Are the Managers Really in Control? Part Two (1981)

From the February 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1. 

In Part One (Socialist Standard, January 1981 ) we discussed James Burnham’s clearly expressed  argument that class society could exist without property titles vested in individuals. He was of course proved wrong by events: industrial managers have not replaced private capitalists as the possessing, ruling class, on the basis of the state ownership of the means of production (for Burnham never expected the managers to come to power within the legal framework of private capitalism).

Burnham gave as the reason why the “managers”, by which he meant those who actually managed the process of production, would be the new ruling class the alleged fact that a ruling class must have some function in the process of production :

“Social rule . . . depends on de facto control of the instruments of production—the means whereby society lives; and such control can be held only by some group which plays a direct and integral role in production” (The Managerial Revolution, p. 232).

In the past when the means of production were small-scale and scattered this was so. At that time the various means and instruments of production could be, and were, controlled individually. But today, due precisely to the development of modern industry brought about by capitalism, this is no longer so; the production of wealth has become socialised. The wealth of modern society is produced by the co-operative labour of those who work. In this sense the point of production is not the individual mine or factory, but society. Thus it is those who control society, not those who manage production at factory level, who are really in a position to control the use of today’s means of production.

It is the state which is the centre of social control so that whoever controls the state controls society and so, potentially at least, the means of production. This is so even in Western capitalism with its legal property titles. The private capitalists of the West, just as much as the possessing class in Russia (which in fact is also a capitalist class), now possess the means of production because they control the state rather than vice-versa. They use this control to back up their historically-inherited legal property titles, having long ceased to have any necessary productive function. Whereas in Russia the possessing class own the means of production directly through the state, in the West this is done indirectly through individual property titles ultimately enforceable by the state. In the end this amounts to the same thing: today’s socially-operated means of production are possessed and controlled by a minority class socially, through the state, the centre of social control.

Actually, Burnham himself unwittingly recognisedthat access to the modern means of production can only be controlled socially when he argued that managerial rule would be based on the state ownership of the means of production. For, on the basis of state ownership, any group which established its exclusive stable control over the state would become a collective possessing class precisely because it would therefore control the use of the means of production. If industrial managers were to organiseas a group, win popular support or acquiescence, and come to gain control of state power they would indeed become the ruling and possessing class—but  by virtue of controlling the state not of being managers.

Burnham was wrong, then, in assuming that the managers’ technical function in production was a compelling reason why they should emerge as such a group whereas in fact they were no more, or less, likely than any other group to do so.

State Capitalism

Both Rizzi and Burnham (and, indeed, Wittfogel also) rejected the view that Russia could be described as state capitalism. Both of them regarded Russia as a new class society: “bureaucratic collectivism” for Rizzi and “managerial society” for Burnham. This rejection of a state capitalist analysis of Russia was an inheritance from their Trotskyist past where they had learned to identify capitalism with private capitalism. For Trotsky, capitalism could not exist without private property titles vested in individuals; for him “state capitalism” was state control of private capitalist industry.

Capitalism, however, is not characterised by the legal form that class possession of the means of production takes, but by the social fact that those who “possess” the means of production exploit wage-labour and accumulate the surplus-value thus obtained as capital. An examination of “the specific economic form in which unpaid surplus labour is pumped out of the direct producers” in Russia shows this to be the case there. The excluded majority live by selling their labour-power to various state enterprises; the products of these enterprises are sold on the market with a view to profit; and the difference between the wages of the producers and the value of what they produce is surplus value which is used for capital accumulation and the consumption of the privileged class. Russia is thus capitalist and its possessing, ruling, privileged class a capitalist class.

Russia can be described as state capitalist in order to distinguish the form of capitalist class possession of the means of production there from the legal property-holding of the West. It should not be forgotten, however, that private property titles do still exist in Russia (though, admittedly, not as the predominant form) and that this could grow in the future. Equally, elements of non-legal de facto class possession through the state exist in Western countries, though the capitalist title-holders are able through their control of Parliament to prevent politicians and state officials gaining a permanent and widespread privileged consumption at their expense.

We see, then, that in East and West alike control of the use of today’s socially-operated means of production rests ultimately in the hands of those who control the state. It is clear that on the basis of class possession of the means of production a variety of such forms—both with regard to control of production and to the allocation of consumer goods among the privileged class—are possible. Each particular case needs to be examined on its own in the light of the historical and social facts. It is not possible to lay down a priori, as Burnham tried to do, which particular group would be most likely to emerge as the ruling class on the basis of state-owned industry. Nor can it be said that there is any particular reason why there should be any tendency for individual property titles to be abolished and replaced by de facto possession through the state.

Classless Society

The above analysis has certain practical implications. Since the state is the organ of social control, and since it is through controlling this organ that the capitalist class, East and West, is able to maintain its possession of the means of production, it is clear that the excluded producing class of wage and salary earners must, in order to establish a classless society, begin by gaining control of the state. Not, be it quickly added, to form a “socialist government” or a “workers state” (both absurd contradictions; when there is socialism there will be no state and where there is a state there is no socialism), but simply and solely to take state power out of the hands of the capitalist class, so removing the last obstacle to society establishing common ownership and democratic social control over the means of production. This presupposes both a widespread desire and understanding among the working class to establish a classless, socialist society and that the working class have democratically organised themselves, without political or industrial leaders, to carry out this desire. In the absence of such majority socialist understanding any attempt to establish socialism would inevitably fail and most probably lead to the sort of state capitalist society, based on de facto class possession of the means of production which we have been discussing.

The essence of class possession is precisely control over the use of the means of production by a section only of society. Once the use of the means of production is under the democratic control of the whole of society then “class possession”, “private property”, “class ownership”, call it what you will, has been abolished. The means of production could still be said to “belong” to those who controlled their use—in other words, to be “commonly owned” by the democratically-organised community.

But to talk of “common property”, “social property”, and the like can be misleading in that these terms do not fully bring out the fact that the transfer to society of the power to control the production of wealth makes the whole concept of “property” redundant. The question “who would own the means of production in socialist society?” can be answered just as correctly by saying “nobody” as by saying “everybody”, or “society”, or the “community”.

What social control over production will mean in practice is that every member of society will be free to take part, on equal terms with every other member, in deciding how the means of production should be used. As Burnham put it:

“For society to be ‘classless’ would mean that within society there would be no group (with the exception, perhaps, of temporary delegate bodies, freely elected by the community and subject always to recall) which would exercise, as a group, any special degree of control over access to the instruments of production; and no group receiving, as a group, preferential treatment in distribution” (The Managerial Revolution, p.55).

Society’s power to control production would be embodied in various democratic institutions. “Common ownership” and “democratic social control” of the means of production are merely, as we have said, two different ways of describing the same situation. This is why discussion as to whether one could exist without the other is quite meaningless.

Socialism is democratic or it is not socialism. A society where the means of production were formally the common property of society but where only a minority took part in deciding how they should be used would be one in which “common property” was merely a fiction since in practice the means of production would be the sectional possession of the decision-making minority.

In the end the only guarantee in socialist society against the emergence of a new ruling class which would negate the common ownership of the means of production is people using the democratic institutions—the actual democratic participation of all the people in the running of society. This is why it is absolutely essential that those who establish socialism—the majority working class who will constitute also the major part of the people of socialist society—must be fully aware of its implications, being prepared and organised to participate not only in its establishment but also in its subsequent running.

