Correspondence: Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising? (1958)

Letter to the Editors from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Does our Declaration of Principles need modernising?

A reader, Mr. H. G. Beales (Northfleet), writes suggesting that our Declaration of Principles would be more attractive if re-worded. He writes

“May I, as a looker-on, offer you a few humble suggestions ? It does seem to me that you have a case that should run through this country like fire; it only needs to be stated in more up-to-date language; all this talk about the Master Class is a trifle obsolete. 1 enclose a few suggested improvements for your declaration of principles."

Proposed Declaration of Principles

(1)

“That Society, as at present constituted, is based upon the ownership of Money, and the acquisition of Money. This state of Society has succeeded in making Man the most vicious and selfishly cruel animal this world has ever known. It must be obvious to the meanest intelligence where Mankind is going, if he persists in this way of life.

(2)

"No one can dispute that this could be a really wonderful world to live in. Nature always produces in abundance if given the right kind of encouragement. Not only has the present system of Society debased and brutalised human nature, it also persistently shortens and brutalises his physical life on this earth. The latest scientific opinion is that man's body is constructed to last 150 years in health. Think what this means.

(3)

“Your Hospitals are chock-a-block with sick people. Your mental institutions are not big enough to cope with all the mentally sick. All this is directly due to the present system of Society. It is always Money first and Humanity a very had second. The existing law says every man for himself, which is the law of the jungle, and quite obsolete in this age.

(4)

“In a state of plenty the present state of Society would collapse, hence the great fight being waged by the powers-that-be against a state of plenty. The present system could not exist in a state of plenty, and its managers are only interested in making the Money system work, which, as you see, is the cause of all our troubles.

(5)

“The Socialist Party of Great Britain proposes to bring about a really sane system of Society, based on discipline and decency, by educating the people, politically, morally and spiritually with this object in view. We therefore appeal to everyone agreeing with the above principles, of any creed, sex, or colour, to join us and save Mankind from catastrophe, and make his sojourn here really worth while, and of which he may be rightfully proud."

Reply

(1) Our correspondent's first point concerns the choice of words. There is little doubt that if the Declaration of Principles had been drawn up in 1954 instead of in 1904 some phrases would have been differently worded, simply because some words have gone out of use and others have come into use. Some different words would have been used, but to express exactly the same principles. To make a change now would have some advantage, no doubt, but against it would be the disadvantage that some people would assume that a different meaning was intended and time would be taken up explaining that there had been no change in meaning. This idea has been considered, but the Party has decided against the change of wording.

If all that holds back the swift acceptance of our Declaration of Principles in the year 1958 is that some of its wording smacks of the language of 1904 why did it not sweep the country in 1904 ? The reason, we hold, lies in the fact that the ideas embodied in the Declaration were not readily acceptable and would not have been readily acceptable no matter what words were used to clothe them.

(2) Our correspondent mentions the term “master class,” which, he holds, is a trifle obsolete. We assume that he means that a different name should be used for the capitalist class. It is quite true that most workers to-day do not use the term master class, or the term capitalist class; neither did they in 1904. But there is more in this than a name. Most workers, then as now. had not realised that they live in a class-divided society, it is a conception that has to be explained to them, for the capitalist class has not undergone anything more than superficial changes. They still own, and still, directly or through their agents, control the means of production and distribution.

(3) Our correspondent, however, wants us to drop the reference to means of production and distribution and use instead the words "money” and "the acquisition of money.” To this there are two main objections. The first is that it is not accurate. The basis on which capitalism rests is not money, but the ownership by the capitalist class of the means of production and distribution, the land, factories, railways, etc.

The second is that it would easily be misunderstood by those who believe that the evils of capitalism could be removed by changes in the monetary system, for example, the advocates of complete governmental ownership of the banks, the advocates of inflation and their opposites, the advocates of "sound money,” i.e., a circulating gold currency in places of notes.

(4) And this brings us to the fact that, in addition to changing the words, our correspondent has removed the clauses of the Declaration dealing with the need to gain control of the machinery of government in order that Socialism shall be established. This is a fatal defect in itself but it also overlooks the fact that a political party has to have a basis on which members are admitted. The basis of membership of the S.P.G.B. is its Declaration of Principles. If the revised form suggested by our correspondent replaced the existing form, admission to membership would cease to be dependent on the old Declaration and would rest on the new. This would open the Party to people who do not accept the need to gain control of the machinery of government, and to people who wanted only that the monetary system be amended, or replaced by barter, and to many others who, in fact, do not accept the Socialist case.

Editorial Committee.

The Church of England today (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to the survey of social life and activities made in Derby by T. Cauter and J. S. Downham (The Communication of Ideas, 1954), about three million people in Britain are nominally members of the Church of England. Nearly as many are Roman Catholics, and a little under two millions belong on paper to the major free churches—Methodist, Congregationalist, Baptist and Presbyterian. If a million and a half are added for the Welsh and Scottish churches, plus half a million Jews and perhaps another half-million for all the sects and queeriosities, you have a total of about ten million people in Britain who claim (or are claimed as having) adherence to religious bodies. That is, one person in four: so that three-fourths of the population belong to no religion at all

Few people will admit to having no religion, however: in the Derby survey, only 2 per cent. Most people, asked the question, put themselves down as C. of E., even though, to quote Cauter and Downham. “for half or even two-thirds of the people church-going is so occasional an occurrence as to play an almost insignificant part in their daily life.” In fact, the membership figures themselves mean very little. Archdeacon Mayfield’s The Church of England (Oxford, 1958) estimates "just over two millions who as Easter communicants may be reckoned as the hard core of Church membership.”

About 65 per cent, of the population are baptized in the Church of England and 26 per cent, are confirmed, usually in adolescence. It is worth remembering that only in relatively recent years has church attendance been entirely voluntary. In the nineteenth century it was common for farm workers and domestics to have to attend church as a condition of employment, and in town and country there were all kinds of economic and social pressures. The nearest thing to formal adult membership today is enrolment in the parish electorate, and these rolls show a steady decline since the first world war.

The Church of England is the "established” church: that is, the State recognizes the laws of the Church and incorporates them into the national laws. Thus, the Sovereign must be a member of the Church of England, and the two archbishops and twenty-four diocesan bishops have privileged places in the House of Lords. The Church conducts all national religious observances, and is the official religious body in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces; certain academic posts in universities can be held only by Church of England clergy. The State appoints archbishops and bishops, and the measures of the Church Assembly—including the contents of the Prayer Book—must be sanctioned by Parliament.

The Church has two legislative systems. The first, the Convocations of Canterbury and York, is concerned with creed and faith. The other, the Church Assembly, is the central administrative and financial body. In addition, there are the Church Commissioners, whose task is to execute the business side of Church affairs. Their gross income in 1955 was £10 529,490 from investments and property. In recent years it has become their policy to replace gilt-edged investments with investment in commercial and industrial securities, to obtain a greater yield: an analysis of these investments is given in The Church Commissioners: A Short Review of Their Work (1955). The income from property in 1955 was £3.339.673, with outgoings of £744,926. The property includes over 1,000 farms and 50,000 buildings and, again, the Commissioners' aim now is to buy up—to quote Mayfield—"the best type of property investment, both agricultural and urban."

Most of the clergy's stipends are paid by the Church Commissioners, the remainder coming from "Easter offerings," fees for burials, marriages, and so on. Until 1936 tithes were a source of income in about 7,000 parishes, but the Tithe Act of that year took this away and gave instead £70,000,000 of government stock. A parson's minimum stipend today is £550-600 a year, plus a house free of rates and dilapidations. The minimum for a diocesan bishop is £2,500 a year, plus residence, plus such out-of-pocket expenses as secretary, chauffeur, postage, travel and the costs of hospitality. The numbers of the clergy have fallen and are still falling. In 1901, with a population of 32 millions, there were over 22,000 clergymen; today, there are 16,000 of them among 44 millions, and their average age has risen to 50.

