Letter: Was Che a Socialist? (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the December 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editors,

I've been taking the Socialist Standard for some years now and generally find myself in broad agreement with your analysis of capitalism and the fact that it can't be reformed into true socialism.

I also work and campaign against the US economic blockade of Cuba and all of the ongoing aggression that the World's only superpower makes against this small island that tries so hard to aspire to socialist values. I was somewhat taken aback to find myself and others who try to put a brake on the advances of extreme right wing ideology and global neo-liberalisation, blasted as "Trotskyist" and "anti-working class" in the editorial of your August issue.

I too despise patriotism and nationalism. The reason that I campaign is not for the greater glory of Cuba or of a single personality like Fidel Castro. I also wouldn’t argue for one moment that Cuba and the current Cuban system is perfect or that it represents true socialism. I think we are again in agreement that socialism isn't possible on a single country basis. The point is that the Cuban government and (I believe) a great majority of Cuban people through 40 years of revolutionary education understand and want true socialism on a World-wide basis. The system that they operate has many socialist values and in its achievements gives the world a glimpse of what mankind could aspire to if we could move on from capitalism.

Che Guevara when Cuban Minister of Finance wanted a completely moneyless Cuban society and it is a matter of speculation whether the Cuban Revolution could have survived and prospered if this had been implemented. I think probably not, imports of vital items such as oil have to be paid for on the world markets. Without global socialism and accepting the evil of currency, Cuba has still managed to achieve a huge amount both within the country and in the rest of the world. I think that the fact that Cuba didn’t collapse when the Soviet Union folded is because its system has always represented something different and far closer to true socialism than the state capitalism of the USSR.

Elsewhere in the August issue, you list facts and figures about poverty and starvation in the rest of the world. The terrible statistics that you give occur in countries that are forced to operate ever harder capitalist systems by organisations like the IMF and the World Bank. You report that 12 million children under 5 years of age die each year of whom the majority could be saved. In Cuba, the infant mortality rate is 7.2 per 1000 births. That’s lower than Sweden and many poorer areas in the UK. There is one doctor for every 75 persons, which is the highest ratio in the world. This is despite the blockade of the US, which means that drugs, medicines and technology controlled by the US dominated pharmaceutical trade can't be bought at any price. You relay that 110 million children don’t attend primary school and 275 million don’t go to a secondary school. Not one of them is Cuban! Literacy rates are almost 100 percent. When it comes to life expectancy, you report that there is a variance of 20 to 35 years between "rich" and "poor" countries. You don’t mention the one exception of Cuba where the life expectancy is now over 76 years. I don’t think it would fall into your definition of a rich country would it? I could go on listing the achievements of the Cuban revolution in many other fields, such as sport, art and music. I could also mention the tremendous spirit of internationalism that Cuba has always displayed. In Angola, hundreds of thousands of Cubans volunteered and many died defeating the nuclear-armed apartheid forces of South Africa. Cuban doctors are currently working free of charge in many third world countries in gestures of solidarity. More causalities from the Chernobyl disaster where treated by Cuban doctors than any other nationality. Thousands of Africans and Latin Americans have been educated in Cuban schools and universities.

All of this has been achieved despite the continual attacks of the US. They have tried everything from full-scale invasion, to biological weapons and spreading disease, to numerous well-documented assassination attempts on Fidel Castro. There have been 40 years of a steadily increasing trade and economic blockade and much more besides. What capitalist country would be able to stand such pressures?

I believe that the reason the US, the power base of the capitalists, expends so much effort in trying to snuff out the Cuban revolution is simply because they are terrified of the Socialist example that it sets. Why else would they prevent their own citizens from travelling there? If Cuba can make and retain such remarkable gains for their people from their own limited version of socialism, then what could be achieved on a World-wide scale? I think that Cuba gives a tiny taste of the potential of socialism. The Cuban message that the US and world capitalists are trying so hard to silence should be amplified by socialists across the world to help explain why socialism is a superior system to capitalism.

Perhaps in view of these points you could answer the following questions for me:

1. Do you think that Che Guevara was a true socialist, even though he was also a revolutionary?

2. What do you think of Castro's prediction that a global economic crisis is inevitable and that this will provide the trigger for a new era of World-socialism?

Martin Lawson-Smith, 

Bampton, Oxon

Reply: 

What do you mean "a true socialist, even though he was also a revolutionary"? A "true socialist" has to be a revolutionary in the sense of wanting a rapid change from minority class ownership to common ownership by all the people as the basis of society. Such a social revolution doesn't have to involve violence, insurrection, civil war, street battles, and executions as in the mistaken, popular conception of "revolution". The criterion for judging whether someone is a revolutionary or not is whether they want a rapid and decisive change in the basis of society, not the means they advocate to bring this about.

So what about Guevara? To have wanted to carry out an experiment in organising production without money, as was in fact done on a small island off the Cuban mainland for a while, shows that he must have had some notion of what socialism involves. But his approach was elitist: that an enlightened minority could seize power and then liberate the masses from above by educating them in socialist ideas.

Although he probably developed this approach independently, it was also that of Lenin who had himself inherited it from various 19th century revolutionaries. These despaired of the down-trodden and uneducated masses they could see around them ever being able to come to want socialism under the capitalist conditions that had degraded them. The conclusion they drew was that, if socialism was to be established, the enlightened minority who did want socialism would have to seize power and establish their own rule, their own dictatorship in fact, and use it to free the unenlightened masses from the grip of capitalist ideas.

It was a theory that socialism could only be established by, if you like, a benevolent dictatorship. Guevara was in this tradition. But, as Marx had already pointed out to his fellow 19th century revolutionaries, it was a flawed theory. Socialism by its very nature required popular participation; the working class could not be liberated from above by some self-appointed enlightened minority but only by its own actions.

This is our approach too. But it wasn't Guevara's. He still believed in what Engels criticised as "revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses". But what happens when such a small minority does succeed in winning and holding on to power? Because the "unconscious masses" don't want or understand socialism a key condition for its establishment is missing, so whatever happens socialism can't be the outcome. Not being able to establish socialism the new rulers find themselves obliged to govern what is inevitably still essentially a capitalist economy based on wage-labour, money-commodity relations and trading—which is why we say that Cuba, just like Leninist Russia used to, has a state-run capitalist economy.

The enlightened minority may try to do this more or less "benevolently"—and we are prepared to recognise that this is what Castro, Guevara and the others genuinely tried to do—but this doesn't make much difference as what can be done, and what happens, is determined not by political will but by economic conditions. You yourself recognise this when you say that in Cuba "imports of vital items such as oil have to be paid for on the world markets". But to pay for them goods have to be exported and sold on world markets too and, in Cuba's case, this has largely meant sugar. To maximise sugar sales on the world market—so as to maximise the money needed to pay for vital imports and develop the country—the price has to be competitive, so production costs have to be kept down. But production costs include the wages of those working in the sugar industry.

Castro, Guevara and the others were in an impossible position: they wanted to improve the living standards of the "unconscious masses" but were severely limited as to what they could do by world market conditions and in fact, as the government of a state-run capitalist economy in the context of global capitalism, were in a sense obliged to impose the restrictions on consumption that world market conditions imposed. Conditions are certainly better in Cuba than there were under Batista before 1956 but we are not sure that workers in Cuba would agree that conditions there are as rosy as you paint them.

Another problem with the view that an enlightened minority should seize power with a view to liberating the unenlightened masses is that the minority can come to justify, as part of its programme of uprooting capitalist ideas, coercion against so-called "backward" elements within the working class who are accused of clinging to capitalist ideas to the detriment of the common good—and in Cuba as well as in Russia one idea that has been classified as backward is pressure for a higher individual wage or salary, denounced as selfish "economism". Similarly, those who advocate free speech can also be seen as dangerous on the grounds that this would allow free rein to the capitalist ideas which hold the unenlightened masses in their grip. So it is not just people in the pay of the CIA or of Cuban gangster businessmen in Miami who end up in jail but also genuine trade unionists and advocates of free speech. Socialists like ourselves probably would too.

