Politics: Rates, Taxes & the Working Class (1975)

From the March 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The swindler Horatio Bottomley, when he was a Liberal MP in 1907, proposed in Parliament measures to finance Old Age Pensions for all people over sixty-five. The chief proposals were an Employer’s Tax of a penny in the pound on all wages; super-tax on investments; Stamp Duty on share certificates; a tax on racing and betting stakes; and State appropriation of all dormant bank balances and securities.

His biographer Alan Hayman says: “It is a tribute to the acumen of Horatio Bottomley that nearly every one of his suggestions has subsequently passed on to the statute book in some form or another.” The acumen obviously came from the frauds Bottomley had already been involved in: having done down a number of wealthy individuals, he knew that if revenue on a big scale was wanted it could only be had from the capitalist class on the assumption that it was in their ultimate interests to pay.

It is a pity that more people have not understood the position so realistically. The idea that taxes are paid by the working class to upkeep institutions which belong to them is one of the myths by which the majority are misdirected towards non-issues. Of course phraseology plays a major part; the revenue from rates and taxes is always described as “public money” and “the taxpayers’ money”. As with terms like “the nation” and “the British people”, it is necessary to ask what is meant by “public” and who are the taxpayers. The case which the Socialist Party of Great Britain has put forward consistently since 1904 is that rates and taxes are a burden not on the working class but on the capitalist class; and this remains just as true in 1975.

Working Out Wages

Many workers would at first glance treat this as preposterous. They are possibly “having to pay” several pounds a week in income-tax deducted from their wages; the prices of petrol and cigarettes are high, and other prices are pushed up, by tax additions. At the present time local rates are expected to go up by fifty per cent. or even more. These are seen as inroads on the money people have to live on, and there has been talk of organized refusal to pay rates if the increases are as great as expected.

The first and most important question is: what are wages? The capitalist system is based on the ownership of the means of production and distribution by a minority, who therefore live by owning. The great majority, having no such resource, have to live by selling their labour-power — that is, working for wages. Thus, labour-power is a commodity like anything else, and its price like all prices is the expression in money of its value — what went into producing it and is needed for reproducing it. At the lowest level that can mean enough money for the food and the rent, but in practice it means meeting many requirements. If the unskilled worker’s labour-power is a cheap product sold at a low price, the professional worker’s salary (equals wage) takes account of his training and the components of his “standard of living”.

But whatever their amount, wages are obviously what is received: the actual payment, not a hypothetical one. Workers cannot help but be aware of this. No-one will be persuaded that £30 is £40 and that the latter figure is a “true” wage; the opposite is the case. The illusion created over “tax deductions” is that if only they could be evaded or reduced in some way, the worker would be so much better off. The single man with a big gap between gross and net pay sees that his colleague with a family has a smaller gap, i.e. takes home more wages, though he probably has less to spend in the end. If only some benevolent tax legislation would provide the best of both worlds!

Paring and Portions

It should be recalled that large numbers of workers were not involved with income-tax at all before the last war; like keeping a bank account, it was regarded as a sign of being well-off. In Studies in an Inflationary Economy (1966) F. W. Paish gives tables showing the percentages of total earned-income tax drawn from different income groups before and after the war. In 1938, 87 per cent. came from the first (the highest) 500,000, and all the tax was attributed to the first 5 millions or less than half of all employed persons. By 1959 the first 500,000 were responsible for only 42.3 per cent. The first 5 millions provided 72.3 per cent., and the range covered the first twenty millions.

This is part of an argument by Paish that there had been a marked equalization of incomes. In fact, the changes in the figures for earned incomes at the top and tax drawn from them reflect changes in the taxation system more than anything else. But, if one granted that the working class as a whole had become concerned in direct taxation since 1938, these figures show what a small concern it is. In 1938 more than half of earned incomes paid no tax; in 1959, with the number of employed persons doubled, roughly three- quarters paid only just over one-quarter of the tax.

What tax deductions achieve is an apportionment of income among the working class. Their introduction early in the war (linked with the post-war credits scheme, a fraud which Bottomley would have envied) had the object, besides raising money, of restricting consumption: they were reductions in wages. The workers most hit by them were, of course, the unmarried ones whose spending money was cut. This remains the case, and it means that the discontent of married workers with homes and families, which is the main strength of wage demands, is checked to some extent.

Incidentally, a report in The Observer of 16th February bears out that tax deductions are cuts in wages. Wedgwood Benn, the Secretary of State for Industry, addressed a Labour meeting at Hillingdon:

Although ostensibly attacking the Tories, Mr. Benn was evidently warning the Chancellor [Denis Healey] that he would not accept any brake on consumption. He denounced as a ‘pre-war remedy’ the idea of a wage cut.

Under Mr. Healey’s plans for bringing down inflation, the level of take-home pay after tax would have to rise less fast than prices.

Paying for What ?

Realistically, therefore, income-tax as far as the working class is concerned is a more sophisticated version of Bottomley’s proposed Employer’s Tax on wages. Not much thought is needed to see that it is paid by employers in any case. It is applied to individual wage-packets to effect varying payments according to status — single, married with no children, married with several to support, etc. — from a notional common wage. (We are not here considering national insurance contributions, which generally are returned to the workers as benefits.)

One argument is that workers do pay taxes but receive benefits in return; thus, that food and housing subsidies and public services are, as it were, purchases on an equalled-out, socially “just” basis. Certainly it is true that subsidies and services are provided by the Government out of taxation, but the beneficiaries over the costs are the capitalist class. Subsidies are an important means of keeping down the cost of living, and but for them the wages bill would be much higher.

Moreover, they are a means again of apportioning. Those chiefly affected by them are workers with families. Why should capitalists have to pay workers ail round to meet a cost, when those to whom it applies can be selected ? This is the purpose of housing subsidies, rent rebates, family allowance and so on, as well as subsidies on food.

What should always be borne in mind, nevertheless, is that the main burden of taxation is for government expenditure on the civil service, armaments, law enforcement and the rest of the general maintenance of capitalism. This is what the capitalist class must support. That is not to say they pay tax willingly. On the contrary, they try continually to have the costs of government reduced — usually by one section seeking to have part of the burden transferred to another section. The differences between the main political parties are largely differences over taxation and expenditure: hew the money shall be collected and how it shall be spent.

Taxes and Prices

Where indirect taxation is concerned, here again it is commonly assumed that the taxes on commodities are an extra charge to the purchaser. In fact price increases caused by taxes are no different from increases due to other factors. Although the introduction of Value Added Tax in Britain has made the prices of many commodities rise (though some have fallen, or risen less than they would otherwise have done), few people would think of it as a reason for continuing inflation; and even fewer would think of taxation as a reason for the difference in prices between 1914 or 1939 and now.

Government policy over indirect taxation in the past has always been to seek industries where monopoly or near-monopoly conditions ruled, demand for the products was fairly inelastic, and high profits being steadily made; and then to “cream off” some of the profit. It is by no means true that the tax must be passed on as an addition to retail prices. In Benham’s Economics (1967) F. W. Paish says:

In practice, however, a monopolist seldom charges a price high enough to maximize his profits . . . The normal response of producers is to “pass on” the tax to consumers by adding it to their selling price. They may discover after a time that their sales fall off so much that their best course is to reduce their prices somewhat, but to begin with they are likely to add on the full amount of the tax.

The position may appear slightly different with VAT, since the tax takes the form of a straight percentage addition to the retail price. The increasing practice is for prices to be stated “including VAT” instead of naming a separate price to which tax is added. In other words, the producer or seller still seeks the best price he can get, taking the tax he must pay into consideration: prices are prices, just as wages are wages.

