South Africa—chrome and cricket (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is the perennial cry of Socialists that as long as the capitalist system remains intact it will, by and large, dictate the course of events and politicians find they cannot implement promises and policies; and find themselves doing things different from or even utterly opposed to all they are supposed to stand for. The Labour Party, in common with most leftist types such as those represented by The Guardian, has for years been screaming about the iniquity of apartheid in South Africa. And quite right too. It is an abominable system.

So at times they try and do something that will make a big noise and at the same time do nothing to upset the real objective of all governments — to make the system work as efficiently and profitably as possible for the capitalist owners of the country. A convenient opportunity along these lines occurred to the last Wilson government in 1970. Wilson and his henchmen joined with the Hainites and The Guardian to strike a mortal blow at apartheid. They actually succeeded in stopping a cricket tour — and by all the sound and fury generated, one could have been forgiven for thinking that this blow had brought down apartheid, the racialist government of Vorster, and perhaps the whole evil capitalist system into the bargain. Of course apartheid has gone on just the same and as long as governments, Labour, Tory or east of the Curtain, were prepared to carry on trading and investing, Vorster and Co. would survive the loss of a cricket tour.

However, among the promises which Labour’s election manifesto poured out, was one about the iniquity of investing in South Africa. Fresh investments that is: there was no question of throwing away the vast sums already invested, or of ceasing to trade with Britain’s third biggest customer. That would worry Vorster and his apartheidists, but it would worry British capitalism even more, so such real gestures were out. The name of the game is to kid the leftists (such of them, that is, who believe their own claptrap). Not to hurt British capitalism. As though that lot isn’t in deep enough trouble already!

And so again, the needs of running the system fly in the face of all the leftists are supposed to stand for. I cannot do better than quote from a long and almost literate letter from a Labour MP called Kinnock (Guardian, July 31):

“Last October all Labour candidates fought in support of a manifesto which said that a Labour government would take urgent steps to reduce drastically British economic involvement in South Africa . . . End all financial links . . . Bring about the withdrawal of all or part of existing investment and establish machinery to prevent any further investment . . . Now, ten months later, the government permits the British Steel Corporation to invest heavily in a chrome plant in S. Africa”.

Well said, Kinnock! You have in fact exposed the Labour government as a bunch of hypocrites who would not tell a black man the time if it conflicted with the interests of the British capitalist class. Only one trouble: these people are your kith and Kinnock. You can’t accuse the government without accusing yourself at the same time. You are a Labour MP (masquerading as a socialist like all your swindling clan), and you keep that government in power for the privilege of riding to the cushy jobs at Westminster on the bandwagon. So what does that make you?

In the leading article on the same subject in The Guardian (July 29) the humbugs of Grays Inn Road give their own views: “Chrome: the only decision.” Unlike Kinnock, who denounces his own Fuehrer, the great leftist mouthpiece tells us that Wilson and his gang were quite right to rat on the manifesto. “The Labour Left may not like the idea of giving aid and comfort to South Africa”: it is “making an unnecessary fuss.” Among the reasons for this remark from the paper which made such a screaming fuss over a blasted game of cricket is:— “British Steel is among the companies with better reputations as employers of black labour. It claims it has gone to some lengths to make sure that the 184 black workers it will employ will be paid a reasonable wage, above the poverty datum line.”

Now isn’t that just ducky? It’s all right to break your word and give aid and comfort to the apartheidists if you “claim” to . . . do what? To pay the blacks good screws for working in the chrome mines? Equal to those earned by those who write hypocritical leading articles? Not quite: “Above the poverty datum line.” An extra handful of mealy, from the mealy mouths of our do-gooder Press.

But that’s only half of it. The editorial goes on to say: “It is hard to believe that what the British Steel Corporation does with its blocked funds is going to make any difference to apartheid.” So the same creeps who fooled the idiot wicket-sitters that they were striking a blow at apartheid, who endorsed the Labour manifesto without demur, now have the impudence to tell us that investment in chrome is neither here nor there as far as Vorster is concerned. They may be right. Maybe Vorster doesn’t give a monkey’s whatever Wilson and his capitalist lackeys do or do not do. But for The Guardian to say so beggars belief.

The main reason for Wilson’s decision is that South African chrome is cheaper than the rest. The editorial keeps to capitalist basics on this. If the chrome is dearer in South Africa it is right to honour your principles and buy elsewhere. But if it is cheaper, why, then you are right to say: Let the blacks go hang, we are buying in the cheapest market. There is a delightful bit at the end. In the case of another precious commodity, uranium, Tony Benn (the sanctimonious twit who wants to shed his name — but not the wealth that derives from it) wrote a letter to The Guardian in Sept. ’73 (when he was not yet in power and talk was therefore cheap) “pledging himself to end Britain’s contract to buy uranium from the Republic”. But when his lot came to power, they found: what? Why, that it would cost more to buy elsewhere. So they have not honoured this rat’s pledge to end the contract at all. Money talks louder than principles with Labour leaders — and with Guardian leader-writers.

Last, in the New Statesman, that other rag which stands for Labourite capitalism masquerading as socialism, around the same date there was a leading article on the same subject. But they objected to the betrayal of the blacks. How nice of them. The blacks will be very pleased to see them denounce the Labour Party at the next election. (A likely story.) But they actually say that something or other that Wedgbenn has done has “fastened the chains of slavery still tighter” round the victims of racialism in South Africa. I wonder what the sages of Great Turnstile will say about Benn at the next election? Workers beware? He is another twister who will sell the workers down the river (white ones as well as black)? Another likely story. One can only conclude by borrowing a pun from Marx. Es lebe der wurst! Es lebe der Hanwurst ! Long live the sausage! Long live the clown!

L E Weidberg

Artists in Capitalism (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

If you have ever roamed the fields and lanes of the countryside and perhaps marvelled at the sight of the sun catching the trees, or the side of the hills, and finally set up your easel and started to paint, you will know something of the pleasure and joy of the amateur artist. This is work done for the satisfaction it brings, not for money. The growth and popularity of painting as a leisure-time activity has been accompanied and stimulated by a continuous flood of books and materials. There is a wide range of books and magazines dealing with numerous aspects of art, artists, art history, and techniques. All kinds of new and often gimmicky materials come on to the market; the motive for their production is profit, not for the purpose of helping artists produce works of art.

What is art under capitalism? Whatever people think it is, or ought to be, the overwhelming fact is that capitalism reduces it like everything else to the status of a commodity — something to be bought and sold. Consider the recent boom in sales of works of art. Capitalists visit plush galleries and auction rooms to invest in them in order to increase their wealth, or if they feel it is a safeguard against depreciation of their money. Or they may, as some do, buy them as a show of status (or even sometimes because they like them). But whatever the reason, it is only the capitalist class who can afford original works of art.

Capitalism on one hand saturates us with art in a multiplicity of ways. It comes in the form of cheap prints of old and modern masters to be bought in any number of different kinds of shops. It comes in masses of mass-produced ornamental commodities, and from the television screen like the very popular Sir Kenneth Clark series, programmes of individual artists, different schools of art, and a host of others. Yet on the other hand capitalism denies the vast majority any participation in creative activity.

Slaves of the Market

How does capitalism accomplish this denial of art?

