The Prentice Affair (1975)

From the September 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Me! I don't even know what a Marxist is,” said Miss Anita Pollack when accused of plotting to oust Reg Prentice from his parliamentary seat at Newham, East London.

She’s not the only one. Karl Marx himself is credibly reported by one biographer as observing, when told of a particularly crass piece of stupidity by one of his French supporters: “If that’s Marxism, then I’m no Marxist.” In all probability, as a serious scientist he wasn’t even interested in "Marxism”, any more than Darwin would have wished to be regarded as a “Darwinist”.

Miss Pollack also said: "I’m no revolutionary — I only belong to the Labour Party.” Fair enough! On the other hand, she is among those in the Newham North East Labour Party who propose to repudiate Prentice for “betraying the Labour Party’s socialist principles”. Unlike the Socialist Party of Great Britain, the Labour Party has never had principles of any sort, let alone Socialist ones. From the day of its inception in 1906 it has never been anything but a motley collection of careerists and job-hunters, desperately intent on saying or doing anything that would get the votes required for a politician’s “skive”. The difference between John Stonehouse and the others is that he didn’t know when to stop.

How Prentice can betray principles which the Labour Party has never had and therefore do not exist, remains to be seen. Certain it is that there are no Socialist principles except Marxian ones. When a Labour Prime Minister like Harold Wilson can babble his fatuous nonsense at the Durham Miners’ Gala — that a man’s wage increase is “another man’s price increase” — we can well believe him when he says he was unable to read more than two pages of Marx’s Capital.

In fact he wouldn’t have to! Just one page of Marx’s Value, Price and Profit suffices to show that the British workers (the highest-paid in Europe at the time, 1860-70) flooded the markets of the world with cheap commodities and undercut the products of all competitors, forcing them to erect tariff barriers to stop British imports. The whole essence of the capitalist economic system is to compensate for wage increases by more sophisticated production — the so- called accumulation of capital.

In view of the general ignorance of Marxism in the Labour Party — and even worse, its rejection in favour of Keynes by those who profess to know — it is surprising that the Newham Labour Party are aware of the existence of “socialist principles” at all. And yet there is one source, and one only, where they could hear of them: The Socialist Party! There is one organization only in this country that sticks rigidly and unalterably to principles — the Socialist Party.

What the Newham Labour Party are really objecting to is Prentice’s advocacy of coalition government, which makes them look idiots before the electorate. But the Labour Party has done that before: in 1931 and 1939. It has always been at the beck and call of the capitalist class, to save things for them. And now the chickens are at last coming home to roost! After six Labour governments the Labour Party’s attempts at reforming the system and curbing the workers’ demands are again coming unstuck. Hence the demands for the “retirement” of Prentice, Silkin and (according to the Mirror and the Sun) a number of others.

Those who have the temerity to say that an elected representative should do what he is told are denounced in those two well-known clear-thinking journals as wicked conspirators, plotters infiltrating local Labour Parties, Marxist factionists seizing control, etc. Prentice himself has given formal notice that he will ignore a majority decision to sack him. How sensitive these politicians are to the electorate! What a lesson to those critics of the Socialist Party who say that votes don’t count, and Parliament is a futile gasworks!

But try as they may, and however well-meaning their intention, the members of the Newham North East Labour Party, even if they sack Prentice, will succeed in nothing. What is wrong is not Prentice, but the rotten, unprincipled Labour Party which spawned him. The only way to Socialism is by the conscious votes of a democratic majority, for candidates nominated by a party based on Socialist principles. In that event working-class voters would really have a case against a defaulter in the House. The object of a Socialist party is the abolition of capitalism and nothing else — making it near-impossible for an elected representative to double-cross.

How comical the hysterical squeals of the gutter press about “minorities controlling the local Labour Parties” — as soon as the ordinary members express themselves! But sacking one scallywag to replace him with another is not enough. The time has come to stop playing silly-boy Labour politics and turn to the serious revolutionary Socialist Party which exists, based on a crystal-clear Declaration of its Principles.

Horatio.

Who Owns the Land Under the Sea? (1975)

From the October 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

“Carry on conferring" may sound like the latest title in a series of third-rate comedy films but in fact this particular farce is anything but funny, at least not to the participants who have gathered in Geneva in an attempt to arrive at some common ground for the establishment of clearly defined and governable laws on the question: who owns the land under the sea? Capitalism being the epitome of a private property system at its most complex necessitates an equally complex network of laws. Nothing exemplifies this more than the latest follow-on from last year’s session when the legal eagles went Caracas trying to solve their perplexing problem.

The problem is more easily understood when the underlying cause which motivates it is recognized. That cause is profit which in this instance is envisaged from the mining of “nodules” — fist-sized lumps of mineral ore found on the floors of the Pacific and Indian oceans, and the realization of the potential untapped sources of wealth such as manganese, iron, nickel, and cobalt etc, which they contain.

Evan Luard in his book The Control of the Sea-bed tells how in 1959-60, a study by a group of US scientists from the University of California estimated that the total volume of nodules in the entire Pacific ocean, based on the size of concentrations revealed by undersea photography, could be around 1,700 billion tons. A more recent UN study assessed that the nodules may contain 16.4 billion tons of nickel, 8 billion tons of copper, 8.8 billion tons of cobalt. The importance of the resources can be made clear by relative comparison of the same resources found on land. If the calculations of the Californian study quoted were confirmed, nodules in the Pacific ocean would contain about 358 billion tons of manganese, equivalent to reserves for 400,000 years at the 1960 world rate of consumption, compared with known land resources for only 100 years. 43 billion tons of aluminium, equal to reserves for 20,000 years compared to known land reserves for 100 years. Nickel, equivalent to reserves for 150,000 years; copper equal to reserves for 6,000 years; cobalt for 200,000 years. Also, the nodules may contain iron, titanium, magnesium, lead and so on. These are the figures for the Pacific alone. With the content of the nodules in the Indian ocean these figures of course, become even greater. Although the authenticity of these figures has not been verified, the direction in which they point is obvious. Added to this is the discovery that the nodules are forming all the time, and at a rate in the Pacific alone of perhaps 10 million tons a year. This then, is the motivation. The problem arises as the conference tries to introduce legislation which will be acceptable to all the countries represented — a rather fruitless exercise since geographical locations of the individual countries concerned determine the legislation required by them. For example, proposals to widen the outer boundary limits would benefit coastal states (especially the large ones) since the area closest to the coast will in all probability be richer in resources. If the boundary is extended to 2,500 metres in depth as has been suggested or to the 200-mile limit proposed by Latin America, this would mean the appropriation of the most valuable part of the area by coastal governments.

