Eric Hobsbawm: Historian and Leninist (2012)

From the November 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

The death of Eric Hobsbawm on 1 October marked the end of a generation of left-wing historians who, while advancing historical materialism, rejected Marxian politics by embracing Leninism.

Prominent amongst this group were E.P. Thompson, Christopher Hill and Rodney Hilton, but the list also includes Maurice Dobb, A.L. Morton, Dorothy Thompson, John Saville, Victor Kiernan, Raphael Samuel and George Rudé. They entered the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) and were active in the Communist Party Historians Group. Despite their political shortcomings, in the decades following the Second World War their work was part of a challenge to the arid, high-political history of ‘great men' that had previously dominated the academic study of history. Some went on to be active in the founding of the Society for the Study of Labour History and were part of the rise of social history ‘from below’ as an established academic subject. They produced works of historical scholarship which sometimes received a warm welcome from Socialists eager to absorb scholarship with a historical materialist perspective. Some of the work of this group of historians will continue to be a rich resource for socialists. If only they could have applied their historical materialism as rigorously to their own times as to their respective periods of study, perhaps they would not have politically affiliated to Leninism.

Hobsbawm, like many of the Communist Party historians who later rose to prominence, was radicalised during the inter-war years, pinning his hopes for the future on the Soviet Union. Nonetheless most of them left the Communist Party after the Russian repression of the Hungarian uprising in 1956, already disillusioned by the dawning realisation of the horrors of Stalin’s Russia and ongoing state repression. Hobsbawm was unusual in that he did not leave the Communist Party but remained a member until its collapse and to some extent continued as an apologist for Bolshevism until his death.

Hobsbawm was no unrepentant Stalinist, being an advocate of Eurocommunism in the 1970s and a supporter of Neil Kinnock’s reform of the Labour Party in the 1980s, but he retained a sense of the Soviet Union having been a worthy experiment gone awry. In his memoirs he wrote that the “dream of the October Revolution is still there somewhere inside me . . . I have abandoned, nay, rejected it, but it has not been obliterated. To this day, I notice myself treating the memory and tradition of the USSR with an indulgence and tenderness.” (Interesting Times, p.56) In an article in the Guardian (14 September 2002) Hobsbawm said, “In the early days we knew a new world was being born amid blood and tears and horror: revolution, civil war, famine … Thanks to the breakdown of the west, we had the illusion that even this brutal, experimental, system was going to work better than the West. It was that or nothing.”

But it wasn’t that or nothing. As a member of the CPGB Hobsbawm supported the Soviet Union because it represented the hopes of those who mistakenly believed that a brutal form state capitalism could transform itself into a genuinely socialist society. As such he was an opponent of the Socialist Party, which then as now, seeks to establish socialism on the basis of real common ownership and democratic control of the means of living without a ‘transition period’ involving state capitalism. In one of his articles, originally published in New Left Review, Hobsbawm wrote on the subject of H. M. Hyndman and the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) and referred to the Socialist Party of Great Britain as a “wholly irrelevant conventicle”. For a historian known for his grasp of detail, however, he wrongly stated the date of the formation of the party as 1906 instead of 1904. Doubtless this is because, like most historians who dismiss the Socialist Party out of hand, he had never taken the time to seriously examine its historical background or record.

The article went on to call for a reassessment of the SDF which had previously been scoffed at by left-wing historians. The SDF, argued Hobsbawm, had demonstrated longevity, had a proletarian character and had many left-wing workers that passed through it. It was characterised not by sectarianism but by an understandable intransigence (although, as a good Bolshevik, Hobsbawm remarks that the SDF was “quite unable to envisage … the problems of revolt or the taking of power.”). Hobsbawm’s qualified acknowledgments of the achievements of the SDF are all equally applicable to the historical place of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in British working-class political life. But one thing rules it out of contention for inclusion in the historical record of socialism in Britain for left-wing historians – it did not feed into the formation of the CPGB in 1920 but opposed it. For Hobsbawm, the SDF had historical credentials as part of a political exercise of looking for British native antecedents of the CPGB. The Socialist Party has stood for socialism as understood by Marx – non-market and non-state – and was therefore anti-Bolshevik. Because of this, the Socialist Party has been ignored or summarily dismissed by historians of communism and the labour movement who have generally been Leninist, Trotskyist or Labourite.

Disappointment with the realities of the Soviet Union led many of Hobsbawm’s contemporaries in the CPGB to ultimate political disillusionment and subsequent trajectories into other variants of left-wing politics. Whilst that generation of historians has itself become history, the Socialist Party still carries on the political task ignored by them – that of trying to begin to make the Socialist revolution that the Bolshevik revolution in Russia could never have achieved. That task necessarily involves an understanding and rejection of the strategy of the insurrectionary seizure of the state and the establishment of state capitalism as a route to Socialism. Today Socialists still have much work to do to recover the words socialism and communism from their association with state capitalism and the brutality of the political strategy supported by Hobsbawm.

CSK

Presidential follies: the Reagan landslide (1985)

From the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist

You have entered a movie theater after the beginning of the story so you sit through the brief intermission between showings in order that you might piece together the parts. Ultimately, the tale begins to come together; you have now seen it all and the story is complete in your mind so, generally, you will turn to your companion and say: "This is where we came in, let's go."

Well, after observing US Presidential elections with varying degrees of comprehension since the race between Herbert Hoover and Al Smith back in 1928, this writer can certify that the sole reason he has been unable to walk out on any of them is that, short of marooning himself on an uncharted desert island, there has been nowhere that he could take himself to escape. One cannot turn it off - one can only suffer through the periodic re-runs. The only changes worth noting are the occasional substitutions.

After more than a half century of involvement to lesser or greater degree in the ranting, raving, fuming and spluttering that are seemingly the essence of the politics of American capitalism he can understand why it has been that such a large percentage of the eligible voting population - being unaware of any alternative type of political activity (the politics of revolutionary socialism) - have so frequently passed up the opportunity to cast a ballot. For whatever reason, the 1984 Presidential election in which the old-time Democratic approach as represented by Walter Mondale was ostensibly buried in a Reagan landslide victory (525 Electoral College votes to 13 - 49 out of 50 states) brought out an unusually high voter turnout - some '55%. Analysis of all of the results, however, indicates strongly that the gut feeling remains high that there is little, if any, difference between the "philosophy" of the contending Parties. How else can one explain the fact that the same voters who rejected the "liberal" Walter Mondale for the "right-wing" conservative Ronald Reagan denied the conservative Republican Party enough seats in the House of Representatives to afford them any sort of control in that important body? Indeed, the fact that voters seem traditionally to cross party lines in elections would seem to indicate that they perceive no important ideological differences among the parties of capitalism.

One all-important lesson to be learned from the 1984 election is the fact that, as President Reagan himself put it: "The people are in charge." And that explains why politicians of capitalism - even Ronald Reagan and his ilk - strive to keep their ears to the ground in order to detect majority attitudes that must determine their degree of liberalism or conservatism. The politicians with the keenest ears are the ones who usually win elections. It also explains why socialists maintain that once "the people" (a majority of whom constitute the working class) grasp the concept that enlightened self-interest determines a need for a sane, classless, social system, old-line politicians will either be compelled to go along with popular conception or be buried in a revolutionary political landslide.

STATE OF THE ECONOMY: A NON-ISSUE
But let us get down to brass tacks on at least some of the issues that have shaken up the American electorate in this year. Issues? You bet there were issue - a plethora of them. The propagandists of airwaves, press and pulpit have cajoled, scribbled, and thundered on the subjects of the national deficit and whether or not taxes will have to be raised in order to lower it; the right of the expectant mother to abort vs the right of the fetus to mature and be born; prayer in the schools vs separation of church and state; "star wars" in the skies (missiles that would be designed to destroy enemy missiles en route to us) and new, improved nuclear weapons as opposed to up-to-date conventional fire bombs and block-busters capable of inflicting mass murder and mayhem in a somewhat more confined area and with fewer potential side effects; women's rights and minority (ethnic) rights and so on and on. You name it - America's capitalist politicians have it; issues all based on the assumption that there is no other system of society possible than what is now extant in the world.

