Feeble attack (2001)

From the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Attac France is another group who think they can tackle poverty. Is their answer any better to the World Development Movement’s?

The vice-president of Attac France, Susan George, addressed a public meeting on 27 March in my hometown of Aarhus, Denmark, attended by several hundred people. Attac was founded just under three years ago in France and professes to be an anti-capitalist movement. The acronym “Attac” stands for “Association pour une Taxation des transactions financières pour l’Aide aux Citoyens". Today it has some twenty sections around the world. An Aarhus branch was formed after the meeting was finished.

Attac has entered the popular vocabulary, especially after one of their very peaceful demonstrations, outside the Danish medicine firm Novo Nordisk. Novo was one of the companies involved in the legal action against South Africa. Novo produce AIDS medicine; due to its cost – South Africa has an HIV/AIDS epidemic – the SA government decided to import a copy medicine for medical aid. Novo were against this policy. The demonstration has the slogan: “People before profit”.

The flyer advertising the meeting already revealed that Attac is not anti-capitalist but rather anti-big business. It mentioned some of their aims: a redistribution of goods via taxation of currency speculation (the Tobin Tax) and the abolition of tax havens; better conditions for the Third World, necessarily involving the writing-off of debt; and democratic control of the market and the multinationals. None of these aims is strikingly original. There are a number of Social Democrats who share these views – and who believes those parties can be described as anti-capitalist?

The market cannot be controlled. Both inflationary policies of Keynes and the old, Eastern bloc command economics ought to be proof positive; the market simply cannot be regulated. Taking due consideration of the fact that a capitalist who has sold does not have to buy (i.e. reinvest), the market is nothing but the sum total of businesses buying and selling products, with a view to profit. Capitalist production is anarchic; this is never more obvious than at times of economic slow-turn and recession (slump). At the time of writing the Asian tech market has nigh-on crashed; America is facing a downturn; and Marks & Spencer have suspended their European operations. Capitalism runs through periodic cycles of boom-bust and back, despite Blair and Brown’s off-heard: “We will not return to the days of boom and bust.”

George was adamant “that public services are not for sale”. We might also ask what Attac’s redistribution of goods amounts to. It would seem that Attac want healthcare, etc to be state owned and funded by greater taxation of the (already taxed) capitalists. This is merely “Old Labour” policy.

Writing off Third World debt is already governments’ policy. The World Bank has a strings-attached policy on debt relief. What this reveals is that the (short-term) loss of money involved is not nearly so important as creating politically and economically stable areas for trade and investment, with future profit gains in mind. (“Debt prevents economic growth” – George.)

George’s lecture confirmed that the so-called anti-capitalist movements don’t attack capitalism as a system. George and the others single out multinationals as the baddies, as the root cause of the problems facing the workers of the world. We certainly can agree on what multinationals have done – that need not detain us. Attac, like others, base their critique of multinationals, however, on a caricature. Multinationals cannot act willy-nilly. They do have to abide by the laws in the countries where they are established as well as by international agreements. (The ultimate power in society is political power and not economic power.) Furthermore, multinationals are not immune to the economic laws of capitalism as expounded by Karl Marx in Capital. Whilst their size mean they only get a buffeting when others go to the wall, recessions do affect the Multis.

Whilst businesses are interested in shifting taxation burdens to others and do try to reduce wage claims – all of which eat into profits – it is not entirely true to state these are all they worry about. High taxation and wages are related to more developed capitalist countries, where the workers are educated and well trained. Such a workforce is more productive. Inefficient techniques and workers do not interest multinationals too much, when they have an adverse effect on profits. Capitalists seek high profits with security.

Capitalist realities

George revealed an ignorance of capitalist realities. She thought it strange that remuneration comes to capital from goods. Her explanation for financial crises was that anyone is allowed to invest anywhere in the world. Scathing remarks were saved for the WTO because “it wants to make everything a commodity”. (Fancy that! George ought to read the opening paragraph of Capital.) The word “capitalism” was hardly used; she talked of “globalisation” incessantly, and her definition of it was pretty flimsy. No mention was made of the unending rivalries between capitalists.

Attac’s ignorance of capitalism, both in the domains of economics and history is fundamentally crucial. Any political programme takes its starting point in axioms. In judging the Attac movement, and anything else, those axioms are the first things to be looked at. Attac clearly believe in the continued existence of capitalism.

Like all reformers, Attac limit themselves to attacking features which they do not like; they fail to realise that those features are due to capitalism. The Multies’ growth is a mere reflection of the growth of the global capitalist system – they aren’t anomalies. Because they fail to recognise this, Attac will not be able to eradicate inequality and poverty. Two features are at the core of capitalism – a minority own the wealth of the world, which forces the majority to sell their ability to work for a wage (and millions don’t even have jobs) and production is carried out for profit. It is true: “Capital is rewarded to the detriment of labour”, but she has drawn the wrong conclusions and ought to think about doing away with the capital-wage labour relationship altogether. Does she not know why the system is called capitalism?

How does Attac view changes occurring? They do not denigrate parliament. George stressed the need for laws, “new rules” and “political procedures”; broad coalitions should be formed; trade unions have an important rôle to play; and Attac are for “popular education towards action”. George is utterly mistaken if she thinks governments can ever work in the interests of the workers, since their policies are formed by the dictates of capitalism.

George described Attac. It was founded by people from a variety of backgrounds; the only organisation named was the French Small Farmers’ Union – Attac. She said Attac has internal democracy and that they work to get a consensus of opinions. She sent a message to those who would use Attac for their own ends: it is not permissible to use Attac as a front. This was fine, although it will do little good, since the local Trotskyist vanguard have been licking their chops and been busily promoting Attac. (These days, the Leninists are more reformist than they used to be.)

In the questions and answers session, I addressed some of Attac’s weaknesses. When I noted the Soviet Union was a state capitalist dictatorship some of the audience laughed; George, however, agreed with me – let us hope others in Attac share this view. I sold some Socialist Standards, received praise for my comments from my fellow workers, and was interviewed by national TV.

In conclusion, then Attac does not differ from other left-wing reformist groups. All they want is some nebulously-defined humane, egalitarian capitalism where business is accountable to the workers. And people call socialists utopian!

Graham C. Taylor

The political turmoil in Ukraine (2001)

From the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Note:

Please see this previous post for some background information on the supposed "sympathisers" behind this scam communication below that was printed in the pages of the Standard. Sadly, these things happen.

We publish below the text of a leaflet distributed recently by a group of sympathisers in the Ukraine

Workers, Today you can see on the streets and squares of Kiev the continuation of a sharp conflict between two bourgeois clans: President Leonid Kuchma, who is mainly oriented on Russian transnational corporations in close alliance with local oligarchs, and Prime Minister Viktor Yushchenko, the direct representative of the IMF and similar international financial organizations. The working class have no interest in this conflict, both groups of the bourgeois elite are equally alien to them. Only socialism is the solution of their problems, but what is real socialism?