Conversely, countries with small coastlines, the land-locked and the shelf-locked, would have to negotiate for a share of these resources. Again, some countries are favoured with wide and narrow shelves while others have none at all. Then there are the emerging capitalist countries such as those in Africa who see the exploitation of the sea-bed as a serious threat to their economies, since some of them depend heavily on the export of mined metal ores, and obviously metal prices could be drastically reduced.

The exploitation of nodules renders obsolete the need for conventional mining and all it entails such as sinking mineshafts and tunnels. Where the material is already available on the sea-floor it requires simply to be scooped up.

So the talking continues, everyone agreeing that agreement must be reached but all of them unanimous in that they don’t know how. Bearing in mind the insular nature of capitalism with each group of representatives striving to secure the most favourable (profitable) conditions for their masters, it is small wonder that no agreement can be reached since one country’s gain is another’s loss. Therefore, all the useless platitudes being kicked around suggesting that a solution will be found “in the common interest of all concerned” are about as realistic as trying to play musical chairs where no one loses.

By “common interest” what is really meant is capitalist interest. No worker has any real interest at stake in this conference, although our masters would like us to believe otherwise, especially if, as is almost certain, the talking stops. Then warning signals might inform us that some nasty foreigner has got a tight grip on “our” nodules (very painful) and that in the interest of “The Nation” etc. etc.

The ruling groups of the world however, have no illusions about either the economic basis of this tug-o’-war, or the ultimate outcome in the event of a complete breakdown of discussion. It has been frankly stated that the oceans could become an arena of conflict which would make Vietnam seem like a picnic.

A. McNeill

Obituary: Jack Holford (1975)

Obituary from the November 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jack Holford died at the end of September, after being ill since last Christmas. Knowing he was dying, he wrote the following message:

“Here is my own obituary which, without any further comment I would like printed in the S.S.:— ‘In bidding farewell to all my Socialist Comrades I leave them my best wishes in their progress towards the elimination of this rotten system of Capitalism and the establishment of Socialism.—Comrade Holford, Brighton’.”

We will not let him get away with that. Jack was a fine type of Socialist, resembling in his independence and persistentness some of the early members of the Party. He had been a member for very many years and was one of the founders of the Brighton branch some years ago. When the branch ceased to exist he carried on and did much to keep members scattered along the south coast in contact with one another. He came to London regularly for Party Conferences and Delegate Meetings, where he always spoke with clarity and zest. During his last illness his interest in the Party never decreased. The news of his death has come as a sad blow to all of us, and our sympathy goes to Susan Holford.

Marxism and the Media (1975)

From the December 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Between the wars and later the word Socialist was used to describe all manner of things which had nothing to do with Socialist or Socialism. Such were the pathetic utterances on the subject by Snowdon and Ramsay MacDonald in the first Labour government of 1924 that King George V felt bound to admit that “he too was a bit of a Socialist”. We have had “socialist” millionaires and dukes from the Daily Express; “socialist” Lords and Ladies; “socialist” policies of nationalization and taxation. The TUC was at one time referred to as a “socialist” institution. Also, Russian and Chinese capitalism has been described as socialist, as were Adolf Hitler and Oswald Mosley. The parties which were largely responsible for this distortion of the word socialist were the Communist and Labour parties, aided and abetted by the press barons.

However, as time has gone by it is clear for all to see that the appellation of socialist really meant someone who disagreed with the Tory and Liberal parties, and when we got down to cases we found the Labour and Communist parties were just some other kind of Conservatives who had been misunderstood as to their original intentions. To accuse the Communist and Labour parties of being revolutionary, because that is what Socialism means, is virtually asking for a writ to be served for slander. Somehow or other we in the SPGB got the impression that those who misused the word were not as ignorant as they pretended. First among the phoney ignoramuses we place the BBC. This institution has been very careful not to confuse the respectable “socialist” — they know Stork from butter and can tell the difference; so much so that consistently over the years they have discriminated against the SPGB by never allowing it to to answer the gross misrepresentations of its case, nor to allow it to give talks on the subject of Socialism.

Today we have a new phenomenon. As practically everybody outside of the Carlton Club is a “socialist” of some sort or other (the late Mr. James Robertson Justice referred to himself as a “mild socialist”), the word has lost its impact, so the press have invented a new word which is calculated to put the fear of God into their easy-going readers — the word Marxist.

Where there’s a strike there’s a “Marxist”; where there’s a terrorist there’s a “Marxist”; where there’s sabotage and subversion there’s a "Marxist”. “Marxist” kidnappers, bank robbers, in fact everything socially undesirable is represented as “Marxist”. The fear of the Devil is replaced by the fear of Marxism. Luckily, we have some balancing factors in the shape of “Marxist” generals, “Marxist” admirals, “Marxist” bishops and politicians, and no doubt as time goes by we shall have “Marxist” funeral undertakers and “Marxist” mid-wives. But the saving grace, the spice of respectability, will be finally bestowed should Birmingham City Education Authority start teaching “Marxism” in their schools, as they have threatened.

We shudder with apprehension as to what atrocities will be perpetrated on the poor captive school-kids under the guise of learning “Marxism”. The only redeeming factor is that the press will have to find another name to denigrate the dissidents, as everyone will now become a “Marxist”.

Cartoon by Robert Barltrop.

We in the SPGB have been in politics for a very long time and we have more than a nodding acquaintance with the theories of Karl Marx, but we must confess our ignorance when we say that the Marxism referred to by the press and the BBC is unknown to us. What’s more, there must be a secret store of Marxist information to which we have no access, for try as we may we can never square the press’s description of Marxism, nor of the motley bunch who masquerade under its name, with the Marxism that we have known and advocated for over seventy years.

Marx discovered the reason why social systems change and what were the factors that would cause capitalist society to change. He also made a detailed analysis of the nature of capitalism and showed that anarchy in production would produce crises, war, unemployment and social problems. According to Marx and Engels capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction by bringing into being a wage-working class without property in the means of production. That the intolerable conditions of capitalism weighing on those workers would cause them to consider their future role in society. The true Marxist associates with other Marxists to propagate and persuade workers in the majority all over the world to abolish capitalism and the wages system as a matter of urgency, and to establish a democratically-run moneyless system based on common ownership. The whole essence of Marxism is that the working class must be conscious of its historical role, act purposefully, and not trust in leaders. Their organization should be concerned with getting control of political power constitutionally without violence, state-smashing, insurrection and other minority action.

This is what constitutes a Marxist. How many of the “press Marxists” hold and work for these ends? Not one. Most of them are intense nationalists, frustrated politicians, or just plain thick-headed Communists or narrow-minded trade unionists who have never had a Marxist thought in their heads. As regards some of the self-styled Marxist organisations like IMG and IS, the least said the better. We can only agree with the old proverb that “Empty vessels make the most sound”.

