A Century in Print (2004)

From the September 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

In September 1904, three months after the founding of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the first edition of the Socialist Standard appeared. It made a modest start with an ambitious declaration of future intent. The first ever editorial commented that:

"We are all members of the working class, and cannot hope that our articles will always be finely phrased, but we shall at least endeavour to lay before you on every occasion a sane and sound pronouncement on all matters affecting the welfare of the working class. What we lack in refinement of style we shall make good by the depth of our sincerity and by the truth of our principles . . . We shall, for the present, content ourselves with a monthly issue, but we are confident that the various demands upon us, by the quantity of matter at our disposal, and by the growth of our party, will necessitate in the near future, a weekly issue of our paper."

Looking back, the writer certainly need not have been quite so bashful about the Standard's content as over the period since it has developed a well deserved reputation for a style of political journalism not dissimilar in many respects to popular science writing as it developed throughout the twentieth century which has been characterised by clarity of expression and use of vernacular language wherever possible. Whatever disagreements some of our readers may have had with us, misunderstandings based on the style in which we have put across our case have been comparatively few and far between, for while many groups on the political left have chosen to mark themselves out from their competitors more through the invention of their own particular liturgy than through the distinctiveness of their political positions, we have always done our best to say it as it is, in language readily understandable to our readership. Given the propagandistic and educational roles of the Standard, this has been important.

One hundred years on, and 1,200 issues later, we are still a monthly journal (the sought-after transition to weekly publication has so far eluded us) but can legitimately claim to have published without interruption ever since, being Britain's longest-running socialist political press. Given the financial travails at various points in our history not to mention two world wars in which many of our members were sent to prison or went 'on the run' this is no small achievement, sometimes brought about through huge personal sacrifice impelled by massive commitment to the cause.

Just as remarkably, considering the forthright and direct use of language by writers for the Standard over the years, we have been sued only once (though admittedly threatened with it on a few more occasions than that). This action was, ironically enough, brought by a trade union the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants who objected to an attack on their General Secretary, Richard Bell MP, on the front page of the August 1906 edition. When the case came to court nearly a year later, Bell was awarded a token £2 worth of damages by the Judge after our comrades Fitzgerald and Anderson had stoutly defended the case against the union's King's Counsel.

During the two world wars, the Standard's political stance led it into conflict with the authorities and on both occasions the consequences could have been far more serious than any likely libel action. Throughout the First World War the Standard largely defied the Defence of the Realm Regulations introduced in November 1914 concerning comment prejudicial to the conduct of the war, and on the advice of 'E' Branch of MI5, the Standard was prohibited by the Home Office from being sent to any destination outside the United Kingdom. In 1917 the Party's offices were raided too, with several members questioned about their political activity. The matter had come to a head after an article for the Standard by Adolph Kohn had been sent from America and intercepted by the authorities there. During the Second World War, the Defence Regulations introduced in May 1940 were even more strictly upheld and the Standard's opposition to the conflict was expressed codedly, with no overtly anti-war articles appearing after 1940.

On only three occasions have outside agencies otherwise directly and deliberately interfered with articles due to be printed in the Standard. In February 1916 a printer refused to print an article on Lloyd George and the Clyde workers that our comrade Jacomb had set into type, leading to a brief explanation and an otherwise blank column. Then in March 1952 an article about the institution of the monarchy and King George VI entitled 'The King Is Dead' didn't appear because the compositors disagreed with its contents. The third occasion was in March 1988 when the printers (without the consent of the Editorial Committee) issued their own disclaimer at the end of an article on sectarian violence in Northern Ireland which had attacked the political gangsters of the IRA in the wake of the Enniskillen atrocity.

A Matter Of Style

Articles in the Standard have always tended to reflect the Socialist Party's origins in Britain's movement of self-educated workingmen in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century; written by volunteers, they have exhibited a style which has relied heavily on formal definitions and logic, together with the use of statistics and quotations designed to support an approach that can typically be described as critical and polemical.

While items have always been characterised by a clarity and directness of approach, they have nevertheless evolved over the last century to reflect wider changes in the use of language and in writing style. Early articles sometimes seemed written with the intent of bludgeoning the sceptical reader into submission, and correspondents for the Standard has enthusiastically opened up its correspondence pages to friend and foe alike from the outset had to tread warily lest they incurred the wrath of a hawk-eyed Editorial Committee on the look-out for 'unsound' or 'unscientific' arguments.

The pages of the Standard were replete with attacks on 'capitalist cant', 'quack remedies', 'currency cranks', 'labour fakirs' and 'apologists for reformism' though these rhetorical and polemical pieces were typically intermingled with theoretical articles (some reprinted from Engels, Kautsky, Guesde and others) involving eloquent explanations of complex issues. Whether it was Fitzgerald on the intricacies of Marxian economics, Housley on the materialist conception of history, or Freddie Watts waxing forth like the best popular science writer in pieces like 'Is Society An Organism?', contributors to the Standard were able to translate complex arguments into accounts and propositions that were readily understandable to the readers.

This is a tradition that has been continued in the years since, both in general, theoretical articles and in pieces which have sought to apply Marxian theory to specific conditions and developments within capitalism. In the first category, various theoretical articles particularly in the 1920s and 30s by Robert Reynolds ('Robertus') and Gilbert McClatchie ('Gilmac') on history and the evolution of society, by Raspbridge (B.S.) on the nature of the banking system and Goldstein on the labour theory of value are amongst the finest of their kind; eloquent interpretations and expositions of complex analysis and argumentation made comprehensible to the man or woman in the street. This was a tradition which was sustained after the Second World War, but with the field of engagement widened to include ecology, psychology and discussion of theories relevant to the refutation of 'human nature' arguments against socialism.

Applied Economics

Where writers for the Standard perhaps had most to contribute was in the practical application of Marxist theory to political and economic issues facing the working class. This had been a hallmark of the journal since the early days when, through applications of Marxian economics, writers had expounded on the reasons why taxation is not ultimately a burden on the working class but on capital, on the irrelevance of tariff reform or the concealed dangers in proposals for free maintenance for schoolchildren. Similarly, the Standard's analysis of the development of state capitalism in Russia and the rise of Nazism in Germany were excellent examples of the application of Marx's materialist conception of history to new issues and developments within capitalism as they confronted the working class.

