View on Trade Unions

Trade unions arise out of the wage-relation that is at the basis of capitalism. When we say that labour-power has the commodity nature, it must express its value through a struggle in the labour market. Combining together in trade unions to exert collective pressure on employers is a way workers can prevent their wages falling below the value of their Iabour-power. It is a way of ensuring that they are paid the full value of what they have to sell. This is the usefulness of trade unions to the working class but they can do no more than this. The competition of individual workers for jobs enabled employers to take full advantage of their strengthened position. If, however, the workers unite and agree not to sell their labour-power below a certain price, the effect of individual competition for jobs can be, at least in part, overcome. Organised workers can ensure that the wage they get is the current value of their labour-power and, at times when the demand for labour-power exceeds the supply, they can temporarily push wages above the current value of labour power or even, in the longer term, raise its value. This was, and still is, the economic logic for the working class of trade union organisation.They cannot substantially increase the living standards of their members under capitalism but they can ensure that wages are not reduced below the subsistence level. The trade unions are essentially defensive organisations with the limited role of protecting wages and working conditions and it is by this criterion that their effectiveness or otherwise ought to be judged.

Trade Unions can - and do - enable workers to get the full value of their labour-power, but they cannot stop the exploitation of the working class.

Workers may influence their wages and working conditions only by collective effort and only by being in the position to stop working if their demands are not met. The ability to withhold their service in a strike is one weapon in their possession (work-to-rules and overtime bans are others) . It is the only final logic known to employers. Without it, wages tend to sink below subsistence level. With it , a substantial check can often be placed on the encroachments of the employers and improvements both in wages and working conditions can be made. The strike is not a sure means of victory for workers in dispute with employers. There are many cases of workers being compelled to return to work without gains, even sometimes with losses. Strikes should not be employed recklessly but should be entered into with caution, particularly during times when production falls off and there are growing numbers of unemployed. Nor should not be thought that victory can be gained only by means of the strike. Sometimes more can be gained simply by the threat of a strike. The most effective strike as the one that did not take place. Workers must bear all these things in mind if they are to make the most effective use of the trade union and the power which it gives them.

The non-revolutionary phase of the struggle between the classes is as inevitable as the revolutionary one . Therefore we should not reduce the trade unions to impotence by by getting them to avow principles and policies which are not necessary to their object and reason for being - and also to which their members do not hold.

We, therefore, accept trade unions as they are, and, realising that all their grave and undeniable faults are but the reflection of the mental shortcomings of their members.The Socialist Party is not antagonistic to the trade unions under present conditions, even though they have not a revolutionary basis but we are hostile to the misleading by the trade union leaders and the ignorance of the rank and file which make such misleading possible. Workers must come to see through the illusion that all that is needed in the class war are good generals. Sloganising leaders making militant noises are impotent in the face of a system which still has majority support – or at least the acquiescence – of the working class.

It would be wrong to write off the unions as anti-working-class organisations. The union has indeed tended to become an institution apart from its members; but the policy of a union is still influenced by the views of its members. It may be a truism but a union is only as strong as its members. Most unions have formal democratic constitutions which provide for a wide degree of membership participation and democratic control. In practice however, these provisions are sometimes ineffective and actual control of many unions is in the hands of a well-entrenched full-time leadership. It is these leaders who frequently collaborate with the State and employers in the administration of capitalism; who get involved in supporting political parties and governments which act against the interest of the working class.

Under present conditions, trade unions are non-revolutionary but as far as the socialist thinks them necessary to his personal economic welfare and as far as economic pressure forces him to, he is right and justified in using them. The class struggle has to be carried on by socialists and non-socialists alike and because of the very nature of the workers' economic struggle under capitalism it compels socialists to associate in a common cause with the non-socialists during strikes, lock-outs and all the other activities on the economic side of the class struggle.

The Socialist Party urges that the existing unions provide the medium through which the workers should continue their efforts to obtain the best conditions they can get from the master class in the sale of their labour-power. We do not criticise the unions for not being revolutionary, but we do severely criticise them when they depart from the principle of an antagonism of interests between workers and employers; when they collaborate with employers, the state or political parties; when they put the corporate interests of a particular section of workers above that of the general interest of the working class as a whole.