Jim D'Arcy

"The Red Badge of Courage" (1917)

From the September 1917 issue of the Socialist Standard

  Quite recently one of the regiments of Siberian Rifles, which had fought to splendidly at the beginning of the revolution, abandoned the Riga front, and nothing else but the order to exterminate the whole regiment availed to make it return to its positions. - (General Korniloff, Russian Commander-in-Chief, at the Moscow Conference.)

A side-light, this, on the way “heroes" are made. Had these men stood out against the order of “Comrade" Kerensky’s colleague in butchery and been exterminated, the world’s skunk Press would have been howling “cowards! traitors!” over their reeking corpses. Hut they chose the un-heroic part, and so will yet become "heroes” and “high-souled patriots,” “going into battle with joy,” and “making the great sacrifice” for Holy Russia. So it is in all countries. Apart from individuals, the highest courage is to be found farthest back from the trenches. It reaches a high level at “Staff Headquarters," where ornamental soldiers of blood “win their spurs" without losing their lives, and it reaches sublimity as far back as Fleet Street and the Cabinet chamber. But the nearer the front it is the more it has to be manufactured by making the soldier more afraid of his own tyrants than of the “enemy.” 

A. E. Jacomb

Domestic Servitude or Socialism? (1912)

From the February 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The signs of social change can be easily noticed and interpreted because of their present prominence. One of the most distinct is the parasitism that makes its presence fell everywhere to-day. The amount of wealth wrung out of the wage-slaves has increased so greatly and so rapidly that it has enabled the plutocracy to run their many residences with a magnificence and display greater than ever before. What was considered lavish and luxurious a generation ago is put in the shade by the prevailing ostentation and splendour. The rich vie with one another in their extravagance.

A remarkable feature of modern society is the small number of the population who actually engage in wealth production. The percentage of the population who are really producing is declining daily, and the Reports of the Government Census of Production have proved it.

The use of improved machinery and more scientific and economical methods has made it possible to produce wealth in superabundance, and with fewer * hands” than were formerly required. The International Cotton King have again and again ordered “short time” for their employees because they found that with modern highly developed machinery a few hours a day per operative was sufficient.

The operatives have been told often that the prospect for the future is that the cotton trade, instead of absorbing the increasing population, will have to discard a large number. Thus they have been brought to see hunger and want forced upon them on account of the very improvements their class have made and their skill has put in motion. And the same is true of other industries.

Hence we see that even to the women the industrial departments are being closed — to say nothing of men. Those shut out have therefore to become the personal servants of and attendants upon the parasite class that has profited by all the progress we see around us. The workers have had to see their daughters and sisters, and even their mothers, condemned to lifelong drudgery and useless, monotonous toil, pandering to the idle whims of a corrupt class.

It may be truly said that the domestics suffer from all the evils of serfdom without having any of its advantages. They suffer the complete personal subjection of serfdom without having the security of the serf. They have to face unemployment and insecurity of livelihood just as do the rest of the working class.

Endless work and lack of leisure soon tell upon their victims. From bright, happy girls they grow into dull, jaded, miserable women, haunted by all the fears that a wage slave alone can know. Their employers exact slavish obedience, and while they enjoy all the pleasures that centuries of social effort have made possible, the poor “slaveys” must toil till they are ready to drop with fatigue. While the employers idle and useless social pests live upon the best food and have the greatest variety of viands, their servants have to exist upon the meet plain and scanty fare. “The leavings are good enough for them! ”

Not only do the domestics have to work for these drones, but, even worse, they have to live with them too. Only those who have come into close contact with them can know what this means. They are under surveillance the whole twenty four hours round, the constant victims of the changing moods, the irritability and ennui of their employers.

The domestics see their mistresses taking part in the twentieth century “intellectual ’ movement of bourgeois women, voicing hypocritical cries of “Woman’s Freedom," and the like. This movement, so dear to the Fabian and other fatuous dilletanti, has nothing to offer the servant. While the employing section delight in picturing the achievements of the New Woman, the domestics feel economic pressure increasing and becoming more unbearable day by day. The employers demand more qualifications, and inquire more closely into the “character” of servants than formerly. They must be nimble, alert, experienced, docile, healthy, and above all, willing to accept wages which are little more than “ pocket money.”

Though their mistresses talk about “the awakening of woman,” they impose the observance of all the old hated forms upon their unfortunate slaves. The idiotic — "cap” that badge of servitude - has still to be worn, and it is as sure a sign of their slavery as was the neck ring of the helots of Carthage. It shows their chattel character just as the stamp upon the seaman's wrist shows him to be a creature of cursed capital

Forced into constant touch with their employers and always under the strictest restraint, it has naturally resulted that domestics generally lack even the slightest consciousness of their interests as members of a class with interests quite opposed to the capitalists.

Though many are turning away from the path of domestic servitude they do not fare better. A large number of the girls are becoming typists, yet the stampede from ”service” to shorthand-typewriting has only served to reduce the latter occupation to the level of the former. As the "Daily Chronicle” recently pointed out the typists are sufficiently numerous to meet all demands, and the numbers floating in now will so increase the supply that wages will fall lower than ever.

The mistresses continually prate about the difficulty of getting servants. What they mean is servants sufficiently devoid of feeling to stay in one place long. Servants continually change their places in the hope that the change will bring relief. The servitude is so onerous that a long spell in one situation ruins them completely. The slightest disobedience or fancied fault provides the mistress with an excuse for dismissing the servant, and often spiteful mistresses make it difficult for domestics to get other situations by giving "bad” characters.

The threat of a "bad” character is often sufficient to reduce the servant to humility and surrender. It is not surprising that of those who chance the consequences and seek other places some have drifted lo that horror of horrors, “the street.” And often the “bad” character has been the immediate cause.

Look at the position of those sentenced to domestic servitude for the term of their natural lives. What chance is there of their development in the unchanging round of enervating toil, the long hours of comparative isolation? These explain the cramped intellect and the morbid sentimentality that typify the domestic. The short spells of release from work is time snatched from sleep’s allotted span. Hence they patronise the sensational, flashy novel—the “literature” of the 20th century civilisation. This insipid, sloppy rubbish is the mental food of the modern Cinderella. Is it a matter for amazement that domestics are, more than any other section of the working class perhaps, the sheep-like followers of their employers’ dictates in all matters that should arouse their sturdy independence and self-reliance? Their menial position saps their independence and courage, so that combination among them has been taboo. But a recent sign of the times has been the formation of a trade union in their ranks. True, it hasn’t gained many converts, but still, it moves.

While as Socialists we welcome every sign of revolt against oppression on the part of the workers, we hold that revolt is useless and dangerous unless based upon a knowledge of the cause of their condition and its remedy.

