Jamaica: Politics, race, and unemployment (1969)

From World Socialism '69

With the retirement of Norman Manley as leader of the People's National Party (PNP) Jamaica is now entering a new era in political activity. Both founding leaders, Bustamente and Manley, are now out of the way. The arena is dominated by Hugh Shearer, the present Prime Minister, for the Labour Party and Michael Manley, Manley's son, for the PNP.

The PNP have in the past expressed their support for 'Socialism' in the form of nationalisation of all the major essential services, electricity, and transport. Young Manley however made no reference to Socialism in his acceptance speech. In fact he gave no clear indication as to how the party stood, preferring to build his speech around popular phrases like 'social justice' and 'human rights'. Mindful perhaps of constant comment that the very word 'Socialism' is outdated in today's world, the new leader never mentioned it once—quite in contrast to his father's acceptance address 25 years ago. False Socialism has lost its vote appeal. Real socialists will not be displeased with this.

The motto of Jamaica is 'Out of Many One People'. Our leaders never cease telling the world that we are a model country for racial tolerance. All this has been taking a beating lately, as one of the first things a tourist is told on landing here is: "Don't leave your hotel at night, it is not safe." Early in October of last year a university lecturer from Guyana was barred from re-entering the country after attending a black writers' conference in Canada. He was accused of preaching violence and therefore being a security risk. A protest march organised by students was broken up forcibly by the police. That same night various buildings were burnt and looted. Over ten buses were also destroyed by fire. These violent acts are said to be an expression of Black Power. Chinese and people of fair complexion are the chief target. Not only American and English societies can give rise to Black Power. Here is an independent country with 90 per cent black population, under black leadership, calling for Black Power!

The misrepresentation of what independence meant has now given rise to widespread frustration. Over 20,000 kids leave school every year and enter the labour market and the last estimate put the unemployment figure at 150,000. The hopes expressed that industry would absorb the unemployment have not materialised. Factory after factory has been built employing only a menial amount of labour. The sugar industry, one of the chief users of labour, is now pressuring the government to mechanise. The decline of sugar prices on the world market makes a ton of sugar cost more to produce than it will fetch. Without the preferential agreement with Britain the industry would have folded up already. Some of the smaller factories have ceased operating. The government's dilemma is the putting out of work of thousands of unskilled workers or the slow death of the industry.

The situation in undeveloped countries like Jamaica is tense, changing, and difficult to forecast. One thing is certain: their undevelopment need not be a transition period as often believed, but can be a permanent state. Looking around, the task that faces a socialist seems overwhelming. With communication and waste of capitalism will become obvious to them. Spreading socialist knowledge may not be so difficult after this.

George Dolphy

Kingston, Jamaica.

An Echo of the Commune. (1908)

From the July 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Federation of the Seine. S.F.I.O., (French section of the Workers’ International), had issued its annual call to the Paris comrades to fall in and march in procession before the historic wall of Pere Lachaise Cemetery, where in May, 1871, many communard prisoners were shot and buried. The occasion was to be the more interesting because a memorial tablet upon the wall itself, and a monument upon the grave of Eugène Pottier, the writer of our song, the “Internationale,” were to be unveiled, and appropriate addresses delivered.

Arriving rather late at the cemetery, we found the procession slowly coming out and the avenue along which it was passing closely walled in by a line of Republican Guards infantry assisted by numerous policemen. These guardsmen, by the way (cavalry and infantry), are no easy-going two year conscripts, but are picked professional soldiers, who are maintained for the express purpose of providing a perpetual menace to the Parisian working class.

Trying another avenue by which to find the tail-end of the procession, we, with many others, found our way blocked by squads of policemen, and so decided to visit other parts of the famous cemetery, hoping to get access to the historic wall later when the crowd should have left.

But what was our surprise to find shortly, a party of soldiers, rifle on shoulder, step down from among the tombs and press us down the avenue towards the main entrance. And as we proceeded the folk gathered in the avenue bordered by the resting-places of famous men — artists, poets, statesmen, generals; while from between the tombs on either side came the rifle, cartridge-pouch, uniform, and flesh and blood within it that make up the soldier — hundreds of him. They were clearing the cemetery. Passing out and walking a few streets from the cemetery we saw a troop of Guards cavalry pass. They have no barracks in the quarter, neither do they mount guard at any public building there. Their presence could have but one meaning, namely, to remind the Parisian working class of the murderous powers at the disposal of the master class. And, indeed, what menace was there not in these rifles, swords, and trampling hoofs? What more was needed to call to mind the bloody week of May, '71, when some 35,000 men, women, and children of the working class were massacred by the army, which had been released by the German Government for that purpose?

Indeed must the master class feel its position shaky that it should think necessary such exhibitions of force! Meanwhile, for us, do not history and passing events reveal the despotic and murderous characteristics necessarily provoked in a master class? Yes! beyond all question. And therefore we must order our conduct, our teaching, and our organisation in conformity with the knowledge so acquired.

J. H. Halls

Party Pars. (1909)

Party News from the July 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Walthamstow Branch has been formed and its propaganda promises well. The new East Ham Branch is entering into the work with vigour, not only in their district, but in West Ham also, where assistance has been greatly needed.

#    #    #    #

Paddington Comrades seem destined for particular police attention. Hitherto all attempts of the local snobocracy to discredit the Party and stop our meetings there have failed, and now the police are being used against us. There may be developments. Meanwhile our comrades are going strong. An extra meeting place has been opened at Victoria Road, Kilburn, where excellent work is being done every Wednesday, and a debate with a representative of the Anti-Socialist Union will take place there soon.

#    #    #    #

The attention of comrades and friends is drawn to the fact that more money is needed at the Head Office. Three new pamphlets and a fourth edition of the now famous "Manifesto," as well as four new leaflets, are now "on the way." and doubtless the printer will want a little on account. Therefore "IT'S YOUR MONEY WE WANT.”

Copies of "Socialism v. Social Reform " can can still be had, and comrades "at large” as well as Branches should secure supplies and scatter wide.

#    #    #    #

Those travelling showmen of the Clarion have been engaging the attention of some of our comrades. A Woolwich one writes "Lord almighty vanner Hick has visited us and, being compelled to admit the truth of our position, advised the working ‘classes’ to join the S.P.G.B.! He will be joining the unemployed presently, unless he changes again." At Tottenham Mr. Muir Watson, who was well received by a few Liberals, looked anything but comfortable when tackled by our men. In answer to questions he claimed that "it does not really matter whether there is a class war or not.” He "would not say nationalisation was Socialism, at least, not in Tottenham ” Asked to allow opposition he replied, "No Socialist is allowed on the van — only anti-Socialists," thus naively explaining his presence thereon.

#    #    #    #

Expose the bounders !

#    #    #    #

Mr. Harrison's questions will be answered in our next issue. The growing demands upon our space make it increasingly difficult to meet all requirements.

Outposts of Empire. (1910)

From the July 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

The ruling class of Great Britain have managed to seize more of the earth's surface than any of their competitors. Capitalists of other lands are handicapped, therefore, in finding a market for the increasing quantity of products that result from modern industry. In consequence they have of recent years shown great activity in organising and extending their fighting forces, in view of the wars rendered almost inevitable in the fierce struggle for markets and colonies, present and to come. The capitalist dam of England are using all endeavours to safeguard their interests and to maintain their supremacy, and they view with dismay the admitted fact that the state of recruiting is such that the authorities dare not impose the severe training that obtains in the armies of their Continental rivals. They see that it is no patriotic motive that leads a man to join the "colours,” but merely the want of the necessaries of life. The Army Medical Department in their August 1908 report said :

    “The majority of recruits were growing lads and a large number were out of employment at the time of enlistment. Experienced recruiting agents estimate the proportion of the latter as high as 95% of the total. In many instances the lads were suffering from want of food and »ere generally in poor condition. The old tests which recruits used to be subjected to are far too severe for the would-be soldier of to-day "

To remedy this state of affairs, to get a larger and better supply, our masters are trying to arouse and foster the military spirit in the sons of the workers. Hence, they institute rifle ranges in the schools, start Boys' Brigade and Boy Scout movements. They also use men who have a following among certain circles — men like Robert Blatchford —  to write articles in their Press, praising the British Army and painting the life of “Tommy Atkins" in rosy colours.

