You—and the next General Election (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will be contesting two constituencies at the next General Election —North Paddington and East Ham South.

At the last General Election a majority of you voted a Labour Government into power. Are you satisfied with what you did? What have you gained from Labour Government? In their election programmes Labour Candidates promised you “Real Peace, a Good Home, a Good Job, Good Wages, a Chance for the Children, Rising Standards of Living for the Whole Population” and “Public Ownership—the organisation and control of the nation’s wealth and resources for the benefit of the Whole Nation—is needed to give our people a Better Britain.” Do you remember these promises, or is your memory so short that you have forgotten them? Look up the Labour programmes again and then compare the accomplishments with the promises.

Real Peace, a Good Home, Rising Standards of Living; what a cruel disillusionment! The armaments race is in full swing in preparation for another war; this time with one of the erstwhile Allies. The “good homes” have vanished in face of a greater housing problem for the workers than has ever been experienced before. The standards of living are going down as prices go up and the Government is appealing to you to abandon demands for higher wages. It is also throwing its weight against you, just as Tory and Liberal Governments did, when you come out on strike. Many large industries have been nationalised—has this meant a “Better Britain” for you? In all of them there is discontent and the workers are either on strike or threatening to do so. Where an industry has been nationalised you have only one employer; when you get the sack you are done for. Miners have already learnt this to their cost.

Labour Government is fundamentally no different from Tory or Liberal Government; each of them governs on behalf of the capitalist class and for the benefit of that class.

Before you voted last time we urged you to think very seriously about what you were doing. But you did not do so; you swallowed the hoary old promises that were so often broken. Your present bewilderment and apprehension in face of a world moving steadily towards another catastrophe is the logical result of the vote you cast at the last General Election. Once again we urge you to spend a few months in serious thought before the time comes to cast your vote. Give up trusting in promises and look behind promises to the facts of the life you are compelled to live. Here are some of the facts.

Within the last fifty years the means to produce and distribute wealth have been vastly improved and expanded. So prolific have been the social productive powers that, repeatedly, steps have had to be taken to limit production, and even to destroy large quantities of essential products that have been produced in excess of the market requirements. During the same period a relatively small section of the world’s population has been enjoying unprecedented wealth and luxury, whilst the vast mass of the people have been living on or near the poverty line, harassed by the dread born out of insecurity, and suffering most when the shops are glutted with the things they need but cannot buy.

During these fifty years the world has been torn by two devastating wars, bringing death, disablement and misery to millions of people, as well as diverting the energies of a large part of the world’s population to production for war purposes—that is production that makes and feeds implements of destruction. Neither Labour, Tory nor Liberal Government can find a solution to the problem of war. You who are workers produce the munitions of war, and give up your lives on the battlefields as well as behind the official front lines. What have you gained by your sacrifice? Nothing! After the first Great War unemployment and insecurity reached dimensions never experienced before. After the second Great War the housing problem has reached a pitch that is staggering and, allied with the scanty housing ration is the scantiness and soaring prices of needful things. Just imagine what it was like when oranges, bananas and the like were cheap and plentiful. No, you have gained nothing from war except misery.

All the arts of “leaders,” diplomats and governments are incapable of abolishing war because war is an integral part of the present social order whose basis is the production of goods for sale at a profit. Wars are waged for plunder, and the source of this plunder is the wealth you produce above what it costs to keep you and your families.

You are told that we are living in difficult times and that you must curb your demands for better wages because the war has left the world short of necessary goods. Yet, since the war, fortunes have been left by those who live on your work; banquets are given by the wealthy and Continental resorts still thrive out of their visits. If you had the money you could buy anything anywhere as the wealthy do. There is no shortage for them. Have you asked yourselves why your class must pull in its belt while the wealthy class can thrive in luxury in spite of a devastated world?

These are some facts over which you should ponder before going to the polling booths next time; but they are only a beginning.

Gilmac.

The Labour Party in Perspective by M. Blum. (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Leon Blum, whose death was announced recently, was a Social Democrat—that is, a reformist of the Labour type who, while using the name “Socialist,” took part in the administration of capitalism whenever allowed to, holding ministerial posts at times. However, he seems to have understood the position of such reformists far more clearly than the British Labour Party; for in a fraternal “Letter to British Socialists” published in Tribune during the election (17/2/50) he made the following observations, which must have perturbed even readers of Tribune (who are accustomed to regard themselves as the lonely conscience of the Labour Party): —

“ My comrades of the British Labour Party . . .

“[In France] the Socialists have maintained all the essential economic and social reforms which have been introduced since the liberation, despite a counterattack by capitalist reaction.” (Our italics.)

He sympathises with the British Labour Party in office:—

“There is perhaps no more difficult task than that of a government working within the framework of a capitalist society and having neither the power nor the mandate to transform it completely at one blow." “ It must defend at the same time both the special interests of the workers and the general interest of the nation —which are not always identical.” This surely is only possible if the interest of the nation is equated to that of a minority, for those same workers are also the overwhelming majority of the nation.

“The Labour Government has . . . achieved a number of economic and social reforms . . . without changing the existing class structure . .. [The Conservatives] will interfere with scarcely any of its striking achievements.”

This certainly makes clear the considerable common ground the Labour Party shares with its opponents, and this worries Tribune quite enough as it is. But before his British comrades have risen from their gloom he goes on:—

“European capitalism . . . no longer maintains free competition, but moves towards monopoly capitalism, which is concerned above all with securing legal protection for its profits. It is incapable of offering a solution which will conform to its principles for to-day’s weighty problems.”

Ah, this is more what we are used to—general attacks on the idea of profit. One simply does not attack the Labour Party, old man. Recognise the difficulties, and all that. But Blum is not yet done with his unwitting wounding of his British friends—he deals a blow at the Labour Party’s belief that State control and/or ownership can be equated to Socialism in the following paragraph.

“The history of Soviet Russia proves another truth which no Marxist could have predicted fifty years ago and which I myself should have rejected outright in my youth. It is evident now that even a complete and revolutionary transformation of all property rights does not automatically lead to the true emancipation of the worker. In Soviet Russia the capitalist system of property has been completely destroyed. Yet a régime of wage labour persists, the material conditions of the workers remain miserable, and elementary liberties are pitilessly crushed.” (In point of fact of course only the private capitalist system of property has been abolished.)

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain has from its foundation been quite clear about the feasibility or otherwise of Socialism either “in one country” or in any society in which production and education are not at a high level and which has not developed the habit of democracy. Articles from The Socialist Standard on the Bolshevik regime from its inception are collected in our pamphlet, “Russia Since 1917,” and will be seen to be perfectly consistent about its oppressive and non-Socialist character. There is nothing particularly clever or clairvoyant in this, merely an absence of the self-delusion afflicting the Communist Party. In any case, it is regrettable M. Blum never picked up a Socialist Standard, if not fifty then forty-six years ago, for he would not have had to confess such disappointment.

In his closing remarks M. Blum says: “ [In] Britain under the influence of the Labour Government . . . the capitalist system of property has not yet been abolished,” thus nailing the Labour lie “Five years of Socialism have brought us, etc.” And having completely undermined the morale of the Labour Party, who thought they were after something different, he finally wishes them luck at the hands of the fickle workers, who as events have turned out cannot be relied upon to know when they are well off, and awaits the poll “ with great excitement.”

