Socialism means co-operation (1979)

Editorial from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The propagandists of capitalism represent it as a social system which is basically logical and which operates with a consistent humanity. If that were true there would be none of the problems with which we are so familiar — and there would be no need for a socialist party to argue that capitalism must be abolished because it is a mass of contradictions.

Capitalism has unlocked a vast potential for the production and distribution of wealth—nothing less, in fact than the capacity to satisfy the needs of every person on the earth. Yet at the same time capitalism fails to achieve that potential, or anywhere near it.

We often witness the destruction of food when there is what the economists like to call a “surplus” of it. This “surplus” is not something related to needs—while food is being destroyed there are plenty of people who need it. Indeed the destruction is carried out in one part of the world while millions are starving to death in another. Starvation is a chronic problem of capitalism. and this in a world which can also produce a “surplus”.

Capitalism has developed our technical accomplishments to a high degree, enabling complex tasks to be performed to precision and ending the need for much monotonous repetitive work. But these accomplishments are not reflected in the quality of what is produced. Much of the wealth turned out is of a low standard—jerry built houses, devitalised food, cars destined for an early end on the scrap-heap.

There are other examples of waste. Capitalism finds it necessary to devote a lot—probably the majority — of its effort to things which can only be called wasteful and unproductive. The enormous material and social effort poured into the armed forces, the police, the judiciary, the prisons—and all the hardware of weapons and equipment which they need—is one example of this. Another is the ubiquitous financial and commercial machinery of capitalism — insurance companies, banks, building societies, merchant houses, salesmen and so on. None of these produce any wealth : they only consume and destroy it.

These inconsistencies exist alongside a massive social contradiction. This social system has united the working class, in the sense that it has focussed all former class divisions into the one divide between capitalist and worker. But capitalism does not promote class unity. It splits the working class on grounds of nationality and, at times on grounds of “race". It sets one worker against another, in competition for a job, for promotion, for scarce goods, for any advantage no matter how slight.

All these contradictions spring from the basic one. which is peculiar to capitalism—the production of wealth as commodities. Capitalism turns out its wealth not for people to consume; that is secondary to the function of its being sold on the market. So people starve, or go without, or accept something below the best, because they cannot afford anything better. They become conditioned to accept their position as an inferior, exploited class who produce everything but own virtually nothing. Wealth is poured into the state machine, into armaments and the like to protect the privileged position of the ruling class, in whose interests this society of commodity wealth operates.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has something to offer which will end these contradictions. Socialism will be a society of common ownership of the means of production and distribution, in which all wealth will be a use-value. The social relationships of commodity wealth will cease to exist; everything will be made to satisfy human needs, whether these be actual material needs or other, less tangible, fancies.

Removing the restrictions of commodity production will be the setting free of human abilities. Wealth will be turned out in abundance; the amount of it, and the quality will be limited only by the material problems of the time. Socialism will have no social relationships of the sort to hamper production; its relationships will be those of liberation and plenty.

In socialism human beings will be able for the first time to realise their potential—and the world will witness a veritable flowering of talents and productive capacity such as dreams are now made of. In this will be expressed a new unity of people. Socialism will bring human beings together, in the common task of producing the best and the most humane society of which we are capable.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, alone among political parties in this country, stands for this new. basically different society. We argue that the working class does not need to waste their abilities in the continual production of the sub-standard. They do not need to suffer the indignities and the suppressions of poverty. They do not need to stand and watch a world which could be beautiful, abundant and satisfying stagnate into an ugly, impoverished nightmare.

Socialism is ours for the taking; materially the world is ready for it. All it needs now is people.

Political Notebook: Honour Among Thieves (1979)

The Political Notebook Column from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Honour Among Thieves

One of the main themes of Shakespeare’s telly spectacular Julius Caesar is that of “honourable men". Every schoolboy knows how Mark Antony (himself not averse to a little honest cheating) used that phrase over and over again to describe the conspirators who had recently murdered their former friend, Caesar. So successful was Antony in the use of these words that the mob eventually set off howling for the murderers’ blood. The parallels between this and some modern politicians and members of the capitalist class (all honourable men) are interesting.

Take for example, the Peachey Property Corporation. The former chairman of this group, Sir Eric Miller, shot himself. (It would have been more romantic had he run on his own sword as Brutus and Cassius did, but never mind). He did so when it was perfectly obvious that the huge financial fiddles that he had undertaken were coming to light. The Department of Trade report investigating Peachey Properties said, according to the Guardian (31.1.79) "Sir Eric covered his misdeeds by telling lies freely, fabricating false documents and causing others to fabricate and utter false documents.’’ (Which didn’t prevent him getting his knighthood).

Dead men are supposed to tell no tales, that Sir Eric’s ghost, like Caesar’s before him is causing other former friends some little problems. It appears that Sir Eric, according to the Department of Trade used the company’s money as his own instead of treating it as the money of others, which it was. As is well known, Sir Eric dispensed little favours to his friends. For example filing cabinets and £3304 worth of champagne to a party for Harold Wilson. (Perhaps Harold needed the filing cabinets to store the champagne.) Wilson of course was good to Erie; after all, Wilson knighted Eric before knighting himself. True brotherhood.

More Tales of the Dead

Then there was Reggie Maudling. Of course he is now dead. 1 say "of course” since there were those who maintained you could not tell the difference. He was another honourable man. No other politician was more often almost Prime Minister this century, and you cannot get more honourable than that. He too had his little friends—such as Sir Eric. Reggie did not get any champagne; but as is fairly well known he received more substantial benefits in the property market. The Observer (4.2.79) notes that the Department of Trade report explained the complicated deal whereby Reggie sold the freehold of his house to Peachey but received it back again on a long lease. Peachey then did £22,500 worth of improvements to Reggie’s house in return for £100 a year rent. Sounds like a bargain.

When Reggie became Home Secretary in 1970 and therefore honourably brought to an end his association with the honourable Erie, Eric sent Reggie’s wife a little present. It was only a chess set— pretty innocent. Usually only costs a couple of pounds in Woolworths. But this one was made of silver and was worth (1970 prices) a mere £2,750. Of course Reggie had plenty of other friends: such as Poulson (jailed for a long term for corruption).

We, unlike Shakespeare, are not sexist, so women get in on the act. Instead of "honourable men." Shakespeare could have had "honourable persons.” There is another member of the British peerage the Peachey Report did not even mention—former Secretary to Champagne Harold, Lady Falkender herself. This honourable lady also had little advantages from Peachey; like the loan of a Volvo car. Falkender explained it did not come from Peachey at all, but from Sir Eric personally. Well quite. That explains it.

Absent Friends

Then there is Lord Kagan of Gannex, recently on an extended holiday in Israel. He is finding it a little inconvenient to return home since there is a warrant for his arrest on currency offences involving £150,000. Still, small fry to this honourable man. His raincoat business must have been worth millions. According to the Guardian, when asked if he would come back to claim his ancestral heritage sometime, Lord K replied; “Oh yes . . . when the mood takes me". (31.1.79).

Just like any other worker really. When you go on holiday, I suppose you come back when the mood takes you too. The latest position is that Lord K is on his way to Spain (Guardian 2.3.79). Meantime his wife and son are on bail on corruption charges.

