Mr. Cousins Damp Squib (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Mr. Cousins is after will leave the workers just as they are, the wage slave victims of capitalist conditions and subject to the threat of terrible wars, with or without the H-Bomb.

The Labour Party is in a turmoil—and the General Election is near. Mr. Cousins of the Transport and General Workers Union has thrown a spanner into the works. He has been making quite a stir in the news by his opposition to the official attitude of the Labour Party on the H-Bomb and nationalisation.

Mr. Bevan has now become quite respectable as an official spokesman. Mr. Cousins has replaced him as the Labour Party rebel—the “leftist.” It is only farce that is played out every now and then with only a change in the personnel. Is there really any fundamental difference between Mr. Cousins and the leaders of the Labour Party?

He objects to the H-Bomb but supports the Labour Party, which is pledged to a defence programme. Millions were killed in the last war without the H-Bomb being used, but he does not support the only policy that will end war. He believes Mr. Gaitskell is sincere but that his policy on the H-Bomb will not be effective.

At the Transport and General Workers Conference in the Isle of Man Mr. Cousins dropped his bombshell. He is also reported as follows: “I have never believed that the most important thing in our lives is to elect a Labour Government. The most important thing is to elect a Labour Government that is determined to carry out Socialist policies.” (Daily Express, 10th July, 1959.)

Now what does he mean by “to carry out Socialist policies”? To him it means nationalisation—state capitalism. He objects to the official line on nationalisation—buying shares instead of the state taking over the industries. But to him. just as to them, state ownership is equivalent to Socialism. In other words, in spite of the long experience of state capitalism, he blindly accepts it as the fundamental aim, despite the disillusion and unrest in state owned or state controlled concerns and the labour struggles in them for better conditions.

Thus what Mr. Cousins is after will leave the workers just as they are, the wage slave victims of capitalist conditions and subject to the threat of terrible wars, with or without the H-Bomb.

In striking back at Mr. Cousins Mr. Gaitskell made some very significant statements. He made it clear that a Labour Government was not bound by the decisions of the rank and file of the Labour Party and that he was first and foremost a patriot. Here are some extracts from his speech at Workington on the 11th July, 1959:

A Labour Government will take into account the views of the Conference, but, as was clearly demonstrated in the correspondence between Winston Churchill and Clement Attlee in 1945, annual conference does not mandate a government.

Both a Labour Government and the Parliamentary Labour Party must be left free to settle in matters of detail how and when the principles and decisions are to be applied in practice. This has always been understood in the past, and it must be clearly understood again today. (Observer, 12th July, 1959.)

Earlier in his speech he was even more emphatically the leader who would disdain the decisions of the Labour movement he claimed to represent:

To give such a pledge [not to resume nuclear tests] might conceivably be to jeopardise the future security of our country, and that I will not do under any circumstances. Those of us who have the responsibilities of political leadership have to remember always that we shall be expected to stand by our pledges.

We will not bother to remind him of the pledges the “political leadership” have broken in the past, but we can remind him that no one is forcing him to take the “political leadership” job. If he doesn’t like what the people who appoint him want him to do he can always resign his job and not fly in the face of their decisions. But that would be the democratic way and leadership is the antithesis of democracy!

Time and again we have pointed out that what the Labour Party was mainly concerned with was not principles but votes. This futile controversy has spotlighted it once again. Labour M.P.’s are wrathful and shaking in their shoes at thought of the effect this blow-up may have on their votes in the next election. That is their main and all-consuming worry. Even Mr. Cousins expostulates that his proposals will not split the Labour Party, and anyhow, he will abide by conference decisions—in spite of the prospect of dire calamity unless the H-Bomb is abandoned.

While the Labour Party storm may have a bad influence on their election prospects it will have no influence upon the subject position of the worker. Only Socialism can remove that subjection—and this has no place in the Labour programme, nor in Mr. Cousins’ outlook.

Gilmac.

Letter: Socialists and Nuclear Disarmament (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

Although I am a supporter of the S.P.G.B. for the last ten years, it is not my usual practice to write to you whenever I happened to disagree with the Party on minor issues; but now I am compelled to write this letter, because the point I should like to raise here is a very important and a serious one—it is the Party’s relation towards the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (C.N.D.)—I have read your short A Point of View (May, 1959). I entirely agree on every point you raised and explained in relation to the cause of war and its remedy; but what I don’t agree, is your attitude towards C.N.D. It crystallizes in one single sentence in the first para. “We hold that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is on an unsound basis and inevitably leads in the wrong direction.”

I think this tendency to disassociate with a movement of this character and make judgment that it is uon an unsound basis” is due to your incorrect or false evaluation of the social forces. Most of you may be probably still thinking that it is a movement started by a few non socialists like Canon Collins or Michael Foot or Bertrand Russell or perhaps they (the leaders) might be conscious of the dangers of the present situation, but the people in general who follow them have no clear understanding of our society. This view or any other similar view which is trying to picture that movement as if it is completely dominated and controlled by such a leadership, is superficial, grossly incorrect and an oversimplification of the whole social process which brought C.N.D. into being.

New Consciousness

In the first place I should like to point out that it is not the leaders that came before the movement, but the movement armed with a new social consciousness pregnant with a new force of energy, which appeared first and then a set of leaders are born out of that specific social situation. In the last ten years powerful nations on both sides were boasting that they have more effective and better weapons of destruction than the other side. Many influential politicians and military leaders in Britain, Russia and America repeatedly stated that they are developing bigger and better bombs.

Along with this all round boasting they were actually strengthening all their forces of destruction and arming up to the teeth. Almost every aspect of society was alerted. A new awareness or perhaps consciousness began to develop among all sorts of people of the seriousness of the situation in which they are involved. They began to be conscious of the weakness of their social and political institutions which hitherto they supported, to prevent a new world war. They began to doubt the chance of their survival in the nuclear warfare. They felt it is their duty to “revolt” against this ridiculous situation where two great rival nations threaten each other by clenching their fists. It is this new social situation which gave birth to C.N.D. But this new social consciousness is blind. It has no eye to see the barrier in front of it which is to be removed for their survival. As one of the leading members (sociologist?) of the U.L.R. (Universities and Left Review) pointed out it is a “leaderless” movement. Unfortunately what he implied, later in his speech, was that U.L.R. should try to assume its leadership if not of the whole at least its youth section. Hundreds and thousands of people, especially youths, turned up and joined the C.N.D. fully conscious that they need something new, yet they did not know what they wanted!

It is true various types of political factions in C.N.D. are trying to utilize this blind consciousness as a ladder to climb to political power or at least to strengthen their original position, being utterly unaware of the significance of this new development. But it is the Socialists’ duty to move along with them in order to provide them with an eye so that they can see the barrier which stands in their way. In other words, we should try to create a situation so that the Socialist concept, as an eye, should assume the leadership of this new consciousness.

