The General Election (1959)

Party News from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party needs money urgently for the General Election.

In East London our members have already been working for months, preparing an all out campaign In the Bethnal Green constituency. Meetings are being held, canvassers are going from door to door, the local papers are advertising our activities.

This work is going on NOW. Every week we are spending more money in Bethnal Green—and this is only preliminary to the final attack in which the candidate’s deposit alone will cost us £150.

We have great hopes for this campaign. Last year’s L.C.C. elections in the same area gave the encouragement we needed. This time we believe we can achieve still more for the Socialist cause in this constituency.

But—we only have a fraction of the money we need. If you want to strike a blow against Capitalism with us, please send whatever you can to E. LAKE, S.P.G.B., 52, CLAPHAM HIGH STREET, S.W.4, and earmark it “Parliamentary Fund.”

Turmoil in Tibet (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The rebellion in Tibet, its draconian suppression, and the escape of the Dalai Lama, have exploded like a star-shell to illuminate a world in the Iron Curtain's dark shadow. Events in Tibet have been compared with the recent suppression in Hungary and while there is a resemblance, both revolts and the backgrounds have been reported everywhere befogged with misunderstanding or misrepresentation by people who do not seem to have a clue as to what the factors are that make society tick.

A Britisher says his piece
Mr. Hugh Richardson, the last British representative as Officer-in-Charge of the British Mission in Lhasa from 1947-1950 writing in The Observer, 5th April, 1959, gave a sincere, emotional, but woolly-headed review of the happenings and the historical background there. He said that the benefits of science conferred by the Chinese were illusory to the Tibetans when compared with the freedom to retain their old customs. He also naively berated Mr. Nehru for the part he played, “There is still no word from him of condemnation of the use of force beyond anything that an internal affair could warrant. Is such circumspection necessary or honourable?” He also makes out a case against the Chinese invasion on grounds of pure illegality.

Because Tibet has been off the beaten track of world trade, surrounded by land and without any ports conveniently available, she has been left severely alone by the great Capitalist groupings of the world whose main basis of transport is the steamship. Trade with Tibet had to be carried on with the aid of caravans for moving the merchandise, and this obsolete method renders out of the question cash crops and mining ventures, two of the great standbys of this profit-making age.

But there is a certain amount of trade with the contiguous countries, and this is to a large extent in the hands of the Tibetan nobles who, unlike the British aristocrats of last century, do not consider indulging in trade to be beneath them.

Tibet entered the Twentieth Century committed by the leanings of its ruling theocracy towards isolationism, and straining to get rid of its vassalage to Peking. The nobles wish to keep all of the profits of exploitation. The Tibetan ruling class is closely supported by the princes of the Buddhist church, who co-operate to preserve a subject-class docile, and amenable to the demands of their masters. Marx was by no means the first to realise that religion is the opiate of the people! Both British and Russian governments at that time had ambitions which extended to Tibet. But Prime Minister Arthur J. Balfour stated the British case simply, “It would be a serious misfortune to the Indian Government and a danger to our northern frontier, should Tibet fall under any European influence other than our own ” (Eastern World, December, 1956).

Tibet, a weak country, was but a pawn in the game of power politics then, as in the present fracas.

Would the Chinese Nationalists act the same ?
Chiang Kai-shek, the discredited Nationalist from his retreat in Formosa, criticised the Chinese government for their part in the affair and promised the Tibetans his support. He also proposed to organise an airlift, but the Tibetans, though they have not studied the Bible, probably know better than to lean upon a broken reed. Both the “Communist” and the Nationalist governments of China act on behalf of Chinese Capitalism. The “Communist” government of China has taken over from the Nationalists the map of China showing Tibet as being included within the country's boundaries.

But the tongue-in-cheek protestations of Chiang Kai-shek ring hollow to those who remember his activities in 1950, when the Chinese “liberated” Tibet. Lhasa's appeal of November 7th, 1950, to the United Nations for help against “the armed invasion of Tibet for the incorporation of Tibet within the fold of Chinese Communism, was presented in the United Nations, as a resolution by El Salvador. The Chiang Kai-shek delegate from Formosa opposed entering the item on the agenda on the challengeable grounds that Tibet had been part of China for 700 years.” In fact, as hollow as the sympathy for Tibet expressed by the press both here and in America. Chiang Kai-shek was allowed to have his way: neither Britain nor the United States rose to make an issue of the Tibetan nobles' right to self-determination, i.e., the right of the Tibet ruling-class to exploit the subjugated and keep the loot all to themselves. Apparent good intentions on the part of ruling-classes, when probed in the light of Socialist knowledge, so frequently appear as having economic motives. Whenever principles conflict with self-interests it seems as though it is always the principles that are jettisoned. The right to self-determination becomes the right to exploit: a rose by another name! The Tibetan government, standing alone, was forced in May, 1951, to submit to "Peaceful Liberation,” otherwise known as invasion and subjugation.

“Liberations”
The “liberation” of Tibet by the so-called Communist government of China in 1950-1 was by no means the first time that the country has seen invaders. The first Gurkha invasion from the south was in 1788, but in 1792 the Chinese government despatched an army of both Tibetans and Chinese under Chinese leadership and in the arctic cold of winter forced the Gurkhas to retire. The Chinese closed the frontier, but in 1841 an invading force from Kashmir were almost exterminated by the Tibetans. A Gurkha invasion of 1855 opened the country up to trade with the Indian sub-continent which was then governed by the British.

But Tibet, long regarded romantically by Europeans as the Land of the Lamas, is of strategic importance in the virtually New World that is Asia, and the country can be compared there much in the same way as control of the Middle East is regarded as vital by Western interests. Fairly recent events surely underline the truth of this contention. But Tibet no longer acts as a buffer zone; instead, it constitutes a forward area for Chinese penetration into South Asia.

Missiles from the Roof of the World

The Chinese are constructing airfields in Tibet. The Tibetan plateau of 12,000 foot altitude provides, in this age of jet bombers, an air base unique in the world. Calcutta is only about 550 miles from Lhasa. According to a report in the Eastern World, December, 1956, north of Tibet, through Kansu and Sinkiang, work is progressing on the Lanchow-Urumchi Railway, scheduled for completion (with a link to the Soviet Turk-Siberian Railway) in 1960. In August, 1956, Georgi Pokrovsky, a Soviet natural scientist, in a magazine article, proposed the construction of a Trans-Hymalayan railway running from the Soviet Union across Sinkiang to Kashmir and on to Delhi, thus connecting the Soviet Union, China and India by rail.

