The Forum. Some Open Discussions. (1908)

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

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

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

Some common objections to the S.P.G.B.

Rufus (Isleworth) writes to suggest that we should cease from “vilifying the S.D.P. or I.L.P.” If these are wrong he thinks they should be let go their own way. The main difference, he submits, between the S.P.G.B. and the other parties is one of method. He asks if it is not possible for some common ground of action for all “progressive forces” to be found, and hopes that THE SOCIALIST STANDARD will be “kept for Socialism, the one grand hope of us workmen. The policy of washing one’s dirty linen in public is very questionable.” “Rufus” will find in back numbers of this paper, answers to all his points. In the Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Great Britain (one penny) he will find our attitude completely erudicated. “Rufus” and anyone else concerned is heartily recommended to read that pamphlet. No one has been able to touch its argument so far. No one can dispute its evidence. However, we will briefly reply to his points here. Where have we “vilified” the said Parties? Is it vilification to criticise and denounce their wrong-doing, if that wrong-doing is calculated to mislead the working class, and to that extent delay the organisation of the workers on class-conscious lines— the necessary preliminary to Socialism ? That is the limit of our vilification—if that is what “Rufus” means by the word. We should be traitors to our class if we failed to do that. We would “let them go their own way” quite readily if they did not take a section of the working class with them. Because they do, and because their way is the wrong way, and does not lead to their professed objective (only sometimes professed, by the way) viz., Socialism, we must, being Socialists, endeavour to arrest them. The difference between our Party and those other parties is a difference of principle. THE SOCIALIST STANDARD, says “Rufus” should be kept for Socialism. Agreed. As also must the Socialist Party, or it ceases to be the Socialist Party. If the Socialist Party occupied nine-tenths of its time in the advocacy of something which was not Socialism, could it be a Socialist party—particularly when the nine-tenths of its work had no necessary connection with Socialism, and consisted of proposals that capitalist parties were largely prepared, when necessary, to endorse ? Would a capitalist party endorse a proposal that materially affected its interests ? If not, can any of those proposals be seriously regarded as of material benefit to the working class, seeing that the interests of the capitalist class are always in direct opposition to the interests of the working class? If “Rufus” answers these questions in the negative, as we think upon careful reflection he must, he has the key to the position of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The principle of the differences between us and the other parties consists in our recognition of the necessity firstly, secondly, and lastly, of organising the working class upon the basis of their class interests—of preaching and explaining Socialism, and that alone, to them as “the one grand hope,” and of pointing out that nothing else matters. To the extent to which the other parties press upon the attention of the workers the things that do not matter, they are diverting their attention from Socialism—the only thing that does matter. They are dividing the working-class forces. They are not organising the working class upon the basis of class interests. They are asking the workers to concentrate upon demands that the capitalist class is quite prepared to concede under pressure—demands that in large measure the capitalist class of other countries have conceded with no material advantage to the workers. Hyndman himself, no less, has admitted the futility of these demands—obviously futile when the capitalist class are ready to give them ; for if there is one thing more certain than another it is that the capitalist class will not give anything that cuts into their profits.

That is the principle. All the other parties are reform parties. They advocate the things that are futile. Therefore we denounce their futilities and urge the workers to rally to the Socialist Party.

And that answers the question as to the common ground for all “progressive” parties to work upon. If Socialism, as “Rufus” admits, is the only hope, then the only common ground for “progressive parties” is the ground occupied by the Socialist Party. Ergo the only progressive party is the Socialist Party. The only Socialist Party is the S.P.G.B.

As to the objection to the washing of dirty linen in public, “Rufus” does not seem to see that the objection implies the existence of the dirty linen. “Rufus” thinks that anyhow it should be washed in private. That might be all right if the working class knew it for dirty linen. They do not—unfortunately. Therefore by cleansing it in public we show it is dirty.

Chapter Two: Reform or Revolution (1984)

From Samuel Leight's book, The Futility of Reformism

An acceptance of capitalism is indicative of a political approach that must inevitably enmesh itself with the reformation of the system and not with its abolition. Conversely, a genuine opposition to capitalism implies an understanding and knowledge that should preclude any desire to embark on a reformist program, recognizing the futility of such action, irrespective of the merits of the reforms contemplated. 

Wherever and whenever there is a program of reforms you will always find the "Leaders" ready and willing to perform, but always unable in the end to properly fulfill the promises which originally were so artfully dangled. Reforms never live up to their expectations because the very nature of capitalism invariably sabotages the performance of the reformers. Even when certain problems get resolved they are replaced with new ones, generally of an equal or greater magnitude. Apart from the wasted energy and time that reformism engenders, the danger of such activity lies in the inevitable apathy and disillusionment that arises in the aftermath. These are the breeding grounds for dictatorial regimes. 

It is a political delusion to think that one can shelve the case for socialism and still serve the interests of the working class by helping to reform capitalism in its quest for greater efficiency. The interests of the majority can only be served by the elimination of a system that can never be made to operate on their behalf irrespective of how it is manipulated or reformed. Socialist, political energies are channeled solely for the achievement of socialism — we do not concern ourselves directly with the administration of a system whose major social evils are irremovable notwithstanding the nature of the reforms that may be introduced. Reforms leave the fundamental basis of the system unaltered. It is this social and economic core, resting up on the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, that gives rise to the insoluble problems. 

In conjunction with this approach, we nevertheless urge our fellow workers to maintain and improve their standards of living through active participation in the Trade Union movement. However, such activity should always be kept in proper perspective with the realization that Trade Unions are limited in their scope. They demonstrate the class struggle in ever-constant action, as distinct from the separate policy of reformism to which we are opposed. 

With logic and socialist insight, we advocate peaceful, democratic revolution as the only political course to follow. At the same time, we recognize the necessity for the working class to continuously strive at safeguarding and improving their economic conditions, through appropriate, well-conceived Trade Union activity, in the interim. 

Can the working class "relate" to such a policy? We emphatically claim that they can, and should —without delay! 

Socialism, of course, can never be established or operated without a socialist majority. Once this fundamental position is fully appreciated it becomes obvious that any so-called Socialist Party that advocates a policy of reforms would automatically attract to its ranks reformists but not revolutionists. In no time at all any Party which naively attempted to take a dual position of reformation combined with "revolution" would be swamped and outnumbered by the reformists and would be politically castrated as far as socialism is concerned. The Fabian Society, established in January 1884, as a Society and not as a Political Party, and the Social Democratic Federation, which changed its name to the Social Democratic Party in 1908, both originating in England, are examples of reformist organizations that, in addition, purported to advocate socialism. The Fabian Society's doctrine was "the inevitability of gradualness," while the SDF referred to their reforms as "stepping stones to Socialism." A small group of secessionists from the SDF, opposing the reformist approach, formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904 with an object and set of principles that uniquely distinguished them as a Socialist Party in every sense of the term. 

Rosa Luxemburg in her work entitled "Reform or Revolution" written in April 1899, stated in her Introduction: 

"The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratie institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal — the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage-labor. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." 

This statement is fallacious in content and deviates from the significance of her title which poses a choice between reform or revolution. 

Another unacceptable aspect supported by Rosa Luxemburg, is the theory that at some stage of development, due to the contradictions of the system, capitalism will "collapse" and that, quoting, "Without the collapse of capitalism the expropriation of the capitalist class is impossible." We would deny this statement and substitute a vital alternative position: without a socialist working class socialism is impossible! Capitalism has demonstrated its remarkable staying-power and adaptability from crises to crises, through recessions and depressions. And even if a "collapse" occurred, socialism could never be introduced unless the vast majority were already converted to the socialist case and properly organized to attain political power. When this situation happens it would of course be completely unnecessary to wait for a "collapse," because socialism becomes immediately practical. However, in fairness to Rosa Luxemburg, affectionately called Red Rosa by the SPGB for her heroic class-conscious defense in her trial at Weimar in 1907, she also supported a positive role to be played by the working class, and indicated that the workers might achieve power before the breakdown of the system took place. The socialist position looks for no anticipated crash that would mark the death-throes of capitalism—on the contrary, we emphasize that the socialist revolution depends upon a sufficiency of socialists and we work towards this end. 