Before the war Mr. Attlee wrote a pot-boiler called “The Labour Party in Perspective.” Now the Labour Party really has been put in perspective, but by Mr. Attlee’s Gallic counterpart. Whether M. Blum was actually trying to educate his British comrades (he would keep calling them that, and it must have upset them), or whether he took it for granted that any party with pretensions to being Socialist would at least have read “all that Marx stuff, you know,” we can only guess. If an attempt at education, it seems doomed to failure when it is remembered that the Labour Party thinks of Tribune as its black sheep, edited by people who don't go into division as they are told and have nothing better to do than to spill inconvenient beans about Seretse and the (Unilever) East Africa Co. monopoly. In the issue of 31/3/50 Ian Mikardo opines that Harold Laski died heartbroken by the last five years of Labour government. It will be interesting to watch the fate of the Tribune group in the mighty democratic party which (also says Mikardo) expelled Zilliacus unheard. Yes, the Labour Party is indeed coming into perspective at last

OPIFEX.

More election reflections (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

In February the workers of Britain voted. Whether Labour, Conservative, Liberal or Communist, by and large they all voted for the continuance of Capitalism. Whether they know it or not—and for the most part they do not—they once again acquiesced in the continuance of the system which condemns them to servitude for life in the interests of the beneficiaries of that system, the capitalist class. Wittingly or otherwise, the toiling millions gave their masters another vote of confidence.

The issue, of course, was never in doubt—that is, to the Socialist. It was never in doubt for the simple reason that, generally speaking, from Land's End to John O’Groats there was, in that General Election, no possible alternative to capitalist exploitation for which the worker could vote. This lack of alternative to the capitalist candidates (avowed or disguised) was itself a reflection and measure, judged by socialist standards, of the workers’ political immaturity.

Transport House (and King St) “Reds” would doubtless find this very difficult to swallow. To so-called “Socialists” and “Communists,” the limit of whose political horizon is Nationalisation, who dupe the workers with this obnoxious form of Capitalism by calling it Socialism, who dupe themselves by thinking State Capitalism can operate in the interests of the workers—to these fake “ Socialists ” the political maturity of the working class is not an important factor. It just doesn’t arise as the crux of the matter because, for these pseudo-socialists, the working class cannot be its own agent of emancipation.

These self-proclaimed “progressives,” “leading elements” and “vanguard” of the working class, these “down-to-earth, bread-and-butter ” merchants and pedlars of “working class politics” actually separate themselves from the workers, representing themselves as the agents of working class emancipation—being, no doubt, naturally or supernaturally endowed to administer just that right percentage of Nationalisation which shall deliver the workers from their chains.

“You support us” was the burden of the candidates’ appeals, “and we will give you . . .” And what they would give “you” differed according to how much they considered themselves “Right” or “Left” —in fact, they differed as much as this:

The Tories, Liberals and other avowedly capitalist agents would give us No More Nationalisation (unless absolutely necessary, of course, for the smooth running of Capitalism); on the other hand the Labourites, the Communists, some independent “Socialists” and other cross-breeds promised us More Nationalisation, varying among themselves only as to the size of the dose.

So under the Tories “we” would have what amount of Nationalisation we’ve already got. That, at least, is some. Under Labour we would have more. The Communists would have given us the fatal dose. We could take our pick: Some, More or Most —the positive, comparative and superlative of Nationalised Capitalism!

Thus the workers went to the polls not even to make the momentous choice between (true) Blue Capitalism and Red (State) Capitalism i.e., between private monopoly and state monopoly, but merely to decide their favourite combination of the two—their favourite shade of purple!

This farce was played out only because of working class ignorance of the real causes of present social problems. It will be played out again and again for as long as the workers look to others to do their political thinking for them. Socialists know this as surely as they know the world is round; and, just as surely, they know the simple facts which, when the workers of the world once get on the track of them and decide to become their own political agents will enable those workers to act consciously together for the complete overthrow of all class exploitation, oppression and privilege.

They will uproot the private property institution from the very foundations of society and the whole rotten superstructure will fall and crumble to dust.

They will perform this self-liberating act knowing full well that it is the key to their own emancipation and that of all mankind. Having painfully and slowly won their way through many grinding years of mistakes and errors to full political maturity, having exhausted all other apparent means of solving their problems and found themselves betrayed time and again by capitalist reforms which still left them in the same old position, they will at last begin to challenge the very basis of the system itself. They will be brought face to face with the very fact of class exploitation itself.

They will know that this fact, and all its attendant social evils, rests upon one foundation: the private ownership by the capitalist class—either directly or through the medium of state control—of all the means of producing and distributing the man-made things required to live.

They will know that the complete abolition of this foundation means at the same time the abolition of the whole capitalist fabric to which it gives rise. Everything specifically capitalist goes—lock, stock and barrel.

They will know that it means the end of poverty and riches, of economic classes, the end of exploitation of man by man for good and all; they will know it will put an end to the State, and therefore, of state “ownership” and control; that it will end profits and selling and the wages system; that capital and money, banking and buying will be no more; that unemployment and employers and employees and, yes. “employment” will no longer exist; that racialism, nationalism, wars, treaties, alliances and power-politics and armies will become nightmares of the past; that morality based on private property will disappear, as likewise, will its necessary concomitants immorality and crime, prostitu-tion, etc., they-will know that all these things (and many more besides) will be swept away for ever.

In short, they will understand that the whole complicated, neurotic and burdensome pattern of capitalist life will give way to a freer mode of living based on the democratic control and ownership of the means of life by all humanity.

Only the workers have a primary and vital interest in acquiring this knowledge. And because of this vital interest no impediment will prevent them eventually from learning the facts.

Knowledge confers power. Once the workers, the vast majority of society, are in possession of this knowledge they will organise and constitute the most powerful political combination in human history. Against this mighty host of determined workers, understanding their position and knowing full well what is at stake, thinking and acting for themselves and electing their own agents—against this organisation no combination of charlatans, pseudo-socialists, agents and hirelings of capitalism can prevail.

Capitalism will be brought to its end because the overwhelming majority of mankind will have decided, irrevocably and finally, that it shall go. The huge decrepit structure will be brought crashing to the ground.

When the social air is clear again and the mortar and muck of centuries of exploitation have been swept away, the recent General Election will have faded into the limbo of forgotten things.

For the workers it will then be their own triumph not, as now, that of spurious agents. The day of self-deliverance may be far away; we do not know. But this we do know: Nothing is eternal—not even Capitalism.

Until the workers think and act for themselves there is no permanent solution to the problem of Capitalism. To rephrase an old text (often used, in its original form, to dope working people) “ No Salvation without the Workers—No deliverance without Self-Deliverance.” There is no other way.

Hydrogen bombs and capitalist propaganda notwithstanding, so long as there be human beings, that day will surely come.

H. W. S. Bee.

Why Not Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Government asks to be judged by what it has done in its five years of office. “Compare our record,” they say, “with what the Tories did before the war and with what they are likely to do if they win the election.” It is a cleverly-chosen electioneering platform, for most of those who voted “Labour” in 1945, however disappointed they may be, will find nothing in the Tory record or programme to make them want to change over to a Churchill-Big Business Government.

But is that a good enough test to apply to the Labour Government? They say they have done their best “in the circumstances”—they have made as good a job of running Capitalism as anyone could make— but it is “the circumstances,” the capitalist system of society, that has got to be abolished, and the Labour Government will never do it.

What Is and What Might Be

Mr. Bevan claims that while he has been Minister of Health hundreds of thousands of houses have been built; but you know the housing problem has not been solved. It never will be under Capitalism.

The Labour Party leaders told you for years that Labour Government would mean rising wages and falling prices. What they have given you is higher prices and wage-freezing.

They promised to destroy the profit system. Now they see that Capitalism cannot be run without profits, so they tell you it is not possible to raise wages by reducing profits. Capitalism does need profit-making— but Socialism will not.

