Socialist Victory or Election Antics (1958)

From the August 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Judging from recent press reports, it would appear that a number of Labour Party M.P.’s are not at all sure that the Conservative Party’s inability to solve the problems which are making capitalism unpalatable to an increasing number of workers will result in the return to power, at the next General Election, of the Labour Party.

The fact that it is the system of society which needs changing, and not the people that administer it has not yet been understood by the majority of the working class. It is because of this ignorance of their class needs, that workers have been persuaded at election time to cast their vote for whichever programme of reforms seems to offer the greatest measure of security against the constant threat of unemployment, war, attacks upon wage levels, and the host of other afflictions that are the burden of the property-less in a class-divided society.

It is apparently because of the pronounced lack of enthusiasm shown by voters during recent bye-elections for the vote-catching schemes which the Labour Party have put forward, that has given rise to another splinter-group within the Labour Party. The sponsors of this new group claim that they will be able to combat the apathy shown by the electorate, and will be able to help mould public opinion into accepting the Labour Party as the next government

Mr. Stephen Swingler, M.P., chairman of the group, in an attempt to convince the party leaders—“that the movement is within the four walls of party rules ” (Daily Telegraph), quotes the application form for membership of the group as demonstrating their loyalty to the party. He points out that only Labour Party members who are anxious to work for the success of the Party, are eligible for membership.

Mr. Swingler sets out the group's aim as being “to recruit individual members pledging themselves to work for Socialism on a national basis.” This must be somewhat confusing to those people who have been kidded by the misrepresentation of the daily newspapers that the whole Labour Party was Socialist, for it now appears that only a select band, working both “for the success of the party” and for "Socialism on a national basis ” (which appears to be something quite different) are, according to Mr. Swingler, Socialists.

This trick of going in two different directions at the same time has also been used by Mr. Lamb, the Labour candidate in the Torrington By-election. Mr. Lamb is reported as having said: “I believe we should stop immediately everything connected with the manufacture and testing of H-bombs. Britain must not be a base for the launching of guided missiles. As I do not consider the H-bomb a deterrent 1 cannot consider the manufacture and testing of them a peaceful activity.” He then went on to say: “I have expressed a personal view, a line which I shall pursue throughout the election. I shall be unrelenting in my opinion.” He did, however, modify this statement considerably by adding: “If subsequently my method is not acceptable to the majority (of the Labour Party), I must be prepared to and indeed will, accept the majority decision ” (Daily Express).

Mr. Gaitskell, as reported in the Daily Telegraph, warned these misguided enthusiasts of the dangerous effects of setting up organisations within the Labour Party. Addressing a constituency party dinner gathering at Keighley, Mr. Gaitskell said: “Recently an impression has been created that disunity may be reappearing. 1 want to warn the party of the dangers of this. We have at present, every hope of winning a substantial victory at the next general election. But this could be seriously jeopardised if division and disputes in our ranks broke out again.” He then went on to say: “If one organisation of this kind is permitted, there is no reason why it should not be followed by others, advancing other points of view. The result would inevitably be the distraction and disruption of the Party, with disastrous effects alike on our electoral efficiency and our reputation as the alternative government.”

“Victory for Socialism” is the title adopted by Swingler and Co., to cover their activities which they claim will help the Labour Party to return to power at the next general election. One of the first moves of this group, in their attempt to cash in on popular movements, was to ally itself to the “Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament” which organised the Easter march on the British nuclear weapons' headquarters at Aldermaston.

The object of this campaign is to gain publicity for the movement's protest against the manufacture of nuclear weapons and rocket missiles in this country. It must be pointed out that these activities, whatever else they may accomplish, have nothing at all to do with a victory for Socialism.

The fact is that these architects of “Socialist Victory” stress that they are always prepared to toe the Labour Party line, which does not say much for their sincerity in opposing nuclear armaments. Or have they forgotten that it was the Labour Party who pioneered the manufacture of the atom bomb in this country and made the manufacture of the H-bomb possible?

What these political opportunists fail to realise is that capitalism, with or without the H-bomb to protect the interests of the propertied class, with or without a Labour Party dedicated to nationalising the exploitation of the workers, cannot function without the poverty of the wage packet; the pursuit of profit; the wars that arise because of the need of rival capitalist groups to protect or capture markets, sources of raw materials and trade routes; and the periodical trade slumps which result in workers becoming unemployed as a consequence of their producing more than the market can absorb.

But one cannot expect Mr. Swingler and his associates to face these tiresome facts. And so the political merry-go-round goes on, with the charlatans and misguided do-gooders performing mental acrobatics in order to gain the votes of working people. And for what purpose? The purpose of gaining governmental power in order to administer capitalism with all the problems that it produces. One can only hope that sooner or later workers will get wise to this kind of double-talk, and decide to run society themselves, and run it for their own benefit. When this happens, the need for wars. H-bombs, poverty, slumps and leaders of the calibre of Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Swingler will finally disappear.

Eric Coffey

Born Lazy (1961)

From the May 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

"What will you do with the lazy (or greedy, or selfish) people, who will want to take everything and give nothing?”

