Wednesday, October 19, 2022

The Communist Party isn't (1979)

From the October 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The chief thing to realise about the Communist Party is that it isn’t. Whatever the party stands for (and it is not exactly easy to know), communism simply does not figure. You can go through reams of their paper, the daily Morning Star, and among the thousands of words you will be lucky if you find a mention of the word. Can you imagine reading an issue of the Socialist Standard which says nothing about socialism? Quite unthinkable. And also quite impossible, because we print our definition of socialism in every issue, irrespective of what the articles happen to be discussing in any particular month. What, you may ask, would be the point of a journal of the Socialist Party which kept quiet about socialism? What, then, can be the point of a communist party which keeps quiet about communism?

So let us make it clear from the outset that there really is only one communist party in this country, and that is the SPGB. We are, and always have been, the only party that stands for one thing only — the common ownership of the means of production. It makes not a scrap of difference whether you call that socialism or communism. Conversely, the form of ownership in the world today is capitalism, call it what you will. So another question that the so-called Communist Party has to answer (and this article will contain quite a number) is: why did you form your party at all? After all, your founders in the early 1920s were fully aware that there had been a party preaching communism in the country since 1904. One or two of them, like T.A. Jackson, had actually been members of the SPGB, so they couldn’t plead ignorance of the fact that a genuine communist party was already in being. It stands to sense that if you think that socialism/communism is the only answer to the evils that afflict society, then you join the party that stands for the establishment of that system. (The same applies, of course, to the proliferation of parties like the SWP and the IMG. Their founders did not join the already existing socialist/communist party, and there could only be one possible reason for that. They did not really stand for communism at all. They just paid lip service to a name. Their real objective must have been something else.)

The Communist Party’s raison d'etre was clear from the outset, and had nothing to do with communism. It was simply to act as the propaganda mouthpiece of the gang who had seized power in Russia and who called themselves communists. (They even changed the name of the country by adopting the equally fraudulent title, the USSR. One of the two ‘esses’ stands for Socialist; which one it is doesn’t matter because the name Lenin should have adopted was the Union of Soviet Capitalist Republics. But honesty was not one of Lenin’s most outstanding characteristics.) The new Russian ruling class, who had crushed the people who had crushed the Tsar, felt they needed parties who would support them in the various countries of Europe (and in the other continents too, soon enough). They founded them and funded them. And, paying the piper, they called the tune to which the spurious communist parties, including our own dear CPGB, danced.

When Moscow said form ‘united fronts’ with Labourites and Social Democrats, they enthusiastically did so. When their masters said that Labourites were ‘social fascists’ who should be physically smashed, they did that just as enthusiastically. When Stalin apparently wanted the Western powers to join him in an alliance against Hitler, our communists were there leading the red thugs who attacked the blackshirt thugs. And when Stalin made his infamous pact with Hitler in 1939 and so gave the green light for the outbreak of World War II, the communists denounced the war as an imperialist adventure and forgot to smash Hitler. When Hitler obliged his ally by launching his attack on Russia in 1941, the British ruling class had no more fervent supporters than the communists, who actually denounced trade unionists who went on strike as traitors to the great People’s War (it had changed to that overnight, you see).

It is necessary to point out here that when communists talk about their heroic deeds in smashing the British fascists in the heady days before the outbreak of the war, it was by no means only fascists that they smashed up. They were equally enthusiastic smashers of socialist meetings too. All this is quite understandable. After all, the state which has oppressed the Russian working class ever since Lenin seized power would not stop at breaking up socialist meetings. Anyone trying to make socialist propaganda in the so-called workers’ state would soon find themselves dealt with by the KGB and put into prison, or a labour camp, or the grave. The Communist Party of Great Britain merely aped their masters — and their paymasters too.

