BEA’s hidden profits (1963)

From the December 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

In case any of our readers should misunderstand the intention behind the phrase “ . . . B.E.A. pointed out how generous a deal its shareholders have got . . in October’s News In Review, we publish the following clarification.

There are no shareholders or stockholders in B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. so there are no individual investors who have an interest in whether the corporations make a profit or loss.

Under the Air Corporations Act 1949 Sections 9 and 10 the corporations were authorized to issue stock (subject to permission having been given by the Treasury) and the stock carried Treasury guarantee for interest and capital. Both corporations had issues of stock. For example, B.O A. 3% stock 1960/70, B.O.A. 2½% stock 1977/82. However, under a later act, the Finance Act, 1956, the corporations were permitted to raise money by means of loans from the Exchequer with the result that these Exchequer advances have replaced the old arrangements of stock issues.

But, even under the old arrangements there were no investors who had any interest in whether the corporations made a loss or a profit. Though the stock bore the name of B.O.A. or B.E.A., they were fixed interest stocks and the interest and capital were guaranteed by the Treasury. In this respect the air corporations were following the arrangements which are fairly general throughout the nationalised industries.

Editorial Committee.

Letters: Who’s afraid of socialism? (1999)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

Who’s afraid of socialism?

Dear Editors,

As a sympathiser but not yet a member of the Socialist Party I have been interested in the discussion about the “S” word. When one considers the diverse characters who have misused the word—Hitler, Stalin, Mao down to Wilson, Kinnock, Scargill, Hatton and many many more, there is no wonder that many people are deaf to preachings in the name of Socialism.

In my opinion it has become imperative that an alternative terms must be adopted. May I suggest Common Wealth Party? (Not Commonwealth!). this is descriptive of aims and “fresh” sounding—stimulating further interest instead of instant dismissal by a potential convert to our cause.

I believe this subject deserves more serious consideration as a means to obtaining more sympathetic listeners to our message.

Robert Coleman, 

Wellington, Somerset

Reply:

Actually, there was once a party called the Common Wealth Party. It even had an MP, but he ended up defecting to the Labour Party.- Editors

That word again

Dear Editors,

I can’t help but feel that the term “socialism” has become a scapegoat.

The concept of socialism is just as vulnerable to prejudice and misunderstanding as the term we use to denote it. Those who associate “socialism” with bolshevism or the Labour Party are almost always incapable of envisaging a system of common ownership and instinctively equate it with nationalisation of one form or another. Changing our terminology will not alter the fact that many people cannot imagine an alternative to capitalism even when they have it explained to them. To imagine that it would is to accept the simplistic logic of political correctness.

Besides, abandoning the term “socialism” would bring us numerous disadvantages. We risk appearing to have broken away from our past. Our record of arguing the case for socialism is a distinction which we cannot afford to lose.

Equally, we risk appearing to have modified our views, or the suspicion that we have something to hide. We risk appearing to have succumbed to a New Labour-style victory of style over substance, or the duplicity of renamed factions of the former Communist Party. Socialism is a righting word; One World, Free Access and the like sound like Women’s Institute sub-committees.

In any case, the word socialism will always be associated with Karl Marx and his ideas, ideas which bring many people to the Socialist Party. I knew I was a socialist because that’s what Marx was and he made far more sense than anyone I’d heard of before. That’s why I bothered contacting the Socialist Party.

The irony of all this is that the problem is actually decreasing. You don’t meet many 20-year-olds who would call the Labour Party “socialist”. When I put the case for socialism to people my own age it is rare for them even to mention the USSR. I used to point out the difference between socialism and bolshevism; now most people pre-empt me.

The end of the Cold War is prompting many people to go back to Marx and re-evaluate his ideas. There is increasing interest in what most people will still call “socialism”. Now is the time to cling to that name more tenaciously than ever.

Matthew Vaughan-Wilson 

Southampton

And again

Dear Editors,

I fully accept Max Hess’s main arguments that it is better not to mention the word Socialism initially and that the positive personal benefits of socialism need more stress. I must disagree however with his conclusions regarding the Party name. Like many members I was attracted to the Socialist Party by its name rather than put off (at 14 I carefully scrutinised Tony Benn’s “Arguments for Socialism” in a vain attempt to find arguments for socialism!). Changing the name, e.g. to the “Free Access Party” (which sounds like an undergraduate debating society) or something to do with “Autonarchy” (some sort of bizarre S&M?) would be a catastrophe. For a start we would lose all rights to the Party’s history—which some of us are proud of.

Other organisations have similar problems—the anarchists for instance have a constant battle regarding the bomb-throwing jibe—yet they haven’t got this constant navel-gazing obsession with titles.

If anything it is the fake “socialists” who should be asked to change their name not us (the SWP becoming the SCMTP—State Capitalist Mostly Teachers Party, the ex-Militants becoming the RNSP—Reformist Name Stealing Party, etc).

If we’re not making socialists as rapidly as we might hope there is a case for re-examining the effectiveness of our propaganda. However the Socialist Party has never had any time for the theatricality of “spinning” (name changing included). What we say is what we are.

Keith Scholey, 

Hull

Nuclear power — making it clear (1986)

From the August 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been drawn to our attention that the statement in the June Socialist Standard that "nuclear power could be safe” needs qualifying.

Nuclear fission (splitting the atom) which is the process used in all existing nuclear power stations can never be made safe, not even in socialism, since this is a question of physics not economics It can only be made less dangerous.

What we had in mind was the possibility of being able, within a generation, to construct power stations based on the principle of nuclear fusion. This is a quite different nuclear process in which there would be no danger of a melt-down, nor of any accidental release of radioactivity into the atmosphere. nor any radioactive waste products, the only problem in this respect would be that the equipment used to contain the process would acquire a relatively short-lived radioactivity

Editors.

Obituary: Billy Iles (1966)

Obituary from the February 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

Billy Iles

In December a group of members attended a crematorium in Guildford, Surrey, to say a last and sad farewell to an old comrade, O. C. Iles, who had been ill for some time with cancer.

Billy Iles, as he was always known to us, joined the Party in 1911 and was active for years in London as a writer, speaker and doing the routine work at Head Office, until his work finally took him to Liverpool.

He was called up during the First World War but refused to join the army. He managed to keep out of trouble during the war, although he never left London, by taking various jobs on night work at Covent Garden, as a milkman, and the like. He lodged for a time with a woman member, Mrs. Chilton, along with other members "on the run"; later with another member in a flat over Head Office until the war was over. In those days we used to collect the Socialist Standard in loose sheets from the printer and folded them ourselves. Billy Iles made many trips to the printer for this purpose and spent many nights folding so that the "S.S." could be out on time.

After the war times were somewhat turbulent and meetings were inclined to be noisy. On one Bank Holiday Billy cycled all night up to Hanley in the Potteries, to hold a meeting during the coal strike in 1921.

During the twenties he was secretary to the Editorial Committee and wrote articles over the initials O.C.I.

Owing to the fact that he lived out of London we did not see much of him during late years, but his optimism and steadfast support continued all through the years and he sent many useful organisational suggestions to Head Office.

The present writer will always remember Billy as a lively and humorous companion on many cycling trips in years gone by.

His illness was a heavy burden to his wife as he only went into hospital during his last few days. To his wife, daughter and brother we send our sincere sympathy.

And so has passed away another of the diminishing group of members, who now only number a handful, who actively pressed forward the Party's principles before and during the years of the First World War.

Gilmac.

Another Anti-War Committee (1948)

From the December 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Why the S.P.G.B. will not join in

We received an invitation from the London Division of the I.L.P. in which they ask if the S.P.G.B. “will agree to a working committee together with ourselves, the Common Wealth Party, Peace Pledge Union, Anarchist Federation and/or any other body with the exception of the Communist Party, that is interested in an anti-war campaign.”

