What Comes Next? (2026)

Book notice from the October 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

What Comes Next? By Robin Cox, described in the blurb on Amazon as ‘a three-volume series presenting a detailed critique of contemporary capitalism. It explores the possibility of a practical alternative – a ‘system upgrade’ – drawing on humans’ innate disposition towards mutual aid. This will be a post-money society based on voluntary work and the free distribution of goods’. Will be reviewed in a later issue.

Socialism Or Your Money Back (2004)

Party News from the December 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

To mark the centenary of both the Socialist Party of Great Britain (June) and the Socialist Standard (September) we have brought out a 300-page book, Socialism Or Your Money Back, made up of articles from the Socialist Standard from 1904 to this year.

The seventy articles provide a running commentary from a socialist perspective on the key events of the last hundred years as they happened. The two world wars, the Russian Revolution, the General Strike and the rise of Hitler are covered, as well as the civil war in Spain, Hiroshima, the politics of pop, democracy and the silicon chip, and much else. The book will not just be of interest to socialists but also to those wanting to study the political, economic and social history of the twentieth century.

The price is £9.95. Copies can be ordered (add £2.00 for postage and packing) from: 52 Clapham High St, London SW4 7UN (cheques payable to 'The Socialist Party of Great Britain").

Socialism and democracy (1986)

Book Review from the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Battle of Democracy by Keith Graham, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95

What is democracy? Why should it be considered a good thing? Why should an individual accept a democratically-arrived-at decision with which they disagree? These are the questions Keith Graham sets out to answer in the first, more philosophical, part of his book (The Battle of Democracy, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95)

The simplest definition of democracy is that it is decision-making by the whole people (“rule by the people”, as the Greek words from which it is formed mean) involving procedures such as free and open debate, free access to information, one person one vote, and the accountability of public officials and elected representatives. Graham argues that such a decision-making system can be regarded as desirable because one key aspect of the nature of human beings is their ability to reflect and weigh up options before deciding what to do. In other words, a system in which the people as a whole freely decide what to do is the only decision-making system worthy of humans as self-determining (“free”) agents.

The idea of democracy is also bound up with that of equality, if only in the sense that it is a decision-making procedure in which every human deemed capable of making a reasoned decision has a vote of equal weight. Pursuing this further, Graham shows that ensuring each person an equal as possible say in the decision-making process requires a high degree of social equality and not mere equal political rights. This introduces the idea that it is not only political democracy that is desirable for humans as self-determining agents but a democratic society. As Graham makes clear in the second, more political, part of his book where he discusses the views of Marx, Lenin and others on democracy, this democratic society would have to be “a world where private ownership of the means of production, buying and selling, the wages system have all been abolished, in favour of the communal ownership of the earth’s resources”. In other words, the philosophical justification for democracy is also, even more so in fact, a philosophical justification for socialism—though, of course, as Graham is quick to point out, Marx himself did not justify establishing socialism on such “an appeal to abstract, timeless principles to do with the nature of human beings”.

Graham’s discussion of the views of Marx and Lenin on democracy—in which he convincingly makes the point that “the terrible fate which befell Marx was that he was Leninised—corresponds exactly to our own position on this subject: Marx stood for the establishment of a democratic, classless society as a democratic act on the part of the wage and salary working class as a whole. In contrast, Lenin saw the agent of social revolution as a minority “vanguard” of professional revolutionaries who, on winning power, would establish their own undemocratic, even if supposedly temporary, rule over the rest of society. Graham’s discussion of the differing views of Marx and Lenin also allows him to clarify the reform versus revolution dilemma, often seen as a choice between gradual, constitutional change and violent insurrection. He can also set out, for the first time in a book of this sort, the case for a revolutionary but essentially peaceful use of existing political institutions as the means of establishing socialism.

Marx’s presuppositions enable a distinctive challenge to be made to the two alternative positions on the question of constitutionalism as we have been considering them. In one way, the most important political development for Marx takes place prior to any revolution and outside parliamentary institutions, namely in the growth of working class consciousness. This is distinct from Kautsky’s parliamentary constitutionalism, where the entry of a party into parliament, which may form alliances with non-revolutionary groups and the like, is seen as the chief means to revolution . . . On the other hand, Marx’s position is distinct from Lenin’s. The state is not to be smashed but taken control of, so that it cannot be used against a revolutionary working class: and some of the institutions of a parliamentary system, notably universal suffrage, will be something to foster for a majoritarian like Marx, though not for a vanguardist like Lenin. In the light of Marx’s presuppositions, there do seem to be oversimplifications in the terms used to express the original dilemma of the route to the new society. There need be no straight-forward, exclusive and exhaustive choice between constitutionalism and violent seizure of power. Certain elements within existing institutions may be valued, and action taken in conformity with them, while others may not. Connectedly, the aspiration to a peaceful transition need not be identified with an attempt to effect it by piecemeal means, an identification which both Kautsky and Lenin are prone to make. It is consistent with Marx’s presuppositions to recognise parliament as an institution geared to the needs of capitalism, and therefore inappropriate as the vehicle for a fundamental transformation, but yet to regard its connected electoral practices as coinciding, to some extent, with the principles governing that transformation, and to that extent adding the possibility of a peaceful transition. This is not tantamount to the view parodied by Lenin as the expectation that the ruling class will meekly submit to the working class, as minority to majority. It does, however, limit violence to the role of counter-violence in the event of resistance when a clear majority for revolutionary change is apparent, rather than seeing the use of violence as itself a primary means of change, even in the absence of majority support.

Leninists sometimes try to argue that this is only a question of tactics, that they too share the ultimate goal of a truly democratic society (socialism) but that because a majority of workers can never be expected to acquire a socialist understanding within capitalism (“the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of the ruling class”, as Marx put it), a minority must act on their behalf. Graham answers this by pointing out that, in the case of socialism as the democratic society, there is a very real sense in which the end determines the means to achieve it.

What is the nature of the transformation which, according to Marx, it is the role of the proletariat to bring about? In place of the compulsion to work which is characteristic of their position in capitalism, there will be a free association of people. In place of the exploitation of one section by another there will be common ownership of the means of production. In place of the political domination of a bureaucratic elite there will be widespread participation and revocable delegation. Leaving aside all question of the realism of Marx’s proposals, these are the arrangements which he regards as meeting the real interests of the proletariat. But these are arrangements which in their very description are incapable of attainment without the voluntary co-operation of the proletariat itself. Whereas you can make people do what they do not wish to do, you cannot make them adopt a set of social relations which require their voluntary co-operation if they do not voluntarily co-operate (Graham’s emphasis).

In other words, democratic organisation and methods are not just one among many possible means to establish a democratic society; they are the only such means. Leninist minority action can only lead, as historical experience has confirmed, to some form of minority rule—in fact to a more undemocratic society than the sort of capitalism we know in countries like Britain.

The Battle of Democracy, is a very useful book about the nature of democracy written by a socialist. It is hoped that it will spark off a wide-ranging discussion about the desirability and feasibility of “a world-wide society of common ownership” and of the means of bringing it into being.

Adam Buick

“Money Must Go”: Letter from the authors (1946)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

The authors of “Money Must Go” write the following letter about the review published in our July issue : —

Dear Comrades,

We were pleased to see the review of our book, “Money Must Go,” in the July issue of the Socialist Standard. May we draw attention to several statements made by the reviewer, L.J., which might give a wrong impression?