One interesting link in this is Champagne Harold himself. All these honourable persons (except Reggie—how was he forgotten?) have become knights, lords or ladies, thanks to Harold's little benefactions. He explained that “moving businessmen into the Lords puts an entirely different dimension on the honours system”. (Daily Mirror 2.3.79). You can say that again. Harold certainly had a revealing collection of friends.

Honourable Witness

Another honourable man on extended leave is George de Chabris. He is currently in Florida, also with no intention of returning in a rush. Among other little gems for which the police would like to "see" (presumably behind bars) this gentleman, are the following: a £10,000 transaction with a prominent liberal (unnamed as yet), donations to the Liberal Party, and Mr Chabris’s role as a "witness" to events at the National Liberal Club which interest the police. This one seems to have little to do with Champagne Harold. As the Guardian (23.2.79) put it; "Sir Harold Wilson said at Westminster last night that he did not know who George de Chabris was, ‘I have no recollection of this gentleman at all’”.

The Lesson

Meantime, while this honourable lot cheat and thieve and live it up at the worker’s expense, may I remind you that local authority workers, ambulance men and many others have been on strike— for a basic wage of £60 a week. And another honourable man, James Callaghan, said that figure is too much. At the time of writing £4.50 a week (about 11 per cent of these workers' current wage) is the absolute maximum offered. If Mark Antony had offered that to the mob they might at least have had the sense to lynch him.

Some useful advice for the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues

"So I say unto you, go ahead and preach and earn your pay, but for goodness’ sake leave the working class alone. You belong in the enemy’s camp. You have nothing in common with the working class. Your hands are soft with the work others have performed for you. Your stomachs are round with the plentitude of eating . . . and your minds are filled with doctrines which are buttresses of the established order. You are as much mercenaries (sincere mercenaries, I grant) as were the men of the Swiss Guard. Be true to your salt and your hire; guard, with your preaching, the interests of your employers: but do not come down to the working class and serve as false leaders. You cannot honestly be in the two camps at once. The working class has done without you. Believe me, the working class will continue to do without you. And, furthermore, the working class can do better without you than with you.

(From The Iron Heel, by Jack London).

Like with like (1979)

From the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comparability Con Game

Buried deep in the jungle of remotest Whitehall there is a secret government factory which supplies ministers with meaningless catch phrases. This factory is always hard at work but is under the greatest pressure at times of what the ministers call National Crisis (which is itself a meaningless catch phrase). At such times, it has registered its most memorable achievements; like Export or Die, Free Collective Bargaining, the Social Contract. And now, its latest product—Comparability Study.

We are in danger of being driven into a frenzy by the repeated drumming into our consciousness of the word Comparability, because the Labour government are clearly hoping that it will help get them out of their sticky situation over wages. Here is one example:

  In the wake of criticism of the 9 per cent pay offer to nurses the Health Minister, Mr. Ronald Moyle, gave a guarantee in the Commons yesterday that the nurses' position in relation to other workers would be restored and maintained if they accepted the Government’s offer of a comparability study (The Guardian, 7/3/79).

The very next day the government announced the birth of something with the resounding title of the Standing Commission on Pay Comparability. Callaghan was in hopeful mood:

  These new arrangements . . . should help us in future years to avoid the dislocation and hardship that the public has suffered in recent weeks. (The Guardian, 8/3/19).

But of course the word Standing should not be taken too literally. Similar high hopes were expressed for bodies like the Relativities Board and the Prices and Incomes Board but they are dead and buried and there is no reason to suppose that the Commission on Comparability will have any longer life.

Teachers

Like most of the products of the Meaningless Phrase Factory, Comparability is not a new idea. In 1974 the government accepted a recommendation of the Houghton Committee, that teachers’ pay should not be allowed to fall behind that in “comparable” occupations. In 1958 the Civil Servants had made a similar agreement with the government, after the report of the Priestley Royal Commission. Both groups of workers have subsequently found that the government, enforcing a wage restraint policy, has broken the agreement—which is why civil servants of all people, are now on strike.

Comparability is supposed to ensure that workers in what is called the public sector—nurses, dustmen, local government employees—earn roughly the same as those in similar jobs in private industry. It sounds like an especially generous gesture by the government to help workers who. because they are in the “public” sector, have a limited bargaining power. There is really little reason for this strange idea; civil servants, dustmen and sewerage workers have already shown that they can cause quite a bit of disruption by striking and the bargaining power of nurses, although unused, is all too obvious.

It is not necessary to be a cynic, to realise that the government’s offer of a comparability study is anything but generous. The so-called monetarists, whose ideas on how to run capitalism become increasingly popular in a desperate response to the abject failure of interventionist theories, would argue that in any case it is unnecessary. In their view, wage negotiations should be left to run free and in that process comparability would be achieved by the process of workers moving from the lower paid jobs to the higher. This may be a callous simplification—an enforced change of employment can be a stressful experience for a worker—but it does illuminate some of the fallacies of the Comparability Game.

Dream

This game is played by two sides each with a different object. In some cases, a union may put a case for a rise on the grounds that its members earn less than those in similar jobs. On the other side governments can play the game as a delaying tactic—as the Labour government is doing now—by offering something less than the unions demand with a promise that an investigation into comparability will bring absolutely fair and balanced wages to everyone.

Now this must sound like a very reasonable and progressive idea to the City gent on the Clapham omnibus, who longs to see Britain a sunlit, strike-free land where all industrial disputes are settled by an infallible arbitration system and all wages balanced by a process of completely rational awards. The City gent does not nurture such fantasies alone:

  . . . you’ve got to get the balance roughly right. This again, is a function of government — to get the balance right between the groups in your society as well as between the individuals in your society.
  The Times had a marvellous leading article—I think it was in January last year—about a balanced society. It said what my colleagues and I had been saying for quite some time . . . (Margaret Thatcher, Observer, 25/2/79).

In this sort of dream society everyone earns a wage exactly suited to their job and accepts their place on the social and economic ladder. No dustmen envies the income of a solicitor and conscientiously carts away the latter’s rubbish because he knows that everyone does a Fair Days Work for a Fair Days Pay. He also knows that his dustman’s wages buy goods whose prices always represent exactly what they are worth, that the best solicitors get the highest fees and indeed the whole of capitalism moves smoothly on economic bearings lubricated by justice and good sense.

Reality

The reality is that there are no such things as fair pay or fair prices. Whatever the City gent might mean by justice and good sense—or Margaret Thatcher by balance in society—simply don’t come into the process by which wages and other prices are determined. By the same token Comparability is a nonsense. How is it possible to fix a “fair” wage for, say, the nurses who care for sufferers from terminal cancer? Or for the workers who operate sewage plants, remembering the consequences of a breakdown in sewage disposal? Can their wages be “balanced” or compared against those of members of the armed forces, whose work is wholly destructive? Is it "fair” that ambulance crews should receive a fraction of the income of stock-brokers and members of Lloyds?

Then what about a comparison with members of the ruling class, like the Duke of Westminster whose only significant achievement to date has been to be born into a family which acquired, a couple of hundred years ago, some stretches of swampy London water meadow which became Mayfair, Belgravia, Pimlico . . . If the Duke of Westminster received a “fair” wage, according to his usefulness to society, he would starve to death while his many stately homes would be occupied by dustmen and nurses.

