SPGB Meetings (1962)

Party News from the July 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News Briefs (1955)

Party News from the September 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

August Bank Holiday Meetings. Camberwell and Fulham Branch jointly organiscd two very successful meetings. In the afternoon, from 3 p.m. to 6.30 Comrades Garnham, Keys, Baldwin, McCarthy and Cash, spoke to an attentive audience of about 200 in Hyde Park. In the evening 12 members went out of London to Heron Court. Richmond, where Comrades Keys, Robertson, Baldwin and McCarthy addressed an audience of almost 200 from 7 o’clock until 10 p.m. About 10/- worth of literature was sold at the two meetings.

* * *

Under the heading: “A London Bus Worker tells of one of the earliest struggles for the Right to Unionise.” the July 7th edition of the Samasamajist, an English language paper, published in Colombo, Ceylon, reprints Comrade Waters article in the Socialist Standard, “The Story of the Tolpuddle Martyrs.” It is hoped that the Samasamajist will reprint other articles from the Socialist Standard in the future.

* * *

The Swansea Branch prepared a programme of activity for August which was to include outdoor meetings and an indoor public debate with the Welsh Nationalist Party. Whilst the outdoor meetings are underway with the visits of Comrades from Cheltenham and London, unfortunately the debate has fallen through owing to the inability of the Nationalists to finalise the arrangements. The national headquarters of the party threw the onus on their Swansea Branch who declined under pressure of work. Swansea Branch have challenged the Communists, Labourites and Welsh Republicans by personal letters and an open challenge in the Press but have had refusals all round. We now look forward to the visit of Com. Ambridge from London.

* * *

Provincial Propaganda Tour. Nottingham was visited by two London Comrades for a week from July 31st to August 7th. Thirteen meetings were held, with audiences averaging 300. Twenty dozen August Standards were sold in addition to pamphlets and back issues of the Standard.

Dundee is being visited by two London Comrades who report very good meetings held—more details next month.

* * *

The Autumn Delegate Meeting is being held at Denison House. Vauxhall Bridge Road (nr. Victoria Station) on Saturday and Sunday, October 8th and 9th, commencing each day at 11 a.m. It is hoped to arrange a social at Head Office on the Saturday evening—more details will be given in the October Socialist Standard.

* * *

Obituary. We regret to announce that another old member of the Party has recently died. Comrade A. Maskell, of Paddington Branch, who joined in 1927. He had been ill for a considerable time.

Prior to the war, he engaged in all Branch activity, and sold many copies of the S.S. to personal contacts. He was Branch Treasurer for more years than one wishes to recall, and throughout the war years was one of the most regular Branch attenders. In two election campaigns in N. Paddington he put his flat at our disposal for us as Committee Rooms, and it gave him great pleasure to feel that, despite his enforced inactivity, he could still be of assistance to the Party. Many of the older Paddington members will recall the assistance he gave them at all times and we should like to express our sympathies to his wife and family.

* * *

Documentary Films at H.O.. 52, Clapham High Street, S.W.4 (near Clapham Common Tube Station) every Sunday at 7.30 p.m. These films will be followed by a short talk by a Party lecturer. Questions and discussion follow. Admission free.

Oct. 2nd. Public Opinion. Speaker, R. Coster.

„        9th. The Beginning of History, W. Kerr.

„       16th. Mediaeval Village, V. Phillips.

„       23rd. The Story of Money, E. Wilmott.

„       30th. We’ve Come a Long Way, J. Trotman.

Nov.  6th.   Man-One Family, J. Read.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Note:

Comrade A. Maskell's obituary had previously been posted on the blog as a standalone post.

Party News Briefs (1955)

Party News from the June 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ealing Branch. The special May campaign to increase the sales of the S.S. has got off to an exceptionally fine start. At the time of writing (the middle of the month) over 35 dozen copies have been sold, and everybody is confident that the target of 50 dozen will be more than realised before the end of the month. The regular canvassers have been heartened by the support of members new to this form of activity, who in turn have been agreeably surprised by the results obtained. The Branch Literature Committee are confident that there is no reason why these figures should not be further increased; all that is required is a steadily increasing number of members prepared to canvass. It is as easy for the Committee to organise a canvass with a dozen members, as it is to organise a party of six—and even more stimulating!

Approval of the Branch’s scheme to distribute back copies of the S.S. has been given by the E.C., and several hundred have already been disposed of in this way. Members unable to canvass are asked to get in touch with the Branch Literature Secretary and offer their help in this form of literature activity.

The first of the Branch’s propaganda excursions takes place on Sunday, 5th June, when two cars will be taking members to Southsea. Other meetings will follow in the course of the season.

Finally, will all members note that outdoor meetings will be held, weather permitting, every Saturday afternoon, at Ealing Green. Please give your support, if you can.

* * *

Bradford Branch say that their canvassing drive at Dewsbury is still going strong. They report that they sell four to five dozen Standards each month (not three dozen as mentioned in April) and of the former, three dozen Standards are sold to regular readers.

* * *

May Day arrangements in London and the Provinces were hampered through the very bad weather. In London the Hyde Park meetings were cancelled but despite this, there was a good audience in the evening at Conway Hall, where Comrades May and Coster gave very interesting talks on May Day and aims and objects of die Party.

