Women, work and wages (1994)

From the August 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 28 April, a large number of schoolgirls spent the day in various workplaces up and down the land. Not because of a wish on the part of our capitalist exploiters to reintroduce child labour to the UK (although it could be argued that child labour never disappeared) but because a would-be charity called "Taking Our Daughters To Work" wished to "develop a forum whereby negative stereotypes about girls and their abilities are challenged and ultimately destroyed".

In a pamphlet entitled Taking our Daughters to Work: Exploring Tomorrow’s Choices, circulated to schools, employers and trades unions, the organisation argued that, due to social conventions instilled into them from birth, girls regard their career options as more circumscribed than boys do their own. Its aim is to encourage parents, teachers and employers to take schoolgirls aged 11 to 15 into a whole range of workplaces for the day, in order to widen the girls’ employment horizons.

In support of their case, the organisation cited statistics compiled by the Equal Opportunities Commission to the effect that, although women represent 45 percent of the current workforce, they account for less than one-third of managerial and administrative positions; and under 40 percent of professionally-qualified jobs. Over 40 percent of working women have no male colleagues, being employed in female employment ghettos, in what have come to be seen as women's jobs — such as typing and secretarial work, cleaning and catering.

Although this is the first time such a scheme has been attempted in Britain, Taking Our Daughters to Work ran a similar exercise in the USA in 1993, when nearly one million American girls took part. The project was greeted, according to their own literature, with enthusiasm by parents and employers, the media and politicians.

Economic imperative

It is the enthusiasm of employers that is of the greatest significance. No doubt many individual employers, as people, genuinely believe that women should be afforded the same opportunities as their male colleagues. But as managers of profit-making enterprises, they cannot treat the employment of women — or any aspect of Equal Opportunities — in a philanthropic manner. The concept of equal opportunities for women, and any initiative taken to further the concept, must be, and is, examined from the point of view of the gains, or likely costs, for the business in question. This is an economic imperative.

Anyone who doubts that this is so need only consider the question of childcare as an equal opportunities issue. During the mid-1980s — boom years for at least some British industry — considerable gains were made by women’s groups and trades unions campaigning for employer-sponsored childcare facilities. Nurseries sprang up in many areas, subsidised by employers, including those run by government departments and local councils. Employers banded together to run holiday playgroups; or issued childcare vouchers, supplied by a subsidiary company of Luncheon Vouchers Ltd. But in the recessionary 1990s, where the demand for an expanded labour force has gone away in most sectors, many schemes have foundered. Certainly, it is a lot more difficult now for a union to persuade an employer to start any new scheme or to increase its investment in an existing one. Labour is in plentiful supply; there is no longer a pressing business need to attract women, in general, into the workplace, so any benefits to a particular company has very often been outstripped by outlay.

The organisers of Taking Our Daughters to Work have recognised the economic imperative. Knowing that they had to get employer support if their scheme was to get off the ground they argued that "the organisations which recognise the skills potential of women will be the ones that benefit". In fact, they were so anxious to press the economic case for their idea, they fell quickly into the trap of making new stereotypes, to replace the ones that they are try ing to overcome, when they went so far as to say that "research has shown that women . . . are more flexible and adaptable and better at team-working, managing change and networking (than men)".

And it seems that quite a number of organisations have bought the line. Participants in the British scheme in 1994 included the BBC, Body Shop, ICI, the Industrial Society, London Underground and Sainsbury.

Of course, they could easily afford to take part. Although any potential benefits will take a long time to come through, the PR may well be valuable. And the cost of hosting a one-day seminar for a few schoolgirls is minimal. At the same time, a sop is thrown to women’s rights activists; and to those trades unions with a record of campaigning for equal opportunities, usually the white-collar unions and the general unions representing unskilled workers. And it enables businesses to do this without committing them to any further action, such as implementing the terms of the Equal Pay Act.

In 1992, the Equal Opportunities Commission found that women in full-time employment earned 75-79 percent of the average hourly earnings of their male counterparts. Groups like Taking Our Daughters to Work and many others, tend to regard that difference as a matter of discrimination. But it is also helpful, and accurate, to view it as a symptom of the exploitation of working people as a whole.

In any event, attempts to improve the lot of women — as with any attempt to reform capitalism — will meet with no success unless there are sound economic reasons for employers to agree to the particular measure being proposed. To use the childcare example again, a Treasury circular to government departments thinking of making such provision instructs Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives to "ensure that a childcare arrangement returns value for money to (their) organisation". Ways of doing this include "balancing the savings in recruitment and training that result from retention of staff against the cost of providing the childcare arrangement" (Making a Case for Childcare).