The ignorance of the workers is one of the chief obstacles which Socialists at present have to face. On the other hand it is the one thing upon which the capitalists trade, when dealing with the workers. It is with a view to dispelling the ignorance of how the employing class treat those who serve them that the following two extracts from the Liberal Press are given.

   “Brooding over poverty and his inability to find employment, Joseph Henry Broad, twenty-eight, a builder’s labourer, of Gold-street, Stepney, ended his misery by committing suicide. The inquest disclosed a pathetic story. The widow stated that her husband was formerly a soldier in the 2nd Essex Battalion. He served in the South African war, and had two medals and three bars. They had been married eleven months, and during the whole of that time had been particularly unfortunate, her husband having had only six weeks’ work. He was much depressed owing to not being able to obtain employment, and on the day of his death she found him sitting by the fire, crying bitterly. Witness left the room for a few minutes, and on her return she found that he had hanged himself with a leather belt. Medical assistance was summoned, but her husband was found to be dead.
  “Witness added that her husband recently had influenza. The reason he was crying was because they could not meet their expenses. After paying the rent on that morning they had only two farthings left. The deceased was invalided home from South Africa, and had a pension of sixpence per day. The Coroner: How have you managed to live? Witness: We borrowed on the pension. Witness farther stated that she and her husband had been very short of food. On Friday last all they had to eat was a bloater between them, and on Saturday a halfpennyworth of fried potatoes. Of late they had subsisted mainly on bread and butter. Her husband’s relatives were poor people, but used to make a collection weekly in order to help them.”

Reynolds’ Newspaper, 1.5.10. 

   “Three little children were murdered at Islington last night It is alleged that their father cut their throats with a razor during the mother’s absence from home. The cause of the dreadful crime was poverty. The scene of the tragedy was a house in Dennis-street off the York-road, when Henry Higginbottom, his wife, and three of a family occupied one room. Higginbottom, who has been in the army, is a carman, but of late has been out of employment. He is only 25 years of age. . . . Continued unemployment had made him depressed and this preyed upon his mind. . . . Higginbottom is said to have served in the South African War, and to be at the present time in the Army Reserve and in receipt of a pension. The wife is employed at a coffee shop. She was called from her employment to hear the news of the tragedy, and when she saw her children lying dead she fainted.”

Reynolds’ Newspaper, 24.4.10.

After fighting for those who rule, they were left to suffer hunger and to face unemployment; to see those dependent upon them want. These men helped the capitalists to get a “United South Africa ”; to raise the Union Jack over the graves of thousands of men, women and children on the veldt. How different has Lord Kitchener been treated on his return! Feted by the leading lights of the capitalist class everywhere. They did not let him want. The workers, after all, are so many, so they can be left to starve.

The Liberal and Tory party voted £50,000 to Lord Kitchener and £100,000 to Lord Roberts for their misdeeds in South Africa.

Fellow workers, your masters take advantage of your hunger and nakedness to enlist you in their battalions. For what? To defend their property at home and abroad; to keep your fellow slaves in subjection in Britain ; to extend the boundaries of their empire.

You own no property to defend ; you have no freedom to conserve. It behoves you, therefore, whether inside or outside the army, to join the Socialist Party.

The aim of the Socialist Party is to abolish the property conditions that give rise to wars; to institute a system wherein armies and navies become unnecessary and merely figure in the memories of a hated past. Read its literature.

Adolph Kohn

Sugar Trust Saints. (1911)

From the July 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The materialist basis of Smythe-Piggott’s “Abode of Love” was demonstrated by the fact that the Spaxtonites were large shareholders in the VV Bread Co. Now the following from the “Daily Chronicle,” June 28, shows the “alliance” between the Latter Day Saints and the Sugar Trust. How happy the trust employees must be to know that their "saintly” employers use the proceeds of their exploitation to provide “Turkish delight” for the elders of the Mormon Church!

  “Testimony given by Joseph Smith, the head of the Mormon Church, before the committee of the House of Representatives investigating the methods of the Sugar Trust to-day, showed how converts were made chiefly through the use by the Latter Day Saints of their enormous profits on their Sugar Trust securities. 

   "He explained that the beetroot industry, with its sugar products, was a leading industry of Utah, and that owing to the fact that refineries in the west were making beetroot sugar cheaper than the cane sugar of the trust, an 'alliance’ was made between the Mormon Church and the American Sugar Refining Company. 

  “The Mormons showed themselves as cunning as the heads of the trust, and instead of the latter buying out the Mormons to their exclusion, Mr. Smith testified that the Latter Day Saints were the heaviest holders of Sugar Trust stock. 

  “The proceeds from these securities, however," said the witness, "are not used for the material advantage of our society, but for the conversion of Gentiles." 

   “We use this money for the development of religious work, and especially for defraying the expenses of our missionaries abroad." Mr. Smith knew nothing of the ‘watering’ of the trust’s stock or anything about the company’s 'high finance,’ but only that the money derived from the ‘alliance’ was highly useful in making converts.”

Anyone for more of the same? (1997)

From the April 1997 issue of the Socialist Standard

The four-yearly spectacle called the general election is upon us once again and once again, for a short time at least, the working class — the vast majority of the population — is considered to be of some political consequence. As in the past, the politicians are desperate for our votes, but this time with one difference: it is now almost universally accepted that there isn't the slightest difference between any of them.

Opinion polls are not famous for their accurate forecasts but this one was a bit different. Advertising agency Bates Dorland recently asked a thousand people whether their vote at the coming election would be influenced by the opinion of some celebrity in sport, business or entertainment. And enough of them said yes, they would change sides, to affect the overall result of a general election. Mega-costly footballer Alan Shearer, for example, could allegedly change the vole of about four million people. The Spice Girls, just by saying they would vote Conservative, could bring about a ten percent swing. Richard Branson could influence the way about a third of the electorate vote.

Well anyway that is how the poll (reported in the Sunday Times, 23 February) worked it out. Before we discuss it as a typical example of ad agency buffoonery we should bear two things in mind. The first is that both Labour and Conservative parties regard the matter of celebrity endorsement seriously enough to have units at their headquarters working on it The second is that the poll may have turned out as it did because of a growing recognition that there is really nothing to choose between the two big parties. If their policies are so similar, if Blair, Brown and Straw will behave roughly the same in office as Major, Clarke and Howard there is no point in choosing one or the other party on the basis of micro-differences in their manifestos. Instead of ploughing through their election addresses and TV party political programmes, why not simply vote the same way as your favourite footballer or pop star or tycoon? “When the two parties are so similar,” said Donald Shell, who lectures in politics at Bristol University, "someone like Branson could have a considerable effect.”

Clement Attlee
This widespread recognition that there is no real difference between the Labour and Tory parties may make this election different; in the past there has been little sympathy for the socialist view, that to choose between those parties was a waste of time. Labour Party members argued with some passion that their policies would bring about important, much needed changes in society. Now that party is consumed with anxiety to reassure the voters that they will change nothing that matters. If that makes them seem just another Tory party—well, the Tories have won an awful lot of elections even if we don’t count the last four and winning elections is what Labour is in business for.

In fact the two parties have always stood for fundamentally the same things — for all that is implied by a social system of class ownership of the means of production and distribution. The differences between them were always superficial, even in those heady days of 1945 when Clem Attlee became prime minister on the basis of the manifesto Let Us Face the Future (even then there were those who asked whether Labour’s willingness to have us face the future was rooted in their reluctance to face their past). Attlee did not use one of those big limousines which are now so essential a part of a minister’s life; he was driven around by his wife in a drab, modest family car and that was the style in which he went to Buckingham Palace to see the King about being prime minister. The King knew what was coming: nationalisation, the National Health Service, Keynesian economics and so on. At the time the Labour Party, celebrating the opportunity to put their ideas into practice, assured us that these measures were needed to build a stable, prosperous and secure life for us. But now most of what they established has been, or is being, dismantled—apparently without any official opposition from the Labour Party.