Socialism means a global system of social organization based on:

Common Ownership – all the productive wealth of the world will belong to all the people of the world. No more transnational corporations or small businesses and therefore nobody will own the world. It will be possessed by all of its inhabitants.

Democratic Control By All – who will run socialist society? We all will. There will be no more government and governed. People will make decisions freely in their communities, in regions and globally. With the existing means of information technology and mass communication this is all possible.

Production For Use – instead of producing goods and services for sale and profit, the sole reason for production will be to satisfy needs and desires.

Free Access – a society in which everyone owns everything, decides everything and only produces anything because it is useful will be one in which all will have free access to what is produced. Money will cease to have any function. People will not work for wages or salaries, but to give what they can and take what they need.

Based on these definitions it is clear that the social system in the Soviet Union was state capitalism, not socialism. Moreover state capitalism is not a step to socialism. All of us know how much disasters state capitalism in USSR brought to workers. Therefore Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Trotskyist, etc slogans like “Back to USSR”, “For vanguard Leninist-type party” are not socialist and have nothing common with tasks of real socialist movement in Ukraine and the entire world.

Workers don’t have to choose between two bourgeois clans. That’s not a solution. Only a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole – socialism – is the solution of all our problems. Capitalism does not operate in the interest of the majority, and can never be reformed so that it does. Until we finally abolish wage labour, we workers will never be free. So, our common task is the consistent and resolute struggle to establish socialism.

The Life of a Common Ugandan (2001)

From the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The treatment of diseases is by native and modern medicine. The native medicine involves drugs extracted from parts of plants and or animals. They are in powder, liquid or cream forms and can be applied externally or taken orally. Most common diseases here are infectious diseases such as dysentery, malaria and typhoid. Others include pulmonary tuberculosis and cholera. The prevention is not successful, because of lack of information and education involving the diseases, lack of proper hygiene.

When such cases appear, patients are either taken to local herbalists or to health units. The patients are carried on stretchers made locally. For cases of pregnant women, some complications are always encountered at birth such as excessive bleeding or “stillbirth” due to delayed surgical operations on the expectant mother. People have fear of undergoing operations for fear of dying during the operation from technical, operational or surgical problems.

Treatment is not always easily accessible by the poor who have problems of payment of the medical fees that are now charged in all health institutes be they private or public. In the public health institutes it is charged in the name of cost-sharing. Some get the medical bills when it is already too late for their ailments to be handled and consequently death follows. Some of these ailments come from poor diets and feeding habits. It is common to find people eating and drinking from the same utensils. Drinking local brews using natural straws which are shared being an example of one of the causes of TB.

Few people have a reasonable education say beyond primary level and this renders them unable to read or listen to educational materials and programmes. Income is on average about 50 pence per day per adult person. Also there are poor or no communication facilities to deliver urgent information in case of emergencies. People have to travel long distances (say 12km) on foot before they can reach the nearest health facilities. This is because there are either no transport facilities (with no roads) or the person involved is unable to pay for them.

In some cases such poor people are facilitated by paying in kind by way of doing manual work at the health institutes when they have completely recovered or it can be done by their friends or relatives on their (patients’) behalf.

Women are commonly seen having over eight children as they rarely apply family planning methods or due to religious indoctrination, especially the catholics and the moslems.

Because families are always big they end up being overcrowded in their grass-thatched houses built out of mud and wood. There is rarely any ventilation. This accelerates health problems.

Because of poverty doctors are compelled to sometimes only handle the symptoms of the disease not the disease itself for the patient may be able only to afford payment of the former rather than the latter.

It is also common to find people living with domestic animals such as goats, sheep, rabbits and hens.

High blood pressure, diabetes and cancer are referred to as the diseases of the rich. This is not because they only involve in rich people but because the poor die of them without ever having them diagnosed because of the expenses involved.

Pit latrines are used to substitute toilets and in overcrowded villages and town slums, such latrines are used by more than one family. Consequently there arises associated sanitation problems and rarely do such families co-operate successfully to maintain such facilities. Water to drink and for household use is always fetched from running streams and wells which also serve domestic animals.

Such water is always drunk without even being boiled because of fuel problems as firewood, which is the main fuel source, is becoming scarce.

As most houses are not cemented there is an infinite scourge of dust, which contributes to respiratory problems. With this dust there is the associated problems of jiggers (sand fleas). In fact recent press reports had it that from one individual over 400 jiggers were extracted from his extremities.

Notwithstanding all these health evils, there’s also the AIDS scourge that is “harvesting” the population in its thousands. AIDS has also affected the social-economic situation of the common Ugandan in that there are orphans who end up in towns as street kids. Also the number of widows and widowers there are has increased and people are burdened by the attention and care given to their terminally-ill friends and relatives.

Rarely do people undergo any medical examinations except only when they are compelled to do so, when say going abroad, so as to know their medical status.

Weijagye Justus, 

Uganda

Pakistan’s power élite and the working class (2001)

From the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

A comrade from Pakistan was due to attend our Annual Conference in London over Easter but was refused a visa by the British High Commission in Islamabad. This is the speech he would have delivered

I hail from an extremely conservative region in Pakistan, indeed in the lap of Taliban, where there exists no tolerance as far as dissent of opinion is concerned. Dissenting against the prevailing view is simply blasphemous. This makes our work more difficult. Coupled with this you always have this fear from the state and agencies sleuths who might take you for an enemy agent or some one involved in subversive activities. Anyhow this is not something to deter us. Before joining I knew what it means to be a socialist. I have not had any great trouble over the past four or five years that I have been a member. But you hardly find people agreeing to your views. One has to have steel nerves to cope with such a situation. 

Recently the whole of Pakistan and the NWFP in particular have been swept by a wave of religious militarism and fanaticism. The religious maniacs openly display arms and recruit youth to fight a holy war against the infidels. In such a scenario one has to be very cautious lest one should fall a victim to their wrath. I was glad when five of my friends and colleagues expressed their willingness to join the party. Of course there are people who think differently but because of the intensive propaganda and power at the hands of the militants very few dare to speak otherwise. Pakistan is a country where extreme luxury and riches and extreme poverty exists side by side. As everywhere the teeming millions have been made hostages to the lust and greed of a few lords, nawabs and petty feudal. The power or ruling élite consists of these very people whose grip on the country’s resources and people is as hard as can be. Come election time and these millions of poor are herded into polling stations to elect their so-called “representatives”. The game is repeated after every two or three years, as the assembly does not last long, with either the president or the ubiquitous military dismissing the government for being too “corrupt”. 

Now that the country is in the strong grip of the military with no intention to go back to the barracks, no matter how much Robin Cook or the Commonwealth secretary cry themselves hoarse, the people of Pakistan are more than ever dissatisfied and worried about what they should look for or turn to. The country’s economy is in a mess and more loans from the IMF means more punishment for the poor in the shape of price-hike and taxes. Actually Pakistan’s power élite has a clash of interests among themselves. The discredited former Prime Minister Nawas Sharif, now in exile in Saudi Arabia, had been a blue-eyed of the military and establishment. The moment he meddled with the military he was thrown out in a coup. The same corruption scandals, Swiss banks, and so on and so forth. There is also a nexus between the military, bureaucracy and political élite who safeguard each others interests and rule the roost. 