Anyone who doubts that can get some revealing information from the memoirs of the late Bessie Braddock who, before becoming a Labour MP after the war, was a leading member of the Liverpool communists. Yet even now there is precious little attempt to hide the fact that the Russian party subsidises the party here. It is only thus that the party can cope with the enormous expense of running the Morning Star. The bulk of its circulation goes to Russia and the satellite countries of Eastern Europe, where the ruling class pays well for the pleasure of filling their libraries (and doubtless their dustbins) with the rag. These days the majority of the Communist Parties of Western Europe call themselves Euro-communists and pretend to criticise (but rather quietly, of course; no demos, no breaking the windows of the Russian Embassy, nothing vulgar like that: that sort of thing is only for the American Embassy) such things as the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

If the CPGB has really ended its role as the puppets of their Moscow paymasters, can they — can anyone — say what they are supposed to exist for? To advocate reforms of capitalism while pretending to be communists who want to end capitalism? But there is a party called the Labour Party which is vastly bigger, much older, and has been doing that rather well ever since it started. The real truth is that without Russia, the communists would simply disappear. Their paymasters go on funding them because they realise that their Euro-communism is merely a veil to enable the CPGB (like their fellows in France and Italy and Spain) to appear to be not too close to the oppressive regime in Moscow.

Let us end with a couple more questions to the CPGB (our columns are open to them to reply — not that theirs would ever be to us, of course). In all the millions of words in the Daily Worker until Stalin’s death in 1953, can you show us one single word denouncing the red monster who slaughtered millions of innocent Russian workers (quite apart from those killed in the Hitler war)? Can you show us one single word in the Morning Star denouncing Russia as a capitalist police state which denies even basic trade union rights such as are available to workers here? And finally, why did you change the name of your paper? Was there some sudden feeling of guilt, some realisation that it was not a workers’ paper after all? It seems a small question. But it has never been answered.
L. E. Weidberg

Victory for Socialism and those who want it (1958)

From the July 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is often said that the “world is full of surprises,” but when a split occurs or a new group is formed inside that Super Political Pawn-shop—the Labour Party, nobody is particularly startled.

If the S.P.G.B. did not know its reformist opponents so well, we might have been surprised to learn that a newly formed (or rather resurrected) group inside the Labour Party claims to want “Victory for Socialism.” The Socialist Party of Great Britain, it would seem, has a lot to learn, for we were formed in 1904 with the single purpose of establishing Socialism—and without compromise have worked ever since for its victory. Now, after all these years of thinking that Socialism meant a change in the system of society, from the present one of wars and class war, wages and profits, to one where none of these things would exist, a classless world in which goods are produced for use, we discover (via the new group) that Socialism really means—capitalism with smaller tombs and lower rents. This kind of outlook typifies reformists everywhere. They start off not really understanding the significance of the Socialist case, then they dismiss their own misconceptions of Socialism as “futuristic pipe-dreams.” In the blind conceit that they know their way, they proceed to carry on the “day to day struggle” of trying to make capitalism with its wage-slavery less burdensome to the working class whose life-blood it sucks. It is a self-evident fact to every Socialist, that the evils which curse the lives of the working class CANNOT be removed within capitalism. If, as the so-called Communist and Labour Parties claim, the problems of slums insecurity, poverty, wars and slumps, can be got rid of bit by bit, one at a time, there is no need for Socialism. It is the fact that these and other such problems, are part of capitalism that makes Socialism necessary. If on the other hand they claim to know that the one solution is Socialism, then to continue toying with the effects of capitalism is the depth of stupidity and the height of folly.

Day to Day Capitalism
Rent Acts and hydrogen bombs are the current evils which stir the emotions and fire the slogans of the reformists. Capitalism is so sick that every day brings some fresh manifestation of the need to get rid of it. Ten years ago the reformists were wasting time and energy on now forgotten slogans and campaigns; in ten years’ time, who knows what they will be hollering about, except to say that it will be the latest ugly developments of a basically ugly system. If, ten years ago, instead of telling us that Socialism is “a pipe dream,” they had made the little effort necessary to understand it and then worked for it, the present fearful mess might never have existed. In trying to solve the day to day problems of capitalism the reformers thus became part of it and only help to prolong its existence—such is the price of ignorance.

