Socialists for a bloodless revolution

The process of overcoming the overwhelming conditioning of capitalism is itself a long hard struggle. We do not underestimate the potential of the working class when we say that the majority of workers are at present imbued with support for capitalism. There is a great potential for workers to make the transition to understand and want socialism instead, but we would be kidding ourselves and others if we believed that the revolution was imminent.  The key precondition for a socialist revolution is that a majority should be socialists, fully conscious of their class position and their interests as workers in ending capitalism.  But that simple condition, of a majority of genuine socialists, still stands as an indispensable precondition for the revolutionary change we seek, and we continue to work with great determination to build up such a majority. Many on the Left find it hard to face up to the harsh fact that capitalism, in all of its forms, does depend on the acquiescence and/or apathy of a majority of workers themselves. The Socialist Party policy is one of spreading revolutionary ideas amongst the workers, organised and unorganised, in order that capitalism shall be abolished and Socialism established. That is the work of a mass movement

As a political party standing unequivocally for socialist revolution our role, which we carry out to the best of our abilities, is to put to our fellow-workers the most urgent choice facing the entire human race. Are we, the deprived majority, going to allow the world's resources to remain in the hands of about 1 per cent, or are we, at last, going to act on our true interests. and organise politically, consciously and democratically for the overthrow of capitalism, and the establishment of world socialism? It would be nice, but naive, to believe that workers in any country can achieve almost anything if they just go out, en masse, demonstrating. This is just not true. What is necessary is that the state forces do not resist.

In a world of political opportunism, the Socialist Party occupies a unique position, a position that has never been challenged by even its most inveterate enemies—it still adheres with unremitting persistence and firmness to the principles on which it was originally founded. Its Declaration of Principles remains, word for word, exactly the same to-day as it was when first drafted and adopted. Is there in this country any other political party of which it can be said that it knew from the first the impregnability of the basis on which it stood, and that the test of time and experience has only gone to prove the sure judgment of those who, at its inception, conceived the idea of such an organisation being in fact what it claimed to be in name? This strict adherence of the Socialist Party to its original principles irritates many on the Left. We are criticised, reproached and admonished for being “narrow-minded" and likened to dogmatic religious sects for our refusal to swerve aside from our business of socialist propaganda into any of the numerous side tracks —such as the advocacy of reforms or nationalisation. They dislike our disbelief that a socialist society can be achieved by the application of reforms in homeopathic doses to the body politic, and thus cure it of the systems chronic ills.

 The workers' past bitter experiences of the value of their labour leaders' promises seem at times to have left the workers in very much the same position of blind trust. However many times they may find their confidence misplaced yet once again they are somehow able to assure themselves that at long last a leader will appear who will fulfil his or her promises, will justify the faith placed in him or her and will miraculously lead them to the promised land of plenty. They are too little informed to realise that most of their leaders' promises could not be fulfilled in any case and that their leaders would cheerfully promise the moon or the millennium to anyone who could and would assist them in their rise to place and power. And then these trusting beings, still retaining faith in the faithless, and hoping for what they should know is hopelessly impossible, will in one breath take us to task for holding firmly to the principles of socialism, and in the next make the statement that any Socialist Party member elected to Parliament would do as the rest do, would forswear principles and seek only to further his or her own ends. Such people have not yet realised that it is simply because of their own weakness and ignorance that the political leaders whom they trust continually fail them; that the wisdom and strength of the electorate is the only guarantee that can be given for the honesty and integrity of the men and women elected.

The Socialist Party will continue its business of making real socialists and exposing the sham socialists. One day the veil will be lifted and the political charlatans revealed. They will discover that capitalism is a system of society based upon the robbery of productive labour and learn socialism is a system that will have for its basis, the return to labour of the fruits of its industry.  Capitalism and socialism are so fundamentally different as to be entirely incompatible; that the replacing of the one by the other, necessarily involves the complete change we term a revolution. That revolution may be peaceful or otherwise. It can be peaceful only by the majority of people realising the nature of society, the supreme need for the change, and the overwhelming necessity for capturing the political machinery by a clear and conscious effort. 

 The Socialist Party has no wish for a bloody revolution. That is why we have had to devote so much time to the denunciation of the vanguard leftists whose Leninist policies can only result in that catastrophe.  Parties who claim that minority revolts will create socialism are either lying or foolish. Nevertheless, some left-wingers flourish upon working class credulity with a mixture of sentimental slosh and political trickery. Our policy is less romantic and consequently, our growth is slower. Our appeal is to the head rather than the gut. We want people to think and leave capitalism to see to it that they feel the pain of the profit system.  The Socialist Party teaches the working class to understand the class struggle and the causes of their slavery with the object of organising them as a class for the abolition of capital, and the establishment of socialism. 

Dreams and Fragility

It's now official after many generations in the retail business Sears Canada will be closing it's 131 stores in Canada making 12,000 people unemployed, which is 2,000 more jobs than those created overall in Canada during September. Liquidation sales will finish no later than January 21 in an attempt to pay off the companies debts. 

