A New World Order (1952)

From the April 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Sunday Observer in an editorial commenting on Mr. Churchill’s address to Congress quoted Mr. Churchill as saying:—

"The British Commonwealth is not prepared to become a State or a group of States in any continental system on either side of the Atlantic.”

And remarks, “He thus ruled out any merger of sovereignty, not only in a European but in an Atlantic context.”

The editorial later continued with another excerpt from the speech. How in the last eight years, "former allies have become foes. Former foes have become allies. Conquered nations have been liberated. Liberated nations have become enslaved by Communism.”

Then asks, “Is that aimless round to go on for ever? Is the world not ripe, both technically and psychologically, for a different system of international affairs, for a new world order?” (Observer, January 20th, 1952.)

The Observer means by “a different system of international affairs” and “a new world order” some sort of political union between the Western countries better fitted “than the present coalition not only to wage war, if necessary, but also to prevent war indefinitely.”

If it is possible “ to prevent war indefinitely ” why that talk of “waging war, if necessary ”?

The Federation of the United States of America and the association of nations united in common allegiance to the British Crown don’t seem to have been very useful in preventing war as the history of these countries show.

Federal union or any other form of union, far from lessening the risk of war, brings with it a greater chance of war—and greater war at that! The present demand for union has only arisen from the threat of war with a rival union of capitalist states. A union of states also involved the risk of a war because some member state wishes to secede.

Mr. Churchill says in the last eight years foes have become allies, allies foes. Conquered nations liberated, liberated nations enslaved. This has not only happened the last eight years. It has happened throughout the last 300 years.

Contrary to the opinion of the Observer editorial, it isn’t the political relationships between states which distinguish the form of the “world order,” but the social relationship men enter into to provide their food, clothing and other needs. Under Capitalism, the present world order, society is divided into two classes. The distinguishing basic social relationship existing between these classes arises because one class, the capitalist class, own and control the means and instruments for producing wealth, and consequently, the other class, the working class, having no other access to the means of living, must sell their labour power to live. To this relationship can be traced the major evil, war. The difference between what the working class produce and what they receive for their subsistence motivates capitalist production. To realise as large a share as possible of the surplus value, as this unpaid labour of the workers is called, the various sections of the world capitalist class come into conflict with each other over markets, where goods can be sold, over sources of raw materials, and over strategic points controlling trade routes. This struggle leads to war. Political states represent the different groups of capitalists, and when the economic interests of any group is at stake the national capitalist state will protect those interested with armed, force, if necessary.

Political union is no solution. The only way to prevent war is to abolish the social relationships which give rise to it The Observer must be taken literally when it expresses the desire for a new world order; but the only new order that matters must be based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production. Technically the time is ripe for this. Man's control over nature has advanced far enough to enable him to provide sufficient for all without any conflict, nationally or internationally, over the ownership of wealth. But the working class must acquire socialist understanding. They must realise Capitalism is the cause of their troubles and that socialism is the only solution. Bring about the change by endorsing the case of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

J.T.

Old Tales retold (1948)

From the November 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

Propagating Socialism is like spending an afternoon at a fair ground shooting clay pigeons down; you shoot them down, they place them up; you shoot them down again, up they come again. It is the same with arguments against Socialism.

The “you can’t change human nature” argument is an example. Those who put it forward usually know very little about human nature or human history, which is much the same thing. As Marx wrote in the “Poverty of Philosophy” :

“All history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature.” (Marxist Leninist Library Edition, p. 124.)

The characteristic traits men have expressed in societies based on private property are different from the traits expressed by men in the period termed prehistory. This period, prehistory, has formed by far the greater part of man’s existence on earth. The people who say you can’t change human nature usually give as evidence to support their belief the behaviour of politicians who are all for the working class when standing for election but when in power are different. Whatever we may think of this statement it doesn’t support their contention that human nature doesn’t change, but defeats it, as it implies that people act differently when their circumstances are altered.

Another example is the argument tendered by Mr. Winston Churchill at the Conservative rally in London, quoted in the Observer (13/6/48) : “Socialism is the philosophy of failure and the gospel of envy.”

This argument can’t hold up to a moment’s analysis. Robert Owen, the Utopian, who first coined the term Socialism, was a wealthy textile manufacturer. Frederick Engels, one of the formulators of scientific Socialist theory, was also a successful business man.

The “failure” argument is based on the false assumptions that society is alright and the trouble lies within ourselves.

Those who maintain that the trouble lies within ourselves claim their assertion has a scientific basis in the theories of the psycho-analytical school of psychologists. An essential feature of science is verification by experiment. Otto Fenickel wrote in “The Psychoanalytical Theory of Neurosis,” published by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.:

“The application of the general principles of natural science to psychology naturally presupposes the development of new methods of research that are adequate to its subject matter. Attempts to keep the mental realm outside of causal and quantitative thinking . . . thwart real insight as does also a pseudo exactness which believes it necessary to transfer the biological methods of experiment and scientific protocol to a field where these methods are not suitable (astronomy also is unable to resort to experiments and nevertheless is a natural science).” (Page 7.)

To call psycho-analysis a science before these new methods of objective verification have been discovered is to beg the question. Verification of astronomical theories is made when an eclipse or the position of some heavenly body is forecast.

What agreement is there between the various schools of psycho-analysis’? With Freud, the determining feature is sexual interests; with Adler lust for power and organ inferiority; with Jung, racial consciousness and the theory of types, extrovert and introvert. All can’t be correct.