Why is it that productive activity under capitalism is devoid of pleasure and art? It is because the worker is divorced from the means of production and his product. Hence there is no relation between the productive process and the needs of the producers as human beings. The workers are not engaged in producing useful things for the purpose of satisfying human needs. Profit is the goal of production; all effort must be harnessed to this end. This is the negation of human fulfilment and of art, an impossibility for their development.

The means of production and the product are alienated from the worker. They exist for him outside of his control, and they are only brought together with the needs of expanding capital, and so long as the worker continues to produce not only the value of his own wages but a surplus value over and above his wages. For the capitalist, his interest in the means of production and the product exists only for him as owner of private property, to use as capital and the increase of capital, not as a user of them for the purpose of creating useful things. Art can only result when it is a necessary function in the lives of people in society, when it plays a part in the production of the things society requires. That is, when man has control of his own production related to his needs. Capitalism requires the reverse.

What about the professional artists, those men and women who produce the work exhibited to be sold from the various galleries? What is their position in capitalism? The artist of today is subject to changing fashion, he must constantly be ahead of trends. He must produce for exhibitions (the market), try to anticipate the attitudes of the critics, and like a film star must constantly stay in the lime-light. He must be something of a celebrity, to be interviewed and photographed, otherwise he may be hurled back from success to join thousands of others who hope that one day they may achieve success.

Some artists have been moved to express some of the tragedies of capitalism, whether it be the loneliness and wretchedness of old age, the horrors of war, the mentally sick, or whatever else, and have left a record of this social system. An artist of this kind cannot help but express his experience and what he sees round him. If what he expresses is disturbing or ugly, then it is because his social conditions are disturbing and ugly; those are the conditions of capitalism. Then there are those artists who work in one of the branches of advertising or commercial art. They design the material which constantly bombards us from the television screen, the magazines, hoardings, and of course the stream of brochures and coupons that are stuffed through the letter box.

The world of advertising is the area of the art movement known as “pop art,” so called because it draws for its subject-matter on the techniques of commercial art, advertizing, comic strips, photographs of film stars, soup-tins and packaging showing brand names. Covering all the paraphernalia of what has come to be known as “pop culture” (all of which has become increasingly part of the environment of capitalism). Pop art is a very obvious example of ideas and their expression being the outcome of material conditions, in particular of the capitalist mode of production.

One of the ideas nurtured by capitalism which has spilled over as part of the ideology of pop art is that of the throw-away society, where commodities are made to be quickly cast aside and replaced with new ones. How clearly the profit motive shines through! This idea was echoed by Andy Warhol the pop artist in his famous remark “everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes.” It could be that there is a lesson to be learnt from pop art insofar as its treatment of the superficial and the banal highlights the degree of triviality which the condition of human life under capitalism has attained.

Part of Life

It has long been seen by some that art is divorced from everyday life, and attempts have been made to try and bring art to the common people (the working class). All these attempts are doomed to failure, as they only deal in effects, not with the cause. For art to play a part in the life of man, in his productive activity, a complete reconstruction of society is needed. Anything short of that inevitably must fail. Art cannot stand above the affairs of society; it must for its healthy development be part and parcel of the everyday activity of society.

Is there no hope then for art, for men and women to take part in creative activity as part of the work necessary to society, and the full development of its people (a completeness of development because, in the act of producing, the whole human being is produced, by bringing into play the intellectual and creative faculties?) So long as the cure is sought by trying to reform capitalism, sadly the answer must be no. When the means of life are owned in common the basis for truly human life will have been established. The practice of art will become part of life to take its place in enriching human experience and achievement.

P. Young

So They Say: Faint Headed (1975)

The So They Say Column from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Faint Headed

The hot weather of the past few weeks has been having “subtle psychological and physical effects” on us all claimed the Sunday Times of 10th August. Most particularly they note that heat relaxes the nervous system and warms the blood — causing drowsiness. Perhaps this factor should be taken into account when considering the jaded statements put forward recently by Mrs. Thatcher and masquerading as ‘policy’ for the Conservative Party.

Conservatives detested unemployment as much as anyone else . . . We believe in the creation of wealth, in flourishing business and commerce because that means prosperity for all and good prospects in the years ahead.

(Guardian, 31st July ’75)

It may have escaped her attention that to become unemployed, a worker loses a job — or, as in the case of school-leavers, fails to find a job at all. It is currently estimated that the latter already number over 55,000 and that this figure will increase considerably after the holiday period.

The “flourishing business and commerce” organisations Mrs. Thatcher speaks of, simply do not have room to entertain what she may or may not say she “detests.”

London Brick has sold much of the huge stock it was left with when building ground to a halt last year, and because it fears the boom will be short-lived, it is reluctant to replace the workers it laid off last year and re-open the works it shut.

(Sunday Times, 10th August ’75)

The Conservative leader appears oblivious to a basic law of the social system which her party wishes to continue — Under Conservatives or Labour; No production without profit.

Ghastly Problem

She continued her weary way by extolling the virtues of the “entrepreneur” who “in creating wealth for himself, creates incomparably more wealth for other people” although we are not clear if “other people” refers to other members of the board — they could hardly be unemployed workers. Concluding she remarked with ambiguity

The greatest conservative Prime Minister of this century, Winston Churchill once had as his slogan ‘Set the people free,’ it is time we revived it.

(Guardian, 31st July ’75)

One who fits into this category of “entrepreneur” is Sir Jules Thorn, and he is just about to set his people free, although not in the way that Mrs. Thatcher would approve. His company, Thorn Colour Tubes is considering the imminent closure of their Skelmersdale plant. 1,500 workers will become unemployed as a result. The reason behind this is that the bottom has dropped out of the colour television market, coupled with the fact that cheaper Japanese products are mopping up a good deal of what remains. The voice of the virile and generous capitalist who seems to haunt Mrs. Thatcher’s dreams was clearly put by Mr. Harold Mourgue, the Finance Director at Thorns:

Closure was inevitable unless firm action was taken with Government help to end a brutal price cutting war in the British colour tube market . . . with the Japanese there is a ghastly problem.

(Guardian, 13th August 1975)

But isn’t competition for markets and “brutal price- cutting wars” what it’s all about? Well, yes it is — Thorn do not want the government to take the obvious step of introducing tariff restrictions against their Japanese competitors. Their concern on this point is heartfelt: “Thorn is against a tariff war, however.

This might eventually harm its own export markets.” 

They estimate that if their plant remains open it would run at well under half its capacity next year on the demands of the British market, so it would be reasonable to assume that when they enter the export market, no doubt with the gentlemanly policy of fair shares for all, they may be surprised to find that their own conception of what is fair, will inevitably be viewed by others as “brutal” competition.

Doubletalk

An accomplished variation of the three-card trick was performed by Mr. Paul Foot — the International Socialist — in The Times of 14th August. After quoting the words of a dispirited shop steward at Norton Villiers Triumph where the Labour government has failed to provide further financial backing, Foot draws the following conclusion

These are dreadful times for socialists who put their trust in Labour Governments.

This is coy stuff of course, one of the very last places a Socialist would put his trust is in the Labour Party. But there is method in the madness. He attacks the government in its attempts to run capitalism at a time, as he puts it, of “unprecedented capitalist collapse” for the following reasons:

Labours elected representatives become isolated from their power base, impotent to resist the demands of the system which they try to manage. They mouth the mumbo jumbo of capitalism.

