50 Years Ago: The Quintessence of Socialism. (1957)

The 50 Years Ago column from the February 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are quite a number of people in this country who call themselves Socialists because they believe in the municipalisation or nationalisation of various things. And these good people appear to be oblivious of the fact that the very essence of Socialism is the control of wealth production and distribution by the wealth producers. It is obvious that it a number of thieves are banded together they are not likely to seek less booty, or seek it less effectively, than when isolated ; so, therefore, the capitalist class, who control the national and local administrative bodies, are not likely to seek less profit, or to seek it less effectively, when their businesses come under their collective control than when they control them individually. The end and aim of a Capitalist is profit, whether it comes as interest on Metropolitan Water Board bonds or as dividend on shares in the A.B.C.; and the ruling class will not, indeed, undertake municipal or national services at all unless their interests are thereby served and their general profits increased. An industry taken over by the Capitalist State, though it may be also of advantage, in other respects, means that more wealth is thereby to be wrung from the workers. The sweating in government factories, the low wages in the Post Office that enable over £4,000,000 to go in relief of Capitalist taxation, are an earnest of what State Capitalism means. Nationalised industries can only become Socialistic, and can only be of real benefit to the workers, when the working class has obtained control of the administrative machinery. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the political movement of the workers place itself firmly on the basis of the class struggle. Indeed, all who do not recognise this fact, whatever they may call themselves, are emphatically not Socialists, for mere nationalisation, we repeat, is not Socialism at all.

[From the editorial, London County Council, Ltd., Socialist Standard, February 1907.]

The Fraud of Municipal Bakeries. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reply to R. B. Suthers.

“Bread and Bunkum” is the title of an article in which Mr. R. B. Suthers draws, in the Clarion, a harrowing, soul-rending picture of the last gasp of the petty shop-keeper, particularly the master baker (perhaps the most pious, unctuous, psalm-grinding, callous sweater civilisation has produced) who is now being crushed by the newest thing in trusts—the Bread Trust.

Mr. Suthers, out of the fulness of his heart, is moved to prescribe a remedy. What is this precious remedy ? None other than municipalisation, which he imagines is Socialism. He says :

“The only question for the small baker is, ‘Am I to be abolished by the Trust or by Socialism ?’ Allow me to put the problem from a Socialist point of view. Here is a community in which bread is a necessity to life. So much bread is required every day. The question is how to make bread in the cheapest and most expeditious manner. It is plain that in a large town it would be cheaper and more efficient to have one or more large bakeries from which bread could be delivered in motor cars direct to the customers, rather than have a number of small shops with a little hand cart or slow horsed cart each overlapping the district of half-a-dozen others. Local depots might be necessary, but they need not be so numerous nor so large as under the wasteful system of to-day.”

If I thought Socialism was anything so monstrous as this glorified capitalism I would fight it for all I was worth.

I have been a victim of this Manchester god of “cheapness” and “expedition” for over twenty years, and during that time have seen many journeymen bakers broken on the wheel of “cheapness,” “expedition,” and “efficiency.” I would ask Mr. Suthers to quit for a while his beloved rate-saving, middle-class view point, and look at the matter from the position as it affects the working class, the only class that matters, or is worth consideration in any way.

Assume that the rate-savers decide to municipalise the bread supply (it won’t be decided by master bakers, Mr. Suthers) what happens ? To ensure expedition and efficiency, cheapness, and other Manchesterisms, it will be necessary to have the newest and most down-to-date machinery operated in the most scientific manner and the latest manner is this: A large bakery is erected on scientific principles, that is, the interior of the structure is divided into two bakeries, exact duplicates, each with its gear of flour sifters, sack shakers, dough mixers, dividers, moulders, provers, ovens and storing racks, with one clock for the use of both. No partition divides them, so that the gangs of nearly naked, emaciated slaves work in full view of each other, each driven by an enslaved slave-driver

.

At the stroke of the clock the two gangs begin their mad race against time and efficient, untiring machinery. An industrial policeman, called the General Foreman, who is not necessarily a baker, clad in snow white cap and overalls, Stalks majestically from gang to gang, book in hand, recording by the common clock the time each gang takes to finish its “rounds,” not that the most “expeditious” may be decorated with a “Crown of Wild Olive,” but that the laggards may be called upon to render an account of their stewardship in that capitalist hell of “cheapness, expedition, and efficiency,” and the misfits weeded out and “scrapped.” This mode of procedure brings out the tigrish instincts of the ganger, who is especially selected for his ability to drive and bully, and who is always on his trial, and can only retain his job by keeping time with his “opposite” or by running past him, consequently the “hand ” who slows down or does not hear a shouted order is “woke up” with a torrent of foul abuse and indecent oaths. The hawk-eyed “Pinkerton” looks on and makes a note. Such is a modern bakery !

In one of these efficient infernos I wot of, the most happy human machine is a big and powerful deaf mute, who works by watching the others. He never complains, nor does he hear the ganger’s live and modern English, nor “the roaring loom of time,” as typified by bread-making machinery. Yet he is sometimes pitied as being afflicted !

In a factory of this description the output per man engaged averages about twenty-two sacks of flour per week: in handicraft bakery it averages about twelve sacks. It is obvious, therefore, that as the industry becomes either trustified or municipalised, a large number of bakers will be thrown on the streets, and the market is already overcrowded with this class of merchandise, as a visit to the factory gates at 11 p.m. will testify. After that hour the poor devils who have failed to secure a night’s job may be seen tramping, Christ knows where, while their brilliantly lighted municipal trams, only half filled, glide past them. Perhaps by tramping through the slush and rain in broken boots they can meditate the better on the advantages of municipalising the trams, which Mr. Suthers with ghastly irony, told us a time ago now belongs to all the people. Mr. Suthers does not say what municipalisation will do for these, or for the “outed” master bakers, the redundant carmen, the superfluous shop-girls, millers’ travellers, shop fitters, and a host of others who will go into the ranks of the unemployed, and in the fulness of time become unemployables, wastrels with drooping lips and slouching gait, fit material for the casual ward and the lunatic asylum, if no worse fate awaits them.

Mr. Suthers, in his tender solicitude for the small master (the ever-starving journeymen seem to be an entirely negligible quantity) asks : “Will the trust buy him out ?” and answers : “No ! the trust will freeze him out.” “Will the trust,” he goes on, “find the starving shopkeepers work ? Will it ?” No, Mr. Suthers, it will not, neither will the municipality buy him out, though, certainly, he may secure a job by the influence of his co-religionists on the council. If he be a Freemason he may even become a “Pinkerton.”

Mr. Suthers concludes by asking “Why then should we not organise this business of making bread, and put an end for ever to the degrading condition and struggle for existence between rival bakeries ?” And my answer is because it would be better to eliminate all the “business” out of industry absolutely, and make bread to be eaten, not to lower rates. Municipalities go into business to make profit only, like any other capitalist concern. It does not signify whether the owners absorb the profits in the shape of “reduced prices” or lower rates. If the working class is enabled to buy cheap bread the operation of the “Iron Law of Wages” will secure all the advantage for the capitalists, as it did in the days of the saintly Bright, when the corn laws were repealed. Capital is always the same in its effect on the working class, whether manipulated by an individual capitalist, joint-stock enterprise, municipality or government, and with each step in concentration the working class gets relatively less and the master class gets richer, more corrupt and more bestial, as recent events in Berlin and elsewhere show.