The purpose of the Committee, as set out in the letter of invitation, is “to cover the present drift towards a Third World War and, if possible, to put forward suggestions that we may have in common for future activities.”

The invitation was declined, the I.L.P. being informed by the Executive Committee of the S.P.G.B. that we are not prepared to ally ourselves with our political opponents for any purpose.

This attitude will not be understood by the well-meaning people who are forming the committee and therefore it merits some explanation.

We accept the view that the world is drifting towards another war—though to be more precise it is not enough to speak of a drift; rather it should be said that certain factors are at work actively promoting international conflict. What are these factors? They are the ceaseless efforts made by all the countries (including, of course, those ruled by Labour Party Governments and Communist Party Governments) to capture foreign markets for their exports, to control trade routes and strategic points, and to acquire or hold territories rich in raw materials.

The only way to remove the cause of war is to remove capitalism, and the only method is for a working class won over to Socialism, democratically to gain control of the machinery of government for the purpose of establishing Socialism. In relation to this object the setting up of Anti-War Committees while leaving capitalism intact is a sheer irrelevance, futile because it cannot abolish war and dangerous because of the illusions it fosters.

Where do the various organisations stand that are to set up this Anti-War Committee? The I.L.P. and Common Wealth have a record of activity, not of seeking to abolish capitalism and establish Socialism, but of supporting reforms of capitalism and of propagating the false notion that nationalisation or State Capitalism is Socialism or is a means to achieve Socialism.

The Peace Pledge Union has members in all the non-Socialist parties and is not concerned as such with abolishing capitalism which is the cause of war.

The Anarchist Federation adds its quota of confusion by denying the need for the control of the machinery of Government and by pretending that the failure of Labour and Communist State Capitalism is a failure of Socialism.

In these circumstances to talk of forming a joint committee based on what the S.P.G.B. has “in common” with these other bodies is an absurdity. The S.P.G.B. unites with Socialists to achieve Socialism but will not help to perpetuate the error that sham unity with the opponents of Socialism, however well-meaning they may be, will help the working-class or the Socialist movement.

When we come to examine the proposed committee in detail the truth of what is said above will be apparent. The Committee is to unite all parties that “are interested in an anti-war campaign “—with one exception, the Communist Party. But the Communist Party, in between supporting various wars, is more interested than any organisation in running anti-war campaigns. It is one of their most fruitful methods of tricking the working class into serving as tools for Russian Government policy. Indeed, they are running such a campaign now (simultaneously with supporting various wars, as in China and Palestine), and among the speakers at the Anti-War Rally that they organised in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, 14th November, was at least one prominent member of the Peace Pledge Union, Miss Sybil Morrison. (See Daily Worker, 11/11/48.) So the Anti-War Committee is to include the P.P.U. and exclude the Communists, while a P.P.U. speaker associates with the excluded Communist Party! The new United Committee has demonstrated its lack of unity before it even held its first meeting. It will end like the scores of earlier attempts on the same lines— they flourish in peace and disintegrate when war comes.

Ed. Comm.

A Fakir Floored. (1915)

From the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

Small incidents often illustrate large truths. Constantly the Socialist urges upon the working class the necessity for depending upon themselves and their own efforts to accomplish their emancipation, and to drop the superstition, so widely taught by the agents of the master class, that “they must have leaders,” “somebody at the head,” etc., to guide them on their way.

The formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain was an important instance of the understanding by those who formed it, of the folly of relying on “leaders,” and of the determination to rid themselves of such hindrances. But the potential “leader” is always wandering round looking for his opportunity, and the S.P.G.B. seemed to offer such an opportunity to one of these persons of the name of C. Lehane.

He was one of the original members of the Party, and was is first secretary, in which position he worked hard for some time. Then he began his scheming. Resigning his post as secretary he indulged in some underhand work to push one of his satellites into the position he had vacated. The attempt failed and Lehane began his intrigues at the Islington Branch of the S.P.G.B. that ended in his being expelled the Party, by a Party vote, along with several members of that Branch The facts of the case are set out in an article in the February, 1907 issue of the “Socialist Standard.”

Even then his attempt did not end, for he and his followers claimed still to be members of the S.P.G.B., although in the same breath they denounced the Party as “rotten,” and “corrupt,” and further ran. meetings etc. against us; but their farcical situation fizzled out in a few weeks.

The memory of this incident is revived by some newspaper cuttings from America, added to some notes from a couple of correspondents there. Some months ago Lehane left England for America, and a farewell supper was given to him that was attended by a number of notorious Labour frauds and leaders.

Evidently the name of the S.P.G.B. and its reputation were important assets in Lehane’s estimation, for shortly after reaching America, in an interview published in the “New York Call,” we find the following paragraph:

“He [Lehane] led the revolutionary wing of the English Socialist movement during the internal struggles of 1904, and founded the Socialist Party of Great Britain, whose first secretary he became. He founded and edited for the first two yeas the London ‘Socialist Standard’.”

All the statements in the above paragraph are false with the exception of the one stating that he was the Party’s first secretary, while with a modesty somewhat unusual in Lehane, he quite omitted to tell the reporter that he had been expelled from the S.P.G.B.

The formation of the S.P.G.B. was not due to any individual, but was the result of the agitation by a section of the rank and file inside the old Social Democratic Federation (now the B.S.P.) for a straight Socialist policy. This agitation had been going on for some years before Lehane came to England, and so far was he from “leading” this wing, a thing they refused to allow any one to do, that he sat on the fence most of the time apparently trying to judge where the best chance of a job existed, and only threw in his lot with the seceders from the S.D.F. at the last moment. Neither did he found the “Socialist Standard.” This was done by the Party at the suggestion of the 1st Executive Committee, and R. Elrick was first editor of the paper. Neither then nor at any other time had Lehane any hand in the editing or making up of the “Socialist Standard.”

The “Call” reporter stated that Lehane showed him “credentials” from Bob Williams, Jim Larkin, Ben Tillett, Jim Connolly, Harry Lee, etc. Every one of these names stinks in the nostrils of the Socialists here because of its notorious record. Tillett’s slimy fakirism and dirty capitalist crawling is known the world over, and has reached its present limit in the cowardly, lying recruiting campaign he is conducting to-day.

The reporter opens the interview with the remark: “We usually associate the qualities and character of a man with those of his friends”—a wordy paraphrase of a terse Irish saying: “Tell me your company and I’ll tell you your character.” The application in the present instance is striking. The association with such glaring frauds upon the working class as those given in the list above is a fair indication of the character and attitude of those deliberately seeking such association—as Lehane has done.

One of our correspondents sends us some statements Lehane made at a meeting in Detroit, Michigan, and they bear out completely the character one would be led to expect from such companions. Thus he is reported to have said, among other things:

“We do things different in Ireland, There we have ONE GREAT UNION, which includes everybody, from bank managers to the ordinary labourer.

For instance, this is the way we organise in Ireland. In Sligo there are docks, and instead of having the members go out to find the jobs they go to the union headquarters, and the bosses telephone for the number of hands they want. We then send the men, and when the work is finished the men DON’T GET PAID, but the union gets the money and DIVIDES IT BETWEEN ALL THE MEN, WHETHER THEY WORKED OR NOT.”

If such a travesty of a union should ever exist it is clear that it would only be an agency of the masters, as, apart from other points, it would be quite illegal to pay such wages to the union. Of course, no one on this side of the Atlantic has ever heard of such a comic-opera organisation, even in Ireland, while the ruthless and  successful actions of the bosses in Belfast, Dublin, etc, where the men were completely defeated under Larkin’s leadership, show how stupid a liar is Lehane.

When he said he “knew France well” because “he had been in Brussels,” he was simply illuminating his appalling ignorance, that would appear to be matched only by his colossal conceit.