Nationalised coal
A prime example of this is the coal industry. One of the proudest achievements, heavy with an enormous emotional investment, of the 1945 Labour government was the nationalisation of the mines. The history of the coal industry — the terrible working conditions, the “accidents” which killed hundreds of miners, the greed and complacency of the private owners—was awful enough to generate a lot of support for the plan to take the industry into state control (after appropriately compensating those greedy owners). Vesting day was celebrated in mining communities all over the country.

Of course years of privatising Conservative government has since changed the situation but for a long time the Labour Party clung to a stated intention to re-nationalise the coal industry. In March 1994 their shadow Energy Secretary, Martin O'Neill, told the Commons, “The Labour Party is not simply opposed to the [Privatisation] Bill. It is committed to the re-introduction of public ownership of the coal industry.” A lot of Labour Party members, not to mention a lot of miners, must have thought that was pretty clear, except that six months later that same Martin O'Neill confided to a gathering of the industry’s executives, “While we envisage a national role for coal in our energy strategy, we do not intend to re-nationalise the industry.” He did not add, “Because we think nationalisation is a vote loser”, but if he had that would have made it clear to everybody.

Losing votes—or winning them—has always been vital to the Labour Party but now it is their obsession, open and unashamed. It was not always so obvious. In the past, before the spin doctors ruled, Labour was capable of producing policies which seemed not only irrelevant to the needs of British capitalism but also inexplicably suicidal. For example in their 1953 statement Challenge to Britain Labour proposed to take the British Sugar Corporation into “full public ownership". There was a storm of opposition in the industry led by the giant Tate and Lyle. This company was responsible for creating a cartoon character—Mr Cube, a talking sugar lump who appeared on every pack of sugar, going on about labour’s plan to bring down civilised life as we know it, starting with the sugar industry. Labour’s proposal came to nothing and now a state of peace and mutual admiration exists between the Labour Party and the sugar industry. In November 1994, when Tony Blair made one of his many speeches which assure a gathering of high-flying business people that they had nothing to fear from a Labour government, one of his audience enthused:

   ". . . an excellent speech, very focused. If there is a Labour government I don't think anybody is going to be concerned that there's going to be a great vendetta against business.” 

That comment came from Neil Shaw, chairman of Tate and Lyle.

The Labour Party manifesto in the 1987 election had a clear commitment on Child Benefit: “We will increase Child Benefit by £3 a week for all children, raise the allowance for the first child by £7.36 . . . " In 1992 the figures were different but the promise largely similar: “We will increase Child Benefit to £9.95 a week for all children with the full value going to every family.” This was another of those promises dear to the hearts of Labour supporters but now shadow Chancellor, Gordon Brown, has other ideas. He plans to end the payment of Child Benefit to all families, in particular for 16-17-year-olds in full time education. His argument for this, at last year’s Labour conference, was that at present the benefit would be paid for a millionaire’s child but not for an unemployed youngster but he did not say how it helped the out-of-work child to abolish the payment. At present Labour has no plans to keep to its former promise to increase the level of the benefit.

Of course Brown is busily building for himself a reputation as an Iron Chancellor—and this before he has taken hold of so much as one of those red boxes. He is not impressed by Labour supporters’ emotional attachment to schemes for spending out on things like hospitals, schools, houses. Under his unrelenting scrutiny there will, he warns, be only “ . . . costed, hard-headed radical policies . . . No quick fixes. No easy options . . . No wish-list spending solutions . . . “ This sounds just like any Conservative chancellor—in fact a sight more dour than many of them, just as shadow Home Secretary Jack Straw’s promises to be harsher and more demanding than Michael Howard, and shadow Education Secretary David Blunkett more rigid and repressive than Gillian Shephard. And over them all looms Tony Blair, who regularly dispenses the most appalling guff: ". . . Our education system must be guaranteed to serve all our people, not an elite . . . We must ensure that the new technologies, with their almost limitless potential, are harnessed and dispersed among all our people . . . We must create a society based on a notion of mutual rights and responsibilities . . . “

Anyone who has had enough of this kind of empty rhetoric may be asking why. The first thing to say is that there has not been a transformation in the Labour Party. The apparent change is not out of the party’s character, something which can be reversed when the party rediscovers its soul. The Labour Party was formed and developed with the aim of governing British capitalism. That is what they did in those days, the subject now of so much misguided nostalgia, when they nationalised almost everything except the sugar industry, when they set up the National Health Service and what came to be know as the Welfare State. Their record shows that they ran capitalism as it had to be run—as a class society of poverty and riches, of exploitation and conflict. They did not control capitalism, as they had promised, because it is a system out of control. That essential chaos has been the story of every Labour government since 1924.

Opinion poll

After nearly 20 years in opposition, the Labour Party has decided that their best hope of winning an election is to make the necessary changes so that they are almost identical to the Conservatives. After all if Tory policies and images have been so successful why not just imitate them? Of course this may upset a few traditional supporters but they can always join Arthur Scargill’s doomed battalion. But the cynicism may be too obvious; the fact that it is now clearer than ever that the parties are so alike may alert a lot of voters that in this election they don’t have a real choice. Why, it may even occur to the advertising industry.

Which brings us back to that opinion poll, When they told the Spice Girls about it one of them (a Tory voter) was suitably outraged: “What is the state of the government if we can have any influence. I think that’s terrible.” Was this an appeal to the working class to take the election more seriously, to value more highly their political power to change society in a meaningful way? If it really needs a pop star to do this the situation may be even more depressing than we feared. However, we are certainly not mystified by it. Only those who support the market economy can be truly surprised by the weariness and political disillusionment which infects the population at large after decades of posturing and broken promises by the parties of capitalism.

Ivan

Why Socialists Oppose Anarchism. Its Fallacies and Dangers Exposed. (1911)

From the August 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Difference is Fundamental
The evils of modern society stand out for all men to see, but the remedy is far less obvious. To arrive at the conclusion that Socialism is the real remedy involves patient study and investigation of the affairs of modern life.

Unfortunately, there are some workers who shun the duty of thinking out these “problems,” and they, therefore, fall a prey to the plausible plea of the Anarchist, who misrepresents, besides misunderstanding, the views of the Socialist.

The idea widely prevails that the difference between Socialism and Anarchism is simply one of methods—the end in view being the same. Far is this from being the case, however. The whole philosophy of the Socialist is at variance with the Anarchist position. A brief survey of the history of the Anarchist theory will make that clear.

The pioneer of Anarchism was Max Stirner, who, in “The Individual .and his Property” (published in 1845), expounded the “philosophy” that lies at the root of all Anarchist teaching. The only “reality” that he recognised was that of the individual. In his own words:

  “Away with everything that is not wholly and solely thy own affair. You think that my own concerns must at least be good ones? A fig for good and evil! I am I, and I am neither good nor evil. Neither has any meaning for me. The godly is the affair of God, the human that of humanity. My concern is neither the Good, the Right, the Free, etc., but simply my own self, and it is not general, it is individual as I myself am individual.”

Stirner’s views may well be summed up as Idealism run mad. For him there was no such process as evolution in society and the majority of the institutions of social life were but phantoms. He starts with a pure abstraction, the individual, but this afterwards stands unmasked as an individual of the bourgeoisie!

Very Much Like Capitalism.
It is in opposing Communism that Stirner — as is inevitable with the logical Anarchist — shows the bourgeois nature of his ideal.

   “Communists think that the Commune should be property owner. On the contrary I am a property owner and can only agree with others as to my property. I am the owner of property but property is not sacred. Should I only be the holder of property? No, hitherto one was only the holder of property, assured of possession of a piece of land, but now everything belongs to me. I am the owner of everything I need and can get hold of. If the Socialist says society gives me what I need the Egoist says I take what I want. If the Communists behave like beggars the Egoist behaves like an owner of property.”