As to Castro's prediction, we certainly think that, since capitalism is subject to periodic slumps and is a global system, global economic crises are inevitable from time to time. In fact the world seems to be heading for a new one before even fully getting out of the last one. We would like to think that this would trigger off a world-wide movement for global socialism but experience has unfortunately shown that there is not necessarily a fixed one-to-one relationship between economic crises and the growth of socialist ideas. Other factors too are involved and only time will tell how the socialist movement will fare as capitalism lurches into its next crisis—Editors.

Why socialism is still relevant (2004)

From the August 2004 issue of the Socialist Standard

Little, it seems, has changed in the one hundred years of our party’s existence. At the time of its foundation our members were duelling in the letters pages of the left-press, against the advocates of indirectness, palliation and reform of capitalism; insisting instead that “the shortest distance between two points is a straight line”. This simple point, it seems, has yet to be grasped by the Left.

Where we have a controversial war in Iraq to contend with, they had a controversial war in South Africa. Where they had the main Marxian sect – from which they actually split off – the Social Democratic Federation, doing dirty deals with Tories to help defeat Liberals, we have the Socialist Workers Party doing dirty deals with religious confusionists to try and take votes off Labour. Where the jingo press of 1904 wailed and trembled about floods of immigrants from eastern Europe, today’s wails and trembles about floods of immigrants from Eastern Europe.

This is not because there is nothing new under the sun, but because the essence of our social system has not changed. Despite the spread of telecommunications, electricity, internal combustion engines, synthetic fibres and sundry consumer goods, the basic logic of our social system remains the same.

We remain trapped in a world organised into units of property called nation-states; a system that prompts periodic wars over who has – or can deny – ownership of natural resources and trade routes. Within those nation-states, the owners command the forced labour of the populations, who are compelled into wage slavery under threat of poverty. They hand their ability to work over to these national proprietors to be used to produce a profit. Having thus sold their abilities, they then have to use the wages they receive to obtain the goods they need to go on living and selling their skills.

In order to keep hold of their property against an overwhelming majority and their rival owners, the master class sows all the while division and fear of strangers among their workers, via their ownership of the means of mass communication, that jingo press.

No profit, no production

Then, as now, the three hard and fast laws of capitalism obtained: can’t pay, can’t have – irrespective of how dire is your need. No profit, no production – no matter how useful the goods are. No profit, no employment – no matter how skilled or devoted you are.  Demonstrate a profit or you’re out.  Then, as now, the first principle of society is that the tiny handful of parasites who own it must be satisfied above all else; making us dance like marionettes on strings of property law, financial chicanery and effective demand. The predominant activity in the modern world is producing goods for sale in order to realise a profit. In short, the cause of our Party’s formation, capitalism, continues.

Not just continues, but grows. In Britain today, there are some 28 million people engaged in wage slavery, working an average of over 40 hours a week – a record. It’s no wonder then, when we spend all that time working for our masters, that we have such little time to look after ourselves. This, not ‘Tory cuts’ or ‘Labour incompetence’ is the source of the intractable problems of useful services. It is that our society is not run for us but for its owners.

It is portrayed as a triumph of the Labour government that more people than ever before are exploited in wage slavery. The entirety of the Labourites’ ideas extends to trying to make capitalism work. If the state, they say, can remove impediments to the market, we can make the market work for all. This has been the mantra of Labour from its very inception: if the right people can get into powerful positions, the interests of the workers will be looked after, and all will be well. New Labour is not some aberration, a betrayal of the old glorious cause; Labour is about trying to make capitalism work under new management.

Our Party was formed to oppose the Labour Party

We do not want more jobs, more employment, more prostitution of our lives’ energies to the gain of the profit takers. We do not want a society where we are told we live in a democracy, and yet all our security and future happiness depends on the tides of money-owners’ whims. Where we are told we live in a democracy, yet spend the best years of our lives obeying dictator bosses lest we be sacked. Where we are told we live in a democracy, yet all we can do is elect politicians who appoint ministers who go cap in hand to the people who own our society, and ask them very nicely if we can have a little consideration, some of the wealth we have produced, back.

Six-time failures

We have had six Labour governments, six attempts at running capitalism in the interests of the wage-slaves. Each and every one of those governments has run aground, when the time came for it to implement policies in the interest of the profit takers against the interests of the wealth creators. The present attempt goes on with its plans to increase services, to end child poverty within the next two decades, and yet all it has achieved is a decline in the growth of the divide between poverty and riches.

Even, let us imagine, if they meet their child poverty targets, this still means decades more of the horrors of poverty for millions of children. This, apparently, must be so because Holy Property must not be infringed, and the right of one person to untold wealth comes before the very right to live of scores of others. All they can do is tinker with the wages system, wrap up their help in the contract of the sale of labour-power.

The means to end poverty, though, are with us now. They have been with us for a hundred years or more. That has, though, gone unnoticed, and the working class have gone on supporting Labour, and thus supporting capitalism. Who, perhaps, could blame them, when the only alternative appeared to be offered by the Leninist left, who offered the same as Labour, except with more soldiers and secret police?

We need to be clear here – the working class has continued to support capitalism, else Labour would not have proposed its capitalist policies to win their votes. They accepted the existence of the labour market, of the three core principles of capitalism. The buying and selling of all in life has taken on the appearance of a fact of nature, rather than as the man-made artefact it is. So the possibilities of producing for needs, of using our energy directly to end poverty did not come to mind, and only schemes that abided by the law of ‘can’t pay can’t have’ have ever been considered.

The Socialist Party, though, has always sought to debunk this mythology of capitalism. To show how our present system was made by humans, and so can be unmade by them. To show how these apparently natural laws of capitalism are in fact the vested interest of a tiny section of our society. To show that poverty is not a question of things and how they are distributed, but is fundamentally linked to the productive logic and priorities of a profit-based system of production.

The continued existence of the Socialist Party, then, holds out the hope of the working class coming to understand those possibilities for abolishing poverty and acting in accordance with them. The Socialist Party continues to put its unique case: democratic revolution to establish the co-operative commonwealth.

Our principles are developed from, and build upon the analysis of capitalism by Marx and Engels. Where they saw, though, the newly formed working class as being outside and against their society, we see the working class now running society from top to bottom. A self-disciplined working class that turns up to work and voluntarily implements the interests of the property owners. The waged and salaried class reproduces capitalism through its own labour, and by the same means it can transform it into socialism. The revolution will be made by workers asking themselves: how does my workplace help society, and how do we make it do it better?

Democratic revolution

For this reason, we reject the leftist course of a vanguard seizing power down the barrel of a gun. Such a course is doomed to failure. Socialism cannot come about unless and until the working class consciously wants to change the system of society. You cannot create the free association of producers by the crack of a commissar’s whip. Without the conscious application of the workers’ organisational knowledge and skills, the building of socialism is as likely as the chances of the famous monkeys typing out Shakespeare.

Hence we reject war and violence as a means of making revolution. Where other parties are able to stand up and promote murder as a means of achieving their ends, we understand that it can only ever weaken our class, a class dependent upon an integrated system of production for its well-being. Mayhem and destruction are the political tools of bygone ruling classes. The feudal rulers for whom war was their reason for being. The capitalist class, willing to pursue lethal force as a competitive edge. The strength of the working class, though, is our creative power, our task to build a new world, not smash an old one. We are the last defenders of civilisation when all other parties turn to barbarism as a quick fix.