Why should all the bread be made in factories, anyhow ? In a Socialist community the housewife would have the facilities, if she so wished, to make bread and pastries for herself, her mate and her children, and to suit their individual palates. The essence of Socialism is freedom, and if a woman prefers to develope her individuality by making pure and wholesome food she will be at liberty to do so. All healthy humans must expend their energies in some manner, and why not in cooking—who shall say them nay ?

The damnable idea of being marshalled and drilled, or numbered and docketted, like any other merchandise, in a state of glorified capitalism is not the Socialist’s ideal, but its antithesis, no matter what the capitalists and their protagonists, the pseudo-Socialists, choose to name it. We don’t want to be driven to the gate of the municipal or other factory to hustle and elbow our fellows out of the way so that we may catch the official’s eye in the mad and sordid scramble for mere belly food, for a mere animal subsistence, to be thrown on the social scrap-heap the moment we cease to be “expeditious,” there to rot out a living death, the mental agony prolonged by being kept on the brink of Kingdom Come by a “George Barnes” pension, previously deducted from our competition wage. With the advent of Socialism the whole of the capitalist State and its superstructure will collapse, with its cant of living wages, its Brotherhoods of Man, and the rest of its nauseous humbug.

Socialism will enable us to co-operate with our fellows for the production and distribution of all the necessaries and comforts of life, and to further bring under control the forces of nature for the common weal. Then and then only will the humanities have a chance. Then we shall live, stand erect and be men and women. Away with all forms of capitalism ! Speed the Social Revolution !

W. Watts

Blogger's Note:

A number of R. B. Suthers' books are available over at Archive.org.

"Practical Socialism" in Harrow. (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although one of the schools of the master class dominates us from the hill above, yet among the members of the working class who live in the mean streets stretching out upon all sides at its base, a considerable amount of activity in the “Socialist movement” is evident.

Unfortunately, the inverted commas are necessary ; for the only organised bodies are a group of the Fabian Society and a branch of the I.L.P.

As regards the former their activity has been confined to a series of four lectures delivered by Alderman Sanders, L.C.C. As might be expected from the lecturer, the usual Progressive, municipal gas and water “Socialism” was preached. Fortunately, the audience was made up mostly of I.L.P’ers, so no great harm may be expected. It is, however, with the political activities of the I.L.P. that I intend to deal.

The local I.L.P. number among their fifty members a well-known novelist, an artist, a son of the local vicar, commercial travellers, and so forth. Now the antics of some of these “practical Socialists” are very interesting, seeing that they are members of that “great national party” whose discipline and organisation, and whose scientific knowledge of and street corner adherence to the principles of Socialism, are so renowned. A writer in the Socialist Review urges that their watchword should be “Practical Socialists, close up your ranks,” and one has only to give a casual glance at the condition of the I.L.P. to see that it was never more necessary.

Let that be as it may, the following will speak for itself. Last Autumn when the unemployed agitation was revived, when the “practical Socialists” were giving forth a flood of spoken and written nonsense, with a view to persuading the capitalist class to abolish itself (for that is what solving the unemployed problem means), this district was in the throes of a local election. Two of the candidates were non-party, parish-pump reformers ; the third was an avowed Tariff Reformer. But Eureka ! he actually advocated the solution of the unemployed problem by planting trees along the streets. Here was a chance for the “practical Socialists” ! Several of their most prominent members fell over each other in their eagerness to “do something for the unemployed.” The artist, of course, was the most enthusiastic of them all, for could he not foresee the time when the dreary streets would be turned into avenues of verdant trees, beneath the leafy boughs of which the inhabitants of Harrow would rusticate, making pictures worthy of a Watteau’s brush ? Result: the “practical Socialists” took the chair for the practical Tariff Reformer, enthusiastic to do something—or somebody.

The branch, however, was a little apathetic, so it was waited upon, and attempts were made to either cajole or cudgel it into giving official support. This the branch was not prepared to do (although only a bare majority voted against) but it left the matter to the discretion of the members on the principle that although independent in Imperial politics, locally they could do what they liked.

Several of the members attended an open-air meeting at which their artist comrade acted as chairman, and when asked for their support, would not pledge themselves because the Tariff Reformer’s answers were not satisfactory. Which shows that the latter was not “wide” enough to bait his hook properly. I asked them afterwards what was their intention re the action of these members; would it be officially and publicly disavowed ? No, they could not do that, they replied : it would give offence, and they were such good fellows !

What blissful felicity ! What mutual admiration ! And what organisation and discipline in that “great national organisation of practical Socialists, the I.L.P. !” May all their guardian angels defend them next summer if they hold outdoor meetings, for the Liberals and Tories are waiting for them, to say nothing of the lone member of the S.P.G.B. who writes this.

I will give one other instance. In the local “Parliament” there is a Labour Party. One of its members is rather “extreme,” and attacks the Liberals, his comrades think, rather too bitterly. As a result an open meeting was held to discuss the following resolution. “Shall we (the I.L.P.) fight the Liberals with the object of smashing them ?” (By the way, the chairman pointed out in extenuation of the “extreme” nature of the resolution, that it was only “an academic resolution, made extreme to provoke discussion.” The oratory that followed perfectly scintillated with gems of I.L.P. thought. My poor “impractical Socialist” eyes were dazzled ; in fact I saw stars. When it came to the voting six or eight of the most prominent members voted against—against fighting the Liberals ! Enough ! What a rod in pickle there is for them.

These, then, are the men who make up the I.L.P. These are the “practical Socialists” who sneer at the members of the S.P.G.B. as “insignificant impossibilists.” They claim to be the army of Labour, the hope of the working class. They are a mob, with an ignorant rank and file, led mostly by knaves. The hope they put before the workers is a will-o’-the-wisp. They are those who, disguised as friends, inflict the gaping wounds that drain away the precious energy and life-blood of the working-class movement.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, small in numbers though it be, can rest content in the knowledge that with its scientific, revolutionary class consciousness, working in conjunction with economic evolution, it is always able to attack, and will finally overthrow, this party which, posing as the friend of working-class emancipation, is in reality one of its most deadly foes.

F. Hesley.

Jottings. (1909)

The Jottings Column from the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editor of Justice informs a correspondent (5.12.08) that municipalisation of certain concerns has not been done by the S.D.P. members on local governing bodies, but that “we were the first to advocate them, and the fact that our opponents, in spite of themselves in many instances, have been constrained to put such measures into practice, proves our forecast of the trend of development to have been a correct one, and also that in many cases we have assisted the development by forcing the pace.” Then the “Immediate Reform of Public Ownership of Gas, Electric Light, and Water Supplies, as well as of Tramway, Omnibus and other locomotive services,” in-so-far as it forces the pace of capitalism, does not “reform” the present system, but makes it worse. Unless the Editor of Justice would have us believe that “greater material and moral facilities for the working class to organise itself and carry on the class war” may be attained by permitting the capitalists in any local area to combine together in order to exploit the workers to a greater extent, in those concerns which can no longer be carried on in their class interest as private concerns. “Public” control does not arise under municipalisation any more than under trustification or private trading. In each instance a paid expert runs the business, and increases in his salary are often decided by his ability to carry on the concern at the lowest expense.

