Race relations (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Quoting figures from the 1971 Census (Country of Birth Tables), the Sunday Times colour supplement recently reported that there are three million people living in Britain who were born citizens of another country. The Immigration Act passed in 1971 has severely limited male immigration, although it allows the wives and children of those already here to join them if they can satisfy British Consular representatives of their relationship and obtain an entry certificate. Accompanying the report was a large double page picture displaying one representative from each of the main countries of origin; a handsome and varied collection of the human race from all parts of the globe.

There are 29 main countries of origin with the breakdown as follows:-

(Countries from whom the number of immigrants is less than 14,000 are not listed).

A study of these figures makes nonsense of wild and inflammatory statements about the United Kingdom being swamped and taken over by coloured people and alien cultures. The largest single group comes from just across the Irish Sea, and the greatest overall proportion of immigrants have a European ancestry and share a common language. These easily mingle with the indigenous population, and it is the more noticeable who suffer the hostility and resentment of the racially biased.

Not un-naturally these people generally congregate in areas with others of similar background and language which leads to the accusation of certain cities being taken over and changed. Looking at the parts of Bradford, Leeds, Birmingham and London where there are large coloured immigrant populations, one puzzles at what there is about them that could induce anyone to uproot themselves from sunnier climes and settle in such dismal depressing environs. The answer is that people who have to sell their labour-power in order to live are forced to move about in order to find a buyer. Since Capitalism started there have been migrations of workers from their birthplaces to where the means of production are situated. From the countryside to the towns, from the under-developed parts of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland to England, from the North of England to the South; and in their tens of millions workers from the whole of the British Isles have emigrated to all parts of the world to seek the means of life.

It is because these immigrants come here to seek work that they are regarded with suspicion and hostility by many members of the working class. Every new worker entering the country appears to threaten somebody’s job. There is competition for jobs — and the buyer of labour-power prefers it that way. It helps to keep the price of labour-power low, he can pick and choose his worker more freely, and the worker is more likely to toe the line when he knows he can be easily replaced by another. Employers may have private views on nationality and race, but as capitalists they are interested only in labour-power; they recruit it as and when—and from wherever — they need. Workers were recruited in this way in the 1950s from Italy, the West Indies, and Asia.

With tensions already established the indigenous worker looks around at his problems and sees in the immigrant a scapegoat. Ignoring the fact that housing problems, unemployment, and poverty were rife before any immigrant set foot on these Islands, these faults are laid at the door of the immigrant, and those who are conspicuous, i.e. the coloured population, are the focus of hostility. The immigrant, afraid and bewildered by the hostility around him, often reacts in kind. Bitter and resentful young coloureds try to outdo their white counterparts in bigotry and malice. The frustration of both sides hardens, and we have in Britain the elements of a white-black and black-white antagonism that is being inflamed by those who wish to make political capital from ideas of “racial purity” and separation.

There is a great deal of argument and disagreement amongst anthropologists about racial, ethnic and national differences; but it requires no special knowledge or study to acknowledge the paradox of the human race. Nevertheless, the likenesses far outweigh the differences. To paraphrase Will Shakespeare . . . “Have we not eyes? Have we not hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions! Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same summer and winter. If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh?” . . . And yet, however similar, no two human beings are the same. Every person is unique! So there seems no rational reason to dislike someone who is different, because everyone is different.

The Socialist is free from racial prejudice. We take pleasure in the infinite variety of physical and cultural differences in our fellow humans and see no reason for those differences to continue to cause antagonism. Lines drawn on maps do not affect the way we regard our fellow men. We are deaf to calls from sectarian groups whether white, black, nationalist or feminist. There is a division in society but it is economic not social. On one side are those who own the means of production and distribution and thereby control the means by which we live — the capitalist class. On the other side are the vast majority, the working class, who have to sell their ability to work to those owners. This system is international, and like workers capitalists exist all over the world and come in all shapes, sizes and colours. Whether the owner is black or white, man or woman, speaks your language or not, the effect is the same. He is the master and you are the servant, he is the exploiter and you are the exploited.

It is in the interest of all workers whatever their colour, nationality, or sex to recognize the root of their problems lies in capitalism itself. The problems cannot be cured without its abolition. All workers must unite to bring to an end a system that sentences them to a lifetime of poverty, insecurity, conflict and hardship. Then, world-wide, all will work together, co-operating in producing everything that the human race requires to satisfy its needs. All mankind will live in harmony.

Alice Kerr

Alternative energy . . . fuel for thought (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the rapid rise in the price of oil, the idea of using “alternative energy sources” has become increasingly fashionable. However, only a small fraction of current energy research is put into alternative energy sources. For example in the EEC’s 1977 energy research budget, only 5.3 per cent, was allocated to solar power and nuclear fusion research. The question this article attempts to answer is why governments are investing so little money in alternative energy sources compared to nuclear fission. In doing this, it will be seen that the so-called “energy crisis” arises out of the problems of capitalism, not out of any shortage of natural resources.

There are two aspects to the question: First, production of energy and second, its efficient use. Until recently the latter question was completely ignored, but it is very important because capitalist production is enormously wasteful of natural resources in general and energy in particular. A good example of this is that in the generation of electricity a large quantity of reject heat is produced in the form of hot water. Somebody unfamiliar with the workings of capitalism might assume that this hot water would be used for domestic supplies, to heat buildings, etc. In fact, with the exception of one power station in the UK, the only thing this hot water is used for is the pollution of rivers. The reason for this is given in the Government discussion document “Energy Research and Development in the UK”, as follows:

  The capital costs associated with upgrading, distributing and utilising the reject heat (from power stations) would necessarily be large, and might be difficult to justify while there are available less capital intensive alternatives of meeting energy needs such as the supply of natural gas through existing mains direct to consumers. Furthermore, the development of significantly large markets for the heat would take place only within a long time scale and in many cases the associated costs could more than offset the fuel saving attractions, (HMSO 1976)

In short, hot water is used to create thermal pollution instead of heating homes while OAP’s die of hypothermia, for one simple reason—profit. This is a classic example of capitalist production; it creates the technological potential to satisfy human needs but does not do so because production is determined by the needs of the market, not by human needs. 

One of the most important uses of energy is in agriculture. It is interesting to note that modern agriculture could provide all its own energy by using the energy of the inedible parts of crops. This is not based on the claim of an alternative energy freak, but on an article by Professor Revelle of Harvard

University. He writes:-

  Most, perhaps all of the energy needed in modern high-yielding agriculture could be provided by the farmers themselves. For every ton of cereal grain there are two tons of humanly inedible crop residues with an energy content considerably greater than the food in the grain. If only half of this energy could be recovered by the fermentative production of methane or alcohol, the energy requirements for modern agriculture including energy for the production of chemical fertilizers, could be fully satisfied.

(Scientific American, September 1976)

It is possible to give many other examples of how wasteful capitalist production is. As one instance of how ridiculous it is to talk about conservation in terms of capitalist production, consider the recent “save it” campaign. This of course was stopped because the CEGB wanted to sell more electricity, not less!

One of the most talked-about forms of alternative energy is solar power. The reason for this is simple; there is so much solar energy around. While the sun is shining, the energy equivalent of a gallon of petrol falls on the area the size of a tennis court about every ten minutes. It is not just solar fanatics who realize the potential for solar power. For example Bruce Chalmers, Professor of metallurgy at Harvard writes:

  It is paradoxical that Americans should be concerned about their supply of energy even as the US is receiving energy from the sun at 500 times the rate at which they use it for all purposes.

(Scientific American, October 1976)

Photovoltaic cells can convert this energy into electricity with an efficiency of up to 25 per cent. The explanation of the paradox is money, of course. As Chalmers explains, solar power must be achieved “at prices that are competitive with those of other sources of energy.”

