Letter: More than emotion (1976)

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

More than emotion

Thank you for printing my letter “Spiritual Matters” and your reply. I think for the most part I have to agree with you, although I have been partly misunderstood.

In using the word “mere” in connection with explanations I meant “solely” and not in the sense of trivial and unworthy of attention. A work of art can be analyzed and explained, but this will not necessarily explain why they create an emotional response. This, as far as I am aware, is peculiar to Man and differentiates him from other animals. This response is a contemplative condition and “spiritual” is the only word I know to describe it, although you would probably prefer to keep to “emotional”. To me it is something more than emotion.

Your extract from J. W. Draper’s History of the Intellectual Development of Europe was well chosen but I didn’t say that spiritual conditions are independent of physical forces. An explanation of the earth’s axis of rotation doesn’t help me to understand why Man should glory in the phenomena. In talking of spirituality you seem to have assumed that I meant an ability to appreciate beauty. I didn’t say this. I don’t know what beauty is and certainly, as you say, ideas about it can change in time and place. Love, hate, compassion, aspiringness, pride, indignation, joy — are these not things of the spirit? and although related to physical conditions I wonder if they can be fully accounted for by them. Why should Man be moved to these states of mind? Indeed, why Socialism, which concerns itself with the wellbeing of the human race?

Your point about ridding the mind of cant is taken, but I see no reason to bar membership to anyone holding similar views to those I have expressed. It is not helping the SPGB to spread its message.

George Pearson

London S.W.20

Reply

Man produces emotional reactions to stimuli simply because he is physically equipped to do so. Darwin, in his Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, put forward three principles in broad explanation of them. It is now generally accepted that the experience in feeling or emotion depends on the activity of centres in the portion of the brain known as the hypothalamus. However, the forms the reactions take are dependent on social custom and law. In the opinion of some experimenters, smiling and laughter are respiratory phenomena which, being approved or rewarded, are “selected” as socially appropriate (while other respiratory or expressive mechanisms are disapproved). The difference in usage between emotional reactions and “spiritual” ones is that the latter term is reserved for more highly sanctioned spheres of interest.

You have missed the purpose of the quotation from Draper and the remarks about social conditioning. You say the mechanical explanation does not tell us “why Man should glory in the phenomena”. Our point was that Man does not glory in it. Some men do, under some circumstances. A simple illustrative story is of the townsman and the farmer together gazing at the landscape: the townsman rhapsodizes about the multi-coloured vista, the farmer spits and says “Thirty-bob-an-acre stuff”.

However, in your repeated question about SPGB membership we suspect another kind of misapprehension about materialism. Obviously you value emotional experience: so do Socialists. To understand the reasons for phenomena does not dissolve or disvalue them. We may know that being in love is a combination of the activity of hormones, certain portions of the central nervous system, and the social climate; that does not at all exempt us from it. Materialists appreciate works of art and sunsets too.

Editors.

Letter: Bicycle Thieves in Bennetts End (1992)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

Could it be that the Socialist concept of a society where the needs of the people are freely met is beginning to catch on. Going Places on Radio 4. on Friday 19th June, reported that in order to cut down on bicycle thefts the Police in Hemel Hempstead will be offering bicycles to the public free of charge. Apparently they have so many stolen ones that have not been reclaimed they will be making them freely available to the public.

George Pearson 

London SW20

Reply:

It’s true that there is no point in stealing what is freely available. Which is why this sort of crime will disappear in a socialist society—Editors.

Letter: Existence and purpose (1976)

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

Existence and purpose 

George Pearson remains persistently puzzled about why man should glory in natural phenomena. This question is, for me, answered by the following quotation from Sir Walter Raleigh: “We are compounded of earth, and we inhabit it.”

The emotions that George Pearson describes as “spiritual” are entirely natural. There isn’t an atom of our being that is not a part of the natural universe. External factors such as natural or artistic beauty on the one hand or the degradation of the dole queue on the other will serve to trigger our reactions. But to ask why we react is meaningless, like asking why trees can’t walk.

Of existence the only meaningful statement we can make is that “existence is”. No reason, no purpose is implied in existence, only its reality. Likewise with our emotional reactions: they are as much a natural part of human life as the ability to breathe.

C. Skelton,

Woking

Letter: Is there life before death? (2002)

Letter to the Editors from the February 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is there life before death?

Dear Editors,

I read “A Socialist reads the Koran” in the December issue and I endorse all you have to say on the matter of religion. I do, however, think that the adamant assertion that there is, and can be, no form of afterlife is open to question. Socialists may of course be absolutely right in saying this, but the fact is we really don’t know!

I am inclined to think that the religious hardline adopted by the Socialist Party regarding membership is not in their best interests, and that membership numbers would increase if this was not so. If an applicant for membership can satisfy on his, or her, understanding of socialism, does not adhere to any particular religious dogma, but, at the same time, has a personal faith in a God and an afterlife, then it seems to me to be short-sighted not to admit the candidate.

George Pearson, 

London SW20

Reply: 

We don’t recall saying that there can be no afterlife, only that those who make this claim have not produced any credible evidence to back it up. A Nobel Prize for biology awaits the scientist who does, but so far none has; in fact, in the light of repeated past failures very few think that it is a line of research worth continuing to pursue. So, for the time being, we can only conclude that when we die, we die and that’s that; our brains cease to function and so our minds disappear while our bodies decompose and are recycled in nature to push up daisies; apart from that all that remains is a memory of us in the minds of those who knew us. We suspect that most people accept this even if many are not prepared to admit this openly as it is not very comforting, but it is an added reason to concentrate on making the only life that we definitely know we’ve got as good as possible (by providing a socialist framework for it).

An applicant who said “I don’t really know” would not be treated the same as one who asserted that “there is an afterlife”. The former, though perhaps overcautious, has not crossed the line between a scientific materialist approach and an irrational belief, as the latter has.

Editors

Letters: Is there a short cut? (1976)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is there a short cut?

I have become a consistent and grateful reader of your journal. However I do believe that the establishment of an all-sharing, all-caring society cannot be achieved in the foreseeable future by wholly democratic means.

The SPGB has been established over fifty years yet its voice is still insignificant. The unrest of the ’twenties and ’thirties were not to my knowledge effectively taken advantage of by you. Instead a so-called “socialist” government was born heralding a new land of nationalization, social welfare etc. Today in 1976 the same flimsy worthless promises are bellowed by Ministers who keep their so-called “socialist” Cabinet seats warm. There are 1.4 million officially unemployed and beggingly accepting the crumbs from the capitalist table. (You quite rightly state that the real figure is nearer 3 million.)

Does the SPGB now assume to let another fifty years slip by? How do I convince my friends that I am not a starry-eyed dreamer but someone equipped with sensible, concrete and democratic proposals for organizing and establishing a Socialist Britain? You wish to take the democratic road to Socialism — how successful have your candidates been in local by-elections? “Man makes his own history but not according to his will.”