Reports are not in from Glasgow, but we understand that very good evening meetings were held there.

Nottingham Branch report that Comrades Keys and Warlow addressed about 250 workers on Market Square on the Saturday before May Day, the meeting lasted from 7 to 10 p.m. On the Sunday morning the “Nottingham Labour Day Demonstration” was held, although it was raining heavily. Our speakers attempted to hold a meeting but the rain forced them to abandon it. A good meeting, however, was held for about an hour, between heavy rain showers, in the afternoon. About 10s. worth of literature was sold during the two days. Branch members find that Market Square is a good station for propaganda meetings and they are aware of sympathetic interest from the audience.

* * *

Swansea Branch has not been in a position to hold any propaganda meetings during the last four months, but their activities have been directed in writing to the Press —letters stating the Party’s Object have appeared in the South Wales Evening Post, Llanelly Star, Neath Guardian, Western Mail and Swansea Voice. An attempt is also being made to advertise the Party’s literature in the Swansea Voice.

Phyllis Howard

SPGB Meetings (1958)

Party News from the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

SPGB Meetings (1961)

Party News from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Blogger's Notes: 

The content of Gilbert McClatchie's talk to Hackney Branch about his North American Journey probably overlapped with his American Tour article in this issue of the Socialist Standard.

Interesting to see Ealing Branch doing a meeting on Sergei Eisenstein's 1925 classic film  Strike. 

Party News Briefs (1956)

Party News from the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day. In order that members are well acquainted with the arrangements made for Sunday, May 6th, here is a brief resume of the proposed activities in London, Glasgow, and Nottingham. In Hyde Park, the usual trolley will be set up by three o’clock, and speakers will take turns in running the propaganda. Members should note that it helps the meeting to start more promptly if it is well supported by members. The Trades Union processions will be taking place and it is being planned that our members sell literature along the route. The procession will lead to Trafalgar Square where other parties will be holding meetings. Therefore, apart from selling literature along the route, we need a good number of members to circulate among the crowds at Trafalgar Square with the literature. In view of the fact that Ealing Branch has circularised London Branches in an endeavour to greatly increase the Socialist Standard sales, for May, this is an additional appeal to help to achieve this aim. Will Comrades willing to assist, please contact (personally, or by letter), the Propaganda Committee at Head Office. The sooner we have a list of willing Comrades the sooner and better we can make arrangements.

Glasgow (City and Kelvingrove Branches) are holding their May Day Rally on the afternoon of May 6th at Queen's Park Recreation Ground and at St Andrew’s Halls, Berkeley Street from 7.30 pm. Several speakers will be on. the platform.

Nottingham Branch are holding a Mass Rally in the Market Square on the same day (May 6th) at 3 p.m. Speakers: J. Garnham, J. Keys and F. Warlow.

London. At Conway Hall, Red Lion Square, WlC.l, a Rally will be held after the propaganda meeting in Hyde Park. The meeting commences at 7.30 p.m., the title “ POLITICAL MATURITY AND THE STRUGGLE FOR SOCIALISM.” Speakers: R. Coster and W. Read. Although every effort will be made to advertise this London meeting, as there arc restrictions at the moment regarding printing, it is essential that members and sympathisers pass on the details of this meeting as widely as possible, in order that we have a really good attendance. So please note the details and PASS THE WORD ALONG!

#    #    #    #

A Meeting was held at Conway Hall on Monday, March 12th. Comrades Bryan and May spoke on "Departing Empires—the Socialist attitude.” Although the attendance at the meeting was small, mainly due, we feel sure to being unable to advertise as usual, the audience was very interested and good questions were put to the speakers.

#    #    #    #

There is good news from Camberwell Branch again. Apart from having kept open-air meetings going throughout the winter at East Street, Walworth, the branch has vigorously extended canvassing the Socialist Standard. In the first two months of the year, as a result of one of the meeting stations being closed, the sales of the Socialist Standard usually fall to eight dozen. For the two months this year, however, 22 dozen were sold in the same period. The Branch would like to assure the Ealing Branch Comrades of their enthusiastic and practical support for their proposed May drive to really put the Socialist Standard into working-class hands on a large scale. The Branch is more than confident that in May they will more than double the average monthly sale of 10 dozen copies, and maintain it at the highest possible level. Meetings are held each Wednesday at Camberwell Green at 8 p.m.

The Branch holds its meetings on Thursday at the “Artichoke,” just past Camberwell Green,1, at 8 p.m. The room is comfortable. All are welcome.

#    #    #    #

Swansea Group, though having lost members through transference to another branch have kept the Party before the reading public by constant letters to the Press on various topics. One Member's letter was given prominence on the billposters of the Swansea Voice, the public being shocked with glaring head lines, i.e., Swansea Man wants to do away with Money!

Challenges have been issued to various organisations and including a reverend gentleman who conducts a class on the "Art of Public Speaking.” This expert, needless to say, refused to test his skill against a Socialist speaker. The Llanelly branch of the Conservative Party has also refused to debate with us.

Swansea hope to be able to hold more open-air meetings during the coming summer, and are in contact from Comrades from London with this in view.