Stirner only objected to the State of his day because it interfered with his freedom as owner of commodities. Individual “rights” and desires were alone to be regarded, and to maintain them he advocated the formation of “Leagues of Egoists.” Shades of Individualism !

Stirner was followed by Proudhon, who took the same Utopian point of view. The whole mechanism of our social life is not the growth of more and more complex relations between man and man—developed through the connection established by industrial operations — but is born of men’s ideas! “The political constitution was conceived and gradually completed in the interest of order for want of a social constitution, the rules and principles of which could only be discovered as a result of long experience, and are even to-day the subject of Socialist controversy.” (“Confessions of a Revolutionist." ) ,

Hence we see that epochs in human history are not viewed as necessary stages in the upward march of men from the time when, faced with only the elemental forces of nature, they slowly but steadily became masters of implements and powers, and by their influence arose the differing and progressing forms of social life. No, the Anarchist says that right down the ages men have been seeking.the perfect society ; but it is only discovered in all its charm and beauty, now — by the Anarchists!

The Utopian Spirit of Anarchism.
Stirner and Proudhon have been dealt with to show the Utopian nature of Anarchism in all its majesty. Go right through the Anarchist writings, from Stirner to Bakunine and Kropotkin and notice the same spirit through it all. Like all Utopians, they start out with an abstract principle, and endeavour to apply it so as to form a perfect society.

Proudhon plainly showed in his “Philosophy of Misery,” the petty bourgeois nature of his “system.” Individual ownership and control of the instruments of industry, with State regulation of prices so as to avoid industrial crises !

This great Anarchist even denounced Trades Unionism as as outrage against “the liberty of the individual.” This is the man whom Kropotkin acclaims as “the founder of Anarchism.”

Proudhon’s theories underwent but slight change at the hands of his successor. Michael Bakunine, “the Apostle of Universal Destruction.” Although claiming to believe in the common ownership of the means of life, his views demonstrated that Individual Anarchism is the only logical alternative to the opponent of Socialism.

At a Congress in Berne in 1869 Bakunine pleaded for ‘'the economical and social equalisation of classes and individuals.” This is the same as Proudhon's theory of the unity of Capital and Labour. Continuing, Bakunine said "I detest Communism because it is the negation of Liberty.” The mental kinship of Bakunine with his Utopian predecessors is well established by his idealistic views. “I desire the radical extirpation of the principle of the authority and tutelage of the State, which has until now enslaved, exploited, oppressed and depraved men. I desire the abolition of property, individually hereditary, which is nothing hut a result of the principle of the State.”

Anarchism Ignores Evolution.
The private ownership of the means of life has its roots, then, in the principle of the State!

Bakunine’s influence is very marked on his follower, the leading living Anarchist, Prince Kropotkin. Like the whole school of Anarchists, be ignores the trend of social evolution and invents a “perfect society” of the future. In the “Conquest of Bread” he says “It is of an Anarchist Communist society that we are about to speak, a society that will recognise the absolute liberty of the individual." (Chap. XII.) In his address to the Jura Federation he said : “This ideal is not the product of the dreams of the study, but flows directly from the popular aspirations, that is in accord with the historical progress of culture and ideas.” This metaphysical vein permeates all Anarchist teaching. Jean Grave, the prominent French Anarchist, in his “Moribund Society and Anarchy," tells us that the conceptions of Anarchists "are in harmony with the physiological and psychological nature of man and in harmony with the observance of natural laws, while our actual organisation has been established in contradiction of all good logic and all good sense.”

The Socialist is a materialist, the Anarchist an idealist. The Socialist recognises social development as a consequence of the evolution of economic forces. The Anarchist view is well stated by Kropotkin in ‘Anarchism: Its Philosophy and Ideal," as follows: “ The fact is that each phase of development of a society is a resultant of all the activities of the intellects which compose that society; it bears the imprint of all those millions of wills."

The Socialist Position
With the materialist conception of history as his guide, the Socialist correctly grasps the relation which prevailing institutions hear to the slavery of the working class. But turn to the bewilderingly vague writings of the Anarchists and you will find them filled with the most vain tirades against the State and every form of authority. “The State," “Authority," and “Law" are held to be the real cause of the workers’ sufferings, and the immediate abolition of the State is said to be "the only way."

Against this the Socialist places the scientific position. The State is not born of a despot's ideas —conceived and built up to do his bidding. Frederick Engels. in his brilliant work “The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State," shows that the State as we know it, is but the final form of an institution which fulfilled a useful service in the social economy of the past. It arose as a part of the division of labour in early societies, and carried on the administration of public affairs. The advent of private property in the means of producing wealth gradually influenced the form of the State till it became the instrument of the ruling class.

The State has been the State of the chattel-slave owner, the State of the feudal nobility, and now it is the State of the industrial capitalist. It exists to day because there is a class to be kept in subjection. When the present subject class become organised and seize political power, their supremacy will have sounded the death-knell of the State. The working class being the last class to achieve its freedom, its emancipation will end class distinctions: neither a dominant nor a subject class can exist when the ownership of the means of life is vested in the community.

Anarchists are fond of accusing Socialists of wanting to increase the power of the State. Marx and Engels are denounced by Kropotkin (“Conquest of Bread’’ and elsewhere) for this reason. Yet every student of these Socialist pioneers knows that they pointed out that when the toilers triumph the day of the State will be gone for ever. The Anarchist lament about tyranny under Socialism will be seen to be without foundation. Tyranny presupposes power, but when the instruments of production are commonly owned, power to oppress can no longer exist. Further, when wealth is no longer privately owned there is no incentive to tyrannise. There are no clashing interests —the mainspring of tyranny.

All Anarchist conceptions are vitiated by their misunderstanding of the nature of society. W C. Owen, in the pamphlet “Anarchy versus Socialism,’’ says: “Anarchy concentrates its attention on the individual, considering that only when absolute justice is done to him or her will it be possible to have a healthy and happy society. For society is merely the ordinary individual multiplied indefinitely." The Socialist, on the contrary, holds to the view accepted universally in scientific circles to-day, viz., that society is something more than a number of individuals—society is an organism. Even the great anti-Socialist, Herbert Spencer, proved conclusively the organic nature of society.

As the result of their erroneous view, the Anarchists are wholly concerned with the individual. “Absolute liberty of the individual” is their cry. Ever busy discussing the “rights” of the individual and the tyranny of other than individual control of affairs, they lose sight of the importance of the economic necessities of society itself.

Consider the possibilities and needs of modern life. A great population covers the globe. These people need “food, clothing, and shelter” and a hundred and one other things that centuries of economic advance have accustomed them to and made part of their standard needs. How are these things to be supplied ? What are the means at our disposal ? To provide the things required the great machinery, etc., has to be used in accordance with the best and most productive methods. Association of the wealth producers is an imperative necessity of the future. This involves the organisation of industry, the division of labour, and the arrangement of processes in proper sequence. The distribution of wealth has to be organised, too, otherwise chaos and starvation ensue.

This is where Anarchism plainly fails, for it repudiates the very mainspring of organisation. It proclaims each individual a law unto himself. It stands for the universal play of “free agreement.” Apply that to industrial life and see how it would work out.

If the production and distribution of social necessaries were to wait on the “free agreement” of all the industrial population to certain methods being pursued; if industry were to depend upon the whim and caprice of the members of society, then Nemesis would await us. The running of a railroad, the sailing of a ship, the building of a bridge, all these involve centralised control and speedy action.

The Socialist does not advocate Socialism as “the perfect system.” He seeks but to adapt institutions and customs to the changes in the mode of producing wealth. He claims that, subject to evolution, therefore, imperfect though it be, it is the best system possible in the circumstances that face us.

The common ownership of wealth is decreed as the only alternative to private ownership, and the method of production conditions the method of control. Democratic control is the complement of communal ownership. The Anarchist hates democracy, while the Socialist takes it for his constant guide. The Anarchist rejects the view that the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the masses, and believes that the action of an “intelligent minority” suffices. The rest will be carried along. Autocracy is the logical outcome of his method, and reaction the inevitable aftermath. Majority decisions are anathema to the Anarchist.  He asserts that “the majority have ever erred.” Let us again quote Owen’s pamphlet.

