Best years of your life? (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

"On your first blow of the whistle, they have to freeze. Then, on the second, they must go back inside." Such was the advice given to me on starting a short spell of work as a teacher in a primary school recently. I was beginning to wonder whether my job application had been mixed up with that of a would-be prison screw. I could certainly understand the young child who says after her first day at school that she doesn't have to go the next day because "I've been there once already". The first lesson then, on entering a school is that it is compulsory.

The second lesson was that it is no coincidence that the daily routine of a school is closely modelled on that of a factory or office. Bells or sirens usher the uniform mass in at 9, out at 12, in at 1, out at 4 . . . One of the main functions of schools is to prepare the children of workers to fit into the kind of life-long routines that their parents have suffered before them. They are taught not to respect themselves and their own needs. They are taught to accept poverty and to fight for “the nation" and its owners.

The school is an artificial and hostile environment in which large numbers of children are herded together, grouped according to age and without the resources to cater for the subtleties of individual needs. In later life it would be absurd if you were only to be on friendly terms with those who were born within twelve months of you. and yet throughout the school years this is the kind of arbitrary association that is thrust on children. Then, in groups often over 30. they are expected to "learn".

The current proposals for a national curriculum and for testing at 7, 11, 14 and 16 will simply make an intimidating environment even worse. The Rutter Report (15,000 Hours) has reassured us that "prize givings are neither detrimental, divisive, nor elitist". Maybe not for the minority who get the prizes. But the capitalist approach to dealing with differing needs means being concerned with the differing needs of various employers, and therefore carefully grading and labelling the products of their mind factories for later use (or non-use).

At the same time, the capitalist attitude towards the young has always been ambiguous. Childhood is itself an artificial construction, a social concept which has emerged and changed very much in its definition over the centuries. And in the present, youth is seen as both charming and yet potentially dangerous. Creative or imaginative dreams have to be moulded so that they are accommodated to the needs of the present system, or else scorned and smashed. And this is another role of the so-called education system in present-day society.

The Intentions Behind State Education

All of these purposes of schools were present from the earliest days of state education. Before 1830 the British state spent nothing on education, and fifty years later the groundwork had been laid for the system we have today. Employers wanted well-trained workers: "The superiority of workmen of some education over those who have none must be sensibly felt by all the great manufacturers in the country" (Earl Stanhope, 1807). They wanted to be able directly to control the young, to hold back change. As the manufacturer, Andrew Ure, put it in 1861:

The uneducated state of the lower orders is a dark den of incendiaries among misrule which, if not cleared out will give birth to disastrous eruptions in every other province. A limited education might be a most effective bulwark against revolution.

And it was seen as necessary to condition workers into the role and life-style of steady and submissive wage-slaves:

We do not profess to give these children an education that will raise them above their station of business in life: that is not our object. but to give them an education that may fit them for that business.

[Robert Lowe, Final Report of the Cross Commission, 1888]

Such intentions are just as much in evidence today, with for example the recent White Paper on Education and Training, which states that the aim of current educational changes is to make "learning in schools more relevant to the needs of the modern world and. in particular, the needs of employers".

Before taking a glance at what is actually taught in schools, let us consider briefly some of the supposed "alternatives" on offer. After immense effort and campaigning, comprehensive schooling was established in Britain. And yet even some of those most vigorous campaigners will now acknowledge that many of the old frustrations and indignities still remain in the newer system of "indoctrination without discrimination". Furthermore, it has recently been argued that the current proposed reforms will effectively restore many aspects of the grammar school system anyway. Then there was the famous old Labour policy of getting rid of the public schools, not that they ever did anything about it. In fact, is it such a bad thing that we are saved the unpleasant experience of rubbing shoulders at school with the Hooray Henrys and Henriettas who will later be exploiting us? It is quite logical that in a two-class society there will be two classes of school preparing people for two different lifestyles or roles: the employers and the (sometimes) employed.

The whole nature and purpose of "education" cannot be fundamentally changed without a transformation of society as a whole. With the establishment of socialism, as a system of production for use, the idea of being dragged through a compulsory institution will have no place. Such prisons can only jokingly be called "places of learning". Education then will become a life-long and voluntary process, based firmly in everyday experience. Already, modern educational methods are recognising the value of the "problem-solving" or investigational approaches to learning. But this is still taking place in the artificial confines of schools. Socialism will not need to produce people as profit-generating commodities. So learning then can be completely voluntary. life-long and rooted in experience, as we start to refine the satisfaction of our needs.

Training Future Workers

What, in contrast, is taught in schools at present? The tone is perhaps set by a recent headline. "Business seeks a broader role with schools" (Times Educational Supplement, 21 August 1987).

From an early age. schools are teaching children to accept the curiosities of capitalism as if they were natural. And the message, once swallowed at this vulnerable age, sticks hard many years later. Take for example this self-confessed indoctrinator, describing how she introduced some 8-year-olds to the idea of "profit". She says there was

incredulity as we would have 10p every time we sold a spider, also confusion at hearing the word "profit". It was previously a concept outside their experience and I spent much teaching time after this trying to reinforce the idea of profit and how it is essential for the survival of a business.

[Child Education, February 1987] 

No doubt if a teacher was to show, more accurately, how profit is essential only for the survival and prosperity of the owners of a business, this would be slammed in the gutter press as bringing "politics" into the classroom!

Last year, in fact, Norman Tebbit accused ILEA of driving children to truancy by teaching "anti-sexist, anti-racist, gay, lesbian, CND rubbish" in schools. In fact the kind of thing that drives many of the more sensible victims to truancy" is, for example, the absurd humiliation of the weekly dose of physical jerks, or the regimentation of enforced sessions of "Country Dancing", and the arrogant sarcasm of teachers who cannot earn respect and therefore demand it as a right.

In Statistics A-level, students are expected to calculate how to set minimum standards for the proportion of faulty items off a production line, in such a way as to allow a stated set of results to pass those standards! (This reflects a common practice in industry, in which both profits and good PR are maintained by setting the standards to match the results rather than the more honest way around). And in history, an acceptance of nationalism runs quietly throughout all of the courses, as in 20th Century British History (Heinemann. 1987) which says of the 1931 National Government that "they wanted to work together to help Britain. Britain had to get out of the Depression".

Then there is religion. Under the 1944 Education Act. all pupils have to meet every day for a collective act of worship. Again, this is of course neither spontaneous nor voluntary but enforced. "Religious instruction" is also the only compulsory school "subject" on the curriculum in Britain.

Teaching Law and Order

A piece of historical crudity almost as stupid as the Heinemann variety was served up earlier this year by a policeman addressing the children of a Newcastle school I was working in: "Before the forming of the police force in 1829," he explained, "there was no law and order. There was crime everywhere". So different now, isn’t it? There is currently a fairly widespread policy in inner London of teachers refusing the police access to schools. This policy has been attacked by the NUT, as well as the government and the tabloids. Recently a surprisingly honest headteacher from St. Paul's. Bristol acknowledged that police make regular guest appearances in schools because "teachers are in alliance with power and authority. We cannot opt out in school" (Libertarian Education, summer 1987).