We have seen that once millions of workers take to the streets and begin to demand change, no force can stop them. All parties vie for the workers’ votes, with promises of jobs and security. When the workers move, society moves with us. We are the politically determining class. Hence the mutation of the Tories from the party of old Etonians to that of organised business run by grammar school social climbers, with a membership and internal democracy. Even the bastions of natural right give way before the world-view of the working class.

Revolution, though, isn’t just about street power. Where political democracy exists, it offers us the chance to come together and transform the machinery of state from being an instrument of rationing into an administration for co-ordinating our free labour.

We have everything we need to make the revolution in the way we live, now.

All is in readiness for the belling of the capitalist cat, all that has to happen is for us to decide to do it. For this reason, the Socialist Party continues to put forth a clear conception of socialism: a properly democratic and classless society, where the free development of each shall be the condition for the free development of all, and where all can share in the common treasury without buying and selling,according to their needs. Where our free labour is the source and guarantee of our mutual freedom.

Where others have abused the name of socialism to lead the workers to the gulag, the prison camp or the police state, we have stood firm, and refused to compromise our understanding of socialism. Though at times it feels like we may be talking to thin air, we continue to put the socialist case. We do not chase the chimeras of China, Cuba, Venezuela or wherever some form of revolt within capitalism appears. We stand fast by our case for socialism and nothing but.

Just as when we were founded the left was creating the Labour Party, so now they are trying to rebuild it according to their dreams of what it should have been. Now, as then, they are mistaken. Now, as then, the case for socialism needs to be heard, lest the working class pursue another sterile century of Labourism and capitalism. 

Though we have waited a hundred years, we still believe in our principle that we call upon the workers to join with us “so that a speedy termination may be wrought to the system that deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom” – not just because we can, but because we must.

Bill Martin

(Text of a talk given at the centenary meeting of the Socialist Party on 12 June)

Why socialists do not vote for capitalism (1988)

From the August 1988 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism will be established only when a majority of workers understand and want it. It cannot be imposed upon the population "for their own good", and nor can voters be tricked into going for socialism by offering them something else as bait.

The Socialist Party stands in elections on a platform of uncompromised socialism. We do not offer to reform capitalism; we do not pose as leaders. Our position is that the workers must emancipate themselves. Only those who understand and accept socialist principles are asked to vote for socialist candidates. Furthermore, those workers who only half agree or disagree with bits of what we say or like our candidate, but not our policies, are emphatically urged not to vote for the Socialist Party. We will only take class-conscious votes; it is the capitalist parties who need the other kind in order to win political power. Of course, it is not only at election time that socialists seek support for our principles: anyone wishing to join the Socialist Party must demonstrate that they know exactly what we stand for. We will accept no second-class members - no associate comrades who go along with us some of the way, but not all. Socialist knowledge must be the basis for involvement in the serious struggle for world socialism.

Is the Socialist Party some sort of dogmatic sect which refuses to admit the impure into its hallowed temple? This question os put by those who sneer at our principles because they themselves have none and find political principle an embarrassment. No, we are not out to maintain a small, select party. On the contrary, we are anxious to recruit members, and recruit them fast into the ranks of our movement. We do not expect every new member to have read the complete works of Marx or deliver lectures on subjects of theoretical complexity. All that we require is basic socialist knowledge: What is capitalism? What is socialism? What do we mean by socialist revolution? How can it be brought about? What is our position on religion, reforms, Russia — the three Rs. In short, we will only accept socialists into the Socialist Party, in much the same way as a golf club will only accept members who want to use the grass to play golf on, not cricket. The movement must prefigure its aim; the end must determine the means.

At the moment the Socialist Party is incapable of contesting all electoral constituencies. Where we do not put up candidates we urge those who agree with our principles to write 'Socialism' across their ballot papers. This is an indication that at least some workers wish to use their votes to support ideas which none of the candidates is offering.

Is it ever permissible to vote for non-socialist candidates? Let us say that the Tory is one of the biggest swines in that party of rogues and the Labour candidate one of the finest idealists in that party of betrayed hopes and anti-socialist principles. Would it not be better to vote for the lesser evil? Not on any account. Firstly, it is the elected candidate's party which will run capitalism, and capitalism always gets its way. Secondly, when you vote for the capitalist system you cannot abstain from responsibility for the iniquitous effects of its operation. You cannot vote for capitalism without the nasty bits. Thirdly, every vote cast for capitalism is a vote against socialism: you are effectively kicking on the teeth the one real alternative to the problems of society. Indeed, by electing the so-called lesser evil, it can be argued that you are making capitalism look pleasanter. that you are helping to make the stench of the profit system smell more like a rose.

What if certain capitalist parties have policies from which socialists could benefit? For example, if they advocated a law allowing all political parties free TV time. Why then would socialists refuse to vote for such parties? Firstly, because just as you do not vote for only one candidate, so you do not vote for only one policy. The party which supports free air TV time will also support all kinds of other atrocious measures necessary for the running of capitalism. Secondly, by voting for a party advocating a policy you are voting for a leader and therefore relegating yourself to the role of follower. Nobody forces workers to follow; we have the choice not to do so. Thirdly, because capitalist leaders have every freedom to break their promises. They might tell you that they will provide free TV time for all parties. but when in power they could soon drop the policy. Or they could water it down so as to make it meaningless. Free TV time for all parties, but not for those receiving too few votes, or not those which oppose the monarchy, or which the BBC considers to hold non-serious ideas.

The Socialist Party has adhered to clear principles since its formation and will continue to be hostile to all the sordid and dishonest political tactics which typify the capitalist system, whoever seeks to run it.

Steve Coleman 

"It's only human nature" (2001)

From the September 2001 issue of the Socialist Standard

The idea that human beings are naturally selfish, greedy or lazy cannot survive a moment's critical thought

How often do we hear it said "It's only human nature?" And mostly about some gross piece of behaviour as if it couldn't be avoided? Curiously, it is not often said about the best things that people can do. On hearing that someone has risked their life to save another, for some reason we are not inclined to say "Yes, it's human nature." But then, none of these variations of good or bad behaviour are determined by our "nature." We behave differently in different social settings and this is evident from everyday experience. So, in explaining behaviour we must look at the social context in which it happens.

Mostly, the idea of "human nature " is a reflection of a divisive society that is incapable of creating a decent life for all its members. This failure is then rationalised as a pessimistic view that all people (mainly other people) are inherently selfish, greedy, and lazy. In its nationalist or racist mode this idea of human nature attributes various characteristics to whole groups of people. This is thinking in stereotypes. For example, people from Germany are often said to be naturally cruel, militaristic, humourless and obedient to authority. Some groups or classes are seen as culturally inferior or of lower intelligence. This becomes part of ideology used to justify domination and exploitation. And all this prejudice, none of which can survive a moment's critical thought has been used politically to resist progress. It has been used as an objection to socialism. In this argument all the bad examples of human behaviour which in the main are generated by capitalism are called upon to say that a society based on equality and voluntary co-operation is impossible.

Not genetically programmed

This prejudice is also reinforced by arguments which assert that our behaviour and our relationships result from the way we are biologically or genetically programmed. Again these focus on competition, leadership, possessiveness, aggression, social and sexual inequality and an alleged drive to be territorial but, again, all these are behaviour patterns that reflect capitalism. Ever since it became the dominant system its defenders have presented economic individualism and competition as an expression of our human nature and therefore the natural order of things. But if this were true, then throughout all history, society would never have varied. If our social arrangements were determined by our biology then there would never have been the great diversity of behaviour patterns, relationships and culture that is the real story of our past and which is evident even in the way we live now. The arguments that our behaviour is determined by our physical inheritance may pose as science but in reality they are socially determined prejudice used as part of crude political ideology.