#    #    #    #

Outdoor Meetings. With the arrival of spring, the number of outdoor meetings held will increase and details of the additional meetings, are given under the list of outdoor meetings advertised in this issue. Make a note please and attend as many as possible—good support for meetings stimulates speakers, helps to sell more literature and so helps along the work of the Party which is to propagate SOCIALISM.

Phyllis Howard

Property in Russia (1956)

From the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

For those readers who have not read “Soviet' Millionaires” the above pamphlet should be quite, enlightening. For those who have, it should be another gem to add to their collection on Capitalist Russia. Published by “Soviet News," 3, Rosary Gardens, S.W.7, in 1954, and priced 1d., it is obviously within the reach of all workers’ pockets.

A 20-page pamphlet, split up into 12 short paragraphs, it is easy to read. It deals with most aspects of property in Russia and leaves one in no doubt that the economy is a Capitalist one. The following extracts should suffice the reader:—Page 4: “The right to own property in Soviet Socialist society is ensured by the Constitution of the U.S.S.R. and is protected by Law.”

“The land, its mineral wealth, waters, forests, mills, factories, mines, rail, water and air transport, banks, communications, large State organised agricultural enterprises (State farms, and the like), and also municipal enterprises and the bulk of the dwelling houses in the cities and industrialised localities, are State property in the U.S.S.R.” Page 12: “Citizens are paid for their work either in the form of wages—at State enterprises and institutions; or in the form of a definite share of the income in kind and cash—in the collective farms and co-operatives.” Just like here!

“ In general, a Soviet citizen has the exclusive right to dispose of all property in the way he thinks fit. If he has a house of his own, he may live in it, rent it out to others, make a gift of it, sell it, mortgage it or use it for other transactions permitted by law ”

If any of our readers are still in any doubt about Russia being a Capitalist country, a little booklet written by J. Stalin, as a series of articles in 1906, entitled, “Anarchism Or Socialism,” published by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow. 1950 should clear up any illusions that our readers may have. It is well worth reading being from the horse’s mouth as it were! And tells us what Stalin thought Socialism would be like. Whilst not necessarily agreeing with everything in this quote, the general tenor of it is enough to prove that Socialism does not exist in Russia; apart from the fact that Socialism, being a world-wide system, it could not exist there while the rest of the world is Capitalist. The following is an extract from pages 57—59:

“There can be no doubt that future society will be built up on an entirety different basis. 

“Future society will be Socialist society. This means, primarily, that there will be no classes in that society; there will be neither capitalists, nor proletarians and. consequently, there will be no exploitation. In that society there will be only workers engaged in collective labour. 

"Future society will be Socialist society. This also means that with the abolition of exploitation, commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed—there will be only free workers. 

“Future society will be Socialist society. This means lastly, that in that society the abolition of wage labour will be accompanied by the complete abolition of the private ownership of the instruments and means of production; there will be neither poor proletarians nor rich capitalists—there will be only workers who collectively own all the land and minerals, all the forests, all the factories and mills, all the railways, etc. 

"As you see, the main object of production in the future will be directly to satisfy the needs of society and not to produce goods for sale in order to increase the profits of the capitalists. Here there will be no room for commodity production, struggle for profits, etc. 

“It is also clear that future production will be socialistically organised, highly developed production, which will take into account the needs of society and will produce as much as society needs. Here there will be no room either for disintegrated production, competition, crises, or unemployment. 

"Where there are no classes, where there arc neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, (here is no need also for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently in Socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power."

Jon Keys

A Socialist (1956)

From the May 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A Socialist is a person who desires a new social system. That is to say, Socialism; a world-wide social order equalitarian in character, where the means of living are the common possession of all, and freedom of access to all that society can produce, and where full participation in all that society does is the norm: Of necessity it will be a society where free co-operation and organisation has been taken to its logical conclusion, and where coercion has died a natural death. For obviously in a world where one can help oneself freely to the needs of life there can be no economic domination of man over man, and all organisation must be of the free kind.

As Socialism will be a world-wide affair; it can only be brought about by Socialists throughout the world organising on a world-wide scale. In other words, a Socialist is not only a person who desires Socialism, but also a person who understands Capitalism in a general sense, and sees the need for working in an organised fashion to get rid of it, to replace the system with a Socialist one. What is even more to the point, is that a Socialist is one who not only works in an organised fashion to bring about Socialism, but who expects to work in an organised fashion within Socialist society.

Spivs, and layabouts, whether of the Capitalist variety or otherwise, can have no part in a Socialist society. Too often has the writer heard it said at meetings by a member of the audience; “ I am all for a world where I can help myself freely to whatever is produced, as I would be able to lie around all day.” Apart from the fact that no human being is naturally lazy, if a majority of people wanted Socialism and were in the above category it could not be established. For Socialism being a society where all people's needs will be satisfied; this can only take place if there is a majority of people throughout the world who understand that they must co-operate together to produce enough to satisfy all people’s needs. In other words FREE ACCESS. This state of affairs could not be brought about by a bunch of people who only want to laze around.

To recapitulate, Socialism can only be brought about throughout the world by a majority of people who understand the system under which they live. Understand what it is they are going to put in its place; desire it and are prepared to co-operate in an organised fashion to establish such a system, and work within it, once it is established.