Adam Buick

Cooking the Books: All workers’ parties now? (2026)

The Cooking The Books column from the June 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘We’re now the workers’ party’ proclaimed the headline of an article by Nigel Farage in the Times (10 May) following his party’s gains in the local council elections. A week or so earlier on May Day, Zack Polanski had declared that ‘the Greens are the new workers’ party’.

So, who are ‘the workers’? Capitalist society is divided into two basic classes: a class that owns the resources needed to produce what the members of society need to survive, and a class, without such ownership, whose members are obliged to try to sell their working skills to obtain money to buy what they need to survive. The vast majority of the population are members of this working class, irrespective of what job they do or whether they work in an office or an industrial unit.

Farage wrote about ‘guys wearing orange jackets working for local councils, paid-up trade union members, or the self-employed’, which suggests he is thinking more of manual and industrial workers. That is certainly a common usage of the term ‘working class’, defined by occupation rather than exclusion from ownership of productive resources. There is evidence that many such workers who traditionally supported Labour have switched to Reform.

But if a party is to be judged a workers’ party because of the number of workers who vote for it, any party which has substantial support would be a ‘workers party’ as the vast majority of voters are workers. The Tories, the Liberals and the Scots and Welsh Nats would be workers’ parties too.

Polanski’s claim that the Greens are now the workers’ party is based on promising measures to benefit workers in the workplace. He sounds like a Labour politician of yesteryear:

‘The reforms introduced by Margaret Thatcher nearly half a century ago began the long march downwards in the balance of power and wealth in our country — from those who produce and do the work to those who profit from it …. We will address the massive imbalance in our workplaces and give control back to workers’.

His claim that the Greens are the new workers’ party is in effect a claim that Greens are the new ‘Labour’ party. But why does he think that the Green Party would be any more successful in shifting the balance of power and wealth in favour of those who produce the wealth? Why does he think that the Labour Party failed to do this? And, incidentally, when did workers ever control their places of work?

The Labour Party started off as a trade union pressure group to get legislation passed that would benefit workers. At best it could be seen as a party that aimed to improve the position of workers within capitalism but, although some reforms can do and have done this, capitalism can never be made to run in the interest of the working class, because it is a profit-making system and profits come from the unpaid labour of those ‘who produce and do the work’. It is an anti-worker system and no government can change that.

Farage’s claim that his party is a workers’ party is laughable in view of its openly pro-capitalist policies. Polanski’s claim can be dismissed as vote-catching rhetoric by an opposition party that has no chance of being called to honour its promise — and, if ever it was in that position, it would fail just as the Labour Party has done and for the same reason. Capitalism simply cannot be made to work for the workers.

A real workers’ party is one that advocates political action to bring about the immediate common ownership and democratic control of productive resources.

Definitions of Socialism (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who are comparatively new to the ideas of the Socialist Party will perhaps wonder why we attach great importance to terminology. Unless there is agreement over terms, misunderstandings must follow. We don't wish to be pedantic, but the history of political movements indicates the enormous amount of confusion caused directly through the lack of satisfactory definitions. Because of this the Socialist Party always makes a point of defining what it means by socialism in every publication which goes out from the party. When we claim that the Labour Party is not a socialist party, and that the Communist Party is also not a socialist party it is because we have at least a clear idea of what we mean by socialism, and from this we don't intend on departing for any momentary political gain. Socialism has been defined by others as “The state control of exchange and a system of equal wages for all.” Such a definition we could not accept for four reasons. Under socialism there will be no state, for the state exists as an organisation for suppression, and for maintaining existence of a class or hierarchy. Secondly there will be no exchange under socialism, for exchange signifies buying and selling mid therefore ownership. Thirdly there will be no wages under socialism, because the wage system signifies that somebody is being exploited (and not getting the real fruits of their labour). And fourthly there will be no money under socialism, because money will not be needed. So for all these reasons we could not accept such a definition of socialism.

Von Scheel has defined socialism as "The economic philosophy of the suffering classes.” Such a definition is very inadequate; at all events the suffering classes have no philosophy in common even though they have poverty m common. G. Belot's definition was “The common entente with a view to social welfare. ” There are many such vague definitions. Even Wm. Morris was also vague in “The realisation for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of all these equalities.” and Hyndman "Socialism is an endeavour to substitute for the anarchical struggle or fight for existence an organised co-operation for existence.”

Chas. Bradlaugh who was a champion of free speech was never a Socialist, by his own or others definition, and said “Socialism denies individual private property and affirms that society organised as the state should own all wealth, direct all labour, and compel the equal distribution of all products ”

John Stuart Mill in his “Political Economy” gives us “Socialism is any system which requires that the land and instruments of production should be the property not of individuals but of communities or associations of the government. ” This definition comes a little nearer to the ideas of Socialism which we hold. Marx on the other hand wrote that socialism was"Substitution of conscious development of humanity for the unconscious development.” This is of course more of a philosophical than an economic definition not designed for use in day to day socialist propaganda and because of this could not be used by an organisation as the Socialist Party. Engels’ definition was also a bit philosophical “Mental reflection of the conflict existing in reality between the productive forces and the modes of production.”

A. Schäffle in “Quintessence of Socialism” writes “The Alpha and Omega of socialism is the transformation of private and competing capitalism into united collective capital.” Such definitions, which are common enough, have been the cause of a large amount of real confusion between nationalisation and socialism, and have been deliberately fostered by the labour parties throughout the world, as indeed it is their idea of socialism. Ramsay MacDonald was equally confused in his “Socialism is the application of mutual aid to politics and economics.” Proudhon's definition was likewise inadequate “Socialism is every aspiration towards the amelioration of society.” We might all argue with justification as to what constitutes an amelioration of society. Bebel in his “Woman and Socialism," invokes science and takes us up into the clouds with, “Science applied with clearer conscious and full knowledge to every sphere of human activity.” In “Le Mouvement Socialiste," T. De Wyzewa defines socialism as "A doctrine which demands the suppression of the proletariat and the complete control of wealth and power by the collectivity.” Such an adverse definition savours of influence from Russian Bolshevism. Another from K. Diehl in “Uber Socialisms, Kommunismus und Anarchisms,” “Negatively Socialism is the abolishing of private property in land or capital; positively it postulates personal income derived from labour only, and the abolishing of private possessions of capital” Again the Socialist Party could never work on such an inadequate definition.

There have been no lack of adverse definitions of socialism, and although these are not accepted except by anti-socialists, a few are interesting and can be given to show that even socialists have a sense of humour. “Socialism, like every other social system, when stripped of its emotional trimmings, gets down to a formula for living without work.” The author, was perhaps a little biased for it was Henry Ford. Mrs. Fawcett authoress of a little book on political economy renders the follow amusing verse.

“ What is a Communist?

Why one that hath yearnings,

Of equal division of unequal earnings,

Idler, or bungler, or both, he is willing,

To fork out his penny, and to pocket your shilling!” 

Winston Churchill left one to go down in history after him, when he declared a few years ago that, "Socialism was the equalisation of poverty and the organisation of misery.”

One of the most curious was perhaps Lenin’s serious definition that “Socialism is Soviet Power plus Electrification.”