As and when socialist delegates become elected to the Congresses and Parliaments throughout the world, with a mandate for socialism, they will of course be confronted from time to time with reformist measures, and called up on to either vote or abstain, approve or otherwise. They will be instructed in these matters by their respective Socialist Parties. The guiding principle will revolve around the interests of the working class together with the achievement of socialism. The socialist delegates will therefore act within this framework. They will also never lose any practical opportunity for propagating, at the applicable time, the case for socialism. When the World Socialist Parties finally get representation in the seats of power, we can rest assured that the ruling class and their aides will be churning out a plethora of reforms in order to appease the growing, awakening socialist working class in an effort to delay the inevitable. The foregoing scenario is in no way analogous to the advocacy of reforms as an initial attempt to gain political support' and vote-catching representation. 

With the magnificent, international declaration and enactment that every human being is the common owner, with democratic control, of the means of production and distribution, with free access to all goods and services, a new era commences. Poverty, unemployment, insecurity and war become immediately and irrevocably eliminated. Their cause, the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by a minority, in a "commodity society," would have been eradicated. The structure of a socialist society makes their existence an economic and social impossibility. What reform, or series of reforms, could match, or in any way be comparable with, this position and attainment? 

There can be no poverty in a classless society, technologically capable of satisfying the needs of the population, with free access to all goods and services. 

There can be no unemployment, or employment, when all men and women are co-owners of the means of production and distribution, giving of their abilities in useful work for society as well as for themselves. 

There can be no insecurity when all "needs" can be satisfied as the result of "common ownership" and "free access." 

There can be no war when humanity is united as a whole without states, national boundaries, or armed forces; with production and distribution solely for use, and not for profit, eliminating money, wages, exchange, and the "market place." 

Audit each of these categories today, after the deluge of all the reforms that have been passed since the advent of capitalism, for complete justification of the case for socialism.

On August 20, 1980 a report from Washington (UPI) stated: “The World Bank estimated this year 780 million people throughout the world are living in ‘absolute poverty.’ It described this as ‘a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy and disease as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency’.”

On September 29, 1981 according to the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, “Twenty-five million Americans are poor” and “Another 30 million—if they lose a job, get sick or burn out—could be poor.” On August 2, 1983 the U.S. Census Bureau stated that the number of Americans classified as poor increased by 2.6 million, from 31.8 million in 1981 to 34.4 million in 1982. The official poverty rate, reflecting the portion of the population living in poverty, was 14 per cent in 1981. The 1982 rate was the highest since the start of the “War on Poverty” in 1965, when the rate was 17.3 percent. Of course, by socialist standards, poverty is the economic lot of the whole of the working class, at all times under capitalism—but, be that as it may.

Unemployment in Great Britain reached 14 per cent of the work force in September, 1982; and in the U.S.A. 10.8 per cent in November, 1982—both record figures since the Great Depression and World War II. Canada had a post-Depression high of 12.6 per cent in March, 1983. According to researchers at Williams College and the University of Minnesota, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on October 21, 1982, each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate correlates with 318 additional suicides. They estimate that the current recession is prompting 1,200 to 1,300 suicides a year.

If an unparalleled Arms Race between the major powers is touted as the supposed road to peace, then this futile pursuit alone is sufficient unto itself to condemn the anarchy, wastefulness and social stupidity of modern-day capitalist society. Of course, peace is non-existent under capitalism—in fact, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in May 1977, stated that since September 1945 there has not been a single day in which the world was free of war.

Here, we have only briefly touched upon the major social evils, ones that reforms are completely unable to penetrate with any kind of practical solutions. The reformists, therefore, also direct their ingenuity and efforts towards the “minor sores” of society. These have included so-called high taxes, “the economy,” balancing the budget (but not yours), inflation, violence, crime, pollution, premature death and ill-health caused directly by the system, racism, “freedoms” and “human rights.” And, lest we forget, the “privilege” of working class women having “equal rights” with the men of being exploited on equal terms. Presumably, also, the right to be massacred in the wars, alongside the men, for their masters’ interests—all this in the name of “equality”!

Every major political party in the U.S.A., Europe and elsewhere that has taken on the job of running capitalism has done so on a reformist ticket, failing dismally as far as the interests of the working class are concerned. And it can never be otherwise. Capitalism will always remain a system of perpetual crises, with unending competition and confrontation, both on the social and individual levels, all this impervious to reforms and reformism.

The introduction to Samuel Leight's 1984 book, 'The Futility of Reformism' (1984)

From Samuel Leight's 1984 book, The Futility of Reformism

Blogger's Note:

The late Samuel Leight joined the Marylebone Branch of the SPGB as a young man in June 1942. Active as both a speaker and writer for the SPGB in the following years, he eventually emigrated to the United States in 1948, transferring his membership to the World Socialist Party of the US. Based in Tucson, Arizona he published two books putting forward the case for socialism in his own inimitable style. The first book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War), was published in 1980, and was a selection of transcripts of locally produced radio broadcasts dating from between 1976 to 1978. Its companion volume, The Futility of Reformism, was published in 1984 and was a series of essays outlining the SPGB and its companion parties unique political position in relation to the issue of reformism. A couple of pieces from World Without Wages are already on the blog, but it's my intention to also serialise The Futility of Reformism on the blog in the coming months. Stay tuned.

Chapter One

Introduction

Whether the conditions of life under capitalism have improved for the majority of the workers or whether the opposite is true, the irrefutable fact still remains that the existing conditions, which presumably encompass all so-called “past improvements” that have been enacted to date, still contain the gruesome, major social evils that defy solution within the framework of the system. The reformation of capitalism has been continuous but has failed deplorably in creating an environment conducive to health, happiness and security.

The modern innovations of the 20th Century which have introduced the automobile, TV, telephones, refrigerators, air-conditioning and central heating, computers, travel by ship and air, are all examples of advances in technology that have not been derived through the benevolent legislation of political reformism. They are attributable to the productivity of the working class and represent new spheres of profit for the owning class. Whether their introduction has improved the standard of life for the majority is a debatable issue that contains many facets, but in any event their presence revolves around technical progress and no credit is due the reformers. Rather it should be recognized that the working class have obviously not shared proportionately with the increase of the total wealth produced but have remained poorer in relationship to the new values that are now available, and compared to the wealth of their employers. The existing worldwide stress and discontent indicates that today’s life-style, with all of its mechanical advantages, has not proved to be a blessing for humanity. We do not blame the products—we do blame the system.

Life for the working class under capitalism, past and present, cannot be compared favorably with the social benefits of a classless society in socialism which will convey to all common ownership rights to the means of production and distribution, and democratic privileges that no reformation of capitalism can ever attain. Attempting to make the working class “better off” is no match for the advantages of socialism; and the wages system, irrespective of wage levels, should justifiably be rejected when compared to free access to all goods and services for all human beings.

To the extent that we understand how capitalism functions, the arguments for the defense of the so-called progressive “improvements” of the standard of life of the working class are irrelevant. The fundamental position of wanting and achieving the best of all possible worlds for the majority of its inhabitants becomes the logical objective.