The Domestic Workers’ Union has been busy acquainting mistresses of their desire to really get them better servants and to make the relations between mistress and maid harmonious!” Their objects include as a first proposal, “To raise the status of Domestic Work to the level of other industries”! What a blind, ignorant suggestion! Other industries involve misery and hardship for their workers, though they assume slightly different forms. It seems to fulfil the Anti-Socialist cry of “Reducing all to one dead level."

The other “objects” are equally foolish and futile. The servants have to understand that useful though a real union may be to them from day to day in helping them to fix their terms with their employers, these very terms are but a fixing of their slavery. Strong and sound though the union might ever even become, while this system of capitalist class monopoly of wealth continues, it can merely make rules to guide them in selling their energy and standardising their poverty. It cannot end their terrible servitude. To that they must combine with the rest of their class whatever their rank, office or station, into a political party with Socialism as its object.

In the co-operative commonwealth that Socialism will herald in, servitude domestic, civil, or penal will disappear. Then only will the women of the race have a chance to live a full life, unhampered by the cares and anxieties that now distract them.

There is plenty of work awaiting you, toiling sisters all. There are your fellow slaves to be aroused, and educated in the principles of Socialism, and organised for the fight for the emancipation of our class.

Depend upon it. unless we enrol the women while they are young, and before they have completely fallen a prey to their employers’ wiles, we but make our task harder in the future.

Adolph Kohn

Address By A Comrade From Vienna (1951)

From the November 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Comrades,

I had considered it as a bit of luck for me that your Delegate meeting coincided with a visit to my sons in England, following on a business trip to Paris. It would give me a chance and the pleasure of meeting so many comrades assembled and speaking to them. Unfortunately, the strain of a long journey and attention to business forced me on the Sunday to take a rest and to renounce my original intention of attending the delegate meeting. In so far as I could anyway not have come before you as a delegate appointed by Austrian comrades organized in a socialist party, no harm has been done. Only the small number of comrades and friends, some of whom are personally known to those of you who visited me in Vienna, have asked me to bring their fraternal greetings and good wishes to all members of your party. I am sorry that we have not yet managed to combine our forces to some organisation but we shall continue to work towards that end. The example you are setting to workers everywhere is a great inspiration. There is your amazing war-record established under most appalling trials, your magnificent election efforts, etc., as evidence of what enthusiasm and devotion to the great cause of the working class can accomplish. It makes one truly ashamed and should spur any worker to whom knowledge of your work is brought home.

My own merit—if that can be called a merit—is that I am both in regard to association with the S.P.G.B. and age, one of the old comrades, having joined the party about 40 years ago. It was my privilege to have known personally some of the founders of the party, such lamented comrades as Jack Fitzgerald, Alex Anderson, Jacomb, F. C. Watts and Jacobs, Kohn, and numerous others—men for whom I have always had the highest admiration, to whom the international working class should be grateful and of whom they can be proud. Another of my own "merits” is that I seem to have been among the few first exponents —a poor exponent though—of the policy and declaration of principles of the S.P.G.B. in the German language on the Continent. I am sorry to say that my example does not so far seem to have been followed to any marked degree. Do not think that I am enjoying this honour and solitary position. I would much rather know crowds of comrades with greater abilities and potentialities coming forward everywhere and vying with me and others in spreading the real, revolutionary socialist message not only in the German speaking parts, but in all the continents. I would much rather be outdone and submerged in a flood of socialist propagandists.

As regards conditions in Austria, socialists do not need a lot of telling. They know that where money and capital rules, with its degrading wage-slavery, there our class suffers poverty, privation and insecurity with all the unhappiness and frustrations due to these things. Notwithstanding all the millions of dollars pumped into the country's industries by the Marshall-plan, there are a hundred-thousand unemployed and fears of more to come. So used are the capitalist statesmen to high figures of unemployment that a hundred thousand is considered negligible, it is even called “full employment” which, they say, “must be maintained.” Meanwhile prices keep rising, the four “Allied” Powers are still in occupation, jealously watching each other and giving no sign of quitting. It is of course part and parcel of the world-wide commercial rivalry between these Powers, notably between the U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R. Thus demarcation-lines, censorship, requisitions, victimisation and all the rest of the chicanery and threats continue unabated.

After 60 years of social reform activity fraudulently presented under the name of socialism or communism, the Austrian workers are today in a worse plight than ever before. This is not surprising because what, after all, do all these so-called reforms purport and amount to? Are they to make the worker’s life easier and more comfortable? Do they make for the enjoyment of life? The answer is No. All the legislators are concerned with is to stem the utter deterioration due to the exploitation of the workers, and to see to it that the burden of want, which is the bludgeon indispensable to drive the working class to work under the horrible conditions imposed by capitalist exploitation does not become heavier than the workers are expected to bear. Freedom from want and insecurity can only be ensured by the ending of exploitation and the total abolition of the capitalist system—which has been the consistent policy of the S.P.G.B. from its inception. To support any other policy, is to play into the hands of the workers’ enemies,

I wish I could bring our friends and others here to see you at work. 1 am sure it would be a great inspiration and fire them on to greater activity. During my brief visit I have of course also viewed your new premises and I congratulate you on having successfully mastered what must have been a difficult problem for workers not having the financial resources of the anti-socialist organisations, like the labour and “communist” parties, at their disposal. It would give me the greatest pleasure to be able to make some financial contribution towards your fine efforts, but unfortunately I can only express to you my best wishes for the continued prosperity of your labours. In taking leave, I renew my pledge to continue spreading the revolutionary message to the best of my ability and ask you to accept this fraternal salute from,

Rudolf Frank

Car Boot Capers (2010)

From the February 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

Shopping, it’s said, is the new religion, the new opiate of the people.

Once upon a time, as a youngster, Sundays – pre-television and transportless – used to stretch in front of one like the dry and arid sands of the Sahara Desert; never ending and devoid of activity. The oasis in the day, for me, was the evening time when the crackly sound of Radio Luxemburg playing the pop music hits of the day came over the transistor radio. My mom’s Sunday roast was always appreciated though even if I didn’t know then the hard work that went into it in a very non-labour-saving kitchen. For a very brief spell I was packed off to the local Sunday school but I’m happy to say that the boredom of that experience outweighed even that of the traditional ‘day of rest’ with restricted pub opening hours. Consequently I did not succumb to the mind-numbing brainwashing of religion.

Recently I watched a Nick Hornby film, Fever Pitch, and was struck by the piece where Ruth Gemmell berates Colin Firth for his obsession with measuring out his life according to the length of the football season. We all measure out our lives in ‘coffee spoons’ in one way or the other whether by the natural seasons, sporting ones, or in artificial capitalistic ‘financial years’ or ‘results quarters’. For the majority of us this measure is that of waiting for the next weekly wage packet or monthly salary cheque. The long-ago Sundays to which I refer were days to be endured rather than enjoyed. In those days a tramp around a muddy field was just that. Fresh air and exercise but without the added excitement of boxes of vinyl singles and long playing records to leaf through, and beef burger stalls filling the air with the smell of fried onions.