Shaun McCarthy

London SW1

Reply:

Many people feel frustrated, as you do, at having to endure the continuation of capitalism while seeking mass understanding for Socialism. However, the alternative you seem to be implying, minority action, would not change things. Without a mandate from a conscious Socialist electorate, the minority could only be another government.

We suggest you look on the establishing of Socialism as we do, as an urgent matter, and convince your friends of the same. Best of all, join the SPGB (when you have got rid of that misunderstanding about “a Socialist Britain”) and throw your effort into bringing about Socialism. Every new member is a nail in the coffin of capitalism.

Spiritual Matters

It would appear that religion can bar membership to the Party for sympathizers. Perhaps you would be good enough to clarify my position, since I have considered applying for membership.

Under no circumstances could I be regarded as religious, in the accepted sense. I follow no creed, nor accept any religious dogma. I do, however, look around me and wonder at the miracle and mystery of life. Perhaps some day Man will have sufficient knowledge to explain “How” the miracle occurs, but I think the question “Why” will still remain. I can see a sunset and be moved by its grandeur; I can watch a horse move and be excited by its beauty; I can look at a cathedral and marvel at its form and craftsmanship. These things can be explained, but mere explanations do not account for Man’s spiritual reaction. If I choose to wonder at the life-force behind life itself and if I choose to call it God, is this incompatible with Socialism?

That people should understand that the root cause of most of our problems lies in the fact that we produce for sale and profit instead of for the needs of mankind — seems to me to be Socialism’s fundamental message. While I agree with most of your argument about religion I can’t see why so much fuss should be made about it in regard to membership of the SPGB.

George Pearson

London S.W.20

Reply:

The explanations of phenomena are not “mere” ones. At the beginning of his History of the Intellectual Development of Europe J. W. Draper wrote:

In the month of March the sun crosses the equator, dispensing his rays more abundantly over our northern hemisphere. Following in his train, a wave of verdure expands towards the pole. The luxuriance is in proportion to the local brilliancy. The animal world is also affected. Pressed forward or solicited onward by the warmth, the birds of passage commence their annual migration, keeping pace with the developing vegetation beneath. As autumn comes on, this orderly advance of light and life is followed by an orderly retreat, and in its turn the southern hemisphere presents the same glorious phenomenon. Once every year does the life of the earth pulsate; now there is an abounding vitality, now a desolation. But what is the cause of all this? It is only mechanical. The earth’s axis of rotation is inclined to the place of her orbit of revolution round the sun.

Let that wonderful phenomenon and its explanation be a lesson to us; let it profoundly impress us with the importance of physical agents and physical laws.

There is nothing wrong with experiencing emotional pleasure. What you apparently have not considered is that it is variable according to different social conditioning. A conception of beauty which deeply moves people in one time and place is distasteful in others.

Examples are to be found in all the fields you mention. The idea of beauty in nature arose chiefly from the Industrial Revolution. In architecture, as in all the arts, what is strongly appreciated in one culture is unacceptable in another. That some qualities appear to transcend time and place is due to the comprehensiveness of capitalism. However, other keenly-felt reactions are quite temporary. For instance, concepts of female beauty — alleged to have “launched a thousand ships” — differ widely and are ultimately functional.

There is, therefore, no ground for calling these phenomena "spiritual” and attributing them to a force “behind life itself”. People have a sense of mystery about emotional pleasures because they are denied access to them — many of the “beautiful” things and experiences are simply manifestations of wealth. As Dr. Johnson said: “Rid your mind of cant, sir.”

Rates and Things 

In your view, taxation is not a matter of any consequence to the working class. Could you explain how this applies to the rates levied on private and council housing, and to motor vehicle and television licences?

Do Socialists participate in the election of trade union officials? Presumably this presents some difficulty as most of the candidates hold an allegiance to other political parties.

If political parties can be classified as being in favour of private capitalism, state capitalism or Socialism, how would anarchist and syndicalist groups fit into this?

Do you have the information on the Socialist Labour league, etc., that I asked for?

You might be interested to know that in Lord Chalfont’s programme “It could never happen here” the is spokesman advocating a re-run of Russia 1917 was a certain Duncan Hallas.

R. Richardson

Reply:

Rates are a tax on property, and the greater part of them comes from industry and commerce. So far as housing is concerned, before the decline of private landlords, rates were paid like taxes out of income. Since they are levied on each item of property, it became landlords’ practice in some cases to separate rates from rent, making the tenant responsible for paying them (“exclusive” and “inclusive” rents). Obviously it is a book-keeping difference — the tenant pays the same gross amount. Local authorities adopted the “exclusive” system for council housing so that, instead of deducting tax to pay to themselves, separate rates and rent funds were contributed to.

The dispersal of former estates of let-out houses, largely into owner-occupation which now forms about half the housing stock in this country, has led to the landlords’ rates being levied as countless relatively small amounts on individuals whose house-purchase makes them technically “property-owners”. The system is widely considered to be anomalous as a tax rooted in pre-war conditions, and alternatives to it are being sought. Motor tax and television licences are not taxes but special funds raised from users of facilities. The former was known until recently as the “road fund licence”, and the income was intended for the provision and upkeep of roads by highway authorities.

Socialists in trade unions make their own choices as to voting for officials. They may take political affiliations into account, but the function of trade unions is the limited one of seeking better wages and conditions; a candidate for office will be judged for his likely effectiveness as a negotiator above anything else. Socialist Party members in unions do not pay the political levy for the support of the Labour Party.

Political groups and parties which advocate the abolition of capitalism have to be viewed for the validity of their claims. If their policies are not realistic ones they will not achieve the aim they talk about, and capitalism will continue. While not avowedly in favour of it, they do their bit for it. Anarchists and syndicalists generally support reforms, and have supported governments or political parties which appeared helpful to them; and this sort of compromise means taking the side of capitalist class interests.

On your last question, we don’t think it is our function to supply information about other political parties.

Worsening Conditions

In conversation with a friend on the economic cutback I said that Marx had prophesied that the more advanced and technological capitalism becomes the worse will become the lot of the common people. She replied that Marx said no such thing.

Is it not the situation today, with millions starving and out of work and other millions merely subsisting amidst a technology capable of producing abundance for all? If Marx did not say it, should he have done?

And would it be a truism, or is the lot of the people better but merely suffering a temporary setback until more advanced technology produces another glut that cannot be consumed by the producers?

Would you please explain Mr. Healey’s words that higher prices would cost the user more but be a lighter burden on the taxpayer, and we must not kill the will to work (when a couple of millions can’t get work?)