Those are all tremendous undertakings, and some of them are only projects for the future. But it is to the future that Peking and Moscow are looking, and the blueprints fit together. And in that context Tibet is being developed as a base from which China would be enabled to manoeuvre. For land power, not sea power, dominates Asia. Tibet thus becomes a factor in world strategy.

China and Tibet

Most of the 4,500,000 Tibetans actually live within the confines of China in the areas bordering on Tibet. Only about 1,000,000 live in Tibet proper, under political allegiance to Lhasa. Their social classification is roughly: 50,000 nobles and merchants, 150,000 monks, 800,000 serfs. About one-seventh of the population is in the monastaries—more than one man in four. Those who are not in the church have mostly swallowed the religious bait, hook, line and sinker, and live in subjection to the nobles. They live, imprisoned by the ties of their religious convictions.

A Reuters report published in the Far Eastern Review (November 1952) on developments in Tibet describes how the Chinese, using the Tibetan ruling-class governmental control of the population, are developing the country. As a reprisal for the Chinese occupation, the U.S.A., who are the main buyers of the wool crop (the chief item of export to the outside world), stopped purchases, in conformity with their policy of no trade with Communist countries. This brought about a minor crisis among the Tibet traders, but the Chinese met it by buying about 4 million pounds of wool for the China home market. While the Tibetan ruling-class co-operate with the Chinese government and the latter rally to their aid in time of trouble, it is only those who believe the State Capitalism of China is really Communism, that would consider these two groups to be other than two of a kind.

Industrialisation goes on apace

  Many factories, including an automatic repair plant, an iron works, bricks and tiles plants, saw mills, and a chemical plant, are now in operation. Hydro-electric or steam power stations have been built in Lhasa, Shigatse and Chamdo. Many Tibetan homes which once used yak-butter lamps or had no illumination at night at all, are today using electric light. Over 4,000 miles of motor roads have been constructed and many bridges built; some of them are remarkable feats of engineering skill. These roads link up all the major cities and towns and the principal agricultural, pastoral and handicraft areas which seven years ago were solely dependent on yak, horse and donkey caravans for the transportation of goods. They also connect Tibet with Chinghai, Sinkiang. Szechwan and other parts of China. A passenger air service is now running between Lhasa and Peking. Several airfields have been constructed both for civil and military aviation. Many towns and settlements have sprung up along the newly built highways. Nagchuka, a point along the Chinghai-Tibet highway where there were only a few cottages and tents before, today has become a town with banking, postal and telegraph, trading and health services. A free primary school has also been opened. New dwellings in great numbers have been added in Lhasa, Shigatse, Chamdo and Gynagtse. Industrial activities have given Lhasa a modern look. Its uninhabited northern outskirts are now dotted with factories and living quarters.
  More than 500 species of farm crops and vegetables have been successfully cultivated by the three agricultural experimental farms located on the high Tibetan plateau. Corn has been grown in Shigatse, nearly 12,000 feet above the sea level. Tibetans are being helped by Chinese workers to develop agriculture and livestock breeding. There are now about 80 primary schools attended by more than 6,000 pupils. Last year the first secondary school was opened. Students are given free board, clothing and books. During their study period they get pocket money. There are now three well-equipped general hospitals and several smaller hospitals and clinics in Tibet. About 4.000 Tibetans are now studying in higher institutions in Peking and other cities of China. More Tibetans are being trained locally and in China as doctors, nurses, teachers, radio-operators, tractor drivers and skilled workers.
 The China-geared economic revolution is gradually creating a new social consciousness. Radio, newspapers and cinema are gradually breaking the long-standing barrier of backwardness.

But it must not be thought that China is acting from purely altruistic motives. Tibet is rich in a range of minerals, including uranium—the raw material of atomic power and atomic bombs—according to Chinese surveys.

  China is doing a very commendable job in improving the economic conditions of Tibet. Industries are being developed, agricultural reorganisation is being carried out, the transportation and communication system is being rapidly extended, illiteracy is being removed and health improved, and, above all, mineral surveys are being conducted to utilise vast untapped resources. So far the surveys have revealed that there are more than 30 kinds of mineral resources of industrial value in Tibet. Besides precious metals, coal and iron, Tibet is said to be rich in uranium. There is no doubt that preliminary exploitation of Tibetan mineral resources will be undertaken before 1962. When the envisaged industrial revolution takes place Tibet will become an important economic unit of China. Already it has been established that about two-thirds of the northern Tibetan plateau is very good cattle grazing ground. Hence plans are afoot to make the area China’s major livestock breeding zone in the future. Specially picked Chinese families are being settled in Tibet to help the projected industrialisation of the region and to render smooth the Sino-Tibetan racial unification. The region therefore has become a reservoir for Chinese settlers. Tibet, which has an area of about 12.3 per cent, of that of China, has a total population of only about 1,200,000.

—Eastern World, August, 1958.

Chinese in Mongolia—a foretaste of happenings in Tibet

Mongolia bordering China in the north has already experienced a full-dress rehearsal of what is now taking place in Tibet. The former country, also remote, with a lama dominated population, has already had a taste of "liberation,” Chinese style. Mongolia, a vast country dominated by its cattle baron aristocracy, who look askance at the teeming Chinese settlers. As in Tibet, some are engaged in mining. The coal deposits there, for instance, are estimated at 2,000 million tons. Chinese agriculturalists are swarming in, turning the ancient open pasture lands into farms. Mass trials of Mongolians and killing off the disaffected have been the order of the day, and make a mockery of Article 72 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China dealing with the protection of minorities.

In Mongolia as in Tibet when economic motives beckon, all other considerations have to give way, and the Chinese government behave like any old-time colonial power, except that they falsely act in the name of Communism. 

Who are the transgressors in Tibet ?

The Chinese authorities, probably feeling more secure in their grip of Tibet, and therefore more independent of the services of the Tibetan ruling-clique, had begun clamping on taxes, especially on the monasteries, which have tremendous influence, and had never before been taxed. The Tibetan court, steeped in traditional ways of thought, probably found that a conversion of their feudal economy, almost overnight, into a colonial appendage of a Capitalist power, was a bit too much to stomach, and that they could no longer co-operate, and so they went whilst they still had the chance to get away.

The Dalai Lama and his retinue has been reported as having crossed the Indian frontier, no doubt with heavy hearts, but also with a caravan loaded with gold and jewels. Moreover, it appears that the contents of his palace, reported as having been looted, are insured in India for a vast sum. The Indian government are considering whether they will allow him to build a palace there. Whilst the Dalai Lama may feel miserable he will, apparently, at least be able to be miserable in comfort.

