Letter: Do you get the picture? (1993)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you get the picture?

Dear Editors.

You know what happens to the sheep that follows the goat down the path of no return? They end up in the freezer. It doesn’t pay to follow leaders!

It reminds me of an old saying I heard in the Socialist ranks. "Where there are leaders there are led, where there are led there are bled". When you act like sheep you are begging to dc sheared. Do you ever wonder why millions are spent during a campaign to get someone into office? Obviously there is a great deal at stake. Candidates are identified by their ideology. If a Socialist candidate entered the race, his only monetary support would be supplied by the Socialist Party and they would have to rely on donations from the members and sympathizers and they are unlikely to have any rich "Perots" to help them. Since we are the only Party that represents working-class interests it follows that the Government is owned by those who can spend millions on campaigns. They pass all the laws in their favour. They have at their disposal all the most able professors of economics, all the captains of industry. Nevertheless, even with all their power, they cannot make capitalism do their bidding. It is like trying to steer a boat without a rudder. No-one can fix something that cannot be fixed! We must replace capitalism with socialism. "Once a Socialist always a Socialist" is a familiar saying among socialists. When you have become convinced that reforming capitalism doesn’t work (for the have-nots) there is no other alternative.

We all pay taxes, right? Consider this; in the last 50 years that I know of, taxes have increased year after year and we have been able to pay them. Where do we get the money? In your pay envelope. When you negotiate with your boss for a raise, the "cost of living" is the main topic of discussion, and that includes taxes. Do you get the picture?

William Hewitson, 

Santa Maria, California

If Maria Victoria, of Collyhurst, Manchester, will supply us with an address we will be able to reply to her recent letter.

Letter: "Municipal Politics." (1908)

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

Suspicions arising as to the genuineness of the following letter, a communication was sent to the address given. It was returned through the post marked "Not known." Though it is unusual to take notice of anonymous correspondence, an exception is made in this case since the matter may be of some interest to our readers.

"Municipal Politics."

Jan. 18th, 08. 

Socialist Party of Great Britain,

Gentlemen,—In The Socialist Standard for January an article appeared under the heading “Municipal Politics." In regard to a candidate becoming elected to a municipal body you state that he will of course work to wrest from the capitalist class any possible present amelioration although he did not seek suffrages for this, but for Socialism. Since amelioration is of no use whatever to the working class as long as the exploiting class remain in power, why should he waste time on this since he did not seek votes to obtain amelioration, but to bring about Socialism? Also since he was appointed by a class- conscious electorate one would think that they would not expect any reforms to be advocated by him. Hoping to see a reply to this in your next month's issue, I remain.

Yours fraternally,

J. R. Smith.

409, Oldham Rd., Manchester.

Reply:

To say, as does our correspondent, that “amelioration of any kind is of no use to the working class so long as the exploiting class remain in power” is entirely absurd. It is saying that an amelioration is at the same time not an amelioration. It implies that the workers if able to obtain a rise in wages should refuse to take it on the ground that it would be of no use to them!

The only point upon which there can be intelligent discussion is, not whether an amelioration is of use, but whether or how any amelioration is obtainable under capitalism; and if Mr. Smith had used the whole and not a half of a sentence he would have seen that the other half states that neither the Socialist member nor his "electors are under any illusions on this head, for he has made plain how little is to be hoped for from the enemy while entrenched in power."

If Mr. Smith will read the article in question he will see that its whole burden is that any wide spread or important amelioration is impossible under capitalism, and that to obtain even any partial or temporary benefits that may be obtainable as sops from the master class, the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of capitalism is the only effective way. And in this struggle for Socialism the workers will take all they can get, and will use every coign of vantage, not to patch up a rotten system, but to strengthen, educate, and organise the working class army in the task of abolishing capitalist exploitation.

As distinct from the reformers who adapt themselves to bourgeois interests, the Socialists must always—as stated in the article—formulate working-class interests and so make clearer in contrast with capitalist interests the polar antagonism that exists and which can only be dissolved by Socialism. Nothing can be considered by a Socialist as being in working class interests that helps to perpetuate a system of oppression, but everything will be welcomed that can be used effectively as a weapon by the Socialist army in ending the capitalist system.

When the Socialist workers control a municipal council, are they, as according to Mr. Smith, to do nothing because they cannot do all? Limited though the local powers are, yet, obviously, they must be used to the utmost. It would, indeed, be folly to contest a local election if the workers were not prepared when in a majority to use the organisation of the municipality as a base of operations in the revolutionary struggle, by aiding and strengthening the workers in revolt against the system. While to refrain from using the electoral machinery where such can be of use to the Socialist workers would be treachery.

Social reformers seek votes in order to patch up the present system, but the Socialist seeks only the conscious co-operation of the workers for its abolition. Hence with the Socialist all else is subordinate to this end, and is only of use in so far as it is a means thereto. By revolution alone can permanent and substantial benefit accrue to the workers. Consequently, even for substantial and lasting amelioration, the first and essential step is, as stated in the article to which Mr. Smith refers, "the control by the workers nationally and locally, and this must be made plain ; and when the workers are the ruling class, lists of reforms suited to the continuance of capitalism become stupid, and entirely different revolutionary measures of transition become the order of the day. Thus reform programmes not only scatter and render mutually antagonistic the workers' efforts, but they obscure and prevent concentration upon the essential step."

So, Mr. Smith, we do not advocate reforms.

We may, then, conclude by further quoting for our correspondent’s benefit from the article in question, whose contents he seems to have unaccountably overlooked :

"It must, therefore, be clearly understood, (1st) that any reform worthy the name from a working-class standpoint involves the conscious taking from the capitalist class of, at least, part of the power and proceeds of robbery, and thus genuine reform is conditional on working-class supremacy. (2nd) That to wield in the workers' interest even the limited and paltry powers allowed by the central government to the local bodies it is first necessary to control the local bodies by a Socialist majority."

"Consequently to promise ‘immediate reforms' that cannot be granted until the revolutionary step has been taken leads to confusion, disappointment and apathy, while it means a vote worthless for Socialism followed by desertion. But to insist upon the futility of reform, and the primary necessity of capturing political power, means a sound vote, a solid backing, and a sure and steady growth of the class-conscious and revolutionary army."

And that, Mr. Smith, is why we do not advocate reforms.

F. C. Watts

Classic Reprint: New Zealand Election Message (1984)

A Classic Reprint from the Winter 1984 issue of the World Socialist

Classic Reprint: New Zealand Election Message

In July this year the Labour Party took power in New Zealand with a majority of 17 seats. We reprint below the election message which was published by the Socialist Party of New Zealand when it put up a candidate for the first time, in the Tamaki constituency of Auckland, in the November 1972 General Election — which was also the last election won by the Labour fakers who replaced the outgoing Prime Minister "Mr. Marshall and his cronies" of the National Party. Now as then our message to workers is the same: Don't rely upon leaders of left or right to solve your problems but use democratic political action for your own conscious emancipation.