So when you read our literature again we hope you will appreciate the very sound reasons why we always print our definition and declaration of principles in all party material, and we don’t mind being pulled up on them because they are what we believe.

Horace Jarvis

Letter: Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators (1994)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx & Socialism — or . . . educating the educators

We publish below part of an exchange of correspondence, which is self-explanatory, between one of our members and Collins English Dictionaries.

Dear Sirs,

I recently bought a copy of The Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus in One Volume as a reference work for my studies. I would like to advise you of a significant factual and historical error it contains.

This concerns the entry under "socialism". There are three definitions given: I refer to the third which states, "(in Marxist theory) a transitional stage in the development of a society from capitalism to communism". This is incorrect. Nowhere in the writings of Marx, nor indeed in those of Engels, are the terms “socialism" or/ and "communism" used to describe either a transitional stage or different stages of social development. In this sense Marx used the terms interchangeably to mean a society of common ownership and production for use, and therefore without buying and selling, an exchange economy, classes or the state.

As a matter of historical interest, this separation was first made by Lenin in an attempt to give credibility to the post-1917 situation in Russia, by frequently referring to that society, now generally acknowledged to be state capitalist, by the term "socialism". As a student of Marx's work for nearly fifty years, I assure you that the definition you give is derived from Leninist theory not Marx's as you state.

Bill Robertson

Reply:

Dear Mr Robertson,

Thank you for your letter of 15 August. In it you state that the definition of SOCIALISM (sense 3) refers to Leninist and not Marxist theory. I agree with your assertion as Marx did not describe any intermediate "socialist" stage between the collapse of capitalism and the establishment of communism. He used the terms "communism" and "socialism” interchangeably. It was. as you rightly point out, Lenin who created this distinction to describe the situation in the Soviet Union after the Bolsheviks seized power. Subsequent Soviet leaders, as you are no doubt well aware, also used this distinction, most notably Khrushchev who in the early 1960s described the USSR as a "socialist state" that would "achieve Communism by 1980".

Thank you for taking the trouble to point out this mistake.

Yours sincerely.

Andrew Holmes, 

Assistant Lexicographer, Collins English Dictionaries.

Class War (1991)

From the February 1991 issue of the Socialist Standard

What class you are in is defined by the position in which you stand with regard to the means of production. In capitalist society there are two basic classes: those who own and control the means of production and those who own no productive resources apart from their ability to work.

The working class in capitalist society is made up of all those who are obliged through economic necessity to sell their mental and physical energies for a wage or salary. If this is your position then you are a member of the working class. The job you do and the status it might have, the pay you receive and how you chose to spent it, are irrelevant as long as you are dependent on working for a wage or salary in order to live.

In Britain over 90 percent of the population are members of the working class. Of the rest only about 2-3 per cent are members of the exploiting, capitalist class who enjoy a privileged non-work income derived from the surplus value produced by the working class over and above what they are paid as wages and salaries.  The others are the self-employed—small shopkeepers, independent workers, professional people—whose income is derived from selling some service or other directly to the consumer rather than from selling their labour power to an employer. And many of these can be assimilated, in terms of income, to the ordinary worker.

What this means is that essentially we are living in a two-class society of capitalists and workers. But what about the "middle class”? The existence of such a middle class is one of the greatest myths of the twentieth century. In the last century, the term was used by the up-and-coming industrial section of the capitalist class in Britain to describe themselves; they were the class between the landed aristocracy (who at that time dominated political power) and the working class. Eventually, however, the middle class of industrial capitalists replaced the landed aristocracy as the ruling class and the two classes merged into the capitalist class we know today. In other words, the 19th century middle class became part of the upper class and disappeared as a “middle” class.

The term, however, lived on and came to be applied to civil servants, teachers and other such white-collar workers. But there was no justification for this, as such people were clearly workers just as much obliged by economic necessity to sell their ability to work as were factory workers, miners, engine drivers and dockers. The only difference was the type of job they were employed to do—and a certain amount of snobbery attached to it. .

It is not just the Daily Mail persists in believing that there is a middle class. So does the SWP which has come forward with a theory of the “new middle class”. This “class” is said to be composed of higher-grade white collar workers and to make up between 10 and 20 percent of the workforce (The Changing Working Class by SWP leaders Alex Callinicos and Chris Harman, p. 37). The reason given for excluding these people from the working class is that they exercise some degree of control over the use of the means of production and/or authority over other workers; in short, because they perform some managerial role.

To adopt this view is to abandon the relationship-to-the-means-of-production theory of class for one based on occupation. Socialists have always maintained that, as far as the actual production of wealth is concerned, the capitalist class are redundant. They play no part in production, which is run from top to bottom by hired workers of one sort or another. This means that all jobs, including those concerned with managing production and/or disciplining other members of the working class, are performed by members of the working class. To exclude from the working class workers with no productive resources of their own who are paid, among other things, to exercise authority of behalf of the employing class over other workers is to give more importance to the job done (occupation) than to the economic necessity  of having to sell labour power for a wage or salary which for Marxists is the defining feature of the working class.

Of course not everybody who receives an income in the form of a salary is necessarily a member of the working class. Some capitalists chose to manage their own businesses and pay themselves a “salary” for doing this. Although a part of this might correspond to the price of labour power (the part corresponding to what the capitalist would have to pay to hire a professional manager to do the same job), usually most of it is only a disguised way of distributing some of the surplus value at the expense of the other shareholders. What makes a salary-earner a member of the working class is not the mere receipt of a salary but being economically dependent on it for a living.

Having to work for an employer was not only how Marx defined the working class. It is also, and more importantly, the view of many workers who have never heard of Marx. When asked, as in a number of recent radio broadcasts, a surprising –and pleasing –number have replied that anyone who has to work for a living is a worker. Which makes them more sensible than both the Daily Mail and the SWP.

Adam Buick

A confused professor (2026)

From the January 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Vivek Chibber is a well-known figure on the American left. A professor of sociology at New York University, he regards himself as a Marxist and is seen by some as an important social theorist. The April 2023 edition of the Socialist Standard carried a review of a book he had recently published with the ambitious title Confronting Capitalism. How the World Works and How to Change It. The review recognised the author’s clear and accessible explanation of how capitalism works. In particular it endorsed the book’s explanation of capitalism’s relationship with the state and the struggle it inevitably generates between the two classes in society – capitalists and workers – and how it dictates that governments, no matter what their stated ideology, cannot have a mediating role between workers and capitalists but have no choice but to govern on behalf of the capitalist class and in their collective profit-making interest. In the same way, the review approved the book’s further observation that individual capitalists, regardless of their personal character or values, are compelled by the nature of the system they operate in to minimise costs and seek profit, wherever possible and whatever the consequences, the result being that a tiny minority of the population are able to live in luxury while billions struggle to keep their heads above water and experience life as a daily grind.

Chasing reforms

So far, so good, and, as explanations of capitalism go, pretty lucid. But, as the review then went on to point out, Chibber’s prescription for remedying the situation he correctly analyses was not to get rid of the capitalist system and replace it with a different one but rather to chase reforms of various kinds to try and make that system more palatable. And this, puzzingly, after having told us that the imperatives of capitalism make that impossible. Arguably even more puzzling then was his final call to ‘start down the road of social democracy and market socialism’, even though, by any standards, ‘market socialism’ is a contradiction in terms.