Fifty-two years after the British left the sub-continent and Pakistan appeared on the map of the world, the ordinary Pakistanis are still groping in the dark. They still have to learn that they will suffer at the hands of those who promise them heaven on earth but turn it into a hell once they come into power. But at elections they do not have a choice and alternative. They either have to vote for one of the rogues styled as a leader or have to stay at home. In both cases they are losers. For them more elections means more trouble. The problem persists as one looks at literacy rate in the country, which is not more than 30 percent. Mass illiteracy makes people follow their leaders blindly. Not aware of their rights they are simply led the way they are asked to. A lot could be said on how people are systematically brainwashed about the country’s priorities. Watching the state-controlled media, one gets the impression that Kashmir or fighting a war with India are the most pressing issues facing the country. Behind the smokescreen of Kashmir the need to address education, health, sanitation, environment and access to clean drinking water is washed down the drain. Such have been the priorities of the government’s recent and past, with the result that people – the hapless poor – commit suicide because they cannot feed themselves or their families. The rich realising that Pakistan is getting barren pack up with their money and leave for greener pastures in Europe or Canada or US. The rest are just left to burn in a cauldron. Capitalism does this to every region and country in the world. The need, however, is to approach those who understand the workings of the system and join them in a campaign that promises a world entirely different than what they had seen so far.

AH

Born to it – or just up for it? (2001)

"Alex the Animal"

TV Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are you a born athlete? A born artist? Naturally intelligent? Or were you born with the wrong genes?

There is something depressing about the assumption that to be good at anything. you have to he born good at it. It’s depressing because it robs us of control over our own lives, and seeing as we give up most of the control we could exercise over out lives to our employers for the vast majority of our time, it’s a loss we can ill afford to make.

It’s all part of the ruling ideology, of course. We’re told that the reason we don’t have any power over our lives is because we don’t have it, and we don’t have it because that’s part of the natural order of things, and we wouldn’t know what to do with it if we did have it. You’re either a born leader – or an entrepreneur – or a natural follower or employee. Socialism is against human nature.

But this is in contradiction to another ruling idea, namely that if you want to get on in life and achieve something worthwhile, or become an entrepreneur, all you have to do is “put your mind to it”. Hard work (i.e. hard work for an employer), dedication and long hours are all that is required and, sooner or later, you shall surely succeed.

The fallacy of the first idea was exposed in an entertaining way in Faking It, a Channel 4 documentary showing until recently on Tuesday evenings. The idea of the show was to take Joe or Josephine Public, and see if they could perform a role other than that which capitalist society had assigned to them. They were given a month’s training by people with expert knowledge on the role they had to play. Then they were thrown in the deep end: they had to perform the role for real alongside those for who it is a “natural” job. The “experts” were asked if they could spot the “fake”.

For example, a painter and decorator was trained how to paint modern art, and successfully fooled the art critics who instead denounced a successful modern artist as a fake; a cellist was successfully trained to perform as a dance DJ; and, in my favourite episode, an effete, toff homosexual Oxford student was trained up to be a bouncer working the door on a busy London nightclub.

Having been bought up on a farm in the country, the Oxford student’s only previous experience seeing their housing estate, all his worst prejudices were confirmed. “Oh my god,” he said in horror as he passed a discarded mattress in his taxi. “Did you see that? There was a mattress on the pavement. That’s exactly what I was expecting. Oh my god.”

Given everything that we knew about this student, the chances of his making it as a bouncer on the door of a nightclub could not seem more unlikely. When he met and stood side by side with his trainers – towering doormen experienced in the martial arts and in real-life street-fighting – the physical and cultural differences between them seemed all the more startling. The doormen looked “naturally” big and imposing, and the idea of turning this slightly built, nervous student into one of them was comic – plain impossible.

But the show demanded the impossible. We followed him as he went through a metamorphosis – not exactly waking up one morning to find himself transformed into a gigantic fighting machine – but a gradual and hard process of training. He was put through his paces in martial art skills – including a few sessions in the ring so he would know what it feels like to get hit hard – and was given acting and voice training lessons so he looked and sounded the part – “y’aint caming in, y’ah daan’t meet the dress code”.

By the end, not only did he look and sound the part but, when he played for real on the door of a busy London nightclub, not one of the “real” bouncers identified him as the fake. Natural born bouncer?

Another essential part of the training process was a night of bonding with his new-found friends. He was taken on a piss-up, which rounded off the night in a strip club. When asked if he had enjoyed the night, the student came clean to the huge loud-mouthed cockney doormen, and told them he was gay.

The interesting thing about this was that the student assumed they would be horribly prejudiced, coming from the background that they did, and would turn against him – indeed, would feel dodgy about having rough and tumbled with a poof. As it turned out, it was the student’s prejudice about them that was unfounded. They couldn’t give a shite about his sexuality – and pointed out to the student that he was the one who was prejudiced for making assumptions about them based on their accents, their job, and their housing estate.

I loved the whole series because it showed that human beings are capable of a wide variety of behaviours and skills when given a favourable environment. It sent the mind reeling with what is possible when we assert our own needs.

Imagine what we could he and do if we participated fully in the creation of our own lives! Our social existence may determine our consciousness, but there is now no reason, other than the rule of capital, why we cannot actively create our own social existence, and therefore our own consciousness. This is real freedom – not just freedom from oppression or freedom to do what you want, nor even freedom to choose but a dynamic freedom to determine what the choices are in the first place

Stuart Watkins

Blogger's Note:

The Guardian's 'How We Made' column had a short piece on the "Alex the Animal" episode in September 2020.

Why you shouldn’t vote state capitalist (2001)

Pamphlet Review from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why You Should Vote Socialist. By Paul Foot, Bookmarks.

Paul Foot is a good journalist, who specialises in exposing capitalism for not living up to its own standards. For this his fellow journalists chose him as “campaigning journalist of the decade”, even though he seems to have got it wrong about Hanratty. But let’s not be too churlish. Despite being a member of the SWP he’s a good writer and the first 50 pages of this 60-page pamphlet are an excellent demonstration of the truth of the old saying “Labour, Tory; Same Old Story” in relation to the Blair government.

Blair and his team have pursued the same policies as the Tory governments of the 80s and early 90s, not just on economic matters, which anyone with a knowledge of how capitalism works could have predicted (as we did, but not Foot – he voted Labour in 1997) but also on civil liberties, where governments have some leeway.

It’s in the last two chapters that Foot goes off the rails. He correctly states:

“Under capitalism, unemployment, inflation, the rise and fall of booms and slumps, are not brought about by governments, but by economic forces beyond government control.”

But also:

“Elected governments of whatever colour cannot and do not determine what happens to the international capitalist economy unless they embark on the most determined and ruthless economic intervention” (emphasis added).