To The Workers of Tamaki . . .

When a political candidate stands for a moneyless world in which people take what they need when they need it, in which there is no army, navy or airforce, no police, no banks and no national boundaries, you are expected to dismiss him as a crank. Without a full examination of the Socialist case it does sound crazy.

But the Socialist means exactly what he says and what is more he is prepared to argue logically and scientifically that, not only is this possible, it is the only solution to the problems of today's world.

As cranks we have been around a long time. Our first members got together in 1904 and formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain, and in 1930 the Socialist Party of New Zealand sprung into existence. Today there are thousands of Socialists in parties with identical objects and principles in USA, Great Britain, Ireland, Austria, Canada, Jamaica, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. More parties are in the process of starting in other countries.

Politics for us means something quite different. We maintain that the ever present problems of war, pollution, racial prejudice, crime, housing, industrial unrest and unemployment are not caused by governments or leaders, sincere or otherwise, but by the way society is organised throughout the world. This system, which we call capitalism, is a system whereby the means for producing wealth, the factories, the mines, the sources of raw material, the airlines, shipping and transport are all owned and controlled by a small minority (about 10%) of the world's population.

That society is organised on the basis of producing goods and services so that vast profits may be accrued by that small minority is the basic cause of 99% of the problems that face us.

When you grasp this rather basic fact that society is run in the interests of the profit-making machine you are very close to understanding our case. You will realise, of course, that despite what Mr. Marshall and his cronies would have us believe, profits are far more important than people in today's society. You will also realise that any political party that pays allegiance to the profit-making system can only ever run society on that basis.

The alternative, which we call socialism, does not exist anywhere in the world yet. Socialism calls for the co-operation of the peoples of the world to work together on a democratic basis to produce the needs of the people. We maintain that society today has reached that stage in production where, if we used the world's resources and our technical and scientific knowhow in a sane and sensible manner, we could produce an overwhelming amount of wealth to satisfy everyone's needs on a very minimal amount of time and effort.

Free access would be the order of the day with no need for money, buying and selling, wages and profits. This would eliminate all the problems that exist today because of the buying and selling of commodities. War, economic crises, slumps etc., on the international scene and strikes, lock-outs, unemployment and poverty on the home front. People would be engaged on a work basis of producing the best possible under the best conditions that man can create.

. . . Satisfaction and pride in our work could exist for every man and woman. WHAT ABOUT US?

The Socialist Party has no leaders. Leadership is a myth which still lingers in a so-called democratic society. We are democratic in the true sense of the word and do not regard democracy as a device for keeping people quiet while we bamboozle and rob them.

We do not seek power. Our purpose is to abolish it forever. We do not aim to benefit a working class, except by abolishing it along with all classes.

We are realists. We do not think that praying to a god and trusting a leader is going to do us any good.

We are not patriotic. As workers, we have been dispossessed of our countries and our allegiance is only to the 90% of the world's population who make up the international working class.

We do not compromise. As a working class party we are opposed to all other political parties and governments for all respect capitalism in its various stages of development. This is true of state-capitalist Russia and China as it is true of Britain or USA — National, Labour, Social Credit and so-called "Communist" or what have you.

We are workers. We sell our physical and mental energies just like 90% of the rest of the world. We know capitalism from the receiving end, not from the privileged, superior level which sees people as objects to be managed.

We are cranks because we are few against a world owned and controlled by non-cranks who murder, steal, lie, cheat and condone the possible destruction of man.

We know that as working men and women living under capitalism, leisure time is a scarce and precious commodity. But think for a minute — can you honestly say a night's television is more important than dying of cancer from adulterated food and polluted atmosphere?

Is a round of golf or an afternoon at Eden Park more important than the possibility of seeing your children die in a nuclear war? Do you value a night in the pub more than allowing your family to be subjected to the rat race that this society has to offer?

Listen to us, argue with us, doubt everything you hear from us, but remember, the onus is on you and each and every member of society. Parliamentary Committee SPNZ

IF THERE IS NO SPNZ CANDIDATE IN YOUR AREA, REGISTER YOUR PROTEST AGAINST CAPITALISM BY WRITING "SOCIALISM" ACROSS YOUR BALLOT PAPER.

Letter: Socialist voters (1992)

Letter to the Editors from the August 1992 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialist voters

Dear Editors,

In the May issue of the Socialist Standard, Steve Coleman, in Story of an Election, claims “50,000 genuine socialist votes". In Between the Lines, he points out that £25,000 is needed to stand fifty candidates and have an election broadcast on BBC TV and radio.

This works out at 50p per person; 50,000 could easily afford this over five years, in time for the next General Election. Furthermore, if 650 candidates were to stand this would cost £325,000. Dividing this sum by 50,000 “genuine socialists” would only require £6.50 over five years. Not an impossibility surely.

T. Hilton,

Stockport

Reply:

If you are one of those who, given the chance, would vote for a genuine socialist candidate, why not start the hall rolling and pay your £6.50 into our Election Fund?—Editors.

Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead (1996)

Book Review from the Sep-Oct 1996 issue of the Discussion Bulletin

Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead — William Morris, John Carruthers, Fred Henderson. Edited and Introduced by Stephen Coleman The William Morris Library #12. Thoemmes Press. 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR. U.K.

One hundred years ago a familiar dispute raged within the anti-capitalism movement Should we socialists organize our class to improve their lot under capitalism, or should we limit ourselves to educating workers about the need to abolish the system in its entirety? Today it’s very clear that the reformers have won for the time being. To everyone except small grouplets of libertarian non-market socialists—DeLeonists, world socialists, and anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists—socialism and communism mean social welfare programs and varying degrees of government ownership of the means of production, all within the market system.

The three anti-reformist pamphlets collected in this volume were written between 1887 and 1915 by William Moms and two other prominent British socialists whom he had influenced. Steve Coleman, who probably convinced the William Morris Society to commission the book, has written a thirty-eight page introduction that places that debate within the context of the events and preoccupations of the spokesmen and organizations of the time. Morris wrote "The Policy of Abstention” (20 pages, 1887) after his new group, the Socialist League, split from the Social Democratic Federation over the question of reformism. Carruthers’ “Socialism and Radicalism” (15 pages, 1894). written a few years later. describes the failure of the reformist-“radical" in his lexicon-politics of the Labor Party of New Zealand, where he lived for a time, to change substantially the lives of working people in that country when it held power. "The ABC of Socialism" by Fred Henderson (18 pages, 1915). was published by the Independent Labor Party, which supported Labor Party reformism but permitted dissenting views. It was published as part of a larger work presenting standard reformist ideas.