Those let go will not be getting severance pay, nor is it certain they will receive their accumulated pensions. 

A lawyer representing Sears pensioners said his group will move to get their claim paid first ahead of other creditors; the pension fund is owed $260 million. Sears seems to be the victim of online shopping and Walmart. 

So many times during the 50's and 60's, workers in the UK, Canada and the US, said to me, "Why do we need Socialism when we have almost full employment, low inflation and a good standard of living?" 

Yes, it always lasts!

For socialism, 

Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

Hiding the History of Scotland's Slavery Past

Scottish slave-traders received £3 million, the equivalent of £2.5 billion in today's money as compensation payouts when slavery was abolished.

Inverness business baron George Rainy was the top earner from the compensation payments. The slave-owner was paid £146,295, the equivalent of £124m in 2017, to free 2794 slaves from his 30 plantations in British Guiana.

George Parker, from Ayrshire, was paid £91,000 to free his 1741 slaves from nine sites in British Guiana – which works out at £77m today.

john Gladstone, father of former Prime Minister William Gladstone, had nine plantations in Jamaica and British Guiana totalling 2500 slaves banked £106,000 in compensation when he was forced to give up his slaves – £90m in today’s money.

Boyd Alexander, of Mauchline, Ayrshire, and David Lyon Jr, of Balintore Castle, Forfarshire, were also beneficiaries of the payouts. Alexander received £43,259 and Lyon Jr £46,854, the equivalent of £36.7m and £39.8m respectively in 2017.

Researcher Dr Nick Draper said: “The wrong people were compensated. The owners were compensated instead of the slaves, who really suffered. The money that Scotland enjoyed for 200 years, directly from slavery, and including the compensation payouts, benefited the country greatly. But the contrasting thing is that those who were compensated often went on to do good things with that money. We’re all still benefitting from it today.”

Sir Geoff Palmer, professor emeritus from the Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, is among those who believe that the compensation money paved the way for a modern Scotland. Sir Geoff believes that the money still drips into today’s society. He said: “The statues and landmarks in our cities, the streets we walk on and live in were all paid with money from the slave trade. The amount of money they were paid in 1833, and its effect, is incalculable today. They bought land, streets, they educated the young. Bathgate Academy, Dollar Academy and Inverness Academy – these are all institutions paid for directly from that money. Money from slavery was propping Scotland up for a full 200 years. The influence slavery money has had on Scotland is immeasurable.”

Many of its street names and buildings have links to slavery, named after – and often built by – the business barons who made a fortune at the expense of others sch as Buchanan St and Ingram St.

According to Sir Geoff, “Scots see themselves as fair and level-headed. So they can’t see themselves being involved in slavery. But the reality is I don’t think we can drive half an hour in Scotland without happening upon this history.”

Dr Ima Jackson, a researcher at Glasgow Caledonian University whose work has focused on slavery, said: “The people in Scotland who were compensated are our establishment as we know it today. Scotland has erased that part of history so successfully, it hasn’t simply forgotten – it’s more purposeful than that.”

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/secret-2-5bn-pay-off-to-scotlands-slave-ownerseffects-of-the-money-can-still-be-felt-today/

Against religion

The Socialist Party has never sought to hide its hostility to all forms of religion. It frankly opposes all religious organisations. The Socialist Party, however, has never made the attacking of religion a main objective. Our opposition to capitalism covers the ground. Our Party is, nevertheless, the only political body which has issued a reasoned case against religion, “Socialism or Religion”, a pamphlet first published in 1910.

Many left-wing organizations claiming to be Marxist take refuge in the evasive principle that “religion is a private affair”; in other words, they are not going to risk alienating supporters by insisting on proper understanding. They urge people to accept that Christian belief in “the brotherhood of man” and “Christian charity” are in harmony with socialism. Socialism is not a philosophical idea, but the expression of the material interest of a class created by historical development.   It is founded on materialism, in opposition to idealism, the belief that ideas have an existence independent of natural and social causes. The claim that socialism is atheism ignores the fact that atheism is a negative attitude towards belief in God whereas the materialist view of history held by the Socialist Party leaves no room for gods or spooks in our outlook on the world, but explains the rise as well as the disappearance of ideas of Gods and the supernatural by the changes in the conditions under which men and women work and live. Socialist Party members do not set out to destroy the idea of God—that is the idealist, topsy-turvy policy of atheism. Our policy is to recognise the cause of social beliefs and to work for the establishment of a system whose social conditions men can understand without believing in the "Hand of God."

Our position is altogether different. Of course, we want more members and supporters, but on the essential condition that they understand socialism and its implications. That is why our attitudes and policies are stated unequivocally all the time. We say now what we said in 1910: “No man can be consistently both a Socialist and a Christian. It must be either the Socialist or the religious principle that is supreme, for the attempt to couple them equally betrays charlatanism or lack of thought.” 