There is no political line of demarcation between reformism and the normal administration of capitalism—they have become inseparable. The contradictions and anomalies of the system give rise to a constant never-ending flow of reforms which are needed primarily for the attempted stabilization of capitalism and the preservation of the interests of the ruling class. In actuality, should any of the reform measures benefit the working class this can be considered as coincidental. The system absorbs the reforms because it has to strive for political and economic equilibrium in order to counter-balance its anarchical tendencies. No longer should political parties claim any real distinction in their reformist approach, because the “leftists” and the “rightists” all pursue similar strategies once they gain governmental control. Modern day reformist activity is entailed in the political support and administration of capitalism—a preservation of the economic status quo with attempts at cosmetic, superficial refinements. All social reforms that are enacted and survive must in the long term help in maintaining and improving the exploitable efficiency of the working class, most others fall into the domain of projected impracticality.

The deluge of propaganda surrounding the reformist administration of capitalism produces the distractions, confusions and purposeful misrepresentations that have so drastically hampered the presentation of the socialist case. We are always being advised that socialism is for the distant future and that “immediate” needs must receive attention. Quite the contrary—the highest, most urgent, immediate need of the working class is the establishment of socialism within the shortest possible time.

For here, surely, we are at the cross-roads. The working class must either accept the continuation of capitalism, which in effect implies the application of reformism, or opt for peaceful, democratic social revolution and establish socialism. The choice is clear-cut, vital and limited to these two alternatives. As long as reformism is supported as a viable, unchallenged policy, capitalism will continue and the capitalist class will remain dominant and in control. The destiny and fortunes of the majority depend upon an educational and political awakening that will reveal to them a true understanding of scientific socialism coupled with a rejection of reformist, political garbage.

The socialist movement initially received its economic foundations through the works of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and other pioneers of Scientific Socialism. Their research has been further advanced by the World Socialist Party of the United States and its Companion Parties, commencing with the establishment of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904. These organizations have been able to clarify attitudes that it was not possible to do in the 19th century. Their specific object and set of principles, together with an unblemished political history, has never veered away from democratic social revolution. They have abstained from all the pitfalls of reformism. The membership remains small, but the validity of the case stands the Parties in good stead for the future.

An attempt has been made herein to present the ideas upheld by the movement and reinforce them with applicable statistics. We claim that the socialist analysis of capitalism is scientific and in full accord with reality. Our interpretations are controversial because we are in the realm of social investigation with formulas that lack the precision and verification to be found in the physical sciences. However, the statistics that substantiate our theories, although they will be subject to continuous variation, vividly indicate the misery and deaths suffered unnecessarily by multi-millions of humans. They do not constitute opinions—they are facts—derived from the capitalist media, including government reports. They are an indictment that defies rationalization.

One could explain the socialist attitude towards reformism in a brief presentation but this would never do full justice to such a crucial subject. There are many matters that deserve consideration, and need to be related to supporting evidence. The futility of reformism logically means. the choice between reforms or revolution. The passive approach will allow capitalism to continue. It should be remembered, that without the revolutions of the past, we would not be experiencing the society of the present. Now, for the first time in history, it has become possible for a revolutionary change to be brought into being through the concerted efforts of a majority fully conscious of their motives and political objective, aimed at a worldwide civilization worthy of the human race. The choice belongs to the working class and, to quote the legal pundits, “time is of the essence.”

The Socialist Forum: Practical politics. (1931)

Letter to the Editors from the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

A reader points to the extraordinary confusion that exists in the minds of the workers, and asks how we propose ever to get them to take a different line from the one they now follow, unless we are prepared to participate actively in the political side of public affairs.

The answer is, that whatever our wishes on the subject may be, we have not the choice which our correspondent assumes is within our reach. He assumes that we can, if we wish, participate in what its defenders call “practical politics,” and at the same time continue with our Socialist propaganda, instead of concentrating on the latter only. But the two things are not compatible. If the sort of “practical” work carried on by the reformist organisations like the Labour Party were to lead anywhere, it would kill all interest in Socialism, and rightly so. The workers would quite well see that if reforms of capitalism can solve their problems, there would be no need to consider the possibility of setting up a different system of society. But this “practical” work does not lead anywhere and solves none of the real problems. That is the strength of our case. Sooner or later, the workers will tire of solutions that do not solve and improvements that do not improve, and will turn to consider something else. As that occurs, the Socialist Party needs above all things that those workers who have formerly opposed us shall know that we never had any part whatever in the work of reforming the capitalist system.

Compulsion (2024)

Book Review from the March 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mute Compulsion: A Theory of the Economic Power of Capital. By Søren Mau. University of Southern Denmark. 2019

Mau was interviewed by Jacobin in February 2023. In it he confirms the summary of his argument in the introduction to the interview, headlined ‘Capitalism Makes Everyone Bend to Its Will, Rich and Poor Alike’:

‘In his new book Mute Compulsion, Søren Mau argues that to understand and end capitalism, we need to analyze how it not only subordinates the poor to the rich but in fact exerts economic power over everyone — including capitalists themselves’ (tinyurl.com/et7m8vp8).

Mau argues that what maintains capitalist rule is not just physical force (threatened or actual) and ideology (brainwashing) but also ‘economic power’. He sees this as an impersonal form of power, an expression of the logic of capital that every market agent (not just workers but capitalists too) in capitalism is subjected to through the impersonal operation of market forces.

This of course is something we have long said and is in fact the basis of our case that capitalism cannot be reformed to work in the interest of the majority class of wage workers. Not only capitalist firms but governments too are subject to the ‘logic of capital’ enforced through market competition which dictates that priority must be given to profits and the conditions for profit-making. That reformist governments can’t escape this ‘mute compulsion’ has been confirmed time and time again.

Despite the jargon (it’s based on his PhD thesis) it’s actually quite a good read (tinyurl.com/6h2xw5y6).

A Look Round. (1906)

From the September 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

A municipal bye-election has just occurred at Northampton. The Liberals and Conservatives united upon a candidate, who was successful with 1,021 votes. The unsuccessful candidate stood as a Socialist, but polled only 463 votes.

* * *

In the report of the contest appearing in the Northampton Pioneer, a writer says, “The inaction of the workers was most deplorable. Thousands of them refrained from going to the poll. . . Many of the Socialists even abstained from voting. This, I have ascertained, was due in many instances to their belief in the impossibility of Cde. Wright’s success. In one street alone six or seven Socialists would not go to the polling booth, because they thought our candidate was bound to be defeated.”

* * *

Personally, I believe that Socialists, when a definite policy has been decided upon, will pursue that policy, without regard to the prospects of immediate success. When once the workers become class-conscious, understand the one and only cause of their universal poverty, and that nothing but the Social Revolution will effect a change, there will be no occasion to complain of their inaction. But to induce a man to vote for a “Socialist” candidate because his program contains a number of “reforms” which it is hoped the capitalist class may be induced to concede, does not make him class-conscious.

* * *

The fact that a candidate’s program may have a “Socialist objective” does not alter the position. In the canvassing and campaigning generally that usually receives very little reference. It is the “immediate reforms” that are kept to the front, with the object of tickling the ears of the electors sufficiently to induce them to record their votes. One man votes “Socialist” because the candidate favours a minimum wage of 30/- a week; another because he advocates that children should have one free meal a day, and so on ; but it can’t be claimed that they understand the principles of Socialism, and therefore they are an unreliable quantity.

* * *

And often candidates with a “Socialist objective” do not understand the principles of Socialism how to translate those principles into intelligent action. When such are elected they are hampered by lack of knowledge as well as lack of opportunity, and the cause of Socialism thereby suffers.

