Socialism or Capitalism (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

The one vital issue is the abolition of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism

Have no illusions about the sham fight between Tory and Labour or the pretensions of the Liberals, at this Election. All stand for the retention of capitalism.

The one vital issue that should concern the workers of Britain is the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This is not the aim of the Labour Party. State capitalism or nationalisation is not Socialism. The attempts to run capitalism under price controls and profit controls are not Socialism. In the Labour Party election manifesto of 1945 the false claim was made that the “Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it.” Even this lip service to Socialism has now been dropped and replaced by meaningless references to the “welfare State” the building of a “just society,” and "equality of opportunity.”

Capitalism, whether run by a Labour Government, a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or (as in Russia) by a Communist Government cannot solve your problems. Capitalism means endless poverty and insecurity for the working class. In addition, its inescapable international rivalries are the cause of war which no United Nations can prevent. The only way out is to establish Socialism. This requires the conversion of the means of production and distribution from their present function of producing profit to common ownership by the whole of society. Goods and services would then be produced solely to satisfy human needs, and by ridding society of the waste of armaments and of all the financial and other operations inseparable from capitalism human society would for the first time be easily able to provide all the needs and comforts of life.

The achievement of this great purpose waits only on the recognition of its necessity by you, the working-class, and on your understanding of the democratic political action necessary to carry it through.

Do not be deterred by the magnitude of the problem or by the timid argument that world-wide agreement to achieve it is impracticable. The workers of all other countries are harassed by the same capitalist evils that make your lives a burden. They are no less anxious than you to find the way out. They are as able as you are to grasp the great truth that humanity can be saved only by the co-operation of the workers of all countries. Like you they abhor capitalism's wars and long for real peace that only Socialism can provide.

At present the number of Socialists in this and other countries is too small to determine the results of elections. In recent Parliamentary elections the Socialist Party of Great Britain has put up one or two candidates and, as we knew would be the result, they received the votes of only the very small number of Socialists in the constituencies chosen. On this occasion we have one candidate in Bethnal Green but in other constituencies, if you have finally turned your back on the parties that put forward different methods of trying to run capitalism you will be able to register your vote for Socialism by writing. “Socialism" across the ballot paper. This will serve to advertise the number of those who have realised that the use of the vote to support any other candidate no matter how he describes himself, is a vote for capitalism.

Study Socialism. Become Socialists. Resolve thal you will help to make the Socialist Party strong enough to be the decisive factor at future elections.

Election Address (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

To the Working Men and Women of Bethnal Green.

Fellow Workers,

As candidate for the Socialist Party of Great Britain I am asking you to consider only the case of the organisation that I represent—that is, the case for Socialism.

The viewpoint of my organisation is one that is fundamentally different from those of the other parties taking part in this election. It is different because the Socialist Party of Great Britain is concerned with the interests of the working class, whereas all the other parties represent the interests of the ruling, or employing class.

It may be objected that the Labour Party, too, is concerned with working class interests, but their record conclusively shows otherwise. In their period of office in the six post-war years they introduced "wage-freeze" and “wage restraint" schemes which resulted in workers finding themselves worse off in 1951 than they were in 1945: the Labour Party used troops in strikes; they are the party who introduced the largest peacetime re-armament programme in history; it was they who promised to solve the housing problem and dismally failed.

Not that the Tories have done any better. These two parties, and the Liberals too, exist to preserve the existing social system—the system of capitalism. Even if you do feel in sympathy with the Labour, Liberal or Tory Parties, I do suggest that you do not put this address to one side, but read on; for I know you will find it interesting and worth-while.

Pie Crust Promises

You have been promised peace, but there are still wars.

You have been promised prosperity, and are told that prosperity is here, but it is not prosperity for you.

You have been promised security but it still eludes you.

You have been promised an end to poverty, but it is still with us.

You have been promised houses, and you are still being promised them.

You have been promised cheaper living costs, but the cost of living is now higher than ever before.

You have been promised anything that seemed a good vote catching stunt.

Now look at the literature that the other parties are distributing and note that the same old things are still being promised, just re-arranged and dressed up in different words. Yet all these problems still confront you.

Our Common Cause

We of the Socialist Party of Great Britain are, like you, members of the working class. Whether we earn our living in overalls or in a white collar and pin-stripe trousers: whether we are paid by the hour, day, week, month or contract; whether the price we receive for our ability to work is called a wage or a salary, we are all members of a class that needs to find an employer in order to live. Our problems are identical. We have a common cause.

All industry today, whether private or state-controlled, is run for the purpose of producing profit. When you and I go to work we produce a wealth of commodities that we leave in the hands of our employers. We receive a wage that enables us to continue to go to work and to rear our families of future wage earners, with very little over. The surplus that we produce over and above what our wages will buy is the store of wealth from which landlords, investors and industrialists draw their rent, interest and profit. In the perpetual pressure to increase that surplus we are goaded to work harder and to produce more.

It is this profit-making basis of society that is the root of all our problems. There is no solution to be found by dealing only with the effects.

Glance at some of the tinkering reforms that arc offered by our political opponents.

Houses, Rents and Slums

First the ever-present housing problem. There have been innumerable Acts of Parliament aimed at solving the workers' housing problems since (he Earl of Shaftesbury introduced the first Bill, in 1851. Despite the efforts of Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties, the problem has become more acute with the passing years.

You are now told that rent control has failed and rents must go up because of the hundreds of thousands of neglected houses falling into dilapidation and slumdom.

The Fallacy of Full Employment

Why do we fear unemployment? Not usually because we like our jobs but because we cannot live without our wages. The wealthy capitalist has no fear of being out-of-work. For him it is leisure, for us it is hardship.

Although unemployment since the war has not reached pre-war levels in this country and although the Tories boast that employment is now increasing, do not forget that in January of this year there were nearly 700,000 registered unemployed; if the unregistered were added, the total would probably have been a million.

That fact alone shows how hollow is the claim that governments can maintain “full employment"; the next world trade recession would send unemployment up again.

Who Wins Wars?

Certainly not you and I. Out of the profit that we make for our employers, millions are used to maintain the armed forces, police, law courts, prisons, and all the state machinery necessary to protect interests of the rich. But before that profit can be used for this purpose it must be realised into pounds, shillings and pence—the goods must be sold in a market.

In world markets there are competitors from other countries. The rivalry between different groups of capitalists driving for markets gives rise to friction between states, and when diplomacy fails to ease the friction, war becomes imminent.

Then you and 1 arc subjected to a spate of patriotic propaganda to whip us into a frenzy of hate and we, or our sons, are sent to slaughter our fellow workers in the rival countries.

War is another evil that springs direct from the wage-labour and capital base of present day society and will remain whilst that base is intact. Nuclear weapons and germ warfare are part of this evil, and campaigns directed against them leave the problem of capitalism and war untouched.