When we say that socialist society will do without religious beliefs, it is greeted with indignation as a proposal to abolish. That is not the case; we simply remark that in a sane, rational world people will not need the consolation of illusions. 

Let those who are struggling for the establishment of a new society based on socialist principles be of good cheer, the troubles of the priests and parsons are our opportunities. We place before the world the only practical proposition that can now be entertained—the common ownership of the means of life and the establishment of production solely for use in place of production for sale. The ruling class, one and all, say they won’t entertain the idea. History says we must. And, what is more, act upon it. The material welfare of the working class is our sole aim and object. 

Catholicism and Socialism: Mr. Wheatley's Lie (1925)

From the April 1925 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the “Daily Herald” (March 23rd) Mr. Wheatley defended the Catholic Church against the charge of being anti-Socialist. His argument took the following form. The Catholic Church does not oppose State ownership as advocated by the Labour Party; the Labour Party is a Socialist party; therefore, the Catholic Church does not oppose Socialism.

In this Mr. Wheatley is using his customary Jesuitical method of reasoning. Of course, the Church does not oppose State capitalism; why should it? But as Mr. Wheatley himself showed (“The Catholic Working Man”) the Pope and the Church do oppose the abolition of private ownership. The latter means the end of exploitation, while the former merely makes the State the direct instrument of exploitation. The capitalists as bondholders still control production.

He says:—

  It is merely playing with words to differentiate between the Labour Party and the British Socialist Party.

Unfortunately for him, Mr. Wheatley declared (”Forward,” November 3rd, 1923)

   There is no good blinking the fact that the policy pronounced at Plymouth will seriously strain the Labour Party. It would not do so if it were a Socialist Party. But it isn’t.

He omitted to mention or deal with the fact that the only organisation in Great Britain, calling itself the Socialist Party, opposes the Catholic and every other religion.

He is reported to have stated last year at a public meeting at Barlanark, that "The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Proletariat.” What he no doubt really means is that the Catholic Church promises him security as an exploiter of labour.

Edgar Hardcastle

A Society Where There Are No "Good Laws"?

So the Saudi sheiks showed they're not a bunch of lousy chauvinist jerks at all, having just passed a law allowing women to drive next year, but...but... but... wait a minute, there may be more to this than meets the eye, perhaps we will find it in the profit and loss account and guess what side of the sheet? 

Car sales will increase, there will be showrooms, car washes and service centres just for women, insurance and advertising companies will do well out of this and gasoline sales will increase.

 Facts Global Energy said a ten per cent increase in driving would add about 60,000 barrels a day in gasoline sales. 

Certainly governments sometimes pass "good laws'' that are beneficial to the working class, but are nevertheless even more beneficial to the capitalist class or they would never pass them. How about a society where there are no ''good laws'' because they won't be needed?

SP of C

Let's Protest For World Socialism

The Socialist Party is not opposed to the idea of protesting. There is certainly plenty to protest about — there always is. The Socialist Party recognises that workers who are involved in reform campaigns are, at least, trying to gain some control over their lives. Very often what is especially heartening is the strong element of solidarity involved. What concerns us is to get it into its social perspective so as to achieve a more fruitful form of expression of opposition. Capitalism creates so many problems and subjects the working class to all sort of pressures. It seems that for every outrage committed by capitalism, and for every inhumanity and frustrated need, there is a group of people ready to organise a march and demonstration. But then, why should we assume that a struggle must necessarily be self-conscious? The class struggle is, in fact, an inevitable feature of the capitalist system, whether those involved are conscious of it or not, being the result of irreducible conflicts of material interest under capitalism.

One big weakness of protest movements is that when they come to realise that their aims demand political expression, they are forced to take their place alongside the existing reformists in the general clamour to mitigate some particular evil within the framework of capitalism. Thus they inevitably get involved in helping to perpetuate the very conditions which give rise to the evils against which they protest. Furthermore, they all share one common illusion — that capitalism can be made to work in such a way that its worst effects can be avoided. It is quite wrong to assume that politicians can at will adopt policies which would remove the problems endangered by capitalism. The emotional attitude of hating the Tories and blaming it all on them, is enough to satisfy some Leftists and it is a pitiful spectacle to see those left-wingers still urging workers to vote for the Labour Party in spite of all that has happened in the past.

In regard to the environmentalists, the idea that somehow, with enough campaigning an ecologically friendly green world will be brought about is based on wishful thinking. Climate change and its associated disasters do not occur because of bad or evil men who don’t care a damn for the world but because of the profit motive rooted in capitalism. If laws protecting the environment are produced, as they have been in the last few decades. they are often unworkable or so loosely applied as to be ineffective. Protest marches may achieve limited success lobbying for legislation and influencing a particular government policy but, at the end of the day, they will never be able to combat the motive of profit which is the primary cause of the problems they wish to ameliorate and are destined to struggle endlessly against the tide of capitalism. The permanent and effective solution to the problems of the planet is to be found in a new society. That requires a more fundamental different strategy than picketing businesses or boycotting products. The Socialist Party has reiterated time and time again, workers need to stop putting their faith in reformism; capitalism will never, can never, be reformed in our interest. 