At present, solar power cells cost $20,000 per kilowatt compared to about $500 per kilowatt for a fuel-burning power station. The reason for the high cost is very small-scale production and the expense of silicon. Yet silicon is one of the most abundant elements in the earth’s crust. (So much for the “shortage of resources” theory!)

The reason for the high cost of semiconductor grade silicon, according to Chalmers, is that the precise manufacturing process calls for “much time and labour on the part of skilled workers who grow the crystals slice the wafers and fabricate the finished cell.” When it is remembered that there are millions of unemployed workers throughout the world, it can be seen that there is no shortage of skilled workers; it is just that under capitalism, skilled labour-power is an expensive commodity. Chalmers says that the speed of development of solar cells depends on how fast “the necessary engineering development can be achieved. No new scientific breakthrough is needed, only a great deal of meticulous engineering to put proved ideas into practice.” Even if solar cells could be built at the cost of $500 per kilowatt they would not be economically feasible in capitalist terms because ‘‘a conventional power station (also costing $500 per peak kilowatt) can generate a return on its capital investment day and night rain or shine,” whereas solar power stations can only generate one-third to one-half as much return per peak-kilowatt compared to a conventional power station. Other ways of using solar energy are putting solar cells into orbit above the earth and then beaming the energy down to earth or using mirrors to focus light on a solar boiler to generate electricity, as in the recently opened power station in the Pyrenees, or to produce hot water.

Another potentially large source of energy is geothermal energy. For example, J. C. Rowley writes:

  The interior of the earth represents an enormous reservoir of energy. Most of it with the exception of the relatively thin surface-crust material, is either close to or above the melting point range for the rock and metallic alloys that make up the mantle and the core. Yet this great energy reservoir is not at present a generally useful resource, being currently tapped only in a few small sites where surface conditions permit an economic yield. 

(Physics Today, January 1977)

There are four main types of geothermal reservoirs. The first type, high-pressure steam and hot water, is already used fairly widely because it is relatively cheap.

  Western Siberia like Cornwall “floats” on geothermal waters, and Soviet energy experts like the British periodically expound on the significance and profitability of this fact. The Soviets already use some of these waters for practical purposes. In and around Omsk is the main area of exploitation. The Omsk textile mill apparently saves from 33,000 to 44,000 roubles a year by using geothermal waters for heating.

(New Scientist, 5th February 1976)

This particular example illustrates the world-wide nature of capitalism. In Russia, as in any other capitalist country, production of energy takes place, just like the production of any other commodity, if and only if there is a prospect of making a profit.

The second type of geothermal reservoir consists of hot fluids. This source will probably be more expensive to utilize, but developments in materials technology could change that, so this type of source is now being explored. The 1975 US geological survey estimated that in the US this source contains an energy equivalent of about 5 billion tons of coal. This is about 1,500 times the total energy used by the us in 1973. The US geological survey also estimated that there are similar quantities of energy available from the other two types of geothermal reservoirs, dry hot rocks and magnia.

Another type of energy source that has been discussed recently is wavepower. There is a large amount of energy in waves and according to Wolley and Platts: -

  Compared with other permanent sources of energy— the wind for example—wavepower has a high availability; there are always waves arriving around Britain from somewhere in the Atlantic. 

(New Scientist, 1st May 1975)

Floats moving up and down with the waves could convert wave energy into electricity very efficiently. “Laboratory tests show great promise of a device with a basic efficiency of more than 50 per cent.” Wolley and Platts say. They are in fact engineers employed by a firm called Wavepower Ltd. They are not therefore working to produce a socially useful product for the benefit of mankind, but a commodity which their employers can sell at a profit, as they themselves freely admit:

  Public debate has concentrated on the high specific powers and high mechanical efficiencies of particular locations and devices. The true criterion for wave development should be THE POWER PRODUCED FOR A GIVEN CAPITAL OUTLAY. While there is immense power available in the Atlantic, it is not necessarily economic to tap it. Power in the North Sea for example, is contained in a comparatively narrow band of wavelengths; and the machine designed to suit them may well be more efficient in terms of capital cost per KW output, than a bigger device to cover the wider spread and larger waves in the Atlantic approaches. (Emphasis added)

Finally, it is worth noting fusion, because its development would provide an almost unlimited supply of energy. The development of fusion power is not just a technological problem, it requires new scientific development. However, there is little doubt that if the work is done it will be developed; it is merely a question of how long it will take. That is a big “if’ under capitalism because fusion research is expensive and governments are reluctant to pay for it. Bruno Coppi, in Scientific American (July 1972) writes that “the recent progress of fusion research has been limited by the lack of adequate financial support.” 

This article has been limited by space considerations, but seeks to illustrate two things. First, energy is a commodity and its production is therefore determined by the same laws of economics as those for any other commodities. Second, there is no shortage of energy resources on this planet. There is more energy available than man could possibly use. When the working class takes the means of production into its own hands, it can utilize all energy resources of the earth to solve all the physical problems that man can encounter.

Tony Weidberg

The Socialism of the Communist Manifesto (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Society can no longer live under the bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society”.

— The Communist Manifesto

Obviously Marx and Engels were optimistic about the immediate future and were stressing the urgency of a working-class revolution. Both men, fired with the vigour and enthusiasm of youth, thought the working class were ready for Socialism.

The warning given in the Manifesto about the false forms of Socialism has not been heeded. The result is that there is more confusion now about what Socialism is than there was in Marx's day. Marx’s descriptions of “socialism” in the Manifesto (Section 3) relate to the activities of sections of the ruling class, old and new, who were endeavouring to get the support of the workers by claiming that their interests and those of the worker were identical. The word “socialism” had a magic appeal to the worker and the capitalists then, as now, were trying to frustrate any real Socialist movement. All the familiar weapons of misrepresentation, lying and slander were brought into play. Today, misrepresentation and distortion have produced a new industry, one which manufactures myths about Socialism and the Socialist Party. Metaphysics, alchemy and phantomology are the raw materials this thriving industry relies upon.

In the chapter on “reactionary socialism” Marx showed how not only the capitalists but the old feudal ruling class will try to get working-class support in restoring the conditions of feudal exploitation. This he called Feudal Socialism. Their quarrel with the rising capitalists was that their system of exploitation would generate a class which would destroy the old social order. Capitalism was not only creating a working class but a revolutionary working class at that. In a different way the small capitalists or petty bourgeois, formerly the Guildmasters, sought the support of workers in trying to bring back the old methods of production. Machinery and modern manufacture had made the mediaeval Guild system obsolete, with the inevitable ruin of the petty bourgeoisie. The system of production was outmoded together with its property relations, and a call for its return was reactionary. The Guildmaster either graduated to full status of capitalist or fell back into the ranks of the workers.

German “true socialism”, borrowed from French socialist literature, was the gospel of would-be philosophers who treated Socialism as purely intellectual. They removed it from the issue of the class struggle; they talked about the “alienation of the essence of mankind” in dealing with the criticism of the monetary system and its evils. When criticizing the state they wrote about the creation of “the supremacy of the abstract universal” (p. 59, The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, D. Ryazanoff). They were not concerned about defending true needs but spoke about defending the need for truth. Everything could be reasoned out without the necessity of class conflict.

This philosophical point of view favoured the existing social relations and political arrangements which were based on small production and land tenure, but did not suit the developing capitalist. His system could not be reasoned into existence—on the contrary, it had to be opposed on the grounds of reason. Class struggle was an irrational expression which fell outside logical reasoning and outlawed it. The class struggle based on property at all stages of society has always been the agent of social change. This meant the overthrow of the existing order with political power passing to the challenging class. With political power that class dominated society and legislated in its own economic interests. It removed the previous owners of wealth from their position of privilege and endowed itself with those privileges. It is easy to see why those in control of the political machinery then or now must always try and prove that the class struggle is an anachronism and something which has no place in modern industrial relations, and is only kept alive by agitation and class hatred.