The other assumption is that society is alright. In capitalist society there are two classes. The capitalist class who own the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth and the working class who own nothing but their labour power which they must sell in order to live. According to statistics gathered by Sir John Orr, Seebohm Rowntree and others about one-third of the population don’t receive enough to keep themselves in health. It can’t be unemployment that is the cause of their poverty, because in the years before the war about one-fifteenth of the working class were out of work. This doesn’t account for the plight of one-third of the population. Nor is their poverty caused by buying fish suppers and strong drink, as they don’t receive sufficient money it doesn’t matter how they spend it. It doesn’t make any difference which Party of capitalism is in power, whether it is Conservative, Liberal, Labour or a Coalition, the conditions remain the same.

Statistics don’t tell you anything, opponents argue; or statistics can prove anything. Well, they can’t have it both ways. The every-day business of capitalist society is carried on with the use of statistics, for example, how many special trains will be required on Derby day? How many special postmen for the Christmas week? Society is the laboratory where social statisticians verify the accuracy of their methods.

The social investigators mentioned were all staunch defenders of the capitalist order of society.

The Socialist can accept their figures and conclude from them that the poverty of the working class follows from the fact that the working class must sell their labour power to the capitalist class in order to live. Common ownership of the means of living with free access to all is the only solution to the problem.

J. T.

A word of advice to Labour Party supporters (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Labour Party is searching for a policy. The nationalisation of the basic industries and the extension of the social services have been brought about and still the position of the working class remains unchanged, the workers must sell their ability to work for a wage that scarcely buys the necessities of life. At the last general election a large number of workers showed their discontent with the Labour Party’s administration by placing the Tories in power. To rally the support of the workers next time, a host of publications have been issued recently by the Labour Party and groups within it. All attempt to find some new solution to the problems of Capitalism, since nationalisation and the welfare state have failed to solve them.

One of these publications, the “New Fabian Essays,” was reviewed in the Economist (May 25th, 1952). The reviewer wrote:—

“Mr. Crosland presents a skilful analysis of the mixed economy, neither Capitalism nor Socialism, that war and six years of Labour rule have created. Mr. Strachey thinks rather well of the result and Mr. Crossman, naturally, dismisses it contemptuously as ‘welfare capitalism.' Neither manages to define the Socialism which he wants to evolve from it. Mr. Crosland himself effectively challenges the stock Left-wing assumption that the mixed economy is naturally transitory and must pass quickly into some sort of Socialism; and he dismisses several of the orthodox lines of advance—more social services, more nationalisation, more controls, more direct taxation—without making the alternatives at all clear . . . 

“. . . . The gross result is certainly not even the beginnings of a new philosophy either of socialist change or of consolidation in the welfare state."

The Glasgow Forward (23rd August, 1952) commented upon another of these publications:—

“The Labour Party's latest policy statement—ironically titled 'Facing the Facts'—has met with all-round criticism. It tries to please everybody in the party and ends of pleasing nobody. At the moment the Labour Party is suffering from too many personalities, too many platitudes—and too few policies."

Another pamphlet published by the Socialist Union, “Socialism—A Restatement of Principles,” is called by the Tribune (11th July, 1952) “ Sunday School Socialism.” According to the Economist (June 28th, 1952), the pamphlet argues that “The Labour movement is not . . . concerned with overthrowing Capitalism and replacing it by something called Socialism . . . All the social and economic changes from the Capitalism of the nineteenth century cannot be seen as part of the transition to some definite socialist system . . .” 

From this the pamphlet goes on to protest against the class war as an instrument of socialist advance: it declares roundly that the programmes and thoughts of socialists “have all grown out of the discontents of the past, and were designed to meet the injustices of a past age it not only objects to the identification of nationalisation with Socialism, but asks whether anyone knows what “socialisation” means. . . .

“All this is, of course, destructive,” wrote the Economist. “Positively, socialist union offers as yet ethical, not political, principles; and the best of ethics can lead men to almost any practical conclusion.”

Over 70 years ago. Frederick Engels had something to say about the relation of ethics to Socialism which was later published as “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Here Engels traced the origin and development of Socialism, its historical conditions and philosophical ideas. He called those who sought to bring about a better society by appealing to ethical principles. Utopians. He wrote:

"The ‘Utopians” mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the nineteenth century. and still governs some of them. Until very recently all French and English socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling was of the same school. To all these Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding. his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive one of the other. Hence from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England. Hence a mish-mash allowing of the most manifold shades of opinion, a mish-mash of such critical statements, economic theories, pictures of future society by the founders of the different sects, as excite a minimum of opposition, a mish-mash which is the more easily brewed, the more the definite sharp edges of the individual constituents are rubbed down in the stream of debate, like rounded pebbles in a brook.

“To make a science of Socialism, it had first to be placed upon a real basis.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, pp. 117-8, Marx Engels' Sel. Works, published by Lawrence & Wishart, Ltd.)

As the foregoing comments on the Labour publications show, Engels’ words also describe the Labourites of the 20th century.

Engels pointed to the working class struggles in the early 19th century and argued that these ’’facts more and more strenuously gave the lie to the teachings of bourgeois economy as to the identity of the interests of capital and labour. As to the universal harmony and universal prosperity that would be the consequence of unbridled competition . . .”

"The new facts made imperative a new examination of all past history. Then it was seen that all past history, with the exception of its primitive stages, was the history of class struggles; that these warring classes of society are always the products of the modes of production and of exchange—in a word, of the economic conditions of their time; that the economic structure of society always furnishes the real basis, starting from which we can alone work out the ultimate explanation of the whole superstructure of juridical and political institutions as well as the religious, philosophical and other ideas of a given historical period. . . .”

