Cyprus—A Mediterranean Hotspot (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Cyprus is the healthiest place in the world—for anyone except a policeman. It exports false teeth and fine lace and the seeds from which many an English gardener raises his cauliflowers. It is an island in a state of confused emergency, where the Greeks riot because they want the British occupation to end and the Turks riot because they want it to continue. The British don’t intend to leave, anyway. The island has been a trouble spot for centuries; what is the background to the present disturbances ?

History and Economy

The history of Cyprus is the history of sea-power in the Eastern Mediterranean; the island has always been occupied by a dominant naval power. In 1571 it became part of the Ottoman Empire and this lasted until the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 revived European interest in its strategic position. At the time Russia was penetrating into Asia Minor, and when in 1877 they inflicted a tremendous defeat on the Turks at Adrianople and Armenia, London decided to intervene, (In the music halls they were singing the song which began, “We don't want to fight, but by jingo! if we do. . . .") Turkey accepted Russia’s terms at San Stefano in 1878; at the same time she signed a “Convention of Defensive Alliance” with Great Britain which agreed to British occupation of Cyprus, in return for an undertaking to fight with Turkey against future Russian expansion. On the outbreak of war in 1914 Britain annexed the island by Order in Council, on the grounds that Turkey was then an enemy country. In 1923 Greece and Turkey signed the Treaty of Lausanne, which recognised British possession of Cyprus as part of the territorial balance in the area.

The first Britishers found Cyprus an impoverished land, with backward agricultural methods and suffering from chronic soil erosion. Forests had been ruthlessly destroyed and there were few useful roads, bridges or harbours. As British occupation became established, capital flowed into the island and reafforestation and agricultural development schemes were started. The copper mines (reputed to be the first in the world, but neglected since the Romans left) were reopened. By 1928 the Cypriot population was twice as large as in 1878 and everything was controlled by a police force and legal system similar to the British patterns

The Cypriot economy remains based on its agriculture, which absorbs over half the working population. Mineral production is of great importance, and there is a little minor industry, producing buttons, hand-made shoes, and the like. Most of the exports go to West Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy, in that order; the United Kingdom supply the bulk of the island's imports. The death rate in Cyprus is among the world’s lowest—at 6.3 per 1,000, lower than the U.S.A. and Great Britain. Although it was once called one of the most malarious places in the world, Cyprus has not had a single case of the disease since 1949. At the moment there is virtually no unemployment on the island (unless EOKA can be said to be out of work!), but this could easily change, for 60 per cent. of the exports are made up of minerals, at prices at the mercy of world trading conditions.

EOKA, the Greeks and the Church

EOKA (the letters stand for the Greek words meaning National Organisation of Cypriot Combatants), emphasises the campaign for enosis (union of Cyprus with Greece) by acts of killing and sabotage. At its head is Colonel George Grivas, a romantically 'moustached character who once led the KHI. This undercover royalist movement was held responsible for many murders in the 1946-47 disturbances in Greece.

The EOKA guerrilla hide-out in the Troodos mountains, coming down into the towns to kill selected persons, or to toss a bomb (as many as 20 a day have been known recently). The organisation has been active for about three years, killing over 100 and wounding over 350 British people. For the past year or so things have been quieter until the recent bomb incidents. Now EOKA are threatening another campaign unless the Cyprus question is settled quickly. General Kendrew, who once captained the England Rugby team and who now commands the British security forces, has promised that if EOKA starts up again they will get treatment which will make the Harding regime seem "mild and benevolent" by comparison.

The idea of enosis is not new. The first British Governor in 1878 was greeted by the Bishop of Kition with the hope that “. . .  Great Britain will help Cyprus . . . to be united with Mother Greece. . . ." In 1931 there were violent demonstrations in favour of enosis, after which 10 Cypriots, including two bishops, were exiled and the island's Legislative Council suspended. This upset may have been aggravated by the extreme conditions which Cyprus was experiencing in the world slump, but it is difficult to find any similar reason to explain the enosis movement to-day. As we have seen, most of the colony's trade is with Europe, and certainly Greece, with her low standard of living, infantile trade union movement and lack of political freedom should offer little to attract a thoughtful Cypriot. If the emigration figures are a guide, few Cypriots are attracted to Greece. 6,441 Cypriots left the island in 1956; 5,233 of these came to the United Kingdom and 730 went to Australia. Between 1952 and 1955 only 15 Cypriots went to Greece. The principal force behind the enosis movement stems from the fact that 80 per cent. of Cypriots are of Greek origin and are easily misled into supporting the Greek effort in her age-long struggle with Turkey over the territorial carve-up of Asia Minor. The Cypriot Communists also support enosis, even though their counterparts in Greece have been very roughly treated and General Grivas is their fanatical opponent.

The Greek Orthodox Church is a substantial landowner in Cyprus and a powerful supporter of union with Greece. The Church's political influence began with the Turkish occupation, when leaders of the Church were granted the Sultan's commission to collect taxes and to keep an eye on the not always submissive local officers of the Ottoman Empire. These leaders became associated with the illegal anti-Turkish movement; when the Greek War of Independence broke out in 1821 nine of them were publicly hanged and several more beheaded. The British put an end to the tax gathering, but the Church was unwilling to abandon all its temporal activities; it therefore devoted itself to political affairs and, as tradition foretold, gave support to the enosis movement. Now that the movement has gathered its own momentum, the Church dare not drop its support, for fear of losing influence to laymen. Because of their attitude, Archbishop Makarios and the Bishop of Kyrenia were deported to the Seychelles Islands in March of 1956. A year later they were released and allowed to go anywhere except Cyprus.

The Turks

As the Greeks rang their bells to celebrate Makarios’ release, and as Lord Salisbury left the British Government in disgust, so Turkish Cypriots sent a protesting telegram to the Prime Minister of Turkey. What are the Turkish interests in Cyprus ?

Although Russian penetration may present a greater threat, the Turkish Government must still worry about the long struggle with Greece. It remembers the attack of 1922, when the Greeks almost reached Ankara, but were thrown back upon Smyrna, where Kemal Attaturk massacred them with indescribable bestiality. They cannot forget that Cyprus is only 40 miles from the Turkish mainland and commands the approaches to the important ports of Mersin and Iskenderum. They look on a Greek Cyprus as an intolerable threat.

Yet a Turkish Cyprus is out of the question, for the Turks make up only 18 per cent, of the island's population. So Ankara is in favour of British occupation of Cyprus and supports British power in the Middle East, as a check on Greek ambitions. No Cyprus question, therefore, existed for Turkey, until recently they sensed a change in British policy. Then the Turks began to kick over the traces. Only after protest did they make the “final sacrifice" of accepting the idea of partitioning Cyprus. Now, convinced that London is preparing to betray them, they have started rioting, complete with killings and demonstrating schoolchildren. They have called for the dismissal of the liberal" governor. Sir Hugh Foot and the return of the "tough" General Harding. There is a Turkish Resistance Movement which has declared itself “on the verge" of starting its (ominous words) "struggle for freedom.” The Turks have shown that they can be as violent as the Greeks.

British Interests

In all this confusion of interests, the policy of the British Government remains firm to the point of stagnation. Gone are the days of 1915, when the Greeks were offered Cyprus in exchange for support of Serbia against Bulgaria (Athens declined). Every proposal made by the British Government in recent years, including those of the Radcliffe enquiry in late 1956, have clearly presupposed the continuation of British occupation of Cyprus.

Why is Whitehall so adamant ? The 1956 Colonial Office report on Cyprus stated that ". . . Her Majesty's Government formally recognised the principle of self-determination, but considered its application not to be a practical proposition at the present time on account of the existing situation in the Eastern Mediterranean." That is the clue to it. Great Britain was once the dominant power of the Middle East. Now, with the oil discoveries throwing up nationalist Governments, British influence has been squeezed out of one country after another. Apart from her own interest in the oilfields, Britain has a number of strategic obligations to protect the sheikdoms on the Persian Gulf against attack by their neighbours (the most powerful of these is the American-influenced Saudi Arabia). Cyprus, the one remaining toehold in the area, is vital to this conception of British interests, as a convenient springboard from which the Persian Gulf can be reinforced.