Since all book reviews that appear in the Socialist Standard are sent to the book’s author, Chibber should at least be aware of the Socialist Party’s view and criticisms of his ideas. So when an extended interview with him appeared recently in the Jacobin magazine on aspects of his Confronting Capitalism book, it could only be of interest to see whether he seemed to have taken on board any of the points raised in our criticism of his ideas.

Though it’s clear from the start of that conversation both interviewer and interviewee see themselves as Marxists and socialists, there is virtually no reference made to what socialism might mean and nothing at all is said about the kind of socialist society that Marx advocated – one based not on the market and buying and selling but on the abolition of the money and wages system and free access to all goods and services. There is, however, an approving reference to two major 20th century practitioners of authoritarian state capitalism, Lenin and Mao, which seems to echo the line taken in Confronting Capitalism about a Leninist party model with a centralised leadership. So no change here then. But what about his book’s advocacy of reforms of various kinds within capitalism – ‘non-reformist reforms’, as he calls them? Well nothing seems different here either. He refers to struggles for ‘workplace rights, a universal basic income grant, or pensions’ echoing the need expressed in his book for ‘a combination of electoral and mobilizational politics’ and ‘a gradualist approach’.

How many classes?

To be fair, however, the main focus of the Jacobin interview is not how capitalism could be improved or what comes after it but rather its class structure. And here, initially at least, Chibber seems to be living up to the Marxist analysis of class explained in Confronting Capitalism, ie, the existence of two classes in society – capitalists (a tiny minority) and workers (the overwhelming majority) – with irreconcilable interests, and the state being not some kind of mediating body but rather an instrument of support for the capitalist class. But then, in the second part of the interview, what can be described as a variation on this perspective emerges. Here he moves from seeing capitalism as a two-class structure to stating the existence of a third class, a ‘middle class’. This of course is a term commonly used by social analysts seeking to categorise workers in terms of such things as their backgrounds, outlooks, living styles or levels of pay. But should such a ‘third’ category have a place in any claimed Marxist analysis of class? Well, it didn’t in Confronting Capitalism, but now, perhaps somewhat surprisingly, it does here. To be precise, Chibber has this to say: ‘So the two “fundamental” classes, workers and capitalists, account probably for around 75 percent of the labor force. What’s the other remaining 25 percent? That’s what we call the middle class.’ But who are this ‘middle class’? According to him, they fall into two groups – the self-employed (‘owner operators, the traditional petty bourgeoisie’, he calls them) and ‘the salariat’.

What to respond to this? Well, we can accept – because it corresponds to observable reality – that in capitalism there has always been a small minority of individuals, who wish ‘to be their own boss’ and to set up their own small businesses of one kind or another. A small proportion of these turn out to be lucrative and may result in their creator becoming rich to the point of not having to work, But the vast majority of them are not particularly successful. Sometimes they procure a precarious living for those who run them, but more often they fail and plunge their owners into the world of seeking to sell their energies to another employer for a wage or salary. Of course, such people, at least for as long as they are in business, can be categorised as wannabe-capitalists, but the vast majority of them (those, for example, that Chibber calls ‘owner-operator shopkeepers’) still have to carry out labour on a daily basis themselves in order to survive and to support their families. So it can’t be meaningfully maintained that the existence of small ‘entrepreneurs’ somehow means that there are three classes in society rather than two.

Still less can it be said that there is, in Chibber’s words, ‘a second group’ helping to make up that ‘middle class’, consisting of those he calls ‘the professional classes and the managerial classes’. An example he gives of this is ‘a mid-level manager’ to whom certain duties are ‘outsourced’. ‘What do they do?’, he goes on. ‘They’re keeping the books, they’re designing the labor process, but they’re also managing and supervising labor. Managers are workers but who carry out the functions of capital and whose own well-being depends on the successful exploitation of labor. So they are caught between the two worlds. That’s why they’re middle class.’ He goes even further, including in this middle class ‘sections of the professoriate and the professional strata’, those with ‘a lot of autonomy’, or ‘salaried people in the professions’, though ‘some are shading into the working class: same occupation, different classes’ (eg, teachers or ‘a professor working at a community college’). To this we would have to respond that all those in Chibber’s ‘second group’, though they may have more autonomy and more pay than other workers, are no less members of the working class for their position of subordination to a system that makes them dependent on the wage or salary they receive. In addition, despite the greater security their role may appear to give them, they can never be sure that the stresses and strains of the capitalist system will not make them just as expendable in the future as workers in other occupations, ie that capitalism’s constant need for cheapness and reorganisation will not make them just as insecure in their jobs or just as surplus to requirements as any other workers.

In short the ‘Marxist’ theorist and professor not only seems not to have taken on board any of the points made in this journal’s review of his book about what replacing capitalism means and about the futility of reformist activity, but to have now rendered his previously ‘clear and accessible explanation of how capitalism works’ distinctly less clear and less accessible.

Howard Moss

The Penguin Dictionary of Politics (1993)

Book Review from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Penguin Dictionary of Politics by David Robertson. £6.99.

This new edition is alright on subjects like referendums and the party system in Scandinavia but hopelessly inadequate on anything to do with Socialism or Marx — though the idea of the former USSR as "state capitalism" does get a mention.

Letter: Not Standard terminology? (2008)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not Standard terminology?

I have long been impressed by the range and quality of writing in the Socialist Standard, but in “The Irish No” (September) Declan Ganley is described as a ‘self-made millionaire’ and reference is made to ‘former Communist countries’. Unqualified use of such terms, repeated ad nauseam in the capitalist media, is surely something to be avoided in a socialist journal..

Robert Stafford,

Norway

Reply: 

You’re right of course. No millionaire is “self-made” as they get rich by exploiting workers. And the so-called “Communist” countries were not communist but state-capitalist. Apologies for the missing inverted commas.– Editors

Public and private (2025)

From the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The recent scandals involving the once public, and now privatised, utility businesses such as those of water, rail and gas/electric have once again reopened the age-old debate between those on the left who favour public ownership of the utilities (and much else) and those on the right who think that privatisation is the only answer to the continuing travails of these services. Perhaps it might be in order to take a deep breath and look at the historical, ideological and even psychological origins of these unlikely political allegiances.

Human beings have long loved dualities in the attempt to understand the world and private/public takes its place alongside capitalist/socialist, worker/capital, reform/revolution, democracy/autocracy among countless others within polemical discourse. It is only recently that I’ve encountered any objection to this intellectual tradition courtesy of a young relative of mine claiming that she is ‘non-binary’ in her sexuality. Having long thought that man/woman was never a satisfactory duality in the first place I was not surprised by this revelation but it does serve to show the lasting power of this ideological mechanism to both inform and provoke. I won’t go into the historical origins of left and right ideological designations but their lasting allegiance to public or private capitalist economics respectively is surprising.

Nationalisation (state ownership) has a long history and we can be certain that the rich and powerful would not put their hands deep into their pockets to pay a tax that made this possible unless they could see some financial advantage. In 1858 the British state took over the East India Company to save it from the disastrous implications of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year which endangered British imperialism and the massive profits that it made for the parasite capitalist class.