Particularly with the advent of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the various political and economic proposals of the reformers of the time to tackle it, the Standard came into its own. Hardy ('H') analysed the economic crisis from the Marxian standpoint and derided the arguments of the capitalist reformers who desperately sought to save the system they supported: from the 'social credit' acolytes of Major Douglas through to the Gold Standard abolitionists, the advocates of higher prices and the tax reformers.

Similarly, after the war the Standard spent much time debunking the arguments and proposals of the supporters of John Maynard Keynes, who developed the main economic theory which underpinned the reformist political intent of the period. In a masterly series of articles over the years, Hardy and others demonstrated the flaws of Keynesian economic theory and how it would never be able to put any lasting end to unemployment and poverty within capitalism, instead merely resulting in persistently rising prices because of the excess issue of inconvertible paper currency it typically involved. These articles were not formulated solely at a theoretical level Hardy, in particular, was an empiricist as much as a theoretician, and the attack on the dominant economic theories and practices of the post-war world was supported by detailed empirical evidence to supplement contentions borne out of Marxian theory. This was equally the case with the spread in influence of the so-called 'monetarist' economic doctrine from the mid 1970s when it replaced Keynesianism as the dominant theory; the Standard was not taken in by the elaborate claims made on its behalf and through detailed argumentation dismissed it primarily as a return to the discredited old 'bank deposit theory of prices' masquerading under a new name.

Social Comment
The advent of the 'consumer society' in the 1950s saw some changing attitudes within capitalist society and the development of a new type of article in the Standard in response to it. This was the informed Marxist social commentary, focusing on lifestyle changes affecting the working class. The comprehensive education system, modern advertising, consumer credit, immigration, the growth of television and popular music were all phenomena analysed from the Marxist materialist standpoint and stylishly too, by Coster, Critchfield and others. Looking back on them now, it is hard to not be impressed by their elegance as pieces of social comment, and by their prescience and foresight at a time of rapid social change and uncertainty.

As single issue-campaigners came to the fore from the 1960s onwards (CND, squatters, feminists, Welsh and Scottish nationalists) so the Standard turned its attention to them and their limited visions and definitions of political success. At times it regained some of its old feistiness, but with obvious concessions to the style and language of the burgeoning youth culture of the times. Many have seen the mid-60s to early 70s as one of the Standard's many 'golden periods', with well-crafted articles on galloping inflation and the return of economic crisis from specialists in Marxian economics like Hardy, sitting alongside biting social comment and polemics against the 'new left' from Steele, Crump and other sixties firebrands who had been attracted to the libertarian socialist politics of the SPGB.

The Modern Standard

From the late sixties onwards, the Standard has noticeably sought to increase its coverage of events outside Great Britain, in response to the ever more interconnected nature of capitalism and its development as a 'global village' with issues such as globalisation, environmentalism and capitalism's now constant state of warfare looming large for writers, particularly. The sardonic wit of contributors like Weidberg ('workers of the world wake up!') and Coleman has also been a prominent feature and has ensured that serious socialist comment has often been supplemented by generally well-chosen humorous observations and asides.

Today's articles tend almost exclusively to have a contemporary news focus, with even theoretical pieces being linked to current events and issues within capitalist society. As in previous years, there is a balance between those that are commissioned by the editors and those that are sent in by individual writers as and when they can contribute pieces. It is pleasing to note than in recent times a number of new writers have appeared to complement those who have been contributing over long periods, often decades.

Indeed, on this note, it would be remiss of us not to comment here on the remarkable contribution that a great many Socialist Party members have made to the Standard over the years, whether as designers, writers or editors. The journal's production has been helped hugely in this respect by a certain continuity of service by way of example, when McClatchie and Hardy retired from the Editorial Committee at the end of 1959, they had each put in just over, and just under, forty years continual service respectively. And today, two of our writers have been regularly contributing to the Standard for over fifty years, our comrades Alwyn Edgar (A.W.E.) and Ralph Critchfield ('Ivan'), the latter also with prolonged spells on the editorial committee. The three members of the present editorial committee have been writing for the Standard for around ninety years in total too!

Anniversary

To mark the one hundredth anniversary of our journal, the Socialist Party has recently published a special book. Entitled 'Socialism Or Your Money Back: Articles From the Socialist Standard 1904-2004', it is an anthology of 70 articles (with period commentaries) from the Standard, analysing events within capitalism over the last one hundred years as they unfolded. It is in part a tribute to the men and women who have done so much to ensure that the Socialist Party has been able to make a regular and uninterrupted political intervention through our press during this time, and also an important repository of insightful commentary and socialist analysis, on issues and events from the sinking of the Titanic to the Iraq war.

The Standard has evolved over time and will no doubt continue to do so. It never stays still and to this end we always welcome new writers that can help us sustain and grow Britain's longest running socialist political paper. We have an important job to do, in keeping the socialist analysis of capitalism and the alternative vision of a genuinely better world before the working class, and we are always keen to encourage those who wish to help us in our fight for a better world by writing for our journal.

Finally though, a gentle warning to readers. From the January 1920 issue, but just as relevant now as then:

"Be careful how you handle the Socialist Standard. It is powerful stuff and is fatal to working-class political ignorance."

Dave Perrin

Malawi Musings

From the Socialist Banner blog

Malawi is much in the news. Not for any particular reason other than music icon Madonna is visiting and being rumoured to be planning another adoption of another Malawian youngster. Malawi's economy is said to be 1% of Scotland's - about half the size of Falkirk's. The country's population is 12.6 million people, one million of whom are orphans. More than half the population lives below the poverty line. Malawi is ranked as the 10th poorest country in the world by the United Nations. Life expectancy in Malawi is now as low as 36.5 years, five years lower than it was 50 years ago.