The Bitter Truth
In order that anything worthwhile may be achieved it is no use the workers being just anti-Tory. The so- called “Victory for Socialism” crowd and the rest of those who support or belong to the Labour Party are at one in wanting to swing the current anti-Tory mood in the direction of another Labour Government.

It is true that the V.F.S. group claim to be “left wing” and to disagree in some ways with the Labour Party leadership but in a General Election they would be asking you to elect those very “right wing” they claim to oppose, for if another Labour Government is elected it will be these who will take over. They say they want a Labour Government with “sound policy” on peace, wages, rents, and pensions, etc., but they must face the hard facts of 1945-1951, bearing as they do, indelible witness to the uselessness of Labour Governments to the working class. They are now arguing about H bombs, which are only developments along the line begun by the Labour Government which established Harwell and took the first steps towards this “British” H bomb. It was the Labour Government which started the present arms drive. Under capitalism then as now, armaments come before houses, pensions, or anything else. Pensions and housing troubles are part of the general poverty suffered by the wealth producers. If the workers fail to learn from their past experiences of Labour Governments, they will go on electing strike-breakers and war-planners until the obvious dawns on them and they realise their real position under this system and organise with us to end it.

The various reforms and limited objectives dealt with in this article, are by no means new, but while workers are prepared to waste their time on such things, we must continue to explain their correct nature. All these points and more besides were raised at a discussion the writer attended at the Islington Open Forum a month or two ago, where most of those present supported the “Defeat Socialism” Movement under that other name. Other points, such as Industrial Action, Slogans and Demonstrations Lobbying M.P.’s and Leadership will be dealt with in a later issue, but on this occasion, let us take stock—let us see that attempting to deal purely with the effects of capitalism, its ugly life is prolonged. Movements of whatever name which do not seek the immediate establishment of Socialism (as defined in our Object) whilst they can never really defeat Socialism they certainly help delay it.
Harry Baldwin

Blogger's Note:
There is little or nothing about the Victory for Socialism group on the 'net. The best I could find was this interview with its leading light, Stephen Swingler M.P., which appeared in the February 22nd, 1958, issue of the Trotskyist journal, 'The Newsletter'.  (Page 53). 'The Newsletter' was the journal of Gerry Healy's mob, The Club, (which later became the Socialist Labour League), and they probably saw Victory for Socialism as a nice wee vehicle to ride alongside, picking up recruits and building up their profile.

Victory for Socialism (What It Involves) (1958)

From the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

(Concluded from July issue)

As the result of pressure of other work, a couple of months have gone by since the first part of this article appeared in the July issue. The lapse of time, however, has not done any harm.

On the contrary, as we have been dealing with a Labour Party splinter group (The Victory for Socialism Group), it has given them time to peter out again, nothing having been heard of them on any scale for many weeks. Not that they are not likely to pop up again, but, as we have said, these movements come and go with the ups-and-downs of Capitalism and have no significance at all in terms of sustained work for Socialism.

We have already explained that the limited (day to day) objectives of the Labour Party and its splinters commit them to continue Capitalism. Capitalism, it must be realised, is a social system, not merely a form of government. State control and private ownership are simply different forms of the same thing and do not in any way touch the basic nature of Capitalism. What is the basic nature of Capitalism? How is Capitalism marked off from any other system?

First and foremost the means of living, that is to say, factories, machinery, land and transport, etc., take the form of Capital.

This means that by State Bonds, company shares, or outright personal ownership, part of the wealth created by past exploitation is invested for the purpose of further wealth production on a continuous basis of exploitation. IT IS THE UNPAID, SURPLUS PRODUCED BY THE WORKERS WHICH SERVES AS THE BASIS FOR THEIR OWN FURTHER EXPLOITATION and also provides for the rent, interest and profits for the owners of Capital.