"The Socialism of earlier days certainly criticised the existing capitalist mode of production and its consequences. But it could not explain them, and therefore, could not get the mastery of them. It could only simply reject them as bad. The more strongly this earlier Socialism denounced the exploitation of the working class, inevitable under Capitalism, the less able was it clearly to show in what this exploitation consisted and how it arose. But for this it was necessary—(1) to present the capitalistic mode of production in its historical connection and its inevitableness during a particular historical period, and therefore, also, to present its inevitable downfall; and (2) lo lay bare its essential character, which was still a secret. This was done by the discovery of surplus value. It was shown that the appropriation of unpaid labour is the basis of the capitalist mode of production and of the exploitation of the worker that occurs under it; that even if the capitalist buys the labour power of his labourer at its full value as a commodity on the market, he yet extracts more value from it than he paid for; and that in the ultimate analysis this surplus value forms those sums of value from which are heaped up the constantly increasing masses of capital in the hands of possessing classes. The genesis of capitalist production and production of capital were both explained.” (“Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” Vol. II, M.E.S.W., pp. 123-5.)

After tracing the development of modern social production from small handicraft, Engels wrote:

“The means of production, and production itself, had become in essence socialised. But they were subjected to a form of appropriation which presupposes the private production of individuals, under which, therefore, everyone owns his own product and brings it to the market. The mode of production is subjected to this form of appropriation although it abolishes the conditions upon which the latter rests.

“This contradiction, which gives to the new mode of production its capitalistic character, contains the germ of the whole of the social antagonism of to-day.” (M.E.S.W.. Vol. II. pp. 128-9.)

Engels explained in detail the social antagonisms that follow from this fundamental contradiction and pointed out how it would be eliminated ”with the seizing of the means of production by society.” (P. 140.)

By this Engels didn’t mean nationalisation. He claimed that

"the transformation . . . into state ownership does not do away with the capitalistic nature of the productive forces . . . the modern State . . . is only the organisation that bourgeois society takes on in order to support the external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against the encroachments as well of the workers as the individual capitalists. The modem State, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers—proletarians.” (P. 136.) 

Members and sympathisers of the Labour Party seeking a policy to which they can give their support should lay hold of ”Socialism: Utopian and Scientific,” and read it carefully. They can find it included in “Marx, Engels, Selected Works,” Vol. II. The language may reflect the conditions under which it was written, but as an exposition of the rise and development of capitalist society and the solution to its problems. Socialism, it is right up to date.

We hope that many of them would then realise that the object of their policy should be the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of production and that to ” thoroughly comprehend the historical conditions and thus the very nature of this act, to impart to the now oppressed proletarian class a full knowledge of the conditions and of the meaning of the momentous act it is called upon to accomplish, this is the task of the theoretical expression of the proletarian movement, scientific Socialism.”

J. T.

The Suez Canal in World Affairs (1953)

From the July 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Suez Canal is the gateway to the Orient, the connecting link between East and West, between Britain and the members of the Commonwealth in the East.

The story of the Canal and the struggle for control of this area is told by Hugh J. Schonfield in “The Suez Canal in World Affairs,” published by Constellation Books, London.

Many centuries ago the wealth of the East was brought to the Mediterranean via Egypt. About 2,000 years B.C. a canal was built joining the Red Sea and the Nile. This canal, called the Canal of the Pharoahs, was silted up and rebuilt during successive reigns and renamed under succeeding empires. Finally it was closed in 776 A.D. while Egypt was under Arab domination. Then trade between the East and West declined, in the 13th and 14th centuries Marco Polo and other travellers opened up the Northern Overland route to India and China. The growth of the aggressive power of Turkey blocked this route. A new route was sought. Christopher Columbus sailed west and Vasco de Gama rounded the Cape of Good Hope. The Cape route gave successively the monopoly of Eastern trade to the Portuguese, the Dutch, the French and the British. To gain and maintain this monopoly Britain made herself mistress of the seas.

France with her southern seaboard on the Mediterranean was interested in opening up the ancient route to the East through Egypt. But competition with the Cape route was impossible while goods had to be carried by camel to Alexandria, then transhipped. A canal between Suez and Cairo was suggested, but the political and practical obstacles seemed insurmountable. Egypt was part of the Ottoman Empire and it was thought that there was a difference of 30ft. in the sea levels of the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. English merchants aware of French designs sought privileges in Egypt. Both French and English governments sought influence in Egypt and Turkey and when war broke out between England and France in 1793, France tried to establish herself there, but Britain put an end to these territorial ambitions by defeating the French at the Battle of the Nile.

About 30 years after, an Englishman Lieut. Waghorn started a postal route to India via Egypt demonstrating practically the advantages of this route. Engineers investigated the question of the difference in sea levels and a sect founded by the utopian socialist Saint Simon set up an organisation to examine the question of a canal financially and technically. An alternative scheme for building a railroad was put forward, supported by Britain. But France continued to retain her interest in the canal. Both Governments sought concessions from the Viceroy of Egypt who played the one against the other. When the Viceroy died, Britain received a concession to build a railroad because she had paid court to his successor. The dispute between France and Britain might have become serious if they had not been already allied in prosecuting the Crimean War.

The advantage gained by Britain was offset when Ferdinand de Lesseps received a concession from Mahomet Said, the next Viceroy, authorising him to form an international company to build a canal. The British Government opposed the venture and effectively warned off British capital from taking part in it. But after the construction of the canal Britain realised her mistake and bought up about half the shares. Then in 1882 when rioting broke out in Alexandria British troops took possession. Britain wished to preserve the right to defend the Canal if any Power attacked Egypt and to guarantee with other Powers to keep the Canal open in peace and in war. Other Powers disagreed but a compromise was reached with the Convention of 1888, which made Turkey nominal guardian and guaranteed to keep the Canal open in any circumstances. But Britain still remained in Egypt.