  “If the workers were to come into possession of the means of production tomorrow, the administration, under the most perfect system of universal suffrage—which we attained in this country years ago, and have been vainly trying to doctor into decent shape for generations past —would simply result in the creation of a special class of political managers, professing to act for the welfare of the majority. Were they as honest as the day, which it is folly to expect, they could only carry out the dictates of the majority, and those who did not agree to those dictates would find themselves outcasts.”

How do the Anarchists propose to administer affairs? How are means of production to be controlled? Kropotkin, in “Anarchist Communism, its Basis and Principles," says they "must be managed in common by the producers of wealth.” Though freely denouncing democratic methods the Anarchists never face facts and state how the socially owned means of production are to be “commonly controlled” except through democratic channels (i.e., “under the most perfect system of universal suffrage”). Individualist-Anarchism offers the only retreat for the “Anarchist-Communist,” and this involves the individual ownership and control of wealth producing instruments. In other words, the evolution of industry and the immense amount of wealth now required for our use must be ignored, and we are to return to handicraft and petty enterprise!

Democracy, to the Socialist, does not only mean the counting of heads. It implies opening all the means of knowledge to the entire population; giving access to every source of information and advancement to all — thus ensuring, as far as is humanly possible, that the vote is the deliberate expression of the will of equals. And if all do not agree, then ample justification exists for acting on the decision of the majority in matters of social importance. There is no other way. The minority are ever free to try to change the opinions of the majority, but they must loyally abide by the supreme views in the meantime. Without this all organisation is impossible, whether its ramifications extend to society or are extremely limited.

Though the Anarchists condemn democratic procedure, by stating that nobody can represent us but ourselves, they have to destroy their own theory when they begin to act. Of course, such times are very infrequent, but one such occurred at the last Anarchist congress (Amsterdam, Aug. 1907). There representatives of various bodies in different countries attended, and besides voting, they constituted an International Bureau "composed of five delegates." (“Freedom” report.)

That is the Anarchist tribute to the soundness of Socialist criticism. It must be obvious that great populations cannot come together and discuss and arrange all matters in detail, but must delegate their authority to representatives. 'Though the “Referendum” and “Initiative” are serviceable methods, they must be supplemented by delegation when occasion demands. Even the first two methods turn on majority rule in the last analysis.

In economics the Anarchist rivals the Anti-Socialist in misrepresentation of the Socialist position. Kropotkin attacks Marx (in “The Wage System") for advocating the use of labour notes as a method of paying wages under Socialism, in spite of Marx’s repudiation of them in his "Critique of Political Economy" and the “Poverty of Philosophy.”

Marx and Engels analysed capitalist society and laid bare the process of exploiting the working class. In his three great volumes on the Production and Circulation of Capital, Marx demonstrates the true nature of Value, Price, end Profit, and buttresses his own theories by quotations from the classic writers of the nineteenth century. Yet the Anarchist “economists” continually accuse him of accepting the views of Smith, Ricardo, and others, without independent inquiry!

“It was from Malthus’ supposed law of population that Ricardo deduced his famous theory of rent which Henry George has made familiar to everybody, and on which Marx founded hie ‘Scientific Socialism ’ ” !

Thus the Anarchist pamphlet “Anarchy and Malthus,” by C. L. James, published recently. In it we are also told that “the difference between Anarchism and Socialism as we usually understand the later term is the difference between Malthus and Ricardo."

The whole pamphlet is typical of Anarchist confusion. Malthus’ moonshine is supported, and no praise seems sufficient for the priestly defender of the must inhuman methods capitalism used in its prime. Malthus is commended “with those who abolished slavery, repealed the Corn Laws, put an end to imprisonment for debt,” and “ established the policy of peace.” Apart from this highly imaginative “history,” the Anarchist forgets to remark that Malthus was mainly occupied with such things as opposing Poor law relief “because it fostered the perpetuation of the unfit.”

Kropotkin’s “criticism” of the Marxian Surplus-Value theory is remarkable. He says (“Conquest of Bread"): "The evil of the present organisation is not that the ‘surplus-value' of production passes over to the capitalist—as Robertus and Marx had contended. Surplus value itself is only a consequence of more profound causes. The evil is that there can be any kind of ‘surplus value,' instead of a surplus not consumed by each generation.”

Kropotkin and his followers also attack Marx for his scientific theory that control over capital concentrates into proportionately fewer hands along with its expansion. This is so plainly seen to-day that it is superfluous to deal with the Anarchists denial.

In the foregoing the unscientific and visionary character of Anarchist “philosophy” is established beyond cavil. Anarchism attracts to its ranks a motley gathering. Its lack of cohesion, its individualism and its Utopianism, have enabled it to embrace the most ill assorted set of votaries that ever nestled under one banner. From the proud Prince Kropotkin to the official John Turner, it includes suppliers of every movement but ours. From Malthusians to anti morganatic marriage apostles, advocates of eight-hour and other piece-meal reforms, supporters of the Liberal Government like Morrison Davidson, and of the Labour Party like Edward Carpenter—these are the revolutionary Anarchists!

The Anarchist ranks have steadily dwindled in Britain, and their members apathetically drop away. Its Press makes a sporadic appearance. Accusations of being police spies lead to continual recrimination and permanent distrust among the “comrades." Hence Anarchism’s decline, and its inability to organise the working class.

But still the danger exists that those workers who have been sickened by the compromise, confusion, and betrayal of the Labour and pseudo-Socialist parties may succumb to the plea that because the fake political parties have failed to help them and advance their cause, Socialism is useless and Anarchism the only hope. Those who follow in the Anarchists’ footsteps and ramble in the Utopian wilderness, but delay the time when they must inevitably come to see that the Socialist Party of Great Britain alone is sound, for its aims are revolutionary, its methods scientific, and its working democratic.

Loyalty to its principles and devotion to its aims will do far more to hasten the workers’ emancipation than the will-’o-the-wisp notions of Anarchists and the dangerous policy they pursue. But the latter must be dealt with in the next issue.

Adolph Kohn

(To be Concluded.)

Australian Outlook (1967)

From the Seven Days for Socialism! International Supplement (August 1967)

To describe the position in Australia, one could truthfully say, as could be said of most capitalist countries. Socialism is just as near or as far off as the industrial development and the political understanding of the working class will allow it to be.

Not withstanding the promises of the “emancipators” of the last 150 years, there has been no “hot-house” growth of socialist ideas—any more than there have been further developments in Labour or Liberal ideas.

The one great difference is that while the Liberal, Labour, Communist and other parties have chopped and changed—and even stolen each other’s programmes from time to time—without basically improving working class conditions, the Socialist Party has propagated principles based on an understanding of the Socialist teachings of Marx, Engels and others who not only interpreted the world differently but showed the working class how to change it.

To many, these words may sound stale and outmoded (we are often twitted by our opponents on the score of “not being with it politically”) but the basic conditions of capitalism remain the same in Australia as elsewhere. However much the pedlars of vote-catching political slogans and election gimmicks try, they do not improve working class understanding of Socialism by their confusing jargon.

In the so-called affluent society of today, emphasis has been stressed on the comparatively long periods of almost full employment. But in Australia this so-called affluence is marked by many workers having to do two—or even more—jobs, while many wives are working with the children helping occasionally.

And even with these multiple incomes many of their purchases are ‘hire purchase’ with millions owing, much of which will never be paid. Where mum, dad and the kids have to work to obtain sufficient to try and cover the costs involved in the ‘ersatz’ affluence, there is not much of what our masters used to call ‘family life’.

With minds filled with capitalist ideas and bodies geared to the grind of capitalist economy, work is now all that matters to most people; and the fact that they ‘live to work’ rather than work in order to live is soothed by pills, powders and pop singers.

The greater the acceptance of the status quo, the more stagnant the growth of Socialism appears to be. Still, there is always a questioning of the value of the existing political parties and the industrial organisations.