Ruth Bolster

London S.E.15

Reply:

The passage you are thinking of is probably the one in Capital Vol. I, Chapter 25, “The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation” pages 660-1, Allen & Unwin edn.):

We saw in Part IV, when analysing the production of relative surplus-value: within the capitalist system all methods for raising the social productiveness of labour are brought about at the cost of the individual labourer; all means for the development of production transform themselves into means of domination over, and exploitation of, the producers; they mutilate the labourer into a fragment of a man, degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, destroy every remnant of charm in his work and turn it into a hated toil; they estrange him from the intellectual potentialities of the labour-process in the same proportion as science is incorporated in it as an independent power; they distort the conditions under which he works, subject him during the labour-process to a despotism the more hateful for its meanness; they transform his life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the Juggernaut of capital.

However, you (and your friend) should read the entire chapter. Marx did not argue that the working class must continuously slide into more abysmal conditions. On the contrary, he pointed out that under some circumstances:

A larger part of their own surplus-product, always increasing and continually transformed into additional capital, comes back to them in the shape of means of payment, so that they can extend the circle of their enjoyments; can make some additions to their consumption-fund of clothes, furniture, etc., and can lay by small reserve-funds of money. But just as little as better clothing, food and treatment, and a larger peculium, do away with the exploitation of the slave, so little do they set aside that of the wage-worker. A rise in the price of labour, as a consequence of accumulation of capital, only means, in fact, that the length and weight of the golden chain the wage-worker has already forged for himself, allow of a relaxation of the tension of it. (Page 631).

The governing factor is the needs of capitalism:

The rise of wages therefore is confined within limits that not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also secure its reproduction on a progressive scale. (Page 634.)

What is the standard of judgement for “worse”? It can only be, as you point out, the potentialities of society. In the same chapter Marx reviews a Budget speech of 1863 in which it was claimed that “the poor have been growing less poor”. He says:

How lame an anti-climax! If the working-class has remained “poor”, only “less poor” in proportion as it produces for the wealthy class “an intoxicating augmentation of wealth and power”, then it has remained relatively just as poor. If the extremes of poverty have not lessened, they have increased, because the extremes of wealth have. (Page 668.)

We do not know the speech by Healey that you refer to. Presumably he was referring to the effects of subsidies on prices. Two things to keep in mind are: (1) that the price of labour-power also is subsidized, i.e. kept in check by family allowances, rent and rate rebates, welfare benefits, etc.; (2) that the burden of taxation is not on the working class but on the capitalists, for whom it is better to contribute to subsidies on selected commodities than be faced with demands for wage increases all round.

As for “the will to work”, see the review of The Right to be Lazy in our last issue.

New Definitions?

It will be agreed by SPGB members that they have to spend as much time with enquirers telling them what Socialism is not as with telling them what it is. The greatest coup of the capitalist propagandists was when they succeeded in misrepresenting Socialism to the masses. Their allies are those organizations which claim to be Socialist or Communist, though they are nothing of the sort.

It seems to me that the Socialist parties have done little research into the nature of language. If not, why not? Such research could help to solve the problem of propaganda. According to Marxian analysis, ideas are a reflection of the mode of production. It follows that language is likewise engendered. Therefore it should be possible to evolve the language to correspond to the actual processes of production instead of being a reflection of a class ideology as at present. A vast number of words and usages exist which presuppose such things as scarcity, division of interests, competition, attack, exploitation, leadership, etc., and which do not truthfully reflect the process of production.

Science extended mathematics to bypass “ordinary”, inaccurate language in order to deal with physical realities. Marx used prose to say what modern economists tend to say with mathematical formulae. There is a great increase of people trying to be “scientific” by using jargon, endeavouring to escape emotional connotations and vagueness in expression, though they often fail in this.

I am not advocating a complete new mathematical language, such as Leibniz imagined. I do advocate an effort to educate the working class in an analytic response to words, in order to clarify ideas, and to emancipate them from the cheap propaganda which at present bamboozles them.

For example: I think it would be a good start if, instead of accepting definitions as expressions of opinion, we demand (and teach others to demand) that a definition be a description of the way the thing is produced, including a reference to its function. I don’t think Marx would frown on that practice.

F. Sliwinski

Newcastle-on-Tyne

Sorry, Earth

I was interested to read of the latest exploits of Friends of the Earth in the April SS, and I wondered if you could make any use of the following story. A while ago I received a letter from a comrade which was contained in a used envelope made good for re-use by a stick-on label issued by Friends of the Earth. Since I believe in doing all I can to counter the wastefulness of capitalist society I sent off a postal order for a bundle of these economy labels. Back it came, with a note from our Friends saying Sorry, we’ve stopped selling economy labels because they’re no longer economical. So I wrote again, asking by what criteria it could be no longer economical to use less paper than that contained in a new envelope. And the answer? "Those of our Accountant”. One of their directors gave a lengthy explanation and gave a breakdown of figures to show that the sale of economy labels did not make a profit for Friends of the Earth. And then I remembered: it’s Friends of the Earth Limited (Registered in London. Company No. 1012357). The letter even spoke of what was necessary "to stay in business”.

So there you are. You can’t serve two masters, and you can’t be committed to "the rational use of the Ecosphere” and to the continuation of a profit-motivated society. Otherwise, you end up wasting more paper by having to send out slips saying silly things like "Sorry, we no longer do economy labels because they’re no longer economical”. Further evidence, if any were needed, that the most effective way of countering the wastefulness of capitalism is to propagate the establishment of socialism.

Bill Valinas

Notice.

As we go to press with this issue, we have learned of the death of our comrade Gilbert McClatchie — "Gilmac", who was a contributor to the Socialist Standard for over sixty years. An appreciation will appear in the June issue.

Letters: Professor rebuked (1992)

Letters to the Editors from the January 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Professor rebuked

Dear Editors,

Congratulations on the discussion and debate section in the December Socialist Standard, in which Steve Coleman repudiates the defence of capitalism by Professor David Marsland of the West London Institute.

It really is quite incredible that anyone with professorial status can say that property, wage-labour. competition, economic inequalities and money are part of the human psyche, and imply that any alternative to the capitalist mode of organising society is not consistent with human nature. The sad thing is that many are easily swayed by such arguments, spurious as they are. We live in a society in which those concepts and values are paramount, and we are, therefore, conditioned to act and think in a manner which make those values seem to be part of our nature.

Of course, jobs and wages are a natural consideration in our lives—we can’t live without them; of course we are competitive—we are taught to be so as soon as we leave the cradle; of course we regard economic inequality as inevitable because that’s the way things must be in capitalist society; of course money is important—we can’t do without it. and thinking in monetary terms becomes second nature to us. But. to say that these things are part of our natural make-up; that inherent in our genealogy is a crying need for money, wages, or social inequality, is to talk utter nonsense.

The status of professor implies the role of educator, leader of rational thinking. I think that Professor Marsland should be ashamed of himself for trying to lead us down a path of such false reasoning.