Another absurd statement was that: “Before the end of the war we are going to establish the Co-operative Commonwealth in Ireland,” and “in case we have to fight we will be able to use our Citizen Army which consists of 4,700 men armed with Springfield rifles and 3 machine guns.” To give the measure of this statement it is only necessary to say that England has over 4,000,000 men under arms at the present moment; large numbers are also joining every day—either from fear of the sack or conscription—her navy is larger now than ever in its history; her munitions of war, despite all the muddling, are amazing in quantity; and her credit good in all neutral countries. To pretend to pit 4,700 men, even if armed with Springfield rifles (that are inferior to the British service rifle) and 3 machine guns against this powerful combination of forces is not even farcical—it is utterly idiotic.

The cream of the joke, however, is the ironic fact that, except for the purpose of putting a rapid end to the rising, the English Government need not move a single soldier or gunboat to crush it. When the Home Rule Bill was passing through Parliament a great deal of bluff and bluster was indulged in by both “Unionists” and “Home Rulers” and both sides began to raise and arm “Volunteer” forces to fight over the question. Large claims were made as to the numbers each had—sometimes figures of over 100,000 men on each side being given. The War came and then these “opposing” forces joined in their declaration to fight the German and sent men to the Front. In a newspaper controversy a short time ago each side claimed to have sent over 30,000 men. to the Army—a rather nasty knock to their previous bluff. The important point, however, is that these 60,000 “Volunteers” would readily combine to shoot down the 1,700 men of the “Citizen” Army to whose objects and views they are strongly opposed. The English Government could therefore easily win by merely setting one set of Irishmen against the other, as they did at Dublin and elsewhere.

The “New York World” of July 3rd, 1915 quotes from an address by Lehane to the American Labour unions where he states that: “The moment that the first British officer places his hand on the shoulder of an Irish working-man to draft him for war will be the moment when the socialist revolution which has been brewing in Ireland for years will break out.” This statement shows either an astounding ignorance of the conditions in Ireland or else the lengths to which Lehane is prepared to go in his attempts to bluff the workers of America.

In the fulsome flattery poured out, in the interview published in the “Call” we are told: “Perhaps no man of his time has brought more worthy recruits to the ranks of the International Socialist movement.”

It would be interesting to know the reporter’s reasons for such a claim. How baseless is the boast is best shown by the fact that the recruits Lehane could in any sense claim to be responsible for were those members of the Islington Branch who, sheep like, followed him into—and out of—that Branch without ever having understood the principles of Socialism.

Doubtless the difficulty he found in getting hold of a soft job over here has been the decisive factor in his journeying to the wider land of the West, where, thousands of miles from those who know him, he may fancy himself free from any danger of exposure while gulling and exploiting the workers there. And for a time, under the peculiarly suitable patronage of the “Socialist” Party of America he may succeed in his mission. But sooner or later the truth will catch him up and our repudiation of his claims upon our work and organisation lay him bare for what he is.

Ed. Com.

Blogger's Note:

Some further biographical information on Lehane — from a non-party source — at the following link.

Notice to contributors. (1915)

Notice from the December 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editorial Committee desire to impress upon Comrades that it is advisable that literary contributions to the Party Organ should come to hand before the issue for which they are intended is in the hands of the public, as after that it is awkward to include another matter.

Socialism, Vote-Catching and the I.L.P. (1958)

From the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the Socialist Standard, March, 1958, in an article "The Same Old I.L.P.", we maintained, on the ground of the I.L.P., candidate's campaign at Kelvingrove and other current evidence, that the I.LP. is, as it has always been, a reformist organisation. In the I.LP. journal The Socialist Leader (15th March, 1958) "the political secretary of the I.L.P., Mr. Wilfred Wigham, wrote an angry denial.

What is Vote-catching?

Let us make clear what we mean by vote-catching. In essence it means the act of getting votes under false pretences. As the S.P.G.B. holds that the only solution of social problems is to revolutionise society from its present capitalist basis to a Socialist basis, and that only by the votes of Socialists can this aim be achieved, it would be blatant vote-catching if an S.P.G.B. candidate were to try to attract the votes of electors who accept capitalism and whose aim is to raise old age pensions, or introduce more nationalisation (State capitalism), or limit the horrors of war. But if a Labour Party candidate tried to attract such votes it would not be vote-catching if he genuinely believed that these reforms can be achieved, that they will be achieved by a Labour Government and that they would bring the benefits he says they will.

By the same test we really hold that the I.L.P. is not a vote-catching organisation when it seeks votes from non-Socialists and campaigns on reforms of capitalism, because its aim, as we shall show, is not Socialism. Nevertheless, the I.L.P. itself invites the charge of vote-catching when it tries to combine the two irreconcilable principles and claims, as it did at Kelvingrove, that “it will seek to convince the men and women of Kelvingrove that only by Socialism can the challenge of these stupendous times be met And it will not compromise its policy and programme to win votes ” (Socialist Leader, 1st February, 1958. (Our italics.)

The confusion arises because while the I.L.P. claims that Socialism is the only solution it really does not mean Socialism, but a reformed capitalism; and its “policy and programme*' referred to is one of reformism.

The “Socialism" of the I.L.P.

The I.L.P. claims that its aim is Socialism. It has consistently made that claim since its formation 65 years ago. But the meaning attached to the term by the LLP. is a gross misuse.

In the early days its efforts were concentrated on achieving Nationalisation or State capitalism. In the nineteen twenties it published a pamphlet under the title Socialism in Queensland. In 1932 its National Council passed a resolution describing Russia and the Russian Government as “Socialist," and affirming that “the fate of the workers is bound up with the maintenance of Russia’s freedom to pursue her Socialist development unhindered by capitalist attacks" (New Leader, 22nd April, 1932). In its issue, dated 12th February, 1932. the following declaration was made:—

"In Soviet Russia Socialism is not the music of the future. It is a reality of the present.

"During the past year the Soviet Union has completed the construction of the foundation of Socialism. By the end of the Second Five Year Plan it will have completed the construction of the Socialist Society."

In 1935 it fought the municipal elections on a reformist programme, one item of which was: "Socialised Local Services": “Abolition of restrictions on the development of public services (in conjunction, where possible, with Cooperative Societies) of bread, milk and coal. Workers control in every service” (New Leader, 25th October, 1935).

In 1954 the National Council of the I.L.P. passed a resolution calling for unity of “Socialists" and “Socialist organisations” to include the “well-meaning Socialists who are members of the political section of the Labour Party” and giving as evidence of the “Socialist” character of the latter the resolutions they moved at Labour Party Conferences (which were in fact, as we showed, resolutions solely for reforms of capitalism, including in particular nationalisation or State capitalism. See Socialist Standard, March 1954).

We ask the I.L.P. “Is Nationalisation Socialism? Was Queensland Socialist? Was Russia Socialist in 1932? Were the Local Labour Parties and their resolutions Socialist in 1954? ” The Socialist answer is “emphatically NO! ” but the I.L.P. believes that the answer is “yes.”

The I.L.P. and the Reform of Capitalism.

If the I.L.P.’s alleged adherence to Socialism is a gross misuse of the word, its attitude on the reform of capitalism is equally two-faced. On the one hand it lets it be thought that it agrees with the late James Maxton's admission (New Leader, 15th August, 1930) that reformism is futile because before the reforms gained “have been fully operative such advantages as they seemed on a superficial examination to offer were eaten up by the development of new evils or by a further extension of old ones” yet it has always devoted its efforts to securing reforms. Hence, for example, the long list of reforms on which the I.L.P. fought the Municipal Elections in 1935, including "Free baths for the unemployed,” a minimum of 20s. unemployed pay, abolition of large classes in schools, and "Freedom to hold meetings outside Labour Exchanges."

