The Reason for the Russian Trial (1937)

From the June 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Moscow correspondent of the Economist (February 27th, 1937) provides the answer to the question why did the Russian Government need the recent trials? It had to explain the breakdown of the grandiose five-year plans. This breakdown made it necessary to find scapegoats, since no dictatorship ever dare let the population know that the dictator and his advisers may themselves have pushed their plans to a point where they became top-heavy and unworkable. Only, now that scapegoats have been found, is the population being told how badly some of the plans have worked : —

    Now that veteran Bolsheviks have confessed to deliberate sabotage. in several major industries, the Government permits its people to learn of distressing conditions hitherto kept from them. Sabotage explains everything; revelation of gross inefficiency need not cast discredit upon central planning, which, without some such explanation, might come into disrepute.
   Official newspapers now reveal that conditions are most unsatisfactory on the railways, and in the non-ferous metal and chemical industries. Plants were designed hastily without an adequate knowledge of raw material resources. Capital was invested in the “least advantageous fields and those which presented the greatest difficulties for exploitation." For example, where lead and zinc ores were found together, only one or the other was utilised. Plans for new factories were altered locally, which resulted, according to one official newspaper, “ in complete irresponsibility and confusion."
    In the chemical industry “plants frequently were designed with too large or too small capacities, in unsuitable places, for the production of an unnecessary assortment of goods, etc. Often plants were built at places where there was little ore." Funds were withheld from plants under construction, which often resulted in the suspension of building operations. Designs were altered after much of the construction work had been completed, which necessitated the demolition of finished buildings and their reconstruction. At the Krasno-Uralsk Combinat the metallurgical section was built with no provision for the use of bye-products.
    All this, and much more, is now recorded in the official newspapers, and charged to Trotskyism. Whatever the cause may be, it is obvious that there has been terrific waste of capital funds and effort, and that thorough reorganisation of whole industries will be necessary. The official view is that reorganisation will be easy now that the wreckers in high places have been removed.

Now what becomes of the everlasting boasting by the British Communists of the marvellous success of the five-year plans? Whatever explanation they choose to offer for the breakdown, it now becomes obvious that their former boastings of success were not based on fact, but on the propaganda of the Russian Government, which excluded the truth about industrial inefficiency.

P. S.

Death Of An Australian Comrade (1937)

Obituary from the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is with deep regret that we have to record the death on March 26th of Comrade Richard Edwards, a member of the Sydney Branch of the Socialist Party of Australia, at the early age of 36 years.

Our comrade died from cancer of the stomach. He underwent an operation at the Sydney Hospital some eight months before his death, but was found to be incurable. Our comrade was unaware of this and recovered so well that he was able to return, for a while, to his work and to his activities in the Party.

Comrade Edwards was, in early life, an active member of the Seamen’s Union, but later worked ashore. He joined the Sydney Branch of the Party shortly after its formation and, until compelled to retire by illness, held office as Branch Treasurer, a position which he filled to perfection.

In losing Comrade Edwards the Branch has lost a member who could be relied upon in all he undertook to do, and one who was widely known and highly esteemed in the district in which he lived.

To his mother, his wife and daughter, and to his other relatives, we extend our deep sympathy.

The Sydney Branch of the S.P. of Australia.

Roads To Socialism (1937)

From the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Herbert Morrison, M.P., leader of the London Labour Party, and Mr. F. Montague, M.P., who was Under-Secretary for Air under the last Labour Government, have had a lifetime of association with the Labour Party and they both stand for more or less definite schools of thought in that party. They recently let fall observations about Socialists and Socialism which deserve to be recorded for the light they throw on the never-ending discussion about roads to Socialism. (A second reason why Mr. Morrison’s words should be repeated is that some two million readers, of the Labour Daily Herald will be unaware that he used them. They were duly reported in the other newspapers, but the passage that interests us did not see the light in the Daily Herald's report of the speech, having, perhaps, fallen a victim to the sharp editorial pencil which comes between the Labour reader and the news it is not considered fit that he should see).

Mr. Morrison was addressing a victory dinner, after the Labour Party’s return to office at the London County Council election, and said:—

  Perhaps nine-tenths of London’s great army of Labour voters could not tell you what Socialism means. . . . We have to convert this vague Labour electorate of goodwill into a conscious Socialist electorate.— (News Chronicle, March 22nd, 1937.)

This is an obvious truth and one with which Socialists would only disagree on the ground that it is over-optimistic. Undoubtedly the Labour voters are not Socialists and do not understand Socialism. Similarly, Socialists would agree with Mr. Montague’s assertion in a letter to the Daily Herald (June 17th, 1937) that “ of course the major demands of the Social Democratic Federation and Independent Labour Party have not been conceded. Why expect it, when the workers have never yet voted Socialists into power?”

This was in reply to a letter in which a reader had pointed out that though 50 years have passed since the S.D.F. and I.L.P. drew up lists of their demands and "palliative measures for immediate adoption,” the great majority are still unachieved.

This is all a very old story to the S.P.G.B. Nothing much will ever be achieved, and the building up of Socialism will not begin until the workers have taken control of the governmental machinery for the purpose of ending capitalism, and that cannot be done until there are Socialists to do it. “Vague Labour electorates” who do not understand Socialism are as good as useless for the end in view. So we are back where we were when the S.P.G.B. started, faced with the gigantic task of making Socialists.

The S.P.G.B. at that time put one view—the view it still holds. The I.L.P. and S.D.F. (including Mr. Morrison and Mr. Montague) put another. They said that the way to make Socialists was to work up enthusiasm for “immediate demands," the eight-hour day, old-age pensions, and so on, and having built up an organisation out of this non-Socialist material and gained control of councils and put M.P.s in Parliament the work of making Socialists would be easier. The workers would be converted to Socialism by seeing how the Labour Party was doing practical everyday work. The leaders would go on preaching Socialism and would get a readier hearing for it because of their successful administration of the central and local government.

But it has worked out just as the S.P.G.B. said it would. Most of the “ immediate demands " are still unachieved. Those that have been achieved have in many cases been introduced by Conservative or Liberal governments, who duly claim the credit. There have been two Labour governments, but, far from being an asset to propaganda, even the Labour M.P.s themselves are mostly apologetic about them and wish them forgotten. The men who promised to use the Labour Party to preach Socialism are too busy explaining and apologising for the wreck of the Labour governments to do so. And even if Mr. Morrison did make a practice of preaching Socialism how would the past work of his party help him? Will the ""busmen, for example, listen more readily to Mr. Morrison because, as part of his day-to-day work of administering capitalism, he fathered the London Passenger Transport Board? Is he or Mr. Montague in a better position than 30 years ago to put over Socialist propaganda? Does Mr. Morrison’s subtle argument that the capitalist London Passenger Transport Board is not Socialism but “socialisation" make it easier to explain to the workers what Socialism really is?