But what is the lot of those who have been left behind: Newspapers report that practically all the young able-bodied men in Lhasa have been separated from their families and driven off by the Chinese apparently to forced labour camps. The Chinese appear to be trying to close the frontier, when, liquidation, a euphemism for extermination, will become the order of the day. The sum total of human suffering there mounts up. Once again, there is a resemblance between the fairly recent events in Hungary, in the plight of the refugees, who, for the moment, are fleeing across the frontiers. Once again, there is a break-up of families and the horror of both young and old at being uprooted and driven out, but this is an almost continuous process in a class-dominated society. The Tibetan refugees now join the grim procession: before them the Dutch from Indonesia, the Hungarians, the 900,000 Arab refugees in the Middle East, the Muslims who fled from India, the Hindus from Pakistan and the continuous stream from East Germany. This column of spectres will go on, it seems, while Capitalism lasts.

The trouble in Tibet is a revolt of the feudal rulers against the imposed rule of State-Capitalist China—these are the transgressors in Tibet. Whichever side wins, the underprivileged on either side will still continue to be exploited, even though serfs become wage-slaves. Tibet compares with Hungary in that, once again, it is a quarrel between ruling-cliques and is not worth the shedding of one drop of workers' blood on either side.

Frank Offord

An Essay on Historical Materialism (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 2

The Affluent Society - Part 3

A Reply to Professor Galbraith

To read Marx, with no thought of criticising him, is bad. To criticise him with no thought of reading him is worse. In the last respect Professor Galbraith, author of The Affluent Society, follows a contemporary trend. His summing up of historical materialism is pointed, pithy, and piffling. It is a pity that in economising his phrases he has so gravely economised truth. According to him, Marx held that the economic motive was the prime mover of all individuals’ actions. Underneath the trappings of professed ideals lay the core of self-interest. Apparently Marx only repeated the cynical sophistication of the 18th century, of Chesterfield and Walpole.

Yet Professor Galbraith believes that the view he attributes to Marx, is, nevertheless, a great theory, which is a great pity, because if self-interest is the prime motive of an individual’s actions and the regulator of his conduct, then it is the businessmen, or at least the American variety who are Marxists. If historical materialism boils down to the assertion that all human activity is ultimately based on an economic motive, which, vide Professor Galbraith, is the American business man’s philosophy, then they might echo, with him, “We are all Marxists now.” Marxism becomes then a cynical worldly pragmatism. To the activity of humans whose claims are altruistic it asks the leading Marxist question, “What is their gimmick?” Marx, however, never held that self interest or the economic motive was the prime mover of all social situations. It is not Marx but Professor Galbraith who passes this excoriating judgment on a section of his countrymen—unconsciously, perhaps, the severest thing he says about them in the whole book.

So far from Marx holding that self-interest was the prime mover of history, he denied that personal motivation could account for historic development.

It is true that Adam Smith, who besides being an economist was a moral philosopher, also believed that the economic motive was the driving force of individual activity. But he at least believed that Providence had planned self-interest in such a way that each individual in seeking his own advantage was led by “an invisible hand” to promote an end which was no part of his intention. And so while his own efforts benefited himself,  they also benefited others—the community. This was an anticipation of Bentham’s utilitarianism summed up as “the greatest happiness of the greatest number,” via enlightened self-interest. It is also the nearest thing the Labour Party has in the way of an official philosophy.

It would also seem, according to Professor Galbraith, that if not all Marxists are business men all simply cannot explain history in terms of individual activity based on personal motives. The range of personal motives are too enormous and complex, even for the individual himself, to constitute reliable data for establishing valid and objective historical conclusions. That is why Karl Popper and the school of anti-historicists who interpret history in terms of personal motives, declare in effect that History and mystery are synonymous terms.

It is true generically speaking that man makes history. It is not true that the individual man makes his own history. In fact, Marx is not interested in what the individual man does or does not make. Marx was concerned with the behaviour of social groups or classes and of the individual in so far that he is a member of a particular class. And since the passing of primitive society, all history has been the history of class struggle. Marx asked the question: what are the conditions which bring about this? How and why do class struggles occur and what effect it does this have on the behaviour of individuals who form these classes? Marx offers an historical principle which is empirical and verifiable, and proceeds via the mode of economic production.

Men are constantly improving the tools and instruments of production, whereby they obtain their living. The emergence of new productive forces will bring advantages which will be attempted to be utilised by the existing ruling class for their own interests. A new class which is associated with and has title to these new productive forces will, in seeking to expand them along the lines of their own interests, find themselves hampered by the political and property relations which constitute the older form of economic production. The new class which has economic power must gain political power in order to effect a change in the social organisation which makes possible the control and development of economic power. An acute class opposition of interests results between the old ruling class and the new rising class. Unless the classes go down in a common ruin as the result of class conflict, victory comes to the new class with economic power, who fight for a form of social organisation which is in line with the changes in the mode of production and thereby permits the freeing and expansion of the productive forces. Sometimes these class struggles are rapid and violent, sometimes slow, and compromises take place between the contending factions. But all class struggles centre around the ownership of the means of production and the power which such ownership gives.

It does not follow, however, that individuals as such are necessarily motivated by purely economic considerations. What does matter is that their common interests and common activity do produce an overall effect, even though this overall effect differs from what each individual of a particular class had anticipated. It is the permanent and pervasive pressure of their needs arising from their class interests which makes itself felt in the final outcome of their total activity.

The outcome and consequences then of class activity are not then necessarily deducible from the individual motives of those who constitute a particular class. As Engels points out, whatever may be the different wills and motives of individuals composing a class, in the aggregate they offset each other, or are compensated for by other variations. Thus Marxism does not maintain that Capitalists, as individuals, move along a direct path of self interest, in which all others are merely the subject matter for their personal advantage and gain. Some may, but it does not necessarily follow that all or even the majority act in this way. The individual Capitalist may be a good father, a good husband, a regular church goer, and may want to do the best he can by those he employs. His actions are limited, however, by a set of objective conditions to which he must conform or cease to be a Capitalist, i.e. he must appropriate surplus value. In short, his own actions are regulated by the interests of the class to whom he belongs and it is upon and through this class that his own status and privilege is preserved. Without the power of this class he is, as an individual, helpless.

It is true that the ruling ideas of a social order can only become effective if they serve the interests of the ruling social group. These ideas, however, express themselves in a set of volitions and attitudes which develop into systematised or institutionalised ideas—an ideology. This ideology seeks to preserve the conditions upon which economic privilege rests. In every epoch, wrote Marx, “the ruling ideas have been the ideas of the ruling class.”

To understand the activities of men we must understand the society in which they live, the values, habits, traditions and the complex of institutions which make up their culture. It is true that the ideology arising from a particular set of class interests is refracted by the prism; needs and turned upside down and is expressed as “the Common Interest, “a Way of Life,” or “the General Will,” and it is accepted by all classes until such time as the exploited class grows to self conscious maturity of its own needs.