Following from this form of ownership and indispensable to it, there must be a class which owns nothing but its ability to work, a class whose only access to life’s essentials is through wages.

Wages hide from open view the filching-away process because in working for wages it appears that we get paid for what we produce, yet a moment’s thought will teach us that this cannot be true.

Our wages provide our keep in terms of so much food, clothing and shelter, etc., and enable us to raise future wage workers.

The total value of wages, however, is not all we produce. The employers do not employ us just to keep ourselves, but also to keep them, too. and in much more luxuriant conditions than ourselves. When it is said that “they put up the money so they are entitled to a return,” just remember that the many thousands of millions of pounds, dollars and roubles, etc., tied up as capital all over the world today were NEVER produced by those who own them, but by workers in the manner described above. No matter how small a Capitalist may be when he starts, when he is big enough to live on a property income (State or private), it is not produced by him, but by propertyless wage labour.

It only remains to say that the selling of goods and services for profit is the universal means by which the Capitalist disposes of the surplus in order to realise it in cash. The terms we all use in a more or less familial way, such as trade, prices, wages, world markets, finance, and everything arising from them, are hall-marks of Capitalism.

Now that we have had a more detailed look at the kind of monster we are dealing with, it will be easier to see why the S.P.G.B. insists that Capitalism cannot be made to work in peace and harmony. Its internal strife and conflicts are part and parcel of it. It cannot be otherwise than anti-working-class, for it rests upon their exploitation. In the light of these facts the squirmings of the so-called “left” reformists to make this system run more smoothly, present to us Socialists a picture of pathetic tragedy and it should be easy to see what the Socialist attitude to Industrial action, Slogans, Demonstrations, Leadership and lobbying M.P.’s must be. All of these things art merely aspects of the way workers react to the conditions of Capitalism, painfully aware that something is wrong, but seeing only effects and not causes; they shoot in the dark, hoping, more by luck than judgment. to hit something.

The S.P.G.B. attitude to Industrial action has been stated many times in these columns. It is that set out by Marx in Value, Price and Profit, namely, a frank recognition of the need for workers to organise into trade unions, in order to resist the downward pressure of employers upon wages and conditions and whenever possible (for instance, during a boom) to push up wages and improve conditions of work. This attitude is based on the fact of the class-struggle and the knowledge of the necessary antagonism which exists between owners and non-owners, the buyers and sellers of Labour power. It is in the workers’ interest to gain as much as they can—the boss can always be relied upon to look after his end.

This does not mean at all that workers can achieve common-ownership of the means of living by industrial action. It is the powers of the State that legalise and enforce the property rights and privileges of the Capitalist class, and it is these powers that must be captured and abolished by the working class in order to introduce Socialism-classless-Society.

To demonstrate, shout slogans and lobby M.P.’s, after having voted for one or the other parties to run Capitalism, does not bother the Capitalist class, who can rely on millions of workers to continue upholding the system that robs them. Only an understanding of Socialism can really help the working class. This is what the S.P.G.B. (and its companion parties) alone works for.
Harry Baldwin

Will Formosa touch-off World War III? (1958)

From the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

As this article is being written shells are raining down on Quemoy and every day some of the 125,000 military and civilians on the island are being killed or maimed. As the news is heard over radio and television in the comfort of our homes, or read in the papers, some are asking, or at least thinking, “ Is this the start to World War III?

“Military dispositions have been made by the United States so that a Presidential determination, if made, would be followed by action both timely and effective.

“The President and I earnestly hope that the Chinese Communist rĂ©gime will not again, as in the case of Korea, defy the basic principle on which world order depends, namely, that armed force should not be used to achieve territorial ambitions. Any such naked use of force would pose an issue far transcending the offshore islands and even the security of Taiwan.