From a country once renowned for its ‘militant’ trade unionism, Australia has now reached a point where the ‘fighting’ ability of the trade union movement is gauged by the amount of money they spend on futile appeals to arbitration courts in an endeavour to retain a basic wage that doesn’t even cover the minimum requirements of the family unit for which it was originally designed.

‘Militant’ seamen, wharf labourers, miners and others who once vigorously eschewed any idea of “carting their grievances to capitalist courts” now seek economic salvation in professional, academic advocates of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

The ACTU, dubbed by the militants from its inception as “the Graveyard of Industrial Disputes”, like its counterpart in Britain the TUC willingly accepts the working man’s burdens while shepherding its deluded followers into supporting its political reflection — the Australian Labour Party, and the leaders monotonously desert to the political ranks to spread deception still further.

Our self-styled ‘leftists’ still perpetuate the illusion that the salvation of the working class lies in Labour governments. Labourites, communists, humanists, radicals, and other professed emancipators oppose the socialist view that the emancipation of the working class lies in the abolition of the capitalist system.

This, of course, is not confined to Australia. Socialists in all countries are faced with similar ‘intellectual’ opposition, our opponents adorning themselves with attractive political labels in order to suborn unsuspecting workers from socialist parties. The dissemination of socialist knowledge will help workers detect the political fakirs.

Capitalism has provided another subject for a ‘hands off’ slogan — the ‘aggressors’ are on the rampage in the Middle East and by the time it is discovered who the ‘aggressors’ are, thousands of workers’ lives will have been buried in the sands on both sides of the Suez.

And while workers lay down their lives for lands they do not own we have to listen to the leaders of the various political parties telling us that “We must defend ‘our Country’.” The fact that such things can happen is an indication of the need for a better understanding of social and political events. This understanding can come only by the spread of socialist knowledge and it is here where the socialist enters the scene.

When the workers understand the need for socialism they can work for its achievement; while they submit to capitalism they will have to fight to defend it.

Hence the pressing need for the dissemination of socialist ideas. It is a long and difficult task but the reward--“The World for the Workers”—is well worth it!

W. Jacee

The American Scene (1967)

From the Seven Days for Socialism! International Supplement (August 1967)

To properly understand the American scene today, a perspective is necessary that goes deeper than the celebrities and events noted by the newspaper headlines. Superficially, the news seems to be the talk and posturing of the ‘big shots'. When people ask what is going on in the USA they tend to think of these things. Will Bobby Kennedy be able to make enough political capital out of Johnson's slip in popularity to be nominated by the Democrats in 1968? Who will be the Republican nominee; Romney, Scranton, Reagan, or Nixon? These are thought to be the political questions concerning the American political scene. As for the economic scene, that concerns whether there will be a recession or an inflation. The social scene—why that involves whether women’s hemlines are going up or down. Most people in the USA do not care very deeply—and rightly so— for life will go on pretty much the same.

For those who care about the political questions, it is widely agreed that the answers hinge on the Vietnam war. If, as seems likely, the war continues unabated then Johnson, although he will win the nomination, will lose the election to the Republicans, with Romney a likely standard bearer for the winners. If a truce is reached in Vietnam, then Johnson will win. But insight into the dynamics of American social and political life will not be gained from these ‘newsworthy' events. The vast majority of the American people, the working class, realise this and give only scant attention to the antics of the professional politicians and their games because they are of only minor entertainment value. Changes in the political bosses of workers are of no more concern to them than are changes in the bosses of the corporations for which they work.

Workers feel powerless to deal with the important questions affecting their lives. So they ‘participate’ in politics only to the extent of investing some emotional energy by identifying with some personality whose victory will give them some vicarious satisfaction. The workers’ sense of powerlessness with respect to events also makes them unconcerned with policy issues concerned with proposals for reform. Middle-level bureaucrats, editorial writers, intellectuals, and all species of ‘middle class’ reformers frequently advance proposals that are intended to solve, within the confine of capitalism, such problems as racial conflicts, riots, decaying cities, unemployment, air pollution, and foreign policy dilemmas. Such people often bemoan the lack of interest among workers for these proposals. Workers, through their experience, have developed a cynicism about such promises and they feel “let those who get paid for it worry about it”.

Outside the small strata of the decision-makers for capitalism, little serious attention is given to the stuff that is served up by the news media as the subject matter of politics. Thus, in one sense, the American scene remains unchanged. The frivolities and gossip that pass for political and social issues are discussed by a small number of those concerned, the masses apathetic; businesses keep on making profits that are quietly pocketed by the ruling capitalist class, and everyone continually faces the problems which the capitalist mode of production makes inevitable. From this perspective American capitalism, like capitalism everywhere, has not changed fundamentally in the past hundred years—only the problems have gotten larger. War, for instance, now threatens to annihilate the human race. Political class consciousness, the conscious desire for Socialism, is still all but non-existent. The American scene, for all its noise, is quiet about Socialism.

Yet this discouraging sameness of the American scene is deceptive. Beneath the surface, the forces that shape American society are at work, ceaselessly changing the foundations. It is not merely that machinery improves, workers become more skilled and new commodities are marketed while capital accumulates. Men’s ideas also change as their conditions of life change.

Ideas about social conventions change — customary formal dress and bathing attire are trivial examples. Ideas about right and wrong change—the propriety of chattel slavery, birth control, and tobacco smoking by women are illustrations. However, so far these changes in ideas have stopped short of rejecting the assumptions of capitalist ideology. Before there can be a change in ideas basic to a society, there first must be a crisis of confidence in which the ability of accepted ideas to explain events is disbelieved. There is some evidence that the USA is just starting to enter such a crisis of confidence.

America is the strongest and wealthiest nation in the world—in fact it is the strongest and wealthiest in the history of the world. Its resources and technology are the wonder of the world. By all its own standards US capitalism should be a veritable Utopia. Its propagandists often do talk as if it is a utopia. Yet everywhere there are signs of a growing uneasiness—an increasing realisation that something is deeply wrong. Americans who, in the past, have overwhelming believed that the 'American way of life' was the highest goal possible for humanity are now having second thoughts.

Those who speak for capitalism see a shiny future of more consumer gadgets, more and bigger autos crowding more and wider highways at ever-increasing speeds, hurrying more and more people to more box-like houses in the suburbs. This philosophy of more and more of the same is all capitalist ideologists have to offer. More and more people are beginning to wonder if, even were this continuous spiralling of abundance possible, it will provide the answers.

The truth of the matter is that, however successful and secure American capitalism looks at first glance, it is plagued with deep contradictions. These contradictions revolve around the inability of American capitalism, despite its wealth, technology and power, to satisfy human needs. On one hand there is fabulous wealth, on the other hand the most basic of human needs go unsatisfied. Scientists will eventually put a man on the moon but American society cannot perform the simple ask of getting a hungry man with his face pressed against a shop window into contact with the food he needs. Children die of rat bites within sight of the world's marvels of engineering. The illiteracy rate and the rate of infant mortality of the US are above that of far less advanced nations. Farmers are paid not to produce food while millions in the world are starving.

America is a sick society and this is becoming more apparent with each passing day. An assassin kills a stranger merely because the stranger wanted to help people to vote; the assassin is found guilty, then is given a public welcome as a hero, and then runs for governor of the state! In the world’s most advanced civilisation the city streets are not safe at night. A model ex-marine and boy scout commits mass murder. In spite of massive government effort, rumours concerning the last president's assassination are given widespread credence. Violence and threats of violence are a continuing part of American life. Police savagely assault and even kill poorer citizens with impunity. Desperate men fight back by striking out at anything within their reach. Large scale armies are regularly deployed in the major cities in the summertime to preserve property and 'law and order'—the same law and order which created the conditions in the first place. This capitalist ‘utopia’ is becoming a hell of hatred, despair, and violence. This can no longer be ignored and so people, or at least some people, are beginning to lose confidence in the reasonableness of the system.