The Rates Bill

To workers who are householders, it seems undeniable that rates are an increasingly heavy burden on them. Since there are misunderstandings over what rates are for, it may be worth explaining that they pay the running costs only of local government administration and services: staff salaries, welfare services, the maintenance of schools, roads, sewers, etc. The maintenance of Council housing is normally a separate fund which must be supported from the housing income.

Capital expenditure — the building of houses, flats and schools, the provision of roads and sewers etc. — does not come from rates. The large sums required for these are borrowed by local authorities, if and when the projects are approved by the government department involved. Local government is the branches of central government; its work implements the policies of the central government, by whom its expenditure is controlled.

Rates are a charge on property, and before rent restriction (starting in 1914) diminished private landlords the rates were paid by them from rent revenues. Since that time, house rents have divided into “inclusive” and “exclusive” of rates; in the latter case the tenant pays the rent to the landlord and the rates to the local authority. It is a matter of landlords’ book-keeping — most local authorities still offer a 10 per cent,.reduction for rates paid en bloc, but not many landlords think it worth while. The effect has been to create the impression that it is the tenant who is the ratepayer; whereas he does not own the house, and is only paying in two parts what he would have paid in total.

The position has been further complicated by the growth of owner-occupation, to the point where alternatives to the rating system are now being urgently considered. The most popular suggestion, though made vaguely, is a “local income tax”. Insofar as a great many workers have thought (encouraged by deceitful political catchphrases like “a property-owning democracy”) that acquiring their own house was a step upward, it is a tragedy that they acquire only crippling mortgage repayments and are caught in a system of charges intended for bigger fish altogether. When an alternative system is produced, it will show where the burden of supporting government correctly lies.

Socialism, not Reform

One of the hopes of working people when they vote is for reductions in rates and taxes. They hope for "tax concessions”, i.e. that their take-home pay will be increased by the deductions being lightened; and for changes in the situation over rates so that they have to pay out less. Their belief is that these changes would make them substantially better off.

A simple answer is to look at times, not so many years ago, when few workers were conscious of income-tax problems or received rate demands and prices were lower. Were they better off ? Alternatively one may ask if, supposing it were possible for a government to make tax and rate alterations which favoured the working class, the employers would readily accept the consequent jump in wages ? Hardly. Any fall in the cost of living has always been followed by the forcing down of wages, as happened in the early nineteen-twenties. The general lowering of wages was, in a short time, practically equivalent to that of the cost of living. Farm workers’ wages, which were 46s. a week in 1920, were 29s. by 1924 and remained at that level up to 1939.

Reformers exist by persuading workers that adjustments and reallocations within capitalism can change their situation. Before the war Dean Inge wrote in the Evening Standard: “Popular education is taking the bread out of our mouths.” He was voicing the belief of workers who considered themselves “middle-class” that they were being ruined by taxation; the same section of the working class now complains of being ruined by the rates instead.

The level of taxes makes no difference to the continual struggle to keep abreast of the cost of living, as the history of legislation in our lifetime shows. It is an error to think that rates, taxes and prices are an issue for the working class; the only issue is Socialism.

Robert Barltrop

Cooking the Books: How would you like your cut? (2025)

The Cooking the Books column from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Like local councils everywhere, the London Borough of Lambeth doesn’t have enough money to pay for adequate social amenities such as parks, playgrounds, libraries, and social centres. In fact, to balance the books over the coming years it will have to cut back on these even further:

‘Lambeth Council has to make huge savings from its budget, equal to more than a third of its annual spending, and is asking local people to give their ideas about how to save money at this time of unprecedented challenge. Over the next four years the council must find £84 million in savings, on top of £99 million in savings already agreed.’

Normally, this would be decided by the council’s cabinet, made up from members of the political party or parties with a majority of councillors (in the case of Lambeth, it’s Labour). This is an unenviable task which makes the council and councillors unpopular. Lambeth Council has come up with a way to try to avoid this, asking people living in the area which services they think should be given priority — and which, by implication, should not. The idea being that, when the cuts are made, the councillors can turn round and say that they were only doing what the public had suggested.

So, those living in Lambeth were asked to choose where the axe should fall. They had to click their way through an online survey and to choose which 3 out of 18 services they wanted to prioritise, leaving the remaining 15 as targets for cutting. Critics have likened this to giving someone sentenced to death a choice between being shot or hanged. They also question why ‘no cuts’ wasn’t an option. The answer to that question goes to the heart of matter.

‘No cuts’ is not an option because the council simply does not have the money, and the council does not have the money because the central government has not allocated it enough. Why? Because the central government is responsible for running things in the general interest of the capitalist class. Profits are what drive the economy, and governments must avoid doing anything that impedes profit-making on pain of provoking an economic downturn. Governments are financed by taxes that ultimately fall on profits and so cannot increase taxes just to improve services and amenities for the general public (they can only provide those that directly or indirectly benefit capitalist production and then at minimum cost). Governments are managing capitalism and have to abide by the economic law of capitalism that decrees that profit-making comes first.

So cuts there have to be, at both national and local level. The only question is who should decide to make them and where they should fall. The national government decides on cuts to national spending while local councils decide on cuts to local spending. Local councils blame the government. So Lambeth’s Labour Council Leader talks of ‘14 years of structural underfunding of local government’. But it’s not the fault of national government, whether Tory or Labour. Such underfunding is chronic because meeting people’s needs is not what capitalism is about.

The fact is that it doesn’t matter who decides to make the cuts; they have to be made. But it is not an extension of democracy to involve the working class in the decision. That’s just a way to get workers to act against their own interest and take responsibility for the worsening conditions capitalism imposes on them. Socialists living in Lambeth refused to take part in the charade, as did many others.

The Forum: Concerning Rates and Taxes. (1909)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. John Rhind (Old Trafford) writes:

(1) I have often heard it stated in the Socialist Standard, as well as by members of your Party, that the working classes do not pay rates in the form of rent. I fail to see the truth of that statement in view of the fact that my landlord has raised my rent in consequence of the local rates being increased.

(2) Again, do not the workers pay taxes (national) in the form of additional charges being made on such commodities as beer, spirits and tobacco, when, as recently, the duty on these things has risen ?

(3) If rent is a portion of surplus-value, as you maintain, can it be rightly said that I, for instance, do not pay rent ? My experience is that I receive so much in wages and out of this I pay rent. Do you deny this?—John Rhind

[We have numbered the items for convenience sake.—ed. “S.S.”]

As to No. 1 (first correcting the point of the use of the plural—working classes. Our correspondent does not see this in the “S.S.”) Mr. Rhind also fails to see that landlords do not and cannot charge a rental at will, but only as the state of the house-room market allows. Of course the landlords are always on the look out for opportunities to get increased rentals, and the plea of the burden of higher rents will often serve to catch a “flat.” On the other hand an increased demand for house-room will enable the landlord to demand more, while the rates bogey is paraded as the reason. In some of the suburbs of London, such as Walthamstow, West Ham, and Tottenham, rentals have been lowered although rates have been rising. Mr. Chiozza Money, in his “Riches and Poverty” (p. 79), says, and gives supporting opinions for the contention, that the rates are, finally, a charge upon the landowner.

(2) No, the workers do not pay the taxes (national), that is to say are not, by so much, out of pocket; for if in some cases it can be shown that the imposts have the effect of raising the price of commodities, these latter if consumed by the workers enter into the cost of production of labour-power. As a consequence, and in the long run, such wages have to be paid as will meet this cost.

As to the extra duties imposed by the present budget upon beer, spirits and tobacco, we are of opinion that the last has not been heard, by any means, upon this matter. It were well to note that the price of alcoholic liquors has not risen all over the country, and that the Press reports cases where retailers have defied the orders of the brewers to raise the price; these same retailers, of course, doing a roaring trade in consequence. The tobacco trade is, to-day, very largely monopolised, its controllers being in a position, at least for a time, to raise prices, and they are, of course, only too glad of the opportunity to do so when, as at present, with the excuse of the increased duties they seem justified, and the least outcry is to be expected. Their power to exact higher prices is, however, curbed by the tendency of demand to slacken as prices rise. This point is emphasised in the recent manifesto of the brewers on the new budget duties, wherein they show the intimate connection of an increase in prices with a decrease in sales.

