SPGB Meetings. (1932)

Party News from the October 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Letter: What holds us back? (1956)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ashton-in-Makerfield,

Lancashire.

Dear Comrades,

Dare I venture as an ex-member to voice a point of view on the social question? Whilst it is understood that the Socialist movement in this country as represented by the S.P.G.B. deserves all the praise for all that voluntary work which the loyal members as writers and speakers have done for over 50 years with the idea of trying to enlighten the minds of the members of the “working class” towards an understanding of Socialism as a means to the solution of the social problems which affect the working class, may I suggest since it is common knowledge to the members of the S.P.G.B. that the time has come, which calls for a little mental stock-taking to ascertain or try to explain away to their own satisfaction why the Socialist message which has been put over to your London audiences over a period of years hasn't rung any bell in the minds of the workers. Since the Socialist movement doesn't make any headway in an increase in membership it is obvious some explanation is needed.

Should Socialists discuss the issue and give a united decision on it? Can I suggest some material phenomena for such discussion? “Does Capitalism in this developing period, which enables the working class as a whole to maintain a standard of living with the aid of its Trade Unions which they regard as satisfactory, operate as a factor in the workers contentment with Capitalism?” So long as Capitalism can give the workers their weekly pay packet isn’t that all the workers want? Do Socialists look on Socialism as a practical proposition, in the present developing Capitalism? or do they regard Socialism as a practical necessity only when Capitalism has produced the high productive social forces, which fetter production and which in turn puts millions of workers out of work? Is it under those material conditions which Socialists can expect the workers to become interested in the Socialist solution? If these points explain why the Socialist message, which is put over at present doesn’t ring any bell in the minds of the workers, what should be the Socialist policy under the present conditions?

Since the Socialist movement makes the sound and correct moral indictment against our present social system, and since the present social system is kept in existence because it is supported and upheld by the majority of the workers, cannot the same indictment be made against the workers for their mental stupid blind support?

Hasn't the time come when Socialists should cease to nurse the workers, since the ideas, motives, and general moral conduct is as much in question as the known Capitalists defenders? Has the Socialist movement in our present developing Capitalism anything to lose by dealing with the workers Capitalistic ideology, the sordid ideas, and motives and general conduct? Should the “ S.S." be used more to deal with Henry Dubb's sordid ideas, motives and conduct? Is it true such ideas and motives and conduct act as a stumbling block in the path to acquire social ideas and correct motives, and right moral conduct? Such a policy would have a tendency to attract the notice of the worker readers of the “S,S.” and would probably bring in correspondence. This is what the Editorial Committee want so it would give them the further chance to give Henry the mental bumping he deserves. At least that can be done in the “ S.S.” if not on the stump.

Haven't Socialists enough evidence to support their moral indictment against the workers sordid ideas, etc.? The present writer gives three cases as examples of such ideas and behaviour patterns. The following conversation between two workers as partners in a freight business, I overheard their conversation as I stood against their loaded fruit lorry in Covent Garden some few years ago. One said to the other, “give it the bloody juice never mind the fine, get there, well see to the fine afterwards." The second case. A workmate I worked with a few years ago told me with great glee on his face about the smartness of his own wife in her dealings with the Yanks during the war. Apparently she worked in a canteen which supplied whisky to the Yanks. The latter are known to be good natured re treating any one to a drink. Such was the case with the woman in question, but instead of drinking the whisky she put it in a jug or a bottle which was behind the bar and as time passed it accumulated and when the time came that they ran short of whisky, she brought it out and sold the Yanks their own whisky back to them at a handsome profit. My work pal got a great kick out of his moral story. Third case. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the support of the Socialist truth that all workers have material interests in common to defend, they allow themselves to be used as cannon fodder to wage war against other workers on behalf of their exploiters when war breaks out. The said workers political and economic ignorance shows up their wrong ideas, motives and conduct and calls for a moral indictment because of the anti-social nature. Is it a part of the Socialist case to have to try and defend such behaviour on the old fallacious Blatchfords grounds of defence of the bottom dog; the not guilty argument, because the workers are alleged to be victims of their Capitalist environment?

The workers are in the same environment as the Socialist and can get the correct ideas, motives and conduct, if they weren't too mentally lazy, to try to get them. The choice is there, but being mentally lazy, they prefer to get the wrong ideas. The Socialist movement hasn't anything to lose by telling the workers some home truths, and let them see what Dubb's you think they are. Charge the Henry Dubb's as political blacklegs or scabs, of being on the wrong side of the political fence and that they ought to be sent to Coventry.

The more they squirm, more is the success of the moral indictment.

I remain, yours truly,

(signed) Edward Littler.

Reply.

Before coming to specific questions our correspondent gives his description of the situation that leads him to raise them. This situation, in his view, is that Socialist propaganda “hasn't rung any bell in the minds of the workers," and again, “The Socialist movement doesn't make any headway.” This is not a correct assessment. Though the Socialist movement is small and progress slow it is not correct that no progress is made. The membership of the S.P.G.B. is about three times what it was 30 years ago. The correct statement of the problem should therefore be, why is progress so slow?

