The Socialist Party and the Wobblies

The Socialist Standard carried an excellent review of the book Rebel Alliances: The Means and Ends of British Anarchisms which studies class-struggle anarchists. 

The article discusses certain anarchist ideas in relation and in regard to the ideas of the Socialist Party, which perhaps could be called the "political wing" of anarchism, a description which may cause apoplexy to both anarchists and some of Party comrades. While critical of anarchism (and which anarchist isn't critical of other comrades beliefs and attitudes), the article is certainly not the polemical diatribe that many would expect an avowedly Marxist party to indulge in. 

The article goes on to dispel common myths current amongst anarchists and Leftists about the Socialist Party approach to class struggle.

"... It is interesting to note that some of these [discussions in anarchist circles] have been paralleled by discussions within our party, for instance, whether the revolution is to be a class or a non-class affair, and to what extent can community struggles outside the workplace be assimilated to struggles at the point of production.

(For the record, our view is that the revolution has to be the work of the working class, but as the working class understood not as just manual industrial workers but as anyone forced to work for a wage or salary irrespective of the job they do, i.e. most people today; and that non-workplace struggles such as tenants associations and claimants’ unions are as legitimate defensive struggles as the trade union struggle over wages and working conditions.)

On the other subjects which divide contemporary anarchists, we would side with the syndicalists in saying that economic exploitation is primary, but with the anarcho-communists in saying that future society will involve community-based administrative councils and not exclusively industry-based ones. We oppose the blanket rejection of the existing trade unions as proposed by the ACF (and the council communists). And we would agree with statements quoted by Franks (and have said the same thing many times ourselves) that “we exist not as something separate from the working class, not as some leadership for others to follow, but as part of the working class working for our own liberation” (Subversion) and “to the Left the working class are there to be ordered about because we are too thick to think for ourselves” (Class War).

In Franks’s scheme, we would be classified as a group practising “propaganda by word” with occasional forays into “constitutional activity” in the form of participation in elections. What we don’t do – and which all the anarchist groups engage in – is to participate, as a group, in “micropolitics”, local single-issue campaigns. We don’t necessarily dismiss all such campaigns as entirely useless but think it best to leave them up to the people directly concerned, merely advising them (if asked) to organise and conduct themselves democratically, without leaders and without outside interference..."

It may be related is the Socialist Party's view on the Industrial Workers of the World. These days, there is no official proscription to being an IWW member.

The official position could be explained as that as long as the IWW behaves and acts as a workers' union then its up to individual members of the Socialist Party to decide whether or not it is in their interests to join. Trade unions and the inherent contradictions that sometimes arise has always been something the Socialist Party was aware of from its foundation and it took a few years to internally debate and settle down with an accepted position. Members, of course, won't pay the political levy in unions affiliated to Labour Party  and opposed the closed shop and overtly pro-Labour Party policies etc. 

The Socialist Party recognises the defensive nature of trade unionism, syndicalism and industrial unionism and their limitations to resist the encroachments of capital and state power.

Previously in the past, during the formative years of both organisations, the IWW was seen as more of an anti-political that is an anarchistic organisation, promoting industrial unionism, which the Socialist Party disavowed as sectional and undemocratic, since it was about industries controlling the means of production and distribution and not society as a whole meaning also those outside the work-place. 

But the Socialist Party now accepts that in recent years the IWW can be more accurately described as an a-political organisation, a change of emphasis since for all practical purposes now acts as a democratic and progressive, inspirational and educational union that is to be recommended for membership when it is to the workers advantage, which is the majority of the time and situations. 

 No longer being divisive with outright opposition to the pure and simple reformist unions by adopting the dual-card policy has been another change which differentiates the present from the early IWW that the Socialist Party criticised.

The Canadian OBU which did accept the importance of the political struggle rather more than the IWW and the prominent participation of socialists within it, demonstrates that we never ever stood aloof to the industrial scene and class war, as many distractors and critics keep repeating until its become a myth and urban legend for many on the Left.

Decisions about industrial disputes and work-place union agreements are to be made by strike committees and those on picket lines and those directly involved and not by outside- the-union political party executives has always been the counsel of the Socialist Party.

The attitude ofour organisatio is that the revolutionary union does not make revolutionaries but that it is revolutionary union members which make the revolutionary union . 

