H-Bomb diplomacy (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Well, it had to happen. Of course, on all sides there was dismay, or fear, or anger, when first Russia and then the United States announced that they were going to resume testing nuclear bombs. And who wouldn’t feel like that. Ever since the atom bomb came mushrooming onto the world scene, there has been no lack of scientists to tell us how bad it is for our health to have the things tested. True, there is disagreement on the extent of the danger from the tests (the testing governments, as we may expect, like to play it down), but nobody has yet been able to say that they are anything but dangerous. But now the big tests have started again, and the fact is—it had to happen.

Because, as now seems fairly obvious, the nuclear powers agreed to stop tests in 1958 only after they had completed a significant stage in their nuclear weapon build up. At the time, we remember, the United States and the Soviet Union packed in a lot of tests, pushing themselves hard to beat the deadline. (Russia just failed to make it). These tests, with their predecessors, must have yielded enough knowledge for the nuclear powers to mull over whilst they were busily developing other aspects of their weapons. We all know that they have been polishing up on rocketry, perfecting their accuracy and boosting their range. Now, they are at the stage which demands further bomb tests, if the work of the last three years is not to be wasted.

The big snag is that, for political reasons, neither side wanted to be labelled as the one which started it all again. Over recent years, Russian foreign policy has often shown itself sensitive to such things. Perhaps Khruschev did not want Russia to be the country to break the test ban. Perhaps he held off as long as he could, until his hand was forced. There certainly seems to be in Moscow a belligerent, military pressure group which regards Khruschev’s policy as too conciliatory to the West, just as America and this country have their hotheads who are all for a showdown. We saw some of the work of the Moscow group when Khruschev was forced to break up the last Summit meeting in Paris. If these people have had their way again, that would explain the brusque manner in which the Kremlin announced the resumption of tests.

So it might have been a clever waiting game, with each side needing to test but reluctant to make the first move for fear of the political repercussions in countries like India and on the African continent. There is no reason to blame the U.S.S.R. for losing the game, nor to suppose that the Americans held out for humanitarian reasons. For when it came to it, they were just about as ready to let off their bombs again as were the Russians. We know that all capitalist countries like to describe their policies as being inspired by zeal for human benefits. But that simply does not even start to wash as far as nuclear weapons go. There is one certain way in which Russia, America and the rest could serve human interests, and solve the problem of nuclear warfare at the same time. They could destroy all their weapons and refuse to make any more.

That sounds like a pipe dream. In fact, it is a pipe dream. Capitalist nations build up their armouries because they must always strive for military supremacy, to defend the economic and commercial interests of their ruling class. Britain wants a base in Cyprus so that she can keep troops and weapons there, handy to move into Kuwait or any other trouble spot in the oil rich, economically vital Middle East. The United States wants its missile bases on the Continent, its Polaris ships in Holy Loch, because they cannot allow Russian capitalism to expand freely into Europe. Now these competing economic interests are an essential part of capitalism; if Russia and America were to settle their differences tomorrow, the day after we would have some other powers at loggerheads. Once you have such competition, you have armed forces. Once you have armed forces you have weapons, with each force trying for the weapon which will make it the most powerful of the lot. That sounds too simple for words, but it is in fact the reason behind the horror story of the development of weapons. That is the story to tell the unilateral nuclear disarmers, because it is the hundred per cent. reason for not being one of them.

Perhaps without realising it, Khruschev and Kennedy have punched a big hole in the case of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Let us suppose that the C.N.D. had its way, and that the governments of the world agreed to renounce the use and manufacture of nuclear weapons. All the diplomats would gather at Geneva, or some other equally pleasant place, to sign the instrument of renunciation. There would be moving speeches about a new era of human welfare, a better chance for children yet unborn: we all know what to expect on such occasions.

But the sombre fact is that, after the fine words have evaporated, treaties and agreements are worthless to the governments of capitalism. Germany’s signature to the 1919 treaty which disarmed her was worthless. The powers which signed the Locarno Treaty of friendship in 1924 were very soon at war with each other. The post war problem of Berlin is chock full of agreements which have been broken or ignored. And in the same way, now that it suits their purpose to do so, the nuclear powers have ignored their 1958 agreement to ban tests. There is no evidence to suggest that they would behave any differently about an agreement to renounce nuclear bombs completely.

There is nothing necessarily dishonourable in this. The diplomats in themselves might be men of sensitive’ integrity. It is the disputing nature of capitalist society which forces them to make, and break, their pledges. However deep in the mud they may lie, or however thick on the pavement they may sit, the unilateralists will never get around that problem.

In fundamentals, the policies of capitalist governments never change, although in more superficial matters there are opportunities to alter their immediate policy, and they often do so. For example, there is a lot of evidence that since Stalin’s death the Russian ruling class has tended to adopt a less belligerent attitude towards their opponents. Stalin, whatever else can be said of him, was one of capitalism’s strong men; his successors have shown a more subtle touch. That is what has made Moscow’s tough attitude on the tests that little bit more chilling.

How serious is it, then? Travellers from the United States and from Eastern Europe tell the same story — of people all in a panic about war. But we should keep the bomb tests in their perspective, and remember that weapons are not in themselves the cause of war. The next conflict will spring from the disputes of capitalism — from the Koreas, the Kuwaits, the Berlins. In the meantime, with their bomb tests, space shots, sub-Arctic submarines and the rest, the powers are only taking the normal capitalist precaution of arming themselves as destructively as they can.

Yes, the tests had to happen again. That may sound crazy, but that’s the way it is. Because for the majority of people, happy to keep capitalism going, that is the way they want it.

Ivan

The Race for Space: Rockets Galore (1961)

From the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

It was 9 a.m. on August 6th, that the Russians fired Major Titov into orbit. The spaceman himself seems to have enjoyed the trip in Vostock II. He even managed to eat three meals and sleep for eight of the 24 hours he was out in space.

Who can deny that the whole thing was an impressive achievement? Indeed, it stands out as yet another example of man’s technical ability and his power to acquire knowledge and apply it to solve the problems he faces. In the space race these must be formidable, yet such has been the fantastic advance in the last few years that Professor Sir Bernard Lovell of Jodrell Bank hardly turned a hair when told of the latest Russian achievement. “I am not a bit surprised,” he said. According to a spokesman at his observatory, the Professor holds the view that a manned flight to the moon is only about five years off and nobody laughs at him for thinking it. Yet it was not so long ago that the British Interplanetary Society talked with daring optimism of perhaps a 50 year wait.

But it is against a background of events here on earth that we must view the Soviet feat. While the Bank holiday crowds in Britain digested the news, and messages of congratulations were heaped on the beaming young astronaut, the Western diplomats and politicians were doubtless reflecting gloomily on this latest indication of Russian rocket mastery. It was just one more worry to add to their already splitting headache over Berlin.

