Zeitgeist: a moneyless society with alienation (2026)

From the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marx’s insight in Capital, Volume 1, remains startling in its simplicity. He writes about how spiders spin webs out of instinct, and bees also create architecture in their hives from instinct. He writes about how humans must first imagine what they are to do before making something a reality: the worst architect surpasses the most industrious bee because humans first construct in imagination what they later build in reality. This capacity for conscious, creative design – the ability to envision and reshape our world – defines our species-being. Yet under capitalism, this distinctively human power becomes alien to most humans. Workers execute plans conceived by others, their labour becomes separate from their creativity.

The resulting tragedy is the systematic suppression of human creative potential. Under capitalist production, the worker ‘does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind’ (Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844). The creative architecture of society – what we produce, how we organise our collective life, toward what ends we direct our energies – becomes the exclusive province of capital accumulation. Profit, not human flourishing, determines the shape of our world.

Marx, of course, wrote about the need for the working class to emancipate itself from the capitalist mode of production by creating a borderless world where money and governments have been abolished. He was very clear about socialism being a moneyless and stateless society: ‘In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated’ (Capital, Volume 2, Chapter 18, Section II), and ‘But the whole programme, for all its democratic clang, is tainted through and through by the Lassallean sect’s servile belief in the state, or, what is no better, by a democratic belief in miracles, or rather, it is a compromise between these two kinds of beliefs in miracles, both equally remote from socialism’ (Critique of the Gotha Program, Section IV). There is also the famous building block for socialist society, ‘From each according to ability; to each according to need.’ This highlights that humans are individuals with unique gifts and talents.

One might expect movements explicitly rejecting capitalism to restore this creative capacity to humanity at large. Yet the Zeitgeist Movement, despite its anti-capitalist rhetoric and vision of a moneyless society, proposed to reproduce the same alienation under different management.

The Zeitgeist Movement proposed a ‘Resource-Based Economy’ where scientific experts and technocrats manage society through rational calculation and technological optimisation. Computers would track resources, engineers would design production systems, scientists would determine social organisation according to ‘the scientific method.’ Money would disappear, but so would democratic participation in the creative decisions that shape collective life.

The structure of alienation remains intact, merely changing personnel.

Under capitalism, creative control flows to those who own capital, justified by property rights. Decisions about production, distribution, and social organisation follow the logic of profit maximisation. Workers execute designs conceived by others in corporate boardrooms and management consultancies.

Under Zeitgeist’s technocracy, creative control flows to those who possess technical expertise, justified by scientific knowledge. Decisions about production, distribution, and social organisation follow the logic of efficiency and resource optimisation. The majority execute designs conceived by others in technical committees and research centres.

In both systems, ordinary people remain alienated from their natural creative capacity. The creative/conceptual moment – that distinctively human capacity to imagine before building – stays concentrated in an elite class. Whether that elite derives authority from property ownership or technical credentials changes the justification, not the fundamental separation of mental from manual labour, of conception from execution.

Marx himself advocated something fundamentally different: democratic planning, not technocratic planning. In his vision, the associated producers would ‘govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way, bringing it under their collective control instead of being dominated by it as a blind power’ (Capital, Volume 3, Ch 48). Note the emphasis: ‘collective control’ by the producers themselves, not management by experts on their behalf.

This requires, as Marx understood, abolishing the division between mental and manual labour itself. Not placing mental labour in charge of manual labour, but reuniting conception with execution in the lives of actual people. Education, rotation of tasks, democratic control over technology, genuine participation in social decision-making – these begin to restore human creative capacity.

The Zeitgeist Movement’s failure lay not in its rejection of money, but in its preservation of hierarchy. It promised liberation while maintaining the structure that produces alienation. A moneyless society where technocrats design your life remains a society where you are separated from your creative essence, where the distinctively human capacity to imagine and build your world belongs to someone else.

So the choice between the two moneyless systems lies in what kind of humans we want to be: do we each want to engage in the creative architecture of building our society, or do we just want passively to allow our mental and physical energies to be directed by others?

Dan Mullens

Letter: What about countries without political democracy? (2026)

Letter to the Editors from the August 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

What about countries without political democracy?

We have received the following from a reader . . .

I’ve been wrapping my head around SPGB’s democratic approach. It sounds like SPGB puts itself under the mercy of capitalist democracy. So, when capitalists feel threatened, they will curtail the democratic rights that would endanger their capitalist interests, let alone endangering their class rule. One example of this is from SPGB history itself during WW2, where the state issued the prohibition of anti-war ‘propaganda’ and the SPGB had to comply. Don’t you think that there is a contradiction in this approach and this might be the reason why the SPGB failed to become popular among the workers (thus fulfilling one of its main missions of raising class consciousness that leads to the conviction for the need for socialism among most workers) for over a 100 years?

Also, this democratic approach would also mean that workers in un-democratic countries and regions would have to fight (not in a bloody way under the banner of the capitalists of course, but through protests and strikes) for those democratic rights like free speech, freedom of assembly and universal suffrage. But you know before anyone that not all countries and regions can have such a class structure and the level of the development of the productive forces that would allow them to have a capitalist democracy without having ‘robust’ capitalists at their helm. This case can be clear here from the example of Russia after 1917 or China after 1949, where so-called ‘communists’ had to do the dirty work of capitalists (by being capitalists themselves of course). Transforming these countries from predominantly peasants backward agrarian countries with weak capitalists tied to the landed aristocracy and powerful foreign capitalists (both having interest in the status quo to remain as it is) to predominantly workers industrialized countries ripe for capitalist democracy that SPGB sees as an indispensable tool for socialism. So, wouldn’t that make SPGB’s call for fighting for democratic rights in un-democratic countries and regions ‘utopian’ if taken on a universal basis because the case doesn’t apply everywhere, where the conditions aren’t there yet? Wouldn’t the SPGB be sending a covert message for workers in these un-democratic and unripe-for-democracy countries and regions to wait for ‘the third worldists’ to prepare the ground for capitalist democracy (thus socialism) by rallying the workers behind them, to crush them later and brutally exploit them? Isn’t the crux of the problem the ‘socialism through parliament approach’? Which if it is the case, then that means that capitalism isn’t ripe to be overthrown, not because the development of the means of production didn’t reach the sufficient level for socialism (we both know that it was reached a long time ago) but because the uneven development of capitalism across the national frontiers.

A food for thought: wouldn’t that necessitate the SPGB to change its program to accommodate the fight to erase national boundaries and borders? Wouldn’t that constitute the solution for this uneven development of capitalism? (which in fact would lead to the end of imperialist wars and other calamities that affect the workers around the globe and hinder and divide their struggle for socialism through the democratic approach the SPGB advocates for).

Sem

 

Reply:

You are mistaken in assuming that we think that political democracy is ‘an indispensable tool for socialism’ in the sense that if it doesn’t exist then socialism cannot be established. What is indispensable for socialism is that a majority should be in favour of it. There can be no socialism without a socialist majority. What we say is that, where effective political democracy exists, sending delegates to parliaments and similar bodies or positions is the obvious and most straightforward way to win political control and likely the most effective too. If, or where, this does not exist then the socialist majority would have to find some other way.

We do say that, in non-democratic states, workers are right to struggle for basic democratic practices such as free speech, organisation and assembly, if only to better defend their interests under capitalism. But we don’t presume to tell them how to go about this beyond saying it should be based on a recognition of the class struggle and be organised democratically. Socialists in such states should still campaign for socialism as part of and with help from the worldwide socialist movement. The whole world is ripe for socialism, including where political democracy does not exist. It is not our position, as you seem to be implying, that workers in such places first need to struggle for political democracy and, after that, start struggling for socialism.