Besides, while Mr. Montague may clearly recognise and preach that social reform and State capitalism are not Socialism, what about the leaders of the Labour Party? Mr. Attlee recently addressed the railway stockholders and explained . how “Socialism" would provide them with more security for their holdings than they have at present. Mr. Tom Johnston, M.P., in a speech to a Labour Party Conference at Leeds, on June 19th (see Manchester Guardian, June 21st, 1937), said it was only necessary to win “another two million converts from the Tory Party. If we get that we are home, and involuntary poverty is finished." Thus, he flatly contradicts Mr. Morrison and Mr. Montague, who both know that we shall not be home until we have got Socialists in place of vague Labour voters.

If Mr. Montague and Mr. Morrison were asked about this they would, no doubt, give the crushing answer that anyway the S.P.G.B. does not seem to have made much headway in converting the workers to Socialism. This is very true, but there is a reason. Every time we try to explain to the workers what Socialism is and how it differs from capitalism we find that the great majority of workers outside the Labour Party already think they know what Socialism is and what is a Socialist Party. Socialism, they think, is some State capitalist concern like the Post Office or the London Passenger Transport Board, and “Socialist Party" to them means Labour Party. The nine-tenths of the Labour voters who don't understand Socialism think they do, and they muddle and confuse the mind of the workers to such an extent that Socialist propaganda has a desperate job to penetrate. In theory the Montagues and Morrisons who understand Socialism are supposed to keep the issues clear. In practice they cannot even explain Socialism to their own Johnstons and Attlees, let alone explain it to the mass of the workers inside and outside the Labour Party.

Socialist propaganda by a Socialist organisation is still the only road to Socialism. 

Edgar Hardcastle

Parliamentary Activity (1937)

Party News from the August 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

In a few months after launching our Parliamentary Fund we have almost reached the sum required by law for the election deposit. A great deal of the success in this is due to regular contributions from Party members and supporters. From some sources we receive guaranteed sums each month. Nevertheless, that part of the Parliamentary Fund which is from monthly guarantees is capable of expansion and improvement. Therefore, we urge Party members who can become guarantors to do so. If you have mislaid the guarantee form, let us know, and we will send you another. The advantage of a regular guaranteed sum each month is self-evident, it helps us to plan for the future. We do not expect all members or non-members to become guarantors, but we do expect all Socialists in or out of the Party to contribute in some way to the Parliamentary Fund.

In the past we have invariably used restraint when asking for money. No amount of money could stimulate some forms of activity. But in this instance money is indispensable, and we ask for it without hesitation or apology. Once having obtained the deposit, for obvious reasons we would hesitate to spend it. Yet there are many things we need urgently and immediately. We need to hire or purchase a propaganda van and to have wide distributions of literature. Above all, and very important under modern conditions, we must have a loud-speaker and amplifying apparatus (perhaps some friend could make us a present of this?) for outdoor meetings. Ordinary methods of propaganda must be supplemented in order to reach the immense numbers which constitute modern electorates. The cost will be heavy, but it is, nevertheless, unavoidable. We aim, therefore, to raise at least £400 before the end of the year. The question is urgent; though the present Government may last for at least two years, a general election could catch us by surprise at any time. We shall, therefore, not feel easy until we have this sum at least. It can be done. You, comrade reader— member or sympathiser—can make it possible; those odd pence, that small piece of silver, in addition to the welcome occasional £l or £5 (alas—so very occasional!) can make it possible. Do not be afraid that we shall exceed our needs. Quite apart from our present plans the Parliamentary Fund is permanent, and we look forward to the future, when we shall be able to have several Socialist candidates.

We are now. looking forward to a rapid increase in the fund. Many hesitated until it was apparent that we should quite easily get the deposit money, and that our entry into Parliamentary politics looked certain. And, friends and comrades, let it be clearly understood that, barring outlandish accidents, our candidate, or candidates, will enter the fray at the next general election.

As a reminder, the two non-members who promised at our Annual Reunion that they would donate generously when we raised the deposit can now do so with confidence. And we hope the donation will not be less than £l each. As a suggestion, will one hundred readers donate in units of £l ? There are numbers of our friends who cannot attend our meetings but who are willing to donate a few pence occasionally. To give them the opportunity, our members will shortly be carrying tickets at threepence each. Buy one. Every little helps.

And now, to all concerned. Send the donation you can afford, without us having to ask for it (but this we shall do). Having to write to you makes unnecessary work. To the many who have contributed, and continue to do so despite the many calls on their pockets for varied Party activities, we tender our grateful thanks.

Parliamentary Committee.

POLITICAL COUNCIL

A Political Council has been formed to take over the entire job of organising and carrying out propaganda in East Ham North. It consists of propagandists, literature sellers and supporters of meetings. If you can do any of these your help is needed and expected. Get in touch with the Council and let them know what help you are going to give.

A meeting of the Council, to discuss plans for future activity, will be held at 42, Great Dover Street, on August 3rd (Tuesday), at 8 p.m.

Parliamentary Committee.

Divide and Rule in Palestine (1937)

From the September 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Royal Commission's proposal to solve the Palestine troubles by partition has met with a mixed reception.

The recommendation is to split Palestine up into three pieces, an Arab State, a Jewish State, and a portion which will remain under the British Mandate.

At the recently concluded Zionist Congress opinion was sharply divided. A two-thirds majority, headed by the Zionist Chairman, Dr. Weizmann, voted in favour of the principle of partition, largely on the grounds that it was the best that could be expected from the British Government under the circumstances. The decision was only come to after long and heated discussion, and the news of it called forth protest from some leading Zionists in America and elsewhere.

Among the professed spokesmen of working-class interests there is also a conflict of views.

Communist writers, who claim that the Jews in Palestine have been building up a flourishing business under the protection of the British Government, back the Arabs. They urge resistance to the partition proposal and the establishment of an independent Arab State in Palestine, of which the Jews are to be members on an equal basis. The Communists put this forward on two grounds: The right of the Arabs to self-determination and the need to curb British Imperialism.

On the other side, opponents of the Communists, like Abramovich and Orenstein, favour the continuance of the mandatory system and oppose the Arab viewpoint. In doing so they overstate the Jewish case, though probably unconsciously, painting a beautiful picture of Palestine under the Jews, where Socialist ideas will flourish.