(1) The book is not intended to be “an attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism,” if by this is meant the critical analysis of Capitalism, etc., which is the basis of Scientific Socialism and constitutes the bulk of its teaching. It is intended to suggest to the Socialist propagandist a different mode of approach to the problem of interesting workers in fundamental social change. It does this by (a) giving a general picture of Socialist society in order to induce interest in Socialism as a practical project; and (b) by emphasising the moneyless character of that society, which factor sharply demarcates the Socialist aim from those of all pseudo-socialist factions. On the other hand it provides a means of implanting the idea of Socialism as a working system of society in the mind of the non-socialist without using “that blessed word.” We are of the opinion that the word “Socialism” has become so debased through constant use by reformist organisations and “political tricksters” that the use of the word can well be delayed until the idea has sunk in. For the use of the term “World Commonwealth” we have a precedent in the Socialist Standard of May, 1922.

(2) We think that the charge of “over-insistence that money is ‘the root of all evil'” is unjustified. This dictum is referred to but once (p. 15), and there we merely point out that such an idea was current about a hundred years ago. We do refer to the ownership of the means of wealth production by a small minority as the cause of the poverty of the majority (p. 7) and to the class division of society as the source of social evils (p. 13). Neither do we “make a direct attack on money” nor propose its simple abolition. We advocate, and in this book supply a positive approach to the idea of a world without money and in which goods are produced solely for use and/or free distribution as an alternative to the present system of production for profit (p. 16). That with the achievement of such a system the means of production would simultaneously become commonly owned by the whole of the community is implied in unorthodox fashion on page 17. Nevertheless, the statement at the top of page 17 (incompletely quoted by L.J.) is quite true. A statement of the same nature which accords with L.J.’s version is given on page 132. We have found that this approach induces interest, whereas the use of the economic and more precise terminology does not. Interest precedes desire. Workers can themselves easily see the possibilities of life in such a world organisation. It is so simple to visualise a world in which all capable of working take their part in the world’s work and in which all the goods produced are distributed to stores and warehouses from which the people will take according to their needs without payment of any kind. True, money is a medium of exchange. Then surely if there is to be no exchange there will be no need for a medium of exchange. Is not this as simple to understand as the four characteristics of capitalism, given by L.J. ?

(3) We do not define Socialism—we explain it. We conceive it as a system of society. On page 25, and again on the back cover, we concisely sum up the essential characteristics of a Moneyless World Commonwealth. The term “common ownership” may be precise in meaning to those who know what it really means. This did not prevent the Common Wealth Party from using it—to mean something quite different.

(4) To most workers the State appears as an abstraction, an intangible power above society, but controlling it and manifesting itself through the individuals that compose it. Similarly the “heavy hand of ‘the law,'” referred to by L.J. To them, more concrete is the heavy hand of the policeman, and later, the heavier hand of the gaoler. As a “public power of coercion” we do explain the State adequately on page 121.

(5) We deny our “misreading of the class struggle.” In its first and present phase the class struggle is only over the question of the division of the workers’ product. The “wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc.,” referred to by L.J. are essentially aspects of this. There is hardly as yet a “political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.” That is yet to come, and we show its necessity in Chapter 18.

(6) “Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism.” We do that. But almost all Socialist propaganda is devoted to explaining capitalism and neglects to explain the features of Socialism as an alternative system of society. It is that we deplore, and we have tried to show how this shortcoming can be made good. The important question directed to Socialist propagandists to-day is, “How will Socialism work?”, and this should be seized upon as a potent means of agitation. Explaining capitalism can well come later.

(7) “Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism.” Again true. And it is for this reason we avoid the use of those precise terms, “capitalism,” ”working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle.” In spite of their precision in use by Socialists these words have been and still are used by every confusionist party claiming working-class support. Every schoolboy “knows” what Socialism means—so does the Evening Standard ! Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion. We have found mental pictures more useful for our purpose.

(8) “The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism.” In “Money Must Go!” we do not once refer to “Commonwealth” alone; always to “World Commonwealth,” and at least once in each chapter we add the adjective “Moneyless.” The comment that “its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character” therefore does not apply to “World Commonwealth.” The comment as it stands can be applied aptly to the word “Socialism.” Even Hitler used it !

Fraternally,

PHILOREN.

Philo—

—Ren.

Reply:

“Philoren” has swopped horses. In his preface to “Money Must Go” he says that the “main purpose” and the “only justification” for the book is that he is sure that the “great mass of the people” will accept the ideal of World Commonwealth, “would they but take the trouble of understanding the barest essentials of the idea.” His suggestion that it was intended to show Socialist propagandists a different “approach” is only an afterthought. We are answering paragraphs 1, 3, 7 and 8 in one section as they deal largely with the same subject matter.

He does not deny that he avoids using definite terms; on the contrary, he states, “Precise terms can be used by opponents to spread confusion.” Is that a good reason for substituting confusing and vague terms in place of words that have a definite meaning? Why do political parties which serve capitalist interests use such words as “the people” or “the Commonwealth”? Simply because they are vague, abstract and indefinite terms. In 1940-41 a “People’s Convention” was organised, which demanded a “People’s Peace”; others described the war as a “people’s war”; an ex-Liberal formed a “Commonwealth Party,” while apologists refer to the Empire as the “British Commonwealth of Nations”; many other instances could be given of this use of abstract Language, which hides more than it reveals. That “Philoren” had to go to a Socialist Standard of 24 years ago to find the term “World Commonwealth” is a sign that it has fallen out of use with Socialists, while it is increasingly used by non-socialists. Socialism is clear enough without using the ponderous “Moneyless World Commonwealth.” If others use the name of Socialism to spread confusion, that is all the greater reason for us to insist on its real meaning and to increase our efforts to get it understood by workers. The task of doing “long and persistent” educational work cannot be evaded by dropping scientific methods and using the slovenly jargon of our enemies.

(2) If words mean anything, then we are right in saying that “Philoren” insists on money being the cause of social problems. He describes the present system as a “money-based system.” On page 96 he says, “Think of all the misery, the worry and the illness all caused by these funny pieces of metal,” while later, we are told that, “In a sense woman is doubly enslaved—to man and to money” (page 99). We showed that money is not the basis of capitalism and he has not troubled to answer that point. He claims that he refers to the class division as the source of social evils (page 13), but, as a matter of fact, it is the “ever-widening division of the people into rich and poor” that he states gives rise to social problems; a view held by the Labour Party and other reformists who seek to narrow the gulf between rich and poor. “Philoren” knows that nothing was omitted from the quotation from Page 17, which altered its meaning.

(4) Because, it is claimed, most workers regard the State as an “abstraction,” are we to call it that? A feeble reason to give for an incorrect view. The explanation on Page 121 is not adequate but most sketchy. He merely deals with the State as a deterrent to “crime” ; its function as a power holding in check the disruptive force of class struggles is not touched upon.

(5) Because the working class is not class conscious in the sense of understanding the full implications and significance of the class struggle, “Philoren” assumes that the “present phase” of the struggle is only over wages, etc. This, we repeat, is a misreading of the class struggle. The class struggle exists, otherwise how could a political party whose purpose is to end the private ownership of the means of wealth production come into existence? What is the Socialist Party but the expression of the class struggle on the political field. He states that he advocates political action in Chapter 18, but it is after suggesting political action that he refers to the class struggle as “no more” than a struggle over a “bone.” In any case, to state that political action is “yet to come” is simply ignoring the existence and activities of the S.P.G.B.