It is partly answered by recalling that the founders of the S.P.G.B. were at the outset convinced that the work would be hard and progress slow; that it may have been even slower than some of them thought only indicates some under-estimation of the forces at work against us.

Our correspondent's next point is that under present conditions the workers are satisfied with their standard of living, and receiving their weekly pay packet is all they want. We do not agree with this statement and can see abundant evidence that it is not true. If it were true the workers would not, as in fact they do, repeatedly claim higher real wages and be met with refusals from the employers and appeals from the Government not to make and press such claims. Again, if it were true that that is all the workers want, they would not trouble themselves about the electoral programmes of the Tory, Labour, Liberal and other parties promising them something more. They would not trouble to vote. The fact that the great majority of them do vote and do put Governments in and out is evidence that they are not satisfied merely to receive their weekly pay packet

Then our correspondent asks if the attitude of the workers towards Socialism will not be different when the time comes that “Capitalism has produced the high productive social forces which fetter production, which in turn puts millions of workers out of work.” The question itself is in error, and the answer does not rest on speculation about what may happen in the future. It has all happened long ago and many times. Capitalism has long been a fetter on production and for a century and a half has periodically seen “normal” unemployment rocket up to depression levels. But during depression times the number of workers moved to become interested in Socialism was not materially different from the number who became interested in Socialism in “boom" times. The great majority of the millions of workers unemployed in the 19th century depressions or the depressions between the wars did not interest themselves in Socialism. They went instead into campaigns for unemployment doles, for Government-provided work schemes, for tariff reform, or free trade, or Nationalisation and the rest of the reformist illusions, or they went on hunger marches. Hunger without understanding makes rebels and reformists, not Socialists, and the membership of the S.P.G.B. in those depression times was smaller than it is now under “ full employment.”

Continuing his argument our correspondent suggests that Socialists should make the same indictment against the workers for their “stupid, blind support ” of Capitalism as they do against Capitalist; cease to “nurse” the workers and instead attack their Capitalist ideas and behaviour.

This criticism surprises us because in long years of propaganda the S.P.G.B. has so often been criticised for doing the very thing our correspondent says we do not do. We have often been taken to task by critics on the alleged ground that S.P.G.B. writers and speakers constantly allow their impatience to express itself in exasperated condemnation of the non-Socialist workers.

The important point, however, is that the aim of Socialist propaganda must always be to get non-Socialists to understand and agree with out point of view; harping on their “stupidity,” etc., is hardly likely to further that aim. It is also not true that the working class are stupid or, in the main, anti-social in their behaviour. Blind to their own interests, yes; lacking an understanding of and what will and what will not further their interest, but this is not stupidity. And in spite of those individuals whose reaction to Capitalism is to fight ruthlessly for their own hand without regard to others, the great majority of workers show a regard for their fellow workers, at least those with whom they are closely associated, and a sense of social responsibility that should rather surprise us in view of the pressure of the Capitalist, anti-social environment.

We repeat, therefore, that what the working class lacks is knowledge of the Socialist case and our correspondent has not shown that there is some easier and quicker way of providing it than the way followed by the S.P.G.B.

In conclusion we cannot omit to point out to our correspondent and to others who have allowed slow progress to dishearten them, that progress would be that much quicker if all who understand and want Socialism joined in the task of winning over the great army of the unconverted, instead of progressively becoming disheartened and falling out. If all those who have fallen out had remained in the movement what a strong movement for Socialism we would have now. The only way, and the certain one, to succeed, is to keep at it.

Editorial Committee.

Correspondence. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editor,

The relative merits of the Socialist Labour Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain have been discussed for weeks by a few Marxian students without coming to any satisfactory conclusion as to which party propounds the correct principles that deserve working class support.

Under these circumstances it was thought wise to present some of the views expressed by the supporters of the S.L.P., so that your party may oblige with an answer in an early issue of your Standard. They say that your party is very inconsistent, as proven by the back numbers of the Socialist Standard and Manifesto. On page 17 of the latter, to top of page 18, we find as follows :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class, with the object of ending the capitalist system and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth.”

The inconsistency is obvious, they say, when one sees in that statement that your party recognises the necessity of an economic organisation, based upon class; and at the same time in actual practice only believe in a political organisation.

The proof of this is seen when one reads clause 6 of your party’s “Declaration of Principles.”

The irony of the situation, say they, lies in the fact that your party should see the necessity of the economic organisation, and then publish matter in your Socialist Standard to absolutely ridicule the said type of organisation. For instance, in the February, 1919, Standard, under the title, “Where we Stand,” on the bottom of page 54, is a brief statement as follows : “How long it does take some people to discover the absurdity of their sophistries ! We pointed out the idiocy of organisation by industries years ago.” Then, again, is that statement in agreement with the brief statement at the end of article called “What the Workers Do Understand,” in January,1921, Standard, which read as follows :— “Educated in these things, and organised on the industrial and political fields, they will seize political power and wield it, and its forces, for the paramount purpose—the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth.” Why mention “organised industrially,” if it is an idiotic act?