Reforms beget Reforms

Much ill-health, most crime and nearly ail malnutrition can be traced to poverty which is a product of capitalist society. Reforms to alleviate poverty may ease the lot of some of the poor, but no reforms can remove the cause of poverty. A reform that eases one outstanding evil frequently gives rise to others. Just as new houses can help some workers who desperately need homes, they find that rents are so high that the larder must suffer. Only a complete change in the basis of society can produce a lasting improvement in the lot of the working class.

Non-Socialist “Socialists"

We are not the only ones in this election who call ourselves Socialists.

The Labour Party claims to be a socialist party but it enters this election, as it did every election in the past, inviting your support for scores of reforms and promises designed to make you believe that capitalism can be re-organised to give you what you want from life.

The Communist Party is not one whit different in that respect. It competes with the other parties of capitalism in offering bigger and better reforms.

The Lesser Evil

Some people say that they agree with us, but, as there is no immediate prospect of achieving Socialism, it would be better to choose the less of two evils by supporting one of the Capitalist parties. There is only one evil, that is Capitalism. From it your problems flow. No matter which political party you choose to operate it. the results will differ but little. Offering you the choice of capitalist parties is like offering the Christmas goose the choice of being baked or boiled. As far as you and I are concerned our goose will be cooked whichever you choose.

What Can Nationalisation Do For Us?

Nothing. But the Conservative and Labour parties, and the Communist party, are in favour of some measure of state control of industry; they differ only in degree. State or private industries are all of a kind. Shareholders may become bondholders and trade union officials may have top jobs in nationalised industries, but the terrible twins, wage-labour and capital, are still there. There is still wealth for the few and a bare living wage for you and me.

Nationalisation was formerly the main plank in the Labour platform but the experience of the past ten years has brought disillusionment among those who expected so much from it.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain never supported nationalisation.

Permanent Sacrifice

We are called upon to make sacrifices to safeguard democracy, to “defend our living standards,” to “defend our way of life,” and for many other high sounding and meaningless reasons. You and I have done nothing other than make sacrifices, first to build up armaments, then for a war effort, next for post-war reconstruction and then to help over the bad times between wars. There is always an excuse for demanding sacrifices from the workers. It is time you stood on your feet and made some drastic changes in a world that could satisfy your needs with plenty but provides only plenty of needs.

What Must Be Done

You and I have only our energies to sell; we can only live by finding employment from those who own the land, mines, factories, machines, tools and transport system and all the things necessary to produce the necessaries and comforts of life. This ownership must be ended, these things must be converted to the common property of everyone and democratically controlled in the interests of all. Wealth will not then be produced for the profit of a few but will become common-wealth, available to all.

Why It Must Be Done

Science and discovery have made it possible for everyone to have a fuller life but capitalism bars the way. Millions now engaged in unnecessary tasks such as making bombs and bus tickets, or counting other people’s money and advertising catch-penny products, as well as the unemployed of both classes, can be brought into the field of useful production when the capitalist system is abolished. Hours of work can be shortened, wars ended and economic security achieved.

How It Can Be Done

Members of the capitalist class can go to Bermuda or Balmoral, confident that their interests are secure so long as you continue to support the parties that ensure the continuation of the Capitalist ownership of the means of life.

When a Socialist working class in all countries decides to reconstruct society in keeping with its own interests by dispossessing the Capitalist class, it must first gain control of the machinery of government. It is with that object that the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN enters this electoral contest.

Now Is The Time

During this campaign you will see no posters or window tickets urging you to vote for me. We shall indulge in no ballyhoo or electioneering stunts. We appeal to your understanding and intelligence and not to your emotions and prejudices.

If you want Socialism you have got to set about the task of achieving it; no one is going to present it to you on a plate. All we ask is that you consider our case and. if you agree with it. help us to fight for it. We have built our political party in order that you can use it to achieve Socialism. This election is your opportunity, don't waste it.

Comradely yours.

Jack Read.

On the doorstep (1959)

Political Cartoon from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Campaign News (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Election Headquarters have been obtained at 4 Westgate Street. Hackney. E.8. just off Mare Street and opposite King Edward Road. London Fields Station 2 minutes. Bethnal Green Tube Station 5 minutes. Buses No. 6, 106, 170, 277, Trolley buses 555, 557, 653—all pass the door.

Help from members and sympathisers is urgently required. Literature needs distributing. Canvassing must be done. We are open every day and shall be pleased to see you. Telephone: AMH 5010.

Do not delay ! (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

This Election Campaign is going to cost a lot of money — to be more precise £500 is the minimum sum we shall need. This will cover literature, deposit, Committee rooms, etc.—-in fact, the lot. Needless to say, we haven’t got it. In fact the Parliamentary Fund stands at £308, just now. We’ve got to find the balance of £200 from somewhere. We’ve had the floorboards up at Head Office, but there is no hidden treasure. So we come back to you. We’ve never been let down in the past, and feel sure you won’t disappoint us this time. Please see what you can do. No sum is too large or too small, but we must have it now. Please send all donations to E. Lake, S.P.G.B., 52 Clapham High Street, S.W.4, and earmark it “Parliamentary Fund.”

Capitalism or Socialism? (1959)

From the front page of the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

In Flanders Field: Bloody arithmetic (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1

In times of war, Generals become very important people; sometimes, as in 1917, much too important for the general interests of the ruling-class. Not only did they decide on questions of strategy in their own sectors, they were able to influence or make decisions on the widest scale. Haig, Foch, Cadorna, Joffre, Nivelie, each had taken part in decisions that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. To some extent the Generals constituted a special sectional interest, running things their way, and able to deceive, ignore, or persuade the politicians. False reports (and Haig’s Staff turned these out in hundreds) would serve to blind the politicians to the appalling errors being committed. Once appointed, Generals became notoriously touchy, resenting criticism and blocking any move by politicians to interfere.

The threat of resignation, with the resulting blows at morale of troops and workers, would frequently serve to bring the politicians into line. Generals were removed, but only after their particular front had begun to resemble a slaughterhouse, and sometimes not even then. Kitchener set an example, closely followed by his one-time protege Haig, of the stiff-lipped, silent autocratic General. Haig was scandalised when Lloyd George discussed west-front strategy with French officers and politicians behind his back; he noted in his diary that the man was not a gentleman, a supremely irrelevant consideration, bearing in mind the tremendous interests at stake. Apart from the prestige of their professional positions, the British west-front butchers, Haig and Robertson, had considerable support from the British ruling-class.