Unless the Editor of Justice considers socialisation and municipalisation to be one and the same thing,—which I cannot imagine,—he is wasting time by troubling with municipalisation at all, for we are told that “the emancipation of the working class can only be achieved through the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and (!) exchange, and their subsequent control by the organised community in the interest of the whole people.” (S.D.P. programme.) That last clause could mean that the process of socialisation is performed by one class who are superseded by the workers subsequently when they take control: probably, however, “consequent control” is meant, because the emancipation is not complete, any more than the socialisation is, until the “organised community” has control.

* * *

There is a machine known as the Owens Glass Bottle Making Machine. There are 18 of these machines in America, the annual maximum output of which exceeds 100,000,000 bottles.

The machine is said to be the only one on which the whole process, from glass-making to the finished bottle, can be carried out continuously. The glass furnace is in direct combination with the blowing apparatus, and the molten glass flows into a revolving chamber, from which it is removed by suction through six vents, to be then shaped, blown, and delivered automatically. After exhaustive trials had been made at Trafford Park, Manchester, the European Glass Bottle Syndicate was formed. They purchased the European patent rights for £600,000. The number of machines AND THEIR OUTPUT have been fixed for each member of the Syndicate, and the change from hand labour to machine work is to be made gradually during the next ten years, in order to minimise any disturbing influence on labour and capital already engaged in the industry.

* * *

“There is, however, nothing remarkable in the attitude of the Labour Party to the unemployed, as nothing effective can be done to remedy unemployment without seriously affecting capitalist class interests. Therefore no capitalist Government will do anything effective unless absolutely forced to do so.”

No, gentle reader, the above quotation is not from The Socialist Standard. In that case it would be sheer “impossibilism,” while appearing as it does in Justice, (9.1.09), it is, of course, a level-headed statement of fact. Doubtless that is why the S.D.P. spend so much time and energy more or less organising the unemployed to ask the capitalist Government to do that which “no capitalist Government will do,” namely, “anything effective” for the unemployed. But hush, thou wrecker! The very next sentence puts the matter in order from the S.D.P. standpoint. Listen !

“Now Mr. MacDonald and other Labour Party chiefs dare not allow their Party to apply that force, because of the understanding between them and the Liberals regarding seats.”

When we have said the Labour Party was indebted to Liberal support for their seats we have been told we were using ”vile abuse and slander.” Of course, when Justice says so it is merely “fair criticism.” The point just now, however, is the remark that the Party chiefs “dare not allow their Party to apply that force.” The Labour Party number 31 members in the House of Commons out 672 ! What force do they possess ? Merely the force, of protest—nothing more. Fully in keeping with the position of the reform parties, however, is the suggestion that a small minority can obtain anything useful to the workers. And this in spite of the fact that a few lines previously it was stated that the Government would not do anything “unless absolutely forced.” Will Justice please explain how 31 members can force the, other 641 ?

“If the Labour Party were to apply force to the Government on any question affecting capitalist interests that understanding would be ruptured, with the result that every one of the Labour Members would find themselves opposed by Liberal candidates at the next elections. Such opposition would be almost certain to result in the defeat of the Labour candidate, and defeat means the loss of a salary of £200 a year, together with sundry fat perquisites which the letters M.P. added to their names bring them for their lucubrations to the capitalist press.

“Indeed, it is quite probable that the money-value of the letters M.P. affixed to the name of a ‘Labour’ writer to the capitalist press has a great deal more to do with the attitude of MacDonald, Snowden, and Co. than is generally supposed. I know for certain, at any rate, that those two magic letters have brought the ‘Labour’ writer entitled to affix them to his name as much as £5 a time for a daily column of stuff to papers which would not have accepted it gratis without those two letters affixed to the name of the writer.”

Et tu Brute. What does the Labour Party think of this—not from the “narrow, intolerant bigots” of the S.P.G.B., but from their “neutral, friendly critics,” whose member, Will Thorne, is in the ranks of the Party thus criticised ? Fortunately, the leaders of the Labour Party have met this point by anticipation, when they have denounced the “dogma of material interests being the driving force in human actions” as a “blighting creed of withering materialism.” What that brilliant remark may mean is carefully kept to themselves—to prevent overloading the minds of the rank and file with information.

Editorial: London County Council, Ltd. (1907)

Editorial from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Independent Labour Party, who have long supported the Liberals and Progressives on the L.C.C., have issued a manifesto on the coming elections, and have in consequence been repudiated by their friends. It is rather unkind, after the way in which the I.L.P. have worked for and supported the L.C.C. capitalist majority, for the latter, in fear of the prospective Progressive rout, to turn upon and rend their faithful allies. But so it is. The Progressive organ, The Daily Chronicle, in a leading article on the “I.L.P. Bogey,” insists in regard to their manifesto that “the document in question is issued by the I.L.P. on its own account. The Progressive Party have nothing to do with it whatever.” The Progressive organ dismisses the I.L.P. municipal milk proposal as “unnecessary, impracticable and undesirable.” It also says: “One of the Progressive leaders, Sir Edwin Cornwall, happens to be a large coal merchant, and he has very naturally been asked what he thinks of the proposal to municipalise the coal supply of London. He thinks it sheer nonsense, and so, we imagine, will all Progressives.” Moreover it adds that “the County Council has, for the most part, no power to do the things which the manifesto talks about. A whole series of Acts of Parliament would be required to make them possible, and there is no likelihood that the series will be forthcoming.” All of which, to say the least, is base ingratitude toward the I.L.P. For what do the proposals amount to ? Merely the extension of milk and water municipalisation—the substitution of municipal capitalism for private capitalism in certain industries—that is all. Until the working class controls, nationally and locally, the municipal services that are undertaken will only be used for the benefit of the master class, and the L.C.C. policy has been no exception to this rule. The interest of the workers has ever been sacrificed to the interest of the propertied class. Indeed, the L.C.C., far from being a model employer, is noticeably inferior to a vast number of private firms in the treatment of its workmen. The hypocrisy of the Liberal Progressives is as plain as is the futiliy of the policy of the Independent Labour Party, which mistakes municipal and state capitalism for Socialism.

The Quintessence of Socialism.

There are quite a number of people in this country who call themselves Socialists because they believe in the municipalisation or nationalisation of various things. And these good people appear to be oblivious of the fact that the very essence of Socialism is the control of wealth production and distribution by the wealth producers. It is obvious that it a number of thieves are banded together they are not likely to seek less booty, or seek it less effectively, than when isolated ; so, therefore, the capitalist class, who control the national and local administrative bodies, are not likely to seek less profit, or to seek it less effectively, when their businesses come under their collective control than when they control them individually. The end and aim of a capitalist is profit, whether it comes as interest on Metropolitan Water Board bonds or as dividend on shares in the A.B.C.; and the ruling class will not, indeed, undertake municipal or national services at all unless their interests are thereby served and their general profits increased. An industry taken over by the capitalist State, though it may be also of advantage, in other respects, means that more wealth is thereby to be wrung from the workers. The sweating in government factories, the low wages in the Post Office that enable over £4,000,000 to go in relief of capitalist taxation, are an earnest of what State capitalism means. Nationalised industries can only become Socialistic, and can only be of real benefit to the workers, when the working class has obtained control of the administrative machinery. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the political movement of the workers place itself firmly on the basis of the class struggle. Indeed, all who do not recognise this fact, whatever they may call themselves, are emphatically not Socialists, for mere nationalisation, we repeat, is not Socialism at all.

A Nation of Serfs.