They promised peace, international friendship and disarmament, yet you find yourselves facing 1950 with conscription for your sons, bigger armed forces than in 1938, a “cold war” with Russia, and the fear that before another election comes round. Great Britain, this potential “anchored aircraft carrier” in another world war may be threatened with devastation from atom bombs.

Capitalism cannot let the people of the world prosper in peace, but Socialism will ensure it. Capitalism, whether administered by Tory, Labour or so-called “Communist” Governments, breeds economic rivalry, hatred and destruction. Only Socialism is based on the international community of interests of the working class of all lands.

What Have They To Be Proud Of?

In their well-known 1945 Election Declaration the Labour Party boldly declared, “The Labour Party is a Socialist Party, and proud of it.” That sounds like the sincere statement that might be made by genuine socialists, but it was nothing of the kind. They were more anxious about catching votes than in furthering Socialism, so they put another statement in their Declaration, to let non-socialist voters know that they never meant business. “But Socialism,” they wrote, “cannot come overnight, as the product of a week-end revolution. The members of the Labour Party, like the British people, are practical-minded men and women.”

Just ask yourselves to whom those timid, half-sneering words were addressed. Is that the speech of socialists to socialists? Was it not really the cynical double-talk of politicians wanting to get the votes of people who had a vague idea that Socialism is something humane and progressive, but wanting at the same time to assure the non-socialist electorate that nothing would be done to endanger British Capitalism?

Their talk of being “practical-minded” is laughable. Is bigger armaments and fewer houses being practical? Is higher prices and no wage increases? Are atom bombs and germ warfare? The history of politics should warn us against those who boast of preferring “practicability” to principle. They are always the men who tinker with social evils instead of removing their cause.

We have had five years of Labour Government with a full Parliamentary programme of legislation; but what has it produced? Capitalism is with us still: festooned with bureaucratic controls and ornamented with social reforms; but as strong, as vicious and as destructive of human happiness as before, The Labour Government claims that it has done a great work in the National Insurance Scheme, but the increase of prices has already whittled away the value of the benefits so that unemployment and sick benefit are not worth any more than were the lower rates paid before the war.

You Work Harder, But For What?

If you read the pre-election speeches of the Labour Ministers you will notice a curious thing. It is that many of the things for which they claim credit are things performed by you and from which you get no advantage.

It is the workers who have worked harder and undergone austerities to make good the destruction of the war. It is the workers, not the politicians, who have raised production to 30 percent higher than in 1938 and who have gone without in order to increase exports so that they are half as much again as in pre-war years. It is the workers who have made easier the payment of larger profits to the propertied class while doing without wage increases to compensate for higher prices. It is on the strength of these feats of production that the Government claims that it has been successful; but what will the working class get at the end of it? Capitalism is already warning us that shipbuilding is slowing up for lack of orders, oil is being over-produced, and there will soon be too much wheat, too much sugar, too much steel and too much of everything for capitalist markets to absorb. Then the workers will reap the harvest of more crises, more unemployment, more insecurity and the threat of further wars.

It is the workers who keep Capitalism going, for the benefit of the capitalists. It is time the workers determined, by international socialist action, to refashion human society on a socialist foundation. Neither avowedly capitalist governments nor Labour governments can save the world. It is a supreme task for the world working class and unless it is achieved the whole world faces chaos, misery and destruction. The productive power and the administrative ability are present for the making of a new world. Do not delay the decision to use them. The Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties abroad show you the way to working class emancipation and the happiness and well-being of humanity.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: How will you use your vote? (1950)

Editorial from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the General Election in 1945 the S.P.G.B. had a candidate at North Paddington, and contested the same constituency again in November, 1946, when the Labour Member elected in 1945 resigned on grounds of ill-health. This time we are again contesting North Paddington and also putting up a candidate at East Ham South. Southend Branch is carrying on electoral activity and if sufficient support is forthcoming the candidate will be nominated. Our candidates, according to present information, will be opposed by Labour, Tory, Liberal and Communist candidates. All four parties will be calling on the workers not to vote for the only candidates who represent the Socialist challenge to capitalism. It is right that all four parties should do this and we welcome the opportunity of putting the election in its proper setting. It is our task and ours alone to press home the truth that for the working-class here and in all countries there can be no escape from the poverty, insecurity, hatreds and wars of the world as it is except through the abolition of capitalism and establishment of Socialism.

It is a hard lesson and one the working class are slow to grasp. The bitterness with which the other parties conduct the struggle for power lends colour to the belief that there are fundamental working-class interests at stake in the choice between them. In truth none of the four will touch the fundamental issue of Capitalism—Tory, Liberal, Labour or Communist administration will all leave the working class in the wage-slave position from which only Socialism can emancipate them. Whatever the detailed way in which the capitalist system is administered there will still be luxury and privilege for the rich, poverty and arduous toil for the working class. This is a basic feature and one that is common to all the superficially different forms of Capitalism, whether it be private enterprise America, Labour administered Britain or Russia under Communist dictatorship. A Minister in the Labour Government, Mr. Glenvil Hall, M.P., Financial Secretary to the Treasury, admitted in the House of Commons on 18th May, 1949, that: —

"Of the 550.000 people who die each year only 10 per cent. own more than £2,000 but these ten per cent. between them own 90 per cent, of the total property."

Inequality is inseparable from Capitalism, and while all the non-Socialist political parties profess to deplore “extreme inequality,” all of them, including the Communists, advance specious arguments in defence of inequality itself. They are all concerned to defend and perpetuate the system that gives wealth and privilege to a minority.

During the election campaign, the S.P.G.B. will put in its election literature and from its platforms the same Socialist message that our propagandists address to the working class at all times. There will be no vote-catching programme and appeals specially designed for election purposes.

The inauguration of Socialism demands the understanding of the working class. Votes and support given for anything less than Socialism would be only a source of weakness and confusion. We will do all we can to ensure that the Socialist candidates receive only the votes of those who understand and want Socialism; no other votes are sought.

What of the result? The number of votes given for Socialism will serve as a measure of the growth of Socialist understanding. Knowing how far the great majority of the working class are from accepting the Socialist case we know that the Socialist vote must be small. We are not discouraged by that. We have on our side forces that constantly add recruits to the army of Socialism as the other parties repeatedly betray their mental bankruptcy in their vain attempts to bring order, well-being and peace out of the chaos that is Capitalism.

SPGB General Election Meetings (1950)

Party News from the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Election Forecast (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Extract from letter in The Times (17/1/50) from Sir Geoffrey Bracken, Joint Editor of the "Economic Digest":

"Whatever the result, no spectacular change in policy is to be expected: the man in the street will find things going on very much as they have been going."

50 Years Ago: the General Election (2000)

The 50 Years Ago column from the March 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

After five years of Labour Government the workers have shown what effect that experience has had on them by reducing almost to vanishing point the very large majority that the Labour Party had in the old Parliament. The Government may, for a period, continue a precarious existence, but it will do so representing a body of electors substantially smaller than the combined votes of Tories and Liberals.

The Labour Government is now in effect a minority government. In the past the professional politicians of the Liberal and Tory parties were used to the pendulum swing that put first one and then the other into office; but for the Labour Party the event is of vastly greater significance. For them it is the ominous writing on the wall, the visible proof of the sterility of their foundation policy. They believed that they could inspire more and more enthusiasm among the workers by the success with which they would—while retaining capitalism—tackle one by one the evils of the system. They believed that once they had become a majority government they would never look back. In their innocence they thought that Labour Governments live for ever. This election has proved the correctness of the S.P.G.B. case, that a Labour Government is powerless to make capitalism acceptable, let alone inspiring, to the workers. Labour reformism has done its utmost and has failed.