Germany, seeking means of expansion, seized on the possibilities of the undeveloped near East and set out to build the Berlin-Bhagdad Railway which would offset Britain's domination of Egypt and her use of the Suez Canal. When war broke out between Britain and Germany in 1914, Egypt lined up with Britain and closed the Canal to enemy shipping. Turkey, seeking to regain control in Egypt set out to invade it. Britain made Egypt a Protectorate and with the defeat of Germany and Turkey became guardian of the Canal.

In 1922, Egypt was declared an independent stale but the Egyptian Government was dissatisfied with the conditions of the declaration. Italy's longstanding threat to Britain in the Mediterranean culminated in the declaration of war against France and Britain in 1940. The Canal was attacked by air and Egypt was attacked by land from Libya. Because of Italy's lack of success Germany took a hand. For a considerable time the Mediterranean was closed to allied shipping but with the halting of Rommel at El Alamein the Canal was made safe to send aid to Russia in the effort to defeat the Japanese in the Far East.

Since World War II, Egypt has sought to terminate the 1936 Agreement which allows British troops to occupy the Canal Zone. But Egypt, like all other belligerents in war, has shown that she won't pay any attention to the 1888 Convention which guaranteed to keep the Canal open to all shipping in peace or war. In the conflict between Israel and the Arab League, Egypt stopped supplies going to Israel.

Mr. Schonfield's story of the Canal shows its importance to the capitalist Powers in peace and in war.

Today Egypt wants Britain to evacuate her troops from the Canal Zone but Britain is reluctant to do so until she is assured of strong Middle East defences. Certain sections of British capitalist class opinion would like to make the Canal Zone the central base in these defences because of its geographical position, and oppose handing over to Egypt this base with its hundreds of millions of pounds worth of installations. Other sections of the British capitalist class remember the limited use of the Canal during the two world wars and its vulnerability to land attack and are of the opinion that the North East Mediterranean coast with the mountains behind forming a barrier to landborne troops would provide a more suitable base. They claim that the Canal will decline in importance with the increasing use of air instead of the sea for conveying troops and equipment.

To understand why the Canal is important it is necessary to know something about present day society. The means of producing society’s needs are owned by a small section of society, the capitalist class, and the vast majority, the working class, must sell their labour power to the few who own those means of production. In exchange for their labour power the workers receive wages that are very often barely enough to live on. What the workers produce over their wages allows the capitalist class to live comfortably and increase their capital. To realise this surplus the capitalist class must sell their goods and must find raw materials with which they can be produced. This means that there must be trade routes to bring the raw materials from where they are produced to where they are needed and to take the finished articles to the markets where they can be sold. And to protect these trade routes in event of war the different sections of the capitalist class struggle for control of strategic points.

Mr. Schonfield would like to sec the dream of Ferdinand de Lesseps come true. He would like the Canal used for the benefit of humanity. He would like the Canal used to build up the backward countries and raise their standards of living. But if the Canal is to be used for the benefit of humanity the means of living will have to be the property of all society. Then goods won’t be produced and exchanged for the profit of the few but distributed solely for the use of all.

J. T.

Holding the baby (1953)

From the June 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist class own the means and instruments for producing society’s needs. The working class must sell their ability to work to the capitalist class for wages which are often not sufficient to keep them according to the conventional standard of living. Many working-class women—unmarried mothers, widowed and deserted mothers, mothers whose husbands are disabled or whose husbands haven’t a large enough wage to support the family, are forced to take a job to augment their income and send their children to day nurseries.

Remarking on such cases, the “Economist” (April 4th, 1953), wrote :—

"The cost per head of keeping a child in a day nursery varies from thirty-five shillings a week to five pounds, according to staffing ratios and amenities. The average wage of adult working women is just under four pounds ten shillings a week. As a matter of plain arithmetic, this means that full cost of the productive services of a working woman who sends her children to a day nursery may easily be both her actual wage, paid by the employer, and an equal amount paid through the local authority that looks after her children. Where several children must be cared for, the full cost may be several times the value of the product—a wildly uneconomical transaction. Where nursery costs are highest it would pay, hands down, to give the mother of two or more children, her full market wage, plus a substantial bonus, simply to mind her babies at home. That normally gratuitous job turns out, when actually priced on the market, to be more valuable than most other occupations open to those doing it."

"This hard headed arithmetical conclusion does not translate easily into practical policy. Not even the wildest speculations of welfare Utopians have included a universal payment to mothers of the market value of their work as child-minders. There might be a case for making such payments, as an alternative to the provision of day nurseries, only to those women who would suffer special hardships if they could not go out to work—to widowed or deserted or unmarried mothers, or to wives of disabled husbands. But an economic payment to such people would make them better off than many normal wives dependent on a breadwinner’s earnings.

"The problem must in fact continue to be fudged rather than solved."

No doubt this appears a very ridiculous situation to the “Economist,” the capitalist class and those who think like them—in terms of exchange value and profit and loss. But the capitalist class are not likely to endorse the obvious solution. Free the working class from the need to sell their labour power to live—a job that can only be done by the workers themselves—by making the means and instrument of production the common property of all.

J.T.

The spectre of communism (1951)

From the March 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Over 100 years ago, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels jointly produced the most famous of all political pamphlets “The Communist Manifesto.” In the prefatory paragraphs they wrote:—

“A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of Communism. . . .

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of Communism, against the more advanced opposition parties as well as against its re-actionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European Powers to be itself a Power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself."