It is just such a policy of state intervention to try to control capitalism that Foot advocates on behalf of the Trotskyist “Socialist” Alliance and the Scottish Sheridan Party (with which the SWP has just merged its Scottish section) who, together, are contesting a third of the seats in the present general election (in most other constituencies Foot says people should still vote Labour!). But, if tried, this would provoke an economic crisis and, if persisted in, would lead to an autarkic state capitalism with shortages and rationing as in Cuba and North Korea.

The alternative to capitalism is not “determined and ruthless” state intervention but socialism, a world-wide society of common ownership, democratic control, and production for use not profit. But Foot doesn’t offer this, not even as a long-term aim. Instead, he accepts a curious definition (by Michael Barratt Brown) of socialism as a society where, among other things, “housing would be available at reasonable rents” and “pensions for the aged and invalid, and payments during sickness and unemployment would be provided on a universal scheme based on contributions related to income”. In other words, the Old Labourite dream of a reformed capitalism. Perhaps Foot never really did vote Labour without illusions.

Adam Buick

50 Years ago: Party Politics (2001)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the B.B.C.’s “Party Political Broadcast” series the listener has been honoured recently with contributions from Mr. Churchill and Mr. Attlee. Both speeches were printed in The Listener (22/3/51 and 5/4/51) which is the source of the quotations used in this article.

Mr. Churchill commenced in the best tradition by praising Mr. Bevin who had just resigned the Foreign Secretaryship, modestly interposing: “Although I differed from him in his handling of many questions.” He then got under way in the best Churchillian manner: “My friends, our country is in a position of danger and perplexity.” It appears that at home we are divided, the re-armament programme is being muddled, to nationalize steel at this time “is playing party politics with a vengeance,” and Britain is not playing her full part in leading the world on the road to peace, and so on. In fact all those things one would expect from a Leader of the Opposition who takes from “Tin Pan Alley” his theme tune “Things aint what they used to be.” Mr. Attlee, of course, has the same theme; it is only a question of different emphasis. He denies the criticisms of Churchill and says: “the Opposition continue their usual tactics of exaggerating all the difficulties of the age we live in and attributing most of them to the Government.” Of Churchill he says, “He is out to get back to power by hook or by crook. During the last few months he has been resorting to various political tricks in order to try to defeat or harass the Government.”

There may be an election in the near future. The political pollsters whom Mr. Attlee dislikes, forecast that the Conservatives would romp home if an election took place now.

That the problems of today tend to make one forget the problems of yesteryear cannot be denied. But anybody who remembers, or has read, the records of Conservative governments in the past, can only come to the conclusion that such an action must be a negative one based on the maxim “they can’t be any worse than the present lot.”

[From an article by Guy, Socialist Standard, June 1951]

Socialism's deadly foes (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

It used to be an axiom of Party speakers that if the Labour Party did not exist the capitalist class would have to invent it. The same is true of the so-called Communist Party, though in a different historical context.

The Labour Party throughout its vile and bloody history has stood ever ready to serve British capitalism, as government, loyal opposition, and in coalition with Tories and Liberals. Bloody history? Yes. Did they not support and help organize the slaughter of millions of workers in two world wars? Did they not endorse the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Were they not the government when the Korean war started in 1950? Did they not support and aid the American butchery in Vietnam? All this is viciously anti-working class. Yet these are only some major crimes that spring to mind. The catalogue is a long one.

While their cloth-capped pacifist Keir Hardie was playing recruiting-sergeant during World War I, the SPGB was opposing the war and propounding Socialism. While one-time conscientious-objector Herbert Morrison was in the Churchill War Cabinet during World War II, the SPGB was arguing the common interest of the world’s workers.

The post-war Labour government started Harwell and the development of nuclear weapons in this country. They fostered the lunatic justification: “They’ve got them — so we must have them”. It was Aneurin Bevan, the darling of the mutton-headed left, who did not want to go “naked” to the world’s conference chambers. “Negotiation from strength” meant being “clad” in nuclear armoury. They hold the distinction of being the first government in this country to carry on conscription in peacetime.

They used troops to break strikes. Their Attorney-General (now Lord Shawcross) prosecuted dockers in April 1951. Seven dockers had been charged under the Conditions of Employment and National Arbitration Order. Shawcross is recorded in Keesing’s Contemporary Archives (May-June 1951) giving a warning to strikers generally that, if there were no trade dispute involved, a strike which was calculated to cause a breach of contract, or so interfere with the course of justice, or affect the policy or interests of the state, “might constitute a grave criminal offence”. Bevan then had the job Foot now holds as Minister of Labour (members of NALGO please note).

At every election since the war, including 1945, the Communist Party has worked for the return of Labour governments, supported Labour candidates and urged workers to vote Labour. They are equally guilty. It is manifestly absurd to work for the return of Labour governments and then disclaim responsibility for what those governments do.

The guilt of the “Communist” Party goes deeper than supporting the Labour Party. As mouth-piece of Soviet state capitalism they too support wars. They supported the atom-bombing of Japan. They applauded the development of the atomic bomb in Russia because it broke the American monopoly, saying it “will encourage peace-loving people everywhere” (Daily Worker, 24 September 1949). Two years later when the British bomb was announced they called it: “A cowards’ weapon, designed for the unrestrained massacre of the civilian population” (Daily Worker 18 February 1952).

After Russia was attacked in 1941, nobody was more in favour of fighting for capitalism in World War II. They even supported the return of Tory candidates in by-elections to better prosecute the war. For more than 50 years they have slavishly followed Russian foreign policy; even stooping to support Stalin’s pact with Hitler, calling it a “victory for peace and socialism” (Daily Worker 23 August 1939).

They also supported the wars in Korea and Vietnam though, being motivated by the interests of Russian capitalism, they were on the other side to their Labour buddies in these two bloodbaths.

Flash back

How did all this come to be? How can it happen that these two parties which use Socialist-sounding phrases and (in the case of the Labour Party with the support of millions of workers) come to be buried in the dirty business of maintaining capitalism? The answers are to be found in fundamentally wrong assumptions right from their beginnings. It is a long story and from the standpoint of working-class interests and Socialism a sad and futile story.

The Labour Party in 1906 and the “Communist” Party in 1920 embarked upon the day-to-day struggle to do “something now”. The former being a native product of British capitalism in the quest for reforms, the latter taking its cue from their masters in the Kremlin. They are both the heirs to the fallacy of the old Social Democrats that Socialism can be an ultimate objective, while “in the meantime” they build a movement to seek votes on the basis of a list of reforms.

The false assumption behind this idea is that the working class cannot understand Socialism; they have to be baited by reforms. Above all, workers cannot consciously organize and free themselves, they must have leaders. So the trap is set. The trap is capitalism and the quarry is reformist.

Starting out on the wrong foot and facing the wrong way all subsequent developments were inevitable. Instead of being stepping-stones, reforms became the only attainable ends. Their spurious socialism is reforms and nationalization. As if to rub salt into the wounds of mockery, they used to say they were in a hurry and could not wait for the SPGB and workers’ understanding.