They were able to override Lloyd George, who thought west-front strategy useless and incapable of producing any decisive result. Lloyd George did have part of his way after the battles of 1917, for by then even the adoring Lord Northcliffe had begun to have his doubts. It was becoming obvious that the German Army was not destroyed, and that no important gain had been made. There were important reasons why Haig was not given the sack; reasons of morale, social influence, and because Haig was a good general in the limited sense of organising, defensive measures. Robertson lost his job as Chief of the Imperial General Staff; reserves were withheld from Haig, and a. system of closer co-operation with the French came into being.

The problem of maintaining control over the Generals is still exercising the ingenuity of Governments. Churchill was to be in much closer touch with the Generals than Lloyd George. By 1939, the Generals were tamed; the old-fashioned officer gave way to more technically-minded machine-conscious officers. Closer systems of control prevented any repetition of 1917. Slaughter became a subject of scientific planning. Hitler, Stalin and Churchill were careful to be always on their guard against the Generals. The German Staffs were purged again and again; Stalin relegated Zhukov to obscurity after the war.

The Bloody Arithmetic of Attrition

The first world war introduced a new branch of arithmetic—a branch that even the cavalry generals could appreciate. The equation was a simple one; three million dead British and French soldiers plus two million dead Germans could equal defeat for Germany. Some there were, like Lloyd George, who were astute enough to realise that attrition could be dangerous for Capitalism. Lloyd George, as a popular orator, was more in touch with public opinion than were the supporters of this simple arithmetic. Ceaseless battering had led to the final collapse of Russia, and had led to serious trouble for the French Government.

’’Attrition ” was popular with a large section of the ruling-class because it offered something more than mere military defeat; it offered the destruction of a large part of Germany’s manhood, the exhaustion of her economy, and a Europe free for Britain and France to bustle in.

For popular consumption the argument was modified, the enemy was being defeated even though no significant advance was being made. The enemy’s armies were being destroyed (as indeed they were, but not as fast as Haig and his Staff liked to believe, for even at the height of the Flanders battle the Germans could afford to send troops to defeat Italy). Attrition did work, but in a way unforeseen by its supporters. In March 1918 Germany began her last offensive, and in thirteen weeks suffered 700,000 casualties. Germany, desperate to finish the war before the full weight of America could be brought to bear, destroyed the army that had held the western front for four years.

The Dead Weight of Tradition

Capitalist organizations do not always function in the best interests of the ruling-class as a whole. Conflicting demands during wartime may paralyse strategy, so that nothing is achieved. An example is the Dardanelles campaign; (here was no agreement on how many troops to send, the haggling went on for months. It seems that Britain and France almost sustained defeat, not by Germany, but by their own traditions and methods of warfare that had become irrelevant by 1914. As a result, Germany, while maintaining the defensive in the west, was able to gain considerable victories elsewhere, as for instance in Russia. Rumania and Italy. There were alternatives to attrition, but the opportunities were lost, and if such a complex situation can be summarised at all, they were lost because of the outmoded thinking of the ruling-class, of whom the Generals were a part.

A new Waterloo was always just round the corner, and if the Waterloo turned into slaughter-house warfare, there was always the argument for attrition to fall back on. They were full of arguments, those Generals, Haig had another one in his magazine; he had waged the Flanders campaign in order to prevent the Germans from falling on the French. He also waged it because the French had offered their support! And what of the chief participants, the poor bloody soldiers? They were always ready for another effort, another crawl across ground covered by machine-gun fire and under continuous bombardment. The British troops set an example of devotion to duty unequalled in those days; apparently British workers were well-drilled and well impregnated with their ideologies, of which there was a fairly wide choice, all leading to the conclusion that one must tight for one's country, whatever the cost.

The New Passchendaels

The overthrow of one set of myths doesn't matter very much to Capitalism, for there are plenty of brainy people ready to provide variations of the theme “fight and die.” New ideologies are continually being manufactured, and there will always be one or two to suit the needs of the time. The bitterness aroused by 1917 did not make workers into Socialists, but it did give rise to numerous peace movements (in one of which “Go to it” Herbie Morrison was prominent). These movements withered away when Capitalism was once more torn apart by war. With a new appeal, workers could be called out to fight again. Cassino, Stalingrad and Hiroshima mocked the 1918 politicians’ boasts “war to end wars.” The second world war also gave rise to its peace movements, but rather different. The New Pacifists would apparently be prepared to fight if H-bombs were excluded and war consisted of battles like Passchendael, Stalingrad or Cassino.

Breaking the Circle

There is a way out; humanity do not have to tear each other apart; the circle can be broken. What has been said here about ideologies does not mean that there is no end to Capitalism and its wars. A new society can be brought into being. This new society has already taken rough shape in the minds of some of us. Disgust and disillusionment take a slow but steady toll of Capitalist ideas —an example of this is the decline of “white feather” incidents! People in the last war were far less ready to condemn those who stayed at home.

Unfortunately there has been far more apathy and disillusionment than determination to put things right. People are disgusted with politics, including even the Socialist Party in their condemnation. Perhaps in a way there is here a terrible indictment of Capitalism; men and women have lost their faith in a world fit for humans, taking refuge in the acquisition of cars, brass-plates and the material flotsam of a mass-rubbish-producing society. Change is possible; we can reject Capitalism with its Passchendaels, Stalingrads and Hiroshimas. People can act in their own interests, instead of in the barren, blood-smeared interests of ruling groups. The way out does not lie along the road of pacifism or ban-the-bomb (a futile movement if ever there was one). The way lies along the path of Socialist understanding.

F. R. Ivimey.

Letter: Initiative & Incentive (1959)

Letter to the Editors from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Sir,

The August edition of the Socialist Standard fell into my hands, and, being more than slightly interested in Socialism I read it closely. Naturally the article “To a New Reader” caught my eye. In this article you make certain claims and statements on which I would like to pose some questions.

“It (the owning class) takes no part in social production and is unnecessary to it." From the context it would appear that by owning class, you mean anyone who owns property. If you must pigeonhole everyone into a “class," I am, 1 suppose, of this class, as my father, by saving, has bought the house in which we live. But the income of the household (I am a chartered accountant's articled clerk) is far, far less than that of many what is laughingly termed “working class" households which exist in rent subsidised houses. Why then are we evil to the Socialist? As to being socially unproductive, my friends of this drone class include one chemical engineer (B.Sc.), one electrical engineer (B.Sc.), one agriculturist (B.Sc.) and two capitalists, one of whom arrived in this town four years ago with 30s. and a kitbag of dirty washing. By way of working an eighty-hour week he now has a thriving timber business employing seven men. Very much the same applies to my other capitalist friend except that he has a plastics factory. Yet you also say “Initiative and inventiveness will have a chance to thrive." Has initiative no chance now?

“Production will expand to correspond to the people's needs." Surely production is vastly in excess of the people's needs as it is. I think “wishes" should be substituted for “needs." But then this would be nonsense because production cannot expand to give everyone what he wants.