During the second world war I served in the Royal Army Medical Corps with the Middle East Forces. I was stationed in the desert in a base hospital about 60 miles from Cairo for 5 years. Thinking back on those days I am moved by the wonderful spirit of comradeship and co-operation that grow up in those circumstances. We all had a job to do. We all depended on each other. At the same time when off duty, we were free, and when circumstances permitted we were given generous leave to travel wherever we wished—it proved a wonderful opportunity to understand something of earlier civilizations. Travelling was no problem and quite free—all one had to do was go to the main road and thumb a lift. Money was of little importance and most members of the unit voluntarily chose not to draw full pay, saving it for spending on leave. Clothing, food, accommodation were, of course, freely provided. We became a close-knit community. Individual talents emerged and were used to develop educational and cultural activities for the benefit of patients and unit personnel.

Why do I tell you all this? Well, certainly not because I believe in wars, or want to suggest that society should be organised on army lines: no, simply because I think it helps to belie Marsland’s assertion of the implausibility of an elastic human nature. I think it shows that given a common objective we can strive for a better way of life, and work in harmony without monetary considerations.

There is one simple truth that the professor cannot deny and that is that capitalism's mode of production and dissipation of wealth is not designed to meet the needs of the people—all the people. That is why the socialist alternative is imperative.

George Pearson 

London SW20

BOB POTTER. Hove: We will reply to your letter on IQ tests in the next issue.

South-East slump

Dear Editors,

An item in the Observer (24 November) vividly demonstrates the tragic situation in which many workers now find themselves.

Two thousand would-be wage slaves queued for up to twelve hours, for just 127 jobs as packers and maintenance workers for around £300 to £400 a week, at Courages brewery, in Reading. Many of them, before becoming unemployed, had been company directors, former tradesmen and even university lecturers. Few, no doubt, would have considered themselves to be members of the working class, dependent on their abilities to sell their mental and physical energies in order to live.

“Welcome to Reading, Boom Town of the Eighties, Gloom Town of 1991", commented the Observer. Unemployment in Reading has more than doubled in the last year; more than 5,000 have lost their jobs. The picture is repeated across the south-east. It is the same in Crawley, Milton Keynes and even Tunbridge Wells. Here in Colchester, the so-called prosperous First Recorded Town in England, the position is much the same. Over the last few years, hundreds of workers have been made redundant from Paxman’s, Colchester’s largest factory. Only this week, the Essex County Standard reported that the Eastern National Bus company is to cut another 35 jobs. The redundancies will affect staff across the board.

As I write this (1 December), the same paper reports that "recession-hit traders in Colchester said yesterday they were seeing the first tentative signs of the much hoped-for Christmas rush". And the Co-op said there have been the first “nibbles". Nevertheless, as one walks around the Town, large numbers of shops, big and small, can be seen empty and deserted. The owners have gone “bust”, bankrupt.

Colchester Youth Enquiry Service says that they will be collecting warm clean bedding for the many young homeless people in Colchester. They cannot actually find homes for these people (although, as elsewhere, there are many empty properties in the area), but the homeless can go and "ask for advice, help and a blanket".

The situation is not, however, just local or regional, or even national. Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are in dead trouble; and the United States has been in recession for some considerable time. And France too. A woman friend of mine in Paris has been unemployed, except for two short periods, for just over twelve months. Indeed, three million workers are officially unemployed in France. And it’s getting worse.

Will it ever end? Is massive unemployment here to stay?

Tragic as it is for those who lose their jobs or, if young, are unable to get a job in the first place, booms and slumps and unemployment, are a "normal” consequence of our present production-for-profit, capitalist, system. The owners of wealth-production will only invest, and employ us, if they think there is a good prospect of making a profit. And at the present moment, most capitalists prefer not (or are unable) to invest. Sooner or later, business will pick up. People will be taken on again, although in my view I think that large numbers of unemployed workers (a “reserve army of labour") will continue to exist, possibly well into the next century.

So, is there a way out? A solution?

Socialists say that workers, employed or unemployed, in Colchester or Reading, in Britain or Russia, or the United States, or France and elsewhere throughout the world, can solve the problems of not just periodic unemployment. but also poverty in a world of potential plenty, by organising to establish a new and completely different form of society of production of wealth solely for use and the satisfaction of needs. Such a society would not be Heaven on Earth, or Utopia; but it would soon tackle, and solve, the basic problems thrown up by capitalism. And that is more than enough.

Peter E. Newell

Colchester, Essex 

Dear Editors,

On the article in the December issue 'What Do We Mean By Class'. I would like to say that you can’t always leave your job if you don’t like it because of low wages, boring work. etc. Unemployment is so high that many people, if they are in their 40s or 50s, feel they will not get another job if they leave their employment. I have been in my job for 3 years. It is a job I hate. The first month that I worked there I wanted to leave, so any available time off I have looked for another job. I’ve had various interviews, but no luck.

Leslie Everard 

Borehamwood, Herts

Letters: Frustrated friend (1979)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Frustrated friend

I feel inclined to apply for membership but at present I know little about you and your members, and you, of course, know less about me; there was a hint in one article somewhere that you might vet applicants. North Devon is very isolated from the towns where you hold meetings and have branches; it is frustrating to read of the series of meetings to mark your 75th anniversary and see how far away they are to be held. What does membership entail, and how much is the subscription?

Perhaps you could also explain one of your policies to me. You consistently advocate spoiling one’s ballot paper in all elections. Granted that the Labour Party is not socialist, but as indicated in an article in April’s issue, the reforms which it is responsible for have alleviated the working man’s lot to some extent. Not only that, but I believe that its existence has also helped in beginning to create a climate of opinion which is necessary before socialism can be achieved. I have no illusions that the Labour Party can ever achieve socialism, but it has helped me in my own transition from a capitalist upbringing to be ready to accept my, probably rudimentary, notions of socialism. The advantages of a Labour government are only marginal over a Tory one, but that margin is there. I would have thought that a social democratic or reformist phase had its place historically in the transition from capitalism to socialism. No doubt you will tell me where 1 am wrong!

GM (Ilfracombe)

Reply:
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has always argued that socialism can be established only when there is a majority of conscious socialists — people who understand socialism and want it. In line with this principle, we must obviously ensure, as far as we can, that our members all understand the case for socialism. In that sense we do ‘vet’ applicants for membership, which does not mean that joining the SPGB is like being interrogated by the thought police. The branch which deals with the application simply tries to find out the applicant’s political ideas. If he or she disagrees with socialism, then clearly they cannot become members; if they agree they are welcomed into our ranks.

We sympathise with the frustrations of workers who find political propaganda for socialism difficult because they live in a more remote part of the country. But it is only by putting the ideas of socialism across, all the time, that they will take root and flourish. In that way the SPGB has been established and kept in existence — and in that way it will form new branches, even in North Devon!