(From editorial, Socialist Standard, March 1950)

Party News Briefs (1950)

Party News from the April 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Kingston Branch having passed through a comparatively inactive winter period has recommenced activities. The first outdoor meeting was held at Castle Street, Kingston, during election week with enthusing results. The station will commence, officially and regularly, on Saturday, April 18th, but meetings will be held there when branch speakers are available and weather permits before that date. The membership of the branch, which has remained numerically stationary for a long period, has begun to increase. The loss of Comrade J. Thorburn, who had to transfer to another branch, was a disappointment to the other branch members, but the return of Comrade G. Waters, transferred back from Lewisham Branch, has replenished the Kingston speaking strength. Three very active members who, although they remain on the branch roll, have had to take employment and find a residence in distant parts of the country, are, of course, unable to assist in local work for the time being. The meetings at Castle Street are the only activity contemplated for 1950 to date, but the steady influx of members may alter that very soon. Those friends and comrades who attended the Saturday evening meetings during the previous two years are cordially invited, requested—urged, to support those meetings again this year. Those who have contemplated membership of the party are reminded that the branch meets on alternate Thursdays at 9, Vicarage Road, Kingston, at 8 p.m. (meetings for April on the 13th and 27th), and that they can contact the secretary at 19, Spencer Road, East Molesey, Surrey; phone number, Molesey 4094.

Ealing Branch social and dance on March 11th, in the Princes Room, Ealing Town Hall, proved to be a great success. A good turnout of members together with a first-class orchestra and dance floor, and an efficient “refreshment” service, provided everyone with an enjoyable evening. This branch has had a fairly busy winter season, with four indoor meetings including one at Richmond. It is intended to wind up with two further efforts, one at Richmond on April 14th, with R. Critchfield as the speaker and the other at Ealing Town Hall on April 17th with C. Groves speaking. Plans for the outdoor season include the running of propaganda stations at Ealing Green on Saturdays, Heron Court, Richmond, on Sundays, and Turnham Green on Mondays. The last station replaces the one previously used at Shepherd’s Bush which has been abandoned owing to the difficulty of getting an audience. Three trips to the coast have been arranged, all of them to Southsea, in July, August and September. Members who have been to Southsea on previous propaganda excursions, will recall that this place has proved to be remarkably good for our propaganda efforts and it certainly warrants further attention.

The Parliamentary Committee has issued its provisional report on the General Election campaign in North Paddington and East Ham, South. The final report will be presented when the auditors have completed their work and a closer analysis of the meetings held, has been made.

In East Ham twelve outdoor meetings were held during the campaign and thirteen indoor meetings, three of them in the East Ham Town Hall. In Paddington we held two Town Hall meetings, four in the Emmanuel Hall, three in local schools and one at the Metropolitan Theatre, in addition to six outdoor meetings. Of the meeting at the Metropolitan Theatre the Parliamentary Committee says, "Probably one of the most successful in the history of the Party and it is no exaggeration to say the finest meeting held by any Party in the London area during the Election, both as to size and the manner in which it was conducted.”

During the campaign there was distributed in the two constituencies, 163,000 items of literature, comprising 25,000 Election Manifestoes delivered by hand, 50.000 Election Specials, distributed by hand, and 88.000 Candidates' Addresses delivered by post. 65,000 handbills were distributed, 50,000 of them in East Ham, the constituency being covered six times by members who undertook to distribute them. 1,100 posters were displayed in the two constituencies. Two separate units of loud-speaker apparatus were constantly in use in both constituencies and Party members and sympathisers used their cars as frequently as possible, nine cars being fairly constantly in use in Paddington and three vans and a car in East Ham.

More details of the canvassing efforts are to be given in the Committee’s final report, but we are told that bad weather curtailed much of the work.

The committee rooms at East Ham South cost us £36 for the six weeks and those at Paddington £49 1s. for the same period. This high cost was due to the shortage of shop accommodation.

The total costs for each constituency were. East Ham, South, £603 (approx.), and for Paddington, North, £615 (approx.), making an approximate total of £1,218. The income from collections at meetings amounted to approximately £130, leaving us with a total net expense of £1,088, which is £188 over our estimated figure. The committee devotes much of its report to recommendations for the next election, in particular to ways and means for cutting the expenses, based upon the lessons of this campaign. The report concludes with thanks "to all members in whatever capacity their work was performed for what was truly a wonderful effort of a voluntary organisation. It shows what revolutionary enthusiasm, which lies at the base of our socialist knowledge, can do, and will do, in the future.” The Parliamentary Committee is now engaged in collecting details of the number of Party members in each constituency throughout the country, the number of voters in each constituency and its geographical area. The collected information is to be presented to the Annual Conference which will discuss how many and which constituencies we shall contest at the next election. We are anxious to increase the number, but finances will determine. You can help with them. Send donations to the Parliamentary Fund addressed E. Lake, S.P.G.B.. 2, Rugby Street. London, W.C.l. 

The Food Parcel, mentioned in these columns in our March issue, sent by our comrades in the Wellington Branch of the Socialist Party of New Zealand, for use by the catering committee at the Annual Conference, has arrived. It is a splendid parcel and we thank our New Zealand comrades most cordially for the kind thought and for their generosity.

The Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Ireland is ready and we are informed that quantities have been dispatched to us. They have not arrived at the time of writing. We hope to have them in time for our Conference on April 7th, 8th, and 9th, and to review the publication in the next issue of the Socialist Standard, which will also contain a report of Conference proceedings.

W. Waters.

Obituary (1950)

From the April 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard 

What an ungrateful lot the British workers are! Hardened fighters in the great battle for Immediate Demands have given the best years of their lives furthering the cause of that great fountain of reforms, the Communist Party of Great Britain; nay, have also been so generous as to urge the workers to give their lives not only in international warfare, but also in the streets against the forces of the State. But what do the workers do to show their appreciation of the herculean efforts of their self-appointed leaders? The result of the recent election clearly shows that the British workers overwhelmingly rejected the C.P.G.B. and its crypto-comrades.

Both M.P.s in the previous House of Commons lost their seats, and apart from these two and Harry Pollitt who fought Rhondda East, the remaining 97 Communist Party candidates lost their deposits, very few of them polling 1,000 votes or over.

As was to be expected, the Daily Worker of 25th February, 1950, gives a couple of false reasons for this calamity, in the hope of covering up the truth. Mr. Gallacher is reported as saying:—

  “The workers have not yet seen our point of view that it was necessary to vote Communist in order to ensure a real fight against their enemies."

The point of view of the Communist Party (as published at the time of the election campaign—it has a notorious habit of changing overnight) was all too discernible. A plethora of social reforms ranging from Home Rule for various sections of the British Isles, through the familiar hardy annuals—more wages, houses, schools, trade with Russia, etc., and less armaments, price increases, frozen wages, trade with the United States, etc., to the more exotic items such as banning the atom bomb and a more democratic constitution of the British Army.

But behind the camouflage of all these reforms, promises and vote-catching slogans, the insoluble tie between the Communist Party of Great Britain and the Russian Government stood out in bold relief, and here lies the real cause of the C.P.’s downfall. A working-class not accepting the Socialist solution to world problems, and stiff in support of Capitalism will be most likely to support the “home-grown” section of the capitalist class, and not the interests of some rival group of exploiters abroad. Hence, now that the American and British sections of the world capitalist class find themselves opposed to the imperialist policy of the Russian ruling class, the British workers (who are still nationalist in their outlook, thanks partly to the propaganda of the Communist Party itself) will naturally oppose any organisation which supports Russian capitalism. The popularity of the Communist Party in 1945, which resulted in their obtaining two seats in Parliament, was largely due to the temporary alliance between the United States. Britain and the U.S.S.R. during the war.