(6) Both here and in the latter part of section 2 (Workers can themselves easily . . . without payment of any kind) he shows that he is nothing more than an Utopian Socialist. He wants us to cut down our criticism of the ugly economic system under which we live and draw up beautiful schemes of the new society in the hope that they will attract workers. Many Utopian Socialists did this in the past and their beautiful schemes are infantile in relation to modern conditions. Not merely that; Socialists are not building a “brave new world” from any “blue prints”; they have, in the words of Marx, “to set free the elements of the new society with which the old bourgeois society itself is pregnant.” Capitalism fetters the free production of goods—and it is through explaining the nature of those fetters, the economic laws of capitalism, that we create amongst workers the desire to break those fetters. The problems that face workers are the problems of capitalism, and we concentrate on explaining capitalism in order to pave the way to Socialist understanding. Workers who understand capitalism, generally desire and work for Socialism; they want no fanciful dreams to stimulate them to play their part in ending the hideous reality of capitalism.

L. J.

"Money Must Go": A Review (1946)

Book Review from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked to review a booklet, “Money Must Go” (Published by J. Phillips, 203, Lordship Lane, N.17. Price 2s. 6d.). The subject matter is dealt with in the form of conversations between “Professor” and “George.” It is a genuine attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism, although the writer, instead of using the word “Socialism,” uses the vague term “World Commonwealth.” Some of the ideas are all right, but we haven’t the space to deal with them here. There are, however, weaknesses, due to the over-insistence that money is “the root of all evil.”

The writer apparently holds the view that it is easier to make Socialists by a direct attack on money than by a direct attack on Capitalism. We do not hold this view. In our experience it is most difficult for workers to see that it is possible to produce and distribute wealth without the use of money, unless they have some knowledge of the elementary facts of capitalist production. Most workers regard money simply as a means of exchange, and nothing in this book will remove that idea. Money is a means of exchange, but, as gold in its metallic form, it is also a commodity, and it will be abolished as money only when commodity production is abolished. The expression “a money-based world” is repeatedly used, and if it is intended as a simple definition of capitalism it gives a wrong impression. Money is not peculiar to capitalism, nor is it the basis of capitalism. The essential characteristics of capitalism are: (a) Private ownership of the means of production and distribution ; b) a dispossessed or propertyless working class; (c) the production of goods for sale (commodities) ; (d) large-scale industrial production. These elementary facts can be grasped by any worker and cannot be easily simplified without becoming meaningless. The term “money-based world” is meaningless.

Another difficulty is the mixture of right and wrong ideas in the book. It is slated that “the abolition of money alone would solve no problems” (page 16), but on the next page we read, ” . . . . since money would not exist …. no person could say that he owned a share …. in the people’s means of production. In fact, all the world’s means of production would, then belong to the people of the world.” In this passage it is clearly implied that it is the abolition of money that will lead to common ownership. The correct position is that when the means of wealth production and distribution are commonly owned and democratically controlled there will be no exchange of goods and the need for money disappears. On both these pages efforts are made to define Socialism, but somehow the author leaves out the term “common ownership.” Also, while he states that every form of slavery will disappear, he fails to state that the present form of slavery is wage-slavery.

There are also serious theoretical errors. The, State is called an “abstraction” (page 120). This will appear strange to those who have felt the “heavy hand” of the law. The State is the public power of coercion used by the dominant class against the subject class. Later he explains, the “civil war” raging in society as a struggle over the goods produced by the workers. He says, “This war — or perhaps more accurately — this struggle is nothing more than a conflict between two dogs for the same bone” (our emphasis). The bone is the wealth produced by the workers. This is a misreading of the class struggle. In the industrial field the class struggle is a struggle over wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc., but it is something more than that; it is a political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.

If the purpose of the book was to present a simple statement of the Socialist case, it is by no means a success. Subjects can be so over-simplified that they lose meaning. We can be sparing with words, but we cannot be sparing with sound definitions and clearly understood terms. Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism. Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism. It is strange, therefore, that, the writer avoids using such precise terms as “capitalism,” “working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle,” but uses vague words such as “the people ” and the “World Commonwealth.” The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism. Its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character.

L. J.

Blogger's Note:

An excerpt from Money Must Go was reprinted in the World Socialist No.4 Winter (1985-86).

A PDF of the book is available over at Libcom.

Chapter Two: Reform or Revolution (1984)

From Samuel Leight's book, The Futility of Reformism

An acceptance of capitalism is indicative of a political approach that must inevitably enmesh itself with the reformation of the system and not with its abolition. Conversely, a genuine opposition to capitalism implies an understanding and knowledge that should preclude any desire to embark on a reformist program, recognizing the futility of such action, irrespective of the merits of the reforms contemplated. 

Wherever and whenever there is a program of reforms you will always find the "Leaders" ready and willing to perform, but always unable in the end to properly fulfill the promises which originally were so artfully dangled. Reforms never live up to their expectations because the very nature of capitalism invariably sabotages the performance of the reformers. Even when certain problems get resolved they are replaced with new ones, generally of an equal or greater magnitude. Apart from the wasted energy and time that reformism engenders, the danger of such activity lies in the inevitable apathy and disillusionment that arises in the aftermath. These are the breeding grounds for dictatorial regimes. 

It is a political delusion to think that one can shelve the case for socialism and still serve the interests of the working class by helping to reform capitalism in its quest for greater efficiency. The interests of the majority can only be served by the elimination of a system that can never be made to operate on their behalf irrespective of how it is manipulated or reformed. Socialist, political energies are channeled solely for the achievement of socialism — we do not concern ourselves directly with the administration of a system whose major social evils are irremovable notwithstanding the nature of the reforms that may be introduced. Reforms leave the fundamental basis of the system unaltered. It is this social and economic core, resting up on the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, that gives rise to the insoluble problems. 

In conjunction with this approach, we nevertheless urge our fellow workers to maintain and improve their standards of living through active participation in the Trade Union movement. However, such activity should always be kept in proper perspective with the realization that Trade Unions are limited in their scope. They demonstrate the class struggle in ever-constant action, as distinct from the separate policy of reformism to which we are opposed. 

With logic and socialist insight, we advocate peaceful, democratic revolution as the only political course to follow. At the same time, we recognize the necessity for the working class to continuously strive at safeguarding and improving their economic conditions, through appropriate, well-conceived Trade Union activity, in the interim. 

Can the working class "relate" to such a policy? We emphatically claim that they can, and should —without delay! 

Socialism, of course, can never be established or operated without a socialist majority. Once this fundamental position is fully appreciated it becomes obvious that any so-called Socialist Party that advocates a policy of reforms would automatically attract to its ranks reformists but not revolutionists. In no time at all any Party which naively attempted to take a dual position of reformation combined with "revolution" would be swamped and outnumbered by the reformists and would be politically castrated as far as socialism is concerned. The Fabian Society, established in January 1884, as a Society and not as a Political Party, and the Social Democratic Federation, which changed its name to the Social Democratic Party in 1908, both originating in England, are examples of reformist organizations that, in addition, purported to advocate socialism. The Fabian Society's doctrine was "the inevitability of gradualness," while the SDF referred to their reforms as "stepping stones to Socialism." A small group of secessionists from the SDF, opposing the reformist approach, formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904 with an object and set of principles that uniquely distinguished them as a Socialist Party in every sense of the term. 

Rosa Luxemburg in her work entitled "Reform or Revolution" written in April 1899, stated in her Introduction: 

"The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratie institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal — the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage-labor. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." 

This statement is fallacious in content and deviates from the significance of her title which poses a choice between reform or revolution. 