Anyone who agrees with what has been briefly outlined above should contact the nearest branch, for only Socialists who are organised can bring about Socialism.

Jon Keys.

A History of Turkey (1957)

Book Review from the March 1957 issue of the Socialist Standard

“A History of Turkey” by M. Phillips Price, M.P. (Published by George Allen and Unwin).

An interesting book. A condensed version of the history, of Turkey, from the early days of the Osmanii tribe, who started the Turkish Empire, to the present day Republic. This is not intended to be a profound work but for those requiring an introduction to the events which have taken place in Turkey since the early empire, this is the book. It is the sort of thing that has come to be associated with travelling journalists, M.P.’s, etc., well written, easily read and with enough facts to make it interesting. The bibliography published at the end of the chapter is extensive and should aid the interested student of Middle-Eastern affairs.

Turkey as a bulwark against Russian Imperialism 

Despite its superficiality, the book brings out the importance of Turkey to the Western Powers as a bastion against the Imperialist designs of Russian Capitalism. For the contemporary Capitalist set-up in Russia is just as keen to get control of the Black Sea Straits (at Turkey’s expense) for trade, strategic and other reasons, and to roll back the Russo-Turkish border, whenever and wherever possible, as was Czarist Russia.

Turkish Agriculture—Feudal Aspects

Turkey still has its Feudal aspects, despite its Capitalist visage. The “Metayer” or sharecropping system, still exists, although it is not the prevailing mode. The Metayer is “based on the principle that the annual crop is" divided between landlord and cultivator.” . . . (Page 184). Also dealt with is ownership of land in Anatolia, of “34½ million acres of cultivated land in Anatolia, 32 million acres are owned and worked by cultivators of an average of not more than 16 acres, two millions by persons with an average of 300 acres, and only half a million with an average of 400 acres.” (Page 182). 

Labour Conditions and the T.U. Movement 

There is a brief chapter on Labour conditions and social legislation. Mr. Price points out the lack of a trade union movement in Turkey, until comparatively recent times. The Trade Unions, such as they were, were early suppressed, which was quite understandable in a semi-feudal economy. 1920 saw some serious attempts to get Trade Unions going. “The Kemalist Government of the National Revolution set itself the task of industralising Turkey, and consequently became concerned with having a contented working class which would run these industries. ..  .” (Page 197, our italics). But despite the needs of Turkish Capitalism it was not until 1947 that a law was passed legalising Trade Unions. The author says that Trade Unions are “not instruments of the State or of a Party dominating the State, as in Communist countries.'’ ... (Page 204), but one can fairly say (despite this statement that Trade Unions in Turkey as in Russia and many other countries are part of the State machine. The fact that the T.U. movement in Turkey was initiated by the Government, that strikes are illegal, and that Trade Unions have to get Government permission to join International organisations is more than proof of their subservance to the Turkish State. Referring to the matter of joining International organisations, Price says: “The Turkish Trade Union leaders seem to see nothing very wrong in taking their lead from the Government in matters of this kind, and indeed to wait for Government initiative in such matters." (Page 202).

A free Trade Union movement to better the lot of the Turkish working class is something which has yet to be fought for; and then only in the light, that it is, at its best, reformist activity aimed at getting the best out of Capitalism for Turkish workers, and that it will not alter the basis of Capitalist society.

Only Socialist understanding can solve the problems of all workers, and this is something that the Turkish working class must aim at acquiring.

Jon Keys

YHWH* (1961)

Book Review from the September 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Religion of Israel, by Yehezekel Kaufmann (translated by Moshe Greenberg.) Allen & Unwin, 42s.

This is an excellent book: not only the translation—which alone can make or mar any work, but also the abridgement of seven volumes.†  Despite this and the obvious drawbacks Dr. Greenberg has given us an eminently readable book. A must for biblical scholars and a mine of information for Socialists. Professor Kaufmann took the best part of thirty years to produce these seven volumes and in so doing has amassed a wealth of facts regarding the origins and the nature of Israelite religion—Judaism. Many of these facts are incorporated in this abridgement, which makes fascinating reading and one wonders at what was left out. This is the first time that any part of Professor Kaufmann’s major work on Judaism has been published in any other language but Hebrew.

For those concerned with Judaism as the first monotheistic religion from which sprang Christianity and Islam and the connecting links between Paganism, Pantheism, Polytheism, and Primitive Magic, there is a good argument in this book and much to cogitate over.

Socialists will value this book in much the same way as they do Fraser's Golden Bough, and Darwin's Origin of Species, as an explanation of mankind's activities and of his earlier inability to understand natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the Sun, the waxing and waning of the Moon, storms, floods, and so on. Primitive Magic was early man's way of endeavouring to deal with the things he did not understand, and as he became more sophisticated his superstitions hardened into religion. Pantheistic and polytheistic to start with and then Monotheistic, today we have variants all along the line, enough of them in fact to make the soup firms' varieties look sick. In the bargain, organised religion in the early days of propertied society— somewhere in the Middle East—gave rise to science, which is today busy burying religion beneath a mountain of facts.

All of this has been brought about by man endeavouring to come to grips with the problems that confronted him. Homo Sapiens has solved most of his problems, and we are confident that he will continue to do so. This volume is good ammunition for debunking the God idea. Not that Professor Kaufmann wrote his volumes with that intention—he is a devout Jew—but then neither did Darwin!