These super-intellects say that you are all “at sea” on another point of importance. You state in your Manifesto, page 18, as follows : “Emancipation, not palliation, must be the watchword of the workers, as it will be when they become Socialists.” Lower down on the same page is as follows : “Its tactics must be aggressive as well as defensive, and its aim revolutionary.”

Do the two statements clash ? Are not the tactics of aggression on the side of palliation? Have not the workers through their industrial unions been aggressive, which aggression has only palliated their conditions? Apart from that, it is highly questionable whether (even if the Trade Unions did adopt the Socialist attitude, as you state) they could, and successfully, adopt an aggressive and defensive attitude.

Your party seems to think that it is a “wise tactic to be always ready to defend working class interests, irrespective whether conditions are suitable or not, as is shown in the article “The Betrayal of the Miners” (in the Standard, May, 1921, page 138, halfway down second column), which reads as follows : “Had the rank and file of the Triple Alliance understood even their ordinary Trade Union interests, they would have stood together and fought to the fullest extent of their power against this attempt to worsen their conditions.” Obviously, your party thought that had the Triple Alliance acted and taken that defensive attitude against the interests of the employers, all would have been well. This means a sectional strike (which your party ridicules). We may ask : what hope of success was there had it taken place, under the conditions then existing? This would have been putting the so-called economic power of Triple Alliance against the political power of the masters. Obviously, had it turned out to be a fight between the two powers, the former power would have been beaten by the latter power, by the ordering, if necessary, of the police and soldiers to act against the workers. Again, such a strike would prevent the normal distribution of the food supply, which is necessary for the workers; and under such circumstances the shortage of food would be sufficient to force the workers back to the workshop. These very same factors of a political nature would also work against the workers’ organisations, should they adopt a palliative or an aggressive attitude.

So, in conclusion, the persons interested in this controversy would be highly pleased if you would endeavour to give your reply to the same in the November Standard.

I remain, yours for Socialism,

Edward Littler.

Answer to E. Littler.

For convenience of reference, we have numbered the paragraphs in above letter that call for specific answers.

No. 1.—The Declaration of Principles lays down the minimum essential factors of the Socialist position. For instance, that Declaration says nothing about carrying on the propaganda for Socialism—yet the S.P.G.B. does it.

Conceivably, Socialism could be established by the political organisation alone, but the economic organisation alone would be quite powerless to establish it. In actual fact, as the conditions allow, both organisations will be used by Socialists for the attainment of their object, though the seizure of power, the greatest by far of the factors at our disposal, will be carried through by the political organisation. Thus no inconsistency in the position of the S.P.G.B. is shown in our correspondent’s statement.

No. 2.—On this point the questioners are so blind that they cannot see that their query is already answered in the quotation they themselves give from our Manifesto, which says :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class.”

The organisations we have ridiculed have never been based upon the class position of the workers, but have been those supported by the S.L.P., which consisted in the mass of supporters of capitalism, and which the S.L.P. claimed could “take and hold” the means of production against the armed forces under the control of the masters.

As we have pointed out on various occasions, economic development has travelled beyond the limits of “industry” in numerous directions, and, therefore, the workers’ organisations must cover a wider area than the “industry” even to “keep pace.” The quotation from the Socialist Standard of January, 1921, is of no help to the S.L.P., as the word “industrial” is used here to denote the whole economic field. This is clearly shown by the context.

No. 3.—No ! The two statements do not clash, as even a superficial reading would show. To emancipate itself, the working class must become revolutionary, because it must carry through a revolution before emancipation can take place.

The workers have been no more “aggressive” in the so-called “industrial” unions than in the ordinary “craft” unions, though the failure of such “aggression” would be a blow at the S.L.P., which supports these unions—not at us

No. 4.—While we are always ready to defend working class interests, the phrase “whether conditions are suitable or not” needs explaining. The reference to the article on “The Miners’ Betrayal” is beside the point. The miners were being attacked, and the railwaymen and transport workers were being threatened with an attack. In such conditions, the business of the men concerned, obviously, was to fight together—as the article says—to the extent of their powers. There was no question here of pitting the economic organisation of the Triple Alliance against the armed forces. This ghastly policy, propounded and defended by the Industrial Unionists and the S.L.P., is one we have denounced on scores of occasions. Under some conditions even a sectional strike is better than no struggle at all, and the members of the Triple Alliance would have prevented some of the conditions being imposed upon them that they now suffer under, had they struck on “Black Friday.” How far the interference with the normal food supply would affect the struggle is mere guesswork. Partly it would have depended on the length of the strike. Every strike of any size causes inconvenience and sometimes suffering. But to follow the above argument to its logical conclusion means that the workers must accept anything the masters choose to impose, even though it may mean greater suffering than would be entailed by a strike !

On the economic field the workers’ powers are limited, and in the ultimate, can always be beaten by the possessors of political power. But, as Marx has pointed out, these everyday struggles, with all their limitations, are a product of the system, and cannot be avoided unless the workers are ready to sink below “cooliedom.”

A little further information on the position of the S.L.P. may perhaps be interesting.