Your claim that a capitalist class has the power to close down political democracy at will implies that it is a conspiratorial group that somehow controls state power other than through the election of pro-capitalist politicians and parties. In fact, a capitalist class is not a monolithic group with a single interest but is made up of different groups with differing interests, especially over economic policy. In Britain parliament, elected originally on a franchise restricted to property-owners, evolved as the place where these differences were aired and where the question of which section of property-owners got to control the government was settled.

In the course of the last century the vote was extended to all the citizens of a state, often against the will of sections of the owning class, but the basic situation remains the same. It is through elections that a capitalist class controls the state. Universal suffrage has the added advantage of getting the consent of the governed, which makes a state more governable. A one-party or military dictatorship, even if it supports capitalism, puts political power in the hands of a group that could use this position to line its own pockets at the expense of capitalist profits. Elections keep those who run a state under control. In short, some form of political democracy is the ideal political form for a modern capitalist state.

You envisage a government abolishing this if a capitalist class were under an existential threat from a growing socialist movement. But by the time a majority wanted socialism — which would be reflected in elections — then it would be too late. The boot would be on the other foot. Instead of a minority of socialists having to accept that most people want capitalism (or a war), those who benefit from capitalism and want it to continue would have to accept that a majority wanted socialism and that it was ultimately pointless to try to resist this. If a coup did happen then it would not be able to last for long as a state, with a socialist majority that wouldn’t accept its will being frustrated, would be ungovernable. One way or another a socialist majority would get its way. — Editors

Against Technocracy (Part 2) (2026)

From the July 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part 1.

According to Jason Crawford:

‘The 19th century was dominated by a belief in the power of human reason and its ability to advance science and technology for the betterment of life. But after World War I and the Great Depression, it got harder to believe in the rationality of humanity or in the predictability and controllability of the world’ (The lure of technocracy).

As Crawford notes, in the 1920s, a ‘democratic realist’ school of thought emerged, exemplified by individuals like Walter Lippmann. The masses were viewed as fundamentally irrational and uninformed. Their role in public life should be limited, with fundamental decisions affecting the future of society being entrusted to a tiny, informed elite. Democracy should be redefined as ‘rule for the people but not by the people’.

The elitist assumptions behind such thinking found expression in the 1930s in such forms as Stalinism, the growth of fascism, and the rise of the Technocracy Movement itself.

During the early post war boom, increasing living standards and low unemployment shaped the optimism conveyed in books like Galbraith’s The Affluent Society (1958). In his subsequent work, The New Industrial State (1967), sometimes called a ‘blueprint for technocracy,’ Galbraith argued that a corporate ‘technostructure’ of experts and managers had come to dominate businesses, eclipsing owners and shareholders – an argument anticipated by James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1941).

In this ‘affluent society,’ Galbraith argued, the ‘technostructure’ should shift its focus from just economic growth to broader social goals, including more public investment and reducing inequality. His position overlapped with elements of the pre war Technocracy Movement, particularly its emphasis on scientific, centralised economic management.

However, there were also differences in that the latter opposed the capitalist market and money. The existence of money was deemed incompatible with abundance because of the way the price system worked.

Paradoxically, the growing prosperity that many workers experienced in the early post-war years provided the conditions out of which a broad counterculture movement emerged. This called into question the idea of top-down, expert-led coordination of society, as well as the basic direction in which technological development was heading. The hippies of the 1960s were perhaps the vivid example of this, representing a confluence of tendencies opposed to militarism, environmental destruction in the name of progress and the threat to individual freedom posed by an increasingly oppressive and intrusive technology.

As post war prosperity faded and capitalism entered recession in the 1970s, these conditions that had sustained the counterculture weakened. The downturn exposed the limits of Keynesian demand management, whose reliance on deficit spending failed to overcome the built-in capitalist trade cycle of boom and slump. In response, Keynesianism gave way to a more market oriented policy framework –monetarism – the cornerstone of the emerging neoliberal order.

The Technocracy Movement, having peaked in the 1930s, declined sharply thereafter. Some of its core ideas were simply absorbed into wartime economic planning, making the movement somewhat redundant. Later, in the context of the Cold War, its anti market and central planning orientation fell out of favour because of the perceived resemblance to Soviet state planning. At the same time, the technocratic approach to problem-solving was subjected to mounting criticism from a countercultural (and particularly environmentalist) perspective.

For technocracy as a concept to survive, it had to adapt. One interesting example of this was the Venus Project (TVP).

The Venus Project

TVP´s origins can be traced back to the 1970s, though it officially began life in 1995. Its founders were Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer, industrial designer and futurist author who had been involved in the Technocracy Movement in the 1930s, and Roxanne Meadows, an illustrator, designer and architect. They established a research centre at a place called Venus in Florida (hence the name) and published material promoting their ideas.

From a socialist standpoint, TVP unquestionably represented an advance over the old Technocracy Movement. Whereas the latter proposed a system of rationing in the form of ‘energy certificates,’ TVP advocated, instead, a ‘free access’ model for the distribution of goods and services. This required making the industrial and natural resources of the planet the common heritage of all humanity. All forms of sectional or private ownership (including state property) of the means of production would cease to exist.

Thus, a resource-based economy (RBE) would mean goods and services being freely available to individuals to take for themselves, with cybernetic feedback and automated resource management working to ensure adequate real-time availability.

Another breakthrough was TVP´s rejection of the concept of a single universal unit of accounting (money, labour-time or energy units). The need for this only arises in a system based on quid pro quo exchange, where you have to ensure that what is being exchanged is equivalent. This requires commensurability.

However, commensurability becomes irrelevant in a non-exchange, free-access model. Accounting, according to TVP, would be based on purely physical metrics, dubbed ‘resource-based accounting.’ This resembles the socialist idea of calculation-in-kind, but the emphasis is more on resource flows and biophysical limits (an example of technocracy´s adaptation to environmental criticism).

However, there are also serious flaws in TVP´s outlook. One is its attitude towards democratic decision-making. Fresco´s approach differed from that of the top-down approach of the Technocracy Movement. He was wary of entrusting scientists with excessive power to make decisions affecting others. He preferred a decentralised system based on collaborative design and making extensive use of automated AI-optimised feedback systems.

In fact, the socialist principle of free access endorsed by TVP is precisely what would pre-empt the possibility of concentrated or asymmetrical power emerging in a post-capitalist society. It removes any leverage that any group or individual could exercise over any other, and thus, is the ultimate guarantor of any truly ‘free’ society.

However, to go further and assert, as TVP does on its own website, that ‘it is doubtful that, in the latter part of the twenty-first century, people will play any significant role in decision-making’ is absurd.

As individuals, we will continue to play a decisive role in the choices we make concerning what we consume and what we contribute. This is implicit in the old socialist slogan, ‘from each according to ability to each according to need.’ An algorithm in a computer programme may facilitate (even anticipate) our choices, but they will still be ours to make. Otherwise, we are looking at some anti-humanistic dystopia where the machines have taken over.

Importantly, there will also be joint decisions to be made that, by their very nature, (inevitably) impact multiple individuals who, accordingly, should have a say in making them. Joint decisions will need to be made at different spatial levels – local, regional and even global – examples of which are literally countless.

You cannot depend on a machine, however sophisticated, to make these decisions for you. This is because they involve human values and human interests. The sociological naiveté of the technological determinists, in that respect, is truly remarkable.

Fresco himself argued ‘Democracy is a con game. It’s a word invented to placate people to make them accept a given institution’ (2002). Democracy may well be a ‘con game’ in a plutocratic capitalist society, but that is definitely not because there is too much of it but rather, too little!

Another serious flaw in TVP´s approach is its repudiation of economic classes and class struggle. On its website, it states, ‘In no way does The Venus Project advocate this approach to social change. In contrast, The Venus Project approaches social change as a process of guided evolution and a problem of engineering to produce a working alternative.’