Rate of failure

There are those who argue that the pursuit of Equal Opportunities within capitalism is not reformism per se, but will in fact lead to a real and radical shift in attitudes. This view ignores the rate of failure in the pursuit of Equal Opportunities.

The 1970 Equal Pay Act, as amended, makes different treatment of women over remuneration illegal. Yet the Equal Opportunities Commission figures quoted above make it quite clear that this very direct form of discrimination is still prevalent. And of course the campaign for equal pay did not begin in 1970. The Women’s Trade Union League was campaigning for fair treatment on pay, as on other matters, in the early 1900s.

Similarly, in spite of various employment acts, the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act, and the EC Equal Treatment and Equal Pay Directives, a 1994 report of the Office of Science and Technology states that girls accounted for just 22 percent of Physics A-level passes in England and Wales in 1991, 36 percent in Maths and 41 percent in Chemistry. Where women do opt for scientific subjects in Higher Education, the bulk read medicine or a biological science. Those going for other sciences or engineering are still heavily outnumbered by men. And in the engineering industry in 1990, 75 percent of clerical positions were occupied by women, against only 20 percent of administrative and professional posts, and a mere five percent of scientists and technologists jobs (The Rising Tide: A Report on Women in Science, Engineering and Technology, Office of Science and Technology, 1994).

The prime aims of the women’s liberation movement can be identified as a redivision of domestic labour and childcare, an end to the idea of "women’s work", an end to women’s dependence on men, and changes to the ideas relating to gender, sexuality and the family. No socialist can possibly argue with the need to achieve these aims. But — given all that has been said above — it has to be concluded that attempts to reform capitalism so as to achieve them are doomed to failure.

In our Declaration of Principles we state that "the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind without distinction of race or sex". If the Declaration had been written in 1994, instead of 1904, we would have substituted "humanity" for "mankind" but the point remains the same. Men and women are not enemies. The exploiting men and women are the enemies of the exploited men and women. Only in a non-parasitical society, where the profit motive has been abolished, can women and men truly be free — and equal.

Paul Burroughs

Letters: Socialists and Majority Action (1992)

Letters to the Editors from the July 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors.

I read with interest the letter from David Pepper, and your reply, in the May issue. A few questions and comments occurred to me when reading them, so I would like to throw them into the debate if I may.

1. On the question about an attempted reactionary coup, history lends weight to your reply, I think. During the Spanish Civil War of 1936- 1939, many ordinary regular soldiers, and some of their junior officers, chose to defend the elected Republican government, despite the fact that the majority of their most senior commanders were either involved in organizing the coup, or quickly declared for the rebels. And that was despite the lack of a coherent exposition of socialist policies or principles by the motley collection of opportunists who made up the pro-Government coalition—just think what could be achieved with a concerted socialist propaganda effort!

Having said that, the Government was defeated in that conflict. It would be wrong to underestimate the power of the capitalists—they would not need a majority outside of Parliament to create an effective armed force to be used to suppress the socialist movement. Less than 20 percent of the electorate might well suffice.

2. On the subject of the MP/electorate relationship, how would you anticipate making that work? Would you foresee regular constituency conferences, mandating each MP?

3. At present, a party—as we have seen—can form a government which has actually only received a minority of the vote. In that case, the SPGB could quite possibly find itself in the invidious position of holding office having not convinced the majority of the electorate of the need for socialism. Might this not compromise the Party’s efforts to move towards a socialist society, (particularly if the scenario referred to at 1. above arose)? Would the Party use its constitutional powers to alter the electoral system even though that might mean, in the short term, relinquishing office?

4. Equally, under the present system—which the Party would not be in a position to alter until it actually had a majority of MPs in the Commons—each MP is responsible to a constituency. How soon can we say that we could move to a situation where the MP was directed by the members of that constituency rather than by the Party conference, given that many of those electors may not be socialists themselves?

5. Finally, supposing that the SPGB had just won a majority in Parliament (yes, 1 do realize that this is. at present, speculation—verging on fantasy—but I do not think it idle!) and was therefore the only Party capable of forming a government—one particularly knotty problem must be how far can the Party go given that the rest of the world is by no means in the same position? Socialism can only be, as you have rightly said, a worldwide system. I know that you have said before that it is inconceivable that the World Socialist Movement could be so far advanced in one country without some developments having taken place elsewhere. This may be so—but the fact remains that many countries do not currently have a Socialist Party (or indeed any democracy); and even if they did, different electoral practices might well preclude anything like a simultaneous transition. What could the SPGB do in these circumstances?