The state of affairs in Palestine is not clear cut. There is an old social system side by side with a new, and both subject to an over-ruling Imperial power. Within each again there are class interests that cut across racial and national feelings. And, to still further complicate matters, there is the peculiar international position of the Jew.

The Arab lives under a semi-feudal regime with the land-owner despoiling the peasant of nearly everything. The coming of the Jews introduced modern industrial methods which threaten the incomes of land-owners, partly by offering the peasants a way of escape from fleecing, and partly by competition. Hence the influential Arabs are opposed to the continued immigration of Jews and strive to stir racial hatred among the poor by using the religious bogey. They are opposed to partition and want an independent Arab State.

The Jew, hunted out of various occupations in the East and the victim of pogroms, has been drifting into Palestine for decades. The immigration  of the Jew has been vastly increased since the War, until at present it has reached from fifty to sixty thousand a year. How the Jews are permeating Palestine may be appreciated from the fact that, in spite of Arab immigration, the Jewish section rose from 17 per cent. of the population in 1930 to 30 per cent. in 1936. This antagonises the Arab, who foresees himself being swamped in the rising flood. On the other hand, the growing Jewish section pays the bulk of the tax revenue but receives the least benefit from it, which is a permanent source of complaint.

To the Jew, interference with immigration would have serious consequences. Palestine is perhaps the only place to which he has free access. A large proportion of the immigrants are representatives of families that have been left behind in other countries in dire straits, penniless and denied almost any opportunity of earning a living. To these the immigrant sends back contributions that enable the relatives to buy the necessaries of life. Thus, as one writer puts it, if the Arabs succeed in stopping Jewish immigration into Palestine it will mean starvation to millions of Jews.

The Jewish migration has brought with it to Palestine the capitalist system with its antagonistic classes. While, on the one hand, it is making the desert flower and bringing into existence flourishing towns, on the other hand it is replacing the feudal method of fleecing by the capitalist exploitation of wage-workers. To quote Mordekai Orenstein: —

  You will find in Palestine a highly organised capitalist class, a vigorous and aggressive Jewish clericalism, and a modern Jewish Fascism with all the usual characteristics from strike-breaking to the base murder of a distinguished working-class leader.

—(Page 10, “ Jews, Arabs and British in Palestine.”) 

He also adds that you will find there a strongly organised working class. But, towards the end of the pamphlet, he laments that: —

   Considerable sections of Jewish workers in Palestine have not as yet reached the realisation of the vital urgency of forging this supernational weapon [Jewish-Arab proletarian unity] in the political struggle in Palestine.—(Page 21.)

It may be added that partition, by restricting the area open to Jews, must have a considerable effect on their immigration, which is some explanation of Zionist opposition.

The attitude of the British Government is based on simple principles: The safeguarding of British capitalists' interests, as represented by such things as the oil pipe between Mosul and Haifa; security of Imperial air routes, communications through the Suez Canal, and so forth. Their policy of divide and rule leads them to favour different sides at different times, and to keep racial animosities alive as long as they do not become too dangerous.

The support of both Jews and Arabs during the War was bought by promises that have not been kept, and cause irritation to both sections.

The Mandate has evidently outlived its uses to British capitalism, and the partition system is to take its place. This will give Arab and Jew (like the North and South of Ireland) something to quarrel over for years to come, to the hindrance of propaganda for working-class solidarity against the international capitalist class.

Gilmac.

TV Review: The digital watch (1999)

TV Review from the December 1999 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is a sad fact that as the 1990s come to an end most viewers and critics think that the standard of television output has been lower in Britain during the last decade than at almost any other time in living memory. The sixties had The Avengers and The Prisoner, the seventies had Dad`s Army and Fawlty Towers, the eighties Only Fools and Horses and the "golden era" of British soap—but what did the nineties have?

The television industry in Britain, previously cited as the best in the world, has lost its way at the same time as the entertainment industry the world over has seen a dumbing down of its output of truly mammoth proportions. While almost everyone now concedes that the quality of TV programmes has dipped, there is, bizarrely at first sight, far more TV about than ever before. Indeed this may appear to be one of the problems.

Not only has quality perceptibly fallen, the quality that remains is now spread across a myriad of different channels. Today, despite the ongoing technological revolution in broadcasting, there is probably less new, quality TV across the sixty or seventy channels now available than there was across just three or four channels in the past. Broadcasting in the UK is now spreading itself very thinly indeed, and it shows.

There are two main reasons for this, both of them connected. One is the arrival of satellite—and now digital—television. Digital television service provision in the UK is currently a duopoly. It is an industry dominated by Digital Sky Broadcasting and its newer rival OnDigital, though as with most duopolies there is a fair degree of collusion and co-operation between the two. As digital TV is not restricted by the technical limits imposed by the normal UHF television waveband, they have been able to multiply the provision of TV channels in Britain several times over, presenting their subscribers with pick-and-choose portfolios of channels dedicated to drama, comedy, music, sport or whatever may take their fancy.

Unfortunately, these channels are heavily dominated by advertising in the main, even more so than their terrestrial rivals. Some of them undoubtedly provide a good service for the sections of the TV audience they are marketed at—Sky Sports being probably the most obvious example—but they generally offer low-grade television and repeats of popular old favourites such as those now offered by UK Gold and Granada Plus. Even Sky`s in-house Channel, Sky One, offers next to no new programming at all. It is recycled fayre, cheap and advertising-driven, with the bottom-line of one of the world`s biggest multinationals rarely out of sight and mind.

Down, down, deeper and down 

The other reason for the spread of low-quality TV has not been so intrinsically related to the arrival of new technology. Instead it is a phenomenon reflective of what is happening right under our noses in capitalist society. This is the lack of social cohesion and direction evident in a society now based on little more than the commodification of our everyday lives and the anarchic rule of the market.

Not only is there a lack of a coherent future for people to forge or identify with today and for programme-makers to tap in to, there is even a lack of a shared sense of past too. As society becomes more disparate, its members more "classless", isolated and bombarded by a sustained attack of cultural ephemera, "market segmentation" becomes all important: commercial exploitation based on the sustenance of diversity and division in previously homogenous markets. Class is no longer important in this scenario, instead we are defined by the lager we drink or the shade of lipgloss we wear.

As a result of all this only two types of new programme get made with any frequency. These are either highly specific, and necessarily low-budget programmes aimed at the plethora of culturally transient activity in existence at any one time, or generic blockbusters of various sorts aimed a mass audience on the basis of the rule of the lowest common denominator—trashy dramas, increasingly repetitive soaps and anything else which, whether by chance or design, achieves a high enough market share to warrant being flogged to death, from docusoaps to celebrity cookery programmes.