All unsparing language of course, but we fail to recollect when this “power base” i.e. the Labour Party supporters, expected or desired other than the continuance of capitalism. In this discrediting the leaders specifically, the illusion could be created that they alone are deliberately perverting the desires of their supporters. He accuses the “helpless puppet” (the Labour Government) of recently being forced by economic conditions to “tear up two manifestos” but fails to note that each one of those manifestos was filled from cover to cover with “the mumbo jumbo of capitalism.”

Having pointed out that such an unlikely vehicle as the Labour Party has failed to introduce Socialism, he uses some loose logic to reject the whole parliamentary method

The parliamentary road to socialism has turned into another blind alley. The revolutionary road is beginning to open up.

The “revolutionary” road to Worker’s Control is what he refers to. However we recall that Foot’s paper, the Socialist Worker had little doubt on 16th February 1974 when advising before the oncoming election that “The working class has to respond with a massive anti-Tory vote. And that means a Labour vote . . .” exactly which “helpless puppet” they favoured.

High Life and Times

The chairman of the Labour Party’s Scottish Council had some savage truths to bring home to Glasgow’s working class recently. Times appeared to be exceptionally high for action.

It is high time we did something to woo the working class mothers away from the bingo halls, clubs and casinos . . . It is high time we were doing something about getting the men away from betting shops . . . I think it is high time the educational processes were directed towards encouraging them into better ways of using their leisure time and to carry on their wider education.

We will not dwell on the degree of reserve which these proposals might reasonably expect to encounter from an average man within a Glasgow betting shop, but draw attention to the useful life which Mrs. Roberta Jacqueline Trieze Kimberly leads. No bingo halls for her!

She makes three parachute jumps a day, five days a week: Takes daily tennis and shooting lessons, and also flying lessons seven days a week. It runs into money of course — somewhere in the region of £17,000 a year, but she still has time and money for others, her dog for instance, which costs about £500 a year to keep in food and toys. The figures have emerged because Mrs. Kimberly is to divorce, and has been obliged to file a claim for expenses ‘in order to continue living in her present style’. She is claiming £96,000 a year for this purpose.

The costs include . . . £20,000 a year for entertainment; £850 a month for clothing: and £290 a month for flowers . . . A claim of medical and dental fees covers over £1,000 a month.

(Daily Mail, 25th July ’75)

Her husband, Mr. James Kimberly, is heir to the Kleenex empire, and should any reader feel overcome by the sad news of their break-up, reach for the tissues — both of them will be delighted.

Alan D'Arcy

How Many Shares Have You? (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

How often have Socialist speakers heard the absurd defence of Capitalism that, because anyone can now own “shares” in companies, everyone is a capitalist. The argument goes on to claim that therefore the working class are no longer the deprived majority of society.

W. S. Gilbert would no doubt have retorted “if everyone is somebody, then no-one’s anybody”. And of course, even if it were true that most people own a handful of shares it would not alter one iota of our fundamental criticism of capitalism. Our criticism is that capitalism is incapable of solving the major social ills that it constantly creates. All it does produce are profits for the capitalist class and problems for the working class.

But the claim is false. It is by the possession of shares that the capitalist class in advanced western capitalism (a different arrangement prevails under Soviet capitalism — no less anti-social) claims most of its ownership of the means of production and of the commodities that are produced. Shares are either owned by individuals or by companies, unit trusts (the so-called “institutional shareholders”) and the like.

As far as individual shareholdings are concerned, there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the population don’t own any. In his book Unequal Shares A. B. Atkinson says that 5 per cent of the population own over 96 per cent of the privately held shares and 1 per cent own 81 per cent. That does not leave much for the rest of us. Clearly the majority of workers have never seen a share certificate, let alone owned one.

With institutional shareholdings the position is more complicated. A good deal of the shares are owned by companies whose shares are themselves privately owned. “But what about pension funds and the like?” the defender of Capitalism plaintively bleats. “They are held for the benefit of the workers, for retirement money, injury pay etc. In effect, these are owned by the workers.” Rubbish.

According to the Royal Commission on Income and Wealth (Report No. 1, 1975) only 12.2 per cent of the total number of shares quoted are owned by Pension Funds. These funds are established by large firms like ICI or Fords for sound economic capitalist reasons. And they are set up to benefit the companies (i.e. the shareholders).

Indeed it is a well established principle of British Company Law that all moneys must be used by the company for the benefit of the shareholders only. When the old News Chronicle was closing down in the early 1960s the directors wanted to pay some of the money realised from the sale of the company’s assets to the work force as compensation for their loss of jobs etc. The high court stopped them. Money given to workers was not being used in the best interest of the company it said. The only way the money could be lawfully distributed was to the shareholders.

So in order for these “pension funds” to be lawful, the company must show that they are in the best interests of the company’s owners. And they are. There are many reasons why it is of direct benefit to the company to have pension funds and it would take a whole issue of the Socialist Standard to explain them fully. But some of the more obvious ones are these: —

1. It is another bait for the work force, just as luncheon vouchers or sports facilities etc. are. Workers know too well the miserable pensions the state will pay them when they retire and “non-contributory pension schemes” are one of the things the employer can offer to supplement a low wage.
2. Once employed the worker is encouraged to feel that he has a “stake” in the company and that if he leaves he will lose his right to a pension or it may be reduced.
3. Above all, the money in pension funds belongs to the company. Admittedly it cannot actually be spent by the capitalist class, but then neither can machines. When profits are “ploughed back” into a business these are not lost to the capitalist class. On the contrary, they represent a greater accumulated share of capital than was represented by the company’s assets before. A pension fund is as much a part of the capital of a company as is the factory or the stock-in-trade, and this will be reflected in the value of the shares on the stock exchange.

Capitalism doesn’t give workers shares, it only gives them crumbs. Socialism will mean free access, not unequal shares.

Ronnie Warrington

In other words (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Guardian is by and large (we are not saying they are consistent or that any capitalist rag can have such profitless burdens as principles) a paper that supports Labour. It is therefore the more significant to read the following passage in their leading article on the economy of July 17: "Whatever Mr. Healey may say in public, he is relying on rising unemployment to give a real bite to his anti-inflationary policy.” This is no doubt clear enough but perhaps we can put it into even simpler terms: “What the Labour government says to the working class who are stupid enough to follow their leadership is a pack of lies. What the government want is not cure unemployment, as they always say in their election addresses. They actually want to worsen unemployment as they find this necessary and desirable for the running of British capitalism (which is their job). And they want it for the purpose of giving a real bite. Out of what? Out of the living standards, of the working class.

We do not suggest The Guardian is aware of the force of what they write. But that only proves their own stupidity. What they said was true enough. Which makes a nice change.

In East London (1975)

Party News from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hard work by a small number of members and sympathizers, and the interest created by the lectures held at Centerprise, now offer the prospect of reforming a Branch of the Party in East London. To do so would be of great importance. There has not been a Branch in this area since, after many misfortunes, Hackney closed down; yet the highest vote by far for an SPGB candidate in a General Election was at Bethnal Green in 1959. We want to hear from Central Branch members, sympathizers, and readers of the Socialist Standard anywhere in East London. Please get in touch with Paul Bennett, 85 Goldsmith’s Row, Bethnal Green, London E.2.

