Forum: Free Maintenance. (1908)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Statements of difficulties, criticisms of our position, contributions upon any question of working-class interest, are invited. Members and non-members of the Party are alike welcome. 

Correspondents must, however, be as brief as possible, as bright as possible, and as direct as possible to the point.

1. Does poverty prevent class consciousness ?

2. On state maintenance of children.

A.P. (Walworth.) writes a “friendly criticism” of our position extending to three folios, urging that although he recognises Socialism to be the only remedy, the working class are too unintelligent and ignorant in their present poverty-stricken condition to be able to achieve it. Free maintenance, he argues, is a necessary preliminary. He does not deny that it will bolster up capitalism, but says “the very process of patching up would play no small part in its downfall.” In the first place A.P. errs in confusing ignorance with a lack of intelligence : intelligence meaning a capacity for knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. We deny that the working class are not sufficiently intelligent to understand Socialism, one of the reasons being that we are workers ourselves. What prevents the workers accepting Socialism is the confusion introduced into its propaganda by persons calling themselves Socialists, preaching and doing that which is inconsistent with Socialism. Poverty by itself does not incapacitate a person from understanding anything—many of the intellectual geniuses of all times having struggled with poverty ; nor does poverty prevent a class from being revolutionary. Although the Peasants’ Revolt in this country was undertaken when the peasants were in a condition of comparative prosperity, the revolt of the continental peasants—the Jacquerie of France, in particular—was undertaken at about the same time, when at the lowest ebb of degradation and poverty. To-day, the revolutionary spirit is certainly as manifest in the East End as in respectable Suburbia.

Regarding free maintenance of the children, the very necessity of this as being the necessary outcome of capitalism is an indictment of capitalism, and the only remedy is Socialism. The working-class effort needed to agitate for and administer an adequate measure of state maintenance is about equal to that needed for the Social Revolution, and the working class capable of conducting the one is certainly equal to conducting the other—while Socialism would render the former unnecessary. And seeing also that while the capitalists rule they can only be persuaded to grant anything in that direction, apart from that which suits their own interests, by fear of something worse to follow, we know of nothing more calculated to impress the capitalist class with fear than the concentration of the workers on Socialism. It is quite a mistake to suppose that it is a tenet of this Party that reforms, sops, palliatives, and ameliorative measures generally would be refused. In the first place we cannot refuse them if we would, not having the power ; in the second place we know that the danger lies not in having these things offered as a substitute for Socialism—that would not lessen one class-consciousness—but in stultifying our Socialism by advocating that which is not Socialism. To talk of the patching being necessary to its downfall is simply a contradiction in terms and in fact. The illustration used seems most unhappy. If an eloquent S.P.G.B’er were to convert Haggerston to Socialism, the next week a nice, kind gentleman with a cheque book would be able to convert it back again to Tariff Reform. If the eloquence of the former were successful in converting the working class ia any constituency, that working class would be proof against the cheque book of the Tariff Reformer or any other agent of the master class, The cheque book is only powerful to-day because the workers are not converted and are not class-conscious.

Letter: Socialism needed (2009)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2009 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism needed

Dear Editors

Re: Starvation in Africa; poverty of many kinds. So very much and sincerely appreciate the NY Times September 8, 2009 front-page photo of the starving and dehydrated Kenyans. In a world wherein over 40,000 humans starve to death in disease and degradation each day, these continuous international crises should be making front page news every day.

 However in a world where state capitalist dictatorships and state ownership and control, proxies for the owning and ruling class, is confused with socialism, which has yet to exist on Earth, real solutions to the problems of war and starvation are endlessly mired in needlessly convoluted problems of opposing interests that simply mean a dimension of pseudo-intellectually evil data structure remains necessary to describe even mere reformist heuristics.

 Socialism, which can only exist the whole world over when the majority of Earth’s population first understand classism and capitalism, and comprehend and desire socialism and vote it peacefully, legally and democratically into existence, means the solution to ending all wars, poverty and starvation takes 10 years instead of 1000…but this does not happen unless you, the vast majority of you, understand, desire and vote for socialism, a system of society based upon common ownership of the means and instruments for production and distribution by and in the interests of society as a whole.

 So for those reformists who may be exposed to neo-McCarthyism and murdering church violation and prejudice with Earth’s trifling little solutions of state-run health care, have no fear. These have nothing to do with socialism or (primitive) communism.

 The failed feudalistic dictatorships of Russia and China had a false dream of installation by undemocratic elitism; fascism had a racist, nationalist and proud illusion – state capitalism by another name; the national post office is only an example of state capitalism – not common ownership; humans would like to pretend they are inclusive and democratic and that the tree of knowledge and life have all their fruit intact…the truth is otherwise.

Samantha Morris (by email)

Socialism and Social Reform. (1907)

From the December 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are many people who regard Socialism merely as a demand for Social Reform, as a desire on the part of certain sections of the community for better conditions of labour and living for the working class. This misconception is largely due to organisations claiming to be “Socialist” but devoting their energies to the propagation of reforms, whereby the real issue is obscured, the sympathies of the kind-hearted are aroused and, at election times, the support and votes of those who know nothing of Socialism, but believe in some particular “ameliorative” measure, are secured. It is this kind of “Socialism” that leads people to talk of the Socialist demand as “the true development of the Liberalism which won the working classes the franchise and other privileges they now enjoy,” although, as the Tories justly claim, many of these “privileges” were granted by them in the teeth of the opposition of the champions of Liberalism. It was, therefore, refreshing to read Mr. Balfour’s speech at Birmingham on November 14th. In truth, he said, there is no difficulty or ambiguity about the subject at all. Socialism has one meaning and one meaning alone. Socialism means and can mean nothing else than that the community … is to take all the means of production into its own hands, that private property and private enterprise are to come to an end and all that private enterprise and private property carry with them. That, continued Mr. Balfour, is Socialism, and nothing else is Socialism. In discussing the difference between Socialism and social reform, he said : Social reform is when the State, based upon private enterprise, based upon private properly, recognising that the best productive results can only be obtained by respecting private property and encouraging private enterprise, asks them to contribute towards great national and public objects.

In other words, social reform leaves the basis of Society untouched, and does not affect the relative condition of the propertied class and the working class in the least. On the other hand, Socialism means the abolition of private property and the establishment of common ownership and control of the means of wealth production. It is therefore easy to understand why those who are opposed to Socialism advocate social reform, but it is inexplicable why those who claim to be out for Socialism should, by their advocacy of social reform, help the master class to maintain their supremacy, and side-track the workers from the only cause that can emancipate them, the cause of Revolutionary Socialism.

Why social reform is useless. (1914)

From the September 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party of Great Britain has all along claimed that the only solution for the social diseases rampant in capitalist society is Socialism. The professional “Socialists” of the B.S.P. and I.L.P. type, whilst claiming the same in a somewhat misty and hazy manner, seek always to put some pet scheme of social reform before the working class. They are not alone, however, in their schemes of reform, for the capitalist class are well in the front as far as reform is concerned. The consequence of this being that some reformers who are able to hold their situations cling more tightly to the governing class, whilst others not so fortunate have jumped to the other end and have become anarchists, or what is the same, syndicalists.

Reform, to-day, chiefly through the activities of the politicians of the master class, has become very popular with the mass, many regarding it as eventually being capable of removing the anomalies of existing society.

Let us, therefore, see what reform has already accomplished for the workers; we shall then have an idea what to expect from the effects of reform in the future.

Before examining these reforms, however, let us, very briefly, look upon those people who are especially interested in social reform.

First of all there is the sentimentalist, who, without any reason at all, is always wailing about the afflicted and poverty-stricken, so much so that he is absolutely blinded by his own tears from seeing the true state of affairs. Then there is the petty bourgeois reformer, the small capitalist, who at times may describe himself as a “Socialist,” but is always showing his fear of Socialism, for in his ignorance he believes that Socialists will confiscate what little property he may have—it may be his wedding ring or in some cases his house. Then again, we have the professional politician whose business it is to pander to the “mob.” In his cunning way he will invent all sorts of nostrums for the people, who, through their ignorance, are led to believe now one set of politicians, now another set, never realising that they are being hoodwinked by them all.