The 1986 Education Act requires any headteacher to have regard "to any such representations which are made to him by the chief officer of police" and the annual school governors' report should describe "what steps have been taken to develop the school's links with the community (including links with the police)". Apart from the obvious chance offered to the police to impress a vulnerable and captive audience with the wonderful way they work to ensure that ten per cent of the population remain in control of most of the real wealth, they also even supplement this PR job with "intelligence gathering" activities. A certain PC Currant recently boasts in The Job (Metropolitan Police paper) that “a lot of youngsters began talking to us, giving us descriptions and nicknames of burglars".

In recent years, this extra subject on the curriculum, known as Submission Studies (is a "Law and Order” GCSE on the way?) has become even more prominent. The 1981 Scarman Report advised:

Police assistance in the education of children in the fundamentals of an ordered society can. . . be of great value . . .  as the pressures on our society grow in intensity, the need for programmes of instruction for all children in the way government works, in the law and in the duties, as well as the rights, of citizenship increases.

The American Radical, Henry Adams, had more sense when he pointed out that "chaos often breeds life, when order breeds habit". And this was followed up in 1983 by an HMI Report, Police Liaison with the Education Service, which again showed an obsession with the need to artificially implant in young minds an unhealthy awe for something called authority:

Nor can schools, because of the work they do, and the responsibilities it entails, give the impression to pupils that civilised society could function without authority and a general respect for it among the populace.

The traditional idea of "beating sense" into young children who have the real sense to question and resist the myths and tedium they are fed, has in modem times increasingly been replaced by the more "enlightened" (and ultimately more persuasive) idea of smooth-talking this "sense" into them. John Locke, writing nearly three hundreds years ago. was a capitalist theoretician well ahead of his time:

Beating is the worst, and therefore the last means to be used in the correction of children . . . if you can once get into children a love of credit and an apprehension of shame and disgrace, you have put into them the true principle.

[Educational Writings] 

He sums up here perfectly the modern orthodoxy, in which morality is instilled into children by self-righteous "liberal" and trendy teachers, through the use of guilt, shame and pride. Why pay for a policeman on every street comer when you can put one on 24-hour patrol inside every head?

Examples of mental, as opposed to physical punishment were everywhere to be seen during my recent experience of working in a primary school. The sarcasm so often used by teachers shows a fundamental lack of respect. Some of the more exuberant children are frequently and studiously informed that they are "deaf', that is, not listening to the boring teacher. One fairly typical tirade from a PE teacher was transcribed as follows: 

Who made that noise? Did I ask anyone to make a noise? My instructions were to spring up . . . Anyone who wants to talk come out here.. . Don't all do the same: you're individuals! Adam, do you find this hard to do. because I can give you a lot more practice if you do. . .

and so on ad nauseam.

One boy had been swearing at teachers and going home; the headteacher methodically visited every class to ensure that no respect built up for this individual’s actions. "He's been babyish, hasn't he?" she whined at each confused class. Another boy, at a school in Newcastle where I was "trained", had severe problems at home. His resulting "tantrums" during the day at school were systematically punished (not "in anger") by a teacher who then told both me and this boy that he doubted very much whether the planned punishments would make any difference at all to his future behaviour-, then proceeded to implement them in any case. One was left seriously wondering for whose benefit this ritual was being so tenaciously pursued.

One young child keenly offering to help another was slapped down with the statement: "Sit down at once; I'm the teacher here!" An 8-year-old girl who grew bored with a story about a speaking cat and commented that "cats don’t speak. anywaY" was rudely told to "shut up and stop being silly". It seemed an earnest discussion between teacher and pupil on the relative merits of realism and fantasy in children's fiction was not on the cards that afternoon. One class were being spurred on by the offer of a £2 prize for the best work, and an 8-year-old boy who. when asked to pass a book which was "second from the top" in a pile of three jovially pointed that "it's second from the bottom!" was told not to be cheeky. Examples such as these bear out the statement made long ago by Helvetius that "Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education".

Society Without Schools

Fortunately, even the stultifying experience of school does not always succeed in killing off completely the imaginative and creative "dreams" of children. On one occasion. I invited a class of children to describe their ’ideal world". The response to this included: No Maggie Thatcher, No wars, No schools, "schoolchildren paid instead of teachers", "in shops, they give you the money, and and the product", "everybody equal, plenty of money for all people every day", "everything free in shops". Several children said "everything would be free".

The idea of society without schools was laid out in William Morris' portrait of a liberated society, News From Nowhere, in which the "visitor" to that society, on mentioning schools, is confronted with a bewildered reaction:

"What do you mean by that word? I don't see how it can have anything to do with children. We talk, indeed, of a school of herring, and a school of painting, and in the former sense we might talk of a school of children - but otherwise" said he. laughing. "I must own myself beaten".

On the suggestion made by several of these children that everything should be available free, a debate was set up in which they made statements as to whether they were for or against this idea, and why. Some of the resulting statements volunteered by children on the issue showed just how much their thinking is in advance of that of their so-called teachers:

I am for the idea because people won't have to worry about debts and bills/ I don't think people will take it all . . . they might be a bit greedy, but not that much/ There would be no poor people and no posh and rich people, and even though you will still be ill sometimes, if you are you can just take the medicine and it would be free; you would not have to share things, but I still would/ Not equal shares of money, just each take what you want/ Don't knock down banks, just burn the money; use the mints for something else, anyway, the banks wouldn't exist by then, probably/ The poor would be rich as well . . . taking too much? Who would bother?/ Money would not be invented and we would be rich in our own way. Because the poor wouldn't die of hunger. I wish they could open up an orange and find enough money to look after themselves.

If these young people's imaginative efforts to solve the insane contradictions of capitalism are to flourish, and to grow into a practical solution to those contradictions, it will be in spite of and in opposition to their experience at school:

Let's get off children's backs and let them learn what they want, how they want, when they want. Learning grows where it will, where the soil and climate are right. We can no more ordain learning by order, coercion and commandment than we can produce love by rape or threat.

[Education Otherwise Newsletter. 34]

 Clifford Slapper

Are you . . . part of the stystem (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Of course, we might have been born this way. Out of the womb, programmed to a kind of madness which makes us into callous competitors in a race which we are unlikely to win. Maybe we are all swines. Perhaps it is punishment for Eve eating that apple. Diseased, rotten bodies of human nature, wandering around looking for ways to express our inherent nastiness. Murder, rape, corruption. dishonesty . . . we should be grateful to the cops, the bosses, the teachers and that overwhelming sense of guilt for the sins which we think we have committed and the worse ones which we are sure that we are on the verge of committing — grateful to these forces of repression for stopping us from being our horribly, humanly natural selves.

Maybe. And maybe Jesus Christ died and was born again. Neil Kinnock is a principled socialist and the Moonies have the answer to all our problems if only we'd open our ears, closely followed by our wallets, and listen to The Truth. Life is too short for maybes. To hell with these creeps who tell children that as humans they are wretched and must repent; to hell with our 'defenders' who tell us that we must have armies and bombs. 'Man being what he is', to hell with the screwed up view of humanity which defines love as being confined to a gymnastic display beneath the sheets. Human nature is not an illness. Human beings can act in many ways, and do. How we behave is not determined by God (who is a figment of the powerless imagination) or by Nature (which is not our mother any more than the virgin Pope is anyone's father). Whatever we are — and we are all kinds of people, from caring volunteers who help the aged to vicious muggers who rape them for kicks — is a product of the society in which we live, learn and create ourselves — or are created by others who have decided what we should be.