Great Britain also has commitments to the Bagdad Pact, which joins Pakistan, Persia, Iraq and Turkey in a defensive alliance with the classical aim of preventing Russian penetration of the Middle East Cyprus—1½ hours’ flying time from Bagdad—is important to British participation in the pact. So the British stay in Cyprus and, for fear of being voted out of the island, will not, allow the Cypriots to express their preference on enosis. To put the matter into sharper perspective we should remember that the bloodshed in Cyprus is small beer compared to that in, say, Algeria. And Greece is not the only small country with imperialist designs; the Yemen, Spain, Guatemala and Mexico are others.

Tragedy

There are people (they often call themselves Socialists) who like to think that the Cyprus struggle is a special sort of regrettable tragedy. They thought the same about Kenya and Malaya, and before that of Ireland. The ignorance and don’t care attitude, which never tries to find out the reason for these problems—that is the real tragedy, in Cyprus and England and over all the world.

Ivan.

May Day and the Class Struggle (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day demonstrations used to be held on the 1st of May: how they came to be changed to the first Sunday in May is one of life’s little ironies, or should we say one of working class life’s little ironies?

It happened during the first World War when the British and German sections of the working class were killing each other. Then the British Government suggested that in the interests of winning the war it would be greatly obliged if the Labour Party, who were also "winning the war” as well as organising May Day, would hold it on the first Sunday in May. To hold it on a week day would mean thousands of workers might be absent from munition factories and that would mean a drop in war production and what was more vital it would mean a drop in the rate at which the British uniformed workers were killing their German comrades.

It always rains on Sunday

After the first World War the Labour Party, presumably on the grounds that a week day demonstration would affect “peace production,” continued to hold May Day demonstrations on the first Sunday in May. There were also “influential people” who thought that if workers wanted to demonstrate they should demonstrate in their own time and not on a day normally devoted to the bosses. And further, as it could be shown statistically that the first May Sabbath was a case—”That it always rains on Sunday" — or nearly always, and so was likely to dampen the demonstrators’ ardour, everybody that is everybody apart from the workers seems to have reached a happy May Day solution.

The First of the May Days

There are, of course, four May Days historically considered. Two in the past, one in the present, and a hypothetical one in the future. May Days go back a long way, even the Greeks had a word for it, or more accurately a day for it. So did the Romans, Mais was a month of celebration, games and feasting a time when even austere Romans like Julius Caesar and Mark Antony took their hair down.

In Feudal England it was a day of celebration for the return of spring. On that day our forbears consumed quantities of cake and ale and made whoopee. It was sort of “Knees up Mother Brown” of the Middle Ages, and when the warmth of the day had subsided the young men full of cake and ale picked up the young women, also full of cake and ale, and bore them off into the woods, and a new warmth entered into the proceedings. It is even said, and I hope that I do our forbears no injustice that the girls entered the woods as immature maidens and came out of the woods experienced women. It seems that our working forefathers had more definite ideas about May Day than their modern counterparts.

Exit file First May Day

But Feudalism went and those sorts of May Days went with it—as a result of economic development a new class was emerging who were displacing the old Feudal order, a class of merchants and merchant adventurers who burst asunder the dosed Feudal economy and opened up the world. And what with piracy and plunder and the slave trade and colonisation they were so busy amassing vast wealth that they had little time for anything else, least of all for such things as May Days.

But the peasants and draftsmen of England not only lost their May Days, but their immemorial rights. The Land Enclosure increased in severity—as the 17th and 18th centuries went by a vast mass of peasants became landless and in some cases homeless. At the same time economic development led to a bitter, competitive struggle between the old craft guilds and the new merchant class and in the end the guilds went down in ruins before the impact of a new and superior method of wealth production and organisation.

Thus at the end of the 18th century and the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, a landless, unprivileged and unorganised mass were hungry to enter the new factories built by the new factory owners, i.e. the new ruling class which had emerged from this process of economic development. And these new factory owners equally hungry from the standpoint of profits to receive them into their factories. It was this uncouth, unorganised mass who were the nucleus and origin of the modern working class, yet an unorganised mass who were to become organised by the very process of production. And as the weight of misery and oppression bore more heavily upon their shoulders they were involved in the riots and machine breaking and other acts of violence. From this class struggle between owners and non-owners, the workers began to throw up their own class organs of defence, which later emerged as the modern Trade Union Movement. 

The Second May Day

It was out of this class struggle that the idea of a second May Day emerged. Not a May Day merely symbolical of a resurgence of nature, but of labour carrying a promise of a new life. The idea was mooted in France, Germany and England during the 19th century for by this time capitalism had become international and the working class had become international also, and it was felt by groups of workers in different lands that as they had common interests they should also have common aims.

Yet it was not until 1888 that the 2nd International set aside the first day of May to be a day symbolical of international working class solidarity, with an advocacy of the eight-hour day. The first May Day Demonstration was in 1890. On that and subsequent May Days, Negroes, Indians, Chinamen, Germans, Frenchmen, marched in the name of the International working class in different parts of the world, transcending their national boundaries.

In England on May Day, workers marched in various towns and cities and often many of their women marched with them. They marched to the open spaces and parks and those who lived by the sweat of their brow gathered round coal carts and platforms to listen to those who lived or were later to live by the sweat of their tongues. 

Workers of the World unite

It was the high tide of working class international feeling. A time when Marx's slogan, “workers of the world unite” seemed to have more significance than ever before—or since. These workers were not Socialists; perhaps the nearest they got to Socialism was a passionate conviction to remould things nearer to the heart's desire, but they felt a common purpose in face of a common enemy. But this promised spring-time of the working class movement never flowered. The early blush on its cheek, faded before the long, hard winter of growing national sentiment and reformism.

By the turn of the 20th century a change had come o'er the spirit of the dream. The workers still marched, they still gathered round the same coal carts and still listened to the same old speakers. But the old speakers were now saying new things. No longer did they cry, down with the powers that be, for they were trying to start a political movement with the help of the trade unions which hoped to become part of the powers that be and in fact did become part of them—eventually what is more, some of the old agitators and speakers who boasted of their lowly origins successfully took part in that process. So successfully that in their ripe, or rotten ripe old age they recorded their success by writing books like “From Doss House to Debrett" or “From Pigstyle to Parliament," a perhaps not unnatural evolution.

Excelsior!

And so the Labour movement began to carry banners bearing strange signs. There were some in it demanding votes for women. Demands for the nationalisation of the Railways and Mines. Munidpalisation of gas, water and later electricity. The fact that these things came about has little to do with the early demands of the Labour Movement, but for other reasons. There was even a demand for the building of Labour Exchanges.

These things were now represented as being steps towards what was then termed the Millenium. The only trouble was that the more steps they took towards the Millenium the further it got away. In fact, they took so many steps towards it that it finally disappeared altogether and has never been seen since.

Freedom for Everybody

At the beginning of the 20th century there appeared the first of the Freedoms. Big banners proclaimed: "Freedom for the Boers." In due course the Boers got their freedom, but like so many such freedoms it turned out to be the freedom of the few to deny any sort of freedom to anybody else. Then there were demands for freedom for the Poles, freedom for the Slavs, etc., in fact, the only thing the workers never demanded was freedom for themselves, freedom from the servility of class domination.

Then the Labour Movement got mixed up with international politics, but international capitalist politics not international working class politics. They began by declaiming against "secret diplomacy." Then the Entente Cordiale. They demanded "No trafficking with Russia” against "The Big Navy Bill,” "Abolition of the Territorial Army,” etc.

