Democracy or leadership? — the difference (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Regular readers of the Socialist Standard will probably be aware that the Socialist Party doesn’t have leaders. They will also hopefully be aware that the Socialist Party claims to be completely democratic, with each member having one vote.

The reason for this is that we realise that democracy and leadership are mutually exclusive. We argue that a democratic socialist society will not have leaders because if it did then it could never be fully democratic. The same applies to the organisation of a Socialist Party. 

So what’s wrong with leaders? Leaders are only necessary in a society where a minority own the means of living and the majority of the population arc exploited for profit. In a society based on free access to the means of living via common ownership, all there will be is democratic organisation. There wouldn’t be a propertied owning class or state — in other words no people with more rights than others, or leaders.

Some people confuse organisation with leadership. The Socialist Party may not have leaders, but it does have strong democratic organisation, in which the members have full control over Party office-holders. Democratic organisation is therefore completely different from leadership. If anything, a democratic party requires more organisation than a semi-democratic leadership party, because it relies more on the initiative of the membership.

This being said, the next area of confusion is the concept of “dominant personalities”. The argument here is that even if you don’t have leaders, and the organisation is democratically controlled by the membership, you will always have those people who are: more knowledgeable than others, better at arguing than others, and generally more influential and active than others. Of course, this is true, and again there isn't a problem here. The point is everyone has the same “legal” weight, so no matter how well known you are or how good you are at writing articles for the Socialist Standard, at the end of the day you only have the same “legal” power as the least able or active member of the Party.

A third point which is often raised is the assertion that any party whose aim is to change people’s ideas is de facto a leadership party. This is pure semantic quibbling. The point is, we don't propose to lead the revolution and we don't propose to exist as a party after the revolution.

Compare this with the SWP. They are an unrepentant leadership group that aims to lead the working class to a “workers’ state” that they will inevitably control. Their concept of democracy is “democratic centralism”. The basic idea here is that the membership democratically vote for their all-powerful leaders on the Central Committee. This is obviously open to abuse, but the main point is that having leaders of any kind can never be fully democratic. Having the right to vote for your superiors doesn’t make for a democratic organisation. Democratic leadership is a contradiction in terms. Leaders and leadership are therefore incompatible with democracy.

The Socialist Party is broadly organised along the lines of how socialist society will be organised. There will be those who seem more dominant and capable than others. A democracy of class-conscious workers will ensure that any leadership pretensions that any of these “strong" people might have will come to nothing. The nature of the “power structure” simply will not allow it.

When it has been proved that leaders are, have been, and always will be our enemy, do you really think a democratic socialist society will ever feel the need to reintroduce them? 

Dave Flynn

Leaders Get Lost! (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is on the agenda — and right now. But it will not come by people putting their trust in leaders. It will be established when the vast majority of workers understand it, want it and democratically organise for it in a party which is not out to mend capitalism but to end it.

Socialism means the total abolition of capitalism. An end to private and state ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. Production will be solely for use, with all people having free access to the common store of goods and services, instead of production for sale with a view to profit.

To win workers to organise for socialism is no small task and it is easy to be demoralised or to deceive yourself that there is an easier way to initiate the new system. But there is no alternative to the hard work being carried out by the Socialist Party — whose sole aim is socialism — and the sooner those who want socialism join us, the sooner it will be achieved.

Letter: Jesus Christ! — monetary justice? (1994)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jesus Christ! — monetary justice?

Dear Editors,

Scorpion claims, in your August issue, that the Bishop of Birmingham "should be coming out against the market in its entirety and not just its application to one of the necessities of life”. But one has to start somewhere; and the NHS. which we use in times of great need, is as good as anywhere.

You yourself, re Tony Blair, suggest that he is "Christian maybe, but socialist never. He openly supports the market economy and all that goes with it". I point out that Christians worship Jesus who said "Lend expecting no return" (Luke 6.35), in accordance with Old Testament precepts against usury (Exodus 22.25, Leviticus 25.36. Deuteronomy 23.19, Nehemioh 5.7-12, Psalm 15.5, Ezekiel 18.8-17 and 22.12).

Now there are markets and markets; and there may be room for one conducted justly. Some local "LETS" schemes aim at this. It is clear to us in the Christian Council for Monetary Justice (CCMJ) that the capitalist system which has evolved over recent centuries is at variance with Christian ethics; but the churches have largely lost sight of this since the last "top-level" denunciation of usury was made in an encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV in 1745.

The traditional teachings about commerce were endorsed by public opinion until self-assertiveness increased at the Reformation, and Calvin offered a limited acceptance of lending money at interest. This put Europe on a slippery slope, with profound consequences. Moneylending became attractive, and the banks gradually developed the practice of lending more money than had been deposited with them, thus acquiring a private monopoly of credit (or money) creation. Rich men who invested in industries based on the new technologies of coal, textiles, steel and steam-power extorted similar unearned incomes whilst they kept wages at semi-starvation level. Now money and shares have lost their physical meaning as tokens of value; but public acquiescence, fostered by the "haves", lets the rich use them to stay rich in a hungry world. Their "riches are corrupted", their "gold and silver” is "cankered” (Epistle of James 5.2-

3) 

(Coun) Frank McManus, 

Todmorden.

Reply:

We can't argue at this level since we don’t regard the bible as holy writ and so don't regard what it says (even when it doesn't say contradictory things) on any particular issue as authoritative.

We are aware that at one time Christianity did condemn the taking of interest on loans but abandoned this with the coming of capitalism, as is well documented in R.H. Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. For us, this is a striking confirmation of the materialist conception of history which sees ideologies, such as ethics, religion and philosophy, as reflecting the economic basis of society — and of course capitalism could not function without banks acting as financial intermediaries between those with idle money and those needing funds to invest in production and the exploitation of wage-labour for surplus value. So Christianity had to adapt or perish. This is what the Protestant Reformation was all about, and eventually — a century or so late, as ever — the Catholic Church too followed suit and adapted to the new economic and social reality. To want to impose the old Christian anathema against usury on capitalism today is. in the literal sense of the term, reactionary.

Incidentally, acting as financial intermediaries is all banks can do. They re-lend money that has been deposited with them and make their profits out of the difference between the rate of interest they charge borrowers and what they pay depositors.

The illusion that banks can lend more money than has been deposited with them arose from the fact that they had to hold as cash only a small proportion of the money deposited with them, since experience had shown that on average over a given period depositors were only liable to want to withdraw a small proportion of the total amount deposited. The rest was available for re-lending as short- or long-term loans.