Hence the state of UK (and indeed, world) broadcasting at present—a massive proliferation of channels with a parallel proliferation of trash. Finding low-grade dross or endless repeats is no real problem now, finding new quality programming which has required some sort of sustained investment most certainly is.

Of course it need not be like this. Digital television in particular offers huge scope for the democratisation of broadcasting, with hundreds of channels catering for all tastes and perspectives, properly produced and free from the dead hand of the advertising people. Perhaps at some point in the new millennium society will be able to mould and create a worthwhile broadcasting system which is a fitting use of the advanced technology now at our disposal, and which can inform us, entertain us and empower us in equal measure. If the market economy is to survive for much longer though, we shouldn`t really be counting on miracles, should we?

Dave Perrin

Germany, November 1918 (1998)

From the November 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

The German revolution of 80 years ago was the only ever nation-wide workers' revolt in an advanced capitalist society. It overthrew the Kaiser but not capitalism. It didn't and couldn't have done this as there was no majority for socialism amongst the workers.

Last Autumn saw the spectacle of Trotskyists and other assorted Leninists remembering the 80th Anniversary of the Russian revolution with great enthusiasm. The Trotskyist "Marxist" Party held a meeting for the occasion round my way. When asked by myself at a stall promoting the revolution meeting (with some very pretty looking flyers, it must be said) what exactly their platform was, their reply was "well, you know the Russian revolution?". I indicated that I was aware of its existence. "Well, we, er, well, we think it was a good thing". Great, nice platform, well thought out, mate. Likewise our local SWP enthusiast exhorted me to come to their big meeting on the Russian revolution and "see Tony Cliff before he dies", which struck me as insufficient incentive to attend what would doubtless have been a very tedious evening.

All of this inevitably led me into numerous dog-fights with these sort of people, about quite why the Russian revolution isn't the best thing that's ever happened, including one very nasty and terrifying encounter with a bloody-thirsty professional revolutionary from the SWP head office ("The Cheka were necessary, to stop counter-revolutionaries," she said, and I contemplated suicide, despairing over the condition of a human race that produced such a "socialist"). Inevitably, whenever I elucidated the crimes of the Bolsheviks, pointed out the many failings of the revolution, demonstrated how even Nice and Shiny Mr Lenin perpetrated the sorts of crimes they normally said only started with that Evil Mr Stalin, they had one last line of defence: "The Russian Revolution turned rotten because of invasion by umpteen foreign countries, and the failure of the German Revolution."

The point about invasion largely makes a mockery of their whole support for the victorious revolution, if in fact it wasn't victorious, and so can be dismissed. But their second point is worth a closer look. It is true that Lenin was probably predicating the success of his revolution upon a successful socialist revolution in Germany as well and hoping that it would spread world-wide from there. Fine and dandy, but all this changes Lenin from instead of being a dangerous man who thought he could lead the world to socialism, to a dangerous gambler who thought he could lead the world to socialism. Further, the proponents of such a thesis seem remarkably capable of over-looking the obvious conclusion to which this line of defence points—that Russia was really the side-show, an historical footnote, to the only ever attempted workers' revolution in an advanced capitalist state; and that all their celebrations of Russia and desire to follow its model are flawed, because Germany is the real case history that bears examination.

At the time of the first world war, Germany was the second biggest industrial economy in the world. This was despite having a full third of the population still living as feudal peasantry, and still retaining a quasi-feudal government under an autocratic hereditary ruler. It also had one of the largest workers' movements in Europe (despite socialism having been a criminalised creed for many years in Germany). The Social-Democratic Party of Germany (the SPD) had over a million members and some 4½ million voters, along with numerous papers, affiliated social groups, etc.

The SPD still talked of—and reckoned itself as—being a radical socialist party, though over the years running up to the war it drifted further and further towards outright reformism, partly because it had become so institutionalised. Running its own papers and allied with unions, it was very much a part of the fabric of society. Despite this, a small section of revolutionary socialists remained within the SPD, typified by Rosa Luxemburg, and who numbered some three to four thousand.

The true colours of the SPD were shown during the war, when nearly all of its members in the Reichstag openly backed the war, and the party spread propaganda to the effect that the war was necessary to stop the threat of tyranny from Russia. This slowly led to a split in the SPD, three ways, with the eventual formation of the Independent Social-Democratic Party (USPD) within the parliamentary party and then more slowly within the membership itself. The "far-left" contingent formed themselves into the Spartakusbund (Spartacist League) with Karl Leibknecht and Rosa Luxemburg as prominent members. However, they remained within the official ranks of the USPD.

By September 1918 it was clear that Germany had already lost the war. The most the ruling class could expect was to preserve their state more or less intact. They were desperate to avert a repetition of events in Russia and the massive upheaval there. The powerful generals in the army proposed a way of saving the German state by liberalising it and bringing some of the more obliging elements of the SPD into the government. These latter accepted and joined a government under Prince Max von Baden as Chancellor.

Workers' Councils

Under this regime events deteriorated. Long suffering workers began to vent their frustration at the grind and penury they faced after four years of draconian war-time restrictions. More and more workers and disenchanted soldiers and sailors began to strike and mutiny. By late October insurrection was spreading, as workers throughout the country rose up against the government. Beginning in the northern port of Kiel workers' councils began to be formed all across the country. By 5 November, Hamburg (one of the biggest cities in the country) became subject to control by a workers' council. By the 8th so had many of the great cities of Germany, Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt and even Berlin.

The outcome of the uprising was that the leader of the SPD, Erbert, took power, and his colleague Scheidemann unilaterally declared Germany a republic, in a bid to appease the rebels by ending the rule of the German aristocracy. The Kaiser went into exile. Whilst this part of the revolt was successful, it in fact merely finished the job begun by the revolutions of 1848, in establishing a fully bourgeois republic in Germany.

Very few of the German working class were revolutionary socialists. The vast majority of workers supported the SPD as a matter of course, including its general programme of the reform of capitalism. On the other hand, the revolutionary workers were tiny in number. When in February 1919 the Spartakusbund renounced its links with the USPD and formed a German Communist Party (KPD) it recognised this problem: "Socialism cannot be created by decrees; nor can it be established by any government. Socialism must be created by the masses themselves, by every proletarian". Their problem was that not enough proletarians wanted socialism. The November uprisings had been a reaction to hardship and tyranny, not a coherent wish to establish socialism. Contrary to what the SWP's Chris Harman writes in his book The Lost Revolution, in which he patronisingly claims that the workers were "confused" by the splits within the "socialist movement", what most workers wanted was for the SPD to end their hardship. The Spartacists recognised that the mass support needed to establish socialism was lacking and that socialism was not on the agenda at that time, and so they resolved to oppose the calling of a constituent assembly which they felt would help consolidate the German state and instead to try and make socialists within the workers' councils.