One of the main issues in the campaign was the state of the economy, but is this really a matter that should be of concern to the working class? To a limited extent, perhaps. In the sense that a healthy economy indicates a better opportunity for jobs it is, but in no way does that indicate that wage rates and living standards will necessarily be better for those who perform the jobs. In fact, in a significant number of cases workers with jobs are worse off than when they were unemployed since they will be cut off from welfare benefits that they may have had - services and other benefits that are frequently unaffordable on low and even on moderate salaried income.

The all-importnat fact to bear in mind, though, is that the economy of a nation is the business of the capitalist class or, in the case of "communist" dictatorships, of the state capitalist bureaucrats and other highly privileged strata of surplus value eaters. To put this matter in a homely and understandable way, a popular concept, even among radicals, is a huge pie which represents the sum total of a nation's production. The working class, according to this philosophy, receives for its share a relatively small segment of the pie because, being compelled to live on wages, workers can only buy back the equivalent of their pay in tangible goods and services. But upon reflection, this just does not make sense because it would seem to be in the capitalists' interests to force increases of pay on their employees, thereby enabling them to buy more and increasing the total of production and profits.

Of course the constant pressure is entirely different: rather than increased production via higher wages the eternal outcry is for increased productivity and lower wage costs. Since labor power is a commodity, what increased productivity means to the worker is that he is required to give more of his commodity without a corresponding increase in pay. It also means that his life-store of commodity labor power is used up at a younger age and anyone who believes that old saw: "hard work never hurt anybody" should look more closely at the condition of the working class.

The workers do not share the "pie" that they produce. They have been paid in wages/salaries, and whatever the amenities that have been granted - grudgingly or otherwise - to "bake" it and the whole damed shell, with all of the fillings, is the property of the capitalist class. Ironically, they have been paid out of previously produced capital which is the fruit of their previous toil. In other words, they must even produce the wages that the capitalists pay them: a con game (albeit and honorable) if ever there was one.

So the lesson that workers must learn is simple enough. As long as capitalism exists they must resign themselves to the indignity of exploitation. But they are not compelled to swallow the cock-and-bull story that makes of them "partners" in capitalism's industries, in capitalism's economy.

THE PARTIES OF AMERICAN CAPITALISM
One of the more exasperating responses a socialist can get to his pitch for a sane society goes something like this: "Of course, I agree with you that capitalism has outlived its usefulness, is a menace to the very existence of our planet, and should be abolished lock, stock and barrel - and the sooner the better. But you know as well as I that the working class is not ripe for such action so, in the meantime, I am going to vote for the lesser of two evils. Walter Mondale (or whomever) would be better as President than Ronald Reagan (or whomever) . . . "

Most of those who make such a choice seem not to realize the significance of their action: they are avowing their perception of which party best serves the interests of American capitalism. And the truth is that when one gets down to the kernel of what the politicians of both sides have to say, and their published platforms, the difference between them is akin to the difference between two rotten eggs, one prepared "sunnyside up", the other flipped. Strong condiments might disguise the odor and even the flavor but the effect on one's gastro-intestinal system would be similar if not identical.

So true is this, in fact, that we have the spectacle of President Reagan, Vice-President Bush and others of the Republican Party extolling the virtues of those late Democratic Party heroes - Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy, to the dismay and horror of the Democrats. When these Republican orators are called to task for it by Democratic bigwigs, they reply, simply, that the present Democratic Party has abandoned the tenets and principles of their forebears.

If Reagan is allegedly trying his best to manipulate US into a war in Central America, didn't F.D. Roosevelt allegedly manipulate Japan into making the first military strike at US back in 1941? And if Reagan's foreign policies threaten a drift toward nuclear war, how about Roosevelt, Truman, and the A-bombs dropped on Japanese cities during WWII? Or Truman with his Korean "Police Action"? Bringing it a bit closer to our present times, how about Kennedy all but scaring the wits out of the world with that Cuban missile crisis? And all of those Democratic Party heroes and their pursuance of the Vietnamese War?

Even on the domestic front Reagan can look back admiringly to actions by those Democratic Party knights-in-armor. If he (President Reagan) busted the Air Controller's Union and fired the entire membership for striking against the Government, didn't F.D.R. federalize the National Guard to break a strike against North American Aircraft in Los Angeles shortly before America entered WWII? And a number of years prior he had informed Works Project Administration (WPA) workers that "You can't strike against the government." And didn't Harry S. Truman use Federal troops to break a railroad strike after the War? The list that justifies Reagan's extolling those great Democratic Party Presidents is long. So what are the leaders of the Democratic Party beefing about?

LAME DUCK REAGAN
Finally, if there have been cuts in social welfare programs under Reagan - which there have been - they were not accomplished against Democratic Party opposition. There was some compromise on the degree but there was definite collaboration between the parties. There is no such thing in America's political machinery of government as a President with anything approaching dictatorial powers. Nor, for that matter, are either of the two political parties in control of US capitalism monolithic in make-up. The Democratic Party has a bloc of Southerners, known as "Boll Weevils" who frequently will unite with conservative Republicans on critical votes while within the Republican Party there are always a number of "moderate" and liberal types who will support the "liberal" Democrats to the discomfiture of their fellow Republicans of conservative bent.

An all-out Donnybrook is expected to materialize before the 1988 Presidential elections in both parties between "liberals" and "conservatives" for control and the opportunity to capture the White House. For this Presidential Follies of 1984 has been Ronald Reagan's  "Last Hurrah." He is now - in the parlance of American political English - a Lame Duck.

Harry Morrison (USA.)

Previous convictions (1985)

A Short Story from the Spring 1985 issue of the World Socialist

I was fifteen before it dawned on me that the pain I had been getting between the eyes was not a malignant tumour which would quickly grow to the size of a melon, invading every lobe, capillary and ventricle of my brain until I was blind, deaf and dumb and reducing me to a dribbling, mewling vegetable until I died in excruciating agony - but only a bad case of boredom with school.

I cut down at once on my aspirin intake and my sense of recovery was complete when I realised that my boredom was not entirely due to my being a loutish, spotty adolescent but was also something to do with how I was treated in the classroom. My school masters were bringing me to a state bordering on sensory deprivation by "teaching" me stuff which was patently incorrect. It was too much, to expect them to make it interesting.

In any case I was feeling dissatisfied with society at large - although pretty satisfied with myself - because of my recent addiction to politics. My theories were startlingly simple and illuminating false. Before 1939 there had been all sorts of problems - slump, unemployment, extreme poverty, strikes, culminating in the war itself. The governing party for those years had been the Conservatives. Therefore, those problems had been preconceived, designed and implemented by the Tories. Therefore, the way to a happier, abundant, peaceful society was through ditching the Tories and electing a Labour government.

I was in favour of nationalising everything; the state machine was potentially the overall benefactor of us all and must be given the chance to operate in this way. I propounded this idea with an arrogance which bewildered my parents and irritated my schoolmates. Any event in the entire history of the human race could be quickly explained by me in a few illuminating words, leading to the conclusion that Clement Attlee should be Prime Minister. This made things rather difficult for me at school but I was saved from the inevitable crisis confrontation by a bout of food poisoning, the symptoms of which lingered for months, until I could reproduce them almost at will. Eventually, a kindly but gullible doctor diagnosed me as a case of neurasthenia and in need of a long rest. I had, he surmised, suffered emotional damage through the stresses of the war - the air raids, the rationing, the worry of the king having to be evacuated to Balmoral when a stray German bomb fell in the capacious grounds of Buckingham Palace. The timing of this diagnosis was lucky for me; with suspicious speed the school accepted the suggestion that I leave early and I was allowed to step through the gates for the last time, into an agreeable year of reading, dreaming and political activity.

I blush now to recall what that activity amounted to. I had spent much of that early summer working frenziedly for the return of the 1945 Labour government. Each evening, instead of crouching over my homework, I had gone to the local Labour committee rooms, gathered up literature and canvassing cards and sallied out to harangue countless bemused voters on the evils of pre-war Toryism. My special devils were Baldwin and Chamberlain; if anyone was unkind enough to remind me of Macdonald and Snowden I contemptuously dismissed them as under-cover Tories who had been exposed just in time to save the soul of the Labour Party, which was now safe with Attlee, Bevin, Morrison . . . 