Coleman's introduction, after examining the historical context of the debate between the revolutionary anti-reformist impossibilists and the reformist gradualist possibilists in both England and abroad—including the US where the IWW and the SLP are mentioned—concentrates on Morris’s contribution to the book. His idea of abstention (boycotting elections) stems from the view that electoral activity by socialists must inevitably involve the advocacy of reforms to relieve the immediate misery working people suffer. Since Coleman belongs to that substantial part of the existing revolutionary movement that advocates electoral activity, he spends some time trying to explain and demolish Morris's contentions—and not too successfully as I see things now after decades in the electorally oriented SLP. But this aside, socialists will find the book useful both for its historical information on reformism and as a source for the never ending debates with the well meaning reformists we meet m our day-to-day discussions of social issues.

Frank Girard

Blogger's Note:

This book was also reviewed in the June 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard.

New Zealand: Socialist stands in election (1996)

World Socialist Movement News from the October 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard

For the first time the World Socialist Party (New Zealand) is standings candidate in the Wairarapa Electorate in the New Zealand general election on 12 October. These are the first elections to be held under the MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) system where you have two votes, one for the party and the other for the electorate (vote for the person in your electorate).

Two referendums were held on the electoral system in September 1992, first to decide on whether to retain the existing first-past-the-post electoral system or to change to a form of proportional representation, and secondly on which such system they preferred. An overwhelming number of voters wanted change, having become disillusioned and tired of broken promises by National and Labour governments. The type of electoral system was finally decided in conjunction with the 1993 election.

The WSP (NZ) will be putting forward a candidate for the electorate vote. We are excluded from standing for the party vote as you must have 500 members to be eligible to stand for this.

The campaign to date has consisted of a leaflet drop; some publicity on Wellington Access Radio, involvement in a political forum in a community newspaper where the public send in questions for the parties to answer and participation in a coming spring festival.

Our chief aim is to heighten awareness of the need for socialism as the only alternative to capitalism and increase our membership through the political campaign.

Further details: Chris Fackney, 4 Vivian Street, Masterton, NZ
 (e-mail: ck@actrix.gcn.nz)

Capitalism or Socialism? (1959)

From the front page of the October 1959 issue of the Socialist Standard

Help Wanted ! (1967)

Party News from the May 1967 issue of the Socialist Standard

The World Socialist Party of Ireland is contesting the Duncain Ward, Belfast in the municipal elections being held on May 17 th.

The candidate is E. McCann. We are appealing on their behalf for help and financial aid. A small group of socialists are working extremely hard and appreciate assistance, both physical and financial. Please respond to the Election Agent at 53, High Street, Belfast.

Letter: Elections. (1924)

Letter to the Editors the April 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Sir,

I note with interest your Election Manifesto of current issue. My attention has been arrested more particularly with regard to that part which runs as follows (page 51, column 24, S.S. :— “As a sufficient number of the working class is not yet desirous of establishing Socialism to permit of any candidates being put forward at this election.” “Here you offer advice.” It is specifically the paragraph marked with * that I wish to deal with. That statement I accept as definite, and upon analysing same deduct the following : (a) Sufficient number, a portion definitely held in mind by the S.P.G.B. organisation. (b) You would fall into line with other political expressions, i.e., L.P., C.P., or I.L.P., and adopt Parliamentary candidates. (c) The possibility of witnessing a nominee of the party contesting a by-election. (d) A Socialist in the “House” with his or her hands tied to their back. I do not think I can be accused of misrepresenting your statement. There certainly is a significant deviation from Marxian philosophy, and it is hoped that it is not wilful. If you hold that the putting into operation of your objects (and mine) depends on a sufficient number of Socialists acquiring the useful Parliamentary machine, whether or no, democracy demands and desires that change of society, you will, as the principled men that I know you to be, stand by that conviction at the next election. This, although constituting a compromise and place your party on par with C.P., would in itself be inconsistent with your general principles. I trust this letter will be published in your next issue, and that the anticipated reply will be given in accordance with true camaraderie.

I am, fraternally,

P. J. Lockwood, U.P.W., E.C.D.O. A Wage Slave.

Reply to Lockwood. 

Mr. Lockwod asks that our reply hall be given in accordance with true camaraderie. What a pity he did not write his letter in that same accord instead of trying to hide deliberate misrepresentation under the guise of “deductions.”

The paragraph Mr. Lockwood refers to is as follows : —

   “As a sufficient number of the working class is not yet desirous of establishing Socialism to permit of any candidate being put forward at this election, we call upon all those who wish for Socialism to express their wish by going to the ballot-box and voting for SOCIALISM by writing it across the ballot paper.”

Instead of dealing with this paragraph as it is written, Mr. Lockwood prefers to draw what he calls “deductions.”

Let us examine some of these.

(b) Either Mr Lockwood has read our literature and heard our speakers, or he has not. If the former is true then his “deduction” is a deliberate misrepresentation, because, as all our writings and speeches show, we are directly opposed to, and have fought on every occasion, the methods of the parties to whom he refers. First, and above all, these organisations are anti-Socialist and run their candidates on anti-Socialist programmes. Secondly, as a result, they engage in underhand trickery, open and secret bargaining for votes, and indulge in various intrigues to obtain money from Trade Unions and other organisations.

If Mr. Lockwood has not read our writings, or heard our speakers, then his impertinence in classing us with anti-Socialist organisations is great. Neither he, nor any one else has any right to criticise a person or an organisation of whom they are in complete ignorance, still less to attribute to them the very things they oppose.

(d) This “deduction” sounds curious. Why should a Socialist have his hands tied behind him (or her) any more than any other individuals member? If Mr. Lockwood means that a Socialist Member of Parliament could not pass a resolution, or a Bill, by himself, this almost childish truth is equally true of any other individual member, whether he belongs to any party or whether he does not. But why stop at an individual member? The same, is equally true of a minority. The Labour Party at the present moment can only do those things that suit the other parties in the House of Commons. As soon as it attempts to interfere seriously with any interest of the Capitalist class, it will be thrown out of office by the majority in the House. All this has been pointed out scores of times in the Socialist Standard.

Mr. Lockwood says “there certainly is a significant deviation from Marxian philosophy, and it is hoped that it is not wilful.”

Where is this deviation?

Mr. Lockwood does not tell us, because it only exists in his misrepresentation of our case, and cannot be found anywhere in the Manifesto he is supposed to be criticising.

Mr. Lockwood’s next statement is a contradiction in terms. Having apparently filled his head with Communist rant about a minority seizing power, he is unable to see the facts of the situation.

“A sufficient number of Socialists” could, obviously, be nothing less than a working majority above all other parties combined. This majority can only exist when a majority of the Electorate desire to establish Socialism, and show their desire by voting for Socialist candidates. But what is the “democracy” Mr. Lockwood has in mind? He does not tell us. Unless he has some fantasy of his own on the matter, “democracy” means the mass, or majority, of a people in a given society. Hence the return of a majority of Socialists to the House of Commons is impossible until a majority of the working class (we prefer this clear unequivocal term) or the “democracy” as Mr. Lockwood prefers, had become Socialists.

