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

A Visit To Lancashire (1952)

From the July 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Very tired, I strolled out of London Road Station, Manchester. Its tall grim buildings lent small contrast to the litter-ridden streets. It was cold, and grime hung to every wall. Not yet 7 a.m., and already the streets were cluttered with people—or are these workers people? Early bent with age, the sickening look of lifelong servitude clouds their faces; old macs, lifeless trousers, and a quick walk; working automatons, fed and kept to make a profit for their bosses.

At that early hour cars were still asleep and their wealthy owners turned weary heads around soft pillows. Crowded buses filled the roads and as if to pack them tight, bicycles long past their age of safety cut everywhere between them.

Later, as my train pulled out of Victoria Station, I realised how little changed was Manchester. There seemed to be small concern about the slump which was gnawing at its guts: 100,000 on short time, 30,000 dismissed.

My next stop was Rochdale, and here the sight was more depressing. I saw groups of men standing on street corners, hands in pockets, wondering “What next? Perhaps we will soon be hearing the old Tory cry: 'these men are lazy, they do not want to work, unemployment will do them good.' ” A local lavatory attendant a little later expressed this view: “They have had their way long enough, now let the bosses have their turn. Most of them don't want to work, that’s why they were sacked first." I was reminded of what Mr. H. Kershaw, Assistant Secretary of the Weavers' Association, said a fortnight ago at a meeting in Stockport: “We don't want something for nothing, we want the right to work." It is the old story returning, the story of the years between the wars.

I saw an old woman turn down a narrow unwelcoming street carrying a parcel. I looked along the road and about thirty yards to the left I saw three balls hanging on the wall arched against all weathers. The old woman turned in the door. I looked over the curtained window, was not satisfied and walked in. Six tired unhappy females were parting with chattels. On the walls were notices: “No females’ clothes accepted." “Medals not wanted," “Watches not accepted unless in working order." Behind the counter was the “philanthropist," his hard lines betraying all that was worst in capitalism.

I made an excuse and walked out, and nearly pushed some bread and jam into a little girl’s face. “You're enjoying yourself' I said. She ignored me. “Your lunch?" I asked. “Yes." “Why eat it in the street?" “ Dad's eating his and there ain't enough, so Mum sent me and Bill out" She turned and ran away.

I went back into the high street and surveyed the crowds. How many of them remember that just two years ago they were being told that never again would there be unemployment, prosperity was assured for at least another ten years? And now, out of the 18 big mills in Stockport, 11 are closed and the rest are working two or three days a week. In the small town of Heywood, 1266 are unemployed. The News Chronicle editorial (10th May) says (referring to Oldham) that out of 38,000 workers 6,000 are unemployed, thousands more are only partly employed and the fully employed comprise mere hundreds. The Manchester Evening Chronicle (14th May) states that hundreds of thousands of shirts are being unloaded on Lancashire retailers at below cost There have been crowded meetings of workers all over the county, demanding that the Government take action and asserting that they will not allow the industry to return to the state it was in the '30s. In Bolton the average number of operatives stopped during the last eight weeks has been 42 per cent. Mr. E. Mella, president of the Oldham Operative Spinners Association, opening a conference at Blackpool on May Day, said that the two weeks holiday with pay had come at an unfortunate time and the per cent. of total earnings which was granted for holiday money would under present conditions be of no use because many workers have been out of work for several weeks, and even if the agreement gave them 20 per cent they would still have no money. Also at this conference of the United Textile Factory Workers Association the secretary said: “We have not seen the worst of the slump; unless something is done to clear the high-priced goods, our industry is faced with a complete shut down for several weeks in the summer."

My next move was to visit a local furniture saleroom, as I wanted to compare prices with London. I considered that owing to the complicated and unique position that second-hand goods hold, their prices would vary very strongly with the law of supply and demand, having no ordinary cost basis behind them to stop them selling below their cost price—they are therefore much more at the mercy of market conditions than new goods. I was proved correct: goods were being sold for a song, the auctioneer was hard pressed to get 5s. for small lots. The audience gasped at some of the ridiculous prices, but with no money they could not buy.