But that, too, is a dream of a sort. The majority of people in capitalist society are compelled to work in order to live, whether as nurses or clerks or miners or whatever. When they work they are selling their mental and physical energies, their labour power, to an employer. Thus labour power is a commodity, like apples or cars or houses. In some way or other every commodity will struggle to be sold at the highest possible price; in the case of labour power this struggle is a deliberate affair of negotiation, threat, work to rule, strike, lock out and so on. There is no eternal morality in all of this; it is a matter of power and force.

In this struggle both sides will use any weapon or argument which comes to hand and Comparability is one of these. But like much trade union activity it has its dangers for the working class. Firstly, it is an argument which can be used in more than one direction; for example what happens if wages in the “comparable” industries fall below those of the workers who are claiming a rise on grounds of comparability? And, as we are seeing at present, it is something which can be used by employers as a delaying tactic, with the rewards doubtful.

Divisive

Secondly, it is divisive for workers to argue that one group should have wages related to another because this, rather than an attempt to achieve equality, is an argument against workers in one occupation getting more than those in another. For workers to compete against each other in the wages struggle, to try to use each other as rungs up the ladder of improvement, is not an exercise in working class unity.

And unity is an essential element in working class struggle. The ideal wage claim would be one in which the entire working class together demand everything that they produce. The capitalist class would find such unity irresistible; no meaningless catch phrase or delaying tactic could stand in its way. But of course a claim like that would mean a lot more; it would signal that capitalism itself was in its terminal stage, needing only to be nursed quietly to death.

Ivan

What is to be done? (1979)

From the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

The work of the Socialist Party of Great Britain requires active participation from workers who agree with the urgent need for a Socialist society. It’s no good sitting back and complaining that too few workers agree with us; the only solution is to carry out propaganda to tell them what is in their political interest. We need to put across our ideas to fellow workers, to sell them the Socialist Standard and other Socialist reading matter and to bring them along to the meetings. All of this is hard work. Here are some of the things that you can do to help:

1. Sell socialist literature. The written word is a powerful means of communication. The reasonableness of the ideas found in the Socialist Standard, companion party papers and pamphlets can convince people. So don’t just take one Standard per month, take three, six or even a dozen.
2. Attend Party Propaganda Meetings. In the coming months there are a number of indoor meetings designed for those who want to know more about what we stand for. Conference lecture on Friday, 13th April at Acklam Hall (near Ladbroke Grove tube station) is on ‘Fascism, Violence and the Left’. There will be May Day meetings this year in London, Glasgow and Bolton (advertised elsewhere in this issue). In June, the month of the Party’s seventy-fifth anniversary, every branch will be running a public meeting on ‘Why You Should Join The Socialist Party’. Other planned meetings are advertised at the back of this journal, including outdoor meetings which are well worth attending.
3. Help in the election. The party will be standing a candidate in Islington South and Finsbury in the forthcoming election. This will give an opportunity to carry out extensive propaganda in the constituency, details of which will be found elsewhere in this issue. Volunteer now to assist in a genuinely Socialist election campaign.
4. Tell people what Socialism really means. Talk to people at work, call in to the phone-in programmes, write letters to the local paper, attend the meetings of other organisations, display a poster in your window. If others don't know what Socialism means, then you can't blame them for not being Socialists.
5.  Make contact with the SPGB. Many people agree with the Party for years, but don’t join. Contact your local branch or Head Office. Tell us what you think we should be doing. And then help us to do it.

The SPGB is only as strong as its working class support for it. You can agree with what we say and ignore us if you like. But can you ignore capitalism?

“There’s no more in the Kitty” (James Callaghan) (1979)

From the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

So ran the boring refrain of Prime Minister Callaghan’s speeches about this year’s wave of strikes. Apart from the obvious inconsistency (he said there was ‘‘no more money for wage increases of 5 per cent then 8.8 per cent, now 10 per cent” is it true that ‘‘the country” is going broke; that there is “no money” to pay people a living wage?

First, one point must be made clear. The “public” does not pay anybody’s wages. The “public” is mainly the working class, 95 per cent of the population who do not pay wages. They work for wages themselves, and have nothing to pay anybody else with. Ninety nine per cent of all industrial Company shares are held by wealthy investors, i per cent of the population, who are the real wage-payers.

Is it true that this small handful of the population, the owners of wealth, are going broke or doing badly? On the contrary, they never did better.

The country’s top economic researchers all agree that the greatest single concentration of wealth in the world, including the United States, is right here, in Great Britain,

  The fortunes of the Rockefellers, the DuPonts, the Mellons, and Howard Hughes, are no match for the steady accumulation of the wealth of centuries by the wealthy families of Britain. The Economics of Inequality (A. B. Atkinson).

On Sunday morning. February 11, the Chairman of the Stock Exchange informed the LBC reporter that about £700 million change hands a day there. Seeing that 99 workers out of a hundred have never even seen a Company share, let alone owned one. it is obvious that this is the capitalist class (or the stockbrokers they employ) shuffling the pack for a bit more lolly.

Estimates of the total wealth of the capitalist class are only guesstimates because reliable information is extremely hard to come by.

Most investigators A. B. Atkinson (Sussex) R. Miliband (Leeds) John Westergaard (London) Jack Kencaid (Leeds) are agreed that it is practically impossible to get at the truth. Richard Titmuss (London School of Economics) has produced a book, Income Distribution and Social Change, proving that much of the Government’s “statistics” mainly based on Income Tax returns, are largely rubbish.

The reason for this, as Professor Colin Harbury (The Economics of Inheritance) has reported; it is impossible to catch up with the tricks and fiddles of the slick accountants to under-estimate their clients’ real wealth.

We know that less than ten thousand people own £868 million of Company shares, but the value of land, property, rare wines, Old Masters, furniture, jewellery, yachts, buildings, vintage cars are anybody’s guess, and the economists argue about whether such assets should be assessed at “saleable” or “investment” values.

Wealthy people regularly evade tax by “gifts” and presentations, Trust Funds and Foundations like Nuffield Foundation and Ford Foundation. Also by “Generation Skipping” — bequeathing shares and investments to grandchildren seven years before decease, which is tax exempt.

Various attempts have been made to "guesstimate” the real wealth of the British capitalist class; one is £92 billion—£92,000,000,000—£92 thousand million (A. B. Atkinson) but however near the truth this may be, we can establish what some capitalists own, and how much they spend—on nonsense.

Harry Hyams (Property) £27 millions, John Sainsbury (Retail Trade) £30 millions, Sir John Ellerman (Ships) £150 millions.

Professor Atkinson has pointed out that Ellerman’s pittance would pay British Rail’s total wage bill for four months.

Henry Ford is being sued by his fellow-directors for £25 millions misappropriated.

Eric Miller, before committing suicide, had spent over £3,000 on champagne for Harold Wilson and £2,000,000 on a private plane.

Olga Deterding, the Shell Oil millionairess, left £47 millions.

The reason Callaghan refuses to pay hospital porters and cleaners more than £42 a week is to maintain these blood-suckers in ridiculous luxury.

The P. & O. Line reports their £58,000 world cruises are overbooked. When Claridges hotel kitchen staff were on strike the manageress was asked “whether the lunch service was impeded”. “Oh No! she replied, we are full every day." The “lunch is £33-00, without wine or service

Estate agents in Hampstead report a shortage of “desirable properties of £1 million or over. One changed hands recently for £8½ million.