Dealing with bourgeois socialism, Marx stated that it was no more than a reform movement which aimed at retaining the basic conditions of society, but without the struggles and disintegrating elements which are the inevitable outcome of those conditions. For Marx, humanitarians, welfare workers, economists, philanthropists, charity organizers, temperance fanatics, hole-and-corner reformers of every imaginable kind, existed solely to safeguard bourgeois society. Modern bourgeois socialism expresses itself in the policies and activities of Social Democratic, Labour and Community parties throughout the world. All the spurious brands of socialism referred to in the Manifesto find their rightful place in these organizations. The right of all capital to a profit, fair wages for the workers, the right of landlords to charge rent and bankers to collect interest, the right of small shopkeepers, manufacturers and the self-employed, the rights of trade unions, freedom of worship, and the rights of commodities to freely circulate, are all embodied in the literature of these parties The revolutionary concept of Socialism as envisaged by the Manifesto, and kept alive by genuine Socialist movements, is absent.

The abolition of the wages system is the main plank of the Manifesto, and is the test of a revolutionary organization. Labour and Communist parties do not advocate and work for this simple demand; their function is to run capitalism. To say that the Social Democratic movement, including the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party, have moved away from the original revolutionary position would be untrue. As early as 1891 the German party at its conference at Erfurt laid down the pattern which has been faithfully followed by all Communist, Social Democratic and Labour parties all over the globe. First, it proclaimed itself to be a Socialist party seeking the abolition of class society, at the same time stressing the need for international class-consciousness, and the need to convert the means of production into social property. However, after laying down the general principles of Socialism, the conference produced a list of “immediate demands”, which were nothing less than a statement of the conditions under which the working class would continue to accept capitalism. This was in complete contradiction to its Socialist objective, because you cannot advocate revolution and reform at the same time.

As a matter of historical fact, all the immediate demands of the Erfurt programme were introduced many years ago: universal suffrage, the right to form trade unions, abolition of capital punishment, free medical treatment, 8-hour day, restrictions on child labour, direct taxation instead of indirect taxation, etc. The idea behind the list of immediate demands was that Socialism could only be reached in stages. It was argued that the workers would not support such a drastic social change and had to be led to accept it gradually, and partly because of the resistance of the capitalists. History has exposed this fallacy. In practice, the theory of getting Socialism gradually has been shown to be wrong. Inevitably, the socialism of the Social Democratic Party got lost in the fight for reforms. Later it backed the 1914-18 War, as did the Labour Party, and paved the way for Hitler afterwards. Not being a Socialist party it could only concern itself with the administration of capitalism and legislate for capitalism’s problems.

Today the Social Democratic Party forms the government of West Germany, but the position of the German workers remains basically the same. They are still propertyless wage-slaves supporting the rights of propertied people, and without any revolutionary aspirations whatsoever. Like most workers elsewhere they have a narrow-minded conservatism which is born out of the poverty of life in a capitalist environment. Our home-grown Labour Party has followed the same path. It never had much revolutionary zeal to begin with; it was a conglomeration of trade unions, methodists, liberals and small capitalists. Now its policies are so wide that they have no difficulty at all in attracting rich industrialists, bankers and landlords. Its leaders, particularly Wedgwood Benn and Michael Foot, still mouth phrases about Socialism, but they are capitalist politicians for all that. The capitalists know a good thing when they see it—even if the wolf is in sheep’s clothing. If the Labour Party is the party of the working class, as its supporters claim, how can it serve the capitalists at the same time? The truth is that it has consistently formed the breakdown gang of the capitalist class—a role which it is fulfilling at the present time. Again, we are not dealing with a theoretical situation but with the practical results of bourgeois socialism (reformism) and its failure as an instrument for furthering Socialism.

The communist parties referred to in the Manifesto had no connection with the present-day Communists. We have seen not only the development of state capitalism in Russia under the dictatorship of the Communist Party, but its present policy of imperialism in Africa and Asia. The spread of so-called communism, or bourgeois communism, has come to be equated with the establishment of military and neo-fascist dictatorships. Every backward country moving into capitalism adopts a state-capitalist form which is based on rabid nationalism. Outside of the United States practically every country in the world has either a “Communist” government or a Social Democratic one. The position of the working class has not altered at all. nor can it alter by changes of government.

It is rather ironic to notice that most Communist dictatorships claim to be based on the teachings of Marx and Engels. In the Manifesto, Marx laid great stress on the need for the workers to win the battle of democracy; the Russian workers have a long way to go, not against the Czar but against the new Czars —the Communist Party. Both Chinese and Russian governments subsidize the publication of Marx’s works as evidence that Marxism, or socialism, is an integral part of their political system. Any careful reading of Marx’s Manifesto will soon dispel that illusion. This is the scale of the misrepresentation about Socialism, and the lengths capitalist governments will go to.

One of the excuses advanced by Communists was that Marx envisaged a transition period in which “the proletariat will use its political supremacy in order, by degrees, to wrest all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise the means of production into the hands of the state, and to increase the total mass of the productive forces” (p. 79, Communist Manifesto, SPGB edn.). The last point is important because at that time the productive forces had not been developed, and Marx and Engels held that this could be accomplished by the state under the control of the working class. We have no such problem today. The productive forces are fully developed and need only be modified to suit the demands of a Socialist society. Owing to the nature of modern industry one section is dependent on another; production and distribution cannot be separated, neither can individual industries be taken over piecemeal. Engels in the 1888 Preface to the Manifesto acknowledged that the ten measures proposed under the heading “Wresting capital by degrees” through the state were to some extent antiquated, and the passage in the Manifesto would be worded very differently in the light of the development of modern industry.

Present-day Communists and their supporters are asking us to believe against all the evidence that these ten measures formed the basis of a revolutionary political programme for the establishment of Socialism. Marx was laying down guide-lines for the dispossession of the ruling class after the workers had gained political power. We do not require to do this because all the social wealth, starting from the means of production and distribution, will become common property simultaneously with the advent of a Socialist society.

In the course of the last 130 years the working-class movement has gone in many wrong directions. The curse of reformism has perverted its purpose, which is ultimately the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. Countless Labour leaders, careerists, and others hoping to establish a reputation, have grown fat on the movement and sucked it of much of its vitality. Other aspiring parasites are waiting to tread the boards. Shall we continue with the ‘‘socialism” of the reformer, or does reformist activity form part of the necessary experience of a politically immature working class groping for a revolutionary policy and a political framework providing the elbow-room in which to operate? That apprenticeship has been served. The working class are mature, they have the ability to organize, they have universal suffrage. The productive forces are fully developed. Reformism is therefore reactionary. It belongs to a past era. It is a transition stage of political development and is now a hundred years out of date.

The publication of the Manifesto was the first major public statement about the new science of Socialism. This science developed from the social laws immanent in capitalist society, and emerges as the modern form of revolutionary thought and activity. It sees the antagonism between capital and labour as an irreconcilable feature of class society. It sees the divorce of man from his means of production. It exposes the mysteries surrounding the accumulation of surplus-value and the evils of the pernicious wages system. It raises the whole question of man’s relationship to his productive forces, and poses the question whether they exist for the benefit of society or for the benefit of a few privileged people. It challenges the whole body of capitalist economic and political arrangements. This is the revolutionary attitude we want workers to adopt. It’s simple, it’s all-embracing, and it’s effective—and we should have done it a long time ago.

Jim D'Arcy

Revelations (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The economics editor of the Sunday Times has made an interesting discovery: and it only took him 1400 words and an accompanying graph to conclude “No profits, no jobs.”