How these humbugs have been using the Home Rule for Ireland red herring to befool the mass is at once a comedy and a tragedy. And yet people will go on believing, in their simplicity, that the so-called leaders of the opposition and the Government are serious in their manoeuvres. They cannot see that it is merely a means to keep the workers divided and ignorant of their true social status.

The many reforms one might mention, instead of benefiting, injure the workers. One of the pet reforms of the sentimentalists is the “feeding of the school children.” Now, every sane man and woman wishes to see children fed ; but we cannot afford to allow sentiment to get the better of our reason. We know that those who possess children wish to feed their children by their own effort. State grants merely make, in most cases, subservient wage-slaves of those who receive them, thus making the work of the Socialist more difficult.

But what of the economic effect of such a measure ? Why, a woman who has children to look after, by paying a small sum of money to “farm” out her youngest child whilst her elder children are being fed at school, is enabled to .go to the factory or mill and be exploited at a low wage as married women are known to be.

The Old Age Pension scheme is another Act that has benefited the capitalists immensely. For whereas it costs to maintain a pauper something like fourteen shillings a week, they manage to get the aged State pauper to exist on five shillings. The Compensation Act seems on the face of it to be of much value to the worker. By being crippled or maimed they are sometimes able to get a certain sum of money as compensation. It may be true that in individual cases the Act has had some advantage for the worker. But it is hardly necessary to-day to repeat the facts of “too old at forty,” or a man with a slight injury not engaged, or if engaged, then at a lower rate of pay. The Compensation Act is a very good Act—for the capitalists.

We shall not talk of the Labour Exchanges, for even the over liberal-labour M.P.’s who at the inception of the bill claimed it to be Messiah itself, are now calling them “blackleg institutions.”

The Insurance Act again, compels the workers to submit to be mulcted of a certain sum of money so that they may keep going a lot of well-paid officials who are to ticket and number them and keep them in their respective grades.

The “Health” Insurance Act is a direct affront to the workers. It says it can prevent sickness ; it can do no such thing. Disease is bred by the conditions under which the workers must toil and live ; only Socialism can ensure healthy working and living conditions. Those who supported the “Health” Insurance Act avow by their action that they are the direct enemies of the working class.

Then there is the class of reformers who advocate the nationalising and municipalising of private enterprises, such as the railways, trams, etc. Here, again, we find that where national undertakings are in existence the lot of the workers engaged in those concerns is very little, if any, better than the wage-slaves in private firms. We know how the postal employees fare in the hands of a capitalistic government ; how the municipal workers of Leeds, Blackburn, and Dublin have been treated by unscrupulous and tyrannical corporations.

It is the very nature of capital, whether it be organised on national, local, or private basis, to oppress and exploit the workers. Only when it suits the capitalist class—who now have the mastery in these matters—will municipal or national enterprises be undertaken, and then only for their benefit.

“But,” say some ignorant persons, “it cannot be denied that these undertakings are able to cut down rates and taxes.” By such talk are they able persuade the workers that public enterprise is a benefit—because it saves rates and taxes. Before taxes are levied a person must receive, an income of no less than £160 a year; and in so far as the worker comes within the Health Insurance Act., i.e., receives less than £160 per year, he is not liable to pay taxes. “But he pays rates ?” shrieks our reformer. “For he certainly lives in a house—poor one though it be.” Here again our reformer is wrong : the workmen pays merely a rental for his house, the rent going up or down according to the demand for and supply of houses within a given area. The rents of the workers are not affected by the rising and lowering of the rates, which proves that it does not concern the working class, but only the property owners.

“But,” the reformer will say, ” if he does not pay taxes directly, he certainly pays indirectly, on his tea, tobacco, etc.” Again our social reformer errs ; for the worker is not robbed in the sphere of exchange. It is in the domain of production where the robbery of the workers is carried on. The latter, although producing all the wealth of society, are only allowed to buy a small portion of the wealth which they produce. Receiving a wage, the price of his labour power, he is not able to buy up all that he has produced. Therefore the concern of the working class is not that tobacco, or tea, or any commodity is dear, but that the major portion of what they produce is filched from them. It would make precious little difference to the working class as a whole, if all articles were cheapened in price if in like proportion their money wages dropped, or vice versa, their money wages rose while prices rose in the same proportion. The working class have never had the power, nor can they have such power under capitalism, of dictating their terms to the master class. Which proves that it is not the price of an article that matters, but the control by the workers of their own working conditions which Socialism alone can give, which matters.

Of late we have had the land taxers, with Lloyd George at their head, trying to revive an old nostrum. What villains these landed gentry are ! Certainly no one can say a wrong word against the people Lloyd George represents—for is he not the heaven anointed “Messiah,” himself ! Yes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the landlords are sucking the blood of the farm labourers and workers in general, but it is a mere flea-bite to the outrageous plunder and spoliation of your masters, the capitalists.

This nostrum, if put into practice, will certainly relieve capitalists of a burden. But will it help the workers ? These professional diddlers claim it will by opening up new land and industries. By such means, it is asserted, will the unemployed be absorbed and wages, as a consequence, raised.

Yes, but the land taxer has never looked into the nature of capital. The capitalist reformer looks to this scheme as being a means to increase profits. Seeking the support of the workers, he leads them to believe that wages will also rise. History shows that although profits have risen enormously, real wages have fallen. And this has come about through capital becoming greater by inventions of machinery and the speeding up of the workers.

This has been going on all along and taxation of land values will in no way disturb that process. Thus while land taxation will benefit the members of the commercial class, (who own little land), by easing their burden of taxation, it in no way guarantees to the workers better living conditions.

Having then examined the most popular and so-called beneficial reforms, we find their ill effects far outweigh what can be said in their favour. And naturally so. For the fact is that reforms which are enacted by a capitalist government are used generally for the benefit of the master class. They touch only the externals, and never the internal or foundation of society. So long as the basis of capitalist society remains, so long will the social diseases, that are a result of that basis, remain.

The whole foundation of capitalism must be removed for Socialism to take its place, for not till then will society be relieved of the social cancer that affects it to-day. Mere talk that reform may benefit under certain imaginary conditions that may arise in the future is futile. We as Socialists know that we cannot afford to deal with fantastical side issues ; for we are convinced that Socialism is the only means for the emancipation of the working class. Therefore, we must ever be advocating Socialism before the working class so that they may be prepared for the change in society.

“But,” say some reformers notably of the I.L.P. and B.S.P. type, “we cannot afford to wait so long, and besides, we are legislating Socialism step by step until we shall have secured the lot.” Our misguided reformer cannot see that it is not Socialism that is evolving, but capitalism. Day by day, as capitalism becomes more and more powerful, the workers’ position in, society becomes increasingly deplorable. The capitalists (who legislate—not the workers) will not legislate themselves out of power gradually despite the talk of some crazy people about “revolutionary reform,” rather will they seek to increase their power.

Only by the working class themselves taking conscious revolutionary political action will the fight be finished and their victory assured. By the workers taking such action, the capitalists, in their attempt to save their power, will dole out reforms in plenty, but the working class politically and intellectually organised will not be hood-winked as they are to-day. They will, through their political supremacy, abolish private ownership of the means of life, and institute social ownership for social use. Then and only then will society be freed from the glaring anomalies that exist to-day, viz., luxury and idleness on the one hand ; poverty and slavery on the other.

L. Marks

How we live and how we might live (2024)

From the September 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The year is 1884. It is a cold and foggy, late-November night down by the River Thames in London. Groups of people are hurrying along the road towards a tall Georgian building overlooking the river. As they arrive they are shown into an attached coach house, adapted for the occasion as a meeting room. They greet each other familiarly and shake hands with the house’s owner who is to give a talk titled, ‘How we Live And How we Might Live’.

The name of the building is Kelmscott House and its owner is William Morris, a man widely admired as an artist-designer, a publisher, a printer, a founder of the Arts and Crafts Movement, a novelist and a poet. To his visitors, however, he is a revolutionary socialist. So, on this evening, Morris rises, and begins his address:

‘The word “Revolution”, which we Socialists are so often forced to use, has a terrible sound in most people’s ears, even when we have explained to them that it does not necessarily mean a change accompanied by riot and all kinds of violence, and cannot mean a change made mechanically and in the teeth of opinion by a group of men who have somehow managed to seize on the executive power for the moment.’