Every day of the week Intercity trains travel across the country carrying on them vast numbers of workers who are 'on business' for the company. There can be few tortures worse than sitting next to a troupe of these travelling human calculating machines. They carry files and study graphs and talk with passion about how 'we' could increase sales in Accrington if only R&D would pull their fingers out. What boring lives these salaried servants of another class's parasitism lead. At least the factory worker does not waste time thinking about how to boost profits as he reads the paper on the bus each morning. The system has sucked these workers in: with their travel allowance, annual invitation to the MD's golf club and non-taxable ulcer, they have been swallowed into a world of caring about buying and selling and investing and hiring and sacking — a world where the cash register rings and they feel a tingle right across their soul which is not there.

Every morning on London local radio those who are part of it all are invited to talk all about it on phone-in shows. In case three hours is not long enough there is another three hours every night. Phone-in shows are like Chinese take-aways: eat like Emperors and feel hungry two hours later. But it is worth the effort, for amongst the long hours of bland noise there are those moments when clarity supersedes cliche and you are persuaded that Harry of Hatch End is speaking in a language that his bosses did not want him to learn. But for every conscious Harry there are scores of callers who have been truly sucked in to the rut of the profit system. They spend time working out ways to run it, enforce it, reform it, celebrate it. They are suckers for capitalism. This morning's topic: how to stop so many wicked workers from using the tube without a ticket. On comes Bill from Barking who is barking mad because there are too few ticket collectors; Lil from Tooting reckons that there should be stiffer fines for wage slaves who do not pay their way to work; Jack from Camden is of the view that it is all a sign of the times and nothing can ever be done to defeat the inevitability of the status quo. Meanwhile in the House of Lords a gaggle of half-dead time-wasters debate the best way to preserve badgers. Across the country thousands of reform groups plan ways to preserve red phone boxes and make prisons more humane. It is known as performing a rôle in society.

Children have the right idea. They have better things on their minds than making bosses richer and cheering on Our Boys in the Gulf. But with ''maturity" — that awful descent which marks our graduation out of innocence and into The System — comes the need to think about money and status and who is consuming whom and what and for how much. Society schools children into knowing their places within the vast scheme of things, or rather, into this huge, schemeless mess of uncontrolled relationships called the capitalist system.

In most areas there are people commonly referred to as simpletons. The ones who are not quite all there; misfits, social deviants, the crazy ones. These are the people who. sometimes because of their brains, but more often because of their surroundings, have not been conditioned to standard precision. They are rejects in terms of what the system requires from its subordinate, wealth-producing class. Of course, if society ignores them they will become confused and alienated. They will wander the streets talking to themselves, because sometimes that is the only phone-in show worth being on. They will laugh about jokes which bank clerks and social workers cannot comprehend and perceive visions which only the mad. i.e. not wholly conditioned, could entertain. For many such people life becomes one of frustration: either 'treated' by society's modern witch-doctors, the psychiatrists, with drugs meant to subdue and normalise them, or left alone to ponder the meaningless disorder of a world which appears to have meaning to those who are its tamed beasts of burden. Every so often a deranged wage slave takes a gun and does what medals are awarded for in the army — or stages a siege or frightens a baby. Such actions feed a million prejudices: ah. so this is what humans will do if they are not conditioned to be slaves, economically and culturally.

Socialists never tire of explaining that the working class is exploited: we produce everything that is in and on this earth and what we produce is stolen by the minority who own and control this earth. This is the intolerable inequality of the capitalist system.

But that is not all that is intolerable. It is enough, to be sure, to make workers rise like lions and topple this rotten system once and for all. But. just as bad — some might think even worse — than the economic oppression which this system embodies is the cultural slavery which it requires of its unconscious millions whose non-opposition keeps capitalism alive. That subordination which requires workers to smile blissfully to the latest chart-topping, mind-numbing, consciousness-crushing hit; to dance away the nights to the chat of DJs whose mid-Atlantic drawls confirm that "everything's gonna be alright"; to dream about big cars and big houses and big career opportunities; to choose your fantasy from the impoverished store of images which offer Princess Di or Joan Collins or (for those who are definitely not conversationalists) Samantha Fox. The cultural slavery of Big Mac, Albert Square and Dewsbury parents who must neurotically protect their little Bisto kids from having curry sauce on their school dinners. Is it worth it? If we were born that way life itself would hardly be worth the bother. But human nature has not destined us to be neat little cogs in the dizzying wheel of the system. We are conscious; we can imagine; we can plan together, we can stop being part of it.

Steve Coleman

Advert for the latest issue of the World Socialist Journal (1987)

Advert from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

To read the articles listed above, click on the following links:

• Editorial: Socialism —A world of unity
• The continuing trade war by Edgar Hardcastle (Britain)
• Japan: the other side of the miracle by John Crump
• What the market does to our food by Ken Smith (Britain)
• Pollution: no solution within capitalism by Ray Rawlings (Canada)
• Esperanto celebrates its centenary by Bill Clarke (Australia)
• Racism and free speech in Canada by George Jenkins (Canada) 
• Letter: Non-market, revolutionary socialism by Frank Girard (United States)
• Bellamy, socialism and utopia by Steve Coleman (Britain)
• The Parade by Sid Catt (Canada)

Party conferences: rhetoric and reality (1987)

From the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The differing moods at this year's various party conferences are a reflection of the result of the recent general election. For the Conservatives in Blackpool it is a time for self-congratulation. For the third time in a row they were able to convince a large number of people that they were best suited to running a system based on the exploitation of the many by the few. This is very similar to being able to trick the inmates of an extermination camp into believing that it can be run in their interests. This was achieved by promoting the illusory concept of "people's capitalism". An increase in home ownership and the fact that more people own a few shares in what were formerly state owned enterprises is supposed to support the view that we live in a “property owning democracy". The reality is somewhat different, home ownership for the vast majority means that they have a financial burden called a mortgage tied round their necks. As for state ownership, should any of those who happen to own a few shares in British Gas. British Telecom or any other of the formerly nationalised industries attempt to pack up work and live off unearned income it will soon become apparent which class they belong to.

At the Labour Party conference in Brighton there was a more solemn atmosphere for once again they failed to convince enough people that they are a party fit to manage capitalism. It seems that still not enough time has passed for people to forget what a shambles things were under the Labour administration of 1974-9. The dispute over how to select and re-select parliamentary candidates was resolved by a compromise suitable to Kinnock and the trade union leadership in the form of an electoral college. Forget all the arguments about the need to find a more democratic system; the truth is that a change was needed so that the successful candidates fit the new image of moderation and responsibility that the party is attempting to present. This leads on to the other vital debate for the party this year, that of reviewing policy. This means adopting a combination of caring capitalism — presenting a caring attitude for the less well off whilst making sure they remain in that position — whilst incorporating aspects of "people's capitalism". On the latter policy opportunists like Bryan Gould want the party to incorporate aspects of Thatcher's policies such as share ownership by giving workers the right to buy shares in the company which exploits them. Such a policy will be attacked by the left as a betrayal of "socialism". By this they mean a betrayal of the party's commitment to state capitalism. In response the right will argue that a radical extension of share ownership is equal to a new type of "socialism". The truth is that under the policies advocated by the right and left a system based on a relationship between robbers and robbed and production for profit will remain. But then the Labour Party has never had a clear understanding of capitalism.