Hence also the Socialist Leader's anger at the charge made by the Labour Candidate at Kelvingrove that she was the only candidate who was opposed to the Rent Act. The editor says this was a lie, and affirms that the I.L.P. Candidate "made it clear from the beginning of the campaign that he opposed the Rent Act in all its clauses.” (Socialist Leader, 15th March, 1958.) Naturally, in conformity with the I.LP.’s reformist policy, their candidate considered that he had been fraudulently deprived of the votes of anti-Rent Act voters and that their votes ought fairly to have gone to him and not to the candidate of the Labour Party, which, he alleged "does not intend to repeal the Act if and when it is returned to power.”

And did the LLP. candidate inform the electors, as he would have done if fighting as a Socialist, that under Socialism there could be no Rent Control because there will be no rents? If not, why not?

The other main issue at Kelvingrove was the H Bomb. If the LLP. candidate had been a Socialist he would have concentrated on showing that capitalism is the cause of war and that Socialism is the only way to eliminate armaments and war from the world. Instead, he made the abolition of the H Bomb the centre of his campaign. Again, it was quite in keeping with the I.L.P.'s reformism that while nominally committed to opposing all war and all armaments the issue of the Socialist Leader for 1st March, 1958, contained an invitation to three opponents of the H Bomb who are also opponents of Socialism and present or recent supporters of war (Bertrand Russell, A. J. P. Taylor and J. B. Priestley), to go to Kelvingrove and speak on the I.L.P. candidate's platform!

Mr. Wigham’s Defence of the I.LP.

In his article in the Socialist Leader (15th March, 1958), Mr. Wigham tries to confuse the issue with a number of silly innuendoes about the S.P.G.B., in the usual dishonest form adopted by the controversialist without a case. He writes: "The S.P.G.B. . . . may advocate that Britain should continue to spend more than a thousand million pounds a year on armaments and the armed forces . . . it may advocate Britain's continued share in the cumulative production of radio-active dust from H Bomb tests . . . Or the S.P.G.B. may think those issues unimportant"; and again, "Is the S.P.G.B. in favour of Britain continuing to manufacture the H Bomb. Or is it afraid to declare itself either way?” Then, with a pathetic show of phoney indignation, "I challenge the Socialist Standard to answer.”

Of course, Mr. Wigham is being completely dishonest. He knows quite well that the SP.G.B. is not, and never has been, in favour of capitalism or capitalism's war-making or its H Bombs, or any of its armaments: unlike the I.L.P. M.P's. who did not vote against war supplies in the 1914-1918 war and the 1924 Labour Government, declared by the I.L.P. to be "To an overwhelming extent an I.L.P. Government," which carried out a programme of naval re-armament. The I.L.P. has now changed its line on that issue and pretends to think that the S.P.G.B. has abandoned its opposition to war.

How dishonest Mr. Wigham's questions are can be seen from the attitude he adopts elsewhere towards the S.P.G.B. Repeatedly (and as recently as last year) the I.L.P. has begged the S.P.GB. to unite with the I.LP. for the purpose, among others, of opposing war: now he pretends not to know the S.P.G.B.’s attitude to capitalism and war!

Continuing his pretended desire for the S.P.G.B. to declare its attitude (as if he didn't know), he asks if the SP.G.B. is “in favour of the continued use of British airfields by American bombing planes and the prospective use of British Land for NATO missile bases?"

By this piece of slickness Mr. Wigham slides away from the issue of the fatuousness of I.L.P. pleas to the British capitalist class to at once disband the armed forces, and the LLP. resolution to "deny” British bases to all other countries. He did not tell his readers what we wrote about this, in particular our question, “How do unarmed civilians deny bases to the armies occupying them? ”, and our example of the Hungarian workers who tried to turn Russian capitalism out of Hungarian bases.

By implication, however, he admits our case on the issue of disbanding the armed forces, for he now writes: “We do not think it likely that capitalist Britain will disarm.” But he goes on to justify the formulation of such demands on the plea that it is an attempt "to show up, in the eyes of the workers, militaristic, predatory Capitalist Imperialism for what it is.”

On the same propaganda plea of asking the capitalist class to do something you know they won't do, why not just ask them to introduce Socialism? And while we are on the subject, is the I.LP's, plea to capitalism to disband its armed forces at once, also directed to capitalist Russia? or is Russia still, in the view of the I.LP., the “Socialist” Society they said it was in 1932?

Keir Hardie and Maxton.

Mr. Wigham puts up another Aunt Sally in order not to deal with the point we raised about the futility of Keir Hardie's and Maxton's reformism. He says he was not surprised at us “dragging in the usual S.P.G.B. criticism of I.LP. industrial ‘reformism'—in fact, I.LP. identification with the day to day struggles of the workers. And, sure enough, it does so instancing James Keir Hardie and James Maxton as suitable forerunners of the I.L.P.” Since it was Mr. Wigham who claimed that the present I.L.P. is “the party of Keir Hardie and James Maxton,” he has no ground on which to object to us following up his lead and dealing with them. But why does Mr. Wigham not fell his readers what we wrote about those two? His readers, on the basis of what Mr. Wigham writes, will be astonished to learn that the one issue about which we said nothing at all was the struggles of the workers on the industrial field. What we did write, and which Mr. Wigham pretends was a reference to industrial action for higher wages was a bill introduced into Parliament by Maxton in 1930 for the setting up of a Government Committee to fix a minimum “living wage," after taking into account the “replacement and extension of capital ”

One I.L.P. M.P. disclaimed any intention of excluding employers from the committee which was to fix the workers' minimum wage. Another gave an assurance that the wage would not include enough for children— they were to be separately provided for. This was to meet the views of an anti-Socialist M.P. who did not want people without children to get more than their due. The I.L.P. Prime Minister would not give government backing for the Bill.

This was not industrial action, but an I.L.P. political sell-out

The I.L.P. in favour of Profit and Rent.

Mr. Wigham challenges us to say whether the S.P.G.B. is “against raising wages and reducing profits and rents: is it against a living wage for all workers? ” If Mr. Wigham were a Socialist he would know that the S.P.G.B., being Socialist, is not in favour of wages, profits and rents, but is in favour of Socialism, which involves the abolition of the wages system, and the abolition of property incomes, including all profits and rents (not, as Mr. Wigham says he is, in favour of reduced profits and rents).

On the issue of workers' action (strikes) on the industrial field, every government administering capitalism opposes strikes for higher wages, necessarily so because unless the State places a ceiling on strike demands, capitalism, depending as it does on profit, becomes unworkable. The S.P.G.B. is in favour of the workers using every effort on the industrial field to press for higher wages and to resist reductions. It is also in favour of telling the workers the truth about the limitations that capitalism places on this action and the necessity of abolishing capitalism (and with it the wages system). The S.P.G.B. also attacks the reformist I.L.P. belief that having capitalism with minimum wage legislation (as in Australia) alters the situation. In particular it reminds the workers that an I.L.P. government, saddled with the responsibility of running capitalism, behaves like any other government in opposing strikes. It was the 1924 I.L.P. dominated government which made preparations to use emergency powers against strikers on the underground railways (Daily Herald, 1st April, 1924.)

Before we leave Mr. Wigham’s reference to Keir Hardie we note that he makes no comment on Hardie's advocacy of coal nationalisation for the sake of fuelling fire Navy. Does this, too, fit into the I.L.P. conception of Socialism?

Abstract Theory and Real life.

Mr. Wigham concludes with a jibe at the alleged “abstract reasoning" of the S.P.G.B., contrasted with the I.L.P., which, he says, “continues to base its political activities on real life," and which knows "something about history."

We are not averse to accepting the term “abstract reasoning" as a description of the need for workers to study capitalism and the history of reformism in order to understand the futility of trying to reform capitalism into something different.

And we are content to leave to the reformist I.L.P., in the Keir Hardie-Maxton tradition, the task of ignoring Socialism and concentrating on the "real life" activity of a reformist organisation, of pursuing the winning of votes and members on a programme of reforms.