In 1871 that well-known ‘socialist’ Otto von Bismarck embarked on massive state investment and control of many industries including railways, mining, agriculture, road building and, of course, the military. Needless to say that this was done, not to improve working conditions, but to accelerate German industrial development so that it might compete on the international stage both economically and militarily whilst simultaneously making unimaginable profits for his Junker supporters. Ironically Bismarck was also known as a ‘state socialist’ as well as a ‘state capitalist’ because of his introduction of a ‘welfare state’ which was supposed to blunt the increasing popularity of socialism. To do this he consulted the traitor Ferdinand Lassalle who had come up with the crackpot theory that the bourgeois state was politically neutral and could be used by the proletariat to reform capitalism until socialism was achieved. To this day leftists still use this as a programme for socialism, conveniently forgetting that it was instigated by one of socialism’s greatest enemies.

Because of these historical contradictions we have ended up with an unholy mess of Orwellian definitions of what socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, state socialism, democracy, public, private, etc. really mean. In the popular mind we can safely say that many believe socialism to be state ownership of industry and that capitalism represents ‘private’ ownership. The fact that sometimes the exact opposite is true represents the internal contradictions of capitalism and its subsequent ideological claims which, in our tabloid sound-bite media, is way too complex for their narrow political agendas. Remember that mainstream political parties are effectively PR organisations for the continuation of capitalism and have no interest in historical, economic or political truth. To celebrate the meaninglessness of it all we have two wonderful British examples: public schools are private schools and companies that go ‘public’ are secretive private enterprises with a veneer of public transparency.

The concepts of public and private predate, of course, the vicissitudes of contemporary political debate. The right to a ‘private life’ is a rather new social concept given that our species is intensely social and has lived communally for aeons. There have been many who have had to operate under secrecy for religious and ideological reasons but this is rather different since all those in power suffer from degrees of paranoia and are always suspicious of privacy in others. Hypocritically these same people are always the first to claim the right to privacy and secrecy under the name of national security.

So what does privacy really mean? Is it the need to separate yourself from others due to the shame that accompanies sexual preference or corruption or criminal intent or is it a basic human need for occasional solitude so that the contemplation of the ‘self’ can occur? True introspection is rare so it’s reasonable to suspect that the right to ‘private property’ and the bourgeois cult of individuality lie more at the heart of the contemporary concept of privacy. Your wealth is due to your own efforts and has nothing to do with the exploitation of the labour of others. This is the lie at the centre of the concept.

Privacy, with its modicum of ‘control’, militates against the reality of interdependence, the recognition of which is our only hope as a species. Individuals and their families locked up in their mortgaged jerry-built houses with security cameras and an inbuilt fear of ‘the other’ are infinitely more insecure than those who live in communities of mutual aid and respect. Divide and rule is one of the strongest propaganda tools available to the tiny parasitic elite that rule us so don’t be fooled that state ownership is public ownership because the state only exists to prevent those who create wealth from accessing it. Any state-owned business will be systematically underfunded to keep the taxes of the rich at a bare minimum with all of the subsequent industrial unrest that this inevitably causes.

We are sometimes told that ‘socialist sects’ should all join up in a mass coalition to have more power but it doesn’t matter a jot how much power you have if you are ignorant of the origins of your ideologies and the true nature of capitalism whether it’s in traditional bourgeois form or of the state capitalist incarnation – neither can, or will, improve your life.

Wez.

Quotes (Western Clarion) (1908)

From the September 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Revolution is merely a phase in evolution and it is erroneous etymology and mere carping to place them in contradiction to each other. You would call him a fool despite the dangers of hell’s fire, who allowed the weeds, cut-worms, the multifarious enemies of agriculture and horticulture to destroy his crops, while he sat by and impotently murmured Laws of Nature—evolution, survival of the fittest. Not any wiser would we be did we act in a similar fashion before the enemies of our existence.

Western Clarion.

Premier McBride tells us that the only difference between Conservatives and Liberals is their attitude towards Labor. He neglected to add, however, that the only difference in their attitude towards Labor is as to which of them shall hold Labor down while Capital goes through him.

Western Clarion.

Revolution (2025)

From the September 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Revolution n. In the political sense, a word which inspires dread in those who even passively support the status quo in a society, ie, most people – the rich through fear of dispossession, the poor through fear of violence and instability.

In fact, in history, political revolutions have arguably saved the poor from violence more than they have subjected them to it. Such examples would be where revolution has shortened or ended war, by overthrowing the rulers making the war – as in the case of Russia in 1917, where the mass slaughter on the eastern front was brought to a halt by the action of the soldiers themselves and their fellow workers at home. Disobedience and mutiny, often signs of approaching revolution, have thus saved lives.

However, revolution in the popular imagination (mostly drawn from the violence and turbulence of the minority revolutions of France and Russia, which freed the capitalist minority class from the restraints of feudal and semi-feudal monarchy) is not what socialists mean by the word revolution. Indeed, had these minority revolutions not been symptomatic of revolution in the economic basis of society, but merely political, socialists would not even call them revolutions at all.

Hence, whereas the French and the Russian, and the English, revolutions were revolutions, the so-called American Revolution was not, but merely a war for the independence of the colonial capitalists from the British capitalist state. It did not change the basis of colonial society, which remained capitalism. This is also true of national uprisings miscalled ‘revolutions’ which are simply the result of capitalist quarrels between national factions or between colonial and national factions for the control of capitalist loot.

All revolutions hitherto have been minority class revolutions, and hence marked by violence, as former classes of society have been expunged and others become ascendant. The revolutionary minority in all cases have made use of the majority in order to seize power, but the majority has yet to make its revolution.

With only two classes remaining in society, the 1 percent capitalist class who exclusively own the means of production and the 99 percent working class who are thus compelled to work for them, the socialist revolution will be the revolution of the majority of humankind. Since this can only happen when the majority are conscious and desire it, violence will not be necessary, unlike the minority class revolutions of the past.

The means for peaceful majority revolution have long existed in parliamentary bourgeois democracies, namely the ballot.

This political act will be the formality that will liberate the transformation, already long since waiting in the wings, of the economic basis of society in the interest of all – hence, real revolution.

A.W.

The Forum: Our Position Queried. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Harrison (Salford) writes :

I should esteem it a favour if you would explain through your journal the following points. (1) Does the S.P.G.B. control the votes of its members by similar conditions that obtain for the speakers ? (2) Does the Party consider it futile for members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own party ? (3) What is the motive of your Rule 31 (that no member shall take office unless the whole number be elected)? Knowing that several representatives from scattered constituencies should equal the influence of a like number from one constituency, what is the object of the Party in seeking representation ? (4) Assuming the success of all its candidates in a given area, what would be their attitude in the House to such reforms as State Maintenance of School Children, Eight Hours’ Day, States Railways, and Old Age Pensions, and in the Council chambers toward Municipal enterprises (Trams, Gas, Water, etc.) when brought forward by the other parties ? Although refraining from advocating these reforms, does it consider such measures as mentioned no alleviation to the suffering masses? (5) There are pronounced opinions respecting the relations between Socialism and Religion, Christianity, etc. Numerous Church ministers assert that the two doctrines run smoothly together, others assert that they are antagonistic. Notable Socialist (so-called) speakers definitely affirm that the two doctrines may be conscientiously observed. A quotation appears this week in Justice to this effect. When questions are asked in public there is always a lot of uncertainty in the replies, as if afraid of hurting someone’s feelings. Do you affirm that the two are in harmony ? (6) In what sense are we to accept the phrases “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist”? A lucid definition of these points will oblige,

Yours truly, 

H. Harrison.

Reply:

In reply to Mr. Harrison’s first question the only rules giving the Party control over speakers specifically are rules 2 (“A member shall not speak from any other political party platform except in opposition”) and 6 (which requires that before a member is put on the official lecture list he shall give evidence of the possession of the necessary knowledge and ability to expound the principles of Socialism and defend the position of the Party).