For some the season that provides most joy is ‘on hold’ pending dry weather and the certainty of not getting one’s car bogged down in the ‘parking area’. Wikipedia tells us, cautiously, that the world's first 'Boot Fair' or 'Boot Sale' was held in Kent in 1980. ‘The title or name 'Boot Fair' was coined by the originator and organiser, Barry Peverett, in order to create the curiosity that ultimately ensured that car boot sale events became a run-away popular success and a burgeoning nationwide weekend activity.’

Shopping, it’s said, is the new religion, the new opiate of the people. One of the arenas where this is demonstrated is the Car Boot. Bargains galore! A visit to a Car Boot evokes many sensations. I’m not sure if one of these is the adult equivalent of a child visiting a toy store or sweet shop. A cornucopia of commodities, a positive plethora of unused, unwanted possessions, a galaxy of gew-gaws awaits the early bird and the searcher of useless plastic objects! Car boots offer an opportunity to acquire some practical commodity, or simply something ‘because it was cheap’. Fifty pence? I’ll give you twenty five. Ok, thirty, sold. You can get unwanted children’s toys, outgrown clothes, VHS cassettes – superseded by a newer technology, DVD copies – cheaper than the original!, You can get electrical goods that scream at you caveat emptor!

Buyer beware! You can get books that should have been remaindered the day they were published. You can get knick-knacks, the garish, the gaudy, the tasteless and much more at the car boot.

Not everyone might be so flamboyant as the couple profiled in the Daily Mail who sold ‘a silver-plated tray, a pair of candlesticks and some designer shirts’ from the back of a Bentley and made £260 which they planned to use for ‘lunch at Le Gavroche,’ but the motivation is the same. (Link). Why would you rise at half five in the morning to load your vehicle with all the prerequisites necessary to stand in a field for seven hours and display your wares for the approbation of the passing crowd? Simple. To convert those items into cash.

Each of those items whether useful, worn out, kitschy, or merely decorative shares a common constituent. Each was made to be sold, most so that the ‘surplus value’, i.e. profit, in it could be realised. Each item wasn’t made to be aesthetically pleasing, long lasting, efficient, or made to contribute to the benefit of society or to the happiness of the individual. Apart from the trinkets produced for tourists the rest was originally made solely to produce profit for the benefit of a minority.

You will often find a stall displaying the sign, ‘free’. I once heard someone asking at such a stall, ‘how much are these then?’ The concept of giving away things that you no longer want to people who can make use of them is an admirable one. There are sites on the internet dedicated to acting as a ‘middleman’ to facilitate such actions. But not everybody is convinced of the argument for a society based upon free access: ‘At least one of your founding bloggers saw the bumper sticker below plastered on someone’s car today. ‘Healthcare for people – not for profit.’ Would anyone blame a doctor for taking a baseball bat to the car this was affixed to? We can’t help but wonder what other professions the morons who believe this slogan think should have all incentive removed. Homes for people not for profit; food for people not for profit; education for people not for profit. This list could go on forever” (Dead Link). Actually, yes it could.

Those Sundays of long ago might appear, to me, with the passing of time, to represent a more innocent, less exploitative time. If that were so then I would be talking nonsense. The social system then, as now, compelled those who owned nothing but their ability to work to seek out someone prepared to pay for those abilities in the knowledge that such as one-sided contract could be of benefit to one party only. One cannot turn the clock back. We can, though, turn the clock forward. Is a car boot all you really aspire to?

Dave Coggan

Film Review: The Master (2013)

Film Review from the January 2013 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Master (Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.)

Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, winner of the Silver Lion at the Venice Film Festival stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, and Joaquin Phoenix as the damaged WW2 veteran Freddie Quell.

This film is about the trauma and loss caused by war but also about hope and renewal. The opening part of the film is influenced by the 1946 US government documentary Let There Be Light directed by John Huston which was filmed at Edgewood State Hospital on Long Island, and chronicled shell-shocked soldiers entry into a psychiatric hospital, and their treatment. These war casualties suffered from debilitating emotional trauma and depression brought on by their experiences in the war.

The use of the popular wartime song Don't Sit Under the Apple Tree (With Anyone Else but Me) is reminiscent of its emotionally powerful use in the 1976 film Tracks by Henry Jaglom which starred Dennis Hopper as a traumatised Vietnam War veteran. During WW2 and after song lyrics spoke of 'seeing you in my dreams, finding you in another day'. The scars of war and the heartbreaking returns to Civvy Street prompted people's interest in other lives, memories, ghosts, science fiction stories, other worlds, and time travel.

The periods after war are fertile times for religion, spirituality, and metaphysical ideas as balm for scarred people, in fact they are ‘the opium of the people’. After WW1, spiritualism and theosophy were very popular, and after WW2 there was the 'beat generation' interest in eastern religions, and the publication in 1950 of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health by L. Ron Hubbard.

Hoffman's character Dodd is the charismatic leader of an organisation that seems to offer light and a beacon of hope to those damaged and lost in the world such as Quell. The Master is described as ‘riffing lightly off the life of L. Ron Hubbard.’ Director Paul Thomas Anderson says the film ‘takes its lead from the beautiful ideas expressed in Hubbard's book. The idea of recalling past lives is so hopeful, so optimistic, and it is something I would love to go along with’. Anderson adds that war and death make ‘people want to talk about past lives, about where we go after we die, time travel is possible, those are great ideas’.

Hubbard's book Dianetics was criticised in the New York Herald by Erich Fromm who saw that Hubbard's mechanistic view of the mind had no need for human values or conscience, and in the New York Times, Rollo May identified the fallacy of trying to understand human nature by invariant mathematical models taken from mechanics. Fromm later identified the mental health consequences of the contradictions in capitalism between 'having' and 'being', and the need for a sane socialist society in his book The Sane Society.

The Master was shot on now rarely used 65/70mm film stock and is a cinematic treat. It is reminiscent of the stately grandeur and beauty of films like 2001 and Barry Lyndon by Stanley Kubrick.

Steve Clayton

A Leisured Class. (1922)

A Short Story from the June 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Open Letter to Mike, ESQ.

Dear Fellow-traveller Mike,

You do not know me, and I only know you are Mike because your mate called you by name. You sat at the other end of the ’bus and discoursed of a leisured class; and the mate agreed with all you said. I am sure you are a nice man. Your turns of speech showed that you read; and I think you would be found in the gallery at the Old Vic. on Shakespeare and opera nights. I should have liked a word with you, and as I did not get it I write you a letter. If you do not see it, perhaps others may who think like you.