50 Years Ago: The Trade Union Political Levy (1977)

The 50 Years Ago column from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the question of the Political Levy, our position has often been stated. As we oppose the Labour Party, and do not believe that it will or can solve the major problems of the working class, we do not want to contribute to Political Funds to finance the Labour Party through tho trade unions, and we are not perturbed at this proposed alteration in the law. Members of the Socialist Party habitually refuse to contribute and will continue to do so.

* * *

The fact that the Bill should have provoked a more bitter political fight than we have seen for years, is itself an adequate condemnation of the Labour Party’s policy. Had that party ever made Socialism the issue, it would have found itself engaged in an unceasing death-struggle with the parties defending capitalism. Because its aim is not Socialism, but merely the reform of capitalism, its fights have all been sham fights; it has been an honoured member of coalition governments (as during the war), and was placed in office in 1924 by Liberal votes to do specific pieces of capitalist work. What a commentary on a political party that the first serious battle of its existence occurs because of an attack on the funds which pay the salaries and election expenses of its politicians !

(From an unsigned editorial “The Socialist View of the Trade Union Bill” published in the Socialist Standard, May 1927)

So They Say: Prospective Candidates (1977)

The So They Say Column from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Prospective Candidates

Labour’s by-election defeats have led to some soul-searching by its supporters and most notably the Labour Party Young Socialists. This ill-named assortment of nibbling sprats held a conference recently at which they made the following astonishing discovery :

  The Government is losing support because it is not implementing genuine socialist policies. Instead it is doing the Tories’ job for them and betraying the working class.

The Times, 11th April 77

That the Government has not implemented “genuine socialist policies” is not in doubt; what the LPYS have overlooked is that their heroes had never promised or intended this. The word Socialism applies, for example, to a society in which there will be no means of exchange because there will be no private property. Put that proposition to a member of the Government, or of the LPYS, and watch them shy away. The junior careerists have already learned that such ideas are not the way to win office. They have learned to be “realistic.” On one hand a succession of delegates to their conference blamed “the failure of capitalism for virtually all of society’s main problems” and yet:

  The Labour Party, which as Sir Harold Wilson said, is a broad church, tolerates criticisms from its youth movement, knowing that many of their best people become important members of the main party.

We draw LPYS members’ attention to the fact that it is not the “failure of capitalism” which is to blame for social problems—this suggests capitalism could behave in another way—it is the existence of capitalism which brings on and perpetuates social problems. LPYS members will note that the Labour Party is committed to perpetuating capitalism.

Ever the Twain shall meet

The Federation of Conservative Students were addressed by Mrs. Margaret Thatcher on the 4th of April, when she told them:

  Many people were deeply anti-socialist and were horrified that the Liberals had joined forces with the most socialist government in our history.

The Times, 5th April 77

Such stirring words must have had her supporters bristling in their tweeds with self-righteous fervour. However, Mrs. Thatcher is a busy woman and has other things to attend to: three days later she arrived in China and is currently hob-nobbing with the blood-red Chinese leaders. We could do no more than guess at the kind of justifications which the true blues are inventing to bridge the contradiction. One newspaper made an interesting point:

  . . . at a deeper level the politics of China are beginning to show distant but real parallels with those of Britain and other Western societies.

Guardian, 9th April 77

For all the mumbo-jumbo and smoke screens raised around their "ideology”, the Chinese leaders have been determinedly running their own particular brand of capitalism in practice. Goods are produced for sale at a profit, and exploitation of the working class takes place through a wages system. Certainly Mrs. Thatcher has not been baffled at any imaginary or superficial differences, nor have the Chinese leaders. The “real parallels” which may surprise some who have been taken in by all the waffling, is that both the Conservatives and the Chinese leaders have the interests of their respective portions of the ruling class in mind and meet each other solely on this basis.

Thing big

In general, as unemployment rises so too do the platitudes of “our betters” increase in velocity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer however seems to have developed a new line during his budget speech. He now sounds completely resigned to being led by the nose through capitalism’s chaos, albeit without actually resigning from office, while telling the working class that there is nothing better to be done in any event. In fact the present high unemployment may be viewed as “the good old days” of tomorrow.

  The most disturbing feature of the world scene is that for the last two or three years every major industrial country has seen the unemployment level rising to what had been regarded in the post-war years as an unacceptable level for a well-managed economy. Mr. Healey added: I would not expect any fall in the level of unemployment—in fact some rise may be likely because demand and production are expected to continue to grow slowly.

London Evening Standard, 29th March 77

Interesting to note that Healey’s view of “unacceptable” has an infinitely variable interpretation according to the height of the particular slagheap he is standing on at the time.

Alan D'Arcy

Karl Marx quote

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

  As soon as division of labour comes into being each man has a particular exclusive sphere of activity which is forced on him and from which he cannot escape. He is a hunter, a fisherman, a shepherd or a critical critic and must remain so if he does not want to lose his livelihood, whereas in communist society where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, shepherd or critic.

Marx, The German Ideology

Silly Moo (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mrs Thatcher made some remarks on Socialism that were reported in The Guardian on March 15th. While we realize that she has a vested interest in obscuring the realities of Socialism as much as possible, her address (to the Zurich Economic Society) shows either an appalling lack of understanding of our economic problems or an equally appalling wish to distort the causes of those problems.

Socialism is a system of common ownership, free access, production for use and not profit, without a wages system, and of necessity world-wide. Capitalism, however, is a system in which a minority own and control wealth and its production, whilst the vast majority of the people are forced to sell their labour-power for a wage in order to live. Thus there cannot be any doubt that Socialism has not failed; it has never even been tried! In Britain the Labour Party seeks not to implement Socialism but merely tinkers about with the capitalist system to try to make it run as efficiently as possible, whilst in the USSR that abomination called Russian Communism is nothing but capitalism run by the state.

No, Mrs Thatcher, we are not “facing the crisis of socialism — economic failure, . . . tensions . . . decline etc”. We are facing yet another crisis of capitalism, and will go on doing so as it staggers from crisis to crisis until people wake up to the fact that the only solution is to end this pathetic system.

And to say that “the economic results of free enterprise were better because of the superiority of its underlying moral philosophy . . . from its emphasis on the individual and his capacity to choose”. Good grief! Tell that to the world’s starving millions, tell that to the poor and homeless in this country, tell that to the unemployed, tell that to the people who have seen two depressions and two word wars in their lifetime, and tell that to the people who will die in the next war for capitalism’s resources, markets and trade routes! In short you have precisely as much choice as you have money, which for the vast majority means no damn choice at all.

“The ordinary Briton has no clearly articulated theory to tell him why free enterprise is superior” because no such theory is possible. But he has “felt the shortcomings of” capitalism, private and state, and must soon see that Socialism is the key to the future.

D. W. Roberts

Letters: What is our IQ? (1977)

Letters to the Editors from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

What is our IQ? 

The article “Question of Intelligence” (December 1976) has been brought to my attention. It arises from the announcement in the Sunday Times that Professor Cyril Burt had “published false data and invented crucial facts to support his controversial theory that intelligence is largely inherited”. It quotes a reference to Burt in a pamphlet by Harold Walsby, SPGB—Utopian or Scientific, published by the Social Science Association in 1949, and says: “The ‘evidence’ Walsby thought conclusive was emotion wrapped up as science, and whoever used it to illuminate ‘the psychology of the workers’ would now be in the dark.”

The evidence to which Walsby refers is “the actual statistical-psychological investigations by Prof Burt, Thompson, Cattel and many others . . .” This evidence, as a whole, has not been invalidated, and the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before.

I must draw attention to something else in the article likely to mislead people not familiar with Walsby’s work. It mentions the view “that a large proportion of the population were constitutionally incapable of learning much or running their own lives”, and says “Typical examples of this appeared in writings by Harold Walsby”. I challenge you to provide even one example of Walsby saying this. The implication is that Walsby regarded the working class as being mentally inferior. He did not.