The Church of England is a vast organization: what part does it play in the structure of capitalism in Britain? All religions serve the interests of ruling classes, and an established or State church is one which has frankly contracted to do that. The Church of England was the product of the sixteenth-century Reformation, fathered by new and emergent interests which needed a Catholic—i.e., universal—church, but must throw off the incubus of Rome. There was not only the question of the Catholic Church's ownership of land; there was the need for recognition of the new learning as against Papal fundamentalism, and the growing national consciousness on which, again, the claims of Rome were oppressive.

The Reformation, in fact, only developed the idea of establishment which had been implicit in the relations of Church and secular rulers all through feudal times. Even the modern Free Churches are by no means free in this respect, being regulated by trust deeds and special Parliamentary statutes. For the truth is that, even though religion is "the sigh of the hard-pressed creature," without the support of the ruling class religion as we know it would have very little influence in society. And conversely, of course, the ruling class needs the great religions to promulgate and make sacred principles of capitalist ideals.

The major social function of the Church of England is this: to explicitize and lay down the body of morality that is held to govern personal behaviour and social relationships in our world. Thus, the Church's teachings concerning marriage, which have caused much argument in recent years, are simply the doctrine of the ideal monogamous family in property-based society. Indeed, the division of opinion about this within the Church itself reflects clearly the disintegration of that family and the consequent search for a modified morality suited to changed circumstances. 

Because the Church hold this position as the apparent arbiter of morality and conduct, the pronouncements of the archbishops and the Convocations do attract attention and carry weight The effect of an archepiscopal statement on, for example, the hydrogen bomb, is to lay down a line of "Christian" judgement of the issue; that is, to give moral sanction to what the ruling interest requires. And even the opinions of the small-fry clergy, often as ignorant and foolish as can be, are supported by the prestige of the Church of England (during two world wars, some of the most bloodthirsty incitements to "wipe Germany off the map ” came from civilian clergymen).

It is all too easy to close one's eyes and say it doesn't matter because, after all, religion is dying out Though religious observances have fallen off perceptibly, the Church of England has regrouped its forces in recent years. No longer able to preach the property gospel to enough people in church, it has made its aim to penetrate the various spheres of national life instead. It has, for example, secured a firm foothold in radio and television. The B.B.C.'s Annual Report and Accounts for 1951-52 showed 3 per cent. of the total broadcasting time—about eight hours a week—given to religious matter, and estimated that "about one-third of the total adult population heard at least one religious broadcast" on Sundays: Cauter and Downham's survey also found that the majority of people listen to religious services on the radio.

There has been considerable extension of Church influence in education under the 1944 Education Act: a development "undreamed of only twenty-five years ago,” says Mayfield, which has "broadened the Church's constituency in the national life.” Other movements include the Industrial Christian Fellowship, an attempt (scarcely successful so far) to obtain a footing in factories and the trade unions, and towards ends like this it has increasingly joined forces with other churches and denominations, as in the "Christian Crusader" campaign of 1947. In 1923 talks with the Catholic Church were initiated with a view to some rapprochement, but they quickly broke down; today, the Church of England is pressed into extra militancy by the Catholics' campaign to gain converts who would be most likely to come from the Anglican ranks.

The appeal of the Church of England has always been to the "middle class"—that is, to the section of the working class which, through real or imagined (and always slight) superior status, sees itself as having an interest in this capitalist society. Its hold upon people as actual churchgoers has been weakened by social developments (including the gradual spread of knowledge, and including also the emergence of other opiates): it has, however, largely compensated for this by pushing farther forward in schools, in the mass communication media, and everywhere else it can.

In the hands of the established church, the supernatural is a tool in the teaching of submissiveness and acquiescence before the interests of the owning class. Its growth and identification with the capitalist State; its teaching of reverence for property (itself a great property-owner) and all the institutions of property society; its support and blessing for every war for capitalism (prayers for victory for the British ruling class)—all make clear where the Church of England stands.

It stands, that is, four-square against the working class.

Robert Barltrop

Recession in the United States and Canada (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The United States is at present in the throes of the worst period of industrial stagnation it has experienced since the 1930s. And Canada, as number one U.S. satellite, with an economy closely interwoven with that of the U.S., fares no better. The seriousness of the situation may be indicated by the figures for unemployment, which in March reached 5,198,000 in the U.S., and 590,000 in Canada.

Political, business and other leaders in both countries respond to the condition m the same shallow manner.

When the existence of the “recession” was officially recognised some months ago, U.S. President Eisenhower proposed to deal with it by substantial tax reductions, which, he said, would increase purchasing power deplete, surpluses and start the wheels of industry turning again. Mr. Pearson, Canada’s Liberal leader, also advanced this thought in the last election campaign. The proposal has not yet been put into operation, perhaps because Mr. Eisenhower forgot about it and Mr. Pearson failed to become Prime Minister.

At present Mr. Eisenhower is lending his support to “operation optimism." Lack of confidence is now blamed for the recession and this confidence must be restored. People must in some way be encouraged to buy goods, even to the point of extravagance, they must, in Mr. Eisenhower’s words, be urged to “buy anything.”

Following this line of reasoning, U.S. capitalists are doing their best to propagandise themselves back to prosperity. The Advertising Council, a top advertising group, has started a four-month “confidence in a growing America” campaign, intended to improve the “economic attitudes” of consumers. Auto dealers in 110 cities have started sales drives featuring the slogan, “You Auto Buy Now.” It is expected that this campaign will spread to 200 more cities. Cleveland has started a “Buy Now” campaign, with a “V for Values” theme and a “Miss Prosperity.” Boston is planning a POPS (“Power of Positive Selling ”) drive to “combat loose recession talk.” In New York a “National Sales Crusade” is being launched. Some business men are wearing embroidered pocket handkerchiefs proclaiming “Business is GREAT.” An appliance concern has issued large lapel buttons saying “Business is Good.” The Public Relations Society of America has asked its members to send all optimistic news they can about their companies to a central clearing house for national distribution.

If empty prattle is an effective weapon against hard times, there is enough of it circulating at present in the U.S. to take care of all eventualities.

Canadians are not able to chase banshees with the same vigour and versatility as their American cousins, but they do have the same tendency to deliver sledgehammer blows at everything except the nail. Prime Minister Diefenbaker thought a while ago that diverting trade from the U.S. to Britain would help. Now he insists that he was misunderstood. Throughout the winter a Government-sponsored campaign to “Do It Now” was carried on. Billboards, radio, television newspapers, all were used to urge those who needed jobs done to have them done at once. More recently the trade union movement has been taking up Mr. Eisenhower's proposal of lower taxes. Claude Jodoin, Canadian Labour Congress president, at the recent CLC Convention, dealt at some length on this theme, seeing in lower taxes a billion extra dollars being put into the pockets of the consumers, “particularly the poorer consumers.”

Meanwhile the employing class, despite their playfulness, are not passing up a favourable opportunity to look after themselves. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that the income of Canadian labour in the one-month period from December to January had declined 4.5 per cent., and hourly wages in manufacturing declined from $1.65 on January 1st to $1.64 on February 1st. The decline between December and January can be attributed mainly to increasing unemployment, but that cannot be said of the later decline.

Mr. Jodoin and the trade unions should take a long look at these figures and then start grooming themselves for some independent working class activity.

What they ought not to be doing is looking to their masters for sensible or helpful suggestions.

Jim Milne,

(Socialist Party of Canada).