The Capitalists accept their system as the natural and eternal order of things powerfully reinforced as they are by the ideological assumptions which are an essential part of their culture. Just as the slave owner, no matter how kindly he may have felt towards his slaves, considered slavery as a natural order of things. He would have been horrified at the idea of abolition of slavery. No doubt the Capitalist today considers that slavery was a horrible thing, he, however, is horrified at the idea of abolishing Capitalism.

What then forms the complex of class behaviour and activity from the Marxist standpoint is a far cry from the assumption that Marx held that the dynamic of society was individual motivation whereby each individual pursued a line of self interest. Less than any man did Marx make the motive of the individual as such, the outcome of social evolution and nothing is falser than to attribute to him some sort of sordid psychology of selfish motivation.

Marx’s great insight was to show that humans could not only change conditions but change themselves in the process. He wanted to do away with a social system where neither buyer nor seller is free, and replace it by a set of human conditions, “In which the free development of all is the condition for the free development of each.” He remains one of the great humanists of history.

The pity about Professor Galbraith is not that he has so much to learn from Marx, but that he has so much to unlearn.

Ted Wilmott

When Will It Be? (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Reflections on the Election

Mr. Macmillan's government cannot live much longer. Its term of office expires in May next year, so the Prime Minister must already be thinking about dissolving Parliament. Doubtless, he will try to choose the date most advantageous to his party; he has recently been offered a lot of journalistic advice on this.

Last year, when stating that he would not call a general election for some time, Mr. Macmillan said that he was putting the Labour Party out of their agony. Certainly, they were then very eager for an election, for the Gallup Poll gave them a significant lead and the bye-elections were running their way. Since then, if these things are a reliable guide, the Labour Party has lost some ground. Now, with a general election in the offing, the agony must have returned.

The Budget

The 1959 Budget is the last before the General Election; it was, therefore, widely expected to be a popular one, intended to upset as few voters as possible and to please as many as possible. Mr. Amory came up to expectations. The cuts in income tax, although no worker will benefit by more than a few shillings a week, were soothing balm on a sore spot. Income tax is a constant grievance amongst the working class, who weekly sigh, over their decapitated wage packets, for the days when they were not qualified to pay the tax. The fact which is forgotten is that they were really no better off in those days than they arc now; the source of their poverty is not in any tax but in their social situation. The reduction in the price of beer was an earthy touch, guaranteed to make the headlines and proving that Old Etonian Cabinet Ministers are aware of what the “lower classes” drink.

Another Tory ace is made up of Mr. Macmillian’s journey to Moscow and his promotion of what are called talks at the summit. Nothing new about this—but what better face can a politician show than that of a man of peace? It seems to escape notice that they have often been so described when actually preparing for war. Never mind—it is claimed that Mr. Macmillan’s diplomatic efforts are restoring Britain’s international prestige. This must strongly appeal to those workers who are ignorant of the international poverty and interests of their class and who yearn to see Great Britain again a leading world power, almost as people who live in Highbury long to see the Arsenal at the top of the League.

The Labour Party

The Labour Party has had to work hard to break down these images of Conservative success. Their spokesmen have displayed all the usual ingenuity in attacking the Budget, playing down the parts which they think may win votes and asking awkward questions about the others. In the House of Commons on April 8th Mr. Harold Wilson said that, although the Tories have reduced the price of beer (“condescending” he called this), three years ago they increased the price of school milk. He also made the usual sympathetic noises about old age pensioners and the chronically sick. This must have gone down well in some places but, at a guess, was not generally as effective as Mr. Amory’s Budget.

Meanwhile, the Labour Party has been busily designing its policies to appeal to the voters. At last year's Annual Conference, opposing a resolution in favour of land nationalisation, Mr. Tom Williams, M.P., said:—

  To win power is our first duty . . . Don't commit political suicide by importing additions into this policy statement that may destroy our chances at the next general election.

Mr. Richard Crossman, the party executive's spokesman in this debate, wound up by asking the mover of the resolution, in the words of the Manchester Guardian,” . . . whether she thought her assertion would help to win a constituency."

This cynical attitude is matched by the Conservatives. The fact that the Prime Minister will deliberately time an election to give his own party the greater chance of winning, and that a Chancellor of the Exchequer will always try to produce a popular Budget before a general election, is an indication of their desire to win votes.

Optimistic

Whilst the two great parties are sparring with each other and courting the electors with their peacock programmes, it is as well to face a few facts. Capitalism is capitalism, whether administered to Tory or Labour governments. It has an unpleasant habit of upsetting the best laid schemes of the smoothest politicians and of persisting in throwing up the same problems. Insecurity? A few months back unemployment in this country was higher—600,000. War? Towards the end of this month the dispute over Berlin, which has been going on for more than ten years, may erupt into something more serious. These are not problems which politicians can solve, even politicians like Mr. Macmillan, who is said to be the most optimistic prime minister we have. The late Earl Baldwin also had his optimistic moments; he once said:— 

  If we have not conquered unemployment, we are in process of conquering it, and if there is no great disturbance shall complete its conquest.

Those words were reported in the Morning Post of 5th April, 1929, a few months before the great crash.

Despite their failures—and even though their successes are futile—the appeal of the politicians persists. Workers vote for them in their millions with, apparently, hardly a thought for an alternative They are content to be exploited to keep the capitalist system running, whilst the political parties squabble over the spoils of power. The Manchester Guardian of 4th March, 1957, reported Dr. Charles Hill, M.P., a member of the Tory Government, as saying, ". . . that the most riotous fun he had ever had was in opposition.” The Doctor went on to say:—

  Then we could make speeches without responsibility and make proposals that hadn’t got to be carried out.

Well. Labour have had their fun: if they win the next election the Tories will be waiting to give them the full treatment again .A merry game. Who cares if it’s the spectators who always get injured?

Ivan

Election Manifesto (1959)

Socialist Party Election Statement from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hackney Borough Council Elections

Why We Are Here

The three candidates of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are entering this election with a viewpoint that is completely opposed to those of the other parties taking part—that viewpoint is one of working-class interests. You may consider that the Labour Party, or even some other party, is concerned with working-class interests, but a brief look at the facts shows that this is not so.

For all its talk of “democracy” and “equality of opportunity,” what has the Labour Party ever done for you or for the working-class generally? Did it solve the housing problem? Did you become substantially better-off between 1945 and 1951? Did the threat of war recede? The answer to all these questions must be an emphatic NO! Of course, the record of the Tories is no better.

Why is this so? The answer is a very simple one. Neither of these parties sets out to solve your problems or to make you better off—what they set out to do, in fact, is to run this social system called capitalism in the only way that it can be run; that is in the interests of your bosses, employers, ruling class, call them what you will.