Things Can Get Crazier.

On September 29 Barack Obama gave a speech at the Toronto Convention Centre in which he enlightened us all with this pearl of wisdom: "If you ask yourself when has humanity across the board been wealthiest, healthiest, most educated, most tolerant, least violent, the moment would be now". He may well be right, but he didn't say what planet he was talking about. A guy like that should, at least, be specific when he says things like that so we can go to whatever planet he was referring to.

Whadja mean things cant get any crazier? A couple in Toronto's plush Forest Hill neighbourhood sued a neighbour for having her house renovated to look like theirs. They were seeking $1.5 million in damages, $20,000 in statutory copyright damages and an injunction on the copycat to change the design of her house. Nor was she the only defendant; they also sued the builder, the architect, the contractors and the real estate agent who profited from the sale - well I guess theirs nothing like going for overkill. The allegations were not proven in court so the parties agreed to settle out of court and the terms were not disclosed. Logic, if it came in anywhere was that the plaintiffs felt there house was robbed of its uniqueness and therefore devalued. Whatever you make of the above one things for sure, within capitalism everything has a price tag.

For socialism, Steve, Mehmet, John & all contributing members of the SPC.

The Non-Violent Class Warriors

The members of the Socialist Party often meet demands for our solutions to the on-going struggles in Palestine, in Syria and all the other places over the world where despots are repressing peoples. We are asked how we'd deal with someone like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein or who is the latest personification of evil is. We are accused of offering no immediate answer and it is true - we are no aspiring Che Guevaras - thankfully.  Socialists don't want to die for socialism, we want to live for socialism. By shortening of our lives with martyrdom, we can make no constructive useful contribution to the future.

Our view is that the power of dictatorships ultimately comes from the willing obedience of the people they govern.  All hierarchical systems require the cooperation of people at every level, from the lowliest workers to the highest bureaucrats. Despots depend on the population’s cooperation and submissiveness - and if the people effectively withhold their consent, even the strongest of regimes can collapse. Without the consent of the working class - either their active support or their passive acquiescence the ruling class would have little power and little basis for their rule.

If protesters don’t have a clear objective, then they are likely to be sadly disappointed. Protest alone accomplishes very little. If you don’t have that basic understanding of what you’re doing, then you’re not going to win anything. One struggle doesn’t always do the job; sometimes you have to have two or three or four or five struggles in succession. Class war is in fact very much like war, a series of class-struggle battles with both victories and defeats. Cutting off our enemy's sources of sustenance, its power, is the ultimate goal. But it won’t happen easily, or quickly, or always. Non-violence is not passive, nor is it a way of avoiding conflict. Any non-violent movement that takes on a well-entrenched dictatorship. Those who start such a movement must be prepared for a long struggle, with setbacks and numerous casualties. After all, only one side is committed to non-violence. Nor is there any guarantee of success, even in the long run. However, the other option entails even larger casualties and has even poorer prospects of success.

Violence is not all that effective in a revolution. People have long thought that power grows out of the barrel of a gun.and it's taken a number of historical events to prove that is not true. When non-violence fails, the method is condemned. But when violence fails, strategy or tactics are blamed—not violence as a method. And partial success is seen as total failure.

Non-violent means will increase our chances of the military refusing to obey orders. But if you go over to violence, the soldiers will not mutiny. They will be loyal to the dictatorship and the dictatorship will have a good chance to survive.  An armed response from the revolutionaries will not succeed, as the regime is invariably stronger on the military front. As soon as you choose to fight with violence you're choosing to fight against opponents in possession of the best weapons. The state's police and army are better trained in using those weapons. And they control the infrastructure that allows them to deploy them. To fight dictators with violence is to cede to them the choice of battleground and tactics. Using violence against experts in it is the quickest way to have a movement crushed. That is why governments frequently infiltrate opposition groups with agents provocateurs—to sidetrack the movement into violent acts that the police and security agencies can deal with. Non-violence is an aspect of resistance that the normal forces of co-ercion are ill-prepared for. When the ruling class chooses to use their superior force against nonviolent activists, they sometimes find that it does not bring about the desired results. First, all sanctions must be carried out by the ruler's agents (police or military personnel) who may or may not obey or may reluctantly make a show of obeying to commit brutal acts against people who are clearly presenting no physical threat. It could have the effect of converting them to our point of view by winning over their hearts and minds. Even if a non-violent campaign is unable to change our adversary's way of thinking, it can still wield power and influence the course of events who may decide it is too costly to continue the fight or forced to make concessions because its power-base has been dissolved.