A "cash ratio" of 10 percent does not mean that a bank can lend nine times the amount deposited; it means that it has to hold only 10 percent of the amount deposited as non-interest bearing, ready cash. If banks really could lend more than has been deposited with them as Councillor McManus asserts, and so create wealth out of nothing, then this would be a miracle to rival turning water into wine or feeding the five thousand. 

Editors.

Letter: Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators (1994)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators

We publish below part of an exchange of correspondence, which is self-explanatory, between one of our members and Collins English Dictionaries.

Dear Sirs,

I recently bought a copy of The Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus in One Volume as a reference work for my studies. I would like to advise you of a significant factual and historical error it contains.

This concerns the entry under "socialism". There are three definitions given: I refer to the third which states, "(in Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalism to communism". This is incorrect. Nowhere in the writings of Marx, nor indeed in those of Engels, are the terms “socialism" or/ and "communism" used to describe either a transitional stage or different stages of social development. In this sense Marx used the terms interchangeably to mean a society of common ownership and production for use, and therefore without buying and selling, an exchange economy, classes or the state.

As a matter of historical interest, this separation was first made by Lenin in an attempt to give credibility to the post-1917 situation in Russia, by frequently referring to that society, now generally acknowledged to be state capitalist, by the term "socialism". As a student of Marx's work for nearly fifty years, I assure you that the definition you give is derived from Leninist theory not Marx's as you state.

Bill Robertson

Reply:

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for your letter of 15 August. In it you state that the definition of SOCIALISM (sense 3) refers to Leninist and not Marxist theory. I agree with your assertion as Marx did not describe any intermediate "socialist" stage between the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. He used the terms "communism" and "socialism” interchangeably. It was. as you rightly point out, Lenin who created this distinction to describe the situation in the Soviet Union after the Bolsheviks seized power. Subsequent Soviet leaders, as you are no doubt well aware, also used this distinction, most notably Khrushchev who in the early 1960s described the USSR as a "socialist state" that would "achieve Communism by 1980".

Thank you for taking the trouble to point out this mistake.

Yours sincerely.

Andrew Holmes, 

Assistant Lexicographer, Collins English Dictionaries.

A touch of Blaired vision (1994)

TV Review from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Watching last month’s Labour Party Conference on BBC was a heady experience. The splendour of the Winter Gardens ballroom. Blackpool, the green-blue space-age set, the forward looking slogan “New Labour, New Britain" boldly outlined for all to see. the pinstripe suits, the floral ties and the presence of that nice young man Mr Blair, all combined to give the effect that was intended by the media men and spin doctors — Labour is back, but this time with a difference. Today it is a Labour Party that you could take home to meet your mother without the worry of it doing anything to embarrass you. This time round father can safely talk to it about how the plants in the greenhouse are coming along. Gone are the bad old days when it wore a donkey-jacket and was the political party from hell spitting on the pavement and farting in public. Labour is back, they say. and it has brought a bunch of chrysanths round and a box of Terry's Old Gold.

Not that Labour hasn’t tried to impress before. In 1992 it tried to sneak its way in the backdoor with claims that it had presents for granny and the young children, but father said he didn't trust it being in same room as his wallet. And father should know — he bitterly remembers being mugged by Labour back in the 1970s. It may all have happened on a dark night but he vividly recalls the bushy eyebrows. Father is not fooled by the new image and won't have Labour in the house again, let alone near his precious greenhouse.

But mother and the kids are not so sure. After all, Labour looks so attractive these days, and says some awfully nice things. It really is a charmer. And it's so boring having the same people round time and again — the bloke from number ten is always popping in with tales of woe. Nobody likes him and even the woman who did the catering for him doesn’t want to see him any more. The chap in the hush puppies from number eleven is no better and father suspects him of siphoning petrol out of the car. Compared to them, Labour seems like a breath of fresh air, but you can never tell can you?

Telling it like it isn’t

Labour is now busy convincing everyone that it is a bad egg that has reformed. Its conference was, in reality, not a conference at all, but an extended Party Political Broadcast aimed at Mr and Mrs Viewer with this end in mind. Its only discernible message was "you have nothing to fear from us — we are on your side”. Capitalists and workers, bosses and unions. Labour loves you all. Co-ordinated by the image-men for the benefit of TV, it was a stream of tepid speeches and meaningless assertions designed to connect with the hopes and, to some extent, prejudices of its potential voting fodder, generally workers whose views are moulded by the self-same media and advertising gurus.

And how the politicians tried to please. TV loves the soundbite, and there were plenty of them to be going on with "Tough on crime, and tough on the causes of crime", “traditional values in a modern setting", “a strong economy and a just society" rang out like a mantra, and all to demonstrate that Labour has a new user-friendly identity. Pity the poor TV interviewers, bombarded by a stream of verbal diarrhoea for five days. Sheena MacDonald, the anchor presenter, gritted her teeth every time she was forced to interview one of the front-bench robots, while on other occasions, such as when she had to interview John Prescott, she had to visibly stifle laughter at what are now vainglorious attempts at sobriety.

Tony Blair = I’m Tory Plan B

The Chief Robot’s speech was the ultimate triumph of form over content. Expertly delivered with the help of idiot boards, it was 62 minutes of a vision of a capitalist utopia that has never existed and which, with all certainty, will never exist. He even had the cheek to call it socialism, claiming that socialism was based on the understanding that “the individual does best in a strong and decent community of people with principles and standards. and common aims and values". How many in capitalist politics are going to disagree with that? Answer that question and you are well on the way to understanding what Blair and "new Labour" are all about.

But despite the hours of prolonged tedium, the TV coverage of the Conference did provide a few minutes of welcome relief just before Blair's speech. It is then that the Labour Party “Merit Awards" are handed out to long-serving Party members. The first up was an 86-year-old gent who had worked to help the strikers in the General Strike of 1926. To the palpable embarrassment of those around him, he delivered a speech which denounced the market economy and the world capitalist system and then singled out the drug religion as one of the greatest evils in modern society. Quite what he had been doing in the Labour Party for seventy years wasn’t clear, but it certainly took the cheesy grin off Blair’s face. If only Sheena MacDonald had done us all a favour and interviewed the old guy afterwards she would have found herself confronted by a critical intelligence for the first time all week. 