The constituency I campaigned in had been traditionally a safe Conservative seat, which a blue-rosetted monkey could have won but which was held by a titled fop who could hardly put together a coherent speech and who had insurmountable problems in answering the simplest of questions. At his public meetings my seething outrage would erupt into shrill schoolboy heckling. Even worse to me, the MP had been an admirer of the Third Reich and had posed for photographs beside Hitler at big Nazi rallies. In the 1945 delusions about Labour's brave new world that was the sort of constituency which fell in droves to the Labour Party but in this case the fop held on by his manicured finger nails, keeping a little patch of blue on the constituency map amid an ocean of red. My chagrin at our failure to humiliate the Nazi baronet was mollified by my pleasure at the overwhelming return of the Labour government. As the committee rooms shut down I began to spend my time at numerous ward, committee and Labour League of Youth meetings. I now had the party members to harass instead of the voters on their doorsteps and I was not overwhelmingly popular but I justified it by saying that there was a lot to prepare for; the workers of Britain, after almost fifty years of travail, was about to arrive at the Promised Land.

The rest is a history which did not reassure me in the making. Right at the beginning, Clement Attlee went to Buckingham Palace not, as I had dreamed, to inform the king that the revolution had come and that henceforth the royal homes would be taken over as shelter for homeless workers who, after all, had won the war and then put Labour in power. Instead, he went to kiss hands, swear loyalty and agree to form a government which would keep the class represented by the royals secure in their wealth and privilege. Then the Russian workers became abruptly transformed from our staunch allies in the fight against fascism into our mortal enemies. We could not, it seemed, expect to arrive at the Promised Land until we had dealt with the threat from Moscow and with other enemies as well - unofficial strikes, the Greek Communists, the Communist Party over here, the East Germans, the North Koreans, the Chinese. The list seemed endless; it even included the Americans, whose dominant economy had undermined the Imperial Preference system, which was supposed to bring such benefits to us from the British Empire. It was all very confusing and frustrating to a recent survivor of brain cancer and adolescent acne and I resolved to look elsewhere for the soul of true socialism.

I began, daringly, to attend public meetings addressed by dissident Labour MPs like Konni Zilliacus and John Platt-Mills who, in spite of their membership of the party, seemed to oppose almost everything the government did. In particular they were clear that the Russian ruling class, headed by the remote and sinister Joseph Stalin, was devoted to PEACE while the American rulers, represented by bland, diminutive Harry Truman, was intent on WAR. These dupes of the Communist Party - which itself was a collection of unwavering dupes of Russian capitalism - appealed to my sense of outrage and bewilderment at the compliance of the Attlee government with so many of the things I wanted to see abolished from human society. The Communist Party began to look very attractive to me. Of course there were a few problems in arguing away a great deal of recent history and experience -  the show trials of the '30s, the Russo-German pact, the murders and repressions of Stalin's pitiless rule - but I managed it. My time in the Labour Party had obviously taught me something.

And that is about when I met Charlie who, wherever he is now, is probably unaware of his vital, unintentional, formative influence on my political ideas. Charlie was an old friend of the family; in the army during the war he had been through some nasty battles and had been demobilised to a homeless wife and child. He at once joined the local squatters movement, which was taking over disused military buildings under the encouragement of the Communist Party. Once his family was housed, Charlie joined the CP; he also got himself a job as a bus conductor and it was on his bus that I met him again, one morning in the dreadful winter of 1946/7, as I hunched miserably against the cold in a workbound trolley-bus. I was startled to feel my proffered fare pressed firmly back into my hand and looked up as Charlie grinned an invitation to "have this ride for nothing, Comrade".

I began to see a lot of Charlie after that and we always argued about politics, with me too ready to accept his Stalinist chop-logic, if only because it always led me to the conclusion that what really mattered was the "education of the workers" - with people like us, of course, as the educators. This encouraged Charlie to believe that he had persuaded me into joining the CP and indeed that may have come about, had we not arranged to meet one Saturday evening at the local common, where all sorts of political and religious groups held outdoor meetings. I really went along in the hope of getting in a bit of Tory-bashing (in spite of all my doubts and confusion, they were still the final enemy). I moved from one platform to another until I came to one where a young guy with daringly long hair was speaking about a world without classes, money, war.

A few weeks later, trembling with anxiety, I applied to join my local Socialist Party of Great Britain branch. Charlie was furious: "Armchair bleeding theorists," he snarled, "Better than actually doing anything though, ennit?" He just did not know what a relief it was to be free of those political agonies of my schooldays, not to have to chop and twist in order to survive in a discussion, to have an explanation of society and an arguable reason, instead of an emotional spasm, as the basis of working for a new world order. It still worried my parents but with my previous convictions in the past, I became a reformed character.

Ivan. (Britain)

On the Right-Wing (2012)

Book Review from the October 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Hate. By Matthew Collins, Biteback Publishing, 2011. £14.99.

Subtitled ‘My Life in the British Far Right’ this is the story of a former member of the National Front in the late 80s and early 90s who then became close to the leadership of the British National Party in the days when it was more openly Nazi than it is now. Collins also later became a fringe participant in the violent Combat 18 group of Nazis and is in a similar mould to other former far-right activists like Ray Hill and Tim Hepple who became ‘moles’ for the anti-fascists associated with Searchlight magazine.

It is an account that is frightening but entertaining in equal measure, giving an insight into the mindset that drives someone from a white, working class background to be involved in fascist politics. It also gives an insight into some of the violent tactics and internal feuding that have characterised the far right in Britain for decades.

The leaders of the so-called ‘master race’are clearly shown up to be the misguided and psychologically unbalanced individuals many of them are. Referring to a particular sortee by Combat 18 thugs in Brick Lane, Collins comments: ‘I looked along our line at the drug dealers, the gangsters, the football hooligans and wife beaters who believed in their tiny minds that they were going to save the white race from drug dealers, wife beaters, gangsters, Jews, blacks and Asians’, and this pretty much sums it up.

The later chapters chronicle Collins’movement away from racist politics over time, his particular function as a ‘mole’for Searchlight and the police interest in his activities, though these don’t perhaps have the depth they might have. The foot soldiers (and ‘political soldiers’) of the BNP, NF, etc have long being considered a potential threat to public order and are therefore closely monitored –and sometimes infiltrated –by the state apparatus, often acting on information gathered by the anti-fascists on the left. This has created much controversy in recent times about the link between the two and Collins doesn’t perhaps address this as clearly as he might.

There are also a few factual errors here and there but nevertheless this is a book worth reading. This is especially so in a political climate where the BNP (despite some recent internal strife) has been garnering significant numbers of working class votes from the politically disaffected since the skinheads, swastikas and jackboots have been less visible to the public eye.

DAP

Editorial: Crunch Time for Credit Creationists (2012)

Editorial from the October 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Since the Credit Crunch of 2008 and the accompanying depression, a flood of ideas has appeared on the internet and in discussion forums of all kinds claiming that, like a stage magician, high-street banks have been creating credit, money or even wealth out of nothing. This, it is claimed, has led to the continuous enrichment of fat-cat bankers at the expense of everyone else. Anarchists, conspiracy theorists, reformists, academics, professional economists and those simply looking for someone to blame for the economic collapse have all taken up the idea and elaborated it into a number of more-or-less confused theories about the way banks operate. According to one such theory, bankers were guilty of pursuing a lucrative but unsustainable policy of ‘credit creation’ in the knowledge that when the crunch inevitably came they would be seen as ‘too big to fail’ and governments would bail them out.  According to many, ‘credit creation’ by banks is not just the cause of the banking crisis, but the origin of the current slump in the economy as well. Others, taking a wider view, argue that it is the cause of longer-term, unsustainable growth. 