"Cut-throat competition for jobs will no longer exist." But does it exist now? Surely the best man gets the job? Does Socialism mean that any incompetent can get any job? Besides which the above statement would appear to contradict “Initiative and inventiveness will have chance to thrive, etc."

Finally, on page 121 you are appealing for funds. On page 116, under “Wages by Cheque," you say “Snatching the payroll could, by present ethical standards, be considered more a transfer of property than theft." Your problem solved?

Yours faithfully,

A. L. A.

Horsham, Sussex.

Reply:

The “class who own the means of production" does not include everyone who owns property; buying a house does not change the class of the buyer. The working class consists of men and women who own nothing—or so little—in the means of wealth production that they must sell their abilities to an employer in order to live. This includes people like chartered accountants, engineers and agriculturalists and people who own a house, whose economic interests are the same as other workers. The capitalist class are people who—although many of them do work—own enough of the means of wealth production to live without working for a wage or a salary. Because one of these classes buys labour power from the other, their interests are in conflict. Neither the capitalist nor the working class is evil, for they are both inevitable products of the historically necessary capitalist social system.

Of course, initiative and inventiveness have some sort of a chance under capitalism. So has dishonesty. But not everyone can be an employer—the majority must remain in the working class, where a person's initiative and inventiveness only find expression if he can sell his energies to an employer.

Modern society is capable of satisfying human needs, which include lots of things which our correspondent would call “wishes." But capitalist production is regulated to exploit the market, which need have no relation to people's needs. That is why the National Coal Board is reducing output, whilst pensioners are in need of coal. Socialist society will have no market to take into account,  "production will expand to correspond to the people's needs,”—the only sane productive motive.

Because the size of a person’s wage limits his access to wealth, workers compete among themselves for the better paid jobs. Sometimes they indulge in the "cut throat competition” of toadying to the boss and so on. In 1938. when To a New Reader was first published, this competition was often for employment regardless of the wage. It is naive to think that, in these conditions, the best person always gets the job. Indeed, a lot of people are doing work which is quite unsuited to human abilities. Our correspondent must be familiar with the monotonous employment which healthy young men are doomed to in chartered accountants’ offices. And what about servicemen? Are they actually suited to killing and being killed?

Socialists think that we are capable of better than this. We want a world where only socially useful work is done, producing the very best to enrich the world’s common pool of wealth for the benefit of humanity and not for some ephemeral personal advantage.

Editorial Committee.

SPGB Meetings (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Our Man in America (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Air Mail report to hand as we go to press—Comrade Gilmac, the Party's representative to the W.S.P. Annual Conference, is that he is now (September 15th) in Vancouver after a very busy fortnight of travel and meetings. A successful television half hour interview in Hollywood was one of the high-lights of the trip. All questions on the Party case were excellent, and it is reported that Gilmac’s answers “were all meat." If time had permitted, more television interviews would have been available. There seems no doubt that this extensive tour is a successful one, and a detailed report should be in the November Standard.

50 Years Ago: Shorter Hours In 1909 (1959)

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

In his address to the Economic Science and Statistics section of the British Association Professor Chapman said:

  "These changes" (i.e., in the character of the world’s work) "all tended to specialisation, to concentration, both in working and leisure, and to constant demands for the curtailment of the working hours of the day.
   "In the course of long investigations he had found no instance in which an abbreviation of hours had resulted in a proportionate curtailment of output. There was, indeed, every reason to suppose that the production in the shorter hours seldom fell short of the production in the longer hours, and in some cases the product or its value had actually been augmented after a short interval. He (Professor Chapman) sought also to show that the value of leisure would inevitably rise with progress and that the working day would become less in the future."

From Socialist Standard, October 1909, quoted from Daily News, 27 Aug., 1909.

A Straight Talk on the Election (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

As the general election campaign gets under way, we shall probably see more and more posters of Mr. Macmillan and Mr. Gaitskell, gazing in fatherly protective benevolence upon the passing voters. Each party will say that they are more able, more sincere, more knowledgeable than their opponents. The Tories will say they will give us good government — the Labour party that they arc the party with working class interests at heart. In fact, the intention and ability of politicians can have little effect on the problems which they try to solve. We shall hear a lot, during the election, about war and insecurity; these are just two of the problems which exist not because any government wishes them to, but because capitalism inevitably produces them.

Capitalism and War

Capitalism is a social system in which all the things which are necessary to make and distribute the worlds wealth —such as land, factories, railways and steamships—are owned by a small section of the world's population. This class, because of their ownership of the means of production, can live without having to work for a wage. On the other hand, the working class are compelled to sell their ability to work to an employer, for they have no other method of getting a living. The capitalists invest money in industries and, because they must have a return on their investments, those industries produce wealth with the motive of profitable sale. This means that industries throughout the world are constantly seeking cheap, abundant fields of raw materials, profitable markets for their products, and trading routes to connect them to their overseas markets and sources of supply. When "peaceful" competition cannot win these, a war breaks out. That was the cause of the last two world wars and of the minor outbreaks in Korea, Egypt and so on. A future world war will quite possibly be fought with nuclear weapons. These have been developed because each capitalist power must always strive to arm itself more powerfully—which means more destructively — than its rivals. This has made war an even more urgent problem, which cannot be solved by a conference between prime ministers and presidents. There is only one way certainly to abolish war. That is to abolish capitalism.

Capitalism and Poverty

The Conservative Party have been telling us that we are all prosperous. Yet the latest figures show over ten million people in this country getting less than £10 a week. (Contrast this with the 700 who share £6 million a year after paying tax!) It is true that workers are buying houses, motor cars, television sets and so on; the fact that we must resort to mortgages and hire purchase to obtain these things is proof of our restricted access to the good things in life. Whatever personal possessions we have, we always find that our wage packet is, generally, roughly sufficient to keep us in food, clothing, housing and entertainment with very little—if anything—to spare. That is why we always have the cheap and trashy—the pre-fabs and council houses, the mass produced clothes and furniture; we just can't afford anything better. Because our livelihood depends on our wage, we are the people who really suffer in a slump, or if we lose our jobs through sickness or old age. The Manchester Guardian of 21st April, 1959, reported the case of a 70-year-old lady who lived in an attic and who. after paying her rent and part board, fuel and 2s. 6d. for a wireless relay, was left with 7s. 9d. a week for everything else. That sort of tragedy is never removed by a Budget or a national insurance scheme, because it originates in the economic depression of the mass of society. It can only be removed by ending capitalism.

Until this happens we shall continue to suffer the insecurity which drives many people into mental hospitals and transforms others from co-operative human beings into anti-social criminals. Crime and violence will flourish and with them the escapist drugs and tranquilisers. This inhuman system is supported by the Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Communist and other parties. What has the Socialist Party of Great Britain to offer?