We often hear this objection to Socialism, from opponents who think that a social system in which wealth would be freely available to everybody must collapse, because it is somehow contrary to “human nature”. To these objectors, we are all, because of “human nature”, basically lazy (or greedy, or selfish).

In fact, the term “human nature”—the need for food, air, water and so on, and some biological peculiarities—can only apply to those characteristics which are unalterably human. Laziness, greediness and the like are only aspects of human behaviour. These are not unalterable—they are often fostered in us by the acquisitive and competitive nature of property society: some of them, indeed, are taught to us from our earliest days. There is a lot of evidence to show that, when the conditions are right, human beings do not behave in an anti-social manner.

For example, there has recently been published the translation of Jens Bjerre’s most interesting account of the latest Danish Kalahari Expedition, when he spent several months living with the Kung Bushmen at Samangeigei. This is what Mr. Bjerre says about the Bushmen's way of life:

   “During the time we lived with the Bushmen, we never once witnessed a quarrel among them, which is surprising considering how close they live to each other and that they have to share everything together. The very fact that they live so intimately appears to give them a feeling of mutual dependence and confidence. . . . This natural feeling of solidarity within the clan begins in their childhood. Children are a kind of common possession. Even though mothers for preference look after their own children, they are just as often to be seen looking after other children—even suckling them if the child is hungry and its own mother is not on the spot. The older children eat sometimes with one, sometimes with another family—according to where they happen to be when they are hungry and when food is ready. The whole settlement is their home. The children help to collect firewood and food for the older people who cannot travel far, and sometimes they even sleep alongside them to keep them warm at night.
   From the example of their elders they learn the code of behaviour which is the foundation of the clan's unity; to share food and to assist each other in every way.”

Mr. Bjerre concludes this paragraph by saying:

  “We white people, surely, have now reached the stage—with our hydrogen bombs and rockets—when we also must choose between living at peace with each other or obliterating ourselyes."

These Bushmen are primitive people —they are, in fact, probably the oldest surviving human race. But they know that, were they to adopt the very forms of behaviour which so many in our “civilised” society call unchangeable “ human nature ”, they would destroy themselves. Humanity, also, will not willingly commit social suicide. The people of the world will establish Socialism because they want to live cooperatively, in a free and abundant society. They will, in fact, practice the “virtues” which the Kung Bushmen have kept up for so long.

Eric Coffey

Labour and the health charges (1961)

From the May 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is evident that the Labour Party see in the new health service charges a much needed political "shot in the arm" for themselves. Amid much hullabaloo and many late night sittings, the advocates of a "controlled economy" have let it be known that at last they have found something in the Conservative Party's running of capitalism with which they disagree. The trouble the Labour Party now seem to be faced with is to get the different factions within the Party to recognise that a united Labour Party, “championing the cause of the poor and needy", is likely to pay far better political dividends than anything in the nuclear armament or disarmament range. Hence the recent almost frantic attempts to patch up the differences that exist within the party on these issues.

More and more it becomes obvious that far from being the vehicle of socialist ideas, either now or ultimately, the Labour Party has no ideas on the running of capitalism that differ fundamentally from those of the more generally recognised parties of the system. Thus, instead of being able to make a concentrated attack on the government-imposed charges on the health service, Mr. Gaitskell and Co. have been forced to defend the last Labour Government who set the example by themselves imposing such charges.

The capitalist press, who regard a lively opposition party (so long as it does not oppose capitalism) as a necessity of “democracy", rejoiced when for the first time since Suez the Labour Party found something in government policy about which to wax indignant.

Not satisfied with the impact of the “health" charges, the Daily Herald and later Mr. George Brown, Labour' deputy leader, in a party political broadcast, have attempted to blow the affair up as the beginning of a major attack on what they call the social services. This view is given some support by the demand of a group of Conservatives for a charge to be put on State education. The debates which have followed the introduction of the "health" bills have been given wide coverage in the press and read like the script of a farce—though a farce with grim undertones for the working class. Once again Labour Party spokesmen exposed their pathetic lack of understanding of the economics of capitalism and the basic hypocrisy of a party which, while claiming working class sympathies, seeks to administer the system which enslaves them.

Using the Korean War as the excuse for the Labour government's own health service charges, Mr. Brown merely demonstrated how the stresses and strains of capitalism’s economic and military rivalries always seem to thwart the upholders of the “planned economy" from easing the burden of wage slavery.

While the call for a curb on the profits of drug manufacturers may bring support to the Labour Party from any capitalists who see benefit to themselves from such a move, workers should remember that these profits have been made ever since the health service started. It was not noticeably Labour policy when in office to relate profit to the plight of workers in the way they now seek to do. Unfortunately for the Labour Party, workers are liable to remember Sir Stafford Cripps' wage freezing policies, and the Labour government’s support of a “ reasonable " rate of profit as necessary to the interests of the “controlled economy".

Socialists have never supported these so-called social services, seeing in them nothing but an endeavour on the part of capitalism's administrators to give the master class the cheapest and most efficient labour force possible, under the conditions prevailing at the time.

Eric Coffey