The Herald reports how business is sponsoring aspiring capitalists to learn their trade in Scotland. A small number of students have been brought to Scotland as part of a vanguard of gifted entrepreneurs who it is hoped will provide expertise, enthusiasm and business acumen to transform the economic fortunes of Malawi. They are spending 18 hours a week learning customer care skills, cooking and working as waiters at Brel and Ad Lib, both part of the Baby Grand Group in Glasgow. They will also be enrolled on four-year tourism undergraduate degrees at Glasgow Caledonian University. All very noble.

Yet activist George Monbiot writes of how international capitialism have failed to provide the necessary foreign aid and have imposed spending restrictions upon on the bill for public-sector pay in Malawi that ensure that even basic schooling cannot be improved. In Malawi the IMF sets the ceiling for public-sector wages directly. The pupil to teacher ratio in Malawi is 72:1. The failure rate to complete primary education in Malawi is 70%.

In Malawi, the goods required for the most basic level of subsistence cost $107 a month. A trained teacher receives $55. ActionAid argues that Malawi has now achieved sufficient stability to start raising teachers' pay. But in no case did the IMF consult either the public or the state's own ministry of education before laying down the law. The amount of money a teacher in rural Malawi is paid is decided by the men in London and Washington.

Good deeds like Madonna airlifting some pitiful child out of deprivation, or philanthropic gestures from Scottish businessmen of assisting Malawi's budding capitalist class may hit the headlines. But it is who controls the economy and pulls the financial strings that decides the future of all Malawians and for the moment thats the IMF.

Madonna danced with Malawian children when she toured the $120,000 facility that is home to 4,000 orphans and which she helped to fund and during a visit to an orphanage urged them to "help themselves" instead of relying on her.

Wise words because the only solution to the poverty will be when the poor do join together and do begin to "help themselves" - by seeking the common ownershiop and control of the means of production and distribution - the establishment of Socialism.

Alan Johnstone

More evolved than thou

Latest post from the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

"Chimps are ahead of humans in the great evolutionary race" ran a silly headline in The Times last Tuesday. Silly, because there is no such thing as any great evolutionary race.

Scientists have discovered, from studying the genes of humans and chimpanzees, that since the time six or seven million years ago, when the common ancestor of both existed, there are more changed genes in chimps than in humans.

Apparently, this came as a surprise and we should now no longer say that humans are "more evolved" than chimps. This could only be in a rather restricted sense of the term "more evolved" to mean "more genetically changed" since it is obvious that in every other sense humans are the more evolved. Otherwise, why was the research not carried out by chimps?

The key thing about "human nature" compared with 'chimpanzee nature" is the biologically-evolved nature and capabilities of the human brain. The genetic structure as a whole of chimps may have changed more than that of humans compared with the common ancestor of both, but the changes that have occurred in chimps have brought them to an evolutionary dead end. They may have evolved more to fit in better with their particular environment but this leaves them vulnerable to changes in that environment since they have no control over it.

The genetic changes in the line that led to humans, on the other hand, led to a species that can not only adapt its behaviour to live in a great variety of environments but which is capable of actively changing its environment. Since modern humans evolved 150,000 or so years ago, human evolution has been social rather than biological. Humans have acquired in culture, in particular in the tools and instruments we have developed to acquire and shape what we need from the rest of nature, a non-biological way of adapting, which has enabled us to adapt more quickly to our environment than biological evolution through natural selection ever would or could.

The knowledge we have acquired to understand and change our environment - nearly everything we see around us is the product of human intervention - shows that we are far superior to chimpanzees in the way we are equipped to survive in nature. We can in fact do far better if we realise that capitalism, with the problems it causes for the lives of most humans and indeed for many other species, is merely one of our non-biological adaptations to survive in nature. But one that has proved to be no longer the best fitfed for this purpose.

Fortunately, the other non-biological adaptations we have developed in the tools for obtaining what we need from nature (the means and instruments of production) and in the knowledge of how to use and develop them, and more recently of their effects on the rest of nature, allow us to rectify this. We can further evolve socially by making these tools the common heritage of the whole species and using our knowledge of how to use them to produce enough food, shelter, clean water, health care, education and other amenities for every single person on the planet while at the same time maintaining a sustainable relationship with the rest of nature.

The next stage in social evolution, in other words, is socialism.

Adam Buick

Socialism - questions and answers

Cut and pasted from the blog, A Revolutionary Act

What is The Socialist Party?
It is a political party separate from all others. It stands for the sole aim of establishing a global system of society in which there will be common ownership and democratic control of the world's natural and industrial resources. We advocate a world social system in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation and an equal say in how their society is run; a world in which production is freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the benefit of all.

What is Socialism?
To elaborate slightly on the above - Socialism is yet to exist. When it is established it must be on a global basis, as a real alternative to the present system. In a socialist society there will be common ownership of the earth by its inhabitants and no minority will dictate to us that production must give priority to profit. There will be no owners. The people of the world will share the world. Production will be for use, not sale. The only questions we will need to ask about production are what do people need and can these needs be met. Science and technology will at last be used to their fullest potential and in the service of humanity. The basic socialist principle will be that people give according to their abilities and take according to their needs. There will be no buying or selling, as money will have been abolished and will not be necessary in a world of free access. Socialism will mean a world without borders or frontiers, social classes or leaders, states or governments, force or coercion.

How does this differ from Capitalism?
Capitalism is the social system that now exists in all the countries of the world. Under this system, the means of production and distribution are monopolised by a small, wealthy elite. All wealth is produced by us, the working class who sell our physical and mental abilities for a wage or salary. The object of wealth production is to create goods and services which can be sold profitably. Not only do capitalists live off the profits they obtain by exploiting us, they reinvest their profits with a view to accumulating more wealth. Because of the logic of their system, if goods cannot be sold at a profit, they are either destroyed or not produced at all. Because of capitalist competition, wars break our fairly regularly, being fought over trade routes, areas of influence, foreign markets and mineral resources - all sources of profit for capitalists.