This immediately prompts the question – if TVP advocates for the common ownership of the industrial and natural resources by humanity as the material basis of the moneyless post-capitalist world it desires, how is this to be realised without first removing the possibility for a tiny owning class to monopolise these resources at the expense of the rest of humanity? In short, how can you possibly avoid ‘class’? ‘Classlessness’ is implicit in the very way TVP frames its vision of a post-capitalist society, so achieving it, almost by definition, has to involve confronting this vexed question of class.

Broligarchy

Technology is not neutral; it is fundamentally conditioned by today´s class ownership and control of the means of production. This is becoming increasingly apparent in the light of recent developments.

There has been much talk recently about the rise of ‘techno-fascism,’ a dangerous new force, particularly visible in American politics, representing a ‘broligarchy’ of far-right tech billionaires bent on seizing power and reshaping the body politic to suit their interests and ideological inclinations, technology being the means by which they aspire to realise this elitist vision.

In truth, American politics has always been deeply plutocratic, with only the merest paper-thin claim to being a functioning ‘democracy,’ while being constantly subjected to the enormous power of lobby groups and political donations (bribes). Indeed, some argue that the Founding Fathers themselves framed the Constitution precisely this way to guarantee this outcome – ensuring that the interests of the rich and powerful would be perpetually protected.

However, recent developments, particularly since Donald Trump’s return to office in 2025, suggest a turn for the worse. It has prompted some to ask whether, given the inordinate influence now being exercised by people like Peter Thiel (aided and abetted by the far-right blogger, Curtis Yarvin), Elon Musk and others, this does indeed represent an attempt on the part of these tech billionaires to ‘seize power’ and dismantle what little there is of democracy in America.

Some commentators suggest that these people see themselves as some kind of Übermensch, superior to everyone else. They resent any barrier in their path or any constraint that would rein in their wealth or power. An example is Thiel, a venture capitalist with a current (2025) personal worth of approximately $22 billion:

‘In a 2009 Cato Unbound essay, Thiel wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” That wasn’t just a provocation, it was a programmatic declaration that aligns him with authoritarians both abroad and at home — culminating in a second Trump administration that daily tests the limits of US constitutional democracy. Climate change, racial justice, and economic inequality all become “distractions” in this framework as they demand collective effort and overlapping interests’ (Christopher Marquis, Jacobin, 6 Oct 2025).

If nothing else, this should serve as a salutary reminder of the risk of relying too much on ‘techno-fixes’ that can sometimes have unintended, and even runaway, negative consequences. Of course, there should always be scope for technological innovation and progress. But innovation should be adapted to, and informed by, the needs and concerns of society in general, and that is simply not possible in a society based on minority class ownership of the means of production.

This is what fundamentally obstructs the implementation of a resource-based economy. Failure to acknowledge this in a bid to appear less ‘partisan’ condemns TVP to promoting an approach that can only depict a future that might be called a ‘nice idea’ but one incapable of being realised.

The Zeitgeist Movement

TVP gave rise to a spin-off called the Zeitgeist Movement (TZM), dubbed the ‘activist arm’ of TVP. It was founded in 2008 by Peter Joseph, a filmmaker, and rapidly expanded to the point of having up to 250 local chapters worldwide, attracting many thousands of supporters. Whereas TVP focused more on blueprints and designing sustainable structures, such as ‘circular cities,’ TZM emphasised grassroots activism and cultural transformation. Underlying tensions arising from these differences in approach resulted in TVP and TZM drifting apart in 2011.

As with TVP, there is much in what TZM says that socialists can endorse, but there are also fundamental, even irreconcilable, differences, particularly over the question of class and the need for democracy.

Nevertheless, any attempt to transcend the rigid barriers a money-based mindset imposes on our thinking is welcome and a step forward. The point is, surely, to take serious steps further in that direction.

Robin Cox

Democracy or leadership? — the difference (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Regular readers of the Socialist Standard will probably be aware that the Socialist Party doesn’t have leaders. They will also hopefully be aware that the Socialist Party claims to be completely democratic, with each member having one vote.

The reason for this is that we realise that democracy and leadership are mutually exclusive. We argue that a democratic socialist society will not have leaders because if it did then it could never be fully democratic. The same applies to the organisation of a Socialist Party. 

So what’s wrong with leaders? Leaders are only necessary in a society where a minority own the means of living and the majority of the population arc exploited for profit. In a society based on free access to the means of living via common ownership, all there will be is democratic organisation. There wouldn’t be a propertied owning class or state — in other words no people with more rights than others, or leaders.

Some people confuse organisation with leadership. The Socialist Party may not have leaders, but it does have strong democratic organisation, in which the members have full control over Party office-holders. Democratic organisation is therefore completely different from leadership. If anything, a democratic party requires more organisation than a semi-democratic leadership party, because it relies more on the initiative of the membership.

This being said, the next area of confusion is the concept of “dominant personalities”. The argument here is that even if you don’t have leaders, and the organisation is democratically controlled by the membership, you will always have those people who are: more knowledgeable than others, better at arguing than others, and generally more influential and active than others. Of course, this is true, and again there isn't a problem here. The point is everyone has the same “legal” weight, so no matter how well known you are or how good you are at writing articles for the Socialist Standard, at the end of the day you only have the same “legal” power as the least able or active member of the Party.

A third point which is often raised is the assertion that any party whose aim is to change people’s ideas is de facto a leadership party. This is pure semantic quibbling. The point is, we don't propose to lead the revolution and we don't propose to exist as a party after the revolution.

Compare this with the SWP. They are an unrepentant leadership group that aims to lead the working class to a “workers’ state” that they will inevitably control. Their concept of democracy is “democratic centralism”. The basic idea here is that the membership democratically vote for their all-powerful leaders on the Central Committee. This is obviously open to abuse, but the main point is that having leaders of any kind can never be fully democratic. Having the right to vote for your superiors doesn’t make for a democratic organisation. Democratic leadership is a contradiction in terms. Leaders and leadership are therefore incompatible with democracy.

The Socialist Party is broadly organised along the lines of how socialist society will be organised. There will be those who seem more dominant and capable than others. A democracy of class-conscious workers will ensure that any leadership pretensions that any of these “strong" people might have will come to nothing. The nature of the “power structure” simply will not allow it.

When it has been proved that leaders are, have been, and always will be our enemy, do you really think a democratic socialist society will ever feel the need to reintroduce them? 

Dave Flynn

Leaders Get Lost! (1994)

From the November 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism is on the agenda — and right now. But it will not come by people putting their trust in leaders. It will be established when the vast majority of workers understand it, want it and democratically organise for it in a party which is not out to mend capitalism but to end it.

Socialism means the total abolition of capitalism. An end to private and state ownership and control of the means of wealth production and distribution. Production will be solely for use, with all people having free access to the common store of goods and services, instead of production for sale with a view to profit.

To win workers to organise for socialism is no small task and it is easy to be demoralised or to deceive yourself that there is an easier way to initiate the new system. But there is no alternative to the hard work being carried out by the Socialist Party — whose sole aim is socialism — and the sooner those who want socialism join us, the sooner it will be achieved.

Letter: Not That Sort of War (1976)

Letter to the Editors from the April 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Not That Sort of War

I am not a member of the SPGB. Why? I object to Principle 8, line 4. War can prove nothing but who has more money or more brawn.

Winifred Mawson 

Horsham

Reply:

Your objection comes from too literal a reading. The statement that we “wage war against all other political parties” means that we oppose them uncompromisingly and seek to dissuade workers from supporting them, not that we envisage using armed force (or even fisticuffs) against them. War with weapons is not an instrument which Socialists can use. Means have to harmonize with ends. A regime brought into being by force thereafter depends on force: our instrument is understanding.