Paul Burroughs 

Batley, W. Yorks

Reply:

One point must be cleared up right away: we repudiate any idea of a socialist party "holding office" or "forming a government".

The establishment of socialism will not be like a change of government, with the socialist party winning an election, forming a government and using its parliamentary majority to legislate socialism into being.

We do not say to workers "vote for us and we’ll introduce socialism for you". What we say is: "If you want socialism, this is something you will have to do for yourselves; only you can establish socialism, not some party on your behalf".

What we are talking about is not a change of government nor a change to be achieved by a government, but a change in the basis of society—a social revolution, to be carried out by the actions of the immense majority.

Certainly, we advocate that this social revolution should be accomplished by democratic political means; so contesting elections, going into parliaments, etc will be involved, but the mechanics of electoral systems in particular countries are mere technical details. The important element is the socialist consciousness and democratic self-organisation of the working class who, as those excluded from ownership and control of the means of production, are the immense majority.

When the socialist movement has reached the stage your questions presuppose—when it is near to winning control of political power—the socialist political party really will be the majority working class organised politically for socialism. This means that it will be up to the socialist-minded majority itself to decide how to handle the sort of tactical issues you raise as hypothetical problems.

All we can say now is that whatever is decided will be decided democratically, in the light of the fact that socialism cannot be established unless and until a majority want it, and in accordance with the socialist principle that under no circumstances should socialists take on any responsibility for running capitalism.

The change-over to the situation you mention where a person elected for a locality would be the mandated delegate of the people of that locality won’t be able to take place until a classless society has been established. This, along with the procedures and practices it implies—report-back meetings, mandating conferences, referendums, right of recall, rotation of posts, etc— will in fact be the basis of the democratic decision-making structure of the new society.

Editors

Dear Editors,

I once considered joining the SPGB but having read your post “election” coverage I’m very glad I didn’t.

First and most obvious, about 37 percent of the possible electors in Holborn & St Pancras saw fit not to bother to vote. In fact more people didn’t vote than voted for the winner, so your 0.4 percent is reduced to 0.2 percent. Your £500 deposit plus expenses would possibly have been better spent on building “socialism" in those areas where people are so disaffected with the system that they don't bother to vote.

Secondly, I appreciate you will rebuff my first point because you are so totally sold on a “parliamentary road” for socialism. I imagine this is because you take literally what Marx said about capitalism creating the means to its own downfall. You seem to think that parliament was made to do away with capitalism, which would be a laughable slogan if you didn't take it so seriously. If the ruling classes thought that parliament was the means by which their wealth would be confiscated they’d abolish it. They are after all busy reducing the effectiveness of trade unions so workers can’t make “unreasonable” demands on their wealth.

Thirdly, even if it was possible to elect a majority of SPGB MPs into parliament that wouldn’t mean a majority in the country as anybody who knows anything about electoral reform will know. I also find it hard to see the socialist majority telling the MPs “this is what we want” and then the MPs passing some law telling us to do it.

Fourthly, your naivety concerning parliament. If you only got a minority of SPGB MPs I fear it would be nigh on impossible for them not to sell-out. The logic of parliament demands it. No matter how well-meaning they are, they will end up as “good parliamentarians”.

Fifthly, I was somewhat shocked by the apparent tone of your “Socialists and Parliament” letter reply when you talk of “material forces and events”. Do I take it you rub your hands with glee at the prospect of nuclear war or an ecological disaster so you can ride into Parliament on the back of the discontent? Perhaps we shouldn’t be so keen to close nuclear power stations. Imagine the benefits of one blowing up.

The Natural Law Party may appear to be the work of a “crank cult” but the organisation that backs it, the Transcendental Meditation movement, has all the makings of a mind control cult. In fact advertisements for the “teachings” of the cult are banned from many newspapers because of this, doubtless explaining their keenness to expend money on a national election/advertising campaign.

Also, if you so oppose the “nationalism” of Labour’s “the only strings attached to our politics’’ poster, why do you persist in calling yourselves the Socialist Party of Great Britain. To what do you attribute this “greatness”? Even the fascist BNP doesn’t call itself the “Nationalist Party of Great Britain”.