Dave Perrin

Oh, What a lovely chicken (1994)

Book Review from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ha Bloody Ha — Comedians Talking 
by William Cook. (Fourth Estate 1994. £8.99)

This book is largely a transcript of interviews with thirty or so of Britain’s top "alternative" stand-up comedians and is a welcome insight into the lives of these highly unusual workers. Stand-up comedy is one of the most stressful and cut-throat of professions and few do it successfully. Jack Dee claims that stand-up is the natural profession for those with a personality defect, and by that reckoning capitalism should produce plenty willing to risk humiliation in front of a live audience. Indeed, this book suggests that the numbers seeking success in this arena appears to be on the increase — perhaps that’s telling us something.

Several "political" comedians feature, including Jeremy Hardy who has regularly done spots for the SWP and Mark Thomas, a vociferous lefty who has appeared on TV with Jonathan Ross and who is a former member of the Socialist League. But the best insights often come from those who less ostensibly have an axe to grind. Lee Evans, manic impressionist, comic and working-class-lad-made-good, who does no overtly political material, is a fine example of this, commenting on his most memorable gig:

"I did a big ball at Trinity College at Cambridge University. It was seventy pounds a ticket and I was performing to them. They had it all set up for me, and they treated me like a lord. I couldn’t believe it. It was very classy. They had spotlights across the river, they were punting, the girls looked beautiful in their ball gowns, and the guys were very smart — and they were eating shit-hot food. I nearly cried. As I was walking out, with my bag over my shoulder, I thought 'Fucking hell, man! This is it! This is brilliant! This is how it should be for everybody.”

Compared to Lee Evans's wide-eyed innocence there is a certain self-righteousness about overtly "political" comedians that can be grating — as anyone who has ever seen Ben Elton will testify — and the trend in recent years has moved away from them. The best alternative comics are invariably those whose comments on capitalist society and its manifold absurdities go deeper than taking the piss out of Thatcher's mad glare or Major tucking his shirt into his underpants, which has only ever been one step up from making fun of teacher — and is where most comedians, it has to be said, appear to have started without ever having moved on much.

"Alternative" comedy, by definition, aims to take an alternative approach to comedy to that taken by the mainstream, which has long been a repository for scapegoaters of all kinds. It has not been an unqualified advance, however, and when the racism and sexism of the mainstream is not replaced by schoolboy classroom posturing, it is often replaced by tokenism and inverse snobbery instead. One of the best lines on this comes from Eddie Izzard: "Being white, male and middle-class is useless if you're a comedian — so thank God I’m a transvestite."

Budding socialist comedians — or indeed performers of any kind — would do well to read this book, personality disorders permitting. The chapter on heckling is to be particularly recommended and for whimsical leaps of logic. Harry Hill’s favourite put-down still can’t be beaten: "You may heckle me now, but I'm safe in the knowledge that when I get home, I've got a lovely chicken in the oven." Nice one, Harry. 

Dave Perrin

50 Years Ago: What should Women do to be Free? (1994)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

An organisation called “Women for Westminster” has recently been born. It has a self-explanatory name and object. What a waste of time and energy such an organisation causes, and what future disillusionment must there be among its adherents ! Supposing they were to have a measure of success according to their aims, and get a predominance of women in the House of Commons. They would find that women, merely as women, can run capitalism no better than can the Labour or Tory Parties.

The Suffragettes have been appalled by the lack of enthusiasm for the vote, following their desperate efforts to gain it. Their lack of knowledge of the make-up of society is the reason for their indignation. Despite the constant propaganda of the press, screen and radio, woman as well as man is sceptical, often unconsciously so, regarding electioneering programmes, which cater for all tastes. Speaking generally, members of the working class are apathetic and not politically conscious. Many, unfortunately, are led away by reform parties, by idolaters of Russia, or by mushroom growths such as Commonwealth. (. . . )

Whilst capitalism lasts, women will remain, like men, in a subject position, no matter how far progress is made towards equality with men. The interests of women are therefore identical with men in struggling for the overthrow of the present system, as it is only under Socialism that both will find real emancipation.

[From and article by W. P. in the Socialist Standard, November 1944]

SPGB Meetings (1994)

Party News from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

What's with the plethora of epistles?

Should it be a plethora of epistles? What about an eruption of epistles? I do like a bit of alliteration. 

I've been here before. Don't believe me? Click on this post from October of last year which explains my madness in splitting up letters to the Standard that have been posted en masse on the blog in the past.  

There is a method to this madness, though. This is post 21,410 on the blog, and apart from the previous reasons given in the post linked to, an added reason for such a venture is that it is a creative way of exercising some housekeeping on a blog that, at this point, has become just too big. It helps refresh my memory of past posts, I'm able to spot the occasional missed typos and I'm also able to now add links in texts where they were previously missing.

Oh, and it also pads out the blog. Let's not pretend that isn't an added bonus. It's a win-win.

Letter: Controlling interests (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Controlling interests

In his book The Social Fabric of British Politics, Jean Blondel asserts that Marx’s concept of social class, as far as the ownership and control of the means of production, is no longer valid. He puts this down to the growth of the joint-stock companies in which the ownership and control of the means of production become more and more divorced. He went on to say that large quantities of people acquired shares without being interested in the control of the company of which they legally owned a portion.

Can the SPGB throw some light on this statement?

F. Edwards

London N.15

Reply:

The growth of joint stock companies is a reflection of the continual accumulation of capital. Capital can only accumulate as a result of the exploitation of the working class, which exists to serve it. The joint stock company allows for greater concentrations of capital by the investors (shareholders) who overwhelmingly are members of the capitalist class; the only people who own capital.

The fact that members of the working class own shares will only affect their class status if they can live on the dividends of those shares without the necessity of selling labour-power.

The sale of labour-power is the test. There are approximately 22 million wage workers in this country. Even if a greater number of workers acquired shares, the dominant and controlling interest will always remain with the owners of capital—about 10 per cent of the population who own 90 per cent. of the wealth. It also ought to be borne in mind that not all wealth, or even the bulk of it, exists in the form of company shares. Large private companies, and rich family businesses are not quoted on the Stock Exchange or share market.

Jean Blondel is talking nonsense when he says that Marx’s concept of social class is no longer valid. If this is so, how does he explain the existence of the present class struggle between capital and labour? A class is an economic category. The personnel may change, but the economic category must be defined according to the relationship of its individual members to the ownership or non-ownership of social wealth together with its means of production and distribution. The fact that some workers feel superior because they own a few shares, or because they hold a pawn ticket (known as a mortgage) for a piece of land does not remove them from the working class, whether or not they identify themselves with it.