The attention of our correspondent is further directed to the following quotation (from the Star of July 19th), which speaks for itself.

“Notices have been received by the retailers announcing that the price of Messrs. Wills’s ‘Gold Flake’ cigarettes is to revert to the old figure.

When the Budget was announced, the price to the consumer was raised to 3½d., but the result has not justified expectation, for the price is now to go back to 3d.

It is probable that other brands of cigarettes will come into line and revert to the old retail prices.”

(3) Do we deny that our correspondent pays rent ? Not likely ! We are not in possession of the facts. However, taking our questioner as representative, he most certainly pays away part of his wages as “rent,” which in this ease is clearly the price of house-room. Now such rent is not all surplus-value, and we have never stated that it is such. Ground-rent, received by the ground-landlord, is distinctly “a portion of surplus-value.” Mr. Rhind’s difficulty is that he has only a confused notion of our position, and space is lacking for us to dual more fully with the matter here. He will find our position regarding taxation in general more fully explained in the October 1904 number of the Socialist Standard, while the particular question of the rates is dealt with at length in the issue of June, 1905.—Editor “S.S.”

Letter: "Municipal Politics." (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the March 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Suspicions arising as to the genuineness of the following letter, a communication was sent to the address given. It was returned through the post marked "Not known." Though it is unusual to take notice of anonymous correspondence, an exception is made in this case since the matter may be of some interest to our readers.

"Municipal Politics."

Jan. 18th, 08. 

Socialist Party of Great Britain,

Gentlemen,—In The Socialist Standard for January an article appeared under the heading “Municipal Politics." In regard to a candidate becoming elected to a municipal body you state that he will of course work to wrest from the capitalist class any possible present amelioration although he did not seek suffrages for this, but for Socialism. Since amelioration is of no use whatever to the working class as long as the exploiting class remain in power, why should he waste time on this since he did not seek votes to obtain amelioration, but to bring about Socialism? Also since he was appointed by a class- conscious electorate one would think that they would not expect any reforms to be advocated by him. Hoping to see a reply to this in your next month's issue, I remain.

Yours fraternally,

J. R. Smith.

409, Oldham Rd., Manchester.

Reply:

To say, as does our correspondent, that “amelioration of any kind is of no use to the working class so long as the exploiting class remain in power” is entirely absurd. It is saying that an amelioration is at the same time not an amelioration. It implies that the workers if able to obtain a rise in wages should refuse to take it on the ground that it would be of no use to them!

The only point upon which there can be intelligent discussion is, not whether an amelioration is of use, but whether or how any amelioration is obtainable under capitalism; and if Mr. Smith had used the whole and not a half of a sentence he would have seen that the other half states that neither the Socialist member nor his "electors are under any illusions on this head, for he has made plain how little is to be hoped for from the enemy while entrenched in power."

If Mr. Smith will read the article in question he will see that its whole burden is that any wide spread or important amelioration is impossible under capitalism, and that to obtain even any partial or temporary benefits that may be obtainable as sops from the master class, the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism is the only effective way. And in this struggle for Socialism the workers will take all they can get, and will use every coign of vantage, not to patch up a rotten system, but to strengthen, educate, and organise the working class army in the task of abolishing capitalist exploitation.

As distinct from the reformers who adapt themselves to bourgeois interests, the Socialists must always—as stated in the article—formulate working-class interests and so make clearer in contrast with capitalist interests the polar antagonism that exists and which can only be dissolved by Socialism. Nothing can be considered by a Socialist as being in working class interests that helps to perpetuate a system of oppression, but everything will be welcomed that can be used effectively as a weapon by the Socialist army in ending the capitalist system.

When the Socialist workers control a municipal council, are they, as according to Mr. Smith, to do nothing because they cannot do all? Limited though the local powers are, yet, obviously, they must be used to the utmost. It would, indeed, be folly to contest a local election if the workers were not prepared when in a majority to use the organisation of the municipality as a base of operations in the revolutionary struggle, by aiding and strengthening the workers in revolt against the system. While to refrain from using the electoral machinery where such can be of use to the Socialist workers would be treachery.

Social reformers seek votes in order to patch up the present system, but the Socialist seeks only the conscious co-operation of the workers for its abolition. Hence with the Socialist all else is subordinate to this end, and is only of use in so far as it is a means thereto. By revolution alone can permanent and substantial benefit accrue to the workers. Consequently, even for substantial and lasting amelioration, the first and essential step is, as stated in the article to which Mr. Smith refers, "the control by the workers nationally and locally, and this must be made plain ; and when the workers are the ruling class, lists of reforms suited to the continuance of capitalism become stupid, and entirely different revolutionary measures of transition become the order of the day. Thus reform programmes not only scatter and render mutually antagonistic the workers' efforts, but they obscure and prevent concentration upon the essential step."

So, Mr. Smith, we do not advocate reforms.

We may, then, conclude by further quoting for our correspondent’s benefit from the article in question, whose contents he seems to have unaccountably overlooked :

"It must, therefore, be clearly understood, (1st) that any reform worthy the name from a working-class standpoint involves the conscious taking from the capitalist class of, at least, part of the power and proceeds of robbery, and thus genuine reform is conditional on working-class supremacy. (2nd) That to wield in the workers' interest even the limited and paltry powers allowed by the central government to the local bodies it is first necessary to control the local bodies by a Socialist majority."

"Consequently to promise ‘immediate reforms' that cannot be granted until the revolutionary step has been taken leads to confusion, disappointment and apathy, while it means a vote worthless for Socialism followed by desertion. But to insist upon the futility of reform, and the primary necessity of capturing political power, means a sound vote, a solid backing, and a sure and steady growth of the class-conscious and revolutionary army."

And that, Mr. Smith, is why we do not advocate reforms.

F. C. Watts

Letter: The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils. (1938)

Letter to the Editors from the July 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

The position of a Socialist minority in Parliament and on local councils.

Mr. R. Jessop (Spalding) asks a question which has often been answered in these columns, but which is obviously of continuing interest and merits repetition.

“What are the tactics of Socialist Members of Parliament in a minority position to be? Supposing the Government should introduce a Bill to increase Old Age Pensions, introduce wages boards, or any measure that would be of benefit to some section of the workers. Would the Socialists oppose such measures on the general grounds that they only deal with the effects of capitalism, or would they support them as giving the workers some small benefit whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem?

The position of a Socialist Town or County Councillor also is not quite clear to me. Whilst capitalism continues, such individuals will be obliged to administer that system on housing committees, gas and water committees, A.R.P. committees, etc. Except that they will be standing by to help in the administration of Socialism, when it is instituted, they will, for the time being so far as I can see, have to do a similar job to any Labour Party member who can see nothing beyond combating the immediate ill-effects of capitalism. Is this your view?”

Regarding Parliament, the answer, in brief, is that a minority of Socialist M.P.s would vote for or against measures introduced by other parties, or refrain from voting, in accordance with the Socialist Party’s view as to which course would be in the interest of the working class and Socialism. To use our correspondent’s own words, they would vote for certain measures “as giving the workers some small benefit, whilst at the same time pointing out that Socialism was the only satisfactory solution to the problem.”

A minority of Socialist M.P.s would obviously not vote against a measure which simply raised old-age pensions, or raised wages, or helped trade union organisation, or made it easier to carry on Socialist propaganda or organisation.

It would, however, be of the greatest importance that a Socialist minority should retain its complete independence and not enter into pacts or bargains with other parties or groups. Its position would be quite different from that of the Labour Party minority, which is elected on a non-Socialist programme by electors who are reformists, not Socialists, and which does enter into arrangements with other Parliamentary parties.