Some hot-headed elements of the German left (in the USPD and another group called the Socialist Shop-Stewards) were not satisfied with this reality, and 5 January 1919 mounted the misnamed Spartacist uprising ("Spartacist" within SPD circles had become was a catch-all for anyone vaguely disagreeing with the leadership, much as "Trot" has become in the modern Labour Party—the Spartacists, including Rosa Luxemburg, actually opposed an uprising, realising as they did that mass support for socialism just wasn't there). These elements led the workers of Berlin in a putsch to try and seize power, with the hope of it spreading nation-wide. It failed. Lacking any plan the workers who had followed the glorious revolutionaries stood around waiting to be told what to do, and when they were told it was a mish-mash of confused orders and muddle. On 11 January 1919 the SPD government sent in the troops, the notorious Freikorps, which very effectively crushed the abortive putsch. By 17 January both Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg had been murdered by Freikorps troops, and Berlin was under government control once more.

Crushed by the state

This was a pattern that was to be repeated in many parts of the country, as any struggles and gains by the workers were brutally crushed by military might. The workers discovered too late the danger of following leaders, and, much as the Bolsheviks crushed all independent working class activity in Russia to establish their dominance, so too did the SPD in Germany to preserve the German capitalist state. The workers discovered to their cost the impossibility of fighting against a co-ordinated and well-armed state, and if little blood was spilt in the initial revolt much was spilt when it was put down.

The workers of Germany persistently followed their old leaders, believing these would solve their problems for them, and even bring about socialism, and for a while they believed the lip-service the SPD government gave to "socialisation" of industry. In the end, however, they had to learn the hard way the folly of following leaders. The German revolution shows, not as Chris Harman believes, that if the KPD had had more discipline (read had it enacted the Leninist principle of "democratic-centralism" and obedience to the leadership) it might have controlled events more and thus been able to lead the workers to successful revolution (on Russian lines). It was that where the working class does not have the resolve to establish socialism, it will not, and trying to make socialists in the heat of an ongoing quasi-civil war is almost impossible. No amount of leadership but only a majority of socialist-minded workers could have made the revolution in Germany. The bloody defeat of the putsch and the uprisings showed how violence, especially by a minority, is suicidal against an existing organised state. History shows it is not the state that gets "smashed" but the revolutionaries and many innocent workers too.

Pik Smeet

"Better I die of radiation than my children of hunger . . ." (2006)

From the May 2006 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the village of Orlovka, in the Chui region of Kyrgyzstan in post-Soviet Central Asia, there used to be a uranium mine. Its closure in the early 1990s led to massive unemployment in the area. But now the desperately poor local residents have found a new way to survive.

They sift through the waste dumped near the disused mine ­– "a moonscape of grey slag" – in search of material that they can sell to scrap merchants. There is iron and other metals, and graphite, but most valuable is silicon, which fetches $10 per kilo and ends up at electronics plants in neighbouring China. About a third of the diggers are children. Some of their teachers are there too, for they can't get by on the pittance called a salary. Injuries are frequent. Some people get buried alive when the holes they are digging cave in.

Of course, there are many such places in the "undeveloped" countries. But this one has an additional hazard. The waste is full of radioactive gas (up to 400 micro-roentgens per hour). The diggers, their bodies covered with festering sores, are dying of radiation sickness. They are fully aware of the fact, but as one man said: "Better I die of radiation than my children of hunger."

Now for a little thought experiment. Suppose these people had been rounded up at gunpoint and forced to do this work on the orders of some military junta or Islamist or "communist" dictatorship. Just imagine the furore that human rights organizations around the world would raise against the regime committing such atrocities.

But they were not rounded up at gunpoint, and no armed guards are needed to keep them at their labours. They are "independent market actors" – "entrepreneurs," indeed, legally free to leave the scrap collecting business whenever they like. So none of their "human rights," as the term is usually understood, has been violated. They are lucky enough to live in a country that has been fulsomely praised as a model "democracy" with an excellent "human rights record" – at least by Central Asian standards. And yet they are not a whit better off for all that.

For there is one human right that they lack, and without it other human rights are not worth very much. They do not have the right of access to the means of life. "I wanted to work on the land," another digger remarked, "but unfortunately I don't have any." Quite so. And back into the radioactive gas...

(Source. Institute of War and Peace Reporting (London), Reporting Central Asia, No. 438, March 10, 2006.)

Stefan.

Cooking the Books: The Money Shuffling Business (2018)

The Cooking the Books column from the January 2018 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is trade and trade. Trade in tangible things – what most will understand by 'trade' – and trade in services. This was brought out by a news item in the Times (6 November):

'Data published by the Office for National Statistics last week showed that Guernsey, with a population of 63,000, was one of Britain's largest international trade partners and the sixth-largest consumer of British services, putting it ahead of major economies including Italy, China and Japan'.

In other words, the UK exports more services (not tangible goods of course) to the island than it does to the other countries mentioned. According to the statistics, export of services to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands accounted in 2006 for 11 percent of all such exports.

What are these services? The ONS lists 52 of them, but excludes travel, transport and banking. On the list some such as technical advice on production are useful in themselves. Most are only useful in a capitalist society and some only to capitalists and capitalist corporations: accounting, advertising, market research, management consultancy, public relations, legal services, leasing, financial services, merchanting.

As sales of technical advice on how to grow potatoes, tomatoes and flowers must be rather limited, it is not difficult to guess what the 'trade' in 'services' with Guernsey will be. And why. In a word, tax-dodging.

That some capitalists and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes compared with other capitalists and corporations is not really of concern to socialists or to the wage and salary working class generally. But it does expose the hypocrisy of those who preach patriotism to the workers while in practice being, as they used say of the Northern Ireland Protestants, more loyal to the half-crown than to the Crown.

Trade is a buying and selling transaction but what is traded doesn't have to be tangible. Anything – in fact everything – can be bought and sold and, under capitalism, is. Some services such as health care, education and entertainment are useful in themselves, even though corrupted by being sold. Other services – all those concerned with money – are useful only under capitalism. They would not make sense in a socialist society.