Another aspect of the matter that is not often taken note of is the restriction of political liberty which often goes with the nationalisation of a branch of industry. Lord Selborne’s circular (which has been endorsed by Lord Elgin) is a case in point—the railway servants in the Transvaal being forbidden to take active part in the elections there. Railway men in this country who have clamoured for nationalisation, have profound misgivings when they see the Liberal Government cripple the political activity of government railway workers. Mr. Winston Churchill has been approached by them on the matter, but he is inexorable and has said : “It has long been held to be undesirable that regular government servants should conspicuously take sides in party politics, and in consequence the railway servants in both the neighbouring self-governing colonies of Natal and the Cape are expressly forbidden to do so.” Prominent members of the present government have in the past expressed themselves strongly against the exercise of the vote by municipal employees and civil servants. This is, indeed, no new policy. The postal servants have long been expressly forbidden to take active part in politics. Supporters of the existing regime can, indeed, be brutally frank on this matter when it suits them. In a letter to the Daily Chronicle recently, Mr. Arnold White said in praise of the Government, that it had shown that efficiency was not incompatible with economy by its naval policy in abandoning obsolete dockyards, etc., and in “discharging redundant workmen who use their votes to get higher pay.”

The italics are ours.

Though government servants are not, as yet, deprived of the vote, its value is seriously lessened by the restriction of political action. The significance of this matter may be judged from a consideration of its probable effect on the political movement of the working class if all were government servants and forbidden to take sides in political affairs. The political organisation of the workers would be rendered practically impossible, their emancipation would be retarded, and the movement driven underground. The mere nationalisation of an industry gives the ruling class greater power over the workers, and, to take the railways as an example, instead of nationalisation bringing the workers a step near to the control of industry, it is likely to find them with their political wings clipped, and even more at the mercy of capitalism than before. Instead of helping to strengthen the chains which bind them, the workers should at last realise the futility of anything short of working-class supremacy.

Doubts and Difficulties: Would Municipal Ownership be advantageous to the Realisation of Socialism? (1905)

The Doubts and Difficulties column from the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Would Municipal Ownership be advantageous to the Realisation of Socialism?

A batch of letters lie before me. The popularity of my articles is obvious from their most casual perusal. One thing, however, requires some little protest, I am prepared to answer in due rotation any question affecting Socialism, but I am not an encyclopaedia—yellow imperialist or otherwise—and I am not called upon to answer questions relating to the existence of beings of human shape and human intelligence in Mars; neither will I be permitted to offer suggestions anent the proper cultivation of the garden. My forte is not in either of these directions. Doubts and difficulties in the way of the acceptance of Socialist principles or in the way of their enunciation are welcome and will be dealt with.

o o o

From the batch before me I select one which bears the insistent blue pencil mark of the Editor of the Socialist Standard. And here I may say that any weakness that may at any time be found in any of my articles is the result of his handiwork. He is a gentle being—a sheep in wolf’s clothing—but he has his own methods of securing attention to his behests. The letter is from “Ignoramicus,” who writes :—

o o o

“Dear Economicus, ‘Doubts and Difficulties’ are good business. They make the crooked path straight. Your column resembles the capitalist system in that it contains the germ of its own destruction. This is a dark saying. Being interpreted it is as if to say that some day it will destroy itself by banishing all doubts and all difficulties. But that day is not yet. Here is, for example, the question of the relation of municipalism to Socialism ; the extent to which municipalism may be regarded as the John the Baptist of Socialism. John, you may remember, prepared the way of the Lord. Does municipalism do the same for Socialism? If not, why not? I suggest a few observations upon the limits of municipalism would be helpful. There are many doubts and considerable difficulties existent upon the subject. Please dispel the one and remove the other so that we may rejoice in the fulness of knowledge where to-day we ponder in perplexity.”

o o o

And the Editor, his voice insistent as a curtain lecture, punctuates upon your letter, most ignorant one, “Economicus not to exceed two columns !”

o o o

The Socialist claims for his Socialism that its advent as the basis of Society means inter alia the reorganisation of all industrial operations. The application of collective and combined effort to every sphere of industrial life with, at the same time, the elimination of all useless labour and the greatest economy of man’s activity consistent with the satisfaction of the greatest measure of his needs, must follow upon the realisation of Socialism.

o o o

Of those industries some are essentially local, some national, and some international, and the mode of organisation will probably depend upon the actual conditions obtaining in the industry. The railways and the steamships of the Socialist regime will be organised upon an international basis, whilst the bakeries and local food supply will be, at first, municipal concerns. When the methods of transit are revolutionised by the electrification, mono-railification, etc., of the railways, and Manchester is two hours journey from London, these things will be altered.

o o o

So, too, we must leave out of consideration the suggested devolution of our large towns, and the transmission of force from various river and tidal centres to be applied locally. The powers of man in the future over the forces of nature are not only unknown, but inconceivable to us. And it is these powers which determine man’s methods of satisfying his wants, and through his methods of satisfying his wants, the form of the society for the time being.

o o o

We have then to take the capitalist society in which we live and the immediate trend of events in the direction of Socialism. We have then to recognise that the evolution of society from capitalism to Socialism affects every part of society, and that any municipal progress must have its influence upon national progress. But it follows that any causes obstructing national development must tend to obstruct municipal or local development.

o o o

If we could dissociate the municipal from the national and collectivise all municipal concerns, we should have an entirely different set of circumstances to consider than we have existing in actuality. It might then be an interesting question whether such an extension of municipal enterprise would greatly benefit the working-class so long as the capitalist system obtained in factory, railroad, or mine. It is presumable that so long as the capitalist system obtained in those—the most staple industries in England—the wage of the worker would be determined by the average cost of his subsistence, and that his standard of subsistence would be kept at a very low level by the growing competition of his unemployed fellow workers.

o o o

In the condition of things which obtains today the problem is different. Here we have the fact that municipal enterprise is limited to considerable extent, and that the conditions favourable in other directions to its extension are conditions not favourable to the working-class. In seeking for municipal control and ownership we find that it is not always the working-class who are most eager.

o o o

The people who stand to benefit most by municipalism are usually the ground landlord and the capitalists who find in the economy brought into the public and other services a means of reducing their taxation, or of securing more than compensation for their taxation in a cheapening of transit of their goods. The municipalisation of the tramways has hastened the tendency of centralising the factories and warehouses in the centres of the cities and the creating of suburbs at the termini, with increased value of the land upon which the suburb is built.

o o o

We see the landlords benefit not only in jerry-built suburbia, but in the creation of open spaces. Landlords have, indeed, been known to present the ground for a garden to the municipality to be laid out and maintained by the latter, while the house property facing this open space has gone up out of all proportion to the building-value of the gift. We have every admiration for the business capacity of the capitalist who makes profit even from his philanthropy.

o o o

We find again that the Chambers of Commerce—the apotheosis of local capitalism—favour municipalism. The municipalising of the bakeries, or of the milk-shops, means a greater chance of pure bread and pure milk to those who are able to buy those commodities, and purer food means—the quantity remaining the same—increased efficiency. The worker becomes a more capable worker, a better wage-slave, a source of greater profit to the capitalist

o o o

I am convinced then that the municipalisation of local services is desired more by capitalists and traders than it is by workers. That while perhaps ensuring purer food substances to the worker, it would not enhance his power of purchasing those substances, and would even do him harm, inasmuch as it made him a more efficient worker and enabled fewer of him to turn out the same quantiy of commodities, thus accentuating the unemployed evil.