The position is much the same on local Councils, but it is not that stated by our correspondent, who takes it for granted that the minority of Town Councillors must take part in and share responsibility for the administration of local affairs. Although Labour minorities habitually sit on the sub-committees of the Council there is no need for them to do so. A Socialist minority of Councillors would use their position on the Council to put forward the Socialist view, but would make it clear that the majority in control were responsible for Council decisions and for the carrying out of the work of the Council on sub-committees and in the various departments of the local authority services.

The local authorities in Great Britain only have the powers devolved upon them by Parliament and the central Government. They cannot act on their own responsibility, outside the limits set for them. The Council majority are, in effect, only the agents of the central Government, and when a Council refuses to carry out the central Government’s wishes steps are taken, as at Poplar some years ago, to have local services carried on irrespective of the wishes of local electors and their representatives on the Council. A Socialist minority (or even a Socialist majority) on a local Council would be governed as to what they could do by Parliament and the central Government and the electors who voted Socialist would very well realise this and not expect their Socialist delegates on the Council to do the impossible.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: What would a socialist councillor do? (2025)

Letter to the Editors from the June 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

During last month’s local council elections, an elector put the following question to one of our candidates:

If I understand your position correctly, the Socialist Party of Great Britain believes that meaningful change can only happen through the democratic abolition of the current capitalist system, and the need for a system that prioritises human needs over profit resonates with me. However, I would like to better understand how Socialist Party representatives would engage with the existing structures in the meantime.

If Socialist Party candidates were elected to our local council, would they seek to influence decisions in ways that could incrementally empower local people, for example, by advocating for greater community ownership, encouraging democratic participation, or supporting measures that improve housing conditions, even within the current system? Or would the position be to abstain from participating in decisions that do not directly challenge capitalism as a whole?

In essence, I am curious: while recognising that systemic change is the ultimate goal, how would Socialist Party councillors use their platform day-to-day to represent and support their constituents? Are there specific steps you envision towards addressing issues like homelessness, unaffordable rents, and poor-quality housing, to use your example? How would you use your voice, which is effectively the representation of your voters’ voices, in practical terms?

Reply:

That is a fair question. Our correspondent has understood our position correctly. We do say that the various problems regarding housing, health care, education, transport, food quality and the standard of living and quality of life generally, as well as global problems such as global warming and war, arise from the nature of the capitalist profit system and can only be lastingly tackled within the framework of a society of common ownership and democratic control of the resources society needs to exist.

That is our only aim and what we campaign for, including when we stand candidates in national and local elections. We do not seek support on the basis of improvements within capitalism, desirable as some may be, and do not advocate any when we stand in elections. We stand for socialism and nothing else and only want votes on that basis.

What if one of our candidates were to be elected a local councillor? This assumes that those who voted for them would also want socialism and not, or not just, improvements within capitalism. Since, in elections at the moment, we only present one or two candidates, the situation would be one where there would not be a majority of socialist councillors. These would therefore be in the same position as the councillors representing parties that do not control the council. In other words, they would not be involved in decision-making and could only play an oppositional role.

In these circumstances, a socialist councillor could not do much other than argue the case for socialism, using the council chamber as a platform from which to explain how capitalism cannot be made to work in the interest of the majority excluded from ownership of means of production and hence the need for socialism where there would no longer be production for profit. This would not rule out explaining in detail how a socialist society might approach a particular problem under discussion.

Local councils have very limited powers in the fields you mention of community ownership, democratic participation, and measures to improve housing. The overall powers they do have are granted by the central government which also provides much of the money and lays down what it must be spent on. Nevertheless, councils do have limited discretion to make some minor changes.

In accordance with the mandate from those who elected them, a socialist councillor would not themself propose any measure to improve housing or democratic participation. But this does not mean that they would necessarily abstain on all matters, even if this might be taken to be the default position.

Any important decision would have to be referred back to local socialists and it is conceivable that the councillor could be instructed to vote for some measure (some extension of democratic participation perhaps) or against some measure that would manifestly make things worse (like selling off a park to developers or closing a library or a social centre). On the other hand, local socialists might decide the councillor should abstain on all votes as a matter of principle. So we can only speculate on what might be decided.

Would a socialist councillor act as a social assistant for those in their ward with some problem with the local administration? Would they draw to the attention of the local council potholes that needed filling or fly tipping that needs clearing? Maybe, but they wouldn’t want people to vote for them next time on the basis just of having been a ‘good councillor’. – Editors.

Answers to Correspondents. (1909)

From the February 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

Johnson (Hulme), writes “Having bought your paper, The Socialist Standard, and seen you have many times said the workers don’t pay the rates, I should like to ask you (1) Why do the capitalists not let the workers know they do not pay same ? (2) Why Mr. Geo. J. Wardle recently said at the Grand Theatre, Manchester, that the workers pay the rates—they pay everything ? (3) Mr. Masterman, M.P., at Crewe, 12 Nov., 08, said ‘But much as he would like to relieve taxation from every class, if he had to choose between the man with 18s. a week and the man with £2,000 a year he should have no hesitation in saying it was more desirable as a matter of national politics to relieve those with the smallest incomes.’ I should like to know who are up the pole, they, or I.”

We point out to our correspondent that the capitalists do, when it suits them, “let the workers know they don’t pay” the rates, for evidence of which see Chiozza Money’s “Riches and Poverty,” pp. 79-80 (People’s edition). With regard to the second point, Mr. Wardle probably knows no better. His statement quite bears out our contention that the members of the Labour Party are, to put it mildly, confusionists. The Socialist contention, of course, means that rates are not paid out of wages. Perhaps even Mr. Wardle would not claim that the workers pay for “everything” out of their wages. As to the third point, Mr. Masterman knows his business. Slim capitalist politician that he is, he knows the use of such verbal trickery when working men are to be bamboozled. Apart from the question at issue, wage-workers are vastly more interested in high municipal expenditure, involving employment, than they are in high or low rates. If our correspondent will read the article on the subject in the June ’05 issue of this journal, he will then be in a position to decide for himself who is “up the pole.”

Literary Curiosities No. 4—Dan Irving’s Election Address. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

It should be recorded that this document was sent out with Irving’s compliments as a directly personal communication and appeal.

_______________

MUNICIPAL ELECTION—GANNOW WARD

Thursday, Nov. 1st, 1906.

TO THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL ELECTORS IN THE WARD.

Committee Room, 47, Hargher Street,

Burnley, Oct. 29th, 1906.

Dear Sir or Madam,

For obvious reasons business and professional people do not care to disclose their intentions as to voting at elections. We, therefore, do not propose that our canvassers shall call upon you in the ordinary manner to solicit your vote on behalf of our Candidate.

We do, however, ask for your favourable consideration of our Candidate’s address, believing you will find that the proposals contained therein are such as would be beneficial to the whole community. The public record of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, is one, we contend, of good service done in the public interest, and such as has indeed won admiration and respect from many of his political opponents, and proves his capacity and fitness to serve the Ward as its representative on the Town Council.

Our efforts to bring about better conditions for the wage-earning classes are not at all inconsistent with the best interests of the class to which you belong. Higher wages, better education and increased leisure tends to a higher standard of living, increases the needs, and supplies the means whereby the working-classes purchase more from the Tradespeople and utilize to an ever-increasing degree the services of the Professional Classes.

It is to your interest that the working-classes should be well-to-do. As ratepayers, too, our interests coincide with your own. In our judgment, any expenditure tending to promote the health and general well-being of the community, is expenditure from which all alike reap benefit. Extravagant and unnecessary expenditure is not to our advantage any more than to your own, and our representatives have always shown by their votes that they are opposed to the expenditure of public money for which we get an inadequate return in public good.

