Frustrated friend
I feel inclined to apply for membership but at present I know little about you and your members, and you, of course, know less about me; there was a hint in one article somewhere that you might vet applicants. North Devon is very isolated from the towns where you hold meetings and have branches; it is frustrating to read of the series of meetings to mark your 75th anniversary and see how far away they are to be held. What does membership entail, and how much is the subscription?
Perhaps you could also explain one of your policies to me. You consistently advocate spoiling one’s ballot paper in all elections. Granted that the Labour Party is not socialist, but as indicated in an article in April’s issue, the reforms which it is responsible for have alleviated the working man’s lot to some extent. Not only that, but I believe that its existence has also helped in beginning to create a climate of opinion which is necessary before socialism can be achieved. I have no illusions that the Labour Party can ever achieve socialism, but it has helped me in my own transition from a capitalist upbringing to be ready to accept my, probably rudimentary, notions of socialism. The advantages of a Labour government are only marginal over a Tory one, but that margin is there. I would have thought that a social democratic or reformist phase had its place historically in the transition from capitalism to socialism. No doubt you will tell me where 1 am wrong!
GM (Ilfracombe)
Reply:
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always argued that socialism can be established only when there is a majority of conscious socialists — people who understand socialism and want it. In line with this principle, we must obviously ensure, as far as we can, that our members all understand the case for socialism. In that sense we do ‘vet’ applicants for membership, which does not mean that joining the SPGB is like being interrogated by the thought police. The branch which deals with the application simply tries to find out the applicant’s political ideas. If he or she disagrees with socialism, then clearly they cannot become members; if they agree they are welcomed into our ranks.
We sympathise with the frustrations of workers who find political propaganda for socialism difficult because they live in a more remote part of the country. But it is only by putting the ideas of socialism across, all the time, that they will take root and flourish. In that way the SPGB has been established and kept in existence — and in that way it will form new branches, even in North Devon!
Membership of the SPGB costs £6 a year in dues. These are automatically waived for any member who is on a pension and almost automatically for any member who cannot afford them. Membership does not entail any formal obligation to work for the party, but there is plenty of activity going and members are enthusiastic. For our size, we do a tremendous amount of propaganda.
Where there is no socialist candidate, socialists write ‘socialism’ across their ballot papers. We refuse to make the spurious choice between the parties of capitalism, which is like offering a condemned man a menu for his last breakfast. Writing ‘socialism’ on the ballot paper is not wasting a vote; it is a declaration that the other parties are not worth voting for and a manifestation of support for socialism.
Socialists are in favour of workers grabbing whatever crumbs may fall from their masters’ tables; so we recognise that some reforms can be said to have benefitted the working class. This does not prevent us still struggling for socialism, which is the whole loaf rather than a few crumbs. It is not true that the Labour Party is the only party of reform; the Tories are also in the same business — a fact which amply illustrates the futility of reformism. The experience of Labour governments is that they always attack working class living standards — and, worse, they do this in the name of socialism.
Thus the Labour Party, far from bringing about a climate of opinion favourable to socialism, has confused the issue and has made our work that much harder. There is no place in it for anyone who is looking for a fundamentally different party, one which stands for a new society of freedom and common ownership.
Editors.
Wage Labour as Poverty
In your Questions of the Day you state: “Under capitalism the workers are, in the strictest sense, poor, that is, they lack the means to afford the best that is available”. The Socialist Standard similarly refers constantly to ‘poverty’ — see April 1975 headline, “The poor including the unemployed, including the old, are still here”. This use of the term ‘poor’ indicates that the SPGB accept as real all the multifarious ‘problems’ chewed over and half digested by hole-and-corner reformists of every hue; that it is interested in alleviating ‘poverty’ and is therefore a reformist party, or on the road to becoming one, which merely lacks the facilities of the Child Poverty Action Group.