Its educational value, upon which certain municipalists lay stress, is no greater than the educational value of the trust or the limited liability company. In each of the latter the worker by his co-operation turns out commodities for the market under the management of men of his own class, and the municipal worker would do nothing more. Such municipalised industry is as essentially capitalist as is the privately owned monopoly.

At the same time while municipalism is of no material advantage to the working-class in improving their position, the Socialist must needs point out the necessity of wresting all industries from the power of the capitalist. He must show that everywhere free competition developes into monopoly as its logical conclusion, and that monopoly can only cease when the whole of the powers of production belong to the whole of the people.

The men to whom an appeal to municipalise is made are the same men to whom an appeal is to be made to socialise. Any attempt to dissociate the industries which are local from those which are national is an attempt to divorce two parts of a question which are, so far as Socialist propaganda is concerned, necessarily united. Such attempts are reactionary. So also are the parties or organisations which make them.

o o o

I trust that, so far as the space at my disposal would permit, I have made myself clear, and that the difficulties of my ignorant friend have flown. What is to be remembered is that Socialism must affect every phase of men’s lives, and every phase of methods whereby they maintain themselves in life. It is the frittering away of their powers in the advocacy of reforms which it is to the interest of opponents of Socialism to grant that we must attribute the comparative weakness of the forces of Socialism in this country. W. T. Stead in this month’s Review of Reviews complains of the scientist who displays more interest in the insects which infest the abdomen of a flea than in the vital interests which tell for the improvement of humanity. In the same way we have to complain of the men who, wishing to climb the four-feet wall which divides Socialism from Capitalism, commence by manufacturing a thirty-feet ladder.

o o o

The best way to economise your efforts and make your work for Socialism most effective is to join THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN and work uncompromisingly towards the goal of the conscious and unconscious efforts of humanity. All desiring fuller information as to our Party should apply to our General Secretary, and any of my readers who may join it may expect a hearty welcome from that humblest (I had almost written ablest) of its members

Economicus.

The Question of the Rates. (1905)

From the June 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Akin with the rest of the fiscal dodges which the workers are led to take as vital issues, is the present outcry about the rising rates of the Metropolis. And whilst property owners are vehemently condemning municipal extravagance and high rates, we have “gas and water” Socialists coming to their aid by urging the extension of municipal trading, that the rates may be lowered with the profits.

The general question of taxation and the working-class has, it is true, been dealt with in No. 2 of the Socialist Standard, but in view of the fact that there are many under the impression that the workers are interested in keeping rates low, it cannot fail to be useful to treat specially of the rates from a proletarian standpoint.

Now it is often urged that a rise in rates always means a rise in rent. If, however, we look a little closer at this matter we shall soon see how superficial is such a line of reasoning, and that, in reality, the question of the rates does not concern the working-class. In the first place, the idea that the landlord can always compensate himself for a rise in rates or taxes by an increase in rent, rests upon the fallacy that landlords can charge whatever they please. Yet it should be evident that landlords in general always demand as much rent as they can get. That is to say, they demand the full market price of their accommodation. The price land will fetch in any district does not depend upon the will of the landlord, but upon factors outside his control. Now what determines this so-called value of building land ? It may be stated in brief as being regulated by the supply and demand for accommodation. This is in turn determined by the advantages possessed by any plot over land in inconvenient places on which it scarcely pays to build. Once considered, this is self-evident, for if one district has advantages over others, there will be keenest competition for house-room in the favoured district, while the fact that demand exceeds supply will permit the land and house owners to increase the rents until the special advantages of the district are neutralized by the greater cost of accommodation.

To the average person it is of little consequence whether he lives in one district or another ; for although one place may possess advantages, yet the property owners therein, owing to the consequent greater demand for house-room, are enabled to extort proportionately more rent. Thus the landlords get the full benefit of local advantages. If they are asking more than this they are warned by the increase of unoccupied houses : if they are getting less the increasing demand gives them the hint that accommodation can command a greater price, and up goes the rent. If one may make such a comparison, the landlords no more choose their rent than the workers choose their wages. Both get as much as they can, and that limit is determined by conditions outside of their control. The former get the equivalent of the advantages of their sites, regulated by the demand for accommodation, whilst the latter get their cost of subsistence, modified by supply and demand for labour-power.

Where, then, do rates come in? Clearly, higher rates, as such, do not add to the advantages of a district, neither do they increase the demand for accommodation. It is therefore evident that rates do not increase rent. “But,” it is urged, “rent often rises when rates do.” Granted, my friends, but notice that rent more often rises when rates do not. In fact as has already been pointed out in these columns, rent has in several instances declined while rates have risen. But why does rent sometimes rise at the same time that rates go up ? A moment’s reflection will show why. Owing to the continual increase in population and size of towns, the circle of building land is continually extending. This means that as the demand for accommodation grows, less and less convenient, or more distant, sites are built upon. Obviously, then, the land in central and favoured districts is rendered comparatively more valuable by reason of this. Thus there is an increase in the advantages of the favoured districts that is gradual while to meet this rent is raised by little jumps. A change of tenants, an increase in Income Tax or in rates, is seized upon as an excuse for raising the rent. And be it noted that the rise in rent is usually out of all proportion to the pretended reason for the increase. More often, however, rent is raised without any excuse being given other than the fact that the accommodation will fetch more.

The man who farms an entire house is practically in the same position as the lodgers who form so large a percentage of the people. If during the term of his agreement rates rise, the tenant of the house is the immediate sufferer, it is true, but he is only temporarily affected, as we shall see, and in the long run the same facts may be observed if the period of observation be somewhat extended. The property owner in letting his house, gets on the average the full market price for it; and every time he makes a fresh agreement he raises or lowers the rent to meet the demand, or lack of demand, for accommodation. Many householders are in miserable circumstances, in perpetual fear of quarter-day; mere touts for the real landlord, saving him the expenses of rent collecting, house management, etc. When the additional risk, responsibility, work and worry are taken into consideration, many a householder is seen to be in a worse position than his lodgers. It is quite obvious that if rates were abolished in a district, by municipal trading for instance, the people in that district would not thereby be enabled to pay less. The landlords would at the earliest opportunity raise the rent proportionately, and would be able to do this because of the increased demand for houses that would follow such a reduction of the rates.

The question of the rates, then, is of vital concern to the property owners alone. The middle-class cry of saving the rates, or aiding them out of municipal profits, is a dodge to put money into property owners’ pockets. Every effort is being made to lead the workers to believe that they will be better off by reducing the rates, and by this means the workers are hoodwinked into increasing the profits of sections of the capitalist-class. If an improvement follows some municipal expenditure, or a new means of transit is opened, the property near by becomes more valuable, and the capitalist gets the whole benefit by the increased rent or profit he is enabled to obtain. This is observed again and again, and it shows that the term, “value of land” really means that the owner is enabled to extort so much value from others, much the same as a highwayman’s position and arms enable him to rob all who must pass his way.

If in a few cases rising rates are quoted as a reason for raising rent, the excuse is seen to be the merest twaddle from the fact that if there are many apartments to let in a district and rates rise, rents will not go up since there would then be still less chance of obtaining tenants; whilst if the houses let well, and there is competition for house-room, rent will surely go up, whether rates do or not. Workers are misled by narrowness of view and superficial observation, and fail to realize the deeper lying general factors which are of supreme importance. In formulating a general law it is not the exceptional but the representative facts which must be taken into consideration if the law is to be a truth.