Jon Keys

* GOD.

† An eighth volume has been written, but is not dealt with in this book.

Middle East Diary (1956)

From the March 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Tory Nationalisation

Nationalisation—that is the state control and regulation of industry on behalf of the Capitalist owners—has, as our pamphlet “Nationalisation Or Socialism” shows, been advocated or put into practice by most political parties. Of recent years, it has become the almost exclusive prerogative of Labour and Communist parties. (Since the recent election defeats, however, the British Labour Party have soft pedaled it, as it is not the vote-catcher it used to be, some workers presumably realising that nationalisation doesn’t solve their problems). So that when one hears of a Conservative Party putting forward such measures, one feels the wheel has swung full circle!

One of the most recent and rather curious examples to appear on the nationalisation scene, is the Israeli General Zionist (Conservative) Party. They want to nationalise the various Israeli water-schemes, the Health Service and the Labour Exchanges.

Strangely enough the Mapai (Labour) Party, who have been in power since 1948 are bitterly opposed. Through their domination of the Jewish Agency and the Histadrut (roughly analagous to the T.U.C. but also owning and controlling the major part of Israel’s industry) the Mapai control most of Israel’s economy and are extremely loth to give up their political plums!

The General Zionists, on the other hand, want nationalisation measures to break the Mapai Party’s hold on the state machine, all of which we can well understand, sectional struggles amongst the Capitalist class being a regular feature of Capitalism. The tragedy is that Israeli workers take sides in this struggle between these parties, (both of whom are only interested in perpetuating Capitalism) instead of organising for Socialism.


Two Classes in Israeli Society

In March of last year the Jewish Observer and Middle East Review (25.3.55) informed its readers that

   “Israel has become divided into two nations . . .  an upper crust and a lower layer. The privileged crust is composed of a variety of substantial and mixed elements who enjoy a privileged position in the country. They are made up by the plutocracy of some three hundred families, by the Government ‘aristocracy’ which includes a wide range of officialdom, the Histadrutocracy with its manifold operations, the business pressure groups entrenched in the upper reaches of the General Zionists, the old Kibbutzim, such workers' organisations as the Dan and Egged Bus Co-operatives, the upper reaches of such institutions as the Jewish Agency and of the main political parties—Mapai, the General Zionists . . . ”
   “The four per cent.: These are the people in the swim. They can get things—flats, cars, trips abroad, the comforts and conveniences of life, or the profits of business, or the positions of power, according to the category to which they belong. . . .
  “Newcomers since 1948 comprise 60 per cent. of the population and occupy one per cent. of all Government posts and virtually none in the high grades.’'

The article goes on to point out that the personal consumption budgets of the above mentioned 300 families is “around £50,000 per year per family at a time when the income of the highest official is less than a tenth of this amount.”

All of which was pointed out by the Socialist Party of Great Britain years ago and only goes to prove our contention, that national struggles—whether of the Zionist (Jewish Home) category or otherwise, are not in the interest of the working-class.

"Socialist” Egypt

On Monday, the 16th of January, Mr. Nasser, the Egyptian Premier, announced Egypt’s new constitution. The constitution, according to Nasser, provides for the establishment of a “Socialist democratic system of government," (Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, 20.1.56. All quotations in this article are from the above dated journal).

With this announcement we see yet another ruling group ushering in Capitalism under the name of Socialism.

The idea of introducing Socialism in Egypt is even more ludicrous than the idea was in Russia in 1917. For (apart from the fact that Socialism must be world-wide) Egypt, like Russia in 1917, is still largely feudal in character, with an agrarian economy—very little industry and an illiterate peasantry and a landowning class, but not the vast resources, mineral and other, that Russia had. This is certainly not the sort of soil in which one would expect to sow successfully the seeds of Socialism—let alone establish it.

Nasser and his Liberation Rally have their historical counterparts in Cromwell and the Roundheads, and of course the Moslem Brotherhood (which supports them) is not unlike the Puritanical sects that backed up Cromwell initially. In his speech. Nasser said that “Capitalism shall not be allowed to control the Government” but one can take that with a pinch of salt, for Nasser and his confederates, like Cromwell and his gang before them, arc acting as the handmaiden of Egyptian Capitalism.

The legislation (decreed by them) on land reform to limit the power of the Landlords; the dethroning of Farouk and declaration of Egypt as a Republic; have all been part of the process. The announcement of this constitution and the ideas contained within it are a continuation of that ineluctible process which is establishing Capitalism in Egypt. The constitution in line with Capitalist ideology declares the “sanctity of private property,” but “limits land ownership . . . ” “Private economic activity,” that is the right to rob (exploit) wage labour, “is free from state interference providing it does not prejudice public interests, endanger the people’s security or infringe upon their freedom and dignity.” All of which must give any Socialist a big laugh, for who can imagine a wage slavery-capital set-up where the wage slaves are free and dignified. Obviously it is a contradiction in terms; people who have to prostitute their mental and physical capabilities in order to get a wage or salary so that they can live, are not free, except to starve. They are dependent on the Capitalist, and those who are dependent in that sense are certainly not dignified.