What then is the basis of this social system? Capitalism means a social organisation where all the means of producing wealth (mines, land, factories, transport and so on) are owned by a small section of the people. That leaves us, the working class, with nothing except our ability to work. And work we must, or else we starve. From the employer’s point of view, it is a simple proposition—more for you means less for them, and so they do all that they can to prevent any raising of your living standards. The fraud of inflation carries out this job well, so that wage increases are often nullified by a corresponding rise in the cost of living.

But this isn’t our only objection to capitalism. Our bosses are always squabbling with the ruling classes of other countries over the distribution of the loot, resulting in continual international crises and minor wars, leading sooner or later to major ones.

The Alternative

We say that there is an alternative to this state of affairs—the alternative of Socialism. Socialism means a world where the things of life will be produced solely to satisfy the needs of mankind, instead of for the purpose of realising a profit for your bosses; a world where the whole of humanity will own and control the means of living and where wars and international tension cannot exist: a world where people will no longer be subject to the threat of unemployment and to the perpetual struggle to make ends meet—in short, a world where everyone will freely and equally associate and enjoy all the fruits of their labour. 

It may be objected that these are hardly matters which concern local electors, but in fact the problems of local government are the same as those of the national government, only at a lower level. The measures affecting rates, rents, housing, education, etc., are no more than the carrying out of government policy, which means capitalist policy.

Housing

One of the most pressing questions of local government is the housing problem, and although the Labour and Tory parties talk glibly of the numbers of flats and houses built, the fact remains that to-day’s housing problem is as bad as it ever was. At root, the lack of decent accommodation for working people is a part of the working-class poverty problem. If you happen to be well-off, there is no lack of fine houses and flats—at an appropriate price. In other words, workers live in poor houses and flats because they cannot afford anything better, and never will be able to afford anything better as long as they remain members of the working-class.

Education

Education too, under capitalism means the fitting of our children for the tasks required by the social system; in other words, the production of the engineers, clerks, miners and all the other kinds of worker that are essential to capitalism. The present-day bias towards technical education is but a reflection of industry’s needs for more and more technical workers. Nothing wrong with that, you might think. But the trouble is that capitalism has no regard for the realisation of a child’s potentialities or for education in the sense of equipping children for full and happy lives.

Rates And Taxes

The problem of rates is another that is much discussed in the council chamber, but basically it is not one that really concerns workers. The whole principle of taxation, national or local, is the levying of a share of the profits for the State, in order that it might efficiently carry out the task of keeping capitalism going. Your wages, generally speaking, are no more than sufficient to keep you and your family going from one pay-day to the next, and this is affected little, if at all, by the raising or lowering of the level of taxation.

We say that all these problems are capitalist problems, which means that they are inseparable from the nature of the society under which we live. All the efforts of the reformers over the years have not altered your basic position one bit. What is required is something far more drastic—a revolutionary change in the nature of society.

What Can Be Done?

Our proposition is a simple one. We and people like us (the working-class) not only produce all the wealth but also carry out all the necessary functions to keep society going. The tragedy is that we keep it going for the benefit of a privileged minority. What we suggest is that workers throw off the domination of the ruling class and organise and run society in their own interests instead of in the interests of their bosses. Then and only then will we see an end to the problems that have beset the working class for so long.

This is a proposition well worth struggling for, hence our participation in this election. Our candidates are here as a protest against capitalism, and to give working people an opportunity of registering their support for the only constructive alternative to capitalism and for the only effective solution to their problems. Every one who joins us in the struggle against this pernicious social system is helping to make the life of capitalism shorter and helping to bring about a sane and rational social order.

Do not think that because there are only three of our candidates in this election, there is no point in supporting us. At least, three socialists in the Town Hall would mean a lot of useful propaganda for socialism and would ensure that there were a least some members of the council who really did represent the working class. In any event, the need for socialism becomes ever more pressing in a world riddled with frightening problems, and a start must be made in wresting power from the ruling class. Every socialist vote means another step towards a freer, better world.

The only Socialist candidates are: — A. Ivimey, J. L. Read, F. Ivimey

News from the Branches (1959)

Party News from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conference, 1959

The Comrades who were fortunate enough to attend the Annual Conference this year must have been heartened by the enthusiasm and interest apparent throughout the discussions, and most certainly all enjoyed the social arrangements. There was a good delegation in number and the contributions made by the delegates were interesting and useful. For the first time in the history of the Party two delegates from Canada were present, Comrades Greta and Jim Milne from Winnipeg. Needless to say, it is hoped that these Comrades are the first of many Companion Parties' delegates to attend our Conferences and we look forward also to the sending of delegates regularly to America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The Agenda was completed and recommendations have been referred to the E.C. for consideration, most of them dealing with the expansion and improvement of Party propaganda.

The Social side of the Conference was excellent. On the Friday a get-together evening was held at Head Office, and the Dance at Conway Hall on the Saturday was even jollier than last year and from the financial aspect a credit balance of £29 was reported. A Rally of mainly Party Comrades was held at Conway Hall on the Sunday evening to round off the weekend. Comrades R. Critchfield and H. Young spoke on Darwin and Marx, and tape recordings were relayed of greetings from the Companion Parties in Canada, U.SA, Australia, and New Zealand and our Comrades in Vienna.

Camberwell Branch

Camberwell Branch, in addition to organising three weekly outdoor meetings, East Street and Clapham Common on Sundays, and Rushcroft Road on Saturdays, is still canvassing the Socialist Standard every week. The Branch hopes to extend this activity, Currently, one branch meeting each month is being devoted to a lecture-discussion. These meetings have been very interesting, the most recent was given by Comrade Coster who spoke on Marx and Darwin. This stimulated a good discussion by Branch members. On May 11th a discussion in the form of a debate is being held by Comrades Baldwin and Michael, the idea being that it will help Comrades to learn the art of debate. Details of this event are shown in the Meetings column.

Mitcham Group

Since the beginning of the year, this Group has had a more centrally situated meeting place, namely a room in the “White Hart” at Mitcham Cricket Green. Regular, well attended lecture discussion meetings have been held once a month on Tuesdays. A report of Branch meetings has been sent to the local paper and an extract of “what the speaker said" has usually been published. These notices which have always included the full and correct name of the Party, plus the several letters by Party members printed in the correspondence columns have been useful in letting people know of the S.P.G.B.'s activity. Already the Group has served to bring some Central Branch members into touch with one another, and provided an opportunity for them to air their views on the general subjects discussed. With a few more Central Branch members attending, the Group could function as a Branch and thereby provide an opportunity for members in this area to more effectively express themselves on Party matters. Meanwhile, the Group is going ahead with its Summer programme of meetings and literature selling in an endeavour to increase its membership in the district.