These are some of the attitudes that were discussed at the well-attended Day School on Human Nature in London in July. The discussion also considered what we can learn from art and language in understanding the human make-up; the answers to objections to socialism on grounds of human nature; and whether we can form conclusions from needs. Also, because the subject of human nature is clouded by racism, nationalism, and vested interests, the day school considered what we can say about human nature that is scientifically based and would be true of all people regardless of culture and changes throughout history.

Toolmaking, language and thought

We can certainly define features of human nature that mark us off from other species and which predispose us to live as social beings. These act together and include the ability to walk upright, binocular colour vision, hands with opposable thumbs, organs capable of speech, and the ability to think conceptually. In combination these features led to a species whose behaviour is not biologically determined but is flexible and versatile. These physical features also led to a labour process, a tradition of toolmaking and an ability to accumulate experience socially. This meant that improvements in technique achieved by one generation could be passed on to the next who might then work out their own improvements. Computers and space vehicles are in the same line of tool development as were the improvements in flint-working technique during the long period of the paleolithic. Seen in this light, society is itself a product of labour.

It may have been that this toolmaking tradition played a key part in the development of human consciousness. The tools made by early human kind objectified the existence of the tool makers and in contemplating this they become conscious of their own existence. This reflection of their own lives in their own creations may have led to a heightened self awareness and an ability to think in an expanded timeframe of past, present and future. Language could then develop from basic references to material objects to higher levels of abstract thought which expressed a developing, more complex vision of their world. It was possibly then that humanity created ideas and culture, becoming less instinctive and more decision-making. Through this dynamic interaction between human characteristics and the environment which was essentially the labour process, humankind not only altered their conditions of life, they changed themselves. What this required was not an invariable set of behaviour patterns programmed by genetic coding but adaptability.

Predisposed for co-operation

But none of this would have been possible without co-operation. Whilst we may not say that co-operation is programmed through our genes, it is certainly predisposed by our physical make-up. It was agreed at the Day School that without co-operation society would never have got off the ground. To say that we are naturally co-operative is much closer to the truth than saying we are naturally competitive.

This is the case for at least two important reasons. Firstly, by co-operating with others through a division of labour we greatly increase what we can produce for our mutual benefit. This is not only true of the consumption of goods; co-operation has led to our enjoyment of art, music, drama, sport and all entertainment. It has led to science and our greatly expanded knowledge of the world, its systems and its place in the universe. Without all these things made possible by co-operation, life would not just be impoverished, it would be unthinkable.

But co-operation gives us more than material benefits. It is through co-operation that we develop as individuals. Our individuality grows and finds its expression in relation to others and this would be impossible in social isolation. In this process of individual growth we draw not only on personal relationships, we draw on society in general and even on the lives of those who lived in the past.

Co-operation is sometimes said to be impossible because there is an inherent conflict between self-interest and the interests of others. In fact, the reverse is true. The interests of the individual are best realised when people are working together. The best achievements of one person can enhance the lives of all people.

The Day School was discussing human nature in a political context. This became a question of which social aims and relationships would be compatible with the human make-up – those of capitalism or socialism? In this choice there can be no contest. The profit system with its power structures, corporate greed and exploitation divides humanity. It creates hate, death and destruction and starves half the world's people. Through common ownership and production solely for needs socialism will unite all people in organising and working for common interests. These are the relationships in which co-operation and all the best qualities of being human will find their full expression.

Pieter Lawrence

A Renewed Acquaintanceship. (1915)

From the September 1915 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the cessation of our propaganda meetings the time hitherto spent in that direction may be spent in various ways. Our internal affairs, our Party press, and our "relations" with our comrades in distant climes are sufficient to absorb most of the meagre leisure-time allowed us by our exploiters; but the absense of the stress and hustle of our out-door work presents an occasional opportunity for us to "rest on our oars." If not one of the most instructive, at least one of the most amusing ways of employing ourselves on these occasions is to reflect for a few moments on the types of opponents who have essayed battle with us from time to time.

Our opponents have been, like the younger Mr. Weller's knowledge of London was, extensive and peculiar. We have had the obvious axe-grinding party hack, the honest seeker after truth, the hopeless ignoramus, the mealy-mouthed, unctuous Little Bethelite, the blustering, bucolic Tory blood, and a whole horde of others. All had their interesting points, but there was one individual among them who impressed himself upon the present writer above all others.

He was a short, sparsely built man; his eyes were sad and sombre; he spoke deferentially and at times nervously. The sufferings of the working class he told us, he knew were terrible. Something ought to be done, he thought, to alleviate their lot. He always assured us of his deep sorrow and sympathy, but he used almost to shrivel up with horror at our remedy. How shocking that we should try to stir up strife between the workers and the masters! Could we not see that our revolutionary doctrines would lead to bloodshed? His little sad eyes would partially close and his fragile frame shudder at the thought.

One could hardly help feeling sorry for this poor fellow. He seemed to be continually brooding over the matter. The possibility of bloodshed seemed to obsess him, and at times his wan appearance bespoke hours of anguish and distress. He surely would worry himself into his grave.

In view of the present happenings it is hardly to be wondered at that one's thoughts should wander off to that poor fellow. With millions of the world's manhood flying at one another's throats, Nature's beauteous plains and dells strewn with the dead and dying bodies of our brothers; with nooks and hillocks, the very charm of which beckons us, used to secrete instruments of death and destruction; with the accumulated knowledge of ages of science surrendered to Mars to perfect his method of murder, who could help feeling genuinely sorry for him? One wondered where he would be hiding himself, that is, if he had survived the shock.

*    *    *

I passed a recruiting station to-day. A voice with a suspicion of familiarity reached my ears and I glanced at the speaker. There he was, our hater of bloodshed, appealing for recruits. His eyes, open wider than ever seemed possible before, were almost bright. One missed his listless carriage; his tone was no longer deferential it could be very nearly be described as defiant. And this is what he said: "I wish I was young enough to take my place in the firing line and help to exterminate those filthy Huns." Blimey! It was a funny experience for me.

W. H. S.

Editorial: The Next Great War. (1914)

Editorial from the November 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The prophets are busy with their prophesying. The same folk who for years have been telling us that the way to ensure peace was to be prepared for war, and who for long have iterated and reiterated the idle phantasy that the very development of the instruments of destruction had abolished the danger of a world wide war by making war too hideous for advanced peoples to tolerate, utterly oblivious to the fact that they have backed the wrong horse every time, now behold in war new hope of eternal peace. This time it is the smashing of Prussian militarism which is to draw every savage tooth and cut every bloody claw, the wide world over, and confer upon this blood-soddened planet surcease from the agony and waste and weariness of war.

We know that, so far was it from being true that to be armed to the teeth was any guarantee of peace, that it was only while the nations were unprepared for war that peace reigned. We know that, so far was it from being true that the development of the instruments of destruction had rendered war too awful for advanced peoples to contemplate, that among the teeming millions of the most advanced races of the earth the greatest triumphs of the engines of butchery were received with the greatest joy. Three torpedoes send fifteen hundred stout and gallant seamen to their graves, and a nation laughs; the guns of British warships kill "fifteen hundred Germans in their trenches in thirty minutes," and half a continent applaud; a single French shell strikes a regiment dead by sheer shock, it is reported, and the most advanced of nations only fear that the report is too good to be true. There is not one of the nine belligerent races, but would hail with acclamations of joy the advent of some new agent of slaughter that would enable their side to mow down men, not by regiments, but by armies.