Each week the News of the World reports the Wills of the Week—the money they left. Here is one week in February:

Mr. A. Wallace ... £1.641.169
Mr. A. Wood       £ 514.263
Mr. M. Greg       £ 514,263

Not very big capitalists these—small fry, compared to the Duke of Westminster’s one and a quarter million a year in rent.

Finally, one has only to watch the displays of vulgar opulence on TV like Callaghan at the Lord Mayor’s banquet at the City Guildhall, where more food is thrown into the pig-bin than would meet the City dustmen’s modest demands.

Callaghan, with his £23,000 a year, has the impudence to tell Trade Unionists that “there is no more money available”.

The Trade Unions should now see the folly of pouring money into Labour Party funds, to support a Labour Government intent on breaking their strikes.

There’s money in the kitty all right;—as Karl Marx pointed out years ago, "it’s not the smallness of the bowl but the workers’ spoons” which prevent them gaining a decent livelihood.

Horatio

Homeworkers — reserve army of the half-employed (1979)

From the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

With fingers weary and worn.
  With eyelids heavy and red,
A Woman sat, in unwomanly rags,
   Plying her needle and thread —
Stitch! stitch! stitch!
   In poverty, hunger and dirt,
And still with a voice of dolorous pitch
   She sang the 'Song of the Shirt!’ 

'Work — work — work
   Till the brain begins to swim.
Work — work — work
   Till the eyes are heavy and dim!
Seam, and gusset, and band,
   Band, and gusset, and seam,
Till over the buttons I fall asleep

   And sew them on in a dream! 

'O, Men with Sisters dear!
   O Men! with Mothers and Wives!
It is not linen you’re wearing out.
   But human creatures’ lives!
Stitch — stitch — stitch,
  In poverty, hunger, and dirt,
Sewing at once, with a double thread
  A Shroud as well as a Shirt

The Song of the Shirt

  Thomas Hood (1799-1845)

Whatever the outcome of this winter’s campaign by many union-organised low-paid workers, it will do little or nothing to improve the situation of homeworkers. These freelance, “self-employed” workers, mainly women, work in or from their own homes, some as envelope addressers, others putting toys, balloons or mottoes in Xmas crackers, while a great many are in the rag-trade. The Daily Mirror (Jan. 30, 1979) exposed some typically atrocious conditions:

  Mary Fabri gets paid 80p a dozen for making fashionable Broderic Anglaise petticoats which sell at £4.75 each. Her earnings are £20-£22 per week, out of which she has to pay about £1.30 for electricity to power her sewing machine. Rachel Tomlinson used to “slave away till two or three in the morning”. She machines trouser suits at 75p each, using a twentypart pattern: these suits are sold by mail order at £26. Pat Frolich and her friends, getting 4p for putting tassels on football supporters’ scarves, tried to get 1p increase, and on being refused they joined the General and Municipal Workers’ Union. “I didn’t get any more work which amounts to the sack, and the Union couldn’t do a thing.”

In the nineteenth century, before the factories superseded the domestic system, the lace-makers, milliners and spinners working at home, were all employed in much the same way. There was also then the notorious “rag trade”:

  One of the most shameful, the most dirty, and the worst paid kinds of labour, and one on which women and young girls are by preference employed, is the sorting of rags. It is well known that Great Britain, apart from its own immense store of rags, is the emporium for the rag trade of the whole world. They flow in from Japan, from the most remote States of South America, and from the Canary Islands. But the chief sources of their supply are Germany, France, Russia, Italy, Egypt, Turkey, Belgium and Holland. They are used for manure, for making bed-flocks, for shoddy, and they serve as the raw material of paper. The rag sorters are the medium for the spread of small-pox and other infectious diseases and they themselves are the first victims. (Capital vol. I.)

The homeworkers of today, as of Marx’s time, are part of a fluctuating pool of labour on the fringes of unemployment.

From the capitalist’s point of view the advantages of employing homeworkers are many. The main and most obvious is that their labour-power is cheap. As Marx observed of the “so-called domestic industries", “unlimited exploitation of cheap labour-power is the sole foundation of their power to compete” (Capital vol. I). Since there is not enough work to go round, each homeworker is competing against thousands of others, all equally desperate. Also, as unemployment has increased many housewives are driven to supplement the breadwinner’s inadequate paypacket by turning their homes into factory annexes. According to the Low Pay Unit, the number of full-time workers earning less than they would be able to get on Supplementary Benefit (the government-decreed poverty norm, on which families can survive) increased from 130,000 in 1974 to 290,000 in 1976 (Observer, 17 Sept. 1978). If we add to this figure the one-parent families where a mother struggles to bring up her young children on Supplementary Benefit, we can see how large a number of homeworkers there are on the fringes of the employment market.

Another advantage for the capitalist is that the homeworkers’ working hours and conditions are totally unregulated and unprotected: no Factory Acts, no National Insurance stamps, no income tax. The hours worked, and pay obtained, are entirely a private matter between the individual homeworker and his or her “employer". Homeworkers do not normally have any contract of employment so it is rare for them to get the sack: but if the “employer” just stops sending them any work they have no legal protection. Because they are isolated from one another, they seldom get the chance to organise and protect themselves from the imposition of harsh work norms. (Some Market Research firms go to quite extraordinary lengths to prevent their interviewers meeting up with one another: in such firms the only personal contact the interviewer has is with her supervisor, never with other interviewers.)

Because most of them are on piece-rates (inevitably extremely low) home workers have to work exceptionally long hours to obtain something like a wage. For instance, a hand-knitter made a complicated Fair Isle sweater which required 30 hours work. For that job she was paid £5.20. Employers take the cynical view that “very often women are grateful to us because we are paying them for their hobby” (Daily Mirror, 30 Jan,.1979). The same woman whose hobby is toiling at her knitting machine or typewriter for long hours at a miserable pittance is worth, as a housewife, £87.90 a week (Daily Mirror). At least, that is what she could get if she was paid for doing some one else’s household chores and caring for someone else’s children. Then consider some of the less agreeable jobs, such as delivering sales leaflets door-to-door in all weathers. In one typical area, women and schoolchildren who deliver a free local newspaper and sales material get paid £3 basic, a rate which has not changed in ten years. No one would describe this as a “hobby”.

Another advantage to the firms that exploit homeworkers is that, should their work-load fluctuate, as is the ease with Xmas crackers, market research and the rag-trade, the employees can be left high and dry without work (without pay) during slack periods, yet can be required to work almost round the clock in a busy season. There is absolutely no limit to the number of hours homeworkers may work in a week, other than their own physical limits. (Pit-ponies however are limited to 48 hours a week).

Homeworkers are a mere footnote in the economic history of our times. Yet their low rates of pay serve to depress those offered to factory workers in the same area. How else would Grunwicks be able to offer such low rates to women working part-time.

The reformers of British capitalism have introduced legislation to control the length of a working day, the conditions of work within factories, the protection of workers from “unfair” dismissal or discrimination, to provide paid holidays and sick pay, to insure workers from actual destitution when injured or unemployed, and to provide pensions and maternity leave. All these regulations are easily evaded by those firms which exploit the reserve army of the unemployed in their own homes. In addition this practice reduces the firm’s own overheads (power, light and heating, and in many cases depreciation of machinery).