Some British scientists have expressed, the opinion that Vostock II was one of a series of “in between” flights to bridge the gap between Major Gargarin’s single orbit and a manned lunar flight. It should not be regarded, they say, as just a prestige trip. Be that as it may, it has certainly been exploited to the full by Mr. Khrushchev and the propaganda organs of the Soviet ruling class, as a boost to Russian confidence. There is little doubt also that American prestige suffered a corresponding blow, although it remains to be seen to what extent, particularly among the newly rising capitalist states.

The Guardian of August 8th offers a crumb of comfort to the American rulers and tells them not to be downhearted.

“They have some new and powerful rocked corning into service in the next year or two; they may soon be the pacemakers again. If Vostock II was a military weapon, a twelve months start might be technically decisive. In the history of scientific exploration twelve months is the blinking of an eye.”

The last sentence is true enough, but how foolish it is to ignore the war-like potentialities of scientific study in a capitalist world. This neat little piece of “compartmentising” just does not face up to the unpleasant reality that there really is no such thing as research for “peaceful purposes” in private property society.

While Vostock II itself was not a war weapon, it does nevertheless point to the undoubted technical lead currently held by the Soviets, and the military significance of this will not be overlooked by the U.S. and her N.A.T.O. allies. We can all remember the fear expressed in some sections of the British press, when the Russians successfully fired their “Moon Probe” rocket, that it would be possible to set up a military base on the moon, from which a power would be able to bombard its earthly enemies in a future war.

Now, with Major Titov’s flight, similar fears have been given voice in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Richard Russell, has warned that “… a satellite of this size could be utilized as a very dangerous weapon.” On the same day, Ambassador Adlai Stevenson confessed his admiration for the Soviet feat but “prayed that the arms race will not spread to outer space.”

But even ignoring this possibility, the sheer power of the present rockets and their accuracy as inter-continental missiles, give us all a glimpse of the terrifying prospect which we face if the cold war gets hotted up at any time. Mr. Krushchev has told us of Russian military might. When talking on August 7th about the Berlin crisis, he said :

“We are developing various rocket weapons, inter-continental ballistic rockets, of various range, strategic and tactical purpose, with atomic and hydrogen warheads. We also pay the necessary attention to other forms of military hardware.”

It was shortly after this that we heard of the Soviet 100-megaton bomb and his claim that there was a rocket to deliver it.

More specific was the Soviet Governent’s announcement of August 30th that they would resume nuclear testing and that “Titov-type” rockets could be used to carry their new super-powerful bombs to any part of the globe. An acceleration of the arms race can now be confidently expected and the space race is part of it.

And what of America? Although, at. present, she lags behind Russia in rocket development, she will make frantic efforts to catch up and snatch the lead. Already, anyway, there are three very advanced American rockets available—Polaris, Sky-bolt, and Minuteman—all highly mobile, but having warheads of no more than about 1 megaton yield. Now that Russia has broken the three year old moratorium on tests, the U.S. Government has the ideal political excuse to try out a greater range of bombs and develop the rockets to carry them. It is admitted in the Guardian of September 1st that pressure of opinion in favour of this has been building up in American military circles for some time, and designs already exist to increase the yield of Polaris and Sky-bolt to 2 megatons each.

So it is clear that the usual dirty and cynical game has been played by both sides over the past two or three years, and that all their talk of banning nuclear arms has been so much hypocritical eyewash. We shall not here take part in the futile debate on the relative advantages of the Russian and American types of rocket. Is it more desirable to have one that is massively powerful and can deliver 100 megatons, or one that is far less powerful and destructive, but has greater mobility? We neither know nor care. As far as we are concerned both types are highly undesirable.

Despite all these melancholy developments, do not let us lose sight of the tremendous possibilities of rocket propulsion. It is here to stay, and in the years since the end of the second World War, we have seen great strides in its development. There seems little doubt that fairly soon, it will be used in the exciting adventure of landing men on the moon and maybe even on the planets further afield. It could have great potentialities as a means of enhancing our knowledge of the universe. One thing is certain, it will unfortunately suffer perversion and defilement like so many other things in a capitalist world. But do not blame the rocket for this. Get rid of Capitalism.

Eddie Critchfield

The Passing Show: No paradise (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

No paradise

Now that the native Cypriot owing class, with the help of those Cypriots whom it deluded into helping, has thrown out the former British rulers, its spokesmen are making clear to the Cypriot people that they cannot expect much benefit from the struggle. Archbishop Makarios, the leader of the fight for “liberation,” and now President of Cyprus, takes the lead. Recently he was reported as having admitted that unemployment has risen to an unprecedented peak (Daily Express, 22/8/61). He went on to say: “It isn’t going to be paradise.”

Who said it was going to be paradise? When the Cypriot propertied class wanted to throw the British out, there were plenty of promises about the good time coming when Cyprus achieved “independence”: but now the fight is over, the Cypriot workers — like workers elsewhere — are finding out that the only people who ever achieve freedom and independence in a propertied society are the property-owners. The Cypriot workers are no more “independent” or “free” now than they were under British rule.

Freedom and Justice

Another non-paradise is Ghana. There, President Nkrumah’s right to imprison without trial about two hundred of the opposition United Party has been contested unsuccessfully in the courts. Counsel for the prisoners, who have been in jail untried since November, 1959, based his objection on the presidential declaration that “freedom and justice should be honoured and maintained” (The Guardian, 29/8/61). The Ghana Supreme (Appeal) Court has, however, upheld Nkrumah’s Preventive Detention Act, and has decided that the declarations made by Nkrumah on taking office were “similar to the Coronation oath taken by the Queen of England during the Coronation service.” The declarations, they said. “merely represent the goal which every President must pledge himself to achieve,” and held that neither the Coronation oath in Britain nor the presidential declarations in Ghana “can be said to have the statutory effect of an act of parliament.”

Promises

Two points may be made here. The Coronation oath of the British monarch, to keep the laws and customs of the country, is one which would be rigidly enforced if necessary. Any monarch disregarding it would get his or her marching orders from the ruling class forthwith. Only twenty-five years ago the ruling class sacked its then figurehead, Edward VIII, giving him less notice than a well-behaved butler could have expected, simply because that monarch showed signs of wanting to ignore the code of behaviour laid down for him by the ruling class and marry a divorced woman. This code, of course, is not observed by the ruling class itself necessarily : indeed, some of our rulers marry and divorce each other with a regularity which would have made a Turkish Sultan shake his head. But the figurehead must observe stricter standards. And if a monarch was dismissed merely for wanting to breach a social code, how much mere speedily the ruling class would act against one who contravened the laws made for the benefit of that class. The Ghana Supreme Court, in fact, was well wide of the mark here.

But in the other half of its judgment it was on firmer ground. How right it was to pour scorn on those who expect a politician to keep his promises! President Nkrumah is not merely a figurehead, but the chief executive of the Ghanaian ruling class, and he is sure of his position so long as he serves his masters well. If the exigencies of policy require that opposition politicians shall be jailed without trial, then to jail they go. And no pious oaths, however solemn, about upholding freedom and justice can be allowed to stand in the way.