Socialism

We invite you to consider the case for Socialism. This is a social organisation based on the ownership of the world’s wealth by the world’s population. When it is established, everyone—man or woman, whatever the colour of their skin —will have completely free access to society's common pool of wealth. There will be no privileged class enjoying the best things in life whilst the majority of people make do with the shoddy. There will be no wars to settle the competition between opposing capitalist groups. There will be no division of interest, such as exists today between employer and employee, to cause strikes and other social dislocation. Everybody’s interests will be the same—to co-operate in producing the best and happiest world which humanity is capable of, for the enjoyment and benefit of the whole of mankind.

This is no empty dream. Socialism can be established tomorrow, if the people of the world understand it and want it. Then they can send their delegates to the seats of power—such as Parliament—to carry through the formal process of establishing Socialism. That is why we are a political party. Our membership and funds are small, which prevents us nominating more than one candidate at this election. He is not a great leader who promises to work miracles. He is not a leader at all for we do not believe in leaders. He is an ordinary member of the working class and of our Party who holds with us that only Socialism can solve the world’s problems. That never has been popular —the millions have so far always preferred their Macmillans and Gaitskells, the reformist programmes of their parties, and the troublous world that they stand for.

Ivan

All My Own Work (1959)

The Marlborough Tapestries at Blenheim Palace.

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

All this summer in the Diploma Gallery of the Royal Academy there have been exhibited 60 signed charming paintings by Sir Winston Churchill and like the pavement artist he can truly say "All my own work.”

There are landscapes, "bottle scapes," etc., interiors of Blenheim showing tapestries, depicting victories of his ancestor, the 1st Duke of Marlborough.

Looking at these brought to mind Southey’s poem “Battle of Blenheim" with its unanswered question "What good came of it at last"? For there are other kinds of items "signed W.S.C." not in any Exhibition. They range back right through two World Wars to the Boer War which was being waged as this century came in. What a ghastly painting it would make: all the millions of dead, blind, insane, widows and orphans doomed in the wars supported by the Marlborough line.

But look a little closer. While W.S.C. could truly sign his paintings “All my own work" his signatures given in Wartime are basically your signatures. You, the working class, who in your overwhelming majority at election times sign your voting slip for Capitalism under its labels Conservative, Liberal. Labour, etc.

Time is now upon you again to give the O.K. to your wage slavery, wars, H-bombs etc., or for you to strike a blow for the freedom and brotherhood of all mankind. You have time before then to become a worker for Socialism. Read and understand the simple facts of your class position: get in top gear as soon as you can. For you, the working class are the power that can rid the world of the vast horrors of capitalist civilisation.

Ted Kersley

From The Branches (1959)

Party News from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Bethnal Green Campaign
Comrades will have been well informed regarding wavs and means in which the Party’s election campaign can best be served. The week before the election will be the busiest, so—apart from the work that has been done—please leave plenty of time and energy for the first week in October, to support meetings, sell literature and generally assist in Party work. Comrades not in London can make full use of the additional literature available to circulate it as far as possible and so acquaint workers of the Party's case and the work to be done for Socialism. Turn to pages 146/7 for more election news.


Hyde Park
On Sunday afternoon, September 6th, a poster drive was held, mainly to advertise the evening's meeting and Party literature. Several comrades paraded with the posters and over ten dozen Standards were sold. This activity was likened to a miniature May Day, and there is no doubt that whenever possible the Central Literature Sales Committee will organise similar events.


Denison House Meetings
At the time of going to press the first of the two meetings on War was held on September 6th. Comrades Coster and Grant addressed an audience of over 100—75 per cent. being non-Party members. Collection and literature sales were very good indeed. The meeting on September 27th will be reported in the next issue of the Standard.


Paddington
Paddington Branch organised a propaganda trip to Nottingham on Sunday, September 13th. Several members from the Branch travelled by road. A general get together was held at a Comrade's house in the afternoon—about 20 members and sympathisers were contacted and the outdoor meeting with an audience between 300 and 400 people was addressed by Comrade May. Literature sales were £2 and the audience was very interested.

The Nottingham members have made plans to continue their good work during the winter months. One of the schemes is to hold introductory discussions after branch business every Wednesday evening. Comrades and sympathisers are keen and are working enthusiastically for the Party.


The Central Branch Secretary would like to contact Comrade W. Reynolds, of Hatfield, whose address has changed. The Secretary has had letters returned.


Delegate Meeting
The Delegate Meeting date has been altered to Saturday, October 31st, and Sunday, November 1st, due to the General Election date. Members will be fully occupied until October 8th, and it has been agreed that the postponement would be advisable. Will Comrades noting this please pass on the information to others.


Hackney and Islington Branches
The Branches are holding Saturday evening meetings in Hyde Park from 8 p.m. Members and speakers are invited to assist and support the meetings.


Ealing Branch
Ealing Branch has just finished its most successful outdoor season at the Gloucester Road station. The line weather has enabled meetings to be held regularly without interruption and attendances and literature sales have been consistently good.

The Branch's propaganda trips to Southsea have also been most successful. The meeting held on Sunday. 13th September. run in conjunction with Islington and Kingston branches, was particularly good. Speakers spoke for about six hours all told to good attentive audiences. Useful literature sales are reported.


Members are asked to note that an Economics Class is due to begin on Friday, 30th October, and will continue on alternate Fridays afterwards. Tutors will be Comrades Hardy and Coster.


We have been notified of the death of Comrades Snellgrove and Atherton. Both these comrades had been members of the party for a long time and did a great deal of work for Socialism. Obituaries will appear in a later issue of the Socialist Standard

Phyllis Howard

The Use of the Vote (1959)

Editorial from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Issues that will be decided

Before the next issue of the Socialist Standard appears the General Election will be over. You, the wage and salary earners who make up the great majority of the electorate, will have had your little hour of prominence in which you decided the fate of individual candidates and their political parties for perhaps another five years.

The Tories will know whether you have favoured them with the unusual prize of three consecutive general election victories. The Labour Party will know whether those of you who wanted a change of government are numerous enough to have put them back after nearly eight years in the opposition wilderness. And the Liberals will have had your answer to their plea for enough Parliamentary ' seats to be able to exercise a restraining or enlivening influence on the bigger parties. It is you who will have decided these issues in the way you cast your votes.

The power you have

In the weeks of electoral excitement before polling day you will have been made to appreciate, at least a little, that you are, for the moment, important people. Between elections you look up to politicians and big business men as important, but during elections it is they who go to endless trouble to influence you and win your support for them and their policies. It is you who can make or mar the career of a politician and you who can place power in the hands of a government which during its term of office can, by taxation and tariff policies or by subsidies, raise some industries to prosperity and bring others to their ruin. It is you who give power to governments in whose hands rest decisions about peace and war.

Illustration by Alwyn Edgar.