In one of his novels, the Russian writer Dostoyevsky described a widow who stitched away all night. In his Autobiography, Charles Chaplin described how his mother slaved at shirt-making, starving herself to feed her children when there was not enough money coming in. Her reward was premature senility, caused by malnutrition.

Marx described the domestic industries as “the last resort of the ‘redundant population’ ”—capitalism’s safety-valve. So long as people can be made “redundant”, so long will this cynical exploitation of the very needy continue. Fashion firms will flourish while factory rates of pay will be depressed and women will be degraded to the point where to many prostitution seems preferable.

The wages system with production for profit is the root cause of all these social evils. Reforms of the law can do next to nothing. To end exploitation in the home, as in the factory, we must abolish the wages system. There is no other way.

Charmian Skelton

Cutler's Last Stand (1979)

Horace Cutler

Party News from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

   Greater London Council leader Horace Cutler in debate with an SPGB member on a motion: "That the profit system provides for the greatest happiness for the greatest number."

Horace Cutler is the Conservative leader of the Greater London Council. Horace Cutler claims to be a ‘self-made man’. Horace Cutler is a great believer in the profit system. On Tuesday, March 6th, he was given the chance to tell the world the merits of the profit system. He was proposing the motion in the Bentham Memorial Debate at University College London. “That the profit system provides for the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. He was seconded by a member of the College Conservative Society and opposed by one member and one supporter of the SPGB. Approximately one hundred students attended the debate. This is not a report of what both sides said—the views of the opponents of the motion will be found in the Declaration of Principles at the back of this journal—but is intended as an assessment of Horace Cutler’s defence of capitalism. Being a democratic journal, a copy of this article will be sent to Mr. Cutler and, should he wish to offer a reply, he will be given the same amount of space in which to do so.

Socially Unequal

First, let us make clear why it is that Socialists oppose the profit system. It is based upon the minority ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. It is a class society in which a minority own the means of life and the majority—the working class— own nothing and therefore have to sell their labour power to an employer in return for a wage or salary. So the profit system is socially unequal. The capitalist class needs to employ the working class as the labour of the latter is the source of the profit of the former. The profit consists of the difference between the capital expenditure of the employer and the values created by the employee. Labour creates values over and above the value of labour-power. Because wages represent the price of labour power and not the value of the commodities produced by labour, the workers always receive less than they have produced. In short, they are exploited. The profit system is exploitative and unequal and the consequence is an unending conflict of interests between wage labour and capital. Hie capitalist needs profits. It is in the interest of workers not simply to increase wages, but to abolish the wages system. And the only way to get rid of the wages system is to abolish the profit system. The Right wing of capitalism support the bosses in their struggle for more markets and greater profits; the Left wing encourage the workers to go for higher wages and better conditions under capitalism. Only Socialists oppose the profit system as such. That is our case against Mr. Cutler’s system. It is not usual, however, for the dice to be as evenly loaded as in a debate. Usually, the schools, the Churches, the press, the T.V. and the radio adopt the ideology of the profit system. Open debate forces the supporters of capitalism to put their case in a coherent and logical form. If Cutler’s efforts are anything to go by, the case for the profit system couldn’t survive the equality of communication for very long.

Mr. Cutler’s opening speech lasted approximately twenty minutes. In it he gave five main arguments in favour of the profit system. So as not to misrepresent him we quote verbatim from a tape recording that was made of the debate.

He began by defining what he thought the debate was about:

It’s whether or not we want the profit system—that is free enterprise or capitalism—or the collective system or Socialism.

But what is meant by capitalism—what does he understand by Socialism? Nothing resembling a definition was offered from the proposers throughout the course of the debate.

Mr. Cutler then began to develop the first of his five arguments. The Case Based Upon Experience:

  I have lived through two wars—not one, two wars. And I’ve seen the depression of the thirties. If I may immediately declare my interest in the capitalist system—and I don’t like the term capitalist system. I do like the word profit motive. I do like the word free enterprise. I do like the word initiative—because these things epitomise the whole of my life. None of you are ever going to work as hard as I have and none of you are going to make as much money as I have and live so affluently as I do . . . because the real capitalist system does comprise in work. Unless you are prepared to take off your coat and roll up your sleeves you will not be able to achieve very much in life. 

So, according to Cutler, despite witnessing the pathetic suffering of the Depression, workers should believe that initiative and hard work are what make the rich rich. And conversely, it is the lack of these attributes that keeps the working class in relative poverty. The facts of success and failure within the profit system stand in conflict with Cutler’s experience. Those who take off their coats and roll up their sleeves every day of their lives don't ‘achieve very much in life’. The idle parasites do.

Mr. Cutler has not learnt very much from his personal experience. Neither has he learnt very much to support his second argument; The Case Based Upon History: 

 After all, if you go back to the origins of the capitalist system it was based on barter. If you go back to the time before some silly idiot invented money, which is the cause of all our problems, you will know what happened in those days. You made something and a neighbour of yours made something and you exchanged them. The goods had to be of good quality or you’d exchange them with someone else. In that system you either improved the quality of your goods or you went to the wall.

It seems that the Leader of the Greater London Council prefers barter to the money system. He is wrong when he states that money ‘is the cause of all our problems’. Money is the result of the problem: it is the means of buying and selling commodities in a society in which wealth is produced for sale and not for use. In the days before there was the potential for an abundance of wealth to fulfil human needs money was necessary. An economy based upon monetary exchange is now an anachronism. Socialists look forward to a society in which men and women have free access to wealth. Horace Cutler looks backwards to the age of barter.

He then turns to this third argument; The Case Based Upon Human Nature:

  I believe in capitalism because I believe it fits in with human instincts and with competitiveness.

Biological evidence for this belief? Anthropological evidence? You might as well ask for medical credentials from a witchdoctor. All we get from Cutler is the anti-social and arrogantly asserted statement that

  Of course people will always exploit each other and it doesn’t matter what society you are in, it will be done. I don't agree with it, but it happens, humans being the swines that they are.

It is true that if you put humans in a jungle society they will act like wild animals. That is why we need a system of society that is designed to accommodate rational human beings and not swine.

Mr. Cutler then proceeds to examine what he spuriously describes as ‘the alternative to the profit system'. And so we have The Case Based Upon The Freedom Of The Individual:

  In Russia there are people living on top and most people at the bottom living very flat and uninteresting lives. We find that some people have to work so that others can make money.

Recognise the situation? It sounds remarkably like the system that Cutler is supposed to be defending. Of course workers in Russia are not free. Why are they not free? Because ‘they have to work so that others can make money’. That is the principle of the profit system. If Mr. Cutler doesn’t like it he should work for a system of society in which people have free access to the wealth that they create.

For his fifth and final effort to justify the existence of the profit system, Mr. Cutler refers us to The Case Based Upon The Evil of The State:

  We live in a society today where the system looks after everybody. Some people take advantage of this and don’t do any work for the whole of their lives. The less the State gets in the way the more morality there will be.