So how will Socialism solve the problems of society?
Capitalism, with its endless drive to make profits, throws up an endless stream of problems. Many workers feel insecure about their future and work related stress is on the increase. Crime, homelessness, poverty - these are all ongoing problems. A society based on production for use will end these problems because the priority of socialist society will be the fullest possible satisfaction of needs. Abolishing the money system will mean food will not have to be destroyed it can't be sold. Wars will no longer be fought if there are no more borders or frontiers and the source of their cause has been removed. At present it is not 'economically viable' to solve many of the problems that plague us - it eats into profits. Socialism will mean nothing but the best for every human being.

Surely it is easier just to reform the present system?
No. As long as capitalism exists, profits will always take priority over our real needs. Some workers welcome reforms; some reforms have improved working class conditions, but no reform can abolish that basic contradiction between profits and need. No matter how well meaning the politicians, nor how colourful their promises, they are bound to fail because they do not control the system - it controls them. The governments of the world may well introduce 1000 reforms, but we would still continue to live in a world ravaged by starvation, war, homelessness, unemployment, poverty and every other social ill. We would still live in a two class society, with our real needs subordinated to the wishes of a minority. Why campaign for crumbs when the whole bakery is there to be taken?

Is Nationalisation an alternative to capitalism?
No. Although the old Labour Party used to think so, and many leftists still do, there is nothing progressive in nationalisation. It simply means the workers are exploited by the state in the interests of capitalists. There were once many nationalised industries in Britain. This did not stop the government closing them down and making hundreds of thousands of workers redundant when they ceased being profitable - and these nationalised industries supposedly 'belonged' to us.

What about kibbutzim?
Is this not akin to Socialism? Socialism can only exist, as capitalism does, on a global scale. It cannot be established in one country, let alone one farm. The kibbutzim do show that humans can live without money and work without wages, but their small scale means that what they can offer is very restricted so young people tend to leave them. In practice they have paved the way for the development of capitalism in Israel and some have themselves become capitalist institutions employing outside wage labour and producing for the market with a view to profit.

Have there ever been Socialist countries?
What about the former Soviet Union? No. Those countries which claimed they were socialist were in reality state capitalist. Power was monopolised by a privileged elite who became the new ruling and controlling class. Countries like Russia and China and Yugoslavia still had money and buying and selling. They still had wage slavery, exploitation and commodity production. They still traded with capitalist states and according to the dictates of international capital and were ever ready to go to war to defend their economic interests.

For more information on the Socialist Party and the Socialist Standard, click on the picture below:

Howard Zinn's 'Je Ne Suis Pas Marxiste'

To the best of my of knowledge, the first time that Howard Zinn's wonderful essay 'Je Ne Suis Pas Marxiste' has appeared online.

(Originally posted on the blog on the 14th September 2006.)

Wish It Were The Seventies?

Latest post from the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

We've just been sent a review copy of Capitalism Unleashed by Andrew Glyn (OUP). We are not sure why as it came out in March 2006. Still, as they say, you shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.

Those (like us) with long memories will recall that Glyn was the co-author of a Penguin Special that came out in 1972 called British Capitalism, Workers and the Profits Squeeze. In it he and his fellow author (Bob Sutcliffe) argued that capitalism, at least in Britain, had been brought to a life-or-death crisis because working class militancy, on the one hand, and international competition, on the other, had squeezed profits, the life-blood of the system without which it couldn't survive. One more push from the workers, they suggested, and capitalism could be overthrown.

The only danger they saw was that the workers would be betrayed by the reformist leaders of the TUC who would hold them back (it's this word "betrayal" which is the clue that they were some kind of Trotskyist; Glyn later became involved in Militant). We ourselves were sceptical about the whole analysis, suggesting that they were greatly exaggerating trade union "power" and that the crisis was not a life-or-death one but just a phase of the ordinary business cycle which capitalism goes through and from which it would recover sooner or later (see our review in February 1973 Socialist Standard). Actually, it turned out to be a bigger turning-point than we thought, as capitalism has never since returned to the "never-had-it-so-good" days of the 50s and 60s.

In any event, capitalism did survive. So what does Glyn think now? Modern-day, "unleashed" capitalism, he says, has its problems (financial turbulence, corporate corruption, etc) but cannot be said to be in a state of crisis in the sense of the Oxford University dictionary definition of "the point in the progress of a disease when an important development or change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death" that he believed it to have been in in the 70s. In fact, his view is that there is now no alternative to capitalism on the horizon, so all we've got is a choice of different kinds of capitalism.

"The longer-term objective of socialism was always to facilitate the development of people's lives in a more fulfilling direction", he writes and asks: "Is it possible to make serious moves in this direction even within what is still a predominantly capitalist economy?".

His answer is, perhaps surprisingly, "yes", in the form of the scheme proposed by the Belgian social thinker, Philippe Van Parijs, for paying everyone a Basic Income as of right and irrespective of whether or not they work, referring to an article by him in a book with the revealing title of Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Designs for a More Egalitarian Capitalism. Or, as Van Parijs himself has put it:

"In classical Marxism, socialism is just an instrument for achieving the society in which people can work freely according to their abilities but still get enough according to their needs. If socialism doesn't work, because of threats to freedom and problems of dynamic efficiency, then why not harness capitalism to achieve the same objectives?" (The Bulletin, Brussels, 19 July 2001).

It's a pipedream of course and a bit currency cranky (though to give Van Parijs his due, he did come up with a brilliant title for one of his books in What's Wrong with a Free Lunch?). A Basic Income paid as of right would have to be funded (even squeezed) out of profits and would either undermine the wages system (why work for a capitalist employer if the State is paying you whether you work or not?) or make no difference (since wages would fall by the amount of the State wage subsidy that a Basic Income would represent). Or it would be fixed at so low a level as to be just another name for "Income Support".

As for us, we're still socialists as we were in the 1970s. Capitalism can't be reformed, humanised or made more egalitarian. It must be ended not mended, and replaced by a system of common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, so that production can be geared to satisfying people's needs on the principle of "from each their ability, to each their needs".