The other reason for defeat advanced by the Daily Worker was that the workers voted for the Labour Party rather than the C.P. in order to “ keep the Tories out.” Surely, if the “Communists” were really concerned about keeping out the Tories, they would have refrained from putting forward all those candidates, which, according to their reasoning, might have “split the Left vote,” a heinous crime for all so-called “progressives” to commit, and one, incidentally, of which the S.P.G.B. has often been accused. However, five years of Labour Party administration of Capitalism prompted large numbers of workers to vote Tory in 1950, despite the Daily Worker's glib excuse, in fact, so many workers supported the Tory candidate in West Fife that he topped Mr. Gallacher’s vote by nearly 1,000, the Labour candidate winning the seat which “oor Wullie ” had so stoutly held for the past fifteen years.

It is interesting to note here that in spite of the host of reforms and the vote-catching tricks employed by the “Communist” candidates (i.e., pandering to religious and racial prejudices in certain constituencies), they polled a mere 200 votes each more than the S.P.G.B. candidates in North Paddington and East Ham South. We of the Socialist Party, who stood for the single issue of Socialism, and who eschewed all forms of election stunts and vote-catching slogans and promises of reforms, insisting on socialist knowledge being the pre-requisite for the support of our candidates, have long been chided by the “short-cut boys” of the C.P. as being “impossibilists,” whereas they, the saviours of the workers, would lead them to victory in a flash of lightning. Now it appears that the leaders have moved so fast (in a circle) that they have left their followers behind, and have reappeared at the rear of the political scene.

What are the future prospects for the vanquished “vanguards of the proletariat”? Now that parliamentary representation no longer exists, and the chances of future representation seems remote, the Communist Party may once more advocate armed insurrection as being the only hope for the workers. The cloak-and-dagger element of the C.P. may once more become prominent, organising “parallel illegal machinery,” forming secret cadres, shock battalions and what not, in fact as it were reverting to type, and complying with Bolshevik theory inherited from the terrorism of the Blanquists of nineteenth century Russia.

This policy of bringing the workers out against the armed forces of the State may have sounded feasible in the days of rifles and barricades, but it is recklessly suicidal for the workers nowadays, when the modern State controls such weapons as tanks and flamethrowers. At the congress of the C.P.G.B. held in November, 1929, the Manchester Guardian of 2/12 /1929 reports Harry Pollitt as saying: —

  “Only through social revolution, only through armed insurrection, can the workers gain power."

And now, fresh from the crushing Communist Party defeat in 1950, the same Mr. Pollitt says: —

  “The great issues will be settled not in the arena of this reactionary Parliament, but by the workers’ mass struggle in the factories and the streets." (Daily Worker, 25/2/50.)

This statement may only refer to trade union activity and to street meetings and marches, but on the other hand it may be a hint of further dangerous anti-working-class machinations by the Communist Party.

Whatever the new Party Line will be. we can make two prophecies with confidence: —

1. It will be strictly in conformity with the needs of the Russian capitalist government.
2. It will not present an alternative to the present system of society for the consideration of the working class, but will offer innumerable reforms, as do all the other reform parties, in the hope of attracting support for its policy.

We have always held the view that the “Communists' ” misuse of the word “Socialism" by applying it to state-capitalist Russia has greatly hindered the task of explaining what Socialism really is despite the smokescreen of pseudo-marxian jargon with which they cloak their propaganda, and we have also seen many similar so-called “left-wing" parties perish during the last thirty years (Trotskyites, Independent Labour Party, etc.) due to the sterility of their non-socialist arguments.

The sooner the Communist Party of Great Britain also finally falls from the political scene the better, for the workers will then be rid of an organisation which has been nothing but a millstone round their political necks, and whose policy has helped in no way to remove the cause of the major problems besetting society to-day —i.e., Capitalism and substitute Socialism in its place Only a political party having this object as its aim is worthy of working-class support.

Upon a tombstone of crumbling clay in the political grave where the C.P.G.B. will be unceremoniously interred, the following epitaph, written in the blood of millions of workers may be seen: “Born 1920, Died ?. R.I.P. (Russian Imperial Policy).”

Michael La Touche

Passing Comments: General Election (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

General Election

A review of “The British General Election of 1950,” by H. G. Nicholas, was published at the beginning of this year by Macmillan and Co. for 21s. Mr. Nicholas calculates that the Socialist Party spent more per vote on the election than did any other; and he also describes some of the propaganda put forward by the Party during the election. “‘One thing we must warn you about,' they told their followers. 'Do not trust in leaders, trust in yourselves alone. Unless you understand the cause and the solution of your miserable condition no leader can help you, no matter how honest and sincere he may be; if you do understand, then you do not require leaders; you will know what you want and how to instruct your delegates to get what you want.'  "


Candidates

Recently this column quoted a survey about the Conservative candidates at the last election made by the magazine “Comment." Now the more authoritative survey of Mr. Nicholas has appeared, covering the candidates of all parties. In the Conservative ranks, as might have been expected, the businessmen had preponderance. Of the 621 candidates, 168 were employers or company directors; 30 were concerned in business finance as stockbrokers or bankers; of those who had private means, 39 had done nothing to justify their inclusion in any other category; and there were 12 farmers and 21 landowners. The total is thus 270. It is tempting to include in this group those 39 candidates for whom a company directorship was a subsidiary occupation, as well as the 16 whose subsidiary occupation was farming; but they might also have been included in some of the other categories already counted within the group. Nevertheless, the real total is somewhere between 270 and 325—the latter figure being over half the total number of candidates. For the rest, the Law accounts for 114, the Services for 62, and there are 30 salaried managers. Other professional and well-to-do people number 137, and four white-collar and seven manual workers bring up the rear.

Socialists?

The Labour Party put forward 617 candidates; and it is worthy of note in a party which claims to be a socialist one that no less than 92 of these candidates were engaged in business or agriculture at the profit-making level, including 40 company directors. There were also 78 engaged in the Law, 8 from the Services and 21 salaried managers. In the other middle-income groups there were 180 candidates; 43 were white-collar workers; 92 were manual workers; and 91 candidates had been manual workers, but had now moved up into the white-collar group (the great majority of these being trade union officials).


Liberals

Of the Liberal Party's 475 candidates, some 143 belonged to the employing profit-making group, including 85 company directors. It is significant that, as Mr. Nicholas puts it, "of persons owning their own small businesses, small retailers, etc. (a category hardly worthy of separate mention amongst Conservatives or Labour), there can be listed 23.” There were also 71 Liberal barristers and solicitors, 39 salaried managers, and 16 from the Services. 188 others were in the middle income groups, and there were 16 white-collar and 13 manual workers.

Apart from the large petty bourgeois representation among the Liberal Party’s candidates, the companies with which the party’s business-men were connected “were in most instances of modest size, what in the U.S.A. would be called 'small business.' Moreover, the emphasis throughout the business group fell on the export, transport or retail trades, often in the form of family concerns or private companies run by their owners."

This analysis of the Liberal candidates would appear to confirm those conclusions as to the class-backing of the party which one would draw from the fact that it receives most support in the small-farmer areas of North Wales and North Scotland.

The Stick and the Carrot

It is a common assumption that the chief domestic issue in this country at the present time is that of Capitalism versus Socialism. But so far from a Socialist government having been in power, Socialism has never even been put before the electorate by any party with the resources to ensure that it would get a fair hearing. To adapt a famous saying, Socialism has not been tried and found wanting; it has never been tried.