Another unacceptable aspect supported by Rosa Luxemburg, is the theory that at some stage of development, due to the contradictions of the system, capitalism will "collapse" and that, quoting, "Without the collapse of capitalism the expropriation of the capitalist class is impossible." We would deny this statement and substitute a vital alternative position: without a socialist working class socialism is impossible! Capitalism has demonstrated its remarkable staying-power and adaptability from crises to crises, through recessions and depressions. And even if a "collapse" occurred, socialism could never be introduced unless the vast majority were already converted to the socialist case and properly organized to attain political power. When this situation happens it would of course be completely unnecessary to wait for a "collapse," because socialism becomes immediately practical. However, in fairness to Rosa Luxemburg, affectionately called Red Rosa by the SPGB for her heroic class-conscious defense in her trial at Weimar in 1907, she also supported a positive role to be played by the working class, and indicated that the workers might achieve power before the breakdown of the system took place. The socialist position looks for no anticipated crash that would mark the death-throes of capitalism—on the contrary, we emphasize that the socialist revolution depends upon a sufficiency of socialists and we work towards this end. 

As and when socialist delegates become elected to the Congresses and Parliaments throughout the world, with a mandate for socialism, they will of course be confronted from time to time with reformist measures, and called up on to either vote or abstain, approve or otherwise. They will be instructed in these matters by their respective Socialist Parties. The guiding principle will revolve around the interests of the working class together with the achievement of socialism. The socialist delegates will therefore act within this framework. They will also never lose any practical opportunity for propagating, at the applicable time, the case for socialism. When the World Socialist Parties finally get representation in the seats of power, we can rest assured that the ruling class and their aides will be churning out a plethora of reforms in order to appease the growing, awakening socialist working class in an effort to delay the inevitable. The foregoing scenario is in no way analogous to the advocacy of reforms as an initial attempt to gain political support' and vote-catching representation. 

With the magnificent, international declaration and enactment that every human being is the common owner, with democratic control, of the means of production and distribution, with free access to all goods and services, a new era commences. Poverty, unemployment, insecurity and war become immediately and irrevocably eliminated. Their cause, the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by a minority, in a "commodity society," would have been eradicated. The structure of a socialist society makes their existence an economic and social impossibility. What reform, or series of reforms, could match, or in any way be comparable with, this position and attainment? 

There can be no poverty in a classless society, technologically capable of satisfying the needs of the population, with free access to all goods and services. 

There can be no unemployment, or employment, when all men and women are co-owners of the means of production and distribution, giving of their abilities in useful work for society as well as for themselves. 

There can be no insecurity when all "needs" can be satisfied as the result of "common ownership" and "free access." 

There can be no war when humanity is united as a whole without states, national boundaries, or armed forces; with production and distribution solely for use, and not for profit, eliminating money, wages, exchange, and the "market place." 

Audit each of these categories today, after the deluge of all the reforms that have been passed since the advent of capitalism, for complete justification of the case for socialism.

On August 20, 1980 a report from Washington (UPI) stated: “The World Bank estimated this year 780 million people throughout the world are living in ‘absolute poverty.’ It described this as ‘a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy and disease as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency’.”

On September 29, 1981 according to the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, “Twenty-five million Americans are poor” and “Another 30 million—if they lose a job, get sick or burn out—could be poor.” On August 2, 1983 the U.S. Census Bureau stated that the number of Americans classified as poor increased by 2.6 million, from 31.8 million in 1981 to 34.4 million in 1982. The official poverty rate, reflecting the portion of the population living in poverty, was 14 per cent in 1981. The 1982 rate was the highest since the start of the “War on Poverty” in 1965, when the rate was 17.3 percent. Of course, by socialist standards, poverty is the economic lot of the whole of the working class, at all times under capitalism—but, be that as it may.

Unemployment in Great Britain reached 14 per cent of the work force in September, 1982; and in the U.S.A. 10.8 per cent in November, 1982—both record figures since the Great Depression and World War II. Canada had a post-Depression high of 12.6 per cent in March, 1983. According to researchers at Williams College and the University of Minnesota, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on October 21, 1982, each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate correlates with 318 additional suicides. They estimate that the current recession is prompting 1,200 to 1,300 suicides a year.

If an unparalleled Arms Race between the major powers is touted as the supposed road to peace, then this futile pursuit alone is sufficient unto itself to condemn the anarchy, wastefulness and social stupidity of modern-day capitalist society. Of course, peace is non-existent under capitalism—in fact, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in May 1977, stated that since September 1945 there has not been a single day in which the world was free of war.

Here, we have only briefly touched upon the major social evils, ones that reforms are completely unable to penetrate with any kind of practical solutions. The reformists, therefore, also direct their ingenuity and efforts towards the “minor sores” of society. These have included so-called high taxes, “the economy,” balancing the budget (but not yours), inflation, violence, crime, pollution, premature death and ill-health caused directly by the system, racism, “freedoms” and “human rights.” And, lest we forget, the “privilege” of working class women having “equal rights” with the men of being exploited on equal terms. Presumably, also, the right to be massacred in the wars, alongside the men, for their masters’ interests—all this in the name of “equality”!

Every major political party in the U.S.A., Europe and elsewhere that has taken on the job of running capitalism has done so on a reformist ticket, failing dismally as far as the interests of the working class are concerned. And it can never be otherwise. Capitalism will always remain a system of perpetual crises, with unending competition and confrontation, both on the social and individual levels, all this impervious to reforms and reformism.

The introduction to Samuel Leight's 1984 book, 'The Futility of Reformism' (1984)

From Samuel Leight's 1984 book, The Futility of Reformism

Blogger's Note:

The late Samuel Leight joined the Marylebone Branch of the SPGB as a young man in June 1942. Active as both a speaker and writer for the SPGB in the following years, he eventually emigrated to the United States in 1948, transferring his membership to the World Socialist Party of the US. Based in Tucson, Arizona he published two books putting forward the case for socialism in his own inimitable style. The first book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War), was published in 1980, and was a selection of transcripts of locally produced radio broadcasts dating from between 1976 to 1978. Its companion volume, The Futility of Reformism, was published in 1984 and was a series of essays outlining the SPGB and its companion parties unique political position in relation to the issue of reformism. A couple of pieces from World Without Wages are already on the blog, but it's my intention to also serialise The Futility of Reformism on the blog in the coming months. Stay tuned.

Chapter One

Introduction

Whether the conditions of life under capitalism have improved for the majority of the workers or whether the opposite is true, the irrefutable fact still remains that the existing conditions, which presumably encompass all so-called “past improvements” that have been enacted to date, still contain the gruesome, major social evils that defy solution within the framework of the system. The reformation of capitalism has been continuous but has failed deplorably in creating an environment conducive to health, happiness and security.

The modern innovations of the 20th Century which have introduced the automobile, TV, telephones, refrigerators, air-conditioning and central heating, computers, travel by ship and air, are all examples of advances in technology that have not been derived through the benevolent legislation of political reformism. They are attributable to the productivity of the working class and represent new spheres of profit for the owning class. Whether their introduction has improved the standard of life for the majority is a debatable issue that contains many facets, but in any event their presence revolves around technical progress and no credit is due the reformers. Rather it should be recognized that the working class have obviously not shared proportionately with the increase of the total wealth produced but have remained poorer in relationship to the new values that are now available, and compared to the wealth of their employers. The existing worldwide stress and discontent indicates that today’s life-style, with all of its mechanical advantages, has not proved to be a blessing for humanity. We do not blame the products—we do blame the system.

Life for the working class under capitalism, past and present, cannot be compared favorably with the social benefits of a classless society in socialism which will convey to all common ownership rights to the means of production and distribution, and democratic privileges that no reformation of capitalism can ever attain. Attempting to make the working class “better off” is no match for the advantages of socialism; and the wages system, irrespective of wage levels, should justifiably be rejected when compared to free access to all goods and services for all human beings.