We presume that Mr. Cutler’s reference to people ‘who don’t do any work for the whole of their lives' is to the Royal Family, the aristocracy and the rest of the capitalist class. The parasites of the boardroom contribute nothing to society, but take the greatest proportion of the world’s wealth. State interference in terms of taxation and welfare reform is not the aim of Socialists. We do no advocate State capitalism, although both Labour and Tory Governments have gone in for nationalisation. The State is the coercive organ of the capitalist class. Horace Cutler looks back to the age of laissez faire capitalism when the law of the jungle ruled supreme. Socialists look forward to an age when there will be no class divisions and therefore no State.

Popular Prejudices

We have concentrated on Mr. Cutler’s defence of the profit system, not because it contains an ounce of originality. but because it encapsulates most of the cliches and popular prejudices which we often encounter from capitalism’s apologists. In open debate its emptiness can be adequately demonstrated. At other times such nonsense is allowed to masquerade as political common sense. It is little wonder that most people cynically reject politics as something above their heads, instead of realising that the case for capitalism should be beneath their contempt.

During the course of the debate Horace Cutler read out the following piece of doggerel which, insultingly, constituted his New Year message to the people of London:

No bees, no honey.
No work, no money.

One sharp wit from the floor of the debate read out the following response:

No music, no dance.
No capital, no chance.

The motion was lost. A few more people had seen the logic of the case for Socialism. Mr. Cutler went back to run the Greater London Council. The profit system goes on.

Steve Coleman

Live with it (1979)

A Short Story from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

On October 51st, some time this century, a conference took place of biological, agricultural, economic and theological experts which was under the auspices of the United Nations Organisation for the Disposal of Food Surpluses.

The chairman, Cyrus Blankmind (chief marketing adviser to Pacific Continents Food Producers Association) opened the conference by pointing out that it had been called because of the gigantic build-up of food surpluses and the complete inability to solve the problem of disposing of them. Bearing this in mind, he would without further comment throw the meeting open to general discussion in the hope that a solution would be found.

During what followed many speakers took part. There was talk of government subsidies, lowering prices, increasing prices, devaluation, revaluation, the green pound up and down, the dollar up and down, even changing the colour from green to blue.

And then it was the turn of Viscount Knowless. chairman of the board of directors of the worldwide multinational animal foodstuffs suppliers, Selmore and Growless Ltd. What has to be done, he said, was to export the food surplus, no matter where, perhaps to some derelict waste—it did not matter as long as there was no-one to eat it. The main thing was to get it off the world’s market. There were nods of agreement from the assembled experts and murmurs of ‘Excellent idea’, ‘What a brilliant suggestion’. The snag, however, was who was to be paid for the transportation and the compensation to the owners.

At this point the chairman wished to bring to the notice of the conference that they had been honoured by the presence of a distinguished visitor, none other than the heir apparent of the United Kingdom of Great Botheram, The Prince of Whales, who would address the gathering. (Applause). The Prince then delivered his speech in the manner of his father, the Duke of Idlesburg.

He said that there were some people who thought that exports should be increased, but on the other hand there were some who said that exports should be decreased. There were those who maintained that prices should be increased, but there were also those who said they should be decreased. There were those who said that food surpluses would never be disposed of, but on the other hand there were those who said that they would and should be disposed of. The problem, he announced, was that surpluses had to be sold and the stability of civilisation depended on this. It was not his prerogative to take sides in the debate, but this much seemed apparent to him: that should the problem not be solved it would remain an unsolved problem. It was with great pleasure, therefore, that he had to inform the conference that the Prime Minister of Great Botherham, Mr. James Lucky, very often endearingly referred to as Honest Jim. had appointed the world famous economist. Professor C. Ball, to head a loyal commission to investigate the possibility of finding a solution to the food surplus problem. These profound observations were greeted by the assembled experts with loud applause and cries of ‘Hear Hear’.

There followed many more speeches: tax concessions, MCAS intervention, price control, dehumanising processes, sell cheap to the Martians.

The chairman then announced that the world famous anthropologist, Dr. Margaret Mindbender, was in attendance, accompanied by the medicine man of the group of primitive people who were the subject of her recent study into the life style of people still in the food gathering and hunting stage of cultural development, the Esaigoinga tribe of the Central Pacific continent. And he invited her to address the conference on the behaviour and attitudes of these people.

In her speech the famous anthropologist explained that the tribe were few in numbers (about five thousand) and that they lived by food gathering and hunting in the middle of dense jungle. She explained that they only gathered and hunted sufficient for their needs, that there was no private property, there were no leaders, no exchange values and consequently no money. Each member of the tribe gave service to the community to the best of his or her ability and took from the common pool what he or she needed.

Through the whole course of this speech there were involuntary cries of incredulity and amazement from the gathered experts. When she had finished the chairman thanked her for her contribution and asked the experts if there were any questions they would like to ask.

The first question was from Dr. Bunkum van Bletheridge, a well known member of the central committee of the World Council for Religious Survival. He described himself as a theologian (he was a practising pastor of the Doltz Misinformed Church) and scientists (he was a member of the Loyal Society for the Advancement of Idealistic Materialism). He said he had been very interested in Dr. Mindbender’s address, but she had failed to make reference to the question (to him, a moral one) of food surpluses, which was, he reminded the experts, the reason for the conference. What, he asked, did the Esaigoina tribe do about the food surpluses that they accumulated? At this, the famous anthropologist had a conversation in an incomprehensible language with her companion, the medicine man. She then addressed the questioner. It was very difficult, she said, for these primitive people to understand what is meant by accumulated food surpluses as it was very rare for more food to be gathered than was required, but on the rare occasion that this did happen no further hunting or gathering took place until the food had been eaten, each member of the tribe having free access to it. This reply brought forth more cries of incredulity and horror. The very idea that surplus food should be consumed with no money or exchange being involved was inexplicable to the assembled experts.

After some further speeches and questions along similar lines, the chairman announced that the time had come to conclude the proceedings. He thanked everyone concerned for their attendance and remarked that although no solution had been found it had been a useful exercise. In the meantime vast food surpluses still remained and although millions of people had to die with it, all of us have had to live with it.

Harry Walters

50 Years Ago: The Obscenity Laws (1979)

The 50 Years Ago column from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

  A denouncement of young women authors who write obscene books was made by Miss Christabel Pankhurst in a speech at the Æolian Hall, Bond Street, yesterday. She said that pagan novels were much in evidence today and she was grateful to the Home Secretary for the step he had taken regarding books that were not decent to read. This is not the sort of freedom for which we women fought and got the vote.

(Daily Chronicle March 7th)

We do not know by what standard Miss Christabel Pankhurst judges what is decent to read, nor do we remember any special protest being made during the war either by Miss Pankhurst or the present Home Secretary when reams of literature with plentiful details of war-time atrocities were circulated among young people in order to fuel the war fever. We gave it as our opinion at the time that under normal conditions such material would probably meet with the attention of the police. Evidently what is necessary to our masters at one time shocks them at another. 

(From an article “An echo of the past” by comrade MacHaffie, Socialist Standard April 1929)

Running Commentary: A Win For The Favourite (1979)

The Running Commentary column from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

A Win For The Favourite

One event last month which did not have the world chewing its finger nails in suspense was the elections to the Supreme Soviet.

Happening every five years, these lack the drama usually associated with elections; there is no Russian equivalent of Robert McKenzie to sit up all night predicting swings, shock results and so on. In this race the favourite always wins because there is only one candidate in every constituency.