Whatever their differences, all these theorists believe that regulation of the banking system and the suppression of ‘credit creation’ will restore the good times we experienced before the sudden catastrophic plunge into rising unemployment, forgetting in their enthusiasm that those times were far from good for a great number of working people. Most believe that it will restore control of the economy, overlooking the fact that the anarchy of the market has never submitted itself to control by any agency.  

That such ideas should take hold now is perhaps not surprising: similar ideas arose and became popular in the years following the last great financial crisis:  the stock market crash of 1929. They provide an easy but deceptive explanation of what has caused the current chaos in the economy, and suggest an easy remedy. They also point the finger of blame at the hated bankers. But where do they take us - really? By locating the cause of our economic and social ills in a relatively secondary facet of the capitalist economy - the activities of the banking system - they fail to address the real source of our problem, which lies deep in the capitalist system itself. They take us, yet again, down the futile road to reformism. No regulation of banking activity can possibly remove the exploitative nature of capitalism’s system of wage labour or eliminate the conflicts on which the system rests. While capitalism exists, the satisfaction of human need can never be the aim of productive activity. Nor can any progress be made to eliminate the system’s huge differences in wealth or provide social fulfilment for the vast majority of humanity. Credit creation theories can only provide us with more of the same. They are, at most, another diversion from the urgent need to replace the capitalist system with a more genuinely social, free and fulfilling society.

In defense of capitalism (1995)

Book Review from the November 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Struggle for Hearts and Minds. Essays on the Second World War by Raymond Challinor (Bewick Press)

This book lives up to its title, being a collection of articles written for different journals over the years on working class discontent in Britain during the Second World War.

Challinor is under no illusion as to why the war was fought, not to 'defend democracy' and 'defeat fascism' but to defend the conflicting economic and strategic interests of the ruling classes of the countries involved.

He gives a good account of what these interests were but his main theme is about how warring governments also have to take steps to maintain 'the will to fight' amongst the population they rule over. His contention is that, on a number of occasions in Britain, this was in danger of being undermined, but that this was hushed up - and so successfully contained - by the authorities.

Challinor describes how the Labour Party was a loyal defender of the British Empire (one of the key issues at stake in the war) both before and during the war, even ordering the bombing of tribespeople in Iraq to protect British oil interests there. He reminds us too of the ultra-jingoist position adopted by the Communist Party, though only after the German attack on Russia on 21 June 1941. Before that they had loyally supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact, calling for a negotiated peace with Germany, a demand Challinor shows had more widespread support amongst people (and not just Moscow puppets or Nazi sympathisers) than we have been led to believe.

Challinor writes as a Trotskyist (though at the time he was a member of the old ILP, not that the two were incompatible) and so exaggerates not the discontent itself, but the possibilities of exploiting it for anti-war ends. Despite this, this is a book which will be of interest to Socialists. It also contains a number of well-aimed cartoons, one which we reproduce here.

Adam Buick

Who are the ecologists? (1984)

From the August 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is broadly accepted that acid rain is damaging forestry, fisheries, agriculture, buildings and public health throughout Europe, Eastern Bloc countries, Scandinavia and North America. For example over 18,000 lakes in Sweden are "acidified"; 4,000 of them are "biologically dead". According to information put out by Acid Rain '84, an ecology group, 34 per cent of West Germany's forests are damaged by air pollution and in 1982 almost 1½  million acres of woodland were designated a total damage area. These are but two examples of widespread damage to the environment which is admitted to be a rapidly worsening problem.

It is also accepted, except by the Central Electricity Generating Board, that acid rain begins with the release of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere, mainly from power stations burning fossil fuels and also from industry. From a total of 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide released in Europe in 1982, Britain topped the league with emissions of 4.2 million tons.

In the minds of many people this presents itself simply as a practical problem of pollution, but if this were the case then there would be no difficulty in solving it. The means for preventing these emissions of sulphur dioxide are available, so technically speaking there would be no difficulty in stopping it now. But the problem is not what it appears to be. At a conference held on the environment in Munich in June 1984, the British Government delegation refused to agree to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 30 per cent, stating that in Britain this would cost 1 billion pounds. This is the real reason why pollution is not stopped and therefore the cause of the continuing problem. It is part of the economic constraints imposed on social action by capitalism.

As a pressure group, Acid Rain '84 have their own economic difficulties. Their leaflets ask for donations to their acid rain appeal. One can give £5 or £10 or more, though it is not clear what they do with the money. Doubtless the 1 billion pounds required for a 30 per cent reduction is beyond the scope of their fund raising campaign but they say that the money will fuel their efforts to protect the environment. The group is part of the Friends of the Earth organisation, which shares the outlook of the Ecology Party, which in its turn seeks to form a government to run capitalism. The question arises, where would an Ecology Party government get the 1 billion pounds to finance a reduction in emissions of sulphur dioxide, or possibly the 3 billion pounds to stop it altogether? In their intended version of capitalism an Ecology Party government would attempt to control the use and development of industrial methods through taxation. They would penalise destructive methods by taxing them out of existence and use the money raised to finance ecologically benign ones.

They would introduce new taxes such as a natural resources tax aimed at conservation and re-cycling of materials; a progressive turnover tax which would penalise large enterprises; and a tax on advertising aimed at "consumerism", although the mass of the population might be surprised to learn that they are guilty of wanton consumerism. They would stiffen capital transfer tax and capital gains tax, and again corporation tax would penalise the large enterprise.

All these taxes, however, are not to be spent solely on ecologically safe projects: an Ecology Party government would maintain armies and armaments production. This is according to the ecological principle that the use of chemical weed killers must be stopped but the use of guns for killing people can continue. As their 1983 Election Manifesto states, "Having unilaterally renounced all nuclear weapons, Britain should continue to possess conventional weapons suited to a defensive role". They do allow that "Overall spending on defence should be progressively reduced", but presumably this is on condition that the other side does it as well, which is usually the view taken by the other side and the reason why it never happens.

The Ecology Party, then, stands for the continuation of capitalism complete with commodity production, rival nation states, armed forces and an horrendous taxation system. Though they might think it is a new idea, in fact the notion that a controlled redevelopment of capitalism can be politically stage-managed through the taxation system is an old and failed idea. It originated in the Labour Party, which in the past imagined that class differences could be removed and worthy social projects initiated by control of taxes. The Labour Party also took the view that arms expenditure could be progressively reduced; in practice they have been one of the big spenders on arms.

No Labour government has ever been able to implement its policies based on tax measures. It was Sir Stafford Cripps who, as Chancellor in the post war Labour Government, brought his supporters back to reality when he told them firmly that he was not in a position to impose taxes in an arbitrary way. The question arises, why has no Labour government ever been able to do it, and why will the Ecology Party not be able to do it in the future?

The central contradiction in the arguments of the Ecology Party is that they would be seeking massive government funds for what they consider to be desirable objectives. Not just 3 billion pounds for the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions but also for many other measures. Yet at the same time they seek to break up the structure of economic viability in energy supply, use of materials, and industrial and manufacturing production methods from which government funds in the form of taxes are derived. In these circumstances, where do they imagine an Ecology Party government would get the money? The structure of commodity production and the particular production methods taken up is not something determined by free choice about what is socially desirable. These production methods are determined by competition in the market.

It is totally unrealistic to imagine that commodity production, whereby goods are presented for sale in the market, can embrace a section of the world capitalist economy which has adopted production methods which are significantly less competitive than the rest. With lower productivity and higher costs the goods produced simply would not sell for a profit and therefore production would not take place. An Ecology Party government would depend for its funds on the prosperity of the national economy and the inevitable result of imposing higher costs on the capitalist economy, either through high taxes or uneconomic production methods, would be collapse and the rapid demise of such a government. If the Ecology Party government seriously attempted to implement its programme it would not last weeks. It would not only be capitalists who would seek to eject them but workers too would quickly want them out.

Nor is it practical to imagine that all sections of world capitalist producers, either as enterprises or governments, including state capitalist governments, could agree to adopt production methods which were less than the most efficient available. The plain fact has to be faced that commodity production is still using, for the most part, energy sources which began with the industrial revolution over two hundred years ago — the burning of fossil fuels. There can be little doubt that the 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide released into the atmosphere in Europe in 1982 represents an increase over what was released in particular years during the nineteenth century. The undoubted reason for this is that this remains the cheapest energy source.