The claims that peace was to come through armaments no sooner prove themselves to be ludicrously false than we we are told that peace is to come through war. Prussian militarism is to fall, and after that all the swords are to be beaten into plough-shares, and all the bullets cast into printers' letter for the advancement of culture, and all the Tommies turned into tinkers and tailors and raisers of Ostend rabbits and spring onions. And there is to be no more war, and no more iron crosses, and no more wooden ones. So they say who know all about it.

The Socialist, however, knows better. He knows that Prussian militarism has been and is nothing more than the force instrument by means of which German capitalists calculate to win and maintain a preferential place in the world's markets for the products of her factories. The bellicose trait in the make-up of the Kaiser and his militarists, and the remnants of feudalism which still attach to German institutions (to the confusion of many British pseudo-Socialists, who claim that "the German capitalists have yet to win their emancipation") are simply superficialities which are useful to the German capitalists. They mean about as much as the feudal remnants which remain in this country; and, like these latter, they are permitted to remain because, so far are they from indicating that the capitalists have not won their emancipation, that they are only instruments in capitalist hands to prevent the working class from gaining theirs.

It is German capitalist money controlled by the capitalists themselves which has paid for the vast German war machine without which the Kaiser and his war chiefs would be impotent. This money would never have been forthcoming save to further capitalist interests, and those who think that the smashing of "Prussian militarism" is going to set free the Germanic races for the development of industry, and to disarm the nations of the world, are woefully out of it.

Nothing can be plainer than that the mad race for armaments has grown directly out of the development of industry. The expense of modern warfare is so great that only high industrial development can support it. Hence no nation has attained a front-rank place in the race except its armaments are founded upon industrial development. Great Britain, France, and Germany are direct cases, while the might of industrially backward Russia rests largely upon the gold of her allies.

It is clear, then, that it is industrial development itself which produces the modern phenomenon, militarism, neck and neck companion of the modern phenomenon, Imperialism. This is because industrial development means a large and increasing amount of surplus products for which markets have to be found. The power and the need for vast armaments, therefore, go hand in hand, and they develop, not out of Prussian militarism, or Russian militarism, or French militarism, or British militarism, or Japanese militarism, but out of industrial advance.

Granted, then, the uninterrupted development of the present social system, the facts point irresistibly to further great wars. They indicate that no sooner will the present struggle have ceased than diplomats will be at work forming new alliances, and the Krupps and Armstrongs busy evolving fresh "surprises" and mightier means of war.

It was only because German happened to be more advanced industrially, and therefore the more immediate rival, that Great Britain is not on her side now. It may be recalled that, in the anxious days before the war, that powerful vehicle of British capitalist opinion, the "Daily Chronicle," made out a very strong case for taking sides, not against Germany, but against Russia. The fears which prompted this point of view are very significant. The success of the Allies will almost certainly place Russia in a position of unparalleled strength. With her military prestige at its summit, with her capitalists freed by her last two wars from the final restrictions of her feudal nobility, with ruthless taxation driving her peasants into the hands of the usurers, and the usurers driving them from their lands into the towns and factories, with the rapid advance of capitalistic industry in Russia which these things portend, the "Russian menace: commercially will equal the "Russian menace" territorially.

Japan, whose industrial development has been the wonder of the age, and has brought her from obscurity to alliance with "proud Britain," and America, who has already begun to "think Imperially," are also destined to take a very strong line in the struggle for markets.

Hence the road of plotting and scheming and "building up' for the next great war must begin even before the grass grows over the myriads of corpses of this one. And this road of blood and tears must be followed the human race until the working class of the world, for the opportunity to exploit whom all modern wars are fought, determine to find their emancipation in Socialism. In the name of suffering humanity we call you to our banner!

Editorial: The Inkslinger Brigade (1914)

Editorial from the October 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

The inky patriots, the Labour "leaders" and pseudo-Socialists, are rushing to the assistance of the capitalist class in their frantic efforts to obtain cheap recruits and, as in the past, it is left to the Socialist Party to state the working-class position on the matter.

From our platform and in our Press, in face of all opposition, we have always given the only advice that is consistent with class-conscious action.

In "piping times of peace" we have told the workers of this country that their interests are irrevocably bound up with the interests of the workers the world over, and that their enemy, the capitalist class, os one and indivisible whenever and wherever capitalist interests are in any way jeopordised  by the organised working class. In time of war, of international crisis and financial panic, we have the same story to tell, because that story is true and indisputable.

The gang of ink-slingers hired by the capitalist Press to write just what is in the interests of their paymasters, are urging the workers to fight. Their leading articles, their psalms and songs are all to the same effect. The miners who in 1912 were described as "scum" by the same leader writers; the builders' labourers who were locked out to starve for 27 weeks in an attempt to force them to sign away their right to resist the demands of the bosses; the transport workers who were so recently batoned into submission; the Irish whose relatives and friends were ruthlessly butchered in Dublin because they dared to strike; even the South African workers, scarcely recovered from the wounds received in reply to a demand for a living wage, all are now urged to fight.

"The King and Country needs them"! What a different story is now told! The "scum" are heroes. Those who, when fighting for bread for wife and child were "cowardly agitators" are now Brave Britons when appealed to to fight in defence of the landlord's property and the capitalist's trade.

Fellow workers, why is it you are so easily cajoled by such obvious twaddle as the "honour of Britain" and are still more sacred mumbo-jumbo, "the integrity of small States," so soon after the Johannesburg slaughter and the lesson of Transvaal?

You are indeed "brave boys" when you are wanted to defend the right of the "British" landlord to levy toll; to risk your lives that British capitalists may dispose of the surplus values they have robbed from you. And when master says "turn," you all turn. When it was to the interest of the boss to curse the Boers you cursed them and screeched your desire to wring the necks of Kruger and his generals. But the scene changed and Master wanted the Boers to suppress the white miners, and then—well, you obliged and you cheered the Boers. When the mad Kaiser came to this country to confab with his worthy cousin, you lined the streets and shouted yourselves hoarse with cheers for the German Emperor, while now the Kaiser and all his best are but the spawn of hell.

While yet the cries of horror resound, cries of righteous indignation at the brutal atrocities of the Congo, and "red rubber" stained with the blood of the people for the profit of Leopold, King of the Belgians; and ere the outcry against "Bloody Nick," the Tzar of all the Russias, is forgotten, you cheer the "brave Belgians" and point to the "civilising" influences of the Muscovite hosts, the gentle Cossack, our allies.

Does the secret lie in the Press? Each and all the rags that are published for the delectation of the workers tell the same tale, and so used are the workers to "putting their thinking out," that the story, with sundry trimmings and speeches of gore, garnished with sentiment and cheap melodrama, has only to be repeated times enough in order to be believed, while editors and leader writers are to be found galore, ready to sell their pens for any dirty work. "It is in your interest to kill the German worker," they reiterate, and on the other side of the Channel the same tale is being told except that it is the English worker who is to be butchered. So the German worker turns out with the rifle to meet the British worker similarly armed, and Master downs the pockets of both.

Those who turn out to think for themselves and find no honour in trade wars or glory in slaughter; who see only butchery of men and starvation of children, whose interests are not served in the "game of kings"; those who endeavour to voice and pen to rouse the working class to a sense of their responsibility; those who tell the truth as they know it because it is the truth and not because it pays; they should be suppressed, should be torn to pieces by the well-dressed hooligan mob mad with jingo fever — if the writers of the jingo Press had their way. Ah, yes! such is the freedom of the Press.

As instance "The Globe." "The Globe" is a patriotic paper and is owned by patriotic Britishers. It tells us (Aug. 28th) that it "has nothing to say against Socialists as such," a rather frank admission based, no doubt, upon the sad experience of one of its owners, Mr. Samuel Samuels, who proved that he knew nothing about Socialism in a recent debate with a member of this Party. We are further informed that "some of these detestable creatures, who have degraded and disgraced the Socialist leaders, are still haranguing small mobs in Hyde Park in language which, in times of peace, we are accustomed to pass over with contempt." That explains why Samuel "debated" with us. They could hardly have treated us with more contumely had they sent the office boy.