The suggestion that people buy shares without being interested in the control of the company is not true of the large shareholders, as any shareholders’ meeting will testify. If Blondel’s remarks specifically refer to workers who own shares it is as meaningful as saying that workers who acquire a piano are not interested in playing like Arthur Rubenstein.

Editors.

Letter: Workers and wages (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Workers and wages

In the January issue of the Socialist Standard appeared an advertisement for a meeting at the Roebuck pub on "Marx and the Abolition of the Wages System”. When I saw it I was eager to go along and hear what was to be said. But instantly I was deterred. Not because as is the usual case where visitors are sneered upon and used as chopping blocks, but just simply the title of that meeting.

The title is a 100 per cent. give-away. What one should be concerned is what does one do now, once they have a Marxist understanding of economics. If we say to ourselves:—I am a worker. I’ve been told by the SPGB that the wages system denies me the full fruits of my labour (sorry! labour-power!). So what shall I do? Pack up my job, rob banks, start up a stall in Portobello market, go burgling, start militant trade union activity. What? What?

The most vital point and question is “What do I do with my Socialist understanding of economics in relation to my economic struggle now? How can I use such knowledge? But will actions following from the same make a gap between me and my fellow Socialists?" These sort of aspects could be described for the want of a better word as psychological (Marx and Engels made use of the word).

While on the question of the wages system, what is the attitude of Socialists to the wage-price mechanism, where if the cost of living goes up 10 per cent then instantly wages go up 10 per cent, either above the trade union rate or the non-trade union rate, without cutting down the numbers of the work force? If the employer (capitalist) decides or has to put his price of goods up, surely he will think twice as he would immediately have to increase the rate of wages; this he wants to avoid. Surely this would greatly narrow the gap between price of consumer goods and rate of wages? Remember one must deal with things comparatively as well as relatively and fundamentally.

D. Brooks

London W9.

Reply:

A pity you did not attend that meeting. Apart from discovering that visitors are not “sneered upon and used as chopping blocks” (we want to make members, not drive them away), you would have heard your first question answered.

It does happen that workers half-grasp that they are exploited and react in the ways you mention: “dropping out”, attempting crime, engaging in futile militancy. As individuals there is nothing workers can do to escape from the wages system and exploitation. If there were, the working-class problem would obviously not exist. But full understanding of it opens the way to the only effective activity, participation in the conscious movement to get rid of capitalism. There is then no gap between you and others of like mind—on the contrary, a strong bond is found; and from the psychological viewpoint you mention there is great personal satisfaction in working for the only worthwhile cause.

Your second question, if we have understood it correctly, is on the following lines. Capitalist A raises his prices, causing the workers employed by capitalists B, C and D to apply for wage increases which contribute to higher costs for their employers’ products, hence higher prices; and capitalist A’s workers in turn making wage demands . . . surely, you ask, it would be better if a kept his prices down to start with?

This might have some validity if capitalists thought in such a comprehensive fashion. They do not because they cannot—each has to pursue his, or his company’s interests and let the others look after their own. Moreover, each proprietor of the means of production and distribution wants the others’ workers to have money. They are his customers; it is only his own workers whose wages he wants to keep down. Marx remarked on the idea of thrift in this light:

Incidentally . . . each capitalist does demand that his workers should save, but only his own, because they stand towards him as workers; but by no means the remaining world of workers, for these stand towards him as consumers. In spite of all ‘pious’ speeches he therefore searches for means to spur them on to consumption, to give his wares new charms, to inspire them with new needs by constant chatter etc.

(Grundrisse, p. 287)

By the way, you are mistaken in saying that a ten per cent. rise in the cost of living is instantly followed by 10 per cent. wage increases. At the present time, prices are rising at 15-20 per cent a year while wages are restricted to about half that figure.

Editors.

Letter: Achieving Socialism (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Achieving Socialism

I have read the Socialist Standard for seven months now and find it most interesting, and my political sympathies lie with the SPGB. However, there are three points I would like to raise with you.

Firstly, I note that it is the SPGB's aim to establish Socialism by the ballot, not the bullet—Socialism can be achieved by the workers using their vote en masse. You also contend that Socialism must be world-wide. How then do you reconcile these two circumstances—the vast majority of workers do not have the free vote to use, whether they be in China, Africa or India. In this case, surely, Socialism cannot be achieved until the whole population of the world has a free vote to use.

Secondly, you must accept that a basic education is required for the vast majority to understand Socialism and then make it work. However, the large majority of the world is either uneducated or indoctrinated with other ideas.

From these two points I contend that, although Socialism is the best answer for the world, the world is not ready for Socialism because the vast majority of the population is uneducated and does not possess the vote.

Thirdly, you make great issue of the fact that capitalism and Socialism are diametrically opposed to each other—the armed forces, police, government and press are all instruments to ensure the continuance of capitalism. Why then are the SPGB and its companion parties allowed to exist? Surely, as the SPGB is dedicated to the destruction of capitalism, it would be in the interests of the ruling class to abolish all parties opposed to them?

Timothy Eldridge

Welwyn Garden City

Reply:

1. Socialism will be a world-wide system established by a politically conscious majority. We should expect support for it to grow first in the “advanced" industrialized capitalist countries, where the contradictions of capitalism are most glaring and the need to replace it most obvious. Here, in America and most of western Europe for example, political democracy is well-entrenched. This is no accident. Capitalism demands free movement and a free flow of information, and this is the form of political organization which enables it to function most smoothly. The pressure for a democratic state comes from the capitalist class—which then exhorts workers to regard this “freedom” as an end in itself. We can see this from events in Spain and Portugal, and the holding of General Elections in India and Pakistan. A growing Socialist movement will itself have profound effects on the political situation in the world at large. As it gathers pace workers anywhere will be able to see that this is where their interest lies and will organize politically. A working class aware and organized enough to work for Socialism could take the establishment of political democracy in its stride.

2. We agree that political education is necessary before we can get Socialism, and that at the moment most workers are politically ignorant since they believe problems like poverty and unemployment can be solved within capitalism. The main job of the Socialist Party is to combat all the political parties which spread and reinforce this belief. But the case for Socialism is not complicated; it can be understood by anyone of normal intelligence (the majority, by definition). And once again capitalism works in our favour It makes ever more apparent the possibility of an abundance of wealth without being able to make it a reality. Sooner or later this must be understood.