By accepting that capitalist production should continue the Ecology Party has destroyed the credibility of its best aspirations. Like the Labour Party before them they have made a political appointment with failure and disillusion. Worse than this, they are now diverting concern over desperately serious problems into a political dead end which can only have the effect of delaying real solutions.

The resources of the earth do not represent the natural environment in which human life, as part of nature, must find its own equilibrium. They take on an economic form, functioning as the material elements of capital. The economic drive which governs their use is the accumulation of capital, which is itself governed by the economic laws of commodity production. This inevitably results in the inability of society to consciously regulate its relationship with the natural world. The function of the working class is to apply its labour power to natural resources for the object of profit and capital accumulation. Thus oil, coal, natural gas, metals, the land, seas, forests and atmosphere function economically for the object of capital accumulation. This is the system which the so called ecologists want to perpetuate.

With the abolition of capitalism, in which goods take the form of commodities for sale on the market, and the abolition of the wage labour/capital relationship, socialism will establish direct co-operation between producers and goods will be produced directly for need. This will eliminate the economic constraints which at present severely limit the use of production methods. Production for use will consciously regulate production and this will include a choice of methods limited only by available technique and practicality. Socialism will also eliminate a vast amount of waste and at least double the number of people available for useful work.

In these circumstances, production for need will not be solely confined to material consumption. It is a vital need that human activity should interact with the natural environment in non-destructive ways. Socialism would have no difficulty in applying a principle of conservation production which would include working within existing natural systems without altering them. This would be the only safe way to proceed.

Certainly in the field of energy supply the rapid development of safe renewable sources would appear to present the most desirable option. Though these are at present hopelessly uneconomic under capitalism, socialism would have no difficulty in developing and applying this existing technology. Conservation production would mean employing methods that avoid using up and destroying natural resources. For example, standardised machinery could be designed with the minimum number of wearing parts which, with simple maintenance, could be easily replaced and the materials re-cycled and used again. For parts of machinery not subject to wear, durable materials which do not deteriorate could be used. If for some reason such machinery became redundant, the materials involved could be recycled and used again. The principle of conservation production could establish the practice that once materials became socially available after extraction and processing, they would be available for permanent use in one form or another. Thus socialism would bring into use means of production, permanent installations, structures and goods which would last for a long time, and even when redundant could be re-cycled for other uses. With its shoddy goods, built in obsolescence, and the pressure of the market to constantly renew its capacity for sales, capitalism is incapable of applying this production principle.

The kind of world implied by the aspirations of the so called ecologists is one where society could make definite decisions about how best to provide for needs and then be free to implement those decisions outside the economic constraints imposed by capitalism. There can be only one way to achieve this — through the success of the world socialist movement. It is inconceivable that the life of world society can achieve equilibrium with nature unless it first achieves unity and common purpose within its own organisation.

The fatal error of the Ecology Party is in thinking that the mere winning of an election, and the establishment of their own government to run capitalism, will enable their aspirations to be advanced. The problem does not resolve itself solely as a question of who runs capitalism. The fallacy involved in believing this is the one which has brought the Labour Party to failure and disillusion. They would find that capitalism would run them, as it has the successive Labour governments. The Ecology Party has gained membership partly on the basis of the failures of Labour Governments, but in their turn they have adopted exactly the same erroneous position. So much is this the case that we can already anticipate the weak excuses, the shifting of blame and apologies for their inevitable failures. These will be the state of trade in a possible future depression, a balance of payments crisis, the run on the pound, industrial strife, the conditions imposed by the International Monetary Fund for granting loans, inflation, renewed war . . . What makes the Ecology Party think that if they were to win an election all these features of capitalism would suddenly disappear?

The continuation of capitalism on its blind and uncontrolled course is a gamble on the conditions of life itself. This is surely within the view of anyone with a serious concern for ensuring a stable balance of natural systems in which humanity can enjoy being part of nature. Who are the ecologists? Socialists are the ecologists. Members of the "Ecology" Party should join us now.

Pieter Lawrence

Literary lefties in the 1930s (1980)

From the May 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Although the furore over Anthony Blunt has died down the question still remains: why did people like him swallow the "Russian Myth" so easily? We might ask this especially about other members of Blunt's generation and social background who were involved not in the visual arts but in the literary world. The pro-Communist sympathies of the literary left-wing did not amount to sustained and covert acts of treason but they allowed their ideology to govern their lives and work for the best part of a decade - and this did not stop at deception and the telling of lies.

In order to explain why these writers mistook Russian Nationalism for socialism it is necessary to appreciate the peculiarities of their approach to politics on the one hand, and the common characteristics of their background and culture on the other. First, who were the protagonists in this political tragedy and what was their contribution to the history and literature of the nineteen-thirties?

At the heart of the 'thirties literary movement, which comprised writers born during the first two decades of the twentieth century, was the Auden Group which emerged from the atmosphere and tradition of Bloomsbury. The group included the poets, Stephen Spender, C. Day Lewis and Louis MacNeice, along with the novelists, Christopher Isherwood and Edward Upward who were attracted to the most promising poet of the period, Wystan Hugh Auden. Malcolm Muggeridge and Kingsley Martin also had strong connections with a definite intellectual tradition, that of the eminent Fabians. Muggeridge by virtue of his marriage to Beatrice Webb's niece, Kitty, and Martin through his position as Editor of the "Staggers and Naggers" - The New Statesman and Nation. Theoreticians such as the Labour politician John Strachey and the bright young Communist Christopher Caudwell contributed to the ideological justification of Communist politics in Britain; the former in his The Coming Struggle for Power and other theoretical works published by the Left Book Club of which he was a leading light, and the latter in Illusion and Reality, which attempted to apply Historical Materialism to the evolution of poetry. Claud Cockburn and the Hungarian journalist Arthur Koestler were hard-headed Communists who, under the orders of their Russian masters, sent fabricated news-stories to England during the Spanish Civil War. Indeed, Cockburn wrote under the slightly more proletarian name of Frank Pitcairn, while Koestler kept his membership of the Communist Party a complete secret while working as a reporter for the right-wing Hungarian paper Pester Lloyd. The two heretics of the literary left-wing were Julian Symons who became a Trotskyite during the 'thirties and George Orwell who viewed Stalin and Trotsky in the same critical light and described Russian Commissars as "half gangster, half gramophone".

The key to their left-wing sympathies can be detected in the official statistics of the period. It was a decade in which unemployment peaked at nearly three million in 1933; the Ministry of Agriculture revealed that 20 per cent of the nation's children were badly fed and Seebohm Rowntree claimed that 30 per cent of the city of York were living below the poverty line. The social conditions of the 'thirties are more poignantly illustrated in the following three extracts. Greenwood's piece from Love On The Dole was written by someone who was brought up in the conditions described; Orwell was fortunate enough to be a mere visitor to the industrial North; Day Lewis' poem could easily have been constructed by someone who had only read about such things in the press.

" . . . and to find the cost of this present system you only have to at our own lives and the lives of our parents. Labour never ending, constant struggles to pay the rent and to buy sufficient food and clothing. And the houses in which we are compelled to live are as though they have been designed by fiends in hell for our especial punishment. Even at best I say it is not a life." Love On The Dole by Walter Greenwood 

"She looked up as the train passed and I was almost near enough to catch her eye. She had a round pale face, the usual exhausted face of the slum girl who is twenty-five and looks forty, thanks to miscarriages and drudgery; and it wore, for the second in which I saw it, the most desolate hopeless expression I have ever seen." The Road to Wigan Pier by George Orwell

"The hooters are blowing,

No need let them take;

When baby is hungry

'Tis best not to wake.

Thy mother is crying,

Thy dad's on the dole;

Two shillings a week is 

The price of a soul."

A Carol by C. Day Lewis.

The nineteen-thirties was the decade of social surveys and "Urban Rides" undertaken by a variety of writers, political activists and social scientists including Orwell, Rowntree, Wal Hannington, J. B. Priestley and Aronld Zweig, to name a few.