Given a working class who are overwhelmingly non-socialist, the Labourites and Communists have to appeal to the same politically ignorant electorate as the avowedly capitalist parties. If you play their game, “you” must have a policy for everything they have a policy for. To get votes you must do what they do. No use talking about the abolition of the wages system, common ownership and production solely for use. Talk about pensions and housing. Make promises. Outbid the Tories and Liberals. Sound plausible. Promote leaders. Be British. Be concerned about the nation and British interests. Their game is running capitalism. To sound plausible means you must convince millions of workers that you can run capitalism better than they can. Though all your policies pre-suppose the continuation of capitalism, you must foster the illusion of attacking the system and being indignant.

How many times during the seventy years of the Socialist Party of Great Britain have we been asked : “Where have you got? What have you achieved?” While the clamour for popular demands has become a way of life the voice of Socialism has remained small. In fact, the two things go together. The massive proportions of the one presuppose the relative smallness of the other. The point is that for all their mass appeal the Labour Party and the CP have solved not a single problem.

Despite many years of Labour government, capitalism is still here. They are a living demonstration of the futility of reformism. There has been continuous legislation of reforms concerning every aspect of capitalism. The only argument advanced has been that the reforms were necessary to solve problems. History is littered with the wreckage of their useless enactments.

Look where you will, there have been no solutions. Health and welfare, Act piled upon Act while the chaos gets worse. The wages struggles of doctors, nurses and welfare workers run parallel with the continuing poverty of the workers who need health and welfare services. Instead of ending poverty, the chief function is to administer it.

Pensions? Despite all the reforms, wretchedness and misery continue to the accompaniment of sentimental slush from the hypocrites in government getting £16,000 per year who think £10 per week is enough for one and £16 enough for two old workers.

Education. Another sorry story. While newspapers carry headlines about “class-room jungles” the reform-mongers reach for their bottomless bucket to start another round of bailing-out operations.

Rents and mortgages make the bitterest mockery of all. Nothing screams more loudly the irrelevance of reformism. From the first Housing Act in 1851, every government has been going to solve the housing problem.

The post-war Labour government was finally going to banish it in five years. In 1948 Aneurin Bevan promised : “When the next election occurs there will be no housing problem in Great Britain for the British working class”. (Hansard 14 July 1948). They were going to clear away the slums. Now, nearly thirty years later, the present Labour government blandly informs us the slums are here to stay. A report by the National Economic Development Office calling for the clearance of 380,000 slums was rejected as being against the policy of both this government and the last one. The Daily Mirror (11 April 1974) which supported the return of the Labour government quotes a spokesman for the Department of the Environment as saying: “Demolition is a dirty word now. Renovation is the best thing for slum areas”. By their own criterion of “something now” they are abysmal failures.

They were going to abolish the House of Lords and tax the rich out of existence. The rich and the Lords are still on our backs and the party which in 1945 used the catch-phrase “Fair shares for all” is still talking nonsense about “fairness” in a society that rests upon legal robbery.

Nationalization was to be the way to run industry and transport as public services not for profits. Millions of workers were kidded to regard nationalization as the answer to social problems in general and to maldistribution in particular. This was how the Labour Party was able to exploit the misguided loyalties of the workers. The economics of capitalism made short work of their silly schemes.

The bitterness and disillusionment that followed did more than give the Tories thirteen years in power. It caused many workers to regard Socialism as a failure and to become suspicious of politics generally. The fact is that the policies of the Labour Party are conceived for the running of capitalism, not its abolition. They are ignorant of or indifferent to what Socialism means. When this is coupled with the cynical quest for power by the shabby upstarts who lead this blind mass it is easy to understand how damaging to the cause of Socialism the whole futile exercise has been.

The Tories have been able to poke fun at the founderings of the Labour Party and, by misrepresentation, to discredit Socialism. In the same way they are able to point to the tyranny of capitalist Russia. Socialism suffers on the one hand because of the distortion of those who control the mass-media, and on the other hand because the great majority of the working class have so far accepted those falsehoods.

Our main indictment of the Bolsheviks is not that from 1917 they have built up capitalism in Russia. Given the historical conditions of the time — industrial backwardness, a largely illiterate peasant population and a working class outside Russia not yet ready for Socialism — capitalism was the only possible outcome. This is what the SPGB said at the time. The fact that they have passed off a million outrages as Socialism — this is our indictment. They have twisted Marxism into its opposite for more than half a century. Marxism demands the abolition of the wages-system, so the political frauds in the Kremlin invent “socialist wages”. Marx saw the state as a product and instrument of class society, so the Leninists invented a contradiction in terms called the “workers’ state”. Marx wanted a conscious majority of the working class (see The Communist Manifesto) to gain control of political power for the purpose of ending class society, so the Bolsheviks called their minority seizure of power “the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Their brutal hierarchy is worthy of comparison with the medieval Papacy. Their terrorist secret police. The purge trials and slaughters of their own comrades. Their deals with Hitler and later with Churchill. Their vast military machine. The use of military might to crush workers’ risings in Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. Their commodity production and rivalry with western capitalists for world markets and investments, all carried on to the accompaniment of propaganda calling it Socialism.

These are just headings under which their deeds may be listed. The reality in human suffering is incalculable. Can there be any wonder that the progress of Socialist understanding has been slow?

For a generation they worshipped Stalin and his “greatness” while millions lived in fear of his secret police. All criticism was brutally crushed. New crimes were invented to cover any rivals for power. To be denounced as a Trotskyist or a Titoist meant that you were an enemy of the state. (Those who were shot were spared years of degradation as political prisoners.) During this period meetings of the Socialist Party of Great Britain were disrupted by members of the Communist Party who would tolerate no criticism of their Soviet Fatherland. Three years after Stalin’s death some of those who had served him denounced him, and the faithful were thrown into confusion.

It is impossible to estimate the harm all this has done to the spread of Socialist ideas. At every meeting someone asks “What about Russia?” We have to waste time debunking myths before we can expound the positive Socialist case of the SPGB.

Understanding as we do the realities of capitalism, we know that our fellow-workers in this country, as in Russia and throughout the world, are confronting similar problems. We are as confident as ever that the world’s workers will come to reject the spurious palliatives of Labourites and “Communists” and will achieve their own emancipation by establishing Socialism. Working to this end has always been the sole commitment of the SPGB. There could be no task more worthwhile.

Harry Baldwin

This is Socialism ! (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a common occurrence at an SPGB meeting for a member of the audience to say: “Look, you may be right about capitalism, but what exactly will Socialism be like?” The SPGBer will preface his reply by pointing out that he can give no specific blueprint of Socialism. The questioner may jeer in greater or lesser degrees at such an admission and turn to leave the meeting. He cannot wait for Socialism: Socialism then must wait for him. And it does.

The man or woman who is prepared to listen will realize that such a question asks the Socialist to reveal some clairvoyant abilities far beyond those required even to predict what Capitalism will be like next week. The astrologers earn a lucrative living in this way, and yet our member is asked to predict further ahead — and for free! We can only speak in general terms, but it can at least be seen that our predictions relating to capitalism are being constantly proved accurate. This is not because we have mysterious contacts with another world. It is because we have analyzed the way in which this world works.