Isolation

I strongly hold the view that it was our duty, Socialists’ duty, either individually or collectively organized on a party basis, to march along with them with our own banners and slogans and take the opportunity of speaking to such a huge conscious gathering. We lost that opportunity! No Collins or Foots or Taylors can claim even the partial control or ownership of a movement of this character. Nor does it belong to them. It belongs to the whole society. In my view this kind of participation in C.N.D. is only a logical extension of what we had already been doing—selling our literature, discussing with non Socialist marchers etc. Now I begin to feel that it is this type of social isolation or regimentation of S.P.G.B. from the rest of the conscious and militant social forces (as Rosa Luxemburg indignantly pointed out about another aspect—the relation between the masses and the political leadership) which makes our unassailable case ineffective instead of being a powerful political force.

H. J. Panikkar. 

London.

Reply:

We regret that Mr. Panikkar’s letter was too long to publish in full.

During its 55 years of existence, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has seen many organisations which like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, have been pledged to abolish a particular evil of capitalist society. The hunger marchers and the pacifists of the 1930’s were described as movements “armed with a new social consciousness.” Today, members of Road Safety Committees can possibly be described in the same way— at least their death statistics are less in dispute than those of the C.N.D. In truth, as capitalism throws up problems, so it throws up organisations which try to deal with one or more of them in isolation. There is no doubt about the sincerity of some of these movements, or that they concern themselves with very real and terrifying matters. But because they do not demand an understanding of the roots of the problems, their efforts are doomed to futility.

Because of this socialists have no place in these organisations. But this does not prevent them stating, at every possible opportunity, the socialist attitude to such horrors as war. We do not isolate ourselves from our opponents, we are always eager to put our case to them. Mr. Panikkar cannot have missed, on page 78 of the May Socialist Standard, the account of our activities at the last Aldermaston March. This is typical of S.P.G.B. work, whatever non-socialist organisation we are dealing with.

Weapons of war are inseparable from war itself. To abolish them, we must get rid of war. These are caused by the clash of interests between groups of capitalists who want to protect or exploit markets and fields of valuable natural wealth. The need to do this is the result of the fact that, in capitalist society, goods and services are produced with the motive of profitable sale. Obviously, each group will strive to arm itself more powerfully—which means more destructively—than its opponents. Hence the development of modern weapons and the horrors of nuclear warfare. We can solve this problem by abolishing private property. Only a socialist movement can effectively advocate this.

In contrast, the C.N.D. is in favour of the continuation of capitalism. It does not even oppose capitalism's wars, but wants them to be gentlemanly affairs in which people are killed by conventional armaments. Even on the score of nuclear weapons, the C.N.D. is confused. Many of its members support the return of another Labour government—yet the last one started the British H-bomb and missile programmes. This confusion is typical of organisations which may be well meaning, but lack the essential knowledge with which every socialist is equipped. Mr. Panikkar claims that C.N.D. members are ". . . conscious of the weakness of their social and political institutions . . . to prevent a new world war.” Our guess is that the next election will see them voting for the very political parties which administer the capitalist basis of those social and political institutions.

Marches and demonstrations are glamourous and exciting. Alongside, our insistence on knowledge may seem rather dull. But the marchers are going to dissension and futility. The socialist movement alone offers the world any hope.

Editorial Committee.

Blogger's Note:

This is the 16,000th post on the blog.

Wages by Cheque (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Government are to introduce legislation allowing the workers to be paid by cheque. This piffling proposal will probably produce a hurricane of opposition from certain windy quarters in the Trade Unions and Labour Party, and no doubt some Communists. The right of the worker to be paid, in ready cash will become part of the day-to-day struggles, a real cause celebre.

Tory backwoodsmen are saying that this will make the workers more thrifty. They will, they hopefully claim, put their cheques into bank accounts and not spend it all. Savings will increase, and with them, abstemiousness; sobriety, and all things beautiful. The ideal worker from the Capitalist point of view is the virtuous economic cabbage who can live on practically nothing and enjoy it. If he manages somehow to put a bit away so much the better. He won’t be a charge on the Rates or National Assistance later.

Confidence Tricks

This is the unspoken philosophy of Capitalist Governments. From time to time terrific confidence tricks are played by Governments on workers’ savings. Devaluation was introduced by the last Labour Government, and inflation has been the policy of both Conservative and Labour Governments.

Last Autumn the Government removed the credit restrictions on Bank lending. In a great splash of newspaper publicity the Banks announced a scheme for personal loans for such things as cars, houses, T.V. sets, refrigerators, etc. A few days after the announcement the Manchester Guardian reported the experience of about 50 Salford dockers who queued up outside the local branch of the Westminster Bank. It appeared that the dockers were naive enough to believe what they read. They told the Bank manager they wanted to borrow a few quid to tide them over a bad spell. The Bank manager, as Bank managers are wont to do, asked for some security. All the dockers produced their Union cards as a guarantee of their ability to repay the loan, that is, if they didn’t become unemployed or put on short time. The manager delicately informed them that the Bank could not take the risk, Union card or not. The less credulous of us are now asked to believe that if the dockers, and other workers, were paid by cheque they would have money in the Bank. The worker’s possession of a cheque-book is as meaningful as the verse in the Canadian folk song "Good morning Mum, I have a button here, can you sew a shirt on it?”

Robbery

An interesting reaction to this proposal comes from the Bank Trade Unions. They apparently do not relish the the increased work this will entail for the same pay. Heaven knows what might happen if the workers start subbing in mid week.

Apart from claims about saving time on accountancy and wage clerks, there is the question of armed robbery being prevented. Snatching the payroll could, by present ethical standards, be considered more a transfer of property than a theft. The biter bitten would be an apt description. After all, the robbery has already taken place at the point of production. As always, the workers are the victims, not the Capitalists.

Jim D'Arcy

Editorial: The Printing Dispute (1959)

Editorial from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

From the ordinary trade union point of view of a struggle to enforce more pay and shorter hours, the printers' strike seems to have been well conceived and executed and well timed.

The claim was for a 10 per cent. increase of pay and a reduction of 3½ hours, from 43½ to 40. After lengthy negotiations the employers offered 2½ per cent. and 1 hour, but tied up the offer with a long list of demands for the reorganisation of the industry to increase production. The Unions rejected this offer and rejected also the employers manoeuvre of trying to get them to take the claim to arbitration. Having taken a ballot of their members the printing unions came out on strike on June 17th, over 100,000 men and women being involved. The dispute affected the Newspaper Society and the British Federation of Master Printers, but not the Newspaper Proprietors' Association or the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society, so while the Provincial newspapers, the magazines and periodicals and general printers were brought to a standstill the national and Sunday papers and London evening papers carried on, as did a certain number of firms which accepted the Unions' demands. A second dispute affecting printing ink threatened to stop the other papers, but this was avoided.

The timing was favourable for the workers because trade was recovering from the depression, unemployment was falling and the imminence of a general election made the employers, the Government and the big political parties worried lest a long-drawn out strike should hold up the very big volume of literature of various kinds needed for the election.