The great truth the workers have to heed, amidst the shouting of the rate-saving hucksters, is that so long as the workers must, to get a living, sell their labour-force on the market, as potatoes are sold on the potato market, so long will whatever lowers the cost of production of labour-force inevitably lower its price, aided by the increasing competition on the labour market. Thus the propertied class reaps the benefit of every improvement while capitalism endures. The working-class has, therefore, one great enemy—capitalism, and but one hope—the abolition of wage slavery,—and that is Socialism

F. C. Watts 

Correspondence. (1905)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,—I write for information upon three points which perhaps you will think it worth while to deal with, or which you may not be averse to having discussed, through your columns. I believe my difficulties are shared by many others who, like myself, are trying to feel their way to a safe—because sound— position. I will, with your permission, set out the points as briefly as may be.

I.—The Bogey of the Taxes.

On this matter I have read with interest the article published over the name of J. Fitzgerald, but confess I cannot yet follow the argument as to the workers being unaffected by taxation.

I can see that competitive conditions cause wages to revolve around the cost of subsistence of the labourer, but I must concede that, in the main, the present standard of comfort of the labourer is above the bare subsistence level. That is to say that, in perhaps the majority of cases, there is a margin—small enough, it may be, but still a margin—between what the labourer receives in wages and the amount necessary to defray his bare cost of living; between what he does live on and what he could live on.

Granting this, I do not clearly see why an increase in the cost of living resulting from taxation should not affect the labourer to his detriment. Suppose a necessity of life—say bread—to cost sixpence per loaf, and suppose a tax equal to one penny per loaf is put upon grain. The labourer must have bread and he must now pay sevenpence where formerly sixpence served. Would not that increase mean a reduction in his reserve or margin ; a hardening of his conditions of life? And does not that mean that he is affected by taxation ?

The same argument would apply in the case of an increase in the cost of a luxury—say tobacco or tea. The labourer would have to content himself with less of either, or both. Anyhow he would suffer.

Of course, a small increase in taxation would not necessarily imply a rise in price. But in the case of increases that do, is it not fair to conclude that the workers’ position would be so much the worse ? Certainly it seems to me that, although the tendency may be for wages to rise in the proportion of the increase in price, the tendency would not be apparent immediately—would not perhaps manifest itself at all—and in the interval between the rise and the time when the wages would balance the extra expenditure, the worker would be worse off. Would that be the case or not ? If so, are the workers affected by taxes or not ? And if not why not ?

II.—Is Socialist Propaganda necessary?

This is my second difficulty. I have heard it contended that the ignorance and apathy of the workers of this country are due to the effect of adverse economic conditions which militate against any desire for study they may have started out with, and which too often crush out the aptitude for learning completely. Ignorance and apathy, it is said, are but the reflex of material conditions. The remedy is the alteration of those conditions.

On the other hand, it is urged that no material improvement is possible in the present position of the worker unless the worker himself awakes to an understanding of his position and the reasons for it, and has taken over the means of production, &c., in his own interests. Hence the Socialist propagandist.

Here is the rub. The intelligence of the worker can only expand as a result of the alteration of his present conditions. Yet the alteration of the conditions is dependent upon the expansion of the working-class intelligence. The latter must precede the former, yet the former must precede the latter !

It occurs to me, of course, that the present form of production and distribution must, by the laws of its development, change. But will that alteration tend to produce enlightenment and dispel apathy in the worker? At present the effect seems to be the other way about. If, however, this is not so, if the intellectual development of the worker keeps even pace with his economic development, what is the use exactly of the Socialist propagandist ?

III.—On Municipal Enterprise.

My last difficulty has to do with municipalism. I cannot see that the municipalisation of any public service can be other than a gain to the people.

It has been stated that the small capitalist class favour such enterprises because they (the enterprises) conserve their (the small capitalists’) interests. I do not follow that. Municipal stock may provide the small capitalists with safe investments, but only, it seems to me, while the loan remains unpaid. When the cost of the enterprise has been defrayed, that concern becomes public property—the property of the whole people. The capitalist has lost his gilt-edged security.

Why cannot municipalism be regarded as a step—and a considerable step—towards the goal of the Co-operative Commonwealth? Why should it not indeed be regarded as an expression of the necessary and inevitable development of a sense of citizenship in the worker?

In conclusion, Sir, I ask that you will not think these questions are put idly, or with any other than a desire for information. The questions are knotty ones to me. I know they are knotty to many others also. To deal with them would, I feel convinced, be good propaganda work. To have a “Doubts and Difficulties” column would be good business, and most helpful to little thinkers stumbling in the dark. I submit the notion to your kind consideration, and am, Sir, yours, &c.,

“Ignoramus.”

Reply:

[We shall be pleased to have the comments of our readers upon the points raised in our correspondent’s letter, and should any of our readers have any “Doubts or Difficulties” on any question bearing, however distantly, upon Socialism, we shall endeavour to remove them. If a sufficient number of questions are asked we shall be very pleased to devote the necessary space to their answer.—Editorial. Committee.]

No vision (2022)

Book Review from the September 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow. The Labour Party After Jeremy Corbyn. By Mike Phipps. 220 pages. OR Books, 2022.

Written by a Labour left-winger, the first part chronicles how Starmer reneged on the promises he made during the Labour leadership elections to get left-wingers to vote for him and then, under pressure from Blairites and party bureaucrats, turned on the Left, withdrawing the whip from Corbyn and reintroducing bans and proscriptions (leading to the expulsion of Ken Loach); in fact to make a complete break with the Corbyn interlude.

In the second part Phipps offers left-wingers some hope – hence the book’s title – but at local council rather than national level. He talks of ‘municipalism’, where left-wing Labour councils do something to improve the lot of the people there, a revival of the “municipal socialism” of yore, even though today local councils have much less power and are much less democratic than they used to be.

Judging by this book, the Labour Party’s left-wing is not what it used to be either. At one time they would say that they stood for ‘socialism’, even if for most of them it was state capitalism (full-scale nationalisation), but at least they envisaged socialism as a system of society. Today’s Labour left-wingers, although they still refer to themselves as socialists, no longer see socialism like this. For them, the word doesn’t exist as a noun but only as an adjective as in ‘socialist policy’, ie, particular reforms intended to benefit the workers under capitalism (if they work). In short, visionless reformists.

Phipps devotes half a dozen pages to why those who joined during the Corbyn interlude should stay in the Labour Party. His argument is basically that, if you are to have any chance of achieving the reforms you want, you need to be in a party that is in a position to form a government and implement them. He has a point – if reforms are all you want. If, however, you are looking for anything more your place is not in the Labour Party.

Adam Buick

“Harder Lying”. (1923)

From the August 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

To distinguish between counterfeit and genuine necessitates close examination. Experts can at a glance detect the spurious, while Socialists know what is and what is not Socialism. But to those whose contact with pseudo socialism is so close that it is accepted by them as “the goods,” Socialism, when expounded, seems a different philosophy. In a leader of the Daily Herald of Monday, June 25th, headed “Hard Lying,” the scribe writes in the following fashion :—

  “When Tories of the Banbury type inveigh against Socialism, they blunder into every kind of foolishness, because they take no intelligent interest in public affairs and have never troubled their heads to understand what Socialism means.”