About half the candidates are members of the Russian Communist Party; the rest are approved by the Party — selected “professional people” or “outstanding workers”. When he gets to the polling station (if such it can be called) the Russian voter is handed a ballot paper and, if he is brave or reckless enough, he can go into the private booth and scratch out the name of the official candidate. It is not surprising, that the majority prefer to drop the paper, unmarked, into the ballot box.

From this comes the predictable result — although the 99 per cent majority which is usually claimed for all the candidates is probably impossible in statistical terms.

In the midst of this cosy dictatorship of the Communist Party, a dissident group tried this year to put up two independent candidates — who are, presumably, people unlikely to be bothered by a little unpopularity. The group called itself Elections 79. Not so long ago its members might have disappeared into a labour camp, or perished in some NKVD cellar.

But so far they have been subjected to more subtle frustrations. Their nominations disappeared into the bureaucratic machinery, there to be delayed until after the closing date; the group were harassed by irritants like having their ’phone cut off.

Members of the Supreme Soviet get quite a few privileges: perhaps that is their sole function, since they meet only twice a year and then to rubber stamp the legislation put before them.

The day will come, when Russia will have a measure of political freedom which at least allows ideas to be openly discussed, even the emergence of a socialist party. Until that happens we must live with the regular farce of the “elections” there and with the transparent Communist Party lies that the dictatorship in Russia is an example of democratic socialism,


Return To Go

The history of capitalism is rather like a desert littered with the whitened bones of Chancellors of the Exchequer who were foolish enough to set out on the impossible journey of solving, once and for all, the system's economic and financial problems.

From time to time the immediate nature of these problems might change. Unemployment, inflation, the dollar gap, or an adverse balance of trade, have all been a preoccupation of the man said to be in charge at the Treasury.

But the overall pattern endures; each crisis is presented as a tiresome, unpredictable interruption in the Chancellor’s journey towards building prosperity for us all, which will now have to be delayed a little longer . . .

For example, at this time of the 1979 Budget, it is instructive to see what advice was being offered to the Chancellor, ten years ago:

  A tough Budget is in prospect. The Sunday Telegraph Business forecast team gives a warning that the Chancellor cannot afford any sign which may be interpreted as weakness. Following last week’s rise in Bank Rate to 8 per cent, little prospect is seen of an early let-up in the renewed credit squeeze.

At that time, a doomed Labour government had been grappling with the crises of British capitalism, and fighting to hold down workers’ living standards for over five years. In the process, they had been thoroughly discredited: indeed such was the disillusionment among their supporters that at times the party seemed almost happy to break up.

Ten years later a new Chancellor, Denis Healey, threatens a "tough" Budget (not that a "weak” one has anything to offer workers). He too braces himself not to show any signs of weakness, so that the workers do not get any ideas that wages can rise free of all restraint. And Minimum Lending Rate — the new name for Bank Rate — has recently been increased to a record level.

Healey does not repeat the desperations of a former Chancellor because he lacks imagination. Capitalism leaves its politicians with no choice but to offer, again and again, the same stale, discredited “remedies” — nothing else is available to them. And that is so, because the system itself is unchanged.


All About Oil

Any American worker who, volunteering to put on a uniform and take a gun in his hand, wonders what it is all about might have been given pause for thought by the recent statements of Harold Brown, Carter's Defence Secretary.

Brown has just come back from the Middle East and was sufficiently impressed by what he saw there to make some pretty frank remarks about how the American ruling class view that inhospitable part of the world.

Brown’s travels, and his uneasiness, have been caused by the reaction in the oil states to Carter’s recent talks with Menachim Begin about carving up the Middle East. So he had to show himself firm about what he is paid to see as the essentials of the situation.

The protection of the oil flow, said Brown, is part of America’s “vital interests". And, in case anyone should still not grasp his point, the Defence Secretary went on to say that the US would “. . . take action that is appropriate, including the use of military force” to protect those interests.

The latter talks between the Americans and the Saudis took place under the shadow of that threat — which would, in the last analysis, have been carried out by those American workers in their uniforms and with their guns.

Those workers — and there are far too many of them — who concern themselves with the standing of their ruling class, and who are prepared to join a killing organisation to protect that standing, should reflect on the reasons for it all. Nowhere are working class interests — which means the interests of the majority — at stake. All of it — the armies, the weapons, the diplomats, the royal buffoons in the sun — are there standing for the interests of the small class of parasites who rule this repressive, strife-ridden society of capitalism.

Original approach (1979)

Book Review from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Understanding Marxism: An approach through Dialogue. Harry Eddy. Blackwell 1979 (£2.95 paper)

This little book is certainly original. It takes the Socratic form of a three-cornered discussion on Marxist Philosophy, Historical Materialism, the Class Struggle, the State, Ideology. Religion, Scientific Socialism, Capitalism and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Whether the text is an actual record of what took place is not stated, but the discussions were sent to all the study groups of the Workers’ Educational Association in Sydney, Australia, as material for a study course, and are well worth application by branches of the SPGB.

The speakers consist of a self-styled “Marxist”, an anti-Marxist, and a novice who interjects every now and again ‘‘what does that mean?” The book has the merit of extremely simplified, direct language and the interruptions (“I don't get that point") enable the speakers to reiterate their arguments.

The text is remarkable for its complete omission of any mention of Marx’s economics, the corner-stone of his system. Most of the latter half deals with Lenin’s aberrations from, and distortions of, Marxism, particularly with reference to the ‘‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’’, quoting one of the best books on the subject. Lucien Laurat's Marxism and Demoncracy.

The book is not without other defects; the Marxist speaker (Allen) holds that Marxism cannot prove objectivity, because Lenin said so. As is well known, Marx wrote that "the point is to change the world, not interpret it.” He never proclaimed that capitalism would collapse, neither for that matter did Lenin. Socialism is not the common ownership of “means of exchange", which it will abolish. It is not right that all the "Marxists” (meaning people calling themselves that) told Lenin that Socialism could not be established in Russia in 1917. The British Socialist Party went overboard for Leninism, forming the Communist Party.

The Socialist Labour Party said in The Socialist that the Russian Soviets represented De Leonism (SLP) applied to Russia. At least half the ILP supported the Bolsheviks. A huge congress was held in Leeds, attended by Ramsay Macdonald. Sydney Webb, national trade union leaders, writers and politicians, which passed resolutions calling for "Soviets in Britain”. There was one group in Britain which did not support the idea of Socialism in Russia in 1917. It was The Socialist Party of Great Britain.

Horatio.

Letter: Socialist Enclave (1979)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

I have read the last 12 copies or so of the Socialist Standard and nearly all your pamphlets, and am now quite convinced that you are the only "true" Socialist Party in that your primary concern is for the overthrow of capitalism (we’ve waited hundreds of years for that one) and class society generally (we’ve waited thirty thousand years for that one!).

However, my question is connected with that latter “overthrow". The SPGB believes in the ballot method, which is after all a sure test of the democracy involved. However, it is highly unlikely that all countries will arise one morning and breathe in the fresh air of knowledge and calmly (but surely) pen their votes for the social change. One country would have to begin the process (or a bunch of countries) and thus would still be faced with a surrounding majority of capitalist others. Just as capitalism arose as an enclave within feudal society, so socialism would arise as an enclave within capitalism, EXCEPT what would determine its survival or even its influence upon the other countries?