Then these inky patriots tells us that they "have heard of speakers who tell their audiences that they owe no allegiance to either King or Country, that they as soon be governed by the Kaiser as by King George, and that the struggle in which we are now engaged does not concern the working classes in the least." In response to this horrible doctrine we would expect the editor or the office boy at "The Globe" to tell us what the workers have to gain by war and why they should fight each other, but they don't—which goes to further prove that "they have not a word to say against the Socialist." And having no argument they resort to the gutter in a vain attempt to silence us. The dirty suggestion is that "it might perhaps be undesirable in the general in the general interests of public order that the business should be left to the crowd." It might perhaps. There is the direct incitement to rush the platform and do by numbers what they cannot do by argument. The advice has been taken and one local doctor who, judging by his intelligence, is a reader of "The Globe," attempted  to rush our platform at Hyde Park and who, when faced with a man half his size with his coat off, scuttled away like a rat.

These brave patriots are ready to sling ink by the quart, and to advise others to do the fighting: they will urge an excited crowd to pummel one with whom they disagree, but suggest that they fight, and they run like rabbits.

Where we are holding large and successful meetings the local Press and platform are being used for the same purpose: to incite a crowd to silence us by any dirty method. There is, however, but one way to silence us. They may rush our meetings with the aid of hired hooligans, but our work among the workers will still go on. They may suppress our paper, but we shall still preach Socialism. When they show our facts to be fiction and our conclusions to be false, then and then only will our voice by still.

In the meantime they may deafen the workers with the ringing of bells and blind them with the wagging of flags, but time is with us, and sooner or later the still small voice of Truth will be heard amid the babel of tongues, and the inkslingers and their like, who stir up the ignorant to assist them in their dirty work, will meet their just deserts.

The Films (1956)

Film Review from the July 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Storm Centre"

This film is a timely reminder that the spirit of McCarthyism is not yet dead—only a little less vociferous. In fact, it can fairly confidently be said that this spirit will not die as long as capitalism lives. As long as it serves a political or economic end to have purges, scapegoats or witch-hunts—which means for the duration of capitalism—then these things will continue.

It is welcome, however, to find a film from Hollywood which is openly hostile to "red-baiting," though of course, the makers of the film had difficulty in getting it made at all, and no doubt the next time that the Un-American Activities Committee turn their attention to Hollywood, they will pounce on this film with glee.

The story is simple—An elderly woman librarian in a small American town refuses to remove from the library a book on "Communism" which the City Council find embarrassing. As one might expect in the land of the free, she is branded as a "red," ostracised, and her life made impossible generally. The little boy whom she befriends and encourages in his love of books, becomes disillusioned, and with his father goading him with talk of reds, spies and Communists is eventually driven to the verge of insanity, and expresses his neurotic confusion by burning down the library. However, the film's simplicity carries with it conviction, at least for a substantial part of the plot, but what makes the film so disturbing is its deliberate understatement of its case. One is not presented with the McCarthys, the Cohns or the Schines of the American scene, but with the "nice ordinary people," who, with their bigotry, stupidity, and political infancy, violently rush to defend "democracy" and "the American way of life," and become the oppressors. This provides a striking parallel with the burners-of-books, the Jew-baiters, and the racial persecutors of the maligned "undemocratic" nations, and indeed the film stresses this parallel in the symbolism of the burning of the library.

The characteristics of the film is good, Bette Davis being extremely convincing as the librarian, although somewhat more restrained than in her more youthful days. Kim Hunter and Joe Mantell (who made a good first impression as 'Ange' in "Marty"), also give extremely effective performances, the latter as the boy's All-American father who eventually drives the boy crazy by his talk of subversion, Communists, and "Pinko-talk."

As one would expect, a happy ending is engineered, albeit somewhat unconvincingly. The burning of the library and the tragedy of the boy's mental state brings the City Council to their senses, and all is forgiven. One is left in doubt, however, as to whether the forces that were at work hysterically crying "red" would be appeased by this, and when one considers that many of the persecuted political "suspects" do not have the advantages of influential friends and happy circumstance that this librarian has, one appreciates that the real situation is much worse. In fact, political intolerance in America, with the suicides, imprisonings, exiles, and ruined lives that it leaves in its wake, is little less evil (if at all) than similar products of the Capitalist world in the "iron-curtain" countries or in former Nazi Germany, or even this country for that matter, if the dismissal of Mr. John Lang from I.C.I. is a reliable manifestation.

This film is a clear reflection of American opinion which is openly hostile to McCarthy, political and judicial corruption, and other less pleasant aspects of God's own country. It is at pains to point out that McCarthyism, censorship, and the like, are denials of the very freedoms which Americans claim differentiate them from the "dictatorships." Actually though, it is the unscrupulous up-and-coming politicians in the film who really gives the game away from the Socialist point of view. He states that practically any step is justified in order to save America, and goes on to explain that a country at war, whether hot, cold or lukewarm, must be drastic in its measures, and that if innocent people get crushed in the process, it is just too bad. Of course, whether the Liberals like it or not, that is in fact the position, and that beside the fundamentals of Capitalist cut-throat competition, all talk of freedom and democracy is just so much hot air. In spite of this, and of the artificial ending, the points that the film makes are valid and telling, and apart from the not inconsiderable value of the drama itself, make this a worth-while film.

Albert Ivimey

Cooking the Books: A Classic Reformist (2015)

The Cooking the Books Column from the November 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Jeremy Corbyn appointed John McDonnell as Labour’s Shadow Chancellor the media homed in on McDonnell’s entry in Who’s Who that one of his hobbies was ‘fermenting the overthrow of capitalism.’ Questioned about this by Jon Snow on Channel 4 on 14 September, McDonnell indicated that he didn’t really envisage a literal ‘overthrow’ of capitalism, saying ‘change is a gradual process; that’s what socialism is all about. At the end of the day I do want to transform it.’

Snow followed up by asking ‘is it actually the Shadow Chancellor’s role to try to reform capitalism?’ To which McDonnell responded:

‘Yes it is. I think the Shadow Chancellor’s role is to put forward an alternative to what’s happening at the moment under our economic system that we’ve got.’

This is not the Marxism which the media has accused him of. It’s classic reformism – the view that capitalism can be gradually transformed into socialism through a series of social reform measures – as advocated by Eduard Bernstein at the turn of the last century and eventually adopted by the Social Democratic parties of Europe.

It only seemed wildly radical to the media because of what the Labour Party has evolved into over the years – a party that openly accepts capitalism and projects itself merely as a better and more efficient alternative manager of the capitalist system than the Tories.

In his speech to the Labour Party conference in September McDonnell made no mention even of gradually transforming capitalism into socialism, let alone of overthrowing it. He only promised policies which he said would end austerity:

‘We will dynamically grow our economy. We will strategically invest in the key industries and sectors that will deliver the sustainable long term growth that our country needs’.

Well, yes, of course, if there was growth then the government would not have to cut its spending –  ‘austerity’ in its proper sense – as its tax revenues would automatically go up too, allowing it to continue spending at the same level.  Governments were obliged to practise austerity as the crisis and consequent slump (the opposite of growth) meant that its tax revenues went down.

All supporters of capitalism realise that growth is the antidote to austerity, but the question is how to bring about growth? In fact can a government do this, ‘grow the economy’ as McDonnell put it?

In an interview on BBC 5 Live on 28 September, he remarked:

‘If you look at our capitalist system, one of the definitive analysts of how it works – not whether it is condemned, or whether it is right or wrong, just the mechanics of how it works, when it was first formed and how it would be developed – actually was Marx.’