* * *

As with individuals, so with societies. It is claimed, for instance, that the Gas Workers’ Union and the Engineers’ Society have a “Socialist objective,” but that has not prevented the E.C. of the former sending W. Thorne to support capitalist candidates, thus acting as a decoy duck for the master class, nor the latter subscribing to John Burns’ Wages Fund. Merely having a “Socialist objective” does not make a society, political or industrial, a class-conscious, revolutionary Socialist organisation, whatever high-sounding title may be given to it.

* * *

John Knight & Sons, Ltd., Soap Makers, Silvertown, have just declared the result of the second year’s working of their bonus scheme. The Managing Director pointed out that they had had to face exceedingly severe competition and they could only meet it by trying their very utmost to reduce the cost of manufacture and distribution. “Their idea was to encourage all those associated with them in business to expend all the energy they were capable of in order that they might attain the object they had in view.” The bonus arrangement is that for every one per cent. over six per cent. that the Company earn, the employees in regular employ receive one week’s wages. The bonus this year, as last, was three weeks’ wages.

* * *

It was stated at the meeting that in the works they had 18 different departments, each of which had to show by weekly profit and loss accounts what it was doing. This also enabled them to see how the different employees in the various departments were turning out their work. But for three departments, owing to the severe competition and the high price of raw material, the bonus could not have been paid. With those three departments the workers had really nothing to do.

* * *

The Directors, in their generosity, decided to renew the bonus scheme for another year, and hoped the men would show their appreciation of it in the way that they should.

* * *

It is all so very simple. For twelve months the workers are to “expend all the energy they are capable of.” They are to risk getting squeezed out and thrown on the capitalist scrap heap earlier than usual, with the object of getting two or three weeks’ wages as a bonus at the end of the year, if trade has been sufficiently good to provide them with regular employ. The wages bill must, of course, be kept down, and in busy times the men must work sufficiently hard to keep the unemployed at the gate. At the end of twelve months they may succeed in adding a shilling or so a week to their wages for the whole year, at the expense of a few years of their lives, and, on the other hand, having slaved hard all the year, circumstances over which they have no control, unfavourable markets, competition, and bad management, may prevent profits reaching the necessary percentage, and the reward after all the slaving is—a lecture.

* * *

Sir W. B. Forwood, presiding at the half-yearly meeting of the Liverpool Overhead Railway, gave as one of the reasons for the present unfortunate state of the concern, the concentration of ships and steamers into few hands. The result of this was, he said, that instead of a large number of individual owners, each of whom employed his own stevedore and gang of men, steamers were now worked by staffs attached to a particular dock, and not only was it not necessary for these men to make use of the railway, but a further trouble was that the increasing adoption of mechanical means for loading and unloading vessels had very largely reduced the number of hands employed.

* * *

Economic evolution is the term applied by Socialists to this concentration of capital into fewer hands, the extension and adoption of mechanical appliances, the sub-division of labour, etc. If some of those who are groping about to discover why there is an unemployed problem would study this economic trend they might be enlightened somewhat.

* * *

Last month, for the first time in the history of the Port of London, a cargo of tea was discharged by electricity. On August 1st the “Huntsman,” of the Harrison Line, laden with tea from Calcutta, was unloaded by a system of continuous rollers worked by electricity. The chests were placed on the rollers and conveyed from the ship’s hold to the storage shed, without intervention by men or the existing hydraulic machinery. The new process obviates breakages of the chests, hitherto very numerous, and reduces the number of men employed.

* * *

It is such instances of economic evolution which justify the attitude of the S.P.G.B. to the reform parties. They prove “The Futility of Reform.”

* * *

Mr. Edward Tregear, Secretary for Labour, Department of Labour, New Zealand, writing under date Dec. 14, 1905, said, “Every advantage in wages, etc., gained for the workers by arbitration is being exploited and neutralised by robber rents.”

* * *

It is a far cry from New Zealand to Woolwich, and yet Lord Goschen, a Tory Cabinet minister, declared in the House that whenever the wages of the Arsenal workmen had been raised the landlords had raised rents and left the working class as before.

* * *

It is impossible to get out of the vicious circle of capitalism, excepting by the complete abolition of the capitalist system.

J. Kay

Policy and Tactics of Socialism. (1924)

From the September 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Lesson No.1

Suggested Lessons for Study Classes in Socialism.

LESSON NO. 2

The Futility of Reform.

Social Reform Explained.

14. The basis of the present system is class ownership of the means of producing wealth. The class that rules has always maintained that basis, as no other foundation for their system is possible.

15. Various changes are made, however, in the manner of conducting the system and in the detail conditions under which the people live. These changes do not affect the basis of the system and are therefore called reforms as contrasted with revolutions. The policy of altering the social conditions within a system is called Social Reform. These reforms are mainly carried out by means of legislation.

Its Purpose and Results.

16. The growth or evolution of modern industry affects the conditions under which the masses work and live. Our masters therefore are continually using their political power to “reform” industrial, social and political conditions. They do this to patch up and perpetuate the social system which benefits them, as it is against their interests to allow it to decay.

17. The rapid development of industry makes a complete change of social system more and more possible and necessary. The growing competition for jobs with the increasing uncertainty of a living tends to make the workers oppose the present system. Hence the master class tries to content the workers by promising, and often establishing reforms in the hope that the victims of the system will turn away from revolutionary policies. The purpose of reform is to cover up some of the worst features of the system; to adjust conditions so as to obtain more profits from industry, and to secure and strengthen capitalist domination.

18. The result of reform is a more efficient working of capitalism. The employing class learns by experience what detail changes will benefit them and introduces the reforms upon the plea that they are improving the lot of the worker. The other result of reform follows from this, namely, that they secure the support of the workers and cloud the class issue in their minds. Arthur James Balfour, the Tory prime minister well said : “Social Reform is the antidote to Socialism.”

Historical Survey of Influence of Reform.

19. The factory system in its early years sank the workers into the most miserable conditions possible. It drove them from their cottage industries amid green fields and fresh air into the insanitary buildings of smoke-poisoned and over-crowded cities. The women and children of both sexes were also recruited for the busy machinery. They worked fourteen and sixteen hours per day and often by night. In factory, shop or mine, they worked under brutal conditions for starvation wages. Individualism was celebrating its victory and the manufacturers accumulated fortunes in a few years. There was no factory legislation restricting the conditions of labour, and attempts to form workmen’s combinations resulted in merciless repression.

20. The terrible conditions of life and labour had a disastrous effect on the health of the population and the workers died off rapidly. Some of the far-seeing employers demanded legislation to compel the manufacturers to improve the state of their victims. Workers in their misery destroyed machinery, but it was mainly due to the antagonism between landowners and manufacturers that factory legislation came to be passed.

21. These factory reforms undoubtedly improved conditions for a time. It was because the workers had sunk to such utter degradation and inefficiency that the masters eventually enacted laws to prevent the workers from being killed off. The reforms were necessary to the preservation of the system and only improved the workers’ conditions compared with the depths to which they had previously sunk.

22. Since that time nearly all reforms have left the condition of the workers untouched, except where they made them worse. Political reforms, factory laws, pensions for the aged and allowances to the unemployed and sick; such legislation has been enacted in most capitalist countries without making any permanent improvement in working-class conditions. Bismarck, in Germany, heaped up reforms to win the workers away from Socialism and make them good fighting material, but the general condition of the workers remained the same. British capitalists have been ingenious in their reform policy, for it has built up the strength of the masters and kept the workers interested in their masters’ affairs to the exclusion of the working-class issues.