Where is the “compromise” ? So far being on a par with the Communist Party, as shown above, our Marxian position is in direct opposition to that freak and fake organisation.

Editorial Committee

Correspondence: The S.P.G.B. and electors (1942)

From the April 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

A correspondent (A. E. Page, Finsbury Park) asks why the S.P.G.B. does not contest elections.

  “I have supported the Labour Party in the past, because I felt that they were the most powerful party that could bring about reform in our time, and in the right direction, that direction being towards Socialism, and because your party does not appear to stand at elections. How can your movement grow if you do not actively attempt to obtain power in this way?”

Our correspondent is wrong in thinking that the S.P.G.B. does not want to contest elections. It is not lack of will but lack of Socialists that decides the question. Until the number of Socialists is large enough it is not practicable to run candidates at Parliamentary elections owing to the fact that a deposit of £150 has to be paid in before the election and is forfeited if the candidate fails to poll one-eighth of the votes cast. It is true that we might hope to surmount this barrier if we were prepared to solicit donations and votes by the promise to support a programme of reforms of capitalism, but that way does not lead to Socialism.

We Enter the Parliamentary Fray. (1928)

Party News from the February 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

IF YOU WANT SOCIALIST CANDIDATES, NOW IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY.

We consider that the time has now come to test the wishes of the working-class in this country by putting forward Socialist candidates at the next Parliamentary elections.

We have been in existence for nearly twenty-four years. During this time we have propagated our views as widely as our modest means would permit. All the tortuous twisting’s of capitalism and its upholders have been subjected to the searching light of Socialist knowledge. The false friends who have dazzled the workers with fair promises in order to climb to place and power, have been shown up for what they are—birds of prey and passage.

When the war cloud burst over Europe and the East, the self-styled parties of labour failed to live up to their pre-war promises; they “united,” they compromised, they squirmed and twisted, and finally developed into the thoroughly respectable “Party of the Opposition.” In the meantime other groups sprang up like mushrooms, to pass into obscurity within a few short years. The “heroes” of yesterday have left the stage, taking with them their drums and trumpets, leaving not even a track behind them.

The war hit us a smashing blow. We had gradually built up our organisation until we were on the verge of projects like those of to-day. We refused to compromise our principles and, from the beginning to the end, kept the promise we had made in August, 1914:

  "Having no quarrel with the working-class of any country we extend to our fellow workers of all lands the expression of our goodwill and Socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of Socialism.”

The struggle to keep up our opposition and, at the same time, get a living in those difficult times scattered many of our members over the world. When the end of the orgy of useless carnage came in 1918, we had to pick up the threads once more and laboriously build up again our battered organisation. But we were sound at the core. Our basis is solidly grounded on the rock of knowledge, so that we have been able to weather the storm and build up our party once more.

Lately our progress has been so good that it has been forced upon us that we must now enlarge our activities and, by participating in elections, start upon the direct road for the conquest of the powers of government.

In spite of our progress, however, there is one direction in which we are relatively weak, and that is in finance. The money that keeps our organisation and our propaganda going is almost all subscribed by our own members—working-men who give up a portion of their hard-earned pence to finance the fight for Socialism. To meet the needs of the parliamentary contests this will not be enough, unless the workers join our ranks in masses and thereby become “one of us.” An election contest is expensive, as a nomination fee of £150 has to be paid down before a candidate can take the field. Apart from this, however, the expenses need not be great—just the cost of leaflets and other literature, and the hire of halls for meetings. Still, £150 per candidate is a big proposition to an organisation of our present size. In order to meet this expense we have decided to open a fund to be known as “The Parliamentary Fund.” To this fund we now heartily invite the generous subscriptions of all our sympathisers, and those who wish to see genuine Socialist candidates in the field. Our speeches, writings and actions over twenty-four years of strenuous activity are our credentials. All our meetings, propaganda, branch, and executive are, and have always been, freely open to the public, because we have nothing to hide and everything to gain by inspection.

Now is the opportunity for all those who have complained about the lack of a Socialist candidate to help to lay this first stone in what we may call the practical conquest of the powers of government.

The appearance at the polls of representatives of a genuine Socialist Party would be a strong weapon in the spreading of Socialist knowledge. So far we have been compelled to move with halting steps owing to our financial poverty. Those who consider our principles and policy sound, and who are fortunately enough situated to subscribe, can give practical evidence of their wishes, and help speed the present system of private ownership out of existence.

There is one warning we wish to give. We would ask all those who are in the habit of subscribing to our general funds not to divert their subscriptions to the new fund. To do so would not assist us at all, as impoverishing the general funds would hamper us at once. We simply ask those who can spare more money, and deem the object worthy, to do what they can to help us put candidates in the field in order that we may make a direct attack upon the central seat of power, and take out of the hands of our oppressors the power they wield and the wealth they have stolen.

Talk about Socialism (2005)

From the July 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

Party News

Our recent general election campaign in Vauxhall gave us the chance to talk to more people than usual.  There was a well-attended hustings meeting at which our candidate and five of the others put their party’s case and answered questions from the audience.  On most days we had a literature stall outside our Head Office where we handed out leaflets and spoke to passers-by. We also went to other busy spots such as Brixton and outside tube stations. Sixty thousand copies of the candidate’s election address were distributed free by Royal Mail.

If we can be said to have had a slogan for our campaign it was “Vote for yourself – for a change!”  Of course it takes more than a slogan to persuade people to change their minds.  Capitalism teaches consumers to buy brands of political parties like they buy soap powder.  So our refreshing message was that our candidate wasn’t going to do anything for them.  If they wanted to have their problems solved they would have to do it for themselves.

We had less than two thousand pounds to finance our attempt to increase support for socialism.  The supporters of capitalism have countless millions to convince us that theirs is the only game in town.  You don’t have to be an active supporter of capitalism – or even know what it is – to allow it to go on.  Passive, resigned, unthinking acceptance will do nicely. 

Anti-capitalism may be a start, but it’s certainly not a finish.  Real change means we have to be consciously working for something, not simply against something.  So we talk to people about socialism and invite them to tell us whether they think it would mean a better life and society than we have now.

Today things are produced only if someone can see a profit in doing so – no profit, no product.  Today there are labour markets:  we have to find a job to get money or rely on a meagre state handout – or starve.  We are told we must support a hugely wasteful and destructive war industry (“defence”) to kill or maim men, women and children in other countries with whom we have no quarrel.

What we said in one of our leaflets applies not just at elections but also between elections.  We need a new way of running society based on:

1. The common ownership of all resources by the whole community, not just a rich minority.
2. Democratic control of the community by everyone, without distinction of age, race or sex, instead of rule by unelected company directors or state bureaucrats.
3. Production purely to meet people’s needs, not profit.
4. Free and equal access to all goods and services – an end to the market and to money.