The same reason which led to the formulation of the quoted item of rule 2 makes it clear that a like control, at least as far and as effective as the “secret ballot” will allow, over the votes of members is exercised by the Party. That reason is found in the opening sentence of the last clause of our Declaration of Principles, where it is declared that our Party “enters the field of political action determined to wage war upon all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.” This being the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, it follows that no member can use his vote in favour of any other political party without acting contrary to the principles he subscribed to upon becoming a member. The sixth clause of the Declaration contains a syllogism—two premises and a conclusion which necessarily follows from them. The premises are : “All political parties are but the expression of class interests” and “The interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interests of all sections of the master class.” The conclusion arrived at from these two propositions is that “the party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party.” The only possible ground of escape from this conclusion is that these two classes are not the only ones in society. Apart from this, if the two premises are correct, then the conclusion must be correct also, and that being so, members of such party must not in any circumstances support by any political activity, whether of voice or pen or at the ballot box, any other political party. Of course, it is open to Mr. Harrison (or anyone else) to suggest that the two classes named are not the only ones in society, or to challenge the truth of one or both of the premises, but until that is done the answer must be regarded as conclusive.

The reply to the first question may be extended to the second, which is “Does the Party consider it futile for its members to use their votes in support of the other political parties (S.D.P., I.L.P., Liberal, Conservative, etc.) when not represented by their own Party ?” It only remains to be said, in referring our inquirer back to the syllogism, that as neither the S.D.P. nor the I.L.P., stand in opposition to the capitalist class (they both support capitalist candidates and otherwise ally themselves with the master class on the political field, see S.P.G.B. Manifesto) they therefore cannot represent interests opposed to the capitalist class. They do not stand opposed to all other political parties, hence they are not in actual fact, and judged by their deeds—not their words, parties seeking working-class emancipation. The political arena being merely the battle-field of class interests, where every tie and obligation is forgotten, every allegiance cast to the wind, every barrier swept away, saving only the barrier of class interests, those who, found upon that battle-field, do not stand with us upon our side of that barrier, are against us. Do we think it futile to support such as these ? Oh, we think it much worse than futile !

The third point concerns our 31st and last rule, which lays it down that the Party shall only contest elections by putting forward a candidate for each vacancy in the particular ward, district or constituency, and that no member, though elected, shall take office unless the whole number for the particular ward, district or constituency be elected.

Once again Mr. Harrison is referred to the sixth clause of our Declaration of Principles. If the three propositions of the syllogism are true, if in particular the last of them—”The party seeking working-class emancipation must be hostile to every other political party”—is correct, then hostility to all other parties must be one of the basic principles of its political activity. A vote, to be of any value to such a party, must be the vote of a person who is also hostile to every other party, and no such voter could be guilty of the idiocy of voting both ways, or giving one vote for Socialism, as symbolised by the S.P. candidate, and one for capitalism, as expressed by the candidates of all other parties. Neither could the class-conscious worker who has the opportunity of voting for two Socialist candidates, use the vote in one case and wilfully fail in the other. The rule is a safeguard against building up a position upon such votes as these. That such a safefuard is necessary will be at once seen when we consider the position of men who are elected by unsound votes. Whatever their private and individual opinions may be, in their public and official capacity they are neither more nor less than those who put them in office. The real power is not the man, or the seat, but those who control the one because the other is in their gift. It is a remarkable fact that those who so proudly label themselves Social Democrats, in contradistinction to us (who are merely Socialists), are blind to this first axiom of democracy, that power is with the electors, and not with the elected. They are guilty of undemocratic action at very outset, in suggesting, and acting upon, the idea that once in position, under no matter what pretext, they make themselves the masters of those who have placed them there, and who have power to presently cast them out. This is the very essence of demagogy, the central idea of bosses and fakers, the cherished instrument of all working-class cheats and misleaders and men who have taken “the print of the golden age” and want to “get there” for various reasons. Against a majority of men so elected, and upon such a mandate presuming to take action upon the only lines that could seriously touch capitalist interests — revolutionary lines—the master class would find their easiest and simplest remedy in an appeal to the country ! Those who had voted for reform would soon settle the attempt to cheat them into Revolution. Well if that appeal did not take the shape of bloody suppression, aided, connived at, or at least passively disapproved of by those constituents who had sanctioned reform only. This is why the masters are not afraid of the “Labour” Party. They know them at once for dishonest men, who can be bought whenever they have anything to sell—which is usually before they are elected, not after. They know perfectly well that they represent only the ignorance of the working class, and stand, opaque and obfuscating figures, between that ignorance and the light. And so long as they are content to do this the capitalists are willing to allow them, and even to help them into office and invite them to their little feasts, as a sign to the multitude that “Capital and Labour are Brothers.”

What is our object in seeking representation ? Simply the seizure of the political machinery for the purpose of overthrowing capitalism. We do not want the so-called palliatives—for they don’t palliate. Even if they did we should condemn the present system and clamour for a new one, for obviously it is the business of those interested in the continuance of the capitalist system to patch it up to last a little longer. And the louder we shout for its demolition the harder will they try to patch it up. It is our business to show the rottenness within—theirs to present a fair exterior : it is not for us to show them how to perpetuate their domination. We have work enough to see that the reformers do not lull the workers into such apathetic belief in the possibilities of the capitalist system that it shall be left to fall of its own rottenness, and plunge humanity into fatal chaos born of its own ignorance and unpreparedness. Seeking representation therefore, for the purpose named, we desire to build up our position with sound bricks, or sound, revolutionary votes, in order that it may be a true index of our strength and we may be neither led nor driven into the appeal to force until the time is ripe. It is in order to assure, as far as possible, that every vote given us shall be a clear demand for the ending of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism that we have formulated rule 31.