True, but a key aspect of Marx’s analysis of the mechanics of capitalism is that governments cannot control its operation. Capitalism is governed by economic laws – capital accumulation before consumption personal and governmental, profits before people – which impose themselves on governments as an external necessity.

Government intervention cannot make capitalism work other than the way it does.  But the claim that it can is the whole basis of McDonnell’s policy (note that capitalist businesses and entrepreneurs are still going to exist, i.e. capitalism is):

‘We will create what Marianna Mazzucato describes as the entrepreneurial state. A strategic state that works in partnership with businesses, entrepreneurs and workers to stimulate growth’.

This is what the Labour government under Harold Wilson that came into office in 1964 tried to do but its ‘National Plan’ was a miserable failure. Wilson blamed it on the gnomes of Zurich. Actually, it was the economic laws of capitalism wot done it – and would again if ever McDonnell becomes Chancellor.

The Mosley Movement Today (1956)

From the June 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Fascism’s New Look

"Fascism stands for the building of the highest civilization the world has ever seen . . . "

(Sir Oswald Mosley, Olympia, June 7th, 1934)

1932 saw the birth of the “British Union of Fascists,” with their black shirts and uniforms, armoured cars, their provocative marches through the East End of London, and their Mass rallies. To-day, over 20 years later, the movement is still with us. They still hold out-door meetings, and recently Sir Oswald Mosley, held a number of indoor meetings in Birmingham, Kensington, Brixton, and elsewhere. True, it does not have the membership it had in the ‘thirties. No longer are members allowed to wear uniforms.

Since the war, when over 800 of its members spent a number of years in prison, the movement has been re-organised and renamed. The B.U.F. is now “Union Movement.” The word “Fascism” has—for the time being?—been dropped; no doubt because of its unpopularity. But the British Fascists continue to call themselves “Blackshirt.” At the London County Council Elections—1955, their candidates in Shoreditch and Finsbury urged electors to “Vote Blackshirt.” And “Wake ’Em Up at County Hall.”

“Union Movement” retains its pre-war “Flash” sign on its literature, banners, flags and badges.

To-day we no longer see “British for the British,” or “Britain First,” chalked or whitewashed on walls; although such slogans as “Slump or Mosley,” or the letter “K.B.W.” (Keep Britain White) can sometimes be seen in Kensington, Hackney, Brixton, and elsewhere.

“National Socialism,” the phrase under which the German Nazis operated, has given way to Mosley’s latest: "European Socialism”—yet another contradiction! British Fascism wears a New Look!

At a mass meeting held last year in Trafalgar Square, Sir Oswald Mosley outlined his policy for Britain and Europe. He said that Union Movement "stood for peace"—just like the Communists do, no doubt!—but that they were not Pacifists; "Because they would always fight, if the life of the country was threatened." ("Union" 6th August, 1955). Mosley would have been a little nearer the truth had he said that Union Movement might—not would—support a war if it considered that British property interests were threatened.

The British Fascists have never "stood for peace"; they only opposed Britain's participation in the last war because it was against Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Unlike Socialists, the Fascists are not opposed to war on principle; they do not oppose war because it is against the interests of working people in all countries to fight for their rulers' interests. The Fascist attitude is similar to that of the Communists: some wars are "good" wars, some are "bad"; some just, some unjust; some should be supported; others opposed.

Mosley and his British Union of Fascists did not oppose or condemn Mussolini when he attacked Abyssinia, or General Franco and his fellow generals and Falangists when they revolted against the Republican Government in Spain in 1936; or when Hitler attacked Poland in 1939.

As an alternative to the present system of society, with its antagonisms, its violence, its racial and religious hatreds and intolerance, neither Sir Oswald nor his movement have an answer.

Unlike Socialists they do not stand for an entirely new society, embracing all people, where poverty, privilege and intolerance will be things of the past. Mosley's policy is one of Nations, national interests—"Europe a Nation." The main theme that Sir Oswald Mosley put forward at the Trafalgar Square meeting was: " . . . Europe a Nation . . . the European people should unite into one nation and use 'European Socialism' to increase their standard of life so that three hundred millions of Europe could consume what they produced. With the raw materials of White Africa and of South America they could be independent of world supplies and world markets."

It is obvious from the above quoted remarks that neither Mosley nor his Union Movement has the slightest idea how world-capitalism operates. The ramifications of our society are obviously a complete mystery to them. Neither Britain nor the rest of Europe could ever be "independent" of world supplies or world markets within capitalism. And if he thinks that by adopting his spurious "European Socialism," i.e., Fascism, the peoples (workers) of Europe would consume what they produced and what they desired, then Mosley is even more foolish than the other Capitalist politicians and would-be leaders—which perhaps explains why he has been out in the political wilderness for over 20 years.

The Mosley movement of to-day is in essence no different from the pre-war B.U.F. Their papers, Union Incorporating Action, The East London Blackshirt, The European, The East Anglian Press, etc., etc., are much the same as pre-war Fascists publications.

To the Fascists the "Old Gang" politicians and Parties, the Jews, the "aliens," the "coloured invasion," and the financiers and Bankers—the "alien" ones, of course!—are the root cause of all our troubles. Their "solution" is the same old reform programme: the same old appeal to emotion and prejudice; plus a new one that they borrowed from the Anarchists—Syndicalism. Of the coloured workers from Jamaica and the West Indies who come here to get something of a living, they say: "We will send them back home, and we are the only candidates pledged to do it." (Union Movement election manifesto in Shoreditch and Finsbury, 1955). Such is the cynical programme of our local Fascists!

The whole of Union Movement policy is based on the acceptance of leadership. The workers need leaders to solve their problems for them, they say. If only they trusted THE "Leader," Sir Oswald Mosley, things would be much different!

Mosley has the solution to everything—slumps, the "coloured invasion" the "housing problem," "Communism"—even the bad roads! (See Union, 10:8:55).

Unfortunately, the Fascists, with their slavish doctrine of leadership, their less dictatorial brethren in other Parties that attempt to reform the present system, do not understand that these and many other problems that confront people, not only in Britain or Europe, but all over the world, are inherent in the system itself. The problems are themselves part of the society we live in.

Neither Mosley nor his movement, with their erroneous race theories and dictatorial policies, warrant any support from the workers of this country.

Peter E. Newell

Business invades Education (2006)

From the June 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

There has never been a time in capitalism when the two worlds of business and education have not had some kind of relationship. Today, however, the influence of business interests on education has gone much further. Business people, and those in the media who promote their interests, have become much more assertive in the role they see business playing in education. Government policies, such as those driving the new city academies, are designed to strengthen the link between what goes on in educational institutions and what goes on in workplaces.

Popular language plays a part in all this. “Enterprise” has become an overworked cliché. It is seen as a good word because it is linked with energy, using one’s initiative, setting something up. It is youthful, can be satisfying, even dramatic in an otherwise somewhat dull and routine world.

Capitalist values have a secure foothold in the later stages of education such as sixth forms, colleges of further and higher education. As a contributor to the Business Daily programme of the BBC World Service remarked (28 April), “Business people actually teach the courses.”

There are also moves to get even young children interested in “enterprise”. You’re never too young to learn about buying and selling and making a profit (don’t think about exploitation — just experience it when you grow up).

The question of whether young entrepreneurs come from entrepreneurial families of not seems to be unresolved. What is not in doubt is the rarity of successful entrepreneurs. A youngster may feature in the media by boasting about making a million or so from finding a gap in the market at the age of perhaps 12 or 13. But the sobering fact is that 80 percent of new businesses fail within two years.