"It would forecast a widespread use of force in the Far East which would endanger vital free world positions and the security of the United States. Acquiescence therein would threaten peace everywhere. We believe that the civilised world community will never condone overt military conquest as a legitimate instrument of policy.”
How it started
Immediately after the defeat of Japan, the U.S.A. backed Chiang Kai-Shek in the civil war against the Communists. American post-war financial backing from 1945 until 1949 amounted to U.S. 3,875 million dollars. (China Stands Up, by R. K. Karanji.) This turned out to be a bad investment for the American Capitalist class because the Nationalist military machine lost the war, and took refuge in the island of Formosa, where they have since remained as a quisling government, lavishly supported by the U.S. Quemoy is one of the islands between Formosa and the Chinese mainland.

The British Government considers that support to Chiang Kai-Shek is throwing good money after bad, and with their long and intimate experience in China were amused at the American policy of pouring money into Chiang Kai-Shek’s coffers. Much of this money is lost in graft, and most of the arms have found their way into the hands of the opposing Communist side.

It would be a feather-in-the-cap for the Chinese Government to capture Quemoy and help to develop a spirit of chauvinism in the Chinese people, who so far seem somewhat lacking in patriotic fervour. And, in any case, Quemoy is a step towards Formosa itself. 

American Strategy
Formosa, together with the outlying islands, including Quemoy are an island crossroads, halfway between Shanghai and Hongkong, and halfway between Tokyo and Saigon, so that control of the island by the Chinese Nationalists means that they (on behalf of the U.S.A.) control these routes. Another aspect of the island’s strategic position is that along with Japan and the Phillipines it acts as a bastion of American defence, or as a spring-board in case of invasion to the Asian mainland.

Another use of Formosa to the U.SA is that so long as control is invested in the Chiang Kai-Shek clique there is always the inherent danger of invasion of the mainland, and this risk keeps large bodies of Chinese troops tied down. American assistance is vital for the defence of Formosa, even apart from the fact that every year the personnel of Chiang’s forces get a year older. There is little in the way of replacement as the families of these men have mostly been left on the mainland. Although some native Formosans have been drafted into the army, these are unreliable troops. There have been a series of rebellions throughout the islands from time to time, including trouble amongst the Formosan cadets. The Chinese administration is loathed as alien and corrupt. But the “democratic” American Government regard Chiang’s control of Formosa as vital to their interests at present.

Formosan capitalist class
But Formosa, with a population of over nine millions, has its own rapidly developing capitalist class which, supported by the workers, would no doubt oust the Chinese administratfon and resume trade with the huge Chinese market on the mainland. It is simple for the capitalists in Formosa to attribute the workers’ problems to the foreigners in control. This, of course, is a time-honoured dodge, but it always seems to work, because the workers there, as elsewhere, are not Socialists and do not understand their class interests.

The development of Formosa reads like an American success story. The index of industrial production, for instance, has risen from 49.4 in 1949 to 142.2 in 1957, and it is very much the same story for other aspects of the economy.

Wealth is produced whenever a good investment appears, as was shown last year in the successful sale of stocks and bonds amounting to 40 million Formosan dollars of the Ta Tung Engineering Corporation and the Formosan Cement Corporation. How fortunate these Capitalists are to have such industrious workers slaving away for them!

Also, the progress of the Chinese Petroleum Corporation in the island must be a great comfort to the shareholders; present plans in course of fulfilment are providing an output over four times the 1947 figure. But this is not sufficient for them. Like Capitalism elsewhere they need an efficient and economical administration with as little graft as possible, although there is always a certain amount of corruption in present-day society where money opens so many doors.

But Chiang Kai-shek does not provide what is required and the more Capitalism develops in Formosa the more is the need felt for a better administration. The pot is reaching boiling point, with the Nationalists sitting on the lid.