(S.P.G.B. edition, p. 59) 

When these words were written capitalism was developing in Europe. In England and France the capitalist class had obtained political power and the working class were making demands for political liberty. In other countries the workers supported the rising capitalist class against the feudal aristocracy. The hopes, dreams and aspirations of the more advanced workers were expressed in vague utopian communist ideas. This made the rising capitalist class “tremble in their shoes” and drove them to seek alliance with the feudalists powers.

It was Marx who made the discovery

“that in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organisation necessarily following from it form the basis upon which is built up and from which alone can be explained, the political and intellectual history of the epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited; ruling and oppressed classes; that the history of these class struggles form a series of evolution in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class—the proletariat—cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class—the bourgeoisie—without, at the same time, and once and for all emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction and class struggles." 

(Engels Preface to 1888 Ed., Communist Manifesto, S.P.G.B. Ed., p. 56).

With Engels, Marx applied this theory to the changes taking place in society and brilliantly sketched an outline of this development in the "manifesto.” 

They pointed out how the voyages of discovery in the latter part of 15th and the earlier part of the 16th centuries created a world market, giving incentive to the growth of industry and commerce. The inability of the existing methods of production to satisfy the demand forced the rising capitalist class to seek political power for the abolition of the restrictions which feudalism placed on production. Methods of production kept developing. The new methods, wherever they took root supplanted the older methods uprooting the old way of living and its traditional beliefs. The development of the means of production concentrated property into fewer hands, driving more people into the ranks of the working class, reducing society into two classes—the capitalist class, who own and control the means of production and the working class who, having no property in the means of production, must sell their labour power to live. The workers, due to the pressure of the circumstances in which they find themselves, must struggle to better their conditions. This struggle will ultimately lead the workers of all countries to realise they have a common interest, the abolition of capitalist society, which is based on the private ownership of the means of production—the source of their exploitation—and the establishment of socialism, which is based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production.

Today, 100 years after the publication of the pamphlet, the area has extended. The spectre of Communism is no longer confined to Europe. It haunts the world. Again the “nursery tale of the spectre of Communism ” must be met.

Communist still remains one of the most common terms of abuse. Defenders of free speech in the Western democracies, brigands in hills of Greece, bandits in the jungles of Malaya are all classified under this epithet.

The terms socialism and communism mean the same thing, a classless form of society. Marx and Engels chose to use the term communism because it was associated with the working class movements of the time whereas socialism referred to utopian movements, composed of reformers, and men like Robert Owen who thought the change must be brought about from above by the “educated classes,” while Marx and Engels maintained the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class themselves (see Engels Intro to Manifesto). At the present time, the term communist usually refers to those who claim that Russia is a socialist country and endorse the Leninist-Stalinist interpretation of Marxist theories. They claim that socialism is the transitory stage to communism.

But according to the Chinese Communists the change taking place in China is “generally speaking, still a new-democratic revolution against imperialism and feudalism, and not a revolution of a socialist nature " (The Economist, Jan. 20th, 1951). Capitalism is developing in Asia, breaking up the age-old customs and beliefs, bringing with it Western ideas. The Chinese Communists are more truthful than their Russian predecessors and teachers, who stated that in Russia, at a similar stage in social development, a socialist revolution had taken place.

The underlying theory held by those who call themselves Communist, whichever nationality they claim, is that the working class can be led to socialism. This idea is principally the same as that of the “utopians” in 1848. It leaves out of account the economic conditions and the political development of the working class, and. therefore, it contradicts the fundamental Marxian theory quoted earlier in this article in Engels own words. The development of Russia since 1917 shows how this idea that socialism can be installed from above is false. Lenin regretted the need for the inequality of income which has now given rise to rouble millionaires. The law of inheritance was abolished and in later years restored. After the revolution, education was free, then later could be had at a fee; divorce laws were relaxed, and divorces easy to obtain, but now these laws have been changed and only the more privileged section of society can afford divorce.

These regressions demonstrate that it is impossible to construct socialism before certain conditions have arisen. These conditions arc a sufficiently developed means of production, which could provide the requisites for a comfortable living for all members of society and a working class, the majority of whom understand that only by the common ownership of the means for producing wealth can a comfortable living for all be obtained. Capitalism is run from top to bottom by the working class. If any socialist transformation is going to take place, the workers must want the change and know how to make it The change can’t take place in the face of their opposition. Society is a group of people with ideas in their heads; if it isn't socialist ideas then they will have non-socialist ones.

The task before the asiatic workers is the assimilation and the dissemination of socialist knowledge. Capitalism will look after the development of the means of production. Let these asiatic workers look after the other necessary condition for socialism, a majority of workers who know what socialism means and want it

And the task faring the workers in the more advanced Western world is the same. Learn what socialism is. When the workers in both Eastern and Western countries gain that knowledge they will obtain political power, and collectively set about to establish such a society. The main obstacle in the way of Socialism is that the workers don’t know what it means. Once they do, the obvious advantages of this system will compel the workers in the advanced countries to bring it about, and will bring their more backward brothers in swift pursuit.

J. T.

In search of a policy (1949)

From the December 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a front page article, the Daily Herald on Saturday, 15th October, 1949, derided Mr. Churchill and the Tory Party for having no policy. The headings read “Give me Blank Cheque—Churchill,” and in slightly smaller print, “ Still no Tory Policy.”

In a front page article in the Glasgow Forward, Mr. Emrys Hughes, the ex-editor and Labour M.P., demanded of the Labour Party a programme and policy for the tasks ahead. He writes: —

“But in our fight to keep the Tories out it is absolutely essential for Socialists to know where they are going and to have a programme and a policy for the tasks ahead.” (Forward, 8.10.1949.)