50 Years Ago: The Illusions of Anti-Militarists (1975)

The 50 Years Ago column from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the masses are converted to socialist ideas and organised, and in control of the political machine, the armed forces will be under their control. While socialists welcome the acceptance of Socialism by any and every member of the working class, we do not delude ourselves with the notion that any rapid and widespread conversion of the army and navy is possible. Soldiers may tire of prolonged war or be driven to stop fighting by lack of food, but that is not a conversion to the revolutionary policy of Socialism.

Anti-militarism does not denote an acceptance of Socialism. Pacifists and Liberals, Anarchists and Quakers, may all be anti-militarists, opposed to all wars, sighing for perfect peace, yearning for brotherly love, but they are dreamers and ignore the nature of the system under which we live. Armed forces are required by ruling classes to keep the subject classes in slavery and wars are inseparable from a system of private property.

Socialists, therefore, go to the roots of the matter. The system depends upon the ignorance of the masses of workers and therefore until the workers obtain real knowledge of the causes of their conditions and organise in agreement with that knowledge — there is no possibility of abolishing the effects of the system.

(From an article “The Illusions of Anti-Militarism”, by Adolph Kohn, in the Socialist Standard, September 1925.)

The Powers of Government (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx called the State “the concentrated and organized power of society”, and the society he was speaking of was of course capitalism.

Among the factors which gave rise to the organized Socialist movement in the 19th century, a considerable one was the growth of State power and the consequent conviction — which also animated reformers of every kind — that through Parliament anything might be achieved. A marked difference is seen between the attitudes of those who formed the SDF and the Fabian Society, looking keenly to the use of political power, and the attitudes of men who are thought of as pioneers of Socialism before Marx — for example Thomas Hodgskin and Robert Owen — who paid no attention to the idea of using Parliament.

In further contrast, the “new left” of recent years has largely rejected parliamentary methods. But what this conveys is not the shortcomings of those methods but the inanition of the Left past and present. Socialists continue to advocate parliamentary action as the only means to change society.

At the beginning of the Socialist Party’s existence the trade unions were seeking political expression, and this was a question on which the founders were anxious to formulate and declare their attitude as quickly as possible. What must be understood is that this attitude was not simply to the trade unions as such, but to the whole question of capitalism and the State and the attainment of Socialism. The importance of taking such a position can be seen if it is compared with that of the then-strong ILP. One of the objects of the ILP from its foundation in 1893 was to secure trade-union representation in Parliament; but see the attitude to the class struggle put forward by the ILP’s leading spokesman Keir Hardie. In a main article in the Labour Leader in September 1904 — shortly after the SPGB was founded — he said:

I claim for the ILP that its Socialism is above suspicion, and its independence unchallenged and unchallengeable; and yet in the platform speeches and in the writings of its leading advocates the terms “class war” or “class conscious” are rarely if ever used.

The early members of the SPGB saw clearly that the unions’ “politicization” in the Labour Party would compel them to support other parties and compromise wherever possible to obtain concessions; and this has been the history not only of the Labour Party but of other attempts at political action by the unions.

At the same time the founders of the SPGB used in their principles the comprehensive-sounding phrase “machinery of government”, but they very quickly made it clear that this meant Parliament and local councils and nothing else. Up to about 1910 questions were sometimes sent to the Socialist Standard putting hypotheses such as what would be the Party’s strategy if Socialists found themselves in a country with no parliament, or if representation and suffrage were abolished in Britain. These questions disappeared simply because the many new nations which have come into existence have all established for themselves parliaments, making plain that this legislative machinery is essential to capitalism. Indeed, this is so firmly planted in people’s minds now that the question is replaced by another one which says Socialist society would not work without a government.

To illustrate the point about the need for parliamentary machinery, the late John Strachey gave an account of being in Poland in 1956 at the time of rioting and a change in the government. He was taken aside by a politician and asked: “You, Mr. Strachey, are a well-known democratic theorist. We require your advice. We are extremely anxious to conduct absolutely free and democratic elections in our country. But if we do so, how can be ensure that the Government’s candidates will be at the top of the poll?”

It may be of interest to mention another matter concerning Parliament which arose in the SP’s early years. The members of that period were full of optimism and expected quite rapid progress towards Socialism, and one question they considered was what would happen when the first Socialists were elected to Parliament and were faced with the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown before they could take their seats. The Party Conference was hard-headed about this and said we were not going to let meaningless constitutional forms stop us carrying out our intentions, but some members immediately left — convinced that the Party was on the slippery slopes of compromise and confusion. Events in the 65 years since then have shown the good sense of the attitude taken, and the meaninglessness of that particular constitutional form. In 1937 a Parliament which had sworn allegiance to the King unanimously sacked him for disobliging them.

Fundamentally, the State is an executive for the ruling class, and this is what it was literally in its early days (comprising only well-established members of the ruling class). The different sectional interests of the ruling class produced (as they continue to produce) a division of parties within the executive. And, still at a relatively early stage, governments found they must have the consent of the ruled to some degree. The alternative would have been the permanent risk of civil disorder and the need to maintain too big a burden of suppressive legislation and force. Therefore democracy was pressed on the working class — to become eventually its invaluable weapon because it offers the means to control of the governing machinery.

Differences between parties remain, to a large extent as differences over how the money collected by taxation to finance the State is to be obtained and used. The Socialist Party’s unique long-standing attitude to taxation is that, despite all the appearances, it is not a matter of any consequence to the working class. Where the main form, direct taxation, is concerned workers are in one sense aware of this, in that they correctly see their wages not as the theoretical gross payment but as what they actually get after deductions. In practice taxes are collected not from the workers but from the capitalists and, as has been said, the pro-capitalist parties are in dispute largely over the most fruitful methods.

In speaking earlier of the growth of State power, what was meant was not that the State has been more and less strong at different times but the widening of what it has to deal with. Since the 1890s all governments have had to legislate and provide for an expanding education system, housing, road traffic, town planning, and innumerable other fresh things; and this is all effected and controlled through local government. As the needs have changed and grown, local government has had to be reorganized repeatedly, including the very recent alterations. It is natural to pooh-pooh local councils as puny beside the might of central government, but in fact they are its branches; their function is simply to execute the policies of central government. Their position is formulated by the Acts establishing them — they have no other powers and are further connected to central government by the system of financial support.

Those engaged in this machinery have then no choice but to comply with what is in the interests of capitalism. The two standard excuses of government reflect this — first that they were “having to clean up the mess”, i.e. put right the errors of their predecessors, and second that "public money” (or “the taxpayers’ money”) has been used for the wrong purposes. One other point often raised reflects a built- in safeguard to the British parliamentary system. It is often asked why experts, i.e. people with a specialist knowledge and lifelong interest, are not put in charge of the appropriate departments. The answer is that they have to function as members of the government as a whole and a special concern or passion would mean an imbalance.

During the Socialist Party’s lifetime our case about government has been confirmed again and again. Parties and individuals who were going to engage in running capitalism but try to do so in the working class’s interests instead of capital’s have failed without exception, and there have been continual let-downs for the workers who believed them. In times of crisis — wars and major depressions — the parties have flown to their common ground and united to defend capitalist interests. There has also been agreement on types of legislation — e.g. welfare-ism — and economic theories — e.g. Keynesianism — which appeared to support capitalism’s interests best.