3. The idea of Socialism arises from the material conditions of capitalism, and would continue to exist even if the Socialist Party were formally suppressed. Suppression means difficulties, expense and unpopularity for governments supplying it. Other people than Socialists advocate free speech and would oppose any such move. For our part we recognize that freedom of discussion is necessary for the growth of Socialist ideas and we therefore argue with our opponents rather than trying to silence them. Finally, policemen and soldiers are themselves workers who will not remain immune to Socialist propaganda. But after the capture of political power through the ballot box they will in any case be controlled by the working class through Parliament so that there can be no question of effective resistance to the setting-up of the new society. And when that has been done the coercive forces will cease to exist.

Editors.

Letter: Marx and the State (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx and the State

Many of your members and readers may feel that the SPGB is a truly Socialist and Marxist Party. But I doubt if Marx would think so if he were alive today.

One of your biggest theoretical blunders is assuming that society can be changed through Parliament. The state machine of every bourgeois society has as its principal aim the preservation of the supremacy of the ruling class, and the consequent enslavement of the proletariat. So how you expect to use this state machinery against the ruling class is beyond my comprehension. As Marx said in The Civil War in France " . . . the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes”. So how are we to achieve Socialism? Engels provided the answer in a letter to G. Trier dated December 18th 1889. “The proletariat cannot conquer its political domination, the only door to the new society, without violent revolution”, (my emphasis) If the SPGB supposes for one minute the bourgeoisie is going to simply hand over one iota of their power power and privilege just because, by some miracle, the SPGB has a majority in parliament then they are living in a dream world.

For the revolution to be successful we need a strong organized proletarian party. Let us hear what Marx has to say on this in a letter to F. Bolte dated November 23rd 1871. “The political movement of the working class has as its object, of course, the conquest of political power for this class, and this naturally requires a previous organization of the working class developed up to a certain point and arising precisely from its economic struggles”. But we see that the SPGB refrains totally from indulging in these “economic struggles” i.e. fighting for higher wages, against unemployment and public spending cuts etc. Certainly not Marxist tactics!

In number eight of your Declaration of Principles we find the wholly dogmatic and élitist statement that the SPGB is “determined to wage war against all other political parties”. Engels had something to say on this in the above mentioned letter to G. Trier, namely "For the proletariat to be strong enough to win on the decisive day it must form a separate party distinct from all others and opposed to them, a conscious class party. But that does not mean that this party cannot at certain moments use other parties for its purposes. Nor does this mean it cannot support other parties for short periods in securing measures which either are directly advantageous to the proletariat or represent progress by way of economic development or political freedom”. So much for the SPGB’s dogmatism.

In conclusion I have this to say about the SPGB, principally that it is not the Marxist or Socialist party it claims to be and will certainly never lead the proletariat to emancipation. Socialism will only be achieved by a truly Marxist Party (e.g. The Socialist Workers’ Party) that is active within and able to lead the proletariat to victory, not by the passive élitist theorising of the SPGB.

A. Mounsey

Sunderland

Reply:

Selecting quotations out of context has been the stock-in-trade of the so-called Communist party throughout its existence, and now the non-Socialist Workers’ Party, (formerly IS) are trotting out the same time-worn fallacies.

If society cannot be changed through Parliament, why does the SWP go through the ritual of putting up candidates? Presumably they hope to get elected.

It is perfectly logical for us to aim at capturing Parliament, because we hold that capitalism can be ended in no other way. It is contradictory for the SWP to say Parliament is useless, then try not only to capture it but try to use Parliament, not to establish Socialism but to reform capitalism by modifying the useless policies of Labour governments. This is what “fighting the cuts”, etc., means. In so doing they accept that the power for change resides in the political arena.

Yes, the state machine is there to preserve the supremacy of the ruling class. No less so in places like Vietnam, whose ruling class has SWP support. All the nationalist struggles fought ostensibly against imperialism, and supported by IS or the SWP, have as their aim control of the state to preserve class supremacy. The political parties which support capitalism, including the Labour party which is urged workers to vote for, gain power because they are elected by a majority of workers who as yet are reform, not revolution, minded. When the reverse situation is reached, a Socialist majority will elect their own delegates, and the state will then be in the hands of those who have a mandate to end capitalism. It is good of the SWP to expose themselves as advocates of violence; the workers will wisely ignore them.

Marx’s letter to Bolte makes exactly the opposite point from your selective quotation. He shows that the economic organization of the workers precedes the political, which is decisive.

And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. (Marx’s emphasis)

(Selected Correspondence, Lawrence & Wishart edn., p. 318-9)

So with The Civil War in France. Marx, writing about the Paris Commune (see March SS), explains what happened to “the ready made state machine":

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself and restored to the responsible agents of society.

And:

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supersede universal suffrage by hier-achaic investiture.

(Selected Works, p. 472)

The repressive relics like the standing army, the bureaucracy and hierarchy which the state-capitalist advocates of the SWP seek to preserve, are what Marx sought to scrap.

Show us what specific advantage can be gained by the Party for Socialism supporting parties for capitalism. If you cannot do this (and you can’t) your final quotation is meaningless.

Finlly, while calling us élitists you say the "SWP" will lead the proletariat to victory. Leadership is élitism. The SPGB has never set out to lead the workers anywhere. We are confident of their capacity to understand and organize on a conscious basis; only sheep need leaders.

If you can get one of your “leaders” to debate us on Socialism, we will be happy to continue the tuition.

Editors.

Letter: Explaining Wages (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Explaining Wages

Socialists know the Marxian labour theory of value: that wages is the price of labour-power or cost of production of the one commodity that overproduces itself, i.e. the ability to work and create useful things.

But how is the figure of £10,000 and upwards a year for managerial class arrived at? Directors’ fees and in several companies at once, many of them absentees, and golden handshakes on retirement or redundancy?

Is their cost of production so steep or is it that the working class having produced such a vast amount of surplus-value it must be squandered on useless luxury for the few?

Harold Shaw

Tetbury

Reply:

As you point out, labour-power is a commodity and wages are its price. Price is the monetary expression of value, i.e. it indicates the amount of labour-time embodied in a commodity, and this applies to labour-power as to everything else. Wages correspond, in general, with what it takes to produce, maintain and reproduce particular kinds of workers.

Some workers’ labour-power is a relatively cheap commodity. It requires the minimum of education and training, and does not need to be sustained by a high standard of living. Other workers sell a comparatively more expensive product. They have had to acquire special skills or knowledge, perhaps be educated much longer; it is expected that they should live fittingly and that their children be schooled for a similar future. This is the difference between wages of £2,000 and £10,000 a year.