To the extent that we understand how capitalism functions, the arguments for the defense of the so-called progressive “improvements” of the standard of life of the working class are irrelevant. The fundamental position of wanting and achieving the best of all possible worlds for the majority of its inhabitants becomes the logical objective.

There is no political line of demarcation between reformism and the normal administration of capitalism—they have become inseparable. The contradictions and anomalies of the system give rise to a constant never-ending flow of reforms which are needed primarily for the attempted stabilization of capitalism and the preservation of the interests of the ruling class. In actuality, should any of the reform measures benefit the working class this can be considered as coincidental. The system absorbs the reforms because it has to strive for political and economic equilibrium in order to counter-balance its anarchical tendencies. No longer should political parties claim any real distinction in their reformist approach, because the “leftists” and the “rightists” all pursue similar strategies once they gain governmental control. Modern day reformist activity is entailed in the political support and administration of capitalism—a preservation of the economic status quo with attempts at cosmetic, superficial refinements. All social reforms that are enacted and survive must in the long term help in maintaining and improving the exploitable efficiency of the working class, most others fall into the domain of projected impracticality.

The deluge of propaganda surrounding the reformist administration of capitalism produces the distractions, confusions and purposeful misrepresentations that have so drastically hampered the presentation of the socialist case. We are always being advised that socialism is for the distant future and that “immediate” needs must receive attention. Quite the contrary—the highest, most urgent, immediate need of the working class is the establishment of socialism within the shortest possible time.

For here, surely, we are at the cross-roads. The working class must either accept the continuation of capitalism, which in effect implies the application of reformism, or opt for peaceful, democratic social revolution and establish socialism. The choice is clear-cut, vital and limited to these two alternatives. As long as reformism is supported as a viable, unchallenged policy, capitalism will continue and the capitalist class will remain dominant and in control. The destiny and fortunes of the majority depend upon an educational and political awakening that will reveal to them a true understanding of scientific socialism coupled with a rejection of reformist, political garbage.

The socialist movement initially received its economic foundations through the works of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and other pioneers of Scientific Socialism. Their research has been further advanced by the World Socialist Party of the United States and its Companion Parties, commencing with the establishment of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904. These organizations have been able to clarify attitudes that it was not possible to do in the 19th century. Their specific object and set of principles, together with an unblemished political history, has never veered away from democratic social revolution. They have abstained from all the pitfalls of reformism. The membership remains small, but the validity of the case stands the Parties in good stead for the future.

An attempt has been made herein to present the ideas upheld by the movement and reinforce them with applicable statistics. We claim that the socialist analysis of capitalism is scientific and in full accord with reality. Our interpretations are controversial because we are in the realm of social investigation with formulas that lack the precision and verification to be found in the physical sciences. However, the statistics that substantiate our theories, although they will be subject to continuous variation, vividly indicate the misery and deaths suffered unnecessarily by multi-millions of humans. They do not constitute opinions—they are facts—derived from the capitalist media, including government reports. They are an indictment that defies rationalization.

One could explain the socialist attitude towards reformism in a brief presentation but this would never do full justice to such a crucial subject. There are many matters that deserve consideration, and need to be related to supporting evidence. The futility of reformism logically means. the choice between reforms or revolution. The passive approach will allow capitalism to continue. It should be remembered, that without the revolutions of the past, we would not be experiencing the society of the present. Now, for the first time in history, it has become possible for a revolutionary change to be brought into being through the concerted efforts of a majority fully conscious of their motives and political objective, aimed at a worldwide civilization worthy of the human race. The choice belongs to the working class and, to quote the legal pundits, “time is of the essence.”

Samuel Leight (1985)

From the May 15th, 1985 issue of the Library Journal

You've got to love the wee gems that Archive.org throws up sometimes. Stumbled across — aye, right, 'stumbled across', I'm fooling no one — an advert in the American Library Journal which dates from 1985, and which was probably placed by the late Sam Leight himself, for his two excellent self-published books.

It's a sign . . . a sign I need to get my arse in gear to scan in some essays/chapters from both of these fine books. 

Is there a "Road" to Socialism? (1988)

Book Review from issue 5 of the World Socialist Review

State Capitalism: The Wages System Under New Management by Adam Buick & John Crump (The MacMillan Press Ltd, 1986)

You have only to attend a meeting of any of numerous groups identifying themselves as "socialist" or ’'communist” to find out one thing: with few exceptions, they do not define their immediate goal as being worldwide in scope. They regard replacing the buying and selling of necessary goods and services with free access to the same as a very long-term aspiration (though the notion enjoys wide acceptance as an abstraction). Between the cup of communism and the lip of capitalism, they claim, there lies a wide gap, and that gap can only be bridged by a complicated and unpredictable series of short-term objectives. Eventually society will be transformed, it is true, but not starting from the present reality as we currently understand it.

Those groups organized as formal political parties seeking to attract the support and/or the votes of workers and other sectors of the population thus find themselves nailed fairly tightly to a framework of nationalism which has to justify itself through an appeal to "proletarian internationalism" or something similar. Followers of Lenin and Trotsky. for example, advocate setting up a "workers’ state" which will liquidate the institutions and mechanisms by which private owners of the means of production perpetuated their legal monopoly over the output of goods and services. According to this scenario, the exploiting (capitalist) class continues in existence for a while but is sternly regimented by the party in control of the machinery of state and enjoying the well-informed support of the majority.

In State Capitalism Adam Buick and John Crump carefully dissect the concept of state ownership of the means of wealth production and lay bare the mass of rationalizations leading up to it. First they establish the general boundaries of discussion by defining what the term capitalism means, then they distinguish between two models of capitalism: the one traditionally accepted as such (private capitalism, the earliest form) and the other representing a number of historic adaptations or variants of capitalist monopoly over social production (in response to some structural failure on the part of the "private" model). Since this second type is characterized by the nationalization of enterprises--with or without a thoroughgoing state management of the system of production—it is of course best described as "state” capitalism.

This result can be accomplished in two ways. Either the state can bail out individual capitalists by taking over the legal proprietorship and control of their businesses without a major political upheaval occurring (as has become common in western Europe); or a revolutionary opposition can develop within the bosom of capitalist society and, with varying degrees of majority support, raze the preceding regime to the ground, totally reorganizing the system of exploitation (as in eastern Europe, Russia and China). In the second case, a new capitalist minority replaces the old, leaving the same or equivalent relations of production intact. Though from a narrowly legal angle the new minority renounces all private title to the system of production, they nevertheless retain monopoly control over it.

"Socialist” Profits?

In the fourth chapter, the authors deal with a question which everyone has sooner or later asked: What makes a state-capitalist economy different from a "classical" one? They tackle a couple of familiar old fallacies: namely, the belief that

"Socialist" profit is not capitalist profit because "all profits belong to the people" or, to put it another way, because "the state distributes profit for the benefit of the people. "Socialist" wages are not the mark of an exploited working class, but are the means by which social wealth is distributed according to each individual's contribution to production.

(Ch. 4, "The Capitalist Dynamic of State Capitalist Economies")

In the end, however, no matter on what ideological grounds wage exploitation is put into effect, the leopard cannot avoid keeping its spots. 

"Profit is pursued because, due to the competition which is inherent in world capitalism, state capital continually has to invest newly acquired surplus value in a compulsive effort to accumulate and hence expand itself." (p 101)

Before going on to socialism as the alternative to either state or private capitalism, they briefly outline some of the ideological underpinnings on which the justification for state capitalism rests, showing how the thinking of its advocates evolved out of "classical" socialist theory (as found in the writings of Marx or Engels) into its Leninist and post-Leninist forms.