Running throughout the work of the literary left-wing - almost without exception - is a pervading sense of guilt which has three elements. The dominant of the three was the over-riding belief that they, born into the homes of small businessmen, shopkeepers and civil servants, educated at public school and in most cases Oxbridge, were, to use Upward's phrase, "Living off the backs of the workers". Somehow they were responsible for the worst features of the capitalist system. It was almost as if one particular phrase of Lenin's was taken to heart above all others.

"How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? In the transition period from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and position."

The Chief Tasks of Our Times

Lenin, of course, was referring to Russia in an attempt to direct attention away from the bigger and more powerful capitalist institution - the State. here is an example of a political expedient in one country becoming a precept of political theology in another. This aspect of Communist propaganda implanted itself on the already guilt-stricken consciences of the literary intellectuals. For they had already inherited from their school days a sense of shame that they had been too young to test their manhood in the Great War. In addition their childhoods had been scarred by sexual and emotional trauma.

Upward described Repton School - unaffectionately referred to as "Reptile" - as being rotten with "a foul and vicious kind of sexuality" during his time there as a pupil. Orwell recounts the mental and physical cruelty of his Eastbourne prep school in Such, Such Were The Joys. Spender says that his parents might just as well have had him "educated at a brothel for flagellants" and Isherwood claims that his "middle class" upbringing denied affection and taught that sex was "the loathsome charnel house, the bottomless abyss and its natural outcome was paralysis". The political implication of these experiences is succinctly expressed by W. H. Auden:

"The best reason I have for opposing Fascism is that at school I lived in a fascist State."

The lure of Russia, the call of the Popular Front and the fight against Fascism took on a new and personal perspective. The literary left-wing chose a number of ways to try to expiate their class-guilt (for example Orwell became a tramp), but most chose to join the Communist Party or become fellow travellers. This was far from an easy defection as they all experienced particular inhibitions in their dealings with the "working class". Muggeridge compares the fascination of the intellectuals with the workers to a small dog passing a big dog, half wanting to smell its bottom, and half afraid. It is worth commenting that their political needs were largely emotional rather than intellectual. They felt guilt but they did not "feel" Communism. It was an uncomfortable veneer which did not fit easily, and it required a great deal of their mental effort to convince them that it did.The contradictions inherent in Russian Communism were mentally accommodated but without realising that the paradoxes originated with Lenin not Marx. Therefore when they finally cast off the ill-fitting Communist mantle it was "human nature" that got the credit for the failure of this political exercise, and Marx who got the blame. This conventional conclusion is presented in Martin's autobiography under the heading of "Left Illusions" and in the infamous compilation by ex-Communists, The God That Failed. However their excuses are not historically accurate.

The anti-marxist foundations of Bolshevism have been highlighted in some detail by revolutionaries like Rosa Luxembourg and more recently by academics like Maximilian Rubel[1], Frederick Bender[2], and Paul Mattick[3]. Even raymond Willaims in Culture and Society and Robert Conquest in The Great Terror have been referred to the expedient innovations of Leninism. Yet it is precisely the flawed assumptions of the Bolsheviks which ensured the political betrayal and eventual disenchantment of individuals who could not stomach the rigours of power politics.

Lenin differed fundamentally from Marx, in his insistence that socialism could be established in a pre-industrial economy and that a socialist revolution could be initiated without the participation of the working class as a whole. These modifications required the redefining of socialism and the economic criteria of class so as to fit in with the economic conditions of Russia. It was this last alteration which enabled the Russian Communists to successfully dupe the literary intellectuals.

In the Communist Manifesto Marx declared:

"By the bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage-labour. By proletariat the class of modern wage-labourers who having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour-power to live."

If they had read Marx the literary left-wing would have realised that they too were workers by virtue of their occupations as journalists and teachers. Their bourgeois "customs and habits" were not sufficient in themselves to constitute membership of the capitalist class. Like all other workers they stood as "non-owners" in relation to the social means of production.

Lenin insisted that the working class consisted only of industrial labor, a mere section of all wage-earners, and the party that represented their true interests did not consist of "the working class itself" but a minority of professional revolutionaries - Lenin's vanguard of the Proletariat. Lenin's contrived view of class gave rise to further inaccuracy and confusion in the writing of the literary left. In the work of the most promising young neo-Bolshevik, Christopher Caudwell, this revised view of class is taken to its most illogical extreme.

"All classes injured by the final explosion of capitalism - workers, peasants, small farmers, shopkeepers, artisans, artists, specialists, technicians - compose that rebellious mass . . . but only one class is organised by its conditions of life to overthrow the old system and build a new."

Illusion and Reality

The literary left-wing believed for a time that capitalism would finally collapse and that their own involvement was of little importance in the face of the inevitable, but at least they were on the side of history.

It is ironic that contained in the speech that was to shape the political commitment of a whole generation of young artists was the admission that should have exposed Lenin's opportunism for what it was - not the way to socialism, but a road to disenchantment and despair.

"State capitalism would be a step forward for us."

The Chief Tasks of Our Times

 Richard Hales

Footnotes:

1. Pipes (Ed) Revolutionary Russia. 1968.
2. Bender F.L. The Betrayal Of Marx. 1975
3. Mattick P. Marx And Keynes. 1974

The Case Against CND (1982)

From the June 1982 issue of the Socialist Standard

An edited typescript of the opening statement made by the representative of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in a debate with CND at Islington in October 1981.

In thinking about the kind of world that CND apparently wants, and the world that socialists want, the central issue is one of social control. We don't like what is going on in society; self-evidently, it is not only an appalling mess but it is fraught with the most colossal dangers to humanity. The problem is, how do we bring this mess, with its accompanying dangers, under control, so that we then have a society where these threats no longer exist, where we have solved the problem of war, and where we control society in the human interest?

The possibility of this kind of social control is pre-supposed by our understanding of problems, so we are saying that we share the indignation that CND expresses, but more than that we say that this must be supported by a clear analysis of how these problems arise in the modern world. We argue that the cause of war is capitalist society.

Under capitalism we have a world which is divided into rival and competing nations, which struggle with each other over the control of markets, trade routes and natural resources. It is this struggle which brings nations into armed conflict with each other because militarism is the violent extension of the economic policies of propertied interests. War and the nuclear threat cannot be isolated from the economic relationships of production or the general object of capitalist production, which is to advance the interests of those privileged class minorities who monopolise the whole process of production.

It follows that no working class of any country has any stake or interest in war, and we have always said that workers should never support war. Our stand since we were established has been to oppose every war. Armed with this understanding of the cause of war we are committed to working politically with workers of all countries to establish world socialism, because that is where the interest of the working class lies. We have never participated in the hideous cause of capitalism at war.

Even amid the hysteria of the first world war, when the nationalistic pressures on the whole population to support the war were very intense, our early comrades sent out this message. "Having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow workers of all lands, the expression of our good will and socialist fraternity, and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism and the triumph of socialism."

Socialism means democratic control of society in the human interest. This will be a society where the means of producing wealth and the whole of the earth's resources are held in common and at the free disposal of the whole human family. The object of socialism is fundamentally different to that of capitalism, and provides for a completely different social organisation.

Whereas under present world capitalism, the motive of production is to produce commodities for sale on the world's markets with a view to profit, so that privileged minorities in rival capitalist states can accumulate wealth, in a socialist society this will not be the case. Socialism will not produce commodities, but will simply produce useful things directly for human need; and there will be a shared interest between all members of the human family in that common object of production.

We are saying that socialism is the only guarantee that war will not take place because it will completely remove the cause of war. But we are saying more than this. All the time capitalism exists, war will remain because the threat of military force, and its use, is a necessary instrument of vested economic interests. All the facts of modern history show that tis is why governments maintain vast "defence" expenditures, including the cost of nuclear weapons. It follows then that activity to get rid of war and the nuclear threat must essentially be activity to get rid of capitalism. When we have a look at CND and the arguments it presents, there is no analysis of the cause of war, and no attempt whatsoever to understand war as a social problem.