The more effective the union is in achieving victories against capitalism, the more the non-radical workers will join it for the trade union benefits and water down its revolutionary aspects. Just as they will desert it if the revolutionary aspirations hinder the practicalities of the daily bread and butter fight.

And that point also brought the Socialist Party into disagreement with the De Leonist Socialist Labor Party and its socialist industrial unions.

The Socialist Party have always insisted that there will be a separation and that no political party should, or can successfully use, unions as an economic wing, until a time very much closer to the Revolution when there are substantial and sufficient numbers of socialist conscious workers. And for the foreseeable thats far off in the future.

Both the anarchist article in the Socialist Standard and my letter makes it clear that we are not as entryist organisation out to manipulate the trade unions and seek control over the working class.

William Morris

 

William Morris designer of furniture and wallpaper, printer, architect, novelist and poet and Socialist agitator.

"We believe that to hold out hopes of amelioration of the condition of the workers, to be wrung out of the necessities of the rival factions of our privileged rulers, is delusive and mischievous." Letter of resignation from the SDF, William Morris 

"Those who believe that they can deal with capitalism in a piecemeal way very much underrate the strength of the tremendous organisation under which we live… ; it will not suffer itself to be dismembered, nor to lose anything which is its essence…" - William Morris 1886

"The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are useless because they are but unorganised partial revolts against a vast, wide-spreading, grasping organisation which will, with the unconscious instinct of a plant, meet every attempt at bettering the conditions of the people with an attack on a fresh side. "

"I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so; in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood that they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared to pass palliative measures to keep Society alive."

“. . . it should be our special aim to make Socialists, by putting before people, and especially the working classes, the elementary truths of Socialism; since we feel sure, in the first place, that in spite of the stir in the ranks of labour there are comparatively few who understand what Socialism is, or have had opportunities of arguing on the subject with those who have at least begun to understand it; and, in the second place, we are no less sure that before any definite Socialist action can be attempted, it must be backed up by a great body of intelligent opinion – the opinion of a great mass of people who are already Socialists, people who know what they want, and are prepared to accept the responsibilities of self-government, which must form a part of their claims.” - Hammersmith Socialist Society , Statement of Principles, 1890

" This time when people are excited about Socialism, and when many who know nothing about it think themselves Socialists, is the time of all others to put forward the simple principles of Socialism regardless of the policy of the passing hour. I say for us to make Socialists is the business at present, and at present I do not think we can have any other useful business. Those who are not really Socialists - who are Trade Unionists, disturbance-breeders, or what not -
will do what they are impelled to do, and we cannot help it. At the worst there will be some good in what they do; but we need not and cannot heartily work with them, when we know that their methods are beside the right way. Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e. convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles into practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible. Have we that body of opinion? Surely not. . .Therefore, I say, make Socialists. We Socialists can do nothing else that is useful, and preaching and teaching is not out of date for that purpose; but rather for those who, like myself, do not believe in State Socialism, it is the only rational means of attaining to the new Order of Things " - Commonweal, 15 November 1890,

"We had better confine ourselves to the old teaching and preaching of Socialism pure and simple, which is I fear more or less neglected amidst the said futile attempt to act as a party when we have no party

" I confess I am no great lover of political tactics, the sordid squabble of an election is unpleasant enough for a straight-forward man to deal in: yet I cannot fail to see that it is necessary somehow to get hold of the machine which has at its back the executive power of the country, however that may be done and that by means of the ballot-box will, to say the least of it, be little indeed compared with what would be necessary to effect it by open revolt; besides that
the change effected by peaceful means would be done more completely and with little chance, indeed with no chance of counter-revolution. On the other hand I feel sure that some action is even now demanded by the growth of Socialism, and will be more and more imperatively demanded as time goes on. In short I do not believe in the possible success of revolt until the Socialist party has grown so powerful in numbers that it can gain its end by peaceful means, and that therefore what is called violence will never be needed, unless indeed the reactionaries were to refuse the decision of the ballot-box and try the matter by arms; which after all I am pretty sure they could not attempt by the time things had gone as far as that. As to the attempt of a small minority to terrify a vast majority into accepting something which they do not understand, by spasmodic acts of violence, mostly involving the death or mutilation of non-combatants, I can call that nothing else than sheer madness " - "What we have to look for", Spring 1895