Membership of the SPGB costs £6 a year in dues. These are automatically waived for any member who is on a pension and almost automatically for any member who cannot afford them. Membership does not entail any formal obligation to work for the party, but there is plenty of activity going and members are enthusiastic. For our size, we do a tremendous amount of propaganda.

Where there is no socialist candidate, socialists write ‘socialism’ across their ballot papers. We refuse to make the spurious choice between the parties of capitalism, which is like offering a condemned man a menu for his last breakfast. Writing ‘socialism’ on the ballot paper is not wasting a vote; it is a declaration that the other parties are not worth voting for and a manifestation of support for socialism.

Socialists are in favour of workers grabbing whatever crumbs may fall from their masters’ tables; so we recognise that some reforms can be said to have benefitted the working class. This does not prevent us still struggling for socialism, which is the whole loaf rather than a few crumbs. It is not true that the Labour Party is the only party of reform; the Tories are also in the same business — a fact which amply illustrates the futility of reformism. The experience of Labour governments is that they always attack working class living standards — and, worse, they do this in the name of socialism.

Thus the Labour Party, far from bringing about a climate of opinion favourable to socialism, has confused the issue and has made our work that much harder. There is no place in it for anyone who is looking for a fundamentally different party, one which stands for a new society of freedom and common ownership.

Editors.

Wage Labour as Poverty

In your Questions of the Day you state: “Under capitalism the workers are, in the strictest sense, poor, that is, they lack the means to afford the best that is available”. The Socialist Standard similarly refers constantly to ‘poverty’ — see April 1975 headline, “The poor including the unemployed, including the old, are still here”. This use of the term ‘poor’ indicates that the SPGB accept as real all the multifarious ‘problems’ chewed over and half digested by hole-and-corner reformists of every hue; that it is interested in alleviating ‘poverty’ and is therefore a reformist party, or on the road to becoming one, which merely lacks the facilities of the Child Poverty Action Group.

If the SPGB doubts this then they must answer the following questions. If by ‘poverty’ they mean wage-labour then is it not misleading — in the sense that concerns the amount of use-values consumed by the worker — and redundant, since workers are exploited by the wage form whether they enjoy their" use values or not? What alternative meaning can be given to the word ‘poverty’ which does not imply: (a) a moralistic concern for distributive justice; (b) an amelioration of the condition of only a few workers, the rest not being in ‘poverty’; and (c) ‘social engineering’ a la Webbs? Could the SPGB please give me a clear definition of ‘poverty’, nay more, of the poverty-line income? If they could they may like to send a copy to the Fabians, whose members have a hard time thinking up an ‘objective’ one. In fact I shall wager that the SPGB cannot give me a definition which is not vague, redundant or circular.

Mike Mansfield

(Sheffield)

Reply:
Had our correspondent read to the end of the Questions of the Day chapter quoted, our position would be clearer. Here we state: “A little thought will show how capitalism, besides ensuring that workers stay poor, needs them to be poor. If they could get a living without having to sell their mental and physical energies to the capitalists, then the system could not function for who would do the work? By ‘poor’ we do not mean ‘destitute’ though this is an extreme form of poverty.” We go on to point out that “What is called the housing problem is really but an aspect of the poverty problem or, what is the same thing — since it is the other side of the coin — the class monopoly of the means of production." (page 7).

Government statisticians class as ‘poor’ families whose net income, less housing and work expenses, is less than 20 per cent over the Supplementary Benefit rate; five million British families, or 15 per cent of the population, fall into this category. We, on the other hand, use the word to describe the condition of all wage and salary earners, irrespective of individual levels of income and consumption. Workers are poor as a class because they do not own the means of production and cannot therefore afford the best that is available; indeed, we receive today a smaller percentage of the total wealth than our nineteenth-century counterparts. Reformism cannot affect this fundamental feature of the capitalist system.

Finally, were we to accept our correspondent’s logic, the use of the word ‘rich’ to describe the exploiting class would be unnecessary. Perhaps if we called the workers not rich and the capitalists not poor, he would be not unhappy.

Editors

A Sympathetic Word

As a supporter and admirer of the SPGB and the Socialist Standard, I was a little disappointed when reading Bill Knox’s article on Airey Neave to find no expression of sympathy for his family and friends. Whatever a man’s political complexion may be, a premeditated taking of his life is a great tragedy for those near to him. I understand, of course, that Bill Knox was criticising the values for which Airey Neave stood, but however distasteful these may be I don’t see that anything is gained by cold and callous comments about him so soon after his death. Indeed, I regard it as positively harmful to the cause, and it certainly does not help me in arguing the SPGB case with some of my acquaintances. Even those close to Airey Neave cannot be completely ruled out as possible converts to the cause of socialism, but they would hardly react in a favourable way on reading Bill’s article.

I want to see the SPGB maintain the respect which is properly its due, and I think it is a pity that Bill Knox couldn't have found a word of sympathy to include in an otherwise excellent article.

George Pearson

London SW20

Reply:

Capitalism has raised the creation of human misery to the level of fine art. Angela Rippon presents to us a half-minute film of the mayhem and sufferings of the day, and the response compares unfavourably with that to the weather forecast. Indifference to human need and bloody death becomes the rule and not the exception.

When Neave was assassinated, we were treated to a complete catalogue of his ‘finer qualities’, and the press, which represents the interests of the capitalist class, was full of tributes and messages of sympathy. Our response was not to delight in the fact or manner of his death, but to reject violence as a political weapon while pointing out its inevitability in class society. We had no personal grudge against the man, but words of condolence to his relatives and Tory colleagues would, to say the least, have stuck firmly in the throat.

Millions of people die every year because the system which Neave upheld values material gain above human life. If we extended a few words of comfort to their families we’d get back a demand for something more substantial — like food. To some, sympathy is a luxury easily foregone. Had the victim of the assassin’s bomb been a car park attendant (and we recall that, on hearing of the explosion, the hope was expressed in the Commons that the victim was not a member of the House), we may have learnt in a last paragraph somewhere that he left a wife and four children.

Capitalism will continue to brutalise people and deaden human response to the suffering of others. If the friends of Airey Neave have not learnt this truth from his death or the war in Ireland, then a few kind words from us won’t help.

Editorial

Letters: Is socialism against human nature? (1997)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

Is socialism against human nature?

Dear Editors,

I have been reading the Socialist Standard for a year now and I find myself in not inconsiderable agreement with most of the views expressed in it. I have a question regarding the relation between our ideals and some fashionable trends in science and philosophy nowadays. It's a familiar question, but for me a most important one. So far I have not found a satisfactory answer in the Socialist Standard, but this may be due to my own negligence.

As you know from many publications, neo-Darwinism holds that human beings, just like all other beings, are determined to fight for everything that enhances their own well-being, but not for things that don't. Conservatives and liberals use this idea to defend their economic principles.