In the Socialist, 15/4/1920, they state in the editorial, with reference to the actions of certain prominent members who had broken away from the organisation :—

  “The whole trouble is that a self-condemned Unity Committee, who had more or less “bossed” the Party for the last four years, found themselves up against the rank and file of the S.L.P. in their efforts to compromise Revolutionary Socialism.”

That is a peculiar admission for a self-styled Working Class Party ! If the party is so constituted that one group could boss it for four years, what is to prevent other groups successively bossing it ad infinitum?

Further on in the same editorial they write :—

  “Send in your resolutions to your Executive. Indicate your wishes, strengthen your Executive’s hands in the good work it has carried on since it took up office in September, 1919, when it placed the control of the Party and its Press in the hands of the rank and file.”

According to the above, the control of the party and its Press was not in the hands of the rank and file until September, 1919. A startling admission this, after an existence of 15 years !

After the revolutionary action of placing the party in the hands of the rank and file, an article appeared in the Socialist on the miners’ strike. The following are some extracts from it :—

“THE MINERS SHOULD NOT STRIKE.

My advice to the miners is, don’t strike. Why should you? ”Take and hold” should be your slogan. You have a splendid opportunity at this juncture Work the mines for yourselves. MINERS, SEIZE THE MINES. Is it possible—It is.”

Then follows instructions to the miners to issue a statement saying that on and from a certain date the mines will be worked by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. Coal to be reduced by 14s. 2d. per ton, and miners’ wages increased 2s. per day. So easy ! How simple these people are ! And what would the masters be doing while this little transaction was taking place? The same as they do in a strike : bring the armed force to bear on the situation. But the S.L.P. have provided for this :—

“The Army will support you. Call for the support of the Army.

Let your call be “All Power to the Workers.” If you do this you will win hands down.”

Simple, isn’t it? What wonderful childish nonsense ! Anyhow, the subsequent action of the Army and Volunteer Force, when a railway strike was expected, should have knocked that idiocy out of their heads.

It would be interesting to find out what the S.L.P. mean when they state in their Platform :—

  “Whilst the working-class are compelled to organise to capture the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be worked in the interests of society as a whole.”

Money is the means of exchange. They then are working for a system under which money will exist. An elementary knowledge of money would tell them that it can only exist where buying and selling exists. In other words, where private property exists. According to their platform, then, they are not out for Socialism.

In spite of all the noise they make about industrial action, they themselves are not clear as to what their own position is. Since the inception of the S.L.P. the columns of the Socialist have been largely occupied with the disagreements of members as to the position on industrial unionism. From last January onwards a discussion raged, under the title of “The Problem of Policy.” Finally, at their Easter Conference, they decided to support the “Workers’ International Industrial Union.” In an editorial on the Conference (Socialist, 27/5/22) they say :—

  “It has cast a glance at the past and has viewed with disdain its many errors now, and we hope for all times it will never compromise truth to make a friend, and never withhold a blow at error lest it should make an enemy.”

Apparently they keep finding themselves out—yet they “keep on doing it !” Where knowledge is lacking, foolish deeds will flourish.

The S.L.P. have decided to support the W.I.I.U., but in the Socialist (8/12/21) the political policy of that organisation was. stated as follows :—

  “By electing a Political Committee whose duty it will be to safeguard and further the interests of the W.I.I.U. in the political field, and who will take instructions from the Branch and report activities at each Branch Meeting.”

This surely signifies that another political organisation will exist alongside of the S.L.P. If so, where does the S.L.P. stand? Which of the two bodies is supposed to be correct?—both evidently can’t be.

In a Manifesto on the Russian Famine (Socialist, 22/9/22), they recommend the starving workers of this country to send “Food, clothing, boots, medicines and locomotives to Russia.” Would it be any harm to suggest that “Charity begins at home”? The best way to help the starving Russian workers is to push on the advent of Socialism as rapidly as possible, and not to contribute a few pence to be used by the Co-operative Society, as the S.L.P. suggest. Ironically enough, they were calling upon the workers to contribute to save the S.L.P. Press shortly afterwards !

The following tit-bit is an illustration of S.L.P. Logic :—

  “And economic organisation is a necessary requisite to enforce the aims or wishes as expressed by the political organisation at the ballot box. . . . Organise, therefore, on the political field to capture political power and sweep aside the ”robber burg” of Capitalism.”— Socialist, 8/6/22.

If the “robber-burg” of capitalism has been swept aside, where does the “enforcing” come in? Note the phrase, “aims or wishes.” Perhaps the aims differ from the wishes !

Editorial Committee.

£1000 Fund. (1922)

Party News from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Correspondence: Why political organisation? (1923)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1923 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editor,

I have read with interest the questions put forward re Comrade Littler and the answers thereto, that have appeared through the medium of the Standard.

To me those answers require further elucidation, as for instance, your answer to the second question, which states, “The workers’ organisation must be upon the basis of their class.” Do you infer by the above statement that one organisation only is requisite, and it must include a political and economic organisation?

I take it one organisation on the industrial field is “on the basis of its class.”

Again, one reads in answer to the same question, “As we have pointed out on various occasions, economic development has travelled beyond the limits of ‘Industry ‘ in numerous directions, and therefore, the workers’ organisations must cover a wider area than the ‘Industry’ even to keep pace.”