The price of labour-power can be affected, in common with other prices, by supply and demand. Another factor is the strength of trade-union organization in particular industries and professions and its success in getting wage increases under favourable conditions. Higher-paid workers are not a separate class and are as much at the mercy of the wages system as the rest. In recent years executives and managers have been losing their jobs, having to change the life-style they may have thought was divinely ordained for them, and going to the Social Security office.

Directors’ fees are a different matter from wages. Since changes in the taxation laws made “unearned income’’ subject to heavier tax rates, it has become the practice for capitalists to have nominal occupations of which “director” is the most common one.

Editors

Letter: Not That Sort of War (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not That Sort of War

I am not a member of the SPGB. Why? I object to Principle 8, line 4. War can prove nothing but who has more money or more brawn.

Winifred Mawson 

Horsham

Reply:

Your objection comes from too literal a reading. The statement that we “wage war against all other political parties” means that we oppose them uncompromisingly and seek to dissuade workers from supporting them, not that we envisage using armed force (or even fisticuffs) against them. War with weapons is not an instrument which Socialists can use. Means have to harmonize with ends. A regime brought into being by force thereafter depends on force: our instrument is understanding.

Editors

Letter: Morris and Marx (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morris and Marx

In the article “The Poverty of Sociology” in the January Socialist Standard you say that William Morris had never read Marx. However, this is not so, and I quote from Morris’s How I Became a Socialist: “Well, having joined a Socialist body I put some conscience in trying to learn the economic side of Socialism, and even tackled Marx (in French) though I must confess that, whereas I thoroughly enjoyed the historical part of ‘Capital’, I suffered agonies of confusion of the brain over reading the pure economics of that great work. Anyhow, I read what I would, and will hope that such information stuck to me from my reading . . .”

So Morris certainly read Marx even though he may not have easily understood the economics.

F. Ansell

Goole

Reply:

We accept the correction with thanks.

Letter: Socialism & Religion (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism & Religion

It does not necessarily follow that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system of society. The belief in any view of the immortality of the soul does not spring from any particular mode of production. Such beliefs can be used for the good or the ill of man, just as a razor can be used for shaving or cutting one’s throat (or some other one’s). It is sheer super-optimism to believe that in a reasonable given time the majority of the world’s workers will discard their religious beliefs in favour of a materialistic outlook on life and death.

It is in the manner in which religion is used that it becomes the opium of the people. So I cannot see what prevents a religious person advocating and working for the abolition of the exploitation of man by man in the economic field.

Please note: You can cut this short letter if you wish. If you do so, it will be interesting to see which parts you censor.

Ron Smith

Dundee

Reply:

That religion is “the opium of the people” is only part of the Socialist case against it. Underlying all religious belief is idealism — the assumption that ideas have an existence of their own and can be the operative force in changing society “for the good or the ill of man”, as you say.

Scientific materialism rejects this belief. The drive to Socialism is not a pursuit of ideas, but the expression of a class interest. Revolutionary social changes in the past have been brought about (and resisted) by classes seeking the fulfilment of their material interests. People holding religious or otherwise idealist views have, therefore, an obstruction to their understanding of society: contrary to what you say, it does necessarily follow “that a religious person cannot take an active part in the abolition of the capitalist system”.

You tell us it is mistaken to expect that the majority of the world’s workers will reject religion and see things materialistically. Look round. The capitalist system itself requires materialist thinking and is helping to effect the conversion. A poll reported in the Guardian on 14th October 1974 concluded that only 33 per cent, of young people today believe in God or an after-life.

As regards your ending: don’t be childish. Letters are shortened for space reasons, not censorship. If other letters on these pages had not been reduced in length yours might not appear, and vice versa.

Editors

Letter: Communists and Kings (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Communists and Kings

It was of course very wrong of the Morning Star to have published an attack on any aspect of the capitalist State, it should know that only the SPGB is allowed to do that. At any rate that is the opinion of the SPGB. Indeed the outside cover of your March issue should have read “Royalty, Rates, Taxes and the Working Class, Tzar Brezhnev and the Jews, Do They Matter?”, since without rates, taxes and Tzar Brezhnev capitalism would still exist as your pages of Socialist Theory make clear.

I notice that although you do not approve of the Morning Star article you nevertheless follow its lead in exposing the character of royalty. You in the end come down in its support because it gives “pageantry and a show”. If they did not get this some workers would have to start reading the Socialist Standard to find out why Royalty was not Rubbish.

Tom Braddock 

East Preston

Reply:

Obviously the Socialist Standard makes you wild by being right. If you are prone to the Morning Star, that is understandable; though, curiously enough, we never mentioned the Morning Star in the article you object to. We do not think, either, that anyone else thought the final paragraph “came down in support” of royalty.

However, since you draw the Morning Star to our attention, we will say that no notice need be taken of it. First, because it does not attack the capitalist state. It supports it in Russia all the time and elsewhere some of the time, as expedient. Second, because Communist parties and papers are quite prepared to support national figureheads. The Morning Star's predecessor The Daily Worker in 1947 (21st June) wrote of the present Queen’s 21st birthday:

The dignity of a modern state can only be met when its titular head is chosen from among its most eminent citizens.

In July 1938 the French Communist paper L’Humanite welcomed a visit to Paris by the King and Queen of England in these terms:

We applaud the visit of these rulers in the measure to which it is devoted to this end . . . Our good feeling is extended to that England which fights on the front of Collective Security; that England in the name of whom leading bourgeois such as Lord Cecil, Churchill, Lloyd George, and prelates like the Dean of Canterbury, pronounce regularly such grave warnings . . .

And haven’t you heard yet that a royal visit to Moscow is in the air? Tom Braddock, you are confused.

Editors.

Letter: Soviets and Socialists (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Soviets and Socialists

I thought that the article in your December issue on the International Socialists made a lot of good points. But one point I am not yet convinced about is your preference for Parliament as a means for the Socialist working class to take power over and transform society.

Parliaments as institutions don’t seem to me to suit the practical work of delegates, under the direct control of their constituents and recallable by them. Parliament is geared to the deliberations of so-called representatives, controlled not by their constituents but by rival Party bureaucracies who make all important decisions behind the scenes.

“Soviet” is only a Russian word for “council”. If by Soviet we genuinely mean a council of direct delegates, then surely this would be a better way of establishing a society in which we all take an active rôle in social affairs. If they were based on workplaces of all kinds, educational institutions, neighbourhoods and so on, they could easily be made as universal and democratic as you think Parliament is. Of course, you could convert Parliament and other State bodies into the form of workers’ councils, or you could develop the councils independently in the course of the struggle, or maybe some of both — I don’t think that is the crucial point.