Meanwhile the SDP and Liberal Party conferences were dominated by the debate, to merge or not to merge. Those in favour of merger see this as the best way of replacing the Labour Party as the main opposition. Thus principle and policy disagreements must be quietly forgotten. There are of course a few, mostly in the SDP, whose political ambitions would not be furthered by merger. Principal amongst these is David Owen. In a merged party, dominated by the Liberals in terms of numbers of members and MPs, Owen is unlikely to gain a dominant position let alone become the leader. So for him it is better to wait and see how things develop.

Democratic Principles vs Actual Practice

All the above parties claim that they are based on democratic principles and are organised on democratic lines. By taking a closer look at each of them we can see how far this claim is matched by actual practice.

The Conservative Party has always talked a great deal about democracy but a brief look at its organisation shows a gap between rhetoric and reality.

The National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations was formed in 1867 with the aim of popularising Conservative principles. The National Union convenes an annual conference of constituency associations which acts as a sounding board for Conservative opinion in the country. Proceedings at conference are usually non-controversial and resolutions are often passed without a formal vote. The party leader, elected by the MPs only, is normally responsible for appointing the central body including the chairperson and in consultation with her/his top colleagues decides on party policy and strategy. Year after year at Conservative Party conference we hear people protected from the harsh realities of capitalism making long winded speeches about the need to bring back capital punishment — never mind the cause, just deal with effects. Others will preach about moral standards and the sanctity of the family whist supporting a system in which millions starve while food rots and whilst even in their own back yards thousands of people live in slums, building materials are stockpiled and building workers on the dole queue. After the leadership speech a standing ovation is guaranteed no matter what garbage flows from Thatcher's mouth. At Blackpool the concept of democracy was confined to rhetoric whilst from every corner support for the dictatorship of the boardroom was absolute. All good entertainment if you like hypocrisy.

Meanwhile events at Brighton showed once again that the Labour Party is dominated both in its administration and in its policy making functions by the leadership of the large trade unions. They provide the party with around two-thirds of its income and five sixths of its membership. Votes are allocated to unions in proportion to the annual sum which they pay as an affiliation fee. At conference these votes are cast as block votes. Whilst the delegates from the constituency parties outnumber union delegates, the combined votes of a few large unions is generally enough to secure a majority. Many Labour supporters including those on the left whose policies are generally defeated at the hands of the block vote, claim that this structure shows that the party is the political wing of the trade unions. There are several reasons why this claim is false. Firstly the block votes are being cast not on behalf of conscious Labour Party members but on behalf of union members who in many cases are affiliated to the party because they have failed to opt out of paying the political levy. Indeed it is certainly the case that many of these same people voted for parties other than Labour last June. Secondly, not only does the block vote system fail to take into account any difference of opinion amongst those eligible to be consulted, but in most cases little or no consultation actually takes place. Even with consultation there is often confusion. Take for example, the case of the TGWU on the occasion of the contest for the deputy leadership of the party between Healey and Benn in 1981. The union consulted its members through its regional organisation who in turn adopted a variety of methods. A majority of regions voted for Healey. However the executive committee decided to recommend its delegation to vote for Benn as a majority of the largest regions had done so. At that conference the union's block vote was. in the first ballot cast in favour of the third candidate. John Silkin, after another consultation amongst themselves the vote was transferred to Benn in the second ballot.

The unions also have substantial influence on the party's ruling body, the National Executive Committee (NEC). Twelve of its twenty-seven members are elected in the trade union section. The NEC plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the party between conferences, recommends acceptance or rejection of motions put to conference and will in the next year play a vital role in reviewing the party's policies. This year Kinnock gained a tighter grip over this body thanks mainly to the unions' block vote. As the Financial Times (30 September) put it:

The centre right now dominates the sections of the executive which are determined by the votes of the unions. This produced a defeat of the two hard left candidates in the women's section.

Changes in the method of selecting parliamentary candidates and a commitment to review policy were, the FT reported, "the result of the exercise of the trade union block vote".

The Labour Party, then, is controlled not by its members or by trade union members who are affiliated to it but by a small number of trade union leaders who can usually be relied upon to support the party leadership.

Democracy is also sadly lacking in both the SDP and Liberal parties. The leadership of both constantly talk about one member one vote but once again rhetoric is not supported by practice. At two Liberal conferences in recent years majority votes have been cast in favour of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and on both occasions that arch democrat, David Steel, indicated that the assembly could vote for what it liked but he had the final say over policy. Only recently, with regard to the ballot in the SDP on merger with the Liberals. David Owen was at the centre of a dispute regarding the question posed on that ballot paper. The Electoral Reform Society had described it as being unfairly loaded. Owen was in fact always unprepared to accept any vote which went in favour of merger. The SDP, far from being a party with no vested interests, as it claimed to be, was, from its early stages, a party which attracted support from several leading big business figures. Articles in the Observer and the Sunday Times as long ago as 1981 revealed that the SDP's finance committee was to be chaired by David Sainsbury, the finance director of the grocery chain and Clive Lindley, millionaire owner of the LCI group, was one of its trustees. Amongst its other supporters were Lord Sainsbury, Sir Claus Moser of Rothschilds and Cob Stenham, the financial director of Unilever.

Of course it is of little surprise that parties which exist to administer capitalism, as all these parties do, have little to do with democracy, for this system has as much to do with that concept as Dallas or Dynasty has to do with providing intellectual stimulus. How can a system where the most vital function in society, the production and distribution of the means of life. food, clothing and shelter included, are owned and controlled by and in the interests of a small minority have anything to do with democracy? There is little point in members of any political party which exists to run capitalism trying to exercise control over their leaders so a certain set of desired policies can be carried out. Experience should have taught such people that even those who hold positions of power, be they politicians, or even members of the capitalist class, have no control over the system. Certain economic laws have to be obeyed. Production is governed by the need to make a profit. Its primary function is not to satisfy needs.

All capitalist political parties are based on a relationship between leaders and followers. This leadership role should not be confused with administration for that function is normally carried out by others. What we are talking about here is a political leadership whose function it is to impose on their members what is possible within the confines of the present organisation of society. Leadership is not something which is inevitable but is confined to societies where a minority rule in their own interests over the majority. This situation can only exist when that majority are not conscious of where their real interests lie.

The socialist view

In contrast to the above parties the socialist movement does not exist to run capitalism and it recognises that workers cannot be led to socialism. It exists to propagate socialist ideas and to create an organisation which can be used by workers conscious of the need for socialism. Socialists reject the concept of leadership because the nature of the society we wish to bring about cannot be established by an organisation based on a relationship between leaders and followers. Socialism means a society where the resources of the earth are owned and consciously controlled by its inhabitants. All will stand in equal relation to the means of production. meaning that each member of society will have the opportunity to use them, to have access to all goods and services on the basis of self determined need, and be involved in administering and making decisions about short and long term collective goals. Private or state capitalist minority control over the productive process and the concept of any form of exchange will be redundant in a society based on common ownership as will be states or governments which are incompatible with a classless society. With this definition of socialism it becomes clear why workers cannot be led to it. A society based on conscious democratic control by the majority can only be brought about by a majority who understand the need for it and organise themselves consciously, politically and democratically to bring it about.