Party News Briefs (1958)

Party News from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

May Day, 1958. Party activities in London, Glasgow and Nottingham had the best results for many years and it is most heartening. The weather was good, which is a helpful factor, but even with weather in our favour, it is essential that members should organise to get te best results. This they did, and although full details have not been collected, we do know that thirty-five members in Hyde Park sold at least 200 Socialist Standards and ten shillings' worth of pamphlets. An evening meeting at Denison House was also successful, but full details are not yet to hand. Nottingham. Members from London added to the efforts of the local members and held most successful meetings; literature sales amounted to nearly £3. Glasgow. Comrade D’Arcy, from London, joined forces with the Glasgow members, and outdoor meetings and one indoor meeting resulted in the sale of over £4 worth of literature, and collections amounted to £7 10s. 0d. At all the meetings the audiences were attentive and asked good questions.

Wickford. Branch reports that successful sales of the Socialist Standard have resulted from the Branch members canvassing in the Basildon New Town area of Essex.

Glasgow’s May Day Meeting. Glasgow City and Kelvingrove Branches turned up in full strength at Queens Park Recreation Grounds for their afternoon meeting. Twenty-one members sold nearly £4 worth of Socialist literature while Comrade James D'Arcy addressed an appreciative audience of two hundred, in opposition to the Glasgow Trades Council, whose representative, Mr. Hugh Gaitskell—addressing a somewhat thicker audience—explained how the Tory Party were to blame for the impoverished condition of the British working class.

The Party's May Day venture was well organised and the opening shots were fired when six members distributed 1,500 leaflets, from door to door, advertising the Sunday evening meeting. Later, in the wee small hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings, the streets of Glasgow received a face-lift of whitewash in the shape of adverts for the meetings. In the evening the finishing touches were put to the May Day campaign when Comrades Higgins, Richmond and D'Arcy put the Socialist case to seventy enthusiastic members of the working class assembled in the St Andrew's Halls.

The total collections and donations from both meetings more than covered all expenses. Full details of the literature sales are not yet to hand, but it is expected these will be better than they have been for many years.

During the afternoon, while our members were swarming over the Queens Park selling Standards, some members took the opportunity to expose to a small group of workers the anti-working class activities of the Communist Party. A few members of the Paisley Branch of the Communist Party were so incensed by the Socialist analysis that they rashly challenged the S.P.G.B. to debate and, needless to say, their challenge was accepted. We are writing to the Paisley Branch and can only hope that the “Foreign Office” of the U.S.S.R. will come out of their funk-holes long enough to be opposed by a Socialist speaker.

After the success of May Day members of both branches are looking forward to an excellent hearing during the summer months.

Comrade Russell, who lives in Manchester, is greatly assisting in the disposal of back numbers of the Socialist Standard. His work takes him travelling constantly over an area stretching from Yorkshire to London, and over to Wales. During these trips he takes the opportunity of leaving our journal in prominent places and has had many interesting discussions with fellow travellers on trains, buses, and in station waiting rooms. He travels over the same ground, mainly in a weekly cycle, and maintains his “distribution” constantly. As he so modestly says, perhaps the constant effort on these lines may bear some much-wanted fruit. Well said, indeed, and perhaps other members similarly placed might like to try their hands at this method of propaganda.

Bristol. Meetings will be held at Durdham Downs on Sundays at 3 p.m. Will members and sympathisers make every effort to attend and assist Comrade Flowers and other members of Bristol Group ?

Fulham and Chelsea Branch report that they are holding regular and interesting Branch meetings and discussions on the first and third Thursdays in each month.

As an experiment, the Branch Organiser has arranged a number of meetings and discussions with the aid of special L.P. records. The first record, “Shuttle and Cage,” which includes a very dramatic ballad about the Gresford mining disaster of 1934, and a number of English, Irish. Welsh and Scottish industrial folk songs, sung by Ewan MacColl, gave rise to much interesting discussion. Further recordings made by Alan Lomax deal with the life of the American negro.

Since the advertisement of these discussions, the Branch Organiser has received a number of letters (including one from Comrade Rab of America) enquiring about the records used; or making suggestions of other recordings that might benefit Party discussion Groups and Branches. A reader in Glasgow suggests that the recording “Old Man Atom,” by Guy Carawan, which deals with nuclear weapons, would be of interest to Socialists. He also mentions “Jack Elliott’s "Woody Guthrie’s Blues," which contains, along with four other titles, the ‘1913 Massacre’ and 'The Ludlow Massacre,’ both songs of the murders of early Trade Unionists in America.”

At Easter a number of members of the Branch went to Aldermaston, and helped with the distribution of the leaflet, “Nuclear War,” and sold Party literature on the march. On Sunday, April 13th, six members of the Branch, along with over forty other members of the Party, distributed “Nuclear War” leaflets, and sold Party literature (one member of the Branch sold 16 “Socialist Party and War” pamphlets!) at the Labour Party and T.U.C. meeting in Trafalgar Square.

On Thursday, May 1st, members of the Branch collaborated with Paddington Branch members in holding a meeting at Earls Court. And, during the summer months, Branch members will be collaborating with Paddington Branch in running outdoor meetings at Earls Court on Thursday and Friday evenings. All readers of the Socialist Standard are welcome to come. Meetings commence at 8 p.m.

The Overseas Secretary asks all members who have overseas' contacts to send the names and addresses of these contacts, together with any other information about contacts, to the Overseas Secretary, c/o H. O., 52, Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.

The Overseas Secretary would also be pleased to hear from readers of the Socialist Standard abroad.

Comrade Ivy Groves. It is a sad duty to have to report the sudden death at the age of 50 years, of Ivy Groves, who had a heart attack on Sunday, May 4th. The not so very young members will well remember her as a loyal Comrade who. although not a writer or a speaker for the Party, was always ready with a smile and much energy, to help in any way. Until the last few years, when owing to domestic circumstances when it was not possible to be around so much, she regularly attended branch meetings and Head Office. It was 25 years ago when Comrade Ivy Groves joined the Chiswick Branch which via Wembley Branch became Ealing Branch. Latterly, when living in South London she transferred to Camberwell Branch. Many Comrades well know that her help and thoughtfulness greatly assisted Clifford Groves in his work for the Party as a propagandist, E. C. Member and General Secretary for many years.

Hackney Branch. Hackney Branch consider that the election campaign in the Bethnal Green division was extremely successful, in fact, far more successful than we had hoped.

The votes cast for the three candidates were 356, 333. and 306, indicating in some small degree, the growth of Socialist ideas within the constituency.

During the campaign 24,000 election manifestoes were distributed (one to each home in the constituency), together with several thousand leaflets advertising meetings some “Introducing the S.P.G.B.” and a number of free copies of the Socialist Standard. Apart from this canvassing of the Socialist Standard continued, and about 24 dozen copies were sold.

The support given by other branches was extremely encouraging, a number of members attending from Islington, Wood Green, Paddington, Lewisham, Woolwich and West Ham branches. Branches also assisted with financial support.

Attempts were made to hold a number of outdoor meetings, but these were not successful due to the very bad weather. The three school meetings were also poorly attended, probably for the same reason.

We do not claim to have made the best possible use of the election, but we have acquired considerable experience in the campaign which will be an invaluable help on future occasions. We hope that the result of the campaign will encourage other branches to contest local elections in their own area. A good opportunity will arise next year when London Borough Councils are due to be elected.

Phyllis Howard

Blogger's Notes:

• The obituary for Ivy Groves has appeared elsewhere on the blog.
• Despite my best efforts I can't find out the identity of the three Hackney Branch members who were the local election candidates in 1958. They are never mentioned by name in the Standard. I could make an educated guess  . . . but I won't. Hackney Branch actually contested the Bethnal Green parliamentary constituency the following year at the General Election. Jack Read was the party candidate on that occasion. Anecdotes about that campaign are aplenty in Barltrop's 'The Monument'. 
• Unfortunately, there were quite a few typos in the Fulham and Chelsea Branch report. Musician names misspelt all other the place. I did try to provide YouTube links for the songs mentioned in the report, but I can't guarantee that they are the actual versions referred to. Ramblin' Jack Elliott singing Woody Guthrie's songs is especially recommended.