Lastly, in your open letter to the director general of the BBC (they don’t call themselves great either) you say “we leave it to the good sense of the workers whose ancestors fought for the vote . . . ”. Were not those workers listening to the voice of pointless reformism instead of a “socialist" message?

I didn’t join your party. I became an Anarchist.

Tristan Hillman

Huddersfield.

Reply:
There was no need to say you became an anarchist since only an anarchist could dismiss the Chartists’ demand for an extension of the vote to workers as a pointless reform. And hadn't you noticed that we contested the election under the shortened version of our name? Your misconceptions about the Socialist Party riding into power, passing laws telling people what to do, etc are dealt with in our reply to the previous letter.

We don’t want power; we want the majority to take power into their own hands. This in fact is the aim of the socialist revolution: to bring the means of production under the democratic control of all the people. But if this is the case why not organise just to take over the means of production? Why bother to also organise to win control of parliament and the state? This has been the main difference between us and those anarchists (by no means a majority, by a long way) who agree that common ownership can only come about through the majority organising themselves consciously and democratically.

We favour the socialist majority taking electoral action, as well as organising at their places of work, because we see this as the best way for them to ensure that the socialist revolution proceeds as smoothly and peaceably as possible. To try to ignore the state, whose role today is to uphold and protect capitalist property rights, would be a completely irresponsible policy as this would be to increase rather than minimise the risk of violence.

Given the existence of a socialist majority, the sensible way to proceed would be to use the vote to take the control of parliament out of the hands of the supporters of capitalism, so neutralising the state while at the same time giving the socialist revolution an unchallengeable democratic legitimacy.

You say that if the socialist majority sent mandated delegates into parliament these would inevitably sell out. But why? Unless you subscribe to the so-called “iron law of oligarchy" which says that elected representatives will always sell out, you have to explain why the socialist majority would be able to control the delegates it might send to some such extra-parliamentary body as a congress of workplace committees or a conference of neighbourhood councils (or whatever else it is you see as the alternative to parliament) but not those it sent into parliament. We say that, if they can do it in the one case, they can do it in the other too.

Editors

Capitalism - Driving Us To Destruction (1994)

From the October 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

• January 1993, Bradford: van driver killed by runaway lorry. Lorry' owners subsequently fined £4,500 for failing to maintain the vehicle’s brakes.
• September 1993, near Leeds: two killed and five injured by a lorry which crashed through the central reservation of the M62. Lorry owners fined £6,500 for failing to maintain the vehicle’s brakes.
• September 1993, East Yorkshire: a schoolgirl and the driver of a school bus killed when a lorry collided with said bus. Lorry owners face prosecution for failing to maintain vehicle’s brakes.
• September 1993, Sowerby Bridge, West Yorkshire: six people killed by 30-tonne truck. The owners — fined £5,000 for failing to maintain the vehicle’s brakes — have applied for their operator’s license to be renewed. Despite an inquest verdict of unlawful killing, the Crown Prosecution Service have decided that there is insufficient evidence for a corporate manslaughter charge.

Spotted the similarities yet?
For one thing, they are all genuine cases, recently picked up again by the local press because they have either just come to court or are being used by some reformer campaigning for better road safety.

For another, the owners in each case look like getting away with murder. And it looks a lot like said owners have a bit of a thing about not maintaining the brakes on their vehicles.

But take a look at this next lot . . .
• July 1994: Avon & Somerset police conducted spot-checks on coaches travelling on the M5. Of 236 vehicles inspected, 118 had defects. Three — with exhaust and oil-leak problems — were banned from going any further. Thirty-one prosecutions are being considered.
• June 1994: West Yorkshire police spot-checked 98 HGVs on the M62. Sixty percent were defective, with 34 having to be ordered to effect immediate repairs.
• June 1994: police spot-checked 104 vehicles of all types near Halifax. Forty-six had defects.

. . . so it is not just brakes on lorries in Yorkshire in 1993!

According to the Department of Transport (DoT) there were 902 deaths on the roads during the first three months of 1994, as well as over 10,000 serious injuries.

Readers may be tempted to think that lorry, bus and car owners are, by nature, deliberately murderously negligent — that they like nothing better than seeing drivers and innocent bystanders alike killed or maimed. But the truth is that vehicle owners and drivers are not psychopaths — it is profit that is the real culprit here.

Car drivers all too often simply cannot afford to properly maintain their vehicles, or cannot take the time off work to get their cars checked. And cost is a major factor for lorry and coach owners too. At the same time, a lorry or coach which has to be checked and repaired is off the road for a day or more, which means it is not earning money for its owners. Which means that the vehicle is not making a profit for the shareholders of the haulage or passenger transport company.