What directions has economic development taken beyond the limits of “Industry,” and what have the workers’ organisation to keep pace with apart from “Industry” ? In answer to the first question we find the following:—

“Conceivably Socialism could be established by the political party alone.” To me, conceivably is a relative concept, and the limit within which a concept is valid varies concomitantly with variations in the phases of social evolution. All Socialists agree that the coming social revolution will do away with the State, and all political institutions, which means all political institutions will lose their political character and become simple administrative institutions for the needs of society.

To bring the above social conditions into existence implies the removal of the existing social conditions which demands the existence of the political structure.

All political parties who are attempting to capture the powers of the State, for the purpose of converting those so-called means of oppression into agents of emancipation, fail to understand that the material conditions are responsible for the existence of all political institutions, and so long as political parties persist in grappling only with the effects of those material conditions, then so long will those effects remain in existence.

As we have social production, i.e., associated labour (under capitalism) that very fact implies organisation right where production takes place, namely, in the workshop, for the specific purpose of taking the economic power out of the hands of the master class and to wield that power for themselves, the working class.

At that very moment the political structure will fall to the ground—the mills, mines, factories, etc., are only waiting seizure at the hands of an organised proletariat.

Do you claim the political power of the capitalist class, or lack of class consciousness of the workers prevents that new social order, namely, Socialism, from making its birth.

Yours for Socialism,

H. Deakin.

Answer.

We do not pretend to prophesy as to the details of the future working class organisations, but reasoning from past and present experience, it would seem that the greatest efficiency would be attained by forming one organisation for political work and another for economic work. These two organisations would be affiliated under some form, and where necessary would work together, until Socialism was established.

One organisation on the industrial field would not be on the basis of its class, unless the members understood their slave position and were deliberately working for their own emancipation, by organising for control of political power, in addition to being organised on the economic field for immediate purposes.

An “Industry” is that portion of the means of production, devised to produce a particular unit of wealth, or the carrying on of a unit of social service. Thus there is a “Coal Industry,” a “Rubber Industry,” etc., on one side, and a “Railway Industry,” etc., on the other.

Modern capitalist control has spread far beyond these “Industrial” limits in many cases, and huge combines often control numerous “Industries.” Lever Brothers, Burmantofts, and Vickers, Ltd., are notorious examples of this development. A more subtle form of control is that carried through on the financial side. Multi-millionaires often hold controlling blocks of shares in numerous industries, and direct the activities of these industries on a policy determined by their interests as a whole.

To give one illustration. The American Meat Trust not only own ranches and packing factories, but control dairies and farms, producing milk, eggs, cheese, butter, and various provisions. They also own a fleet of ships. In the event of a dispute with their seamen the Meat Trust could smash a strike by the simple expedient of ordering the shopkeepers to refuse to serve the strikers with either meat, bread or other provisions. Against such an attack the Seamen’s Industrial Union would be utterly helpless. Hence, as the capitalist development has extended far beyond the “Industrial” basis, the workers’ organisation must follow suit.

Mr. Deakin’s statement that “All Socialists agree that the coming social revolution will do away with the State and all political institutions” is based upon the anarchist fallacy that the “State and all political institutions” are merely capitalist devices to enslave the workers. As every student of history knows, when a society becomes established, and particularly when it is settled in a particular territory, it is necessary to frame rules for the organisation and management of the general affairs of society. These methods of general management form the political machinery of any society, and however the forms may change, it is obvious that they will be necessary as long as society exists. When the political organisation is furnished with force for the purpose of compelling obedience to the rules of society, it becomes a “State.”

Socialism will be established when a majority of the working class use the franchise to wrest political power out of the hands of the capitalist class for that object. This will leave a minority either neutral or actively opposing the new order. Clearly, for a time at any rate, society will have to be prepared to use force, if necessary, to maintain the new system. As soon as the minority accept the system and work in co-operation with the majority, the need for any special force will have disappeared, and such force would be disbanded. Thus the “State” will “die out,” but political organisation—as shown above—will be necessary and will therefore remain.

Mr. Deakin has failed to grasp the essential fact that the material conditions “responsible for the existence of all political institutions” is the necessity of organisation for a society to exist at all.

Our correspondent is also in error when he defines social production as “associated Labour.” Production can only be termed social when the arrangements of society are formed for the purpose of assisting and carrying to a successful conclusion the interdependent and associated labour of masses of workers. It is interesting to note that while Mr. Deakin denies that the political powers can be used as “agents of emancipation,” he claims that the “economic power” of the masters could be wrested from them and used by the workers. Here he contradicts himself. What he imagines to be the “economic power” is just as much the result of “material conditions” as the political institutions, and if the latter cannot be converted to the workers’ use, neither, obviously, can the former.

But, as pointed out in various numbers of the Socialist Standard, this so-called “economic power” is another anarchist fallacy.

Without the backing of the political power, with its armed forces, the master class are bereft of any “power”—economic or other. To retain possession of the means of life, they are completely dependant upon the control of political power, which is placed in their hands by the working class who are ignorant of their own interests.