"As to mere politics, Absolutism, Constitutionalism, Republicanism. All have been tried in our day and under our present system, and all have failed in dealing with the real evils of life.
Nor, on the other hand, will certain incomplete schemes of social reform now before the public solve the question.
Co-operation so-called—that is, competitive co-operation for profit—would merely increase the number of small joint-stock capitalists, under the mask of creating an aristocracy of labour, while it would intensify the severity of labour by its temptations to overwork.
Nationalisation of the land alone, which many earnest and sincere persons are now preaching, would be useless so long as labour was subject to the fleecing of surplus value inevitable under the Capitalist system.
No better solution would be that State Socialism, by whatever name it may be called, whose aim it would be to make concessions to the working class while leaving the present system of capital and wages in operation: no number of merely administrative changes; until the workers are in a possession of all political power, would make any real approach to Socialism.
The Socialist League therefore aims at the realisation of complete Revolutionary Socialism, and well knows that this can never happen in any one country without the help of the workers of all civilisation." - Manifesto of the Socialist League, drafted by Morris and Bax and adopted in 1885

"As long as men are slaves, woman can be no better. Let the women's rights societies adopt that last sentence as a motto - and act on it"

"...the interests of the workmen are the same in all countries and they can never really be enemies of each other"

Irish Nationalism - would merely impose a "new tyranny" on the peasantry by turning them into "...a fresh Irish proletariat to be robbed for the benefit of national capitalists".

"Undoubtedly when there is a parliament in Dublin the struggle of the Irish people for freedom will have to be begun again".

"Of course , as long as people are ignorant, compromise plus sentiment always looks better to them than the real article."

"Intelligence enough to conceive, courage enough to will, power enough to compel. If our ideas of a new society are anything more than a dream, these three qualities must animate the due effective majority of the working people: and then I say the thing will be done."

Scotland's rich list

Name	Sector	2020 wealth	increase/decrease
Anders Povlsen	Fashion	£4.73bn	New entry
Glenn Gordon and family	Spirits	£3.186bn	Up £304m
John Shaw, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw	Pharmaceuticals	£1.808bn	Up £119m
Sir Ian Wood and family	Oil services and fishing	£1.700bn	Down £63m
Mohamed Al-Fayed and family	Retailing	£1.675bn	Down £25m
Mahdi al-Tajir	Metals, oil, water	£1.669bn	Up £9m
The Thomson family	Media	£1.407bn	Up £6m
Trond Mohn, Marit Mohn Westlake	Industry	£1.325bn	Down £277m
Philip Day	Fashion	£1.140bn	Down £60m
Lady Philomena Clark and family	Car sales	£1.131bn	Down £47m
Jim Mellon	Property, finance	£1.05bn	Down £50m
Jim McColl	Engineering	£1bn	Down £70m
Joanne Rowling	Novels, films	£795m	Up £45m
Lord Laidlaw	Conferences	£787m	Down £4m
Sir Brian Souter, Dame Ann Gloag	Transport	£730m	Down £145m
Ian Taylor	Commodities, fashion	£700m	Down £50m
Sir Tom Hunter	Retailing, property	£625m	Up £18m
The Duke of Sutherland	Art, land	£585m	No change
Rick Smith and family	Food distribution	£538m	Down £23m
Alastair Salvesen and family	Transport, plant hire, fisheries	£472m	Down £28m

Source: The Sunday Times Rich List 2020

Revolution is Necessary

Who is it that keeps every country in the world running? Who builds the roads and the houses, factories and offices? Who designs and builds and maintains the washing machines and cars and televisions? Who builds the aeroplanes and runs the international airports? Who produces the oil. extracts the coal, runs the hospitals, teaches in the schools and universities, prints the newspapers and makes the television programmes? It is the working class who run this system from top to bottom. Workers are not stupid, they are misinformed. They are misinformed by the ideas of a social system which runs in the interest of a minority who live in luxury and comfort off the labour of the majority.

The objective of capitalism is to make a profit. The recipients of profit are the capitalists who are, and always will be, a minority. The workers, who produce the wealth but do not possess it, are the creators of all profits, and that creation arises directly from the act of robbery which is inevitable so long as the wages system exists. Under capitalism the earth and all of its major resources belong to the few and not the many; production is by the many for the enrichment of the few. The position of the working class is that of wage slaves. Although sometimes the wages are called salaries, the slavery remains the same. The wage slave majority does not own or control the world. We are the second-rate citizens in a world which should be ours.