Some of the winning entrepreneurs make a point of saying that it isn’t so much the money that they find satisfying but the sense of achievement and meeting a need. Fine. The most enterprising thing we can do is to work to replace a system of gross inequality, deprivation and destruction with one in which meeting human need is at the top of the agenda.

Stan Parker

Editorial: Election Reflections (1924)

Editorial from the January 1924 issue of the Socialist Standard

"Armchair Philosophers" is the phrase that has often been flung at us by the "men of action" when at a loss to meet facts and logical arguments from facts. Well, let us sit back in the armchair for a little while and ponder over the doings of the "men of action."

"Men of action"—the phrase at once brings to mind the Communist Party. "Action" has been the poison gas in that Party's programme for a long time; and in the name of "action" many weird and wonderful antics have been performed.

Not very long ago the Communist Party had difficulty in finding adjectives strong enough with which to belabour Ramsay MacDonald and the Labour Party. He who proposed union with the Labour Party was described as a traitor to the working class. But a change has come over the scene. The Communist Party transport us in imagination to Maskelyne and Devant's home of mysteries, where the waving of a wand performs marvels. The wand used by the Communist Party is the "United Front." Here are a few of the marvels it has performed.

In the Workers Dreadnought (21st February, 1920) Wm. Gallacher wrote:—

Any support given to Parliamentarism is simply assisting to put power into the hands of our British Scheidemanns and Noskes. Henderson, Clynes and Co. are hopelessly reactionary.

Since then Gallacher has twice contested Dundee as a Parliamentary Candidate on behalf of the Communist Party; and the latter has done all in its power to return the Labour Party candidates to Parliament in the 1922 and the late elections.

During the Caerphilly bye-election of August, 1921, the Communist, of August 13th, published on its front page a call to the workers to support Stewart, the Communist candidate. In the course of this front page article they make the following remarks:—

The Labour Party, as it stands, is what its leaders make it—and they will neither lead you into battle nor allow you to lead them.
The leaders who brought about the Triple Alliance disaster, in spite of the splendid solidarity of the rank and file; the leaders who beat back the miners after a three months' death grapple, and did so in contempt of the magnificent defiance embodied in your ballot vote; the leaders who, in industry after industry, accepted reductions and defeat in advance, and with a mere pretence of consulting the rank and file—these, and not the rank and file, constitute the Labour Party as it stands. "The best of men, of he were elected under their auspices, would be paralysed by their vacillation or crippled in the cogs of their controlling machine."

Bearing in mind the last sentence in the above quotation, it is curious to notice that Wm. Paul, a prominent member of the Communist Party, accepted the Labour Party constitution (see Daily Herald, November 30th, 1923) and was put forward as Labour Party candidate for the Rusholme Division of Manchester in the recent election. The following quotation from the Workers' Weekly (December 7th, 1923), the official organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, is also both curious and interesting:

The Labour Party has officially endorsed as its candidates both Comrade Paul in Rusholme, and Comrade Vaughan, in Bethnal Green. There are now four Communist candidates officially supported by the National Labour Party: while local organisations of the Communist Party are working their utmost for Ramsay MacDonald in Aberavon, Bromley in Barrow, Ernest Hunter of the I.L.P., in Hackney, J. R. Clynes in Manchester, and in hundreds of other constituencies.

Now contrast the above with the following quotation taken from the Communist of September 10th, 1921:—

Are you going in waiting in the streets for something to turn up, or do you want ACTION? IF you are a miner, or a docker, or a railwayman, are you happy and proud of your Black Friday leaders? Do you trust and believe in Thomas, Hodges, Bevan, Williams? Do you feel satisfied with the leaders who betrayed on Black Friday? Do you feel a sense of solidarity with Thomas, Hodges, Bevan, Williams? Will they do your fighting for you? If you think you can lie safely under their warm. protecting wings—well, try it. But the Party calls you if you want ACTION.

In the name of "action" you were  asked then to throw over Thomas, Hodges, and Bevan, who had betrayed you. Thomas, Hodges and Bevan were candidates in the recent election, and in the name of solidarity you were asked by the Communist Party to support these traitors in the recent election. The Communist Party then stands self-convicted of betraying the interests of the working class and of supporting the opportunist line of action that has led the workers into so many blind alleys in the past. Such are "the men of action."

Music Review: 'Thee Faction - Reading Writing Revolution' (2015)

Album Review from the November 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Reading Writing Revolution: The Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall'. (CD £7 inc P&P). By Thee Faction. 2015. Soviet Beret.

Thee Faction are a punk rock group who formed in 2010 and released their fifth album Reading Writing Revolution this year. Over the years, in Britain, political rock music has ranged from the nihilism of punks like the Sex Pistols to po-faced left-wing sometime Labour Party loyalists like Billy Bragg. It is refreshing then that Thee Faction are neither nihilist nor po-faced and have a sense of humour in their songs.

In June 1978 we wrote ‘what constitutes socialist music? Even if it were desirable, few would want to listen to a Marxist liturgy let alone a rock version of "sing along with Ma(r)x".’ and in April 1985 ‘It is difficult to compress the argument for socialism on to a single track’. Well, this album comes close, with tracks like ‘The Three R’s’ and ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ among the more catchy including lyrics ‘I’m loving Engels instead, output: prolific, outlook: terrific.’

They’ve been described as not ‘protest songs’ but solution songs. They seem committed and sincere, describing themselves as ‘socialists first, musicians second’ and ‘The point of what we do is to do our bit to deliver a socialist society. The point of what we do isn’t art.’ This is not a gimmick borrowed for a new album but a theme consistent throughout their back catalogue. In addition, musically, their songs are good tunes and they’ve even had previous albums reviewed in the Daily Mirror, Daily Telegraph and played on BBC Radio.

The band members describe themselves as libertarian socialists but the extended spoken part of their song ‘Equality’ makes clear their fondness for early Labour propagandist G. D. H. Cole. Cole who wrote the forward to a 1930 edition of Capital, failed to grasp or deliberately misrepresented value theory and the materialist conception of history. No surprise then that a recent gig they headlined was a fundraiser for the campaign for Jeremy Corbyn, but in generously providing me with a copy to review, they wrote that ‘the nine of us pull in different (socialist) directions’.

Reading Writing Revolution is worth a listen (and might make a good gift) particularly if you like punk rock music and socialist rhetoric.

DJW

Mass Suicide (1956)

From the October 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

Under the title “Do not willingly contribute to the mass suicide of the human race” the Empire News (24 June, 1956) had the following:

“The highest radioactive deposit in a single day from a thermo-nuclear weapon test was 100 microcuries a square mile at Milford and 25 at Harwell. Daily deposits at Harwell and Milford, however, are generally similar. Danger from these radioactive particles is very slight, say scientists. But one of the radioactive substances, known as strontium 90 may be deposited in grass which is cropped by animals. This gets into their bones and may cause cancer. So the experts warn: limit the number of atom tests. Fears that rainwater may be contaminated from the Monte Bello atom test have arisen in Queensland, Australia, and people have been warned not to drink it for a few days.”—The above was taken from a news item, “Atom-Rain Tests.”—(Empire News, 24.6.56.)

But such is the nature of capitalism; that even though the rival Governments know they may be instrumental in causing the “virtual suicide of the human race.” They dare not let up; for fear of conceding an advantage to their rivals; yet they have the effrontery to call capitalism a civilised society! Why, by comparison with this, even the most senseless butchery in history seems like sanity. The human race may be virtually dying on its feet; and still the people do nothing about it; when will they get wise; and act on their own behalf instead of waiting and hoping for someone else to put the world right for them?

Workers of the world, put not your trust in leaders. Instead fashion the world the way you want it yourselves by organising for socialism; then you can rest secure in the knowledge that the only developments which will be undertaken will be those which will be of benefit to all.

Phil Mellor