In spite of a century of reform Lloyd George admitted in 1911 that there was greater slavery, more poverty and deeper hardship amongst the workers than ever before. In the United States, technical education and other reforms have been instituted to better compete with Germany and other countries, but the early exhaustion, insecurity, lack of property, and poverty of the workers has been testified to by the report of the Committee on Industrial Relations of the U.S.A. Senate.

The Economic Barrier to Beneficial Legislation.

23. The operation of reform legislation brings in its train counter effects due to the economic laws of capitalism. A shorter working day is a desirable thing, but anything which makes labour power more expensive drives the employers to adopt some method to cheapen the cost of production. The hours are made less, but the energy and output remain the same as during the longer working day. Greater division of labour, more efficient superintendence, the elimination of the unfit, more scientific methods, better machinery and the introduction of women into the factory are some of the after-effects inevitably resulting from an increase in the price of labour power. The unemployment and insecurity of the worker are thereby continued and grow with the economic development.

24. Henry Ford testified that the output was greater in eight hours than during ten hours, and profits increased enormously. The evidence of Lord Leverhulme, the advocate of a six-hour day, is, that in his great soap factory profits multiplied with the reduction of hours.

So-Called Revolutionary Reforms.

25. Many well-known reformers call themselves Socialists of the revisionist school. They claim to have revised the teachings of Marx and Engels and made the theory up-to-date. They say we must go a step at a time. They argue that their reforms are revolutionary.

These men simply act as agents of capitalism in teaching the workers to fight for reforms. The time thus spent is lost to the teaching of socialism. The difficult details of the million and one reforms would take as much time for the average worker to understand as the real teachings of socialism. If the reforms advocated were likely to aid the workers in their struggle, the capitalists in control would not yield them, and to go before the workers with a reform programme is therefore a fraud, for it can only be carried into legislating with the consent of the employing class in power. The reforms advocated by Kautsky in The Erfurter Programme would not improve the workers’ conditions, and even to get them we would have to engage in the anti-socialist tactics of the German party.

Arguments of Reformers.

26. All the leading capitalist reformers, from Lloyd George to the leaders of the Labour Party, argue that if the workers will give them the power they will help the workers. The whole history of capitalist legislation is against them. The reform policy of capitalism is carried out to deceive the workers, to make them more efficient wage-slaves and to bind the workers more securely to allegiance to capitalism.

27. We see how bitterly the employers fight the workers’ demands for higher wages and how brutally they subdue them. Can we expect these same employers to pass beneficial legislation? Their claim to have improved our conditions by reforms is flatly contradicted by every inquiry into industrial conditions. The unceasing unrest and strike fever in the ranks of labour show that all the reforms have failed to stop the decline in labour’s conditions. All the arguments of reformers fail to show how it is possible to reduce the economic insecurity of the workers or to strengthen the producers’ position against the employer by reforms.

Waste of Effort in Fighting for Reforms.

28. The time spent on preaching reforms is wasted because it does not enlighten the worker on the causes of his conditions and the remedy. It simply leads him to expect benefits from the ruling class and the present system. All the reform campaigns of the past have resulted in some kind of legislation which eventually worked out to our disadvantage. Reformers forget that the very growth and evolution of the industrial system is quicker than the passing of legislation, and the actual development of the system causes more evils than are temporarily reformed. As soon as one evil is reformed twenty more arise. If the workers devoted one tenth of the attention and energy to Socialism that they give to reform advocacy—Socialism would be here.

Confusion of Issue in Worker’s Mind.

29. The advocate of Socialism finds his work hampered at every step by the confusion created in the worker’s mind by reformists. The workers are taught to believe that they have a common cause with non-socialists in fighting for amelioration. Instead of explaining to the workers the class character of modern society with the resulting enslavement and poverty that will always be the workers’ portion, the reformers create false hopes in the worker’s mind. The great majority therefore follow the policy of exhausting every possible error before coming to the right conclusion. They usually grow apathetic and sickened of politics altogether before the right stage is reached. Socialist activity by the workers requires a clear recognition of the class conflict, and as the belief in Reforms obscures this, reform advocacy is injurious to the workers’ interests.

Some Reform Organisations of To-day.

30. The societies advocating reforms are countless. They range from nationalisation Societies to Currency Reform Leagues. Shopkeepers, professional men, manufacturers, bankers and brewers, all vie with each other in seeking some reform to benefit their particular interests. Business men wanting more credit advocate currency reforms, but they fail to show how any alteration of banking laws will alter the relative positions of employer and employees. Labour Parties and Communist bodies have reform programmes and enlist their membership by this means. Their reforms, however, are either of the same variety as we have had for decades from Liberal and Tory or they are reforms which are impossible under capitalism, such as the demand to “absorb the unemployed.” Capitalism needs an unemployed army to keep down wages, and this industrial reserve is continually reinforced by those thrown out of work by machinery and speeding up methods.

The Anti-Sweating League has been loud in its demands for Trade Boards to be established in “sweated trades.” They rejoiced when the Trade Boards Act was passed, and reformers are busy demanding its application to more trades. The fraud of reform is clearly shown by the admissions of labour leaders concerning these Trade Boards. Mr. J. Beard, President of the Workers’ Union, says (Daily Herald, Aug. 19): “Trade Boards stabilised low wages and servile conditions and weakened trade

unionism.”

Social Reform Leaves Causes Untouched.

31. An examination of modern society shows that the poverty and degradation of the workers is due to the capitalist system itself. The only remedy, therefore, is to remove the cause of the social condition—to abolish the present system and replace it by a social system in which the means of production are owned in common, and in which exploitation will not exist.

32. Socialists are scientific and therefore seek to remove the causes instead of tinkering with effects. Social reform is like charity—it perpetuates the misery and does not prevent its continual reappearance. The reformer fights tuberculosis, whilst the workers’ conditions cause the disease to flourish. “Criminals” are hounded while poverty and unemployment drive men and women to recruit the army of “criminals.”

Evolution and Revolution.

33. Reformers claim that they believe in evolution as opposed to revolution. They preach “going gradually,” or “a step at a time,” and they attempt to justify their ideas on scientific grounds. Revolution, however, is a fact common to natural and human history alike. Revolution is the more or less rapid change made necessary by the previous evolution of the organism. Each system of society evolves up to the point where a complete change is required, and that complete change is a Revolution. The present system evolves, but no amount of evolution of private property produces common ownership. The common ownership for which Socialists strive can only be established by the rise of the working class to political power and the use of that power to transform the economic basis of society. That is a social revolution. No accumulation of reforms or steps can alter the economic foundations of capitalism.

Evolution and Revolution are not opposed to each other. The evolution of capitalism with all its reforms produces those conditions making a revolution inevitable if society is to progress. Socialists hold that conditions are ripe for revolution. Conditions are beyond reform.

Rationalisation and Municipalisation.

34. Government ownership is not Socialism. The transfer of industries from private firms to State ownership is simply a policy dictated by capitalist needs and for capitalist advantage. The most open enemies of Socialism have nationalised railways and other businesses in various countries without in any way benefiting the working class. Under Government ownership “sweating” is quite common, as can be seen from complaints about conditions in the Post Office, Mint, etc. In France and Canada, strikes on the nationalised railways have been frequent and ruthlessly suppressed, and active workers victimised.

The saving of waste resulting from abolishing competition means a reduction in the number of workers needed. That is the effect of Government ownership. The control of an industry by one employer—the Capitalist State—means a stronger force against the workers if they strike against their conditions, and the victimised workers have no other employer in the industry to employ them when they are dismissed. It is like a Trust.

The profits made in Government services are used to benefit the property owners—the taxpayers.

All these arguments apply against municipal ownership.

Adolph Kohn

Roads to Ruin (1951)

Book Review from the July 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Roads to Ruin: The Shocking History of Social Progress," by E. S. Turner.  (Published by Michael Joseph, Ltd., 256 pages indexed with 11 illustrations. Price 12s. 6d.)