Our case has been confirmed also by the history of those who set themselves against the State, refusing to accept that its coercive force backed by the electorate was firm. Examples are the direct-actionists at various times, the Angry Brigade, and “rebel” councils who have refused to apply legislation as directed.

Reform movements have by their nature continually to apply to governments for concessions and improvements, and we are often urged to support them. Part of our case about reforms is that what has to be judged is not the broad appeal at the outset but the legislation eventually formulated. The fact is that governments legislate not for theoretical — i.e. moral or humanitarian — reasons but for practical ones, and this is why reformers are so often disappointed and the realization of their hope turns sour.

Finally, it must always be realized that the powers of government are coercive. Behind the clerks and administrators and the most inane politicians stand prisons and armed force as the ultimate sanction for the capitalist system and what it thinks it needs. Majorities of the electorate give their consent and support because they support capitalism. (Even dictatorships require majority support.) A movement to change society through the use of Parliament is realistic only when it begins by realizing that support, and seeking therefore to muster an electorate which no longer supports capitalism but wants it abolished. Such an electorate can send its representatives to parliament with a new kind of mandate, not to run capitalism but to abolish it. We are often told that the capitalist class would not let that happen. This is the whole point — for the Socialist working class to go to where the coercive machine exists and is controlled, so that no other will than that of this conscious majority can prevail.

The above article is from the Party Conference Lecture given at Conway Hall at Easter, 1974.

Blogger's Note:

Though this article/transcript was unsigned, according to the March 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard, Robert Barltrop and Edgar Hardcastle were listed as the speakers at the 1974 Annual Conference Friday Night Meeting . . . and the title of their meeting? The Powers of Government.

Letter: Immediate demands (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Immediate demands

What is wrong with groups of people pressing for and winning “immediate demands” and thereby ameliorating certain bad conditions for a time? True, that wouldn’t be socialism, but we have got to improve life today — for the living. “Democracy”, which you prize so highly — wasn’t that an “immediate demand” at one time, which had to be fought for and won — and not necessarily at the ballot box?

And the right to the ballot box itself which you prize so highly — wasn’t that also an “immediate demand” at one time, which had to be fought for and won — and certainly NOT at the ballot box?

There is no contradiction between pressing for socialism and pressing for “immediate demands”. In fact, when used together, the two aspects are complementary and reinforce each other.

J. J. Sternbach

New York

Reply:

In the main the “certain bad conditions” you refer to affect only the working class. This becomes clear when you consider that they consist almost entirely of the effects of poverty upon the majority of men and women throughout the world. This continuing poverty is no accidental state of afFairs which can be eliminated (or effectively ameliorated) by “careful planning”. It results directly from capitalist society. It follows that to eliminate the problem, the cause must be abolished. This is the only “immediate demand” worth working for, because it is the only one which tackles the problem. You lose both time and understanding when trying to move for temporary solutions — and which in fact cannot fulfil even that role.

Consider who pays for the amelioration of “certain bad conditions”. The workers? No. You have elevated the fulfilment of immediate demands to the status of having been “won” although we would not place that sort of victorious interpretation on the introduction of reform legislation. The answer is that the capitalist class as a whole must meet this cost. Their object in doing so is to smooth out some of the more blatant effects of capitalism thus ensuring its continued hold and growth. Should you disagree with our conclusion, consider where the logical application of your view leads — it would seem to say that the most revolutionary Socialists are in fact the capitalists.

Concerning your comments on “Democracy”, while the workers in this country are relatively free to organize politically compared with fellow workers in other countries, it is important to remember that this “freedom” is only permitted within certain limits. The Democracy which we “prize so highly” can only be brought into being in a society where the means of production and distribution are owned in common, and therefore where every individual stands as an equal to all others.

You describe the "right to the ballot box” as an immediate demand, but you should note the nature of the “groups of people” instrumental in propagating this object. We cannot enter into a historical analysis here, but in brief it may be said that it was the movement of the new capitalists (the growing industrialists) striving for political representation against the older landed aristocracy which expounded the ideas of “equal rights and individual liberty” together with its underlying theme — “the rights of property” — taken up by the working class in the nineteenth century. Workers were rallied to this cause because they believed that representation could alleviate their poverty. The result however of four decades of struggle culminated in the Reform Act of 1832 in which the new capitalists were enfranchised, but the workers were not. It was not until the second Reform Act of 1867 (passed by the Tories) that the large mass of town workers were enfranchised, and 1885 that agricultural workers received the vote.

The enfranchisement of workers who accept the principle of private property ownership has proved to be a bulwark for capitalism. While workers continue in this belief, the ruling class here and abroad recognize the stunted democracy which now exists as the most stable and effective method of continuing working class exploitation.

Editors.

Letter: If and when (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

If and when

In the May Socialist Standard, page 93, in the article “Is Socialism Inevitable?”, "Socialism is inevitable because men will seek and gain Socialist knowledge” as stated in the article seems to me to have an air of fatalism about it. If you said “Socialism is inevitable if men will seek Socialist Socialist knowledge”, I agree.

The Western Socialist No. 2, 1975, page 10, agrees with my position when it states: “So the road to Socialism is a clear road if our fellow workers will simply blink the fog from their eyes and rub the nonsense from their ears.”

Anyway, there is nothing to say the atomic bomb won’t beat us all and devastate the world.

Edwin A. Watkins,

Victoria, Australia

Reply:

The argument of “Is Socialism Inevitable?” is that the forms of society are not static. The social systems of history have existed for as long as they matched the development of man’s consciousness and productive powers. Ceasing to do so, each was supplanted by another; and the nature of every such change has been the transfer of ownership of the means of living from an old ruling class to a dynamic new one. It can therefore be said that capitalism must give way to another system, and the only form the new system can take is the establishment of Socialism by the working class.

You say “if the working class”, etc., and quote our companion journal the Western Socialist. However, the Western Socialist does not mean what you mean. Its “if” says that the working class, by blinking the fog from their eyes, can establish Socialism tomorrow; failing that, we have to wait a little longer.

The atomic bomb is not an entity outside society, but part of — vide Marshall McLuhan — the message inherent in the capitalist medium.

Editors.

Letter: The Moneyless Society (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Moneyless Society

I read the Socialist Standard for the first time with considerable interest.

One thing puzzles me. How can any society run without some token of exchange, be it cowrie beads or pieces of metal? This is not a frivolous question. I really want to know as I cannot see a way round the difficulty myself. Is there a book which could help?

Best wishes to the paper. I shall continue to take it.

Winifred Manson,

Horsham

Reply:

Your letter reminds us that it is some time since we had an article on this subject, and we are pleased that you have written to us about it.

The basic question to be considered is: what is the motive of production under capitalism, and what will it be under Socialism? In capitalist society, production takes place for sale and profit only. The opening words of Marx’s Capital are: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as an immense accumulation of commodities” — commodities being articles for sale.

Unless they can be sold, goods and services are not produced. This is why we have trade depressions and, to use the old phrase, “poverty in the midst of plenty”. Labour-power, the worker’s ability to work, is itself a commodity which has to be sold on the market and often cannot find buyers. In this situation the function of money as a means of exchange is obvious; it is also a measure of value, showing the proportions in which commodities can exchange for one another. Obviously, too, in a society which runs like this money dominates all of man’s activity. Human worth is assessed by it: without money, one is nobody.