In fact, there would not be any trade or trading in socialism. There won't need to be as what is produced will be the common property of society and will just need to be moved from where it is produced to where it is needed (actually, technically this is still part of production). So, goods will still be moved from one part of the world to another. This won't be trade because no equivalent will have to be moved in the opposite direction. If people in some part of the world need farm machinery it will simply be shipped there. The same goes for food or minerals that can't be grown locally. There will be no expectation that something has to be shipped back in exchange. No doubt people will move from one part of the world to another to provide services like technical advice, training or health care. Once again, in exchange for nothing.

All the financial services necessary under capitalism – and the vast waste of resources and work involved in them – will disappear. The people of Guernsey will be able to give up shuffling about paper claims to wealth and concentrate on doing something useful, sure in the knowledge that, as with all communities, they will be provided with all the things they can't produce locally.

Proper Gander: Reflections on Black Mirror (2012)

The Proper Gander TV column from the January 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

A video is posted onto YouTube showing Britain’s beautiful new Princess tied up and crying. She struggles to read out loud a message from her kidnapper: she will be killed unless the Prime Minister has sex with a pig, live on television. The first story in Charlie Brooker’s trilogy of state-of-the-nation dramas – Black Mirror – wasn’t going to be easy viewing. The bizarre, nightmarish scenario was acted and directed with thorough seriousness, making the programme feel more like a fly-on-the-wall documentary, drawing the viewer in.

Brooker is savvy enough about the media to make the viral spread of the threat across the internet central to the plot. The kidnapper’s message zooms through YouTube, Facebook and Twitter without the traditional methods of communication – press releases, newspapers and television news – being able to keep up. The new types of media are changing how we relate to the world. Information is open directly to more people, to interpret, spread and act upon. According to Brooker, this turns us into social-networked, YouTube-sharing voyeurs, for whom everything is titillation. He’s saying that reducing events to tweets and facebook updates cheapens them, and robs them of their real meaning.

Back in the drama, the government’s improvised back-up plans fail, and the situation for the Prime Minister and the Princess gets fist-clenchingly desperate. The kidnapper’s deadline for the live bestiality broadcast is approaching. Like the crowds gathering in front of their screens, the viewer is both appalled and dragged into watching, thinking, ‘will they really show it?’

Brooker succeeded in crafting an intelligent, challenging drama. Anyone hearing about the premise and tuning in for a PM-on-porcine-action trashfest would have found themselves to be the target of Brooker’s bile. The final scenes shifted the blame for the horrible situation to the gawping masses. This is where Brooker is perhaps too cynical about our lust for what we watch on our screens, whether on a television, computer or smartphone. So, Black Mirror is best watched as a warning of the risks of alienation by the share-and-spread immediacy of modern media.

Mike Foster

Shanghai: A New Gang "Muscling In" (1937)

From the October 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

There is nothing more entertaining than the indignation of one gang of imperialists at the unsportsmanlike conduct of rival gangs. An imperialist newspaper recently reproached Mussolini with stirring up both Jews and Arabs in Palestine and the Near East by promising to support the claims of each of them. The writer pointed out that both promises could not be kept. What he forgot is that the British Government during the Great War did the same thing, down to the last dot and comma, and now could not keep the impossible pledges if it wished.

British imperialists are outraged at the behaviour of the Japanese Government, which hardly troubles to disguise its greedy intention to rob the British in China as well as the Chinese. The Times says that British capitalists have £250 million invested there, of which £180 million is in Shanghai (The Times, August 19th, 1937). The News Chronicle City Editor thinks that the amount is even larger, about £300 millions (News Chronicle, August 27th). The Times wants the Government to take a strong line. It tells Japan that “the free hand which she desires in Eastern Asia will in no circumstances include license to play havoc with the lawful interests of Great Britain."

The City Editor of the News Chronicle (August 27th, 1937) comments on the strong anti-Japanese feeling in the “City," and contrasts it with the City's placid acceptance of General Franco’s brigandage. The reason for the difference of attitude is that in Spain British capitalists have only £40 million, half in Franco territory and half in Government territory, and of the two—

   Property in Franco’s territory is probably a rather better “risk” than property in the Spanish Government’s territory, whereas no one has any illusions as to the relative friendliness of the Chinese and Japanese Governments to British capital.

The City Editor says: “I have no desire to be cynical about the City’s attitude on China and on Spain—but money does talk, doesn’t it?”

The Co-operative newspaper, Reynolds News, (August 22nd, 1937), takes The Times to task for wanting armed action to protect British capitalist interests in Shanghai. This is sound enough, but lest Reynolds News should overlook one of its past editorials, we would like to remind it that, in 1932, when Japan seized Manchuria, Reynolds News wanted action by the Powers to restrain Japan, for the reason that—

    If free rein is given to her vaulting Imperialist ambitions in the Far East, the large economic interests of the Western nations must be imperilled gravely. Their trade and capital investments will collapse. Their treaty ports and extra-territoriality will be lost. Their every right will be abrogated.— (Reynolds's Illustrated News, February 21st. 1932.) 

When Japanese imperialists see the Western imperialists thus blatantly justifying their right to hold Chinese territory they can hardly be blamed for claiming that their “right" to do the same cannot be less. Anyway, what is more important is that the Japanese capitalists have great armed might and are on the doorstep of China, which gives them a big advantage. Badly armed and industrially backward, China is unable to meet Japan’s forces on equal terms.

One organ of British capitalism, the Daily Express, is taking the line that the British Government should in effect walk out of Shanghai and let the new gangsters take-over. If investors have sunk £300 millions there, that is just too bad for them but not worth a war. This is in line with Beaverbrook’s policy of "splendid isolation" for the British Empire. He probably thinks that British capitalists will have enough difficulty holding the Empire without trying also to hold investments outside it.

P. S.

Our Parliamentary Fund (1937)

Party News from the November 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Comrades, sympathisers and friends, gather round, and make this the greatest effort of all. Use every known trick you have to put the Socialist Party of Great Britain on a sound financial basis for the forthcoming parliamentary election. Some of you have, in the past, done more than your share; well, forget about it, and go ahead and knock spots off your previous achievements. Money is urgently required. Don’t forget this money will be used for a purpose that the S.P.G.B. have been striving at for over thirty years, i.e., to put up a candidate or candidates at the next general election.