Probably neither the governments of U.S., China, Russia, or even Chiang Kai-Shek or Formosa particularly want war. But there is always the chance that the sparks now flying may ignite these fire-eaters and the situation may grow out-of-hand and embroil the world.

The Hope for Peace
Should war result, no benefit will accrue to the workers, who will be induced to fight the war. Whatever side they support they will be the losers, even though some of their masters may win markets, trade routes and sources of materials to enable them to increase the profits their workers turn out for them. THE ONLY ANTIDOTE TO WAR LIES IN THE SPREAD OF SOCIALIST KNOWLEDGE. When the workers realise the Capitalist cause of wars they can no longer be misled by their ruling-class into support of them and this alone will see the end of these scourges of mankind. This is one of the reasons why the spread of Socialist knowledge is so very urgent.

One Damned Thing After Another
But let us face it—even if the fighting over the Formosian islands is settled, the threat of war will remain —and possibly on a grander scale. Chinese Capitalism has designs on Indian territory and is steadily working towards a showdown there. The July issue of China Pictorial, an official Chinese organ, showed a big chunk of North-eastern Assam and parts of Bhutan and Ladakh as belonging to China. On September 4th the Indian Premier, Mr. Nehru, said that “the Chinese Communist Government had failed, in spite of repeated reminders, to revise its maps of China so as to exclude territories which are indisputably Indian.”

Elsewhere Chinese exports of manufactured goods are ousting the Japanese products, among others and relations between the governments are growing more strained.

Capitalist development generally is making the whole world a danger zone for war. It is difficult to foretell the result of the present fighting because of the complications that lie behind, but certain it is that the Formosan incident will not be the last.
Frank Offord

Editorial: Next year's T.U.C. (1958)

Editorial from the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Dull Congress
Nobody got excited at or over this year's Trades Union Congress at Bournemouth. The delegates and visiting reporters seem to have had a rather boring time and the editorial summings-up have reflected the same view, that it was a very dull Congress. One reporter, Mr. Hugh Chevins, industrial correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, in an article “ T.U.C. Leadership in a Coma,” gave it as his assessment that the T.U.C. has reached a state of complete immobility. "They (the leaders) have come to a dead end. They move neither forwards nor backwards; neither to the Right nor to the Left. New ideas seem anathema. New policies are dangerous. Change of direction is practically unthinkable.” (Daily Telegraph, 6th September, 1958.)

But he did not take the complacent view that if nothing happens at the T.U.C. so much the better: he fears that if the present leaders do not bestir themselves “they will lose to the irresponsible elements of disruption” (meaning presumably the members and supporters of the Communist Party).

Mr. Chevin's main criticism of the T.U.C. General Council is that, in order to preserve the appearance of unity, they refrain from declaring their real beliefs about the policies trade unions ought to be pursuing at the present time, so controversial issues that might lead to lively division of opinion are smothered, or buried under ambiguous resolutions that mean anything or nothing.

The Manchester Guardian (6th September, 1958) commented on the depressing absence of new policy particularly on the wages issue, though on all sides there is now in trade union circles “tacit admission that the tactics of recent years have failed to secure much real improvement for trade union members.”

The kind of new policy the Guardian would like to see is that touched on by Mr. Birch, a member of the General Council, who urged the trade unions to be “expansion minded "—interpreted by the Guardian to mean co-operation with the employers to raise production. 

Deplorable Outlook
We, as Socialists, do not share the desires and fears of the two critics referred to. But we have wider and deeper criticisms of our own. The outlook and activities of the T.U.C. and the individual unions are from the Socialist standpoint mostly deplorable. And it seems to get worse year by year if only from the point of view that the passing of the years and the gaining of experience might have been expected to bring steady improvement

The fact is that the T.U.C., having at one time been a movement of revolt and protest against some of the effects of capitalism, has now become the almost inert prisoner of the system. For most leaders (and most of the members) the aim of the Unions and the T.U.C. is simply to do the best they can wholly within the framework of capitalism. But they even lack the courage and clear-headedness of some of their predecessors who declared openly their acceptance of capitalism. Now none of them dare admit this, everything has to be wrapped up in a woolly pretence of wanting something other than capitalism.