Experience should have shown us all that the parties which have been in conference in the last few weeks have no answers to the worldwide problems we face. They have no answers because they stand for an outdated social system. Are you content to let that system continue on its destructive path or will you join us to bring about a sane world?

Ray Carr

Between the Lines: What TV Does to People (1987)

The Between the Lines Column from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

What TV Does to People

The Home Secretary, Douglas Hurd, has of late undertaken a course of ritual pontification about the effects of sex and violence on TV screens. Are these images corrupting the impressionable workers? Might Michael Ryan not have gone around shooting the inhabitants of Hungerford if TV had not given him a model to imitate? Did the rape scene in Sins create new rapists? Is all of the anti-social nastiness of daily life under capitalism but a re-enactment of the corrupting imagery of TV make-believe?

Socialists are not out to tell the bosses how to run their system. They will run it, if they can, in whatever way it will be most profitable and stable for them — and they will regulate their media accordingly. Of course, the Tories are in a bit of a fix. On the one hand they never tire of telling us that human nature dictates our anti-social behaviour: we are all born sinners and the best we can do is repent for being the murderous, evil little swines that we are. If that theory was true, then TV images would not make people anti-social, for we already would be. If the government accepts the view that the social environment moulds people’s behaviour (which is clearly what they are saying when they seek to limit the influence of TV) they are taking dangerous steps in the direction of the Marxist recognition that it is our social being which determines our consciousness. So, if Hurd and his colleagues advance to the recognition that we are what society makes us, then they must give up their traditional claims that murderers, rapists and other anti-social beings were born that way: if they were, then it would not matter how "clean" TV was, they would still commit their crimes.

Once the Tories accept the view that TV might affect the way people behave it becomes necessary for them to place the state in the role of censors, ensuring that we, the viewers, are not allowed to see what is bad for us. Needless to say. such censorship would not be unpolitical. We do not expect governments to act unpolitically. The state censors might decide to ban TV films which glorify violence, but so too might they decide to ban documentaries which undermine national morale. As soon as a censorship body exists it will be used to perform more than simply ethical functions. The pro-censorship lobby invariably couples sex and violence as the pernicious double-act of modern TV. But sex and violence are different images. Why ban sexual images from TV? Miserable Christians insist that nude bodies corrupt children. That tells us more about screwed-up Christians' self-repression than anything else. Of course, there is a massive difference between the televised depiction of sensitive love-making and the TV blockbuster which needs to kick off with a brutal rape scene because it will pull in the punters who read The Sun and who constitute an audience big enough to please the advertisers. If "sex on TV" is to be "banned" (to use the absurd terminology of the censorship brigade), are we no longer to see drama which includes the realities of sexual behaviour? The sex imagery which TV is far more culpable of exploiting is that related to gender roles — images which show women as flawed if they are not purchaseable commodities of femininity and which teach female viewers which character models to copy if they want to be like real TV women. It is that sort of "sex on TV” which is far more repressive and destructive than the scenes which Mary Whitehouse never seems to miss, and then always seems to want to ensure that the rest of us are banned from seeing.

As for violence, what kind of a society is capitalism which has armaments capable of blowing up the world several times over, research establishments plotting ways of creating biological weapons that can kill people by newer, more painful methods; which settles its international rivalries in pursuit of profits by the use of well-organised thuggery — which does all of these things openly and with pride —and then blames TV shoot-outs for creating social violence? The simple fact is that if we were not living in a social system based upon competition the incentive to be socially violent would not be there.

The Bloody Tragedy of it All

We do not know whether violent or pornographic pictures on TV make viewers behave differently. Different research provides contradicting conclusions. What TV does do to many, many workers is make us sad. Watching The News At Ten (ITV) night after night after night is a process which ends in feeling bloody miserable about the tragedy of it all. For millions of workers this tragedy is blotted out by booze or tranquillisers; in others it creates apathy; for some the bad news (which is almost everything) is blocked out and they wait for the bit at the end where ITN digs up a "happy story" to send the wage slaves to bed with a bit of hope.

Few documentaries conveyed this sense of overwhelming tragedy as well as the recent Channel Four series, The Politics of Food (Tuesdays, 9pm). The programme about Brazil (7 October) showed scene after scene of dying, starving children, many of them little more than babies. There was the interview with a mother who told the story of saving up enough money to take her malnourished son to the doctor. She brought him back in a coffin, now she has two more children both suffering from the same symptoms of malnutrition. Then there was the Brazilian man who worked producing cocoa for export so that his capitalist bosses could help pay off their $100 billion debt to the bankers. (This is the tragedy of capitalism: cocoa is grown for export and land producing crops which could feed starving peasants is converted to export production because the empty-bellied are also those with empty wallets.) The man, who earns a wage of £8 a week, says. "It used to be bad. but now it's worse. The harder I work the worse it gets." Another worker looks into the camera and states that the only thing left to wait for is death.

Of course, no solution is offered by the programme. A few reformists are wheeled on to advocate land reform, but, as the speaker for the Brazilian government quite openly explained, 1 per cent of the Brazilian population own 50 per cent of all land in Brazil and that is the most profitable land; these capitalists spend £7 million each year on private armies to uphold their ownership. In the last two years 500 Brazilian workers and peasants have been murdered by the landowners because they have been prominent in advocating land reform. Who says that there is no class war going on? These are our fellow workers being murdered in it. But land reform offers no solution; nor do increased loans to peasants from the World Bank or Cuban-style state ownership. The solution is socialism — a worldwide system in which all human beings will have free access to the goods and services of our abundant planet. Seeing children die and human lives wasted in despair and women bury their families — seeing all of that not as fiction, but as the real depiction of the society we inhabit —, that is the real obscenity on our TV screens. No. don't censor it, Mr Hurd; don't protect us from seeing the sickness of the system which you and those like you uphold. Let us see. and let us do more than just see.

Update

As The People newspaper has failed to correct its crass distortion of the ideas printed in this column in the August Socialist Standard (see October's "Between The Lines" for details), a complaint has now been sent to the Press Council. Readers will be informed

(a) whether the Press Council upholds the indisputable validity of our complaint, and

(b) whether The People, if censured for its distortion, will provide equal space in its newspaper to publicise such censure as it did to convey its original distortion.

Steve Coleman

Blogger's Notes:

• The October 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard carried an article on Michael Ryan and the Hungerford massacre written by Janie Percy-Smith.
• There was a book tie in with the Channel 4/Yorkshire Television series The Politics of Food. The hunger machine : the politics of food by Jon Bennett and Susan George was published in 1987 by Polity Press, and is available over at Archive.org
• There was a sneering review of the PBS/Channel 13 version of The Politics of Food by the New York Times' TV critic, John Corry, that appeared in that paper on January 6th, 1988.

Letter: Voting for socialism (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voting for socialism

Dear Editors.