So the Labour Movement, and with it May Days, instead of being the sounding board of international working class sentiment, became a big drum for national rivalries and conflicting foreign politics. A sort of Empire Day in reverse, but much more effective in compounding, confounding, complicating and obfuscating the pattern of working class politics.

After the war, with the advent of the communists in May Day demonstrations and other activities, British Foreign Policy got mixed up with Soviet Foreign Policy and things got in a glorious muddle. Then the communists started the "Hands off Movement" " Hands off China," "Hands off Spain," "Hands off Czechoslovakia," etc., although this did not prevent violent hands from being laid on all of these countries. Then there was the great down and up phase: "Down with Bonar Law," "Down with Baldwin,” "Up with Ramsay Mac and Snowden. “Down with Ramsay Mac and Snowden,” "Up with Cook and Maxton," "Down with Cook and Maxton,” "Down with Churchill," " Up with Churchill," then "Down with Churchill ”—ad infinitum.

Down with Fascism

Then in the years prior to the second world war there was “Down with Fascism" and a demand for a democratic military alliance against Hitler—Russia was then part of the " democratic alliance.” To show how May Days were only consistent in their inconsistency there were at the same time demands for drastic disarmament by the Tory government and devoting the savings to road making and increased doles. There were even demands that future wars should be conducted minus bombers and tanks. Although in demonstrations during the second world war unlimited quantities of both for the Second Front were the subject of slogans.

Now there are no longer cries, such as “ Down with capitalism—" Down with war." Nor even that tanks and aeroplanes should not be used in war. Only the Hydrogen Bomb should be taken off the war list so that war might once again become humane, decent and friendly. Such then has been the rise and fall of the second May Day.

May Day in Russia

One cannot, of course, omit May Day in Russia. No doubt the communists' dialectic skill has more than anywhere else turned May Day into its opposite. The communist boast that Soviet May Days are bigger and better than anywhere else. Unlike any other government they have made them state subsidised ceremonies, replete with the panoply and pomp of circumstance. As a show they probably make even a coronation look like a seaside carnival. All the great ones in Russia occupy the seats of the mighty on this day—symbolical of international working class solidarity. In Czarist times the police and military marched with the workers, but they were only with them, not of them. Now under the formulae of the unity of opposites they are included.

Tanks and jet bombers are also thrown in to show that communist war weapons can kill quicker and faster than bourgeois ones, thus demonstrating the superiority of "Socialism" over capitalism. And perhaps if Engels could have seen these Soviet May Days he might have thought that his aphorism—"the irony of history turns everything upside down," was an historic understatement.

To draw an historic parallel, one might think of the British Government in the 19th century organising the workers' May Day. Of thousands of workers with banners headed by old Queen Victoria in the gilded state coach and as they wheeled into the park massed bands of the guard playing with a row tow row tow to the British Grenadiers. And Gladstone, Disraeli and choice spirits from the House of Lords standing on coal carts with faces grimed for the occasion, proclaiming "Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your brains." Only the communists could turn such a May Day fantasy, into a Russian May Day nightmare.

No doubt in turning back the pages of May Day demonstrations we might laugh at our Victorian working class grandfathers. We tend to laugh at many things in the past especially the Victorian past if only perhaps to prevent us from laughing at ourselves, because that might not be so funny. Whether if they could' see across the years to the present May Day demonstrations they would "look forward in anger” one cannot say. But one feels whatever they did they wouldn’t laugh at us but blush for us instead.

May Days of To-morrow

It might be that when the clock of history has gone forward by establishing a rational society we might so far as May Day is concerned put the clock back and make it once more a day of celebration and merry making. Then there will be no need to demonstrate. No need to cry “Down with secret diplomacy,” because there will be neither secrets nor diplomacy. Nor to call for disarmament, because there will be no need to arm or disarm Neither shall we organise for the abolition of the Hydrogen Bomb because it, or a miniature specimen of it, will have been relegated to the museum of pre-human history. Men will at last have become truly human, and in the light of that development I will conclude by saying—MAY DAY IS DEAD—LONG LIVE MAY DAY.

Ted Wilmott.

Blogger's Notes:

"Yet it was not until 1888 that the 2nd International set aside the first day of May . . . " This might be a typo. The 2nd International wasn't formally launched until 1889.

The May 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard carries a notice for a May Day meeting, entitled "The Class Struggle and May Day", to be held at Denison House, 296 Vauxhall Bridge Road, London. The speakers listed were Lisa Bryan and Ted Wilmott. There's a strong chance that this article by Wilmott is the text of his speech at that meeting.

Correspondence: Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising? (1958)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising?

A reader, Mr. H. G. Beales (Northfleet), writes suggesting that our Declaration of Principles would be more attractive if re-worded. He writes

“May I, as a looker-on, offer you a few humble suggestions ? It does seem to me that you have a case that should run through this country like fire; it only needs to be stated in more up-to-date language; all this talk about the Master Class is a trifle obsolete. 1 enclose a few suggested improvements for your declaration of principles."

Proposed Declaration of Principles

(1)

“That Society, as at present constituted, is based upon the ownership of Money, and the acquisition of Money. This state of Society has succeeded in making Man the most vicious and selfishly cruel animal this world has ever known. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence where Mankind is going, if he persists in this way of life.

(2)

"No one can dispute that this could be a really wonderful world to live in. Nature always produces in abundance if given the right kind of encouragement. Not only has the present system of Society debased and brutalised human nature, it also persistently shortens and brutalises his physical life on this earth. The latest scientific opinion is that man's body is constructed to last 150 years in health. Think what this means.

(3)

“Your Hospitals are chock-a-block with sick people. Your mental institutions are not big enough to cope with all the mentally sick. All this is directly due to the present system of Society. It is always Money first and Humanity a very had second. The existing law says every man for himself, which is the law of the jungle, and quite obsolete in this age.

(4)

“In a state of plenty the present state of Society would collapse, hence the great fight being waged by the powers-that-be against a state of plenty. The present system could not exist in a state of plenty, and its managers are only interested in making the Money system work, which, as you see, is the cause of all our troubles.

(5)

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain proposes to bring about a really sane system of Society, based on discipline and decency, by educating the people, politically, morally and spiritually with this object in view. We therefore appeal to everyone agreeing with the above principles, of any creed, sex, or colour, to join us and save Mankind from catastrophe, and make his sojourn here really worth while, and of which he may be rightfully proud."

Reply

(1) Our correspondent's first point concerns the choice of words. There is little doubt that if the Declaration of Principles had been drawn up in 1954 instead of in 1904 some phrases would have been differently worded, simply because some words have gone out of use and others have come into use. Some different words would have been used, but to express exactly the same principles. To make a change now would have some advantage, no doubt, but against it would be the disadvantage that some people would assume that a different meaning was intended and time would be taken up explaining that there had been no change in meaning. This idea has been considered, but the Party has decided against the change of wording.

If all that holds back the swift acceptance of our Declaration of Principles in the year 1958 is that some of its wording smacks of the language of 1904 why did it not sweep the country in 1904 ? The reason, we hold, lies in the fact that the ideas embodied in the Declaration were not readily acceptable and would not have been readily acceptable no matter what words were used to clothe them.

(2) Our correspondent mentions the term “master class,” which, he holds, is a trifle obsolete. We assume that he means that a different name should be used for the capitalist class. It is quite true that most workers to-day do not use the term master class, or the term capitalist class; neither did they in 1904. But there is more in this than a name. Most workers, then as now. had not realised that they live in a class-divided society, it is a conception that has to be explained to them, for the capitalist class has not undergone anything more than superficial changes. They still own, and still, directly or through their agents, control the means of production and distribution.

(3) Our correspondent, however, wants us to drop the reference to means of production and distribution and use instead the words "money” and "the acquisition of money.” To this there are two main objections. The first is that it is not accurate. The basis on which capitalism rests is not money, but the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution, the land, factories, railways, etc.