"In spite of all these socialists say,” you observed, "there’s a good deal to be said for a leisured class. Think of the special benefits it can give to society, having so much time and opportunity.”

Mike, we have had a leisured class for centuries. Has it bestowed benefits on mankind in excess of those contributed by men productively occupied? Has it furnished a preponderant share of the exceptional services? Not from its ranks came our Arkwrights and Stevensons, our Shakespeares and Burns’s, our Mozarts and Beethovens. Many of the greatest benefactors of their race did their work in despite of lack of leisure, in despite of the discouragement and persecution of their masters. You and I can dimly guess by how much we should be the gainers if they had enjoyed their master’s freedom. By all means let our artists, investigators and philosophers have every opportunity for their special work. But so long as Nature is so ill-advised as not to observe our class distinctions, they will be found not chiefly in any class favoured by economic conditions, but scattered throughout the community. Your plea for an idle class, therefore, becomes one for the utmost possible leisure for everyone, an end not to be attained by having the many workers serve the few idlers all day long.

But you said, "What right have we workers to interfere, anyhow? Even suppose they waste their time—ar’nt they enjoying the results of their exertions, or their fathers?” No. Mike, to know what it is they are really enjoying you must understand this. Human labour power is capable of producing more than is necessary to maintain itself. It is precisely this quality which makes it useful to the Capitalist, and you as the repository of labour power a man to be employed. The surplus he appropriates. Realised in sale it constitutes his profit: and the fortune which, if successful, he amasses, is but the embodied labour of his employees. If he himself takes part in his business, then some proportion of his fortune is the fruit of his own labour. But as you know, no producer of commodities grows rich by his own work alone. Even so-called self-made men, who at first are workmen, employ others as soon as they profitably can: and many a member of the idle class, so far from taking a share in the making of his money, hardly knows where it is invested. Thus their wealth, whether they spend it on themselves or bequeath it to their heirs, is by no means the harvest of their own industry, but the product of the hands and brains of men like you and your mate, who cannot take your ease but when you have leisure thrust upon you. Then, your employer conceives, you will be so busy contriving new blessings for humanity that you will have no time to eat—and omits to provide accordingly.

Your trouble is that you are too disinterested. When you discover the part which the leisured ones actually play in Capitalist economy, you will be less solicitous for their welfare and more for your own. You can learn quite a lot about it from this number of the Socialist Standard. But take it next month and every month, Mike ! It gives the knowledge you want!

Yours fraternally,

A.

Communist Rowdies. (1930)

From the March 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Daily Worker, the organ of the Communist Party of Great Britain, published on January 29th, on its editorial page, an article by Mr. Harry Pollitt, under the heading “Now is the Time for Action.” Among other forms which the action is to take we get the following direct incitement to the smashing up of opponents’ meetings.

   Workshop meetings should be called by such workers and resolutions for the support of our Party should be carried, but the mere passing of resolutions is not enough. There should not be a Labour meeting held anywhere, but that the revolutionary workers in that district attend such meetings and fight against the speakers, whoever they are, so-called “ left,” “ right ” or centre.”
   They should never be allowed to address the workers. This will bring us in conflict with the authorities, but this must be done. The fight can no longer be conducted in a passive manner.
     We must lead the masses in struggle against this Government and the time has arrived to use every conceivable means of political agitation. The Communist Party and its organ, the "Daily Worker,” will lead the working class, fighting boldly and openly, against this Government of scoundrels and agents of capitalism.

Editorial: The Socialist Movement in Other Countries (1930)

Editorial from the February 1930 issue of the Socialist Standard

PROGRESS IN AMERICA.

Our readers will have read with pleasure that in November last comrades of ours in New York launched the first number of their monthly journal, "The Socialist." The founders, the Socialist Educational Society, are trying to link up into a national organisation a number of groups and individuals who have long carried on separately the work of propagating Socialism.

"The Socialist” will make it possible for them to get their message before a wider public with the object of turning what is now an educational society, with a declaration of principles based upon our own, into a political party.

The starting of the new journal is by no means an isolated event. It is the outcome of years of hard and often seemingly fruitless efforts. But the handful who .persisted in that work were men who had learned by experience—some of them as members of the Socialist Party of Great Britain—that the road to Socialism cannot be an easy one. They know, as the founders of the S.P.G.B. knew, that there is no limit to the plausible but futile schemes for reforming Capitalism put forward by professional politicians and well-meaning but badly-informed would-be saviours of the working class, and that nothing but Socialist knowledge will make the workers secure against these political frauds and cranks. The publication of "The Socialist” marks a definite step forward for the Socialist movement in the U.S.A., and it also inevitably means a heavy additional burden for the comrades who are responsible, a new drain on their time, their energies and their pockets. We urge our readers here and in America to give what aid they can in extending the sale of the new journal in order to lighten as much as possible the work of the Socialist Educational Society. We hope next to be able to report that the extension of their activities, the holding of more study classes and propaganda meetings, will have made it possible to. form in the U.S.A. the looked for Socialist Party.

AND AUSTRALIA.

Reference has also been made from time to time in our columns to the Socialist Party of Australia, another young organisation formed by a few readers of the Socialist Standard. They, too, have as their basis our Declaration of Principles.

At their meetings and lectures they have been in the habit of selling our pamphlets and the Socialist Standard, but during the past year or two the Australian Government has done us the honour of banning our literature from that country. That action—still being continued under the present Labour Government which came into office last October—has caused us and our Australian comrades inconvenience and financial loss, but it is likely to have one very happy result. It has caused the Socialist Party of Australia to concentrate on publishing a journal of their own, and this they intend to do as soon as they can get together the necessary minimum of money. We commend this incident to the authorities who thought they could stop Australian workers from studying Socialism by excluding literature from abroad.

Readers in Australia who would like to assist in the work of the S.P. of Australia should get into touch with the Secretary, at P.O. Box 1440, Elizabeth Street, Melbourne.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION.

In the early days of the S.P.G.B. we sent delegates to the Congress of the International, but finding that parties were admitted to it which were prepared to repudiate by word and deed the fundamental principles of Socialism—parties here and abroad of the type of the Labour Party and the I.L.P.—we withdrew. We were not, and are not, prepared to associate internationally with organisations which are opposed to Socialism at home. In due course the war justified all our criticisms of the Second International. Not being based on Socialist principles and knowledge, it dissolved at the first shock into national groups anxious only to outdo each other in their ferocious jingoism and their demonstrations of loyalty to their respective sections of the Capitalist class.