After reading July's Socialist Standard I feel I must raise a few points. The "strategy" of the SPGB has always been to argue the case for socialism through propaganda and public meetings and debates, and win the "battle of ideas" so that the new society of socialism can be democratically voted in. This is exactly how you approached the General Election. In Islington, where the only socialist candidate stood, the battle was fought on the streets where literature was sold on stalls and at tube stations; in your manifesto and leaflets which were delivered to all households; in posters and stickers which clearly stated the socialist message; and at your election rally "ours was a battle of ideas". And you lost! The people of Islington were presented with the case for socialism and it was rejected, with your candidate polling fewer votes than the average loony candidate or fascist.

All this should lead socialists to ask the following questions:

1. Do people want socialism?
2. How do people develop a socialist consciousness?
3. Can socialism be simply voted in?

First of all. as you know, the word socialism is often incorrectly used to describe anything from the programme of the Labour Party to the dictatorship of a Leninist state. So initially people tend to have a rather negative attitude towards socialism, but when the ideas of genuine socialism are explained, the reaction is different. Usually people can be persuaded that socialism is a good thing, but they feel that “it will never happen" or "it's a good idea but it won’t work because of human nature”. This is the problem. People who have lived under capitalism and are used to being told what to do by people "in charge" find the ideas a bit of a quantum leap from reality. They see socialism as a kind of impossible Utopia and that "in the real world” the only practical choice at election time is between the parties that have a good chance of getting in.

It is not that people are necessarily against socialism. It is just that they don’t see the socialist case as being relevant to their lives; they see it as being "pie in the sky". You can’t expect people to vote for an ideology, a set of ideas; they will only vote for something concrete and attainable.

This brings me to my second question. Where does a socialist consciousness come from? Although you may argue that most of your members attained a socialist consciousness through coming into contact with socialist argument, it must be understood that most people are not "won over" to socialism by argument alone, as you discovered in your election campaign.

The cornerstone of socialism is the principle of solidarity and mutual aid — these are natural tendencies which don’t need to be taught. Without them socialism would be impossible. However capitalism (and preceding social systems) have made people relate to each other in a different kind of co-operative way. using authority/obedience and hierarchical systems. This is sometimes referred to as “the very fabric of our society" by the traditional right wing.

When workers actively participate in strikes or various community activities they break with the normal way of behaving — they are thinking for themselves and organising themselves rather than being organised by people "in charge ”. They have taken matters into their own hands. Many strikers, despite the material hardship, say they enjoyed being on strike. In a sense they got a taste of socialism by collectively organising and distributing food and helping each other out. Also, strikers soon realise whose side the police, the legal system and the media are on.

Of course I am not saying that experience of struggle alone is going to bring workers to socialism. Workers must also understand the nature of the present system and know and understand what to put in its place and how to establish it. However I don’t think that socialism can be established by a political party — it can only come about through the mass activity of the working class. Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership. It must be organised throughout the workplaces and communities across the land and be linked up with similar organisations across the world. This movement must educate its members, defend workers against capitalism and ultimately organise the expropriation of wealth production and distribution.

But can’t we just simply vote for socialism and avoid a struggle? Well, first of all. if we have a world view of capitalism, how can workers in dictatorships like Chile, South Africa and Russia change society? Just because their ruling class don’t allow them to vote does it mean they can’t have socialism or that first they must fight for "democratic" capitalism?

For those of us who live under political democracies. at election time we are asked to choose which party is to become the political component of the capitalist state. The party which is elected does not really run the country, although it does have an influence within certain limits. Major decisions taken by the government are largely based on the professional advice of the civil service, which is carefully selected, permanent and not subject to democratic control.

Behind parliament and the cabinet are the other state institutions. There is the monarchy to whom state power legally belongs; there is the House of Lords which retains the right to delay Acts of Parliament. There are the armed forces — an instrument of imperialism abroad and of repression at home. There is the police and the secret police who open mail, tap phones and exercise violence in pursuit of their aims. Then, of course, we have the judiciary which hands out punishment to whom the state defines as offenders. All this is backed up by the means of persuasion — the educational system and the media.

Behind the institutions of the state are the real masters — the big capitalists and their ruling-class buddies — the top brass of the civil service, military and police chiefs. They ensure that the country is run just how the capitalist system likes it.

Do you really believe that the ruling class and their State would allow a socialist party to mess things up?

Whether we vote for socialism or not, the fact remains that only the working class can build it from a grass roots level. There will also be a struggle between the socialist majority and the minority ruling class and their supporters. This, unfortunately. will be unavoidable.

Paul

Manchester

Reply:

Our correspondent raises a number of interesting points; we shall reply in turn to the three questions he asks;

1. At present the vast majority of people indeed do not want socialism. Even those who have heard and been impressed by the socialist case too often comment that "it's a good idea but. . ." We would agree that it is important to make socialism seem relevant and attainable; we try to do this by explaining how its establishment will solve the various problems of people's lives — how it will cope with destitution, housing shortages, boring work and so on. Our recent pamphlet Socialism as a Practical Alternative contains a great deal of material on the organisation of socialism, and shows that it is not just a nice set of ideas.

2. Socialist consciousness develops in two ways. First, as a result of workers' everyday experience under capitalism, including not only their exploitation and oppression but also their cooperation and experience in trade unions, tenants' organisations and so on. Second, as a result of socialist propaganda meetings, publications, election campaigns and radio phone-ins. We entirely agree that "Socialism can only be established by a mass working-class movement that is politically conscious of its aims and methods and democratically organised without leadership": the Socialist Party is a democratic, leaderless movement.

3. Socialism can be "voted in", though it should be remembered that this will not be a simple matter of workers voting for socialism and then sitting back and waiting for it. Socialist-minded workers will need to be prepared to take over the running of factories. farms and so on. Gaining control of Parliament will give the socialist majority control over the armed forces and police and prevent their being used against us. The top civil servants and phone tappers will be in no position to "mess things up" deprived of mass support and official sanction they could do nothing to frustrate the will of the immense majority.

The Editors.

Letter: National cultures within socialism (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

National cultures within socialism

Dear Editors.

How pleasing it was to read Steve Coleman’s support for national cultures (though it’s true he refers to ’’local areas", a term which nationalists with whom I am in contact would not quarrel with). He would be pleased to know that there are very many on the ’’fringe" of Plaid Cymru who hold Steve Coleman's view that some nationalists do not indeed want to be dominated by capitalists, and that their nationalism arises from a desire to be masters of their own destiny, on their own patch of ground and at the same time aware of their rights and duty to society in general throughout the world. This must include a natural pride in their own contribution which can only be made by nurturing its own distinctive culture including its indigenous language. Regarding the latter, the Socialist Standard itself paid a compliment by printing an article in the Welsh language - something which did not go unnoticed by the Marxist-thinking element on the edge of Plaid Cymru. (I refer to the SS of July 1969.) Such understanding of the nature of Welsh and Scottish nationalism is to be expected of a party like the SPGB who speak of the international nature of socialism inasmuch as internationalism has no meaning without its constituent parts, ie nations.