Anti-strike effort

But Nkrumah’s police-state methods do not stop there. Some five thousand port and railway workers recently went on strike “over Government austerity wage cuts” (The Times, 11/9/61). The Ghana Government has assumed “far-reaching powers to prohibit meetings, requisition vehicles, control traffic, and imprison saboteurs.” In the twin port towns of Takoradi and Sekondi, the centres of the strike, “convicted saboteurs” can be jailed for ten years.” Anyone suspected of hampering the anti-strike effort can be held for 72 hours instead of the normal 20 hours.” Police headquarters reported that all was quiet in the two towns, and all gatherings of workers were being dispersed. The Minister for Presidential Affairs warned civil servants — a term which includes railwaymen and some of the port workers — that if they stayed out on strike more than ten days they would be sacked and not taken on again. According to the Sunday Times (10/9/61), “the Government is now taking the strike leaders to court, charged with illegally inciting to strike.”

The Ghana Government appears to be going very near to making striking itself illegal — in other words, almost introducing a system of forced labour. What a change of front since the days when the Ghanaian owning class wanted the help of the workers against the British!

More Freedom

A third country to gain its “freedom” in the last decade is Nigeria. There, thirteen citizens of the Northern Region recently had a drink—harmless enough, one might think. But the penal code of the region forbids Muslims to touch alcohol. So the offending Nigerians have been fined, and sentenced to eighty strokes of the cane.

What good does it do the workers to exchange one set of masters for another?

Alwyn Edgar

Letter: Those bonus shares (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

Those bonus shares

To the Editor

Although bonus shares “does not add to the market value of a company’s shares”, it could put increased dividends in the pockets of shareholders. Assuming that the following financial year the particular company made increased profits, the shareholders could receive £200,000 dividends in the form of 20 per cent on 1 million £1 shares, or 10 per cent on 2 million £1 shares.

It could happen (and no doubt does) that after a number of years shareholders could have returned to them in dividends the whole of their original invested capital, and yet at the same time still possess increased number of shares above their original number which have been handed out in bonus shares from time to time.

T. W. C., 

Welwyn Gdn. City, Herts.

Reply:

The article (August Socialist Standard) set out to show how erroneous is the belief that doubling or trebling a company’s shares, by an issue of bonus shares, doubles or trebles the market price of each shareholder’s holding. All that each shareholder gets from the change is double or treble the number of shares but with the market price of each share reduced to approximately a half or a third of what it was before, leaving the market price of the whole of the company’s shares unchanged. In his letter our correspondent concedes that this is correct.

He goes on, however, to claim that a bonus issue “could put increased dividends in the hands of the shareholders”, and he asks us to consider the position of the company referred to in the article if its profits increased so that it paid out a total dividend of £200,000 compared with the £100,000 of the year before. But of course this increase of dividend does not arise from or depend upon the issue of bonus shares. Our correspondent’s letter admits as much, for in his own example the shareholders get the £200,000 whether the bonus issue is made (10 per cent on 2 million shares) or whether no bonus issue is made (20 per cent on 1 million shares). All that it tells us is that if a company’s profits increase sufficiently it can pay out twice as much dividend, whether it makes a bonus issue or not.

The final paragraph is equally irrelevant to the question of bonus shares. It is quite true that if a company makes enough profit to pay out an annual dividend equal to 10 per cent of the original capital it will take only ten years for the shareholders to get back all their original investment and still hold their shareholding. But this result is achieved whether the company issues bonus shares or not, it all depends on making sufficient profit. If the company does not make enough profit an issue of bonus shares is not going to make any difference.

We repeat—the issue of bonus shares does not add to profits or dividends.

H.

Obituary: Florence Dale (1961)

Obituary from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

With deep sadness, we have to announce the death of Comrade Florence Dale of Wembley Branch, who was better known to many party members by the friendlier name of Queenie.

She joined the party in 1950, becoming first a member of Ealing Branch and later helping to found the new branch at Wembley. Queenie was not a speaker or a writer, but she played her full part in the backroom jobs without which the more “glamorous” work in the party could not carry on.

Much of her work was on the party’s Library Committee, looking after our collection of books, and —most essential—seeing that each month the SOCIALIST STANDARD went out to the long list of postal subscribers. She also served on the Head Office Social Committee and on many working committees in her branch.

Queenie was an active, warm, humane person who has left many friends in the party to grieve that she will no more listen to the music, and hike over the Downs, which she loved so well. She worked hard for Socialism and we shall carry on that work, because we know that that is what she would have wished.

To Queenie’s husband, Comrade Leslie Dale, also of Wembley-Branch, we offer our sincere, comradely sympathy. We share with him the loss of a loyal friend and a staunch comrade. We shall remember her for a very long time.

50 Years Ago: Proposal to abolish strikes (1961)

The 50 Years Ago column from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the recent Trades Union Congress. . . a resolution was moved on the Friday severely condemning the Bill introduced into Parliament by Mr. Will Crooks to end industrial disputes. . .

Briefly, it is a bill that seeks to abolish strikes altogether. It lays it down that employers and employees should give at least thirty days’ notice of an intended change affecting conditions of employment with respect to wages and hours; that it shall be unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lock-out, or for any employee to go on strike on account of any dispute before or during a reference of such a dispute to a board of conciliation and investigation, any employer declaring or causing a lockout being liable to a fine of not less than £20 nor more than £200 for each day or part of a day that such lock-out exists, and any employee going on strike being liable to a fine of not less than £2 nor more than £10 per day. (Why didn’t Mr. Crooks make the employees’ fine £100 or £1,000 per day while he was about it? The modesty of the bill in only claiming £10 per day from a man who is probably striking for a living wage is distinctly rich.)

A further clause in the bill declares that any person who incites, encourages, or aids in any manner any employer to declare and continue a lock-out, or any employee to go or continue on strike, shall be liable to a fine of not less than £10 nor more than £200.

[From the article, The Trade Union Congress, by F. J. Webb, Socialist Standard, October 1911.]

[Other Labour M.P.’s who supported the Bill, which was not passed, were Henderson, Barnes, Fenwick and Enoch Edwards; the last-named said it was “inadvertently” as he gave his name without reading the Bill and did not approve of it. The T.U.C. resolution of condemnation wits passed unanimously.]

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

As advertised above, Jack Law spoke at the Hackney Branch of the SPGB this month on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses. Earlier in the year, Jack Law had written an article on the same subject for the Socialist Standard.

Cyril May was the listed party speaker for the Wembley Branch meeting on the subject of "Introducing the Socialist Party of Great Britain".

As mentioned in a previous post, it's always worthwhile, where one can, to provide some background on the Socialist Party speakers from back in the day that populated the back pages of the Socialist Standard. And, again, it's a bit grim, but sometimes the best source of information for those members is their Socialist Standard obituaries. Linked to below are the obituaries for some of the speakers listed above in the October 1961 issue of the Standard.

• Richard Donnelly
• Robert Russell
• John Higgins
• Joe Richmond
• Alex Shaw
• Robin Reid
• Jack Law
• Cyril May

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the October 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes:

The advertised debate between CND's Richard Headicar and the SPGB's Melvin Harris was unfortunately derailed. Details of what happened are available at the following link.