The second is that it would easily be misunderstood by those who believe that the evils of capitalism could be removed by changes in the monetary system, for example, the advocates of complete governmental ownership of the banks, the advocates of inflation and their opposites, the advocates of "sound money,” i.e., a circulating gold currency in places of notes.

(4) And this brings us to the fact that, in addition to changing the words, our correspondent has removed the clauses of the Declaration dealing with the need to gain control of the machinery of government in order that Socialism shall be established. This is a fatal defect in itself but it also overlooks the fact that a political party has to have a basis on which members are admitted. The basis of membership of the S.P.G.B. is its Declaration of Principles. If the revised form suggested by our correspondent replaced the existing form, admission to membership would cease to be dependent on the old Declaration and would rest on the new. This would open the Party to people who do not accept the need to gain control of the machinery of government, and to people who wanted only that the monetary system be amended, or replaced by barter, and to many others who, in fact, do not accept the Socialist case.

Editorial Committee.

The Church of England today (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to the survey of social life and activities made in Derby by T. Cauter and J. S. Downham (The Communication of Ideas, 1954), about three million people in Britain are nominally members of the Church of England. Nearly as many are Roman Catholics, and a little under two millions belong on paper to the major free churches—Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist and Presbyterian. If a million and a half are added for the Welsh and Scottish churches, plus half a million Jews and perhaps another half-million for all the sects and queeriosities, you have a total of about ten million people in Britain who claim (or are claimed as having) adherence to religious bodies. That is, one person in four: so that three-fourths of the population belong to no religion at all

Few people will admit to having no religion, however: in the Derby survey, only 2 per cent. Most people, asked the question, put themselves down as C. of E., even though, to quote Cauter and Downham. “for half or even two-thirds of the people church-going is so occasional an occurrence as to play an almost insignificant part in their daily life.” In fact, the membership figures themselves mean very little. Archdeacon Mayfield’s The Church of England (Oxford, 1958) estimates "just over two millions who as Easter communicants may be reckoned as the hard core of Church membership.”

About 65 per cent, of the population are baptized in the Church of England and 26 per cent, are confirmed, usually in adolescence. It is worth remembering that only in relatively recent years has church attendance been entirely voluntary. In the nineteenth century it was common for farm workers and domestics to have to attend church as a condition of employment, and in town and country there were all kinds of economic and social pressures. The nearest thing to formal adult membership today is enrolment in the parish electorate, and these rolls show a steady decline since the first world war.

The Church of England is the "established” church: that is, the State recognizes the laws of the Church and incorporates them into the national laws. Thus, the Sovereign must be a member of the Church of England, and the two archbishops and twenty-four diocesan bishops have privileged places in the House of Lords. The Church conducts all national religious observances, and is the official religious body in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces; certain academic posts in universities can be held only by Church of England clergy. The State appoints archbishops and bishops, and the measures of the Church Assembly—including the contents of the Prayer Book—must be sanctioned by Parliament.

The Church has two legislative systems. The first, the Convocations of Canterbury and York, is concerned with creed and faith. The other, the Church Assembly, is the central administrative and financial body. In addition, there are the Church Commissioners, whose task is to execute the business side of Church affairs. Their gross income in 1955 was £10 529,490 from investments and property. In recent years it has become their policy to replace gilt-edged investments with investment in commercial and industrial securities, to obtain a greater yield: an analysis of these investments is given in The Church Commissioners: A Short Review of Their Work (1955). The income from property in 1955 was £3.339.673, with outgoings of £744,926. The property includes over 1,000 farms and 50,000 buildings and, again, the Commissioners' aim now is to buy up—to quote Mayfield—"the best type of property investment, both agricultural and urban."

Most of the clergy's stipends are paid by the Church Commissioners, the remainder coming from "Easter offerings," fees for burials, marriages, and so on. Until 1936 tithes were a source of income in about 7,000 parishes, but the Tithe Act of that year took this away and gave instead £70,000,000 of government stock. A parson's minimum stipend today is £550-600 a year, plus a house free of rates and dilapidations. The minimum for a diocesan bishop is £2,500 a year, plus residence, plus such out-of-pocket expenses as secretary, chauffeur, postage, travel and the costs of hospitality. The numbers of the clergy have fallen and are still falling. In 1901, with a population of 32 millions, there were over 22,000 clergymen; today, there are 16,000 of them among 44 millions, and their average age has risen to 50.

The Church of England is a vast organization: what part does it play in the structure of capitalism in Britain? All religions serve the interests of ruling classes, and an established or State church is one which has frankly contracted to do that. The Church of England was the product of the sixteenth-century Reformation, fathered by new and emergent interests which needed a Catholic—i.e., universal—church, but must throw off the incubus of Rome. There was not only the question of the Catholic Church's ownership of land; there was the need for recognition of the new learning as against Papal fundamentalism, and the growing national consciousness on which, again, the claims of Rome were oppressive.

The Reformation, in fact, only developed the idea of establishment which had been implicit in the relations of Church and secular rulers all through feudal times. Even the modern Free Churches are by no means free in this respect, being regulated by trust deeds and special Parliamentary statutes. For the truth is that, even though religion is "the sigh of the hard-pressed creature," without the support of the ruling class religion as we know it would have very little influence in society. And conversely, of course, the ruling class needs the great religions to promulgate and make sacred principles of capitalist ideals.

The major social function of the Church of England is this: to explicitize and lay down the body of morality that is held to govern personal behaviour and social relationships in our world. Thus, the Church's teachings concerning marriage, which have caused much argument in recent years, are simply the doctrine of the ideal monogamous family in property-based society. Indeed, the division of opinion about this within the Church itself reflects clearly the disintegration of that family and the consequent search for a modified morality suited to changed circumstances. 

Because the Church hold this position as the apparent arbiter of morality and conduct, the pronouncements of the archbishops and the Convocations do attract attention and carry weight The effect of an archepiscopal statement on, for example, the hydrogen bomb, is to lay down a line of "Christian" judgement of the issue; that is, to give moral sanction to what the ruling interest requires. And even the opinions of the small-fry clergy, often as ignorant and foolish as can be, are supported by the prestige of the Church of England (during two world wars, some of the most bloodthirsty incitements to "wipe Germany off the map ” came from civilian clergymen).

It is all too easy to close one's eyes and say it doesn't matter because, after all, religion is dying out Though religious observances have fallen off perceptibly, the Church of England has regrouped its forces in recent years. No longer able to preach the property gospel to enough people in church, it has made its aim to penetrate the various spheres of national life instead. It has, for example, secured a firm foothold in radio and television. The B.B.C.'s Annual Report and Accounts for 1951-52 showed 3 per cent. of the total broadcasting time—about eight hours a week—given to religious matter, and estimated that "about one-third of the total adult population heard at least one religious broadcast" on Sundays: Cauter and Downham's survey also found that the majority of people listen to religious services on the radio.

There has been considerable extension of Church influence in education under the 1944 Education Act: a development "undreamed of only twenty-five years ago,” says Mayfield, which has "broadened the Church's constituency in the national life.” Other movements include the Industrial Christian Fellowship, an attempt (scarcely successful so far) to obtain a footing in factories and the trade unions, and towards ends like this it has increasingly joined forces with other churches and denominations, as in the "Christian Crusader" campaign of 1947. In 1923 talks with the Catholic Church were initiated with a view to some rapprochement, but they quickly broke down; today, the Church of England is pressed into extra militancy by the Catholics' campaign to gain converts who would be most likely to come from the Anglican ranks.

The appeal of the Church of England has always been to the "middle class"—that is, to the section of the working class which, through real or imagined (and always slight) superior status, sees itself as having an interest in this capitalist society. Its hold upon people as actual churchgoers has been weakened by social developments (including the gradual spread of knowledge, and including also the emergence of other opiates): it has, however, largely compensated for this by pushing farther forward in schools, in the mass communication media, and everywhere else it can.