Walsby held that the majority of people, workers and capitalists alike, would reject the Socialist case. The SPGB holds that the majority of the workers will accept it— if not, what is the point of presenting it to them? Since 1904 the evidence has been consistently in Walsby’s favour. According to the SPGB the material conditions are ripe for Socialism and the workers are capable of understanding Socialism. But we don’t get Socialism. Harold Walsby’s theory explains how it comes about that the overwhelming majority of those who have heard the Socialist case have rejected it in the past, persist in rejecting it, and will continue to reject it in the future. Also—and this is a harder task—Walsby’s theory explains how it is that a tiny minority comes to accept the Socialist case.

Geo. W. Walford 

London N1

Reply:

Your letter presents not arguments but heads-I-win-tails-you-lose propositions. You say (a) that the evidence used by Walsby from Burt and others "has not been invalidated”, and (b) Walsby never held that view anyway.

It is quite incorrect that “the work of the other investigators stands as firmly as before”. If this were so, Professor H. J. Eysenck (one of Burt’s supporters) would not have said in The Times of 8th Nov. 1976 :

  Perhaps it is time that society devoted more money to this important area . . . The issue is an important one, and should be taken beyond the range of simple argument and assertion.

L. J. Kamin, Professor of Psychology at Princeton University, called this plea “grotesque”.

The relationship between Burt’s work and that of other investigators seems to be a matter of widely differing opinion. According to the Sunday Times of 28th Nov., 1976, in 1973 Eysenck spoke of the “outstanding quality” of Burt’s work, but after the discrediting of Burt said his data were “useless”. Sir P. B. Medawar (The Times, 3rd Nov. 1976) contended that “the expression ‘innate intelligence’ should now be dropped from the language”. This was supported by Professor C. B. Hindley; and Professor J. Tizard said (The Times 25th Oct.) that the Burt case “would have the same effect on that branch of science as the finding that the Piltdown Skull was a forgery had on palaeontology”.

Regarding Walsby’s own views, a review of the Social Science Association pamphlet Science, Politics and the Masses by Richard Tatham appeared in the New Leader on 14th April 1945. The reviewer was F. A. Ridley. The pamphlet set forth the conclusions of Harold Walsby. Under the heading “Can the Masses Think?” the article said it was “clearly against the democratic assumption on the question of a rational approach to the masses”, and “the masses have usually only been used as pawns on title political chess-board by ruling — or would-be ruling — classes”.

Elsewhere Harold Walsby was quoted as saying "Anyone who understands the public knows that they like trash.” (Sunday Chronicle, 11th April 1954). If Ridley’s statements misrepresented Walsby’s views, did he repudiate them? If these and the statements in SPGB—Utopian or Scientific do not say the working class is mentally inferior, what the devil are they supposed to mean?

Finally, we are unaware what basis can exist for a prediction that the majority of workers will always reject the Socialist case. You say it has been rejected by “the overwhelming majority” of those who have heard it. But the overwhelming majority of the working class have not heard it, and more often than not it is heard under disadvantageous conditions. Walsby’s theory consists of trying to persuade us that these obstacles are of no consequence. You should try it. 

Editors.

Things to come

I would be grateful if you could clarify two points arising from one of your meetings which I recently attended.

1. What are the grounds of your conviction that when the capitalist system collapses a Marxist society is bound to take its place?
2. I cannot see why it would be presumptuous to produce a blueprint of the new society. Surely an examination of the practical problems involved must be undertaken firstly in order to prove that the system could be successful, and secondly to demonstrate to a sceptical electorate that there is a viable alternative to the present system.

S. Bettaney

Edgware

Reply:

Your first point is based on a misconception. Contrary to the vapid wafflings of other parties, both long ago and now, we have always held that capitalism will not collapse. The working class cannot sit back and wait for that to happen: they must organize consciously to get rid of capitalism and put Socialism in its place.

On your second point, we are unable to give you a blue-print for several reasons. You will appreciate that Socialism was feasible in 1904 when the SPGB was founded. Had the working class been ready then, the new society would have been established in an era of horse traffic when the burning question was “who will sweep the crossings?” Clearly the blue-print will look different in the age of jet engines and atomic power. Unless you can tell us when the workers—this means you!—will join us, how can we know what marvels will have emerged? As you say, there are practical problems.

Suppose that a would-be manufacturer tried to convince others in, say, the year 1600 that capitalism would be a good idea. Can you imagine the mind-boggling notions of banking, insurance, capital gains and all the multitudinous problems suggested by a society aiming to produce goods for sale instead of for use? The practical problems of Socialism would seem simple by comparison. If you have particular problems in mind, please let us know.

Editors.

More impact please

Socialism as the SPGB defines it has never been a motivating force in British working-class politics. From the formulation of the party in 1904 to the present day, it has made no movement in British politics worth talking about, because the working-class of Britain have never taken the SPGB’s case against capitalism as being the best way to get rid of capitalism, and the establishment of Socialism. The workers today still vote Labour, Liberal, and Scottish Nationalist. And in the economic field all the worker’s main drives are centred on work, full employment and the right to work.

If according to the doctrine of historical materialism capitalism produces the material and economic condition which turns the workers into Socialists there has been no real evidence for holding this point of view since Marx’s publication of The Communist Manifesto of 1848. Whether Socialism is inevitable or not is not a major question for Socialists. The major question for Socialists is: Why has not Socialism ever had even the slightest impact on the working class of Great Britain? Can the SPGB answer that one?

Ian Campbell 

Dundee

Reply:

It would be a wonderful thing if the material and economic conditions of capitalism did indeed “turn the workers into socialists”, for Socialism would then have been established long ago. Men turn themselves into Socialists, however, by developing their concept of what society should be, while material conditions supply the background and stimulus for this change.

History shows us that before there can be a fundamental change in society there is a long period during which the ideas and attitudes necessary for the change are fully developed. The establishment of Socialism will also require this maturity of ideas, although with the means of communication available today we can expect the development period to be much shorter. You say Socialist ideas have had no impact: but labour and social-democratic parties adopted (and so perverted) the word Socialism because it is attractive to large numbers of workers. Many of these parties have access to far greater resources to be used for propaganda purposes than does the SPGB.

In the meantime the workers still vote, as you say, for the Labour, Liberal and Scottish Nationalist parties. However, their propaganda often wears thin; the “anti” vote (“I’ll vote for this lot because the other lot are even worse”) is a recurrent common feature. The parties supporting capitalism, whether they label themselves Socialist or not, lose their credibility because at the end of the day they cannot produce results. When the working class sees the futility of capitalism, the SPGB will be there to be used by them for the establishment of Socialism.

Incidentally, we are pleased to see that the Socialist case has had sufficient impact on your own thinking to prompt you to write to us.

Editors.

Parties and profits

I subscribe to the Socialist Standard and, in the main, I find your articles to be both lucid and irrefragable. However, there are several points which in my opinion require elucidation.

Firstly, on more than one occasion you have asseverated that the Labour Party represents one section of the capitalist class whilst the Conservative Party represents another. Please identify these two sections of the capitalist class.

Secondly, in your answer to Robin Cox’s letter (March 1977) you pointed out that although consumer expenditure increased by 80 per cent between 1970 and 1975, the Index of Production rose by 0.6 in the same period. Could it not be that a part, at least, of the extra consumer expenditure was on imported goods not included in the Index of Production statistics, and that had British goods been more competitive there would have been an increase in the Index of Production?

Thirdly, as you adhere to Marx’s version of the Labour Theory of Value, can you explain how it is that retail organizations make profits if goods are sold at their value? Is it by exploiting their own employees?