An American Broadcast (1958)

From the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received a letter from Mr. Charles Sussman, of Philadelphia, informing us of a proposal to broadcast over the American Radio the answers to seven questions relating to armaments which he was putting to us as well as for a tape recording of our views for broadcasting purposes. Below is the script of our answers to the question which was recorded by J. D'Arcy on our behalf.

Speaking on behalf of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, I am responding to an invitation to give our views on a number of questions concerning armaments and foreign policy.

In fairness to you, and to us, I must explain at the outset that we are not asking for your consideration on the grounds that there is large support for our ideas in Great Britain. We are indeed a small organisation, formed in 1904, and growing slowly. Nevertheless, we claim that our views do merit your careful thought, as we have the only practical answer to the problems of a distracted and violence-torn world. As it is unlikely that you have ever heard our views before we appeal to you to give them the consideration that should be given to fresh ideas on a subject of such supreme importance to the human race.

Seven questions have been put to us. In order to make our answers to these questions understandable, I must explain the outlook from which we start.

Our aim is a world in which everything that is in and on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind, without privileged groups of any kind except the old, the infirm and the young. A world in which there would be no buying and selling, or profit motive, and in. which frontiers would have disappeared.

We hold that, economically and politically, we all live in a world that is desperately sick, and this means all the peoples in all the world; in Europe and the Americas, in India, China and Russia, in the West as well as in the East

Holding this view, we do not offer to draw up better foreign policies in place of the existing ones. Such efforts, as the bitter experiences of the past have made clear, are useless for curing the disease affecting the world. The disease is a fundamental one, and requires the elimination of its cause.

I would put it like this.

If the world were organised in the way we Socialists want it, there would be no foreign policies. Foreign policies are concerned with the frictions and animosities that exist between national groups, each pressing forward and defending antagonistic sectional interests. If the interests throughout the world were mutual, there would be harmony and friendliness between the people in all parts of the world, and there would be no need for a foreign policy, or a foreign secretary, to tell us how this can be accomplished.

But the nations are not organised for friendship. They are organised for the aggressive competitive activity of seeking trade and profit Behind these, and directly concerned with them, is the effort to control sources of raw material and trade routes; and behind that again the supporting military forces, up to, and including, the latest horror—the H. Bomb.

Holding the views we do about the kind of world society that could and must be brought about, and holding the views we do about the incurable nature of the evils affecting the world whilst under the present social system, the Socialist Party of Great Britain has declared unqualified opposition to the wars of our time, including the two world wars, the Korean war, the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt, and the brutal Russian suppression of Hungary two years ago.

In the light of what I have already said, I now come to the seven questions I have been asked to answer.

Firstly, I am asked what is our view of re-unification and re-militarising Germany?

The very fact that these two questions have to be linked together shows how cruel and evil the world's habitual attitudes are. Surely the situation is absurd in which the simple problem of German speaking people getting together cannot be considered except in relation to armaments.

The second question concerns NATO.

In the world as it is the rival national groups make uneasy alliances for war, under the mistaken impression that they are avoiding war. In the world that Socialists envisage there will be no rival national groups.

The third question is about the construction of rocket missile bases in England.

We do not share the mistaken, and often dangerous, nationalistic prejudices of non-socialists. People from America, or Russia, or anywhere else, are welcome here as far as we are concerned. But then, of course, from our standpoint we would have them come here not to construct weapons and means of destruction, but to help us with the elementary things that people need, or just to enjoy themselves. In any event, we are opposed to people anywhere in the world making or using weapons of destruction, or being the victims of their use. To be willing that others should suffer but not yourselves is part of the evil thinking produced by present conditions.

The fourth question concerns the proposal of a disengagement of the rival military forces facing each other in Europe.

Of course we are always glad to see a war end or a war avoided, but where really does the proposal get us? From a military point of view, with the fast movement of ground forces, and still more with all the weapons that move at incredible speed above the earth, what does disengagement really amount to?

The same applies to the proposal of a European neutral zone free from nuclear weapons.

The sixth question concerns the suspension of all hydrogen and atomic tests.

We are opposed to the threatening of anyone, individually or collectively, with violence or war. We are opposed to the testing, use or manufacture of any weapons for destroying human life, as our object includes abolishing them all. But we are not interested in the limited campaigns of those who are not concerned with abolishing the conditions that cause wars.

The seventh question relates to disarmament under international inspection and control.

This brings us back to our basic point of view which is diametrically opposed to the various conventional views. Trying to inspect and control heavily armed national groups that, by definition, are seeking to deceive each other preparatory to being able to destroy each other, is not a policy for sane and sober well-wishers of our fellows, but for gamblers with the life and death of the human race.

In conclusion, I appreciate that the outlook and views of the Socialist Party of Great Britain may sound utopian and impossible to those who have never heard them, let alone considered them.

However, we are by no means pessimistic. The dire consequences of the present social system are helping, however slowly, to force our solution to the front. Time will accelerate the pace. We are sure that people all over the world will sooner or later recognise the correctness of our approach to world problems, and the need to change the social system in the direction we have described; a need that is as urgent in Russia as in America or Britain.

Don’t hang back too long, and don't leave others to do the thinking for you. With so many scientists concentrating on weapons of mass destruction, and politicians of such limited vision, the fate of humanity depends on your own sober and clear thinking.

I would add that associated with us in outlook is the Socialist Party of Ireland; the World Socialist Party of the United States; the Socialist Party of Canada; the Socialist Party of Australia, and the Socialist Party of New Zealand; as well as groups in other parts of the world.

50 Years Ago: Pensions for the Dead — the Liberal Government's Pension Scheme (1958)

The 50 Years Ago column from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Liberal “Old Age” proposal is, then, but a sop to keep the workers quiet—but such a paltry sop. The “Old Age” part is prominent enough, but surely a microscope is needed to discover the pension.

Five shillings a week when you are seventy, should you be so unfortunate as to live as long. A problematic five shillings a week at seventy— that is, of course, if you have been a good boy ; if you haven’t within five years been convicted of vagrancy, desertion, or “serious” crime; if you are not in receipt of poor relief; if your income is not more than ten shillings a week, and so on—while married couples living together are to be punished for their foolishness by having their pensions reduced to 3s. 9d. per head.

Five shillings a week as a bribe to the worker to keep out of the workhouse, where it would cost at least 18s. to keep him. Five shillings a week as a premium on low wages to those few ancient toilers who, by some miracle, are still able to work a little. Such are the promises of the “Workers’ Budget.”

[From the Socialist Standard, June, 1908.]

SPGB Meetings (1958)

Party News from the June 1958 issue of the Socialist Standard

Chapter Two: Reform or Revolution (1984)

From Samuel Leight's book, The Futility of Reformism

An acceptance of capitalism is indicative of a political approach that must inevitably enmesh itself with the reformation of the system and not with its abolition. Conversely, a genuine opposition to capitalism implies an understanding and knowledge that should preclude any desire to embark on a reformist program, recognizing the futility of such action, irrespective of the merits of the reforms contemplated. 

Wherever and whenever there is a program of reforms you will always find the "Leaders" ready and willing to perform, but always unable in the end to properly fulfill the promises which originally were so artfully dangled. Reforms never live up to their expectations because the very nature of capitalism invariably sabotages the performance of the reformers. Even when certain problems get resolved they are replaced with new ones, generally of an equal or greater magnitude. Apart from the wasted energy and time that reformism engenders, the danger of such activity lies in the inevitable apathy and disillusionment that arises in the aftermath. These are the breeding grounds for dictatorial regimes. 