In the hands of the established church, the supernatural is a tool in the teaching of submissiveness and acquiescence before the interests of the owning class. Its growth and identification with the capitalist State; its teaching of reverence for property (itself a great property-owner) and all the institutions of property society; its support and blessing for every war for capitalism (prayers for victory for the British ruling class)—all make clear where the Church of England stands.

It stands, that is, four-square against the working class.

Robert Barltrop

Recession in the United States and Canada (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The United States is at present in the throes of the worst period of industrial stagnation it has experienced since the 1930s. And Canada, as number one U.S. satellite, with an economy closely interwoven with that of the U.S., fares no better. The seriousness of the situation may be indicated by the figures for unemployment, which in March reached 5,198,000 in the U.S., and 590,000 in Canada.

Political, business and other leaders in both countries respond to the condition m the same shallow manner.

When the existence of the “recession” was officially recognised some months ago, U.S. President Eisenhower proposed to deal with it by substantial tax reductions, which, he said, would increase purchasing power deplete, surpluses and start the wheels of industry turning again. Mr. Pearson, Canada’s Liberal leader, also advanced this thought in the last election campaign. The proposal has not yet been put into operation, perhaps because Mr. Eisenhower forgot about it and Mr. Pearson failed to become Prime Minister.

At present Mr. Eisenhower is lending his support to “operation optimism." Lack of confidence is now blamed for the recession and this confidence must be restored. People must in some way be encouraged to buy goods, even to the point of extravagance, they must, in Mr. Eisenhower’s words, be urged to “buy anything.”

Following this line of reasoning, U.S. capitalists are doing their best to propagandise themselves back to prosperity. The Advertising Council, a top advertising group, has started a four-month “confidence in a growing America” campaign, intended to improve the “economic attitudes” of consumers. Auto dealers in 110 cities have started sales drives featuring the slogan, “You Auto Buy Now.” It is expected that this campaign will spread to 200 more cities. Cleveland has started a “Buy Now” campaign, with a “V for Values” theme and a “Miss Prosperity.” Boston is planning a POPS (“Power of Positive Selling ”) drive to “combat loose recession talk.” In New York a “National Sales Crusade” is being launched. Some business men are wearing embroidered pocket handkerchiefs proclaiming “Business is GREAT.” An appliance concern has issued large lapel buttons saying “Business is Good.” The Public Relations Society of America has asked its members to send all optimistic news they can about their companies to a central clearing house for national distribution.

If empty prattle is an effective weapon against hard times, there is enough of it circulating at present in the U.S. to take care of all eventualities.

Canadians are not able to chase banshees with the same vigour and versatility as their American cousins, but they do have the same tendency to deliver sledgehammer blows at everything except the nail. Prime Minister Diefenbaker thought a while ago that diverting trade from the U.S. to Britain would help. Now he insists that he was misunderstood. Throughout the winter a Government-sponsored campaign to “Do It Now” was carried on. Billboards, radio, television newspapers, all were used to urge those who needed jobs done to have them done at once. More recently the trade union movement has been taking up Mr. Eisenhower's proposal of lower taxes. Claude Jodoin, Canadian Labour Congress president, at the recent CLC Convention, dealt at some length on this theme, seeing in lower taxes a billion extra dollars being put into the pockets of the consumers, “particularly the poorer consumers.”

Meanwhile the employing class, despite their playfulness, are not passing up a favourable opportunity to look after themselves. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that the income of Canadian labour in the one-month period from December to January had declined 4.5 per cent., and hourly wages in manufacturing declined from $1.65 on January 1st to $1.64 on February 1st. The decline between December and January can be attributed mainly to increasing unemployment, but that cannot be said of the later decline.

Mr. Jodoin and the trade unions should take a long look at these figures and then start grooming themselves for some independent working class activity.

What they ought not to be doing is looking to their masters for sensible or helpful suggestions.

Jim Milne,

(Socialist Party of Canada).

Party News Briefs (1958)

Party News from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day, 1958. Party activities in London, Glasgow and Nottingham had the best results for many years and it is most heartening. The weather was good, which is a helpful factor, but even with weather in our favour, it is essential that members should organise to get te best results. This they did, and although full details have not been collected, we do know that thirty-five members in Hyde Park sold at least 200 Socialist Standards and ten shillings' worth of pamphlets. An evening meeting at Denison House was also successful, but full details are not yet to hand. Nottingham. Members from London added to the efforts of the local members and held most successful meetings; literature sales amounted to nearly £3. Glasgow. Comrade D’Arcy, from London, joined forces with the Glasgow members, and outdoor meetings and one indoor meeting resulted in the sale of over £4 worth of literature, and collections amounted to £7 10s. 0d. At all the meetings the audiences were attentive and asked good questions.

Wickford. Branch reports that successful sales of the Socialist Standard have resulted from the Branch members canvassing in the Basildon New Town area of Essex.

Glasgow’s May Day Meeting. Glasgow City and Kelvingrove Branches turned up in full strength at Queens Park Recreation Grounds for their afternoon meeting. Twenty-one members sold nearly £4 worth of Socialist literature while Comrade James D'Arcy addressed an appreciative audience of two hundred, in opposition to the Glasgow Trades Council, whose representative, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell—addressing a somewhat thicker audience—explained how the Tory Party were to blame for the impoverished condition of the British working class.

The Party's May Day venture was well organised and the opening shots were fired when six members distributed 1,500 leaflets, from door to door, advertising the Sunday evening meeting. Later, in the wee small hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings, the streets of Glasgow received a face-lift of whitewash in the shape of adverts for the meetings. In the evening the finishing touches were put to the May Day campaign when Comrades Higgins, Richmond and D'Arcy put the Socialist case to seventy enthusiastic members of the working class assembled in the St Andrew's Halls.

The total collections and donations from both meetings more than covered all expenses. Full details of the literature sales are not yet to hand, but it is expected these will be better than they have been for many years.

During the afternoon, while our members were swarming over the Queens Park selling Standards, some members took the opportunity to expose to a small group of workers the anti-working class activities of the Communist Party. A few members of the Paisley Branch of the Communist Party were so incensed by the Socialist analysis that they rashly challenged the S.P.G.B. to debate and, needless to say, their challenge was accepted. We are writing to the Paisley Branch and can only hope that the “Foreign Office” of the U.S.S.R. will come out of their funk-holes long enough to be opposed by a Socialist speaker.

After the success of May Day members of both branches are looking forward to an excellent hearing during the summer months.

Comrade Russell, who lives in Manchester, is greatly assisting in the disposal of back numbers of the Socialist Standard. His work takes him travelling constantly over an area stretching from Yorkshire to London, and over to Wales. During these trips he takes the opportunity of leaving our journal in prominent places and has had many interesting discussions with fellow travellers on trains, buses, and in station waiting rooms. He travels over the same ground, mainly in a weekly cycle, and maintains his “distribution” constantly. As he so modestly says, perhaps the constant effort on these lines may bear some much-wanted fruit. Well said, indeed, and perhaps other members similarly placed might like to try their hands at this method of propaganda.

Bristol. Meetings will be held at Durdham Downs on Sundays at 3 p.m. Will members and sympathisers make every effort to attend and assist Comrade Flowers and other members of Bristol Group ?

Fulham and Chelsea Branch report that they are holding regular and interesting Branch meetings and discussions on the first and third Thursdays in each month.

As an experiment, the Branch Organiser has arranged a number of meetings and discussions with the aid of special L.P. records. The first record, “Shuttle and Cage,” which includes a very dramatic ballad about the Gresford mining disaster of 1934, and a number of English, Irish. Welsh and Scottish industrial folk songs, sung by Ewan MacColl, gave rise to much interesting discussion. Further recordings made by Alan Lomax deal with the life of the American negro.

Since the advertisement of these discussions, the Branch Organiser has received a number of letters (including one from Comrade Rab of America) enquiring about the records used; or making suggestions of other recordings that might benefit Party discussion Groups and Branches. A reader in Glasgow suggests that the recording “Old Man Atom,” by Guy Carawan, which deals with nuclear weapons, would be of interest to Socialists. He also mentions “Jack Elliott’s "Woody Guthrie’s Blues," which contains, along with four other titles, the ‘1913 Massacre’ and 'The Ludlow Massacre,’ both songs of the murders of early Trade Unionists in America.”