People turn violent because they feel there is little alternative but to resort to violence. Socialists organisations will develop the substitutes to militarising the class struggle and then people will have a choice of psychological weapons, social weapons, economic weapons and political weapons which can be applied and are ultimately more powerful against tyranny.  Once enough people and organizations within a society (trade unions, community groups) are engaging in civil disobedience and withholding their cooperation from a regime, the capitalists' power will gradually wither from political starvation.

The success or failure of any peaceful revolt largely depends on the campaign’s ability to undermine the regime's supporters and weaken the allegiance of its civil servants, police, and soldiers to the regime; to persuade those neutrals sitting on the fence to join the opposition. The worse the regime suppresses protests, the more steadfast ought the opposition be in its commitment to non-violence and the more the people resist, the more we will realize our own power and discover the means of re-shaping our destiny.

Non-violent popular civil-disobedience has an important role in moving forward from limited political democracy to full social democracy, which is what we mean by socialism. Not as a substitute for electoral and constitutional action, but as an additional guarantee that the socialist majority will achieve its goal under any conceivable circumstances. Socialists are not pacifists on principle but purely as a practical tactic. We acknowledge that there might be instances in which violence is a legitimate means to use.

 

Why not now? Why wait?

Capitalism rests on the basic fact of the exploitation of man by man. of the working class by the capitalist class. Rent, interest and profit, all forms of income from property ownership, are the proceeds of the “legalised robbery" of the wage and salary earning class that produces the wealth of the world for others to own. Fellow workers, capitalism is world-embracing. Whether you choose to stay in this country or to migrate, basically your position will remain unchanged, exploited in order that others may live in idle, parasitic comfort continually threatened with economic crises and war, directly resulting from the competitive system which is held in such esteem by capitalism's apologists. We must build a common-sense economy purposed to benefit the vast majority and not a tiny minority.  It is a global fight against injustice and inequality.  Capitalism is destroying our planet and our future. More and more of us are likely to be in the most precarious employment, with low wages an little security.  We need to develop a sustainable economy for both people and the planet's well-being.

The Socialist Party vision is one of the workers building a society where prosperity is available to all and class divisions would dissolve. The nature of socialism cannot be separated from the means to achieve it — the conscious. political action of a majority of the working class. By working class we mean the vast majority of the population (perhaps 90 per cent in Britain) who do not own the means of production — land, industries, transport. communications and so on — and therefore need to sell their mental and physical energies (labour power) to an employer. Without wages or salaries they do not have access to the fruits of their work. The capitalist class, on the other hand, through its class ownership (or monopoly) of the means of production, has access to wealth without the need to work. It employs the majority class to do every kind of work and. after wages and all of the other costs of running a complex system have been paid, there remains for the capitalist class a privileged life-style.

Socialism will mean the end of the profit motive, to be replaced by production solely for use, arising from the common ownership and democratic control of the earth's bountiful natural and industrial resources. In a socialist society, there will be no market. no buying and selling, no money, no prices. Defenders of capitalism's chaos claim that without the present economic mechanisms production would be inefficient. But. from the angle of the working class, who produce all wealth and suffer all deprivation, the waste and anarchy of the profit system are far from efficient. Only when the sole criterion of production is the usefulness of the product will we be able to speak meaningfully about the efficient allocation of resources. And only when we have got rid of world capitalism and established socialism will such a condition exist.

Not competition but co-operation. We will then cease to be wage slaves, mere hired (and fired) hands, but free and equal human beings. Our world is not short of new technologies that have transformed our world in ways we could never have imagined. Mobile phones have opened up the world to billions, not just bringing instant communication but offering inventive means of receiving information and exercising decision-making. Yet all too often, new technology remains wedded to capitalism which belongs to the past. Technology is not the problem - it is what it is used for. Technology can serve all of humanity, not only the owners of capital and technology. Far from rejecting globalisation, we need even more world-wide cooperation and coordination, and communicate with each other everywhere. 

On a basis of socialist understanding, this world is within our reach. What are we waiting for? The only answer to our many problems is the democratic overthrow of the capitalist system itself — nothing less will do. For it is capitalism alone which is responsible for them. The world socialist movement continues to exist and to struggle for the society of communal ownership to eliminate the problems which now afflict the world's people.

Cancer and poverty

Death rates from cancer are 61% higher in the most deprived areas of Scotland, according to the latest figures. NHS Scotland found living in a poor area affected your chance of survival. 

There were also 27% more cancers diagnosed in deprived areas compared with the most affluent last year.

Cancers that were associated with smoking "tended to be strongly correlated with deprivation", the report said.

 The mortality rate for liver cancer increased by 55%, with the main risk factors identified as alcohol and hepatitis B and C infections.

Trisha Hatt, from Macmillan Cancer Support, said: "It's also clear from last week's Audit Scotland report that mortality rates from cancer in Scotland are higher than the rest of the UK, and much higher in deprived communities."