We have from CND this indignation about the effects of war, and some sort of policy, argued around some slogans, which aims to bring pressure to bear on governments to prevent them from producing nuclear weapons and to make them dismantle existing stocks. This superficial approach cannot possibly succeed, nor does it stand any chance whatsoever of guaranteeing a world free from war or the possible use of nuclear weapons. The superficial approach of CND assumes some general democratic political structure by which populations are able to bring effective pressure to bear on governments conducting a policy of, or preparations for, war. But wars are not planned or conducted along democratic lines. Think back to the last war and the development of nuclear weapons. These things were done in complete secrecy. All governments, in the planning and conduct of war, must retain for themselves a free hand, which is secret, and by its nature without democratic reference to the population at large. Democracy and the conduct of war are anathema to each other. The first casualty of war is democracy.

It must be obvious to anyone who is not politically naive, that no government undertaking or treaty has ever been kept for longer than it was expedient to do so. Even if it were possible to imagine a capitalist government, for their own political purposes, giving to CND some undertaking about nuclear weapons, it would not be worth the paper it was written on. In this connection you might think also how cynically   Labour Party politicians have exploited CND sentiments for their own political purposes, when in practice they have acted quite differently.

It is importnat to remember that the technology of nuclear weapons is here to stay. You cannot now erase from the human mind and experience the ability to make nuclear weapons, and there can be no doubt that stocks will continue to proliferate under capitalism. What is required is such a degree of international solidarity that workers of all countries are firmly resolved not to support capitalist war. But CND is not working for this. It is the Socialist Party that is providing the arguments on which this can be solidly built. That is why members of CND, if they wish to be successful about their objective, should be working for socialism.

As if to suggest that in view of the gravity of the dangers almost any argument will do, CND says that they are in a hurry. Socialists have fewer illusions than anybody about capitalism and we are well aware of the dangers. Nor do we need CND literature to bring to our minds just how horrible weapons of war are, whether they are nuclear or not. The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan is well within the memory of many socialists, and those who do not remember it are not less sensitive to the horrors of war than CND. Socialists are in a hurry too.

CND says that we have this appalling threat hanging over our heads and they do not have time to work for a different society. They are in the position of supporting capitalism but finding the consequences of their own actions repugnant.

We have had this kind of argument with reformist organisations and pressure groups similar to CND for a long time. We can go back to the beginning of the century when the workers were slaughtering each other and poisoning each other with mustard gas during the First World War. At the time, our early comrades sent out their inspiring message of fraternal good will. If they had been listened to then, all the vile developments since that time would not have taken place.

During the 1930s socialists had the same argument with the Peace Pledge Union, which also saw itself as monopolising feelings of outrage against war and yet continued to support capitalism. They collected millions of signatures and had tens of thousands of members organised in branches all over the country. They were putting a similar argument; peace was a matter of the greatest urgency, but it was not the time to build a society organised for human need.

Sincere individuals are swept up by movements auch as the Peace Pledge Union and CND; but these movements have no substance and are not acting with a clear understanding of the nature of the problems. Because they do not understand that workers have no country, but instead have a common interest with workers of all other countries in taking over the world for themselves, they become easy prey to the propaganda and divisive sentiments of patriotism. There was not the slightest hope for peace in anything that the Peace Pledge Union said, nor in anything that it did. They created the illusion that something was being done, and on that cross of false illusions the working class crucifies itself time and time again, because politically they continue to support capitalism.

There are great dangers in the position taken by CND. They tend to sweep up the indignation that is felt about war and the nuclear threat and render it sterile by channeling it off in totally futile directions. In this respect they unwittingly act out a political role of stabilising capitalism which goes on as a breeding ground for further wars and renewed international violence.

If movements continue to support capitalism they must be responsible for all the ways in which capitalism develops. Because capitalism cannot be controlled in the human interest, we do not know all the ways in which it will develop. We are in the middle of a gigantic trade depression and we do not know what political effects it will have. Under the pressure of trade wars and unemployment there are frustrations and tensions which are now intensifying and which have an undoubted pre-disposition towards violence. Nor can CND possibly assume that while they continue to support capitalism, the technology of human destruction will remain where it is now. These developments will continue, and CND does not know the further refined techniques of death that will come about.

If we are able to go back to the 1930s and had the argument over again with all the people who were then protesting about the effects of capitalism and who said then that there was not time to work for a different society, they would have to accept a measure of responsibility for the things that have happened since that time. We now know the whole story: the second world war, death camps, the development and dropping of the atomic bombs, many more wars since then, the Korean War, Vietnam, millions of people being killed, the development of al the horrendous weapons that exist today, and the obscenity of millions starving while technology, social labour and resources are squandered on the indefensible objectives of capitalism.

After fifty years we are in exactly the same mess that we were in then. When will it be the time to change society? Do we really have to have another fifty years of human misery just so that privileged minorities can continue to control society in their interests?

We invite members of CND to join with us now in building a better world. They must build on the concern and indignation and broaden their horizons. They should not place their faith in governments; that is a sure recipe for disaster and disillusion. We come back to our first question, how do we control society in the human interest? We must not make pathetic appeals to governments to do something on our behalf. We must take the world into our own hands.

Pieter Lawrence

Cooking the Books: Socialism in One Village? (2012)

The Cooking the Books column from the June 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Last month Graham Keeley, the Times correspondent in Spain, reported on a visit to Marinaleda, a small village in Andalusia near Seville, under the headline “Viva la revolución: Spain’s tiny answer to a crisis of capitalism” (5 May). He met the mayor who told him that “the village proves that Marx, not Adam Smith, was right”.

He is not the first journalist to have written about this village of 3,000 inhabitants whose website proclaims it to be “a utopia through peace” (www.marinaleda.com). Its claim to fame is a council-run farm established on land that originally belonged to a local aristocrat and a housing scheme under which people can rent houses cheaply as long as they help build them themselves and help others to build theirs. The farm provides employment for local people and support for any becoming unemployed.  It also generates an income to build and maintain local amenities. There is no local police force and villagers clear the streets and do repairs on a voluntary basis.

“It just shows,” the mayor told Keeley, “that when people own the means of production they get more back.” It certainly shows that the competitive individualism that capitalism seeks to impose is not the only way to live, even under capitalism, and that Adam Smith was wrong to assume that it is “human nature” to want “to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another”. But is this “village socialism” a real “answer to a crisis of capitalism”? The mayor himself doesn’t make this claim, only that his village council is a “counterpower” to that of the “bourgeoisie” and the “big landowners”, protecting land workers from them and their policies. It may well be (anarchists should note that this involves using the ballot box), but clearly the problems facing workers in Spain cannot be dealt with solely at village level – or even at national level.

Spanish capitalism is in deep trouble and it’s the workers who are paying the price. As the BBC reported on 27 April:

“Spanish unemployment has hit a new record high, official figures have shown. The number of unemployed people reached 5,639,500 at the end of March, with the unemployment rate hitting 24.4%.... Official figures due out on Monday are expected to confirm that Spain has fallen back into recession. Earlier this week, the Bank of Spain said the economy contracted by 0.4% in first three months of this year, after shrinking by 0.3% in the final quarter of last year. Other figures released on Friday showed that Spanish retail sales were down 3.7% in March from the same point a year ago - the 21st month in a row that sales have fallen. In the first three months of the year, 365,900 people in Spain lost their jobs. The country has the highest unemployment rate in the European Union and that rate is expected to rise further this year. It has risen sharply since April 2007, when it stood at 7.9%.”

With unemployment up from 8 percent to over 24 percent in five years (and growing), this is a slump of 1930s proportions. The mayor is right. The solution does lie in the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production but, since capitalism is already a world system, this has to be on a world level. A “global village” 

Socialism and the left (1986)

From the January 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Socialist Party is opposed to "left wing" movements because they are reformist organisations which, if they achieved political power, would enforce the basi features of capitalism through the repressive machinery of state. They distort the language of socialism, obscuring all its objectives, and they are conspiratorial and authoritarian in ways which leave no doubt that work for socialism would come under serious threat should they ever realise their aims.