It is a political delusion to think that one can shelve the case for socialism and still serve the interests of the working class by helping to reform capitalism in its quest for greater efficiency. The interests of the majority can only be served by the elimination of a system that can never be made to operate on their behalf irrespective of how it is manipulated or reformed. Socialist, political energies are channeled solely for the achievement of socialism — we do not concern ourselves directly with the administration of a system whose major social evils are irremovable notwithstanding the nature of the reforms that may be introduced. Reforms leave the fundamental basis of the system unaltered. It is this social and economic core, resting up on the class ownership of the means of production and distribution, that gives rise to the insoluble problems. 

In conjunction with this approach, we nevertheless urge our fellow workers to maintain and improve their standards of living through active participation in the Trade Union movement. However, such activity should always be kept in proper perspective with the realization that Trade Unions are limited in their scope. They demonstrate the class struggle in ever-constant action, as distinct from the separate policy of reformism to which we are opposed. 

With logic and socialist insight, we advocate peaceful, democratic revolution as the only political course to follow. At the same time, we recognize the necessity for the working class to continuously strive at safeguarding and improving their economic conditions, through appropriate, well-conceived Trade Union activity, in the interim. 

Can the working class "relate" to such a policy? We emphatically claim that they can, and should —without delay! 

Socialism, of course, can never be established or operated without a socialist majority. Once this fundamental position is fully appreciated it becomes obvious that any so-called Socialist Party that advocates a policy of reforms would automatically attract to its ranks reformists but not revolutionists. In no time at all any Party which naively attempted to take a dual position of reformation combined with "revolution" would be swamped and outnumbered by the reformists and would be politically castrated as far as socialism is concerned. The Fabian Society, established in January 1884, as a Society and not as a Political Party, and the Social Democratic Federation, which changed its name to the Social Democratic Party in 1908, both originating in England, are examples of reformist organizations that, in addition, purported to advocate socialism. The Fabian Society's doctrine was "the inevitability of gradualness," while the SDF referred to their reforms as "stepping stones to Socialism." A small group of secessionists from the SDF, opposing the reformist approach, formed the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904 with an object and set of principles that uniquely distinguished them as a Socialist Party in every sense of the term. 

Rosa Luxemburg in her work entitled "Reform or Revolution" written in April 1899, stated in her Introduction: 

"The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratie institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war and working in the direction of the final goal — the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage-labor. Between social reforms and revolution there exists for the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." 

This statement is fallacious in content and deviates from the significance of her title which poses a choice between reform or revolution. 

Another unacceptable aspect supported by Rosa Luxemburg, is the theory that at some stage of development, due to the contradictions of the system, capitalism will "collapse" and that, quoting, "Without the collapse of capitalism the expropriation of the capitalist class is impossible." We would deny this statement and substitute a vital alternative position: without a socialist working class socialism is impossible! Capitalism has demonstrated its remarkable staying-power and adaptability from crises to crises, through recessions and depressions. And even if a "collapse" occurred, socialism could never be introduced unless the vast majority were already converted to the socialist case and properly organized to attain political power. When this situation happens it would of course be completely unnecessary to wait for a "collapse," because socialism becomes immediately practical. However, in fairness to Rosa Luxemburg, affectionately called Red Rosa by the SPGB for her heroic class-conscious defense in her trial at Weimar in 1907, she also supported a positive role to be played by the working class, and indicated that the workers might achieve power before the breakdown of the system took place. The socialist position looks for no anticipated crash that would mark the death-throes of capitalism—on the contrary, we emphasize that the socialist revolution depends upon a sufficiency of socialists and we work towards this end. 

As and when socialist delegates become elected to the Congresses and Parliaments throughout the world, with a mandate for socialism, they will of course be confronted from time to time with reformist measures, and called up on to either vote or abstain, approve or otherwise. They will be instructed in these matters by their respective Socialist Parties. The guiding principle will revolve around the interests of the working class together with the achievement of socialism. The socialist delegates will therefore act within this framework. They will also never lose any practical opportunity for propagating, at the applicable time, the case for socialism. When the World Socialist Parties finally get representation in the seats of power, we can rest assured that the ruling class and their aides will be churning out a plethora of reforms in order to appease the growing, awakening socialist working class in an effort to delay the inevitable. The foregoing scenario is in no way analogous to the advocacy of reforms as an initial attempt to gain political support' and vote-catching representation. 

With the magnificent, international declaration and enactment that every human being is the common owner, with democratic control, of the means of production and distribution, with free access to all goods and services, a new era commences. Poverty, unemployment, insecurity and war become immediately and irrevocably eliminated. Their cause, the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by a minority, in a "commodity society," would have been eradicated. The structure of a socialist society makes their existence an economic and social impossibility. What reform, or series of reforms, could match, or in any way be comparable with, this position and attainment? 

There can be no poverty in a classless society, technologically capable of satisfying the needs of the population, with free access to all goods and services. 

There can be no unemployment, or employment, when all men and women are co-owners of the means of production and distribution, giving of their abilities in useful work for society as well as for themselves. 

There can be no insecurity when all "needs" can be satisfied as the result of "common ownership" and "free access." 

There can be no war when humanity is united as a whole without states, national boundaries, or armed forces; with production and distribution solely for use, and not for profit, eliminating money, wages, exchange, and the "market place." 

Audit each of these categories today, after the deluge of all the reforms that have been passed since the advent of capitalism, for complete justification of the case for socialism.

On August 20, 1980 a report from Washington (UPI) stated: “The World Bank estimated this year 780 million people throughout the world are living in ‘absolute poverty.’ It described this as ‘a condition of life so characterized by malnutrition, illiteracy and disease as to be beneath any reasonable definition of human decency’.”

On September 29, 1981 according to the National Advisory Council on Economic Opportunity, “Twenty-five million Americans are poor” and “Another 30 million—if they lose a job, get sick or burn out—could be poor.” On August 2, 1983 the U.S. Census Bureau stated that the number of Americans classified as poor increased by 2.6 million, from 31.8 million in 1981 to 34.4 million in 1982. The official poverty rate, reflecting the portion of the population living in poverty, was 14 per cent in 1981. The 1982 rate was the highest since the start of the “War on Poverty” in 1965, when the rate was 17.3 percent. Of course, by socialist standards, poverty is the economic lot of the whole of the working class, at all times under capitalism—but, be that as it may.

Unemployment in Great Britain reached 14 per cent of the work force in September, 1982; and in the U.S.A. 10.8 per cent in November, 1982—both record figures since the Great Depression and World War II. Canada had a post-Depression high of 12.6 per cent in March, 1983. According to researchers at Williams College and the University of Minnesota, as reported in the Wall Street Journal on October 21, 1982, each percentage point increase in the unemployment rate correlates with 318 additional suicides. They estimate that the current recession is prompting 1,200 to 1,300 suicides a year.

If an unparalleled Arms Race between the major powers is touted as the supposed road to peace, then this futile pursuit alone is sufficient unto itself to condemn the anarchy, wastefulness and social stupidity of modern-day capitalist society. Of course, peace is non-existent under capitalism—in fact, the director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, in May 1977, stated that since September 1945 there has not been a single day in which the world was free of war.

Here, we have only briefly touched upon the major social evils, ones that reforms are completely unable to penetrate with any kind of practical solutions. The reformists, therefore, also direct their ingenuity and efforts towards the “minor sores” of society. These have included so-called high taxes, “the economy,” balancing the budget (but not yours), inflation, violence, crime, pollution, premature death and ill-health caused directly by the system, racism, “freedoms” and “human rights.” And, lest we forget, the “privilege” of working class women having “equal rights” with the men of being exploited on equal terms. Presumably, also, the right to be massacred in the wars, alongside the men, for their masters’ interests—all this in the name of “equality”!