As to our elected representatives’ attitude towards reforms, it is hardly fair to ourselves to answer this question without ample room for supporting it with argument. And further, it is possible that the last word has not been said upon that subject yet. The S.P.G.B. is a scientific party. As such it is open to assimilate each scientific truth as it is unfolded, and to adapt itself to such altered circumstances as might be advisable. This remark has special reference to the possible contingency of the capitalists putting forward a measure to extend the franchise with a view to swamping the Socialist vote with the vote of the slum. But confining ourselves to the class of measures our correspondent enumerates, and pending a special paper on the subject (by editorial grace) the following may be said. We ask for no vote for palliatives or reforms or “municipal enterprises,” but only for Socialism. Just as we by our 31st rule try to avoid annexing “palliative” votes, so if voting against “palliatives” lost us votes they could only be votes we try by all means to get rid of. As we declare before winning seats that “palliatives” are no good to the workers, and as they cannot be one iota more useful after we have won seats, obviously we must go on saying the same thing about them, and pointing out their fraudulent nature. It is plain then that our representatives cannot vote for these things. Shall we oppose them ? Well, why not ? At present there is evidence that before one class-conscious constituency is evolved in this country, and therefore before one S.P.G.B. representative takes his seat upon any elected public body, bitter experience will have sickened a vast portion of our fellow workers of such expedients. The return of our representatives will signify as much, in fact. The demand for reform is not in any sense of the word an attack upon capitalism, but the movement for revolution is. Against the first the capitalists have no need to defend (as history since the Chartist movement shows), but against the last they are compelled to exert their greatest efforts. Therefore the first man returned to Parliament under conditions such as the S.P.G.B. candidates will alone accept office upon, will carry consternation into the enemy’s camp, for it will be an unmistakeable declaration against reform, an undeniable demand for Revolution. As the Revolutionary must necessarily attack, so defense lies with the reactionary. The only defense at that stage will be the pretended reform. The evils of the system will be too patent for denial: they must use the arguments of the quasi-Socialist that the social edifice can be reformed. They must try and patch up the crumbling structure in order that it may last a little longer. Unnecessary to state, the dominant class will do this in their own interests— which are tied up in capitalism. Once more if there is any truth in that clause of our Declaration of Principles which declares that the interests of the master class and the working class are diametrically opposed then the duty of revolutionaries is clear. The reform becomes the reactionaries’ defense, therefore it must be attacked tooth and nail. It will be defended, for it is the last ditch of capitalism, beyond which is nothing but the force of arms on the open battle field. So we shall have to take their reforms as long as we are not strong enough to reject them, and when the master class are too weak to continue to force their reforms upon us, then indeed the day of the Social Revolution is near at hand.

In view of the apace already occupied, Mr. Harrison must be referred to our 43rd issue for the answer to the fifth query. Under the title of “Can a Christian be a Socialist” the matter was ably dealt with. Further, a pamphlet on the subject of Socialism and Religion is in course of preparation.

The final question concerns the meaning of the terms “Revolutionary Socialism” and “Revolutionary Socialist.” Well, the terms mean simply “Socialism ” and “Socialist.” There is no need to qualify these two plain words, for as Socialism at this stage implies revolution, Socialism must necessarily be revolutionary and every Socialist a revolutionary. Some of us who now know better may have been guilty of thus distinguishing terms that need no such distinction, but as we get older and learn the ropes we realise that speaking of “revolutionary” Socialism may create, does create, the impression that there is a form of Socialism which is not revolutionary, and of Socialists who are not revolutionary—an absurdity, at least until such time as (long after the realisation of the Socialist system) evolution shall have made the upholders of that system reactionaries against the system that is to follow it—if such a time ever comes. But it is probably the term “revolutionary” that is in question. The word “revolution,” from which the adjective is derived, signifies the entire change in the nature of the social structure which distinguishes Socialism from capitalism. It is the very antithesis of reform. Its root, germ or essence is the changing of the very basis of society—the property condition—while the root principle of reform is to preserve the social basis as the essential of perpetuating the social fabric unchanged. It is evident that one cannot be both revolutionary and reformer at the same time. To act in both directions at once, if such a thing is at all possible, is but to negate oneself, to cancel one’s political activity, to reduce oneself to the standing of the passive supporter of the status quo, and therefore of the anti-Socialist. The term “revolutionary,” then, implies the advocate of a change in the basis of society, and a “revolutionary Socialist” is a revolutionary who advocates that in making that change, it shall take the form of substituting social ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth for the present private ownership of these things. But as only thus can Socialism appear, every Socialist must be revolutionary, and is best known as a Socialist only.

A. E. Jacomb

Letter: Top class (2001)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

Top class

Dear Editors,

I wish to ask a question – how best to describe collectively, what is the best term to use, to encompass “the ruling class”, “boss class”, “capitalist class”, “power brokers”, etc, etc? For when responding to pensioners in the supermarket. I am 81.

JH, 

Hull

Reply: 

Any of the terms you use will do. We tend to use “capitalist class” and “ruling class”, though our Declaration of Principles uses “master class” which is a bit dated. We don’t recommend you use the word “bourgeoisie” in supermarket queues.– Editors.

Letter: Criminal classes (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Criminal classes

The Socialist Party persistently state in their vintage way that there are only two classes in society. I beg to differ. My list of classes would include criminals who were once members of the working class, and the self-employed. Your figures of two classes is petty.

R. West

London W.10

Reply:

Your contention about criminals might be answered by looking at court reports in the newspapers. Do the accused give their occupations as “burglar”, “smash-and-grab raider” or “bag snatcher”? Of course not. They describe themselves as salesmen, labourers, drivers, factory workers, unemployed etc. — in short, as members of the working class.

The definition of a worker is one who has no ownership of the means of living and is therefore forced to sell his labour-power, his only possession, in order to live. There are always numbers trying to escape this life-sentence or to solve the perpetual working-class problem of insufficient money, by crime. Hardly any live by it; it is a sporadic activity, and for the rest of the time the individual is faced with having to find a job because that is his class position.

By “self-employed” presumably you mean small shopkeepers and other one-man businesses. Again, consider definitions. A capitalist, because of his ownership of the means of production, employs people and appropriates the surplus value created by them to turn it into interest and profit. A person using no other labour-power than his own is not in this position. If he is a shopkeeper his profit is from trading, i.e. it is a small portion of what is realized from the surplus value created in manufacture. Generally his position is no different from what it would be if he were an employee, nor is his income. As an example, some “landlords” of public-houses are managers employed by breweries and others are tenants and allegedly “their own masters”; in practice the difference is purely one of business administration and the “landlord” is a member of the working class — as are these self-employed individuals as a whole.

Editors.

Letter: New definitions (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

New definitions

F. Sliwinski’s argument for the evolving of a new language to educate the working class is commendable but hardly possible of realization. To be of use it needs mass dissemination, and by what means? The schools, the media, all controlled by the “cheap bamboozling propagandists”? Hardly. The Standard’s progress in seventy years should disillusion the best-intentioned. Swift questioned the ability of words to convey definitions of what we actually mean and suggested we carry around with us the things to make our meaning clear. To take a television from our pocket and shout triumphantly “This is what I mean”, then drop it over a cliff.

The East End schoolteacher sacked for teaching children poetry is a good example of what we are up against. Sliwinski makes his point though perhaps admitting inadvertently that Marx did not, as far as the ordinary man is concerned. Capital written in the vernacular with wit, caustic humour and belly laughs might achieve something. Marx stripped of some verbiage could reveal the tree for the hanging of. Paine was dangerous to the ruling classes for his clear unadulterated English whereas Godwin constituted no threat though he pleaded on the same lines as Paine.

Unfortunately obscurity denotes profundity, vagueness great intellect, and if you don’t understand don’t ask him who professes to — for the condescending smirk may hide the fact that he has also lost his bearings.

Nevertheless, like Seddon who wrote to his wife the night before his execution, “I am still cheerful”.