Morris’s opening remarks are not directly connected to his main theme. It seems he is issuing a challenge. He proceeds carefully but uncompromisingly, laying out his views on the nature of revolution. He warns:

‘…people are scared at the idea of such a vast change, and beg that you will speak of reform and not revolution. As, however, we Socialists do not at all mean by our word revolution what these worthy people mean by their word reform, I can’t help thinking that it would be a mistake to use it.’

Revolution or reform? This is the challenge Morris issued to his listeners seated in his coach house that evening. They, like he were members of the Social Democratic Federation (SDF), which, only a few months earlier, had declared itself to be a ‘socialist’. Political declarations, however, often ring hollow under examination, and Morris was aware that many of the Federation’s members, including its leadership, were committed not to ‘a change in the basis of society’, but to a programme of government reforms of capitalism.

Morris had recently arrived at a crossroads in his political development. And that was an issue for him. Revolution, he believed, was the way forward, and it was antithetical to reform. So, which route would the SDF take? Did he perhaps intend his opening remarks to sound out the membership on this matter? If he did, then the response came swiftly. In less than a month he and several others severed their connection with the SDF, and founded a new organisation, the Socialist League one firmly committed to the revolutionary aim of bringing about ‘a change in the basis of society’. Morris drew up its constitution.

Palliatives

Morris focused his talk in the coach house on the persistence of working class poverty, which despite some amelioration over the previous fifty years remained starkly visible on the streets of 1884. Why, he asked his listeners, was poverty still a thing? And what was the solution? Revolutionary socialists in late Victorian England commonly referred to government reforms as ‘palliatives’. It’s a term not often heard today in political debate. It cuts through the rhetoric and exposes reforms for the ineffective things they are. At best, they aim to alleviate some particular ill with which capitalism burdens wage or salary workers. Governments announce reforms with great fanfare, especially at election times. Once enacted into law, however, many reforms have a short lifespan. They persist for a few years, until they hit the next cyclical crisis in the economy, or until a new political party is elected with a different agenda. Promises get reneged upon, funding is cut back or withdrawn and eventually the entire programme gets buried under the rubble of the capitalist profit machine and party politics.

What now remains, for instance, of the Labour government’s 1999 pledge to reduce child poverty to below 10% of children? Governments threw a great deal of money at the problem, and despite an initial success, the programme failed to meet its target for 2010. From that time on child poverty began rising again until the programme was abandoned in 2015/6. Now little more than twenty years later, child poverty is worse than ever. Palliatives do not persist. And because they do not attack social problems at their root, problems quickly recur.

We are now 140 years on from when Morris gave his address. Poverty is no longer as visible to us on the streets as it was then. We no longer see people walking the pavements unshod or in torn and filthy clothes. Yet, it is far from invisible. No one can have failed to notice the growing number of homeless people these days on the pavements of British towns and cities. And today a great deal of poverty is hidden away. Yet if we look hard enough, we will find, for instance, that in 2023, three million people in the UK appealed to food banks for food relief. That’s one in twenty of the population who did not have enough to eat for some part of last year. According to UK government statistics, one in five, are in danger of food poverty. In the United States, the world’s richest nation, the number of people visiting food banks last year hit 26 million, one American in 13. Perhaps we should not be too complacent about the ‘progress’ that has been made since Morris’s time.

Taking a longer view, we can look back at the history of the UK. Since capitalism began to emerge in the late eighteenth century, levels of poverty have fluctuated over time. The numbers have sometimes been relatively high or relatively low, yet at no time in those two and a half centuries has poverty been eradicated. It has remained a persistent feature of working class life throughout. And this is the case not only in the UK, but in every developed capitalist nation on earth. Poverty is endemic to the capitalist system, and Morris’s question remains to be answered: ‘why’? Why, despite repeated attempts by governments everywhere to eliminate it is it so persistent and so universal? The literature on poverty and its elimination gives a clue. It is vast and international, yet perhaps the most interesting thing about it is that the solutions it proposes are uniformly superficial and reflect the political dogmas of those with power.

Poverty persists

Neoliberals confidently identify the source of poverty in blockages in the operation of the ‘free’ market. They point the finger at trade union action and large scale industrial bargaining, at minimum-wage legislation and ‘excessive’ welfare payments to the unemployed. If distorting influences such as these were removed they claim, the market would balance itself, and poverty would disappear. Poof! Gone!

For traditional conservatives, the origin of poverty lies in the decline in the family, and (condescendingly enough) in working class culture. Without a stable (heterosexual) family structure children are not properly socialised or educated. This leads to welfare dependency, loss of initiative and self esteem. It leads to crime as an alternative to wage working. And of course it leads to a loss of deference to necessary hierarchical structures.

Labourites and Social Democrats have historically seen poverty as a failure of government to provide sufficient regulation of the labour and housing markets and a lack of spending on public services and benefits. More recently they have ‘discovered’ that the poor lack ‘social capital’. Barriers to upward mobility are to be found in weak community ties and supportive organisations.

Building on these and other superficial analyses, nation after nation has applied sticking plasters on the problem. Yet poverty persists. Decade on decade. Relentlessly. And to the extent that government programmes have brought some relief to working people, their effects have been limited and temporary. The application of such programmes, however, costs money, and in periods of low profitability, they get jettisoned altogether and working people are once again abandoned to the mercy of an unstable market economy.

The Labour Party, which committed itself to eliminating child poverty in 1999, is now back in power. Keir Starmer, in his bid for the party leadership in 2020, declared that he would make tackling poverty a major commitment. By now, however, we know that when put to the test a great many political declarations ring hollow, and Starmer’s ‘commitment’ quickly became buried in the rubble of capitalism’s economic instability and party politics. Right now, British capitalism is sunk in one of its down phases, so it is unsurprising that no renewed commitment to eliminate child poverty appeared in the 2024 Labour Party Manifesto. During the election campaign, few Labour candidates spoke out on the issue. Once safely elected to their seats, however, the indignant voices of Labour back benchers have been raised against the leadership resulting in the first big ideological battle within the new governing party.

Priority for profits

In a delicious piece of political theatre, a brave Tory defender of working class living standards, Suella Braverman, devoted her first speech as an opposition MP, to raising the issue of the two-child benefit cap imposed by her own party in 2019. The aim of this benefit restriction according to Braverman was to ensure that the unemployed ‘make the same choices as those supporting themselves solely through work’. Decoded, this means it was intended to discourage the poor from having children. The policy, she declared had not worked. (Highlighting a Tory failure, it seems, is less motivating than stirring conflict within the Labour Party.) And so, in the name of ‘the family’, that sacred Tory shibboleth, it is suddenly now essential to repeal this wicked policy and – astonishingly! – end poverty in Britain for good! Starmer, however, is adamant that his government’s priority must be to restore profitability in the country before the next palliative is proposed. Why does this sound familiar?

So many social reforms have been introduced over the decades to eliminate the evils of capitalism. Apart from those that have little or no effect on profitability, only a few have proven to be of lasting benefit to workers, some have been detrimental, and almost all have been eventually watered down or abandoned. So Morris’s question returns, again and again: ‘Why’? Why do reforms fail to relieve the strains of working life? Well, here’s a thought. What if the source of these problems lies not in declining family values, in blockages of the ‘free’ market, in the failure of government regulation, in social exclusion, in greed, in self-interested politicians or in anything else of that kind? What if the source of the problem is to be found in something far more fundamental to the capitalist system – something as central to it as the wages system? What if the only solution to the problem of ‘How we Live’ is not reform but, as Morris realised 140 years ago, ‘a change in the basis of society’. Over the coming issues of the Socialist Standard we will dig down into this question.

Hud.

Revolution meets Reform (2024)

From the June 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

We recently attended a small SPEW meeting with the title of ‘Reform or Revolution’. There were around 8 others present, all fresh-faced and in their 20s, including two women. They were friendly enough, although the chairperson seemed surprised to see us and asked how we had got to know about their meeting (it was on their website). I told him we were SPGB and he said, ‘Ah, we know all about the SPGB’, though the other faces in the room told a different story. When I remarked that there was a bit of historical bad blood as they had stolen our name, he dismissively said, ‘Well, we are bigger than you’. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their integrity. And for all their hubris, they didn’t do any better in the election than we did (see page 5).