As advertised above, Gilbert McClatchie's ('Gilmac') spoke on the subject of his recent political tour of the United States at the Paddington Branch of the SPGB on the 8th November 1961. He also wrote an article on his visit to the United States for the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard.

It's always worthwhile, where one can, to provide some background on the Socialist Party speakers from back in the day that populated the back pages of the Socialist Standard. It's a bit grim, but sometimes the best source of information for those members is their Socialist Standard obituaries. Linked to below are the obituaries for some of the speakers listed above in the October 1961 issue of the Standard.

• Ted Kersley
• Eddie Grant
• Gilbert McClatchie
• Johnny Edmonds
• Jack Law
• Richard Headicar

Socialist Sonnet No. 247: Today (2026)

From the Socialism or Your Money Back blog

Today

 

Today billions did not kill each other,

Didn’t perpetrate any atrocity,

Didn’t bomb any village, town or city,

Didn’t knowingly exploit one another.

Didn’t become celebrities or famous,

Didn’t receive honours for doing their jobs,

Didn’t gather together in murderous mobs,

Didn’t see different colours and make a fuss.

They did work required for wealth creation,

They did hours of housework, as ever unpaid,

They did see folk in need, came to their aid,

They did all the world’s administration.

And no one ever really seeks their views,

And not even be mentioned in the news.

D. A.

SPGB Snippets: Odd world, isn’t it? (2026)

From the Socialist Party of Great Britain website 

October 1, 2026

Nowadays, an accumulator (a single bet on, e.g, 5 horse races) has a cash-out option. If the first 2 nags win, a gambler with nagging doubts about the remaining selections can cancel the bet and take the current winnings. Rational, no?

Rational too is the capitalist with nagging doubts about future elections who cashes out some of the wealth gifted by the workers to bet on politicians who, if the electoral gamble comes off, will doubtless ‘work’ tirelessly to defend donors’ sectional interests. To do that, they will also have to act in the interests of the owning class generally by defending the biggest accumulator of them all – the profit system. (see also October’s editorial)

About socialism (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

1. What is the Socialist Party of Great Britain?

It is a political party, separate from all others, Left, Right or Centre. It stands for the sole aim of establishing a world social system based upon human need instead of private or state profit. The Object and Declaration of Principles printed in this introductory leaflet were adopted by the Socialist Party in 1904 and have been maintained without compromise since then. In other countries there are companion parties sharing the same object and principles, and they too remain independent from all other political parties.

2. What is capitalism?

Capitalism is the social system which now exists in all countries of the world. Under this system, the means of production and distribution (land, factories, offices, transport, media, etc.) are monopolized by a minority, the capitalist class. All wealth is produced by us, the majority working class, who sell our mental and physical energies to the capitalists in return for a price called a wage or salary. The object of wealth production is to create goods and services which can be sold on the market at a profit. Not only do the capitalists live off the profits they obtain from exploiting the working class, but, as a class, they go on accumulating wealth extracted from each generation of workers.

3. Can capitalism be reformed in our interests?

No: as long as capitalism exists, profits will come before needs. Some reforms are welcomed by some workers, but no reform can abolish the fundamental contradiction between profit and need which is built into the present system. No matter whether promises to make capitalism run in the interests of the workers are made sincerely or by opportunist politicians they are bound to fail, for such a promise is like offering to run the slaughter house in the interests of the cattle.

4. Is nationalization an alternative to capitalism?

No: nationalized industries simply mean that workers are exploited by the state, acting on behalf of the capitalists of one country, rather than by an individual capitalist or company. The workers in nationalized British Leyland are no less the servants of profit than workers in privately-owned Ford. The mines no more belong to "the public" or the miners now than they did before 1947 when they were nationalised. Nationalization is state capitalism.

5. Are there any “socialist countries”?

No: the so-called socialist countries are systems of state capitalism. In Russia and its empire, in China, Cuba, Albania, Yugoslavia and the other countries which call themselves socialist, social power is monopolized by privileged Party bureaucrats. The features of capitalism, as outlined above, are all present. An examination of international commerce shows that the bogus socialist states are part of the world capitalist market and cannot detach themselves from the requirements of profit.

6. What Is the meaning of socialism?

Socialism does not yet exist. When it is established it must be on a worldwide basis, as an alternative to the outdated system of world capitalism. In a socialist society there will be common ownership and democratic control of the earth by its inhabitants. No minority class will be in a position to dictate to the majority that production must be geared to profit. There will be no owners: everything will belong to everyone. Production will be solely for use, not for sale. The only questions society will need to ask about wealth production will be: what do people require, and can the needs be met? These questions will be answered on the basis of the resources available to meet such needs. Then, unlike now, modern technology and communications will be able to be used to their fullest extent. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their self-defined needs. Work will be on the basis of voluntary co-operation: the coercion of wage and salary work will be abolished. There will be no buying or selling and money will not be necessary, in a society of common ownership and free access. For the first time ever the people of the world will have common possession of the planet earth.

7. How will socialism solve the problems of society?

Capitalism, with its constant drive to serve profit before need, throws up an endless stream of problems. Most workers in Britain feel insecure about their future; almost one in four families with children living below the official government poverty line; many old people live in dangerously cold conditions each winter and thousands die; millions of our fellow men and women are dying of starvation — tens of thousands of them each day. A society based on production for use will end those problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. At the moment houses stand empty and thousands of building workers are unemployed; yet many people are homeless or inhabiting slums. At the moment food is destroyed and farmers are subsidised not to produce more: yet many millions are malnourished. At the moment hospital queues are growing longer and people are dying of curable illnesses; yet it is not "economically viable" to provide decent health treatment for all. In a socialist society nothing short of the best will be good enough for any human being.

8. What about human nature?

Human behaviour is not fixed, but determined by the kind of society people are conditioned to live in. The capitalist jungle produces vicious, competitive ways of thinking and acting. But we humans are able to adapt our behaviour and there is no reason why our rational desire for comfort and human welfare should not allow us to co-operate. Even under capitalism people often obtain pleasure from doing a good turn for others; few people enjoy participating in the "civilised" warfare of the daily rat-race. Think how much better it would be if society was based on co-operation.

9. Are socialists democrats?

Yes: the Socialist Party has no leaders. It is a democratic organisation controlled by its members. It understands that Socialism can only be established by a conscious majority of workers — that workers must liberate themselves and will not be liberated by leaders or parties. Socialism will not be brought about by a dedicated minority "smashing the state", as some left-wingers would have it. Nor do the activities of paid, professional politicians have anything to do with Socialism — the experience of seven Labour governments has shown this. Once a majority of the working class understand and want Socialism, they will take the necessary step to organise consciously for the democratic conquest of political power. There will be no Socialism without a socialist majority.