To make any sort of predictions about Socialism it is necessary to recognize how it is to be introduced. We maintain that once the members of the working class internationally recognize that capitalism is at root a system of society organized and run by themselves, yet which creates problems in direct opposition to their interests, they will recognize that a social system, like any other system, is capable of change. That change will result from their own coordinated efforts and they will take political action to organize a system of society which will operate in their own interests — Socialism.

“Ah now”, says the patient listener, “who does all this co-ordinating of effort and organizing? Surely a leader of some kind?” We refer him to the structure of the SPGB itself. Socialists are aware that each man has a variety of abilities, each in differing proportions, and these may be applied to a variety of work. A considerable control of hand movement is required by both the surgeon and the watch-maker, but it is obvious which one would be chosen to remove an appendix. Similarly, a leader is one who decides for others which path they will take, and then proceeds to lead them up that path. We have no leaders in the SPGB.

Our organizers are those who have some ability to arrange the wishes of members into a cohesive effort to achieve an aim. They are delegated for their abilities in this respect. Should one choose to ignore the wishes of members, he is replaced by another delegate and is left with no-one to organize. This is the way in which a Socialist working class will appoint representatives. And once Socialism has been established, it seems likely that this will be the way adopted in choosing those who will carry out such forms of administration as will exist.

As the supply of goods and services will be freely available to all, it will be necessary for representatives to ensure that a balance is struck between those articles which are required, and those produced. These representatives may meet in local, regional and interregional assemblies, but unlike the awesome meetings of (alleged) mental giants to be witnessed daily in the Houses of Parliament, Socialist delegates will meet with one object in common — the satisfaction of human needs.

Bodies similar to the present-day Egg or Milk Marketing Boards may be of use to Socialists in coordinating the supply of eggs and milk to those areas in which they are needed. It is worth noting that this year the Egg Marketing Board has failed disastrously to arrange the production of eggs. It has managed to creative a massive surplus. Socialists will not be worried by such calamities!

The search for profit which today determines the level of production will be removed, and the incentive for production will become the welfare of all members of society. The disbanding of the armed forces, financial and legal institutions and so on, will mean that many millions of men and women will be free to perform work which is necessary to society. Assuming that some members of Socialist society would choose to carry out work of a similar nature to what they perform today, the scientist engaged in germ-warfare techniques can be of use in research to combat disease. The accountant useful in collating statistics — to gauge social requirements. The Company Rep. as a long distance lorry driver (although it is debatable that the internal combustion engine will be used for power). Bishops and capitalist politicians could further enrich the acting profession. The possibilities are endless.

The condition and location of houses and workplaces would be designed for the maximum of comfort and safety. No longer would the old cry go up: “It’s a good idea, but we can’t afford it.” Machinery will be employed, particularly in work which is dangerous. Men and women will recognize labour, not as an undesirable chore, but as an interesting, satisfying and necessary event. It is likely that less time will be spent engaged in work, and every individual will be free to decide the nature and duration of his or her activity, and to pursue other interests as fully as they wish. The possibilities in life will truly be unfettered.

“Ah. But will anyone work?” A reasonable question? Hardly. It implies a derisive conception of the working man’s mentality. It implies that those who have consciously organized to bring Socialism into being have, in fact, been deliberately false, each one relying on the fact that the other will perform the necessary work while fully intending to perform none himself. We do not accept that the working class is, or that the Socialist working class will be, false to its beliefs. History has shown that no-one has suffered shabbier treatment at the hands of the ruling class than workers, and yet they are willing, even proud, to enter suicidal battlefields on behalf of their masters in time of war. It is not lack of conviction which perpetuates these sacrifices, it is a surfeit of conviction — in Capitalism.

Alan D'Arcy

Our Comrade Overseas (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over the years since the formation of the SPGB, parties with the same Object and Declaration of Principles as ourselves have been established in other parts of the world. We have close contact with these parties in our efforts to put to the working class the necessity for world common ownership and free access. Like the SPGB our companion parties are small, but they are keeping to the fore the aim which can transform the world from its present crisis-ridden state. The contradiction between great wealth and the possibility of production in abundance on one hand, and mass deprivation on the other, grows more startling daily. These contradictions will one day throw up Socialist consciousness in the minds of the working class, like a world-wide volcano.

For this consciousness to arise, the working class will have to drop its adherence to reformist movements which come forward with their bankrupt promises to slay the dragon of capitalism, bit by bit. Capitalism must either be abolished by the deliberate action of workers, or it will remain. It cannot be reformed to work in the interests of the majority. It is up to the working class to free itself from the degradations of capitalism and establish Socialism. The function of the SPGB and its companion parties is to explain to the working class what capitalism is, what Socialism will be, and how workers themselves are the instruments for effecting the transformation. As Engels put it in his Socialism: Utopian and Scientific—

“To thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.”

Below is a brief history and guide to our companion parties.

Socialist Party of Canada

The party’s origins go back to 1905, shortly after the inception of the SPGB. However it was a false start. The party, whilst containing Socialists, also attracted a large group of social reformers and its relationship with the SPGB had to be severed. The Russian Revolution exploded the apparent unity of the party, and the few remaining members only managed to struggle on until 1926. However, in 1931 another group of Socialists got together and formed the present party based on the uncompromising demand for immediate world Socialism. In 1933 the party started the journal The Western Socialist. Because of pressure by the wartime government in October 1939 the Western was handed over to the WSP of the US, who have since published it on behalf of both parties. The party is now working overtime in its efforts to spread Socialist understanding in North America. In 1970, having acquired an old offset press, the branch in Victoria started to publish its own leaflets, and their own journal Fulcrum now appears regularly. Recently the French-speaking area of Quebec has been subjected to a battery of Socialist propaganda. The results have been encouraging. In 1973 Socialisme Mondial first appeared; written in French, it is now available in France and Belgium as well as Canada.

World Socialist Party of the United States

The party was founded in Detroit in 1916 and then called, “The Workers’ Socialist Party of the United States”. The party was helped into existence by two members of the SPGB, Moses Baritz and Adolph Kohn, on the run from the British government’s war machine; their energy and drive forced those Socialists in the Detroit area to break away from the Socialist Party of America to form a party based on the Socialist platform only. Because of wartime conditions and the great distances between American cities they reverted to being a “Socialist Education Society” and continued — doing valuable work — in this form until they could re-start the WSP on a solid basis.

In 1929 their first publication appeared, and the present-day WSP was founded on 8th September 1930, with headquarters in New York. It was not until 1939 that a party journal was established on a firm footing. This was the Western Socialist, which the party took over from the Socialist Party of Canada. It is still going strong today. In the 1940s the party’s name was changed to its present name to avoid confusion with one of the numerous Trotskyist organizations in the USA. The party’s main activity now is publishing and distributing The Western Socialist (it goes to libraries and colleges throughout the US), and regular radio and occasional television broadcasts.