A Change of Fish

Cod, herring and haddock could migrate away from Scotland's west coast waters because of warming sea temperatures, according to researchers at the Scottish Association for Marine Science. Scientists predict the cold water species will vanish from the west coast by the year 2100. The researchers suggest the fish are already nearing "edge of their temperature tolerance range". However, they add that global warming will see other species replace them such as saithe, hake and whiting.

The paper's lead author, marine ecologist Dr Natalia Serpetti, said: "Even under the best case climate change scenario, cod and herring stocks were predicted to collapse off Scotland's west coast."

Socialist Standard November 2017

 

Whole issue as print ready pdf: 

Socialist Standard November 2017.pdf

• Editorial: 1917 – The Left-Overs
• Pathfinders: The Fall and Rise of the Electric Car
• Throw Away the Stick
• Russia 1917: As We Saw It
• Cooking the Books: The 'Engels pause'
• Greasy Pole: Adonis As It Is?
• Material World: Catalonia - Referendum (Why Not), Nationalism (No)
• Cooking the Books: The Wages Trap
• North Korea: Capitalism in a Mao Suit
• Whatever Happened to 'The Vietcong'?
• Cuba: No ‘New Man’
• Chinese ‘Marxism’: Not Even Trying
• Death by Consultation
• Ideology and Revolution pt.2
• Book Reviews: 'Lenin the Dictator - An Intimate Portrait', 'October - The Story of the Russian Revolution', & 'Battling the Gods - Atheism in the Ancient World'
• Exhibition Review: Wyndham Lewis - Life, Art, War
• Proper Gander: Music For The Masses
• 50 Years Ago: Scarborough Follies
• Rear View
• Cartoon: Free Lunch

The voiceless working class

The profit system is designed to benefit a few and to the detriment of the many. Our current capitalist system is incapable of addressing the problems within society because inequality and poverty are embedded within its very foundation. People are relegated to the realm of property, to be turned into commodities, to be bought and sold on the market like any other product rather than recognizing us as deserving individuals. Humans are altruistic and communal, full of empathy, yet capitalism teaches us that the world is a self-serving racket and that we should reject our strong tendencies toward cooperation, mutual aid, and solidarity.  The self-destructive behaviour of the capitalist few overwhelms the cooperative behaviour of the many. One of the tasks of the Socialist Party is to expose the false idea with what the science tells us about who we really are. We do not try to change human nature, we only require to reveal it.  Our species has arrived a point in its social evolution where it could use our collective mental and collaborative capabilities to ensure that all its members get everything they need to survive and thrive without upsetting the delicate ecosystem. Right now we have the ability to come together and cooperate to eliminate all of humanity’s problems and create planetary harmony. We have approached a cross-roads in civilisations progress. It is to take the dead-end of no-change or choose change and take the road towards socialism, an achievable destination if we want it and it will be right there if we truly head towards it, and preparing for the journey is one of the most important things that an individual can do to help bring it about.

We, WORKERS, have been rendered all but voiceless.  We are bereft of the knowledge necessary for our liberation an emancipation. In preventing fellow workers from gaining an awareness of its exploitation,  the boss-class invest much time, energy, and resources into rigging the game, from the political structure to mass media. Ignorance is the brick and mortar of the capitalist system. Its foundation is one of lies and deception, veiling the truth and disguising the reality.  Capitalist propaganda offers up a mirage of a docile mass.  Too many of the working class have been fooled and bullied into believing that we have no voice.

The Socialist Party was formed to do educational spade work in the matter of socialism. We are frankly, an intransigent body, which believes firmly in socialism as the only possible way to economic salvation.  Rejecting all compromise, viewing all “palliative" mongering with distrust and suspicion, the Socialist Party is determined to make the goal of social revolution by ever insisting on what is becoming more and more patent to thinking people, that “who would be free, must strike the blow.” The initial step is to bring home to fellow-workers they must recognise their bondage. You lack the good things in life in spite of your labour, Your masters enjoy luxury in spite of their idleness.

It is our view that it is possible for the working class to use these institutions to settle their class struggle with the owning class. The vote is thus a potential class weapon. But the vote, like other weapons, can be used properly or improperly. Because at present the workers use it to elect demagogues and careerists of one kind or another is no argument against its potentialities. As far as we are concerned, what is important is not so much the vote as the understanding behind it. Thus, when we contest elections we do all we can to make sure that only convinced socialists vote for us. A vote won on other grounds is worse than useless as the history has shown. The vote is just a possible means to political power—the goal of a class-conscious working class. Clearly then our conception of political action differs from that of other parties and the reformists in particular. They perform any tricks and engage in all kinds of demagogy in order to get elected. Without a socialist working class behind them, what can they do? Nothing save maintain the status quo. Hence the phenomena of "sell-out” and “betrayal.” It is completely irrelevant to judge the usefulness of political action on how the reformists have used it, not least because they operate on a different assumption, namely, that you can substantially improve the lot of the working class without socialist understanding. When delegates of the Socialist Party are sent to the centre of political power they will be the delegates of the working class because the Socialist Party will be the working class organised consciously and politically. The point is that we are not a political party in the conventional sense of the term, we are not a group of politicians trying to get elected to do something for the working class, to pass a socialism in Great Britain Act and legislate the new society into being. Far from it, in our view, a socialist party should not be a vanguard but an instrument. We conceive ourselves as an instrument which the working class can use to achieve political power, a necessary prerequisite for the establishment of socialism.