At Easter a number of members of the Branch went to Aldermaston, and helped with the distribution of the leaflet, “Nuclear War,” and sold Party literature on the march. On Sunday, April 13th, six members of the Branch, along with over forty other members of the Party, distributed “Nuclear War” leaflets, and sold Party literature (one member of the Branch sold 16 “Socialist Party and War” pamphlets!) at the Labour Party and T.U.C. meeting in Trafalgar Square.

On Thursday, May 1st, members of the Branch collaborated with Paddington Branch members in holding a meeting at Earls Court. And, during the summer months, Branch members will be collaborating with Paddington Branch in running outdoor meetings at Earls Court on Thursday and Friday evenings. All readers of the Socialist Standard are welcome to come. Meetings commence at 8 p.m.

The Overseas Secretary asks all members who have overseas' contacts to send the names and addresses of these contacts, together with any other information about contacts, to the Overseas Secretary, c/o H. O., 52, Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.

The Overseas Secretary would also be pleased to hear from readers of the Socialist Standard abroad.

Comrade Ivy Groves. It is a sad duty to have to report the sudden death at the age of 50 years, of Ivy Groves, who had a heart attack on Sunday, May 4th. The not so very young members will well remember her as a loyal Comrade who. although not a writer or a speaker for the Party, was always ready with a smile and much energy, to help in any way. Until the last few years, when owing to domestic circumstances when it was not possible to be around so much, she regularly attended branch meetings and Head Office. It was 25 years ago when Comrade Ivy Groves joined the Chiswick Branch which via Wembley Branch became Ealing Branch. Latterly, when living in South London she transferred to Camberwell Branch. Many Comrades well know that her help and thoughtfulness greatly assisted Clifford Groves in his work for the Party as a propagandist, E. C. Member and General Secretary for many years.

Hackney Branch. Hackney Branch consider that the election campaign in the Bethnal Green division was extremely successful, in fact, far more successful than we had hoped.

The votes cast for the three candidates were 356, 333. and 306, indicating in some small degree, the growth of Socialist ideas within the constituency.

During the campaign 24,000 election manifestoes were distributed (one to each home in the constituency), together with several thousand leaflets advertising meetings some “Introducing the S.P.G.B.” and a number of free copies of the Socialist Standard. Apart from this canvassing of the Socialist Standard continued, and about 24 dozen copies were sold.

The support given by other branches was extremely encouraging, a number of members attending from Islington, Wood Green, Paddington, Lewisham, Woolwich and West Ham branches. Branches also assisted with financial support.

Attempts were made to hold a number of outdoor meetings, but these were not successful due to the very bad weather. The three school meetings were also poorly attended, probably for the same reason.

We do not claim to have made the best possible use of the election, but we have acquired considerable experience in the campaign which will be an invaluable help on future occasions. We hope that the result of the campaign will encourage other branches to contest local elections in their own area. A good opportunity will arise next year when London Borough Councils are due to be elected.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Notes:

• The obituary for Ivy Groves has appeared elsewhere on the blog.
• Despite my best efforts I can't find out the identity of the three Hackney Branch members who were the local election candidates in 1958. They are never mentioned by name in the Standard. I could make an educated guess  . . . but I won't. Hackney Branch actually contested the Bethnal Green parliamentary constituency the following year at the General Election. Jack Read was the party candidate on that occasion. Anecdotes about that campaign are aplenty in Barltrop's 'The Monument'. 
• Unfortunately, there were quite a few typos in the Fulham and Chelsea Branch report. Musician names misspelt all other the place. I did try to provide YouTube links for the songs mentioned in the report, but I can't guarantee that they are the actual versions referred to. Ramblin' Jack Elliott singing Woody Guthrie's songs is especially recommended.

An American Broadcast (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a letter from Mr. Charles Sussman, of Philadelphia, informing us of a proposal to broadcast over the American Radio the answers to seven questions relating to armaments which he was putting to us as well as for a tape recording of our views for broadcasting purposes. Below is the script of our answers to the question which was recorded by J. D'Arcy on our behalf.

Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I am responding to an invitation to give our views on a number of questions concerning armaments and foreign policy.

In fairness to you, and to us, I must explain at the outset that we are not asking for your consideration on the grounds that there is large support for our ideas in Great Britain. We are indeed a small organisation, formed in 1904, and growing slowly. Nevertheless, we claim that our views do merit your careful thought, as we have the only practical answer to the problems of a distracted and violence-torn world. As it is unlikely that you have ever heard our views before we appeal to you to give them the consideration that should be given to fresh ideas on a subject of such supreme importance to the human race.

Seven questions have been put to us. In order to make our answers to these questions understandable, I must explain the outlook from which we start.

Our aim is a world in which everything that is in and on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind, without privileged groups of any kind except the old, the infirm and the young. A world in which there would be no buying and selling, or profit motive, and in. which frontiers would have disappeared.

We hold that, economically and politically, we all live in a world that is desperately sick, and this means all the peoples in all the world; in Europe and the Americas, in India, China and Russia, in the West as well as in the East

Holding this view, we do not offer to draw up better foreign policies in place of the existing ones. Such efforts, as the bitter experiences of the past have made clear, are useless for curing the disease affecting the world. The disease is a fundamental one, and requires the elimination of its cause.

I would put it like this.

If the world were organised in the way we Socialists want it, there would be no foreign policies. Foreign policies are concerned with the frictions and animosities that exist between national groups, each pressing forward and defending antagonistic sectional interests. If the interests throughout the world were mutual, there would be harmony and friendliness between the people in all parts of the world, and there would be no need for a foreign policy, or a foreign secretary, to tell us how this can be accomplished.

But the nations are not organised for friendship. They are organised for the aggressive competitive activity of seeking trade and profit Behind these, and directly concerned with them, is the effort to control sources of raw material and trade routes; and behind that again the supporting military forces, up to, and including, the latest horror—the H. Bomb.

Holding the views we do about the kind of world society that could and must be brought about, and holding the views we do about the incurable nature of the evils affecting the world whilst under the present social system, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has declared unqualified opposition to the wars of our time, including the two world wars, the Korean war, the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, and the brutal Russian suppression of Hungary two years ago.

In the light of what I have already said, I now come to the seven questions I have been asked to answer.

Firstly, I am asked what is our view of re-unification and re-militarising Germany?

The very fact that these two questions have to be linked together shows how cruel and evil the world's habitual attitudes are. Surely the situation is absurd in which the simple problem of German speaking people getting together cannot be considered except in relation to armaments.

The second question concerns NATO.

In the world as it is the rival national groups make uneasy alliances for war, under the mistaken impression that they are avoiding war. In the world that Socialists envisage there will be no rival national groups.

The third question is about the construction of rocket missile bases in England.

We do not share the mistaken, and often dangerous, nationalistic prejudices of non-socialists. People from America, or Russia, or anywhere else, are welcome here as far as we are concerned. But then, of course, from our standpoint we would have them come here not to construct weapons and means of destruction, but to help us with the elementary things that people need, or just to enjoy themselves. In any event, we are opposed to people anywhere in the world making or using weapons of destruction, or being the victims of their use. To be willing that others should suffer but not yourselves is part of the evil thinking produced by present conditions.

The fourth question concerns the proposal of a disengagement of the rival military forces facing each other in Europe.

Of course we are always glad to see a war end or a war avoided, but where really does the proposal get us? From a military point of view, with the fast movement of ground forces, and still more with all the weapons that move at incredible speed above the earth, what does disengagement really amount to?

The same applies to the proposal of a European neutral zone free from nuclear weapons.

The sixth question concerns the suspension of all hydrogen and atomic tests.