Unfortunately there are many Banburys who, having control of political power, and possessing vast wealth, have no need to “trouble their heads,” as members of the working class (for a weekly wage or monthly salary) can always be hired to study or understand for them. But even so it cannot be said that they do not understand ; they do, and doing so, are always seeking means, by propaganda, misrepresentation and other methods, of diverting the minds of the workers from proper understanding of their class position and socialist knowledge. They, however, are not the only guilty ones, as the following extracts prove. The writer continues as follows :—

  “But when a man of the intellectual eminence of Sir John Simon misrepresents Socialism and solemnly warns people against a danger which he knows must be imaginary, it is necessary to nail his false coin to the counter. It is necessary to prove that he uttered it knowing it to be false.”

Why this particular lawyer politician should be expected to be exempt from capitalist propaganda it is hard to say, but let the writer continue :—

  “On Saturday, Sir John Simon told a gathering of the ‘Dubb’ family in Yorkshire that the Labour Party aimed at the suppression of private enterprise in all directions, intending to commit the fortunes of this country, the happiness of every man, woman and child, and the delicately poised mechanism of our international trade, to the crude untried experiment of vast Socialistic schemes.”

This indictment the writer disclaims, obviously meaning that the Labour Party are not out for the suppression of private enterprise, a disclaimer with which we are bound to agree.

The writer likens Simon to an utterer of base coin, a clear case of pot and kettle; listen to this :—

   “Let us first take the statement that Socialist schemes are crude and untried, would Sir J. apply those epithets to the London Water Board? Would he apply them to our municipal gas and electric light undertakings? Would he hurl them at the L.C.C. tramways, and all the other systems of road transport which are run by ratepayers, not for profits but for use? All these are Socialist schemes.” (Writer’s italics.)

First he naively states that things are run by ratepayers for use and not for profit ! and are socialist schemes. Reform or improvement is the utmost they can be labelled.

The writer continues :—

  “To say that the Labour Party aims at anything so nonsensical as a complete and simultaneous suppression of private enterprise is to charge it with lunacy.”

In other words, we are promised a social system which will allow private enterprise to operate, and it will be called “socialism,” and it will be the essence of sanity ! That being so, we shall earnestly hope that in the near future the predominating complaint of the workers will be “lunacy.” Could anti-socialist aims be clearer? Now, you workers, adjust your headphones and listen to us.

The common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, by, and in the interest of, the whole community.

That is Socialism, and anything based differently is not Socialism. Government control or nationalisation of industries under the existing system does not comply with the demand of Socialists, nothing short of the complete overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of the co-operative commonwealth will suffice.

This is not the Labour Party’s aim; it only wishes to apply remedies that have commended themselves to a British Cabinet and a Royal Commission.

The writer concludes by stating :

  “It does equal discredit to Sir J. Simon’s reputation for honesty and to his political acumen.

  “No one can long believe such wild slanders, which merely prove that the Liberals admit the death of Liberalism, and have decided to join with the Tories in the effort to check social improvement by hard lying.”

If the writer hoped that the death of Liberalism would improve the vitality of Labour, and suffers disappointment, we would counsel him to hope on, perhaps Simon will see the error of his simple ways and join the Labour Party.

As for the “wild slander which no one can long believe,” we hope that the wilder slander here reproduced will also be not so long believed.

Griff.

Letter: Municipalism. (1905)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editors of the Socialist Standard.

May I be permitted, in reference to the query of “Ignoramus” in your last issue, to offer the following remarks on this subject.

When we consider the large number of examples of what the man in the street terms “Municipal Socialism,” it is well that we should explain our position on the subject and thus prevent further confusion—at least, amongst our readers. The action of municipalities in undertaking certain industries is not so much from a desire on their part to benefit the workers in those industries as it is from a wish to obtain cheaper or better services than would be supplied by the ordinary capitalist. It is only when things reach a point where the middle-class in a locality think they are not having their requirements met in a sufficiently economical manner that we hear the cry for municipalism— miscalled municipal-Socialism.

As a rule the result is that these municipal enterprises are—from a capitalist point of view—fairly successful. The L.C.C. tramcars, the Nottingham municipal enterprises, and others— too numerous to specify—have made large profits which have been used in relief of the rates, This is a direct gain to the middle-class ratepayers. Take another side of the question. Take the municipal electric lighting or gas supply. In a town containing a large number of large shops and factories a large quantity of gas or electric light is consumed. It can readily be seen that, in such a case, a small reduction in price per unit or thousand feet will make quite a difference to the quarterly bill of a large consumer, whereas to the worker, who has at most but a few jets or lamps, the difference is so trifling as to be hardly appreciable. Municipalism even if undertaken with the intention to benefit the worker could do but little. Its sphere is so limited and the local bodies are always under the control of the central governing authority which strictly limits its operations. Municipalism can only be tolerated by Socialists when viewed as examples of collective ownership. It is one of the technical means which class-conscious workers can, when in control use in a limited manner to benefit themselves. While there are profits workers are being robbed of the results of their labour. This operates just the same whether caused by individual or collective capitalists. The operation of trusts on the one hand and municipalism on the other will cause all industries to become monopolies. The monopolies will, in their turn, be nationalised when it is to the interests of the capitalist-class to protect themselves from the encroachments of the financial magnates. Thus so-called State Socialism will be brought into being. A superb State and Municipal organised robbery of the workers. It is our duty to teach the workers what production for profit and class ownership really mean—to point out the Social Revolution that is necessary and that the Socialist Party of Great Britain is the working-class party of that Revolution.

E. J. B.Allen

Municipal reformism (2014)

Book Review from the March 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Militant Liverpool: A City on the Edge by Diane Frost and Peter North, Liverpool University Press, 2013, 218 pages, £13.22

Frost and North look in detail at the Militant Labour Liverpool City Council of the 1980s but also set it in the context of the 1970-80s world capitalist crises. The authors rightly point out that Liverpool’s ‘urban problems derive from broader structural factors’ such as the shift in world trade, and were all part of the ‘long term decline of its industrial and commercial bases.’

For the Trotskyist Militant Tendency ‘capitalism had failed the population of Liverpool’ but what had failed was Keynesian capitalism in Britain which was unable to prevent mass unemployment and ‘stagflation’ (stagnation and inflation of over 25 percent). Labour Cabinet Minister Tony Crosland said in 1974 that ‘the party is over’ while Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan said in 1976: ‘we used to think that you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists.’

The stage was set for the return of economic liberalism and free market capitalism with the election of a Conservative government in 1979.

The authors see the 1983 Liverpool Labour/Militant council as a ‘socialist labour council with a radical socialist programme’ which is absurd as the Council were operating municipal capitalism. The Liverpool Trots believed large amounts of money would be needed from government to fix the city’s problems, they fixated on the Tories having ‘stolen Liverpool’s money’ and ‘the council resolved on confrontation to provide the resources it argued the city needed.’ A lot of the book deals with local government finance and there is even a need for a definition of ‘capitalisation’ as ‘moving spending from day to day spending – revenue – which needs to be raised from the rates to long term spending on infrastructure that did not count against day to day spending – capital.’ There is the grim irony of reading about the Trots in Liverpool securing £30 million from a consortium led by nationalised French bank Banc Paribas, negotiating a £30 million facility from London stockbrokers and getting a £60 million loan from Swiss banks described by the Guardian as ‘the gnomes of Zurich have rallied to the Trotskyists on Merseyside.’

