns, who by her knowledge and experience of factory life gave impetus to his revolutionary fervour and induced him to investigate the history of the Irish people. Depressed at the social conditions of the workers in Manchester, he became sympathetic with the miserable situation of the Irish people.

Mary Burns impressed Engels, and the pair became attached to each other. When Engels settled down in Manchester in 1850 he provided for her, and later they lived as man and wife until her death in the first week of January, 1863.

Engels's sympathy for the Irish became active, and he gave some support to the Fenians in 1867, until Marx made him realise the foolishness of such conduct. Engels admitted it and, after the execution of the Manchester Martyrs, abandoned his previous attitude.

Engels left Strangeways with Mary in April, 1858, and lived at 6. Thorncliffe Grove, Oxford Road. Next, he, Mary, and her sister Lizzie took rooms at 252, Hyde Road, Gorton, next door but one to the gaol. After a return to Thorncliffe Grove they moved to Tennant Street. On September 2, 1864, he took up his final residence at 86, Mornington Street, Stockport Road.

Engels established a reputation as an authority on military strategy by the military articles contributed to the "New American Cyclopædia." He wrote a series of articles on the Volunteer movement for the "Lancashire and Cheshire Volunteer Journal," published by W. H. Smith and Son, and printed by the "Guardian" Steam Press. One of these created a stir in the United States, and was printed—in another form—in the New York "Tribune." The greatest impression was made by the publication of a pamphlet in February, 1860, with the title of "Where shall England rally her Volunteers?" Engels signed it "A General Officer."

ENGELS AND THE "MANCHESTER GUARDIAN"

The "Manchester Guardian" published several military articles by Engels. On February 16, 1864, there was a letter dealing with the disposition of the troops in Schleswig-Holstein. Later, during the Austro-Prussian conflict, a series of five articles was inserted in the "Manchester Guardian." They were headed "Notes on the War." They appeared on June 20,25,38, July 3 and 6. It is amusing to read the rehashing of these articles by the London periodicals.

Engels mentions that the "Manchester Guardian" paid him better than the "Pall Mall Gazette," for which also he wrote on military topics.

This was work done by Engels to provide Marx with funds and time to complete his "Capital." Engels denied himself many things in order to help Marx. During the years 1850-1883 Engels provided Marx with about £4,000, mostly after 1864.

A very interesting episode in the life of Engels in Manchester was his association with the Schiller-Anstalt. In November, 1859, Germans throughout the world celebrated the centenary of Schiller. In Manchester the festival was held at the Free Trade Hall on November 11. Though an artistic success the deficit was £150. This did not deter the German community, and it was resolved to form a Schiller-Anstalt. The organiser was Karl Siebel, a nephew of Engels, an admirable fellow and poet. Engels refused to participate, but attended the rehearsals of the theatrical troupe. The institution was started, the old Mechanics' Institute in Cooper Street being rented at £225 per annum, with a lease ending in June, 1867. Karl Siebel was the first president, a position he retained until 1864. Engels remained aloof because he objected to the rules and statutes but when these were altered joined the club.

On September 20, 1861, V. Stoessel, the librarian of the Schiller-Anstalt, addressed a note to Engels demanding the immediate return of a book to the library, and imposing a fine of £1 1s. 7d., with a proviso that if the book were not returned within 24 hours the fine would be increased to £2 1s. 6d. This enraged Engels, who wrote to the committee complaining of the tone of the librarian, observing that it was reminiscent of Prussian police tyranny, and that such a disgusting act would not be tolerated in the other club (the Albert), of which he was a member. An apology was demanded, but whether this was forthcoming is not known. To pacify Engels he was invited to address the members, an offer he indignantly declined.