Basic Features of Socialism

Having comprehensively sapped out the state-capitalist terrain, Buick and Crump have no difficulty elucidating the basic features of a socialist society: It must be worldwide; all goods and services will be produced for use only and distributed free; it will have no classes, states or national frontiers; no exchange of goods and services will take place—since there will no longer be any market to regulate consumption.

The disappearance of economic value would mean the end of "economic calculation" in the sense of calculation in units of "value" whether measured by money or directly in some unit of labour time. (Ch. 6, "The Alternative to Capitalism")

The need for planning will be met by establishing "a rationalized network of planned links" occupying the successive phases through which the cycle of production/consumption passes. "Planning" in that context will mean only the coordinating of "a direct interaction between hunan beings and nature." (The authority of economists rests partly in fact on the working class’s uncritical acceptance of their doctrine of an inherent natural scarcity. )

If the language in the last chapter makes heavy use of the conditional tense, this does not imply any prediction of utopia. It only acknowledges that workers have so far failed to shake themselves out of the slumber of poverty. This is a process which necessarily must take place on a world scale (if not everywhere at precisely the sane time); for a whole society to make the changeover to production for use requires a conscious understanding of the stakes by enough of the world's population to constitute a political force greater than any that capital can muster in its own defense.

Such an intense concentration of well-informed opinion has not yet occurred nor will it ever—if workers (including both highly paid professionals and exploited agriculturalists) continue to limit their thought horizons to those of the national state into which their destiny as wage slaves has thrust then. The admirable thing about State Capitalism is that it provides a sorely needed theoretical framework for tearing loose of the deadly embrace of nationalism This framework (as noted in the book) has been slowly emerging within the world socialist movement in the decades since the Bolshevik revolution, most significantly in the propaganda of our companion party, the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The book itself makes a highly readable contribution to this ongoing effort to create a class-conscious, socialist majority—one that will finally get capitalism's funeral cortege rolling toward the cemetery.

Blogger's Note:

Buick and Crump's book was also reviewed in the April 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard.  

A Search for Truth (2024)

Book Review from the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Alfred Reynolds / Reinhold Alfred. By Richard Headicar. 2023. ISBN 978-1-3999-6772-3

Alfred Reynolds was a philosopher and poet from Hungary who fled to Britain in 1937 after being arrested for allegedly subversive political activities. A Social Democrat and former ‘Communist’ who was at one point accused of Trotskyism there, he was a radical who was a long-term critic of totalitarian political formations, both Fascist and Leninist.

Because of his linguistic abilities he worked as an interpreter for a time in Britain including for German prisoners of war at the Kempton Park prison camp, before creating a de-Nazification programme that he pioneered at Slemdal Prison Camp in Norway. He received recognition and support from the Labour MP Philip Noel-Baker and after a time with the International Refugee Council eventually became a middle-ranking UK civil servant in London, but it is not that for which he is perhaps most well-known.

After the war, Reynolds created a weekly discussion group that mirrored to some extent one that he had developed in Hungary and another, later, circle of Germans who had been influenced by his tutelage. It was called the ‘Bridge Circle’ and out of this emanated a monthly journal called the London Letter. This had a low circulation but an influence that was disproportionate to its size: over time Martin Buber, J.B. Priestley, TUC leader George Woodcock, Albert Schweitzer and Sir Herbert Read were all contributors. Jomo Kenyatta was another who orbited in this milieu, as was Colin Wilson who described Reynolds as ‘one of the most original minds of the modern world’.

Reynolds went on to found an English Language School in central London, but it is for the Bridge Circle and London Letter that he is probably best known. His philosophy counselled strongly against ‘group think’ and in favour of the search for ‘personal truth’ and arguably veered between liberalism and anarchism (with added influences from the saner writings of Nietzsche among others). In 1982 a number of Reynolds’s articles were published in a volume called Pilate’s Question. This title referred to the eternal conundrum of ‘what is truth?’, though Reynolds was a little frustrated that this was interpreted by some onlookers as being a possible religious tract when it was anything but.

Reynolds was for decades one of London’s characters and it was at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park that he met Richard Headicar in the 1950s, the author of this biography. Headicar was at the time an anti-nuclear speaker with anarchist leanings and who broadly supported CND. He became heavily influenced by Reynolds who converted from being his critic to mentor, and was a regular attender at the Bridge Circle (later carrying on a similar informal philosophy group in London, including after Reynolds’s death in 1993). Headicar writes:

‘Fittingly the last time I saw Alfred was at Speakers’ Corner. Coincidentally I was speaking for the SPGB of which he claimed he was once a member. I think he may have joined using another of his noms de plume. Spotting him in my crowd I was once more fleetingly visited by trepidation, wondering if he would be disappointed by my new affiliation. When I alighted from the platform he at once approached me, smiled, put his arm around my shoulder and said “Richard, that was pure Bridge”.’

The book is beautifully produced and includes many copies of letters, photos and other artefacts. It also details the more recent resurgence of interest in him in his home country of Hungary, including for his early work Alfred Reinhold’s First and Last Volume of Lyric Poetry. There is a useful chapter on Bridge philosophy too and its relationship with Marx, Nietzsche, the power of human consciousness, technology and creativity among other things. And while Reynolds was sceptical of the ‘group think’ of Marxism, he clearly recognised in the SPGB a more independent and critical spirit than is typical on the self-styled Left – as of course, did Richard Headicar himself, a Party member to this day.

Dave Perrin

Utopia or socialism? (2002)

Book Review from the January 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yes – Utopia! – we have the technology. Ron Cook. Self published. Available on-line at www.nospine.com. £1; or as a 191-page paperback produced to order by the author for £5 plus postage (£1.50 UK, £3 overseas). Order from Ron Cook, 11 Dagger Lane, West Bromwich B71 4BT (cheques, sterling only, payable to “Ron Cook”).

There is a lot to like in this book, written by a long-standing member of Birmingham Branch of the Socialist Party. It is a well-researched analysis of contemporary capitalism, together with speculations about a possible and desirable future. Ron Cook is a keen technophile and much of his book reflects this stance. There are more references to computers than to revolution, more to machines than to education,. But he is by no means obsessed with technology. His 16 chapters range over democracy, production, shopping, crime and violence, women and children, and much else.

The book essentially puts the case for socialism, but instead of using that word utopia is substituted for it. Why can perhaps be guessed at.

There will probably be two main kinds of reader of the book. One kind will already know something about socialism. At various points in the book those readers will come across the word utopia. They will learn that utopia is something to be established by knowledgeable people who don’t need leaders. In utopia there will be freedom and scope for personal fulfilment. There will be no money in utopia. So when readers of the first kind learn that utopia is going to be that kind of world they can be forgiven for thing “But isn’t that what the Socialist Party stands for?”.

The second kind of reader won’t have come across the idea of socialism except as described by one of the capitalism-supporting parties or writers. They will read about utopia as discussed in the book and they may well like the idea of it. But there isn’t actually a Utopian Party – or even a utopian movement worth talking about. So to get anywhere they will have to look around and see what other organisation expresses the author’s views, which they would like to know more about and perhaps even join. And the answer is, of course – the Socialist Party.

In defence of the use of the word utopia, it has to be admitted that the word socialism does carry a lot of unfortunate baggage. But so does utopia. Labelling things is easy. But when the same label is attached to different packages it becomes necessary to inspect the packages. I hope the book has a future. But in a revised edition I personally would like him to seriously consider changing the title to something like “Yes – Socialism! – we have the vision and the means”.