10. What is the next step?

Many workers know that there is something wrong and want to change society. Some join reform groups in the hope that capitalism can be patched up, but such efforts are futile because you cannot run a system of class exploitation in the interests of the exploited majority. People who fear a nuclear war may join CND. but as long as nation states exist, economic rivalry means that the world will never be safe from the threat of war. There are countless dedicated campaigns and good causes which many sincere people are caught up in, but there is only one solution to the problems of capitalism and that is to get rid of it, and establish Socialism. Before we can do that we need socialists; winning workers to that cause requires knowledge, principles and an enthusiasm for change. These qualities can be developed by anyone — and are essential for anyone who is serious about changing society. Capitalism in the 1980s is still a system of waste, deprivation and frightening insecurity. You owe it to yourself to find out about the one movement which stands for the alternative.

If you agree with some or all of the above, please contact the Socialist Party with your questions and ideas about what you can do to help speed the progress towards Socialism.

Useless election (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

However lurid the phrases used to describe how the Democratic and Republican parties select, and advise the American people to vote for, their presidential candidates, it is clear that they are inadequate to the event itself. This applies even to 1988, when the fact that both parties knew in advance who they were going to nominate deprived the conventions of much of the tension and what might be called their interest. Of course master self-publicist Jesse Jackson made a show of contesting the Democratic nomination but his attention is actually on presidential elections of the future; what he did at the Democratic convention was no more than a gesture. a threat to be mildly disruptive unless he was accepted into the party leadership — a tactic sometimes adopted by some of Thatcher's sacked ministers.

So this time there were none of the traditional smoke-filled rooms crammed with wheedling, bullying, bargaining political pros while out on the convention floor the party faithful were taking their regular fixes of blind hysteria which motivates them to go out and campaign for policies which only a deranged myopic could see any merit in. There were, as usual, plenty of distractions. The Democrats' keynote speaker's scornful tirade against George Bush went down so well that she felt emboldened to produce her baby granddaughter to give the audience something else to cheer about. Continuing with the theme of the political message of the close-knit family, a senator dragged out his nephews and nieces and Jesse Jackson always had his wife and kids at the ready to stage ecstatic, congratulatory embraces at the end of his speeches. And of course there was the inevitable Kennedy offspring, without whom no Democratic convention can feel that its hunger for emotional guzzling has been satisfied.

The Republicans, whose 100,000 gathering was a record for the New Orleans Superdome (bigger than the Rolling Stones, bigger than the Pope) kept releasing great clouds of balloons from the ceiling, which may have diverted too close attention from the gaseous rubbish coming from the podium below. One victim of assault by descending balloon was Ronald Reagan, bringing the curtain down on his greatest, longest-running role yet. His was — as Reagan may well have intended — a hard act to follow but George Bush managed it with surprising success, proving that he has little to learn in the matter of delivering those sly deceptions which are known as politicians' speeches. Bush is said to be a nice, quiet family man. ever loyal to his country, his party, his president (“I’m for Mr Reagan — blindly") has never found any inconsistency between being devoted to his family and taking decisions which will have appallingly destructive consequences for human beings — for other families. If he wins the election, he will sit easily, guiltlessly, in the hot seat in the White House.

The style and flavour of the campaign could be sampled from some of the convention speeches:

— keep America strong, make America better, red and yellow, brown black and white.

everyone is precious in god's sight;

— we're going to win because we are the party that believes in the American dream;

— I believe that god put this land between the two great oceans to be found by special people from every comer of the world who had an extra love for freedom;

—we're on a new journey into a new country . . .

Those were the words of (although since they are basically the same kind of interchangeable rubbish the identity of the speaker does not matter) Jackson, Dukakis. Reagan and Bush in that order. We can gauge the relevance of those speeches by the case of Reagan, who has cheerfully accepted his reputation as a president with a sharply restricted understanding of what is going on around him but who has survived and prospered through his talents as a communicator — or, to be more accurate, an actor. He spoke his lines perfectly in a speech fashioned on the well-tested theory that in organisations like the Republican party delusions are more comfortable than reality. Reagan provoked roars of laughter, swells of emotion and geysers of tears, yet what he said meant exactly nothing.

On one issue both parties were agreed: their candidates would be extremely rich. The ethnic roots of which Dukakis said he is so proud (in politics it always seems to mean a lot if your ancestors were poor — unless, that is, they were rich which also seems to mean a lot) have sprouted a multi-million dollar fortune; his running-mate. Lloyd Bentsen, comes from a family who amassed considerable wealth through farming and land deals. George Bush's father made it big on Wall Street as an investment banker and let George have enough of the proceeds to enable him to make his millions in the oil business (no wonder he loves his family); his vice-presidential candidate. Dan Quayle, was cushioned from the sort of rigours of life which workers know only too well — not just being in the firing line in Vietnam — by his family's investments in the newspaper business (before this unfortunate matter of his joining the Indiana National Guard was brought up. Quayle rejoiced in a reputation as a hawk — someone who is keen about other people going to war). Bush has a cousin who is a psychoanalyst, who has asked:

Does anyone from the family understand what it is to be poor? No. And the bigger question is: Do they understand their own ignorance?

Bush might respond that a rich president is not something unknown in America: consider Roosevelt, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Johnson, Reagan . . He might also (although he probably won't) go on to point to the many examples of leaders who have come from a background of extreme poverty and that there is no evidence that they have run capitalism any differently from those who come to power with their mouths crammed with silver cutlery. The capitalist class — people like Reagan. Bush and Bentsen — hold political power because the majority — the working class — allows them to and from that standpoint we can approach the real issues of the American election and the actual consequences of it for the American workers.

For a while, the bitter struggle within the parties has subsided into a spurious unity behind their chosen candidates. Robert Dole has forgotten how he called George Bush a liar, the Democrats are forgetting the hatchet jobs done on the likes of Gary Hart and Joe Biden. Both presidential candidates have chosen running-mates whose ideas they are in theory opposed to; when votes are at stake political principles are of little importance. Conservative Lloyd Bentsen is on the Democratic ticket of "liberal" Michael Dukakis because it is hoped that he will ensure the electoral college votes of his home state of Texas (no Democrat has ever won without Texas' votes) as well, perhaps, as Oklahoma. Louisiana and even part of the Old South. where it is no longer true that they would vote for a lamp post provided it wore a Democratic label. Bush chose Quayle for similar reasons, he seems to have overlooked or ignored the many inconvenient aspects of Quayle's past which provided such a sumptuous feat for the media vultures The 1988 vice presidential candidates were chosen, then, for the customary cynical reasons — to cobble up a "balanced" ticket, which means one which will encourage people who are opposed to the presidential candidate nevertheless to vote for him because they support his running-mate. This is known as political democracy in a free country.

Since they have been in government for the past eight years, the Republicans have to assert that these were great times, when Reagan wrought a miraculous recovery from Jimmy Carter's undermining of all that is best in America. But Bush, apparently, is not satisfied; he has spoken about his "dreams" for America's future. Every self-respecting politician must modestly confess to dreaming dreams about a glorious future which, by a strange coincidence, can be assured by voting them into power. It is another way of glossing over the endless, and endlessly futile, efforts to do something with this social system so that it makes sense in terms of human interests. The Democrats' case is summarised in the title of their — unusually hesitant — manifesto — The Restoration of Competence and the Revival of Hope. They must argue that Reagan was an incompetent president, who bungled the American economy into chaos and who condoned scandals like Irangate. It is commonplace for political parties to accuse their opponents of causing economic chaos and to assert that they have a simple remedy which will restore order. This often proves an appealing propaganda line among voters who have forgotten, or who don't care, that the party making the accusation has itself presided over a fair amount of chaos in its time. This is known as the cut-and-thrust of open political debate.