Speaking of the Marxist influence among present Welsh nationalists. I quote Gareth Miles, a member of the Marxist "fringe" movement within Plaid Cymru, as follows: "A nation's language is part of its cultural heritage and its continuation, growth or decay depends on the social conditions prevailing”. He continues: "There is already in existence a philosophy which, if adopted, could solve the ideological problems of its nationalists — its name is socialism". This is in line with Steve’s statement about a society, local area or what you will wherein people can control their own lives or. as he puts it, "one that they can call their own".

Gareth Miles exposes the fallacious thinking within the nationalist party: "Some of the leaders of Plaid Cymru claim it to be a socialist party — that is not true. It does not look to the creation of a socialist Wales. Its aim is to fashion for Wales a more effective capitalist system than exists at present. Its policies are not different from Labour's". The Editor of Welsh Socialism emphasises this theme: "it is vital that we recognise that we are merely another part of the international capitalist economy . . . I believe that the answer. . . lies in international socialism with the establishment of a world socialist order". (The writer is an active member of the Welsh Republicans, a body which is antagonistic to what is described as loony anarchism or Stalinism.) Miles, in the pamphlet A Free Wales, points out to the Nationalists in no uncertain manner: "A government which would try to operate capitalism in a Welsh way would be a servile one to outside capitalist corporations . . . in such a crude materialistic climate every language other than a commercial language is a valueless anachronism. Profit not culture is the ideal"

While we see a measure of unanimity between Steve Coleman and spokesmen on the fringe of the Welsh nationalist party, it would be interesting to remind ourselves of other thinkers and writers of the past. One such a person was Rudolph Rocker whose manuscript Nationalism and Culture was published in English in 1937. This scholarly work explains how. in terms which pre-date Steve’s statement on the nature of nationalism, pride in one's homeland is not patriotism or love of the state but a natural love of familiar surroundings. one's friends and of a culture that has grown out of the soil. Rocker insists that the alchemy which exploits this natural feeling into a love of the state is: "One of the most grotesque phenomena of all time". (How many readers today remember Lord Baden Powell's book Scouting for Boys wherein is found a classic example of this: ”. . . be prepared to die for your country if need be. so that when the moment arrives you may charge home not caring whether you are to be killed or not".

Many present-day members of Plaid Cymru are aware that that party has equated its so-called socialism with that of the Labour Party and there is much to be grateful for that they are no longer hoodwinked. The pamphlet. Welsh Socialism. asks the question "Who will formulate a revolutionary policy for us?” and answers it by saying "Who but you and me?". In other words the thinking is that of Clause 5 of the SPGB. ie "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. There is. it seems to me. much hope inasmuch as the republican/Marxism element of Plaid Cymru can state openly: ". . . the answer lies in international socialism and the establishment of a world socialist order”. It seems to me that workers holding such a view can no longer afford to fight the class struggle in isolated political boxes.

Steve Coleman invites all workers by saying: ". . . let us unite as a class". A great idea! Would he agree that a class is but an economic concept and as such the skeleton of production for use must be clothed with the rich and diverse cultures of the world s ethnic/national/regional groups, if life is to be lived to the full?

In the present worldwide uniformity of the capitalist "blanket" we have reached the position where the only cultural forms which are "pushed" are those which are tied to profit-making. "Big is beautiful ”, is the philosophy and small organisations (and indeed nations) must fare as best they can. Welsh people know this to their cost and one would suppose that the SPGB in its day-to-day struggle against the overwhelming propaganda of the capitalist machine also knows it.

"Gyfaill"

Cwmdeall, Trecynnon 

Reply:

Socialists are opposed to all nationalism: the workers of the world have no country. As our correspondent recognises, there is a difference between political nationalism and the desire of people to retain or revive their own cultural traditions and identities.

Our correspondent is mistaken in suggesting that the difference between national cultures and regional cultures is of merely pedantic significance. While socialists support fully the aims of our fellow workers who wish to live in particular localities in cultural conditions which are not imposed upon them from without, we are opposed totally to those who seek to establish "national cultures ”. To take Wales as an example, we have little doubt that within a socialist society many Welsh people will choose to use their own, native language and to maintain Welsh traditions of living. Those who decide to develop their cultural Welshness will not be discriminated against for so doing or denied free access to the common store of social goods and services, even if they constitute a very small minority. But they will not be living their culture within a nation called Wales, for, like all other nations, that country will not exist. In a world socialist society there will be no national frontiers, there will be no presiding states. Rather than there being a single Wales, embodying its own national culture, which is what nationalists aim to achieve, a socialist society will respect the various local cultures which exist within the administrative territory which is now lumped together as Wales. Socialists are aware of the danger which nationalism poses of creating new states which then impose their own national cultures, often at the expense of local cultures which are then discriminated against. For example, would a new Scottish state, so desired by the SNP, impose the cultural norms of urban industrial Scottish capitalists upon rural highlanders? Would a united Palestine under the PLO be tolerant towards ethnic minorities within a new Palestinian state? Under capitalism, with its national powers, we have every reason to believe that the gain of the right to a national culture for some will mean cultural oppression for others who lack economic power. The case of the Eskimo minority in Greenland is instructive. The Eskimo language is called by three different names, depending upon whether you live in Canada (where it is called Inukitut). Alaska (Inupit) or Greenland (Kalaalisut). In Greenland, where books in Eskimo language are published with government funding, the Eskimos’ main complaint is the destruction of their linguistic culture by Danish and English. But in Canada and Alaska the Eskimos have an additional grievance: most books published in Greenland are inaccessible to them because they are written in Kalaalisut. This shows how absurd it would be for capitalism to attempt to create some kind of "right” for a single Eskimo culture to exist. In a socialist society the world's 100.000 Eskimos will not only be able to live their own cultures if they so choose, but will be free to do so in accordance with local variations.

The Socialist Party does not stand for international socialism, but world socialism. In a socialist society there will be no nations to unite.

We are pleased to be alerted to the existence of people on the fringes of Welsh nationalism who recognise the capitalist outcome of a Welsh nation, the anti-socialist nature of the Labour Party and the need for workers to emancipate themselves without leaders We look forward to talking with such people, but under no circumstances would we compromise our hostility to all nationalist movements. and nor can we see any possible future for such people within a party which is fighting a losing battle to create yet another rotten capitalist state. 

The Editors.

Letter: Laying down the law to the unions (1987)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Laying down the law to the unions

Dear Sirs.

In the Socialist Standard. July 1987, in an article on trade unions, the following paragraph appeared:

Those who predict the permanent decline of the trade unions also have a lot to say about the anti-union legislation of the Thatcher government. They overlook the fact that, with one exception, the same and worse has happened before and the unions have known how to survive. The one exception is the Act which requires unions to have ballots for the election of officers and ballots for taking strike action. Along with the need for ballots before any strike settlement is agreed to. these are measures which the unions, ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway.

In your September issue, in another article on trade unions, the following appears:

Since the Conservatives were returned to office in 1979 they have introduced legislation to restrict the ability of trade unionists to take action to defend and improve their living standards.

The article goes on to cite restrictive legislation in the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts and continues in the same vein: "The 1984 Trade Union Act made it compulsory to hold secret ballots for union elections, strike decisions and political funds. The new Conservative Administration is committed to further repressive legislation". The article points to Green Paper proposals for legislation enabling "members . . . to be able to prevent unions calling for industrial action unless they have won majority support in a ballot. Union ballots will have to be fully postal, independently supervised and to apply to the election of union presidents and general secretaries".