PRESIDENT OF THE SCHILLER-ANSTALT
However, on July 7, 1864, he was installed president, retaining the office for four years. During this period the institute prospered, and Engels saw to it that the library was improved. By the end of his tenure of office there were 4,000 volumes (some of which were in no other library except the British Museum), fifty-five german periodicals, and the principal English dailies. New premises being desirable, Engels addressed an appeal to the German citizens of Manchester asking for subscriptions for the erection of a new building at a cost of £11,500. In a few days £1,200 was subscribed, but little progress was recorded after that. The old lease expiring, new premises were decided upon in the All Saints' area. In the meantime the landlord of the premises in Cooper Street permitted an extension of the lease for one year at £450. A removal was made to Rylands House in Oxford Street, and finally the premises in Nelson Street were taken over on December 18, 1885, where the society remained until the dissolution in 1911. In 1866 there was a membership of 300, but this was doubled later on by affiliation of the Turnverein and the Liedertafel.

Until his departure from Manchester at the end of September, 1870, Engels remained on the committee and attended all its meetings. He severed his connection when he went to London, but retained his membership in the Albert Club. He was a member of the Committee of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Foreigners, and, what is more surprising, when the German community started a fund for the alleviation of distress created by the Franco-Prussian War Engels headed the list with the first subscription of £50.

He did not return again to Manchester. He forced a good price for the dissolution of his partnership in Ermen and Engels, enough for him to guarantee Marx 350 a year and to live independently himself for the remaining years of his life. He died on August 5, 1895, was cremated, and his ashes scattered at sea three miles from Eastbourne.

Moses Baritz

The Ineffectuals: Old and New (1951)

From the February 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

On Monday, the 15th January, the B.B.C. produced another of their programmes on the present half-century. It covered the twenties and was written by Rebecca West. The whole of it was an example of the ignorance, inexperience and fatuousness of the "Bright young things" who emerged into the practical world from the "upper class." We were told about the "treasure hunts" lasting most of the night, and of various futile capers, which Rebecca West defended on the ground that behind it all they were searching for a solution of the problem of war and of poverty; that the feminine section were let loose on the world to enter the professions and the like for the first time and that their freedom temporarily went to their heads. She herself belonged to that generation and she told us how their hopes were built on the expectation of abolishing war—and then these hopes were shattered; of their hopes to abolish poverty by supporting "Labour," and how thrilled they were when the first real Labour Government was voted to power in 1929—and again how their hopes were shattered. In fact the whole programme was a record of the fatuous illusions and the inevitable disillusionment of the self-styled "Intellectuals." The facts of social life and the essentials of its economic basis seemed to be outside of their knowledge and experience and they lost themselves in airy futilities. From the programme one gleaned nothing of the fact that working-class girls had been working and wrestling with the problems of life for long years before the women of Rebecca West's circle had emerged from the cocoon of pampered privilege and became writers, artists, and so forth.

But the "Intellectuals" never learn. Convinced that the sun shines out of them, they go on blowing their coloured bubbles, changing the colours as each bubble bursts without any conception of the reason the bubbles burst.

A recent example of their bubble-blowing was the "Congress of Cultural Freedom" held from June 25th to the 30th, 1950. From the Report of this Congress, published under the title "Freedom Takes the Offensive," the reader can satisfy himself on the type of people who took part in the Congress.

The Introduction informs us that the "Manifesto on Cultural Freedom" was "draw up . . . by leading intellectuals from 24 nations." Let us glance at some of the statements made by these "men of brains."

Pages 1 to 3 of the Report contain messages from nine people, all of whom see intellectual freedom in the West and intellectual chains in the East. No reference is made to the economic bondage that exists in both East and West and hampers working-class aspirations in both spheres. But as we shall see the "intellectuals" are not concerned about any but their own little circle of wind-bags.

The first contribution is by Arthur Koestler. He makes a series of muddled statements, without any clear definitions, that leave the reader in the air. His second paragraph runs as follows:—

"In fact, the thesis which I wish to put before you is that the antinomies "Socialism and Capitalism," "Left and Right," have to-day become virtually empty of meaning, and that so long as Europe remains bogged down in these false alternatives which obstruct clear thinking, it cannot hope to find a constructive solution for its problems."