Whoever wins, their election will be greeted as one of the most significant events in human history and we shall hear, in numerous speeches, about the dawn of a new era when the problems of the past and the present will be no more. Plenty of people, especially those who voted for the winner and who are reluctant to think that they have been duped or have wasted their vote, will believe in these golden prospects. But history is not on their side, for there have been numerous examples of presidents who have come to power on just such a surge of enthusiasm and who began their term of office with high hopes and promises but who have been exposed and discredited by the inexorable nature of capitalism as an uncontrollable, problem-producing social system.

The most recent example of this was Lyndon Johnson. In 1964 the Democrats were carried along to victory by. among other things, a popular surge of emotion originating in the myths nurtured by the assassination of John Kennedy. As Kennedy's vice president. Johnson, could claim to have had experience of the top job at an unusually difficult time while also associating himself with the more attractive bits of the Kennedy mythology. Johnson had. over many years, honed his skills as a political fixer to a razor edge (which had not. however, prevented him misjudging the situation badly when he was contesting the nomination with Kennedy). And, as if all that were not enough the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater. whose ideas were so out of tune with the times (although this would not be true were he to be a candidate today) that the mere mention of his name would provoke contemptuous laughter. Goldwater campaigned like a political dinosaur and all over America the votes poured in for the man they liked to call Elbeejay. Johnson received a record total of over 43 million [votes] and his electoral college votes — 485 — were the highest since the sweep of his idol Roosevelt. Only the South, where his switch from a supporter of segregation to an opponent was not forgotten by the racist whites, held out against the tide. “It seems to me tonight". said Johnson on election eve. waiting for this triumph to be formally acknowledged, "that 1 have spent my whole life getting ready for this moment".

Following on Kennedy's clutch of reforms which went under the grandiose name of the New Frontier, Johnson launched his programme. with the even more confident title of the Great Society. Conditions in the early sixties were such as to allow politicians to base their appeal on the false argument that comprehensive schemes of social welfare could be financed through a big surge in productivity. In this country. Harold Wilson was thriving on more or less the same propaganda. Those who read the omens for Johnson, considering all the advantages which he apparently had, could foresee only unbroken, unqualified success for him followed by a grateful nation triumphantly reelecting him with an even bigger majority.

Well of course it did not turn out that way, for Johnson was exposed and, as opinion turned against him, it was focused in particular on the increasingly cruel and senseless bloodshed in Vietnam. It was said by those who knew him well that Johnson, in spite of his overbearing manners, desperately wanted to be loved by the American people — if possible all 200-odd million of them. In November 1964 he could expect that this would happen but by 1968. when it was time to consider his re-nomination, millions of American workers hated him. At the end of the White House lawn the demonstrators persistently chanted "Hey, hey, LBJ. how many kids have you killed today?" in protest at the ruthless, indiscriminate bombing and other attacks on the North Vietnamese people. Johnson confided to one of his aides:

I felt that I was being chased on all sides by a giant stampede coming at me from all directions. On one side, the American people were stampeding me to do something about Vietnam. On another side, the inflationary economy was booming out of control. Up ahead were dozens of danger signs pointing to another summit of riots in the cities. (Doris Kearns. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream)

It did not seem to occur to Johnson that he was complaining about people expecting him to solve problems which he had claimed to be able to solve — and that, therefore, it was not unreasonable of them to "stampede'' when he was exposed as a failure. A mental wreck, he was unable to face another election and the end came when his successor was nominated and outside the convention the demonstrators were being dispersed with terrible violence by the Chicago police.

Unsurprisingly, the Democrats did not win the next election. Richard Nixon came back from the electorally dead to such effect that his re-election in 1972 was greeted with ecstatic chants of “Four More Years" but of course he disappointed his supporters by failing to last that long. Then came Jimmy Carter, the religious peanut farmer from the South, who marked his first Christmas as president by inviting a lot of people to a reception at which neither food nor drink was provided and where neither the president nor his wife put in an appearance. This was a foretaste of the administrative chaos for which the Carter presidency became notorious — which gave the commentators the excuse to blame his impotence in face of some typical capitalist crises on to the way he ran the White House office. Proving that time heals everything. Nixon and Carter are now respected elder statesmen, handing down to their parties advice and analyses, as if neither of them is thoroughly discredited.

The institution of the American president then, does not inspire or deserve any respect or admiration. The entire edifice is kept in place, not through any merit but by a massive scaffolding of working-class self-delusion. For example. Reagan hands over the White House after being re-elected in 1984 with a crushing majority and in the glow of a successful president who claims to have personally ensured that America is a better, more secure country. What that really means has recently been spelled out by some American doctors, who see Reagan's country through the health of its people. The Physician Task Force on Hunger in America found in a recent study that, using the official definition, 14 per cent of the population are classifiable as poor. In the golden state of California — homeland of Nixon and Reagan — there are 3.6 million who come into that category, half of them children, one out of ten rely on monthly food hand-outs from charities. For the first time in 20 years infant morality in California is on the increase, which is probably not unconnected with the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are too poor to see a doctor when they are ill. Apart from the doctors, the US Census Bureau reported in early September that "overall" poverty is experienced by 32.4 million Americans and — as another indicator of how blissful it is to be alive in that country now — in Los Angeles the murder rate has gone up some 40 per cent over last year.

That kind of bitter reality is not confined to America. It is found all over the world, regardless of who is in power or of any superficial differences in their methods of running capitalism. Any rational view of what is about to happen in America must reach the conclusion that whichever party wins it will make no real difference to the lives of the majority of people there. So what is it all about? Why all the hype, the ballyhoo, the razzmataz? Well a Republican strategist blurted out at their convention, when he was discussing campaign tactics. “Beside, we like being in power" and for the American workers the implications of that bald statement should be a good place to begin their understanding.

Ivan

Running Commentary: Wish we weren't here (1988)

The Running Commentary column from the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Wish we weren't here

Of course it may have been a trick by the more miserly elements in the Confederation of British Industries but some recent research has thrown doubt on the benefits, hitherto taken for granted, of a holiday. Casting a cold eye on what actually happens to people who are trying to convince themselves that they are having a marvellous time, getting away from it all, has revealed that, such are the stresses involved, they might have been better to stay at home.

In this year of delays in air transport, which condemned thousands of bored, weary, sweaty package tourists to pass hours, even days, of their holiday in airport lounges, nobody will argue about the strains of getting yourself from rain-soaked Britain to a sunbaked paradise across the sea. Those who stayed at home could also face transport difficulties. For them there were many huge, fuming motorway tailbacks, in each vehicle a driver praying that the engine would not overheat in the inch-by-inch crawl towards their holiday idyll.