Editors

Letter: Shall we be corrupted ? (1975)

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

Shall we be corrupted ?

I am an ardent reader of the Socialist Standard and a great believer in the case. My questions are if Socialists one day rule, what proof have the people of this country that the liberators will not become capitalists themselves? Hitler promised this and that and look what happened. The Russian people in the early part of this century fought and died for their beliefs and look at Russia today the worst capitalistic police state the world has ever known. There are scores of such happenings one could refer to, how do the British people know that the same will not happen here?

Also (I think many would agree) the past has shown as time drags on corruption and rot sets in everywhere. In the past wars and revolutions cleaned the dirt from the steps of the country for a while, but in this day and age the world cannot afford such drastic measures. What will the party do if the time ever comes, to clean and keep clean the welfare of the workers?

It would prove a lot if you did not publish and answer these questions.

Ian J. Wright

Sunderland.

Reply:

The SPGB differs from all other political parties in this country. We do not promise to do anything for you. We do not canvass for passive support so that we may rule, but ask for your understanding and active participation in the task of ridding the world of capitalism.

While the working class continue to put their faith in leaders they will continue to be disillusioned by political treachery, double-dealing and broken promises. We ask the working class to trust in their own abilities. They already run a complex world system from top to bottom and could quite easily run a Socialist society in their own interests. All that is needed is Socialist knowledge on the part of the working class. With this they can liberate themselves by voting Socialist delegates to the centres of political power with a mandate to abolish capitalism.

A conscious Socialist majority cannot be sold out, side-tracked or misled by leaders. In the absence of leaders promising to do things for the workers the “corruption” or degeneration of the revolution will be impossible. Delegates will be held to the sound Socialist political principles clearly understood by those who elected them.

Our correspondent has a number of other misconceptions about the SPGB’s case. First, Socialism will be world-wide in nature. It cannot exist in one country only. Second, Socialism will mean an end to the working class and the capitalist class—both will disappear; together with the need for a repressive state machine needed by rulers to keep the ruled in their place.

Editors.

The SWP reforms (2026)

From the March 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the article in our January issue on Your Party we pointed to the SWP’s hypocritical position in demanding that YP should have democratic internal elections while its own Central Committee was not chosen democratically. Members only had the choice of voting for or against a slate hand-picked by the outgoing committee. It has now been reported that at its conference in January the SWP has changed this to allow other candidates than those selected and recommended by the outgoing committee (tinyurl.com/yh4wcyms). Not quite so undemocratic but still not democratic as those on the outgoing committee’s slate will still have an advantage

Syndicalism, its cause and cure. (1912)

Book Review from the December 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

Syndicalism and the General Strike – by Arthur D. Lewis. (London; T. Fisher Unwin. Price 7s 6d)

As the only party in Great Britain that has taken up a definite and consistent attitude towards Anarchism in all its forms, it is meet that we should have something to say on the latest work on Syndicalism that has been published.

We have adopted a frankly hostile policy to this latest importation for the simple reason that we are a Socialist party. The sorry plight of those so-called Socialist bodies like the B. S. P. and the I. L. P. is a natural result of their lack of principles based on a correct knowledge of the position of our class. Inside the former body there is a heated controversy, both among the “leaders” and the rank and file, as to whether Syndicalism is the road for the workers to travel. The curious position of the I. L. P. is shown by their advocacy of the General Strike at the International Labour Congress as a weapon against war!

The cause of Syndicalism lies in the history of these and similar parties. In the Blatchford section they have literally bred Syndicalism by their disgusting election tricks, so often exposed in these pages. Their former members, now Syndicalists, point to the vote-hunting, compromising campaigns of Bethnal Green and Northampton, along with others, as showing the failure and danger of political action. The Independent Labour Party, too, has so treacherously played the part of advance agents of the Liberal party that from political opportunism their supporters right-about-turn to denounce political action altogether  — not that they understand Syndicalism any more than its leading votaries, but believing it to be anti-political, they seek shelter beneath its slogans and formulas.

Our statement of the cause of Syndicalism is supporter by the Syndicalist author of the book under review, who states (p. 187) that: –

“There are practically only one or two Syndicalists in England, but discontent with the degree of success obtained through the Parliamentary Labour Party has led to a general return to trade unionism and strikes as a means of fighting the employers . . . The belief that at least one member of the party bargains with the Liberal Government with a view to his personal advantage; the moderation of its words in Parliament compared with its words on the platform; the incapacity of many members of it, who are only dolls in the hands of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald; the acceptance by certain of its members of paid posts given by the Liberals; and its love of Puritanism, have all helped to cause a feeling of disappointment and disillusionment in many who once trusted and believed in it.”

That, then, is the cause of the spread of Syndicalism. It is clearly shown by this that Syndicalism thrives on ignorance. Only mis-educated, non Socialist workers would ever trust the Labour Party, would ever expect them to look after the toilers’ interests; and when the failure of their political inaction is realised, it is not the political method itself that has been found wanting, but it is the lack of sound knowledge on the workers’ part that is demonstrated. Because the political machine has been used in a capitalist direction the Syndicalist and his dupes proclaim the failure of politics!

The present book consists chiefly of quotations from the works of the Syndicalist leaders of to-day throughout Europe, and the author ventures his opinions very little. When he does so, he shows not only that he does not understand Syndicalism, but that he understands Socialism still less. In the preface he declares Socialism to mean that “huge State monopolies are to be formed in all industries, and that these will be controlled by a few very powerful officials at Westminster”.

This is typical of the misrepresentation that the Syndicalists feed their followers on. If Mr. Lewis would consult what he calls an “orthodox” Socialist, say Frederick Engels, he would find that Socialism rises upon the ashes of the State, for when Socialism comes the day of the State has closed for ever.

Though the title of the work is Syndicalism and the General Strike, only one chapter is devoted wholly to the latter question. The chief part deals with the theory of Syndicalism and Syndicalists.

Our author tells us that “the Syndicalist likes poor unions best — riches bring caution: he likes low weekly dues and small benefits”. Rather we would say, the average Syndicalist likes no dues and many benefits. We are promised much melodrama and but little organisation and education by his statement that: “The great weapon of the workers against their masters is disorder”. And one phase is described as “sabôtage or the destruction of property, intimidation of masters, sitting in factories with folded arms so no blacklegs can take your places, leaving work at an hour earlier than the masters want, telling the truth to customers: all these are means by which the masters can be made to yield”.

What they are to be made to yield by these means we are not told. But anyone can realise that while these things may prove aggravating to the isolated employer, and make him more bitter against the music-hall revolutionists, yet if this kind of thing was general, all the employers being on the same footing, they would feel its effects very little.

But to keep this conduct up the workers would need the power, not merely to personate George Washington, but to take control of the entire means of life; not to leave at an earlier hour than the masters desire, but to leave masters altogether. The crude notions of these folk are brought forward in the idea of “sitting with folded arms” while the masters want food, clothing, etc. for their daily needs. Sabotage, like all Syndicalist methods, is born of the want of sound knowledge and strong organisation.

Despite the fact that the author declares that the General Confederation of Labour in France “contains both a reformist and a revolutionary section”, and that the latter is “the minority of a minority of a minority — only some of the members of the C. G. T. being revolutionists and the C. G. T. itself only representing a minority of the unions” — despite that, however, the Anarchists miscalled revolutionists have a governing influence in the organisation, and have made its actions both comedies and tragedies.

They don’t believe in democracy. As the leading French Syndicalist, Émile Pouget, says in the work quoted — “The Syndicalist” — “Syndicalism and democracy are the two opposite poles which exclude and neutralise each other . . . This is because democracy is a social superfluity, a parasitic and external excrescence, while Syndicalism is a logical manifestation of the growth of life”, etc. Another French leader, M. Pierrot, is quoted as saying in “Syndicalism and Revolution” : “It is better to have an active group who know how to carry the masses and turn them in the right direction by their words and actions” . “The Syndicalist”, says our author “has contempt for the vulgar idea of democracy: the inert, unconscious mass is not to be taken into account when the minority wishes to act so as to benefit it”.