P. S. Maloney

London N13

Reply:

1. In the first half of the 19th century there was a clear-cut division of representation—the landed interests by the Tories and the industrial capitalists by the Liberals. Now that 85 per cent of the electors are working-class and British capitalism’s problems have become more complex, the lines are blurred and shifting capitalist interests are being served by Tory and Labour.

In the first place, the parties have to win elections by making the kinds of promises on social reforms, prices, wages, unemployment, housing etc. that will appeal to a mass electorate; so that in this field there is little to choose between the programmes of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties. But as governments they have to deal with capitalism’s problems as they arise. Each party, having received representations from the CBI, TUC, farmers, retailers, self-employed etc., and after consulting its economic advisers, formulates its taxation and other policies. These are bound to help some sections of the capitalist class and damage others, and sections of the capitalist class give their support to one or other party accordingly: as when the Labour Party (like the Liberals) was standing for free trade and the Tories protectionist.

The same sort of division arose over entry into the European Economic Community because at the beginning of consideration of the question, majority Labour Party opinion was against it. At one time the Labour Party backed the small firms against the big ones; a Labour Party spokesman said that they “preferred a large number of small capitalists to a small number of large ones". But when the Labour government came to office in 1964, they adopted the policy of encouraging company mergers through the Industrial Reorganization Corporation.

In 1945 the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were agreed on adopting inflation as a policy (to prevent unemployment as they supposed). In the 1970s increasing numbers of capitalists were turning against it, leading to a swing against inflation in the Tory Party but with, so far, the Labour Party and its TUC backers basically unchanged in their attitudes. Those capitalists who still favour inflation will look to the Labour Party.

The parties have traditional commitments and “images”. For example the Labour Party’s fervent commitment to nationalization while the Tories and Liberals have adopted it only when circumstances required it in the interest of the dominant section of the capitalist class; and the Labour Party’s commitment to the trade unions who supply its funds. But in practice the urgent need to try to solve capitalism’s problems forces governments to act, if necessary, in opposition to the views of their own members. At the 1970 general election the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties were all pledged to legislation to control trade unions; though, as it turned out, opposition was so great that the Labour “In Place of Strife” was dropped and the Tory Industrial Relations Act repealed. And it was a Tory minister in a coalition government, in 1915, who first introduced rent restriction.

Also, policies change with circumstances, and from time to time the capitalist class find their interests being served by the Labour Party — as for example, when it appears that unpopular policies can be put over more easily by Labour than by the Tories. (Several Tory newspapers favour keeping the Callaghan government in office until the third stage of the Social Contract has been negotiated with the TUC).

Government intervention in industry and nationalization present striking examples. The Tory government, against its declared policy on “lame ducks”, was forced to nationalize Rolls Royce. And with much of industry in financial difficulties, many shipbuilding and other companies welcomed nationalization or government aid accompanied by the government becoming a shareholder. (But it is a Labour government which is selling part of its holding in British Petroleum.) In a similar situation in Italy a year or two back it was reported that companies “were queueing up to be taken over”.

An article published in Management Today (December 1976) dealt with the Labour governments Industrial Reorganization Corporation. It was set up for the purpose of encouraging companies to combine and thus increase efficiency, the government providing advice and finance. The writers, who worked on IRC, say:

What surprised us most while at the IRC, however, was the willingness of private sector individual companies to discuss their problems with a government organization and to seek its help and assistance. It appears to be quite wrong to take the view that in the UK private sector capitalists are opposed to government help. Whatever they may say, in practice their opposition does not exist.

(The IRC was scrapped by the Tories, its work having been largely completed.)

When the present depression passes and it again becomes easy to make profits, the Labour Party’s leaning towards nationalization and government intervention in industry will lose the attraction it has at present for “lame duck” companies. The Tory traditional attitude may find favour again with that section of the capitalist class.

(To be continued) 

R. W. Clayton (London SW7): Part of your letter was dealt with some months ago under another name. As regards the remainder, if you care to offer an argument in support of your statements we will consider it.

Editors.

"The people do not know their power . . ." (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

"The people do not know their power . . . The union of twenty million is irresistible. Such members, such resources can enforce anything that is just."

- Ernest Jones (Chartist), 1854

Nationalism—an enemy of the workers (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The nation state was created as the political unit for capitalism in a series of changes which began four or five hundred years ago. It was accompanied by the growth of national consciousness. People were half encouraged and half forced to identify themselves with the countries they lived in, not simply in a territorial sense but as “subjects”. The national myths appeared — Saint George and his ilk, the idea of special traditions and virtues which other countries did not have. In a remarkably short space of time each nation produced its exclusive dedication to “my country, right or wrong”, and has sustained it as an active force into the present day.

The overt symbols of nationalism — flags, slogans and silly songs — are by no means the only ones. Because it is made a general outlook, it intrudes in almost all fields and pervades the upbringing of the young. At random from boyhood can be recalled the cigarette cards which showed British wild flowers, birds and butterflies (as if foreigners were, rightly, denied such beauties); the Scout game called “British Bulldog” in which the players battered one another in increasing numbers (native durability and grit); the depiction in comic-books and school-books alike of other nations as “types” comic or villainous, or both. And the casual pejoratives incorporated in everyday speech—“double Dutch” for incomprehensibility, “French” for whatever smacked of indecency, “Chinese torture” for diabolical and unjustly-inflicted suffering.

If none of these is very sinister in itself, all produce a condition of mind. Moreover, the other nations all have their own equivalent versions. Each country has its popular account of history which would be startling to people who have learned the rival views: transposing victories and defeats and presenting saintly heroes as infamous rogues. A recent German work showed Queen Victoria not as a dotty old lady, which is sentimentality tolerable in Britain, but as a drunkard. The nearest thing to a foreign account of history that can be read in English is a Roman Catholic textbook, where a good many episodes appear altogether different.

The fiercest jingo nationalism today is to be seen in the new nations. In crude militaristic and patriotic preaching the Tory Party in Britain is almost outclassed by the Russian and Chinese governments; and their language is echoed in turn by the leaders of the “third world” countries. Clamouring for a place in the capitalist world, these new ruling classes vie for whatever gives prestige and is good for business. At the same time, they have to impress the natives with the importance of nationality: history is rewritten, “alien” defined and condemned.

The Social System
Before the nation-state, partisanship was related to small-scale economic interests. Wars were fought between cities, tribes and the proprietors of rival domains. The peasant population took part only to the extent that it was tempted or compelled to. The armies and mailed knights of the Middle Ages were mostly mercenaries — an outstanding example was the Janissaries of the Turkish Sultans: as youthful captives from Christian provinces they had no attachments to the Muslim empire, but they nevertheless provided its military strength for several centuries.

Capitalism has existed as a fully-developed system for two hundred years. Before that, for another two hundred years, the growing capitalist class struggled — consciously — towards political power. Commodity production forced the nation-state into being, on the lines of good-sized geographical units in which the powers of government were to legalize private ownership and ensure the freedom of the commodity. Capitalism means the ownership by a single class of all the means of producing and distributing wealth, and the directing of all activity to the single end of sale at a profit.

This was the end of barons, domain-holders and twopenny princes (though, development being uneven, some of them held on until the 1914-18 war). But the rise of capitalism meant also the creation of a vast single class of non-owners: the “free” working class, with its own commodity labour-power to sell, and indeed unable to survive as persons in any other way. On one hand the working class was (and remains) doomed to insecurity and varying degrees of poverty by the economic laws of capitalism. On the other, production for market in a world of nation-states has led inexorably to national and international crises and to wars on a different scale from any in previous history.

It is a world-wide system into which more and more regions and peoples have been drawn swiftly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. In each one, that class division and the associated problems have been reproduced because they make the organic structure of capitalism. This is the fundamental issue in modern society — yet it is obscured by the banners of nationalism. It can be seen as a test for those who say they believe in Socialism. When the choice has to be made, do they declare for the working class or “the nation”? In all the wars of this century the world’s social democrats and “radicals” have chosen the latter without hesitation. In the present economic crisis they are all talking about getting “the country” out of trouble. It is logical, because they support capitalism.