The constitution apparently has many of the Labour, Communist, nostrums, such as equality of opportunity (whatever that may be), abolition of social distinctions and social justice, none of which mean anything to a worker under Capitalism. Also provided for are social insurance, public health services and free compulsory education, the last measure of course, being a truly Capitalist “must,” for how can one have an efficient Capitalist State without a literate working-class?

Jon Keys

"The Sugar Pill" (1958)

Book Review from the August 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Sugar Pill”—An Essay on Newspapers By T. S. Matthews Published by Victor Gollancz 

This serious, though lightly written, book is one of the most interesting that this writer has come across. The author, a retired American journalist, puts forward the thesis that the press—that is, the daily and weekly papers—are “not our daily bread, but our daily sugar pill.” By a character study of two newspapers, the Daily Mirror and the Manchester Guardian, which are considered to be representative of the whole range of the press, Mr. Mathews puts forward an argument that is more than convincing; not that we need convincing, we already knew.

He rounds off this 221 page book with a detailed examination of a day’s issue of the above newspapers which is extremely revealing.

There are not only two classes in society—capitalists and workers, but apparently two groups of newspapers, the quality press. The Times, Manchester Guardian and Daily Telegraph, and the popular press, the Express, Sketch, Mirror, etc. Not, of course, that these represent the conflicting classes, workers and capitalists, but rattier conflicting interests, that is, sectional ones, among the capitalists. This is true of the whole press in this country, with the exception of the Socialist Standard; from the Fascist paper Union on the so-called extreme right, to the Daily Worker on the so-called extreme left. They are all interested in perpetuating capitalism in one form or another. These two newspaper groups, like workers and capitalists, are in constant conflict, according to the author. “The real competition, in short, although it has not yet broken into open war, is between the popular press and the quality press. And the stake in that coming war will be survival. If the present trend continues—that is, if the more successful popular papers continue to capture more and more new readers—then the Popular Press will win, and eventually become what it already claims to be: the only press worth mentioning, the only press there is. It will first kill off ‘the more serious of the popular papers ’ and then turn its attention to the only competition remaining, the papers of the quality press. Perhaps it may be decided to let them live, as harmless traditional curiosities, like the Beefeaters at the Tower” (Page 170): All of which is quite illuminating, but is really all that one expects from this jungle world of capitalism, where dog eats dog, and the weakest always goes to the wall.

One thing that this writer finds most encouraging, although he has long surmised it, is that despite the seriousness with which all newspapers take themselves, apparently few of the millions of people who “read” newspapers in this country do more than glance at them. Front page, back page, comic strips, the body or bodies beautiful, and the odd eye-catching headline. The Mirror’s reading time is given as “six minutes a day.”

The Mirror, we are told, considers itself “a daily cocktail with fizz in it. Taken first thing in the morning (along with your dose of liver salts) at the start of another grey working day, it gives the reader a little spurt of liveliness—and makes him look forward to another cocktail tomorrow.” (Page 34.)

We are informed by the author that the press is part of the entertainment industry, and generally speaking, we would concur with that. For all that we should not underrate the power of the press; limited it may be, but along with other media it helps to mould and shape the opinions of the working class. We can be thankful that our journal is not of the shallow variety, and that our readers are not “skimmers.” We should not be complacent about this, though, for our readership is small, and the task of changing this society for one with free access, and full social responsibility, can only be brought about by a working class who have been weaned from their sugar pills on to a diet of Socialist literature.

Jon Keys.

Communism and Nationalism in the Middle East (1956)

Book Review from the December 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Communism and Nationalism in the Middle East by Walter Z. Laqueur (Routlede & Kegan Paul)

This interesting book by W. Z. Laqueur (published by Routledge & Kegan Paul) is worth reading, both from the point of view of an understanding of Middle-Eastern politics and the study of Soviet and Communist party politics. This study, said by the author to be the first of its kind on the Middle East, deals with the Communist and Fascist parties (and similar organisations) and their connection with the rise of Arab nationalism in the Middle East. Most of the book is devoted to the history of these movements. The bibliographical notes cover 47 pages.

The book deals, as is expected, more with the Communist and fellow-traveller-type parties, than with the Fascist parties. The obvious link between these totalitarian organisations, the similarity in structure, object and ideas is well drawn. The co-operation throughout the Middle East between the Communist and Fascist parties, and the obvious harmony that exists between them is also well shown.

The intrigues, spying, treachery, double-dealing and sudden reversals of policy, which are common not only to Communist parties in the Middle East, but all over the world, are well covered. The author quite rightly links these political ups and downs with the Soviet Union and its foreign policy. He states: “We face similar conflicting trends in the role of the Communist parties. Their task in the age of ‘revolution from above’ is definitely not to engage in a ‘ leftist deviation i.e., to try their luck in a revolution. Strategically speaking, their assignment is that of a fifth column, which is not to strike before the other four are on the march . . . "(Page 279).

The jettisoning of local Communist parties in favour of the existing regimes by the Soviet Union when politically expedient is an old story. (The Communist party of India being one of the most recent). But the case of the Turkish Communist Party is particularly blatant. “The leaders of the Turkish Communist Party were killed on January 28th, 1921, but more than two months passed before the news was published. On March 16th a friendship pact between the Soviet Union and Turkey was signed in Moscow. The Soviet leaders had already decided by that time (though the murder of the Turkish Communists was, of course, a heavy blow) that it was more important for them to establish friendly relations with Kemal’s regime than to put all their money on such a doubtful horse as Turkish Communism.” (Page 211).