They Still Look to Nationalisation
What is more, the only alternative officially recognised by the T.U.C. and embodied in its objects, is the replacement of private capitalism by State capitalism or Nationalisation; so Congress is committed in its objects to “nationalisation of land, mines, minerals, and railways.” It is so inert that nobody seems to have noticed that the mines and railways were nationalised a decade ago. And, indeed, this is very fitting, because instead of nationalisation having solved any problem the miners and railwaymen are vociferous in their complaint that their problems still await solution.

Nationalisation has turned out to be so disappointing (as Socialists foretold it would) that most of the leaders now fight shy of demands for further nationalisation schemes and it is left to the truly reactionary backwoodsmen of the Communist influenced fringe to go on putting down resolutions as if nothing had happened to expose the futility of the whole idea.

What are Unions for ?
On the day to day issues of wages and strikes the situation is equally lamentable. Long before the T.U.C. was formed every union took it for granted that they would fight for wage increases, particularly when prices rise, and would reject wage decreases. After all, that is why they were formed. Yet year after year the time of the T.U.C. is taken up debating whether they are or are not in favour of the principle of “wage restraint.” 

Armaments and Jobs
On wider issues the T.U.C. is bound by its Constitution to endeavour “to improve the economic or social conditions of workers in all parts of the world, and to render them assistance whether or not such workers are employed or have ceased to be employed.”

An admirable aim—if it meant anything. Interpreted into actuality we find Congress again acting within the framework of accepting capitalism internationally, as it tacitly accepts it here in Britain. It accepts armaments, and decisively rejected a proposal that British capitalism should alone get rid of the “H” Bomb. Nobody even suggested the possibility that the world’s workers would be happier if there were no war machines anywhere, and one delegate actually opposed that motion on the ground that most of the £1,500 million spent on British armaments goes “on wages to our members.” (News Chronicle, 4th September, 1958.) He was barracked by many delegates, but was, of course, putting into words what is a common outlook among armament workers.

Next Year’s T.U.C.
As Socialists we know what the T.U.C. ought to be doing in the interest of the workers of the world. We look forward to a Congress at which most of the objects of the T.U.C. will be scrapped, disaffiliation from the Labour Party decided, and a significant number of delegates representing Socialist understanding and conviction will place it on record that they oppose capitalism everywhere in the world, including Russian State capitalism, and stand for Socialism. Furthermore, that they recognise the urgent need of Socialist political organisation everywhere, aiming to gain, for the Socialist working class, control of the machinery of government to inaugurate a Socialist system of society. As Socialism involves the abolition of production for sale and profit, and the abolition of the wages system, this will be tantamount to a recognition that the function of the trade unions will be ended and there will no longer be the need for the workers to have a defensive organisation to bargain about wages and pass resolutions about prices. But as the Trade Union movement will by then be overwhelmingly Socialist, they will see that the new state of affairs will be a matter for congratulation.

We wish this could happen next year.

Parliamentary Fund Appeal (1958)

Party News from the October 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Party needs money for many things, but one of the most pressing problems facing the Party today is the state of the Parliamentary Fund. At the moment, it amounts to £68 odd. That, as you will appreciate, is but a drop in the ocean. We need money for this Fund and we need it quickly. The present Government is nearing its end and may at any time announce its dissolution.

We are contesting the Bethnal Green constituency; the candidate has been appointed and Hackney branch is proceeding with plans for indoor meetings in the autumn.

We need £500 immediately. The donations of members and sympathisers are our mainstay and we ask you to give generously and quickly so that this effort can be a worthwhile one.

Send your donations to the Treasurer, 52, Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.