Ealing

The Branch's first effort at holding a Film Show proved to be a great success. The subject was “Automation” and Comrade Hardy gave the accompanying talk, followed as usual by questions and discussion. There was an audience of thirty, and a very good collection of two pounds was taken. This will certainly be the first of many such shows.

The Branch has decided to have a thousand each printed of a short introductory leaflet to the Party's pamphlets Russia Since 1917 and War. These will be distributed to readers of the S.S. and will be followed up by canvassing of the pamphlets concerned.

Canvassing activity is still continuing, and new areas are being opened up. At present, efforts are being concentrated on the Wembley area and encouraging results have so far been reported. Paddington Branch have requested that we assist them with a canvass in their area and we have agreed to give them as much help as we can.

Arrangements are being made for a further series of lectures to be given by Party members during the next few months. Details will be announced later.

Members are asked to note that the annual Branch outing will be on 13th June to Eastbourne. They arc asked to notify the Secretary as soon as possible of the number of seats they will require.

Nottingham

Commencing on May Day, Sunday, May 3rd, speakers are going from London every week for propaganda meetings in Nottingham. It is hoped that most speakers will be able to get there on Saturday evenings in time for a meeting on arrival, followed by Sunday morning and evening meetings. These arrangements of course will depend on the travelling times from London. A debate is being organised and details are shown under “Meetings” in this issue.

Phyllis Howard

#    #    #    #

Islington Branch

Social & Dance

Saturday, 23 May, 7 p.m.


Co-op Hall, 179 Seven Sisters Rd., N.7


Live Music, by Joe’s Group


Admission 2/6 (including refreshments)

50 Years Ago: May-Day (1959)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The First of May is round once again, but, unfortunately, the wage-workers are not yet ready for the great demonstration which shall demonstrate, not the workers’ disunion and lack of class-consciousness, as do those of to-day, but their irresistible might and determination to strike, once and for all, the shackles from off their limbs, and to annihilate the oppressor. However, with May come some sunny days, the tender freshness of young leaves and—the outdoor propaganda season in full swing. Verily Spring is a mighty ally of Hope, and your true Socialist, while rarely forgetting the ever-present horrors of capitalism, appreciates no less than his as yet non-Socialist fellow, the brightening ray and thrill of nature newly waken'd.

To us its chief meaning is renewed opportunity for work in order that next May-Day may see us measurably nearer our goal; well on the way toward our demonstration—the only one worthy of working-class attention, the Social Revolution. 

From the Socialist Standard, May 1909.

The Passing Show: The Cart Before The Horse (1959)

The Passing Show column from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cart Before The Horse

The Conservative papers are filled with complaints about the money lost by nationalised industries. Do not— they adjure the voters—let the Labour Party in again, or “the dead hand of State control” will descend on more industries. But such complaints miss the mark.

Those who held shares in the coal-mines and the railways faced a bleak prospect in 1945: a prospect of many years without a penny of interest on their holdings, while the coal-mines and the railways recovered from the pre-war years of insufficient capital investment, and from the war itself. But just in time these maidens in distress were rescued from the terrible calamity of having to rub along without the surplus value extracted from the coalminers and the railwaymen. The knight-errant was to some of them perhaps unexpected: the Labour Party. Attlee won the election, formed his government, and put the mines and railways under boards whose duty was to pay out interest each year (in “compensation” for industries which no one in his senses would have thought of buying) amounting to £14 million for the coal shareholders and £40 million for the rail shareholders. (Both these figures have since increased.)

Profit To Be Made

This explains, of course, why the Conservatives, in power for nearly eight years, have left the State ownership of these industries untouched. But some of our private enterprisers are worried at the thought that even in these run-down and out-of-date industries there may yet lurk unexploited pockets of potential gain. An article in the Sunday Express on March 29th concedes that “no financier or industrialist in his right mind" would touch much of the railways. But the writer of the article is not discouraged. “Profit," he says, “has not been entirely eliminated. Even in their present condition, the Transport Commission’s hotels, buffets, docks and ships would make a sound investment . . . They should be the first to be hived off to private enterprise." Later on, he thinks, one of the railway networks themselves should be handed back to a private company. Realising that this suggestion might cause heart-failure to some railway shareholders, he adds hastily that in the first few years, the “free enterprise railway” might need loans from the State, plus a guaranteed “minimum dividend to investors for a period." Later still, he hopes, the rest of the railways “would also become qualified" (i.e. profitable enough) “ for handing back to private enterprise."

Safety Net

In other words, nationalisation is a device to take the risk out of some capitalist industries—for investors. If they allow the industries they own to fall behind the times, through not devoting sufficient funds to re-equipment, the State representing the capitalist class as a whole will step in and modernise their industries for them, paying them a guaranteed minimum of interest while it does so. And then, when the job is done, they can always demand that the industries concerned be “ returned to private enterprise," so as to turn the screw on the workers in them and jump up their dividends once more.

These proceedings are dressed up in a lot of long words and fancy phrases. But, stripped of verbiage, it can be summed up in the formula which has been the motto of the confidence trickster throughout the ages: Heads I win, tails you lose.

Still More

According to a book written by Clive Jenkins—Power at the Top (Macgibbon and Kee, 21s)—nationalisation has still more advantages for the capitalists. He says that “the industries may theoretically be owned by the people, but they are largely operated by the representatives of private enterprise in the interests of private enterprise" (Reynolds News. 22-3-59). Mr. Jenkins “shows how the dominant figures" on the State boards, “through interlocking directorships in private firms, are in close business and personal relationships with Britain’s industrial and financial oligarchy." He maintains that the capitalists have made good use of public ownership, and “instances below-cost coal supplied to industry, excessively cheap gas, electricity and freight services, and the way lucrative services have been taken away from nationalised airlines." Aneurin Bevan himself is quoted as saying in 1956—“Perhaps it is time we took the nationalised industries into public ownership?" This, from one of the leaders of the Labour Party, is an extraordinary confession of failure. No doubt he contemplates another variation on the State capitalist theme. But what must be done is to reject the variations and the theme together, and work for a Socialist society.