There is a proliferation of such groups sharing a general outlook, distinguished from each other only by points of detail and varying loyalties to different leading personalities. Since they are all given to frequent use of the word "socialism", it is useful clearly to define what the Socialist Party means by the word. This can be summarised under three main headings - common ownership of the means of life; democratic control of society; and production solely for human need.

Common ownership means a relationship where the means of producing goods and services, and the earth's resources, are held in common by the whole community. This is distinguished from minority class ownership of the means of production under capitalism, in either its privately owned or state monopoly forms.

By democratic control we mean a system of administration through which the whole community would be able to make democratic decisions about the use of productive resources, the general arrangement of social affairs and the immediate priorities and long term objectives of social action. This is distinguished from the operation of systems of government which impose decisions on the wider community through the enforcement of law. By their nature, governments express class interests.

By production solely for human need we mean direct co-operation between people in producing goods and maintaining services directly for need. This requires the abolition of the market, including that for labour power in socialism, production would not begin with an economic exchange of labour time for wages and salaries, but would arise as social co-operation in direct response to community requirements. Free access by the community to available goods and services would replace the present restricted access to goods based on buying and selling, and the use of money as a means of exchange.

This is what socialism means and the Socialist Party has consistently held this as its sole object since its formation in 1904. It was not, however, originated by the Socialist Party but taken up from the struggles and ferment of ideas of the nineteenth century, when there was more common agreement about the meaning of socialism than now. The clarification of the meaning of socialism was not, unfortunately, an end to the debates between those who wished to replace capitalism with the new system. On the contrary, it opened up a new debate about how to get from one society to the other, an argument at the heart of the matter of reformism versus revolutionary socialism and one which is highly relevant to the socialist criticism of the various left wing movements today.

The stand taken by the Socialist Party arose from a Marxian analysis of capitalist society and the limitations of political action within capitalism. It worked on the self-evident assumption that any means which were inconsistent with the socialist objective would in effect be hostile to it. It is impossible to establish socialism by seeking to form a government to run capitalism of any kind; to abolish the domination of society by capital by retaining it and accepting all the economic consequences; to abolish the wages system by continuing its operation. Similarly, it is impossible to establish production solely for need and free access to what is produced by retaining the market system of buying and selling which has the sole objective of realising profit.

Each and every one of the so called left wing governments which have come to power in the name of socialism from the British Labour Party to the Russian Bolsheviks, have retained and further developed the basic features of capitalist society. They share the common aim of working for a system of state capitalism, though they dress this up in the language of socialism. Perhaps they retain some remote thought that political power would enable them to manage capitalism and control the direction of its development - presumably towards socialism. No credible theory of such political management has ever been produced; on the contrary, it is a fallacious idea which is now thoroughly discredited by experience.

It was argued at the beginning of the century, for example by some of those who helped form the Labour Party, that a "working class government" could be formed to run capitalist society in the interests of the working class and to carry out measures which would gradually change the structure of society. First of all, it was argued that such a government would immediately enact a programme of reforms to improve conditions of work, create shorter working hours, and continuously expand health and education services. There would be a massive programme of house building and generous pensions for the aged, the disabled and the disadvantaged. Unemployment would be abolished and the production of required goods and services would be continuously increased. At the same time nationalisation would be the beginning of common ownership of the means of production. Tax measures would ensure that the rich would be taxed out of existence. All this was to be carried through by an alliance of working-class political organisations in control of the state and unions operating on the industrial front.

When this put forward at the beginning of the century the early members of the Socialist Party said that it was completely impractical, a very dangerous illusion. They pointed out that these left wing reformists had failed to take into account the lessons of the Marxian economic analysis of capitalism. Then it was a matter of theoretical debate, now it is also a matter of bitter experience. The fallacy of its general theory has been acted out by left wing reformists themselves time and again, both in this country with the Labour Party, in Russia following the Bolshevik take-over, and in many other places.

The reality is that in any system of commodity production and capital accumulation, irrespective of whether it is privately managed or run by the state, there is an irreconcilable conflict between the value factors and the socially useful factors of production, in which the value factors must always predominate. The driving force is capitalist accumulation and this works within a set of constraints which limit time action in every social, economic and political sphere. Whatever may be done in any of these spheres is conditional on the governing factor that capital should accumulate through the economic exploitation of workers involved in the exchange of labour time for wages. Workers generate value over and above the value of their own labour power and this surplus value is realised through the sale of commodities in the market. In this way the original capital investment is expanded and realised in its money form. It makes no difference whether it is state capital operating through a state enterprise or private capital operating through private enterprise, the profit motive and the conditions of the world capitalist market limit the social possibilities of society under capitalism. In the light of this hard economic reality, the reformist dreams of left wing movements are shown to be completely impractical.

In addition to the false ideas about what a "working class government" could do, there is the survival of a further article of faith arising from Leninism - the belief that socialism would emerge in some generally unspecified way from the class struggle in a time of acute crisis when capitalism breaks down in chaos. In this situation, it is said, a "revolutionary vanguard" could take political control and then form a "working class government". The logic of this idea is that left wing movements should intensify the disruptions of the class struggle with a view to bringing this acute crisis about. So we see all about us, Trotskyite groups attempting to use industrial conflict for their political ends.

This is another dangerous misconception made all the more so because it is founded on an element of truth. It is obviously true that socialism arises from the class division of capitalism and will be the outcome of the class struggle. It is also true that because it is based on class antagonisms capitalism will continuously produce chaos in the form of strikes and other disruptions such as riots. But the task of the revolutionary socialist is to show by analysis and persuasive argument that whatever form such struggles may take they arise continuously from one basic cause, which is capitalist society. The positive socialist role is to clarify the cause of struggle, equip it with socialist consciousness and thus direct it on a course of practical political action aimed at dispossessing the capitalist class of their ownership of the means of life and establishing common ownership.

Without socialist knowledge, working-class struggles will always be fought on a battle ground where the forces of capitalism will always win. A crucial factor is the power of the state. While capital retains control of the state and commands the forces of repression - the police and the armed forces backed by the law - workers must always face ultimate defeat. On the other hand a socialist majority would win because it would, in the most determined democratic manner, take political power and bring all the powers of government under its own control. It would then enact common ownership and replace the state with a system of democratic administration, concerned solely with the organisation of production for use. A socialist society can only be established and operated by a majority of men and women who have decided that a world organised solely for human needs is the world they want and prepared to act on that basis. Therefore socialism can only be established by a majority of conscious socialists.

If in some time of acute economic and political crisis a left wing movement was able to take control of the state, nothing would alter except a change of political bosses. It would be state capitalism with the forces of capital still dominating the lives of workers and confining the life of society within the demands of profit as against need. All that would change would be the individuals in the governing positions of power and privilege. In power, as we have seen over and over again, a left wing regime would mean the now entirely discredited policies of nationalisation, the retention of capital, the wages system, commodity production, the market and the profit motive. It would mean all the sectional privileges arising from this, imposed on the working class by the forces of the state.

In their present state, despite their illusory pretensions about acting in the interests of workers, the left wingers wait in the political wings of capitalism, ready to pounce on any opportunity for the continuation of capitalism on the basis of their own control. While they remain contained they are a political gift to the capitalist class, tending to stabilise the exploitative pattern of capitalist relationships by providing a sterile refuge for the frustrations of class society. In this way they are useful to capitalism because they channel working class struggle into a political dead end.

The idea of a revolutionary vanguard mirrors the elitism of those in power positions of capitalism, who justify their privilege with an inflated self-image based on the view that workers are incapable of running society. This is the inverted prejudice of the left that workers can only ever be the tools of change, never the democratically organised and politically conscious agents of it. Acting on the Leninist belief that workers can never go beyond trade unionism, the left wing elitists see themselves as the political manipulators able to convert industrial disruption into political change.

The fact is that everywhere about us we see workers running every useful part of production and necessary services. In the modern world the knowledge required for this is certainly no less than the socialist knowledge required to run the entire structure of industrial organisation and administration in their own interests and through their direct co-operation. Throughout the world there exists a highly developed structure of useful production which is available to be developed solely for human needs.

Pieter Lawrence