Before the journey there is the stress of organisation — booking the holiday, buying the tickets, insuring yourself, making sure that things are up to date at work before you go. worrying about whether you can afford it. And many holidays, under an unrelenting pressure to enjoy yourself according to the writ of the organisers, are little better than exercises in self-abuse — excessive drinking, eating, sun-bathing. . . This behaviour is regarded by many holiday-makers as a release, because it is in direct contrast to what they are allowed to do in the everyday routine of wage-slavery. Two weeks with the 18-30 Club Ibiza is a world away from the factory bench, the supermarket checkout, the typing pool stools. It is a fortnight of unrelieved fantasy with an unpleasant reality waiting at the end.

But perhaps even more damaging is the stress which can be observed on many a crowded beach or cafe or coach. One result of a holiday is to take people, who for the other fifty weeks of the year are kept in only distant contact through being at work or school and forces them to spend a lot more time close together for days on end. It starts out being a happy change but then minor irritations become focussed into major provocations; differences in tastes which usually don't matter because lack of contact allows everyone to do their own thing become impassable obstacles. What usually operates as a manageable tolerance for each other changes into active dislike. It is a relief for everyone to go back home, where they don't have to see as much of each other.

Only one social group, however, experiences stresses. People who have to work for their living cannot employ a load of secretaries. maids and valets to smooth their way onto a holiday. The tensions they are under during their brief spell at what is called leisure reflect those which dominate their working lives. It says a lot about working class life, that many of them might well be better off not taking a holiday. Getting Away From It All is. for them, impossible.

Living on tick

One of the iron principles said to have been drilled into the young Margaret Thatcher by her legendary father was never, ever to get into debt.

Like most of Thatcher s professed standards of behaviour, that one has little relevance to what actually happens in the world. To begin with, a great deal of capitalism's commerce would need to be drastically remodelled if every company adopted the principle of never owing any money to any other firm.

That is besides the working class, whose access to things like furniture, household equipment and houses relies on their being able to borrow money. Of course in the long run it is cheaper to buy, say. a house out of your own pocket rather than go cap-in-hand to a building society. But to save that sort of money would need such stringently miserly living standards over so many years that by the time you moved into your newly-purchased home you would be an emaciated, nervous wreck.

In this time of so-called boom (Thatcher says it's a boom. Lawson says so. . .) workers widely use the quick-loan facilities of credit cards or the "personal" loans which are so enticingly offered by the banks. Running up a bill with Access can work reasonably well for a worker who wants some of the more expensive bits of wealth produced by their class provided there is no tendency to have nightmares about descending bailiffs, but not so well for those suffering from doubt- wracked insomnia. Then what about the sense of guilt induced by our being told that our high living on all this credit is bringing the British economy to its knees. While before a "weak" pound and high interest rates were crippling problems which all true English folk should do their utmost to solve, with the help of a clever Chancellor of the Exchequer like Nigel Lawson, now the threat comes from a "strong" pound and low interest rates. Law- son's apparent solution to this is to say that he will implement the measures which were so recently themselves the main problem. . .

The most cursory acquaintance with these affairs — these blunders, these U-turns, these false assurances — points to the conclusion that all the Chancellors and all their experts really don't have the slightest idea of what is going on in the world. What is obvious is that none of them have the exact, delicate control over the economy and the market which they claim to have. Any confidence they may display in their proposals for juggling endlessly with the symptoms of capitalism's real sickness springs from the very few occasions when their luck has been in — when events which are out of their control have changed in such a way and at such a time as to suggest that they control them. It is on that kind of luck that Lawson's reputation has so far been based; what will happen to him. now that his luck seems to have run out?

Workers who are struggling to survive under capitalism should pay no heed to the superficial aspects of the system. Every time they pay the mortgage, every time they sign a credit sales slip, they are attesting to the fact that this is a society which denies them access to almost everything except pompous harangues from politicians.

Hunting Quayle

If Senator Dan Quayle s prudent membership of the National Guard rather than take his chances on being conscripted to fight in Vietnam was hypocrisy. how do we describe the exultant indignation which it provoked in the media?

Quayle is a member of the capitalist class — born into that minority who live off the labour of the rest of us and so do not need to be employed for a living. Their income — a lot more substantial than that of the majority — comes from their investment in the exploitation of the other class — the working class. This class — the majority in society — do all the useful work. They conceive, design, produce, transport all the wealth and services. They do the clean work like sitting behind a desk and the dirty work like fighting in a war. Society could not operate without them. In contrast, there is no social need for the capitalist class; in terms of producing and distributing useful things they are redundant.

So it is perfectly reasonable for Quayle to expect that other people — from the other class — should fight in the wars in the same way as he expects them to cook his food, clean his floors, write and print his newspapers which his family own. It is also perfectly reasonable for him to use his class privileges, which confer so many advantages on him. to avoid unpleasant experiences — and what could be more unpleasant than a spell in battle in Vietnam?

Many rich youngsters took refuge from Vietnam in the National Guard, pulling the strings of privileges as they did so. The sons of George Bush and Lloyd Bentsen were among them. In the rush to escape Vietnam the National Guard became over-subscribed.

So Quayle and all those other cosseted young capitalists were only doing what come naturally in a class divided society. They were behaving in accordance with the wealth of their class and with the advantages which that wealth brings. It went with their sumptuous homes, their servants, their private aeroplanes and yachts, their ability always to choose how they spend their lives.

The media stand foursquare in favour of this social system. They eulogise the ruling class as people of unusual abilities, the most trivial of whose life must be lovingly related to us. However they may complain about some of the system's symptoms they never question capitalism in its essentials — the division into classes, the existence of rich and poor, the need of one class to be employed by the other, the principle of political leadership. . .

What Dan Quayle did. as another example of what it means to have access to class privileges, was utterly predictable and. from his point of view, utterly sensible. Of course he is a hypocrite — a hawk who wants other people to do the fighting for him. which makes him especially despicable. But the only people who can fairly condemn him for this are those who oppose the system in which his privilege and hypocrisy are rooted.

Gorbachev and the End of Communism (1988)

From the October 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Bolsheviks who seized power in Russia in November 1917 drew a distinction, at the insistence of Lenin but unlike Marx and Engels, between socialism and communism.

By “socialism” they meant a society where everybody would be an employee of the state which in turn would own all the means of production; what should more properly be called state capitalism. By “communism” they meant what up to then had more usually been called socialism — a classless, moneyless, wageless, stateless society based on common ownership and democratic control. Thus, in the ABC of Communism, a textbook written to explain the new programme the Bolshevik party had adopted in March 1919, Bukharin and Preobrazhensky stated:

“The communist method of production presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for use. Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the individual peasant who produces; the work of production is effected by the gigantic cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer have commodities, but only products. These products are not exchanged one for another; they are neither bought nor sold. They are simply stored in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who need them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. Communist society will know nothing of money. Every worker will produce goods for the general welfare. He will not receive any certificate to the effect that he has delivered the product to society, he will receive no money, that is to say. In like manner, he will pay no money to society when he receives whatever he requires from the common store.”