Power for no use

Since the Socialist Party of Great Britain was formed there have been fourteen general elections in this country: this is the fifteenth. Fifteen times the Tory, Liberal and Labour Parties have appealed to you to help them with your votes. Fifteen times you, the workers, have used your votes against your own interests.

Although the parties we have mentioned use different names for their programmes and promises of legislation, there is very little of importance dividing them. They are all concerned with trying to administer British capitalism as well as may be in a troubled world of rival capitalist groups. In any big emergency like the crisis of 1931 or in war they come together and form coalition governments.

Whichever of them, you, the workers, vote for in an election, it is a defeat for you, a betrayal of your own interests.

The Socialist Alternative

The Socialist Party of Great Britain was founded with one purpose, that of achieving Socialism. Socialism is not something akin to reformists' efforts to improve capitalism, but an alternative social system. One in which class ownership of the means of production and distribution would be replaced by common ownership, buying and selling, profit-making and the wages system would disappear, and with them the wars that are caused by capitalism's commercial rivalries.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has carried on propaganda all these years to increase the understanding and acceptance of the Socialist message, and from time to time have contested elections. What we can do in this direction is strictly limited by our meagre financial resources—even the £150 election deposit is a serious item to us. On the present occasion our comrade J. Read stands as [the] Socialist candidate at Bethnal Green.

By that candidature in Bethnal Green and by our propaganda elsewhere the Socialist Party of Great Britain seeks to shorten the day when you. the workers, will recognise that your interests, and indeed that of the human race, demands the abolition of capitalism and establishment of Socialism through the intelligent use of the vote by an international Socialist working class.

Obituary: Comrade Rees (1959)

Obituary from the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Swansea Group have reported the death in Llanelly Hospital of Comrade Rees of Felinfoel, Llanelly. He was 67 years old.

Comrade Rees was crippled in the 1914-18 war, but this did not prevent him developing political interests. He was an ardent and knowledgeable materialist who, for years before joining the S.P.G.B., propagated the Socialist case on every possible occasion. It was through one of his letters to the press that Swansea Group got into touch with him; after a short while, although protesting that his disability made him only half a member, be joined the party.

Comrade Rees' death has depleted the ranks of the Swansea Group, who, for all their smallness, are doing such valuable work for Socialism.

The Passing Show: The BMC Strike (1959)

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

The BMC Strike

The recent strike of workers employed on the new small car produced by the British Motor Corporation evoked some curious statements by the employers. The employees were dissatisfied with the rates of pay offered them for the work on the new car, alleging that they meant a reduction in wages. To this, a representative of the management replied:—

The company regard this as blackmail and want it to be understood clearly that they are not prepared to hold any discussions until normal work is resumed. The Guardian, 1-9-59.

Those who defend capitalism sometimes do so on the grounds that free bargaining is the best way to reach fair prices for the goods or services that everyone has to offer. The workers, they say, are not forced to work for any particular employer, or for any particular wage; they are free to bargain, and thus arrive a "fair" wage. This ignores the fact that the workers are in the nature of the case exploited by their employers; no business-owner will employ a man to work for him unless the man brings him a surplus over and above the value of his wages.

But even ignoring the exploitation of the workers, on which the whole capitalist system is founded, and even accepting the arguments about “free” bargaining and “fair” wages, how can the BMC defend its attitude? The workers are not prepared to accept the pay offered them for this particular job, and so stop work until agreement can be reached between the two sides. In doing this they are merely acting in accord with the teachings of the classical laissez- faire capitalist economists (“each acting to forward his own interests will produce the greatest general good”). But the BMC refuse even to discuss the question until the men resume work on the BMC’s terms! When that happens of course, the employers are free to spin out the talks as long as they want to— negotiations, adjournments, deferments committees, re-appraisals—and all the time the men are working on the BMC’s terms. It is exactly as if the men were to say that they would not even start talks until the BMC employs them at the higher rate of pay they are asking. If the men did this how Fleet Street would gasp in horror; how the leader-writers would lash themselves into a frenzy, denouncing such a departure from the established ways of behaviour! But when the employers do it, that’s all right. Fleet Street certainly gasped in horror at the latest BMC strike; but, the reason was that the workers had dared to cease work, instead of accepting whatever the management graciously decided to pay them, and touching their forelocks in gratitude that they were paid anything at all.

Fleet Street denounces forced labour when practiced by the Russians in faraway Siberia; but the only thing which appears likely to satisfy the big newspaper owners, and their class-comrades the big industrialists, is to forbid the workers to strike in any circumstances, and establish forced labour in this country as well.

Disaster

Religiously inclined people present many problems to the inquiring mind. After the recent crash of a Dakota near Barcelona, which resulted in the deaths of all on board, a man who narrowly failed to catch the plane is reported to have said “God saved me” (Daily Herald, 21-8-59). Does he, one wonders, really believe that the Almighty personally intervened in his case, and put difficulties in his way so that he wouldn't catch the plane? If the Almighty went to this trouble, why didn’t he stop the other passengers catching the plane, or indeed simply prevent it crashing? Perhaps the Christian theologians could answer this question—they must have had a lot of practice—but to the rest of us it remains puzzling. 

In the East

Another event reported the same day is also difficult to understand. At a Buddhist procession in Ceylon an elephant ran amok and killed fourteen people, including eleven women and a child. The Guardian, 21-8-59. Christians pondering on the Barcelona air crash can reflect that their Buddhist rivals will have an even harder time explaining this disaster away.

Plums

A correspondent of the Daily Herald (26-8-59) raises the following point:—

I read . . . the other day that there is a plum glut in Worcestershire, and that the fruit would be left to rot. Why can’t they be picked and sent to orphanages, children’s homes and hospitals?

It’s a comment often heard. If there is too much food at a certain time or place, why can’t it be given to those who really need it ?

The answer is that we live under a capitalist system. It wouldn’t pay anybody to transport the surplus fruit from Worcestershire to the people who could eat it. And, by capitalist ethics, what doesn’t pay isn't done. Besides that, to distribute free fruit to institutions like those mentioned in the letter would mean that they would reduce their purchases through the normal channels. This would strike at the profits of the middlemen and the farmers. However generous and kind-hearted such men may be personally, they can only stay in business if they play the capitalist game; and they would have to resist any suggestion which would have the effect of destroying their own trade.

There is a way in which we could distribute the products of society freely to the members of society; and that, of course, is the establishment of Socialism.

Alwyn Edgar

A Centenary: Isambard Brunel (1959)

Brunel in 1857.

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

In an obscure position on Platform One at London's Paddington Station the traveller may notice, with fleeting interest, a plaque which commemorates Isambard Kingdom Brunel. In early Victorian attire, he gazes across at the Gothic-like structure of wrought and cast iron, where his name once meant so much. One hundred years ago, this versatile engineer died, but there is still plenty of evidence of the part which he played in the days when British capitalism established its dominant position in the world.