One of the phrases that is being heard more frequently is the 'credibility gap'. It originally referred to the disbelief of the government's statements about the Vietnam war and was then extended to refer to the gap between the pretentions of what the capitalist American way of life stands for and the deeds and actions of that same society. The truth about the war, about the Kennedy assassination, about the relation of cancer to cigarette smoking, about CIA involvement in labour and student activities—or about anything, will not be found in what officials say to the public.

The inability of U S capitalism to solve its contradictions is slowly undermining people's confidence in its ideology; this is the first step. In the middle ages, feudalism began to crumble before developing capitalism when men became sceptical about the accuracy of its world-view. Don Quixote, the famous book ridiculing feudal values, marked the stage when feudal ideas were being rejected to prepare the way for capitalism. In a similar way, capitalist values are being first weakened, then disbelieved, and finally ridiculed.

In the middle ages it was segments of the intellectuals, lower clergy, and tradesmen who first became disenchanted; today it is mainly segments of the youth. One small stratum, those known as 'hippies', have openly rejected, in their disgust, most of the traditional values of bourgeois society. A somewhat larger segment, the 'new left’, has undertaken political action avowedly against the system; although, unfortunately, it does not understand the system well enough to take effective action against it. But beyond those observedly alienated from capitalist ideology, there are widespread misgivings among almost all youth. There is a growing crisis of confidence about capitalist ideology.

This is not to say that all these doubts have led any significant numbers of people to explicitly reject capitalism and to become socialists. This is where we American socialists come in. The great challenge of the times is in hastening the development of a socialist consciousness that is the prerequisite of Socialism. The SEVEN DAYS FOR SOCIALISM will find us carrying on as usual with our propaganda activities in Boston, New York, and a few other scattered areas. We have accomplished no momentuous things, nor do we expect to do so in the near future. We take heart with the thought that, although our numbers are insignificant, our ideas will triumph. The intellectual bankruptcy of capitalism— and its phoney ‘radical’ critics—assure our success.

William Jerome

The Canadian Scene (1967)

From the Seven Days for Socialism! International Supplement (August 1967)

Like all nations that dazzle the world with their riches, Canada is well to the fore in such displays—and less forward in showing its poverty.

But riches and poverty go together, as also do the defenders of the one and the champions of the other, who are in fact less far apart than they suspect.

No less so in Canada than elsewhere, Mr. Diefenbaker, the ex-prime minister, waxed eloquently on Canada’s greatness—and raised the old age pension. Mr. Pearson, the present prime minister, is not less rapturous in flag-flapping and boosted the pension a bit more. Mr. Douglas, the aspiring Prime Minister, would keep profits in Canada away from Americans and give the old age pension another hoist.

Only Mr. Thompson, erstwhile top banana of social credit, fond of his country though he is, had nary a mite for the pensioners —and was dumped by the wayside. Canada then is just another capitalist country. It is a giant in size, in industry and agriculture. It ranks among the first half-dozen producing nations, despite a sparse population of twenty million. But it exploits its wage slaves as much as the traffic will bear, searches the world for outlets for its commodities, and takes sides in international squabbles, having been involved in nearly all the talking and fighting adventures of this century.

It has its demands for higher wages and better working conditions which are sometimes made to stick; a wearisome burden to government and industry, whose appeals for moderation in the national interest have not always convinced workers that low wages are a mark of distinction.

It has its mods, its diggers, its hippies, its peace meetings, freedom marches, petitions to Parliament and all the churning, raging, futile produce of a world turned away from the vital need to really know its own nature.

It is just another capitalist country.

French Canada

Canada was originally taken from the Indians by the French and English, the latter then dispossessing the former, the descendants of both presently snarling at one another over their respective tongues’, ‘cultures’ and other ‘differences’ as vital as the output of the representative ‘love-in’. French Canada, located almost entirely in Quebec, has been prodded by the church and Quebec capital for many years for reasons less than altruistic, and has been belted and catered to by English Canada with motives of no greater merit.

Traditionally, the Quebec political scene has been dominated by the Liberal Party which has had to tread warily to offset the work of ‘nationalistic’ elements in the province. Liberal influence has waned in recent years, provincial politics becoming dominated by the Union Nationale Party, an organisation existing entirely in Quebec and aiming at almost every kind of ‘independence’ for the province, short of complete separation from the rest of Canada. On the federal field the Quebec Liberals have been weakened by the rise of a group originally part of the National Social Credit Party which broke away from the parent body and established itself as an independent social credit party. The reason for the breakaway is believed to be the need to reflect Quebec nationalism, a must these days for all parties searching for votes in Quebec.

None of Canada’s five social credit groups having federal or provincial representation is interested in social credit, or even talks about it.

Liberals and Conservatives

The Liberal Party, patterned after the Liberals of Great Britain, controls the Ottawa Government but without an overall majority and can retain hold on power only with the support of one of the other parties. Sometimes this support comes from one or both of the social credit parties and sometimes from the New Democratic Party. Its hold on power has not been seriously threatened, opinion being that no other party feels confident of strengthening its position in another election.

The Conservative Party (or Progressive-Conservative Party, as it has preferred to be called for some years now) is the Canadian equivalent of the Conservative Party in Britain. It is the leading contender for power if this should be lost by the Liberals. These two parties, in fact, have alternated in power since confederation, surviving a number of political windstorms without damage.

There is little to distinguish between the Liberal and Conservative parties. With minor differences on how best to run the affairs of the capitalist class, they have never been divided when these affairs have conflicted with the interests of workers—who have suffered this unity and have so far learned little from it.

The New Democratic Party
The ‘party of labor’ is the New Democratic Party. It is the result of a deal between the former Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and the trade union movement, the latter deciding a few years ago that the time was ripe for labor to come to power. Successive elections, despite considerable trade union support, did not bring ‘labor’ to power and trade union enthusiasm, even, interest, has declined. The initial gain through trade union support was matched by the loss in farmer support that had formerly gone to the CCF, leaving the NDP parliamentary representation practically unchanged from that of the CCF.

Socialists were critical of the CCF through all the years of its existence. Coming on the scene professing Socialism as its aim, it spread a number of wrong ideas in the name of socialism. In its later years it came to the view that its advocacy of ‘socialism’ did not help its election chances and it dropped the use of the term and all suggestions that it held any aims that could not be approved by Liberal and Conservative supporters. It was then ripe for a complete break with its rebellious past and the New Democratic Party was born. This body, if anything, is an even more watery collection than the British Labour Party, reaching its odious depth in the 1963 anti-American crusading of its leader Mr. Douglas.

There are other parties that run candidates for Parliament, two social credit groups being among the successful one, although their combined representation is less than that of the NDP. All in all, the ruling class has little to grumble about, being represented one way or another by every member in Parliament.

The Socialist Party of Canada

The Socialist Party is of course also on deck, working always to keep the message of Socialism to the fore. Its membership now reaches from Montreal to Victoria and although still not numerous we would record the reply of the lion when told brashly by the rabbit of its numerous offspring, “But each of my progeny is a lion”.

Jim Milne

The Irish: Scene—yesterday and today (1967)

From the Seven Days for Socialism! International Supplement (August 1967)

At the turn of the century the ruling class in Ireland were united in the classical sense in which capitalists are united throughout the world: North and South of the country Catholic and Protestant capitalists found unanimity in their desire to promote and maintain that system of economic organisation based on the exploitation of the country’s wealth producers, the working class.

Unionist and Nationalist, Sinn Fein and Labour, ALL stood UNITED on this issue: capitalism would be the way of life irrespective of the Party that administered it, or the colour of the rag that flew at its political masthead.

As far as the working class were concerned they were not offered a choice nor had they then (or now) the degree of political understanding to make a choice. But, as elsewhere in the domain of capitalism, they were given the fiction that the personnel and location of their government had some bearing on their way of life—that life under Paddy Murphy’s lash was preferable to life under John Bull’s whip, or vice versa.