Road safety campaigners argue that individuals should be held responsible for their vehicles, and prosecuted. But as with all types of reform, this is to try to treat the symptoms, not the root cause. The competition for profit leads to companies cutting comers on safety as surely as night follows day.

The same people also call for stiffer regulations, and more resources for those organisations responsible for enforcing them. But here too the profit motive overrides safety. The Vehicle Inspectorate, an agency with the Department of Transport which is responsible for ensuring the roadworthiness of goods and passenger vehicles, has just announced that it will cut 26 percent of its staff over the next three years. As the examples cited above show, this is certainly not because there is not enough work for it to do. In a Parliamentary answer, the DoT revealed that, of 218,648 HGVs and PSVs inspected throughout the country during 1992/3, 22 percent were found to be defective. It is because the Government ordered the agency (along with other parts of the DoT, including the Marine Safety & Driving Standards agencies) to cut 20 percent off their costs. Why? To help deliver tax cuts. Taxes cut into profit margins, after all.

At the same time, the Government aims to “reduce the burden on business” by ending the practice whereby haulage and passenger transport companies have to renew their operator licences every year (cf. The Deregulation & Contracting-Out Bill, currently wending its way through parliament). And for the same sorts of reasons the Government is dragging its feet over implementing recommendations, made in the wake of the recent M40 minibus crash and similar disasters, that coaches should be fitted with seat belts.

Everybody wants to see an end to the slaughter on our roads. But while pursuit of profit is the primary consideration, drivers will continue to fall asleep at the wheel, coaches will keep travelling at 80 mph in the outside lane, wheels will go on shearing off lorries. Capitalism will continue to kill people.

Paul Burroughs

From Methodism to Marxism (1994)

From the May 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Socialism? Nice idea. But too much like hard work!"

I used to be a Christian, once upon a time. A Methodist, no less, and a preacher to boot.

This is not some kind of confession or personal testimony – we have all had to make some sort of intellectual journey to call ourselves socialists. It is just that I called myself a Methodist – and yet I enjoyed a drink then, as I still do, regularly indulging myself, sometimes to excess.

The time at which John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism, were preaching – the mid-18th century – was one in which there was widespread disquiet among the chattering (and, more importantly, the employing) classes of the day about the effects of the "demon drink" on society. Thus, Methodists were, for many years, encouraged to sign the pledge, and constantly railed against alcohol and those who consumed it. It was a theme that other sects picked up on. including, in the 19th century, the Salvation Army.

But it did not worry me that abstinence was – or had been – one of the central planks of Methodism. Indeed, it did not seem to worry many Methodists of my generation. "Well, we understand that there used to be a point to it." they would say, "but alcohol's OK in moderation, the problem's not the same now!" – ignoring the fact that there are many more alcoholics, and alcohol-related deaths, now than there ever were in the Wesley s' day.

That kind of selectiveness with ideas or creeds is common enough in Methodism, but it is by no means exclusive to it.

Many die-hard cold warriors, and sundry other tinpot armchair militarists, still sit in churches, praying to their god, in spite of the fact that, according to the New Testament, their god had enjoined his followers to "love their enemies" and to "turn the other cheek" when wronged.

The Queen – the richest woman in the world, or thereabouts – apparently has her god to thank for her position. Yet Jesus told his disciples that it was "harder for a rich man to enter through the gates of heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle"; called the love of money the root of all evil; and instructed his disciples to give away all that they owned before they could follow him. (Anyone tempted to think, at this point, of Jesus as some sort of proto-communist would be well advised to remember his injunction to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's").

Various apologists for the exploiters in our society have tried to soften the blow of Jesus' apparent rejection of the rich. I remember reading one "explanation" which argued that the Eye of the Needle was, in fact, a small gate in Jerusalem's city wall; and that while it was difficult for a camel to get through, it was not impossible. But the fact remains that Jesus apparently took the view that one could not serve two masters at once: to serve the interests of one's personal fortune detracted from one's service to, and contemplation of, God.

I spent a lot of time making that kind of point from the pulpit. But in truth I was just as guilty of ignoring inconvenient parts of the doctrine. The Bishop of Durham and I both questioned the literal truth of the biblical miracles, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection. In my case I rejected them completely. I even came to the conclusion that Jesus was not the Son of God – an idea which, while it may not be central to the Gospels, is certainly central to the Nicene Creed, the statement of faith adopted by all the Western Christian churches.