Mechanical Environment

Brunei came from a well-to-do family. His father—Marc Brunel—was born in the Vexin area of France, where he studied for the priesthood. He left the church for the French Navy and, when the Revolution came, fled to America. Here, as American industry began to develop, he established himself as a successful surveyor and architect. He came to England, where he set up a factory for the mass production of pulleys, of which, during the Napoleonic Wars, the British Navy was using 70,000 a year. He later turned his attention to the cutting and shaping of shipbuilding logs (an early form of pre-fabbing) and the mass production of boots for the army, using 16 different processes to turn out some 400 pairs a day. In 1821, Marc Brunel fell on hard times and was imprisoned for debt.

So it was that Isambard Kingdom Brunei grew up in an environment of mechanical exploration and adventure. Not only in his own family, but all around, could be seen the physical manifestations of industrialism. At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the output of coal and iron and the products of the manufactories and the reformed agriculture produced an insistent need for faster and bulkier land transport. In the Cornish tin mine areas and the Durham coalfields the Trevethicks and Stevensons were answering the demand by building the new railways. It is in this field that Brunei is best remembered.

Great Western Railway

After working with his father on the Rotherhithe Tunnel in the 1820's, Brunel designed and constructed several bridges and docks, notably at Plymouth, Brentford and Milford Haven. In 1833 he was appointed engineer to the Great Western Railway and for this company he did some of his greatest work. He was responsible for the first line to Bristol, with all the bridges and tunnels. (Part of his work consisted of negotiating with obstructive landowners). He designed the Wharncliffe Viaduct at Hanwell and the great iron bridge which crosses the river at Saltash in Cornwall. Later he turned to building ocean-going steamships larger than any previously known. In 1838 his Great Western started the first regular steamships service between Great Britain and America, making the voyage in the unheard of time of 15 days. This was followed in 1845 by the Great Britain, the first large vessel to use the screw propellor, which plied between Liverpool and New York.

Brunel also had his failures. His championing of the 7 foot gauge, which started the famous "Battle of the Gauges,” broke down in 1892, when the Great Western Railway adopted the standard gauge. On the South Devon Railway he experimented with a system of atmospheric propulsion, which proved a failure. Perhaps his most spectacular flop was the paddle steamer Great Eastern, a huge folly launched in 1858. The story of the Great Eastern is one of delays and casualties—it was never a financial success and ended as a submarine cable layer. The strain of building her broke Brunei's health. He had a stroke on the day he was watching her engines being tested—5th September, 1859—and ten days later he was dead.

Kings and Servers

Typical of his time, Brunei was impatient of restrictions on invention and careless of public opinion of his work. He reached his fame when the designers and builders of early industrial capitalism were raising their structures to the glory of Utility, Profit and Speed. Those were the days when the glass- vaulted roofs of Paddington and St. Pancras Stations had replaced the cathedrals and churches into which the wealthy landowner and merchant had once poured their surplus. When the railway viaducts and the Stock Markets took the place of the Cloth Halls—and King Coal sat in state on the High Throne, with child labour for his server.

Brunel's railways carried the products of the appalling working conditions of the time, when coal miners seemed scarcely human and children were lucky to work no more than a twelve hour day in the textile mills. For the workers the new capitalism meant hard work, low pay and indifferent food eaten in gaunt, soulless tenements scowling down on the Main Line. It meant squalid back-to-back houses crouching around the pit head and the viciousness of dockland. No gift of science or brilliance of design was directed that way. Here lived the beasts of burden, gin soaked and humble in their misery. In its exciting day of expansion, capitalism spurned the very people who made it possible.

No blame to Brunel for this. He was an inventive master whose abilities were used by a vicious and inhuman social system. Remember that, if you ever take a look at that plaque.

Jack Law

Necessity and Freedom (1959)

From the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

THE ETHICS OF MARXISM (5) (See Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4)

The bourgeois prejudice sees Marxism as a philosophy of iron necessitarianism; hence as a negation of freedom. The bourgeois prejudice prizes freedom and holds it to be among the rarest blooms of civilization. Asked to define freedom it may feel that such technical matters can be taken care of by the pundits and philosophers. From its own empirical standpoint, freedom is not so much something to be abstractly defined but concretely enjoyed.

Freedom and Society

The bourgeois prejudice, while it may talk of the need of social organisation, sees it nevertheless as a restraint upon the freedom of the individual, i.e., the bourgeois individual. Not being a Marxist the bourgeois individual fails to comprehend that the very social organisation which he regards as a restriction of free activity is the sole source of the freedom he possesses.

"Man is not born free" even though Rousseau has told him so. Freedom is something which men acquire and they only acquire it in and through there human organisation—society. Such freedom may not be absolute freedom—whatever philosophers mean by that—but within the context of human organisation it has inexhaustible possibilities for further development. For man there is no other freedom but through society—but it is enough.

If freedom means—and this is the only valid meaning once can give to freedom—the ability to bring about the ends man desires, what as distinct from the animal world enables them to effect this? The answer lies in their economic production. An economic production, quantitatively and qualitatively different from any animal economy. It is not the case that man is merely a productive animal among other productive animals, but that his production is social production, i.e., his labour has always involved cooperation with others of his kind.

Human labour is the fundamental condition for human existence. As Marx has it, it is: —

A process going on between man and nature, a process in which man through his own activities, initiates, regulates and controls the material reaction between himself and nature. He confronts nature as one of her own forces, setting in motion arms and legs, heads and hands, the natural forces of the body, in order to appropriate nature's production in a form adapted to his own wants. By thus acting on the external world and changing it, he at the same time changes his own nature. He develops the powers that slumber within him, and subjects them to his own control.

It is not merely that man's labour is collective labour, but a special co-ordinated labour carried out in cooperation with others of his kind. It is an activity both premeditated and planned. Thus man is able to produce his own conditions of life, and so produce his own history. Man, then, is different from other animals because he produces differently.

It was through this collective and coordinated labour process that speech—the practical form of human consciousness—developed as a means of communication in answer to the growing complexities of economic production. It was through this process of social labour that there came into being the rules of social organisation—ethics. Just as it was the need of greater manipulation of the material environment, in order to achieve greater advances in social organsation and production that science became an essential department of human activity. It is then through his economic production that man has been able to extend his inherited social knowledge, widen his social horizon, and produce the facilities for so doing. Herein lies man's freedom. The price of freedom has not been "unceasing vigilance" but unceasing economic production.