No organisation in the workshop can take possession of the means of production while the master class control political power and the armed forces. Any such attempt at control by the workers could be met, and completely crushed, by the machine gun, the explosive shell, and the aerial bomb. The mills, mines, factories, etc., can only be seized after the workers have gained political power with its control of the armed forces. Any other method merely leads the working class to the shambles.

Mr. Deakin’s last question is on the lines of the old arithmetical “puzzle,” i.e., if 3 × 2 equals 6, which is the more necessary, the 3 or the 2, to produce the result of 6 ? The common sense answer, of course, is that both are equally necessary.

And similarly with Mr. Deakin’s question. As the possession of political power by the master class is a result of the lack of class consciousness of the workers, it is clear that only with the growth of class consciousness—knowledge of their class position—will the political power be wrested from the hands of the masters.

Editorial Committee.

Letter: Currency Illusions. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Editor,

Dear Sir,

I am writing on a somewhat perplexing subject, that of Currency. The views of Noah Ablett which I present here, are in my opinion not Marxian, and I shall be obliged if you will give your comments and endeavour to throw some light on the question.

In Easy Outlines of Economics on pages 49 and 50, under the heading "The Paradox of Paper Money," he states the following theory :—Given a certain amount of commodities the quantity of gold which can remain in circulation is definitely limited; but if gold is replaced by paper, the quantity of paper money which can circulate is not limited. Consequently, if the quantity of money required in circulation is one million sovereigns, and two million pound notes are introduced instead, then the commodity previously valued at £1 will want two one pound notes in exchange; if another million notes are introduced the £1 commodity will want three notes in exchange and so on. Ablett explains this by saying that the laws of currency have been violated. Now I understand him to mean that the prices of commodities are determined by the excessive number of notes in circulation, which to me appears to be a negation of the labour theory of value, on the basis of which alone I had thought prices understandable.

To illustrate this, let us take any two dissimilar commodities; for instance, a pair of boots and a bicycle. We know that both are useful and have shape, weight, and colour, but when we put them in exchange relation we find that none of the above attributes can determine how the value of one corresponds to the value of the other. Examination however shows that they have one thing in common, they are both the products of human labour. This provides the rod with which to measure their value, just as distance is measured with a foot rule.

The use of a universal equivalent, e.g., gold, as a measure of value, enables all commodities to express their value in exchange, in one substance; that is, it gives their price in money terms. This serves instead of expressing the value of each commodity in so many hours of labour time necessary for their production. If in our example a pair of boots cost £l, and a bicycle £8, it is at once seen that these different prices represent different values.

Now, if on the introduction of an excessive issue of notes we have to give £2 and £16 for boots and bicycle, where previously we gave £1 and £8 respectively, what will have happened? One of three things must have taken place. Either (1) the value of the boots and the bicycle have increased; also the value of the sovereign measured by Treasury notes, but the value of boots and bicycle to a far higher degree, or (2) the value of gold has fallen, while the values of the boots and the bicycle are the same, thus necessitating more gold in circulation and a higher price for the boots and the bicycle, or (3) the value of gold is the same, but the value of the boots and bicycle have increased.

While I agree that only a given quantity of gold can circulate, I do not see how an unlimited quantity of notes can remain in circulation. An excess of notes, like an excess of sovereigns over the quantity required for circulating the commodities, would lie idle in the banks.

Anyway, if the high cost of living is a result of the so-called excess of notes in circulation, how is it that the Treasury note will buy as much as the sovereign? Again, in the United States of America, where there is a gold medium, we find the cost of living as high as it is here.

Finally, I am told that Marx in Capital, volume I., page 144, (Kerr), under the heading of "Coins and Symbols of Value," deals with Noah Ablett's point .in this way :—If the quantity of paper money issued be double the amount required, then as a matter of fact, £l would be the money name, not of a quarter of an ounce, but of one-eighth of an ounce of gold. The effect would be the same as if an alteration had taken place in the function of gold as a standard of price. Those values that were previously expressed by the price of £l would now be expressed by the price of £2. I ask for information on this point : What does it all mean?

Yours for Socialism, 

Edward Littler.

Reply:
In no subject, except perhaps that of religion, is mankind so prone to accept statements without enquiry or examination, as in the matter of money. As Marx says, "the wildest theories" prevail upon the question. An illustration from present circumstances will show how easy it is to mislead people on this matter.

When prices were at their height, shortly after the war, one of the "explanations" put forward by the Capitalist Press, and repeated by Labour College writers and members of the Labour Party, was that the rise in prices was largely due to "the inflation of the currency." In both articles and correspondence in the Socialist Standard, we have pointed out the falsity of this claim, and have shown that, both from the quantity of currency notes issued compared with prices, and from the fact that the "Bradbury" is convertible, no inflation has taken place.

Money as a measure of value and a medium of circulation, is a necessity under a system of commodity production on a large scale. It is the "universal commodity," set aside for the above purposes in a system where private ownership of the means of life is the ruling factor. Hence, the futility of all the schemes that attempt to solve the social evils by juggling with one item, the currency, while leaving the others intact. As money is a result of the private ownership of the means of life, it is obvious that it cannot be abolished until the cause is removed.