Stan Parker

Deciphering Disinformation (2023)

Book Review from the December 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hot Planet, Cool Media. By Stephen Harper. Clairview, 2023

As described by its subtitle, this is a compilation of socialist polemics on war, propaganda and popular culture, written between 2011 and 2022. In this near-decade, marked by populism, austerity and the smartphone, ‘the morbid symptoms of a decrepit social system and the corresponding expressions of public anger and despair became more acute’.

The book’s title, taken from one of its essays, refers to the gap between the state of the world and the media’s inapt and inept interpretations of it. A principle which underpins the book is that a constructive way to react to society’s grim events is to understand how and why information about them, in all its forms, is presented to us in the way it is. Many of the essays take war as an example: 2013’s Back To Iraq examines how the format of a BBC documentary about the war in Iraq enabled Western politicians to promote their account unchallenged, while ignoring economic considerations. Several insightful reviews of war films are included, such as Unbroken (2014), which displays a ‘national chauvinism’ that simplifies war into good versus bad. The formula common across most movies smooths out complications and reasserts traditional narratives, such as portraying the American army as always heroic.

Mainstream media, almost by definition, backs up the narrative most favourable to those with power and wealth: ‘Whether conservative or liberal, the loudest voices in the media are those of the ruling class’. As the essays explain, acceptance of our current social system lies beneath almost all political discourse, whether left or right wing. What are presented as alternatives to the status quo can still only act within the constraints of capitalism, such as when politicians and journalists ‘talk excitedly of ‘radical’ reforms’ or when the left lionises ‘social-democratic saviour-figures’ such as Barack Obama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Jeremy Corbyn and Jacinda Ardern.

The partiality and misinformation which permeate mainstream and social media impact on us and how we relate to the world. Some people react by turning to ‘conspiracy theories’ which, as the 2020 essay Making A Conspiracy Out Of A Crisis argues, to dismiss outright is as misguided as fanatically adhering to them. When people act by rioting, this is a reaction to ‘the deeply felt but unarticulated experiences of social alienation and inequality’, which the media glosses over with talk of ‘yobs’. Mental distress is a more widespread response to our circumstances, although its social origins are downplayed when it is regarded and treated as a biological illness, according to the 2013 essay Mental Illness And The Media.

The essays in Hot Planet, Cool Media usefully help us see and then see through the narratives dominant across the media. Once the biases of those on our screens are recognised, then the underlying social, economic and political causes of events and trends are revealed. Next is needed ‘collective and conscious political action to abolish the system’ that generates problems such as racism, war, alienation and climate change. This route to revolutionary consciousness is described with a welcome clarity and groundedness across the book’s 66 essays. Hot Planet, Cool Media is definitely recommended to anyone wanting to make sense of the previous decade and how it has shaped the world today.

As his focus is on other people’s interpretations, Stephen Harper doesn’t write much about his own experiences. A lively exception is the 2019 essay Election Reflection, about when he took part in hustings for the Socialist Party’s European Parliament Election campaign. He recounts (on p.160) that after one event ‘one of the independent candidates turned to me and made a cryptic but intriguing comment: ”you’re right … but you’re too early”. I was tempted to reply that with capitalism destroying the biosphere at an alarming rate, it’s not a moment too soon for socialism.’

Mike Foster

Lives of the Left: Daniel De Leon (1990)

Book Review from the July-Aug 1990 issue of the Discussion Bulletin

Daniel De Leon by Stephen Coleman [Manchester University Press, "Lives of the Left" series] Manchester, England, 1990; cloth, 192 pp. U.S. readers see below for ordering information.

This volume differs from the two earlier De Leon biographies (Reeve 1972 and Seretan 1978) in that its author does not regard DeLeon's anti-reformist, anti-statist socialism as an aberration. Stephen Coleman'a political thinking derives from the same turn-of-the-century opposition to social democratic reformism from which De Leon and the post-1900 Socialist Labor Party sprang, and he can understand the political situation and the choices that faced the SLP and DeLeon.

Coleman has divided his book into eight chapters, which we can assume reflect his interests and concerns: The Enigma of Daniel De Leon, The Socialist Labor Party, Trade Unionism and the Abolition of the Wages System, the Battle against Reformism, De Leon and the Wobblies, The De Leon-Connolly Conflict, De Leon's Conception of Socialism, and the Last Years and Legacy of De Leon.

Part of the "enigma" Coleman sees is the irony that the man he characterizes as ". . . the most outstanding American thinker, writer, orator, and political organizer of the years from 1890 until the eve of the First World War" should be so hated by his contemporaries on the left and in the labor movement. In addition to a list of these historians of the Hilquit school of labor history, he points out what he calls ". . .  the legacy of contemporary vilification by the likes of Dubofsky et al., who have accepted without thought the prejudices of the Hilquitians."

In "The Socialist Labor Party" Coleman traces De Leon's influence on the SLP and the dynamics that brought about the 1899 split between the reformists and revolutionaries. As the European socialist parties of the Second International grew during the 1880s and 90s, the possibility of gaining political office and presumably bringing about socialism piecemeal through capitalisms political machinery became vary real. The success of "socialist' politicians in transforming the "immediate demands" of the socialist parties into their dominant programs caused splits in nearly all the parties of the Second International. In the U.S. the anti-De Leonists left to help form the Socialist Party identified with Hilquit, Debs, and Haywood. In Britain both the Socialist Party of Great Britain (to which Coleman belongs) and the British SLP left Hyndman's Social Democratic Federation. In Russia the situation produced the Menshevik-Bolshevik split and in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and elsewhere splits and factional disputes that were often resolved by events precipitated by the Russian Revolution.

In Coleman's judgment "The 1899 split was not essentially about specific SLP policies, but was a final effort by approximately half of its members to assert the compatibility between a socialist party and a possibilist [reformist] strategy or, conversely, to remove what they saw as the theoretical shackles of De Leon's uncompromising impossibilism." While recognizing that De Leon's confidence in his own wisdom and eagerness to combat error sight easily give rise to accusations of authoritarianism, he disposes of the charges of bossism by citing the record: ". . . De Leon enjoyed no power within the SLP to which he was not elected, and made no decisions alone but as a result of winning a majority."

The evolution of the SLP's position on unionism, which culminated in the organization of the Socialist Trades and Labor Alliance in 1895 was not, in Coleman's view, a sectarian plot by De Leon but had already been initiated in 1889 before De Leon joined the SLP by socialist trades unionists in Now York City, who had called for "New Trades Unionism' and split from the Central Labor Union to form the Central Labor Federation. Coleman sees the lack of success of the STALA as well as the isolation impossibilism entailed for the SLP as the reason behind De Leon's eager embrace of the IWW in 1905.

As one might expect, Coleman's SPGBist differences with De Leonism become clear in the chapter, "De Leon's Conception of Socialism." While giving De Leon credit for attempting to answer the hard questions workers ask about the nature of the new society, he expresses serious doubts about De Leon's answers, finding the source of much of what he considers the less desirable elements in De Leon's and the SLP's vision of the future society in Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward. He sees not only the idea of labor vouchers and of the socialism-in-one-country concept as arising from De Leon's association with Nationalism in the 1880s but the roots of the whole concept of socialist industrial unionism, which he relates to Bellamy's work-oriented, militaristic view of the social organization of the future. Coleman's conclusions here will offend not only the most orthodox of De Leonists but revisionists of various degrees as well. Space doesn't allow this reviewer to combat Coleman's findings. But we will find space for readers of the book to refute him.