In the third week of the strike, discussions started under the chairmanship of Lord Birkett. Towards the end of July, at our time of going to press, the employers made an improved offer, of 3½ per cent. increase of pay, and a reduction of 1½ hours. The unions rejected this. They considered that the substantial concessions they were prepared to make to make to increase productivity justified more than 3½ per cent. on pay and at least an undertaking of a further reduction of hours at a later date. Settlement was then Expected at 4½ per cent. proposed by Lord Birkett.

The Sanctimonious “Guardian”

The dispute produced several surprising, diverting and instructive incidents. As was to be expected the Manchester Guardian led the Press in its sanctimonious comment of June 13th, laying down the usual employers' line that everyone believes in the right of the workers to strike so long as they never exercise the right:

The right to strike is a fundamental human freedom, but its exercise ought to be justified by some great cause. There is no great cause in the printing dispute—it is a piece of market bargaining over money.

Can anyone remember the Manchester Guardian ever supporting a strike (except a strike of foreign workers)? The Guardian editor’s further remark was equally hypocritical.

In the nineteenth century, when Britain had few industrial rivals, and when the main domestic industries had well-hedged fields to themselves, a strike or lock-out did not matter much, except in terms of personal suffering.

If some diligent student were to study the Guardian’s attitude to strikes in the nineteenth century, we do not doubt that he would find that the Guardian always managed to find overwhelming reasons for condemning those strikers too.

Lord Sourgrapes

It might have been expected that the newspapers that continued to be published would have solidly defended the employers, though Labour Party supporters doubtless hoped that their two mouthpieces, the official Daily Herald and the unofficial Daily Mirror, would line up with the workers against the employers. It turned out otherwise and some of the liveliest abuse during the strike was to be found in a fierce battle between the Daily Express and the other two. Beaverbrook’s Daily Express roundly accused the big magazine combines of having precipitated an unnecessary strike by their "tough and unaccommodating attitude," and said (4th July) that the provincial newspapers were the “victims of the tycoons of the magazine trade. They are paying a heavy price for their association with these richer more powerful and more belligerent allies." The biggest printing union, NATSOPA, promptly endorsed the charge. The Mirror and. Odhams (the latter owns the People and the Herald) are the “magazine tycoons" referred to, and they angrily denied the accusation. The Mirror of July 6th, in a slashing leader headed “ Lord Sourgrapes—and the drop of poison," explained that Beaverbrook has no magazines except “a couple of inconspicuous comics," called it a “smear campaign,” and passed the buck to the smaller printing firms and smaller newspapers who feared that the Unions' demands would put them out of business. The People (July 5th) blamed the Unions for not having let the claim go to arbitration in the first place. The Herald itself tried to ride both horses. It held that the men have a good case for their original demands, but that the employers “think they have a good case for insisting on increased productivity as a condition of any wage rise" (June 19th). It tried to escape its dilemma by blaming the Government for not immediately setting up a court of inquiry, which, of course, the Unions did not want, anyway.

The “Principle” of Shorter Hours

A weakness of the trade union position (to be found in many other industries as well) is the ambiguous attitude to shorter hours. Mr. Willis, one of the Union leaders and Chairman of the T.U.C., declared at the conference of the Miners' Union that the printers were striking “in support of the principle for which every trade unionist would fight, the shorter week." (News Chronicle, July 8th.) But what are the facts? Though the standard hours are now about four less than in 1938 the actual hours worked in industry are no lower than they were then. The claims for shorter hours have turned into claims for more overtime pay. In 1946 printing hours were reduced by 1½ to 43½, but within a few years the actual average hours of male workers in the paper and printing trade were higher than they were before, and in 1957 were 47 a week.

Confusion about Arbitration and Impartiality

The trade unions are in a muddle about arbitration. The printing unions consistently opposed it on the ground that it would not be “impartial,” but later in the dispute they were asking that Lord Monckton be invited—though he declined the invitation—to preside over the negotiations “to advise, guide and control” the discussions, but not to have power to be final arbiter. Lord Monckton was for four years Tory Minister of Labour (described by the General Secretary of the railwaymen in 1955 as “a very able friend of the N.U.R.! ”) and is now chairman of the Midland Bank, which refuse; to recognise the union of bank employees! Arbitration is established by the Government to settle industrial disputes and it cannot be impartial in the sense of deciding the merits of a case on some abstract principle of humanity. No such principles are laid down for the present court or the one abolished last year. The job of the arbitrators is to find a basis on which the workers can be persuaded to carry on working and the employers can keep in business—with, as an inescapable background, the continuation of Capitalism.

To illustrate the general confusion in the trade union movement it has only to be recalled that last year the T.U.C. and many trade union leaders were deriding the Government for abolishing the arbitration tribunal, which other unions declare they will not have anyway. The Daily Herald then (October 24h, 1958) called it a move to help the employers by abolishing the “referee to see fair play.”

And in the present dispute Mr. Willis, in the matter of strike pickets, was calling on the Government to observe “strict impartiality” (Times, June 26th), as if a government committed to keeping Capitalism going (as all governments must be that take on the administration of Capitalism) could “impartially” stand aside and not defend the property rights of the propertied class.

The International Aspect

The fact is that the trade union movement still broadly accepts Capitalism though prepared to strike against the Capitalists. This was clearly shown by the attitude of the printing unions. They belong to the printing workers Trade Union International, the International Graphical Federation, and some at least of the continental unions acceded to the request that they should advise their members not to do “black” work sent abroad during the strike. But in the middle of the strike NATSOPA released a plan it had drawn up suggesting a deal between the British unions and the British employers. If the latter would concede the demands on hours and wages, in return the unions would cooperate on a joint productivity council: “ The essence of the plan is that the prosperous big groups with stable and profitable home markets will help the small and medium printers, and particularly the printing concerns working on export printing. The plan should make British printers highly competitive in markets abroad.” (News Chronicle, June 23rd, 1959.)

So the unions, while fighting the employers, are quite prepared to collaborate with them to capture foreign markets—where, of course, they will clash with foreign printers who. again with the collaboration of the workers, will be resisting the invasion and trying to counter attack. This, of course, makes nonsense of the object of the printers' trade union international: “To safeguard the economic, occupational and general interests of graphical workers in all countries and to promote their solidarity.” (Our italics.)

In the nineteenth century Socialist critics of the trade union movement used to ridicule the illogicality of workers fighting the employers in the industrial field and electing the same people to Parliament and supporting them nationally. The present outlook of the trade unions shows that they have still a long way to go before they realise that the workers’ interest demands real international working class solidarity against the employers—and for Socialism.