On the other hand, we think that a socialist society will only come about as a result of people's determination to take as much as they need, and to contribute as much as they can. But neo-Darwinism says that, generally speaking, people will never be prepared to act in this way. Indeed, it believes that the inclinations of some people (such as the members of the Socialist Party) to act as real socialists must be explained in terms of underlying drives and goals that cohere with neo- Darwinism philosophy. Compare with the thought that altruists arc really egoists in a more sophisticated way.

So it seems that, if neo-Darwinism is right, socialism must be wrong. Or do they not contradict each other? What do you think? It will not be sufficient to answer that current attitudes will change once we will have changed our institutions and our educational system. For neo-Darwinism will counter you by saying that institutional and educational change could not possibly change our genes. If neo-Darwinism is right, do we therefore have to change our own biological constitution in the process to socialism? This is where things become really interesting. Please enlighten me.

Dirk Boecxx, 

London SE23

Reply:

If those you call "neo-Darwinians” hold that humans are prepared to struggle for everything that enhances their own well-being but not for a society where people contribute as much as they can and take according to their needs then they are being inconsistent.

This is because such a society would enhance people's individual well-being. Socialism does not require people to be altruists acting against their own self-interest. Socialism is in people’s self- interest. It is certainly not against it.

What those who claim that there is something in our genes that would prevent humans living in a socialist society are in effect saying is that humans are genetically programmed to behave against their best interest. Which is absurd.

So their argument is logically flawed but it is also factually wrong. There is no evidence that human behaviour is genetically determined. In humans genes don't govern complex social behaviour patterns like greed or, for that matter, generosity; they only govern physical characteristics like hair colour or a prospensity to develop certain diseases.

Human behaviour is distinguished from that of all other animals precisely by its high degree of flexibility and adaptability. In so far as the genetic make-up of the members of the species homo sapiens governs our behaviour it is through allowing it to be flexible.

Further, we are — again, biologically — social animals. We live in societies and could not develop on our own as lone individual or family units as some animals do. For instance, speech and all that this enables us to do that other animals can't — construct cultures and civilisations — is a social product and can only be acquired in and through society.

Both speech and the physical ability to speak could only have evolved through co-operation in an animal group that was capable of practising co-operation. Without this ability to co-operate the human species would never have evolved. Which is why some anthropologists see co-operation rather than the struggle of each against all as being the characteristic human behaviour pattern.

You ask for evidence of all this. Read The Evolution of Culture by Leslie A. White or any book by the anthropologist Ashley Montagu. Read sensible Darwinians such as Stephen J. Gould. And for a thorough refutation of the view that human behaviour patterns are governed by particular genes read the collective work Not In Our Genes (by Steven Rose. R.C. Lewonkin and Leon J. Kamin).

Finally, when Desmond Morris. Robert Ardrey. Konrad Lorenz and the others were peddling these ideas, the Socialist Standard published a number of articles refuting them. If you—or anyone else—are interested in them copies arc still available.

Editors

Reformist?

Dear Editors,

The article "The Kurdish Question" was excellent (Socialist Standard, January). But how does maximizing "trade union and democratic rights" become a "springboard" for attaining socialism?

I though that was what the World Socialism Movement was for. Otherwise it sounds like capitalist reformist politics to me.

Thomas Alpine, 

Grand Rapids, 

Michigan, USA

Reply:

We have always said that the best framework for the growth of the majority socialist understanding needed before socialism can be established is political democracy, limited and distorted though it must be under capitalism.

We have also always said, following on from this, that socialists in countries where political democracy docs not exist should campaign for this as well as for socialism. This is not reformism because such socialists would not be campaigning for capitalist political democracy as an end in itself with their own reform programme for achieving power nor would we envisage them joining with non-socialists to campaign for this in these countries. What we envisage is socialists — such as any hypothetical Kurdish-speaking socialists in Turkey, Iraq. Iran or Syria — campaigning independently for this at the same time as campaigning for socialism. Certainly they cannot campaign for setting up a Kurdish State and still be regarded as socialists. That's what we’d call capitalist reformist politics.

Editors

Reallocating resources

Dear Editors,

The Rev. John Papworth who described stealing from a supermarket as a reallocation of resources has done a great service in drawing our attention to the nature of society, and how our concepts of behaviour and morality are related to our material circumstances.

While stealing may be regarded as immoral according to Christian teaching, there is much greater immorality in our economy in that it allocates resources in accordance with profit rather than need. It is understandable that a person with little or no monetary resources is tempted to steal in order satisfy his or her needs.

In a different, alternative kind of society, where people would have the freedom of access to the wealth produced, taking what you want would not be regarded as stealing and would, therefore, not be regarded as immoral.

George Pearson, 

London SW20

Reply:

What would Michael Howard. Jack Straw and all the other defenders of capitalist morality and legality make of the following news item sent us by a reader in Canada?

"STATE OF NEED" SUCCESSFUL AS THEFT DEFENCE IN FRANCE

A court dismissed shoplifting charges against a woman who admitted stealing food to feed her children, based its ruling on a turn-of-the-century law favouring the needy. 

Supermarkets where the theft occurred said they would appeal the decision by a court in Poitiers. 320 kilometres southwest of Paris. 

Annick Grippon, 36, admitted shoplifting meat and sausages on several occasions to feed her three-year-old son and teenage daughter. 

Her lawyer, Philippe Brottier, found a nearly century-old "state of need" defence used by courts to dismiss cases against hungry citizens who stole bread.

(Times Colonist, 2 March)

Letters: Religion, Atheism and Materialism (1996)

Letters to the Editors from the March 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

Religion, Atheism and Materialism

Dear Editors,

The review of Bill Mcllroy's pamphlet, Foundations of Modern Humanism (January) is a history of the movement to break free from the shackles of superstition. It is, therefore, of necessity a history of assorted radicals. Liberals and Tories who, often at great personal cost, opposed religion and the barbaric blasphemy laws of their day.

The history of eighteenth and nineteenth century humanism, like the history of the Tolpuddle martyrs, does not deal with socialism because it took place before there was an organised socialist movement.

Unless people can cast off the superstitious beliefs inculcated by priests, shamans and witch doctors then it is impossible to build a more rational society. The Freethinker and Bill Mcllroy's pamphlet, like the Socialist Standard, are first class at depicting the tyranny of religion. And whilst it is true to say that the Socialist Standard provides a socialist analysis of the case against religion which is missing from Foundations of Modern Humanism, surely that is beyond the scope of the period with which the pamphlet deals.

Carl Pinel, 

Stockport

Reply:
Actually, you are wrong. The early rationalist and socialist movements did exist at the same time and the key figure in 19th century rationalism, Charles Bradlaugh, was a notorious opponent of Socialism. For him, there was nothing wrong with capitalism as an economic system. All he wanted was capitalism without religion. So our reviewer was right to point out that Socialists are opposed to such "bourgeois free thinkers" who attack religion and nothing else.