Socialist Party of New Zealand

The party was founded in 1930, although prior to that date there had been considerable Socialist propaganda in the country. In 1919 the party’s forefathers, The New Zealand Marxian Association, invited Moses Baritz to the country to do a series of talks. Baritz took the movement over there by storm; in a series of devastating lectures Baritz put the whole pseudo-socialist and pro-Russia movement to flight. Baritz was deported for his pains, but he had given the Socialist movement in New Zealand a great fillip. In 1934 the party’s first journal was produced which ran for five issues, and again in 1944 another journal came out which lasted four years. Now the party’s journal Socialist Viewpoint comes out bi-monthly. The party’s activity apart from Viewpoint is now concentrated round elections. In 1972 the party entered its first candidate in the New Zealand general elections, and intends to contest the 1975 general elections with, it is hoped, at least two candidates.

Socialist Party of Australia

The party was founded in 1928. However, a considerable amount of Socialist activity had taken place before then. Several seamen who had contact with the SPGB were active in Australia. Bill Casey and Barney Kelly, who were among those sailors and others propounding the Socialist analysis after the first World War in Australia, were sent to the Red Trade Union International in Moscow (in about 1921) as delegates of the seamen’s union. On their return the seamen’s journal refused to publish their report because it pointed out that what had taken place in Russia in 1917 was not a Socialist revolution. Moses Baritz (he seemed to get everywhere) also showed up in Australia in the early 1920’s like a Socialist tornado. By the time the party was formed, there was a certain amount of experience of activity to go on. Shortly after the party’s formation, members began to distribute the Socialist Standard. The Labour government of the day demonstrated its commitment to democracy by banning it for some time. In recent years it has been a struggle for the party to keep going. Vast distances between individual members make concerted party action difficult. However, the party distributes companion party journals and issues and distributes leaflets wherever possible. Individual members, as with members of all the Socialist parties, do all they can to put forward the Socialist case.

Bund Demokratischer Sozialisten of Austria

The party was formed in 1959. It emerged out of a loosely-knit group that had previously been operating in Vienna. Almost immediately the party began publishing a stencilled paper then called Das Freie Wort. In 1966 it officially adopted the SPGB Object and Declaration of Principles; now, as Internationales Freies Wort the paper is well established on a quarterly basis. A major influence on the Bund was Rudolf Frank. He had come under the spell of what he called “the SPGB university” prior to 1914 and his enormous experience helped greatly. Until his death, he played a large part in the writing and editing of the party’s publications. As well as distributing their paper, the party has good contacts with youth organizations and tries to spread Socialist understanding in every area possible.

World Socialist Party of Ireland

Formed in 1959, the party had an active and healthy existence until the recent outbreak of violence in north and south Ireland. The branches in Belfast and Dublin which had been doing stirring work distributing the socialist standard and generally pricking the political balloons of the apologists for capitalism, a task begun years earlier by Mick Cullen, (a thorn in the side of all anti-Socialists), have largely gone quiet since the start of the recent troubles. Socialists can only hope that the “normality” of British capitalism’s conditions will soon return to Ireland, to allow our comrades there the chance to take up again the cudgels of Socialism.

Socialist Group in Jamaica

The group was formed in the early 1960s almost entirely as a result of the pioneering efforts of a comrade who had been living in England for some time and having come into contact with the party’s Birmingham branch became a Socialist. When he returned to his home in Jamaica he devoted himself to spreading Socialist understanding. After a considerable struggle, the group managed to obtain a duplicating machine. Their journal Socialist Review now appears whenever possible, and is a credit to the devoted band of Socialists over there. 

Ronnie Warrington

The Working Class since 1904 (1974)

From the June 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why have seventy years of struggling against poverty, unemployment, insecurity and bad housing been a colossal waste of time as far as the working class is concerned? It is because such struggles have been directed along the lines of social reform and trade unionism. The elephant of social reform has given birth to the mouse of organized poverty. The trade unions are more conservative and muddled than ever. They have now become integrated with the capitalist system, with their investments in stocks and shares, and loans to local authorities. Their central body, the TUC, is nothing less than an extension of the Labour Party.

The mistakes made by the movement could not have come about through a shortage of political parties and movements claiming to represent their interests. In 1904 we had the Fabian Society; the ILP, the SDF, the Democratic Labour League (William Morris and Belford Bax), and the Labour Representation Committee, in addition to the SPGB. The Fabian Society, the oldest political organization in this country, really laid the basis in 1885 for the reform policies subsequently pursued by the Labour Party and its satellites. The principle of gradualism preached by Sidney Webb, H. G. Wells and others was based on the theory that whilst on the continent of Europe political struggles became violent affairs sometimes leading to bloody revolutions, the Britisher, whose temperament was different, could legislate his problems away piecemeal. The ostensible reasonableness of this proposition perhaps had an appeal but events have subsequently shown that capitalism creates problems faster than legislative measures introduced to combat them.

One of the proposals in the present Labour Government’s programme, the nationalization of land, was advocated in 1880 by sections of the Liberal Party. The experiment of nationalization, with the dazzling prospects presented by the Fabian Society in the 1880s, has turned sour. Nationalization of the coal and steel industries, the railways, road transport, gas & electrical undertakings, has merely altered the form of capitalist administration, but has done and could do. nothing to abate the class struggle in those industries. Strikes are on a bigger scale within those industries than ever before.

There is a tendency to believe that social reforms gained over the years in various fields (for example in housing, health, education and pensions) once having been granted are so much water under the bridge, and the reform movement can look for fresh fields to conquer. We would say in general that once a certain standard of living has been attained historically the workers will take this as their natural right and fight to keep or improve it. But this applies only to the wages struggle. The reforms introduced by the capitalists over the years can be taken away, or alternatively can be charged to the worker, and are in fact gradually being charged. For example, the government subsidies which were a basic part of local authority housing during the last fifty years are being removed under the Housing Finance Act, with the result that rents will rise to compensate for the loss of the subsidies. This is reform in reverse. The Labour Party’s concept of non-contributory pensions has also moved in reverse. All pensions are now contributory, and are becoming more so. The much vaunted “free” National Health Service is introducing charges over a whole range of its services. Government expenditure on universities is being cut back, and there are signs that eventually only those who are able to pay for a university education will receive one, as was the case in 1904. Should the capitalist class decide to turn students’ grants, meagre as they are, into repayable loans, there is nothing militant student action can do about it.

The struggle for reforms of any description is not part of the class struggle. Conversely, any struggle to prevent reformist legislation being repealed is not part of the class struggle. You cannot defeat the capitalist class by creating a mass of non-Socialist reform-hungry workers.

The problem of unemployment has persisted, apart from the two periods during 1914-18 (World War I) and 1939-47 (World War II and after). The percentage of unemployed has ranged between 2.5 per cent, in 1900; 7.8 per cent, in 1908; 10 per cent, in 1929-30 (3 million), the highest recorded figure. The figure for 1904— i.e. 6.0 per cent — represented 1,131,000 unemployed (London & Cambridge Economic Service estimate 1904). The number of workers (employed and unemployed) in 1904 was between 15-16 million, including 5,300,000 women nearly 2 million of whom were domestic servants (London & Cambridge Economic Service estimate 1904) The number of unemployed (registered) in March 1974 was approx. 600,000 out of a total labour force of 23,581,000, of whom 14,500,000 are male and 9 million female. A figure of 1 million has been forecast for 1974 (Sunday Times 21/4/74. London Business School estimate).