Adam Buick

Election Fever

Latest post from the Socialist Courier blog:

With the elections approaching, [in Britain] the media are hyping it all up as if some sort of real change is about to be in the offing, and the political party apparatchiks are out and about trying to convince the cynical and sceptical public to vote for their same old tried and tired solutions and policies. We in the Socialist Party offer something a lot different.

Extracts from previous election statements.

Capitalism is past its sell-by date. The world can now easily produce wealth sufficient to adequately house, feed, care for and educate the global population. Instead we see hunger, disease and homelessness around the world despite the concerns of governments, charities and popstars. Closer to home, in a "developed" nation like the UK, we see child poverty and an increasing gulf between rich and poor. Rates of depression and anxiety are becoming epidemic. Capitalism is failing: it now acts as a barrier, preventing production being geared to human need. Rather than keep trying to tinker with this system we should start looking beyond it to an alternative: a wageless, moneyless, classless world community based on production for human need, not profit . . .

. . . candidates contesting this election (whether openly pro-capitalist or avowedly socialist) are asking you to believe that they can run this society a little bit better. We'd argue that history shows that the money system actually ends up running them. Their pre-election promises usually amount to nothing. So don't vote for them - it only encourages the idea that capitalism can be made better. A vote for the Socialist Party in contrast, is a statement that you don't want to live this way and that you think another world is possible. If you have confidence that humans can live and work co-operatively without the pressure of the wages system, or the rationing system of money, then visit www.worldsocialism.org . . .

. . . What is apparent so far in this election is the extent to which all the parties try and manage the agenda for the election. They all want to encourage the debate to be round the handful of high-profile "flagship" issues where they feel on strong ground.

But its always phrased along the lines of "knocking on doors, we keep hearing that XXX is the real issue of the day". Funnily enough, we don't hear the Lib Dems, for example, say "recent canvassing returns indicate that voters actually don't give a damn about our policies one way or the other". The assumption is that voters are stupid and can only remember 3 or 4 things at a time, so why give them more than that to consider.What it all means is that the campaign may centre around a handful of issues only. That may appear to appeal to the Socialist Party. After all we are the ultimate single issue party - Abolish Capitalism. But while this is a single issue no-one is pretending that it is a simple case. Sure its not complicated, the case for putting human need ahead of profit, but soundbites don't do our case justice.

We are also handicapped in the eyes of the modern voter by the fact that we are not in a position to make promises, and what's more, we aren't going to "do anything" for anyone. The other parties are falling over each other to be seen to be offering some immediate palliative . . .

. . . PEOPLE OR PROFIT
That's the issue in this election, says THE SOCIALIST PARTY you will have your occasional ration of democracy with theopportunity to vote for a member of Parliament. It's all very well having a vote - but are you normally given any real choice?

Let's face it, if it wasn't for the politician's head on the front of the election leaflet, could you tell which party was which? It's tempting, in the absence of any real alternative, to get drawn into the phoney war that is political debate today.

Whether Labour, Tory, SNP, Lib Dem or SSP they all spout the same promises. But it always amounts to the same thing - they offer no alternative to the present way of running society.

Do you really think who wins an election makes any difference to how you live?

And do politicians (whether left-wing, nationalist or right-wing) actually have much real power anyway?

OK, they get to open supermarkets and factories, but it's capitalism and the market system which closes them down

. . . We have endless problems of poverty, poor services and all the issues politicians love to spend time telling you they can solve, if only given the chance.

We don't believe any politician can solve these problems, as long as the flawed basis of our society remains intact. In fact, we believe only you and your fellow workers can solve these problems.

We believe that it will take a revolution in how we organise our lives, a fundamental change. We want to see a society based on the fact that you know how to run your lives, know your needs and have the skills and capacity to organise with your fellows to satisfy them.

You know yourselves and your lives better than a handful of bosses ever can.

With democratic control of production we can ensure that looking after our communities becomes a priority, rather than something we do in our spare time.

We all share fundamental needs, for food, clothing, housing and culture, and we have the capacity to ensure access to these for all, without exception.

If you agree with this aim, then we ask you to get in touch with us, get involved and join in our campaign to bring about this change in society. Together, we have the capacity to run our world for ourselves. We need to build a movement to effect that change, by organising deliberately to take control of the political offices which rule our lives, and bring them into our collective democratic control.

Our candidate makes no promises, offers no pat solutions, only to be the means by which you can remake society for the common good . . .

. . . The crumbs or the bakery?
Politics today is a game of Ins and Outs in which gangs of professional politicians compete with each other to attract votes, the gang securing a majority of seats in parliament assuming responsibility for running the political side of the profit system. To win votes the politicians have to promise -- and be believed -- to improve things both for the population in general, as by managing the economy so as to avoid slumps and crises, and for particular groups within the population.

When the economy is expanding or even just ticking over the Ins have the advantage. They can claim that this is due to their wise statesmanship and prudent management. Such claims are false as the economy goes its own way -- expanding or contracting as the prospect of profits rises or falls -- irrespective of which gang of politicians is in office. But making such claims can backfire as, when the economy falters, the Outs can blame this on the incompetence and mismanagement on the Ins. But that's not true either since politicians don't control the way the economy works.

But throwing crumbs to the people (or to carefully targeted sections of the people whose votes could swing things) is not the main purpose of government. Marx once wrote that the government is "but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie". And it's still true. The function of any government is to manage the common affairs of the capitalist class as a whole. This involves a number of things. Sustaining a context in which profit-making can continue. Spending the money raised from taxes (that are ultimately a burden on the capitalist class) in a prudent way on things that will benefit the capitalist class as a whole, such as providing them with an educated, relatively healthy and so productive workforce. Maintaining -- and if need be using -- armed forces to protect sources of raw materials, trade routes, investment outlets and markets abroad. That's what most government spending goes on, and balancing this against income from taxes is what budgets are essentially about. It is only because wage and salary workers, active or retired, have the vote that, occasionally if there's a small margin of money spare, a few crumbs are offered to some section or other of the electorate. No doubt, the pensioners, the home buyers and the families offered a few hundred extra pounds a year will accept these crumbs cast before them by Gordon Brown in yesterday's pre-election budget. Hopefully, they won't accept them as bribes to vote for his particular gang of politicians, but simply because it would be stupid not to pick them up.