The Soviets which existed in 1917 were not real Soviets in the direct democratic sense, but often little parliaments in which different supposedly Socialist parties — Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, SRs and so on — competed for power. The Party leaders took the decisions, like in present-day Britain, not the workers. Otherwise how could Lenin and Trotsky have taken part in the Soviets — as delegates of fringe journalism? Lastly the Soviets were not a Bolshevik tactic, but a form of organization that Russian workers set up to cater to their needs. The Bolsheviks manipulated them (because the workers were not conscious enough to prevent them, and not because Soviets are particularly fishy organizations) and then suppressed them into tools of their Party dictatorship.

As far as State power is concerned, both your idea of capturing and using it, and the Bolshevik or anarchist idea of “smashing” it, seem to assume that the armed forces are things which must be seized or destroyed. But isn’t State power not a thing, but a form of social behaviour by which we all allow ourselves to be things, the blind tools of others? Surely conscious organized Socialists won’t allow themselves to be used against the revolution — in the armed forces (if they still exist) or in the industries and services which support the forces? State power would fade away.

By the way, do members of the SPGB have views on this or other subjects (Women’s Lib. etc.) which are different from the Party line — or have members differed on interesting issues in the recent past? If so, do they have the right to express minority views, clearly labelled as such, in the Socialist Standard? It would improve your journal still more if the ideas were sometimes discussed from more than one point of view. Otherwise some readers may gain the false impression that Socialists are all identical in their attitudes, without variety.

Cicely Joyce 

London N.10

Reply:

The capitalist class have economic power because they have political power and not the other way round. They control the state machine and the armed forces through Parliament and are confirmed in their control by the working class at election times.

We are organized as a political party not out of preference (which implies that there are other ways of achieving our object) but because all the evidence of history and an analysis of capitalist society shows that this is the only way to achieve working-class emancipation. Without first gaining control of the state (the public organ of coercion and repression) through which the capitalists maintain their privileged relationship to the means of life by keeping the working class in its propertyless position, any minority movement seeking to challenge them will inevitably be beaten by the armed forces and the police who remain under the control of the capitalist class.

It does not follow that because Parliament is at present an institution of so-called “representatives” it must necessarily remain so. Once a working class who know what they want and how to get it send their delegates to Parliament with a mandate to capture political control of the state machine, it will cease to function as an instrument of class rule and become the indispensable instrument for our emancipation.

Soviets cannot establish Socialism

1. because they are economic organizations and not political; and
2. because they are based on the workplace, not on the centre of political power (See Gilmac’s articles in the Socialist Standard for January and February, and Horatio’s article in the October Socialist Standard.)

Before an electoral demonstration of a Socialist majority, Socialist ideas will have penetrated all strata of society — including central and local government, the police and the armed forces and this would strengthen the growing demand for Socialism.

However, control of the state machine is necessary

1. to lop off its repressive features; and in order:
2. to prevent any possibility of their being used in desperate attempts by counter-revolutionary groups to frustrate the wishes of the majority.

Armed forces will continue as long as capitalism because capitalism needs them. The capitalist class won't simply give up armed forces in the face of opposition. That is, they will still exist until consciously done away with.

On your final point we must point out that membership of the SPGB is dependent on acceptance of our aims and object set out in our Declaration of Principles. No-one is forced to join or prevented from leaving through disagreement. What for example would be the point of an advocate of minority action attempting to join the SPGB, other than possibly to be disruptive? Such a person is at liberty to join organizations which advocate his or her views. Party members finding themselves in disagreement with the Declaration of Principles invariably leave the Party — what would be the point in remaining in an organization dedicated to a method and object with which you disagree?

New situations faced by the SPGB have to be thrashed out, e.g. the Russian revolution of 1917, the rise of CND etc. The Socialist Standard is under the control of the whole of the membership and must reflect the democratically arrived-at Party case. The Socialist Standard does not exist to propagate anti-Socialist views — these are to be found in abundance elsewhere.

Editors.

Letter: Morality (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Morality

Some years ago I read in the Standard that Socialism has nothing to do with morality, that it concerns practical decisions. This point, academic no doubt, has stuck in my mind over the years because I could not reconcile it. Did I, perhaps misinterpret what I read?

It seems to me that in the relationship between people there must be a moral element, implied if not expressed, and that factor will have a bearing on the kind of society created. Is not classless Socialism where all are given equal consideration according to their needs morally superior to the egoistic rivalry and financial divisions, injustice and inequality of a class system? I would appreciate your comment on this.

Taking the opportunity presented by the above question I enclose a recent letter to the Press “The capitalist way”. I would welcome any critical comment you might care to make on my letter. Although I have been interested in Socialism for the past twenty or thirty years and have badgered the Press when possible, I am still learning.

W. Walker 

Northumberland.

Reply:

Capitalism disgusts us, and most Socialists would say that their outlook is rooted in indignation at what they have experienced and seen. Nevertheless, the case for Socialism must be based on material interests and not ideas of moral superiority.

Whatever enrages you and us by its inhumanity and unreasonableness in the capitalist world, in fact arises from the class ownership of the means of living. Articles in the Socialist Standard point this out: it is the Socialist (materialist) analysis in contradistinction from beliefs that all can be made well by adjustments of capitalism, or by changes in attitudes and “values”.

Large numbers of capitalists and workers do profess moral attitudes. Political speeches abound in them. But what happens in practice, inexorably, is that “necessity” —i.e. the daily compulsions of capitalism—reduces them to either humbug or impractical personal philosophies. Everyone disapproves of wars, “the rat race”, and misery of all kinds: all who support capitalism go on doing (often expressing reluctance and impotence) the things which cause them.

On the question of relationships between people, we think you have been seduced by one of the claims made by religions and ethics—that “the brotherhood of man” is their preserve and depends on adopting their viewpoint. Man is a social creature with a natural tendency to co-operation and order; if he were not, we should not be here today. Class society opposes that tendency, setting man against man when neither wants it. In this circumstance “love thy neighbour” appears as a special moral teaching, but it is redundant.

Our position is the one stated by Marx and Engels in The Communist Manifesto: instead of seeking morality, justice, etc., we want to do away with them and have Socialism instead. As ways of thinking about capitalist life they obstruct, not facilitate, harmonious relationships between men. And when Socialism is established, people will be able to behave as you, quite correctly, want them to; to cite Marx again, we shall have “human” instead of “civil” society.