Living it large (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Classic Reprint: To a New Reader (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The journal which you are now reading is published each month. For many years it has appeared as surely as night has followed day. Just as surely, each month a copy drifts into the hands of many who have not read it before. This copy has drifted into your hands for the first time, maybe at a street-corner propaganda meeting, from one of the all-too-few newsagents who stock it, or from one of the enthusiastic workers who sell it in the streets and at railway stations. It would be fair to assume that you are an anti-Socialist or non-Socialist; that you bought the Socialist Standard because a particular article caught your eye, or because some question dealt with by a speaker interested you. Probably you did not buy it because you wanted to learn about Socialism. You “know” all there is to be known about that, don’t you? And yet, fellow-worker, you are reading a journal you have never seen before, describing itself as the official organ of the Socialist Party, which claims to be the only party in Great Britain organised for Socialism. Moreover, you will find in these columns the opinion implicitly and openly expressed that the reason for workers not supporting the Socialist Party is because they do not understand Socialism. Your reactions we can imagine. It is the first time you have read the Socialist Standard, and, after all, you did think you knew about Socialism. You think us arrogant? And our claim to be the only party organised for Socialism just advertising ballyhoo, as it were. To call attention to our wares. Fellow-worker, our claims are not arrogant; we are not engaged in ballyhoo. Workers organised in this party are THE Socialist Party of Great Britain and the only workers organised for Socialism.

What is Socialism?

You, fellow-worker, “know” all about Socialism, don’t you?

You “know” that Socialism means “share and share alike,” that is to say, that you should share your belongings with your neighbour. And knowing your neighbour, you decide against Socialism. You “know” that Socialism means some vague mush about “loving your neighbour,” and again looking at your neighbour you feel uninspired. You “know” that Socialism means the destruction of initiative and inventiveness, and being young (or not so old) and ambitious you feel that the present order of things should not be upset. You “know” that Socialism means that woman would occupy a degraded position in the social arrangement. For hasn’t the Morning Rail often turned your stomach in its description of the free love of the Socialists and the nationalisation of women. You ”know” that Socialism has been tried in different parts of the earth. After all, the self-styled “Socialists'' have said so.

Quite bluntly, fellow-worker, you know little or nothing about Socialism. In truth, if Socialism did mean the things which these mangled ideas try to express then the working men and women who are organised in the Socialist Party would turn to some other more intelligent pursuit.

Production for use

Socialism does not mean sharing out either goods or income. Such a conception implies a fixed amount of social wealth, out of which each took an equal share. Socialism means something fundamentally different from that. It means the social ownership of the means for producing wealth. Consider for a moment the factory in which you work. Each worker, out of perhaps many thousands, has his particular job to do. Yet no one worker produces the finished article, which the factory, as a whole, produces. Each worker plays his part, but the product is the result of the indispensable work of all. Production is a co-operative process. As in the factory, so in society generally. The work and life of the community is carried on by the workers as a whole. No one worker or group of workers is independent of the rest. One worker can play his part in steering a ship, but the labour of many thousands is required to build it. The worker who steers the ship could not do so without the builders. Production is social.

Yet outside the productive process is the class who own the means of production. It takes no part in social production and is unnecessary to it. Socialism means the social ownership of the social means of production. This will eliminate the owning class. Quite a simple proposition to conceive, but profound and revolutionary in its implications. Far from Socialism meaning the sharing-out of some imaginary fixed quantity of wealth, social ownership will release the powers of production from the fetters of private ownership. It will bring into productive activity an enormous number of workers now engaged in unproductive labour. Production will expand to correspond to the people's needs. The people will take from the social store as they have need. Initiative and inventiveness will have the chance to thrive, instead, as now, of being dependent on the ability of the worker to sell his abilities to a capitalist. Cut-throat competition for jobs will no longer exist and the mushy sentiment of brotherly love will have an opportunity to acquire real meaning.

So we could go on, stating and answering the common objections to Socialism. But we want to do more than that. We want your interest. Whilst we tell you that you know nothing about Socialism your interest is perhaps not easy to obtain. But be patient. Ask yourself what time you have devoted to a study of the question. Is your conception of Socialism the result of independent thinking, or has it acquired shape from the influence of biased or coloured sources more interested in misrepresenting it? Think that out and be wary. Perhaps you have not had the time to study Socialism. However, you are reading the Socialist Standard and we assume that you want knowledge, and want to assist in removing the social evils of capitalism if you knew how. We know that only Socialism will solve these problems. We know that Socialism will come. Make up your mind about that. More, the time will come when there can be no ordered intelligent living, no progress, no harmony in social relations; national or international, without Socialism. The lessons of the Socialist message will be learned through the experience of bitter struggle. That struggle can be eased and shortened by the spread of Socialist understanding. That is our responsibility. Yours is surely to examine our case. And that is what we ask you to do.

Socialist Standard

In the course of years we have answered all known objections to Socialism in the Socialist Standard. We can let you have back numbers if you wish. Read the Socialist Standard for the next twelve months and you will be much nearer an understanding of our position than you are to-day. One issue may modify some popular misconception in your mind, but it would be insufficient to convince you of the soundness of our case. One prejudice we are certain will disappear—that working men and women cannot understand the meaning of the apparently complicated events around. They can. You can. We have. And we lay no claim to more than average brains. But we have devoted many years to the study of Socialism. We know something about it. You know little. Quite naturally; we should be in a similar position regarding a subject to which you had devoted long study. We are not of superior intelligence. We do claim, however, that we have found ourselves on the road to Socialism (perhaps, in the first place by accident) and that you would be with us with a little guidance. We are workers drawn from representative occupations, miners, mechanics, carpenters, busmen, clerical workers, artists, house-wives, and so forth. We have a case—the case for the social ownership of the means and instruments of production. Study our case and we are certain that you will soon be in the fight for Socialism.

Harry Waite

Reprinted from Socialist Standard, January 1938.

Truth will out! (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

It must be well over twenty years since the Conservative press took to talking about the “Socialist party’’ and “Socialist members” instead of using the more accurate name Labour. The term “Socialist" was no doubt fostered to give me impression of a party of doctrinaire fanatics. The rose by some other name might smell less sweet. The oddity is that it should have persisted for so long, for it seems rarely to have upset Labour supporters any more than the term “Tory” upsets the Conservatives.

Now the first crack in the armour has appeared. Close readers of the Daily Telegraph will have noticed that in the last few days the term “Labour” has been substituted for “Socialist," and that is how the party is to be named in future reports. Perhaps the Daily Telegraph feels that on our sunlit Conservative upland the term “Labour” brings to mind cloth caps and smoky chimneys and will repel voters (and readers) even more than “Socialist.” Or maybe it is yet another sign that the Labour Party has become respectable. It will be interesting to see whether other “Tory” newspapers follow, the lead.

—Manchester Guardian, 6th July. 1959.

Party Politics (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is a well-known series of advertisements which advise any young man who has his eye on a girl looking like a model from Vogue that his chances are much improved by wearing a suit from a certain mass production tailor. When the competition is stiff, we are told, appearance counts. Political parties learned this lesson long ago; with a general election expected during the next few months they are all busily straightening their ties, smoothing their hair and adjusting their buttonholes.

Take-Over Bid

The Labour Party has been trying to make something over the recent spate of take-over bids, which forced up some share prices and yielded a nice profit to those shareholders who sold at the right time. In the House of Commons on 29th June, Mr. Harold Wilson moved a Labour motion which described takeover bids and excessive speculation as undesirable. He attacked the “golden handshake" which displaced directors receive and contrasted this with the compensation which a redundant miner or mule spinner could expect. A simple soul would conclude that the Labour Party really opposed the privileged access to wealth which is part and parcel of capitalism. Yet what effect did their last period of rule have on this problem? At a meeting in Leeds on 3rd May, 1953—two years after the fall of the Labour Government—Mr. Hugh Gaitskell stated that there were 9 million people with an annual income of less than £500—and two thousand who were getting at least £20,000 a year.