That is the key note. The ‘intellectual’ few are to dominate the many. Not democracy but autocracy and dictatorship. The day of  a revolution carried out on these lines would also be the day of counter-revolution, the day of disaster, of drilled, unthinking masses being driven to the New Jerusalem. The day of revolution would but be the prelude to the long, black night of apathy and despair.

 

The Socialist Party, however, clings fast to democracy in organisation and in action. It knows that the real, reliable movement can only be built up with an alert, awakened, interested working class. That alone can bring about emancipation — not a few leaders hypnotising an ignorant rank and file.

Syndicalism means but a change of leaders. As Gaylord Wilshire’s (the wealthy Syndicalist) magazine declares (November 1912): “The new movement calls for new leaders”. And again: “The new conditions must bring forth a new type of leader, powerful, inspiring, and heroic”. Leadership, not a live membership doing their own work in their own way, that is the ideal. Mr. Lewis points out that unions with small funds are wanted, for, says he, “where funds are large the workers are made to vote for or against a strike”, thus showing that the Syndicalist objects to the will of the worker being expressed and acted upon.

“Syndicalism has an immediate programme. It would have the unions look to it that there are meeting places for working men, where there will be lectures, baths, and all that helps them to learn how to take control of production and consumption; also the officials, with professional help, should get for the workers their legal rights and place medical and legal advice at their disposal.”

So anxious are they about reforms that they even worry about legal rights. Fancy hungering after the rights conferred by lawyers and by Parliament! But it is not surprising, for above all else the Syndicalists are reformers. Without economic knowledge or political insight, what else could they be? The English Syndicalist, Mr. Tom Mann declares (“A Twofold Warning”) that poverty can be abolished under capitalism, and he also says: “I contend that reducing the working hours provides a solution for the problem of unemployment, and it matters not what system obtains”. With this rot they make converts among the ignorant, yet any tyro in economics could prove to him that the reserve army of labour is the corner-stone of capitalism, and that the shortening of hours doesn’t mean the lessening of the product of the same number of men. The Chief Inspector of Mines just reports that in spite of the Eight Hours Day Bill, and the strikes last year, over seven million tons more coal were produced than in 1912, and on the average every miner’s output increased three tons. This is typical of the whole industrial world.

Syndicalists claim great things for their strikes and sabotage. Something now! “The use of trade union labels is regarded as an instance of direct action”. The free advertisement of particular employers! Further we are told that by sabotage “bread has been made inedible but not injurious” — a kind of general “hunger strike” forced upon the working class.

But the sad story of Spanish, French and Italian strikes and sabotage has somewhat dimmed the picture. Yvetot, the chief of the C. G. T., in his ABC of Syndicalism, confesses that “the principle obstacle to a revolution is the army . . . When the Government does not use the army to replace strikers, it makes soldiers into massacrers of workmen”. What, then, is the use of the General Strike? What can it do against the army? As Yvetot says, the army massacres the strikers. In Italy, we are told (p. 104): “A general strike of railway workers was attempted in 1905 as a protest against a new attempt to introduce the (strike smashing) law; it failed and the law was passed. Men were shot down by the soldiers in 1907 and there was a renewal of a wide-spread strike. The strikers were defeated, and it was said that 20,000 men, or one third of all the men on the railways, were punished, either by imprisonment, discharge from the service, fines, or degradation of rank.”

Arturo Labriola, the leading Italian Syndicalist, shows the similarity between Syndicalism and capitalism. He says: “You can imagine that a Syndicat for a certain trade could contain all the workers in a single branch of industry, could contract on uniform conditions with all the capitalists on behalf of these workers, and would form a kind of common treasury of all the profits, to be distributed according to a rule of exalted justice to all its members  . . . This process could go further. It can be imagined that at a certain point of its development the workers’ union might hire the capital of the capitalists for a fixed return and then use it co-operatively, either working in one mass or constructing so many separate co-operative bodies each having separate and distinct accounts.”

And he goes on: “Syndicates, as organisms opposed to monopoly, and therefore open to all, would enthusiastically receive the capitalists of yesterday become the companions of to-day, and would make use of their indisputable directive and administrative ability.”

Before leaving the General Strike theory it is useful to note the words of Mr. Ben Tillett, quoted in the book. Speaking after the 1911 Transport strike was over he said (Glasgow, 11.2.12): “A  week before the strike a Cabinet Minister pleaded with me in a tearful voice to stop the strike. Of course, this pleading was unheeded until the men got what they wanted”.

Yet within six months of that speech the transport workers were fighting fir the very demands they had “won” the year before! And what a cruel comment was the suffering of that historic defeat on the “efficacy of the strike” idea!

The general strike of miners and other strikes in England bring home the lessons of the Socialist. Whilst the strike, local or industrial, may effect improvement for the time, slavery remains. Whilst the threat of a general strike may induce concessions, it cannot bring a solution. The best results of economic unity can only be effected by class-conscious toilers who recognise the need for class action, class union, for working class ends; who realise that, as the road to emancipation lies in control of political power, political action is a vital necessity.

The cure for Syndicalism is education in the Socialist principles and policy. There is no substitute for a Socialist working class seeking its salvation through the political struggle. When the toilers understand Socialism they will have no room in their minds for the sophisms and fallacies of Syndicalism.

Adolph Kohn

Letter: Thomas Piketty (2025)

Letter to the Editors from the December 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Practical proposals"

Dear Editors

I have read Socialism as a Practical Alternative, this is very interesting, although I would like it to know more about voting rights and other decision making processes in the political sphere and in the economic sphere, in particular regarding the rights to use capital assets, both for housing and for equipment in small production units vs large production units, etc. I make some practical proposals on my Brief History of Equality (see eg, tinyurl.com/5xbapcn5), but of course they are highly imperfect and the only way to make progress is to compare with other proposals and learn from them!

Thomas Piketty

Reply:

At this stage, when there are so few who want a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control of the means to produce what society needs to survive, it is premature to draw up detailed plans as to how things will be arranged in such a society. That is something for those around at the time to decide when capitalism is about to be replaced by socialism; in other words, when a majority of the population want socialism. All we can do is to come up with some suggestions and even then not going into the detail that your proposals do. But we don’t doubt that when that time comes detailed plans will be drawn up.

We are approaching the question from a different position from yours. You see a different kind of society coming about gradually through a serious of reform measures, to be implemented now under capitalism. Hence the need to come up with a detailed proposal. We don’t see that a gradual transition to socialism is possible as, in the end, what decides what happens is the operation of the uncontrollable economic laws of capitalist society which impose that the priority must be profit-making and the accumulation of capital. They rule out detailed reform measures working as planned. Our view is that, before anything constructive and lasting can be done, the basis of society needs to be changed root and branch from class ownership of the means of life to their common ownership and democratic control by society as a whole.

So while you are proposing measures to be implemented now under capitalism, we are envisaging possible measures to be implemented after capitalism has been replaced by socialism.

Nevertheless, to try to answer your specific questions. By ‘the rights to use capital assets’, by which we assume you mean the physical means to produce wealth. These won’t belong to anyone; they will simply be there to be used in accordance with democratically decided rules. We imagine that the day-to-day operation of them will be in the hands of those who operate them, through some democratically chosen management committee. This could be chosen by any number of different voting systems or even by lot (now called ‘sortition’). And there is no reason why this needs to be the same everywhere and in every workplace.