Frauds of Nationalism
The Germans were hated and caricatured in Britain before 1914 because they were rivals in trade. Through nationalist eyes all other nations are different from “us” and actual or potential rivals. Every event is in some sense a contest, demonstrating that one’s own side is better than some or all of its rivals. “Our” country is superior to all the others in art, literature, sports, military power, inventiveness, the character and physical beauty of its inhabitants, climate, scenery and cooking—and must remain so. Plenty of working people hold this belief; “my country, right or wrong” was parodied by G. K. Chesterton as “my mother, drunk or sober”.

The political claims of nationalism build on this. They argue that the problems of workers in a given country will be solved, and a golden age for them begin, by recovering or enlarging the country’s supremacy. This is the promise of nationalist leaders in new countries, and is also being made by the Scots Nationalists with reference to the oilfields off the Scottish coast.

Unfortunately there is not a shred of evidence that this could be or has ever been so. In The Other America, published in Britain as a Penguin Special in 1963, Michael Harrington investigated the assumptions of Galbraith’s The Affluent Society. Using figures from the Bureau of Labour Statistics, he estimated that the poor—families with “inadequate housing, medicine, food and opportunity”—numbered between forty and fifty millions, or between 20 and 25 per cent of the population of the United States. “As technology has boomed, their share in prosperity has decreased.” The period when Britain was industrially and commercially supreme was also the time of Marx’s indictment of capitalism, of Engels' Condition of the Working Class, of horrifying reports by reformers like Chadwick and Booth.

Nationality is an accident, and national causes are frequently accidents too. In February this year The Guardian published reports on a possible “trade war” between the EEC and Japan. On 8th February it said the Japanese Prime Minister was “strongly inclined to draw parallels” with the 1930s, and went on: “Last week he gave warning that efforts to restrict Japan’s export flow could create the same chaotic conditions that led to World War Two. If there was a ‘trade war’, as he predicted, the blame would be with Britain and every other country contemplating limits on Japanese imports." It must have been surprising to many to learn that, if war with Germany had not broken out in 1939, war with Japan was on the cards.

A further example is Namibia, which is due to become an independent state in 1978. The present collection of tribes and ethnic groups are about to become Namibians; they will have a flag and a national anthem, and the nationalist “ours” will centre on diamonds—it is one of the richest parts of Africa in minerals.

Whose ?
“Ours” is the deceitful word in nationalist propaganda the world over. In a newly developed country, nationalism is the demand of native capitalists to exploit the workers and peasants lest somebody else should do it and have the profits. What kind of “ours” is being talked about? In Britain and other industrialized countries workers talk about “our” trade, “our” reserves, “our” jobs allegedly taken by immigrants. They are not. They are all at the disposal of those who own the means of living. The worker has no claim on them: he owns nothing but his labour-power.

The working class have no country. By persuading workers that they have a stake in “the nation”, capitalism obtains their support at critical times. What they should bear in mind is that the nation-state is the political institution of the capitalist system: its raison d'être is to keep the working class propertyless. Nationalism can do nothing for the workers except confirm or worsen their position. Pleasure in a locality or its culture has nothing to do with the matter; it is a reasonable sentiment on which nationalist fraud builds, but which capitalism will destroy without compunction.

There is a different affinity to recognize. This is the identity of interest of all those who live by selling their labour-power. The working class is worldwide, and as members of it become conscious of the nature of capitalist society and their position in it, they open the way to a different social organization based on common ownership. Just as capitalism has produced a world of nations in conflict, Socialism will mean the end of nationalities and frontiers—and classes. What will bring it into being is you thinking for yourself instead of letting them think for you.

Robert Barltop

Lab-Lib: A rabble (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is an old saying that if you lie down with a dog you get up with fleas. No doubt it has dawned on the leaders of the Liberal Party that the idea of projecting themselves as an alternative government to the Labourites and Tories is a non-starter. With thirteen MPs and a discredited minority government, their only way to power is through the side door.

With no ideas to put to the working class, the only alternative to a future in the political wilderness and possible extinction was to do a deal. But, such are the fortunes of opportunism and reformism, they could be cutting their own throats either way. The price they will inevitably pay for “dealing" will be to forfeit the phoney image they have built up over twenty or thirty years — that they had distinctive policies and independent ideas. For them to line up openly with one of the parties they have claimed to be so different from can only lose the support of those who had turned to them, having despaired of the other two.

In an effort to have his cake and eat it Mr. Steel, the Liberal leader, sought to pose as champion of the motorist and pledged himself to vote against Budget increases in petrol prices and road tax. He argued that these increases fell outside the arrangement, and as there had been no consultation on them the Liberals were free to vote against them. After the by-election massacre at Stetchford the motorist did not seem to matter so much. A more urgent need instantly asserted itself: avoiding a General Election, with the threat of annihilation. The great and courageous leader had to find a way out while still trying to sound plausible, at least to the gullible. So he discovered that the increases in motoring costs would not be voted on as a separate resolution in Parliament, but would be tied to other proposals; so it might be best to let the thirteen Liberals make up their own minds, and lead from behind.

The Labour Government are like drowning men desperately clutching at anything in the agony of their disastrous attempt at running capitalism. Having repeatedly declared against coalition, they turned to the Liberals to survive. The one-time “firebrand” of the Left, Michael Foot, will solemnly sit down each week in consultation with the Liberals to keep his mob in power a little longer, unless the whole thing blows up in their faces. Then they will blame each other and fail back on any feeble excuse to try to save their political hides. There is no expediency too shabby for any of them.

The IMG, WRP, IS and the CP, who urged workers to vote Labour and now go round muttering demands for “socialist policies”, get the policies of the Labour Party which they voted for. The policies which these Lefties hold to be Socialist are in fact just as useless and reformist as those of the Labour Party.

When Mr. Steel claims that his deal with the Government will mean no more nationalization in this session of Parliament, is he really silly enough to believe he is saving capitalism? Is he unaware that his own Party, when in power, carried out Acts of nationalization? He only displays his ignorance if he thinks a Labour Government represents any threat to capitalism, or that nationalization has anything to do with Socialism. It is a shame that questions like these never occur to people like Robin Day during those boring mock-interviews on television, like the one on polling day for Stetchford. But of course they would not keep their cushy jobs for long if they did.

Mrs. Thatcher and her Tory tribesmen can get as indignant as they like, but under Heath in 1974 they were quite willing to talk coalition with the Liberals. The readiness of the Liberals to co-operate with either of the “major” Parties, shows how little there is of fundamental difference between any of them. In fact, Steel said it is his belief that people “will find the artificial Party battles irrelevant to the problems of the day” (Guardian, 24th March). It is the parties that are irrelevant, Mr. Steel. The problems arise out of capitalist society, and you are all dedicated to its preservation.

For the Tories Mrs. Thatcher said: “We believe in capitalism and democracy”. What about the other combinations, Mrs. Thatcher? Capitalism and war? Capitalism and poverty? Capitalism and crises? Capitalism and unemployment? Even Callaghan said in the same report: “I would not like to guarantee that the decline in unemployment will continue in the next few months”. None of them can guarantee anything. But while the system lasts the misery and political trading it has always produced will continue.

Enoch Powell pledged not to bring the Labour Government down and abstained on the crucial vote of confidence. Callaghan and Co. had been just as prepared to deal with the Ulster Unionists as they were with the Liberals. Just to show that they all have the same priorities, seven Liberals voted against cuts in war potentials in the first vote after the deal.