The H-Bomb

The Labour Party is also in something of a fix over the hydrogen bomb. Several large trade unions have decided in favour of Great Britain abandoning nuclear weapons and it seems safe to say that a lot of Labour Party members think likewise. But there are two big snags. Firstly, the Labour leaders probably feel that, if the unilateral and unconditional renunciation of the bomb were adopted into their programme, they would certainly lose the election.

Secondly, if they did decide to abandon the bomb and then won the election, the diplomatic emergencies of British capitalism could force them to break their promise. Mr. Bevan, who fancies himself as a Labour Foreign Secretary, has summed it up, by pleading that he did not want to be sent naked into the international conferences.

To overcome these problems, the Labour Party have revised an idea which they rejected some seven months ago; they will try to get an agreement with countries which have no bomb, or are about to test one, not to test, manufacture or possess nuclear weapons. Nothing in the history of disarmament conferences encourages us to think that this scheme would solve the problem of nuclear warfare. Indeed, the Labour Party recognise that France and China want a bomb of their own and “we can hardly deny these nations the right to follow our example." Apart from this, Russia and America would keep their nuclear weapons and American bases—presumably armed with hydrogen bombs and missiles—would still be allowed in this country. In straightforward, human terms the problem of the hydrogen bomb is simple—to destroy ourselves or to live. But organisations like the Labour Party, which have the responsibility of running British capitalism, cannot judge things in human terms. That is why their statement ends with “. . . we realise the importance of not tying the hands of a future Labour Government or committing them to any precise or detailed diplomatic plan.” If British capitalism needs it, Mr. Bevan will have his nuclear clothing, even if a lot of human beings lose their skin as a result.

Unemployment

Lest we forget, the Tories have also been putting on the style. Apart from having their laugh at the Labour Party's difficulties, they have been throwing some meaty blows of their own. Replying to Mr. Wilson on 29th June, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the numbers of registered unemployed had fallen to 413,000. This was harsh medicine to the Labour Party, for they once gave a lot of heavy warnings about the Tories deliberately provoking unemployment. But most workers, whatever other problems capitalism may dump on them, are happy in their work; the decrease probably meant a lot to them. The Chancellor did not mention that 413,000 unemployed is still about 150,000 more than when the Tories took over; to have done so would have been out of keeping with the joy of the occasion. And the Tories are joyful; even confident, as the days go by and the statistics come in and Labour squabbles with itself and Mr. Macmillan seems more and more in control of things, more and more elegant and, but for the grey hairs, almost like the young man who gets the girl in the tailor's advertisement.

At the next election, the working class will decide which party's appearance is the most appealing and we shall have a Labour or a Conservative government and capitalism will stay with us. Some voters think that only certain politicians make a mess of things; in fact, the whole of the capitalist system is a mess. It is working class ignorance and apathy which keeps that mess there; and, ironically, it is the working class who are left to pick the bones out of it.

Ivan.

Obituary: Robert Macloughlin (1959)

Obituary from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 7th May, 1959, our old comrade Robert Macloughlin died peacefully in his sleep.

Mac’s life was an example of remarkable courage. He first joined the party in 1915; about the same time he was involved in an accident which eventually caused him to lose his sight and his hearing. Despite these handicaps, Mac kept his sense of humour and remained mentally and physically vigorous. He swam and took long country walks, lectured to blind clubs and served on the party’s Executive Committee. He was a consistent attender at propaganda meetings and conferences, and at one time was very active in the Trade Union movement.

In recent years he developed cancer and, although he fought against it in typical style, the illness took hold on him. He underwent a long time in hospital but still kept his interest in Socialism, donating his collection of books to our Head Office library and attending the 1958 Conference. He lived out his last days happy in the company of party members. No obituary of Mac should forget the comrades who cared for him, reading to him and taking him to meetings and for walks. “To all and everybody, thanks a million.” That was how Mac ended his will.

A few weeks before his death, Mac told his friends that he was ready to die, satisfied that he had done his best. He chose as his epitaph:

I have done what I have done, because I could not have done much less, but might have done much more.

What is Democracy? (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most people support, usually in some vague, ill-defined way, the principle of democracy. However, if one questions people as to exactly what democracy is, the replies are varied and usually unhelpful. Majority rule; the rights of minorities; the freedoms of speech, thought and the press; the right to vote; the right to organise in Trade Unions—all these will be mentioned by one person or another as being essential ingredients of democracy. Democracy, though, has become such a dangerous, emotionally charged word that McCarthy carried out his witch-hunts under its banner, workers slaughter each other in its name, and people are incarcerated in gaols and prison-camps in defence of its holy writ.

Confusion

It is a confusing concept that permits the perpetration of slavery in the name of freedom, slaughter in the name of peace, oppression in the name of tolerance, and what is perhaps more important, minority government in the name of majority rule.

In this country, the result of the party system so far has been that power has remained in the hands of the “right" people. The Labour, Tory and Liberal parties, either as Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Opposition, are pledged to the support of the status quo —which means the continued subjection of the working class and the preservation of the sanctity of private property.

Basically, of course, the reason that enables these parties to continue in this way is the passive support of workers for the kind of world that we have today. Although workers may grumble and agitate about specific problems, and even join large-scale protest movements about such things as the H-bomb, it is only among Socialists that one finds a conscious desire for complete social change.

In other words, the theory of democratic control by a majority means in practice a rigid control by a minority supported by the passive acquiescence of the majority. In this sense “democracy" is a hollow term which cloaks class ownership.

Of course, the ruling class and government know this better than most, and consequently play on workers' acquiescence and apathy through the vast means at their disposal—the press, radio, cinema, television and so on. Every kind of phony idea and concept is dinned into the working class by these means—“patriotism" (not so effective now, this one); “gracious living"; “getting on"; “making a world fit for heroes to live in";—all these, and a thousand more, bombard workers from all directions.

Hard Won Rights

This is not to suggest that the hard won gains of adult suffrage, secret voting, organisation of Trade Unions, freedom of speech, and so on, are not important. Of course they are, but it is equally important to realise that they were not granted to the working class by philanthropic, liberal-minded rulers who were abdicating their power. They were wrested from the ruling class after years of struggle, and the dead of Peterloo, the Tolpuddle martyrs, and all those who have suffered for such causes bear witness to the fact that it is the working people themselves that must work out their own destiny.

Paradoxically enough, these hard-won rights are often used as a justification for our rulers to enlist our support in fighting wars or oppressing others. But of one thing the workers can be sure—wars are not fought over democracy or democratic rights. This appears obvious from the war-time line-ups of states—some ostensibly “democratic" and others flagrant dictatorships. So in the last war, one could find varieties of both, specimens on either side of the front. Similarly, today one finds that countries such as Portugal and Spain are looked upon as allies, while in South America, the many dictatorships are often in alliance with “democratic" America.