Every major political party in the U.S.A., Europe and elsewhere that has taken on the job of running capitalism has done so on a reformist ticket, failing dismally as far as the interests of the working class are concerned. And it can never be otherwise. Capitalism will always remain a system of perpetual crises, with unending competition and confrontation, both on the social and individual levels, all this impervious to reforms and reformism.

A Parable by Leo Tolstoy

From Samuel Leight's 1984 book, The Futility of Reformism

A Parable by Leo Tolstoy

I see mankind asa herd of cattle inside a fenced enclosure. Outside the fence are green pastures and plenty for the cattle to eat, while inside the fence there is not quite grass enough for the cattle. Consequently, the cattle are tramping underfoot what little grass there is and goring each other to death in their struggle for existence.

I saw the owner of the herd come to them, and when he saw their pitiful condition he was filled with compassion for them and thought of all he could do to improve their condition.

So he called his friends together and asked them to assist him in cutting grass from outside the fence and throwing it over the fence to the cattle. And that they called Charity.

Then, because the calves were dying off and not growing up into serviceable cattle, he arranged that they should each have a pint of milk every morning for breakfast.

Because they were dying off in the cold nights, he put up beautiful well-drained and well-ventilated cowsheds for the cattle.

Because they were goring each other in the struggle for existence, he put corks on the horns of the cattle, so that the wounds they gave each other might not be so serious. Then he reserved a part of the enclosure for the old bulls and the old cows over 70 years of age.

In fact, he did everything he could think of to improve the condition of the cattle, and when I asked him why he did not do the one obvious thing, break down the fence, and let the cattle out, he answered: “If I let the cattle out, I should no longer be able to milk them.”

Blogger's Note:

This piece from Tolstoy appeared between chapter one (the introduction) and chapter two in Leight's book. It also appeared in the March 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard. It is possible that is where Leight first saw it.

The introduction to Samuel Leight's 1984 book, 'The Futility of Reformism' (1984)

From Samuel Leight's 1984 book, The Futility of Reformism

Blogger's Note:

The late Samuel Leight joined the Marylebone Branch of the SPGB as a young man in June 1942. Active as both a speaker and writer for the SPGB in the following years, he eventually emigrated to the United States in 1948, transferring his membership to the World Socialist Party of the US. Based in Tucson, Arizona he published two books putting forward the case for socialism in his own inimitable style. The first book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War), was published in 1980, and was a selection of transcripts of locally produced radio broadcasts dating from between 1976 to 1978. Its companion volume, The Futility of Reformism, was published in 1984 and was a series of essays outlining the SPGB and its companion parties unique political position in relation to the issue of reformism. A couple of pieces from World Without Wages are already on the blog, but it's my intention to also serialise The Futility of Reformism on the blog in the coming months. Stay tuned.

Chapter One

Introduction

Whether the conditions of life under capitalism have improved for the majority of the workers or whether the opposite is true, the irrefutable fact still remains that the existing conditions, which presumably encompass all so-called “past improvements” that have been enacted to date, still contain the gruesome, major social evils that defy solution within the framework of the system. The reformation of capitalism has been continuous but has failed deplorably in creating an environment conducive to health, happiness and security.

The modern innovations of the 20th Century which have introduced the automobile, TV, telephones, refrigerators, air-conditioning and central heating, computers, travel by ship and air, are all examples of advances in technology that have not been derived through the benevolent legislation of political reformism. They are attributable to the productivity of the working class and represent new spheres of profit for the owning class. Whether their introduction has improved the standard of life for the majority is a debatable issue that contains many facets, but in any event their presence revolves around technical progress and no credit is due the reformers. Rather it should be recognized that the working class have obviously not shared proportionately with the increase of the total wealth produced but have remained poorer in relationship to the new values that are now available, and compared to the wealth of their employers. The existing worldwide stress and discontent indicates that today’s life-style, with all of its mechanical advantages, has not proved to be a blessing for humanity. We do not blame the products—we do blame the system.

Life for the working class under capitalism, past and present, cannot be compared favorably with the social benefits of a classless society in socialism which will convey to all common ownership rights to the means of production and distribution, and democratic privileges that no reformation of capitalism can ever attain. Attempting to make the working class “better off” is no match for the advantages of socialism; and the wages system, irrespective of wage levels, should justifiably be rejected when compared to free access to all goods and services for all human beings.

To the extent that we understand how capitalism functions, the arguments for the defense of the so-called progressive “improvements” of the standard of life of the working class are irrelevant. The fundamental position of wanting and achieving the best of all possible worlds for the majority of its inhabitants becomes the logical objective.

There is no political line of demarcation between reformism and the normal administration of capitalism—they have become inseparable. The contradictions and anomalies of the system give rise to a constant never-ending flow of reforms which are needed primarily for the attempted stabilization of capitalism and the preservation of the interests of the ruling class. In actuality, should any of the reform measures benefit the working class this can be considered as coincidental. The system absorbs the reforms because it has to strive for political and economic equilibrium in order to counter-balance its anarchical tendencies. No longer should political parties claim any real distinction in their reformist approach, because the “leftists” and the “rightists” all pursue similar strategies once they gain governmental control. Modern day reformist activity is entailed in the political support and administration of capitalism—a preservation of the economic status quo with attempts at cosmetic, superficial refinements. All social reforms that are enacted and survive must in the long term help in maintaining and improving the exploitable efficiency of the working class, most others fall into the domain of projected impracticality.

The deluge of propaganda surrounding the reformist administration of capitalism produces the distractions, confusions and purposeful misrepresentations that have so drastically hampered the presentation of the socialist case. We are always being advised that socialism is for the distant future and that “immediate” needs must receive attention. Quite the contrary—the highest, most urgent, immediate need of the working class is the establishment of socialism within the shortest possible time.

For here, surely, we are at the cross-roads. The working class must either accept the continuation of capitalism, which in effect implies the application of reformism, or opt for peaceful, democratic social revolution and establish socialism. The choice is clear-cut, vital and limited to these two alternatives. As long as reformism is supported as a viable, unchallenged policy, capitalism will continue and the capitalist class will remain dominant and in control. The destiny and fortunes of the majority depend upon an educational and political awakening that will reveal to them a true understanding of scientific socialism coupled with a rejection of reformist, political garbage.

The socialist movement initially received its economic foundations through the works of Karl Marx, Frederick Engels and other pioneers of Scientific Socialism. Their research has been further advanced by the World Socialist Party of the United States and its Companion Parties, commencing with the establishment of the Socialist Party of Great Britain in 1904. These organizations have been able to clarify attitudes that it was not possible to do in the 19th century. Their specific object and set of principles, together with an unblemished political history, has never veered away from democratic social revolution. They have abstained from all the pitfalls of reformism. The membership remains small, but the validity of the case stands the Parties in good stead for the future.

An attempt has been made herein to present the ideas upheld by the movement and reinforce them with applicable statistics. We claim that the socialist analysis of capitalism is scientific and in full accord with reality. Our interpretations are controversial because we are in the realm of social investigation with formulas that lack the precision and verification to be found in the physical sciences. However, the statistics that substantiate our theories, although they will be subject to continuous variation, vividly indicate the misery and deaths suffered unnecessarily by multi-millions of humans. They do not constitute opinions—they are facts—derived from the capitalist media, including government reports. They are an indictment that defies rationalization.