The real quarrel is between two schools of thought, both of which accept explicitly or implicitly the foundations of the capitalist system. The first school is represented by those who think, privately or publicly, that a certain amount off unemployment is a good thing because it drives the workers, by fear of the dole, to increase production; that business should be left to the individual owner or joint-stock company; and that expenditure on social services should be restricted. The second school has insisted, ever since the days of Robert Owen and his new-style cotton mills at New Lanark, that the worker would produce more if he were given reasonable security and good conditions; and that laissez-faire was generally to be frowned upon because open competition deprived the worker of security. Since, as Robert Owen found, few individual factory- or mine-owners were willing to accept and put into operation these new theories, those adhering to the second school have called for state-intervention in industry and a measure of state-ownership. But the fundamental problem over which the two schools differ is that of how to get the worker to produce more; is the stick or the carrot more effective?


"Socialists" on Nationalised Boards

But though the Fabian society and the other theorists of the second school made only a few conversions among the upper class, they found allies in the trade unions, which naturally approved of a theory which aimed at giving security and reasonable conditions to the worker. Just as the donkey, if questioned, would doubtless favour the carrot method, so did the workers accept the Fabian nostrums. And as the Labour Party built itself up into one of the largest parties in the country, domestic debate began to centre round the “welfare state” and state-ownership. But the issue of Socialism versus Capitalism was never raised on a national scale; the Labour Party was first called a socialist party by the conservative press, intent on rallying the propertied class round the Conservative Party.

The difference between the Labour Party on the one hand and the Socialist Party on the other has been emphasised once more by Mr. Harold Roberts, President of the National Union of Railwaymen (Carriage and Wagon Grades). He is reported to have said (Sunday Times, 20-5-51) that each nationalised board should have at its head "a Socialist of unquestionable integrity with a deep-rooted conviction of the correctness Socialist policy.” It is symbolic of the widespread misuse of the word “Socialist” that a trade union leader can talk in apparent seriousness of an industry run on wage-labour and profit-making lines having a “ Socialist ” at its head.

Due Reward

Another quotation from the same paper illustrates again the gap between the private- and state-capitalist parties and the Socialist Party. The Rt. Hon. Richard Law, M.P., reviewing a book by Mr. George Goyder which advocates a change in company law “to make management explicitly responsible to the worker, the community and the state, as well as to the shareholder” (whatever that may mean) can go on to say that under such a system “the absent shareholder will get his due reward, but no more.” Those who want state intervention, those who want laissez-faire, all join in agreeing that there is such a thing as a “due reward" for a shareholder, and yet the Labour Party is still regularly called the Socialist Party.

Six of One

Recently there was a military parade in Prague past President Gottwald and Marshal Konev. Reviewing his armed forces, the President said that “the creation of a strong and efficient army and people's militia was in no way contrary to the purposes of peace. He said the stronger Czechoslovakia defence forces became the stronger would be the world peace front.” (News Chronicle, 7-5-51).

And Half-a-dozen of the other

On the other side of the Iron Curtain, in Yorkshire, we find Mr. Strachey saying that “we must push on with our defence programme. He was convinced that every new division of the Army, squadron of the R.A.F. and ship of the Navy which we could make available increased the chance of keeping the peace. And to keep the peace, to prevent a third world war, was the supreme object of all our endeavours.” (Observer, 20-5-51.)

Preserve Them From War

Another adherent of the curious theory that the best way to keep the peace is to produce more weapons of war is President Truman.

The News Chronicle (25-5-51) tells us that "in a memorable message sent to the Capitol, and at a press conference just before the message was read to Congress, the President set forth in simple and moving words a majestic aim that lies behind the policy the U.S. government is pursuing. It is to bring about peaceful conditions in which 'the century in which we live could become the brightest man has yet known on earth.’ ”

How are we going to bring about peaceful conditions? Why, by getting Congress “to vote another £3,000 millions to give free countries throughout most of the world weapons, raw materials, machinery and other aid to preserve them from war and conquest.”

Consoling Ourselves

Continuing the campaign to persuade the public that atom-bombs are not so bad after all, the Times leader-column recalls that a hundred years ago it used the phrase “perhaps the most terrible implement of destruction ever delivered into the human hand,” to describe the latest repeating pistol brought to this country by Samuel Colt. It goes on comfortingly to say that “to-day, surrounded by more formidable weapons, we may perhaps be forgiven for consoling ourselves with the realisation that in other ages, too, men have stood in awe of their own inventions” and remarks that “the man who had visions of blazing his way to glory with a smoking gun in each hand soon found how elusive a stationary target at fifteen paces could be.” (29-5-51)

The implied comparison between the atom-bomb and the Colt revolver, and the hint that the former may fall short of expectations as the latter did, is unworthy of the Times. Exactly how elusive would a modern city be when faced with a raid by a fleet of jet-bombers, or bv guided missiles? How elusive were Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the already out-of-date bombers used in the now old-fashioned year of 1945?

Not very.

Lord High Admiral

Spare a thought for Mr. Bernard Le Strange. Hereditary Lord High Admiral of the Wash. Finding himself in debt, he agreed last May to live on only £10 a week until his debts were paid off; and he moved “to an inexpensive harbour-front hotel” in St. Helier, Jersey. Now his creditors have been paid off, and Mr. Le Strange will doubtless be able to resume a manner of life more fitting to his station. But it is an interesting commentary on Mr. Le Strange's normal standard of life that a year living on the sea-front in Jersey with an income of £10 a week represents the crash which follows a financial crisis.

Drinks on the House

Another figure who claims our sympathy this month is the Lord Mayor of London. The Sunday Express (20-5-51) remarks on his princely hospitality. Apparently he has an allowance of £12,500 a year— £250 a week; but the Express envisages him having to pay an extra £20,000—£400 a week—for the entertaining he is doing during the current year.

Who said the rich had been almost destroyed by the tax-collector?

Alwyn Edgar

To the Electors of East Ham (1950)

Party News from the May 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the recent election campaign many workers who attended our meetings in the East Ham South constituency passed such remarks as “The case put by the S.P.G.B. is sound, BUT . . .” or “I would support you IF . . . .” Such statements imply a recognition that Socialism, offers the only remedy to present-day social evils together with a vague doubt as to how or when it can be established. The IFs and BUTs show that the full significance of the Socialist alternative, the means by which it will be achieved and its place in the process of social evolution has not been completely grasped. The West Ham Branch wants to clear away all doubts, its wants to prove our case to the hilt. So it offers the facilities of its meetings to all workers in the area to help them clear away the cobwebs from their political thinking. Branch meetings are held at the Salisbury Road Schools (behind the “Earl of Essex” at Manor Park) every Thursday evening at 8 o’clock. A discussion follows every business meeting and special meetings of an educational nature are being arranged. All East and West Ham workers who attend will receive a warm welcome and will have all their questions answered in a comradely atmosphere. Don’t wait until the next election to get the “low down” on the many political sharks who will then be seeking their prey and cadging your vote. Get them in line and learn how you can take your place in the struggle to end wars, the wages system, class society and all the consequences that you abhor.

General Election, 1950 (1949)

From the August 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Preparations for next year’s general election are under way. Unless some unforeseen incident precipitates the event, it can be expected before or during next summer. The two main protagonists, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, have been having some preliminary slaps at one another for a few months past. The Labour Party tells us that it is planning for the future and is going to contest the election on the programme contained in its pamphlet, “Labour Believes in Britain.” The Conservatives have plastered the hoardings with posters telling us that with wise “national housekeeping” they will reduce the cost of living and that Nationalisation has cost “Us" £75,000,000, a drain on “OUR” income that they will stop. They have also completed their series of “Charters,” which will, no doubt, form their main election platform. Both parties are now adepts in the game of vote catching, although they will find it an increasingly difficult proposition in the future.

For members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain this forthcoming election has especial interest. We have, in previous elections, put one candidate in the field, but at the next election we shall contest two constituencies, Paddington North and East Ham South. That may not seem to be a matter for enthusiasm to some of our readers, but it is to us, and particularly to those of us who reside in the constituencies selected.