In Bolshevik theory communism could not be established immediately after the capture of political power but only after “socialism” — defined, as we saw, as 100 per cent state capitalism — had been achieved. A moneyless, wageless society was seen as evolving gradually out of the state capitalist society that was the Bolsheviks’ real immediate aim.

This is still the official dogma of the Russian ruling class though their vision of communism, like everything else they inherited from their 1914 Marxist past, has suffered some significant distortions. It is seen as being able to exist on less than a world scale, either in one large country like Russia or the whole Russian bloc but above all the Party (if not the state as such) is seen as surviving into it.

Stalin proclaimed that “socialism” – more or less total state capitalism – had been achieved in 1936. So, ever since, the country has supposedly been heading for communism. Khrushchev, the last previous “liberal” ruler of Russia before Gorbachev, even tried to give this goal a concrete form as a way of enlisting popular support for his anti-Stalinist reform programme. The new Programme of the Russian Party, adopted in October 1961, declared in its introduction:

“Today the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) is adopting its third Programme, a programme for the building of communist society . . . . The supreme goal of the Party is to build a communist society on whose banner will be inscribed: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

and ended with the words:

“The Party solemnly proclaims: the present generation of Soviet people shall live in communism!”

A specific timetable was even laid down:

“The material and technical basis of communism will be built up by the end of the second decade (1971-80) . . . The construction of communist society will be fully completed in the subsequent period.”

The “communist principle of distribution according to need” was to be introduced gradually, even before 1980, before being extended generally in the 1980s:

“In the course of the second decade housing will gradually become rent-free for all citizens. Public transport facilities (trolleys, buses, trolley-buses and subways) will become free in the course of the second decade, and at the end of it such public amenities as water, gas and heating will also be free.

In addition to the existing free medical services, accommodation of sick persons at sanatoria and the dispensing of medicines will become gratuitous.

The transition to free public catering (midday meals) at enterprises and institutions, and for collective farmers at work, will begin in the second decade.”

Free housing, public transport, water, gas, heating, medical services and meals at work – this was the promise for the 1980s that the ruling party made to the Russian workers in 1961. Other promises included falling prices and the abolition of income tax. The fact that not one of these has been realised – Russian workers still have to pay for public transport, water, gas, heating and so on -shows that it is not just Western politicians who make promises that they don’t – in fact can’t – keep.

One of the first things Gorbachev had to do after he became Party leader in 1985 was to admit failure in this respect. As he told the 27th Party Congress held in February 1986:

“Much has changed in our life in the quarter of a century since the adoption of the Third Party Programme. New historical experience has been accumulated. Not all of the estimates and conclusions turned out to be correct. The idea of translating the tasks of the full-scale building of communism into direct practical action has proved to be premature. Certain miscalculations were made, too, in fixing deadlines for the solution of a number of concrete problems.”

He went on to denounce “simplistic ideas about the ways and period of time for carrying out the tasks of communist construction” and to declare that ”as for the chronological limits in which the Party’s targets are to be attained, they do not seem to be needed”; all that could be said on this was that these targets would be achieved after the end of the present century.

Gorbachev was announcing, in other words, that the establishment of “communism” in Russia was being postponed indefinitely. More in fact, since his alternative to Khrushchev’s “construction of communist society” as a mirage to hold before the Russian people — perestroika — amounts to a virtual abandoning of communism as a goal. The essence of perestroika, which is merely the Russian word for restructuring, is the gearing of production of individual state enterprises more to the profitable market demand than hitherto, involving in particular a price reform which, with the ending of state subsidies, is likely to mean a rise — rather than a fall towards zero, as promised by Khrushchev —in the price of many goods and services. Gorbachev said so explicitly at the special Party conference held at the end of June this year:

“The price reform cannot fail to affect retail prices. Today the retail price of many food products, notably that of meat and milk, is considerably lower than the actual cost of producing them, lower than the state’s procurement price. The state is compelled to cover this difference in the form of a subsidy. That is not a normal situation. It undermines the incentive for producing these products and gives rise to a wasteful attitude, especially towards bread.

We know all this perfectly well, comrades. It is absolutely necessary to resolve this problem, no matter how difficult it may be and no matter what doubts and fears it may create at first glance.

Here is our approach: the funds which the state is paying out as subsidies today will be handed over in full to the population as compensation.”(Financial Times, 29 June 1988)

In other words, instead of free services and falling prices being subsidised as a supposed transition to “the communist principle of distribution according to need”, both prices and wages are going to be allowed to rise, so forcing workers to buy what they need at a price corresponding to economic cost as determined by the operation of market forces. Money-commodity relations are to be strengthened rather than gradually abolished, as envisaged in the 1961 Party Programme. Perestroika, in fact, represents a complete repudiation of this perspective.

So where does this leave “communism”, or rather the free distribution by the Russian ruling class to its workers of goods and services? This goal now seems to have been shelved. The original version of the Party Programme adopted at the 22nd Party Congress in 1961 declared that “with the transition to the single form of people’s property and the communist system of distribution, commodity-money relations will become economically outdated and will wither away”. However the revised version adopted, under Gorbachev, at the 27th Party Congress in 1986 affirmed market relations to be inherent to the Russian social system (as indeed they are).

Propagandists for Gorbachev’s reforms go out of their way to emphasise that the goal is now a society in which the market will still exist. Abel Aganbegyan, a top economic adviser to Gorbachev and one of the theorists of perestroika, speaks in his recent book The Challenge: Economics of Perestroika of achieving in the 21st century, not the free distribution promised by Khrushchev for the 1980s and 90s, but “the full supply to the market of all the sought-after goods in order to ensure the full satisfaction of demand”. Another supporter of Gorbachev, Fedor Burlatsky, who in his time was also a  propagandist for Khrushchev, now criticises Khrushchev for having wanted to “leap” into communism. In an article this April in Literaturnaya Gazeta (translated into English and published in the June issue of Marxism Today) he contrasted “state socialism”, of which he sees Khrushchev’s “communism” as a variant, with what he calls “public, self-managing socialism” which he defines as “the planned commodity economy based on individual cost-accounting by enterprises”.

Though they have not done so yet, the Russian Party may end up embracing the same position as their Chinese counterparts who have also made a U-turn on this issue and who now see the “socialist” (in reality, state capitalist} stage, with commodity-production and market relations, lasting for another hundred years.

“In the latest attack on Stalin, the Shanghai journal Shu Lin carried an article attacking him for pressing too rapidly the transition from socialism to communism . . . Nowadays, the article said, China was only at the beginning of a 100-year socialist stage which was laying the foundation for the final realisation of Communism – only hazily defined even by Deng Xiaoping, the senior leader.” (Independent, 27 July 1988)

By that time the workers of the world should long have overthrown both the Russian and Chinese ruling classes and themselves have established a socialist (or communist, for the two words mean exactly the same thing} society based on common ownership and democratic control in which wealth will be produced simply as useful products to satisfy needs and no longer as commodities to be bought and sold on a market.

Adam Buick