Also offensive to some readers will be the final chapter in which, among other things, he examines what he regards as De Leon's efforts to break out of the isolation that anti-reformism (impossiblism) imposed on the SLP. These included the embrace of the IWW and its reformist SP contingent and the 1905-8 unity effort, which culminated in his Unity address. Interestingly Coleman presents Reinstein as De Leon's ally in 1908, not his enemy as official history suggests. He rather decently finds De Leon not guilty of the official SLP's claim [charge?] that his writings influenced Lenin. The final chapter also contains an interesting section on the differences between the British and American SLPs. Part of De Leon's legacy is the SLP. Here is Coleman's verdict: "De Leon stamped his authority upon the SLP because he was the party's most able and active thinker. That De Leon’s comrades offered him such deferential respect . . .  respect created a tradition that was abused terribly by the less intellectually vivacious, sterile dogmatists who succeed the De Leon role."

Although there are a couple of flaws—De Leon was referring in Reform or Revolution to the future socialist society, not the party of socialism, with his illustration of the orchestra director—, Coleman has done his reading and his research. Indeed this is a political biography in the finest sense of the term. Coleman in not a De Leonist and his critical stance and political differences are apparent, as indeed they should be. But I think that De Leon would not have wished for a fairer, wittier, more sympathetic treatment from a political opponent. We can only assume that had Coleman been afforded more time and more pages, he would have modified his views on Socialist Industrial Unionism.

Like all books worth reading, the price is steep even for a clothbound book. U.S. readers can obtain the book directly from St. Martin's Press for $29.95 or send a 25-cent stamp to DB for a flier that offers a 20 percent discount making the price $23.95.

Frank Girard

Socialism and Work (1971)

Book Review from the November 1971 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Future of Work and Leisure, by Stanley Parker. MacGibbon and Kee. £2.25.

This short and (with the exception of chapter 7) readable book is a good discussion of the question of work and leisure. Many of Parker’s points have long been made by us: that work and employment must be distinguished; that working for wages is of comparatively recent origin; that in the sense of engaging in some socially useful activity men need to work; that work can be made pleasant and interesting; that the so-called problem of leisure cannot be solved in isolation from the problem of boring work (and that this cannot be solved within “our outmoded economic system”); that it is wrong to regard work and leisure as opposites since leisure as freely chosen activity can—and indeed should—overlap with work. As Parker says:

The weight of historical, anthropological and contemporary evidence is that, whatever their expressed desires, men in all societies need to have work as well as leisure. Further, in cases where their work embodied many of the values normally associated with leisure, a separate period of time labelled leisure appears to be necessary neither to their happiness nor to their creative function in society.

Actually, all this is no co-incidence. Parker learned most of these arguments while he was a member of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. He himself has chosen not to acknowledge this, though it should be clear to those who know us who are the descendants of the “Marxist socialists” of a century ago who envisage a time “when production is carried on solely for use and not for profit”. So should the origins of the “Marxist phrase” about there being “two classes in society” and of the definition of capitalists as “those persons who possess capital the return on which enables them to live without the necessity of being employed”.

We would not want to pretend, however, that Parker here agrees with us entirely. He left the Socialist Party because he came to imagine that it was possible to transform capitalism gradually into Socialism, and this too comes out in the text.

Parker’s omission of any reference, even in a footnote, to William Morris is also peculiar since Morris’ criticism of those who regarded work even in Socialism as a necessary evil to be reduced to a minimum rather than as an important human activity is the basis of our views on the subject, and so also of those of Parker himself.

Adam Buick

To dream the impossibilist dream (2008)

Book Review from the September 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Impossibilists. A Brief Profile of the Socialist Party of Canada. By Peter E. Newell. Athena Press. 2008.

The SDF in Britain was a reformist organisation with a revolutionary minority (which eventually broke away). The Socialist Party of Canada was the opposite: a revolutionary party with a reformist minority. Formed in 1905 as an amalgamation of parties from the different provinces of Canada, it sought to be “impossibilist”, i.e. not to seek reforms of capitalism but to advocate only the capture of political power for socialism.

However, it couldn’t avoid the reform issue as it won a few seats in elections. It therefore had to decide what these elected socialists should do. inevitably (and sensibly) it decided that they should use their position not just to propagate socialist views, but also to try to “advance the interests of the working class and aid workers in their class struggle against capitalism”. the trouble was the SPC’s councillors had not been elected by socialist votes alone but, precisely, as people workers considered would stand up and speak for them. When the reformists broke away from the SPC in 1911 (to form the Social democratic Party of Canada) the SPC’s three British Columbia legislative assembly members left to join them. One, Charles O’Brien in Alberta, stayed. One of his speeches in the legislature was published as a pamphlet (which can be found at the following link), but he lost the next election.

The similar position taken up by the SPGB on this issue was undoubtedly influenced by that of the SPC (even though a minority of SPGB members disagreed, arguing that Socialist MPs should never vote for any reform measure). The Canadian party probably also influenced the SPGB’s policy of writing “Socialism” across the ballot paper when there was no socialist candidate standing. this was already being advocated in 1903 by the Socialist Party of British Columbia.

On another issue the very early SPC took up a position that was never that of the SPGB. The editor of its paper, the Western Clarion, E. T. Kingsley, argued that the trade union struggle was not part of the class struggle, but only a “commodity struggle”. this was not the view of all SPC members many of whom were active unionists. Later, some were to be jailed for their part in organising the 1919 Winnipeg General Strike. Other SPC members were instrumental in founding the One Big Union in 1919; which was not, as its name might suggest, a “syndicalist” union as the SPC was always strongly insistent on the imperative need for the working class to win control of political power before trying to change society.

Like the SPGB, the SPC had no hesitation in opposing the First World War from day one – and the SPC, with some 2000 to 3000 members would have been ten times bigger than the SPGB – but the Russian Revolution unhinged it. The members of the party’s Dominion Executive committee took the view that the working class had won control of political power in Russia in november 1917 (even though they recognised that socialism could not be the outcome, conditions not being ripe for this). This was a view shared by most members; which made them an easy prey for Bolshevik propagandists who deliberately set out, on orders from Moscow, to win over the SPC. They did not succeed, as a referendum rejected the 21 conditions laid down by Lenin for affiliation to the Third international. Those in favour of this then formed the Workers Party which many former SPC members joined (including the future Leader of the Canadian Communist Party, Tim Buck, who had even also been a member of the short-lived Socialist Party of North America whose declaration of principles Newell mentions was based on that of the SPGB). The SPC staggered on for a few more years but disbanded itself in 1925.

Newell records all these events, basing himself on secondary sources which he usefully summarises.

In 1931 some former members of the SPC decided to reconstitute it, accepting as its platform the object and declaration of the SPGB. There has been some controversy as to whether the new SPC was a continuation of the old. Newell argues that it was, even though other ex-SPC members went into the Communist Party and various Labour parties. Most of the members of the new SPC had been members of the old one, including a former editor of the Western Clarion and a former member of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. However, two other ex-members more well known on this side of the Atlantic – Charlie Lestor and Bill Pritchard – got involved in reformist politics and did not become impossibilists again till they left Canada, the one for Britain and the other for the US.

The new party was much smaller and had far less impact than the old SPC, but it continued to publish a journal (the present one is Imagine) and to contest elections (the last in 1978). Newell describes not just the SPC’s external activity from 1931 but also its internal life and controversies. These happened and shouldn’t be disguised, but a whole chapter on an organisational dispute in the 1960s, which raised no question of theory or policy, is possibly too much in a “brief profile”.

Newell’s book is not just a chronicle of events. it also covers such matters as reforms, religion, Russia, war, trade unionism and so also gets across the socialist case as well as bringing together historical research.

Adam Buick