Nowhere in the book does the author claim to be a Socialist. Written entertainingly, without indignation, but sympathetically for the exploited, he deals with some of the lesser known social legislation which caused much controversy—and is now almost forgotten. Forgotten because we accept and can hardly conceive of modern society without such legislation.

Among others he writes of the Bills for the abolition of spring guns (1825-1827); the struggle to stop the employment of climbing boy chimney sweeps (1780 approx-1875);: the acts to legalise the Saturday half holiday (1825-1911) and the agitation for the Plimsoll Line (1850-1906). These are the chapters that will have most interest for Socialists, although the accounts of other minor political disturbances are not without their value in exposing the depths of hypocrisy, cant, humbug and self interest to which the defenders of the existing social system descended in order to safeguard their position, profits and pleasure.

A justifiable criticism against the work is that it tends to foster the discredited idea that the main participants in these movements were the original innovators of the reform. The fact is that the general rising discontent of the working class against their oppressive conditions, both rural and urban, first posed the question. Only then did certain individuals or groups see the need and voice the demand for the particular reform. A modern parallel could be drawn if one overemphasized the importance of A. P. Herbert and his small group of supporters, who so successfully steered marriage and divorce reforms through the House of Commons in the nineteen-thirties, and underemphasized the hardships that impelled him to do so. Mainly they were the changing relationships between the sexes, consequent upon more and more women becoming wage earners and participating in activities outside the home. Since the Married Women’s Property Bill (1856-1882), described in this book, women have striven for more equal status and more control over their own property and earnings. It was some of these difficulties showing themselves in the marriage relationship that A. P. Herbert tried to resolve with his Bill.

It is not difficult for Socialists to believe that squires and owners of game preserves claimed the right to kill by hidden guns attached to trip wires any poacher of their fattened birds or indeed any unsuspecting stranger accidentally trespassing. Not difficult, that is, after the experience of two world wars which were the defence of private property raised to national level.

An established phenomenon in 1776 and not abolished until 1827 their retention was upheld by some of the most inhumane arguments. On page 17.

  "If the market gardener can use spring guns to protect his cabbages why not squires to protect their game?"

Guns were cheaper than keepers and on page 26 we read that the Duke of Wellington supported this view point. Further on page 29.

  “The object of setting spring guns was not personal injury to anyone but to deter from the commission of theft and that object was as completely attained by hitting an innocent man as a guilty man.”

Throughout the shocking history of the exploitation of children, in mines, factories, mills and workshops, in the early nineteenth century, there also runs the brutal story of the climbing boy chimney sweep. The detailed description of the horrifying experiences of these boys (and not only boys, for the author states on page 51 that the flues of Windsor Castle were at one time swept by two girls) form a chapter which will not be lightly forgotten. The gruesome accounts of tragedies, wherein children died of asphyxiation or brutal treatment from vicious master sweeps, stirred the country from time to time reviving the agitation, which lasted for 100 years, for the abolition of the practice. Death was not the only horror. Quoted on page 38:

  ". . . they suffered from inflamed eyes and throats and all manner of skin irritation, the worst of which took the form of a scrotal infection known as chimney boys cancer. .. . There was no cure but the knife and the less fortunate chimney boy might find himself in his teens, not only a bandy-legged hunch back, but a eunuch."

Self-interest defended this employment and the Church was no better. On page 46:

  “. . . this witness had twice been stuck in chimneys in his youth—once at the Bishop of Lincoln’s and once at Lord Melbourne’s . . .”

The Religious Tract Society published a booklet entitled “The Young Chimney Sweepers" (C.1830) in which the following paragraph is deservedly quoted on page 51.

  "This little book will show you that little boys like you have gone to Sunday School and have learned to read and become good. Mind that you go also. Get yourself well washed on Saturday and mind that you are in time on Sunday morning. Your teachers will be glad to see you with a smiling face.. . . learn your lessons and try to read the blessed Bible and to think about the gracious Saviour of whom it tells you.. . . Thus you will be happy little sweeps and you will learn to praise the gracious God, who can make our situation in life comfortable whatever be the circumstances in which Providence has placed us.”

In these days when the claims are all for a five day week, the arguments for a Saturday half-holiday may seem outmoded but when it is realised that shop assistants worked a fourteen and sometimes a sixteen hour day it is easy to understand the growth of the Early Closing Association formed in 1842. Not wishing to be associated with the radical movements of that day the Association attempted to effect a limitation of hours by voluntary negotiation and met with the failure one would expect. Eventually after a welter of moralizing on both sides the struggle entered the political field and an effective Shops Act reached the Statute Book—but not until 1911.

Early Closing Bills had been rejected as “un-English" and “grandmotherly” and Charles Bradlaugh supported these views in 1888. He further argued that a Bill to reduce hours to twelve on five days and to fourteen on Saturdays was “opening the door to legislation which might be of the most terrible character.” He regarded the Bill as “immoral” because it struck a blow at the self-reliance of the individual. Evidently the advocacy of atheism did not extend to the granting of leisure to workers to further study and propagate its cause.

Finally to the fight to save the lives of seamen sent afloat in “coffin ships” from which unscrupulous owners gained greater financial advantage if the vessel foundered and the insurance company paid without demur, than if the rotten hulk reached port safely. It had been shown (page 179) that “. . . I seaman in 60 met a violent death as against 1 in 315 in the mines.” On page 143 a ship owner, Sir Walter Runciman is quoted when he describes those times as:

  ’’days of aboriginal stupidity and sordid bloodsucking” when ships were . . . “scandalously unseaworthy, rotten, leaky, badly found, badly manned, abominably fed and always overloaded.”

It was against those prevailing conditions that seamen organised themselves. They were aided in no small measure by the vociferous agitation of Samuel Plimsoll and his supporters, for a load line on all seagoing vessels. On Samuel Plimsoll there is quoted (but not supported by the author) on page 144 the following:

  ”. . . But he (Plimsoll) was not a reformer, he was a propagandist and the famous 'Plimsoll Mark' indicating the maximum safe draught of a ship remained a valueless safeguard for no less than sixteen years after he secured it, for the simple reason that the selection of its position on the ships side was left to the ’murderers’ (i.e. the shipowners) themselves.”

As confirmation of this there was one “ whimsical Cardiff captain who inscribed the device on his funnel ” (page 170).

The scandal of coffin ships had exercised the deliberations of a committee of fifteen set up as far back as the eighteen thirties—over thirty years before Plimsoll was elected Liberal member for Derby in 1868. Nevertheless it was not until 1890 that the owners load line gave way to the Government load line, based upon scientific tables issued by Lloyds. Chambers of Commerce, Lloyds, shipowners, miners and engineers’ unions and not least of them, the Seamen’s Unions all played their part in the establishment of this and other regulations for sea-going vessels. The tragedy of it all is shown when we are informed that a thousand years before, Venetian and Sardinian sailors had a load mark, a disk similar to the Plimsoll Line. The Hanseatic League also used a mark, and, a glaring mockery to British sailors, so did the British Navy, based on fighting efficiency.

Who can doubt the accuracy of the Socialist case, with regard to reforms, in view of the length of time and enormous efforts which went into the establishment of even these minor reforms? Stated simply it is that whilst we accept all and every reform, grudgingly granted or strenuously wrenched from the capitalist class we do not advocate organising nor working for them. Our work is to organise for Socialism, knowing that when large numbers of Socialists exist the capitalists will be most lavish in the distribution of reforms in an attempt to retain their privileged position.