It is through his economic production that man has come to understand the nature of causality, i.e., in order to bring about certain consequences, he must know the conditions necessary for their successful fulfilment. Hence it is only by his greater understanding of the interconnection of processes and the laws which regulate them that he is able to more freely bring about the ends he desires. Causality is the consciousness of necessity, and the greater his grasp of the nature of necessity the greater is man's freedom to act in a planned and purposeful way. Had man been a creature passively reacting to his external environment he could never have grasped the nature of causality—necessity—nor freedom. Freedom is not as the bourgeois prejudice see it, the progressive realisation of an abstract idea but the progressive development of the means of life and socialisation of production.

The Bourgeois Prejudice and Freedom

But how does the bourgeois prejudice understand freedom? Through a knowledge of necessity? The answer is no. While the bourgeois prejudice may admit that the operation of the forces of production is subject to law and organisation, it confines it to the mere technological level. The bourgeois prejudice fails to see that the bourgeois economy is subject to laws and a determinative organisation. And that right across its version of freedom, necessity is writ large. Its philosophers and pundits may discuss the nature of freedom till the cows come home, but they never seriously attempt to locate the source from which bourgeois freedom, in fact all freedom stems—society. They may talk about the need of human values, but never see that bourgeois freedom is a class-conditioned freedom which falls far short of a truly human freedom. This is because its own social organisation is rooted in the class ownership of the productive forces and it is this which determines the level of existence both quantitatively and qualitatively for the vast mass of non-owners.

The crux of bourgeois freedom is its power to exploit and secure the unpaid labour by its ownership of the agencies of production. From this freedom all other freedom flow.

Bourgeois freedom exists in a system subject to laws and compulsions. Its own class conditioned character makes it necessary to produce not for the purpose of satisfying human needs but for securing the production and reproduction of surplus value on an over-expanding scale. This is the basic law of present production, the overriding necessity which must be obeyed if bourgeois freedom and privilege is to continue. Thus the class character of freedom means the freedom of the few and the unfreedom of the many.

The Limits of Bourgeois Freedom
But is the bourgeois himself really free? The answer is that he cannot be, because he himself lives in an unfree world. He cannot escape the consequences of the social set up which gives him his freedom. What is more, as the present order moves on, his own freedom becomes more restricted. More and more he is controlled by the world market, more and more does the need of ever-greater capital accumulation become more urgent. And across his world ever lies the shadow of future slumps, future war, and universal slaughter. Thus in a world of class antagonism, national and racial hatreds, "freedom" is forced to seek strange bed fellows. No doubt the bourgeois individual would like freedom from these things. But because he is unaware of the nature of the necessity from which his freedom stems he does not know where such freedom may be found. He thus, remains imprisoned in his narrow cell of class liberty.

The very necessity of the social system which produces the class freedom for the few produces at the same time the class unfreedom of the many. But the iron compulsion of capitalism which give freedom of a sort to the bourgeois deny access to a fuller life for the proletariat. Men, because they are men and not automatons, will chafe against the restrictions which prevent a fuller and freer life. And it is in their struggle and desire for a free and fuller life that the vast majority discover bourgeois freedom and a truly human freedom to be irreconcilable. But this will mean the abolition of private property institutions and free access by all to the productive forces. A social state of affairs in which man is no longer a mere unit carrying out the orders of others, but where each one has an equal role in furthering the common aim which he himself takes part in forming. But it is not enough for the many to desire freedom. They will have to grasp the nature of necessity wherein their unfreedom lies. Not to know this means that their desire for freedom will remain unfulfilled.

Marxism a Denial of Fatalism
Contrary to the bourgeois notion of freedom which sees it as personal liberty inhibited by social structures, the Marxist sees freedom as a choice based upon an objective appraisal of the data of a given situation. Only when events and processes are not known are we subject to iron determinism. Where knowledge of these matters is available then and only then are we free to follow a course of action dependent on the relevant information. To successfully carry out what one can do one must also know what one cannot do. It is when we know what is necessary that our purpose becomes effective and that is freedom. Not to know what is necessary in a given situation is unfreedom. When we think correctly we act correctly and only to that extent is man free. Thus in a scientific experiment or a surgical operation one cannot choose willy-nilly what to do. There are things that must be done and must not be done. In fact, if both are to be successful they must be governed by the objective facts of the situation. It is only by strictly conforming to what is necessary to be done can the aim and purpose in either case become effective. The more ignorant one is of the nature of causality, i.e., the necessity, the more important and determined one is. Effective action means then that we must have knowledge of the laws which operate in a given plane of reference. This does not mean we are independent of the determining circumstances out of which ideas and action arise, but it does mean that unless we understand the objective pattern of what is determined our thought and action will be non-effective.

The bourgeois prejudice does at times liken freedom to the jungle. Everybody does what is best for himself, although the bourgeois economy has government, bureaucracy and the armed forces to see that the jungle does not get out of hand. But the inhabitants of the jungle are not free. They know nothing of causality—necessity—and hence nothing of freedom. They cannot mutually cooperate and reap the advantages of a division of labour. They can only instinctively conform to the law of the jungle if they are to survive.

Only men can be free, And only the class which is now unfree can establish a freedom which is truly human — even though bourgeois individuals may come to associate themselves with the aims of the working class. But this unfree class must free itself from the ideology of bourgeois freedom and see the necessity of establishing a classless society and with it a classless freedom.

Man the measure of all things
Marxism does not believe in absolute free will or absolute determinism. Free will versus determinism is a bourgeois metaphysic it can dispense with. Neither does it hold to some simple, cause-effect relation. It sees nature—men's needs—society as a process of causal interaction. Along with Marx and Engels they hold the view that man is the responsible agent in all social change. It is man that wills even though he is born into a situation which is unwilled by him. But he must be informed of the objective milieu in which he finds himself. Only then can he act effectively on events and by changing them, change himself.

Men are not mere creatures of determinism, economic or otherwise. Because the only permanent thing about morality is man's demand for the better which itself is redetermined according to time and place. Man—and here we refer to unfree "class man" in the given social context—will always make fresh demands in the world and upon himself and thus produce the conditions necessary for his human needs. Men and ideas as we have said are the sole instrument for initiating social change. For any change to be effective, however, relevant knowledge of events is indispensable. The "must" and the "ought"—necessity and freedom—do not exist in a polarised anatagonism, but are indissoluble aspects of social reality. The charge against Marxism, posed by its critics, of fatalism and termed by them the "inevitability dilemma" thus falls to the ground.

Both in belief and action Marxism is a humanism. And it is the Marxist who seeks a world where truly human values prevail. Marxism sees man as a product of a social complex and at the same time as the producer of a more conscious society. This is the heart and essence of the Marxist ethic. In religious fantasy God made man the centre of the universe. In material fact capitalism has alienated him from it. Marxism shows how in a truly human sense man can yet become that.

We would remind Mr. Taylor, the author of the pamphlet Is Marxism a Humanism? that Marxism is not merely a method of expounding humanism. but a way of achieving it. As such it challenges more than favourable comparison with any other set of contemporary values.

Ted Wilmott