And yet, for quite a time, I still continued to consider myself a Christian.

Most, if not all, Christians down the ages have tended to ignore bits of the creed that did not suit them. To a great extent this is because whole chunks of the Christian bible, at any rate, are contradictory, so a Christian has to decide what kind of Christian he or she is going to be. But also it is, in part, because many people's religious beliefs are inherited, rather than considered. As they get older, if they retain any religious faith at all, it is likely to be in a bastardized, even unorthodox, form.

Socialists, on the other hand, one might expect to be rather clearer about what principles they hold dear. People calling themselves socialists, or Marxists, should have no difficulty in thinking through logically what their credo is.

And yet, ostensibly socialist/Marxist groupings and political parties seem to have real problems with identifying their principles and sticking to them.

The Labour Party, taken as a whole, has never really had any principles, at least none that it was not prepared to sell in exchange for public office. It has long been what it calls a "broad church" of reformists, opportunists, and sundry ideologically-challenged bleeding hearts. As such, it has never really known where it wants to go, or how to get there. For a while, a majority of the party thought that nationalization was the way forward. But it was never clear where that way was supposed to go, whether public ownership was a means to an end or an end in itself. And now in practice, even Clause 4 has been abandoned in a bid to make the policy-less party attractive to voters.

But one thing that the Labour Party has always maintained is that it is a socialist party, albeit that the word has stuck in the throat of some of those party leaders using it. Socialism, in the Labour Party dictionary, is a vague, woolly catch-all word: anyone can be a socialist in the Labour Party. There are no central ideas there to embarrass voters or activists, be they never so egotistical, opportunistic, or venal. Or indeed as rich as Croesus. This non-definition of "socialism" is deliberate. The main objective of the Labour Party is to get elected, not to change society. So the fact that nothing substantive ever gets done to justify the use of the word "socialism" – that the Labour Party has not advanced the cause of the working class one jot, despite several terms of parliamentary office – is viewed as unimportant.

Marx existed

It is, perhaps, possible to view the word "socialism" as a nebulous term that can mean a variety of things. But not the word "Marxism". After all, unlike with Jesus, we can be sure that Marx existed. We know much of what he did and said. And, again unlike Jesus, we have books, letters and articles that we know he wrote himself. So there should be no problem with deciding what may legitimately be termed Marxism, and what may not.

And yet, astoundingly, there are groups, inside and outside the Labour Party, who call themselves Marxist and Trotskyist simultaneously, despite the fact that the two words are a complete contradiction in terms. These include Militant, Socialist Organizer and the SWP, to name but a few.

It does not take a genius to work out that, however Trotsky himself defined his political views, his ideas were fundamentally at odds with those of Marx.

For instance, Marx took the view that the liberation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. The implication of which is that the transition from capitalism to socialism will be, and must be, a democratic process. A good Trotskyist, on the other hand, will say that the revolution will be brought about by a dedicated (for which read "small") band of professional revolutionaries, who will educate the working class to want socialism after it has supposedly been established. Trying to persuade the majority of workers to understand and want and work for socialism, in order that it may – as it must – be established democratically, is impossible in the eyes of the Trotskyist.

Far too difficult, too much like hard work. So the Trotskyist falls into the trap of the "revolutionary vanguard" concept, an apparently easier route to socialism which is, in fact, a cul-de-sac, a route only to dictatorship.

All Trotskyist sects thus fall at the first fence of the route to a Marxian socialist/communist society (and Trotsky distinguished between socialism and communism in a way that Marx never did).

But they also seem to have problems with what it is exactly that they are striving for.

Marx defined socialism as a society wherein wages and money, private property and profit had all been abolished. But I remember talking to a member of Socialist Organizer who scoffed at the Socialist Party's vision of society as pie-in-the-sky idealism, at best only to be seen centuries from now.

The Socialist Party does not, of course, believe that Marx was a god, or a Pope, there to be infallible. He was a man, whose thought developed over the years, and who quite often was wrong. But with others, drawing on earlier ideas and on observation, he came to an understanding of capitalism and its alternative, which is clear and logical – and which, as a whole, the Socialist Party believes to be correct. The Socialist Party, like Marx, holds that a moneyless, propertyless society is feasible and desirable. It also holds that the only way to achieve such a society is democratically, by persuasion. There is no substitute for hard work, for "making socialists".

Marx said that we have a world to win. He never said it would be easy.

Paul Burroughs