Nowadays most people have learned by experience and are, rightly, just as cynical about the politicians and their promises -- and crumbs -- as are politicians about how they get people to vote for them. But cynicism is not enough. This should be turned into rejection. The game of Ins and Outs, to decide which gang of professional politicians should manage the common affairs of the capitalist class, only continues because most of us agree to take part in it. But by voting for them we in effect give them the power to keep the capitalist system going. And that, not which particular gang of politicians happens to be in office, is the cause of today's problems since built-in to capitalism is putting making profits before satisfying people's needs.

Socialists are only too well aware that most people put up with capitalism, and go along with its political game of Ins and Outs in the hope of getting a few crumbs out of it, because they see no practicable alternative. But there is an alternative . . . Politics should be more than individuals deciding which politicians to trust to deliver some crumbs that they think will benefit them individually. It should be about collective action to change society. About taking over the whole bakery.

from B Gardner and D Lambert previous election addresses

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

"This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949)."

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has - as is well known - been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and - if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous - are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society - in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence - that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished - just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time - which, looking back, seems so idyllic - is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor - not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production - that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods - may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production - although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Albert Einstein

Thinking of Abstaining On May 3rd?

From the blog, A Revolutionary Act:

You are again faced with a bunch of politicians who can only be distinguishable by the colour of their rosettes, and you may already be of the opinion that there is little that separates the mainstream parties and have no intention of voting. Millions of people are not prepared to support any of them. Indeed, election results since 1997 when Blair came to power have revealed the lowest turnouts since World War II and the trend is repeating itself across the globe. It is particularly to those members of the electorate who are not prepared to follow leaders, who think they are all tarred with the same brush, and unwilling to put their faith in the promises of local politicians, that this article is dedicated.

Many of you will know little about The Socialist Party or our idea, unless you are a regular reader of the letters pages of the local press (particularly the Shields Gazette). Certainly many people have heard the word "socialist" and may mistakingly imagine it has something to do with the nationalised industries or with countries like China and the former Soviet Union. It is understandable that many people regard socialism as just another political cliche, once used by Labour politicians to win votes, but having very little meaning.

The Socialist Party stands solely for socialism because we do not think that the present social system - capitalism - can ever be made to work in the interests of the majority of the people. This is not the fault of government policies, but the present social system in which they are operating. Capitalism always puts the needs of a minority who own and control the factories, farms, offices, mines, media, the means of wealth production and distribution before the needs of ourselves, the working class.

It is a hard but undeniable fact that no political party - including The Socialist Party - can legislate to humanise capitalism or make it run in the interest of the working class. That is why it is important that the working class stops giving its support to politicians who support the profit system. None of them can solve unemployment or crime or any of the other social problems we face today, despite their proclaimed recipes for success. None of them will prevent tens of millions starving to death each year. None of them will provide decent housing for everyone. None of them will end the threat of human annihilation as a result of war, because militarism is inevitable within a system based upon the ferocious competition for resources, markets and trade. Why waste your time voting for parties that cannot make any of these urgently needed changes? Why go on in the hope that some miracle will happen and end the insanity of the profit system?

So what's the alternative? We say that the resources of society must be taken into the hands of the whole community - and by that we do not mean the state, but all of us, organised together, consciously and democratically.

In a socialist society we will produce for use, not profit. This means producing food to feed the world's population, not to dump in the sea if it cannot be sold profitably. Producing for use means ending the colossal waste of resources on armies, armaments, trade, banking and insurance and all the other social features which are only necessary within capitalism. By running society on the basis of common ownership, democratic control and production for use we can all have free access to all goods and services.

Two points should be clear to you by now. Firstly, this is no ordinary political argument. We have made you no false promises; we have not patronised you and neither do we beg for your support. Indeed we do not ask for your support unless you are convinced that the case for socialism is a rational one and in your interest. Socialism, if it is to be the democratic and sane society that we envisage it will be, can only be established when a majority of the people understand it and want it, so there is no point in seeking support on any other basis.

Secondly, you will have noticed that what we are advocating is different - it has never existed. The Tory have-beens have nothing new to offer. The local Labour Party, if re-elected, will continue its futile exercise of trying to manage Blair's system based upon exploitation in the interest of the exploited. The Liberals, if given half the chance, will pursue the vicious policy of dancing to the tune of profitability while human needs are ignored, with just as much gusto as Blair's henchmen or Cameron's confusionists.

This short pre-election statement can be summarised: Do you agree with the following statements:

- Capitalism puts profits for the few before the needs of the many.
- Labour governments, "Communist" states and proposals to reform the present system cannot establish socialism.
- Socialism is yet to exist.
- Socialism means a society of common ownership and democratic control, where production is solely for use.
- Socialism means a world without buying or selling, where people give freely of their abilities and take according to their needs.
- When a majority - including those who abstained in 1997 - understand and want socialism, the new system will be established.

If you think the above statements are correct then we thank you - if you are on the electoral roll for the Monkton Ward - to take the time to vote for us. If you disagree, please tell us why.

John Bissett

John Bissett is The Socialist Party candidate for the Monkton Ward in the forthcoming South Tyneside local council elections. For more information about the Socialist Party - and its companion parties in the World Socialist Movement - please send an email to spgb@worldsocialism.org

Joseph Dietzgen - The Workers Philosopher

From the Socialist blog, Mailstrom:

"April the 17th 1888 Joseph Dietzgen died . In memory , I post this article written by Adam Buick for the journal Radical Philosophy 10. Spring 1975."