Housing: houses and flats won’t belong to anyone either. They wouldn’t be privately owned, not even by individuals; but this wouldn’t rule out people having the right to use a house or flat for a prolonged period. One possible arrangement would for their allocation to be in the hands of a local council in accordance with some democratically agreed criteria. These would have to be fairly complicated, allowing for appeals and settlement of disputes, but we can’t say much more today about them other than that they would have to exist and that it will be up to those living in socialism to decide the details which, once again, need not be the same everywhere.

Editors.

Socialism and democracy (1986)

Book Review from the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Battle of Democracy by Keith Graham, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95

What is democracy? Why should it be considered a good thing? Why should an individual accept a democratically-arrived-at decision with which they disagree? These are the questions Keith Graham sets out to answer in the first, more philosophical, part of his book (The Battle of Democracy, Wheatsheaf Books, £8.95)

The simplest definition of democracy is that it is decision-making by the whole people (“rule by the people”, as the Greek words from which it is formed mean) involving procedures such as free and open debate, free access to information, one person one vote, and the accountability of public officials and elected representatives. Graham argues that such a decision-making system can be regarded as desirable because one key aspect of the nature of human beings is their ability to reflect and weigh up options before deciding what to do. In other words, a system in which the people as a whole freely decide what to do is the only decision-making system worthy of humans as self-determining (“free”) agents.

The idea of democracy is also bound up with that of equality, if only in the sense that it is a decision-making procedure in which every human deemed capable of making a reasoned decision has a vote of equal weight. Pursuing this further, Graham shows that ensuring each person an equal as possible say in the decision-making process requires a high degree of social equality and not mere equal political rights. This introduces the idea that it is not only political democracy that is desirable for humans as self-determining agents but a democratic society. As Graham makes clear in the second, more political, part of his book where he discusses the views of Marx, Lenin and others on democracy, this democratic society would have to be “a world where private ownership of the means of production, buying and selling, the wages system have all been abolished, in favour of the communal ownership of the earth’s resources”. In other words, the philosophical justification for democracy is also, even more so in fact, a philosophical justification for socialism—though, of course, as Graham is quick to point out, Marx himself did not justify establishing socialism on such “an appeal to abstract, timeless principles to do with the nature of human beings”.

Graham’s discussion of the views of Marx and Lenin on democracy—in which he convincingly makes the point that “the terrible fate which befell Marx was that he was Leninised—corresponds exactly to our own position on this subject: Marx stood for the establishment of a democratic, classless society as a democratic act on the part of the wage and salary working class as a whole. In contrast, Lenin saw the agent of social revolution as a minority “vanguard” of professional revolutionaries who, on winning power, would establish their own undemocratic, even if supposedly temporary, rule over the rest of society. Graham’s discussion of the differing views of Marx and Lenin also allows him to clarify the reform versus revolution dilemma, often seen as a choice between gradual, constitutional change and violent insurrection. He can also set out, for the first time in a book of this sort, the case for a revolutionary but essentially peaceful use of existing political institutions as the means of establishing socialism.

Marx’s presuppositions enable a distinctive challenge to be made to the two alternative positions on the question of constitutionalism as we have been considering them. In one way, the most important political development for Marx takes place prior to any revolution and outside parliamentary institutions, namely in the growth of working class consciousness. This is distinct from Kautsky’s parliamentary constitutionalism, where the entry of a party into parliament, which may form alliances with non-revolutionary groups and the like, is seen as the chief means to revolution . . . On the other hand, Marx’s position is distinct from Lenin’s. The state is not to be smashed but taken control of, so that it cannot be used against a revolutionary working class: and some of the institutions of a parliamentary system, notably universal suffrage, will be something to foster for a majoritarian like Marx, though not for a vanguardist like Lenin. In the light of Marx’s presuppositions, there do seem to be oversimplifications in the terms used to express the original dilemma of the route to the new society. There need be no straight-forward, exclusive and exhaustive choice between constitutionalism and violent seizure of power. Certain elements within existing institutions may be valued, and action taken in conformity with them, while others may not. Connectedly, the aspiration to a peaceful transition need not be identified with an attempt to effect it by piecemeal means, an identification which both Kautsky and Lenin are prone to make. It is consistent with Marx’s presuppositions to recognise parliament as an institution geared to the needs of capitalism, and therefore inappropriate as the vehicle for a fundamental transformation, but yet to regard its connected electoral practices as coinciding, to some extent, with the principles governing that transformation, and to that extent adding the possibility of a peaceful transition. This is not tantamount to the view parodied by Lenin as the expectation that the ruling class will meekly submit to the working class, as minority to majority. It does, however, limit violence to the role of counter-violence in the event of resistance when a clear majority for revolutionary change is apparent, rather than seeing the use of violence as itself a primary means of change, even in the absence of majority support.

Leninists sometimes try to argue that this is only a question of tactics, that they too share the ultimate goal of a truly democratic society (socialism) but that because a majority of workers can never be expected to acquire a socialist understanding within capitalism (“the ruling ideas of an epoch are those of the ruling class”, as Marx put it), a minority must act on their behalf. Graham answers this by pointing out that, in the case of socialism as the democratic society, there is a very real sense in which the end determines the means to achieve it.

What is the nature of the transformation which, according to Marx, it is the role of the proletariat to bring about? In place of the compulsion to work which is characteristic of their position in capitalism, there will be a free association of people. In place of the exploitation of one section by another there will be common ownership of the means of production. In place of the political domination of a bureaucratic elite there will be widespread participation and revocable delegation. Leaving aside all question of the realism of Marx’s proposals, these are the arrangements which he regards as meeting the real interests of the proletariat. But these are arrangements which in their very description are incapable of attainment without the voluntary co-operation of the proletariat itself. Whereas you can make people do what they do not wish to do, you cannot make them adopt a set of social relations which require their voluntary co-operation if they do not voluntarily co-operate (Graham’s emphasis).

In other words, democratic organisation and methods are not just one among many possible means to establish a democratic society; they are the only such means. Leninist minority action can only lead, as historical experience has confirmed, to some form of minority rule—in fact to a more undemocratic society than the sort of capitalism we know in countries like Britain.

The Battle of Democracy, is a very useful book about the nature of democracy written by a socialist. It is hoped that it will spark off a wide-ranging discussion about the desirability and feasibility of “a world-wide society of common ownership” and of the means of bringing it into being.

Adam Buick

Question and answer (1986)

From the November 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does the Socialist Party of Great Britain recognise that its Declaration of Principles cannot apply to those countries where political democracy does not exist?

Capitalism is a worldwide system which gives rise to both the need for socialism and the possibility of achieving it. It is not the type of government or the mode of election which now stands in the way of socialism; the factor common to all countries from parliamentary democracies to dictatorships — is an extreme shortage of socialists.

While in Britain the development of political democracy took place along with the growth of capitalism, there are very few countries which do not now have at least the machinery associated with democracy and hold elections. All governments need the passive support of their people and elections of some kind are a convenient way of demonstrating it.

Wherever capitalism exists, however administered. workers are not immune from the contradictions which underline the need for socialism. This includes peasants who are increasingly affected by world capitalism. Apart from anything else, modem communications make it extremely unlikely that the socialist movement could grow to any size in a few countries and have absolutely no impact in the rest of the world.

How does the Socialist Party propose that the working class of those countries (without political democracy) are to organise for a socialist revolution?

In those countries where there are severe restrictions on political activity any socialists must, taking all circumstances into account, do the best they can to carry on their work for socialism, as indeed the SPGB did during the two world wars. (Elections were suspended. The Socialist Standard was subject to censorship. In World War 1 because of Defence of the Realm regulations, we suspended all outdoor meetings; platforms had been smashed and members injured, a speaker arrested and imprisoned, others "bound over to keep the peace followed in some cases by the loss of their jobs.) At times it may prove nearly impossible to continue, especially while our numbers are still so few and not only because of state-imposed conditions. We have the example of socialists in Northern Ireland who. after a very difficult time, were ready to resume a full propaganda programme at the earliest opportunity.