Then of course there is Karl Marx. He had become an atheist in the 1840s (having been brought up as a Protestant Christian) before he became a Socialist. His criticism of religion, however, was different from that of the bourgeois free thinkers of his day since he made the point that the criticism of religion led to a criticism of the social conditions that gave rise to religion. Or rather should lead to such a criticism, and it was precisely because pure-and-simple atheists did not make this step that he criticised them too.

The social conditions which gave rise to religion were not, in Marx's view, feudalism (that only gave rise to a particular type of religious belief) but any society in which the great bulk of the population were denied control of the products of their labour and in which these products therefore confronted them as an outside, alien force controlling their lives. Religion—and its core belief that only some outside super-being, not humans themselves, by their own collective efforts, can bring about a better world—reflects this lack of power and lack of control over their own lives which most people experience. But most people experience this under capitalism too, which is based, precisely, on their exclusion from the ownership and control of society's productive resources and on the subordination of production to blind and uncontrollable market forces.

So, a consistent criticism of religion leads to a criticism of capitalism. In fact Marx’s analysis leads to the conclusion that religion won’t die out on a mass scale till capitalism is replaced by Socialism as a society where people do control the products of their labour and so their destinies generally.

As long as capitalism continues—or at least until there is a mass, conscious and self-confident movement for Socialism— religion, as the anti-human doctrine that we humans can’t control our lives but need the help of some outside super-being, will continue to survive in one form or another. The form changes—traditional religious beliefs are being replaced by New Age mumbo-jumbo—but as long as humans don’t in fact control their lives then religious beliefs will survive.

In not working for Socialism. but just attacking religion, bourgeois free-thinkers and pure-and-simple atheists are in fact hindering the achievement of their own proclaimed goal of a world without religion.

Editors

Based on common sense

Dear Editors,

I am very interested in your statement, in reply to a letter in the January Standard, that “such people [those who believe in an after-life] are ineligible to join the Socialist Party (but they can be sympathisers)”.

Neither the Party’s adverts in the Guardian nor its published aims state that atheism is a condition of membership—in fact, they don't mention religion at all. At the end of the Declaration of Principles it says: "Anyone agreeing with the above principles and wishing to join should apply to nearest branch or Head Office.” If anyone who is a theist, or is at least open to the possibility of the existence of God and an after-life, agrees with the principles, why should he or she not be allowed to become a member of the Party?

I have recently read your excellent pamphlet From Capitalism To Socialism. Apart from the statement on page 12: "Wars are not fought over pious ideals like justice, nationhood, democracy or religion”, there is no mention of religion. Neither is there any mention of Karl Marx. It is based on common sense and nothing that a religious believer or someone who had never even heard of Marx could not agree with.

Have you thought through the implications of your permission for people with religious beliefs to be “sympathisers"? You are, in effect, saying to such people "although we think you are mis-guided fools and although we sneer at you every month, we will gladly take your money, whether it be in payment for our journal or in donations for the support of candidates in the General Election".

Bryan Fair, 

London NW7

Reply:
The reason why the Socialist Party doesn't admit religious people to membership is that we regard their views, on what is after all a key issue (the nature of human existence), as wrong. In the same way, people who want to support the Labour Party or who think that Russia was socialist are not admitted to membership.

Actually, although this is, probably inevitably, how others would classify us, we do not call ourselves “atheists”. The word “Atheism” suggests a concern with opposing religious ideas in particular whereas we are concerned with promoting socialists ideas. (In fact pointing out the mistaken ideas of religious people only forms a small part of our activity, as you have noticed.) We prefer to describe ourselves as “materialists”, i.e. as people who hold that all we humans know, and can know, is derived from the experiences of our senses of the material world that surrounds us and of which we are a part.

The existence of a super-being called god or of an afterlife for humans is theoretically possible, as part of this material world. These can’t be ruled our a priori. However, neither of these hypotheses has been confirmed in accordance with methods and tests of science—the phenomena brought forward to confirm them can be much more plausibly explained in other ways. A rational, logical person ought therefore to dismiss them as disproved hypotheses.

Religious people do not do this. They are therefore thinking illogically. This wouldn’t be so bad (Socialist Party members don’t think logically all the time) if it didn’t concern a key aspect of the Socialist case: human nature.

The materialist approach, which Socialists take, sees humans as the product of biological and social evolution (not the creation of some super-being), that individual humans have brains and minds which cease to exist when they die (and not souls or a spirit that pre-dates birth and survives death), and that the only way humans can improve their lives is by their own collective efforts (not by relying on some outside intervention from some super-being or beings). This life is the only one we arc going to get and we should therefore try to make it the best possible both for individual humans and for the whole human species. Given the present stage of human social evolution, this can only be done within the framework of a society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth’s resources.

This is the, if you like, "philosophical’’ basis of the case for socialism. It follows from a scientific approach to human existence and problems. Religious people don't, and can’t share, this view. They can only see this life as some sort of preparation for a better life after death. Since not all of them are committed to the pessimistic and anti-human doctrine of the depraved nature of humans (though they have to be if they arc orthodox followers of the world’s two main religions, Christianity and Mohammedanism), some unorthodox religious people can find a religious justification for wanting Socialism. We know from experience that such people exist (perhaps you are one). What they then do is up to them. Some subscribe to the Socialist Standard or support our work in other ways. They don’t need our permission to do this. It’s their choice made, presumably, in the knowledge of our views on religion.

Editors

Could Jesus be a member?

Dear Editors,

I read with interest the letter from Max Hess of Folkestone, and your reply, both in the January issue. I am not religious, indeed I am anti-religion when I consider the many problems and bloodshed that religion has caused throughout the ages, but when it comes to being a believer in an afterlife and also a believer in Socialism, I find I have some sympathy for what Max Hess has to say.

I was pleased to read in your reply that you accept that there can be believers in an afterlife who also want socialism. This is the first time I have known you to make this assertion. But I find it difficult to understand how anyone sincerely believing in the necessity to abolish capitalism, and at the same time having an afterlife conviction, can automatically be ineligible for membership of the Party, even though I appreciate your concern about anyone holding membership who could undermine the Party’s claim to rational, logical argument.

Whether God is, or is not, a socialist is not worthy of argument, but it is interesting to note that much of what Jesus taught and did could qualify him for membership.

George Pearson, 

London SW20

Reply:

You say that it is not worth arguing whether or not so-called "God” is a socialist (we agree, but only get into such futile arguments because some people claim that he, she or it is), but you then go on to suggest that another mythological figure could qualify as one!

But there is no historical evidence that there was such a person as Jesus. The New Testament was written years after the time he was supposed to have lived, while references to him in ancient non-Christian writings have long been exposed as forgeries by mediaeval monks.