Editorial Committee.

Spiritualism. (1930)

From the November 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the September issue we published a letter from a reader, in which he related his experiences at a spiritist meeting, and the deep impression which they made upon him. Our reply in the same issue, while it has not elicited any further letter from the original inquirer, has led to several other readers writing to express their views. It is impossible, owing to their length, to print these letters in full, but we have tried below to deal with the points raised in them.

First, let us deal again with the experience of the reader whose letter we published. He went to a spiritualist meeting, and believes that he was “a perfect stranger” to those present. He was told certain facts about a dead relative of his, and was also told that he was suffering from a complaint which “is not visible to anyone except when nude.”

We replied that the facts related by our reader do not in any way help to establish the belief in the existence of so-called “spirit forces.” As our reply is unconvincing to some correspondents, and has been misunderstood by others, some amplification may be desirable.

Spiritualists claim firstly that certain phenomena cannot be explained by known natural laws. They claim secondly that the existence of “spirit forces” is the explanation.

It is important to observe that these are two quite distinct propositions ; if the first were proved true, it by no means follows that the second is likewise true. The phenomena, if such phenomena exist, might not be explicable by existing known natural laws, but, nevertheless, explicable by hitherto unknown but still natural laws.

Now let us return to our correspondent’s letter. Does he present us with convincing evidence of inexplicable phenomena? The answer is emphatically no ! He suffers from a disease which is “not visible to anyone except when nude”; but every doctor is taught by one or other of the systems of diagnosis to recognise symptoms of disease in the face, the hands, the eyes, etc. Does a doctor have to see a man’s kidneys before he can suspect the existence of a disease of that organ? Our reader does not mention this, and apparently did not even consider it, yet we are asked on the strength of it to believe in “spiritualism ” !

His second point was that he, “a perfect stranger,” was told certain things about his dead aunt. But how does he know that he was “a perfect stranger”? He may not have recognised any of those whom he saw present, but that is no indication that someone there did not know certain facts about him and his dead relative.

In short, this particular incident does not contain any phenomena which require us to inquire into the adequacy or inadequacy of existing natural laws.

Then there is the second point, that even if this incident did contain unquestionable evidence of phenomena which known laws would not explain, it does not follow that “spiritualism” is the explanation. One hypothesis—suggested but not proved—is that of telepathy. Telepathy, if it were proved, would explain what our correspondent (without sufficient evidence) believes took place, but would not prove the claims of the spiritualists.

So much for that incident. Now for the claims of spiritualists in general, and of our other correspondents.

To all of these we would first point out that even Sir Oliver Lodge, although himself a spiritualist, admits that scientific proof of spiritualism is lacking. In an address delivered at the David Thomas Memorial Church, Bristol, on September 7th of this year, he said :—(Times, 8th September) :—

“. . . they held, in fact, the doctrine of individual survival, and adduced plenty of evidence in support of it. Whether that evidence amounted to proof was still a matter of opinion. Scientific proof was a serious thing, not lightly to be testified to ; but the evidence was certainly very strong. ” (Italics ours.)

The fact that Sir Oliver Lodge believes in it without proof does not show that it deserves belief. It merely shows the fallibility of the scientist in matters where a strong emotion is at work.

One reader writes to tell us that “spiritualism is Socialism.” In reply, we cannot do more than emphasise our continued teaching that Socialism is not a visionary’s dream, but a system of society. Its basis will be in material conditions, the common ownership of the means of life. It will be brought about by men and women possessing knowledge of the world we live in, and able at least to glimpse at the boundless possibilites of human development in a world of which the economic structure is rationally ordered. Progress to Socialism will not be promoted by those who give up the substance for the illusory benefits of life on the “other side.” That is why the Socialist is compelled to touch upon questions of religion and spiritualism in order to drive home the lesson which is taught by past developments of man’s powers, the lesson that the only safe rule is to accept no hypothesis as proved until it has been verified in accordance with scientific methods.

Most of the letters we have received on the subject have been to the point. One, from Mr. F. Montague, M.P., Undersecretary for Air in the present Government, was mostly not to the point. In it we are charged with talking “ignorant rubbish,” told not to play with words like “superstitious and supernatural” (we did not mention them), and informed that “to put it all down to cheap and clumsy fraud” puts us out of count as serious critics. If Mr. Montague had not been so angry he would have noticed that these and many other things he says have no bearing on the reply which he writes to criticise.

When he writes that spiritualism “must be proved or disproved of itself,” we agree. But if he means to imply that it has been proved, we disagree. It certainly has not, and it is certainly true that an enormous amount of “cheap and clumsy fraud” has been associated with the activities of the spiritualists.

Mr. Montague says : “I know from my own mediumship of a number of years ago, that explanations of the conjuring and collusion order do not fill the bill.”

Even on this point, notwithstanding Mr. Montague’s personal experiences, we are not prepared to accept his statement, or any other such unsupported testimony as conclusive evidence. What Mr. Montague says he saw or thinks he knows is not proof. It is precisely because of the known credulousness or gullibility of the human mind that science demands proofs from which the possibility of human error is eliminated as far as possible. Such proofs have not been forthcoming from the spiritualists. If we may be permitted to illustrate this gullibility of the human mind by means of a reference to another field of activity, we would point out that Mr. Montague, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, persists in adhering to the view that it is in the interests of the working class to have the Labour Party in office carrying on the capitalist system. Unfortunately, large numbers of workers believe this also.

In conclusion, we would refer interested correspondents to a full discussion on spiritualism which took place in the Socialist Standard of the following months:—October and December, 1926; and March, May, June and August, 1927. These issues are obtainable from this office.

Editorial Committee.

September 1904. (1974)

From the September 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Standard first appeared in September 1904. It has been produced monthly since that date. To mark these 70 years of publication, the following extract has been taken from the first Socialist Standard, instead of the regular 50 Years Ago column.

"In dealing with all questions affecting the welfare of the working-class our standpoint will be frankly revolutionary. We shall show that the misery, the poverty, and the degradation caused by capitalism grows far more rapidly than does the enacting of palliative legislation for its removal. The adequate alleviation of these ills can be brought about only by a political party having Socialism as its object. So long as the powers of administration are controlled by the capitalist class so long can they render nugatory any legislation they consider to unduly favour the workers."

The Editorial Committee.

September 1904.

A clarification (1963)

From the August 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

It has been pointed out to us that a phrase in our reply to a C.N.D. correspondent in the June S.S. could be capable of misinterpretation.

In the penultimate paragraph of our reply we said: “Thus the S.P.G.B. will never come to power, never form a government.”

Whilst this does not mean that the Socialist delegates elected to Parliament will form a government in the accepted sense, it does mean that they will use the power obtained to take the necessary steps to establish Socialism.

Editorial Committee

J. Hunter Watts Explains His Vote for Masterman. (1905)

From the February 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The General Secretary of The Socialist Party of Great Britain has received the following communication :

94 Grove Park, Denmark Hill,

15th Jan 1905.

Dear Comrade,—”A lie that is half a truth is the worst lie of all” and it is a half truth to which the Socialist Standard gives currency this month when it says that I voted for a Liberal candidate for the constituency in which I reside and advised other members of the S.D.F. to do the same. A Jameson raider offered himself for election, and as I shall never either forget or forgive any instrument of the iniquity which robbed another of the little peoples of its national freedom I did my best to thwart the ambition of Rutherford Harris. As there is no way of voting against a man other than voting for his opponent I “supported” Masterman, though I know no more of the man than I know of the one who is said to reside in the moon. I shall repeat the offence at the next election even if the raider’s opponent is a circus clown.

Yours fraternally,

J. Hunter Watts.

* * *

Comrade C. Lehane,

Communist Club, 

107, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, W.C.”