We recommend this book for reading by Socialists, and for all social reformers we suggest it as an “awful warning” to them for their future activities.

B.

The Futility of Reformism. A Case for Peaceful Democratic Social Revolution

Book Notice from the January 1985 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Futility of Reformism. A Case for Peaceful Democratic Social Revolution. By Samuel Leight WWW Publishers. PO Box 42224. Tucson. Arizona 85733. USA.

This 200-page series of essays by our comrade Samuel Leight, of the World Socialist Party of the United States, is meant as a companion volume to his previous book World Without Wages and deals with the inevitable failure of various reform movements in America as well as with the question of war and the state capitalist regime in China. Copies can be obtained from the publishers or from our Head Office (price £4. postage included).

The Futility of Reformism (1968)

From the November 1968 issue of the Socialist Standard

 "The task before us was formidable. No democratic society in the world — or, for that matter, any other society — has ever succeeded in achieving, all at the same time, full employment, economic growth, price stability, rising wages and increasing social spending" (Labour's mid-term Manifesto, 29 September 1968)

The Wealthy Duchess and the Factory Girls (1937)

From the November 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The late Duchess of Bedford died possessed of a beautiful estate at Woburn Sands, in Bedfordshire. All round the estate is a brick wall ending in massive gates, through which the curious can obtain a glimpse of the ancestral hall beyond. Set in acres upon acres of England’s most gracious parkland, the mansion strikes a note of peace and prosperity, which is the heritage of capitalism’s favoured ones.

The late Duchess’s will was recently reported in the Manchester Guardian. Nearly £331,000 was left in bequests to various individuals. This is a lot of money, especially when one considers that the Duchess of Bedford was a lady who certainly never denied herself anything that fancy or necessity dictated during her very long lifetime. During her old age she took up the expensive hobby of flying—upon which she must have spent thousands of pounds.

Passing from one extreme to another, the same newspaper, in its correspondence columns, issues an appeal by the "Factory Girls’ Holiday Fund Committee” for help. A pathetic paragraph says : "A large number of the girls sent away are hardly more than growing children, having recently left school for work in factories and warehouses." It pleads for a week in the country "to help make life fuller and more complete " for these girls.

A very old lady has left in her will enough money to give thousands of those girls a real good holiday, but she thought fit to leave it to diverse other people who had ministered to her personal comfort during her lifetime. The Duchess of Bedford was interested not in factory girls, but in herself and her friends, and who shall blame her? The significance of these two reports lies in the glaring instance it reveals of the gross inequality of opportunity for sections of the people. On the one hand we have an elderly woman representing the wealthy and leisured community, possessed of wealth, part of which takes the form of a vast country estate, closely walled and secluded from the eyes of the vulgar. On the other a number of poor, undernourished work girls, whose only knowledge of the country comes secondhand from the pictures or from books, and who represent the working class.

But even if the Duchess of Bedford had thought fit to open wide the iron gates and invite the Factory Girls Committee to cover the pleasant green fields with their white-faced protégés the problem would still be unsolved. Once more the Manchester Guardian, in the same issue (August 24th), points the moral.

The suicide of Mr. John Brown, a Manchester philanthropist who took his own life because of financial difficulties, which unhinged his mind. “He spent a large amount of money in providing holidays for poor Birmingham children." The last sentence should be put upon his tombstone as a suitable epitaph and a warning to all other kind hearted dabblers with things as they are. Not all philanthropists ruin themselves financially, but they are nearly all mentally bankrupt. That is the fate of all those who compromise with the existing state of affairs.

The revolutionary Socialist movement becomes almost suffocated by these reformers. Every crying evil of capitalism has its devoted band of would-be reformers. What a vast and formidable front could they oppose to the capitalist class were they united for its abolition. But some of the capitalist class are even among the reformers. The horrors of capitalism are world-wide and ever growing, they cannot be cured a bit at a time. All over the world, in all the great cities, are horrible and indescribable slums. People are mentally and physically starved, and repressed in a thousand different ways. The throw-outs of society fill the hospitals and mental wards, whilst the huge majority of the workers hang on by a very narrow margin. Yet all over the world there are acres and acres of habitable and unpopulated country for people to spread out in. It is possible to produce everything that we need in spacious surroundings and decent buildings, and for people to enjoy life to the full. People live on top of their jobs because of the time and expense of getting to them. The motive of industry all the time is profit-making, not the supplying of things for the people’s use.

All the means of production lie in the hands of private holders. These owners, not only of inanimate things but of workers' lives, constitute not one tenth of the population. The rest of the people who, not by our wish to tabulate them as such, but by their own class portion, form that vast working majority who must gain permission to work for wages for the small minority who have the power to say yea or nay.

At times of slump and depression it is “nay," and then the belts must be tightened and those few little luxuries previously enjoyed altogether discarded. The worker’s wage, whether £2, £3 or £5 per week, determines his standard of living. It is our object to abolish wages altogether.

Socialism means a system of society where men and women organise together to produce the things they need, and having produced them in co-operation enjoy them freely. This does not mean a stilted uniformity, but a satisfaction of individual requirements. Socialism means that all men and women will become individuals for the first time and will have individual expression of thought and feeling. If all the people engaged in useless effort, such as those in the repressive and fighting forces, canvassers, clergymen and others, were diverted to useful channels of production and distribution we could considerably shorten hours or increase the amount of goods produced. There is only one thing in the way of realising this wondrous state of things, and that is the realisation of its possibility by the rest of the workers. Help us to spread the knowledge, fellow-workers, to waken the "dreamers" and teach the ignorant.

May Otway

More hard labour (1979)

From the January 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Originally the ideals and aspirations of the Labour Party were lofty. It claimed to be anti-Liberal and anti-Tory, opposed to war, in favour of higher wages and trade union demands, and in the forefront of pressure for social reform. But what has happened in reality when the Labour Party has found itself in power?

Firstly it has supported two world wars in coalition with the Tories and the Liberals and has been an active party to other localised conflicts like Biafra and Vietnam. After preaching disarmament it has supported the building and testing of nuclear weapons and imposed conscription in peacetime.

Secondly, on the wages front, it has consistently practiced policies of “wage restraint” while unemployment has grown steadily (reaching its post-war maximum with the present administration) and prices have risen rapidly. In 1949 and 1967 Labour deliberately raised prices by devaluing the currency. Four months before the 1967 devaluation the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, James Callaghan, had said in Parliament that such a measure was unthinkable as it would necessarily cause “a reduction in the wage levels and real wage standards of every member of the working class of this country” (Hansard, 24 July 1969 Cols. 99- 100). To efforts by workers to defend their living standards the Labour Party has replied with the use of troops (docks and fire services) and in 1950 even went as far as to put on trial gas workers and dockers striking in defiance of an old Act of Parliament.

Thirdly, on social reform, the Labour Party, after setting up the National Health Service as envisaged by the coalition government during the war, passed an Act of Parliament levying prescription charges and in 1951 imposed charges for the supply of health service dentures and spectacles. (Harold Wilson resigned over this issue by the way, then later as Prime Minister endorsed the charges and increased them). At the beginning of their immediate post-war administration Labour had also promised to solve the housing problem. Aneurin Bevan made the hopelessly optimistic claim that “when the next election occurs there will be no housing problem in Great Britain for the British working class” (Hansard, Vol. 453, Col 1202, 1946). Over 20 years later they were still at it when the then Labour Secretary of State for Wales (now speaker of the House of Commons), George Thomas, said of the 1968 Rent Act: “Within 10 years of this Act no one in Wales should be living in an unfit house”. (The Times, 31 Jan. 1969).