The commodity in general use as money, in the western world, is gold. On the average, the amount of gold exchanged for a given commodity is the quantity that has taken the same amount of social labour time to produce as the commodity has taken. To guarantee the unit of money as to quality, weight, etc., it is issued under Government control.

Inside any national boundary where social conditions are fairly stable, it is easy to replace gold with tokens or symbols for purposes of circulation. In fact, in every country with a "gold standard," metal tokens, usually silver or copper, are used for purposes of small change. Paper notes may also be substituted inside a particular country. In general, this paper is issued under one of two systems.

In one system, such as prevails in this country to-day, the notes are "convertible" into gold upon demand at some central institution, like the Bank of England. It is easily seen that, so long as the promise to pay gold holds good—or is believed to hold good—the notes will exchange at their face denomination, and no inflation of such a currency can take place.

Under the second system, the notes are issued as "legal tender," without any promise to redeem them in gold. This is called an "inconvertible" issue. Inside the national boundary, and for home produced commodities, these notes function similarly to the "convertible" ones, and their issue has no particular effect upon prices under normal circumstances.

Outside of the country issuing notes, the position will depend upon certain other factors. First of these is the confidence of the outsiders in the promise to pay gold in the case of the "convertible" notes. Where there is full confidence in this promise, the notes will circulate at their face denomination, less the amount required to cover the cost of carrying gold to the country in question. If this confidence is lacking, the degree in which it falls below "full" will be shown by the rate of exchange.

With "inconvertible" notes, the matter is somewhat more complicated. These notes will be taken at their power to purchase gold or goods in the world's markets. It is at this point that a great confusion of thought exists on currency matters.

An examination will show that the power of purchase possessed by these notes is based upon the resources of the country issuing them. If the notes are issued in such quantities that their face denomination exceeds these resources, their power of purchase abroad will fall in a similar ratio. This brings forward the factor that has confused Mr. Ablett and so many writers in the Capitalist Press—the factor of Credit.

When Mr. Ablett states (p. 50): "Governments may easily inflate the currency by printing pieces of paper," it is a pity he does not state what they could do with this paper when printed. Moreover, he has been refuted in principle, as long ago as 1682, when a certain writer stated :—

  If the wealth of a nation could be decupled by a proclamation, it were strange that such proclamation have not long since been made by our Governors.

This writer was the famous William Petty, and the above quotation from his work is given on p. 73 of Capital. (Sonnenschein.—ed.)

As Mr. Ablett, probably for quite good reasons, fails to give any description of the functioning of a paper currency, a short account may be useful here.

If the government of a country with an inconvertible paper currency requires certain commodities, such as guns or battleships, it may order firms in its own country to build them, or it may order them from abroad. In the latter case, it may offer to pay in its own currency—if necessary, printing the notes for this purpose—but this would not be inflation, as the currency would only be issued to the amount of the prices to be paid. To the firms supplying the commodities, the notes would be useful only so far as they would purchase gold or goods in the world's markets at their face denomination. If the government were to order goods beyond the capacity of the taxes to meet the bill, then their credit would fall, and their notes—as they stood, without printing a single one extra—would fall below their face denomination outside of their own country. The printing of more notes to meet this fall would not alter the situation, or the price level of the notes. It is this extension of credit that the would-be experts confuse as an "inflation" of currency.

The government in question might purchase gold with its notes, to pay the bill, but of course the more usual way is to issue bonds for the amount, on the taxes of the country, and pass these bonds through the banks and financial houses.

The huge increase in demand, accompanied by an enormous extension of credit, that has taken place between governments and firms, during and since the war, has been the great cause of the rise in prices. Such rise has necessitated a large increase in the currency to' meet the demands of business. This obvious fact has been inverted in the minds of the shallow apologists for Capitalism, who claim the rise in prices has been due to "the inflation of the currency."

Jack Fitzgerald

Letter: Socialist Action in Parliament, Etc. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

  In the July issue of the Socialist Standard we explained why a Socialist Party must be based on, and must fight elections on, the simple demand for Socialism and not on a programme of reforms or even on the demand for Socialism linked up with a programme of reforms. Several correspondents have now asked what should be the attitude of a minority of socialists in Parliament or a majority or minority on a local council towards measures introduced by capitalist parties. We print below one of these letters: —

Bentley,

Doncaster

To the Editorial Committee.

For the benefit of a few readers of the “S.S.,” could you give the Party’s position upon a few points that arise from the 6th Clause of the Declaration of Principles.

Seeing that Socialism is the object of the Party, and that the 6th Clause is the method advocated to get power to establish it, what would be the attitude or position of a single candidate or a few S.P.G.B. candidates who were elected by class conscious electors to the House of Commons, towards the problems discussed by capitalist politicians?

What would be the Socialist attitude towards the following measures that were being put on the Statute Book by, say, a Labour Government ? :—

• An Improved Minimum Wage Bill for all workers,
• An improved Compensation Act,
• A Shorter-Working Day for a section or for all workers, 
• Abolition of the Means Test.

What would be the attitude of the single socialist or a minority of socialists on the Local Councils towards the problems discussed in Council ?

