Letters: Force or violence? (1993)

Letters to the Editors from the June 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Force or violence?

Dear Editors,

In reply to Denham Ford (April Socialist Standard) and his ridiculous assertion that the bombing of Dresden was anti-fascist violence, it obviously wasn’t!

I (and Class war) are on the side of the working class in struggle, and that means against fascism and fascists who are active against the revolutionary forces (eg attacks on the SWP and the recent attack on Freedom Bookshop).

An act of violence in itself doesn’t change anything. It is the combined weight of collective violence which will win the revolution. It seems that a lot of people on the left do not understand the class struggle as a dynamic, a living force which we mould every day. It is a balance of forces which we have to tip or kick in our direction. This is because they are not going to give the working class freedom. We are going to have to take it.

Dave Clark

London E8

Reply:

You're confusing force with violence. Of course the majority will have to force the ruling class to give up their wealth, power and privilege, but this can be done by mass democratic political action based on socialist understanding rather street fighting which wouldn't work anyway (they've got bigger guns and better bombs)— Editors.

Dear Editors,

Ref your article on the Mail on Sunday (April), I wrote in very similar terms to the Western Mail and South Wales Echo years ago, and the replies I had were more or less what you received from Chris Rees.

One way out would be to change the name to something that is not in existence, in this country at least, then register it like Marks and Spencers so that nobody else can use it.

E. H. Evans 

Newport, Gwent

Dear Editors,

The commonly held idea of socialism as nationalisation, or some form of state capitalism, is an Aunt Sally that the Mail on Sunday and other opponents of socialism are quite happy to accept as their target. They are not disposed to engage in any real objective discussion on socialism.

The responsibility of explaining socialism as Marx and Engels and the Socialist Party of Great Britain have always interpreted it is the task of the Party itself. The extent to which this has been achieved is the question we have to face. I am firmly of the opinion that a mistake was made when the name of the party was abbreviated to "The Socialist Party" and the full name relegated to the inconspicuous last item, printed in the smallest type, on the back cover of the Socialist Standard.

J. E. Apling

Harlow, Essex

Reply:

Unfortunately the capitalist press are going to distort the meaning of socialism whatever we call ourselves, and whatever version of our name we use. As you say, it's up to us to explain what socialism is—Editors.

Open Letter to Trade Unionists (1967)

From the December 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

Fellow Workers,

Trade Unionists should reject the argument that a policy of voluntary wage restraint is somehow better than one that is imposed. This is like saying that a prisoner is better off if he shoots himself in his cell, than if he is shot by a firing squad. In either case the result is the same.

This also applied to wage restraint, whether it is operated by the TUC or imposed by legal enactment. The end is the same and the politicians get what they set out to achieve at the very beginning, with the added bonus that the bulk of trade unions believe they have gained some sort of victory. Surely it is time that trade unionists, particularly those who claim to be Socialists, stopped to consider exactly where they are allowing themselves to be led.

The balance of payments crisis and the difficulties of increasing exports against foreign competition, which the official excuse for the government's wage restraint policy, is regarded as something new. The truth of the matter in that trade crises, often world wide, have been a recognisable and insoluble feature of capitalism for the past hundred years and more, and will continue as long as capitalism remains. Those politicians who talk of formulating a long-term policy to "put the economy on a sound footing" are ignoring the competitive nature of capitalist society. Even of the workers of this country co-operated 100 per cent with the government's proposals for wage restraint and with all the new productive methods of the employers, it would not solve the problem. True, that in so far as it would result in a lowering of production costs it might enable more goods to be exported, but this would inevitably cause other countries to intensify their efforts to reduce their production costs lower still in order to regain their share of world trade. If they succeeded, the capitalists of this country would be faced with the same problem once again. This is the everlasting rat race of capitalism, caused by the need to find markets for wealth that is produced primarily for sale in order to realise a profit.

The problems which confront us are not caused, as some would have us believe, by the failure of trade unions to change with changing methods of production, but because society itself has not changed. In spite of all the changes that have taken place, capitalism remains basically the same; the overwhelming bulk of wealth and the means of production remain the private property of a small percentage of the population, whose sole interest in the production of wealth is to produce commodities for sale and making profit. Modern production is social in character, the wealth produced is by the common effort of the whole of society, but it is not owned in common — it remains the private property of a few. Only by bringing the ownership of the wealth produced into harmony with the mode of production, that is by changing the basis of society from private to common ownership and producing wealth for use and not for sale and profit, can the gigantic means of modern production be fully employed without causing the upheavals we are experiencing today.

Yours fraternally

J. E. Apling,

Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (SOGAT).

Obituary: Jack Apling (1997)

Obituary from the September 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jack Apling was an active member of West Ham Branch from the time he joined, in December 1939, until in the fifties when, because of concerns that living in the East End might be detrimental to the health of his children, the family moved to Harlow in Essex. He remained a member of the branch (later named East London), though his attendance was necessarily restricted, and is remembered as a quiet man, who was able to express ideas in a clear and concise manner. A bookbinder by trade, his "Open Letter to Trade Unionists" appeared in the December 1967 Socialist Standard, he signed it as a member of the Society of Graphical and Allied Workers (SOGAT).

Convinced that someone had to give the socialist analysis of current events, Jack made the most of any opportunity to do just that. Over the years he wrote countless letters to local newspapers, and his son has been told by local people that they took the papers in order to read his father's letters.

Comrades in Colchester Branch, to which he transferred when in his eighties, have gained inspiration from his determination to keep Socialism on the agenda, a commitment which was not diminished by old age or terrible illness. As recently as March, when his weight was only a little over five stones, and he could hardly push a pen across a page, he was still writing to local papers. He died on 7 July after a courageous fight against cancer. We extend sincere sympathy to his family.

PD