But that is capitalism. In the social system which preceded it, feudalism, production took place largely for use. Its products were for the peasant or craftsman and his family and associates; the landlord appropriated some, and any surplus was taken to market to be — usually — directly exchanged. The use of money was very restricted. Please understand that we are not commending feudalism. Life in it was “mean, brutish and short”. We are explaining that until commerce grew and commodity production became general, money was commonly not necessary.

Production in Socialism will be for use. That does not represent a designed policy; it proceeds naturally from common ownership, just as production for profit is the consequence of class ownership. The produce of agriculture and industry will be, to reduce things to their simplest terms, put or sent there for people to take. Since the means of production belong to everyone, so will the products (our term is “free access”). Thus, exchange will cease. One reason why some people are astonished by this is simply conditioning by capitalism and the conviction that there must be something wrong in having things without paying for them.

Your question “can any society run” without exchange indicates more practical kinds of uncertainty, possibly whether everyone’s requirements can be met. We say they can. Our economic criticism of capitalism is not that it maldistributes wealth (the “cake” argument of the Fabians) but that — precisely because it is directed by sale and profit — it obstructs production. At the present time factories are closed down and workers are unemployed, yet millions of people need the things they could produce. At any time, production is limited to “the market”.

To add some other considerations, huge numbers are in non-productive occupations generated by capitalism; for instance the armed forces and employment — banks, insurance, advertizing, etc. — made necessary by the use of money. They are a labour force now wasted that will be available for Socialist production. There is also the fact that production is the reproduction largely of inferior goods, either shoddily made for people with too little money or deliberately given a short life to keep the market going. The resources of the modern world, rationally organized, can sustain a system of free access without difficulty.

You ask if there are books which would clarify the view of a moneyless society. It is possible to be misled, as from time to time proposals have been made for eliminating the use of money within capitalism. We suggest that you read our pamphlets World Socialism and Questions of the Day, and apply for a selection of back numbers of the Socialist Standard. If you are able to visit a Party branch they would be ready to discuss this or any other question with you.

Editors.

Letter: Intellectuals (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Intellectuals

As socialism like death is inevitable, can we not sit back and wait for it? If it is determined by the materialist conception of history then surely it will take its course and arrive when capitalism reaches its zenith or utmost point of development. Under these circumstances, how can we hurry it? Can we hurry the rise of the sun before the laws of the universe are obeyed?

I am of course open to correction, as you so kindly did when I stated that Hitler gained power by coercion and bully-boys. You proved by figures that a majority voted for him. Will you do the same service for your member who wrote “Why I joined the SPGB”, wherein he says Hitler held fake elections and polled 99% of the votes.

I shall be grateful if you will define “intellectual”. “Ivan” describes Crossman as a glamorous one. Does it mean one of high intellect; good education; deep knowledge of politics, economics, so enabled to discern one system from another? If such a person then fosters or preaches that which is not compatible with his learning, can he qualify as intellectual? Is he as with MPs who, too modest to call themselves honourable, allow others to append the distinction? Or are they covered by the words of Tom Paine — “When a man has so corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime.”

The point is: What is an intellectual?

R. Rellenck

London S.E.

Reply:

On your first point, perhaps you have seen the letter and reply headed “An evolutionary view” in the August Socialist Standard. The materialist conception of history does not hold that society unfolds inexorably in perpetual motion. This was not the attitude stated in “Is Socialism Inevitable?” It emphasized on the contrary that men make history.

Your question about Hitler involves a misunderstanding of the two items you put together. The first, which we are glad to learn was illuminating to you, concerned how Hitler and his party gained political power in Germany. The statement in “Why I joined the SPGB”, that Hitler held fake elections in which he got nearly all the votes, referred to when he was established in power.

Last, what is an “intellectual”? We might have used the inverted commas, or said “self-styled”, to make our attitude clear. Your remarks are to the point. The intellectual posture is of having higher knowledge and being altogether superior to the common herd. The article on Crossman was intended to show what a sham this is.

Editors.

Letter: By their works we know them (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

By their works we know them

Although I appreciate the candid openness of the article "Why I joined the SPGB” in the July Socialist Standard, it must be said that on a few points it verges on the naive. For example, his assertion in paragraph 8: “Lenin’s books (I’ve read the complete works) are little more than a verbal attack on Kautsky, on Bernstein, and of course any Russian who opposed him. Hitler’s Mein Kampf is also a tirade of abuse against Jews and Communists.

It must be pointed out that Lenin’s works differ both in quality and quantity from Hitler’s works or work, which in Mein Kampf is a short tirade against Communism, with a few short superficial chapters on Germany’s defeat in the first world war. On the other hand, Lenin’s works range from the twenty-odd books in his Collected Works. These range from dozens of speeches to Russian workers and peasants, to hybrid works such as Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism and The State and Revolution. This comparison can be made in any good public library.

On the positive side, I would agree with his personal revulsion with the degeneration of the Russian Soviet State and the political culmination of this process in trials of the old Bolshevik guard in 1936-38. The result being Stalinism for decades after this period.

Mike Whalen, 

Edinburgh

Reply:

We think that in the context of the article, where the writer summarizes what he chiefly found in Lenin, the statements are adequate.

You appear to believe that “Stalinism” was all the trouble in Russia. The writer of the article said nothing about “the degeneration of the Russian Soviet State”. We hold the different view that the Bolshevik revolution led inevitably to the growth of state capitalism in Russia; indeed, we — alone — said so from the regime’s earliest years. In a one-party state the rivalries and struggles for power take place among individuals instead of political parties, and this was the cause of the purges in Russia in the nineteen-thirties and in Russia and other countries since then. It was not degeneration but development, once the capitalist basis was established.

Editors.

Letter: Nothing left ? (1975)

Letter to the Editors from the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Nothing left ?

Has it ever occurred to any of your members that when Socialism is established Man will have reached the peak of his endeavours?

There will be nothing left to work for and we will be obliged to wreck our society every few years in order to build it up again.

The capitalists do the same thing now, but for different reasons.

I. Hunt

London W.1

Reply:

In the absence of real arguments against Socialism critics give silly reasons for not helping to achieve it.

In [a] Socialist society we human beings will need to grow and process food, build homes, make clothes, furniture, machinery, we will run transport and communications systems, produce heat and light, have a water supply, carry out research; then there will be books, music, sport, etc. Or did you imagine that all of society’s needs would be provided by magic?

Viewed as a stage in man’s social evolution Socialism will be a superior system to any previous one. A step up, if you like. All of the problems caused by capitalism will be solved but this does not mean that we will not have challenges to meet. The difference is that in solving problems human ingenuity will not be fettered by financial considerations.

The establishment of Socialism will not be the peak of man’s endeavour but will give him the opportunity to scale exciting new heights in social development.

Editors.

I. Donaldson (Fife): Correspondence now closed, but we are glad to note you prefer our views to Mr. Smith’s.

Soviet Imperialism (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the slanging match between China and Russia for the ideological leadership of world falsification of socialism, China accuses Russia of being an Imperialist country and pursuing an imperialist policy. Like all so-called communist countries they rarely define what they mean by the terms they use. The Russians for their part deny that they are a capitalist country, and much less have reached the “stage” of Imperialism.

Marx wrote in Wage Labour and Capital:

 “Capital pre-supposes wage labour; wage-labour pre-supposes capital. They condition each other; and bring the other into existence.”