One could explain the socialist attitude towards reformism in a brief presentation but this would never do full justice to such a crucial subject. There are many matters that deserve consideration, and need to be related to supporting evidence. The futility of reformism logically means. the choice between reforms or revolution. The passive approach will allow capitalism to continue. It should be remembered, that without the revolutions of the past, we would not be experiencing the society of the present. Now, for the first time in history, it has become possible for a revolutionary change to be brought into being through the concerted efforts of a majority fully conscious of their motives and political objective, aimed at a worldwide civilization worthy of the human race. The choice belongs to the working class and, to quote the legal pundits, “time is of the essence.”

Voice From The Back: The rat race (2003)

The Voice From The Back Column from the June 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

The rat race

Inside a socialist society we could all engage in useful, productive work with much shorter hours. What a contrast to the rat race of today. “A report by the Mental Health Foundation (MHF) released this week, will say that despite much talk about “work-life balance”, many people are still working 50-60 hours a week and feel their lives are out of control. Work follows us home. The MHF’s study found a correlation between the number of hours worked and the number of hours spent thinking or worrying about work outside working hours. The more you work, the less free time you have and the more of your free time you spend worrying about work” Sunday Times (20 April).

Refugee hypocrisy

According to the Glaswegian (1 May) more than 100 refugees in Glasgow are being forced to return to Afghanistan in line with the government’s policy to slash the number of refugees in the UK by 50 percent. “Sally Daghlian of the Scottish Refugee Council said the Foreign Office was still advising against all non-essential travel to Kabul and against travel to other parts of Afghanistan.” On the one hand the FO is telling refugees it is safe to go back but warning its own citizens to avoid it because it is still war-torn and subject to the ravages of various warlords. Another piece of political vote-catching with no regard for the safety of the workers who are being deported under armed guard.

A double tragedy

A correspondent to the letters page in the Herald (7 May) tells of a terrible personal tragedy. “The cynically named National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) was set up by the Labour Government to ration healthcare. Its guidelines are stringent in the extreme and are binding on all medical practitioners . . . The availability of NHS drugs was the final straw for me in terms of my allegiance to the Labour Party. My 32 years’ link was severed on the death of my wife last year. She was denied the drug Temodal on grounds of cost. This drug could have extended her life and would have most assuredly have lessened her distress in the final three months of it.” If the writer of that letter had been a member of the owning class his wife would have had a less awful existence. It is tragic that this woman died but it is even more tragic that millions of humans are doomed to die because of their lack of money.

Political porkies

Politicians lie; and that is official according to a recent government-funded report. “Politics should be regarded as less like an exercise in producing truthful statements and more like a poker game,” said author Glen Newey, reader in politics at the University of Strathclyde. “And there is an expectation by a poker player that you try to deceive them as part of the game.” . . . “Newey’s report – published by by the government-funded Economic and Social Research Council – adds that not only is lying ‘sometimes justifiable’ where there is a public interest, for instance where national security is at risk, but voters even have a ‘right to be lied to’ about things where they would rather not know what had happened, such as what was done during a war” Observer (18 May).

A leader speaks

Here is one of your leaders speaking. Speaking in the usual doublespeak of political waffle. In this case it is the leader of the Conservative Party, Ian Smith revealing his deep intellectual abilities. “Britain needs a government that understands that more people are left behind when more people are held back. It needs a government that stands back in order for its people to step forward” Times (14 May). Eh?

Another market triumph

Socialists are always being told how wonderful the market system of capitalism is by its supporters, but how do they defend the following? “The catastrophic collapse of the coffee prices – at a 100 year low in real terms – is forcing Latin American farmers to grow coca, the plant from which cocaine is made. Mounting evidence that Peruvian farmers in particular are turning to cocaine to escape from poverty will be presented by Oxfam tomorrow in a crisis meeting of World Bank and European Union officials together with banks, traders and representatives from the 25 million people who depend on coffee production for their livelihood” Observer (18 May).

How We Live and How We Could Live (2003)

From the June 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

One war – which everyone knew was about oil – has just ended. Exactly when the next war will break out cannot be predicted, but nobody doubts that there will be another, and that it too will be over access to some key resource vital to Western corporate capitalism.

More and more powers are arming themselves with nuclear weapons. The trade in “conventional” arms is booming too, as rulers everywhere seek to arm themselves with the most up-to-date and destructive weapons they can afford. They have to, since, in the perpetual jockeying for a place in the sun that’s part and parcel of world capitalism, it’s Might is Right with the biggest share of profits going to the strongest states while the weakest become basket cases.

But it’s not just the destruction of wars and the waste of armaments. There’s also the artificial scarcity that is imposed by the profit system. The world could produce enough to properly feed, clothe and shelter every single person on the planet, and more, but this does not happen. This is because production is geared to making profits not meeting needs. So, production stops, not when people’s needs have been met, but well before, when what they can afford to pay for—what can be sold to them at a profit—has been supplied.

That’s the economic law of the profit system: “No profit, no production”, “Can’t Pay, Can’t Have”. In the Third World this has drastic consequences. Millions die each year of starvation and starvation-related diseases. Millions go without access to clean drinking water. Millions live in slums and hovels. Everywhere in the Third World people have to be held down by brute force lest, as happened recently in Iraq, they help themselves to what they desperately need.

It’s not so good here either

In this part of the world the effects of the economic laws of the profit system are not so dramatic but still blight our lives. Because profits come before people’s needs a whole raft of problems arise. The health service is crumbling. The transport system is in chaos. Schools have become places where kids are under non-stop pressure to “perform”. The quality of life is declining. Towns and cities are dirty and noisy places where all is rush, rush, rush. There is no real sense of community. Apathy is rife. People don’t think that anything can be done to change things or even that it’s worth trying to. We are all of us on our own, competing individually to try to do the best for ourselves and our families. Everybody feels that this is not a satisfactory way to live but can’t put their finger on what precisely is wrong.

What is wrong is that we are living in a society where to survive you must have money and where most people can only get money if they can find an employer. But employers are not philanthropists. They only employ us if there’s something in it for them – profit, a profit that we produce when we make the goods or provide the services that they sell. That’s why, at work, we are under constant pressure to work harder and to compete with each other for promotion and better pay. And there’s always the worry that we might lose our job and so be deprived of the money it brings. Which we do if our employer doesn’t make enough profits. Profits always come first. So, public services, which have to be paid for out of profits, are neglected.

We need money because we can only access the things we need if we can afford to pay for them. But those with things to sell us are not philanthropists either. They, too, are motivated by the need to make a profit. For them we’re just a market and so they bombard us all the time with appeals to “buy, buy, buy”. You can’t escape this pressure. Advertising is everywhere: on the television, on the radio, in the papers, on billboards and hoardings, as junk mail. All this turns life into one big supermarket. But, since most people can’t afford the best, most of what we do buy is cheap and nasty, gleaming on the surface but shoddy underneath, often produced to break down or fall to pieces after a carefully calculated number of years anyway.

The way out

Fortunately, there’s a way out. But it’s not that easy. Nobody can do it for us – no leader, no politician, no guru. We’ve got to do it ourselves. That means understanding what causes the problem – the profit system – and then getting together to do something about it. Not just complaining about how the system treats us and asking for a few improvements here and there. Not founding the Labour Party again. Not some amorphous “anti-capitalist” movement which is against everything but for nothing. But organising to get rid of the whole profit system and replacing it by a new and different system.

A new and different system geared to meeting people’s needs. One based on the common ownership and democratic control of the places where we work and produce what is needed – obviously, if we’re going to produce to meet our needs, the means of production can’t remain in private hands or under minority control. Here the rule would not be “can’t pay, can’t have” but “from each according to ability, to each according to need”. We’d be co-operating to produce what we needed and then we’d have free access – without money – to what we produced. This is the original meaning of the word “socialism”, before it got corrupted by the Labour administrators of capitalism and the supporters of the failed state-capitalist regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe.