Of course, Mr. Hughes when he writes “ Socialists ” means members of the Labour Party. Then, writing of the problems confronting the capitalist class, he continues :—

“If we are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery, and to cut our costs to meet those of Poland, Belgium, France, Germany and Japan, how can we maintain our standards of life, maintain full employment and build up a sound economy in this country.”

He finishes his article with: —

“We want to win the General Election, but we have to answer these questions too.”

Why does Mr. Hughes want to win the General Election? Certainly not for the benefit of the working-class. These questions are not of any interest to the working-class.

The Tories haven't a policy. Labour hasn’t a policy. Then what are Mr. Hughes' reasons for supporting the Labour Party? If neither of the parties have a policy why should any of them be supported?

Mr. Hughes, who claims to be on the extreme Left Wing of the Labour Party, shows plainly which class interests he represents. “We are going to plunge into a competitive war to sell our coal, our textiles, our machinery.” The working-class, comprising about nine tenths of the population, have no coal, no textiles, no machinery to sell. They can’t buy sufficient coal or textiles to keep themselves warm. And what standards of life does he want to maintain? Surely not the standard of the working-class when about half of them barely have sufficient to live a healthy life. As for “full employment"; we are poor because we are employed. Employed by the capitalist class to produce wealth for them, and receive in return a bare subsistence wage.

No Party can offer a policy for the workers under capitalism. With the development of capitalism, the condition of working-class in relation to the wealth they produce grows steadily worse.

The only policy in working-class interests is the establishment of Socialism and in the oncoming General Election the only action that can be taken in working-class interests when a Socialist Party of Great Britain candidate isn’t available is to state the desire for one.

It is no use saying that the Socialist case is alright but the Labour Party is better than the Tories; that it is the lesser of two evils. Is it? Could the Tories get away with wage-freezing? It would have been a harder job for the Tories to convince the T.U.C. to restrain their wage demands.

J. T.

As the election approaches (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"As the election approaches—and no one yet knows how near it may be—domestic politics and party rivalries will be intensified and magnified. And obviously it is the duty of a responsible citizen to give careful thought to the party programmes and speeches, so that when he comes to vote he will do so with understanding of the issues involved. But he should not allow himself to be unduly impressed by extravagant party claims and battle-cries. For the differences between the parties are not nearly so wide and radical as the party champions will try to make out.

“One reason is that on many aspects of social policy all parties are broadly agreed. They all support the social services; no party is prepared to advocate drastic cuts in food subsidies; all parties declare that every effort must be made to raise exports, to make our industries more efficient, and to hold inflation in check.

“A further reason is that the country’s economic situation imposes its hard rule on all parties; it leaves them little room for independent manoeuvre. Whatever Government takes office after the election, it will be forced to pursue an economic policy not very different, in fundamentals, from the Labour Government’s policy now.”—(Observer, Sunday, October 9th 1949.)

So remarks the editorial of the Observer. Conservative and Labour Party supporters, please note.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain endorses all the Observer says, but with one exception. The remarks don’t apply to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. All other parties, whether avowedly capitalist or allegedly labour, accept Capitalism. Accepting Capitalism they accept crises and war. Capitalism just rolls on from crisis to crisis, war to war, and the permanent feature of it all is the poverty and misery of the working class. In times of prosperity—prosperity for the capitalist class—the workers are asked to restrict their wage demands so that the capitalists can meet their foreign competitors. During the slump, the workers, still at work, are forced to accept lower wages. They are told that this is the remedy for the problem of starting the wheels of production. During prosperity or slump, whether the country is a creditor or a debtor nation, whether successful or defeated in war, the position of the working class is the same, that of a propertyless class, forced to sell their capacity for work to eke out a bare existence. This is the economic situation you accept if you accept Capitalism.

We would insist that the worker follow the advice given by the Observer and “give careful thought to the party programmes and speeches,” and to be very careful he doesn't omit the principles and policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain.

All other parties accept Capitalism; the Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for its abolition and the establishment of Socialism—the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production— and expend all their energies in the furtherance of this object which, at present, means the spreading of socialist knowledge throughout the ranks of the working class. Read their literature. Listen to their speakers. Study Socialism,

J. T.

Truth will out (1949)

From the November 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The Socialist Party of Great Britain enters the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist.”

Under the present social system wealth takes the form of articles produced for sale; markets must be found for these goods and sources of raw materials for their manufacture.

The State exists to preserve this social set-up; abroad, government policy must protect trade routes, extend markets and find sources of raw materials; at home, the policies pursued must rationalise industry, strive to lower costs to allow the national capitalist class to compete with the capitalists abroad and maintain a high enough rate of profit to attract investors. The party holding the reins of government must pursue these policies if capitalism is to function.

The minor disagreements separating the various parties of capitalism centre around the extent the State should intervene in industry and which section of the capitalist class should bear the greatest burden of taxation. These are questions of interest to the capitalist class. It is not worth while for the working class to waste their time with them.

But the capitalist parties must seek the support of the working class, so the parties out of power blame the party in power for the existing conditions. They say the economic conditions are the result of the government's policy. But as has been shown the policies are the result of the economic conditions of capitalism. Adherents of these parties use all forms of abuse to discredit their opponents, but sometimes they let the cat out of the bag, like the editorial of the Observer, writing of the need to dispel certain beliefs held by American critics of aid to Britain:—

“The first belief—and for political reasons this has been given great prominence in our own press—is that all Britain’s economic ills are the result of misconceived and ill-timed Socialist policies. Conservative speakers here often make this charge—thus providing our critics in America with useful ammunition—but there is little substance in it.