I made trips to Royton and Oldham, but conditions were much the same, the slump was on everyone's lips.

Now I looked at some of the statements being made by our textile experts and economists. Space unfortunately only permits me to quote a few of their recent utterances.

George Hosty, President of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners Association (the Chronicle, 10/5/52) thinks reduction in costs is the solution.

Mr. A. Knowles, Secretary of Oldham Operative Spinning Association (Oldham Evening Chronicle, 13/5/52) said: “I am satisfied that textile goods are as cheap as they ever will be. I think it is time the public started to buy.”

Liverpool Daily Post (14/5/52) editorial states that in just over a year the price of wool has been halved and instead of retail demand picking up, the commodity has plunged the textile industry into suffering through lack of orders.

Mr. A. Knowles again (Oldham Evening Chronicle, 13/5/52) says that 25 per cent purchase tax cuts are chicken feed.

Manchester Evening News (13/5/52) says that traders consider Butler’s purchase tax cuts would unsettle the market and start further price landslides. The editorial of the same edition says that any concession, however small, must be welcome.

In the face of these contradictions, it is obvious that these people have no idea what the slump is all about, and it is doubtful if they would be interested anyway. They will try the old cures while the depression grows even if its tentacles strangle the whole of the capitalist world.

S. Roseneil

Party News Briefs (1952)

Party Notes from the July 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Head Office Forum will be held on Saturday, July 12th, at 7 p.m., subject, “Socialism in Backward Countries.” Forum is to consist of Comrades F. Evans, D. Fenwick, C. Groves, G. McClatchie and W. Read. A. Turner will take the chair. This should prove a very interesting discussion so please make a note of the date and time.

Summer School Week-end was held on Saturday and Sunday, June 8th, and 9th, at “Treetops,” Farley Green, Surrey. Sixty members and friends were present and despite showers on the Sunday, all appeared to have enjoyed the week-end. F. Evans gave a lecture on Economic Geography and a discussion was opened by A. Turner on “Socialist Propaganda—is our approach too Negative?”

A Social was held on Saturday evening. All expenses were met with £1 surplus.

It is hoped to arrange an autumn week-end school at “Treetops,” and if members who are interested would contact the Central Organiser it will enable him to make preliminary arrangements as a minimum number of visitors must be ensured before he can book the camp.

Provincial Propaganda,—The Executive Committee is making arrangements for a comrade to visit the Manchester/Liverpool area for four weeks in August. It is also hoped to run regular fortnightly meetings at Nottingham throughout the summer. The meetings already held there have proved most satisfactory. 

Ealing Branch is slowly but surely increasing its efforts after a period of comparative inactivity. At the time of writing three debates are due to take place, one of which is in June with the Ealing North Liberals. The other two come later in the year with the Peace Pledge Union and George Schwarz, of the Sunday Times.

Members are once more rallying in support of the outdoor stations at Ealing and Richmond. This year’s season has had an encouraging commencement with good results. It is also proposed to hold two seaside propaganda trips, one of which is to Southsea on June 22nd, and the other to Hastings on August 17th. Ventures of this sort have in the past proved very fruitful, some excellent meetings having been held.

Just recently the monthly canvass of the Socialist Standard has been recommenced with promising results to date. Efforts are also being made to get the sales of the Party’s journal boosted in local newsagents and outside railway stations.

Phyllis Howard

1. The Lesser of Two Evils (1952)

The Common Questions Answered series from the July 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

Q: You in the S.P.G.B. always seem to disregard the fact that Socialism cannot possibly come for a long while yet. Surely the practical thing to do in the meantime is to try to make the present system work better?