Socialists have revealed the fallacy of the ideas which helped to keep capitalism going. Class domination has its roots in the possession of the ownership and control of such things as the land, mines, mills, factories, ships, railways, in fact, in all those means of producing and distributing the essentials of life. That is the basis of the class division and not any superior mental or physical power on the part of the ruling class. This class possesses money or capital to-day through the operation of historical, economic and social causes. The vast possessions of the modern capitalist class have behind them a record that is largely associated with past murder, piracy, spoliation and robbery, rather than with any mark of superior intellectual ability. In fact, the history of class divisions from very early times is directly connected with conquest, plunder and enslavement. Read its history and it will reveal the facts only too tragically.

Capital is wealth, the result of past labour, used to obtain profit. This in turn is but the unpaid labour of the workers. The profit motive is behind all capitalist production. The bread we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses in which we live are not produced for their use, but for profit. Unless there is a profit, or the prospect of it, capitalist production ceases, in fact it would not be started. This will explain, apart from other considerations; why millions of our class are unemployed, are forced to a demoralising idleness: the capitalists can find no profitable use for even the goose that lays the golden eggs. Yet for thousands of years, for by far the greater part of human history, capital was unknown to the human race. Even the extensive use of the precious metals marks but a late stage in human development. The predominance of money as a factor in economic relationships is, in fact, not more than a few centuries old. The point we wish to emphasise is that there is nothing intrinsically indispensable about the great “god" money. The "yellow, glittering gold" of capitalism, apart from its various uses to the present system, is in reality of much less real use to human needs than many of the baser metals. In a really healthy and sanely-organised system of society, wherein profit was absent—could not exist, in fact—there would be no need of such things to facilitate the distribution of the products of labour. Therefore, we of the Socialist Party of Great Britain stand for the abolition of capital because we stand for the abolition of capitalism. The immense productive powers of to-day must be converted into the common property of the community; they must be democratically owned and controlled, through which they would be operated for use instead of for profit. There is no other way out for the working class. The capitalist class must be dispossessed of their control of the means of living, and this can only be done by divesting them of their political power.

 Socialism has nothing to do with regulating capitalism or equalising social relations within it, or injecting illusory feelings of co-operation into it, or moulding or reforming it in any way. Socialism is not a process of playing with the surface image of the profit system. Socialists are uncompromising enemies of the capitalist system. While it exists, in whatever forms, we fight against it. Socialists are not alone in this fight. Capitalism necessitates class struggle between capitalists and workers. The two classes have opposed interests and live in a condition of permanent tension which frequently erupts into class war in various forms. The difference between the socialist struggle and that of our fellow workers who are not yet socialists is that we know what we are fighting against and what we are fighting for. Too often workers struggle in the dark; they hate the boss, they seek justice, they place faith in reform schemes or other illusions. To become a socialist is to see through the dark and convert blind struggle into a movement for social revolution. The socialist proposition commences, then, at the point of seeing the need for fundamental social change; it proceeds to consciously prepare for revolution. That is the Socialist Party’s task.

The Socialist Party points out firmly that a free society can never by fashioned by coercion. Conversely, armed might can never be the agent of liberation in any real sense of the word. Socialism is a world society in which all wealth (the land, farms, factories and all their products, communications systems, buildings) are owned and controlled democratically by all the people in the world. There are enough natural resources on the earth and sufficiently developed technology to satisfy the needs of every human being. The social guideline will be co-operation; all things to benefit all people. There will be no divisions based on economic factors; no money, no classes, no countries, no banks, no soldiers, no lawyers and no employment. Work will be carried out voluntarily according to what each individual decides they can contribute and what they most enjoy doing.

The Socialist Party, the only Marxist party in Britain, since 1904. We seek to establish a free and democratic society and we are the first to point out that this will never be brought about by any of the tactics used by our class enemies, such as those listed above. We seek to establish a society of mutual co-operation, not a dictatorship—a society which will be class-free. We in the Socialist Party are men and women who belong to the working class; we share the same experiences of exploitation and fear of economic insecurity; we know what all this means because we live the part. But we claim to have studied the problems of the workers' lives at their foundation. As a result we are able to declare that the solution has been found. We know, and can prove our case, that the wealth of the world is produced by the workers. We know, and can prove it, that what the workers can do so efficiently for the capitalist class they can do even more effectively for themselves.