“So far, the Government's only legislative acts which can be regarded as distinctively Socialist are its experiments in nationalisation. These may not have been conspicuously successful, but it is nonsense to suggest that they have had any marked effect on the country’s dollar earning capacity. Indeed, if the coal industry, for example, had not been nationalised, the country might well be in an even worse plight. The plan for nationalising the steel industry is, we believe, mistaken, and if it is put into practice it may do great harm. But at present it is only a plan; the steel industry is thriving under private enterprise.

“The rest of the Government’s policies, right or wrong, have not been distinctively Socialist. The Welfare State is supported by all parties; and the Conservatives are indeed promising, rather rashly, to extend its benefits in certain respects if they are returned to power after the election.”—(August 21st, 1949.)

The writer is confusing Socialism with nationalisation, but the implication is that whichever party had power similar policies would be maintained. The party in power must, like the crew of a sailing boat which fixes its sails according to the wind, adjust its policies to the economic need of capitalism.

Capitalism can only function in the interests of the capitalistic class, the interests of the working class lie in its abolition. The only alternative is Socialism, and there can be only one Socialist party in one country. Other so-called "Socialist" parties say their object is the same but their method of achieving it different, but you can't separate the means from the end; the means cannot be separated from the end. Their aim is not Socialism at all.

J. T.

The Welfare State (1950)

From the June 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

All the major political parties applaud the Welfare State. They vied with each other, during the election campaign, to claim credit for bringing it into existence. The Conservatives made the most of the fact that the government which set up the commission to inquire into the problem of reorganising the social services was a coalition Government predominantly Tory. The Liberals claimed their share of the glory because Sir William Beveridge, who gave his name to the report, was chairman of the Commission, and a Liberal. To the Labour Government was left the triumph of passing the legislation.

The truth about it all was that the so-called “Welfare State” arose not through the good will of any political party but because of the need to adapt the social services to the changing condition of capitalism. The need to allay any possible working class discontent after the war. Of course, it was a benefit to the health of the working class. That was another reason. To take advantage of post-war conditions and capture as many foreign markets as possible it was necessary to increase production. To do this a healthy efficient working class was needed.

But the capitalist class give with one hand and take back with the other.

The New Statesman and Nation, criticizing the Daily Mail's handling of the figures which led to the headline “Father Pays £34 9s. a year to Put Family of Four on the Panel,” makes some calculations of its own and comments:—

“This would make ‘fathers' payment for health services (Daily Mail calculation) around £23. or almost equal to the estimated benefit (Marshal Aid calculation) which a family receives under the scheme.”—(April 1st. 1950).

From these figures, as far as the health services are concerned, the working class are just getting what they pay for. The Economist in an article deals with the total social expenditure, and it quotes from the report of the E.C.A. Mission to the United Kingdom, “Facts about the British Economy.” Publishing a.table giving the Mission’s estimates The Economist writes: —

“The left-hand side of the table puts the total social expenditure for an average family—on the assumption that the population can be divided into families of four persons—at 57 shillings a week, including expenditure from the local rates and from the national insurance funds. The right-hand side of the table gives estimates of taxes paid by lower income families in 1948, taken as those with an income of under £500 in 1947. The total taxes estimated to be paid by such families who make up about 80 per cent. of the population, were larger than the whole of current social expenditure.” (The Economist, 1/4/50).

The socialist view is that the Welfare State won't abolish the poverty problem which confronts the working class out is just the best method the capitalist class have devised to distribute wages from the point of view of efficiency. When the Beveridge Report, the blue print of the Welfare State, was published, the Communist Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Party and some sections of the Tories were in favour of it. The Socialist Party of Great Britain thought fit to publish a pamphlet putting forward the socialist view. It had the title “Beveridge Re-organises Poverty.” How right it was! The Economist thinks that way too. It later continues: —

“Since it is the lower income groups which benefit mainly from social expenditure the report says ‘the social expenditures are chiefly financed by transfers of income within the lower income group, in accordance with variations in the patterns of consumption, family size, etc., rather than by transfers between different income levels.’ ” (The Economist, I /4/50).

J. T.

Can the Workers Understand Socialism? (1950)

From the February 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, in contradistinction to so-called “Socialist” organisations, maintain that the workers can and must understand what Socialism means. These other parties, the Labour Party, the I.L.P., and the Communist Party, frequently pay lip service to the need for the majority of the working class to have socialist knowledge, but the pages of their dailies and periodicals seldom contain any propaganda which will enlighten the worker as to his position in society and the solution to his problems. Their propaganda is of the vote-catching variety. They centre attention on topical reformist measures, “immediate demands,” as they call them, by which means they hope to attract the majority of the workers—and once in power they claim they will set about establishing Socialism.

Socialism is a system of society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interests of the whole community. Therefore by its very nature the establishment of Socialism requires the conscious participation of the majority of the population. The workers, making up the majority of the population, must understand what Socialism is and want it. Socialism can’t be set up behind their backs. When this is realised it will be understood that parties basing their propaganda on the belief that the workers are incapable of assimilating socialist ideas cannot have Socialism as an object, whatever they may think their object is. They cannot be called socialist.

And what about those individual members of the working class who claim that the workers can’t understand Socialism and yet consider themselves socialist? How do they reconcile the belief that they have gained “socialist” consciousness with the belief that members of their class can’t understand Socialism?

The support the so-called “socialist” parties receive is for the mitigation of certain effects of Capitalism, not for the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of a new society. The supporters who have some idea of an alternative form of society and think they can establish this alternative without receiving a mandate to do so, why haven’t they done it? There are numerous occasions when so-called socialist parties have been in power. The reason put forward is that the leaders betrayed the rank and file. But leaders only express ideas of the majority of their supporters; if they didn’t they wouldn’t receive support.