Some of you have ideas, but you don't execute them, you let them slide, the E.C. are waiting for these ideas (money-raising ideas, of course), others when the “Standard" arrives read the list of subscriptions to the Parliamentary Fund (usually about two inches) and take it for granted that it will reach the sum aimed at. Maybe I have been guilty of this in the past, and I am turning over a new leaf, I wonder how much space would be required in the "Standard" if all of us sent something, well, let's have a go, I, for one, will make it my business to have that space increased. All of us who have read anything of the life of Marx and Engels will understand what these two pioneers would have done in a case like this. I suggest that in honour of these two we make this effort something that even the E.C. did not expect. Fancy asking a miserable £400 ! I am willing to bet new rolls (morning rolls) that we beat that amount, all the talk in the world won't make you stick it if you don't want to; miss the pools, stop smoking, don’t go to the pictures, leave the "gee-gees” alone, cut out Sunday papers, at least do something that will enable you to increase that pain in the eye, the space for the Parliamentary Fund. Make it at least half a column.

Marx himself suffered many times from the lack of "filthy lucre," the S.P.G.B. have the same trouble now, we can help, we will help, only the dead have an excuse, the living have none. To all who read this appeal I say get your name or nom de plume in the Parliamentary Fund, promote a dance, sell something, raffle something, go round your friends with a subscription sheet, anyway, use your nut, and get that few shillings (or pounds), send it on as fast as you can, don’t wait, start now, never mind what you have already done, this is different, it’s really urgent. As a member of the central branch living in Scotland I am determined to raise at least £10, if I fail to reach that sum I will fine myself 10s. over my own subscription. To every member, sympathiser and friend who helps to swell that space please accept my sincere thanks. 

Angus McPhail

PARLIAMENTARY FUND

The following donations to the Parliamentary Fund have been received: Previously acknowledged, £180 11s. 6½d. (donation to October 19th); W.A., £1; Littlewood’s, 3s.; W.W., 4s.; J.C., 4s.: H.W., 4s.; J.V., 2s. 6d.; Southend Branch, £1; Bloomsbury Branch, £1; Collections (S. Cork), £1 3s. 6d.; Hutch, 1s. 6d.; Stepney Branch, 10s.; F.J.H., £1; Rimmer, 1s. 6d.; W.J.M., 10s.; Gladstone Park, 1s.; West Ham Branch, £1 18s.; Rolls Royce, 10s.; W.J.B., 1s.; Quartet, 6s.; Rimmington, 10s.; W.L.B., £1; D.L., 2s.; Mrs. H., 10s.; A.J., 2s.; Lewisham Guarantee, 17s.; Lewisham Members, 11s. 8d.; S.W. London Stamp Books, 13s. 9d.; S.W. London Donation, £2 14s. 8d.; Manchester Branch, 13s. 3d.; Dagenham and Romford, 10s.; I. D., 6d.; Southend Branch, £1; U.P. Workers, £1 14s. 6d.; A.P., 10s. ; Collection, October, 9th 1937, 5s. 6d.; Guarantees, £2 13s.; Total £204 18s. 4½d.

Bazaar and Social (1937)

Party News from the December 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Bazaar and Social to be held at the Trade Union Club, 24, New Oxford Street, W.C.l, on Saturday, December 18th, commencing 5 p.m. until 11 p.m., is in aid of the Parliamentary Fund.

The Social Committee, who are arranging this event, are still asking for goods from members and sympathisers. Anything suitable for sale at a bazaar will be welcome. Goods should be sent or brought to Head Office on Tuesday nights and given over to the above Committee. If you are prepared to help, but are at a loss what to give, donations of money will be most acceptable.

Request No. 2.—Please endeavour to bring your relatives and friends, and advertise this to everybody you think will be interested. Tell them to come along and buy their Christmas presents, and remind them that, besides the Bazaar being a solution to their “presents problem,” they will be aiding the Party.

We would like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who have already given either gifts or money, and are looking forward to seeing them on Saturday, December 18th.

A social will be held during the evening, and the aid of members and friends has again been sought, so here is a chance to kill three birds with one stone, they are: (1) Aid the Party; (2) make all our helpers’ efforts worth while; and (3) have a most enjoyable evening.

We close on a Runyonese note, by stating that we hope that one and all will turn up with plenty of potatoes to spend and that one and all will enjoy themselves more than somewhat.

Social Committee.

The Bazaar (1938)

Party News from the January 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Many thanks to the comrades who assisted in various ways in this new and successful venture. The nett sum, after all expenses were met, was nearly £37. Excellent! We have learned many things from the experiment, and next year, we believe, we could more than double this figure. The Parliamentary Committee have expressed their gratitude—but how about helping them to reach that figure of £400? We understand that this was the minimum required to back their plans for 1938. A sum has been set aside to meet the deposit and the minimum election expenses, but there is not a large balance to meet the expenses of current activities. On your toes! 

Social Committee.

Socialism or Reformism? (1976)

From the January 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard 

Summary of a debate between the SPGB and the Labour Party Young Socialists —

Greenford Co-op Hall, Greenford Road. Tuesday 2nd December
For SPGB : T. D’Arcy. For LPYS : M. Brooks, Acton Labour Party.

SPGB Opening Statement
The title of the debate is: “Which party should the working class support, the SPGB or LPYS?” Today we live under a system called capitalism. The basis of this society is division into two classes: the working class virtually propertyless, having only their labour-power to sell, and the capitalist class, the tiny minority who own the wealth of society. There exists therefore a class antagonism between wage-labour and capital which is irreconcilable. We say Socialism is in working-class interests and by Socialism we mean our object, contained in all our literature. This is not what exists in Russia and other places and as yet it does not exist. The LPYS do not advocate this system which implies abolition of the wages system, private property and its relationships, banks, trade unions etc. Socialism means a fundamentally different kind of society where the means of production are owned and controlled by society as a whole.

The LPYS make socialist noises but there is a world of difference. They want capitalism run in working-class interests — this is nonsense, capitalism cannot benefit workers; only the capitalist class. One outstanding disagreement is on reforms. The LPYS have a list of reforms: Free Spanish political prisoners, oppose cuts in social services, Rent Act, nationalization, abolition of the House of Lords, etc.

The SPGB is opposed to reformism because: (a) it makes capitalism run more smoothly (b) it is the capitalists who pay for reforms and decide which ones, and (c) we have had them for 150 years and they have not led to Socialism and never will. At most they are a temporary appeasement to some sections of the working class and can be withdrawn, e.g. free milk for schoolchildren. Why do the LPYS need [a] “radical Labour Government” to push a reformist programme? Surely the Tories and Liberals have a better record on that count? Can you imagine the fury of the left if we had a Tory government now with a £6 limit and 1¼ million unemployed?