The working class trust any of them at the expense of their own interests. Apart from war-time coalitions when Tories, Labourites and Liberals joined forces with “Communist” support to pull capitalism’s chestnuts out of the fire, there have been deals between the Labour Party and the Liberals from the very early days of the Labour Party. The 1924 Labour Government was voted into office on Liberal votes. As early as 1910 there were electoral “arrangements” between these two reformist Parties.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has one objective, Socialism. This can only be achieved when a majority of the working class reject the squalid expediencies of opportunist politics.

Harry Baldwin

How we shall get Socialism (1977)

From the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Speaker! Do you seriously believe that your little party, just a few hundred, talking to this crowd in Hyde Park every Sunday, can bring about Socialism? And if it could, do you really imagine that the capitalists with the army, police etc. would allow you to do so?

★

Short answer : NO! we do not think that our small party will establish Socialism: the working class will — and YES! the capitalist class cannot prevent the working class establishing Socialism.

★

Long answer (explanation): The careful reader will observe that the question (or questions) contain a contradiction. If the small Socialist Party is the only threat to capitalism, the capitalists have nothing to worry about. But the questioner, having pre-supposed that the workers will never become Socialists, in the next breath is predicting what the capitalists will do when they have. Questioners and opponents frequently put questions in this mixed-up way.

Now the first question. To establish Socialism the majority of the electorate (who happen to be workers) have got to become Socialists. If they don’t, capitalism continues. If there is one lesson the last hundred years has taught it is, above all, that no “seizure of power”, “blind revolt” or General Strike can abolish capitalism.

The majority have got to break with social reform. This, for many workers, is quite difficult. The pioneers of Socialism, including Marx and Engels, could have had little idea of the potency of modern “social security”, which siphons off much working-class discontent and seriously retards the growth of class-consciousness. In spite of this, the fact remains that capitalism is a revolutionizing system: compelled by its very nature to organize, train and educate a revolutionary working class.

It is not true that rebellion only proceeds from destitution. On the contrary, Vance Packard in The Hidden Persuaders quotes a professor of sociology, Bernice Allen: “We have no proof that more material goods (cars, washing machines) has made anyone happier — in fact the evidence seems to point in the opposite direction’. In some cases, the more “prosperous” workers become, the more dissatisfied they are. In trying to buy off discontent the capitalist class is on a slippery slope with no return. In 1930 Franklin D. Roosevelt told the New York Bankers Guild: “We’ve got to give them bigger crumbs — to stop them taking over the table”.

How long it will take the workers in their millions to see through the reformist racket is impossible to say — except that, small though we may be, it partly depends on us. As with any idea, it has to be explained. Sheer disenchantment of itself leads nowhere but to smashing windows, rioting etc. Discontent is the rich soil of Socialist propaganda, but without the seed of Socialist theory — no new world will bloom.

It is the Socialist who provides the catalyst. It is the Socialist who makes precise the vision of a future society, to turn mere rebels into conscious revolutionaries. The Socialist transforms the miserable degrading requests of Claimants Unions for a few more pennies, or of trade unions for longer tea-breaks, into the dazzling vista of a new world. It is the Socialist who raises mere destruction of the old into construction of the new.

For the Socialist, whether many or few are immediately espousing the cause does not absolve him from the duty to put forward his proposition. The mere raising of it elevates public discussion above the saloon-bar level at which so many self-styled “experts” pitch their fallacious nostrums. “Whether we like it or not — and most of us don’t — recent events have forced us to take some interest in economics” said the Radio Times recently. Exactly! We think Socialist economics provides the answers, and to evade the responsibility of explaining it to our fellow-workers would be criminal.

Even so, this is no mere academic exercise but a matter of life and death — Socialist life or capitalist death. What the questioner does not grasp is the urgency of Socialism: without it, the crises and calamities of capitalism will continue inexorably.

As for the second part of the question: the colossal preponderance of the working class numerically today — its immense technical knowhow — and the operation of sophisticated modern productive processes — make the idea of attempts by rebellious capitalists ludicrous. What about the armed forces? They are 90 per cent. working class.

Next question!

Horatio.

SPGB Meetings (1977)

Party News from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cyril May is the sharp suited man in the middle of the picture.

The Face of Capitalism (1977)

Book Review from the May 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lonrho — Portrait of a Multinational by S. Cronjé, M. Ling and G. Cronjé. (Pelican)

The book attempts to document the growth and activities of the Lonrho Company over the last decade or so. Lonrho has more than 500 subsidiary and associate companies and the range of its overall activities is huge. The ownership of mines, cattle farms, railways, newspapers, pipelines, sugar refineries and commercial properties are some. This makes the writing of a coherent account a difficult task and added to this the authors appear to have derived a great deal of their information from the mass media. Their Notes section at the end of the book quotes articles from several hundred periodicals and newspapers as sources, and their Introduction states that they found it largely impossible to obtain information direct from the highly secretive Lonrho board. For these reasons the book never attains more than that level which interests newspapers, particularly the financial pages.

The result is a complicated record of years of wheeling and dealing which Lonrho and its associates have engaged in, both with other companies and with political leaders — notably in Africa. The increase in profits which Lonrho had shown, from £14.44m in 1969 to £46.44m in 1974 for example, is explained in terms of astute deals, successful takeovers, clever share manoeuvres and so on. There are vague references to the output of various subsidiaries increasing, or of others expanding significantly and becoming more profitable, but the credit for this is placed firmly on the Lonrho board’s foresight, and on occasion, their luck. The chief executive director, “Tiny” Rowland, is given particular prominence and much of the company’s success is attributed to his ability to make personal contacts with men in high places, who in turn gave Lonrho preferential treatment. They quote Roland's own statement:

  When I’m abroad, I am entertained and do business with Rulers, Presidents and Prime Ministers, who entertain me and look after me. (p. 242)

Virtually no attention is focussed on the fact that while Rowland and his board members are busy being entertained, they, and their hosts are supported in their privileged position by thousands of property-less workers. One idea that this is the case is given on the cover design where a cigar-smoking model of Rowland is seen astride a black man and a white man who have both been harnessed. Rowland is holding the reins. When the book was published recently he was annoyed at the inference.

The issue which was provoked by the more hypocritical shareholders over the low wages paid to workers in Lonhro’s South African mines is dealt with briefly. The official Lonrho line was deliberately evasive; though the parent company owned almost 97 per cent. of the offending mining companies, fixing of wage levels at the mines was a matter for the local puppet company, Lonrho South Africa Ltd. The book notes that “South Africa was not the only place where Lonrho paid low wages” and gives the example of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) which in 1974 was the subject of a War on Want pamphlet stating that severe cases of malnutrition were common among its workers. Lonrho’s personnel manager “admitted that conditions were a matter for ‘concern, but said that the company was making hardly any profit in Sri Lanka' ” (p. 86).

The authors repeat the suggestion that Lonrho has been engaged in “sanctions busting” through subsidiaries in Rhodesia — a suggestion leading to the resignation of Angus Ogilvy, and claim that the Rhodesian and South African interests have proved embarrassing to Lonrho when they have been courting “black” African governments — they give several instances — for franchises, concessions and contracts, because of an alleged ideological difference. Again the Company line was ingenious if nothing else; should they sell up these interests the! new owners might prove to be simply a gang of ruthless capitalist exploiters — unlike Lonrho themselves! In this connection the authors casually refer to African states “with a commitment to some form of socialism” (p. 248) who are going to pose what the book concludes is the issue, “whether capitalism is going to have an acceptable face in Africa at all”. The suggestion is that the emerging black leaders who wine and dine men like Mr. Rowland and his “respectable” cohorts have something else in mind, although they offer no evidence for this.

With the virtual absence of Socialist understanding among African workers, and the determined action by the governments of rival nation states to exploit greater masses of the African population in order to accumulate capital for the ruling minorities, it is a naive suggestion to make.

Alan D'Arcy