The much older speaker made a theatrically late entrance, and proceeded to give a motivational address designed to make the group believe that radical change might be just months or even weeks away. The claim was that workers at certain critical stages in the 20th century (France 1968, Chile 1973, Portugal 1974) had been on the point of taking over the means of production, had they not been failed or betrayed at the last minute by reactionary forces. And of course, the 1917 Bolshevik coup was an entirely successful workers’ revolution, later betrayed. This was a highly selective, even fantastical interpretation of history which a more discerning audience would likely have queried, with sources requested, but the group ate it all up with a spoon.

The group dynamic was that of acolytes and an avuncular mentor. The condescension was cuddly as a teddy bear. He did everything but hand out lollipops: ‘Now, who here can tell me what a reform is?’ The question was dumb enough to sound like a trick, so the group perversely clammed up, fearing a trap. Or they might have been thinking ‘Wait, if we’re after revolution and not reforms, how come our own election leaflet is full of them?’

We were allowed to ask some questions, which the speaker fielded deftly. On the question, would their revolution abolish money and private property, the response was an indulgent smile and an appeal to the group: ‘Now who here thinks it’s possible to achieve absolutely everything on the very first day of revolution?’ The group dutifully shook their heads. Achieve everything in one single day? How silly. And after all, lied the mentor in a CBeebies voice, the fact is that capitalism has not yet sufficiently developed the forces of production for that. Perhaps in the fullness of time the opportunity may arise for such things to be considered. So the world will be ready for socialism –some day. But as Evan Rachel Wood’s character says in the TV show Westworld, ‘Some day sounds a lot like never.’

This kind of manipulation can only ever work on young political ingénues who are never expected to question anything, and who fervently believe in the good intentions of the organisation. But it can’t last. People eventually see through bullshit. A few, persuaded by the cynical Leninist logic behind it all, may try to earn promotion to the elite ‘cadres’. Most will give up on the organisation, and maybe on politics, in disgust. Their experience would be so very different if they found us first.

Paddy Shannon

Which electoral strategy for socialists? (2024)

From the June 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party stood two candidates in the elections to the Greater London Assembly held on 2 May, the same day that the mayor of London was elected. We stood in the constituencies of Barnet & Camden and Lambeth & Southwark. The total electorate of these four London boroughs was 860,000, which meant that those who voted (about 340,000 did) would have seen our name and emblem on the ballot paper. Members and sympathisers distributed some 15,000 leaflets — not enough, but the bulletin sent to all 6 million electors in London stated that we were standing even though not what we were standing for.

The results were:

Barnet & Camden: Lab 70,749. Con 51,606. Green 18,405. LibDem 12,335. Reform UK 7,703. Socialist 1,639.

Lambeth & Southwark: Lab 84,768. Green 35,144. LibDem 22,030. Con 21,121. Reform UK 8,942. Socialist 2,082.

The Weekly Worker (9 May), commenting on the results, noted:

‘The London Assembly is elected by a complex combination of a party list system plus constituency candidates. The Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain stood in the party list element, while candidates from the Socialist Party of Great Britain and TUSC stood in constituencies. (…) The CPB ranked 13th at 0.4% (10,915 votes) – an improvement on last time, when it obtained 0.3%. (…) On the left, the two SPGB candidates both came in last, with just one percent of the vote. Among the TUSC candidates, in City and East Lois Austin came in 7th (after an independent) with 4,710 (2%); April Jacqueline Ashley in Croydon and Sutton was 6th with 2,766 (0.7%); Andy Walker in Havering & Redbridge was 7th with 2,145 (1.3%); and Nancy Taaffe in North East was 6th with 5,595 (2.7%). These results show TUSC polling in the same range as the SPGB, though ahead of the CPB’.

In other words, TUSC (‘Trade Union and Socialist Alliance’), appealing to trade-union-conscious workers with a programme of attractive-sounding reforms (what used to be called ‘the minimum programme’), polled more or less the same as us standing on a straight platform of socialism — the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living with production directly to meet people’s needs, not profit —and nothing but (what used to be called ‘the maximum programme’).

These different election stances reflected the different approaches of us and them. TUSC is essentially a front organisation for one of the fragments of the old Militant Tendency that calls itself ‘Socialist Party of England and Wales’, or SPEW. As Leninists they consider that workers are capable only of acquiring a trade union consciousness (which on Lenin’s definition includes support for legislative and administrative measures to try to improve the lot of workers under capitalism). So, when they contest elections they see no point in advocating socialism as that would be to cast pearls before swine and so only propose reforms within capitalism. Even when they do talk of socialism they mean nationalisation (state capitalism).

We, on the other hand, argue that workers can understand socialism — can acquire a socialist consciousness, if you want to put it that way — in fact must as a condition for socialism being established. No vanguard can establish socialism on behalf of workers; it is something they must do for themselves. Socialism can only be established when and if a majority want and understand it. So, when we contest elections, we don’t offer to lead or do anything for workers; we put before them the straight case for socialism to, at this stage, as we put it in our election leaflet, allow them to ‘send a message to your neighbours and colleagues that you want a world of common ownership and democratic control’.

We know perfectly well how few workers currently want socialism and were standing to publicise further the case for replacing capitalism with socialism as the only lasting solution to the problems capitalism throws up for wage and salary workers and their dependents.

What the TUSC vote shows is that there would be no point in us combining advocating socialism with advocating reforms, as some have urged. This would not make any difference to the number of votes a socialist candidate would get. But it would confuse the issue by encouraging people to continue to think in terms of getting a better deal under capitalism rather than to get rid of it, to try to mend rather than end capitalism. Not that appealing just to trade-union consciousness got SPEW very far. Workers who want reforms evidently prefer to vote for reformist parties they consider to have a chance of being able to implement some. Meanwhile we will stick to advocating socialism and nothing but.

Debate with Labour Party (1949)

Party News from the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

The debate with Mr. A. Blenkinsop, M.P., at Kensington Town Hall on March 21st attracted another large audience. The subject was, “Which Party should the Working Class support, the Labour Party or the Socialist Party of Great Britain?” The debate was opened by Mr. Blenkinsop, for the Labour Party, who claimed that a more appropriate title would have been "Why does the Working Class support the Labour Party?” He said that there are people who live in a rarified atmosphere who think that their own interpretation of Socialism should be accepted by all. He preferred to get down to the practical job of getting it started and not to wait. He was from the North and he knew of the horrors and shocking conditions that once prevailed in the distressed areas, where those who do the most useful work get the least pay. But the workers on the Clydeside were pulling themselves out of those conditions. For the maximum production of wealth it is necessary to change the ownership, and the Labour Party had done that. Workers in London and its suburbs had a comfortable time in comparison with the iron and steelworker of the North country, and they were removed from them. They did not understand how the miner and the iron worker felt about these things. It is to the credit of the Government that there is less unemployment now than there has ever been before during peace time. That is better than any intellectual exercise by a small clique. The wealth of this country lies in the degree to which, in the future, we can get the most from our productive efforts. First essentials must be first. We must take primary industries and ensure greater production in order to improve our standards of living.

The position of the Agricultural worker is higher than ever before. New elements of Democratic Freedom are springing up in our countryside. These are factors that make it certain that the Labour Government is worthy of support. The S.P.G.B. has theory but it has not put forward any practicable proposition. The Labour Government not only desires more production but sees that distribution is on a better basis. This is accomplished partly by controls and rationing and partly by financial policy. Those who can afford to bear the burden should bear it; those who have the largest incomes must make the maximum contribution to the welfare of the country as a whole. We are proud of our social services, we have the best health service in the world. It stands as a beacon to workers in all lands showing what a Labour Government can do. It is true that today, this country offers a new hope to people all over the world.