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that terms like “freedom" and “democracy" are not absolute and must be examined in their social context. To talk of “freedom" today, in a world of social and economic class domination, is as absurd as talking of the “democracy" of the Western capitalist countries, all of whom practice in one form or another the suppression of minorities and the flouting of majority wishes.

Limited Meaning

So it is that, under capitalism, democracy can have only the most limited of meanings, and is usually given a meaning and justification that is completely opposed to its theoretical principles.

The principles of majority rule and the recognition of the rights of minorities can only really achieve practical fruition in a world freed from economic and social domination. It is only with the establishment of socialism that people will be able consciously to effect their wishes through democratic practice. Only then will today’s empty and hollow cry of “democracy" bear a meaning worthy of human organisation.

Albert Ivimey

From The Branches (1959)

Party News from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bloomsbury

Bloomsbury Branch will not meet during August, but will be holding a discussion after branch business on Thursday September 3rd. C. Kilner will open the first discussion of the winter season at 8.30 p.m. Subject: “Hospitals —Why?” On Thursday October 1st E. Kersley will talk on “Who Pays for the Arts?” The Branch room is a comfortable one and Conway Hall is easily accessible and Comrades and sympathisers are assured of an interesting evening.

#    #    #    #

Ealing

Ealing Branch remind visitors that meetings will be held at The Royal Oak public house, Ealing Broadway (opposite Bentalls) on Fridays August 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th. From September 4th onwards, their meetings will be held at the usual venue—Memorial Hall, Windsor Road, Ealing W.5.

#    #    #    #

Fulham and Chelsea 

Owing to temporary domestic difficulties the branch will not be able to meet at the usual address until the end of 1959 or early 1960. One meeting has been arranged during the summer at a public house. The address, and ways and means of getting there, may be obtained from L. Cox, 22, Victoria House, Ebury Bridge Road. Tel. Slo. 5258. The meeting place may only be temporary, that is the reason why it is not being given in the Socialist Standard. Comrade Cox, the Branch Secretary, will be pleased to answer any enquiries from the address given above.

#    #    #    #

Nottingham

Nottingham Branch members are working energetically and during this outdoor season, are having excellent meetings, supported by Comrades from London whenever possible. The good weather has been a helpful factor of course, but the members are very keen. For example, during the week-end July 11th and 12th Comrades Baldwin and D'Arcy held meetings supported by the Branch members and other Comrades from London. Over two pounds worth of literature was sold and one of the London Comrades was particularly pleased to see Comrade Clarke, who as usual, had come along from Burton on Trent, to give his always welcome support.

#    #    #    #

“Socialist Standard”

The second meeting of writers and others interested in the production of the Standard was held at Head Office on Monday June 29th. Not so many Comrades attended on this occasion, partly due to the fact that a discussion was being held at H.Q. on the same evening. However many good points were raised and useful ideas exchanged, although some articles on specific subjects were promised, they have not arrived to-date. The next meeting is being held on Monday July 27th at 8 p.m. and the Production Committee will be glad to receive ideas and articles!

#    #    #    #

“20 YEARS AFTER”

Denison House Meetings. On Sundays September 6th and 27th at 7 p.m., the Propaganda Committee have arranged two meetings. The theme of these meetings will be on War, and the September Socialist Standard will have emphasis on this subject. It is twenty years since the outbreak of World War II and as workers are likely to be reminded of this, the Party is making special propaganda plans to bring to their notice our attitude on this aspect of capitalism.

#    #    #    #

Outdoor Meetings

The Propaganda Committee is considering running outdoor mid-day meetings at Leather Lane market (near the City). Any members who can speak at such meetings, or attend during the week to support or sell literature are asked to contact the Propaganda Committee and let them know to what extent they can assist.

Phyllis Howard

50 Years Ago: Russian Despotism (1959)

The 50 Years Ago Column from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The visit of Nicholas Romanoff will doubtless have taken place before these lines appear.

We deny that the Tsar is “Our Guest.” He is solely the guest of our enemies, the Capitalist Class, and the “Hand of England” (which, to-day, is that of the class who own and rule) can hardly be further or deeper stained by grasping the bloody hand of a brother in exploitation and repression.

The Capitalists of Western Europe are equally guilty with Russian Despotism. Germany in South West Africa and Poland; Belgium on the Congo; France in Morocco; England in India and Ireland; each can parallel Russian Atrocities.

The ruling class of each country use the surest and most deadly means of repression that are suited to their circumstances and the Government here would repeat the worst Russian Atrocities in England if it could thus strengthen its position.

From the Socialist Standard, August 1909.

Angry Young Men (1959)

Film Review from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the War a type of young man has appeared on the social scene whom the Press have been pleased to call The Angry Young Man. They are disillusioned individuals, who, out of a posh education and great expectations, have developed certain resentments about the post-war world. We know that all kinds of people can become angry about all kinds of things. What makes these particular young men so special?

For one thing they are fortunate in having the background that has enabled them to vent their anger through the medium of books, plays, and films. By focussing considerable attention on aspects of society they dislike, they have gained the admiration of some who see their own dissatisfactions reflected, and the hostility of others who see them as ungrateful to the system that gave them the opportunity to do so. They are fortunate, too, for anger has proved to be a successful commercial proposition.

Disillusionment
It appears that they have been the victims of one of Capitalism's confidence tricks. Educated, often at Universities, during the period immediately after the war, they had high hopes for the future. They knew all about the bad old days of depression and unemployment, but with the war itself behind them, things were going to be different. For a Labour Government was in power and the foundation for the Welfare State well laid. And then there was the United Nations Organisation to look after the international situation; everything was shaping-up nicely. War, unemployment, hard times, class distinction, these were things of the past. At that time you even heard talk of a social revolution having taken place! Surely, with their liberal education and social consciences they would count for something in the “new society.”

Disillusionment came quickly. Labour was soon on the way out, the big powers were re-arming again, UNO turned out to be ineffective. The class system was still there and it all seemed very familiar. They looked in vain for the new society. In fact, an increasingly technological society hadn't much use for them. They looked back and wondered; what went wrong?

“Look Rack in Anger"
The play Look Back in Anger by John Osborne was first performed on the stage in 1956 and is now a film. Its main character, the embittered Jimmy Porter, has reacted by resorting to a sweet-stall in a local market place for his living. The tone of the film is set by his frequent attacks on the snobbery, selfishness, and hypocrisy of “middle class” values, He is married to the daughter of a retired Indian Army Officer and this gives him ample opportunity to do so. The author presents the victim here as an individual thwarted by the values of a class-ridden society.

And where do we go from there? This film doesn't go anywhere. This is the blind alley that teems with rebels with no causes, disenchanted political reformers, and left-wing intellectuals. All this anger may be a change from the all-too-prevalent general apathy, but it should not blind anyone to the failure to offer a logical criticism of present society, or to even imply that any other is possible. Whether or not this is the job of a playwright, films and plays like this are seen by millions of people, and if discontent about the shortcomings of society can be canalised into anger that leads to nowhere, it is ineffective. The work then appears as a series of eloquent pot-shots, But merely to decry them will not make targets disappear.