We are opposed to the threatening of anyone, individually or collectively, with violence or war. We are opposed to the testing, use or manufacture of any weapons for destroying human life, as our object includes abolishing them all. But we are not interested in the limited campaigns of those who are not concerned with abolishing the conditions that cause wars.

The seventh question relates to disarmament under international inspection and control.

This brings us back to our basic point of view which is diametrically opposed to the various conventional views. Trying to inspect and control heavily armed national groups that, by definition, are seeking to deceive each other preparatory to being able to destroy each other, is not a policy for sane and sober well-wishers of our fellows, but for gamblers with the life and death of the human race.

In conclusion, I appreciate that the outlook and views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain may sound utopian and impossible to those who have never heard them, let alone considered them.

However, we are by no means pessimistic. The dire consequences of the present social system are helping, however slowly, to force our solution to the front. Time will accelerate the pace. We are sure that people all over the world will sooner or later recognise the correctness of our approach to world problems, and the need to change the social system in the direction we have described; a need that is as urgent in Russia as in America or Britain.

Don’t hang back too long, and don't leave others to do the thinking for you. With so many scientists concentrating on weapons of mass destruction, and politicians of such limited vision, the fate of humanity depends on your own sober and clear thinking.

I would add that associated with us in outlook is the Socialist Party of Ireland; the World Socialist Party of the United States; the Socialist Party of Canada; the Socialist Party of Australia, and the Socialist Party of New Zealand; as well as groups in other parts of the world.

50 Years Ago: Pensions for the Dead — the Liberal Government's Pension Scheme (1958)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Liberal “Old Age” proposal is, then, but a sop to keep the workers quiet—but such a paltry sop. The “Old Age” part is prominent enough, but surely a microscope is needed to discover the pension.

Five shillings a week when you are seventy, should you be so unfortunate as to live as long. A problematic five shillings a week at seventy— that is, of course, if you have been a good boy ; if you haven’t within five years been convicted of vagrancy, desertion, or “serious” crime; if you are not in receipt of poor relief; if your income is not more than ten shillings a week, and so on—while married couples living together are to be punished for their foolishness by having their pensions reduced to 3s. 9d. per head.

Five shillings a week as a bribe to the worker to keep out of the workhouse, where it would cost at least 18s. to keep him. Five shillings a week as a premium on low wages to those few ancient toilers who, by some miracle, are still able to work a little. Such are the promises of the “Workers’ Budget.”

[From the Socialist Standard, June, 1908.]

SPGB Meetings (1958)

Party News from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

London County Council Elections (1958)

Party News from the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party Manifesto

This is the first time that members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain have stood for election in East London. The candidates' names are unimportant; you will not see them on placards or in front-windows, because it is not the Socialist Party's practice to cry up individuals or promote slogans. What we have to put before you is a simple but reasoned case about the world in which we all live: the case for Socialism.

Perhaps first however, you will want to know something about the Socialist Party. It was founded in 1904: its Object and the Declaration of Principles on which it took its stand then, and still takes it now, are printed at the end of this Manifesto. The Socialist Party looks at the world from one viewpoint only—the viewpoint of working-class men and women, and what may best serve their interests.

Do not confuse the Socialist Party with the Labour Party. The Socialist aim is a revolutionary change in society. The world we know is the capitalist world, in which all the means of life are owned by a minority and the motive of sale and profit dominates all other things. From this basis—the capitalist organization of society— arise all the problems of today: wars, crises, insecurity, want and unhappiness in a hundred forms.

Other parties believe, and promise, that those problems can be solved by changes of government and legislation. The Socialist Party’s case is that while capitalism remains the problems which are its consequences will remain too. Indeed, it should hardly need the Socialist Party to point this out. Any man's lifetime today has seen several changes of government, allied with spectacular progress; how much nearer, however, is the solution of any of those problems?

You may object, at this stage, that these are not issues in this election. The voter in the L.C.C. Election has in mind not world problems, but the everyday questions of housing, schools, rent and roadways and public health services. That is true, but the more important truth is that they are not local questions at all. They are, in fact, aspects of the position of the working class the world over: a position in which the only differences are the depth of want and the degree of insecurity.

The housing problem, which will be spoken of a good deal in this election, has been with us for more than a hundred years. An efforts to solve it have been unsuccessful simply because it is a part of the working-class poverty problem. London’s forests of flats and prefabs are the attempts of administrators to. do the impossible—to house generation after generation of working people who cannot afford to house themselves.

A great deal of the illness and much of the crime and “vice” that are problems in every city in the world are direct consequences of people's poverty. And what are the problems of education, but the problems of how children shall be taught to be clerks, factory workers, mechanics and labourers—that is, educated for future poverty? The Socialist case is that within capitalism there can be no cure, and the whole history of modern times bears us out.

Ours is not a gloomy message, however. On the contrary, through our fifty-four years' existence we have steadily pointed to the obvious real remedy. If it is true that all these problems are the inevitable consequences of the capitalist organization of society, then we must end it and replace it with something better. And that is what the Socialist Party of Great Britain stands for: the abolition of capitalism and the establishment in its place of Socialism.

Socialism does not mean a different kind of government, or State administration of industry (nor has it anything to do with what goes on in Russia). It means a completely different social system, based on the ownership of an the means of life by everybody. On that basis, there could be no wars or crises, because those are results of trade and competition between capitalists. Nor could there be poverty and all its consequent problems, because all the resources of society would be directed not towards profit, but to satisfying the needs of all.

You may ask, as most people do, how the Socialist Party is going to effect all this. The answer is that it is not. YOU are going to. In our Declaration of Principles you will find one which says: “That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself." The Socialist Party does not present itself as a would-be ruler or a new leader. Another of our claims is that leaders will take working people nowhere good; in fact, that the world will not change for the working class until they themselves change it.

Thus, in this election we are promising nothing. What we are laying before you is the proposition briefly out-lined here, and what we ask is that you consider it and see if it does not fit the world as you know it. If you agree with it you will not need to be asked to vote for the Socialist candidates who alone in this election stand for the interests of the working class. If you disagree, we ask you to go on thinking about it—but not to vote for our candidates.

Your final question may be that, even though you listen favourably to what we have to say, you see no purpose in voting for a little group of candidates who, if elected, could change nothing. That is true, of course; three Socialists in the London County Council would be in a position only to state the Socialist case on every opportunity and little more. Have you thought, however, that those who support the candidates of the majority parties are also electing administrators who can do nothing to improve the position of the working class?

And, of course, there is a far more important aspect. The change to Socialism can only be brought about by a Socialist working class sending its representatives to take the powers of government, national and local, to make the all-important change in ownership. Somewhere a start has to be made. The presence of three Socialist Candidates in this election is a lengthening, slight though it may be, of the shadow over the reign of capitalism. Every fresh person who hears us and decides that he or she is with us adds substance to that shadow.

During the weeks leading up to this election, Socialists will be everywhere where they can find the opportunity to talk to you. Our speakers will be on the streets and in the halls as often as possible, and our canvassers will come to as many doors as they can—not to tout for your vote, but to talk to you about Socialism. The Socialist future is not so far away. Your understanding and wanting it will

SPEED THE DAY!

The Catholic Church To-day (1958)

From the April 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist attitude to religion must be clearly understood; it is, and has always been, unqualified opposition. That is not simply because all religion is mumbo-jumbo; if that were all, there would be nothing to add to the useful work of the Freethinkers in showing up the stupidity of it. The far more important reason is that religion is intensely anti-working-class. Not just the Bishops or the Thirty-Nine Articles, or any religious institution by itself, but the whole panoply of belief, ritual, salvation and miracle stands against the interests of all working people.

That is true not only of Christianity in Britain and the western world at large, but of all the world’s religions: “so many distinct and geographical insanities," Robert Owen called them. Their creeds work to keep the poor content with poverty, their teachings instil submissiveness to oppression and exploitation, their organization—usually subsidized for the purpose—aims to guard ruling interests in every country. There is no doubt, however, that of all the Christian religions the one most pernicious, most firmly staked in fear, ignorance and poverty, is the Roman  Catholic Church.