Brendan Behan's Borstal Boy (1958)

Book Review from the December 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Borstal Boy by Brendan Behan

Brendan Behan at the age of sixteen came from Dublin to Liverpool with an I.R.A. "do it yourself Kit." for the purpose of blowing up Cammell Lairds. He was arrested, and after a stay in Walton Detention Prison, Liverpool, was sent for three years to a Borstal Institution in East Anglia. The book (published by Hutchinson) tells of his experiences in these places.

He speaks of the filth and brutality which existed at Walton Prison, and there is no reason to disbelieve it. Life in Borstal, however, was much different. In fact, it smacks of Tom Brown's Schooldays and the Gem and Magnet. Chaps played the game - the Borstal game - apart from the occasional cad, house masters and house captains were sports. There were escapades, larkies and some horseplay. In fact, Behan and Co. at Borstal looks rather like Harry Wharton and Co., at Greyfriars. The youthful I.R.A. terrorist even assumed a Borstal school tie attitude, and he said his chinas came to regard the college boys they met via the Rugby field as being something of bounders. Behan also considered that he had a more cultivated and educated mind than the college products.

One of the defects of the book is that the conversation is so loaded or over-loaded with barrack room lingo that it fails to trigger off effectively. In fact, the constant repetition of stereotyped swear words takes on the chant of a litany. If one wants to substitute the soporific effect of counting imaginary sheep-jumping over a stile, then counting the swear-words which appear at such regular and monotonous intervals in the book will prove just effective. One feels that the author exploits the swearing gimick in an attempt to impart a vitality and excitement to the conversation which it often lacks. In any case, bad language is not necessarily a criterion of bad boys, even "good boys" often indulge in it.

Behan himself outswears the wide boys, the screws, toughies and ponces. But surely if one is describing a drug addict one does not have to take dope for the purpose of so doing. He seems naive enough to believe that "wicked words" are the hall mark of masculinity, especially his masculinity, when more often than not they are a bawdy blanket to cover a paucity of effective expression.

In spite of all the tumult and violence of the book, it has a monastic quality in that nothing of any significance from the outside world ever seeps in. Not even the war which was going on at the time is mentioned, in fact, the author never seems to have really noticed it. There is no serious discussion, not even about Ireland. Behan indulges in rodomantade about Irish politics, religion and history, but never indicates that he has any grasp of the underlying economic and political factors of Irish history.

Behan might say that he takes the world as he finds it. But what he finds in it is precious little, although he is often a little precious about it. His characters might be incorrigible and by certain standards a little impossible, but it seems vide the author that they live in the best of all possible worlds. He sees nothing wrong with the world and his only "revolutionary" aim, it seems, to use his own words, is to become a rich red.

Behan at least went to Borstal wearing a slightly glamourised would-be Martyr's crown. He came out none the worse, perhaps even a little better for it. But what of the mal-adjusted, the misfits and the unfortunates; what happened to them? That, perhaps, is the most disquieting thing of all, but Behan never mentions it.

He has nothing to say against patriotism or nationalism either of the English, Irish or any other variety. He seems to regard many Englishmen as stiff-necked and arrogant, but sees no reason why they should not be either in their native country or to people who come from other countries. But in a world of conflicting national interests, being pro Irish, English or American, means even at the best of times being negatively anti-something else. In the worse times such feelings take on an active and hostile form.

Behan's book is of a piece with Behan himself, bumptious, bouncing and bawdy, with a hint of hindsight and flashes of poetry. It is genuinely funny in places, but suffers from repetition. Behan at least has a sense of bubbling humour which pops and fizzes in all sorts of unexpected places and is a refreshing contrast to the "look back in anger," chip on the shoulder, the world owes me a living, writers who have set a literary fashion.

He has himself become rather fashionable, but literary fashions, like women's fashions, change quickly, and unless his future output is more significant than his past and present ones, Behan might easily become an has Behan.

Ted Wilmott

Next Sunday in France

From the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back

Next Sunday people in France will be voting in the first round of the French presidential elections. They will have a choice of 12 candidates, including one from the so-called Socialist Party, another from the so-called Communist Party, three Trotskyists and an "anti-capitalist".

We are often asked why all those calling themselves socialist don't just get together. The programme of the Trotskyist candidates in these elections provides one answer. When we contest elections, we campaign only for socialism as a worldwide system of society, without frontiers, based on the common ownership and democratic control of productive resources, with produced solely for use not for profit. When the Trotskyists contest elections, they hardly ever mention even their (mistaken) conception of socialism (which in reality is state capitalism). They assume that capitalism will continue and offer only reforms to it, thus contributing to the illusion that capitalism could be made to work in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers.

A case in point is Lutte Ouvriere, the premier Trotskyist organisation in France. Here's how they describe their candidate's programme in the latest issue of their French-language theoretical journal Lutte de classe:

"The three major problems for the popular classes are the persistence of unemployment at an unacceptable level, the continual decline of the purchasing power of the toiling classes and the catastrophic state of housing for the people. These necessitate an urgent solution. This urgent solution requires a different use of the high profits realised by enterprises over many years. It is from these profits as well as from the hand-outs given to enterprises by the State at a loss that must be taken the funds needed to finance the maintaining of employment in the private sector and to create new ones, useful to the population, in the public sector".

In other words, capitalism, including a private sector, is to continue and there is a "solution", even an "urgent" one, within it: to use the profits of capitalist enterprises to create new jobs and build new and better houses. This is just demagogy as there is no solution to unemployment and bad housing under capitalism, as the experience of capitalism shows let alone a knowledge of Marx's analysis of how capitalism works.

But it gets worse. The naughty capitalists have, apparently, not been using their profits properly:

"The unprecedented profits accumulated by enterprises are not used for real investments, i.e. for the building of new factories, the manufacture of new machines, the enlargement of productive capacities with jobs as a consequence. That's the essential reason for the present economic crisis. Instead of enlarging the basis of production, the accumulated money is more and more financialised and only used for those false investments that are the take-over of enterprises by each other. Unable to enlarge the market with a sufficient rate of profit, the main aim of enterprises is to dispute with others their share of the market. The competition between them to outbid each other sustains a speculative spiral which, in addition, threatens the economy with a new stock exchange or monetary crisis".