After this one would expect some definition of Socialism, but it is not given, and, although there is some criticism of nationalisation, one is left with the idea that Mr. Koestler identifies nationalisation with Socialism. For instance on page 8 he says, "Equally problematic is the question: just how much nationalisation makes a country Socialist or Capitalist?" The concluding paragraph of his contribution is a pearl. It is an excellent example of the impotence of his tribe:

"Sometimes I have a feeling in my bones that the terrible pressure which this conflict [between Capitalism and Socialism] exerts on all humanity might perhaps represent a challenge, a biological stimulus as it were, which will release the new mutation of human consciousness; and that its content might be a new spiritual awareness, born of anguish and suffering, of the full meaning of freedom. And I don't mean by that freedom from want, freedom from fear, and the rest. Since the dawn of civilization people have fought under the slogan of freedom; but it was always freedom from some particularly irksome oppression, freedom in a restricted sense. I mean freedom in a much deeper and fuller sense than any we can conceive to-day or see realized anywhere in organic nature. If that is the case, then we are indeed living in an interesting time, and the answer we shall give to destiny's challenge is not without import for the future of our species."

What a pity he did not reveal that which is inconceivable to-day.

Sidney Hook poses a number of questions but does not give the answers, and James T. Farrell makes a fervent plea for "artists, thinkers and scientists," and gives an imaginary picture of freedom in the West, ending with a plea for the "moral impulse." Here are some extracts from his contribution: —

"Our task is to make as clear and as explicit as we can the meaning of freedom of culture, and, having done this, to show . . . what differentiates us from totalitarianism. To show how we live under different conditions of cultural life than do artists, thinkers and scientists in the stricken lands behind the Iron Curtain . . .
"We are free to admire what we value, and to reject what we do not value. We can criticize and we can oppose. We can participate in or ignore politics, as we think best. We can act as free artists, thinkers and scientists. And it is these rights which we should defend, use and expand. In these rights, we find the essence of cultural freedom . . .
"The freedom we possess should impose an obligation and a sense of duty upon us. In one of his great speeches, Abraham Lincoln used the phrase: 'With malice towards none, with charity for all . . . ' I hope that, without any sacrifice of firmness of purpose, we all permeate our thinking with the spirit implied in these words of Lincoln. Especially when we look towards Soviet-dominated countries where artists and thinkers and scientists are forced to wear the uniform of totalitarianism, and where the dignity of men and women has been ground into dust. To these suffering people, to the terrorised artists and thinkers behind the Iron Curtain, we cannot and should not bear malice."

Lack of space deprives us of the opportunity of tearing to pieces the above and the rest of the nonsense Mr. Farrell has contributed about the "traditions of civilisation." If Mr. Farrell could tear his attention away from the "artists, thinkers, and scientists" for a few moments he might notice the existence of conscripts, of wage-freezing, of heresy hunting, of form-filling that puts our life-histories at the disposal of the State, the lack of housing accommodation, the armaments drive, and the numerous other joys of our jolly old Western democracy.

Another contributor, Richard Lowenthal, finishes his little piece with what reads like a plea for war: —

"The defence of freedom, then, is nothing else but the defence of this vital Western capacity for growth, and it resolves itself into a dual task: the task of going on to find creative solutions to the West's internal problems, and the task of defending the Western society's territory against the pressure of Soviet totalitarianism from outside."

Like the rest of the contributors, Mr. Lowenthal offers no solution "to the West's internal problems." However, if his remarks read like a plea for war, James Burnham is quite open about it, as the following remarks of his show: —

"Moreover, I must add, in order to be fully honest, that I am not, under any and all circumstances, against atomic bombs. I am against those bombs, now stored or to be stored later in Siberia or the Caucasus, which are designed for the destruction of Paris, London, Rome, Brussels, Stockholm, New York, Chicago . . . Berlin, and of Western Civilisation generally. But I am—yesterday and to-day at any rate—for those bombs made in Los Alamos, Hanford, and Oak Ridge, and guarded I know not where in the Rockies  or American deserts."

A nice discriminating and humane lover of peace and freedom is Mr. Burnham! This final example of the wisdom of the intellectuals is perhaps a fitting point at which to finish.

Gilmac.