Ruth Bolster 

London S.E.15

Who are the ‘People’? (2025)

From the July 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The People, n. with def. article: a term that arose with the war of independence of American property-owners from the British crown and which came into general international use with the bourgeois revolution in France, where it referred to the ‘Third Estate’ – a general term for those neither of noble nor ecclesiastical aristocracy, but applying specifically to the revolutionary bourgeoisie, or capitalist (middle) class, as applied to themselves.

‘The People’ was therefore a capitalist term and indicated that class’s political and economic interest. It was mistakenly adopted by the nascent French working class of the French Revolutionary period, in ignorance of the fact that it was their masters’ watchword. It is still used today by non-class conscious members of the working class, and also by the representatives of capital desiring to blur the class struggle and keep the workers believing we share one entity with our exploiters, ie ‘The People’ of Britain, ‘The People’ of the United States, ‘The People’ of China, of Ukraine, of Russia, of Japan, of France, etc.

The People does not exist. There are two classes under present conditions: the capitalist minority and the working class majority. Each of us belongs to one or the other.

Only with the expropriation of the capitalist class by the working class will people come into existence, the people of Earth, no more under nation-states, but a real humanity.

A.W.

Correspondence: Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising? (1958)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising?

A reader, Mr. H. G. Beales (Northfleet), writes suggesting that our Declaration of Principles would be more attractive if re-worded. He writes

“May I, as a looker-on, offer you a few humble suggestions ? It does seem to me that you have a case that should run through this country like fire; it only needs to be stated in more up-to-date language; all this talk about the Master Class is a trifle obsolete. 1 enclose a few suggested improvements for your declaration of principles."

Proposed Declaration of Principles

(1)

“That Society, as at present constituted, is based upon the ownership of Money, and the acquisition of Money. This state of Society has succeeded in making Man the most vicious and selfishly cruel animal this world has ever known. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence where Mankind is going, if he persists in this way of life.

(2)

"No one can dispute that this could be a really wonderful world to live in. Nature always produces in abundance if given the right kind of encouragement. Not only has the present system of Society debased and brutalised human nature, it also persistently shortens and brutalises his physical life on this earth. The latest scientific opinion is that man's body is constructed to last 150 years in health. Think what this means.

(3)

“Your Hospitals are chock-a-block with sick people. Your mental institutions are not big enough to cope with all the mentally sick. All this is directly due to the present system of Society. It is always Money first and Humanity a very had second. The existing law says every man for himself, which is the law of the jungle, and quite obsolete in this age.

(4)

“In a state of plenty the present state of Society would collapse, hence the great fight being waged by the powers-that-be against a state of plenty. The present system could not exist in a state of plenty, and its managers are only interested in making the Money system work, which, as you see, is the cause of all our troubles.

(5)

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain proposes to bring about a really sane system of Society, based on discipline and decency, by educating the people, politically, morally and spiritually with this object in view. We therefore appeal to everyone agreeing with the above principles, of any creed, sex, or colour, to join us and save Mankind from catastrophe, and make his sojourn here really worth while, and of which he may be rightfully proud."

Reply

(1) Our correspondent's first point concerns the choice of words. There is little doubt that if the Declaration of Principles had been drawn up in 1954 instead of in 1904 some phrases would have been differently worded, simply because some words have gone out of use and others have come into use. Some different words would have been used, but to express exactly the same principles. To make a change now would have some advantage, no doubt, but against it would be the disadvantage that some people would assume that a different meaning was intended and time would be taken up explaining that there had been no change in meaning. This idea has been considered, but the Party has decided against the change of wording.

If all that holds back the swift acceptance of our Declaration of Principles in the year 1958 is that some of its wording smacks of the language of 1904 why did it not sweep the country in 1904 ? The reason, we hold, lies in the fact that the ideas embodied in the Declaration were not readily acceptable and would not have been readily acceptable no matter what words were used to clothe them.

(2) Our correspondent mentions the term “master class,” which, he holds, is a trifle obsolete. We assume that he means that a different name should be used for the capitalist class. It is quite true that most workers to-day do not use the term master class, or the term capitalist class; neither did they in 1904. But there is more in this than a name. Most workers, then as now. had not realised that they live in a class-divided society, it is a conception that has to be explained to them, for the capitalist class has not undergone anything more than superficial changes. They still own, and still, directly or through their agents, control the means of production and distribution.

(3) Our correspondent, however, wants us to drop the reference to means of production and distribution and use instead the words "money” and "the acquisition of money.” To this there are two main objections. The first is that it is not accurate. The basis on which capitalism rests is not money, but the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution, the land, factories, railways, etc.

The second is that it would easily be misunderstood by those who believe that the evils of capitalism could be removed by changes in the monetary system, for example, the advocates of complete governmental ownership of the banks, the advocates of inflation and their opposites, the advocates of "sound money,” i.e., a circulating gold currency in places of notes.

(4) And this brings us to the fact that, in addition to changing the words, our correspondent has removed the clauses of the Declaration dealing with the need to gain control of the machinery of government in order that Socialism shall be established. This is a fatal defect in itself but it also overlooks the fact that a political party has to have a basis on which members are admitted. The basis of membership of the S.P.G.B. is its Declaration of Principles. If the revised form suggested by our correspondent replaced the existing form, admission to membership would cease to be dependent on the old Declaration and would rest on the new. This would open the Party to people who do not accept the need to gain control of the machinery of government, and to people who wanted only that the monetary system be amended, or replaced by barter, and to many others who, in fact, do not accept the Socialist case.

Editorial Committee.

Socialism and Social Reform. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are many people who regard Socialism merely as a demand for Social Reform, as a desire on the part of certain sections of the community for better conditions of labour and living for the working class. This misconception is largely due to organisations claiming to be “Socialist” but devoting their energies to the propagation of reforms, whereby the real issue is obscured, the sympathies of the kind-hearted are aroused and, at election times, the support and votes of those who know nothing of Socialism, but believe in some particular “ameliorative” measure, are secured. It is this kind of “Socialism” that leads people to talk of the Socialist demand as “the true development of the Liberalism which won the working classes the franchise and other privileges they now enjoy,” although, as the Tories justly claim, many of these “privileges” were granted by them in the teeth of the opposition of the champions of Liberalism. It was, therefore, refreshing to read Mr. Balfour’s speech at Birmingham on November 14th. In truth, he said, there is no difficulty or ambiguity about the subject at all. Socialism has one meaning and one meaning alone. Socialism means and can mean nothing else than that the community … is to take all the means of production into its own hands, that private property and private enterprise are to come to an end and all that private enterprise and private property carry with them. That, continued Mr. Balfour, is Socialism, and nothing else is Socialism. In discussing the difference between Socialism and social reform, he said : Social reform is when the State, based upon private enterprise, based upon private properly, recognising that the best productive results can only be obtained by respecting private property and encouraging private enterprise, asks them to contribute towards great national and public objects.

In other words, social reform leaves the basis of Society untouched, and does not affect the relative condition of the propertied class and the working class in the least. On the other hand, Socialism means the abolition of private property and the establishment of common ownership and control of the means of wealth production. It is therefore easy to understand why those who are opposed to Socialism advocate social reform, but it is inexplicable why those who claim to be out for Socialism should, by their advocacy of social reform, help the master class to maintain their supremacy, and side-track the workers from the only cause that can emancipate them, the cause of Revolutionary Socialism.