The Militant Trots in Liverpool wanted to turn the Labour Party into an explicitly Leninist party. It used it as a recruitment vehicle, while their ‘democratic centralist tendencies left little room for dissent or reflection, even when mistakes were made’ and they described in exaggerated fashion how Liverpool 1984 was ‘Petrograd-on-Mersey’ or the Paris Commune. Eventually the trade unions realised they were being used by the Trots as a stage army, foot soldiers and cannon fodder, and were especially shocked by ‘the grotesque chaos of a Labour council hiring taxis to scuttle around the city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers’ (Kinnock).

Former Liverpool City Councillor Paul Lafferty’s inquest on Militant in Liverpool said ‘all the lighting on pavements point out onto the road and we thought why don’t we turn them around and point them on the people? And I think that says everything about us really.’ It does.

Steve Clayton

The Pseudo-Socialist Vote in U.S. (1913)

From the January 1913 issue of the Socialist Standard

A million votes for Socialism! In exulting tones the worthy supporters of the body calling itself the Socialist Party of America tell us that this was, approximately, the vote cast for their candidate for the Presidency of the United States – Eugene V. Debs.

A million votes for Socialism! Would that it were true! Would not we too rejoice? But we have, in duty bound, to look into the matter before we join in the shouts of victory and – we decide to reserve our surplus steam.

This vote, perforce, compelled some attention at the hands of the capitalist Press. They found this vote a serious menace to “American institutions”, that is, of course, capitalist institutions, writ Uncle Sam. And probably the capitalist Press is not far wrong, for one may well admit that the vote for Eugene Debs for the Presidency is a presage of the fall of capitalism, without agreeing to the assumption that the U.S. working class have gone a million strong for the Socialist Republic.

A slight acquaintance with the S.P. of A. teaches one that its membership is made up of all sorts and conditions of men and women with, for the most part, very little more to recommend them for membership of a Socialist party than good intentions and enthusiasm. Only a small part have anything approaching a real grip of the proletarian position.

As was the case in the old S.D.F. in Great Britain, there is much talk of Marxism. But so little are the implications of Socialist economics understood and the conditions of the class struggle appreciated, that we find the party, in its respective State platforms, asking for the support of the working class for a long list of reforms, such as the Minimum Wage, the Eight Hours Day, Old Age Pensions, Sick Insurance, etc., much as we have been used to finding in S.D.F. programmes.

In fact, such emphasis and prominence were given these in the New York State platform that it was thought necessary to remind the public in large type on the last page, that the ultimate object was not overlooked.

Demagogue Roosevelt, the biggest bluffer Uncle Sam can boast of, created a distinct rustle by annexing a large slice of this reform program – and this on the recommendation of a prominent S.P. member, it appears.

This the membership seemed to think rather flattering, though, of course, it was, on the contrary, a tribute to the anti-Socialist character of their own party. For, surely, if those demands were Socialistic, capitalist Roosevelt would not even have looked at them.

However, one point is worth noticing, that is that the prophecy that Roosevelt would carry off a large part of the “Socialist” vote or prevent it increasing has proved entirely mistaken. Apparently his “revolutionary” candidatures did not keep a vote from Debs.

With regard to this reform question one hears from the S.P. members the same old confusing nonsense about a capitalism too rotten to be patched, and yet calling for a whole rag-shop full of patches in the shape of the S.P. “immediate demands”.

Reading the voting returns for the various parts of the country, one notices the great disparity of votes given for different candidates on the same local Party ticket – showing that many votes are cast for persons rather than for principles. Thus in Illinois an S.P. candidate came near being elected to an important legal office, while the remainder of the S.P. candidates ran hopelessly in the rear. In this case the party Press announces the intention to contest the election, thereby admitting the party’s readiness to accept office from voters who do not even indorse the party’s program, such as it is. Such a policy is an exhibition of weakness, and can only lead to failure, disappointment, and apathy. Inevitably the association of the name of Socialism with such a policy and its results must confuse the proletariat and hinder the cause.

In Milwaukee, where in a previous election V. Berger was elected to Congress in a three-cornered fight on the usual pledges of innumerable reforms, the party was defeated. The old parties combined to prevent the re-election of Berger. Likewise the city of Schenectady turned out of power the S.P. administration through an old party combination.

Now had the S.P. of A. at the previous election gone before the electorate with a simple statement of the Socialist objective, it is certain that these candidates would not have won office, and there would not have been built up the false hopes involving subsequent disappointment. Such would have been the better way, for the foundations of success would have been laid. For, surely, when a real Socialist majority has been developed and had its way at the ballot-box, the capitalist party combination will have done its worst and shown its impotence to affect the issue.

The experience of Schenectady and Milwaukee illustrates well the misleading character of the big vote for Debs. The possibility looms ahead of this vote growing on its present loose and unreliable lines to the point where the S.P. will find itself vested with the reins of Government and yet be so placed as to be quite unable to effect those revolutionary economic changes that alone can justify its assumption of the name Socialist. One shrinks from the contemplation of the likely outcome of such a situation, and can only hope that some of the pluck and enthusiasm of the American worker will soon get translated into that clear understanding of the problem of working-class supremacy that must precede any possibility of Socialist victory.

J. H. (New York)

Running Commentary: It's the council (1987)

The Running Commentary Column from the December 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people are almost totally disinterested in local politics. Many people don't bother to vote in local elections; most probably couldn't tell you who their councillor is. or which tier of local government is responsible for which services, or which political party runs their local council.

The only exceptions are the London boroughs which attract sensational and distorted media coverage because of their so- called "loony left" policies. The tabloid newspapers are, in general, not the slightest bit interested in what councils do or don't do about council housing or social services, but let any council give a few pounds to a gay or lesbian group and it becomes front page news. It is little wonder, therefore, that Kin- nock is doing all that he can to dissociate himself from them since his overriding concern is the achievement of political power no matter what policies he has to ditch on the way to Number Ten.

In fact local authorities do affect our lives in important ways. They are responsible for providing education, social services, housing, home helps and day centres. They maintain the roads and remove the rubbish. They provide leisure and recreational facilities — parks, swimming pools, libraries and community centres. They regulate the environment in which we live by granting planning permission to builders.

But local authorities are important for another reason: they are the only other elected authority besides central government. This does not mean that they are especially democratic however. Most councils are out of touch with the needs of workers; they are dominated by representatives of the business community and operate in their interests. It is little wonder that most people are not interested in local politics, since it makes very little difference which party controls the council — life will go on pretty much as before.

In recent years local authorities have seen their powers diminished: a number of areas of responsibility have been removed from council control and have been given instead to non-elected, unaccountable administrative bodies. Councils have also been constrained by the financial limitations imposed on them by successive governments beginning with the cash limits instituted by the last Labour government in the 1970s. and continued by the Tories by means of rate-capping. The Tories carried the attack on local government a stage further when they abolished the GLC and the metropolitan authorities.

The Socialist Party has no illusions about local politics. Unlike the Labour Left or the Town Hall Trots, we do not believe that it is possible to bring about "municipal socialism". Council housing, day nurseries and non-sexist, non-racist educational policies are not socialism. Local authorities are a part of the state structure for administering capitalism, and must necessarily operate within the constraints laid down, not only by central government, but by the capitalist system itself. Any council which attempts to challenge the priorities of capitalism will find itself under attack.

But political participation, however limited and democracy, however flawed, are important. The attack, not just on the policies of certain councils, but on the very existence of elected bodies, is also an attack on our already very limited opportunities for political participation.

Janie Percy-Smith