No one we spoke to thought that what we were proposing is undesirable, not a good idea, worse than what we have now.  Instead we were told it had been tried and didn’t work, or that for some reason it would never work.  That reason usually turned out to be some variant of our old friend “human nature”.  People are “naturally” lazy – if they can get away with not working they will do so.  People are “naturally” greedy – if they can have things without paying for them they will grab the lot.  People are “naturally” aggressive – without the punitive sanctions of law and order there will be chaos.

Funny how all these nasty features of a supposedly unalterable human nature always apply to other people.  When challenged, the amateur experts on human nature never admit to showing those features themselves.

Most work in capitalism is unpleasant or boring because it is in the service of making money rather than something useful.  Despite being pitted against each other for jobs generously “provided” by employers, workers do co-operate – nothing would be produced if they didn’t.  It isn’t that the world’s poor are greedy – considering the plenty that technology and human ingenuity are capable of producing, they aren’t greedy enough!

There is a saying that talk is cheap, and in a sense it is.  It costs nothing to talk yourself out of supporting capitalism and into helping to build a practical socialist alternative.  And it costs nothing to talk others into following your excellent example.

The result of the election in Vauxhall was: Hoey (Lab) 19,744; Anglin (LD) 9,767; Heckels (Con) 5,405; Summers (Green) 1,705; McWhirter (UKIP) 271; Lambert (Socialist) 240; Polenceus (English Democrat) 221.

We also stood a candidate in the county council elections held the same day, in the Deneside ward in Durham, where the result was: Nugent (Lab) 1921; Nicholson (Con) 361; Colborn (Socialist) 288.

50 Years Ago: Is it Foolish? (2005)

The 50 Years Ago column from the July 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

The following appeared in the Stratford Express (3 June 1955):-

“HOW FOOLISH”

“It seems so simple to put a cross against the name of a chosen candidate – so simple that it is almost impossible to go wrong. Yet in these local divisions scores of people wasted their votes by spoiling papers in one of a variety of ways. In one of the West Ham divisions, for instance, there were 40 spoilt papers. Some people had added their name and address; some had scrawled the letters S.P.G.B. (Socialist Party of Great Britain) on the paper, while others had voted for each of the candidates and a few had put the paper in the ballot box completely blank. An indication of their state of mind, perhaps!”

It is, of course, the reference to the S.P.G.B. that concerns us, and it has to be taken in conjunction with the statement that it is “so simple to put a cross against the name of a chosen candidate.” But suppose you don’t choose either candidate. Suppose you are one of the million and a half former Labour voters who could discern so little difference between the parties that it wasn’t worthwhile voting.

Or, again, suppose you are a Socialist and do not want Capitalism at all, not Labour-administered Capitalism or Tory-administered Capitalism? What should you do then? Is it foolish to show on the ballot paper what you do want? It has any rate had the merit that it caught the attention of the Stratford Express.

Of course Socialists would prefer to have their own Socialist candidates to vote for, but the Labour, Tory and Liberal parties, by agreement on the £150 deposit, made it very difficult for a small organisation to enter the field.

(From The Socialist Standard, July 1955)

London election result (2008)

Party News from the June 2008 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party stood a candidate in Lambeth & Southwark in the 1 May elections to the Greater London Assembly when we distributed some 20,000 leaflets. The result was:

Labour 60,601; Lib Dems 36,953; Con 32,835; Green 18,011; Christian 4,432; UKIP 3,012; LeftList [SWP] 1,956; English Democrats 1,867; Animals Count 1,828; Socialist 1,588.

What—Again? (1962)

Party News from the June 1962 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yes. Afraid So. This is another appeal for funds. If you want our work to continue, we must have more money—and quickly.

In the past year or two, there has been an all-round spurt in our efforts. Big and successful indoor meetings have been held and more are planned. Two new pamphlets are on the stocks and will appear shortly. A drive is under way to increase the circulation of the Socialist Standard.

But that is not all. Our Glasgow members have contested a ward in the recent municipal election there, while just across the sea, the comrades in Ireland are limbering up for yet another go at the polls. We must not be caught napping, either, if a general election takes place in Britain—as it could do at any time. So even now, as much of our election literature as possible is being prepared.

This is all very welcome activity but it needs money, and bags of it. We have never been a rich party and our only source of income is the money given by members and sympathisers. Our bank balance is looking a bit sickly and we must fatten it up to meet the heavy demands expected in the near future.

So please send as much as you can to:—E. Lake, Treasurer S.P.G.B., 52, Clapham High Street, Loudon, S.W.4. Do not delay. The need—as always —is urgent.

Our GLC opponents (1977)

From the June 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

The fact that all other parties are reformist is fundamental to the case of the SPGB. This means they seek not to abolish capitalism with its class division, wages system, state and frontiers, but to modify it a little this way or that in a futile effort to legislate away its problems and inhuman consequences. It follows that there can be only one party seeking to end capitalism and to establish democratically an entirely different world system, called Socialism. The abolition of the wages system, the end of trade, profits and frontiers follows naturally from the new basis of common ownership of the means of production and distribution. These unique principles of the SPGB can be amply demonstrated by reading the manifestos of all or any of our opponents, and then reading ours. Though our opponents may differ on what they see as most important in the continuing evils of capitalism the common approach of them all is reformist. Doctor the effects — leave the cause alone.

The Labourites

After their abysmal efforts at running capitalism they still have the audacity to present themselves to the workers and seek their votes. They were even brazen enough to charge 20p for their manifesto. This offered the usual reforms aimed at making poverty more tolerable, instead of seeking a mandate to end the system which generates poverty. In their clash with the Tories over “free” bus rides for old people they cynically exploited the poverty of the elderly to gain votes. If workers would only see the contradictory position of the Labour Party they could understand that ministering to poverty pre-supposes its continuation. After fifteen post-war years of Labour government old people still cannot afford bus fares. One of Labour’s own leaflets quotes a Mrs. Kitchener of Leatherhead on concessionary fares: “The passes are rotten value, and people can’t afford them anyway.” Can anyone imagine Wilson, Callaghan, Foot or Castle, or the head of any nationalized industry, spending their last years of life worrying about cheap bus rides in off-peak periods? These people have done quite well out of capitalism. They posed as your champions, to fight for you. Now they are well off and you are still poor and needy!

The same with housing. Where they find workers willing to be photographed smiling outside those little boxes of bricks called working-class “dwellings”, shown in the Labour candidate’s address, is hard to imagine. They called them “decent homes”. The blurb underneath should have read “good enough for workers but not fit for Labour leaders". Labour’s boast on education included:

  “We are now doing much in the education field for the training of young people for industry . . ."