A: If Capitalism could be made to work differently we should have seen some worthwhile results from all the efforts of those who have tried to improve it. The “meantime” you refer to must be a capitalist meantime and is no responsibility of those who seek to replace it with a better system. The establishment of Socialism depends on you, and enough others like you, withdrawing your support of Capitalism. It becomes practicable only to the extent that socialist ideas are accepted, and it will become a reality when action in line with those ideas is taken. What you call being practical amounts to trying to patch up Capitalism, the existence of which is the cause of the problems we all want to solve.

Q: Don't you think you should support the Labour Party at elections, since its policy is nearer to Socialism than that of the Conservative Party?

A: The Labour Party, in common with all other parties in this country, except the S.P.G.B., seeks support from the electorate on a programme of reforms. In spite of the “Socialist” label which others have attached to it and which its leaders have been reluctant to disown, its policy has nothing to do with Socialism. It is really absurd to believe that one party’s administration of Capitalism helps to bring us nearer to Socialism than any other’s would. If you support any of the parties that offer anything but Socialism as a practical policy you are in effect agreeing to the continuation of Capitalism. In doing so you are helping to postpone Socialism, not bring it nearer.

Q: Why do you stand aloof from the political struggle by advocating something you know is not practical politics'! Why not support the Trade Unions in the day-to-day struggle for better conditions?

A: We do not stand aloof from the political struggle. We support Trade Union activity that is genuinely in the interest of the working class. But we recognise that such action can only be defensive. It is only organisation on the political field that will enable the class system to be abolished. Capitalism defies all the efforts of reformers who seek to rid it of war, insecurity, poverty and other social ills, and these problems will remain unsolved until the property basis of society is abolished. Socialists are organised in the S.P.G.B. not to haggle with their employers over the way in which Capitalism is run but solely to replace it with Socialism.

Q: The Labour Party's policy is more for the workers than the representatives of big business in the Tory Party are. So the first thing to do is to get the Tories out, isn't it?

A: All you would do by that would be to choose the rival firm to run Capitalism. You ask us to help defeat the Tories because you think doing that will bring you a step nearer the sort of world you want. But you’ll find, as six years of Labour Government should have shown you, that it won’t. When you understand that the enemy to be overcome is the present system of society itself then you aim directly at establishing Socialism. The growth of socialist understanding will succeed more than anything else in making all its opponents sink their minor differences and in forcing them to make concessions in a vain attempt to divert people from taking action to end Capitalism.

Q. Surely a strong socialist movement is much more likely to grow under a Labour Government than under a Tory one? Isn't it better to have a party in power which has been built up by working-class support rather than one which represents their traditional enemies?

A: Your arguments are based on the assumption that the Labour administration of Capitalism is preferable to the Tory one. But if most people had found this so then the present Government would never have been chosen to replace the allegedly better Labour one. In other words, what was imagined to be the lesser evil had in the eyes of the electors become the greater. The truth is that Capitalism can be run in only one way—in the interest of the capitalist class against that of the working class. It doesn’t matter whether members of the Government are “ of the people,” so-called middle class or millionaires; they compete at elections with others offering to do the same job. If you don’t want Socialism you choose one set of them. When disappointed you may change your registration, but you still get the same meagre rations because you’ve done nothing to end the system that rations you.

Q: We must do something positive now about the problems that face us. Why wait for a majority of people to understand all about Socialism before taking some constructive action?

A: Behind your question is the false belief that you stand to lose by not choosing what is often claimed to be the lesser of two evils. When you understand Socialism the question of waiting for others doesn’t arise—your “action” is to make them socialists also. Just look at the position you are in. You want to enjoy better conditions of living and a world without war. You realise the Tory Party can do nothing to bring these things, yet you still cling to the hope that the Labour Party can do a little better. You should stop trying to take a short cut that isn’t there—you’re wasting your time when you could be making solid progress towards your goal. Don’t be sidetracked by the specious plea that you have to choose between two evils when you can reject both by choosing Socialism.

Stan Parker