The eventual formation of the Third (Communist) International has not solved the problem; rather has it confused it still more. It, like its rival, is prepared to admit organisations which are not in any sense of the word Socialist. It admits and supports bodies which are avowedly nationalist, interested primarily in helping one Capitalist country against another. It allows (or rather orders) its national parties to support Capitalist candidates at elections and advocates the suicidal policy of street-fighting. Its policy is dictated, not in the interests of the working class of the world, but in the interests of the developing Capitalist system in Russia striving for a place in the world scramble for markets.

The progress of Socialist organisation cannot be more advanced on the international than on the national plane. We look forward to the time when our work and the work of the bodies we have mentioned and other individuals and groups in English-speaking countries and in Austria and elsewhere, will bear fruit in a real International based not on illusions but on the solid foundation of Socialist knowledge and organisation.

__________________________

__________________________

NOTICE.

READ "THE SOCIALIST"

"The Socialist," organ of the Socialist Educational Society (U.S.A.), is obtainable from the publishers at 132 East 23rd Street, New York, or from this office. Price 3½d. a copy, post free; or 3/6 a year post free (one dollar a year post free in the U.S.A.). Bundles rates on application.

Parliament and Political Power (1978)

From the May 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is necessary to capture political power to install Socialism and to do this, workers must organize themselves as a political party having Socialism as its sole aim and send elected delegates to Parliament or its equivalent. However it is important to bear in mind that the objective to obtain a socialist majority in Parliament is totally subordinate to the need for a majority of workers to want and understand Socialism.

If it can be shown that political power must be captured and that Parliament is the seat of this power and can only be captured through parliamentary activity, one is bound to concur with the socialist, that Parliament must be legally captured to consummate the socialist revolution.

What is power?

Firstly, what is power? It is the capacity to coerce. The exercise of political power is ultimately dependant on the extent to which people, consciously or otherwise, permit themselves to be coerced. This willingness is sustained by the ideology of the ruling class which permeates all levels of society. Thus for socialists to capture political power entails supplanting the prevailing capitalist ideology with socialist consciousness among workers who, at present, place their trust in leaders and governments to administer capitalism. The apparent powerlessness of workers derives from the fact that they place their trust in others to do their political thinking for them — the very idea that “great men” determine history or how society is run, is itself an obstacle to the realization of the political power the working class can wield through class unity based on class-consciousness, whereby they can capture the state and install Socialism.

So the power that governments and leaders appear to possess is social; it is a product of social forces and how it is used is conditioned by the social environment. The social process of legitimizing power is formalized through the franchise which makes explicit the dependence of rulers on the consent of their subjects for them to rule. But even in dictatorships this dependence on the active or passive consent of people obtains. The power hierarchy pyramidal structure of ascending layers with each "layer” exercising power within the limitations placed on it.

The state is an organic expression of the fundamental class conflict within property society. It will not “wither away” as long as the class basis of society exists and conversely the class basis of society will not disappear as long as the state exists to prop it up. The state cannot be abolished without first abolishing property relations of which it is a product — and to abolish them, as the political act of establishing Socialism will do, it is thus necessary to capture the public power of coercion vested in the state which is at present geared to the protection of these property relations.

Marx hailed universal suffrage as a “socialistic measure” in England and claimed that, “Its inevitable result, here, is the political supremacy of the working class” (The Chartists 1852). Yet many so called “marxists” repudiate the “parliamentary road” to “socialism” even where such a road is open to them. Some of these critics indulge in flagrant hypocrisy in damning Parliament as a “farce” whilst exhorting workers to “vote Labour” or even contesting elections themselves! Socialists would be the last to deny that the Palace of Westminster reverberates with farce and hypocrisy but these qualities are inevitably bound up with running capitalism and are no less prevalent in dictatorships.

Thus it is necessary to distinguish between Parliament as a political institution as such and how it is used, which depends on who has control of it. Governments exist to administer capitalism, for which they have massive electoral support, by passing legislation through Parliament. Legislation is necessary for the same reason that it is bound to fail to solve the many problems attendant upon capitalism which it tries to ameliorate, because it is concerned basically with protecting and efficiently perpetuating the class structure of society whereas it is precisely due to the existence of class relationships that these problems arise in the first place. Socialists have never asserted that Parliament controls capitalism — indeed it is part of the socialist case that capitalism controls Parliaments and dictatorships alike. Parliament does however control the state. It would be very wrong to attribute political impotence to Parliament, as many "leftists” confusedly do, on the basis of its inability to solve the problems built into the capitalist economy. The political machinations of capitalist parties which involve attempting to solve these insoluble problems while conveying to a non-socialist electorate the illusion that they can be solved, are inevitably farcical.

The charge that Parliament does not control the state may best be answered by considering other alternatives. Certainly, the monarch does not. The civil service, police and army are all under the ultimate control of cabinet which itself operates within the framework of Parliament. Some argue that Big Business is the power behind the state but this overlooks the fact that Big Business is not some homogenous abstract entity but represents many diverse, clashing interests between which the state must mediate. Certainly, political representatives in Parliament are heavily influenced by pressures from all quarters but the very fact that it is felt necessary by these various interest groups to exert influence on Parliament confirms the power vested in Parliament: in the final analysis, Parliament is the crucible in which legislation is forged. Finally, the very fact that capitalists subsidize political parties heavily, underlines the view that the capitalist class most certainly considers Parliament to be the seat of supreme political power.

For socialists the end and the means are in harmony. If political power relies on mass consent then likewise the methods to capture political power must be socially recognized and that means contesting elections — anything other than this would mean the forcible imposition of the will of a minority on the majority. The creation of alternative structures like workers’ councils, does not constitute a positive rejection by the majority of the rule of the capitalist class through its state machine and leaves state power intact in the hands of a capitalist Parliament. Any attempt to appropriate this state power would constitute a direct threat to the state and would inevitably founder.

Socialist consciousness

The attainment of a majority of socialists in Parliament is the only practical way to unambiguously and democratically signal the existence of a mass socialist consciousness which is an absolute prerequisite for what can only be a clean-cut, change-over to a new social system, a “radical rupture with traditional property relations” (Communist Manifesto). The formation of a single revolutionary party to contest elections with a built-in anti-reformist democratic constitution is the only practical way to clearly demonstrate the extent of socialist consciousness in isolation from reform- mindedness and to unite and coordinate socialists, thereby welding them into a political force to capture the state.

There is a view which holds that parliamentary activity would “turn the majority of the working class into passive spectators of an active minority” (Libertarian Communism No. 6). But in what sense would the minority be active and the majority passive? The fundamental function of the minority (socialist delegates) would be the single political act of declaring capitalism abolished. Indeed, as delegates (as opposed to representatives) their actions would be wholly subordinate to the active control of the whole working class. Besides, the very nature of the socialist revolution requires that the majority understand and want Socialism and to this extent involves every socialist in active propaganda. For socialists what matters is not the activity of a few delegates but majority understanding.