Socialists are concerned with people, but we realise that to achieve a truly humanitarian society, its most important function—the production and distribution of wealth—must be put on a social basis. Of course Capitalism is ridden with anti-social ideas, but those who think that you can have a system based upon exploitation for private gain without them—and these idealists believe just that—will have to think again.

This principal motive of the system contaminates everything it touches— which is most things. The attitudes and actions of people reflect the social system under which they live: human behaviour is determined by social conditions. Look after the system and the values will look after themselves.

Reason for Anger
That is why we are concerned with a new society. Only thereby can worthwhile human relationships arise. The irony of the position of the Angry Young Men is that they subscribe to the very system whose essential institutions give rise to the attitudes they dislike. They will look everywhere for the causes of social problems except the place that really matters.

But what will happen to the young rebels? In the play—this and other observations were eliminated from the film—the religious attitude is described as having “. . . moved into a cosy little cottage of the soul, cut right off from the ugly problems of the twentieth century altogether.” It is worth remembering that the “angries” of one generation have a habit of becoming the cynical and detached of the next. They usually look back wistfully, “I was a bit of a rebel in my youth, you know.”

S. D.

Obituary: A. Hollingshead (1959)

Obituary from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mrs. Agnes Hollingshead died in Edinburgh at the age of 91 years. This old Comrade was, for many years, active in the old Socialist Party of Canada. When a younger woman, she spoke in Calgary and Toronto. Last year, in a recorded message to the World Socialist Party Conference at Boston, U.S.A., she said it was still her ambition at the age of 90 to go on the Soap-box.

Mrs. Hollingshead was a very talented woman. She ran a business college in Calgary, and on her return to the “Old Country” in the 1920’s taught languages, shorthand-typing, and music. Her home in Edinburgh was made freely available to any member and sympathiser. She was the Edinburgh Group secretary up to within a few months of her death. Her keenness and enthusiasm for Socialist propaganda in her sprightly old age is an object lesson to young members. If anything, she became more active as she became older.

Mrs. Hollingshead was very generous to the S.P.G.B. When funds were lower than usual a few years ago she came to the rescue with a substantial donation. Members affectionately referred to her as “the old lady from Edinburgh”—a kind of Socialist institution. Comrades from Overseas always made their way to her home, and she had a warm welcome for everyone. Her greatest difficulty in recent years was her inability to get to the Mound where the outdoor meetings were held by members from Glasgow.

Socialism kept Mrs. Hollingshead young in heart. She looked to the future with that irrepressible optimism possessed only by Socialists. Hers was a useful life.

The Passing Show: Gallant Christian Gentleman (1959)

The Passing Show column from the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

GALLANT CHRISTIAN GENTLEMAN

Mr. James Callaghan, the Labour Party’s “Shadow Colonial Secretary,” had this to say in the debate about the killing of eleven detainees at the Hola camp in Kenya (Daily Herald, 17-6-59): 

The Tories believed that for reasons of State the truth should not be told. By silently conniving they had shown themselves no better than any totalitarians. No better than any Communist, or, if Mr. Lennox-Boyd preferred it, than any Fascist.

“This,” the account continues, “brought a storm of Tory protests and shouts of ‘Smear!’”

It is curious that the Conservatives should protest so much at this reference to Mr. Lennox-Boyd, who, as Colonial Secretary, must bear a large proportion of the responsibility for what happens in the camps where Britain imprisons, often without trial, the opponents of her colonial rule. To show open support for Franco went out of fashion during the war. But before it Mr. Lennox-Boyd made no secret of his support for Franco in Spain. He was a member of the Committee of the “Friends of National Spain”—i.e., the friends of the Rebel side in the Civil War; he was closely associated with such people as the then Sir Henry Page Croft, who made the famous declaration “I recognize General Franco to be a gallant Christian gentleman.” (Details can be found in Simon Haxey’s book “TORY M.P.,” published by Gollancz)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd also claimed in the House of Commons that he was not a democrat or Parliamentarian in regard to India at that time (The Times, 9-2-35). Why, one wonders, are the Tories now so sensitive at these references to their Colonial Secretary’s opinions?

TESTIMONIAL

The Labour Party, when it is in power, is of course as zealous for the defence of British capitalism’s colonial interests as the Conservatives themselves. Sir Roy Welensky, fresh from the jailing of the leaders of the Africans, who are the great majority in his Rhodesian Federation. came to Britain recently and said on arrival that he did not fear a Labour Government (The Observer, 5-7-59). “I have found in the past,” he said, “that I can expect as much realism from the Labour Party as from the Conservatives when they are in office.”

This is a splendid tribute to the Labour Party’s past services to those who think like Welensky. No doubt it will have a prominent place in their propaganda at the next General Election.

HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS

And on the subject of the coming election, the headlines of the Daily Herald on June 17th were not without interest. “Bevan slams H-rebels,’ they ran. “You’d lose us the election.” Apparently Mr. Bevan had told a private meeting of Labour M.P.s the night before that “if the Labour Party fought a General Election on a policy of go-it-alone disarmament the result would be ‘like it was in 1931,’ ” when Labour was heavily defeated.

Which provides strong support for those who say that the leaders of the great political parties shape their policies mainly in order to secure the greatest possible number of votes.

GRIT GALORE

The cinema trade chiefs complain of competition from TV. Filming projects are abandoned. Cinemas close. The industry appears to be having a bad time.

But cinema magnate Lord Rank is weathering the storm. He is lavishing great care on the grouse on his 30,000 acre leased Scottish estate. Apparently the birds have to have grit in their gullets to digest their food properly. So the solicitous peer is transporting various kinds of grit from far corners of the islands, to see which his birds like best. Thirty thousand tons have so far been carried to his estate, ten thousand of them from Cornwall, and other samples from Aberdeen and Ireland (Daily Express, 27-6-59).

Lord Rank’s shooting, at least, seems to have survived the cinema depression.

Alwyn Edgar

Human Nature and Morality (1959)

From the August 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Ethics of Marxism (3) (See Parts 1 and 2.)

After Marx died there grew up a legend that his theory of social causation was too narrowly mechanistic to provide accommodation for any sort of ethics. No doubt Marx, in combating the sentimental "moralising" of certain utopian contemporaries who called themselves "the True Socialists," had leaned so far backward as to give semblance if not substance for fathering on him views whose alleged paternity he would have disclaimed.

Socialism as a Humanism

The humanistic Socialism combated by Marx, like its contemporary counterpart, was a pseudo-political trend, inspired by the literati, philosophers and pundits. Moses Hess was for a time their most representative spokesman. For the early humanists as with the latter day ones, Socialism was not a question—of by bread alone—even though bread might be included. Socialism was primarily a question of moral values. Stress was laid on brotherly love, the dignity of man, concern for the individual, etc. From such political piety, Socialism came to be defined as—"the ethics of love." Then, Socialism took the guise of contemporary humanism. Now, humanism assumes the role of contemporary Socialism.