When we enter an arena with our candidate, it is not just a matter of another party muscling in on the time honoured game of fooling the workers. We do not treat the business as a sport, wishing our opponents good luck and congratulating the one who succeeds in collecting the most votes and a £1,000 a year job. We do not indulge in hypocritical handshaking with our opponents or in the “good-luck-old-man, the-best-man-has-won” bunkum. We are in deadly earnest. Our opponents represent our class enemies and there can be no truce in the class struggle. We do not even canvass votes as do our opponents. In fact we urge workers to refrain from voting for us unless they understand our object and are prepared to work with us for its achievement. An election campaign, for us, is a means of propagating our ideas amongst the workers at a time when political interest is rife and it is a means of gauging the development of Socialist ideas in the constituency contested. Further to that, of course, is the fact that, in contesting every possible election we are working towards the achievement of our object. Election campaigns that are successful in bringing more and more workers to an understanding and a desire for Socialism are preparing the ground for an increasing number of campaigns in the future.

It is not our object to look too far ahead at the moment. We are not focussing our attention beyond the forthcoming general election and our two campaigns. We arc getting ready. Our election agents are appointed and our candidates selected. Most of the work that is to be done at the moment will be done by our Parliamentary Committee and appointed members from the Paddington and West Ham branches. As the election date becomes nearer there will be loads of work for every comrade and sympathiser who has an hour or two to spare. The main task of the moment is to find the funds to pay the preliminary expenses. We must find suitable campaign premises in the constituencies NOW. We must consider and prepare certain printing matter NOW. We must have the necessary deposit NOW. Especially as the election date may be sprung on us earlier than we anticipate. We have estimated that the two contests will cost us about £900 and we need to get our hands on the major portion of that sum, right NOW.

The issue, whether we contest these two constituencies or not, does not depend on the amount of donations that we receive, but the success that attends our efforts most certainly does. Those readers of the Socialist Standard, whether they be members, sympathisers or just mildly interested, who want to help in the struggle to achieve Socialism should do so without delay. Those who would like to do a job of some sort, but have not the time or opportunity, can render us most timely assistance if they send along a few shillings. Our coffers are shallow, our need is deep.

In the struggle for Socialism we are emerging from the pioneer phase. Days of enthusiasm are ahead. Join with us in the only war worth fighting, in the only struggle worthy of working class effort, the struggle to end the system that deprives the workers of the fruits of their labour, the struggle so that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom. Don’t wait until the election date is announced and then roll up your sleeves and stride in to help. Roll up your sleeves and help by all means, but do not leave it too late, or the necessary preliminary work may not have been done through lack of funds. Even if it means going without a pint or packet of fags, dip into your packet and send a donation NOW. Emphasis on the NOW. Nothing you send will be too little and certainly nothing you can send will be too much. Cross your postal orders and make them payable to the S.P.G.B., then address your letter to E. Lake, S.P.G.B., Rugby Chambers, 2 Rugby Street, London, W. C. 1. And don't forget. DO IT NOW.

W.Waters

From The Eastern Front (1949)

Party News from the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In East Ham South the preliminary shots of the election battle have been fired. All parties contesting are now busy with propaganda meetings and door-to-door canvassing. Unlike the S.P.G.B., however, the canvassers of the other parties are far more concerned with catching votes than spreading information. “Trust us” each of them say in turn, and in less than a month I have been invited to join the Labour, Conservative and Communist Parties. So long as you can write your name you’re in!

In connection with this recruiting campaign, the Labour Party have been parading their M.P., the Rt. Hon. Alfred Barnes, P.C., M.P., round to meetings in various school halls. At the one I attended there were twenty-three faithful followers and three S.P.G.B.-ers. Time was allowed for questions, but apparently not for answers. Upon being asked for a definition of Socialism, Mr. Barnes, recognising the politics of his questioner, said that he wouldn’t give it as we’d only disagree. Really, Mr. Barnes! After further questions we finally challenged him to a public debate. Proudly surveying his enormous audience he informed us that he had no intention of getting an audience for the S.P.G.B.! Could it be that Mr. Barnes has no desire to face a large audience himself?

The Tory rally was again like the vicar’s tea party, complete with pauses for applause at the mention of Churchill and the Empire. Between them, in spite of protests from S.P.G.B.-ers in the hall. Baker White, M.P., and candidate Jordan, referred no less than twenty-seven times to the Labour Party as “Socialists.” Ignorance or dishonesty? Questions were taken in writing and answered with facetiousness. Any attempt to speak from the floor was drowned by the slow claps and jeers of three hundred Tory democrats. While expressing ignorance of the S.P.G.B., Mr. Jordan agreed to debate with us. Whether, in light of his newly gained knowledge, that promise will be fulfilled, remains to be seen.

Last, and least, the Communist Party, who not so very long ago were urging the workers of East Ham to support the Labour Party, have entered the arena by giving their candidate’s life story to the local press. He is a local man; he is married; he has so many children; he is a lighterman; he is an expert on inland waterways. I wonder what it is all supposed to prove? They hold Saturday evening meetings at which S.P.G.B.-ers are especially unwelcome. A challenge to debate three or four years back earned us the title of "social fascists,” and a challenge made earlier this year was discreetly ignored. No doubt they remember Hornsey Town Hall.

So far as our own campaign is concerned, satisfactory progress can be reported. The door-to-door canvassing which began in January, has so far resulted in one hundred regular readers of the STANDARD, as well as well over ten pounds’ worth of pamphlets sold. Our difficulty now is keeping up with the “call backs” and offers from Tottenham and Wood Green Branch to open up new territory have been gratefully accepted.

Our outdoor venue at the Cock Hotel on Sunday evenings proved itself unsatisfactory, due to the local rowdies, both adolescent and adult, so we have moved to Heigham Road opposite East Ham Station. Audiences of more than a hundred, intelligent questions and good literature sales have caused both branch and visiting speakers to express satisfaction with the new station. At the other end of the constituency the new mid-week station at the Boleyn Hotel is showing promising results.

As the election draws nearer, the battle will no doubt intensify. Every house in the borough must be canvassed, every elector made aware of the S.P.G.B. To do this we need YOUR help. If you live within distance of the constituency and are prepared to lend a hand get in touch with the branch secretary or members for specific details..

The more seeds sown now, the greater will be the harvest of conscious working class votes for Socialism. Into battle!

Ronald.

Editorial: The General Election (1950)

Editorial from the March 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

After five years of Labour Government the workers have shown what effect that experience has had on them by reducing almost to vanishing point the very large majority that the Labour Party had in the old Parliament. The Government may, for a period, continue a precarious existence, but it will do so representing a body of electors substantially smaller than the combined votes of Tories and Liberals.

The Labour Government is now in effect a minority government. In the past the professional politicians of the Liberal and Tory parties were used to the pendulum swing that put first one and then the other into office; but for the Labour Party the event is of vastly greater significance. For them it is the ominous writing on the wall, the visible proof of the sterility of their foundation policy. They believed that they could inspire more and more enthusiasm among the workers by the success with which they would—while retaining capitalism— tackle one by one the evils of the system. They believed that once they had become a majority government they would never look back. In their innocence they thought that Labour Governments live for ever. This election has proved the correctness of the S.P.G.B. case, that a Labour Government is powerless to make capitalism acceptable, let alone inspiring, to the workers. Labour reformism has done its utmost and has failed.

The second shock for the theorists of that Party has been the discovery that their other main plank, Nationalisation, has ceased to be a vote-catcher. It was the Tories who picked up workers' votes by promising not to nationalise any more industries.