Our representative Harry Young commenced by claiming that the subject matter of this debate was the most important that can be discussed. It was a matter of life and death for many workers. No one, he said, denies Mr. Blenkinsop's statement that the workers now support the Labour Party, but that did not mean that the Labour Party was functioning in the workers' interests. His opponent had given a good statement of the orthodox Labour Party outlook, but it had nothing to do with Socialism. Industry is still owned by the Capitalist class whilst the vast majority of people are non-owners. Being non-owners means that they are wage workers, dependent upon and conscribed by the owners. The wages that the workers received were the price of the labour-power that they sold. They must work part of their time for the owners of industry in order that there may be a surplus of wealth for these owners. All increases in production mean a relative increase in the share appropriated by the owners. The poverty of the workers grows, not in relation to the wages of fifty years ago, but in relation to the wealth produced today. The cause of this poverty was private ownership and the removal of private ownership was the only solution. Reforms such as Nationalisation and social services are futile. Easing poverty does not remove it. After three and a half years of Labour Government there are now wage claims from millions of workers, claims which the Labour Government must refuse. When workers come out on strike, the Labour Government issues notices, “Go back to work or be sacked.” A socialist party must refuse admission to reformers into its ranks or the reformers would swamp the socialist objective. Socialism is common ownership and organisation for the benefit of all. Not state or public ownership. Socialism must be international, democratic and equalitarian. It means no government, no state, no shops, no market, no wages, no privileges or titles. Money, in the words of William Morris, “will become items of curiosity.” All people will work amicably for all. If it was agreed that capitalism was the cause of the workers' ills, then its abolition must be the cure. The views expressed by each party to this debate were as far apart as the poles. The social services that the Labour Party lauded were a backhand way of reducing wages, they are a means of ensuring that the efficiency of the workers is not impaired. Mr. Blenkinsop had told the audience how well the workers were getting on under a Labour Government, it was also interesting to see how the privileged few were faring after three and a half years. Young then quoted from the Daily Telegraph and from ‘‘Economic Survey for 1949 ” to show that the gross profits of companies in 1948 are estimated to have increased by over £300 million and gross dividends distributed to have increased by an estimate of £25 million. He quoted from other sources to show that firms like the Hawker Siddeley Group through Philip Hill and Partners invited subscriptions for £3,000,000 in four per cent. debentures at a price of £101 per cent. and that the issue attracted some £28,000,000, or more than nine times over subscribed. He also instanced the Decca Company and others.

Mr. Blenkinsop opened his second address by confessing that he had been of the impression that the S.P.G.B. was going to wait till the workers in this country were prepared for Socialism, but he now was informed that we must wait till workers all over the world were ready for it. There must be some alternative for working men and women to support. We need practical measures for the relief of working people. The enthusiasm of this meeting reminded him of a Jehovah’s Witness meeting. It was very good and interesting to have cloudy ideals like those of the S.P.G.B. but not if you are expected to live by them. They were nice dreams but we could not rely on them for our bread and butter. It is a good job that there is a party prepared to tackle the task of practical government. The Labour Party had never pretended that it was establishing Socialism. Nationalisation is a step to that end. It extends opportunities to the people of this country. In regard to his opponent's remarks about the wage demands of the railway workers, it was good that they should make such demands. Workers will always press for increased standards. We, in this country depend, in part, on the work of people in other parts of the world. The Labour Government is freeing subjects who have, in the past, been forced to work for certain sections of our community. This means that we must pay more for our tea, etc., but the people of India will move, in years to come, to a wider form of government and their own form of Socialism. Today, the people of this country must live by their own exertions and not, as before, by the tribute from colonies. Mr. Blenkinsop said that he preferred to represent a movement that stands for high ideals that are practical. Social services are not just palliatives but a means of transferring wealth to the people as a whole. His opponent had given some gross figures but not the nett ones alter the deduction of taxes. Nationalisation takes from the private owners the determination over production and places the management in the hands of the people as a whole. The Labour Government has achieved a higher standard for the people.

Comrade Young categorically denied that nationalisation will lead to Socialism. The Labour Party had embarked on a tortuous route but had got stuck in the swing doors of the House of Lords. It was fallacious to think that you can deny the capitalist control over industry whilst leaving him the ownership. Young quoted Mr. Attlee: "Socialism means the common ownership of land and capital . . ." You cannot commonly own capital. Capital, by definition, is wealth used for the production of more wealth with a view to profit. Socialism does not own capital, it abolishes it by taking it out of the hands of the owners. When commonly owned it ceases to be capital. It becomes wealth. Nationalisation does not do that. Tories will not repeal the nationalisation laws. His opponent had said that the workers should demand increased wages, then why not grant them? The social services reminded him of the ants which used the aphis and extracted a milk from them and then put the aphis back on to a juicy leaf or stalk for it to recuperate in preparation for a further milking. The idea that the workers benefit from the tribute wrung from colonials arises from a lack of knowledge of what makes Capitalism tick. In the days of Ramsay MacDonald the Labour Party said that Socialism was just round the comer. Now they say a lot of steps have to be taken. All these steps are building up capitalism. If this debate was just a matter of slow idealists versus careful, practical politicians we might as well all have gone to the pictures. But this was going on in a world with an international situation, in a competitive system. In times of slump the capitalists herd together as do wolves when they are hungry. The one-time conscientious objectors and pacifists of the Labour Party are now saying "get back into uniform." They call it defence. In all parts of the world they call it defence. Comrade Young quoted from a daily paper:

"A machine for producing invisible mists loaded with germs of pneumonic plague has been designed at the Government’s Germ Warfare research station at Porton, on Salisbury Plain. The disease is more terrible than bubonic plague." 

We are hurtling at a breakneck speed to a "practical" massacre. All this results from a mistaken idea of achieving Socialism one step at a time. Young produced two election addresses, one Tory, one Labour. They were both alike in most respects. We of the S.P.G.B. do not want merely attempts at the relief of poverty we want to abolish the system of poverty. He concluded with a quotation from the New Statesman and Nation:

“A very substantial employer of labour was discussing the political situation the other day. 'Of course,’ he said, 'we had difficulty in settling down after the war, but the men are working well now. Everything is going smoothly now. You understand that I am a staunch Conservative. I always have been one. But 1 don’t like to think what would happen if the Conservatives got into power now. I really don’t think that we dare swop horses in the middle of the stream.’ ’’

Mr. Blenkinsop accused his opponent of being a rhetorical speaker. He asked, "If the S.P.G.B. is going to offer itself to the electorate to usher in the new society, what are the practical steps it proposes?" It wants some mythical form of representatives to gather together to usher in a new society. It wants to continue as a little group preaching to itself. If the Labour Party has produced nothing in 45 years, what has the S.P.G.B. produced in 48? It is the working class itself that is moving inside the Labour Party. It is not true that there is no sign of improvement That is an isolated view. His opponent would not dare to express it to the miners. The miners know the advantages of a new and better system of living which the S.P.G.B. has not dared to attempt to achieve.

Comrade Young concluded. The fact that millions believe something does not make it correct. The S.P.G.B. claims that the establishment of Socialism requires the conscious organisation of the working class. The Labour Party denies this, it is a reformist party. Capitalism is rotten ripe for the change, the only hindrance and stumbling block is the political ignorance and the mists of confusion created by the Labour Party. If there had been no Labour Party to do the job, the Capitalists would have created one.

W. Waters.

Editorial: The Labour Party’s Thirty-One Years. (1931)

Editorial from the March 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

Workers Worse Off

The Labour Party was formally constituted under its present title in February, 1906, after the General Election at which twenty-nine Labour M.P.’s were returned. Six years earlier the Labour Party’s predecessor, the Labour Representation Committee, was formed. The Independent Labour Party, which was largely instrumental in bringing about the later developments, was formed in 1893—nearly forty years ago.

All three bodies were based on the same general set of ideas. They rejected the possibility of winning over the workers to Socialism by the direct method of preaching clear-cut Socialist principles, and based their hopes on the policy of winning support by the indirect method of social reforms. They argued, not without some show of reason, that the workers were interested in day-to-day issues containing the promise of immediate advantage, and were not interested in the broad question of the organisation of society. Those who retorted that the job must be tackled of changing the workers’ outlook were pushed aside. They were told that practical work would prove far more effective than mere criticism of capitalism and preaching of Socialism. The Socialist Party of Great Britain was a voice crying in the wilderness. Our warning that capitalism would frustrate all the practical work as fast or faster than it could be achieved, and still leave Socialism unattained, was ignored or derided. Now that thirty-one years have passed and the Labour Party has twice been in office, it is opportune to look back and judge of the truth of our criticism. How have the facts treated the Labour Party’s theory?