Socialism can exist only on a worldwide basis, thus if I and the vast majority of the British population voted for the SPGB you may find yourselves becoming another bunch of politicians in a world in which the social structure is capable of withstanding great attempts at Socialist "enclaves" (as I mentioned earlier). This Socialist "enclave" question is, I believe, the greatest to face socialists (greatest problem at answering, that is) since it brings to mind the problems of a world slowly changing to Socialism (if at all) and, assuming this, then in what manner?

Dan Vogel

Reply:

Although we can use our knowledge about former social revolutions to investigate the process of social change, it is important that we keep clear in our minds the essential difference between each of these revolutions.

In particular, the revolution for socialism will be society’s first majority revolution—the first by the people of the world in their own interest. As such, there is no reason to accept that it will exactly follow the same lines as previous revolutions—for example that from feudalism to capitalism.

So we should not automatically assume that it is necessary for socialist “enclaves” to exist among the ruins of capitalism. The movement for socialism is now one of ideas and on that score all the developed world is pretty well at the same stage: workers in America. Russia, Europe, Australia. Japan and so on have the same ideas about capitalism and about human society in general.

In the other countries they are catching up fast; with the development of industry in the newly “independent" countries the people there will have ideas indistinguishable from those of workers where the development happened earlier.

Ideas do not stand still. For example, in the last thirty years we have seen important changes in attitude towards marriage, the family, education, difference in skin colour. These changes—which have happened worldwide—are the process of the working class feeling their way towards the conclusion that a fundamental social change is the only way to harmonise relationships within society.

In other words, there is every reason to think that the socialist revolution will be, to all intents and purposes, simultaneous throughout the world. For a time it may gather greater momentum in one country than in another, but this will quickly adjust itself. As socialism becomes a more possible reality there will be a rush toward it, rather than a hanging back. Speed the day!

Editors

Anarchism and Socialism (1979)

From the April 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Plekhanov’s book Anarchism and Socialism is a treasure. Not only did he clearly state the case against the anarchists of his day but he also analysed utopian socialism. For Plekhanov, Anarchism was a decadent form of utopianism. For Eleanor Marx Aveling, who translated his book in 1895, "under any circumstances Anarchism is but another word for reaction; and the more honest the men and women who play this reactionist game, the more tragic and dangerous it becomes for the whole working class movement".

The book's central point, made equally effectively in the translator’s preface and the introduction by Robert Rives La Monte, to the 1907 Kerr edition, is the importance of political action. Both Eleanor Marx and La Monte point to the failure of the Socialist League as evidence that "every revolt from the Socialist Party in America, which is based on disgust with the fact that it is a ‘pure and simple’ political party of ‘ballot-worshippers’ is destined to repeat the history of the Socialist League” (La Monte).

Plekhanov begins, however, not with the Anarchists at all but with an analysis of utopian socialism:-

The Utopian is one who, starting from an abstract principle, seeks for a perfect social organisation.

The abstract principle on which utopian socialists like Morelly, Fourier. Owen and Saint Simon based their arguments was "human nature.” But scientific socialism showed that this was not constant: “while man, in order to maintain his existence, acts upon nature outside himself, he alters his own naure”. Since Marx, wrote Plekhanov, the revolutionary socialist movement was no longer founded on an abstract principle or an ideal of a "perfect legislation” in total conformity with human nature, but on “a scientifically demonstrable economic necessity”. The struggle between workers and the capitalist class, he declared, must become a political one:-

Every class war is a political one. In order to do away with feudal society the bourgeoisie had to seize upon political power. In order to do away with capitalist society the proletariat must do the same. Its political task is therefore traced out for it beforehand by the force of events themselves, and not by any abstract consideration.

Rooted in the class struggle and the interests of the working class, Plekhanov lashed into the Anarchists, dealing in some depth with their naive, crazy notions. There was Max Stirner: "for me there is nothing above myself”. Stirner’s League of Egoists, wrote Plekhanov, was "the Utopia of a petty bourgeois in revolt". Some of Stirner’s ideas still surface from time to time in eccentric Tory circles and leagues of small shopkeepers, imbued with the same spirit of "bourgeois individualism".

Proudhon's ideas on the social constitution and on ending capitalism without political action or class struggle are debunked by Plekhanov, who points out with irony the many blatant contradictions in Proudhon's theories.

Bakunin is dealt with next. "I detest Communism, because it is the negation of liberty, and I cannot conceive anything human without liberty”, he declared, thus revealing his basic utopianism. "I am not a Communist, because Communism concentrates and causes all the forces of society to be absorbed by the State, because it necessarily ends in the centralisation of property in the hands of the State".

Bakunin also expressed clearly the characteristic mistake of Anarchist thinking, that is, the idea that the State should be smashed since its oppression is the cause of exploitation. In this belief can be seen the Utopian’s ignorance of hard economic facts, of the historical process and of the role of the State, as necessary to class-based economic systems. As capitalism has become an intolerable fetter on the productive forces, the working class must abolish it. The State will not be abolished: it will wither away, like an uprooted weed. Rut as long as class ownership of wealth exists, smashing the State is futile—a new form of State will always arise, as weeds do when their roots are left in the soil.

The Anarchists are mistaken in believing the abolition of the State would achieve emancipation. The events of 1917, when Lenin, destroying the old State with his programme "All power to the Soviets", only succeeded in creating a new form of State, and new methods of exploitation, are evidence of the futility of such tactics. Capitalism can only be ended by the working class taking political action, not to smash the State, but to abolish the wages system.

Bakunin distinguished between social revolution and political revolution. Plekhanov answered, in memorable terms:-

Every class struggle being necessarily a political struggle, it is evident that every political revolution, worthy of the name, is a social revolution; it is evident also that for the proletariat the political struggle is as much a necessity as it has always been for every class struggling to emancipate itself.

Adrift from political action. Bakunin and his followers encouraged terrorist tactics—the "propaganda by deed” which still sporadically hits the headlines in many countries—Italy, Spain, Germany, Japan. Mexico, Argentina, US and England.

"Error has its logic as well as truth. Once you reject the political action of the working-class, you are fatally driven —provided you do not wish to serve the bourgeois politicians—to accept the tactics of the Vaillants and the Henrys", observed Plekhanov. After parliamentarism was discarded, the tactics of riots and isolated uprisings were abandoned since workers, sensibly, did not want anything to do with such suicidal tactics. What was left? For the Anarchist, either syndicalism (equally disastrous) or the individual gesture, the assassin with a bomb in his briefcase—"doing the work if not receiving the pay of a spy”, as La Monte put it.

The result of the Anarchist movement’s rejection of political struggle in favour of syndicalism or terrorism is to weaken the working class movement and to encourage the forces of reaction. Special police agents infiltrate all working class organisations, laws are passed and special measures enforced which handicap socialists in their activity. Workers become hostile and reactionary. Revolution becomes a dirty word. Socialism is seen as dangerous lunacy. As Plekhanov said, "An Anarchist is a man who—when he is not a police agent—is fated always and everywhere to attain the opposite of that which he attempts to achieve".

For its chapter on scientific socialism alone, clear and concise, this book deserves to stand alongside the best-known works of Marx and Engels.

Charmian Skelton