The Horse's Mouth

When capitalism is at last thrown into the dustbin of history, how many crowded cemeteries will remain as its memorials! You have heard often enough from Socialists about the bloody hands of capitalism, about the wars fought because each capitalist struggles for strategically-placed colonies, for sources of raw materials: but leading supporters of capitalism are themselves often as frank. M. Soustelle, one of the leaders of the movement which overthrew France’s Fourth Republic and placed General de Gaulle in power, says that France must keep Algeria “because he who possesses this strategic springboard controls the Western Mediterranean . . . because Algeria means the Sahara and the Sahara means oil. . . .  That is why France must make sure of retaining free access to the Sahara and prevent it from falling under any other than French sovereignty" (Manchester Guardian 19-3-59). In the last four years in Algeria, 1,500 French civilians and 80,000 Algerians have lost their lives in the fighting: but France must stay in Algeria, because of its strategic position and because of its oil. No Socialist could put the facts more damningly than M. Soustelle has done.

Very Successful

Blood is the main by-product of capitalism: Recently a book was published about the Flanders offensive of 1917—In Flanders Fields (Longmans, Green, 25s) by Leon Wolff. One attack went on for weeks, “some positions changing hands eighteen times. When the attack finally petered out, Haig had gained a few hundred yards of shell-torn country, and lost 74,000 British and French casualties " (Everybody's, 28-2-59). The same kind of thing happened day after day: “On September 20, the British line was pushed forward half a mile, and 22,000 men were killed or injured. September 26: 1,000 yards were gained, and 17,000 men lost. October 4: 700 yards gained, and 26,000 men lost. . . . On October 9, the attack was aimed at Passchendaele. . . . Thirteen thousand allied soldiers were killed and injured that day, with no ground gained. Haig wrote in his diary: ‘The results were very successful.'"

In four months, nearly half a million men were killed or injured, to gain about four miles of ground. British capitalism won that war. But what a price in blood the British working class had to pay for its masters’ victory.

Mon Repos

But enough of the dark side of our society. Every day the newspapers report some further instance of progress. In The Times (12-2-59) we are told of an improved prison cell. The old ceil was usually about 7 ft by 13 ft. At Everthorpe, a prison opened last year, the cells are 7 ft by 10 ft; now, the new "Butler” cell (which the Home Secretary helped to design) is 7 ft 1 in. by 8 ft 3 in. The Times special correspondent looked it over. “The effect," he said approvingly, “is of greater snugness."

It would be interesting to hear his opinion of the “snugness" of these holes after he had spent, say three years, in one of them.

Alwyn Edgar

Socialists and Day to Day Politics (1959)

Editorial from the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Other political parties are forever proclaiming their support for or opposition to some new proposal for changing the law. This is what day to day politics are made up of, and it is round these issues that elections are won and lost. The Socialist Party is unique in standing aside from that kind of contest. We fight elections solely on the demand for Socialism. We do not campaign for or declare our support of schemes of reform. We do not struggle to get this or that law amended or to prevent it from being amended.

Some workers who do not understand the Socialist case think that the Socialist Party’s attitude to reforms means standing aloof from the workers’ struggles. They are quite mistaken. It is a question of the Socialist being concerned with a different struggle, the fundamental struggle that has as its aim the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism.

The two aims cannot be combined. In order to achieve Socialism it is necessary to win over the workers of all countries to a recognition of the uselessness of trying to solve their problems by modifying Capitalism. What conviction would that message carry if the Party that preached it was at the same time telling the workers to postpone the idea of working for Socialism and devote themselves to working for reforms? Fifty years of Labour Party work for reforms has not brought Socialism one day nearer.

There is also a basically false idea behind working for reforms, the idea of rallying the supporters of Capitalism behind a proposal to reform Capitalism. To the Socialist, Capitalism is a class-divided social system; on the top side the owners of wealth and the means of producing and distributing wealth and under them the working class who produce the wealth. Any improvement that the working class may get under Capitalism they get at the expense of the propertied class.

The propertied class know this, hence their unceasing resistance to claims for higher wages; and every government knows this when it presses, as every government does, for “wage restraint.”

One factor there is that will move the propertied class to surrender some of their wealth. This factor is the growth of the Socialist movement. The Capitalists do not for long fear the leaders of reformist movements— they have been digesting them for generations. But when the Socialist movement grows in numbers, threatening the Capitalist class with the coming end of Capitalism, then the Capitalists will be anxious to make reform concessions, designed to gain a further lease of life for Capitalism by trying to entice the workers away from the Socialist movement. Paradoxical though it may seem to those who do not understand Capitalism, the policy of the Socialist, of standing uncompromisingly for Socialism, would incidentally induce the Capitalists to offer reforms, though their hope of thereby stopping the development of the Socialist movement would be an empty one.

The Debasement of May Day: May Day, Yesterday and To-day (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day is here again, with its different kinds of celebrations. The one we are concerned with is the demonstrations and processions by workers that have been a feature in many parts of the world since the last decade of the 19th century.

We are holding our own May Day demonstrations, but ours are solely concerned with the advancement of our object, the achievement of Socialism.

May Day demonstrations began with the passing of a resolution by the Second International Working Men’s Association in 1889 to set aside the first of May as a workers' holiday in order to hold mass meetings to affirm the international solidarity of labour. The idea originated in a movement demanding the reduction of the daily hours of labour.

Although this was the official beginning of Labour May Day demonstrations it had been preceded by a movement in America in 1886 for a reduction of the hours of labour. This ended when the police fired on a peaceful meeting in Chicago, and arrested and executed some of the leaders who were subsequently referred to in the Labour movement as the “Chicago Martyrs.” The trial of these leaders was a travesty of legal procedure, and the intention to convict and execute them as “dangerous agitators” was obvious throughout the proceedings. This brutal attempt to quell the workers’ struggle for better conditions was a failure, as became evident not long afterwards.

From 1889 onwards the Social Democratic Parties, together with the Trade Unions and other groups, had mass demonstrations on May Day, but in the course of time part of the original idea disappeared. Nowadays, instead of staying away from work on the 1st of May for the purpose of demonstrating, the first Sunday in May is chosen. This has taken some of the anti-capitalist fervour out of the movement.

In times gone by, however mixed up and side-tracked the participants in the procession may have been, these earlier demonstrations were at least demonstrations against the domination and iniquity of capital.

In this country the main participants in May Day were the Trade Unions, the Social Democratic Party, the Independent Labour Party, The Fabian Society and, after 1906, the Labour Party.

At these demonstrations resolutions were carried against war, against exploitation, against child labour, and against Imperialism and the domination of oppressed groups of all colours.

In London Hyde Park was the centre of the demonstration. Huge crowds lined up on the Embankment and marched to Hyde Park in formation according to the group they represented, each accompanied by banners with a variety of slogans. At Hyde Park there were numerous platforms from which the ideas of each group were put forward, and to which masses of people, as well as those who had marched, flocked to hear the speakers. At a pre-arranged time the speaking stopped and a resolution acclaiming the international solidarity of labour was put from each platform, and carried with wild enthusiasm.