Training workers for wage-slavery. Not a word about closing down teacher-training colleges, slum schools, and crowded class-rooms. No mention of the class-divide in education. The children of the ruling class are not trained “for industry”. The typical Labour leader is educated at Oxford. Lady Falkender, for example, was reported in the Daily Mirror (22nd April 1976 to be choosing Westminster public school for her two sons. The fees were £1,254 per year for a boarder and £789 for a day boy.

The Tories

With seventeen post-war years of Tory government and four years at County Hall and all the horrors of capitalism remaining to testify to their political bankruptcy, the Tories tried to counter Labour reformism. It is easy for them to make capital out of workers’ misery by saying “the GLC is probably the largest slum landlord in the world”. It was no different with them in power. In Lambeth Central the Tory candidate was Roy Hatter; he drew attention to two thousand houses in Lambeth boarded up, and seventeen thousand people on waiting lists. His claim to working-class support rested on having broken the world record by making a political speech that lasted over twenty-nine hours. If only words could build houses! Like most Tories, Mr. Hatter has the habit of calling Labourites “Socialists”. If he does not know the difference his long speech must have been painfully boring. He is himself an employee, a member of the working class, yet he embraces the system of his masters which exploits him as well as the rest of us.

The "Communists''

The election address of the so-called Communist Party followed similar reformist lines to the rest. Full of platitudes, promises and catch-phrases. A typical example was:

  "Pensions. End the scandal of poverty, neglect and deprivation for the elderly. They fought for and built London for us”.

Poverty! Neglect! Deprivation! Yes, under a government they urged workers to vote for. Poverty is produced by capitalism. It is glib and cynical nonsense to promise to end it while retaining the system.

These political commotionists can never resist the chance to pose as patriots. They might do better to ask themselves whether slums and poverty are worth fighting for? If by “us” they mean the working class, London was never built for them but for the capitalist class who own it. Much of London is so old that no elderly worker suffering poverty today had anything to do with its building.

Those former intrepid “revolutionaries” who used to train with broom-sticks for “heavy civil war” have become law-and-order men. They are now demanding that the Metropolitan Police should be under the control of the GLC instead of the Home Secretary. What relevance that has to “Communism” is impossible to conceive. They also demand “More Democracy” — a prime piece of hypocrisy for a Party built on reverence for Russian State-capitalism, the biggest and longest-running police-dictatorship in the world.

National Front

With the flag of British capitalism appropriately upside-down, the National Front leaflet, launched a tirade of bunkum about immigration. By “immigrants” they mean black people and ignorantly gloss over the fact that most immigrants are of white skin. Blaming the blacks for everything is a favourite get-out for the simple-minded. They claim that “Inner London is now a multi-racial slum”. Much of London has always been a slum. National Front only recognize slums when they are “multi-racial”. Black people did not create the slums. Many of them live in them, as do many of their “white” fellow-workers. Slums arise because capitalism produces cheap housing for workers. Overwhelmingly, slums are built as slums.

They seek to “immediately repatriate” any immigrant convicted of a crime. What an idiotic idea. Nearly half the black people in Britain were born here. If every country adopted the same policy, then all those Britons who have emigrated would be sent back here if convicted of a crime. As the emigrants outnumber the immigrants, there could well be a higher “criminal” population here at the end of the process! Their attitude betrays complete indifference to the social causes of crime.

They advocate segregated education. Anything that further confuses and divides the working class. As we have seen in dealing with the Labour Party there is already class-segregated education.

The “village pump” narrowness of the National Front is a snare for unthinking workers. Nationalism is an ideological disease. The Labourites, Tories, Liberals and “Communists” all sponsor nationalism. National Front merely carry the nonsense further.

The I.M.G.

This group makes the fraudulent claim to be Marxist and Socialist. Their manifesto sought only to outbid the others in the number and range of their reform proposals. They openly set out to gain “protest votes” from Labour. The fact that the National Front draws much of its support from disillusioned Labour voters did not seem significant to them. Such voters are politically muddled, and having despaired of the Labour Party are looking elsewhere for easy answers within capitalism. Nothing lasting or worthwhile can be built on such a base.

The IMG wants capitalism without its economic consequences. Their concentration on wages, prices and jobs shows they are void of any ideas beyond the present system of buying and selling and wage- labour. They seek to ‘nationalize all firms creating redundancies”. They have forgotten the redundancies in British Rail, state education, the mines, etc., and have yet to learn that state-capitalism works no differently from private capitalism. Far from being extreme in any way, IMG stand roughly where the Labour Party stood sixty years ago, still demanding a “national minimum wage”.

Their policy of “No platform for National Front” is absurd. False ideas cannot be banished by such methods. IMG linked up with the Communists and various Constituency Labour Parties in a group called alarm (All Lambeth Anti-Racial Movement). With each affiliated party seeking votes at the others’ expense, this can be only a very tenuous alliance. “Alarm” invited our candidate for Lambeth Central to address a meeting in support of their limited objective, jointly with the other candidates, excluding National Front. We circulated an open letter giving our reasons for not joining them to fight the effects of capitalism and arguing the need to end this system. In opposition to the platform our candidate was allowed to state the Party case from the audience. Copies of their invitation and our reply were sent to the South London Press but were not published. The Guardian also failed to publish a similar letter dealing with the rival demonstrations in North London on 30th April despite the publicity they had given the event for two days before.

The SPGB stands alone (in this country) as the one party which rejects the system the others want to reform and retain. Socialism depends upon understanding. Only a conscious majority gaining political power can achieve a world of common ownership where production will be solely for use with free access. Class rule and subjugation will then be replaced by human society.

Harry Baldwin

Votes in Belfast (1961)

Party News from the June 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

A telegram from the members in Belfast received as we go [to] press, reads:

824 VOTES, DEPOSIT SAVED 

Hearty congratulations to our comrades in Ireland on what must have been a very active campaign.


Blogger's Note:
More details on this election campaign in Belfast appeared in the July 1961 Socialist Standard:

• The Belfast Campaign
• Election Manifesto
• News From The Belfast Front

See also the following article from the June 2004 Socialist Standard:

• Northern Ireland: Our first election campaign

Letters: Right about Kenya (2006)

Letters to the Editors from the May 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

Right about Kenya

Dear Editors

The letter “Wrong on Kenya?” (March Socialist Standard) by Okoth Osewe can’t be taken as a passing cloud.

Osewe knows very well, if he has been existing in Kenya, that no attempt at socialism has been made here.  Those few who have talked about it are, like him, opportunist or capitalism’s apologists.  Thus his Kenya Socialist Democratic Alliance (KSDA) party is non-existent or it exists only on paper.

On the issue of the constitution, Osewe knows very well that this process was hijacked by opportunists(like him) and politicians.  During the campaign for either yes or no, it was clear that these were campaigns not to either reject or support the document, but to propel some people to positions of leadership.  Many politicians saw this as an opportunity to prepare themselves for next years general election. 