Some interesting figures are given on land ownership in Egypt and Irak. In Egypt: “80 per cent. of all Egyptian farmers own no land, of those who have land, more than 80 per cent, have less than two acres, which is considered the absolute minimum.” (Page 38). In Irak: “88 per cent. of the peasants own no more than 6.5 per cent, of the land, while the rest of the land is in the hands of the state and about one thousand shaikhs . . . (Page 173). All of which more than bears out the proposition that 90 per cent. of the world’s population own virtually nothing, whilst a small minority own and control all that is in and on the earth, and live in parasitical manner—in luxury—off the products of the majority.

Laqueur, like so many others writing on this sort of subject, makes the mistake of taking the Communists at face value. Implicit in his last chapter, headed “Conclusions” and Appendix 1. is the idea that Communism and Socialism are different things, with which, of course, we would violently disagree, but that the state capitalism of Russia is Communism. This, of course, accounts for some of the peculiar things he has to say about Marxism: “In no Asian country was there an industrial proletariat strong enough to head a successful revolutionary movement. The only theoretical alternative, according to orthodox Marxism, was therefore to give up the struggle for a social revolution and to wait until such a revolutionary leadership would emerge.” (Page 295-296). “Marxism, which was originally the theory of proletarian revolution in the most highly developed industrial countries, has thus been made in our time (in its post-Leninist stage) the practice of revolution in the backward countries.” (Page 297).

As far as the Socialist Party of Great Britain is concerned, the theory of class-conscious proletarian revolution of a world-wide scale in the highly developed areas of capitalism and the introduction of Socialism or Communism, whichever you prefer (the terms mean the same thing to us), is still a part of Marxism. Marxism to us is not just the above, but is the Materialist Conception of History, the Critique of Capitalism, the Labour theory of Value, Class-struggle, and, of course, quite logically from these flows the Socialist revolution. The idea of Socialism being established in one country, or backward countries, apart from being in complete opposition to this proposition, has been adequately dealt with in our literature, particularly in the pamphlets on Russia. It seems a pity that a reasonably good book should be spoilt by such inane conclusions, but then we can’t put a Socialist head on pro-capitalist shoulders.

Jon Keys

Anarchist Reformism (1956)

From the April 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

An article in Freedom (31.12.55) shows the bankruptcy and reformist tendencies of the Anarchist movement. The article, entitled "The Vicious Circle of Gas Rings" deals rather briefly with the monastic (set-up) of modern bed-sitters; how the landladies are after as high a price as they can squeeze for their commodity (as if other sellers aren't!); that conditions are unhygienic, and the distressing fact that a cooker is conspicuous by its absence. "If amenities were made available, such as a small cooker . . . then at least half the trouble could be melted away."

The author of the article seems to think that this business is encouraged by the State, which is actively interested in getting people to many, as a married person with Hire Purchase commitments is "less inclined to be a radical or a revolutionary . . . "The writer of the article goes on:—"No council would consider letting one of their flats to a single person. And that is one of the things we need to change."

At least one council (Chelsea Borough Council) lets flats to single people and we can be sure there are others. But apart from this, let us examine the logic of our anarchist's argument. If it is true that the authorities encourage the above state of affairs, so that people tend to get married and therefore not become revolutionaries, etc., and are less inclined to want the “FREE SOCIETY" which the anarchists would have us believe they are after, then their position should be one of supporting the landladies and lodgers set-up; opposing the introduction of cookers in bed-sitters, on the principle that more misery makes more revolutionaries! For, if our “bed-sitters" get their “amenities" it is surely only a matter of time before they too have their H.P. commitments and are lost in the day-dream world of trying to keep up with the Jones’s!

The fact is that neither by increasing misery nor by tinkering around with the effects of Capitalism (a gas stove here or there) can we get rid of the class problems of this society. It is property—the ownership by a few, to the exclusion of the many, which causes social problems. Whether it is war—the squabble over property in the form of markets, realisation of profits, sources of raw materials, trade routes, etc., by National groups, or poverty —the position that all workers are in—lacking enough of the things of life to lead a comfortable existence, harassed by insecurity, fear of unemployment, etc., the fact that workers, generally speaking, never get more of the wealth produced by them, than is necessary for them to reproduce themselves as wage-workers. Or even the more superficial problems like refusing to work with coloured people; and “bed-sitters.” These are all the problems of a society which produces wealth socially, but doesn't distribute it according to need, a society in which the wealth produced by the working-class (who run society from top to bottom) is in the possession of a parasitical minority who own and control either privately or through the State.

To get rid of the above problems it is no good (as the anarchists do) advocating petty reforms, or the smashing of the State machine. What must be done is the organisation of the working class throughout the world into a cohesive, class-conscious whole, until Socialists are a majority. Then by taking control of the existing political apparatus, they will take over the means of living and make the earth and all that is on it and in it, the common-possession of all people, without distinction of race or sex. For only in a world where all have freedom of access to the wealth of society, can we be rid of war, poverty, bed-sitters, and so on. Such a society, of course, can only be brought about on a world-wide scale by people who understand, desire, and are prepared to work for it in an organised fashion; undermining the basis of Capitalist society and organising for a new one. rather than tinkering around with the effects of this one. like our Anarchist opponents.