What undoubtedly did exist was a break-away Jewish sect known as "Christians" because they believe in the imminent second coming of a mythical demi-god they called "Christ” who would save them. They were millenarians who believed, rather like today’s Jehovah's Witnesses, that the end of the world was nigh and so attached no importance to human efforts to try to establish a better world down here. In other words, the exact opposite of the socialist approach.

To tell the truth, we can't think of a single thing their mythological founder is supposed to have taught and done that would qualify him as a socialist.

Editors

Letters: Anti-War Meeting (1990)

Letters to the Editors from the November 1990 issue of the Socialist Standard


Anti-War Meeting

Dear Editors

I attended the meeting at Conway Hall on Tuesday 11th September when the subject discussed was 'the Gulf Crisis’. The speakers put the Socialist case very powerfully which clearly illustrated the true and fundamental nature of the crisis—oil; and the one who had lived in Kuwait gave valuable information on the history of the State and the existing circumstances of the people.

I had to leave early and it maybe that the debate with the audience livened up and took a more serious turn after I had gone, but I left feeling disappointed and with a general impression that the sound arguments of the Socialist Party had been delivered in a manner inclined to beget antagonism from the general public. I felt that a degree of recognition of the dilemma of the Western Powers and the act of aggression by Saddam Hussein would not have been out of place. No thinking person will disagree with the diagnosis of the Party and their assertion that international war is inherent in the capitalist system, but given the circumstances of our obscene capitalist world what other outcome could we expect?

Would you not agree that some glimmer of hope arises from the fact that the United Nations, whatever their motives, have shown unification in their condemnation of aggression by a militarily powerful State over a small and militarily weak one? This surely cannot be a bad thing! It is a move, however inadequate we may regard it, towards a semblance of co-operation, which I would have thought would give some encouragement to Socialists, who by the nature of their philosophy advocate co-operation and not competition. Who knows—the co-operation idea could catch on and develop in other spheres! Similarly, I think Socialists can be encouraged by the Green Party which, though not fully understanding the nature of commodity production, has come to understand that in order to solve the ecological problems facing us we must take a serious look at the mode and manner of the production process.

Like members of the Socialist Party I want the Socialist case to become widely known and to be properly understood. This is no easy task for the Socialist Party—our rotten system is deeply ingrained into the minds and manners of men and it is going to take a lot to remove it. Maybe sometimes a softer approach rather than a bullheaded all-out condemnation of the efforts of those who try to bring about some improvement within existing conditions is required. I put it to you.

George Pearson

London SW20

Reply:
You are quite mistaken about the United Nations. Like the old League of Nations this is a "league of bandits" bringing together the political representatives of all the ruling classes in the world. It can only act with the agreement and acquiescence of the dominant capitalist States— America, Russia, Britain, France and China—and is being used on this occasion as a flag of convenience under which the Western powers are mustering to prepare any military action that might be necessary to protect the security of their oil supplies. We see nothing hopeful in such military co-operation to defend the commercial interests of the capitalists of the West.

We can and do recognise hopeful developments within capitalism but this does not extend to preparations for war.

Editors.

Holier than thou?

The following report of the same meeting appeared in the October 1990 issue of "World Revolution".

On 11 September the Socialist Party of Great Britain held a public meeting on the Gulf crisis. This meeting was called on a working class terrain, since the SP denounces both sides in the conflict as equally obnoxious from the standpoint of the workers.

The ICC comrades present at this meeting affirmed our agreement with this basic class position. Or rather, attempted to affirm it, because our efforts to do so were drowned in a cascade of objections from the praesidium. Normally at SPGB meetings we are not obstructed from putting forward our positions. We can only assume that this sea-change occurred because this was a big meeting with the ‘gentlemen of the press' present, and the SPGB wanted to present itself nationally as the only force in British (parliamentary) politics to be taking a stand against the war. The SPGB was clearly embarrassed that the 'Leninists' of the ICC, who they like to lump in with leftist groups like the SWP, were taking an even more intransigent stand than they were. This sectarian attitude, which is based on the idea that the SP alone in the entire world defends the interests of the working class, is moreover rooted at the very heart of the SP's politics.

However, all the provisions made by the praesidium to run a tight ship at the meeting did not prevent them from clashing against the rocks when the simple and obvious question was posed to them by a member of the audience: what should workers do about the situation?’

The point is not that this is an easy question to answer in a detailed fashion, but that the SP cannot answer it even in principle. They had no answer in the First World War, nor in the Second, and they still don't have an answer today.

This is because they have no conception of the working class as an active force in history. They are completely lost in a fantasy in which the working class comes to power through the mechanisms of bourgeois democracy, through elections and such-like. Therefore, they cannot answer the question of how the mass of the working class can act to avert war.

And the only ’answer' they could give to the questioner was to tell her, essentially, to join the SP—and hope that this would be as individually fulfilling for her as it was for them!

Reply:
We are heartened that we are not alone in taking up the position that the threatening war in the Middle East is a capitalist conflict over oil and trade, routes-and that no issue is at stake, on either side, justifying the sacrifice of the life of a single member of the working class.

What to do? When war threatens or breaks out, all that Socialists can do is to denounce this as yet another manifestation of the barbarity of capitalism and to reaffirm that the workers of the world have a common interest in uniting to end capitalism and establish socialism as a world community without frontiers based on the common ownership and democratic control of the world's natural and industrial resources.

Readers interested in (if they have not already guessed) our views on the ICC and their admiration for Lenin are referred to an article in the August 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard (available from our Head Office for the price of a stamped addressed envelope). Those who want to verify that the meeting was conducted in our habitual democratic manner can purchase the tape-recording of the meeting—as, indeed, we urge all those interested in the socialist position on the Gulf crisis to do.

Editors.

Working without jobs (1980)

From the December 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

From 'Radio Times' (12.9.80)

I thought the speakers in The Collapse of Work (13 August Radio 4) tended to confuse rather than clarify. 'Work’ is the expenditure of muscular and mental energy: ‘employment’ is the result of a buying and selling transaction in which muscular and mental energy is sold to an employer in return for wages.

To suggest that employment is necessary to get satisfaction from life is a gross misrepresentation of its nature. The majority of us have to do monotonous, repetitive. unsatisfying jobs for most of our lives in order to receive the means whereby to live, and the work involved is not motivated by a need to satisfy a basic instinct, or to serve society. It is an undesirable aspect of our lives which is imposed on us by the structure of society. ‘Work' on the other hand, is a basic need in man’s make-up and he doesn’t need the incentive of wages to do it.

Only by a fundamental restructuring of society, by the abolition of the class structure based on the private (or State) ownership of the means of production, and with it the wages system, can we look forward to a society free of unemployment problems.

George Pearson

London SW20