The note to which Mr. J. Hunter Watts referred was as follows :

“In our last issue we dealt with the S.D.F., I.L.P., and L.R.C. members being induced to support the Liberal faction of the Capitalist Party at “Free Trade” meetings and we notice that H. Kirby deals with matter in “Justice.” He describes Mr. Masterman, the Liberal candidate for North West Ham, as “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses.” But we would remind Mr. Kirby that when Masterman contested Dulwich, one of the best known members of the S.D.F., J. Hunter Watts, voted for him and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise. Now, if Masterman was advanced enough for such a leading revolutionary Social-Democrat as Hunter Watts, surely smaller fry should follow such a good example ? Perhaps one of these days the S.D.F. will endeavour to pursue a consistent policy, but we are afraid it will then be too late for them to regain the public confidence,”

We now print a letter written by Mr. J. Hunter Watts to the then Secretary of the Peckham Branch S.D.F. during the election referred to.

“94 Grove Park,, Denmark Hill,

13th December, 1903.

Dear Comrade, Till after Christmas I have so many business claims on my attention (last Wednesday I was obliged to travel to Manchester and shall probably have to return this week) would you kindly intimate to the members of the Elocution Class that we will start work the first Wednesday in January. If convenient to them I would rather hold the class here because all my books etc. will be ready to hand but I leave it to their choice and I will come to the Branch Room if they prefer that rendezvous.

Though it goes very much against the grain to vote for a Liberal, it seems to me a duty to do one’s level best to prevent a Jameson Raider being sent to Parliament as our Parliamentary Representative so I intend to vote for Masterman on Tuesday, Would you kindly ask the members of our Branch to consider tomorrow night whether as individuals they can adopt the same policy though collectively it might be unwise to support Masterman. On Harris’s head rests some of the blood of the peasant farmers slain in defence of their national independence.

We cannot forget this !

Yours fraternally,

J. Hunter Watts.

The Secy. Peckham Branch S.D.F.”

We have no desire to misrepresent anyone, and we publish the whole of the correspondence in order that our readers may see that there is no foundation for Mr. Hunter Watts’ suggestion (or “half truth”) that we were not strictly accurate in our statement that he “voted for Masterman and urged other Social-Democrats to go and do likewise.” As a member of the S.D.F. Mr. Hunter Watts is supposed to believe that there is no difference between the various sections of the capitalist politicians, but by exhibiting a preference for one capitalist candidate he claims to know no more than about the man in the moon, but who, according to another S.D.F. member, is “an adept at trailing Liberal red herrings before the workers’ noses” against another whom he knows as an open enemy of the people, he shows that he recognises a difference, and that there are occasions when he thinks that the workers should vote for their class-enemies.

If Masterman was worthy of S.D.F. votes in Dulwich he is equally so in North West Ham. Here Ernest Gray, Conservative member and candidate, has supported Rutherford Harris and his friends fearlessly and openly, from the Jameson Raid to the Chinese Labour Ordinance. If individuals are to be singled out then “some of the blood of the peasant farmers” rests upon Ernest Gray’s head and he should be kept out of the House of Commons. The S.D.F. should vote against him by voting for Masterman. The blood of the murdered Featherstone miners is upon the head of Mr. Asquith, and the S.D.F. should try to keep him out of the House of Commons by voting for his Tory opponent. But Masterman as a member of the Liberal faction must support his leaders, of whom Mr. Asquith is one. And candidates who support the person responsible for that cruel and cold-blooded butchery should be kept out of the House of Commons, therefore, the S. D. F. should vote against Masterman.

Mr. Hunter Watts says that he will repeat the offence at the next election even if the raider’s opponent is a circus clown. Supposing Mr. Asquith is the opponent, Mr. Hunter Watts will vote for him and show that he considers the South African war more important than the class war here at home.

If particular incidents connected with the capitalist attitude towards the people are to be taken into consideration and capitalist candidates voted for or against because of them, where will it lead ?

Mr. Hunter Watts is apparently aware that there is neither wisdom nor logic in his attitude because he expresses the opinion that it would not be wise for the S.D.F. to do collectively that which he advises the members to do individually. But electoral action which the Body cannot take wisely and logically does not become wise or logical when taken by individual members.

The position is as illogical and contradictory as is that of the S.D.F. towards the L.R.C. Although the Body withdraw because it “might be committed to the support of candidates whom, by its rules, it was bound to oppose ; while it could not honestly accept aid for its own candidates unless it supported those favoured by the majority of the delegates” it yet allows its members all over the country to act as delegates to the L.R.C., and to do precisely that which the S.D.F. says it cannot do.

Mr. Hunter Watts, like many others, has allowed his emotions to get the better of his convictions. He may be unable to forget or forgive any instrument of the iniquity referred to, but neither the defeat of Harris nor the return of Masterman would restore freedom to the Boers any more than the defeat of Asquith would bring back to life the murdered miners. The instruments of both iniquities were the capitalist-class, acting in the interests of their class and against the interests of the common people, here and abroad. Capitalist politicians cannot be considered individually, but only as “all the rest, Tories, Unionists, Whigs, Liberals and Radicals who form a part of that hateful army of parasites which is permanently quartered on you and your children” (see S.D.F. Manifesto, General Election, 1895). Speaking at Canning Town last month Mr. D. Irving, also a member of the S.D.F. Executive, declared that “it does not matter a brass farthing whether Balfour or Campbell Bannerman reign at Westminster.” We agree. Let us be able to assert that neither shall do so by the votes of Socialists.

Editorial Committee.

Socialist Capitalists and Capitalist-Minded Workers (1942)

From the December 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader of the Socialist Standard is perturbed because he has just learned that Frederick Engels, who spent a lifetime helping Karl Marx in his work for Socialism, was a wealthy man, and left at his death “the grand sum in property or otherwise of £24,839.” “Surely,” says this reader, “this sum could only have been amassed by the exploitation of his fellow men.”

There is, of course, no secret about Engel’s position. He was the son of a wealthy manufacturer, entered his father’s business and derived his income from that source. Does this, as our reader evidently fears, mean that Engels was not truly a Socialist? Are we to dub him a supporter of the capitalist system from which he obtained his livelihood? It is not difficult to answer the question. Engels’ devoted work for the Socialist movement is all the answer necessary. As can easily be discovered from the facts of Engels’ life and work—if our reader does not know it already—Engels consistently and tirelessly pursued the object of destroying capitalism and establishing Socialism. Indeed, one of his reasons for entering his father’s business was that he could thus be in a position to give financial help to Marx so that Marx could continue his work for Socialism freed from the problem of earning his living.

Our reader’s difficulty probably arises from mixing up things that do not belong to each other. A capitalist is one who lives on income derived from the ownership of capital. A Socialist is one who holds that Socialism is a practical alternative to capitalism and who seeks to establish Socialism. Because of the way in which their class interests and their environment influence their ideas most capitalists are supporters of capitalism and opponents of Socialism, but this is not always or necessarily so. Some individual capitalists, owing to greater understanding of the laws of social evolution, can see that Socialism is a practicable next stage in the development of human society, and become in greater or less degree workers for Socialism. Engels was one, William Morris was another. Surrendering their capitalist source of income in order not to be associated with exploitation has nothing to do with the question, and has little to recommend it anyway. Such action does nothing whatever to end the capitalist system except perhaps that it may, as has been argued, serve as a small gesture to remind other capitalists of the evils produced by the system. It does nothing to help the working class.