Real Issues

Needless to say, the Action was suitably embellished with promises on one hand and threats on the other. The ‘British way of life’ vied with a ‘prosperous Ireland controlling its own destiny'; ‘Popish plots’ opposed ‘Orange tyranny’. The seeds of hatred were cast around with abandon of necessity and hatred and violence were necessary weapons in the real issues, AND THE ONLY ISSUES WHICH WERE REAL WERE THOSE THAT DIVIDED THE CAPITALIST CLASS.

Here was the real motive behind the bigotry, viciousness and carnage, the hate propaganda, the ‘national’ struggle and the baloney over flags: Irish capitalism, UNITED in its purpose was DIVIDED in its means.

As the nineteenth century, with its memories of struggle and famine, retreated into the sad past of Ireland’s history it left its peculiarly malformed economic off-spring in the form of a native capitalism, healthy and virile (for the capitalists, of course!) in the north-eastern portion of the country, faltering and weak throughout the rest of Ireland. In north-east Ulster some prosperous descendants of earlier English and Scottish ‘planters’, using the wealth derived from their conquest of the native resources and their direct affinity with their class cousins in Great Britain, had accomplished a high degree of industrialisation.

The Belfast shipyards and the Ulster textile industry (which included the manufacture of textile machinery) was on a par with anything found elsewhere and, of course, other ‘service' industries had developed accordingly. The owners of these resources were culturally, economically and politically at one with British capitalism, enjoying the benefits of a parliament skilled in the artifice of class deception and the markets accruing from Britain’s position as a world power.

In the rest of the country the position was different. Those who had been the victims of earlier English tyranny, allegedly because of their religion, had, after years of struggle, thrown off the yoke that militated against their accumulation of wealth. By the turn of the century the Catholic ‘businessman’ had ‘arrived’ in sufficient numbers to engage in political struggle against ‘English domination’ that enabled their ‘favourably placed’ English competitors (including the powerful and entrenched Northern Irish industrialists) to keep them, the fledging entrepreneurs of the south, in a disadvantageous position.

One of their chief spokesmen, Arthur Griffith, founder member and leader of Sinn Fein, states the motive behind their ‘principles' quite simply:

   “It is a comparatively simple matter for English capitalists to crush out their Irish competitors and we must know that this is too often the fate of Irishmen striving to promote the manufactures of this country.
  “Under Sinn Fein policy such a deplorable error could not occur . . . and no possibility would be left as far as Sinn Fein were concerned for a syndicate of English capitalists to crush out the home manufacturer and home trader.” Arthur Griffith, Sinn Fein Policy; 1917.

Double Dealing Diplomacy

Thus, briefly, the conflict between the rival sections of the capitalist class: in the North industry was sufficiently strong to resist the encroachments of English competition, while enjoying the wider market and system of economic preference resulting from their association with Great Britain. In the South a fledgling capitalism needed the exercise of protectionist policies in the exploitation of the limited home market—against the time when it could meet competition on a wider field.

Interwoven into the fabric of lies and deceit used by the political manipulators on both sides to gain the power of the working class to their cause, was the double-dealing diplomacy of the political flunkeys of the British ruling class. Concerned with their direct economic interests, their allegiance to their fellow-robbers in ‘Ulster’ and the (then) strategic importance of Ireland as an Atlantic base in the event of war, they used all the dirty weapons in the arsenal of capitalism in pursuit of their ends.

The only issues which were real were those differences that divided the opposing sections of the master class. Aside, however, from their differences there was a unanimity of purpose that revealed itself in the miserable exploitation of the working class THROUGHOUT IRELAND and in the manner in which Unionist and Nationalist elements of capitalism closed ranks to prosecute and persecute the working class and its organisations.

The outcome of the struggle is well known to us today. The investment in blood of the Irish workers—for, as always, it was the workers who gave and the masters who got—is seen in the reality of the two statelets in Ireland.

Since their inception both statelets have shown a marked similarity: the governments of both areas have scarce failed to conceal their detestation of organised labour and both have introduced legislation frankly loaded against the working class. Both, each from its respective point of view, have used the ‘partition’ of the country as a propaganda gimmick to arrest the attention of their electorates from such issues as poverty, slums and unemployment. Spokesmen for each area rebut criticism by drawing attention to the same conditions in the other area!

Things Are Changing!

But things are changing! Changing with a rapidity! that would have seemed almost indecent a decade ago. Now we are in the era of ‘bridge building’, of forgetting yesterday. Now we are advised about the importance of a ‘public image’. Why?

The short answer is that the factors that divided our masters, the factors that demanded the sacrifice of workers’ blood, have now changed.

Industry in the Republic of Ireland, nurtured behind tariff walls and import quotas and infused with ‘foreign’ capital, now feels the need for an expanding market at a time when the convenient European market is trying to introduce a super-protectionist policy.

Similarly in the North, with the decline of the traditional industries and the growth of the light export- orientated industries—often financed by the same companies or corporations which have invested heavily in the South (in both instances, as a springboard, so to speak, to Europe)—there is the need for the expanding continental market.

Yet, more important still—despite ‘principles’ and the resulting struggles of yester-year—is the fact that the economy of the country, NORTH AND SOUTH, is still tied to the British market and with that country begging an entry to the Common Market, the ‘principles’ of both sections of Irish capitalism must be scrapped—under, of course, a smoke screen of new ‘principles’!

Irrelevant

Unfortunately for the governmental servants of capitalism in both areas, the change, necessarily rapid, has brought about its problems. After sowing the seeds of bitterness and bigotry—instruments of policy in the North, inevitable consequences of policies in the South— for half a century it is too much to expect, even from a docile populace, an immediate unanimous response to the new policies of the ‘bridges builders’.

The Protestant bigot, Reverend ‘Dr’ Paisley, and those of his kind, have no difficulty sanctifying their actions with suitable quotations from the government spokesmen of yesterday—even if such spokesmen now sing a different tune—and the Irish Republican Army, likewise, can quote political scripture from the gospel written yesterday in blood by the now ‘great men’ of the Southern Irish’Government.

For the working class the whole game is as irrelevant today as it was in the past. Yesterday they had the example of workers in other countries with their ‘own’ government sharing the same poverty problems as the Irish workers. Today we have the example of European workers STILL WITH THE SAME WORKING CLASS PROBLEMS living in the Common Market. As Socialists, knowing full well the nature of capitalism, knowing that that system cannot operate IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES in the interests of the working class, we feel safe in prophesying that our problems, the problems of the working class, will remain with us whatever the demarcations of capitalism’s market.

Political Parties
Space does not permit an examination of the records and attitudes of the political parties in Ireland. At any rate we are not too concerned in the niceties of their political separation. Suffice to say that they have all lent support to one or other side in the political chess of capitalism.

Whatever their title, Unionist, Fianna Fail, Sinn Fein, Labour or ‘Communist’, they have all put forward the ignorant assumption that they possess the policies and personnel to make a buying-and-selling system, a capitalist system, operate in the interests of ‘the people’.

The fact that it has not worked in the interest of the working class ANYWHERE, under ANY government or ANY political party, whether in the guise of ‘western democracy’ or ‘peoples' democracy’, bears eloquent testimony to their ignorance of the nature of capitalism.

Unlike our opponents we in the World Socialist Party have no plans for running—or being run by—Irish capitalism, petitioned, united, inside or outside the Common Market. We have no urge for taking over the role of government, nor can we claim that, given the opportunity of ‘taking over the government’ (or governments) of Ireland, we could administer capitalism fairly and in the interests of all.

Banish Government 
On the contrary, we affirm that no political party, irrespective of its title or aspirations, can run a system BASED ON THE EXPLOITATION OF THE WORKING CLASS THROUGH THE WAGES-MONEY SYSTEM IN THE INTERESTS OF ALL.

That is why our role in the political cocktail of Irish politics is the political education of our fellow members of the working class to the end of achieving mass understanding of why capitalism must always operate against us and why we must choose the Socialist alternative—a wageless, classless society of production for use.

With such understanding achieved, our purpose will not be to ‘take over the government’ but, rather, to gain, democratically, the use of its executive authority and, in concert with our fellow workers throughout the world, to banish such government—along with the system of class privilege that gave rise to it.

Richard Montague