Like many of the views Marx fought against, the arguments of the True Socialists have turned up over and over again in a variety of social situations, tricked out each time in fresh frills and flounces, as if making their first bow on the stage of world history.

Humanism the Classless Ethic

Common to all shades of this humanistic approach, right up from Hess, Grun, Bernstein, Lansbury, to the current version, is the tenet that Socialism is not basically a question of economic interests but humanitarian ideals. Not a matter for the stomach, but an affair of the heart, and that a moral revolution must be the prelude to the social revolution. Not only, argue the humanists, have men altruistic feelings, but implicit in these feelings are the ideals of Communism. All that is necessary is to encourage and help promote these altruistic tendencies, to actualise the Brotherhood of Man based on universal love.

If the true nature of man is some residual and permanent quality of the human species, then every man is at least in embryo a Communist, able, given the right social milieu to lead with others of his kind the good life. But what the right kind of social conditions necessary for this are , the humanists all through the ages have been very vague about. Again, if the essence of man is his "true nature," then this human essence transcends all social systems and classes. Landed proprietors, capitalists, peasants and wage workers, are all equally capable of actualising their "true nature" into the Communist way of life. Thus, while many humanists have called for the abolition of all classes they have done so in the name of an abstract classless ethic. While they will admit that the class struggle itself is inevitably engendered by the competitive and egotistical character of Capitalist society, they nevertheless hold that it militates against the growth of humanistic ideals by giving emphasis to men's material differences instead of stressing their human sameness. Many humanists have even talked about the necessity of prosecuting the class struggle, but how can one ask men to give up their class beliefs and disregard class interests and then call upon one class to oppose another?

Human Nature as an Historic Variable

Humanism with its apotheosis of an abstract humanity becomes a form of religious fixation. That is why its idealised concepts and phrases become bulwarks of ideological defence of reactionary interests, especially clerical ones. The so-called Catholic Socialism, with its "rights" and "duties" of an alleged classless brotherhood of men has borrowed heavily from humanistic sources. Indeed, those whose Marx in the Communist Manifesto called feudal-Socialists, cashed in on the literature of the True Socialists to use as an attack on the German bourgeoisie.

The ethical assumptions of all varieties of what is called the humanistic Socialist view is based on the fixity of human nature. They share this view with theological theorists, the difference being that the former hold that this basic human nature can be placed in such absolute categories. Both Marx and Engels held that human nature was not an absolute constant but an historic variable. In fact, Marx and Engels always insisted that the "human nature" to which humanists and the clericalists appeal, each in their different ways, cannot serve as a guide to social organisation. It is not human nature which explains society, but society which explains human nature. There is no given human nature independent of time and place. There is only an historical human nature, that is a specific expression of human nature in a definite social context. To put it more precisely to understand the nature of the human, one must understand the nature of the society in which humans live. When we adopt such a criterion we discover that there is no immutable human nature, no homogeneous pattern to which a universal appeal can be made for the justification of concrete social questions. There can be no overall moral agreement or ethical unity in a social system split by class interests and antagonisms. Inability to understand this not only leads Humanists to talk of "man as he is" or "the human as such," but they identify this abstract category with concrete man as he exists in a given society. That is why in the Communist Manifesto Marx shows how "the True Socialists" proclaimed "the German nation to be the normal nation and the German Philistine the normal mind." An illusion, one might add, shared by the so-called schools of empirical sociology.

Class Demands v. Ethical Neutrality

Contrary to what humanists believe and apparently Mr. Taylor (Is Marxism a Humanism*), all ethics can be shown to have a class bias in a class system, and further there can be no genuine class ethic unless backed by class demands. That is why on concrete social issues one cannot appeal to man as such or "the normal human." Neither is there some ethically neutral tribunal to which opposing class rights can be impartially referred.

Capitalist society consists of buyers and sellers of labour-power. The worker as a seller of labour-power cannot assert his "right" to maintain or improve his living standards via ethical appeal or moral law. He can only seek to enforce his right through active organisation with others of his kind. Nor is the Capitalist under a moral obligation to waive or even remit in any way the unpaid labour of the worker—profit—back in the form of increased wages. Not only has the Capitalist a legal right to profit in the category of unpaid labour, but from his standpoint a moral right as well. Behind this moral right stands custom, tradition, religion, the classless ethic—and the State. As Marx points out in Capital, "There is here, therefore, an antimony, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchange. Between equal rights, force decides."   

In a society such as Capitalism based on a permanent class conflict with its subsidiary conflicts, national and racial, there can be no genuine appeal to a neutral ethics. That is why Marx never invoked, Humanity, Justuce, Mercy, etc., as agencies for solving social struggle. For the same reason he rejected the abstract classless morality of Kant and Christ. Morality for Marx is not eternal or natural but active and social. Morality to be genuinely effective must be based on men's needs and in a class society on class needs. It is true that ethical ideals, like truth, duty, honour, the rights of men, etc., acquire a seeming eternal form, for all men profess to strive for these things. But social analysis shows while the forms of these ideals are the same, the nature of these ideals differ from social epoch to social epoch and from class to class. So if the question is posed whose truth? Whose duty? What rights of men? one will find in the answer a class standpoint. Crack the shell of a classless absolute ethic hard enough and the kernel of a class interest will be found. Marxist ethics do not invoke "Truth," "Duty," "Altruism," they demand a state of affairs where these things have a different content from the existing ruling morality. Marxist demands are then from the standpoint of the working population, a class demand and this incorporate a class ethic. It is the real needs of the working class which constitute the watershed of its class morality. Humility or self assertion, unselfishness or selfishness are themselves neither virtuous nor vicious. It is the actual social situation and the human needs of men which provide them with their truly moral quality. While the classless as well as conventional ethics might see the demands of the working class as a form of selfish assertion, it is only by such assertion that this class can secure for itself a decent existence and develop the possibilities for its own emancipation. To neglect the struggle which thus involves on the grounds of unselfishness and concern for other class individuals, weakens the moral content of its own demands and could only lead to servile, degrading and inhuman conditions for the vast majority.

For that reason the demand for the abolition of classes can only be a class demand, whose objective, because there are no other classes left to exploit, carries with it the demand for a classless humanity. Because it is a concrete class demand, engendered by a specific social situation, and capable of realisation, it carries with it the moral quality of the truly human. For the working class to be concerned to the exclusion of its own interests with the souls of its "enemies" is itself a policy of despair and its ultimate logic the perpetuation of a soulless system. That is why we reject the classless ethic of religious theory and the school of bourgeois morality with its intuitive ethics based on the private individual. In effect such moral views turn out to be a disguised defence of the status quo. Nor do we accept the monastic conception that men in order to achieve Socialism must first become saints if for no other reason having become saints it will not be necessary for them to achieve Socialism.

In the final article we shall seek to show that although the Marxist ethic is frankly a class ethic rooted in the character of social development it attains the stature of a humanism whose aims and ideas are loftier and more enduring than any current humanist model.

Ted Wilmott