Having considered the individual capitalist who becomes a Socialist, now consider the fact, a seemingly much more curious one, that not only individual members of the working class but the overwhelming mass are supporters of the system that exploits them. This is due to the fact that the workers’ environment does not consist solely of his wage-relationship to the capitalist but includes also his subjection from infancy to the ceaseleses propaganda for capitalism conducted through schools, churches, newspapers, the wireless, etc. Only the jolts of the hard experiences of exploitation, plus the flow of the thin stream of Socialist propaganda, counteract this capitalist propaganda, but here in the long run is the only way of ending capitalism. It lies in influencing the mass of workers so that they will appreciate the facts about their position in society and will acquire the knowledge and will to achieve Socialism. Viewed in this light, which is more important ? that Engels and other individuals in his position should make a sacrificial but almost useless gesture of renunciation or that they should use their opportunities for the furtherance of the Socialist movement. The question is convincingly answered in the valuable work that Engels performed both through his own activities and through the support and encouragement he gave to Marx.

Editorial Committee

“Austerity at the Kremin” : an explanation (1942)

From the October 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader points out that a quotation under the above heading in our September issue is wrongly dated. It should have been given as “Daily Telegraph 18th August,” not 8th August. He also calls attention to what he believes to be a serious error in the quotation. The passage quoted was taken from the “Daily Telegraph” and contained the words “Twenty-six courses were served. Mountains of vegetables and fruits crowded the tables”: but this passage was entirely omitted from other copies of the “Daily Telegraph” of the same date. Why it was cut out we do not know, but perhaps our readers may guess.

Editorial Committee

Dishonest I.L.P. Journalism. (1928)

From the April 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Elsewhere in this issue appears a review of “A History of English Socialism,” written by G. Benson, and published by the New Leader, Ltd. The book in question contains the untrue statement that our organisation assisted in the formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The book was reviewed in the New Leader on December 9th, 1927, and the reviewer laid special stress on the “direct honesty of statement” and the “proof of wide reading and hard-earned knowledge” possessed by the author, Mr. G. Benson. When we called attention to the incorrect and damaging statement about ourselves we were definitely promised by the Acting Editor of the New Leader that a correction would be published in the New Leader.

This promise was made in writing in a letter dated 18th January, 1928, but the following week the General Manager of the New Leader wrote refusing to insert the correction on the flimsy pretence that the matter “has nothing to do with the New Leader as an organ, but concerns the New Leader, Ltd., its controlling company.”

Then on February 2nd, two months after the publication of the book and the review in the New Leader, the General Manager, a Mr. L. A. Plummer, informed us that a correction slip containing the bare statement that “The words and ‘and the Socialist Party of Great Britain’ are here inserted in error,” would be sent out with copies sold in the future.

We naturally protested that large numbers of copies were already in circulation and it was not unreasonable to ask that the New Leader, which had strongly urged the value of the book to its readers, should take the step it had promised and publish a correction. The attempted distinction between the New Leader and the New Leader, Ltd., is in keeping with the I.L.P.’s past record of subtle propaganda methods ; are we to understand from this that the I.L.P. has in fact no control over the proprietors of what purports to be its own official organ?

Members of the I.L.P. will, we trust, notice the fact that whereas our columns, like our platform and our meetings, are open to all our opponents, it is not possible for us to obtain the retraction of a grossly untrue and damaging statement in the New Leader.

Editorial Committee

The ultra rich (2000)

From the January 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

Careful readers of our August issue will have noticed that we gave two different figures for some statistics from the UN Development Report 1998. These were based on newspaper reports. To clarify the situation here is an extract from the original source:

“New estimates show that the world’s 225 richest people have combined wealth of over $1 trillion, equal to the annual income of the poorest 47% of the world’s people (2.5 billion) . . .

The three richest people have assets that exceed the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries . . .

Another striking contrast is the wealth of the 225 richest people compared with what is needed to achieve universal access to basic social services for all. It is estimated that the additional cost of achieving and maintaining universal access to basic education for all, basic health care for all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food and safe water and sanitation for all is roughly $40 billion a year. This is less than 4% of the combined wealth of the 225 richest people in the world.”

These are the figures that should be quoted. But note that what is being compared is the wealth of the ultra-rich with the income of the poor, which might give rise to the impression that the solution is simply to transfer the wealth of the rich to the poor. In fact the solution is to make the wealth of the rich the common property of all.

Editorial Committee.

An Apology to The Right Honourable Eric Heffer, MP (1981)

From the June 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

House of Commons, 28 April 1981

Dear Sir,

It has been drawn to my attention that your journal on May 1980 said that I had written in Socialist Revolt of April 1957 the following:

“No one can deny that Communists in the past have made grave mistakes, but does anyone believe that Russia would have retained its socialist basis . . . without Stalin’s iron rule during the most difficult period in Communist history? Would subversion, direct aggression, economic sabotage etc. not have crushed the germinating seed of world Communism if Comrade Stalin had not “enforced” the unity of Communists in Russia, and throughout the International Communist Movement?”

In fact the article was written by someone called Ian Watson, and was on pages 13 and the back page. At the head of that particular article the Editor wrote, “We do not agree with anything in this article. It is however, an example of the apology put forward by the Communist Party.”.

Writing of the Communist Party Programme, “The British Road to Socialism” in that issue of Socialist Revolt I in fact wrote “What do they mean? The same as in the Soviet Union and the “People’s Democracies”? “Workers” who become transformed into a Party of bureaucrats. Only real control at all levels with industry separate from the State apparatus can guarantee real democracy and genuine socialist participation”. That can hardly be called support for Stalin.

I expect an apology and retraction in your next issue.

Yours sincerely.

Eric S. Heffer,

MP for Walton.

We Apologise.

Eric Heffer is right. The passage we reproduced was not written by him and was preceded by the editorial disclaimer he quotes. We regret this mistake and unreservedly apologise.

It is also true that Eric Heffer wrote an article in the same April/ June issue of Socialist Revolt (“organ of the Socialist Workers’ Federation”) criticising the Russian regime. What he does not say is that the article in question also criticised the Communist Party as “reformist” for maintaining that “socialism can be achieved peacefully through the Parliamentary method”. The SWF (of which he was a leading member) declared that it rejected “the concept of supporting a Labour Government or any other Parliamentary Government as a means of establishing socialism”. Eric Heffer’s views have evidently changed since he is himself now a leading parliamentarian and reformist! What makes him a reformist, we hasten to add, is not his (present) view that Parliament can be used in the abolition of capitalism, but his belief that capitalism can be abolished gradually by a series of reform measures passed by a Labour Government.

Editors.

The S.L.P. and Formation of the Communist Party, 1920 (1942)

From the January 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

In our October issue we dealt with a complaint by the Socialist, organ of the Socialist Labour Party, that we had published an incorrect statement to the effect that the Communist Party was formed in 1920 by the “fusion” of several organisations, including the S.L.P. The Socialist, in its issue of November, replied to our statement of October.

We will deal with the various points one by one.

First there is our original statement that the S.L.P. and other organisations were fused into the Communist Party in 1920. That statement was made in good faith by the writer of the article, and passed in good faith by the Editorial Committee. That it came to be published could justify a charge of negligence, but the Socialist, instead of making only that charge and giving their version of the facts, wrote an abusive article imputing that the statement was a deliberate falsehood:—”The facts could have been easily verified, and there is no excuse for the falsehood unless it be that he lied deliberately with intent to deceive his readers, and thereby create a false belief regarding the S.L.P. His assertion has not even the shadow of fact behind it.”

This imputation of deliberate falsehood is one for which the Socialist has and can have no kind of evidence, and in their November statement they so far forgot their complaint that we knew the facts and falsified them deliberately, that they offer instead the explanation that our statement was made “without knowing the facts.” As we do not wish to copy the Socialist’s methods of controversy, we do not ask for an apology, though it would certainly seem to be called for.

Since, however, the Socialist is evidently under the impression that we are attempting to justify the original statement, we state that it was wrong, and offer our apologies for publishing it.