We know that, in the main, your class have hitherto opposed the aspirations of the organised Labour movement. We are of opinion that this is largely owing either to misconceptions, or that you have not really thought out what the effect of our proposals would be. A careful and kindly consideration of these would, we are convinced, bring you to see that your own best interests are bound up in the general well-being of all.

We, therefore, ask for your vote and influence on behalf of our Candidate, Mr. Dan Irving, on Thursday, November 1st, and trust our appeal to your human rather than your class interests will not be in vain.

Yours truly,

THE L.R.C. COMMITTEE FOR GANNOW WARD

Random Notes. (1907)

From the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

The “Right to Live Council” which, I am authoritatively informed, has no connection with the “Right to Work” Council, nor with any other of the countless myriads of organisations all existing to affirm the right of somebody to do something (or someone) has issued a Declaration of Principles of an exceedingly noteworthy Character. I do not know the author but if I had the pleasure of his acquaintance I should certainly felicitate him upon the very scholarly way he has followed paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word for word, the Declaration of Principles which The Socialist Party of Great Britain drew up at its inception and which appears in every issue of this journal.

o o o

I do not accept the suggestion of unblushing plagiarism which accompanied the manifesto when it reached me, preferring to regard it as a remarkable manifestation of the working of imitative subconsciousness which, as is well known, frequently erupts in a manner calculated to induce the belief (in the uncultured only) that the medium had (if it is a literary “case”) lifted his matter “entire.” That this was not so in the instance of the “Right to Live Council” will be at once apparent to the discriminative from the fact that here and there, subconscious coherency seems to desert the medium, and, flung back upon his own resources, he is forced to fill in the breaks with transparently original matter. It is unfortunate perhaps that the original matter makes hash (colloquially, I believe, “Pork” or “Tripe”) of the whole document, but as we are not considering it as a contribution to the intellectual wealth of nations, but rather as a curious psychological study, that point need not be greatly laboured. “The Right to Live Council” (at one shilling per councillor) has arrived, and if it only plays the triangle in the “Labour” Band it is, I suppose, doing as well as the pianist who constituted the orchestra of a certain mining camp theatre and who was protected by a large placarded appeal to the chivalry of the audience in these terms—”Please do not shoot the pianist. He is doing his best” !

o o o

“The object of Socialism was to harmonise these conflicting interests of Capital and Labour.” Of course. If there is no class war these interests can be harmonised—easily. But as there is a class war, as witness the "conflicting interests” of Capital and Labour,” the “silver-tongued orator” of the I.L.P. is talking nonsense. If I.L.P. speakers paid less attention to the thing they speak with and more attention to the things they speak, there would not be so much occasion to deride the stupidity of their utterances as at present there is. I must add that the orator in this case was Philip Snowden, M.P., speaking at the Earlsmead Council’s School as reported in the Tottenham Wednesday Herald for November 28th, 1906.

o o o

“Municipal Socialism.” The Bushey Urban District Council has unanimously decided to increase the wages of their scavengers from 11/- to 14/- per week. This rise from comparative comfort to absolute luxury may well be regarded by all real friends of progress with profound misapprehension. It is notorious that a sudden access of wealth invariably has demoralising effects which find expression too often in riotous debauchery and this fact coupled with the knowledge that it is the ratepayers’ money which the Bushey Council are pouring out with such a lavish hand, will, we fear, place a weapon at the disposal of the enemies of municipalism which they may use to the disadvantage of the revolutionary spirits on this revolutionary public authority. The Bushey Council should proceed with greater circumspection so that they may escape the charge of extravagance and the opprobrium that attaches to action possibly product of licentiousness and thriftlessness in the scavengers as well as dissatisfaction and unrest among those whose lot has not been cast in such easy places.

Blogger's Notes:

• An unsigned article but, if I was to hazard a guess, I would suggest this piece was written by A. J. M. Gray. It's very reminiscent of his style.
• Some details about the “Right to Live Council” can be found at the following link.
• One of the reasons I think Gray is the unsigned author of this article is because he was a member of the Watford Branch of the SPGB, and the Bushey mentioned in the piece is only two or three miles from Watford.

Socialism at the polls (1987)

Party News from the June 1987 issue of the Socialist Standard

In view of the current general election in which we are fielding a candidate in the Islington South and Finsbury constituency in London, and to give an idea of our approach to election campaigning generally, we publish below the speech given by our candidate in Swansea in last month's local elections to an open forum which was also addressed by the local Alliance and Green Party candidates.

We realise that in elections there is usually a strong emphasis on the candidate and his personality. However, our campaign has not followed that trend. Our concern is not to put across our candidate — myself — as somehow better than the other candidates. I'm not.

Our concern is to put forward our view of the society we live in and of how we can all peacefully work together to change that society for the better. We do not believe that it is particular politicians that are to blame for the problems that face us. but rather an unjust and irrational way of organising our society. So what we put forward is not a new set of leaders (there are already too many of those) but instead an alternative way of organising our community.

Local issues in their context

We also realise that, this being a local election. the other parties will be fighting it on local issues. Again our way is to go beyond this, because local issues when looked at closely are always part of wider issues and of wider causes. Swansea is not an island but part of a far wider society and the solutions of local issues are to be found in alternative ways of organising that wider society.

The stark reality of life today is that human needs and environmental needs come a poor second to the demands of money. The main motive for work activity today is primarily to make money and profits. The things we need are not produced, in the first instance, to satisfy our needs. They are produced for someone else's profit. And that is the only way that goods and services can be produced, for the means of producing wealth — the factories and the farms — are owned by a small minority of the population. Production can only take place in their interests. The factor which the owning minority will inevitably use in deciding whether production takes place is "how much will it cost?"

If they can afford to make something — if they will make money instead of losing money — then production will go ahead. But if profits are not made then production is stopped, regardless of human need for goods and services and regardless of the obvious consequence of higher unemployment.

The services in this area — health, housing and transport — can only be run to the extent that the amount of money available will permit them to run. Local provisions for care of the environment and for curbing pollution are only enacted as far as the profit system will allow.

The cut-back in the emergency unit of Singleton Hospital demonstrates this. There is clearly a vast human demand for this service. Yet it has been reduced in the ceaseless attempt to save money. A second, more recent example is the case of the Parc Beck allotments on the edge of the Uplands Ward. A recent letter in the Evening Post sums up the situation better than I can. G. Carr of Glanmor Road talks of the pleasure he has experienced growing food and making friends on his allotment. He also notes the variety of bird life on the allotments. Despite all this the allotments are to be sold off for development. The title to his letter — "Really Sick as Money Wins Again" — sums it up very well.

The solution: common ownership and free access

So what then is the solution? Well, we've nothing against the individual members of the owning minority. Most of them are in their positions through birth and they only remain in their wealthy positions because the majority — us — allow them to stay there. So what we're asking for is a new outlook from the majority, an outlook that challenges the assumptions we are brought up on: that those with power and wealth deserve what they have. That those without a lot of money should have to work either for those that have or for a coercive state bureaucracy that seeks to dominate our behaviour in all aspects of life. That we owe obedience to a nation that doesn't belong to us. That it is somehow fair and just, rational and natural, that the world is divided into employers and employees, those who buy people's labour power and those who have to sell it. We wish to challenge all these assumptions.

Instead of having a divided society — between those who possess and those who don't possess — why not organise society so that the whole idea of ownership, private or state, is redundant; where the means of producing our wealth are treated as objects and devices to be used for the common good and not for the interests of an owning minority or for the state; where the products of the factories and farms are treated as the common store of the whole community. A community where the aim is not the profit of a company or the state but the satisfaction of people's needs.

What this would mean in effect is a society without money or any other form of exchange, for in a society of common ownership how can you exchange money for something that already belongs to you? Remember that money itself is of no use. It is only pieces of paper and bits of metal. You can't fill up your petrol tank with money, or build houses with it. or make a meal out of it.

It is only in a property society where there is buying and selling — trading between owners that money has any use. As soon as we decide to treat the wealth of our society as belonging to a common store then money completely loses its purpose and becomes redundant. We instead have a system of free access where we all take freely from the common store according to our self-determined needs.

This also means that instead of being compelled to work for wages for an employer in activities that are sometimes anti-social, often boring and rarely satisfying, we rather choose work according to what suits ourselves best and what the community needs — not what some boss tells us to do to make a profit.

What I'm putting forward is a society that is based on co-operation and not, as it is at present, on competition. Where you have a system of property and buying and selling, you have an atmosphere of aggression. People compete with each other over jobs, wage levels, housing; there is a constant haggling over what is being bought and sold with each side trying to improve their own position.

At a higher level companies compete with each other for markets and profits. And at a still higher level states and nations compete — and often go to war — with each other to decide basically which country owns what, which country has access to important raw materials and which country can exploit an untapped market for goods or a cheap source of human labour. By taking away property and establishing communal ownership of the world's resources we can take away the source of all this conflict.

A co-operative society could work

A lot of people will initially claim that such a view of the future is utopian and impractical. That perhaps we don't take account of human nature which is of course lazy, greedy and uncaring.

Our answer to this point of concern is that we should be careful not to confuse human behaviour with human nature. It is surely not surprising that with our competitive society people sometimes do act in a selfish and anti-social manner. In a society that values everything by its monetary value — people included — it is not likely that you will achieve a harmonious society. The mentality created by the profit system creates people isolated from each other, people who regard other human beings as a means to satisfy their own ends. This. I think, is not a genuine example of human nature, but a perverted one. It is human nature responding to an economic system that thrives on greed and aggression. We do not ask people to change for the better. What we say is that instead of letting society control us and our behaviour, let us take control of our society and make it work for our benefit.

Some of the most perverse crimes in the world do not happen through human choice but because of the demands of the profit system. By United Nations figures 40,000 people die of starvation or of diseases related to malnutrition every day. At the same time many tons of foodstuffs are stored or even destroyed if they can't be sold. The people who desperately need the food don't receive it because they have no money in their pockets — they don't constitute a market for food.

Moving nearer home, there are many thousands of people in Swansea who are living in sub-standard accommodation — some are even homeless — yet if we look around the city you'll see lots of houses, sometimes newly built, that stand empty because people who require accommodation cannot afford to buy the property. And despite the fact that there is socially useful work that needs to be done in Swansea, much is left undone because it costs too much or because there is no profit in it for anyone. And the people who could work to improve things in the city don't get the chance to do so they are forced instead to struggle to live on state unemployment benefit.

This is not merely an irrational way of organising things but wholly unjust. The cooperative society that we argue is within our grasp is something that we call socialism. But it is clearly not to be confused with what the Labour Party advocates, which is merely a reformed version of our present society with the main emphasis on state ownership rather than private ownership. Likewise we regard the Soviet Union and its empire as being quite alien to the free access and common ownership that we stand for.

Act now to reject the profit system

The alternative of the co-operative society cannot be brought about by leaders, even elected ones. It can only be established when a majority of people refuse to give their consent to the present state of affairs and act to end it. And that refusal to give consent to the profit system starts at grass roots level.

One of the best ways of showing your disapproval for the present system of society is to stop voting for political parties that support it. And to start voting for a political party that advocates a complete change in the way we organise our affairs. In this election — in the Uplands Ward — you have that opportunity.

The Socialist Party is standing for people to say no to a society of private and state ownership and production for profit — and yes to a society of common ownership and production for people not profit. You have your chance. Don't waste it.

Gareth Thomas

For the record the result was: Dilley (Con) 2125, Richards (Lab) 1431, Ford (Alliance) 963, Howells (Green) 241, Thomas (Soc) 50.

Letter: A Socialist Policy for Local Government Electors (1936)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader of the Socialist Standard, Mr. T. Grenfell, of Bath, has asked us to say what we think of the programme on which he contested the Municipal Elections in 1934. It is, he says, his desire to appeal to the electors on the issue of Socialism and his election address was intended to be of a Socialist character.

The address is rather too long for the space at our disposal; we will, therefore, deal with some of its contents only. Before doing so it may be useful to state over again what part the capture of the local councils plays in the achievement of Socialism. First of all, Socialism cannot be achieved by a minority of Socialists trying to impose it on a majority of non-Socialists or anti-Socialists. The experience of Russia and of every Labour Government proves that the S.P.G.B. was correct when, 32 years ago, it laid down that elementary principle. It is necessary to have a majority of Socialists politically organised, and not in one country only but internationally. Next it is necessary for the Socialist majority to have control of the machinery of Government, including the armed forces. While the machinery of local Government is less vital than the machinery of central Government, control of it is of course of importance, even though the powers of the local councils are ultimately derived from the centre and can be modified in whatever way those who control Parliament desire. (In other countries the control of the central authorities over the local authorities is sometimes more direct, sometimes much less directly effective than in Great Britain.)

It will be obvious from the above that Socialists cannot have one set of principles for parliamentary elections and another set for local elections. The solution of the whole problem of the working class lies in the achievement of Socialism and it is essential, therefore, that the workers at all times and places should be told that their problems cannot be solved inside capitalism, either by the administrative action of local authorities under the powers granted to them by Parliament, or by Parliamentary legislation of a social reform character.

In the light of this let us look at some of Mr. Grenfell’s promises to electors.

First we notice that several things he undertakes to support cannot be settled locally because the power to control them is retained by the central Government. For example, he says that he stands for the “abolition of the Means Test,” and opposes “any interference with the rights of free speech and freedom of association of the workers.”

Actually no local council can decide these things.

No council can abolish the Means Test in defiance of Parliament's decision that it shall not be abolished. Nor can any local council prevent the operation of the Trade Union Acts which fetter the workers’ “freedom of association.” Mr. Grenfell is therefore giving the workers of Bath a wrong idea of the nature and powers of local councils.

More important, however, than this is that Mr. Grenfell nowhere points out that the workers' problems cannot be solved without the abolition of capitalism. Thus he fails to fulfil the prime duty of a Socialist. Instead, in effect, he fosters the illusions of social reformers. Whatever the reason for this may be, the consequence is that Mr. Grenfell’s poll of one-third of the total votes cast, must have been the votes of men and women who still believe in reformed capitalism and do not agree with the Socialist position. Mr. Grenfell, therefore, has behind him a reformist vote, not a Socialist vote, and reformist votes are useless for Socialism.

Still another defect is the acceptance of unsound economics. Mr. Grenfell demands that houses be provided “at rentals not exceeding 10 per cent, of the workers’ weekly wage.” This assumes that wages are determined in some way or other without relation to rents and other costs of living. It assumes that if rents are reduced wages will remain unchanged and the workers will benefit. This is a fallacy. The general levels of wages correspond, broadly, to the costs of living, and if rents or food prices fall wages fall also. It has often been pointed out in these columns that official enquiries showed that Viennese workers gained nothing from the almost entire abolition of rents in the years after the War. Wages fell correspondingly, and the gainers were the employers, who thus indirectly plundered the landlords.

There are other defects in the election address, but the above will show that it does not satisfy what is required of a Socialist election address.

Editorial Committee.

A Look Round. (1906)

From the January 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A comrade sends me what he describes as a “Problem for Socialists.” At an Eastern seaside town, much frequented during July, August, and September by holiday makers, there was a small piece of land near the sea, of no value, too sandy for cultivation and too shifty for house building. It was let to a few fishermen for three or four shillings a year to dry their nets upon.

* * *

One Spring, however, two men went to the landlord and offered to hire the land during the summer mouths at a rental of £4 per month, to which the landlord willingly consented. The hirers fenced the land, erected a booth and dressing-room, obtained two or three hundred chairs, and announced that, weather permitting, concerts would be given twice a day during the season. The troupe, consisting of three women and four men, soon arrived. They were successful and at the end of the season were at least £100 to the good.

* * *

In the following Spring they again went to the landlord and proposed to hire the land as before. But the “ramrod man” would not agree unless the hirers would pay £16 per month. And in that manner, without any effort on his part, the landlord was enabled to take to himself all the profit that the musical troupe, by their work, ability and persistency, could make.

* * *

“What a shameful affair. How unjust.” And my correspondent adds that the landlord was the Town Council ! He asks whether this fact made the transaction any juster, and what would occur under Socialism in similar circumstances.

* * *

Now, excepting to those persons who imagine that a municipality under capitalism is anything but a capitalist body, trading on capitalist lines with the object of making a profit out of their enterprises for the benefit of the property owners, the action of the particular municipality will evoke no surprise or condemnation. Is it not urged by land “reformers” that Public Bodies should secure and retain possession of land in order that they may obtain the “unearned increment,” which now goes to the individual landlord ?

* * *

As to what would happen in similar circumstances under Socialism, my correspondent will agree, upon reflection, that there could be no similar circumstances. Under Socialism the people will not only produce, by their own highly organised collective effort, the material wealth necessary to existence, but will also, by associated effort, provide their own amusements and pastimes, where desirable. You would not have, in the Socialist State, some folks providing amusement for others, as a speculation, depending for their sustenance upon individual contributions from pleased or pitying members of the community.

* * *

Of course, no Socialist, unless he is a very raw recruit, wastes his time putting forward any cut-and-dried scheme which he claims will be the method of detailed organisation in the Socialist State. He knows that when the necessary mental revolution which must precede the economic revolution has been accomplished, the people will be more capable of settling the details of the new society than anyone now living. The Socialist can only advocate the principles upon which he believes Society should be based and upon which he believes it will be based. Because, unless that which he thinks should happen is likely to happen, he is simply wasting himself. He claims that Socialism is scientific because he has carefully studied the history of pre-capitalist states of society and watched the developments and tendencies of the present. He can show that the tendency is towards the most economical and effective organisation of the production of wealth. But to-day this organisation is in the hands of a class, comprising the individual capitalist, the trust and the capitalist municipality, all making up the capitalist state. The interests considered are capitalist interests and the function of the Socialist is to convince the people of the advantages of this organisation being controlled by and in the interests of the wealth producers. When this is accomplished the people will establish the Socialist Republic.

* * *

It sometimes happens that municipal enterprise is uneconomical and reactionary as compared with the enterprise of the Trust and Combine and it is just a question as to whether Socialists should not oppose this form of capitalist development.

* * *

Rent is robbery. It matters not to me whether I am robbed by the ducal landlord or the municipal landlord and the extent to which municipalities claim to be enabled to reduce the rates by trading is no concern of the working-class. Rents are not reduced because rates go down. In fact, the opening up of a tramway route, by which the municipality may be enabled to reduce rates by a halfpenny or so, often causes rents to rise, by rendering more accessible districts where hitherto competition for house accommodation, which determines rents, was exceedingly restricted. Moreover, trains, tubes, etc., which are being provided everywhere, even for school children, are producing a race that cannot walk—a “born-tired” people.

* * *

If all those who have at some time or another emphasised the fact that the working-class are not affected by rates would always adhere to that position there would be less confusion of thought amongst the working-class. Here, for instance, is Mr. Will Thorne, the L.R.C. candidate for South West Ham, who has declared that it would make no difference to the working-class if the rates in West Ham were twenty shillings in the £, putting on the front-page of his election address : Nationalisation of Education, Poor Hates, Mine Rents, and Mineral Royalties. Mr. Thorne does not explain how these matters concern the poverty-stricken workers of South West Ham. In the body of his address he says he is strongly in favour of “Nationalisation of the Land, Canals, Railways, Mine Rents, and Mineral Royalties, the private ownership of which acts as the real barrier to British Industry in the Markets of the World” !

* * *

This is an interesting pronouncement for a man whom the S.D.F. claim as their candidate, although he is nothing of the sort and they are not responsible for one penny of his election expenses. As a matter of fact, admitted by the capitalist Press, British Industry has been supplanted because production naturally tends to locate itself where natural conditions are most favorable. But why concern ourselves about Britain’s position in the markets of the world ? For the capitalists, whether Free Traders or Tariff Reformers, the matter is of interest, but the concern of the Socialist is to stop the exploitation of the working-class, not to help one set of capitalists to exploit at the expense of another.

* * *

That is a capitalist struggle, like the fiscal fight. One set of capitalists say that we (i.e., British Capitalists) are losing because our fiscal system requires changing ; another set say that we hold our position because of our fiscal system and shall lose it if we change. And so their struggle continues. It is a matter of indifference to me whether I am plucked by a Free Trade Kite or a Protectionist Crow : I object to the plucking.

* * *

I am glad that some of Mr. Thorne’s friends recognise this. In last week’s “Justice” Mr. D. Carmichael writes:

“Members should insist, during the coming election, on making the workers realise that, while the fiscal question may be of interest to their masters, it is of little importance to them, and by heckling the capitalist candidates on every possible occasion expose the folly of depending on the robber class helping the robbed.”

* * *

Mr. D. Carmichael is one of the unemployed “leaders” who have been “demanding” that the robber class shall help the robbed !!!

* * *

But Mr. Will Thorne does not agree with Mr. Carmichael. He declares for “No Tariff Barriers” and is a “determined opponent of the imposition of any Tariff burdens on the food of the people.”

* * *

The whirligig of time, we are told, brings its own revenges. In “Justice” for the 16th of last month I read:

“Our veteran comrade Dadabhai Naoroji, whose services to India for more than 50 years are well known, is standing as a Liberal candidate in North Lambeth. We are no friends to Liberal candidates, and we are certainly not enamoured of the set which is supporting Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji. But we should regret, nevertheless, if he were opposed by a working man. There are exceptions to all rules and this case is that exception. Mr. Naoroji, more than any Indian living, voices the aspirations of 300,000,000 people under our rule. On that ground we hope he will be returned to the House of Commons.”

* * *

It occurred to me when I read the above that I had seen something in “Justice” to the opposite effect. I turned up my index and found the following, which appeared on the 22nd September, 1894 :

“Social-Democrats can lose the ‘Progressives’ certain London seats by mere abstention. Why shouldn’t we ? We owe the Progressives’ nothing—less than nothing. They are a miserable lot. We thought Mr. Dadabhai Naoroji one of the best of them. He owes his seat to our votes. If we abstain at the next election, he at least must go. What should we keep him in for ? He has been of no use whatever to us and of very little use to India. The Liberal Party may seem to our Parsee friend a very grand and glorious institution, but we fail to see how acting the part of a mere Liberal Hanger-on rewards Social-Democrats for the trouble they took in going to the poll for Mr. Dadabhai.”

* * *

What a virtue is consistency !

* * *

“Justice” is owned and controlled by the Twentieth. Century Press Ltd. In 1894 Mr. Naoroji held 80 shares in the Company, he now holds 280. These figures relate to the ordinary shares of 5s. 0d., not to the debentures. So that, apparently. “our Parsee friend” has paid £50 for the support of “Justice.” Let us hope he is satisfied with his bargain.

* * *

Mr. Ebenezer Howard, founder of the Garden City, presided at a meeting held last month at this very latest paradise, to consider the question of the provision of dwellings for working men. The Dean of St. Albans addressed the meeting on the desirability of proper housing for the working classes and urged the men to support a scheme for proper dwellings. Others also spoke.

* * *

Was not the Garden City one of those brand new patent schemes for solving the Housing problem ?