There's a solution to this too:

"The only way to stop this rush towards the abyss is for the popular classes, the population, to impose their control over enterprises, over the choices made by their managements. The population must be able to exercise control over the enterprises day by day, over their finances, their strategies, their choices, their short and long term projects, so as to be able to oppose projects which manifestly go against the interests of society".

We don't know if they really believe that all that is needed to get enterprises to produce in "the interests of society" rather than for profit is popular control over their investment decisions, but that's what they say, so giving the impression that this would be possible under capitalism. That capitalism could be reformed in this way is of course just another reformist illusion.

We suspect we know what they are going to reply in response to this criticism: that these promises are only a "transitional programme" designed to lead workers, who can't understand the "abstract" idea of socialism, to realise through the experience of the failure of these reformist measures the need to get rid of capitalism (actually, to establish state capitalism as in Russia under Lenin and Trotsky).

In other words, there's a subtle theory for the "vanguard" and demagogic reformist promises for the thicko "masses".

Either they believe their promises (in which case they are reformists). Or they are just offering them as bait to win followers (in which case they are disreputable manipulators). Either way they stand condemned. Which is why we are just as opposed to them as to the openly pro-capitalist candidates.

We say that workers in France who want socialism can show this by dropping a paper marked "SOCIALISME MONDIAL" into the ballot box.

Adam Buick

Consumerism or Socialism?

From the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Money Back:

According to Channel Five TV, consumerism is one of the Big Ideas that Changed the World. Jonathon Porritt, hobnobber with royalty, supporter of reformed capitalism, and pale green activist, was presenter of the programme on consumerism of 10 April. He made some good critical points about the threat to sustainability of growing world consumerism, but concluded by advocating reforming it rather than getting rid of it.

It is fast becoming clear that the growing capitalist world market will not be able to raise the material standard of everyone living on the planet to that enjoyed at present by people living in the "prosperous" west. The present world population is around 6.5 billion and is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050. The population of the "developed" world is expected to stabilise at around 1.2 billion. All of the extra 2.5 people expected to be living in 2050 will be in the current "developing" world.

There has been speculation about where the resources needed to sustain a larger world population at a good standard of living will come from. Optimists writing in 1995 thought it would take three additional planets to support the whole world's increased population at the standards of the industrialised world. In 2005 a more pessimistic estimate was that "we would have to discover four Earth-like planets to accommodate them all."

A big part of the problem is that capitalism isn't really geared to meeting human needs; it likes to create, and then satisfy human wants. The top end of the market lavishly caters for the wants of people with plenty of money to spend. The bottom end of the market sells cheap (and often shoddy or unhealthy) goods and services to people with little money but who need them. The market doesn't cater at all for people with no money - they have to rely on stealing, charity or handouts.

When William Morris was writing about socialism at the end of the 19th century the term "consumerism" hadn't been invented. Imagine if he were writing about the situation today (with apologies to Fiona MacCarthy, arguably the best of Morris's biographers):
A-z-list celebrities? Bargain breaks? Bottom-line accounting? Business parks ? Buy to let? Chat shows? Corporate sponsorship? Craft fayres? Customer loyalty? Debt counselling? Designer clothes? Drug culture? Enterprise environment? Fast food? Freebie magazines? Gurus? Health farms? Junk bonds/food/mail? Leisure centres? Life-style coaching? Money laundering? Niche marketing? Paparazzi? Pet boutiques? Political correctness? Pulp fiction? Reality shows? Retail therapy? Sell your story? Shopping malls? Soap operas? Sound bites? Spaghetti junctions? Surveillance cameras? Theme parks and pubs? Trophy wives? Two for the price of one? Video porn? Vip lounges? War memorabilia?

"Damned pigs! Damned fools!" You can hear Morris expostulate, robust, fidgety, tremendous, pulling out the hairs (singly) from his great prophetic beard.

Stan Parker

A Message To The Troops

'Since Patsy died, I've not really liked country, but . . .'

William Wilberforce was a nasty Tory

From the SPGB blog, Socialism Or Your Back:

If you believe all the eulogies to him recently for pushing through the Act of Parliament 200 years ago banning slave trading in the British Empire you might be surprised that he's not called Saint William. But for that he'd have to have been a Catholic whereas he was an evangelical Christian of the Anglican persuasion. He was a founder of a "Society for the Suppression of Vice and Encouragement of Religion" which specialised in prosecuting people for enjoying themselves on the Sabbath. He supported "the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate" as the natural order of things and preached to the poor that:

"their more lowly path has been allotted to them by the hand of God; that it is their part faithfully to discharge its duties and contentedly to bear its inconveniences; that the present state of things is very short; that the objects, about which worldly men conflict so eagerly, are not worth the contest".

In other words, pie in the sky when you die. And

"Remember that we are all fallen creatures, born in sin, and naturally depraved. Christianity recognizes no innocence or goodness of heart" (both quoted by E. P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class).

A nasty piece of work, then. But there's worse. He was a King-and-Country Tory who encouraged mobs to burn effigies of Tom Paine and other "Jacobins", i.e., sympathisers with the democratic pretensions of the French Revolution. He was also instrumental in the passing of the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 under which the Tolpuddle Martyrs were later sentenced to transportation to Botany Bay.

A. L. Morton says of him in A People's History of England:

"When the industrial discontent was crossed with political Jacobinism the ruling class was terrified into more drastic action, and the result was the Combination Laws of 1799 and 1800. These laws were the work of Pitt and his sanctimonious friend Wilberforce, whose well known sympathy for the negro slave never prevented him from being the foremost apologist and champion of every act of tyranny in England, from the employment of Oliver the Spy or illegal detention of poor prisoners in Cold Bath Fields gaol to the Peterloo massacre and the suspension of habeas corpus".

Yes, he was opposed to chattel slavery. From a capitalist point of view, this was an outmoded and inefficient method of labour exploitation. They wanted the only form of slavery to be wage slavery. To which Wilberforce had no objection whatsoever.