As the original statement is agreed to be incorrect, we come to the next point, What were the true facts? In our October issue we drew attention to two published statements, one by a Communist to the effect that “the main part of the S.L.P.” was fused into the Communist Party, and another by Mr. G. D. H. Cole that “most of its more active members . . . passed over to the Communist Party in 1920.”

On the plea of first things first the Socialist, in its rejoinder, declines to deal now with this aspect except to argue that it is necessary to distinguish between the whole and the part (which is true) and that to say that the “main part of the S.L.P.” went into the Communist Party is “in flat contradiction” with the statement that the S.L.P. went in. The Socialist having declined except in its own good time to say what is its version of the facts that matter must be left there for the present.

One other statement made by the Socialist does, however, require comment. In their September statement they say: —

“Never in the whole of its history has the S.L.P. fused, united, federated nor anything of the sort with any party whatsoever.”

Readers who are not familiar with the history of the S.L.P. may be led by those words, “nor anything of the sort,” into assuming that the S.L.P. has not been prepared to associate with other parties towards which it from time to time declared its hostility. This is not the case. One instance of its willingness to do so may be found in the Socialist of December, 1918. Under the heading “The Crisis: A Call to Labour,” the Socialist prominently displayed a manifesto calling on the British workers to take action against the Defence of the Realm Acts, against the intervention of Allied troops in Russia, against the blockade of Germany, etc. It ended with an appeal to British workers to rouse themselves and join hands with their fellow workers in other lands and “march through the gates of freedom now opened wide.” This manifesto is expressly stated to have been “issued jointly by the Executives of the Independent Labour Party, the British Socialist Party and the Socialist Labour Party.”

It was the British Socialist Party which was mainly instrumental in forming the Communist Party.

While, therefore, the Socialist is entitled to object to statements that the S.L.P. fused with the B.S.P., the knowledge that it was prepared to issue joint manifestos with the B.S.P. does suggest that the display of indignation is excessive.

Editorial Committee.

The S.L.P. and the Formation of the Communist Party of Great Britain, 1920 (1941)

From the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard 

In a long and angry statement headed ‘The ‘Truthful’ S.P.G.B.” the Socialist, organ of the Socialist Labour Party of Great Britain, charges us with downright lying in the following passage which appeared in the Socialist Standard of July, 1941, in the article, “A Comparison” : —

“Mention must be made, also, of one of the most remarkable developments of the post-war world, viz., the formation of the Communist Party, by the fusion of the British Socialist Party, Workers’ Socialist Federation, South Wales Socialist Society, and the Socialist Labour Party.”

The gist of the complaint made by the Socialist is that the above statement is untrue, and that the writer of it could easily have verified the facts if he had wanted to do so. In particular the Socialist says:—

“Never in the whole of its history has the Socialist Labour Party fused, united, federated nor anything of the sort with any other Party whatsoever. It has never had the slightest association with the C.P.G.B. except that of antagonist. It has never even had under consideration any question of fusion with the Communist Party.”

The writer adds that the statement published in the Socialist Standard is also false as regards the other organisations mentioned. He states that there were three bodies formed calling themselves the Communist Party: —

“The first Communist Party (for there have been several) was formed by the unity of the Workers’ Socialist Federation with the South Wales Socialist Society under the patronage of Sylvia Pankhurst and Eden and Cedar Paul. It contained no member of the S.L.P. and so far as records go, not even an ex-member of the Party. Some time later the next Communist Party was formed consisting of the B.S.P. together with some odds and ends from various quarters, amongst which were some ex-members who had been thrown out of the S.L.P. earlier, and also some ex-members of the S.P.G.B.

At the time the above events took place, the present Communist Party was as yet unborn. The C.P.G.B. was the third Communist Party to be formed.”

Now as far as we are concerned the only question that matters is the actual facts of the case, and if these are to be arrived at the writer in the Socialist could have helped by being less heated and abusive and by giving the full facts himself. As it is he leaves unexplained the circumstances surrounding the formation of the third Communist Party, the one now in existence. Also, although he several times says that the facts could easily have been verified he does not say where this could have been done and does not mention that the statement made in the Socialist Standard, though possibly inaccurate, is an account which has been accepted and has found its way into print in a number of quarters.

For example, Mr. Allen Hutt, a Communist writer, in his “The Post-War History of the British Working Class,” says: —

“At a convention in London over the week-end of July 31st-August 1st, 1920, the C.P.G.B. was formed as a fusion of the B.S.P. with the main part of the S.L.P. and with the South Wales Socialist Society.” —(Page 53.)

Similarly, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, in the Encyclopædia Britannica (Twelfth Edition, Vol. 32, 1922) says of the S.L.P. that

“Most of its more active members, however, passed over to the Communist Party in 1920”.—(Page 507.)

These two gentlemen may of course be mistaken and we certainly do not question the statement that neither the S.L.P. nor any other organisation can be held responsible for the actions of its ex-members.

To put the matter in proper order we suggest that the Socialist might usefully deal with Mr. Hutt’s assertion that “the main part of the S.L.P.” entered the Communist Party. If the Editor of the Socialist likes to send a brief letter containing his version of the facts we shall, of course, be willing to publish it.

Editorial Committee.

The Cost of Living Index. (1927)

From the May 1927 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent writes to point out that the cost of living index figure issued by the Ministry of Labour is inaccurate, “yet,” he says, “it is around that figure that Trade Union officials weave their settlements.” As he does not give details of his criticism of the accuracy of the figures, it is a little difficult to go into the question. It must, however, be conceded that the cost of living index figures can only be described as inaccurate if it can be shown that they fail to tell us what they claim to tell. No evidence has ever been brought to show that they are “faked,” and it is not the least bit likely that they are. The claim made for them is that they “are designed to measure the average increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-war standard of living of the working classes …. The effect is to obtain approximately the average percentage increase in the cost of maintaining the pre-war standard of living in working-class families” (Ministry of Labour Gazette, February, 1921). Now it is exceedingly difficult to discover how closely the figures approximate to the real position. The Labour Party some years ago set up a commission of enquiry which satisfied itself that the index understates the real average increase in the cost of living of a working-class family.

While many statisticians take the view that the error is in the direction of overstatement. One difficulty is that many items of the present working-class budget were absent from the pre-war budget, and vice-versa. Again, the relative position of different sections of the working-class has changed; so-called “unskilled” workers are somewhat better off, and many “skilled” workers considerably worse off than in 1914. Also, it must be remembered that the figure is an average figure. The figure is not invalidated by showing that in certain areas or for certain groups it is too high or too low. Since it is based upon the assumption that workers live in “controlled” houses, it will fail to give a true picture of those workers who have to pay higher “decontrolled” rents.

The real point in the criticism centres round the use that is made of the Index Figure in wage agreements, and here, we think, our correspondent in ascribing to the Index Figure something which is, in fact, due to the political backwardness of the workers, and to the hard facts of the capitalist system. It is not the cost of living; figures which compel the engineer, or the miner, to accept wages which leave them poorer than in 1914. It is the ability of the employers to get all the labour they require without paying more for it than they do. If they needed considerably more miners or engineers, they would doubtless have to pay higher wages to get them, Index Figures notwithstanding. On the other hand, some groups of workers are getting a higher real wage than in 1914, due to changes in the demand for their particular kind of skill. In the long run these discrepancies tend to disappear, but, in the meantime, Index Figures are not the dominant factor in securing or preventing wage increases or decreases. It is true that most workers and their leaders, are saturated with capitalist economic theories, which teach them that they should be content to accept the existing or the prewar distribution of wealth without demur, and they accordingly come to look upon the cost of living Index as a kind of divine indication of what wages ought to be, but this is the fault not of the figures, but of the workers who use them so. If they accepted the Socialist view that receivers of unearned incomes are parasites, they would not allow innocent figures or ignorant Trade Union officials to stand between them and the overthrow of the capitalist system.

Editorial Committee