How different is the scene today, though superficially similar! Gone is the old fervour, misdirected, though much of it may have been. The rise of Russian State Capitalism has temporarily put the clock back. Though we took no part in these demonstration, as we knew they could achieve nothing fundamental, we yet had a sympathy for the anti-capitalist spirit behind these mass expressions of working class solidarity. They were workers, like ourselves, and. though filled with hazy half-formed ideas, yet giving expression to their antagonism to Capitalism in the only way they understood.

Now the demonstrations still take place but. apart from our own, they are largely Communist inspired for the purpose of supporting Russian State Capitalism, to which has since been added the State Capitalism of countries which have lately come into the same misleading orbit. They have long ceased to be demonstrations of the solidarity of labour against capital. In Russia they are demonstrations of Russia’s armed might, tanks and guns being a large part of the proceedings.

In the early years of the Socialist Party of Great Britain we were treated with scorn as impossibilists who would soon depart from the working class movement. Yet time has shown that we were the only realists and possibilists. The reformers of long ago who claimed to be Socialists have been swamped by the reform movements they supported. Some have departed from the scene, some linger on moribund, others, like the Labour Party, have become open supporters of Capitalism and are still trying to rub some of the rough edges off of it.

Our message for May Day is the same as it has always been, and is the same for every day of the year. More than that, it is the only message of hope in a distracted world. The ills the workers suffer today are the product of Capitalism; a system in which the means of production and distribution are owned by a privileged class who accumulate wealth from the labour of the working class which lives by the sale of its labouring power to the owning class.

The goods the workers produce have to be sold on the markets of the world so that the Capitalist owners can reap their profit. Hence there is a struggle for markets, trade routes and sources of supply. Out of these struggles wars develop as well as the other iniquities that flourish today and flourished yesterday. As long as Capitalism lasts there is no cure for the evils it throws up. Reformers, however well intentioned, cannot accomplish any lasting cures for these evils. The only sure and effective cure is to remove the source from which these evils flow—remove Capitalism and replace it by a system in which everything that is in and on the earth is the common possession of mankind. A system in which all those who are able will take part in producing what is required and each will receive what he needs.

Our message therefore is a message of hope. The evils of today can be removed when the workers understand their cause, the remedy, and organise together in Socialist Parties to apply that remedy.

Gilmac.

The Aldermaston March (1959)

From the May 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The arrival of the second Aldermaston March in London on Easter Monday was a grand opportunity for the Party to make itself felt—and it did! The awakening political interest in this country, which was briefly indicated at the time of Suez, is bringing many young bewildered people into the political arena for the first time. Their rallying point, at the moment, is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

Encouraged by our successful and inspiring Annual Conference, during the preceeding three days, an impressive body of Party members reported at midday to the Party Literature Depot that had been set up in a comrade’s car by the Albert Memorial. This was the last halt for the many thousands of marchers prior to their final “assault” on Trafalgar Square. Over Conference week-end, both Paddington and Wood Green Branches had prepared leaflets specially for the occasion. One dealt with the futility of the Campaign in general. The other concerned the controversy within the Movement for Nuclear Disarmament as to whether or not they should withhold their votes from parliamentary candidates who do not promise beforehand to oppose the British manufacture of nuclear weapons, once elected.

Interest in our leaflets was so great that the Party Organiser and a few other comrades went back to Head Office to roll off another 2,000. In all 5,000 leaflets were distributed during the day. Once the March was on the move again the literature depot was set up, this time near to the Square.

Thirty-three comrades drew supplies of literature from the depot but a number of others helped too, so that everywhere you looked the SOCIALIST STANDARD and the pamphlet on War were to be seen. Sales were remarkably good—234 STANDARDS and over 160 War pamphlets—getting on for £15 worth, and these figures do not include a certain amount of literature that had been brought along by individual members.

A most heartening aspect of the day's effort was the number of provincial comrades who were doing their bit. Obviously enjoying the feel of an all-out Party effort were members from Bradford, Manchester, Newport and Nottingham and, as was to be expected, nearly all the London area Branches were represented. Specially noteworthy were the high sales recorded by a Manchester comrade and the number of accepted challenges to debate issued by the Newport Group secretary.

As for assessing our impact, it was noticeable how many more people than last year were prepared to accept the Socialist contention that the real problem is the continued existence of war-prone Capitalist Society and not the nature of current weapons.

PADDINGTON BRANCH.

*      *      *

The following was distributed as a leaflet during the March:

A point of view

“. . . We march in hope. We are building the foundations of a better, saner future, free not only from the horror and cruelty of our time but also its blindness, double-talk and unreason.” (Tribune, 27 March 59.)

If only this were true, how worthwhile this large and impressive march from Aldermaston would be! After your four days on the road, our view of the Campaign may not be popular but it must be put. We hold that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is on an unsound basis and inevitably leads in the wrong direction.

The Campaign fails because it is not concerned with removing the cause of war. In opposing “The Bomb ” to the exclusion of everything else, the effect is to oppose neither bombs nor war. . . . One year of ceaseless activity: Aldermaston, last Easter—Mass Lobby in June—Direct Action at Swaffham in December. Hundreds of thousands have heard your appeal to ban the Hydrogen Bomb, but have you made any impression on the present Government? And do you really believe another Labour Government would be any better?

The truth must be faced. Over these practical questions the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is rent with dissension. 

A large body of the Campaign is working for the return of a Labour Government. How futile! The Labour Party is committed to war and the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

An active minority is advocating “direct action” and is trying to persuade people not to vote for any candidate who does not oppose the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Put to the test. Labour as well as the Conservatives will manufacture and possibly use the Hydrogen Bomb. The supporters of “direct action” sense this without understanding why and their methods, the outcome of despair, are a repudiation of democracy.

The Hydrogen Bomb is a monstrous thing. We say war in any form is monstrous!

The risk of nuclear weapons is inseparable from war, and war is inseparable from the way human society is organised today. The world we live in is dominated by the private ownership of the means of life, production for sale and profit, and by economic competition. The struggle between governments represents the rivalry of capitalist ruling groups—a struggle that continually threatens mankind with war.

Russia, with its state-controlled capitalism, is no less involved in this sordid business than are the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

Socialists want to abolish capitalism and to replace private ownership by common ownership. Socialists want a world in which the privilege of a few to monopolise wealth can be replaced by production of goods and services solely to satisfy human needs.

Socialists want a world in which “ Community,” “ Co-operation ” and ”Peace” can become realities not hollow slogans.

Effective opposition to the Hydrogen Bomb demands opposition to the whole monstrosity of war.

Opposition to war demands opposition to capitalism.

Opposition to capitalism demands working for the re-organisation of human society—for socialism.