Editors.

Letter: Class and the Individual (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Class and the Individual

Being one who glories in the uniqueness of the individual, and who believes, at the end of the day, there are two fixities in this world—the individual and the world—all other relationships are created by man himself, I sometimes wonder where your concentration on the “class” leaves the individual. What will his part and his place be in the Socialist Society? The lessons of modern China repel me.

R .Thomas

Llanberis.

Reply:

Certainly an individual is unique—by definition. Having said that one is no further forward—one has learnt nothing, clarified nothing, explained nothing. Our emphasis on class is an important part of our analysis of society. History shows that all propertied societies have been divided into economic (and social) classes each of which has a different relation to the means of production. In capitalist society there are two classes—owners and non-owners of the means of life. We call these classes capitalists and workers respectively.

The class to which any individual belongs is determined objectively by his relationship to the means of life. No matter how unique he is as an individual, if he is a member of the working class he will have interests in common with other workers, interests which conflict with those of the unique individuals who make up the capitalist class. The most obvious clash of interests being the price at which labour-power is bought and sold. This is the interminable wages struggle which is inseparable from capitalist ownership.

The expression of one’s unique individual personality is viciously limited by economic circumstances. For many people at present the highest aim in life is simply to be the same as everyone else. Look round you at the armies of workers churned out by the so-called education process as machine minders and office fodder. Millions of passive participants in the labour process stripped of virtually all individuality by the need to conform to a system of class exploitation. Your example of China (which is not Socialist but state-capitalist) is just as repellent as anything the “free” west has to offer.

Only Socialism can give the individual the freedom to develop his personality and abilities to the full, unrestricted by today’s profit-seeking and measurement by money. When we have established common ownership the individual will take his place as a free and equal member of society, able to give of his best secure in the knowledge that society is being run in a harmonious way for the benefit of all its members.

Editors.

Letter: Lifting a phrase (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lifting a phrase

Readers may be amused to know that at the beginning of an editorial in the Guardian (Feb. 24) there was a reference to “some people” talking about “the Footbill”. I suppose it was too much to expect that the paper would mention that the “some people” were the Socialist Standard (article on the Freedom of the Press, Feb.) but at least it is nice to know that they read the complimentary copy of the paper we sent them. At any rate we need not feel inhibited about sending them another copy. Who knows, one day they may even feel like dealing with our socialist criticism.

L. E. Weidberg 

London, N.W.3

Letter: Shall we be corrupted ? (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shall we be corrupted ?

I am an ardent reader of the Socialist Standard and a great believer in the case. My questions are if Socialists one day rule, what proof have the people of this country that the liberators will not become capitalists themselves? Hitler promised this and that and look what happened. The Russian people in the early part of this century fought and died for their beliefs and look at Russia today the worst capitalistic police state the world has ever known. There are scores of such happenings one could refer to, how do the British people know that the same will not happen here?

Also (I think many would agree) the past has shown as time drags on corruption and rot sets in everywhere. In the past wars and revolutions cleaned the dirt from the steps of the country for a while, but in this day and age the world cannot afford such drastic measures. What will the party do if the time ever comes, to clean and keep clean the welfare of the workers?

It would prove a lot if you did not publish and answer these questions.

Ian J. Wright

Sunderland.

Reply:

The SPGB differs from all other political parties in this country. We do not promise to do anything for you. We do not canvass for passive support so that we may rule, but ask for your understanding and active participation in the task of ridding the world of capitalism.

While the working class continue to put their faith in leaders they will continue to be disillusioned by political treachery, double-dealing and broken promises. We ask the working class to trust in their own abilities. They already run a complex world system from top to bottom and could quite easily run a Socialist society in their own interests. All that is needed is Socialist knowledge on the part of the working class. With this they can liberate themselves by voting Socialist delegates to the centres of political power with a mandate to abolish capitalism.

A conscious Socialist majority cannot be sold out, side-tracked or misled by leaders. In the absence of leaders promising to do things for the workers the “corruption” or degeneration of the revolution will be impossible. Delegates will be held to the sound Socialist political principles clearly understood by those who elected them.

Our correspondent has a number of other misconceptions about the SPGB’s case. First, Socialism will be world-wide in nature. It cannot exist in one country only. Second, Socialism will mean an end to the working class and the capitalist class—both will disappear; together with the need for a repressive state machine needed by rulers to keep the ruled in their place.

Editors.

Letter: Chinese language (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Chinese language

Comrade Petter in the February issue seems to be basically in agreement with me: most public works were not managed by government officials (though it is correct to add that a few were), and there was small-scale trading throughout the Empire (again it is correct to add that larger enterprises were mostly to be found in specific areas).

However, although I do not wish to take up the pages of the Socialist Standard with trivia, I must protest about Comrade Petter’s remarks on the Chinese language. To claim that it is “almost devoid of grammar” is complete nonsense, a language with little or no grammar being a contradiction in terms. The case for the subordinate role of the CCP in its early years is surely quite strong enough from an examination of its relationship with the CPSU. To appeal to linguistic “facts” weakens the argument, being erroneous as well as irrelevant.

Paul Bennett 

London, E.2.

Reply:

This matter arose from a reference in our Special Issue on China, October 1974. We cannot pursue a debate on the structure of the Chinese language in the columns of the Socialist Standard, but give the following quotations to show that there is warrant for what was said:

The Chinese written language, composed of characters with rich but shadowy meanings and devoid of grammar in the Western sense, provides the most challenging ground for literary exercise.

(The Ageless Chinese, Dun J. Li. Professor of Eastern Studies, Paterson State College, N.J.)

. . . because of the nature of the Chinese language (ideogrammatic characters, the minimum role of grammar, the natural conciseness of the written language.

(Chinese Civilization and Bureaucracy, Etienne Balazs)

Broadly, it may be said that a word may do a duty for any part of speech within the limits set by its intrinsic meaning; and. particularly, that what might at first sight seem to be adjectives, are in a very large number of cases capable of use as nouns and verbs, and almost universally used as adverbs. In spite of the opinions of some eminent scholars, the last word on the question probably rests with Dobson: ‘Undifferentiated, a plerematic word might be said to represent a notion undifferentiated by grammatical quality, rather than any inherent grammatical meaning, that invests the word with that quality.’

(The Chinese Language, R.A.D. Forrest, School of Oriental and African Studies.)

Editors. 

R. Ramshaw, F. Ansell, R. Phillips and R. Smith:

Held over, through pressure on space, to next issue.