As you claim in a reply to a letter in the same issue, the Socialist Standard provides a forum for discussion of ideas about life in capitalist society, I look forward to reading the discussion you will no doubt wish to publish on whether this proposed legislation is "repressive", or "something which the unions ought, in the interests of their members, to have adopted anyway".

(Name and address supplied)

Reply:

In considering the trade union legislation enacted by the Thatcher government it is important to distinguish between the government's intentions and the consequences of the new laws. Looked at in this way it becomes quite clear that what the government has consistently tried to achieve is restrictions on the power of trade unions. This is quite obvious in relation to some of the new laws (ie restrictions on secondary picketing, powers to sequestrate union funds) but perhaps less obvious in relation to the laws regarding the holding of ballots. Despite all the rhetoric about democracy, the government's intention in compelling unions to ballot their members was. once again, to reduce union power by making it less likely that strikes would take place. It is the government's belief that trade union members are less militant than their leaders and that this more conservative view would prevail if there was greater internal union democracy. The same kind of thinking is evident in the latest proposals contained in the government's Green Paper which, if enacted, will strengthen the position of individual strike breakers against their union thus undermining the most important source of trade union strength solidarity.

The Socialist Party's position is that there should be maximum democracy within trade unions but that the government has no place in imposing it on trade unions. The moves towards greater union democracy would be far more welcome if they had been demanded by union members themselves rather than being legislated for by a government committed to reducing the power of trade unions. Finally it is perhaps worth mentioning the hollowness of Tory rhetoric about democracy by pointing out that trade unions are, in fact, fairly democratic organisations. Indeed they are models of democracy when compared to the companies. corporations and public institutions they oppose in their battle to maintain workers’ pay and conditions.

The Editors.

SPGB Islington Branch Weekend Conference: Music and Politics (1987)

Party News from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Blogger's Note:

There must be a recording of this weekend conference. If there is, it should be on the SPGB website.

There were a number of musicians in the Islington Branch of the SPGB at this time, so this event makes sense.

SPGB Meetings (1987)

Party News from the November 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Blogger's Notes:

Too many meetings and, sadly, not enough space in the label section to include every speaker and every branch. 

I can't believe there isn't a recording of the debate with Lady Olga Maitland but it isn't in the audio section of the SPGB website, so who knows? However, there is an audio recording of an earlier debate with Lady Olga  - on a different subject - that dates from 1984 which is on the Party website:

DEBATE – IS BRITAIN WORTH DYING FOR? 

NO – Steve Coleman (SPGB)

YES – Lady Olga Maitland, (Women and Families for Defence)

Venue: Central Library, Islington

Date: 19th January 1984

There was also a written report of that meeting in the February 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard.

With regards to Bristol Branch's meeting, where Keith Graham spoke on the subject of the Battle of Democracy: Marx vs Lenin, Graham wrote a book with that same title, which was reviewed in the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard.

This Month's Quotation: Socialist (1934)

The Front Page quote from the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Wage slavery is a passing phase of social development, but it will pass only when the workers are ready to speed it away."

A Vain Sacrifice (1934)

From the November 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

In February last the Austrian Social Democrats, faced with the destruction of their organisations and with the loss of their control of Vienna and other municipalities, tried to resist by armed force and a general strike the onslaught of the forces directed by the Government. In a brief but ferocious period of civil war, and in spite of their heroic resistance they were crushed. In addition to the loss of life in the fighting itself, they are now paying the penalty of defeat in prison, concentration camp and exile.

In the Socialist Standard for March we paid our tribute to the Austrian workers for their courage and tenacity, while pointing out that they were fighting an unnecessary battle. In that and the following issue of the Socialist Standard attention was drawn to the fact that various groups of workers in Spain were marching on the same road to a similar destruction. Early in October the Spanish revolt began. Within a few days it was apparent to those who led the workers into it that the attempt had failed, although towards the end of the month some isolated bands were still holding out, without any hope but that of selling their lives dearly. The bravery of the Spanish workers has availed them nothing.

Blind to what happened in Vienna and has happened almost invariably when this method has been tried, Spanish workers’ organisations attempted to overthrow the Spanish Government by armed revolt and a general strike. The failure was as pitiful as in Austria, although the cost in human life is likely to be far greater. The rigid Press censorship makes it impossible so far to give full figures, but reports from Oviedo indicate that in that province alone—the centre of the coal and iron industries—upwards of 3,000 people have been killed. (See Sunday Express, October 21st.). Some estimates place the figure as high as 10,000. Large numbers of rebels have been shot after capture, and other executions are threatened. The general strike was broken and the armed workers were everywhere smashed by the overwhelming might of the State forces. All the most modern and destructive weapons were used by the Government, including artillery, tanks, gas, and bombing planes. As was inevitable, the number and power of the arms of the rebel forces were small in comparison with those of the Government.

The occasion of the revolt was the inclusion of three Catholics in a reconstructed Cabinet. Representing reactionary political groups, they were widely believed, like similar groups in Austria, to be heading for the restoration of the exiled monarchy, the creation of a Fascist State, the destruction of the Trade Unions, etc. Rather than wait for this, the Spanish Socialist Party (a reformist body, similar to the typical Labour Party) joined hands with Syndicalists and Communists to defend the Republic. Parallel with this working-class movement was a strong regionalist opposition to the centralising policy of the Madrid Government. Some of the provinces, particularly the industrial and commercial province of Catalonia, strongly objected to the Central Government’s policy, which aimed at depriving them of the measure of regional autonomy they had achieved under the Republic.

From a working class and Socialist standpoint the revolt was a piece of criminal irresponsibility. The overwhelming majority of Spanish electors are not Socialist, and do not understand or desire Socialism. What is more, they have shown with increasing force at each election since the overthrow of Alfonso that they do not want Labourites, Syndicalists or Communists. Allowing for every possibility of faked election figures, the votes given to these groups represent only a small minority of the votes given to openly capitalist parties, republican and royalist. For the leaders of these minority groups to try to seize power in such circumstances is sheer folly, irresponsible gambling with workers’ lives. If, as is usual, such an attempt fails, there follows a period—possibly extending to many years—of savage repression. In the unlikely event of success in seizing control of the machinery of Government the outcome in the long run is even more disastrous for the working class and for the Socialist movement. No minority, whether in Spain, Russia, Austria or anywhere else, can impose Socialism on a hostile or apathetic majority. Forced, therefore, to abandon the idea of introducing Socialism, the new rulers sooner or later accommodate themselves to the job of administering capitalism. Finding power sweet they develop the century-old technique of intrigue, deception, bribery, and arbitrary violence in order to keep themselves in power. Unable to give the reality of Socialism they learn a new propaganda, which consists, crudely put, of calling the unregenerate capitalism by a new name—Socialism.

Knowing this the Socialist Party of Great Britain refuses in any circumstances to countenance the policy of minority armed revolt. That road does not lead to Socialism. In truth it leads nowhere, for workers who head that way must sooner or later retrace their steps if they are to play their part in achieving Socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle