This Month's Quotation: Karl Marx (1936)

The Front Page quote from the July 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Ignorance never helped nor did anybody any good."

KarL Marx

Leaders Get Lost! (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is on the agenda — and right now. But it will not come by people putting their trust in leaders. It will be established when the vast majority of workers understand it, want it and democratically organise for it in a party which is not out to mend capitalism but to end it.

Socialism means the total abolition of capitalism. An end to private and state ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. Production will be solely for use, with all people having free access to the common store of goods and services, instead of production for sale with a view to profit.

To win workers to organise for socialism is no small task and it is easy to be demoralised or to deceive yourself that there is an easier way to initiate the new system. But there is no alternative to the hard work being carried out by the Socialist Party — whose sole aim is socialism — and the sooner those who want socialism join us, the sooner it will be achieved.

Letter: Shall we be corrupted ? (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shall we be corrupted ?

I am an ardent reader of the Socialist Standard and a great believer in the case. My questions are if Socialists one day rule, what proof have the people of this country that the liberators will not become capitalists themselves? Hitler promised this and that and look what happened. The Russian people in the early part of this century fought and died for their beliefs and look at Russia today the worst capitalistic police state the world has ever known. There are scores of such happenings one could refer to, how do the British people know that the same will not happen here?

Also (I think many would agree) the past has shown as time drags on corruption and rot sets in everywhere. In the past wars and revolutions cleaned the dirt from the steps of the country for a while, but in this day and age the world cannot afford such drastic measures. What will the party do if the time ever comes, to clean and keep clean the welfare of the workers?

It would prove a lot if you did not publish and answer these questions.

Ian J. Wright

Sunderland.

Reply:

The SPGB differs from all other political parties in this country. We do not promise to do anything for you. We do not canvass for passive support so that we may rule, but ask for your understanding and active participation in the task of ridding the world of capitalism.

While the working class continue to put their faith in leaders they will continue to be disillusioned by political treachery, double-dealing and broken promises. We ask the working class to trust in their own abilities. They already run a complex world system from top to bottom and could quite easily run a Socialist society in their own interests. All that is needed is Socialist knowledge on the part of the working class. With this they can liberate themselves by voting Socialist delegates to the centres of political power with a mandate to abolish capitalism.

A conscious Socialist majority cannot be sold out, side-tracked or misled by leaders. In the absence of leaders promising to do things for the workers the “corruption” or degeneration of the revolution will be impossible. Delegates will be held to the sound Socialist political principles clearly understood by those who elected them.

Our correspondent has a number of other misconceptions about the SPGB’s case. First, Socialism will be world-wide in nature. It cannot exist in one country only. Second, Socialism will mean an end to the working class and the capitalist class—both will disappear; together with the need for a repressive state machine needed by rulers to keep the ruled in their place.

Editors.

The Socialist Forum: Engels and Minority Action. (1932)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

Islington, London, N.1.

Editor, “The Socialist Standard.”

Dear Comrade,

On page 77, Engels’ “Socialism, Utopian and Scientific,” the writer, referring to the socialist revolution says: “Like every other social advance it becomes practicable, not by men understanding that the existence of classes is in contradiction to justice, equality, etc., not by the mere willingness to abolish these classes, but by virtue of certain new economic conditions.”

This statement clearly shows that Engels was of the opinion that, given the necessary conditions and an intelligent minority, the establishment of a socialist system could become an accomplished fact, and seems to refute your teaching that it is necessary to have a class-conscious majority before a successful revolution could be guaranteed.

I should be pleased to have your opinion on this question, and thank you in anticipation for same. Yours, etc.,

G. W. Jones (Junr.).

Reply

Our correspondent is completely mistaken about Engels’ views. Engels did not believe that “an intelligent Minority” could establish Socialism. It will be seen that the only evidence our correspondent quotes in support of his view about Engels is a passage in which Engels makes no reference whatever either to majority or to minority action. If we turn to page 60 of the same work (“Socialism, Utopian and Scientific.” Allen & Unwin edition) we find Engels writing this :—

“It is the compelling force of anarchy in the production of society at large that more and more completely turns the great majority of men into proletarians ; and it is the masses of the proletariat again who will finally put an end to anarchy in production.”

There is nothing here about minority action. Nor is there on page 86, where Engels says : —

“The proletariat seizes the public power. . . .”

In Engels’ introduction to Marx’s “The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 ” (the introduction being written in 1895), Engels said : —

“The day of surprise attacks has passed, the day when small but resolute minorities could achieve revolutions by leading the unwitting masses to the onslaught. Where the question is one of a complete transformation in the social organism, the masses must wittingly participate, must fully understand what they are about.”

What Engels had in mind in the passage that our correspondent quotes is to emphasise that social changes do not come about because of ideas that have miraculously appeared in men’s minds, out of nothing. The development of the economic forces makes possible certain social changes, and it is out of this material basis that the ideas of change arise. Marx put it clearly in his preface to the “Critique of Political Economy.”

“No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces, for which there is room in it, have been developed ; and new higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society. Therefore, mankind always takes up only such problems as it can solve ; since, looking at the matter more closely, we will always find that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions necessary for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.” (P. 12, Kerr Edition, 1911.)

Ed. Comm.

Revolution’s Reply to Reform. (1909)

Pamphlet Review from the December 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The answer to “Arms for the Workers: A Defence of the Programme of the Social-Democratic Party.” (E. C. Fairchild, Lon. Organiser S.D.P.)

“By common consent, Socialists agree that the control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good. Conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding. Control of politics means control of property.”

Thus Mr. Fairchild opens. But he is incorrect. Politics is the science of government, or, the contests for power of government. Our author means neither the control of the science nor of the contests, but the control of political power. Then Control of political power is political power. Henceforth we shall transcribe the sentence : “Political power means control of property.”

The palliator then deals with his subject under sectional headings. We will do the same, using his headings.

The Principle Common to Socialists

“We cannot escape restraints upon our freedom imposed by our life in the past. Custom and tradition weigh as heavily in politics as in other departments of human activity.”

Is this the language of regret ? It seems so, for as a consequence :

“The political party that appealed to electors upon a statement of object only, would soon find the average man so far rational that he wished to know the means by which the object would be realised.”

Exactly. Were it otherwise Socialists, optimists as they are, might deem the fight hopeless. But reformers dread the question, and for fear of it will not appeal to the electors upon a statement of object only. We read:

“For this reason, the Socialist Party in every country has formulated a number of proposals, variously known as palliatives, platforms, or stepping-stones.”

The object of Socialists, reduced to the utmost limits of brevity, is—Socialism. Not so sententiously, but with more information, the S.P.G.B. states its object as “The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.”

The “rational” man at once asks “Is present society so based ?” No. Then how is the property change to be effected ? Mr. Fairchild himself supplies our answer to the dread question.

“Control of the National Executive by the working class must precede the use of land and the instruments of production for the common good.” 

Then we must get control of the National Executive, or, to lift ourselves above the S.D.P. loose verbiage, must capture the political machinery. Why ? Because it is “the central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” Because, to use a less questionable phrase, “control of the National Executive” means political power, and “political power means control of property.”

The answer is clear and easy. Why then, does the reformer try to put ‘”the electors” off asking the question by giving them “a number of proposals” which are not Socialism to think about?

Of course, the reform defender has the alternative that his language is as loose in this passage as elsewhere, that these “proposals” are not formulated to avoid the question, but to answer it—and the use of the term “stepping-stones” would bear him out. But to submit these “palliatives” as the answer to the question “how is Socialism to be attained?” is to claim that they are indeed stepping-stones to Socialism ; that they are revolutionary, and undermine the capitalist basis of society. Perhaps we shall see later if he dare take up this position.

Concerning the proposals we read :

“While the private possession of land and capital continued, these proposals could be applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers and having Socialism as its aim.”

So we are asked to imagine that the working class have obtained that “control of the National Executive” which “must precede the use of land .and the instruments of production for the common good” ; have captured that political power which means “control of property” ; are installed (in the persons of their “Socialist” representatives) as the “central authority that decrees the law, which registers or changes the conditions of property holding.” And this “Socialist” Government, with its control of property, its power of “changing the conditions of property holding”—what does it do? Does it announce the fructescence, the fruit-time longed for by the tired labourers of “myriad meetings” ? Does it, having attained all that is needful for the purpose—control of the armed forces and the other instruments of government—change the property condition from private to common ownership, and so establish Socialism and free humanity from the curse of wage labour and all its concomitant evils ? Oh no ! At the moment when exploitation should cease for ever it begins to dabble with Eight Hours Days and Minimum Wages !

But this seeming idiocy can be easily accounted for. The palliator puts forward “palliatives” in order to catch votes. When we are invited to suppose a government “having Socialism as its aim” installed at Westminster, we are really asked to imagine the most complete realisation of the “get there at any price” policy. The pseudo-Socialists have captured the seats, but, as our author knows well enough, they have not captured one shred or vestige of political power. As a matter of fact, as far as essentials go, the position remains unchanged. The working class have control of the “National Executive,” but only in the sense that they had it previously. Formerly, in their ignorance, they elected their masters ; now, in their ignorance, they elect men of their own class who are not honest enough, or intelligent enough, or brave enough, to come before them with the plain statement of Socialist object only, but have formulated a number of proposals which were perhaps intended to carry them into power, but have only carried them into place. The minds of those who elected these misleaders have undergone no change, and since it is the mind of the electorate which controls the National Executive, the control of this “central” authority means exactly what it did before—the perpetuation of capitalist control of property, decreed by working-class ignorance.

The “government having Socialism for its aim” occupies a false position. Seated on fraudulent pretensions, it is utterly impotent. The most honest of it members thought to snatch a victory for Socialism on the votes of those opposed to the revolutionary principle, and now they find that, true as it is that “political power means control of property,” it by no means follows that political power and political place are synonymous, or that property is controlled in the interests of those who have control of the “central authority.” That depends upon their consciousness of those interests.

In order to have obtained political power for working-class interests it was necessary for the working-class representatives to draw their strength from an electorate cognisant of those interests, instead of which, in the case we are invited to imagine, they are upheld by a working-class electorate with the capitalist mind, who have given them no mandate for revolution, no authority for changing “the conditions of property holding.” If it is true, then, that “conflicts between the classes in society are but struggles to secure possession of the central authority that decrees the law which changes the conditions of property holding,” then the recognition that this “Socialist” government which has become the “central authority,” is powerless to interfere with the property condition of present society is a confession that the palliator’s vote-catching policy is fighting the battle on wrong lines.

Without political power, and therefore without control of property, our “government having Socialism as its aim,” is reduced to its Minimum Wage bill, its Eight Hour act, and so on. But whether these things are “applied by a government representing the interests of the capitalist class, or by a government acting on behalf of the workers,” the result must be the same. “Political power means control of property,” but, given the property conditions, the economic laws which arise out of them are beyond its reach. Political power may sweep away private ownership of the means of production, but so long as that property condition continues, the exact degree of misery of the workers as a class will be determined by industrial development, and will be unamenable to palliatives.

Concerning the central idea of the section, that “the principle common to Socialists” which our palliator observes “beneath, or running through,” the various proposals, is “the extension of collective or communal action for the general well-being, in place of the use of national resources for private gain,” this implies “control of property,” which only political power can give the workers. To say that they have this political power is to say that they have the power to abolish private property in the means of life and to establish Socialism; to say that they have it not is to say, on our opponent’s own showing, that they cannot extend “collective or communal action for the general well-being,” or, as he earlier put it, use “land and the instruments of production for the common good.” To maintain that they have that political power which should accompany political place (and which is only important to the workers because it confers the power to change the property conditions of society) and yet allow “the private possession of land and capital” to continue while they apply their “palliative” is to rebuke the lie that they have Socialism as their aim, and expose themselves as willful perpetuators of capitalism.

Further, so far from true is it that there is any “principle common to Socialists” running through these proposals, that the principle common to capitalists—exploitation—is implied by and writ large over most of them, for example the Eight Hours Day and the Minimum Wage.

The Socialist in Politics.

There is little in this section that Mr. Fairchild has not touched upon in the previous one. He claims that “the items of the Socialist (!) programme are a recognition that the claims of society are greater than the rights of private property in land and capital.”

Are they, indeed ! It seems to the present penman that if anything could have denoted the utter abandonment of all and any rights, claims or hopes by the workers, it is to hear “Socialists” talking of the application by “a government acting on behalf of the workers, and having Socialism as its aim,” of Eight Hour Days, Minimum Wages, feeding necessitous children, and (p. 2) “public control of those agencies which supply public needs, on lines that will secure release from the burdens imposed by the payment of interest to idle money-lenders.”

What touching solicitude for the property owners’ welfare !

“The Socialist in politics,” it seems, is bound to formulate a palliative programme. We take the opposite view.

We hold that only by the change of the property basis of society from private to common ownership can the workers’ position be improved. “Political power means control of property.” To have political power we must have political place, but we may have political place without having political power. But since it is not political place which controls property, that alone is useless to us, and its attainment would prove calamitous for working-class interests. For in such a case the “Socialist” government must be on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand they would be pushed in the direction of revolution (the direction of changing the property conditions of society) by the “Social-Democrats” and others who believed they had won power for Socialism, on the other hand they would be expected by the vast majority of their constituents, who had elected them upon reforms and for reforms, to institute those reforms they had promised.

Mr. Fairchild’s statement that, “while the private possession of land and capital continued” the reforms “could be applied by a government having Socialism as its aim” indicates the direction he anticipates they would be forced to move in. But we shall show presently that these “palliatives” will not palliate, that all the economic laws which govern commodities are against the “palliatives,” and must inevitably render them powerless to affect the economic condition, of working-class existence. If we are correct in this; if, being applied the “palliatives” prove to be inoperative, what will be the result ? They will be detected for the misleaders they are and incontinently thrown overboard. Should they, on the other hand, attempt the revolutionary property change, they will quickly find out what it means to be without political power. Their political castle, built upon the rotten foundation of a non-Socialist electorate, will collapse at the first blast of their own trumpets, crumble beneath the tramp of their own feet.

Whichever course the “government having Socialism as its aim” should follow, the result must be the utter waste of all the precious working-class enthusiasm and weary effort—blood and treasure in the very essence—and consequent apathy and loss of confidence in themselves among the workers.

In order to avoid this misfortune, the Socialist Party of Great Britain takes the field without palliatives or other vote-catching devices. Holding that the duty of “the Socialist in politics” is to build up a position upon a thoroughly sound, revolutionary foundation, it discourages support from those who do not hold its principles. It is with this object it has framed a rule (31) to the effect that all or none of the vacant seats in any particular ward or constituency must be contested and that all must be elected or none allowed to take their seats. Our political place must be the measure of our political power.

A. E. Jacomb.

To be Continued.

Letter: When and how? (1961)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

When and how?

When—and how? For more than half a century you have preached socialism. For nearly that long I have read your literature and listened to your speakers. Constantly I ask; when and how. Your speakers repeat, parrot-fashion; “When the workers want socialism they will have it”. Fine, but this is dependent on the question, “How?”, to which you have no answer. Propaganda by itself is useless. There must be a plan of action. Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General. Election not a single vote will be cast; and when workers will all simultaneously and spontaneously, without leadership or organisation of any sort, suddenly refuse to work for their capitalist masters? Supposing such a fantastic state of affairs could come about what then? How do you set up and how administer the socialist society?

It is true that the Labour Party, by attempting to bring about a socialist society through a process of gradual reform has foundered because it was forced to compromise with capitalism but it is also true that the Soviet by bloody revolution overthrew the capitalist society yet the workers are certainly no more free than they were under private capitalists. Private capitalism has simply been succeeded by State Capitalism. I certainly do not expect to get the answers to my two simple questions but I suggest that the SPGB thinks about this problem. By all means continue your good work in converting the workers to socialism but please, for the sake of convinced socialists co-sider, when—and how?

B.W. 

London, W.10.

Reply:

Here is a pleasant surprise for B.W.—answers to his questions. The first one—”When”—he answers himself: “When the workers want Socialism they will have it.” To the second question— “How?”—the answer is much the same. When the great majority of workers in this country and all over the world are convinced Socialists then they will handle the business of bringing about a Socialist society without any difficulty. They (the workers, including the administrative and supervisory workers) already handle the much greater problem of running a capitalist society— much greater because the necessary production and distribution of goods is complicated by problems of exchange, of payment, of credit, of competition, of national frontiers, of strategic considerations, and so on—all of which will cease to exist when capitalism is abolished. Besides that, many workers, are at present employed on useless jobs (bank clerks, insurance men, bus conductors) or directly harmful ones (soldiers, munitions makers) thus greatly reducing the number of workers available for the useful work of production and distribution. And at present the workers do this much more difficult job—of running capitalism—when it is not even in their own interests. Under Socialism they will have a much easier task which will be in their own interests. It is hard to see why our correspondent thinks that the same people who are now doing a very difficult Job will not in the future be able to do a much easier one.

Our “plan of action” is straight-forward: to make Socialists. Why does B.W. think there will be “no organisation . . . of any sort”? The Socialist Party is the very organisation he is looking for. As we state in the Declaration of Principles we publish every month “The Socialist Party of Great Britain . . . calls upon the members of the working class of this country to muster under its banner”. The organisation is already here—the too! of the working class in the Socialist revolution. All that is lacking is a majority of class-conscious workers, and we are doing our best to bring that about.

B.W. says “Do you envisage a time when it will be impossible to recruit a single soldier, sailor or airman; when at a General Election not a single vote will be cast”—presumably B.W. means for capitalist parties, since our appeal to Socialist workers is to vote for Socialist candidates or write “Socialism” etc. on the ballot paper. B.W. is correct to describe such a state of affairs as fantastic. When “nobody” is prepared to join the armed forces or vote for capitalist parties these institutions, because of that fact, will have ceased to exist.

If B.W. has been reading our literature and listening to our speakers for as long as he says, he should know that the Labour Party has never attempted to bring about a Socialist society, whether by gradual reform or otherwise. It aims at nothing more than state capitalism, and a “welfare state”. A state capitalist party will never bring about Socialism. As for Russia, the Soviet revolution overthrew the landed aristocracy, and brought in capitalism —at first partly private and partly state, now wholly state. It is perfectly true that the workers are no better of under state than under private capitalism, but this is only what the Socialist Party has been saying since its inception.

Editorial Committee.

The Revolutionary proposition (continued) (1910)

From the December 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

In our last instalment we saw that the Revolutionary Proposition must be achieved, firstly by the education in its principles of the only class that, in the nature of things, can become revolutionary—the working class—and secondly by the capture of the political machinery.

The Revolutionary Proposition is a proposal to dispossess the master class, therefore the first axiom of the revolutionary politician is that, as a politician, he must necessarily be in conflict with the master class.

The political machinery exists for no other purpose than to serve and conserve material interests. Its every action finds its motive power in the all pervading “bread-and-butter” question. Why should it be otherwise ? The first passion is the passion to eat. The poet, whose mission under capitalism has been to supplement the work of the Church in the endeavour to depreciate the material, has tried to lift love to the first place, and calls it “truth,” while the modern novelist, true product of the bestial conditions of modern life, makes lust the premier passion, and calls it “realism.”

But how many of us, having the courage to speak as we find, give assent either to Beauty or The Beast ? How many of us, being “Men in earnest” who

“have no time to waste,

“Weaving fig-leaves for the naked truth. ”

dare assert that mankind in general would toil and moil and suffer, from the cradle to the grave, as mankind in general does toil and moil and suffer, for love, or lust, or any other passion than the passion to eat ? And history, indeed—the history of the slave peoples of all times—proves that neither is the poet’s frenzy truth, nor the novelist’s grossness reality ; for it shows, in its records of suppression, and violation, and emasculation—the concubines and eunuchs of the East, the “right of the first night,” the enforced celibacy, and the prostitution of the West—shows in these how love and lust have universally been trampled under foot. And history further shows that no other passion than the passion to eat, no other question than the earthy “bread-and-butter” question, no transcendent conception of justice or liberty or equality or fraternity, has ever led a subject class to revolution. Enslaved classes have been subjected to every indignity, deprived of the opportunity of satisfying every human passion, but withal the worm has only turned for food, and the one protesting appeal has been: “Bread ! More bread !” Earth is more powerful than heaven ; preservation stands even before procreation.

Since the power of economic interests dominates all others, the bitterest of all struggles must centre about the possession of the political machinery—the machinery of the ruling class for conserving their economic interests.

The political struggle is in very essence the struggle for life, therefore it must be supreme. This struggle to capture the machinery of government, in order that it may be used to disarm the possessing class, preparatory to dispossessing them, must take the first and foremost place in the working-class political life. All other things must be secondary to this endeavour. Therefore the votes and support of the workers must be won openly and above-board, on the plain, clear issue of the Revolutionary Proposition,—for or against the abolition of private property in the means of living ; for or against the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership of the means and instruments of production and distribution.

The vote belongs to the idea behind it ; the seat, hence, no matter what manner of man fills it, belongs to the political faith of its constituents.

If then, a seat is won by revolutionary votes, and the man who fills it should turn out to be a traitor, the seat still would be a revolutionary seat, though temporarily perverted from its proper use. If, on the other hand, well-meaning enthusiasts desirous of the new social system, displaying all their gaudy baubles—cures for unemployment, State maintenance of children,and the like—gain by these means the votes of those who want the reforms but cling to the system, and through these votes get seated, their seats still belong to capitalism, and they, willy-nilly, become henchmen of the capitalists. In such case no atom of progress has been made in the struggle for the revolutionary capture of the machinery of government; and if it can be shown that the reforms are either impossible or futile (a future consideration), then it is demonstrated that working-class effort has been utterly wasted.

But experience shows that the result of this building on unsound votes is worse than mere waste of energy. It affords opportunity to the wily and unscrupulous demagogues, the Burnses and Hardies of England and the Briands and Millerands of France ; and the workers, finding those whom the fondly hoped were to do their bidding, made Cabinet ministers, and suppressing them with bayonet and ball cartridge, heap curses on Socialism, and, losing faith in political action, fly to the sophistries of Anarchism, or sink in the sluggish waters of indifference.

The political struggle is the struggle for the instrument of class domination, therefore it must be a class struggle. The very fact of the existence of this machinery of government proves that. It is a strange superstition that conceives the possibility of the master class assisting in the work of giving the working class control of the legislative and judicial machinery, the police and the armed forces of the nation. The fight for these instruments—the only power which to-day maintains the dominant class in their position—will be long, stern and bitter, and every weapon and artifice the ruling class can resort to they will.

The political party of the working class, therefore, must stand opposed to all other political parties, must, in short base their activities upon the fundamental principle of the class struggle. The issue is one that can only divide men into two camps—those for and those against the Revolutionary Proposition. This issue must be clear of all befogging issues and illusions, on the principle that only the revolutionary is of any use for the revolution, and the revolutionary will always vote right on the clear, simple issue of the revolution.

A. E. Jacomb

[To be Continued.]

Letter: World Wide (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the December 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

World Wide

After having received two issues of the Socialist Standard I must say what an excellent magazine it is, exploring the fundamental principles of both capitalism and Socialism. Although I largely agree with the aims of your organization there are a few points in your declaration of principles that I disagree with. (1) The Working class is not confined to those who "produce but do not possess”, as over half of its number work in the so called service industries, and a good many others are on the dole. (2) The population of this country benefit from the exploitation of the less developed countries, just as the capitalist class benefit from the exploitation of the working class, and therefore requiring a majority of the population of this country to be in favour of Socialism before its establishment is, on an international scale, like demanding that a majority of the capitalist class must be in favour beforehand on a national scale. Being a socialist, and therefore an internationalist, I consider this prerequisite of Socialism to be both undemocratic and politically naive. (3) I do not consider that the SPGB is the only party ‘seeking working class emancipation’, and consider that if you accepted this you could play a very constructive part in the victory of revolutionary Socialism in this country. After 73 years I would have thought that you would have realized that there was something wrong with your methods. (4) Socialism, at least in the short term, will not make material poverty 'give place to comfort’ for the majority of this country’s population, as first the discrepancy between our wealth and that of the less developed world has to be rectified. Despite these disagreements I do strongly sympathize with your party and its aims, and would like to find out more about its views.

K. Knight, 

Exeter

Reply:

On point (1): You are correct. The working class is not confined to those employed in manufacturing industries but consists of those who do all of the necessary work of capitalist society. The definition is based not on the kind of work but the need to work. The vast majority own no part of the means of production and distribution and must therefore sell their mental and physical energies. their labour-power, to the capitalist class. Those “on the dole” share the same class relationship to the means of living as their employed fellow-workers.

(2) The capitalist class exploits the working class by paying workers less in wages than the value of the wealth which they as a class produce. Workers in this country (as in the rest of the world) are paid for the value of their labour-power. They do not get a bonus because of conditions in, say, South America. Following the dictates of the system capitalists everywhere seek to invest and trade in the most profitable manner and will take advantage of conditions in the poorer areas of the world. The propertlyless majority in the less developed countries are exploited by their "local" capitalist class.

We do not understand how the requirement that a vast majority of the working class must be in favour of Socialism in order to get it can be undemocratic.

(3) We do not know of any other party, in this country, which has Socialism as its sole aim and there is no other way to working-class emancipation. There are other parties which share some of the same terminology but they are only interested in our support on their terms, i.e. for some short term or reformist aim. We cannot have Socialism until the vast majority of the working class is ready to organize to that end. If it were possible to get Socialism on our own and make the world a present of it we surely would. For 73 years only the SPGB has kept the issue of Socialism clear and alive. During that time the same arguments have rotated in opposition—and workers have followed leaders up the same blind alleys. There is no short cut to the spread of Socialist knowledge. However if you have some fresh ideas or can tell us of some different method we are ready to listen.

(4) We agree with you that the first priority for Socialist society will be to ensure that every human being has enough to eat. Socialism will very quickly solve such problems as hunger by removing the fetters from production.

Editors.

Socialism and democracy (1986)

Book Review from the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Battle of Democracy by Keith Graham, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95

What is democracy? Why should it be considered a good thing? Why should an individual accept a democratically-arrived-at decision with which they disagree? These are the questions Keith Graham sets out to answer in the first, more philosophical, part of his book (The Battle of Democracy, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95)

The simplest definition of democracy is that it is decision-making by the whole people (“rule by the people”, as the Greek words from which it is formed mean) involving procedures such as free and open debate, free access to information, one person one vote, and the accountability of public officials and elected representatives. Graham argues that such a decision-making system can be regarded as desirable because one key aspect of the nature of human beings is their ability to reflect and weigh up options before deciding what to do. In other words, a system in which the people as a whole freely decide what to do is the only decision-making system worthy of humans as self-determining (“free”) agents.

The idea of democracy is also bound up with that of equality, if only in the sense that it is a decision-making procedure in which every human deemed capable of making a reasoned decision has a vote of equal weight. Pursuing this further, Graham shows that ensuring each person an equal as possible say in the decision-making process requires a high degree of social equality and not mere equal political rights. This introduces the idea that it is not only political democracy that is desirable for humans as self-determining agents but a democratic society. As Graham makes clear in the second, more political, part of his book where he discusses the views of Marx, Lenin and others on democracy, this democratic society would have to be “a world where private ownership of the means of production, buying and selling, the wages system have all been abolished, in favour of the communal ownership of the earth’s resources”. In other words, the philosophical justification for democracy is also, even more so in fact, a philosophical justification for socialism—though, of course, as Graham is quick to point out, Marx himself did not justify establishing socialism on such “an appeal to abstract, timeless principles to do with the nature of human beings”.

Graham’s discussion of the views of Marx and Lenin on democracy—in which he convincingly makes the point that “the terrible fate which befell Marx was that he was Leninised—corresponds exactly to our own position on this subject: Marx stood for the establishment of a democratic, classless society as a democratic act on the part of the wage and salary working class as a whole. In contrast, Lenin saw the agent of social revolution as a minority “vanguard” of professional revolutionaries who, on winning power, would establish their own undemocratic, even if supposedly temporary, rule over the rest of society. Graham’s discussion of the differing views of Marx and Lenin also allows him to clarify the reform versus revolution dilemma, often seen as a choice between gradual, constitutional change and violent insurrection. He can also set out, for the first time in a book of this sort, the case for a revolutionary but essentially peaceful use of existing political institutions as the means of establishing socialism.

Marx’s presuppositions enable a distinctive challenge to be made to the two alternative positions on the question of constitutionalism as we have been considering them. In one way, the most important political development for Marx takes place prior to any revolution and outside parliamentary institutions, namely in the growth of working class consciousness. This is distinct from Kautsky’s parliamentary constitutionalism, where the entry of a party into parliament, which may form alliances with non-revolutionary groups and the like, is seen as the chief means to revolution . . . On the other hand, Marx’s position is distinct from Lenin’s. The state is not to be smashed but taken control of, so that it cannot be used against a revolutionary working class: and some of the institutions of a parliamentary system, notably universal suffrage, will be something to foster for a majoritarian like Marx, though not for a vanguardist like Lenin. In the light of Marx’s presuppositions, there do seem to be oversimplifications in the terms used to express the original dilemma of the route to the new society. There need be no straight-forward, exclusive and exhaustive choice between constitutionalism and violent seizure of power. Certain elements within existing institutions may be valued, and action taken in conformity with them, while others may not. Connectedly, the aspiration to a peaceful transition need not be identified with an attempt to effect it by piecemeal means, an identification which both Kautsky and Lenin are prone to make. It is consistent with Marx’s presuppositions to recognise parliament as an institution geared to the needs of capitalism, and therefore inappropriate as the vehicle for a fundamental transformation, but yet to regard its connected electoral practices as coinciding, to some extent, with the principles governing that transformation, and to that extent adding the possibility of a peaceful transition. This is not tantamount to the view parodied by Lenin as the expectation that the ruling class will meekly submit to the working class, as minority to majority. It does, however, limit violence to the role of counter-violence in the event of resistance when a clear majority for revolutionary change is apparent, rather than seeing the use of violence as itself a primary means of change, even in the absence of majority support.

Leninists sometimes try to argue that this is only a question of tactics, that they too share the ultimate goal of a truly democratic society (socialism) but that because a majority of workers can never be expected to acquire a socialist understanding within capitalism (“the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of the ruling class”, as Marx put it), a minority must act on their behalf. Graham answers this by pointing out that, in the case of socialism as the democratic society, there is a very real sense in which the end determines the means to achieve it.

What is the nature of the transformation which, according to Marx, it is the role of the proletariat to bring about? In place of the compulsion to work which is characteristic of their position in capitalism, there will be a free association of people. In place of the exploitation of one section by another there will be common ownership of the means of production. In place of the political domination of a bureaucratic elite there will be widespread participation and revocable delegation. Leaving aside all question of the realism of Marx’s proposals, these are the arrangements which he regards as meeting the real interests of the proletariat. But these are arrangements which in their very description are incapable of attainment without the voluntary co-operation of the proletariat itself. Whereas you can make people do what they do not wish to do, you cannot make them adopt a set of social relations which require their voluntary co-operation if they do not voluntarily co-operate (Graham’s emphasis).

In other words, democratic organisation and methods are not just one among many possible means to establish a democratic society; they are the only such means. Leninist minority action can only lead, as historical experience has confirmed, to some form of minority rule—in fact to a more undemocratic society than the sort of capitalism we know in countries like Britain.

The Battle of Democracy, is a very useful book about the nature of democracy written by a socialist. It is hoped that it will spark off a wide-ranging discussion about the desirability and feasibility of “a world-wide society of common ownership” and of the means of bringing it into being.

Adam Buick

50 Years Ago: Armed revolt in Spain (1984)

The 50 Years Ago column from the November 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

From a working-class and socialist standpoint the revolt was a piece of criminal irresponsibility. The overwhelming majority of Spanish electors are not socialist, and do not understand or desire socialism.

No minority, whether in Spain, Russia, Austria or anywhere else, can impose socialism on a hostile or apathetic majority. Forced, therefore, to abandon the idea of introducing socialism, the new rulers sooner or later accommodate themselves to the job of administering capitalism. Finding power sweet they develop the century-old technique of intrigue, deception, bribery, and arbitrary violence in order to keep themselves in power. Unable to give the reality of socialism they learn a new propaganda, which consists, crudely put, of calling the unregenerate capitalism by a new name — socialism.

Knowing this the Socialist Party of Great Britain refuses in any circumstances to countenance the policy of minority armed revolt. That road does not lead to socialism. In truth it leads nowhere, for workers who head that way must sooner or later retrace their steps if they are to play their part in achieving socialism.

[From an article, “A Vain Sacrifice” published in the Socialist Standard, November 1934.]

This Month's Quotation: F. Engels. (1933)

The Front Page quote from the October 1933 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses."

Frederick Engels

Letter: Poverty: Its Cause and Cure. (1908)

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

A criticism criticised.

The review of our pamphlet “Poverty: Its Cause and Cure,” which appeared in your May issue, has been brought to our notice, and as your reviewer accuses us of propounding some flagrant heresies in the name of Socialism, we would like, with your permission, to defend our position in regard to certain points he has dealt with in the review.

In the pamphlet we stated that the causes of poverty were insufficient production, waste, and unequal distribution, all of which causes were in operation in England to-day. Your reviewer differs from us here on the ground that poverty does not afflict society as a whole, but only a portion of it, and he asserts that the poverty of the working class (which appears in his opinion to be the only class afflicted with poverty) is due neither to insufficient production nor waste, but wholly and solely to unequal distribution. Now we contend that poverty afflicts society as a whole, but we are quite willing to agree with your reviewer that only a portion of the members of society feel the effects of poverty ; and the reason of this is unequal distribution. We contend, however, that if an equal distribution of necessaries could be effected, there would still be poverty because of insufficient production and waste. It was therefore in our opinion necessary to show that Socialism, besides ensuring a more equal distribution of income, would increase production and diminish waste.

Your reviewer differs from us as to the manner in which Socialism will be established. He objects to our characterising as absurd the idea that a Socialist Government would be able to socialise all industries within its term of office ; but, having regard to the enormity of the task of socialising all industries, we must confess that we fail to see how any Government, however anxious it might be to establish Socialism, could complete the task within say five or seven years. This does not imply that a majority of opinion could be in favour of capitalism, as your reviewer seems to think, but, nevertheless, we do hold that it would be possible for a majority of the people to be in favour of certain Socialistic measures and at the same time not in favour of the whole of the means of producing and distributing wealth being owned in common and democratically controlled. As we have stated in the pamphlet, there is reason for thinking that Socialism will be realised by the socialisation of such industries as are authorised to be socialised by mandate from election to election.

We are next accused of repudiating the class struggle when we say that the method of Socialism is not to try to force the will of one class upon another class. Now it seems to us impossible to find a section or class of society to which Socialism would not be beneficial, and we think that as the tendency to Socialism becomes stronger it will also become wider, and that the spirit of Socialism—the universal brotherhood of man—will extend not only to members of the working class, but to members of all classes, and unite them on a common ground in the cause of the common good.

A. E. Peters.

A. W. Kersey.

Reply:

In this reply to my criticism of their pamphlet which appeared in the May issue, it is worth noting that no position is advanced that is not contained in that pamphlet, and, moreover, no new evidence is brought forward to uphold the position there taken up. In repeating that poverty is due to insufficient production and waste in addition to unequal distribution, the authors agree “that only a portion, of the members of society feel the effects of poverty, and the reason of this is unequal distribution.” Although this practically amounts to granting me the first point of my criticism, let me state the facts. The estimated total of the wealth produced in this country varies between 1,125 millions and 1,800 millions sterling. The population is about 43 millions. Were the distribution equal the income per head would be, on the low estimate, about £26, and on the high estimate about £42; which for the average family (5 persons) would be equal to a sum of £130 per annum in the one case, and £210 per annum in the other. So far as necessaries are concerned, therefore (and all references to poverty have been references to a lack of.necessaries), the unequal distribution is sufficient to account for poverty, quite apart from waste. Regarding their references to the increase of production, and the decrease of waste, under Socialism, I am quite prepared to agree, remembering that capitalism has been called a system for preventing production rather than a system of production. That, however, was not the point.

In the pamphlet originally under notice, the authors say “the majority of the people must first be converted to Socialist ideas” and “until then, Socialism must be to the legislator not a State, but a guiding principle, and he is prepared to co-operate with any political party which will introduce measures leading in the right direction.” The explanation of this appears in the reply to my criticism, wherein it is stated that “as the tendency to Socialism becomes stronger it will also become wider . . . and will extend . . . to members of all classes.” Here it is assumed that the capitalist class will assist in the realisation of Socialism. With us the assumption is that the capitalist class will fight in defence of its position of social and economic privilege as all previous privileged classes have done, and that the working class must work out its emancipation in the teeth of the opposition of the class which enslaves them. At present the capitalist class is prepared to use any means to safeguard its position, and even if we were to assume that, when the Socialist movement is strong enough, it will, making a virtue of necessity, bow to the inevitable, even then we should be compelled to insist that the movement is primarily that of the working class towards its emancipation, and any member of any section of society must adopt the standpoint of the working class—the socially useful class—to take part in that movement.The idea of Socialism being a guide to the legislator pending the conversion of the majority to Socialism is, therefore, extremely improbable, while the contrary seems much more likely: that the legislator, being a capitalist legislator, will do all that lies in his power to strengthen the position of his class, pending that Socialist majority which will inevitably mean the abolition of the system, the class, and the legislation he stands to support. The establishment of Socialism is dependent upon the majority, when the case will be altered and the majority, through the political machine as being most convenient, will establish Socialism, and not the Government legislating “Socialistic measures” on an unconverted people.

D. K.

Letter: Voting Shut-Down? (1978)

Letter to the Editors from the January 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

Voting Shut-Down?

I am studying the Principles (I am in 100 per cent agreement with the Object) and contacting my nearest branch of the Party, and do believe from what I’ve heard so far that the SPGB is closer to what I believe than any party or group I’ve yet come in contact with. Reformism is indeed a dead end!

One question: The achievement of Socialism by gaining a democratic majority of socialists is one I agree with and I reject violence, terrorism and guerrilla-type tactics. But what if the capitalist parties refuse to call an election? We have no written Constitution in the UK and the fact we have General Elections every three years at least is a convention—also the monarch "upon advice” can summon anyone to form a government—a minority one in theory.

If it looks as if socialists are becoming a majority of the working class I cannot envisage the capitalists maintaining democracy for the convenience of those who are about to bring in Socialism! Related to this point is the fact that many lands do not have a system of democratic elections. I would be grateful for your comments on this. I’m not trying to split hairs but this seems a very obvious objection to the Party’s Principle.

Robert J. Taylor

Holmfirth

Reply:

Capitalism rests upon the support of the working class, and elections are a way of renewing and measuring that support. Though, as you say, many countries "do not have democratic elections”, they do have parliamentary systems; what is missing is a choice of opposition candidates with facilities to put their points of view.

There was no general election in Britain from 1936 to 1945, the three major parties agreeing on a wartime "truce”. This was achieved solely because there was no doubt that the great majority of the working class supported the government’s main policy, i.e. the war against Germany. At other times the capitalist class of a country has had to withdraw from a war because of lack of support from the workers.

If elections were suspended because it was likely that a socialist majority would be elected, the existing pro-capitalist government would be unable to carry out its policies for any length of time. It would not have the cooperation of the trade unions, nor would it be able to prepare for war; and in all departments it would be without the necessary assent of "public opinion”.

As regards other countries, at that stage of development they too would have strong socialist movements. At present the call for “democratic elections” in those countries comes from factions who themselves want the opportunity to run capitalism and would seek working-class support on that basis. Socialists need democracy for the establishment of common ownership, and at the stage when the majority of workers have that conscious objective it will be impossible for the capitalist class to withhold it by political manoeuvres or any other means.

Editors.

Letter: Class and Ideology (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Class and Ideology

You accused Harold Walsby of holding that the working class is "mentally inferior”. Challenged to support this you produce statements that the working class does not understand or accept Socialism. But in order to show that Walsby held them to be mentally inferior you have to show him saying or implying that some other group is mentally superior to it. You have failed to support your accusation.

You describe as "absurd” my statement that “in acceptance or rejection of Socialism there is no significant difference between workers and capitalists”. My evidence is that although the majority of capitalists do not accept Socialism, a tiny majority do accept it. Similarly with the workers. Although the overwhelming majority of workers do not accept it, a tiny minority do, and show this by belonging to the SPGB.

It will be more fruitful to try and get to the root of the difference between Walsby and the SP. It is not the case that the working class accepts Socialism and the capitalist class opposes it. Class position does not correspond with acceptance or rejection of Socialism, and is not coming to do so. What does determine it? The ideology of the person concerned. All of us begin life with the same ideology. Some of us move on to a more sophisticated one, some of those to a more sophisticated one still, and so on. The result is the existence of a number of ideological groups forming, very roughly, a pyramid. The SPGB is the political expression of an ideology very close to the top of the pyramid, an ideology, therefore, with a very small group attached to it.

If a person possessing this ideology hears the Socialist case, he will probably accept it. A person possessing any other ideology will reject the case; it does not "fit” his ideology. This is why, whenever an SP branch is started in a "new” town it usually reaches a size comparable with that of established branches and then stops growing; all the people of the appropriate ideology in that area have been "collected”. Over seventy years the SP has proven that it is impossible to get a majority of Socialists. Walsby’s theory explains why this is, and opens the way, through recognition of the ideological structure of present society, to solution of our main social problems.

Geo. W. Walford

London N1.

Reply:

You acknowledge that Walsby held that the majority of workers would never understand Socialism, but object to our identifying this with the view that they are “mentally inferior”; we must show what other group he compared them with, you say. From Walsby’s writings, let us take the original quotation used in our January article: “an established fact—namely, that the average human intelligence is on the decline”, followed by a sentence accusing the SPGB of vacillating over "whether the workers have or have not the intelligence to establish Socialism”. "Decline” can only mean that the workers at a given time are inferior to a previous generation.

In your own statements, comparisons implying superiority and inferiority are made repeatedly. For example, the “more sophisticated ideology” and the "more sophisticated one still” which "some of us”—but not "the overwhelming majority of workers”—hold. You kindly place the SPGB “close to the top of the pyramid”, with the mass of the workers a long way down below. We do not think you are handicapped by language here: it would be possible to speak of a different ideology and a still more different one, and to use another geometrical shape if that was all you meant.

You misrepresent our answer to you on workers and capitalists. We pointed out (a) that most workers have not heard the Socialist case at all, and (b) that something more than minimal exposure to it is required as grounds for saying they have heard it and reject it. You accept that workers and capitalists are separate classes, but treat it statically; what is not mentioned in any of your three letters, although it was the starting-point of the article you criticized, is the class struggle.

None of us disputes "the existence in society of a number of ideological groups”. Where do they come from? The socialist case is that they arc produced by the class structure of society. A person raised in poverty has different assumptions and attitudes from those of a luxuriously-nurtured person. Of course further experience affects his attitudes; but that also is derived from a class-divided society. A capitalist may, as you suggest, accept Socialism as a system of ideas. That does not make him any less a capitalist, obliged to put his material interests before the “more sophisticated ideology” he may have acquired. (There are exceptional cases.)

The founders of the SPGB knew from earlier experience that the task they undertook was likely to be a slow one; other people, then and since, have understood Socialism but been unwilling to work for it for precisely that reason. Your thesis that a Party branch soaks up "all the people of the appropriate ideology” in its area is quite fantastic. Our branches, whether in suburbs or cities, would be pleased to have a situation in which this was tested—it would mean everyone had heard and considered the SPGB.

The remedy offered by Walsby and his followers for social problems consists of domination over the masses by intellectuals. We give three quotations.

Thus, in basing his ideas of achieving a scientifically controlled society upon an unconsciously motivated assumption—the mass-rationality assumption—the scientific intellectual is wasting much of his political time and energy. It is this assumption (with its associated repressed material) which today largely befogs the minds of those scientists—and others—who are striving for a society in which sub-atomic energy is no longer used for the destruction of man, but for his benefit and well-being.

("Atoms and Ideology” by Harold Walsby, in The New Age of Atomics)

Is the great mass of mankind through its inherent incapacity for scientific thought and understanding, doomed to eternal suffering?. . Concomitant with the rational superiority of these politically more enlightened people goes their inevitable numerical inferiority. Yet, year in and year out, with admirable though blind optimism and appalling ignorance as to the nature and structure of political development, they go on, fighting among themselves and vainly appealing to the masses with the same arguments and upon the same subject-matter which was instrumental in their own 'conversion.

(Understanding the Mass Mind, by Richard Tatham)

No longer are we confined to announcements as to how people ought to think, or as to the attitude they must adopt if civilisation is to be saved . . . not until this relationship between the intellectual and the mass is understood and accepted—and who is to do this if not the intellectuals? — will it become possible to control the development of society.

(The Intellectual and the People)

That takes us back to Plato, and men cast in higher moulds.

Editors.

Letter: Is Socialist Propaganda futile? (1945)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1945 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Editor, “Socialist Standard,” 

Dear Sir,

The Socialist Standard for September, 1944, declares, “If the workers in the different countries clearly understood their own class interests, they would act unitedly to rid the world of the capitalist system and introduce Socialism” (p. 65).

The Socialist Standard for September, 1921, criticising Sir William Joynson Hicks states : “If is a very useful word and many an argument has been balanced on it by word conjurors … it would be better for the knightly champion to erect his defence of the capitalist system on a more substantial basis” (p. 3).

To suggest you relate these two statements is not, I feel, an unfitting start to a reply to your article, “Old Fallacies Refurbished” (S.S., February, 1945), in which you refer extensively to my pamphlet, “Science, Politics and the Masses.”

My pamphlet entertains the possibility that the majority will never think scientifically about politics. Your review affirms at some length that this idea is not new. You claim to be scientific. Since when has scientific method involved evading the issue? Nowhere did the pamphlet assert the idea was new. In fact, it explicitly stated otherwise (v. reference to Le Bon, p. 13). What it did suggest was they might be valid.

You disagree. You think the majority can “learn.” Your article repeatedly so asserts. Since when, though has unsupported assertion been part of scientific method? Science is concerned not with mere reiteration, but with evidence Only once does your article offer this:

“If evidence is needed to show that the workers do possess capacity to understand and act—even if at present it is in a limited sphere—their achievement in building up the trade union movement provides that evidence.”

But does it follow that because workers form unions they can achieve “socialist understanding”? Let us see. In 1904 the S.P.G.B. appealed to the workers (including. one assumes, trade unionists) to bring a “speedy” end to capitalism. Since then, by thousands of public speeches and debates; by hundreds of thousands of leaflets, periodicals and pamphlets, and by countless private arguments and discussions, the S.P.G.B. case has been put to trade unionists—either implicitly (by appeals to the workers generally) or explicitly (e.g. the Socialist Standard, for September, 1921, states on page 2 : “To any trade unionist who reads this article we Socialists say : Understand your class position as a wage slave. . . . ”

With what result? In 1927 the Socialist Standard September, p. 13), said of trade unions, “even when their intention is good, they frequently dissipate their strength or allow themselves to be side tracked.” In May, 1932, it declared : “We regard Trade Unions as insufficient in any case and, in so far as they are composed of non-Socialists, their actions are frequently found to be reactionary, both upon the industrial and political fields” (p. 137). In September, 1944 (p. 65), it observed: “International trade union and Labour conferences rarely exhibit a genuine international working class outlook . . . the irreconcilable nationalistic and capitalistic views of the delegates. . . .”

Relevant, too, is this statement attributed to the American Federation, of Labour delegate at the General Council of the International Federation of Trade Unions :

“Mr. Watt went further and declared boldly that the A.F. of L. believed in private enterprise and would have nothing to do with Socialism.” (News Chronicle, February, 3, 1945).

Moreover, those of the British trade unionists who do claim to be Socialist seem imbued with that conception of Socialism which the S.P.G.B. so consistently brands as capitalism, i.e., “state,” or “national” ownership. No wonder then the party has admitted :

“Also, in recent years, the Trade Unions and the Trades Union Congress have been to an increasing extent drawn into the administration of capitalism (“Questions of the Day,” 1942 edition, p. 24.—my italics).

Nearly half a century the S.P.G.B. has striven : close on 500 issues of the Socialist Standard, 10,000 copies of “Questions of the Day” (first edition) and 20,000 of “Socialism” sold by 1933—to instance but two pamphlets; 3,000 hand bills and 1,000 Socialist Standard distributed at a single meeting (S.S. Feb., 1930, p. 89); “On May-Day, in Hyde Park, thousands of workers thronged our meetings ” (S.S., Feb., 1941, p. 21); 170,000 leaflets distributed for the 1931 election (S.S., November, 1931, p. 47).

Now, according to the Socialist Standard (January, 1929, p. 67), “the notion that general industrial development and economic pressure does not make the workers receptive to Socialism, is belied by the facts of daily experience” (my italics). Yet, in actual fact, “daily experience” shows the very opposite. If the S.P.G.B. doubts this, it may care to refer to the Socialist Standard.

Here one may read such admissions as: “That we are satisfied with our rate of progress we do not, for one moment, pretend,” (September, 1926, p. 13); “the mass of the people want capitalism” (May, 1927, p. 133); “membership of the party is only a tenth of the Socialist Standard circulation” (November, 1930, p. 45); “the road to Socialism is a long-one” (January, 1942, p. 3); “there is no sign at present of the workers deciding to achieve Socialism for themselves . . . the Socialist is faced with years of plodding propaganda and educational work for which no mensurable result can yet be seen” (January, 1943, pp. 4-5—my italics).

Science seeks facts. I am prepared to accept as a fact that the S.P.G.B. has one of the most;, if not the most logical of all party cases. Therefore, I suggest, the figures of its membership are important data for scientific study. Will you, then, kindly make known the year by year statistics of the party membership since 1904 (including percentage of trade union members), so they may be included with other evidence regarding the limits and possibilities of human understanding ?

Yours faithfully,

Richard Tatham.

Reply.

The gist of the argument in our correspondent’s letter is that as the S.P.G.B. is a very small organisation by comparison with the capitalist parties, notwithstanding its 40 years of propaganda, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the workers cannot understand Socialism. This fallacious reasoning was dealt with in the article referred to (February Socialist Standard) and our correspondent’s letter gives further material to re-inforce our case. In the February, S.S. we said : —

“What we are up against is not an innate incapacity to understand, but the massive and tireless machinery of capitalist propaganda, including the red herrings of the Tatham kind, but our efforts—small at present—are aided by the constant pressure of capitalism on the working class.”

Our correspondent seeks to answer this by giving figures showing the extent of S.P.G.B. propaganda—but the figures prove just the opposite of what he intended to show. Just to take one example out of the several given in his letter, there is the reference to 170,000 S.P.G.B. leaflets distributed at the 1931 General Election. At that time there were 30,000,000 electors and on a very conservative estimate the three large parties (Tory, Liberal, Labour), must have distributed between them upwards of 100 million leaflets. At least nine out of ten workers have never heard the S.P.G.B. case presented to them. Those that have heard it have done so against the background of an intensive barrage of anti-Socialist propaganda on the platform, in the newspapers, on the wireless, etc. This, says our correspondent with strange logic, indicates that the workers cannot understand the socialist case! Of course it indicates nothing of the kind.

The further important point that our correspondent overlooks is that the working class have progressed towards class consciousness and political maturity. Any Socialist propagandist who compares the reception given to the S.P.G.B. case now with the apathetic and very hostile reception of 40 or 30 years ago knows that this progress has taken place. That it does not result in a large and rapid increase in our membership is neither surprising nor disturbing; we never underestimated the power of the rich and resourceful capitalist class to delay the flood that will some day overwhelm them.

On our correspondent’s assertion that, “nowhere did the pamphlet assert the idea was new. In fact, it explicitly stated otherwise,” we offer the following extract from page 11, of his pamphlet:—

“We shall be referring here and now to Walsby’s discovery of the Demos and to his analysis of its structure and development. The limited scope of this pamphlet precludes any detailed account of the process by which he arrives at his results, though all this must sooner or later be examined if one is to have full evidence for the conclusions about to be described.” (Italics ours).

Again on the same page is a reference to Walsby’s “theories and discoveries.”

Why the claim that they are Walsby’s discoveries and results if they are Le Bon’s or someone else’s?

Incidentally, as our correspondent accepts Le Bon’s assertion that civilization has been the work of a small minority of superior intelligences and not of the mass of “inferior elements” one wonders how it was that our correspondent and his associates not long ago organised what they described as “Mass Meetings.” If it is only worth while to address “superior intelligences” what was the real purpose behind those abortive attempts to “tickle the ears of the groundlings”?

More important still is the admission in the pamphlet that we have yet to see how Walsby reached his (or Le Bon’s) conclusions, and the full evidence for them. In face of this presentation of unsupported conclusions it is strangely inconsistent for our correspondent to chide us with making unsupported assertions, even if it were true that we had done so. But our claim that where we can reach the workers with our limited resources, we can count on their capacity to understand our case is not unsupported. It is something within the experience of every S.P.G.B. propagandist and we do not need to go to Le Bon or some one else who lacks our direct experience.

Ed. Comm.

Letter: Eye of a needle (1977)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Eye of a needle

While I believe that the SPGB have a closer understanding of Socialism than most other groups in this country, I completely fail to understand how they can ever visualize a majority of the working class—with such famous members as bankers, debt collectors, hired hooligans of the law enforcement racket etc. all rushing to the polls to vote it in!

When that day comes they must surely be beaten to the post by the "bored with wealth” brigade.

It will be the lower strata of the working class who will finally establish Socialism—not those so-called socialists of the “upper working class", those “middle-class-working-class” intellectuals of Somnambulistic Enterprises Ltd. Socialism will always remain the prerogative of the poor— never of the "managers” of the wealthy!

J. W. Pitt

Worthing

Reply:

If what you say were correct, the most poverty-stricken city areas would be full of Socialists; manifestly, they are not. As an example, at the time of writing there is a by-election in Ladywood, Birmingham, which was described in The Times of 13th August as "one of the worst environments of any big European city”—yet the chief interest in the campaign is the possibility of the Tory candidate being elected. Further, if what you say were correct the Socialist Party would have an interest in obstructing the "lower strata of the working class” from trying to improve their standard of living.

Your point of view is the understandable one that managers, administrative workers and law-enforcers perform anti-working-class functions and therefore cannot act as Socialists. Yet these people are themselves exploited. Marx said of them: “the labour of superintendence, entirely separated from the ownership of capital, walks the streets” (and more about this in Volume 3 of Capital, second half of the chapter headed "Interest and Profit of Enterprise”). Dire poverty is one but certainly not the sole source of Socialist consciousness; many workers become Socialists through other frustrations and perceptions of the hopelessness of capitalism. To whoever does, it means he has acquired class consciousness which over-rides the capitalist-conditioned outlook he previously had (if he is in an anti-working-class job, what he does about it is up to him). Don’t say that certain people are beyond the reach of class consciousness; in a class-divided society, nobody is.

There is another way of looking at this. According to National Income and Expenditure 1965-75, published by the Central Statistical Office, out of 28,123 tax units (i.e. incomes) in Britain in 1973-74, 24,251 were under £2,500 net and 20,496 were under £2,000. So if Socialism were dependent on low incomes the great majority of the working class would qualify anyway. Those who have you worried are a small proportion; the “lower strata" is (most of us.

Editors.