Jon Keys

Lib-Labs or Lab-Libs (1960)

From the April 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the “left” of the Labour Party are a bunch of wordy, windy warriors who claim to be “convinced and dedicated Socialists.” They are the “Tribune tribe.”

You would, of course, be justified if you thought that “convinced and dedicated Socialists" meant men and women concerned with explaining to their fellow workers their class position in society. That this system with its class robbery, exploitation of wage-labour, and all that goes with them, gives rise to the predominant problems of today; and that the only solution is a society based on the holding in common, of all the world's wealth, by all the people of the earth— that is social equality. In one word, Socialism.

But how wrong you would be. For nothing is further from the truth. These windy wights are concerned with everything, but Socialism. Although they claim to be Socialists, their very words and actions give the lie to their claim. Any issue of Tribune will bear this out, but the issue of February 26th is a case in point.

Apart from the current squabble on clause 4 of the Labour Party's constitution—as if public ownership ever had anything to do with Socialism—one article in particular bears out the statements made above.

This article, by Mr. David Boulton, “who came into politics through the Liberal Party, but has since joined the Labour Party. . .” is in essence a plea for the two parties—Liberal and Labour —to get together. However, in the course of his article he makes some revealing statements which show how non-Socialist he and his party are. The following are two examples:

  The Liberal Party, like Labour, is less a compact body of like-minded political activists than a coalition of a number of different bodies of opinion with a startling deficiency of common denominators. Within its framework are the single-taxers, the extreme laissez-faire school, the unilateral free-traders, the incurable “lost causers” and "I’m-for-the-under- dog”-ers, “conservatism-without-tears,” preachers and the genuine radicals.
  The Labour and Liberal Parties each pay lip-service to the idea of redressing, in some way, the absurd ill-balance of national wealth in which the vast bulk of industrial property is held by a tiny proportion of the population.

There you have it, straight from the horse’s mouth. Having delivered himself of these home truths, our ex-Liberal cum-Labourite then considers that “Liberal Socialism and social Liberalism”—read Labour and Liberal Parties —have much to learn from each other.

One would have doubted this as they have both been at the game for a long time, but Mr. Boulton is nothing if not naive. He goes on to make the most astonishing statement about the aforesaid parties. He says: “Both work toward a society in which wage slavery will be abolished. . . ."

Where and when Mr. Boulton? We have been in existence for 56 years just for this very purpose, and it is the first time that we have heard that this is what the Labour and Liberal parties stand for.

Jon Keys

"The Year of the Bomb" (1955)

From the February 1955 issue of the Socialist Standard

Friday, the 31st December, 1954, saw the publication under the above heading of one of the most blatantly tendencious articles that has ever appeared in the Manchester Guardian. It was like the Daily Worker in reverse, and we feel sure it is an augury of what the Soviet bloc must expect throughout the coming year in the verbal war between East and West.

The article points out the terrible effects of the H-bomb, in particular "that the biological consequences are uncertain. Some scientists say that radiation may cause the birth of deficient or deformed children . . . " The article then goes on to point out that people "have begun to grasp what these bombs mean. They have begun to ask whether any government could ever use such weapons. The answer, a bitter and unhappy answer, is that some governments might. We cannot count on a Communist Government respecting the interests of common humanity." The article also mentions the millions murdered and imprisoned in Soviet labour camps in Northern Siberia.

No one could detest the Russian system more than we Socialists—and what was said about Russia is quite true, but it is equally valid for the Western Powers. Apart from the fact that the first concentration camps were set up by the British in South Africa during the Boer War, and the slave labour in the Crown colonies, it is also a fact that the first atom bombs were dropped by the Americans in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The effects of the bombs at the time were unknown but it was known that they would be devastating. The biological consequences in the case of the Atom bomb were and still are uncertain. The same held good for the Atom bomb then as for the H-Bomb now, And who knows what genetical monstrosities may not turn up in the future, caused by the Nagasaki and Hiroshima handiwork? Yet all this was done ostensibly on behalf of "Democracy" and the "Western Way of Life". There was little respect for "the interests of common humanity" in that particular instance.

All this of course contrasts rather strangely with the one-sided article in the Manchester Guardian. The truth of the matter is that when property is threatened governments everywhere fall over themselves in their haste to protect it, and use every weapon at their disposal in that endeavour.

Who drops the H-bomb first, and where, is dependent upon whose interests are threatened and how much—and it might be the Western powers who do the dropping again! Whoever drops the H-bomb (if it is dropped), East or West, we can be sure that it will be in the interests of "Peace", the Eastern or Western "Way of Life".

As Socialists we have continually pointed out that the only solution to A-bombs, H-bombs, and all the other horrible instruments of modern warfare is to get rid of this capitalist system, and replace it with a society in which the means of living are held in common and equality of access prevails. Then, and only then, with the abolition of this system, with its racial, religious, national, class and individual antagonisms and prejudices, can we live a life where social harmony and equality will be an established fact; and war, poverty and insecurity a thing of the past.

Jon Keys