Are the workers better off? Have they improved their position relatively to that of the capitalist class? Is life more leisurely for them and more secure? Have extremes of wealth and poverty been abolished? And, a last question, are we nearer to Socialism?

Speaking broadly, all of these questions must be answered in the negative. We have had reforms innumerable; Liberal reforms backed by the Labour Party; Tory reforms; and Labour reforms backed by Liberals. The political wheel has gone full circle. A Labour Party once subordinate to the Liberals has won to power, and now it is Mr. Lloyd George who must go each week to 10, Downing Street, for consultations on the joint Liberal-Labour policy.

But the enactment of reforms has been like pouring water into a leaky bucket, Nearly every additional expenditure by the Government on social reforms to remedy some pressing working-class evil has helped to lower the workers’ cost of living. What the workers have received in the shape of sick benefit, unemployed pay, etc., has been used by the employers as an excuse—admitted or unadmitted—for seeking to reduce wages. What has been gained at great effort in one direction has been wholly or partly taken away in another. As the Liberal economist, Professor Clay, admits in his book, “The Problem of Industrial Relations,” the increase in expenditure on social services has not been a clear addition to wages, but “has followed and to a large extent compensated for, the check to the rise in real wages . . . about the end of last century” (p. 249).

Up to about 1897 the purchasing power of the workers’ wages was rising. Since that date real wages have fallen. Against social services, therefore, must be set the decline in real wages and the increase in unemployment. Professor Clay admits that from 1895 to 1913 prices were rising more rapidly than wage rates, in spite of “a rapid increase in the country’s wealth” (ibid., p. 212).

Professor Pigou, writing in the Economic Journal for June, 1923, said : —

“The rate of real wages actually declined between the later ‘nineties and the outbreak of the Great War.”

The Labour Research Department (this is not a Labour Party organisation) made an attempt to compare real wages in the years from 1900 to 1928.

Their estimate was based on official figures, and allowed for unemployment and for changes in the cost of living. It showed that in 1928 the industrial workers were about 6 per cent. worse off than in 1900 and about 5 per cent. worse off than in 1914. (See L.R.D. Bulletin, January, 1929.)

The Labour Party’s own Research Department made a similar inquiry (see Labour Bulletin, June, 1929). They found that real wages, after allowing for changes in prices and in the amount of unemployment, were in 1928 practically the same as in 1914, but slightly less (1.6 per cent.) than in 1900. Since 1928, according to recent issues of the Labour Bulletin, real wages have fallen 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. They have continued to fall since the Labour Government came into office.

We do not claim for any of the estimates quoted above that they are more than approximate. The subject does not permit of absolute precision. They are sufficient, however, to indicate the trend of wages.

What we emphatically must say is that nothing has been achieved by the reform parties in the past thirty or forty years in any way commensurate with the vast expenditure of energy by two generations of enthusiastic supporters of the Labour Party. We do not believe that those who joined the Labour Party would have toiled for 31 years if they had realised then what small and uncertain results would come from their efforts. Would they have been so confident of the soundness of their policy if they could have foreseen that after all their labours the proportion of the national income received by the wage-earners would fall from 47.4 per cent. before the war to 45 per cent. to-day? That is the admission of the Daily Herald in its editorial on February 13th.

And none of the hardly won reforms are certain gains. A period of acute unemployment like the present, accompanied by wage reductions, may in a few months wipe out the savings of a lifetime and destroy the wage standards defended by years of effort. Then, in the midst of the hard struggle of the workers, Mr. Philip Snowden, Chancellor of the Exchequer, announces that we must all be prepared for sacrifices: “The sacrifice the workers might have to make would be a temporary suspension in schemes of social development.” (Report in Daily Herald, February 18th.)

The Labour Party believed in reforming capitalism, but finds when in power that those very capitalist evils which the reforms were to solve, themselves make further reforms impossible at the very time when the evils are greatest. What a fate for a thirty-years-old movement ! !

We prophesy that the Party which rose to power by exploiting the discontent arising from the effects of capitalism, and which undertook to deal with those effects, will be hoist with its own petard. Discontent made the Party. Sooner or later discontent will break it. Already Mosley and others have broken away.

The Socialist policy of tackling the cause of working class poverty, and abolishing the capitalist system of society, was unassailable in 1900 and is still the only way out for the working class.

Are We Justified ? (1906)

From the August 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

Ever since its formation it has been urged against The Socialist Party of Great Britain that its attitude towards reforms or palliatives was not wise. It is contended by many that the best policy consists in agitation for this or that reform with a view to assisting the workers to get something now. Not the least of the opposition to the propagation of Socialism and nothing less has come from the S.D.F., an organisation which devotes practically the whole of its energy to the advocacy of one palliative or another, at one time urging the working class to demand an 8 hours day or work for the unemployed, at another time advising them to concentrate their energy upon demanding from the capitalist class the state maintenance of school children, latterly coupling with this secular education. A consistent and unremitting agitation in favour of Socialism is, of course, not to be expected, as it would not suit the book of the controllers of that body, and would probably result in the loss of at least the more aristocratic of its members, who, judging by their actions, are in favour of anything but Socialism.

While it is true of the I.L.P. that they have always disavowed the class war (although sometimes voting for it, as at the Amsterdam Congress in 1904) the fact remains that they have occasionally told the public that Socialism would be an improvement on the present capitalist system, taking care, however, in doing so, to include the proviso that the said improvement must come to pass by a series of reforms which will bring us to the promised land of Socialism at some date too remote to be worth consideration at the present period.

The L.R.C. (now the Labour Party) at their conference held in Liverpool in January, 1905, carried with acclamation a resolution stating that their ultimate object is the socialisation of the means of production, distribution, etc. Neither in the speeches, writings, or actions of its advocates, however, can much trace of this ultimate object be found, the immediate object apparently taking up the whole of their time and energy. The immediate object while the general election was in progress was to get in, and numerous were the arrangements made to that end, as was shown very clearly in “Labour at the Polls” in the Socialist Standard for March, 1906. The immediate object since the election has been to vote almost without exception in the Liberal lobby, to make speeches which receive, and well merit, the congratulation of some of the wealthiest capitalists of the land, and to back such beautiful samples of capitalist legislation as the Brunner Bill for the better exploitation of children.

It cannot be denied, therefore, that all these organisations hold that the quickest way to change the conditions under which the working class exist is to work for reforms, relegating to the far distant future the only remedy—viz., Socialism.

Whether the immediate complaint be that the worker is suffering from too long hours, insufficient food, sweated conditions or any other of the evils inherent in capitalism, the S.P.G.B. has always maintained that nothing short of Socialism could possibly effect a cure, and has consequently steadfastly refused to be drawn into any reform agitation whatsoever, urging that the quickest way to get “something now” even is to organise to obtain the whole.

To those who pooh-pooh this view ; to those who call us impossiblists for holding it ; to those who imagine that they are practical politicians while we are in the clouds : to all these the following extract from Lord Avebury’s speech on the burden of armaments made in the House of Lords on the 25th of May is offered for consideration.

“The unrest in Europe, the spread of Socialism, . . . was a warning to the governments and the governing classes that the condition of the working classes in Europe was becoming intolerable, and that if revolution were to be avoided some steps must be taken to increase wages, reduce the hours of labour, and lower the prices of the necessaries of life.”

It is granted that Lord Avebury has a big task on hand to convert some of the capitalists of this and other countries to his view ; it is granted that increase in wages, the lessening of the hours of labour, or the lowering of the prices of the necessaries of life will not come into operation on the 1st of January, 1907 ; but the fact remains that a member of the exploiting class has shown to every thinking worker who cares to examine his statement, the conditions under which the capitalist class are prepared to give the working class those reforms for which some individuals profess so much anxiety.

Will the members of the organisations alluded to and all the rest of the reforming angels justify their position in the face of Lord Avebury’s statement ? Will they show in the face of this wherein the position of the S.P.G.B. is assailable ?

Let the workers of the world organise for Socialism and refuse to be.drawn from the straight path. They may rely upon it that the more determination they evince to follow this course the more frequently will speeches like the extract given be heard preceding the reforms that will be thrown to them, in order that Lord Avebury and Co. may secure a little longer time in which to enjoy the good things of life, and in order that the day when the working class shall come by its own may be postponed. “Something now” will be attained, not by agitating for reform, but by organising for revolution, a work which, in this country, The Socialist Party of Great Britain alone is performing.