Why people like Osewe “pambana” (struggle) join the campaigns for the draft leaves a lot to be explained.  Why the need to use so much money to campaign for the rejection of the draft?

The No campaign was lead by politicians (like Osewe) who are always opposing the government.  The campaign was tribalistic, hatred was obvious, propaganda for swing vote. Those who always think that they are the ones who can lead  (and not be led) positioned themselves in the Orange Democratic Movement(ODM).  This wasn’t a campaign for a constitution but for proper elections.  Kenyans know better.

Socialism can only be brought about by a majority of workers organising for it.  Politicians like Osewe and many others will not, will never get anywhere near establishing socialism.

Kenyan workers know that their situation has never improved despite our constitution being amended so many times since independence. The situation isn’t likely to get anywhere even with the introduction of the so-called “Bomas Draft”, “Wako draft” or any other document.  Reforms which have come and gone haven’t made changes in our lives. 

Kenya is surely ripe for socialism but people like Osewe will only manage to have beautiful socialist titles but will never manage to organise Kenyans for socialism.

I invite him to join us in our struggle for common ownership, democratic control and leaderless cause.

Only when we join hands will our desire for socialism materialise.  And then socialism will rule the world, Kenya included, in the not too distant future.

Patrick Ndege,

Nairobi, Kenya

Buyer beware

Dear Editors,

I don’t always manage to remember the many downsides of capitalism and how much better things could be. But there’s nothing like personally falling foul of the functioning of capitalism to bring this point home. Once such occurrence happened to me recently. I thought I’d share it with you.

I’d bought some Mr Muscle Sink and Plughole Unblocker, which I’d recently seen advertised on TV, as the sink in my room had recently become blocked. The advertisement had shown a happy man and woman gently pouring the product down their kitchen sink. The name of the product gives rise to images of a magical little creature that pops out of the contained and does the job required, and as an imaginatively-inclined person I tend to be a bit too taken in by this kind of imagery. I had a smile on my face as I gently and slowly poured the magical product down my bedroom sink, bit by bit. It did occur to me that I could smell it, but I thought nothing of it at the time, and I was delighted to find twenty minutes later that my sink was working once again. Hurrah for Mr Muscle!!!

A couple of days later I found myself with a seriously painful sore throat. I wasn’t sure exactly what it had been caused by although I had a number of ideas as possibilities. Swallowing was agony for a couple of days. After I’d gotten over the worst of it I went to the doctor to see if he had any advice. He told me that sore throats were only really caused by infections or by chemical fumes. I told him about my use of the Mr Muscle product and he said he regarded it as a very likely cause.

I thought I’d tell a few people about what had happened as a warning to them not to be as imprudent as I’d been. A friend told me that when he’d had a blocked sink he’d asked the hardware store shopkeeper what the best thing to use was, and had been told that a couple of kettles of boiling water was as good as anything. He’d tried this and it had worked perfectly. “Oh” I thought to myself, feeling a little humbled…. and my mind wandered to visions of a society in which TV advertisements were replaced by helpful practical advice, and dangerous toxic chemicals were presented for what they were…. Wow! What would that be like?

Adam Waterhouse, 

Bristol

Wrong about Ireland?

Dear Editors.

I was saddened by Richard Montague’s “The Easter Rising – 90 Years On” (April Socialist Standard). Montague’s contemptuous view is not shared by many socialists in Wales, to whom national liberation continues to be an aspiration. Even a bourgeois republic would be a blessed improvement and relief from eight centuries of thralldom, stagnating under English rule.

Whatever the faults of Padraig Pearse, James Connolly and the five other signatories of the Irish Proclamation of Independence at Easter 1916, they were men of principle and courage dedicated to the well-being of the working people of all Ireland. We honour their memory, and the noble cause for which they fought and died. Pob bendith arnynt!

Alun Hughes, National Secretary, 

Plaid Gomwnydd Cymru/Communist Party of Wales.

Reply: 

Members of the Socialist Party in and from Wales, including those who speak Welsh, do not aspire to “national liberation” but to the emancipation of all humanity through the establishment of world socialism. It is not “English rule” that is responsible for the problems faced by workers in Wales, but capitalism. Which is why they would continue even if a “bourgeois republic” were to be established in Wales. Just look at Ireland – Editors.

Vauxhall election

Dear Editors,

In the April Socialist Standard, Ivan took the time and trouble to profile the Labour MP for Vauxhall, Kate Hoey. He correctly describes how she mal-represents the workers of South London who may have voted for her.

What he omits is the most tragic part of the story. Unlike workers in every other constituency at the last election, those in Vauxhall had the opportunity to hear and vote for the case for socialism, because our candidate, Danny Lambert, stood against her in last year’s general election.

It is worth noting, that alone at the hustings, Comrade Lambert put forward the case for the genuine interest of the workers, unlike Hoey and all her fellow pretenders to office.

Perhaps any south London electors who read Ivan’s article may care to reflect and lament upon their choice; however some for them have the chance to put things right, as three socialist candidates are contesting the local elections in Lambeth this May, where workers will once again have the choice of voting to overthrow a rotten system.

Bill Martin (by email)

There is also a Socialist Party candidate standing in Kingston in the local elections on 4 May.

Our election manifesto: capitalism must go (2010)

Party Election News from the May 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

These elections are taking place in the middle of the biggest economic and financial crisis since the 1930s. In a world that has the potential to produce enough food, clothes, housing and the other amenities of life for all, factories are closing down, workers are being laid off, unemployment is growing, houses are being repossessed and people are having to tighten their belts. And for once the main parties are being honest in offering more of the same, competing with each other as to which of them is going to impose the most “savage cuts”.

Capitalism in relatively “good” times is bad enough, but capitalism in an economic crisis makes it plain for all to see that it is not a system geared to meeting people's needs. It’s a system based on the pursuit of profits, where the harsh economic law of no profit, no production” prevails. The headlong pursuit of profits has led to a situation where the owners can't make profits at the same rate as before. The class who own and control the places where wealth is produced have gone on strike – refusing to allow these workplaces to be used to produce what people need, some desperately. So, as in the 1930s, it’s poverty in the midst of potential plenty again. Cutbacks in production and services alongside unmet needs. Why should we put up with this? There is an alternative.

But that's the way capitalism works, and must work. The politicians in charge of the governments don't really know what to do, not that they can do much to change the situation anyway. They are just hoping that the panic measures they have taken will work. But the slump won’t end until conditions for profitable production have come about again, and that requires real wages to fall and unprofitable firms to go out of business. So, there's no way that bankruptcies, cut-backs and lay-offs are going to be avoided, whatever governments do or whichever party is in power.

What can be done? Nothing within the profit system. It can‘t be mended, so it must be ended. But this is something we must do ourselves.