If the SPGB doubts this then they must answer the following questions. If by ‘poverty’ they mean wage-labour then is it not misleading — in the sense that concerns the amount of use-values consumed by the worker — and redundant, since workers are exploited by the wage form whether they enjoy their" use values or not? What alternative meaning can be given to the word ‘poverty’ which does not imply: (a) a moralistic concern for distributive justice; (b) an amelioration of the condition of only a few workers, the rest not being in ‘poverty’; and (c) ‘social engineering’ a la Webbs? Could the SPGB please give me a clear definition of ‘poverty’, nay more, of the poverty-line income? If they could they may like to send a copy to the Fabians, whose members have a hard time thinking up an ‘objective’ one. In fact I shall wager that the SPGB cannot give me a definition which is not vague, redundant or circular.
Mike Mansfield
(Sheffield)
Reply:
Had our correspondent read to the end of the Questions of the Day chapter quoted, our position would be clearer. Here we state: “A little thought will show how capitalism, besides ensuring that workers stay poor, needs them to be poor. If they could get a living without having to sell their mental and physical energies to the capitalists, then the system could not function for who would do the work? By ‘poor’ we do not mean ‘destitute’ though this is an extreme form of poverty.” We go on to point out that “What is called the housing problem is really but an aspect of the poverty problem or, what is the same thing — since it is the other side of the coin — the class monopoly of the means of production." (page 7).
Government statisticians class as ‘poor’ families whose net income, less housing and work expenses, is less than 20 per cent over the Supplementary Benefit rate; five million British families, or 15 per cent of the population, fall into this category. We, on the other hand, use the word to describe the condition of all wage and salary earners, irrespective of individual levels of income and consumption. Workers are poor as a class because they do not own the means of production and cannot therefore afford the best that is available; indeed, we receive today a smaller percentage of the total wealth than our nineteenth-century counterparts. Reformism cannot affect this fundamental feature of the capitalist system.
Finally, were we to accept our correspondent’s logic, the use of the word ‘rich’ to describe the exploiting class would be unnecessary. Perhaps if we called the workers not rich and the capitalists not poor, he would be not unhappy.
Editors
A Sympathetic Word
As a supporter and admirer of the SPGB and the Socialist Standard, I was a little disappointed when reading Bill Knox’s article on Airey Neave to find no expression of sympathy for his family and friends. Whatever a man’s political complexion may be, a premeditated taking of his life is a great tragedy for those near to him. I understand, of course, that Bill Knox was criticising the values for which Airey Neave stood, but however distasteful these may be I don’t see that anything is gained by cold and callous comments about him so soon after his death. Indeed, I regard it as positively harmful to the cause, and it certainly does not help me in arguing the SPGB case with some of my acquaintances. Even those close to Airey Neave cannot be completely ruled out as possible converts to the cause of socialism, but they would hardly react in a favourable way on reading Bill’s article.
I want to see the SPGB maintain the respect which is properly its due, and I think it is a pity that Bill Knox couldn't have found a word of sympathy to include in an otherwise excellent article.
George Pearson
London SW20
Reply:
Capitalism has raised the creation of human misery to the level of fine art. Angela Rippon presents to us a half-minute film of the mayhem and sufferings of the day, and the response compares unfavourably with that to the weather forecast. Indifference to human need and bloody death becomes the rule and not the exception.
When Neave was assassinated, we were treated to a complete catalogue of his ‘finer qualities’, and the press, which represents the interests of the capitalist class, was full of tributes and messages of sympathy. Our response was not to delight in the fact or manner of his death, but to reject violence as a political weapon while pointing out its inevitability in class society. We had no personal grudge against the man, but words of condolence to his relatives and Tory colleagues would, to say the least, have stuck firmly in the throat.
Millions of people die every year because the system which Neave upheld values material gain above human life. If we extended a few words of comfort to their families we’d get back a demand for something more substantial — like food. To some, sympathy is a luxury easily foregone. Had the victim of the assassin’s bomb been a car park attendant (and we recall that, on hearing of the explosion, the hope was expressed in the Commons that the victim was not a member of the House), we may have learnt in a last paragraph somewhere that he left a wife and four children.
Capitalism will continue to brutalise people and deaden human response to the suffering of others. If the friends of Airey Neave have not learnt this truth from his death or the war in Ireland, then a few kind words from us won’t help.
Editorial