The problem has not gone away, and it has come as a nasty shock to numbers of young workers, and some not so young, who suddenly found themselves redundant at all levels of employment. This is capitalism. and unemployment is an organic part of its operation. When we consider the unemployed demonstrations and hunger marches of the thirties, the agitation for full employment by all political parties except the SPGB, we are entitled to say they have led nowhere.

Perhaps a more live issue in the shape of housing is occupying workers’ minds at the moment. There was no housing shortage in 1904, even of working class houses — the problem was rent. In 1974 approx. 8 million people own their own houses and no longer have to pay rent but mortgage interest. Given the choice, many workers would prefer to rent rather than have the constant worry of paying off the mortgage, which incontestably is considerably higher than average rents. The accolade of the property-owning democracy has descended upon them, and consequently their worries have increased. This is not social progress. The Shelter organization estimates that approx, three million people live in slums and substandard accommodation, in addition to the thousands who are homeless. We are told there is a housing shortage — and there is. High rents, high mortgage rates. The standard of housing has risen since 1904 — all we need are the houses to go with it.

On the industrial front the workers have gained a little more — statistically. It is not always possible to make accurate comparisons over a period of seventy years because there are so many changing factors. The luxuries of 1904 have become the necessities of today. The motor car and the telephone, to give two examples, are indispensable to the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of workers. Many regard them as liabilities. Entertainment no longer entertains, and it is now a social custom for workers to expect to be literally saturated by TV on every possible subject in which they have little interest. Social habits have changed considerably, and not always for the better.

The trade unions (mainly skilled workers) in the early stages of the working-class movement were withdrawn from politics except when legislation affecting their interests was proposed. Then they lobbied individual members of Parliament, mainly Liberals. Then, as now, the trade unions were only concerned in the interest of their members, although they paid lip-service to the idea of international working class solidarity. Marx deprecated their “conservatism”. The formation of the Labour Representation Committee (later the Labour Party) in 1900, was to bring the Trade Unions into politics. Up to 1918 it was a condition of membership of the Labour Party that you held a TU card.

In 1904 there was a total of 1,211 Unions with a total membership of 1,901,674 (HMSO Abstract of Labour Statistics, p.193). Of these, 212 unions were affiliated to the TUC with a total membership of 1,422,518 (TUC Report 1971, p.698) out of a labour force of 15-16 million. At the moment there are about 11 million trade unionists; about 10 million in the TUC out of a total labour force of 23½ million. The great majority of the smaller unions are not, nor ever have been, affiliated to the TUC. This means that there are three times the number of workers in trade unions today compared with 1904. Wages varied over a wide range, as today, and it is not possible to give a true average. Skilled building workers (carpenters, bricklayers, masons) received 10½d. per hour (1904) in London (Abstract of Labour Statistics 1912, p.7l) for a working week of 50 hours. The basic wage today of a skilled building worker is £25 for a 40-hour week, plus a bonus of £2 (approx. 11 times that of 1904). These are the official figures, but skilled building workers’ earnings are about £40 per week.

The price-level estimate allowing for inflation in 1974 is given as 10 times that of 1904 (London & Cambridge Economic Service). On this basis, building workers' wages have moved ahead of prices. The same is true of engineering workers (fitters, London 1904 — £2 per week of 54 hours; 1974 basic £25 per week of 40 hours. Same source). Skilled fitters earn much more than this with bonus, piecework, overtime, etc. (AEU). Agricultural workers were the lowest paid of any section of the working class. Average wage in 1907 was 17s.6d. per week, excluding perquisites (How the Labourer lives — Rowntree). Today the basic wage is £21.80 plus housing at low rent or nil rent (National Union of Agricultural Workers). Railwaymen in 1904 (excluding clerical grades, etc.) earned 25s.7d. per week (London & Cambridge Economic Service). Basic wage today for the lowest grade is £21.80 per week of 41 hours. Railwaymen (National Union of Railwaymen) obviously earn much more than this.

The same story could be repeated throughout industry, and it is not part of the Socialist case to show that worsening conditions will produce the spur to social revolution. The struggle to maintain living standards has to be waged constantly, and unfortunately has come to be regarded as an end in itself. Relating one era to a former era in order to show progress is an old trick of capitalism. They cannot logically defend the system, but try to show that it works statistically. Half a loaf is better than none, or for that matter, than one slice of bread. But one loaf is better still, and so we go on with these trite and nonsensical equations so dearly beloved of reformers and their tame economists. The point is that we shall not be too interested in the statistics of poverty and wealth, but rather in changing the social basis of private ownership upon which these statistics are based.

As an agent of revolution, the trade union movement has played no part, neither has it any part to play. Its function cannot be developed to include a revolutionary Socialist policy because the unions are open to everybody, Socialist and non-Socialist alike. Socialism cannot be established by non-Socialists. Trade unions, however militant on the wages front, are born of capitalism. It is inevitable that as creatures of capitalism they follow the fashion; they become respectable, that is they actually participate in helping the capitalist class to run industry. Co-operation does not end there. They subsidize the pro-capitalist Labour Party, paying the very people whose job it is to maintain the basis of working-class exploitation. If the SPGB could have relied on the same degree of help from them over the years as that given to our class enemies, there is no doubt that the Socialist movement would be stronger in influence and membership today. We welcome any assistance from trade unions, but on our terms.

To summarize these few aspects of working-class history, we would say that so much time has been wasted. So many permutations of failed policies — not new lamps for old but old lamps refurbished. Lord Shinwell. a very muddled counsellor in his day, summed up the success of his own Party — “It seemed to be that nothing we have done in politics had brought about any fundamental change. Thousands of people still live on the poverty line. Although some of the poor are more affluent there has been no fundamental change. The disparity between the rich and the poor remains. This is in spite of all our pronouncements and all our resolutions at conferences. They have not made any difference at all”. (The Times 19th June 1973 — “Why things never get any better”). Lord Shinwell has certainly come late to realization, if he has come at all. We condemned their policies at the time, and we are not speaking with the benefit of hindsight.

In 1904 we were told that 90 per cent, of the wealth was owned by 10 per cent, of the population. The SPGB’s case does not depend on the degree of wealth ownership. We propose to abolish the rich not tax them — we propose to abolish the poor not subsidize them. We propose a classless society. The working-class movement can thank the SPGB that Socialism is still an issue; that the body of thought represented in Socialist ideas has not been shown to be wrong or inapplicable to the present situations. The basic cause of poverty in 1904 was due to the fact that the means of production themselves were not owned or controlled by those in society who operated them. That condition still obtains. The problem is the same, the remedy is the same — Socialism. Only when the working class in the majority understand and implement the policies of the SPGB will they be able to say politics is not a waste of time after all.

Jim D'Arcy