To all these charges the Labour Party would reply that they couldn’t help themselves. They didn’t want to support wars, keep down wages, see prices and unemployment rising and not be able to house people. Everything that happened, and still happens, is due to circumstances beyond their control — the state of world trade, the actions of other governments, and so on. Quite true, but the point is that when a Party, whatever label it gives itself, takes power with a mandate to administer capitalism, it will have very little choice about how it does the job. It will be subject to the fluctuating economic conditions of a world governed by impersonal market forces and divided into separate states, each one competing with the other to earn profits for its business interests. What seems “sensible”, therefore, and in the general interest in a Party’s pre-election manifesto, will soon fall by the way side if found to be contrary to the imperatives of production for profit.

And any of the early illusions the Labour Party had about “taking the profit out of capitalism” have long since been dispelled. It found that even nationalised industries had to be run on profit-making or cost-benefit lines and that its aim to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor had to be abandoned. It proved impossible to impose egalitarian principles on a system which, by its very nature, dictates that the vast majority of the wealth will be owned by a small minority of the population.

So it is not for their good intentions that we have disagreed with Labour supporters, but for their false presupposition that once in power their Party could and would reshape the capitalist system to their heart’s content. Now, however, with the Labour Party so much in power in recent years and having so little to show for it, even among the keenest Labourites this belief is beginning to wane. How much longer for them to see that, instead of the Labour Party gradually changing capitalism, capitalism has gradually changed the Labour Party?

What then is our alternative to voting Labour (or Tory or Liberal for that matter) in the next election? A vote for the set-up Labour (and the other big political parties) stand for is a vote to remain enslaved. Enslaved by the wages system and the world market which, regardless of government action, decree unemployment, slumps, trade wars sometimes leading to real wars, destruction of food “surpluses”, mental anxiety, wreckage of the environment, adulterated food, shoddy houses and ugly cities. The only worthwhile vote is for a political party having as its sole aim the replacement of this system by another, one which we call Socialism and define as a world of common ownership, democratic control, production for use and free access. In this country this means voting for the Socialist Party of Great Britain where it presents candidates and, where not, registering your view by writing the words WORLD SOCIALISM — SPGB across your ballot paper.

Labourites may say that the kind of world we propose is what they themselves favour in the long term and what, bit by bit, successive Labour governments, if given a chance, will move towards. Meanwhile, however, they must deal with real immediate issues.

Let it be said unequivocally that Socialism will not arise naturally “bit-by-bit” through the policies of parties elected on a programme of reforming capitalism. It will only be introduced when the majority of people turn their backs on the inevitably vain attempts of the capitalist parties to tinker with the present system and cast votes for a world of real democracy, real equality and real cooperative human activity.

Protests Without End? (2017)

From the January 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

Most believe the sickness of war can be sorted out within the usual channels offered –either a UN force moves in or the troops come home. The former will only compound the problem. The latter can only leave the region concerned more unstable, with warlords and the varying shades of the region's religions vying for political power.

We need to address the root of the problem –the capitalist system itself and vicious competition for profits –and how the problems capitalism creates can only be solved when we abolish the capitalist system itself.

While it is important to oppose war, we need to recognise in whose interests wars are waged. It's hard to think of a single war that did not have its roots in the need of some small elite to make profits. All wars, even small-scale conflicts tend to be fought over resources, outside markets and areas of influence, trade routes or the strategic points.

To end war –and the need to demonstrate against it –capitalism has to be ended. It needs to be replaced by a global system where the resources of the Earth are common to everyone. Competition and conflict between elites over resources must give way to cooperation for the benefit of all the world's inhabitants.

If you lend your support to a political party or organisation that fails to oppose the real nature of capitalist society, how our world is organised for production and how power is distributed, then you are, in effect, supporting a system that breeds wars.

The Socialist Party asks: Do you want to protest endlessly against each new war as it arises? Or work for a new world of common ownership, democratic control, peace and human welfare?

If you are opposed to war, either oppose capitalism in all its forms or settle down to a life of protests . . .

Editorial: The Evolution of Sir Stafford Cripps, The "Revolutionary" (1944)

Editorial from the September 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists are not concerned about the career of Sir Stafford Cripps and his success in the world of capitalist politics. There is, however, a value in observing the evolution of his political ideas because he represents a type with which Socialists have long been familiar. Forty years ago, when the S.P.G.B. first laid it down that Socialism could never be brought about except by the conscious act of a Socialist majority, this principle was criticised by all the reformists because it meant, they said, long postponement of the emancipation of the working class. There were quicker ways, we were told, and the Socialist Party year after year has had to show the fallacy of the advocates of short cuts to Socialism, whether they were preaching the general strike, the seizure of power by a minority, or the formation of Labour Governments which would introduce so-called "revolutionary" reforms to speed us on the way. Nothing daunted by a succession of past failures, there are always new men coming along to preach the same doctrine. Always, as they make their spectacular way, their career takes the same general course. First they denounce the slowness of the S.P.G.B. and demand action to get "Socialism now"; then they climb to high office in the Labour movement or the capitalist State, only to find that they cannot deliver the goods: then they fall back into the ranks of those who accept capitalism and merely advocate the petty reforms that have always been the stock-in-trade of the capitalist parties. Ten years ago Cripps was in full and furious fight. He was in a hurry. Everyone else was holding back the Socialist triumph. He attacked them all and gained the reputation of being the hundred per cent. revolutionary. He declared he wanted Socialism now and nothing but Socialism. He had no time for compromise and compromisers, and no time for the S.P.G.B. view that the laborious task had first to be carried out of making Socialists. Attacking the Labour Party, he declared in his pamphlet “The Choice for Britain," “ We must . . . firmly and definitely abandon any idea of working in association with any other political group or party that denies the absolute necessity of Socialism." In particular, he rejected as dangerous the idea that some temporary alliance of pro-democratic forces should be brought about not based on the achievement of Socialism."

From then till now is not a very long period, but long enough for Sir Stafford to have abandoned most of his ideas. As a member of a Coalition Government facing the problem of post-war reconstruction he now quite frankly accepts the fact that capitalism will continue after the war, and that reconstruction will be strictly within the limits imposed by capitalism. In a speech at Belfast (reported in the Times, August 19, ), 1944), he forecast a fall in the standard of living after the war “unless we could get back all our pre-war export trade and add something like another 50 per cent. pretty quickly . . . " This, though he may have forgotten the fact, has been in the line of Conservative and Liberal propaganda for upwards of a century, as also was his further plea for increased efficiency. Finally, he let the cat out of the bag entirely when he admitted that it is to be the same old capitalism—"we shall embark upon the solution of our post-war difficulties largely under the aegis of private enterprise in this country, and that system will have to justify its own continuance by showing that it has the enterprise to meet the new circumstances and to overcome them."

This last pronouncement about capitalism justifying its continued existence comes strangely from one who ten years ago was proclaiming from the housetop that capitalism had long proved its own failure and unfitness to survive. In the same speech Sir Stafford thought that this country might fail to handle post-war problems satisfactorily “because of our innate conservatism.” "What was good enough for my father is good enough for me" is, he said, a “fatal slogan for industry."

The only serious conservatism from which the workers suffer is their habit of clinging to capitalism when Socialism is within their reach if they would have it, and Sir Stafford Cripps, who is now saying in effect, “Capitalism which was good enough for my father is good enough for me," is aiding the capitalist class to keep the workers conservative.

In the post-war years there will be many more self styled saviours of the working class seeking votes and support, shouting urgently for speedy action while they are climbing and then, when they have arrived, imploring the workers to go slow and be content with capitalism. These men are the successors of a long line stretching back to the earliest days of the reformist movement. No matter what their good intentions may be, they will not and cannot do anything for the emancipation of the working class.