* * *

Mr. Isaac Mitchell, Secretary of the Federation of Trade Unions, was, as usual, unable to be present at the meeting, but, again as usual, sent his blessing by letter.

* * *

No meeting of “reformers” is now complete without a letter from Mr. Isaac Mitchell.

Jack Kent

Doubts and Difficulties: Would Municipal Ownership be advantageous to the Realisation of Socialism? (1905)

The Doubts and Difficulties column from the August 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

Would Municipal Ownership be advantageous to the Realisation of Socialism?

A batch of letters lie before me. The popularity of my articles is obvious from their most casual perusal. One thing, however, requires some little protest, I am prepared to answer in due rotation any question affecting Socialism, but I am not an encyclopaedia—yellow imperialist or otherwise—and I am not called upon to answer questions relating to the existence of beings of human shape and human intelligence in Mars; neither will I be permitted to offer suggestions anent the proper cultivation of the garden. My forte is not in either of these directions. Doubts and difficulties in the way of the acceptance of Socialist principles or in the way of their enunciation are welcome and will be dealt with.

o o o

From the batch before me I select one which bears the insistent blue pencil mark of the Editor of the Socialist Standard. And here I may say that any weakness that may at any time be found in any of my articles is the result of his handiwork. He is a gentle being—a sheep in wolf’s clothing—but he has his own methods of securing attention to his behests. The letter is from “Ignoramicus,” who writes :—

o o o

“Dear Economicus, ‘Doubts and Difficulties’ are good business. They make the crooked path straight. Your column resembles the capitalist system in that it contains the germ of its own destruction. This is a dark saying. Being interpreted it is as if to say that some day it will destroy itself by banishing all doubts and all difficulties. But that day is not yet. Here is, for example, the question of the relation of municipalism to Socialism ; the extent to which municipalism may be regarded as the John the Baptist of Socialism. John, you may remember, prepared the way of the Lord. Does municipalism do the same for Socialism? If not, why not? I suggest a few observations upon the limits of municipalism would be helpful. There are many doubts and considerable difficulties existent upon the subject. Please dispel the one and remove the other so that we may rejoice in the fulness of knowledge where to-day we ponder in perplexity.”

o o o

And the Editor, his voice insistent as a curtain lecture, punctuates upon your letter, most ignorant one, “Economicus not to exceed two columns !”

o o o

The Socialist claims for his Socialism that its advent as the basis of Society means inter alia the reorganisation of all industrial operations. The application of collective and combined effort to every sphere of industrial life with, at the same time, the elimination of all useless labour and the greatest economy of man’s activity consistent with the satisfaction of the greatest measure of his needs, must follow upon the realisation of Socialism.

o o o

Of those industries some are essentially local, some national, and some international, and the mode of organisation will probably depend upon the actual conditions obtaining in the industry. The railways and the steamships of the Socialist regime will be organised upon an international basis, whilst the bakeries and local food supply will be, at first, municipal concerns. When the methods of transit are revolutionised by the electrification, mono-railification, etc., of the railways, and Manchester is two hours journey from London, these things will be altered.

o o o

So, too, we must leave out of consideration the suggested devolution of our large towns, and the transmission of force from various river and tidal centres to be applied locally. The powers of man in the future over the forces of nature are not only unknown, but inconceivable to us. And it is these powers which determine man’s methods of satisfying his wants, and through his methods of satisfying his wants, the form of the society for the time being.

o o o

We have then to take the capitalist society in which we live and the immediate trend of events in the direction of Socialism. We have then to recognise that the evolution of society from capitalism to Socialism affects every part of society, and that any municipal progress must have its influence upon national progress. But it follows that any causes obstructing national development must tend to obstruct municipal or local development.

o o o

If we could dissociate the municipal from the national and collectivise all municipal concerns, we should have an entirely different set of circumstances to consider than we have existing in actuality. It might then be an interesting question whether such an extension of municipal enterprise would greatly benefit the working-class so long as the capitalist system obtained in factory, railroad, or mine. It is presumable that so long as the capitalist system obtained in those—the most staple industries in England—the wage of the worker would be determined by the average cost of his subsistence, and that his standard of subsistence would be kept at a very low level by the growing competition of his unemployed fellow workers.

o o o

In the condition of things which obtains today the problem is different. Here we have the fact that municipal enterprise is limited to considerable extent, and that the conditions favourable in other directions to its extension are conditions not favourable to the working-class. In seeking for municipal control and ownership we find that it is not always the working-class who are most eager.

o o o

The people who stand to benefit most by municipalism are usually the ground landlord and the capitalists who find in the economy brought into the public and other services a means of reducing their taxation, or of securing more than compensation for their taxation in a cheapening of transit of their goods. The municipalisation of the tramways has hastened the tendency of centralising the factories and warehouses in the centres of the cities and the creating of suburbs at the termini, with increased value of the land upon which the suburb is built.

o o o

We see the landlords benefit not only in jerry-built suburbia, but in the creation of open spaces. Landlords have, indeed, been known to present the ground for a garden to the municipality to be laid out and maintained by the latter, while the house property facing this open space has gone up out of all proportion to the building-value of the gift. We have every admiration for the business capacity of the capitalist who makes profit even from his philanthropy.

o o o

We find again that the Chambers of Commerce—the apotheosis of local capitalism—favour municipalism. The municipalising of the bakeries, or of the milk-shops, means a greater chance of pure bread and pure milk to those who are able to buy those commodities, and purer food means—the quantity remaining the same—increased efficiency. The worker becomes a more capable worker, a better wage-slave, a source of greater profit to the capitalist

o o o

I am convinced then that the municipalisation of local services is desired more by capitalists and traders than it is by workers. That while perhaps ensuring purer food substances to the worker, it would not enhance his power of purchasing those substances, and would even do him harm, inasmuch as it made him a more efficient worker and enabled fewer of him to turn out the same quantiy of commodities, thus accentuating the unemployed evil.

Its educational value, upon which certain municipalists lay stress, is no greater than the educational value of the trust or the limited liability company. In each of the latter the worker by his co-operation turns out commodities for the market under the management of men of his own class, and the municipal worker would do nothing more. Such municipalised industry is as essentially capitalist as is the privately owned monopoly.

At the same time while municipalism is of no material advantage to the working-class in improving their position, the Socialist must needs point out the necessity of wresting all industries from the power of the capitalist. He must show that everywhere free competition developes into monopoly as its logical conclusion, and that monopoly can only cease when the whole of the powers of production belong to the whole of the people.

The men to whom an appeal to municipalise is made are the same men to whom an appeal is to be made to socialise. Any attempt to dissociate the industries which are local from those which are national is an attempt to divorce two parts of a question which are, so far as Socialist propaganda is concerned, necessarily united. Such attempts are reactionary. So also are the parties or organisations which make them.

o o o

I trust that, so far as the space at my disposal would permit, I have made myself clear, and that the difficulties of my ignorant friend have flown. What is to be remembered is that Socialism must affect every phase of men’s lives, and every phase of methods whereby they maintain themselves in life. It is the frittering away of their powers in the advocacy of reforms which it is to the interest of opponents of Socialism to grant that we must attribute the comparative weakness of the forces of Socialism in this country. W. T. Stead in this month’s Review of Reviews complains of the scientist who displays more interest in the insects which infest the abdomen of a flea than in the vital interests which tell for the improvement of humanity. In the same way we have to complain of the men who, wishing to climb the four-feet wall which divides Socialism from Capitalism, commence by manufacturing a thirty-feet ladder.

o o o

The best way to economise your efforts and make your work for Socialism most effective is to join THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN and work uncompromisingly towards the goal of the conscious and unconscious efforts of humanity. All desiring fuller information as to our Party should apply to our General Secretary, and any of my readers who may join it may expect a hearty welcome from that humblest (I had almost written ablest) of its members

Economicus.