By means of the vote, workers have it in their power to capture Parliament with a socialist majority, and end once and for all the system which subjects and degrades them. Parliament is the place where power resides, where the state machine and its coercive forces are controlled, and the laws passed which are aimed at the smooth running of capitalism’s everyday affairs. Although there may be a lot of hot air there at times, Parliament is no mere talking shop producing vacuous hot air. It is a power station, the more so because those who go there are sent by the majority of the population—the working class. Is it any wonder then, that the parties of capitalism are so full of promises? They at least know how important the vote is to their interests; what a pity the same cannot be said of the workers. In their ignorance and confusion about the world in which they live, they switch their support from one party to the other, in the pathetic belief that they are fundamentally different from each other and that one will succeed in solving their problems where its predecessor has failed. And this is no mere trial and error process, but the persistent mental floundering of the working class, persistent that is, until they learn about Socialism. That is why, despite the black record of the parties in Parliament today, the political swings from one side to the other, and whoever is out, capitalism is always in.

The vote is a very powerful weapon. Used for the correct purposes, it could gain political power for a majority of class-conscious workers to establish a world of common ownership and democratic control. But that would be an action based on mass knowledge and understanding of Socialist principles, and unfortunately, it looks as if the workers have a lot to learn before that happy day. The very existence of the Labour and Tory parties is proof of it.

We are Marxists, basing our position on the investigations and conclusions of Marx. Our sole object is the achievement of socialism—a social system in which everything that is in or on the earth will be the common possession of all mankind. Everyone will be on an equal footing. There will be no frontiers, no buying and selling, and no privileged groups—except the old, the young, and the infirm. We hold that capitalism, the system under which goods are produced by the workers for the profit of a relatively small section of owners of the means of production, is now the system that prevails all over the earth; that it breeds wars, slumps, internecine conflicts, and misery for the mass of the people; that there is a constant class struggle going on between the owners of the means of production, and those that operate them—the working class; that all the reforms put forward and fought for by well-meaning people have not touched the fringe of the problem of working-class subjection but, instead, though even unintentionally, have pushed further away the day of emancipation; that, so long as the present system prevails there is no remedy for this state of affairs; the only way out is to abolish capitalism and establish socialism in its place; that state-ownership is not socialism, but a particular form of capitalism; that the workers must organise together internationally to attain their freedom from the conditions that oppress and frustrate them.

No cessation! No compromising! No concession! No suspension of hostilities! Let the class war continue until we prevail.  

People In Crisis

Some people in Scotland are struggling to pay for basics like food and heating.

 42,000 applications for crisis grants were made between 1 April and 30 June - up 11% on last year.

Guy Aldred an the SPGB (March 1952)

From the March 1952 issue of the SocialistStandard

The following reference to the S.P.G.B. was published in the December issue of “The Word” which describes itself as “an organ of the United Socialist Movement, edited and published by Guy A. Aldred.”

   “There is also the attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who issued a manifesto urging people not to vote until everyone had joined the S.P.G.B. or became a Socialist. This curious attitude— which approaches Anarchism—was the result of the 1950 experience at the ballot-box. Carefully analysed, the attitude of the S.P.G.B is seen to be one of futility and hypocrisy. Instead of uniting at this time of crisis in a stand against war and rearmament, which could have been done without a single sacrifice of principle and actually with a great advantage to the propaganda status of the S.P.G.B., members of this stupid and stagnant party wrote ‘S.P.G.B.' across their ballot papers.”

Mr. Aldred, who contested Glasgow Central constituency in October, 1951, is angry because the S.P.G.B. did not support him. He described himself as a “Peace and Independent Socialist” candidate.

Let us deal first with the several inaccuracies in his statements. Of course, the S.P.G.B. did not issue a manifesto “urging people not to vote until everyone had joined the S.P.G.B. or became a Socialist.”

The S.P.G.B. does not commit the absurdity of advising non-Socialists how to vote or the equal absurdity of telling Socialists who know it already, that Socialist votes should go only in support of Socialism and that it is useless to vote for Capitalism. What our Manifesto did—a very different thing from Aldred’s misrepresentation—was to point out to Socialists and to nobody else that in the absence of S.P.G.B. candidates “you will be able to register your vote for Socialism by writing ‘Socialism’ across the ballot paper. This will serve to advertise the number of those who have realised that the use of the vote to support any other candidate no matter how he describes himself, is a vote for capitalism.”