P. D.

Turning Left – or going round in circles? (2003)

From the November 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

We in the World Socialist Movement are very much a different breed from all those others who like to use the term “Socialist”. We have a highly original proposition among the political organisations world-wide seeking to bring sensible arrangements to human society, and, when we say we want to “change the world”, we really mean just that. We are not in any way attached to any in the huge array of lefty groups which together can produce a recipe book to remedy all society’s ills the size of which would put Culpeper’s Herbal in the shade. In reality, though, many of these are as suspiciously comparable to each other in content as Tesco and Sainsbury products and as BBC and ITN news bulletins. Moreover, all have a success rate as to make the practitioners of mountebankery honest and respectable professors.

It is unfortunately a fact that among the opinions of the various bourgeois media there too is confusion in the area of social studies and of the true identity of the particular players engaged in their respective activities. This confusion extends to including us in with groups such as Anti-Nazi League, the Anti-Capitalists or Anti-Globalisation movements, etc. The Anti-Globalisation groups may know what they are against, but regrettably they know not why nor what to replace world capitalism with and still call for modifications in existing society, reforms. In addition, they cannot yet distinguish between globalisation and capitalism. Many thus end up either supporting the deadbeats who only want to tinker with the capitalist economy, reformers, and who have all in the past failed miserably even with their limited demands – Benn, Scargill, Gorbachev, Fidel Castro, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, to name just a few. While others, quite remarkably, take on a Luddite mentality and start smashing up the world.

However the latest publications from some Anti-Globalisation members look encouraging as the analysis of society worked out by Karl Marx is beginning to creep into the discussion within this movement and hopefully will bring some grounding to this confusing diversity of protesters. The conscious recognition in this movement of the international nature of the adversary; the awareness of the necessity of a global action against it; the extensive and intense use of the new means of global communication and the Internet developed by capitalist globalisation but in a spirit of digital counter-culture is itself a very significant development.

Now we have another lefty following the path of Benn etc who must now be regarded as a clown among clowns – Tommy Sheridan. This, not only because in the light of the failures of others he still presses on, but because of the laugh he raised among all political persuasions during the recent election when he raised the possibility that, in his little Scottish republic his government (and I mean “his”) could take over one Motorola plant and compete with Motorola and others world-wide to sell phones or components for phones. What a howler!

The left, despite referring to themselves as “socialists” have no confidence in Socialism, no confidence in the workers to win through. They tell us, your Socialism will come eventually someday – presumably, when we are all dead and gone. By this, they mean the job falls not to them but to others sometime in the future. There is no logic to this whatsoever. For the world is ready now and painfully waiting – how is Socialism to ever come in the future when we are never to explain it to people here now, for it takes a while? What will happen that might cause this future embrace of Socialism, we are not told. The truth for Benn and co is “do what you want after my career, my shot at being the leader, my time in the limelight is over”. The left like to act themselves as though they are Jesus or Moses, and lay down the commandments in stone for ignorant followers to obey. Some of us however, are not so easily taken in.

How sum up the differences between us and the lefty heroes above?

Where these leftwingers call for more wages, we socialists call for no wages; where they call for the right to work, we call for the right not to work; where they call for the Rights of Nations, we say Nations should have no Rights to exist; where they call for Leadership, we call for no Leadership. And though we both agree that money is a problem, they call for a more “fair” distribution of it; we say if it’s a problem let’s live our lives without it; they call for the exchange in the means of life with other exactly or at least comparably valued means of life; we say no to exchange, except for in the free exchange of ideas and the exchange of raw Nature into the means of life.

William Dunn

Don’t try to reform capitalism – work for socialism (2003)

From the November 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Here we aim to bring together the various elements in the case for reformism (implying rejection of revolution) and in the case for revolution (implying rejection of reformism). The taking of a revolutionary position does not necessarily mean opposing all proposed and actual reforms of capitalism, but it does mean not advocating them and opposing reformism as a policy alternative to revolution.

On the left-hand side the case for reformism is presented critically, expressed as a number of more or less related points. In the right-hand column the case for revolution is spelled out.

Stan Parker

Reformism	Revolution
Reforms of the present system have the seeming advantage of being based firmly in the realm of the possible, capable of being achieved quicker and easier than the bigger and more fundamental set of changes that will constitute the socialist revolution.	The socialist revolution requires a majority of people to understand and want socialism. While the material conditions are ripe for production for use (not profit), common ownership and free access, the dominant ideas are those of capitalism.
Most reforms are single-issue proposals specific to a particular area of society. Large-scale change is not necessarily opposed, lip service may even be paid to it, but it is to be achieved, Fabian-fashion, bit by bit.	Revolutionaries object to reformist attempts to tame capitalism because it is like attacking a tiger one claw at a time. Capitalism is a coherent and, with all its faults, a well-integrated system. It will yield only to a campaign of fundamental and comprehensive change.
Reformism, being pragmatic, faces a problem or a situation ready to accept less, often far less, than is really needed to deal with the situation or solve the problem. The medical term for reforms is band-aids; in terms of bread it is crumbs or at best half a loaf.	Revolutionaries point out how little of value is achieved by piecemeal reformist efforts. The time and energy spent on collecting crumbs from the capitalists’ table would be better directed to organising capture of the bakery.
Reformers implicitly or explicitly deride revolutionaries for wanting the impossible, for ‘not living in the real world’. They believe that capitalism can be made to operate in the interest of workers.	Revolutionaries say that while some reforms can be achieved under capitalism, the capitalist system operates, and can only operate, in the interests of capital. In trying to make the capitalist leopard change its spots reformers are the real ‘impossibilists’.
Reformers present their proposed changes as ‘Yes, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than what we’ve got.’ This philosophy is often expressed by the injunction to ‘choose the lesser of two evils’.	Revolutionaries don’t accept that there is no alternative to capitalism or that it is ‘the only game in town’. When non-socialists face them with the choice between two evils they choose neither.
Reformers want to use the electoral process as a means of gathering as many votes as possible. Reform manifestos display the small changes advocated as attractively as possible, with little concern for educating the voters. Priority is given to winning elections and electing leaders.	Revolutionaries, too, are prepared to use the electoral process, but with a view to challenging capitalist control of political power. The first task is to educate people and make socialists. The success of socialist candidates will measure the extent to which this activity achieves its aim.
The extremes of wealth and poverty in the world today, and their dire consequences such as starvation and preventable disease, are recognised by reformers, who respond by advocating various measures (usually unsuccessful or only partly successful) to redistribute wealth and reduce poverty.	For revolutionaries wealth is not to be redistributed but held in common. Poverty, starvation and suchlike are not to be minimised, they are to be abolished.
The success of the appeal to reform capitalism depends to a great extent on dissuading people from the alternative of abolishing it. So socialism is wrongly described as nationalisation or the wages system under state management.	Revolutionaries describe socialism as a world society of common ownership, democratic control, production for use, and free access on the basis of self-determined need – no nation states, no classes, no money.
Reformers who have some sympathy with the idea of socialism commonly seek to do a deal with revolutionaries: ‘It is important to get unity of the left. Join us today to achieve – (particular reform) and tomorrow we’ll join the revolution’.	For revolutionaries the deal offered by some reformers to get unity of the left is always a poisoned chalice. Reforms are to be pursued today, tomorrow the revolution – and tomorrow never comes.
Reformers believe that leaders are necessary to inspire and organise followers to work for the particular change(s) advocated. Active support for leaders in the form of volunteering is usually welcome, but minimal support at the ballot box is acceptable.	Socialism requires that there be neither leaders nor followers. It does, however, require organisation and sometimes people will be elected or appointed as delegates or representatives of others in the process of making decisions at various levels of responsibility.
Some reformers believe that free market capitalism is better than state capitalism. Assuming (wrongly) that the only choice is between two forms of the profit system, then there is something to be said for the ‘free’ market, which is never completely free but always subject to some control to protect the system.	Revolutionaries do not enter into the debate about whether free market capitalism is better or worse than state capitalism. They oppose the profit system in all its forms and work only for its replacement by socialism.
Other reformers believe that state capitalism, which they may call socialism or communism, is better than free market capitalism. This view suffered a severe setback with the collapse of the Soviet and allied regimes in the late 1980s, but there is still some support around the world for more state control of markets.	As just said, revolutionaries have no stake in how capitalism is run. Socialists are opposed to capitalism however it is organised. The alternative is not ‘free market’ capitalism or state capitalism, but capitalism or socialism.
Time and energy spent on reforms is said by some reformers to be a necessary part of the class struggle. It is claimed that this is all we can do: fight for the best deal we can get from capitalism.	Class struggle is an inherent and inevitable feature of capitalism. The historical task of workers is not to accept their subordinate class position – it is to replace class society with classless society.