Finally, in the event of a few Constituencies voting a majority of Class Conscious Socialists into power in the local councils, what would be their attitude from the point of view of administration of Council work?

Hoping a reply to the same will fulfil a useful purpose,

Yours,

Edward Littler.

Reply.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has as its object the establishment of Socialism. It is a revolutionary party based on the class struggle, and not a reform party. Holding that no amelioration of the workers' condition can be obtained under capitalism that would be worth the amount of time and energy spent in working and organising to obtain it, the Socialist Party is opposed to the waste of such time and energy, and to the confusion involved in attempting to improve capitalism by means of reforms, thus obscuring the class struggle. A party claiming to be socialist, but with a list of reforms or “immediate demands," attracts reformers who are not socialists, and has a reformist and not a socialist electorate behind it. Even if such a party obtains political control it is useless for the purpose of furthering Socialism.

While the S.P.G.B. is opposed to a reformist policy the socialist delegate in Parliament or on a local council is not, therefore, bound to vote against every particular measure. The Socialist Party of Great Britain does not hold that the measures already taken or to be taken by the capitalists are all of them bound to be useless or harmful to the workers, or bound to impede progress towards Socialism. Some of the suffrage, factory and trade union legislation in the past, while assisting capitalists immediately or in the long run, has not been correspondingly harmful to the workers. The Socialist Party holds that some of the measures brought forward by the capitalists owing to economic developments or owing to conflicts of interest between sections of the capitalists themselves can be used as weapons in the class struggle by the workers and by the socialist movement. That being the case, a socialist minority in Parliament or on a local council would be required by the socialists who sent them there to criticise from the socialist standpoint all measures brought before them (pointing out their futility in comparison with Socialism and so forth), and to refrain from supporting, bargaining or allying themselves with any party for temporary ends, but at the same time would be required to vote for particular measures where there is a clear gain to the workers and the socialist movement in so doing. (The decision would, of course, be in the hands of the Party, and not in the hands of the individual.) It may be added that such measures are more likely to be put forward when Socialism is imminent, and a frightened ruling class is striving to keep back the flood by making concessions.

The position which the S.P.G.B. has always taken up, and which is outlined above, differs fundamentally from the position of candidates elected on reform programmes by reformist voters. In the case of socialists elected on a socialist programme, the decision lies with socialists, well able to judge the merits from a socialist standpoint. In the case of reformists (the I.L.P., for example) the decision rests with a party and an electorate which do not know and accept the socialist case, and are incapable of judging from the socialist standpoint.

With regard to the issues raised by our correspondent, it is of little use to give a yes or no answer, because the effect of particular measures depends on the time and circumstances and the actual clauses of the measures in question. It is not sufficient merely to be told that a bill is described by its supporters as a bill for a minimum wage, or for an improved compensation law, etc. Advocates of a minimum wage have often associated it with the prohibition of strikes, and a Minimum Wage Bill might have tacked on to it a clause penalising strikers. The abolition of the Means Test may look like a clear issue on which a socialist minority would be instructed to vote for abolition, but it must be borne in mind that a proposal for its nominal abolition would probably be linked up with the imposition of some other objectionable procedure.

What is stated above in connection with a minority in Parliament explains also the attitude of a minority on a local council. A socialist minority on the London County Council, for instance, would vote for a proposal to restore the right of selling literature and taking up collections in London parks since the S.P.G.B. are the chief sufferers from the prohibition introduced a few years ago.

Our correspondent’s last question refers to a majority on a local council.

By the time a few constituencies had voted a majority of class conscious socialists into control of the local councils the rest of the country would be on the verge of doing the same thing, and on the verge of sending a majority of socialist delegates to Parliament also. If such a hypothetical situation arose the socialist majority would use the limited power, funds and organisation of the municipalities to help with the task of capturing the central seat of power, in every way available.

In conclusion, we must emphasise that the object of the Socialist Party of Great Britain is the establishment of Socialism. This purpose, in an organisation based solely upon the demand for Socialism, and putting forward candidates on that and nothing else, cannot be forgotten or submerged. Our policy, our organisation, and all our activities are governed by that objective. The question of voting for or against, or ignoring measures introduced by non-socialist parties, does not and cannot influence our policy towards the objective.

Editorial Committee

Obituary: Edward Littler (1963)

Obituary from the April 1963 issue of the Socialist Standard

We are sorry to record the death of Edward Littler who some older members will remember. "Ted", a Lancashire collier, emigrated to New Zealand where he first had contact with the Party during the first world war. (Party members working in the Merchant Navy frequently held meetings in New Zealand and it was at these meetings that he first heard the case for Socialism.) Whilst there he met Moses Baritz and helped him at his propaganda meetings. Later Ted Littler returned to England and for some years worked in the pits around Doncaster. Ill health, due to the atmosphere in the mines caused him to become a chronic invalid for some years. But always he put the Party case in his discussions with people with whom he came in contact. Also, he wrote lengthy letters to comrades, arguing and clarifying various aspects of the Socialist attitude to capitalism.

Comrade Littler died in hospital at Wigan on March 1st.