That Russian economy is based on wage-labour is undeniable — all workers receive wages — except perhaps those in the slave labour camps; therefore their system is capitalist. Now let us consider if Russian capitalism has reached the stage of “Imperialism — the highest form of capitalism.”

Lenin wrote a lot of rubbish and most of it was personal vituperation against Kautsky and others — in fact his method seems to have been to attack anybody and everybody who disagreed with him. He did however in his more lucid intervals write something worth reading. One of his books Imperialism — the highest stage of capitalism, gives a complete definition of Imperialism so that there can be no doubt whether Russia is an Imperialist country. The thesis conveyed in the title of the book is mistaken, in fact. Imperialism is not a phase in the development of capitalism in this and that country, but something which goes on all the time. Lenin was identifying it with its pre-1914 forms (so far as West European countries were concerned) of colonial rule.

Lenin defines Imperialism as five things which happen to be the headlines of the first five chapters of his Imperialism. These are: 1, the concentration of the production and monopolies; 2, the banks and their new rôle (that is the fusion of the banks with industry; 3, financial capitalism and financial oligarchy; 4, the export of capital, and 5, the division of the world among the capitalist powers.

Russia has long reached monopoly production and the state has fused the banks with industry. But the most important point is the export of capital for it is here that a capitalist country gains interest through exploitation of the workers of other lands. Lenin wrote in Imperialism:—

  As long as capitalism remains as capitalism, surplus capital will never be used for the purpose of raising the standard of living of the masses, for this would mean a decrease in profits for the capitalists; instead it will be used to increase profits by exporting the capital abroad, to backward countries. In these backward countries profits arc usually high, for capital is scarce, the price of land relatively low, wages are low, raw materials are cheap.

In the present edition of the Statesman’s Yearbook 1974/75, page 1396 it reports: —

   After the second world war the USSR has become one of the biggest creditor countries in the world. Between 1945 and 1972 economic aid in the form of 2% or 2½% loans to be repaid as a rule over 12 years has been advanced for 786 enterprises in developing countries; the latter including loans (in one million old roubles), India 2,500m; Egypt 2,300m; Iraq 550m; Afghanistan 480m; Indonesia 443m; Argentine 400m; Ethiopia 400m; Indonesia 140m; Cuba 100m. US $. 76% of the aid is for industrial development and 14% for agriculture and transport. Over 400 industrial plants have been completed in these countries, and nearly as many are being completed; 200,000 native skilled workers have been trained by Soviet specialists and many thousands more in the USSR. Agreements for economic co-operation operate with 45 developing countries in all.

In addition to the countries listed above, there are the iron curtain lands, virtually Russia’s colonies. Some of these like East Germany, Russia stripped after the war of everything worth having, and since then has made enormous investments and built the Berlin wall to prevent their investments (and workers) from dwindling to the West. Russia has of course exported great quantities of armaments to her satellite countries. All this is Imperialism as Lenin understood it, and nothing to do with Socialism.

Horace Jarvis

The Turmoil in Portugal (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Events in Portugal this year have moved with almost stunning speed. From a long-established reactionary regime, Portugal lurched overnight into a regime committed apparently to radical changes.

And so elections were held. And to the dismay of the “communists” and their Army and Copcon cohorts, the moderates and “socialists’’ emerged with an overwhelming majority of votes.

But if “communists” understand anything well, it is the paramount importance of holding onto power. By any means. So the word went out to forget about “bourgeois” democracy. Guns are more important than votes and if people start protesting, lock them up. (It has been reported that more political prisoners are held now than were found held in jails by the detested predecessors, the PIDE.)

But this was all predictable, to some extent. There is a very obvious precedent. Portugal before the coup had a long-established reactionary dictatorship, weakened by an unsuccessful war, the people impoverished, the capitalists frustrated by lack of political power. Frustrated political movements relied on emotion. This was clearly seen in the mammoth demonstrations characteristic of the Lisbon of today.

Similarly in 1917 Russia also had a long-established reactionary dictatorship, weakened by an unsuccessful war, the people impoverished, the capitalists frustrated by lack of political power. Censorship had resulted in popular ignorance so that frustrated political movements relied on resentment rather than anything else. This was clearly seen in the mammoth demonstrations characteristic of the Petersburg of 1917. 

There is yet another important parallel. In 1917 elections were held for the Constituent Assembly and the Bolsheviks got less than a quarter of the total votes cast. Similarly in Portugal where the Communists only achieved a very small proportion of the votes, the majority going to the “socialists” and social democrats. The result was that in both cases the “communists” used military force to wipe out any attempts at a democratic constitution. This is important and should not be forgotten.

The real lesson of 1975 is the same as that of 1917. Lenin, Trotsky and their co-conspirators used armed force to achieve and maintain power for the very good reason that they and their supporters were only a small minority of the population. The Portuguese “communists” are evidently good Leninists and Trotskyists. They are a minority and therefore have to use armed force to suppress the rest of the community. In other words, they are waging war on the workers. They are in fact red fascists and deserve no more working-class support than the regime of whom they are such worthy heirs. For the Portuguese people, it is a case of “out of the frying-pan into the fire.”

And one final point: although the news reports from Portugal speak constantly of “communists” and “socialists”, there is not one party in Portugal, including the Maoists, which stands for the end of the wages system. They are all supporters of capitalism who find it necessary or convenient to fly the Jolly Roger. Let no-one be deceived by such a strategy.

Charmian Skelton

The Prentice Affair (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Me! I don't even know what a Marxist is,” said Miss Anita Pollack when accused of plotting to oust Reg Prentice from his parliamentary seat at Newham, East London.

She’s not the only one. Karl Marx himself is credibly reported by one biographer as observing, when told of a particularly crass piece of stupidity by one of his French supporters: “If that’s Marxism, then I’m no Marxist.” In all probability, as a serious scientist he wasn’t even interested in "Marxism”, any more than Darwin would have wished to be regarded as a “Darwinist”.

Miss Pollack also said: "I’m no revolutionary — I only belong to the Labour Party.” Fair enough! On the other hand, she is among those in the Newham North East Labour Party who propose to repudiate Prentice for “betraying the Labour Party’s socialist principles”. Unlike the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Labour Party has never had principles of any sort, let alone Socialist ones. From the day of its inception in 1906 it has never been anything but a motley collection of careerists and job-hunters, desperately intent on saying or doing anything that would get the votes required for a politician’s “skive”. The difference between John Stonehouse and the others is that he didn’t know when to stop.

How Prentice can betray principles which the Labour Party has never had and therefore do not exist, remains to be seen. Certain it is that there are no Socialist principles except Marxian ones. When a Labour Prime Minister like Harold Wilson can babble his fatuous nonsense at the Durham Miners’ Gala — that a man’s wage increase is “another man’s price increase” — we can well believe him when he says he was unable to read more than two pages of Marx’s Capital.

In fact he wouldn’t have to! Just one page of Marx’s Value, Price and Profit suffices to show that the British workers (the highest-paid in Europe at the time, 1860-70) flooded the markets of the world with cheap commodities and undercut the products of all competitors, forcing them to erect tariff barriers to stop British imports. The whole essence of the capitalist economic system is to compensate for wage increases by more sophisticated production — the so- called accumulation of capital.