The career politicians, with their empty promises and futile measures, can do nothing for us. We need to organise to bring in a new system where goods and services are produced to meet people's needs. But we can only produce what we need if we own and control the places where this is carried out. So these must be taken out of the hands of the rich individuals, private companies and states that now control them and become the common heritage of all, under our democratic control. In short, socialism in its original sense. This has nothing to do with the failed state capitalism that used to exist in Russia or with what still exists in China and Cuba.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY is putting up one candidate, in Vauxhall in London, to give people there a chance to show that they don't want capitalism but want instead a society of common ownership, democratic control and production just for use not profit, with goods and services available on the basis of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs”. Elsewhere we are advocating that people show this by writing “WORLD SOCIALISM” across their ballot paper.

If you agree, you can show this by voting for us. But more importantly get in touch with us to help working towards such a society after the election is over.

Our campaign can be followed on our election blog at http://spgb.blogspot.com/

Letter: Asked and Answered: Municipal Politics. (1908)

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

QUESTION.

How would a candidate of the S.P.G.B. conduct himself if returned to a council chamber? would he vote for higher wages for Council employees and better housing of the people, etc., and what course would he pursue while in a minority ?

J. T. Tyson (Stoke-on-Trent).

ANSWER.

The answer to this question was given in essence by the election address upon which S.P.G.B. candidates ran at local elections in London. This election address, the first in this country to lay down the Socialist position on municipal elections, was also printed in the October, 1906 Socialist Standard and should be referred to.

Broadly speaking, the attitude of a Socialist member of a municipal today only becomes doubtful when the object for which such a candidate stands, together with the essential fact of the class antagonism and the narrow limits of municipal action, are lost sight of, and in so far as the electors are not at one with their representative regarding these important facts. Hence at this stage how the representative is elected is of the greatest importance in determining his attitude.

It must, therefore, be clearly understood, 1st, that any reform worthy the name from a working-class standpoint involves the conscious taking from the capitalist class of, at least, part of the proceeds and power of robbery, and thus even genuine reform is conditional upon working-class supremacy, (2nd) That to wield in the workers’ interest even the limited and paltry powers allowed by the central government to the local bodies, it is first necessary to control the local bodies by a Socialist majority.

Consequently to promise immediate reforms that cannot be granted until the revolutionary step has been taken leads to confusion, disappointment and apathy, while it means a vote worthless for Socialism followed by desertion. But to insist upon the futility of reform, and the primary necessity of capturing political power means a sound vote, a solid backing, and a sure and steady growth of the class-conscious and revolutionary army.

That these facts are recognised elsewhere although in the rush for jobs they are not acted upon may be made clear by one or two quotations.

In Guesde’s new journal, “Le Socialisme” an editorial on “The Party and Municipal Elections,” states:—

  “The freeing of Society by emancipated labour, which is by nature national and international, is necessarily out of the power of that organised powerlessness of which the municipality consists at present, dominated as this is at the same time by economic necessities and by the arbitrary politics of the bourgeois state and its agents, but if the government—the central power—having passed into the hands of the proletarian class and remaining therein, is the indispensable instrument of the social revolution, if the municipal ground cannot in any way be anything but a field of manoeuvres and training for the Socialist army, the duty of the class-conscious workers is none the less to dislodge the industrial, landed, and financial feudalism from the town halls, and, turning these against the enemy, to use these as so many bases of operations in our march, forward.”

In the “Social Revolution,” Kautsky also states :—

  “In the same way, municipal Socialism finds its limits in the existing order of State and Society, even where universal suffrage prevails in the communes. The commune is always tied down to the general economic and political conditions, and cannot extricate itself from them singly. Certainly, in municipalities in industrial districts the workers may get the administration into their own hands before they are strong enough to capture the political power in the State, and they are then in a position to eliminate from this administration at least the most objectionable features of hostility to labour, and to introduce reforms which cannot be expected from a bourgeois regime. But these municipalities soon find their limits, not simply in the power of the State, but also in their own economic helplessness. It is for the most part poor districts, almost exclusively inhabited by the proletariat, which are first won by the Social-Democrats. Whence can they obtain the means for carrying out their greater reforms? As a rule they are limited in the levying of rates by the laws of the State, and even where this is not the case they cannot go beyond a certain limit in the taxation of the rich and well-to-do, without driving these, the only inhabitants from whom anything is to be obtained, away.”

In the face of these recognised and undeniable facts the long reform programmes of “palliatives” and “immediate demands” of so-called Socialist organisations can only be characterised as fraudulent. Upon all counts the first and essential step to secure genuine working-class amelioration is the control by the workers nationally and locally, and this must be made plain; and when the workers are the ruling class, lists of reforms suited to the continuance of capitalism become stupid, and entirely different revolutionary measures of transition become the order of the day. Thus reform programmes not only scatter and render mutually antagonistic the workers’ efforts, but they obscure and prevent concentration upon the essential step.

Once the Socialist position is grasped, the rest becomes plain sailing. The Socialist candidate is only the advance guard of the revolutionary working-class army and his attitude must be consistent thereto. He will, of course, work to wrest from the master class in open struggle any possible present ameliorations, but he did not seek suffrages for this but for Socialism, whilst neither he nor his electors are under any illusions on this head, for he has made plain how little is to be hoped from the enemy while entrenched in power.

Whilst in a minority the only effective political weapon of the Socialist in the obtaining of concessions is the relentless opposition, criticism and exposure of capitalist rascality, educating and organising the workers for Socialism and so striking fear into the exploiters, and causing them to throw out sops in order to maintain their position.

It would be the educational duty of the Socialist members even while in a minority to also propose measures embodying what should be done on any particular question in the interests of the working class. True, since a minority is a minority, he will be voted down, and any measure passed will surely be one which supports and strengthens capitalist interests, whether as working-class soporific or an aid to greater exploitation. Nevertheless, the work will tell, and therefore the consistent opposition of the Socialists to capitalist parties must be kept perfectly plain. Indeed, as Marx has said, the master class acting in its own immediate interests cannot avoid at the same time helping to dig its own grave.

And when as the result of this education and organisation among the electors, and training in administration, the majority are Socialist on the council, then—and then only—can such very limited powers as the local bodies possess be used as far as can be done to help strikers, children, and the workers generally, not alone by increasing the pay of municipal employees and housing the people, but even more important in the use of the power, funds, and organisation of the municipality, as far as is locally possible, in helping to complete the task of the workers in the capture of the central powers for Socialism. Indeed, the sound capture of a municipality by the Socialist workers can hardly occur without—owing to the similarity of capitalist development elsewhere— many other localities being also more or less ripe. While the continued financial and legal conflicts between such municipalities and the agents of the capitalist Government on the L.G.B., etc. can only help to make clearer and more pressing the only solution of the antagonism, and to hasten the day, as they make ever plainer the necessity, of completing the capture of the governmental powers in order to use them against the recalcitrant exploiters, and, backed by the whole of the organised workers, to transform Society by a series of transitional acts from industrial despotism into industrial democracy.

W.