 

In the last few years the Catholic Church has conducted campaigns for converts with a good deal of  success in Britain and America. (At all times, it is much  more propagandist than other religions; every local church displays a big selection of pamphlets on Catholicism). Chiefly through newspaper advertising, the Church has  drawn attention to itself and increased Its membership,  and it claims today that there are more than two and three-quarter million Catholics in Britain. The trend this number represents, however, is far from what it seems.

The figure itself is misleading, in that it includes an unknown but considerable number who are Catholics in name only (nothing but formal declaration and, of  course, excommunication removes a name from the roll),  More important, however, is the leakage of another kind,  Conversion forms only a small part of the continuation of Catholic membership. The great bulk of it is by parentage: birth-control is forbidden to Catholics, and in theory the Catholic population should practically double in each generation. In practice, the Catholic reproduction rate has been falling for some time now, even in Ireland, and its biggest drop is among migrants to Britain where, for all the priestly exhortations, Catholic families are nearer the British than the Irish norm for size.

Social pressures have more weight than Papal pronouncements. The current crop of conversions is merely going some of the way towards offsetting the real losses in coming generations caused by the decline of the big families which have been the backbone of Catholicism. The durability of the conversions, too, remains to be seen. The Catholic Church guards as far as possible by having a probationary "instruction” period, but the fact remains that no campaign for religious conversion in modern times has produced enduring results worth talking about.

The social doctrines of the Catholic Church are based on its religious teachings (which in turn, of course, are based on the requirements of a propertied, hierarchic society—feudal or capitalist). The starting point is the beginning of the Catechism: “ Who made me? God made me. What is God? God is a spirit," the supernatural dictum that each of us is one part body and nine parts soul divinely infused at the moment of conception. Given that, all the rest proceeds logically. The whole structure of Catholic dogma, indeed, is quite logical: once the first bit of nonsense is accepted, the rest follows from it. That is why it is wrong to suppose that X, who is only a bit religious, is somehow more enlightened than Y, who believes it all: the bit is the part that matters.

All Catholics are required from the age of seven to attend Mass on Sundays and certain other days, to have Holy Communion regularly; to confess their sins, and to pay for the support of their priests and churches. Their children may only go—except for “grave reasons"—to Catholic schools, and they may only marry—except for “grave reasons“—other Catholics. In practice, intermarriage is generally though grudgingly permitted in southern England, where the Catholic population is relatively sparse; in the north, things are different. The non-Catholic partner in a “ mixed” marriage has to sign a promise not to prevent any Papal practice and to have the children raised as Catholics.

How are these observances enforced? Overwhelmingly through fear and ignorance. A Catholic who fails in his duties or dies with sins unconfessed goes, they say, straight to hell; and though modern Catholic theology is evasive on the point, the hell which lay Catholics are taught to fear is the old-fashioned rip-roaring pit of fire. The limitations on Catholics' reading are well known, and it is forbidden for Catholics to listen to people or go to places where they may be tempted into thinking about things. The bald lies which are told to Catholics are numerous, too; for example, that contraceptives cause insanity. The Royal Commission on Population in Britain mentioned this and said simply that the view lacked “any firm support " (Report of Royal Commission, 1948, Para. 426), but it is given as gospel to Catholic married people.,.

It should not be thought, however, that the Catholic priesthood is a crowd of foxy schemers. Most of them are as ignorant as those they preach to, and believe it all themselves. Every good Catholic family hopes for one of the boys to become a priest The majority of parish priests are working-class boys who were attending on the altar when they should have been playing tag, who went to Catholic schools where they learned the Catholic view of history and the Catholic view of science (which, put briefly, is that most science does not exist), and finished off reading devotional works in a bachelor college full of others like themselves. They are not allowed to attend theatres lest the sight of opulence discontent them, and every day between chores they have to read the Holy Office, which is enough to keep anyone occupied.

The centrepiece of Catholic worship is the Mass, the impressive ritual which must be the fascination to many of the converts, and the centrepiece of the Mass is transubstantiation, the changing of biscuit and cheap wine into the flesh and blood of Christ in which Catholics implicitly believe. Other religions (even the imitative Anglican High Church) offers this only as a symbol, but to the Catholic it is actual transformation. Pure magic: the Catholic taking Holy Communion believes literally that he swallows divine flesh and blood, and specially devout people have it daily.

The wicked go to hell, and the good to heaven. Not right away, however. Before entering the celestial fold, each must spend a time in purgatory: maybe a hundred years, maybe ten thousand, working off payment for sins forgiven, but not expiated on earth. Credits (as it were) for this may be gamed in this world. Catholics crowd into church for a bishop's visit, for example, because the bishop's first pronouncement will be an indulgence—a remission of purgatory-time—for all those present. Special prayers give indulgences with each repetition, and there is what most people would consider a racket in indulgence-selling: “Two Hundred Days' Indulgence to Each Purchaser of This Book," etc. It is possible also to help departed souls through purgatory. An average Catholic parish church has perhaps sixteen Masses a week, and each one usually is chalked up to some interested parishioners; e.g.. Mrs. O'Malley for the repose of the soul of the late Mr. O'Malley, at a non-obligatory fee of five shillings.

There is, too, the matter of saints, who figure prominently in Catholicism. (A devout Catholic home is a minor religious museum, with holy-water fonts by the doorways, crucifixes on the walls, life-sized pictures of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and as many statues of saints as the mantelpiece will bear.) The saints are supposed to intercede with God for those they favour, and the “miracle cure" shrines at Lourdes and elsewhere represent the special beneficence of particular saints in this direction. There has been no instance yet, however, of the really miraculous, such as (the writer is perfectly serious) a one-legged man growing a new limb overnight.

What are the social effects of all this? The Catholic hierarchy has unquestioned rule over the world's Catholic population, demanding supervision of their lives from the cradle to the grave. It is hardly necessary to labour the point that there are, therefore, between two and three millions in this country, twenty-six millions in America and a still greater number spread over the world who are to a lesser or greater degree held in ignorance by inculcated fear. Similarly—and consequently—there is the same legion committed to promoting the Catholic Church's interests above all things: told how to vote, supplied with tailored judgments on all political and social matters, drilled to shape family and communal life in the moulds of the ideal Catholic civilization.

The thoughts of the Catholic worker are directed to preoccupation with the next world: to escape the terrors of hell and minimize the rigours of purgatory are to be his paramount concerns. “Which is the more important, my body or my soul? ” asks the Cathechism, and the answer can hardly be in doubt. Indeed, the famous Rerum Novarum encyclical of Leo XIII—the “Workers' Charter"—while it mildly enjoined benevolence by employers and the State, made clear that working people must submit to hardship on this earth: “To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity . . . If there are any who pretend differently—who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment—they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is—and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as we have said, for the solace to its troubles."

The politics of the Catholic Church are those of an organization incessantly seeking power. Its thesis is, par excellence, the claim of every non-governing party: that it can run property society better than any of them. It seeks to govern not democratically but absolutely, less through direct participation than through government by its votaries, and it is prepared to support any policy and make any alliance which will further its own ends; What Catholic domination means in practice can be seen simply by looking at the almost proverbial poverty and degradation of people in Ireland and Italy and the dictatorships of Spain and Portugal.

The fact is, however, that the Catholic Church will never again rule men's minds as in the past. Its present campaign is not a crusade, but a rearguard action against the progress of man: it is doubtful even if capitalism needs Catholicism when there are Sputnik and Zeta for sky-pie. Nevertheless, the Church must be recognized for what it is—the greatest of the Christian religions which, from their beginnings, have enslaved men’s minds so that property societies might continue. It has declared itself—in the encyclical already mentioned--an enemy of Socialism. More explicitly, it is an enemy of the working class.

Robert Barltrop