In view of the general ignorance of Marxism in the Labour Party — and even worse, its rejection in favour of Keynes by those who profess to know — it is surprising that the Newham Labour Party are aware of the existence of “socialist principles” at all. And yet there is one source, and one only, where they could hear of them: The Socialist Party! There is one organization only in this country that sticks rigidly and unalterably to principles — the Socialist Party.

What the Newham Labour Party are really objecting to is Prentice’s advocacy of coalition government, which makes them look idiots before the electorate. But the Labour Party has done that before: in 1931 and 1939. It has always been at the beck and call of the capitalist class, to save things for them. And now the chickens are at last coming home to roost! After six Labour governments the Labour Party’s attempts at reforming the system and curbing the workers’ demands are again coming unstuck. Hence the demands for the “retirement” of Prentice, Silkin and (according to the Mirror and the Sun) a number of others.

Those who have the temerity to say that an elected representative should do what he is told are denounced in those two well-known clear-thinking journals as wicked conspirators, plotters infiltrating local Labour Parties, Marxist factionists seizing control, etc. Prentice himself has given formal notice that he will ignore a majority decision to sack him. How sensitive these politicians are to the electorate! What a lesson to those critics of the Socialist Party who say that votes don’t count, and Parliament is a futile gasworks!

But try as they may, and however well-meaning their intention, the members of the Newham North East Labour Party, even if they sack Prentice, will succeed in nothing. What is wrong is not Prentice, but the rotten, unprincipled Labour Party which spawned him. The only way to Socialism is by the conscious votes of a democratic majority, for candidates nominated by a party based on Socialist principles. In that event working-class voters would really have a case against a defaulter in the House. The object of a Socialist party is the abolition of capitalism and nothing else — making it near-impossible for an elected representative to double-cross.

How comical the hysterical squeals of the gutter press about “minorities controlling the local Labour Parties” — as soon as the ordinary members express themselves! But sacking one scallywag to replace him with another is not enough. The time has come to stop playing silly-boy Labour politics and turn to the serious revolutionary Socialist Party which exists, based on a crystal-clear Declaration of its Principles.

Horatio.

The Social Revolution (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

An immediate and fundamental change in the basis of society. Perhaps, when younger and struck with some glaring contradiction of capitalism, you felt the need for a reorganization in human affairs. Eliminating such superfluous stuff as money, you went on to build a model of this new, perfect world inside your head. Its characteristics were peace, harmony, plenty and so on. As you filled in the details the picture grew clearer and more insistent. You began to question your friends upon their views. Finally, you put forward your ready-made utopia and asked them to follow you.

Suddenly it seemed as if everybody had been rehearsing a hundred objections to your scheme beforehand. It won’t work! You can’t change human nature! Who’ll do the dirty work? There’ll be no incentive to produce! What about the lazy people? Overwhelmed by this tremendous opposition, you had to concede the impracticalities in a few bits of your new scheme. Whereupon the completed system became a patchwork of ideas and one of your friends, who was taking O-level Economics, quoted a passage from the Old Testament, proving conclusively that capitalism had always existed as the natural state of mankind.

This onslaught beat your dream world to the back of your consciousness; parts of it to be resurrected only when sardonic comment upon the world was called for. But even a suggestion of your old utopia received so much stick from your friends that it made your position untenable. A year later, upon hearing something reminiscent of your old view from a stranger, you caught yourself saying — “Yes, I wanted to change the world too when I was younger. It’s part of the process of growing up. You’ll learn!’’ — You’d come full circle and disowned your brainchild! What went wrong?

The source of your error lies in history. You stopped short at Fourier, Owen and Proudhon. Though you may never have heard of these people, yet you were tracing, in your mind and conversation, the practical steps which these men and their followers took to remodel a bit of society upon different lines. Like your theoretical notion, they all came to grief.

If you followed the steps exactly you will have dived straight into trade unionism after abandoning Utopias. Owen did. The Grand National Trade Union which he helped to found, grew to a million members and then petered out. The General Strike of 1926 and the ease with which it was crushed makes plain what is the result of trade unions essaying confrontation with the State.

You may have begun your encounter with the union by advocating protracted strikes — “Bring the capitalists to their knees!” Which advice foundered upon the objections of the plodders, who said; “The masters will just starve us out, they can live off their fat in the Bahamas — we can’t. We never get back from a strike what we lose in pay.” Just like the New Model Unions of the 1850s!

Now if you are an archetype you will have remembered that your uncle was once the lord mayor of Louth. After a long talk with him you joined the local Labour Party. Talked to all and sundry about “Keeping our feet upon the floor of the House of Commons. Doing something practical NOW!” It had all the charm of your early utopian illusions — with none of the drawbacks. You could still foment about wicket capitalists, while at the opposite pole, you dealt in wage-price indices and the regulation of “mixed economies”.

Here is where we found you. On a wet Saturday in September, back where you started, an individual member of the working class. Your mind having reached the peak of its political evolution in society; you bought from the SPGB a copy of the Socialist Standard. The solution is now staring you in the face.

At first it seems like a refrain from the past. Common ownership? Abolition of the wages system? Classless, moneyless society? Production for use — not profit? Free access! Only, the details are missing. The SPGB does not paint a picture of the future society. In this journal there is no blueprint for Socialism. We only say to the mass of the population who, whether they know it or not, are in the working class: pursue your class interest.

Human life is essentially practical. Never mind what men say, think or write — in practice they must prove the truth. Can Socialism be established by the Labour Party? No matter how many workers say or think that it can, how do they act? When the Labour Party is running capitalism, do the workers abandon the economic struggle? Do they give up their trade union organizations? Of course not. Thus, their theory is at variance with their practice.

Similarly regarding life under capitalism. Do wage increases cause inflation? Is the “vicious spiral” all the fault of greedy workers? Never mind what economists and governments say, what do they do? Governments, when they have to, can end the inflation which they began by expanding an inconvertible currency. This action will prove all of their post pronouncements on inflation to have been nonsense. A glance at history, however, will show it makes no difference to capitalism and the working class: with or without inflation things are just the same.

Underlying all government propaganda on inflation is their basic need to sustain the interests of their capitalist class. Wage increases reduce profits. Capitalism’s apologists may deny that the class struggle exists. But on the annual balance sheets of trading and industrial concerns, evidence of the class war is written. In other words — at the highest level of practicality that capitalism assumes, in its budgetary affairs, the age-old conflict between classes is taken for granted.

Recognize the type of historical process by which changes in society are brought about. To introduce Socialism you must get yourself into an organization with that single purpose. Then help convince other workers that Socialism will be in their interest. But before you can introduce the fundamental change from private to common ownership, you must capture political power; to ensure that the state forces of coercion cannot be used against you. Your numerical superiority must be demonstrated, that means the ballot and the representative institutions must be yours also. This plan of action has been the programme of the SPGB for 71 years. We are the only political party which has succeeded in remaining a revolutionary party. Showing that the centuries-long evolution of political parties has not been in vain. And in practice, that is how you prove the truth in politics.

That viewpoint survives which is best fitted to survive. It must be capable of comprehending the world of the past, present and future. The object and declaration of principles of the SPGB express the working-class viewpoint. Against all comers they have never been found wanting. This organization has adhered to them without compromise or expedient. We urge you to make them your own.

B.K. McNeeney