The prospects are not quite as bleak as might be imagined; governments are not able permanently to prevent the dissemination of ideas not condoned by the state. A 19th century example is of the German Social Democratic Party which, while the Anti-Socialist Laws were in operation recovered from the initial setback and grew to be the strongest single party, polling 1½ million votes in the 1890 election (the Anti-Socialist Laws then came to an end). Bismarck also introduced reform measures aimed at undermining support for the SPD. More recently the tight control of the media, education and so on in Poland, did not prevent the emergence of Solidarity — 10 million strong. The current situation is unlikely to be the end of the story and it is still true that the actions of the government are tempered by the likely response of the majority. The careful attitude of the authorities to the Catholic Church in Poland reflects the mass support which that organisation has. Underground publications circulate in Russia and other East European countries.

This is not to underestimate the difficulties but to underline the fact that lack of political democracy is not. at this time, the main problem

In those countries where political democracy does not exist, does the Socialist Party advocate and support reforms that could lead to political rights for workers, free trade unions etc. ?

The Socialist Party learned from the experience of the early parties of Social Democracy; having a programme of immediate reforms and the ultimate aim of revolution meant trying to implement the reforms which led to compromise — taking part in running capitalism. It was the reform programme which gained the large following of people not interested in revolution. It is the failure of parties of reform to solve working-class problems that has brought the use of parliament into disrepute. We point out that the choice is not between parliament plus reforms and socialist revolution. Parliament has not failed, it has never been used by a vast majority of socialists as a means to revolution. The vital lesson is that the issue of socialism must be kept clear; the party aiming for socialism must seek support on that basis alone.

Co-operation with other parties, or groups, for any other purpose will always be on the terms of those parties. Democratic freedoms are seldom sought as an abstract ideal. People leading campaigns for democracy are likely to have some other purpose in mind, seeing democracy as a stepping stone to economic or political power in their own sectional interest as the rising capitalist class made use of working-class agitation in securing its own political supremacy in this country. Many widely differing interests came together to overthrow the Shah in Iran; organisations were there despite the Shah s secret police and the exile of some leaders, but though this is an extreme example, it does show that it is not enough to aim to get rid of a tyrant — or for generalised freedoms.

To campaign for constitutional reform as a separate issue will only serve to perpetuate capitalism — in whatever form. All attempts to gain freedom to organise politically must go hand in hand with working for socialism — but this presupposes that there are socialists.

In fact workers do not need any advice from us about the advantages of trade union organisation, and gaining a political voice. Socialists welcome the formation of independent trade unions organised along sound lines. In recent years millions of people who have been compelled to work for the multi-national companies which have taken advantage of cheap, non-unionised labour in "Third World" countries have begun struggling to improve their pay and conditions by organising in unions. Witness also the struggles of black workers in South Africa where, as elsewhere, there are many factors at work, including economic problems and the conflict of interests between different sections of the capitalist class.

While we are considerably cheered by any success achieved by fellow members of our class in the lightening of their particularly heavy loads, we also recognise the likely limitations of that success. Workers also act against their class interest, regularly voting for parties to run capitalism, and will even support anti-democratic parties and accept the use of repressive measures. Our specific and vital contribution is to keep the issue of socialism clear.

Will political democracy have to be established in the majority, if not all. of the world's capitalist states as a necessary precondition for a socialist revolution?

The short answer is yes. We always emphasise that socialism is by definition democratic and can only be established by democratic means. Parliamentary democracy is the means which, when we are in the overwhelming majority, socialists will be able to use to gain control of the machinery of government. It is not the prerequisite to the formation and spread of the idea of socialism. This is not to ignore the difficulties; we have already said that where there are particular problems socialists must do the best they can. Nor do we underestimate the usefulness of political democracy — it makes our task easier — but at this stage it is not the deciding factor, or there would be many more socialists in the more "liberal" democracies. The missing ingredient is still class-conscious socialist understanding, in democracies and dictatorships alike.

The spread of socialist ideas, the expansion of the socialist movement with its democratic aim and organisation, will ensure the fullest appreciation of democracy in every country and the speediest adoption of political democracy and independent trade unions in those countries where they do not yet exist. Workers who have understood their class position and are ready to work for socialism will insist on taking an active part in their unions. They will not rely on leaders, they will not be misled into supporting dictatorships of any kind, and they will certainly not be fobbed off by any calls to nationalist sentiment.

It is inconceivable that the growth of the socialist movement could accelerate and yet those millions of class conscious workers leave the administration of capitalism untouched — by this stage there could already be socialist delegates in some parliaments. Long before the necessary majority is near governments would have to take their views into account. It is unlikely that when most countries have got substantial numbers of socialists, a few countries will still have only a minority of socialists and be without political democracy. If this did happen the worldwide socialist movement would decide, in close cooperation with those minorities, how best they could be helped. We repeat that this event seems unlikely. There would be no question of an increasingly socialist working class in, say. America, allowing the government to prop up dictatorships in other countries.

Profits of doom - capitalism’s left wing (1982)

From the October 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

The advent of capitalist production in sixteenth- to nineteenth-century Britain was marked by the transformation of the peasantry into wage-workers. Peasants had been isolated, and concerned with increasing their individual land holdings. But as workers, forced off the land into the workshops, survival necessitated some kind of association. The revolt of workers against the conditions they were forced into went through certain phases. At first machinery was destroyed. Riots and arson were, however, easily crushed since they were isolated and unorganised. Destruction proved counter-productive. Then trade unions were formed to ease the downward pressure on wages which resulted from competition between workers. The unions aimed to establish uniform wage scales, to regulate apprenticeships and also, often, to oppose the introduction of machinery. Their role was of necessity contradictory' and sectional. The kind of political association which could potentially overcome this problem of division appeared for the first time on a large scale in the form of Chartism. This was the first attempt by workers to gain direct access to the state through extending the franchise.

The response of the ruling class to previous waves to discontent among their workers had consisted mainly of vicious and brutal oppression to outlaw trade unions and democratic association. The Combination Acts, the Tolpuddle martyrs and Peterloo are the British equivalent of the killings in recent times in Gdansk and other parts of Poland. In the late nineteenth century they began to fear how workers might react to this once they could vote. This fear had a very long history. Two hundred and fifty years earlier, at the time of the English Revolution, the aptly named Colonel Rich had said:

You have five to one in this kingdom that have no permanent interest . .  if the master and servant shall be equal electors, then clearly those that have no interest in the kingdom will make it their interest to choose those that have no interest. . . there may be a law enacted, that there shall be an equality of goods and estate. (Quoted in The Century of Revolution, Christopher Hill. p. 120.)

In addition, employers faced the problem, after the Education Act of 1870, of increasing literacy among their workers which posed the threat of growing knowledge and understanding. So in place of violent suppression, there evolved the idea of social reform. According to many liberal capitalists of the late nineteenth century, the discontent of workers could be placated without revolutionary change, provided their employers were prepared to make minor concessions. This idea was sold to the capitalist class over a period of time by politicians like Joseph Chamberlain, with his question: “1 ask what ransom will property pay for the security it enjoys” (at an 1885 Liberal Party meeting discussing the financing of social services — Life, J. L. Garvin, 1932, Vol. I. p. 549).

The experiences of workers continued to show that the fetters of capitalism prevented their needs from being met. The question of getting rid of capitalism arose, but was drowned by the clamour for piecemeal reform of the system. The formation of employers’ federations in the 1890s and the anti-trade union court rulings around the turn of the century led to the formation of the Labour Party, which then grew from a trade union pressure group to an alternative capitalist government to the Liberal Party, out of which it had in part grown. The lip-service paid by the Labour Party after 1918 to nationalisation is now frowned on by many workers, particularly those who have worked in state-capitalist industries and found it no better than working in the private sector. The Tory statesman. Peel, had already proposed the nationalisation of the railways half a century earlier as a threat against private monopolies, so the idea had a long, respectable history within capitalism.