Then Mr. Aldred tells his readers that this “curious” S.P.G.B. attitude “was the result of its 1950 experience at the ballot-box.”

The S.P.G.B. was doing this right from its formation in 1904, which means that it was doing it at the time when Mr. Aldred applied for membership of the S.P.G.B., and in 1928 when he offered to give his support to S.P.G.B. candidates on certain conditions. And although he calls it “curious” he has himself in the past committed the decidedly curious action of standing as an “anti-Parliamentary” Parliamentary candidate, and in the article from which we quote he declares that abstaining from voting “is sound expression of both Socialist and Anarchist principles.” If it is sound Socialist principle to vote for Socialism or to abstain from voting (two views which Aldred professes to agree with) it is hard to see why the S.P.G.B. line should strike him as curious.

But then consistency was never Aldred’s strong point. In his article he calls the S.P.G.B. “stupid and stagnant” but declares that he wanted our “stupid and stagnant” support, and that if it had been given, “ a Peace vote . . . at Central Glasgow, would have been a tremendous event” It recalls his declaration in 1928 (“The Commune” July, 1928), when, after denouncing the S.P.G.B. (quite falsely) for advocating “the nationalisation of the l.L.P. under which the wage-labourer remains a wage-labourer,” be offered to support S.P.G.B. candidates at elections; but not on the condition that we abandoned our purely imaginary advocacy of nationalisation, but on the condition that we pledged ourselves to challenge the oath of allegiance!

Elsewhere in Aldred’s article in “The Word” he tries to explain his own policy and his attitude to the Labour Party, I.L.P., Communist Party and Anarchists, a group which for some curious reason he believes to represent “ the Socialist and working-class organisation of the country.”

His chief complaint is that they “substituted Toryism for Capitalism, as the enemy.” It seems to have surprised as well as angered him. But anyone who imagines that the above-named group ever stood for the abolition of capitalism and who can describe them as “Socialist” is capable of being surprised at any normal demonstration of their anti-working class activities.

He even falls for the nonsense of supposing that the Communist Party which runs capitalism in Russia is all right, and it is only their communist stooges in Britain who are no good. He writes: “Surely it is time that the Communists in the Soviet countries realised what a worthless, inept and inadequate bunch the Communist Party is in Britain.”

How the Russian Communist Party would laugh at such simplicity.

And while Aldred takes these other parties to task for lighting Toryism instead of lighting capitalism (as if they didn’t know that their chances of getting elected depended on doing just that!) he himself does the same by substituting “war and rearmament” as the enemy, instead of capitalism. He writes:—“I stood for the recognition of Communist China and the Five Power Peace Pact.” He wanted “Unity on the part of the Pacifist and Socialist thinking groups,” and “a Peace vote, a definite anti-war vote.”

Since he attaches so much importance to the recognition of Capitalist China why didn’t he support the Labour Party which gave that recognition over a year ago or even the Tory Party which made no statement about rescinding it? If he waits long enough he will probably find Tories and Labourites uniting to support more Five Power Peace Pacts (or 25 Power Peace Pacts), and all the Capitalist Powers including Russia and China getting together to cut the cost of armaments—and of course capitalism all over the world will be as strong as ever, and just a little more firmly established through the confusion spread by people like Mr. Aldred.

Editorial Committee

‘THE THOUGHT OF CHAIRMAN XI’ (poem)

‘THE THOUGHT OF CHAIRMAN XI’

24/10/17. 'Chinese Communist Party' Congress delegates voted

unanimously to add 'Xi Jinping Thought' to their Constitution.

From Sichuan and Beijing down to,

Ex-Portuguese Macau;

The Chinese rocked to the 'Red Book',

Of dear old Chairman Mao.

But these days all the millionaires,

With 'Anti-Rightist'* glee;

Are now hip-hopping to that rap,

'The Thought of Chairman Xi'. (1)

This 'Great Leap Forward'* surely means,

In China, everyone;

Is still revolting, though not with,

'The Barrel of a Gun'*! (2)

The 'Counter-Revolutionaries'*

Who under Mao, were purged;

These same ‘Revisionists’* returned,

When Deng Xiaoping emerged. (3)

The Party failed in it’s attempt,

To 'Rehabilitate'*;

The 'Capitalist Roaders'* who’d,

Begun to dominate.

But still they claim they’re ‘Socialists’,*

Though with a 'Chinese face'*;

Their 'Communism'* fully part,

Of the world's marketplace! (4)

(1) Xi Jinping is pronounced SHE JEENG-PEENG.

(2) 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun'. Mao Zedong.

(3) Mao’s successor who more openly accepted the market economy.

(4) * The many preposterous slogans of the farcically named

'Chinese Communist Party' would have us believe that “Socialism

with Chinese characteristics” is anything other than Capitalism.

.

© Richard Layton