Engels, in the introduction to Class Struggles in France, recognized the value of parliamentary activity:

   Everywhere . . . the German example of utilizing the suffrage, of winning all posts accessible to us, has been imitated . . .  Slow propaganda work and parliamentary activity are being recognized here, too, as the immediate tasks of the party. The irony of history turns everything upside down. We, the “revolutionaries” . . .  are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and revolts. The parties of order as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves.

Not only would attempts to “smash” or undermine the state, or to illegally dispossess capitalists of their property, result in, at best, providing governments with handy scapegoats to toy with or at worst suicidal folly, they would also necessitate leadership — an idea which is wholly incompatible with Socialism — and would detract from the all-important task of convincing people of Socialism.

Achilles heel

When the emergent capitalist class, spearheaded by the industrialists, was challenging the feudal aristocracy for political supremacy, they were compelled to seek assistance from the proletariat. Once the new capitalist class were enfranchised with the 1832 Reform Act, workers were able to obtain the franchise with the Second Reform act of 1867 (for male town workers) and an 1884 act (for male rural workers) and further acts in 1918 and 1928, by playing sectional capitalist interests, represented by Whigs and Tories, off against each other. The capitalist class has come to recognize the crucial importance of democracy (or the illusion of it) as the most stable and effective method to govern and contain the resentment of workers in a number of countries, particularly those with relatively high educational and living standards. The enfranchisement of the working class is the Achilles Heel of capitalist supremacy. Workers must not squander, or sneer at, this historically significant gain, but must follow through by using their votes to establish Socialism.

Robin Cox

Tankies, Mate . . . (2005)

Book Reviews from the December 2005 issue of the Socialist Standard

John Callaghan, Cold War, Crisis and Conflict, Lawrence & Wishart, £15.99

Geoff Andrews, Endgames and New Times, Lawrence & Wishart, £15.99

Lawrence & Wishart's 'official' history of the CPGB is completed by these two volumes which, somewhat overlapping, cover the years from 1951 to the party's oh so sad demise in 1991. Taken together this pair resemble the first two dry-as-dust academic tomes by James Klugmann published in the mid-60s rather than the more readable but scanty volumes of Noreen Branson. The similarity between them ends there however. Callaghan's task of covering the middle years of the 50s and 60s was more difficult given the rather arbitrary starting and ending points (1951 and 1968) and, despite the excitements promised in the title, the era was a largely static one so far as the CPGB was concerned. Callaghan however rises to the challenge and his book is an excellent survey of the organisation during the era.

The same cannot be said of the other offering. Whereas Callaghan is dispassionate in his treatment of the CPGB, Andrews' book reads like a polemic rather than a serious history. His supposition that the downfall of the CPGB was due to the decline of the industrial working class sounds like a Holocaust denier's rantings:"They just vanished mate". (On the other hand this is slightly more plausible than one version which points a finger at the CIA)

And with his constant waving of "the Soviet Mantra" and even a snide mention of "tankies", it is obvious which side he was on in the Civil War in the party. Not that we could give a monkey's for either side.

Both were downright reformists. And just how low down this supposedly revolutionary organisation was can be judged in the book. One 'demand' was for the reduction of National Service from two years to one. Not even the SWP in its current Mad Mullah Alliance phase is that bad. So Callaghan gets ten out of ten while Andrews' book gets him a wooden spoon rapped over the knuckles - and the CPGB? A nice cosy corner in the great dustbin of history specially reserved.

Kaz.

Obituary: Wally Preston (2000)

Obituary from the November 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

We regret to have to announce the death of Wally Preston. Wally first came across the Party in the 1930s joining Manchester Branch after the war before drifting out at the end of 1950s and rejoining in 1979. He was a tool-maker by trade and a stalwart of the engineering union over decades. It was his union activity that led him to become involved in the early 1970s in the International Socialism group, the organisation which was eventually to become the SWP. For a period Wally was a member of its National Committee and was the editor of Advance, the IS paper for rank-and-file workers in the power industry.

It would be fair to say that Wally was something of a “workerist” and one of his typical contributions was captured by Ian Birchall in his history of IS:

“At one IS conference an industrial worker denounced a document being circulated as 'so bad it must have been written by a sociologist'. He was cheered to the echo by the audience, a fair percentage of whom were sociology students.” 'The History of the International Socialists' by Ian Birchall in International Socialism 77 (first series).

The irony of this would certainly not have been lost on Wally. Eventually the 'rank and file' trade union militants with which Wally was associated left IS dismayed at its mixture of opportunistic student radicalism and vanguard politics. It was after a few years in the wilderness that he finally returned to the ranks of the SPGB in his native Manchester.

Andy Pitts writes:

I first met Wally some 13 years ago as a new member joining the Eccles Branch. I was immediately taken with his enthusiasm and struck by his passionate pursuit of the socialist cause. It was a time of intense branch activity and it was Wally who encouraged the members to throw themselves into the action and at times we were organising and addressing meetings not only in Eccles but also (with the help of the old Merseyside branch) in Warrington for a good period of time too.

We travelled all round the Greater Manchester area and beyond organising meetings, postering, selling literature on the streets, attending our opponents' meetings, anywhere we could find an audience to put the case for socialism. Wally would think nothing of nipping up to Barrow or down to London in the evening to address or attend a meeting. Even at that time Wally was considerably older than the rest of us, but he was never one to sit back, and let others do the work. He involved himself energetically in all publicity work, travelling countless miles on public transport with his wife, Blanche, with his paste bucket and bundles of posters. Wally was a knowledgeable man, self-educated with a prodigious ability to recall facts to bamboozle the opposition. If things weren't proceeding to plan you could always rely on him to set things right and eloquently explain the socialist position on whatever question was on the table.

Wally was also, to his credit, one of the founding members of South-East Manchester Branch, yet another area in which he used his talent and energy. Wally was committed to bringing the case to as wide an audience as he possibly could and was involved in a number of election campaigns using all his passion, experience and boundless energy to try to advance the socialist position. He was a walking encyclopaedia when it came to things historical with a particular area of speciality in things to do with Manchester. His tours on Marx in Manchester were an education. I for one am indebted for the enormous amount of information he imparted and felt the Party was, as he said, "the university of the working class".

Wally lived life to the full, not one to compromise his deeply-held principles. He had not only a life-long interest in politics, and in Marxist politics especially, but he was a keen exponent of jazz music. It was difficult to go anywhere with him without meeting somebody who knew him.

Wally has no need for an epitaph as the actions of his life in encouraging the working class to see through the mist of lies that obscure the truth say all that needs to be said.