Best regards, but miles apart (2023)

From the October 2023 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Sometimes people in other groups and countries contact us with a view to some kind of joint venture or activity. As a recent correspondence illustrates, such well-intended invitations can often expose deep and unsuspected difficulties. It would be unfair to quote our correspondent directly without their permission, but you may surmise their arguments from our own responses below.

Hi there,

I’ve just been forwarded your invite, and sure, happy to have a chat online. If you know anything about us though, you’ll know we’re all about global common ownership now, with no money or markets, and we don’t go in for piecemeal progressive reforms, eg, housing, so I don’t know how much you’d get out of our involvement.

Best regards

Hi there,

To be honest I’m reluctant to take part if the purpose is mainly to ‘raise awareness’ about housing issues. The way I interpret this is ‘promoting positive things we can do about housing’, and I’m not convinced there are any. I would be obliged to object that over a hundred years of housing reforms have done nothing to cure the homelessness problem, and in my opinion never will do anything, because housing is like any other commodity that’s produced for profit, not for need, and entirely subject to the laws of the capitalist market. Poor people simply don’t matter in this system, but it’s arguably even worse than that. The more workers are ground down by exorbitant rents and mortgages, the more desperate they get, and the more employers can screw them with low wages, zero-hour contracts and anti-union rules. In this view, homelessness is actually great for capitalism, just like unemployment, and unaffordable health systems. They are not problems it has any intention of solving.

I’m guessing you want to stress the positives, as in these two paragraphs from Jacobin magazine:

‘Certain reform-oriented struggles, especially those around rent control and expanded provision of social housing, offer important opportunities for on-the-ground socialist organizing. But we also shouldn’t be shy about our big-picture diagnosis.

Socialists have to make the case, loudly, publicly, and globally: capitalism can never meet our needs for high-quality, affordable housing. The reason is straightforward: the profit motive’ (jacobin.com/2018/11/capitalism-affordable-housing-rent-commodities-profit).

This is the age-old dilemma of action now or revolution later. It’s always claimed that you can do both, but in practice one is always pursued at the expense of the other. To me it’s like trying to redecorate while your house is on fire. I also can’t go along with the idea that housing reforms could be some kind of step on the way to socialism. You could make the same argument for virtually every charity under the sun, with the result that the steps on the way to socialism rapidly multiply to infinity. And reforms can be undone, and frequently have been, by successive political regimes, so that sadly, reformism is rarely a forward path, more often a circular loop. How many times has Oxfam proposed to eradicate poverty since they were founded in 1942?

I’m replying at some length just so you can see what position I would be obliged to take, which I fear would have the effect of undermining whatever you want to put across. I heartily sympathise with you over the undeniable fact that the working class does not seem interested in socialism right now. But I don’t think the solution is to offer them something else. Part of the reason the working class is not interested in the single socialist step is that they’re too beguiled by the plethora of reformist routes being offered to them.

If you’re happy to proceed on this basis then fine, but I perfectly understand if you don’t think it would be helpful.

Best regards

Hi there,

Based on what you’ve just replied, I’m afraid I have not made myself clear at all. You say you ‘100 percent support radical socialist reforms’. We don’t, because we don’t believe they exist or that they would work. You ask for socialist ideas (I suppose meaning ‘reform measures’) that I support. There are none. You ask what policies I think are best. There are none. Key issues? Just one, getting the world to abolish capitalism. That’s all. No interims, no small steps, no ‘in the meantime’.

Your approach is: the working class won’t listen, so propose progressive things they will listen to instead. In this view, socialism is more of an ongoing process than an end goal.

Our approach is: the working class won’t listen, so make them listen. Socialism is the only goal. There is no process.

You may regard this as an absolutist, rather than a relativist position, and you’d be right. This is not a new debate, it’s as old as the history of socialist thinking, and caused the breakup of the First International. On the one (majority) side, the gradualists, reformists, Fabians and ‘minimalist’ socialists who thought you could introduce socialism by degrees, through progressive government measures. On the other side, the ‘maximalist’ socialists, also called Impossibilists, who demanded the immediate abolition of capitalism, and nothing less.

We are in that maximalist tradition, which is nothing if not uncompromising. We would be the first to admit that we haven’t got what we wanted. But capitalism still exists, and workers are still suffering, with the world possibly on the brink of self-extermination, so we would argue that the minimalists didn’t get what they wanted either. We’re no closer to socialism now than we were a hundred years ago, for all their progressive ideas. In fact, because of all the ‘faux socialism’ being put about, we are arguably even further away.

I admire your energy and initiative in setting up your own political group, obviously in the hope that you can make a difference. The world needs people like you, more than ever. But I would suggest that you take a closer look at these ‘socialist reforms’ you advocate. There are very few genuinely new concepts floating around. Have these reforms been tried before, and if so, what happened? Do they make sense in terms of economics? If you’re not sure, feel free to ask me. If I don’t know, I can find out. A little bit of homework now could save you spending a lot of energy later.

Why not tell me what measures you want to promote, and I’ll tell you what I think?

Best regards

Hi again,

I’m sorry you think I’m being ‘pointlessly hostile’ and wasting your time with ‘idiotic squabbling’. I only wanted you to understand my position and now I guess you do. I suppose you will consider it a waste of time communicating with me, but I will take the trouble to reply anyway. To me, this sort of exchange is not some alternative to the revolutionary process, it’s part of it.

Believe me, I would love nothing better than to get round the table with a united revolutionary socialist movement and form a united plan. If I had the magic power to make that happen I would. I don’t want a divided opposition to capitalism any more than you do.

But if you think that movement is divided by nothing more than petty superficial squabbles, you don’t understand revolutionary politics as well as you think. The divisions go all the way down.

There are two main fault lines:

(1) Minimal versus maximal – the two poles, as already explained. Minimalists are driven by a desperate sense of expediency, but what happens in practice is that they always get drawn into managing capitalism on behalf of the rich. This has happened with every supposedly labour or socialist party that’s ever been in government. In the UK, many of their grandees end up in the House of Lords. What usually happens to the supporters is that, over time, they forget all about socialism and become garden-variety liberals.

(2) Vanguardists versus libertarians – on one side, the Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyists, etc, who believe the working class is basically stupid and needs an elite revolutionary leadership, who alone are capable of understanding socialist theory. If successful these groups, in the process of imposing their new order, have become a new totalitarian ruling class, very often murderously so. Against them stands an assortment of libertarian socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and some left or council communists, who reject leadership as an inherently weak and undemocratic form of organisation, and insist like Marx that only the whole working class can emancipate itself.

The above presupposes that, at heart, they all want 100 percent socialism, at least at some distant point in the future. Actually, many of the minimalists and vanguardists don’t even want that, or understand what it is. They think socialism is just capitalism managed by the state, or by a revolutionary dictatorship.

I need hardly add that there are other, more minor differences. The vanguardists all hate each other, like the fighting dogs they are. The minimalists (who are often also vanguardists) all promote competing and often infeasible reforms (like UBI) simply to get votes and/or members. Even the libertarians are divided, with most apart from the SPGB being anti-parliament.

I’m not making any of this up. These divisions existed well before you or I were ever born. If you’re going into revolutionary territory, you need to know where the cliff edges are. It doesn’t mean we have to be uncivil with each other, but unity between groups who don’t want the same thing is out of the question. Our solution, whether you agree with it or not, is to specify exactly what we mean by socialism, and then seek out only those people who fully support that aim, so that the revolution can proceed on solid rather than nebulous foundations.

Best regards

PJS

Blogger's Notes:

" . . . and caused the breakup of the First International . . . " I think PJS meant the Second International.