Nationalization is a main part of the Labour programme but it is irrelevant to the working class. Are workers for British Rail any better off because they are exploited by the state? Nor does nationalization bring Socialism any nearer. Lenin admitted that what existed in Russia was state capitalism. The LPYS have misconceptions about the state. To them it is something which, if you push hard, will do what you want. But it is a coercive body to maintain the rule of law, i.e. protect private property society. I refer you to Engels’ Socialism, Utopian and Scientific. The LPYS have the idea that with good leadership and 10 million trade unionists you can combat capital and take it over, leading to the promised land. The SPGB rejects leadership and insists on the majority understanding Socialism before it can be established. No need for intellectuals, vanguardists, élitists, Trots etc. Understanding is the key.

The LPYS hold that inflation is caused by rising prices; but a wage is a price. It is caused by the depreciation of the currency — printing paper money. Unemployment is a normal part of capitalism but the LPYS want to fight it. How? It provides a reserve industrial army for when production picks up again, and it tends to keep wages down. Taxation is not a concern of the working class; it is a levy on wealth and the burden of taxation falls on the owners of wealth, the capitalists. LPYS ideas are not new. They should learn the lessons of history. The SPGB holds that Socialism is not only possible but the essential step if mankind is to progress.

LPYS Opening Statement

The SPGB rejects leadership yet goes to some lengths to put forward its ideas — this is playing with words. Leadership means offering a way forward; we have no ability to enchain the working class, only ideas and a political programme to offer them. The Labour government has false policies and is on the wrong course — we try to change these policies within the Labour movement. The LPYS have their own conferences, programmes and policymaking bodies.

The LYPS believe themselves to be socialist. We believe unemployment, rising prices, poverty, can only be solved by a fundamental transformation of society, in the direction of socialism. What’s stopping us? The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself and there is only a minority of socialists. It is absolutely true that the Labour Party has not led to socialism. Nor has the SPGB. It is necessary for the socialist movement to work within the labour movement putting forward the day-to-day interests of the working class, but it is necessary both to build understanding and to relate this to the struggles of workers. The LPYS attempt to do this. We don’t talk of solving unemployment in the framework of capitalism, we explain the need to take over the means of production and run them in the interests of the working class. SPGB history shows they have done service to the labour movement in the field of propaganda if in no other. The method of Marxism shows that during times of capitalist boom (the 1950s) workers aren’t interested in revolution, but they are in desperate economic crisis (e.g. 1848). The present crisis gives some hope of the working class questioning the basis of society but there is no certainty of this.

The SPGB contradicts itself by supporting trade-union action and not reform action. The trade unions are not revolutionary and yet Socialists work in them. In the same way the Labour Party is not revolutionary yet we work within it. Labour Party policies are no different from Tory policies, but radicalization will multiply as the crisis deepens. To cut yourself off from the Labour Party and the trade unions is to cut yourself off from the organized working class.

The SPGB likens reforms to crumbs from the capitalist table; if capitalists had infinite ability to give crumbs, socialism would be forever a dream. Marx hailed the 10-hour-day as a political reform, it was an indication to the working class of how to act. Would the SPGB support the 7-hour-day if brought about by trade-union action and oppose it if legislated? The 7-hour-day would be one of the first steps of a socialist government. The workers should take over industry and run it in their own interests, and this only leads to socialism when workers have control of the state.

The SPGB denies need for transition period but the level of production is not high enough to do away with money, and workers will need a period of training. The SPGB says it wants the democratic way. Who doesn’t? but most workers live under dictatorships and capitalists stop democracy when they want to, e.g. Chile. Capitalists will behave like wild beasts when they see their interests threatened. We must warn workers of the tricks and guiles capitalists will use in a country. As Guthrie says "Take it easy, but take it”.

(Several questions were asked by the audience, for the speakers to answer in summing up).

SPGB Second Speech

My opponent says he agrees that he wants Socialism as I defined it, yet LPYS propaganda is full only of “real issues”. If you don’t take Socialism seriously, of course it will seem years away. The SPGB is not prepared to water down its case by pushing reform programmes as the LPYS do. If we did this we could increase our membership with the support of non-socialists. On trade unions I refer you to Value, Price and Profit, where Marx calls for the abolition of the wages system. Workers organize under capitalism to try to safeguard their wages whether or not the SPGB urges them to.

A Socialist party must maintain independence and have no compromise with capitalism. It neither supports nor opposes reforms even if they appear to benefit workers at some time. Personally I have no objection to free milk for schoolchildren but it is not the task of a Socialist party to advocate such things.

The transition to Socialism takes place in capitalist society whilst men’s ideas are changing. The LPYS do not talk of abolishing the wages system, they talk of a £40 minimum wage.

Aim must be linked to method. Socialists in countries like Spain put forward the Socialist case as best they can alongside propaganda for political democracy for Socialism and not anything else. Socialist ideas, when they start spreading, will go to all parts of the world. Democracy will realize its true meaning in Socialist society. Capitalists cannot stop a vast social movement when it gets going, especially as the working class run capitalism from top to bottom.

The policy of boring from within is dishonest. I submit that the LPYS have no separate identity from the Labour Party and that they carry out their own rule “to secure the support of young people for the principles and policy of the Labour Party.”

LPYS Second Speech

We try to relate our programme to the day-to-day needs of working people. The SPGB reacted against the split in the 19th century socialist movement by resorting to preaching the final end without involving themselves in the mass movement.

On the question of taxation when VAT was introduced the retail price index did go up and this obviously would cause hardship to workers who could not get increases in wages. You have to support the working class on such issues.

The LPYS demand ‘“Work Or Full Pay” is not achievable within capitalism. It requires a transformation of society, but it is a reform attractive to workers who have no conception of Socialism. We base ourselves on not forming a party away from the main movement. Otherwise, no-one listens to you.

We agree that nationalization is state capitalism and that capitalists get their income in the same way as if they owned shares, but if the commanding heights of the economy were taken over that situation would be transformed. We would be prepared to give a better deal at the Social Security to poor workers with a few shares, say in ICI, to supplement their income. Nationalization is a necessary first step. There are just not enough resources available to immediately abolish money, and there will have to be a transition period with certain inequalities.

With the deepening economic crisis the working class is going to move to the left, and you have to be there explaining the need for the transformation of society. If not then you’re writing off the working-class movement.

As regards boring from within, the Labour Party has capitalist-minded leaders but the working class don’t regard it as such and that will be the cause of the radicalization of that party. During elections we don’t stress the bad points of Labour Party policy but instead put the LPYS programme and ask workers to get involved.

It is an admission of failure to say that the SPGB could not exist in Spain. Most workers live under dictatorships. It’s all very well to talk of taking over the state but what if the generals etc. don’t let you? The need to change society will not be realized in a flash of light. You must prepare against the reactionary violence the ruling class are likely to use in defence of their privilege and profits.

Tony D'Arcy