From the start, the Labour Party was not united on any principle and attempted to catch votes by empty promises which had nothing to do with the self-emancipation of workers. Labour governments have smashed strikes, supported wars, passed racist immigration legislation, presided over soaring unemployment, cut medical and social services, wages and housing programmes. In fact they have done everything the Tories do, and anything which has been demanded of them by the present, capitalist system which they say we “have to work within”. The last Labour government, for example, imposed a five per cent limit on wage rises through the “social contract”, and at the 1975 Labour Party conference called for wage restraint with the exercise of the "socialist imagination” — in other words, take less but imagine you're getting more. Jack Jones of the TGWU justified his support for these measures with the assertion that "Socialism means being able to take part now and not just dream dreams”.

Alternative Economic Strategy 

At the moment the Labour Party, the Communist Party, the Liberal Party and the SDP are all proposing to deal with the 14 per cent rate of unemployment by the Keynesian policy of increasing public expenditure. Keynes saw himself as the saviour of capitalism; he hoped to prove Marx wrong by showing that the profit system could work in the interests of all. He hoped for 5 per cent unemployment as a "natural” stable level. But the policies of all the governments since World War Two have followed Keynes without success. For example, during the seventies, annual government spending was increased about four times over, and unemployment shot up from under half a million to over two million. This was simply the outcome of one of the periodic trade slumps of capitalism.

But according to the Labour Party we should not yet reject the whole system, for they have a few more policies for us to try. Have we tried them all before? Well, yes, they say. but why not try again, after all. Labour MPs might join the dole queue otherwise. The rest of the "Alternative Economic Strategy” consists of import controls, and controls on wages and other prices. That these measures cannot serve the interests of the majority has been amply illustrated by our own experience.

The situation which an incoming Labour government would face is probably comparable to that of Mitterand in France. The same kind of promises about public expenditure and expansion were dropped very quickly, as the PSF government introduced its austerity programme and wage freezes. The nationalisation they introduced, does not particularly affect the interests of the capitalist class, as was made clear in this announcement in French newspapers. with the heading: Nationalisation. An exchange of holdings.

If you are a shareholder in one of the companies which was nationalised on 11 February 1982, your shares will be exchanged freely for guaranteed state bonds, with variable rates of interest, on 13 April 1982.

The ideals of "industrial democracy” and "workers control" within the capitalist system are simply modern replacements of the older. Tory defence of property as based on freedom and enterprise. They lead to exploitation supervised by the exploited themselves, masking the fundamental class division of capitalism.

Why, then, do the so-called revolutionaries of the Left still involve themselves in the Labour Party? It used to be because it was the "mass Party of the working class”, even though numerically you might just as well describe the Nazi Party in Germany in the thirties in that way. But recently the Labour Party has been in decline, with its individual membership falling by hundreds of thousands. The reason for the Left’s continuing involvement is their sticking to the old-fashioned idea of secret infiltration rather than open persuasion. Leninist groups such as Militant Tendency and the SWP think workers are incapable of understanding socialism — even though their own conception of it is at best vague and often oppressively anti-working class and dictatorial. Because of this arrogant belief that they have understood something which others cannot, the attitude of these groups has been somewhat contradictory. For example, in the February 1974 election the manifesto of the International Marxist Group said "VOTE LABOUR — but rely on your own struggles". Then in their Red Weekly (now Socialist Challenge) of February 22 they said:

Labour's attitude to the working class involves outright lying . . . the (Labour) programme is a big con. designed to trap the working class movement into accepting further cutbacks in its standard of living while prices soar.

On 23 February, 1974. the SWP’s Socialist Worker advised that "every socialist, every worker must spend all the days before polling day shouting two simple slogans at work, in the home and whenever anyone will listen: DEFEND UNIONS — VOTE LABOUR”. A few months later, on 6 July 1974, the same journal slated:

Wilson’s wage cuts will have to be fought with stronger organisation and stronger industrial action — stronger even than the action that booted out Heath and the Tories.

Leninism

These U-turns are made because these parties blindly accept as a dogma the statement made by Lenin in a pamphlet at the turn of the century, that "The working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness”. (What is to be Done?) Poles who know the opening lines of the Communist Manifesto have recently been saying that a spectre is haunting Leninism — the spectre of trade-union consciousness. The irony really is complete, because Leninist groups insist on the need for a leadership to take workers beyond the trade-union struggle, and yet spend much of their time talking about the trade-union struggle, even when the workers they are "organising" find that reformist campaigns which fail to touch the root of the problem cannot be in our interests as the majority class in society. As the “vanguard" repeat their circular slogans and arrogant dogmas and the rest of us find more and more evidence that we must get rid of the system they say we must work within, it is not hard to see why Marx spoke of the need to educate the educators. In the early days of the Russian Revolution, Lenin declared that to establish state capitalism would be a victory (The Chief Task of our Times), and he has been quoted:

If socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permitted it. then we shall not see socialism for at least five hundred years. (Ten Days That Shook the World, John Reed. p. 263)

There is in fact no reason at all why the majority of workers could not easily understand that the present system of production for profit must be replaced by production for use, and private and state property replaced by democratic control and common ownership. The abolition of the world market system does require the full development of socialist political consciousness on the part of a majority of workers. We are quite adequately equipped, biologically and socially, for this task of taking political action on the basis of understanding, in order to transform society.

The organisation of the Leninist left epitomises the hierarchy, the bureaucracy, and the deadening nature of capitalist hypocrisy. Much genuine and potentially revolutionary discontent is absorbed and channelled into the kind of rebellion against fragments and details of the system which proves ultimately innocuous. These basic assumptions lead to the state capitalist regimes such as Russia — however much the Trotskyists may try to deny this by dating the beginning of oppression in modern Russia from the time when Lenin died and Stalin took over. And Russia, with its concentration of most industry in the hands of the state and the suppression of trade union activity, is basically a capitalist state:

During the first year of transition to the new system industrial enterprises obtained 3500 million roubles extra profit. The level of profitability rose from 13 per cent in 1965 (in industry as a whole) to 22.5 per cent in 1969 (for enterprises transferred to the new system). (Labour Remuneration, Labour Incentive Funds and Soviet Trade Unions, Novosii Press Agency, Moscow, 1972.)

No Socialism without Socialists

Militant is now in a state of panic over the dreaded Labour Party "Register”. In the end. they will either be kicked out or accommodated. Their history of a reformist leadership holding back the rank and file is an unfounded myth. To support the principle of leadership signifies lack of socialist consciousness. Leaders like Wilson and Foot were regarded as being on the Left at one time. The successive movements of politicians across the wings of the Labour Party merely reflects their stagnating acceptance of capitalism. Society will change through conscious desire, not the eighteenth-century Jacobin tactics of secret conspiracy and infiltration, or through the manipulations of self-styled vanguards. The limited way in which both the Left and Right wings of capitalism define what is “possible” and what is not crushes any real dissent from the prevailing form of society. They are ideological harnesses, holding back uncertain workers from developing the confidence necessary for self-emancipation, as advocated by Marx. The capitalist system has produced four tons of nuclear explosives (TNT-equivalent) for every man and woman on earth, but still leaves an average of one person to starve to death each second. Only a conscious majority of workers, organised democratically, can take the political action necessary to end this tragedy, by sending delegates to take over and dismantle the state machine. Before this can happen we must rid ourselves of any illusions about the outdated and destructive system we live in at the moment.

Clifford Slapper