If the Labour reformists lost ground, the election has proved catastrophic for the Communist Party. In 1945 they ran 21 candidates (two of whom were elected), and polled a total of 102,710 votes. This time with 100 candidates in the field they lost the two seats and polled fewer votes, about 92,000 in all. Their average vote fell from nearly 5,000 to just over 900. If they had fought on the straight issue of Communism they could hardly have done much worse, but in fact they contested every seat on their own brand of reforms of capitalism, largely designed as an effort to outbid the reforms listed in the Labour Party programme.

The 1950 election also witnessed the elimination of the I.L.P. from Parliament, yet at one time that Party could boast that upwards of 200 of its members were in the House as Labour M.P.s. The I.L.P.'s chief contribution to politics was the belief that a Socialist objective could be combined with a reformist activity and the election of M.P.s who, backed by a non-Socialist electorate, would pave the way for Socialism. All their work of over half a century has served merely to put into office a Labour Government to which the almost dead I.L.P. is now in opposition.

There are many other aspects of the Election to which we shall return in later issues. All we need add now is to place on record that the working class have once more given their votes for the continuance of capitalism. They have yet to learn where their class interests really lie, and the coming years will show once again that capitalism offers no way out, not even any worth while alleviation, no matter what the complexion of the government by which it is administered.

Our Two Election Campaigns (1950)

From the March 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our election campaigns in East Ham South and Paddington North were carried through with the same enthusiasm and devotion by members and sympathisers as on the two previous occasions when we contested North Paddington alone.

We issued in both constituencies an Election Message, containing a general examination of the worker’s position in modern society, a briefer Candidate’s Address, covering the same material (which the Post Office delivered free to each voter), and a Broadsheet in newspaper form containing criticisms of the main political parties, as well as other matter dealing with war, the implications of Socialism, and so on.

The Election Message and the Broadsheet were delivered by helpers to every address in both constituencies; the Broadsheet was also given away at meetings and railway stations.

Members and sympathisers have gathered at Head Office night after night to do the routine job of folding and sticking labels on. Both branches secured good election rooms; Paddington’s was large enough for a good deal of folding to be done there.

Separate reports from the two areas are as follows:

EAST HAM SOUTH 

Long before the election date was announced members were out on the “knocker,” arguing, explaining, driving home their points and obtaining regular orders for the Socialist Standard. As for outdoor meetings, they had been outside the “Cock” Hotel for eight months of every year since the middle of the war, and last Summer they opened a fresh station at the “Boleyn.”

And when the date of the election was announced the campaign began in earnest. An empty shop was rented in the Barking Road and soon its windows were neatly decorated with attractive literature. It became a hive of activity. All day long people were in and out, distributing literature, and sharing all the other tasks that a Parliamentary campaign entails.

The weather was far from perfect and the first outdoor meetings were flops, but to compensate every household was informed of three meetings at the Town Hall and one in a school in every ward. It was advertised in the local press that all other candidates had been invited to put their case in opposition. Those who came to see the fun were sorely disappointed. The Communist was “engaged”; the Tory who had previously expressed his willingness to debate became suddenly “too busy,” and the famous Labour “cock o’ the walk” advanced some incomprehensible excuse with regard to election expenses. Apparently his willingness to “discuss and reason” did not stretch as far as the S.P.G.B. However the three hundred people who had braved the bitter weather heard a case unlike any they had heard before. They asked questions, took part in discussion. The second meeting was less well attended, but the third was the best of the three. Members were highly satisfied.

Meanwhile every house had received a copy of the Party’s Election Message. Again it was a case that could not logically be disputed. It made no grandiose promises nor perversions of fact but merely explained the cause of the workers’ problems and the long hard road to their solution. Many workers were given something to think about. This was clearly demonstrated at the schools, where average audiences of twenty-five not only listened to the Party’s case, but also asked questions directly appertaining to the Election Message or the posted Address which arrived later.

In the last week the weather improved and the outdoor platform came out. Ours was the only party to appear on the street comer, and on the Saturday before the poll an audience of over a hundred was held for more than seven hours. Speakers from all over London gave of their best, dealing with every conceivable type of question. An eve of poll meeting at the “Cock” attracted an audience of two hundred. During the week meetings at factory gates had been well received, and propaganda was extended to the docks. Dockers expressed surprise at the solidity of the Socialist case after the drivel of the Communists. These meetings will continue.

Unfortunately the whole of the constituency was not canvassed. Forty people cannot work miracles. A third piece of literature in the shape of a broadsheet was freely delivered. It dealt with every aspect of current events, and copies have been retained for future reference.

Thus, mainly for the first time, the workers of East Ham South came into contact with the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Most of them were not convinced, but many will remember what this organisation has told them and when the capitalist system takes its usual course into a slump or war they will stop to think again. When the other parties’ talk of peace and full employment has gone by the board, the Socialist position will remain firm.

PADDINGTON NORTH 

Cold and wet weather made it difficult to hold outdoor meetings at the beginning and attendances were poor. The same is true of the indoor meetings. The position vastly improved towards the end. On Sunday, 19th February, an excellent meeting was held at the Metropolitan Theatre. No reference to this meeting was made in the Press. We sent letters to the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph, the Evening Standard and the News Chronicle, drawing their attention to the omission, but without result so far. The following is a specimen of one of them:

21st Feb.

  “I notice that your paper, along with other morning and evening papers, has given space to a meeting at Paddington Town Hall last night addressed by Lady Astor. Paddington Town Hall holds only 200 people and even an overflow would not greatly increase its size. Last Sunday evening we held a Mass Election Meeting at the Metropolitan Theatre, Edgware Road. The theatre was packed with 2,000 people, the doors had to be closed and a number turned away.

  “We invited the other four candidates to come and present their case from our platform. Mr. A. Seabrooke, the Liberal Candidate, and Mr. D. Cohen, the Communist Candidate, accepted, and each had twenty minutes on our platform. Mr. L. Turner, the Conservative Candidate, declined, stating that he did not speak on Sundays; Mr. W. Reid, the Labour Candidate, also declined, on the ground of prior engagements. The meeting commenced at 7 o'clock and ended at 10 o'clock, the last part of it being devoted to questions. The audience was interested, attentive and orderly, apart from some rather wild heckling by some small groups of Communist Party sympathisers after Mr. Cohen had left the platform.

  “We suggest that this type of meeting is unique in election campaigns, is well worth while to help voters to assess the programmes and policies of the various parties and was a practical illustration of our 46-year claim that we stand by the freedom of everyone to express their opinions without fear of evil consequences to themselves.

  “We are giving you these details, which you can check by a ’phone call to the two opponents who participated, because neither you nor the other morning and evening papers mentioned so much as a whisper about what was probably the largest meeting held in London during the present General Election. Are we to take it that your interest is only in the prominent people who support privilege, and that you are indifferent when 2,000 working men and women voters gather to hear other working men and women put their case?

  “I wonder what the people of North Paddington, most of whom know what happened, think of your silence?”

One singular thing we noticed this time at our meetings. Almost all the questions were about the future—what would Socialism be like?

The result of the poll, as far as we are concerned, was as follows: In East Ham our candidate received 256 votes and in North Paddington 192 votes—less than at the By-Election and nearly 300 less than at the 1945 General Election. We received a very favourable hearing this time, many workers said we were right and they agreed with us but—“ after all, bad as the Labour Party is, the Conservative Party is worse; we must keep them out and a vote for you would be wasted.” One day the workers will learn that there is no “worse” and their only sound action is to vote for Socialism.

The notices in the National Press on this occasion showed that we have at last succeeded in getting our candidates described as candidates of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. So one element of confusion has been eliminated. They also recognised our candidates as just tools of a socialist electorate and not “leaders.”