We in the Socialist Party still stand by it and still say it’s the only way out, not just here but throughout the world. In fact socialism could only exist on a world scale as world problems require world solutions. World socialism is the only way to prevent further wars and end world poverty, disease and ignorance. And the only way to restore the balances with the rest of nature that the profit system has upset.

Tinkering with the present system has always failed, and always will. It simply cannot be made to serve human interests. It can’t be mended. It must be ended. What is needed is not reform but a revolution in the basis of society to make all the natural and industrial resources of the Earth the common heritage of all humanity.

Adam Buick

No asylum from the wages system (2003)

From the June 2003 issue of the Socialist Standard

Following the May local elections in England and Wales, much has been made, by leftists and liberals, of the fact that the BNP – opportunistically shmoozing around in multiculturalist clothes – ended up with three more local councillors, bringing their total to eight. The pundits railed in helpless, speechless apoplexy against the fascist threat – their speechlessness, however, reveals how they have no good arguments with which to counter the nationalists; and that it is precisely the failure of their ideas that turn the workers towards hopeless fantasies.

The very idea they all try to spread, alike – that a given country is owned by some inclusive “we”, based on common descent or culture which “we” all have an interest in defending; that “we” owe loyalty toward, and toward our “fellow-countrymen” over folks from other lands – is the very premise that the nationalists latch onto and tout as their glorious cause. All the leftists and Liberals can do is whine that they have taken “legitimate patriotism” too far, that they are extremists.

Asylum seekers

The hold that such ideas have on the workers can be seen from the media treatment of the issue of “asylum seekers” – migrants looking for protection in safer lands. Whereas socialists have attended many demonstrations – to leaflet and counterpoise the socialist position to that of the usual raggle-taggle band of reformist organisers – comprising many thousands, of which barely a whisper is mentioned by the national media, all it takes is a handful of local residents protesting against an asylum seeker detention centre for it to make the national news. The editors and news-managers project their own expectation that many of their consumers are concerned by the “flood” of asylum seekers, by pushing the issue up the news agenda.

The professional politicians do their craven best to pander to this supposed collective identity. Government ministers seek to project the line that they are “firm but fair” in dealing with the asylum “crisis”. Desperate to deflect Tory charges that Britain is a “soft touch” for immigrants, they tout every reform taken to speed up the process of ejecting “undesirables” from the country. They talk about legitimate asylum seekers, as opposed to economic migrants – as if poverty itself were not one of the cruellest breeds of oppression.

All this, despite the fact that the government’s own published reports and advice clearly show that the ideas that dominate the “asylum debate” are largely spurious. For example, the report Migration: an Economic and Social Analysis from the Research, Development and Statistic Directorate of the Home Office, demolishes a great many of the myths around immigration, observing that migrants tend to have higher incomes than natives (on the whole, although they occupy a great range of income brackets), and that there is “little evidence that native workers are harmed by migration”.

One of the central fallacies, peddled by the gutter press in particular, is that the asylum seekers are trying to get access to a “soft touch” welfare system. Yet, the report states, migrants tend to use welfare provision in roughly the same proportions as indigenous workers – although that includes higher usage of unemployment and housing benefits, whilst they receive less incapacity and pension benefits. Indeed, the figures for unemployment among migrants apparently show that around 6 percent of them are unemployed as compared with a general unemployment rate in the economy of just under 5 percent – and this is given the filtering employment barriers of language, legal status, lack of references or recognised qualifications or sheer outright racism, that may stand in their way of finding employment.

Indeed, another report Understanding the Decision Making of Asylum Seekers actively refutes welfare as a basic motive for travelling around the world to come to another country. The majority of respondents had little or no knowledge of the UK welfare system, at most they had a vague idea that they would be “looked after”. Indeed, after finding that welfare receipt was not a primary motivating factor to move, the report notes that “most [of the immigrants interviewed] wanted to find a job and did not want to live on state benefits.”

The report lists other factors likely to be of importance – the perception that Britain is a fair and open society is high on the list, as was the desire to be with family and friends already in the UK. Such primary reasons stem largely from the historic foreign policy of the UK government, in presenting itself as a bastion of the free world whilst simultaneously exerting direct political control and links over far-flung lands. Capitalism is a global phenomena, and the interests of capital in Britain materially reach into all corners of the globe.

This is also amply demonstrated by the lists of countries where asylum seekers are coming from – Iraq, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey making up the top six countries. The chaos of global politics and repression drives the need to migrate, a global chaos born of the struggle between rival capitalist bands to access and monopolise the wealth of the world.

Demand for labour

While it is true, as one of the writers in the report observed, that the decision to economically migrate is not taken solely on labour market factors, and the nature of the political regime and country may well have a strong determining role, nevertheless the demand for labour to be attracted to concentrated areas is a structural feature of capitalism. Since its inception, capitalism has drawn workers into highly concentrated areas of development in order to satisfy its labour needs. All those people seeking migration, whether legal or illegal, are simply obeying the imperative that they must try to find a place to work; and no amount of government restrictions will change that fact.

In fact the report Migration Population in the UK: Fiscal Effects states that migration is a net contributor to the British capitalist economy. Many migrants bring new skills, new industries (including the industry around migration). Each new worker is able to expand the capacity of industry to produce. Of course, what the report neglects to mention is that this happens only within the remit of the profitability of capital, which can and will discard workers – irrespective of their origins – whenever its inevitable crises interrupt growth.

It should, therefore, be in the interest of governments to facilitate (at least) the smooth running of the labour market. Indeed, they should promote the widest movement of labour possible. Yet, despite this interest, and the clear advice at their disposal, they fail to do this.

A primary reason for this failure is the perception among workers (who have votes) that there is some threat to themselves from competitors from overseas. It’s a matter of record that those who are in possession of little are easily frightened by the threat of some other coming to take it away – hence all the medieval tales of færies and witches trying to steal children from impoverished peasants. The appearance of jobs going to these “foreigners” whilst their “own” go without reinforces the illusion that migration causes unemployment. However, a government so minded could choose to argue against these illusions, and pour resources into propaganda to that end.

That they choose not to indicates another reason – that governments rely upon apparent homogeneity of culture and population to secure support for their actions and policies. How else, otherwise, to spread the message that “we are all in this together” if the “we” cannot communicate in the same language, with the same set of meanings and values? The growth of capitalism has occurred alongside the growth of the culturally homogenous state – usually through forced population migrations – wherein the owners and rulers of a land could pretend to some sort of common identity with the ruled.

Hence the problem, in the eyes of many capitalists, that despite the fact that since the second world slaughter more people – year on year – left the UK than entered it, of a change of “culture” without the consent of the population. That is, that the cultural changes are breaking up the historical cultural bloc upon which traditional power and authority is based. The economic needs of capital come into conflict, again, with its social basis and the political needs of the master class.

So far as socialists are concerned, this attempt to try and make a common appearance of an interest with our exploiters is like a burglar playing on their support for the same football team as their victim. It does not change the relationship one iota. We see the harm that is done by national boundaries, that prevent workers from moving to be with whom they want to be with; prevent them from sharing their skills and their knowledge as they see fit; prevent them from seeing their common cause.

So far as socialists are concerned, it is not a case of chanting “Asylum Seekers are welcome here”, which implies we as workers have some right to say who is and isn’t welcome in the first place; nor even of saying that the asylum laws should be relaxed. We understand that the thing which makes workers leave behind their communities, and go to a place where their language is not spoken, is the wages system itself, which swats humans around the globe like a kitten playing with its toys. This underlies the need for us to recognise our identical position with regards to the wages system, and work together, as workers across the world, across boundaries, to create a commonly owned planet where all can live in security.

Pik Smeet