There is plenty of experience from the history of Capitalism of the inability of governments to pass and operate legal enactments in the face of the opposition of the majority of the people. A fairly recent example was the capitulation of the Labour Cabinet on the abolition of the death penalty. Dictatorship doesn’t alter the fact that governments require the support of the majority of the population. This is shown by the expenditure on propaganda by the dictatorial powers to keep the support of the majority.

Societies change. The only alternative to the present system of society, which is based on the private ownership of the means of living, and the consequent enslavement of the working class—is Socialism, where all will have free access to the means of living. Throughout his long history man has solved many difficult problems, the discovery of fire, agriculture, and the smelting of ores. Through his knowledge of the laws of nature he can produce materials more suitable for his use than those that exist under natural conditions. There is no reason to suppose that man can’t solve the problem confronting him to-day. The capitalist class, that privileged minority in whose interests present society functions, are not likely to give their support or their sympathy to a movement which will abolish the system of society that allows them such a privileged, exalted position. The working class are the overwhelming majority of the population, to them the present order means poverty and destitution, and their living conditions drive them on to struggle for a better life within Capitalism and ultimately to question the capitalist system.

Those who claim that the working class are unable to grasp Socialist ideas maintain that the evidence brought forward by intelligence tests support their contention. We have yet to hear of any intelligence tests constructed which test the capacity of workers to assimilate Socialist knowledge. The only thing along these lines is the test of applicants for membership of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and these tests have proved conclusively that members of the working class can understand Socialism. Academic intelligence tests are constructed to find the suitability of certain individuals for certain occupations. As for ascertaining if they show up any capacity of intelligence, the experts are not at all clear on what these tests show. In fact they can’t reach any agreement on what they mean by intelligence. Even if intelligence tests do show something they only test one person in relation to others. The Socialists maintain that the workers have sufficient capacity to understand Socialism. In modern capitalist society the working class manage affairs from top to bottom.  If the working class run society in the interests-of a privileged few they are certainly capable of running society in the interests of all.

J.T.

The Critique of the Gotha Programme (1952)

From the July 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Gotha programme was drawn up to unite the two sections of the German working class movement. One party, the General Association of German Workers, was founded by Lassalle, hence called the Lassalleans—the other party was the Social Democratic Workers’ Party, led by William Liebknecht and Bebel, and was known as the Eisenachers. They combined to form the Socialist Workers* Party of Germany at the Gotha Congress in 1875.

The “Critique of the Gotha Programme” consisted of marginal, comments made by Marx on the draft of this party programme.

To-day the “Critique” is popular among Communist Party sympathisers because in certain passages Marx has referred to a transitional period between Capitalism and Communism during which there will be an exchange economy. Of course, the Communists claim that Russia at present is passing through this transitional period.

Undue importance is placed on these passages. As Marx has pointed out in the above mentioned work just after dealing with the transitional period:—

  "I have dealt more at length with the 'undiminished proceeds of labour' on the one hand, and 'equal right' and ‘fair distribution' on the other in order to show what a crime it is to attempt. . . . to force on our Party again, as dogmas, ideas which in a certain period had some meaning but now have become obsolete verbal rubbish." (Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx Engels' Selected Works, p. 23., published Lawrence and Wishart.) 

And in the next paragraph he wrote that—

  "It was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.
   "Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of non-workers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal conditions of production, of labour power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of, the means of consumption different from the present one." (P. 23.)

In Russia, we have millionaires (see “Soviet Millionaires,” by Reg Bishop published for Russia Today Society in 1943) drawing interest on State Loans—“property in capital" while the masses are only owners . . .  of labour power.”

The view that there would be a transitional period between'Capitalism and Communism or Socialism (they are realty interchangeable terms) as envisaged by Marx was understandable 75 years ago, when the machinery of production had not attained the tremendous productive capacity it has to-day and it wasn’t realised that it was absolutely necessary that the majority of the working class must understand what Socialism means. With the present knowledge of the pre-requisites for the establishment of a Socialist society, the “transitional period ” has become “ obsolete verbal rubbish.”

The real value of the “Critique of the Gotha Programme ” lies in the attack Marx makes on the vague loose phraseology of a political party programme seeking to attract a working class ignorant of its real interests.

Communist Party sympathisers should read the “Critique” and ask themselves what Marx would have had to say about a party which talks about “people’s states,” “people’s democracies,” “people’s governments,” and whose aim, to quote from a Communist Party document, is as follows:—

   "To achieve a Socialist Britain in which the social ownership of the means of production and exchange shall replace the existing capitalist system and the exploitation of man by man. By transforming man and creating abundance. Socialism creates the conditions for the ultimate goal of Communism, based on the principle: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
   "Only a Socialist Britain co-operating with all other peoples of the world in close, friendly, free and equal association, will be able so to plan the use of all Britain’s material, productive and scientific resources, that every citizen will be guaranteed security, the right to work and leisure, a steadily rising standard of living, liberty and equal opportunity to enjoy a full and happy life”— (Draft Rules of the Party, 22nd National Congress, issued by .Communist Party.)

They might then agree that Engels' words to Bebel when writing about the Gotha Programme would be most apt. He wrote, “Almost every word in this programme . . .  could be criticised. It is such a character that if adopted Marx and I can never give adherence to the new party established on this basis.” (Engels to Bebel, March 18-28, 1875, Marx Engels' Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 39.)

Read the “Critique” for yourself and see. It is published by Lawrence and Wishart and can be bought for half-a-crown or you can buy Marx and Engels' Selected Works. It is included in volume two. The two volumes are priced at six shillings and sixpence each.

Jim Thorburn