Trade unions, in general, have languished in a role which provides little scope for action beyond preparing for the next self-repeating battle with employers. They tended to be bogged down in bureaucracy and run by careerists and time-serving officials for whom the future means little more than their pensions and peerage. It has to be admitted that this does present itself as a sterile accommodation with the capitalist system.

However, and this should be emphasised.

Trade unions can bring a great deal of experience to bear on the question of how a new society could be organised democratically in the interests of the whole community. Certainly in the developed countries they have organisation in the most important parts of production. They have rulebooks that allow them to be run locally and nationally in a generally democratic manner and they also enjoy fraternal links across the globe. All this is already in place, ready to be applied. If only trade unions set their sights beyond the next wage claim and by becoming part of the socialist movement, they could so easily become part of the democratic administration of industry that would replace the corporate bosses and their managers who now organise production for profit.

We recognise that, under capitalism, workers depend on the wage or salary they get for the sale of their labour-power and that it is in their interest to get the highest possible price for this; collective organisation and action, as via trade unions, can help obtain this. In other words, we're talking about haggling over the workers' commodity. Clearly, necessary though it is, this has no anti-capitalist content. This doesn't mean that the wages struggle isn't part of the class struggle. It is, but as an economic, defensive struggle within capitalism to get the best deal under it. Obviously, being part of the class struggle, it has the potential to develop into full class consciousness, i.e. a recognition of the need to get rid of capitalism and to take political action to do this. But it's not going to develop into socialist consciousness automatically without those involved hearing the case for socialism. Which of course is why the Socialist Party produce leaflets and pamphlets directed at trade-unionists.

Discontent over wage levels or conditions at work can be a catalyst for socialist understanding but so can many other things such as concern about the environment or war or the threat of war or bad housing or the just the general "culture" of capitalism. It can be said that history has not borne out the view that there is some sort of automatic evolution from trade union consciousness to reformist political consciousness to revolutionary socialist consciousness (as Marx and Engels and social democracy tended to assume). It's just not happened. In fact the opposite has: trade unions have dropped talking about the class struggle and socialism to present themselves as on a par with insurance companies, complete with trendy names such as UNITE, or whatever, to deal with problems at work. We have never uncritically accepted trade unionism. As we said in 1912 we support only trade unionism when it is on sound lines:

"Sound lines" mean that while fighting the daily battles the toilers must adopt a policy of "No Compromise". They must have no regard for the master’s interests or property. "Conciliation" and "Arbitration" schemes and long notices must be strenuously opposed. They have got to teach their members that the interests of workers and employers are in direct opposition. Above all, the trade unions must use all their powers to increase the solidarity of the revolting working class and show the need for the toilers acting as a class. There must be no blacklegging of one section upon another, and the grievance of one part must become the interest of all. Thus only can the unions be moulded into a body capable of assisting in the revolutionary change."

In our view trade-union action is necessary under capitalism, but is limited by being of an essentially defensive nature. To overcome this limitation the workers need to organise themselves into a socialist political party aiming solely at the capture of political power to establish socialism (i.e. the so-called maximum programme). The real difference with the Socialist Party and various anarchists/syndicalists is over which form of activity and organisation - political or industrial - is the more important. Our view is that it is the winning of political control which is more important and that is why we emphasise this.

The Socialist Party enter the present political scene on two levels.
One, we can and do give a thorough analysis of the present human conditions engendered by human actions and seek to rationally workout a cause and effect towards providing achievable solutions to problems thrown up as best as humans can do for the time and the technology. This invariably leads to demands for a complete revolutionary change in society on many levels, ownership,methods of analysis, production, and human thinking, which involve both outlook and expectations.

Two, we have the ability to rise above the general fracas of the bourgeois parties and the trade unions and using evidence from present human capabilities envisage and present what a different society could now function like for the benefit of all.

The Socialist Party doesn't create recipes for the cook-shops of the future but we do lay down certain preferences for what we would like to see in the class struggle menu:

"In countries like India workers have the legal right to form trade unions. But there, too, unlike Europe and America, most of the big trade unions have been organised from above as fund-raising, vote-catching political subsidiaries of self-seeking "leaders" than as spontaneous, grass-root, independent and autonomous organisations of the working class to defend their economic interests. Moreover in the absence of factory-wide free election of trade union functionaries, there are as many unions as there are political parties, most of them operating with their hired gangsters and peculiar flags having very little regard to class-unity. Actually these trade unions are not genuine trade unions. Still workers' organised resistance against exploitation is a must; and for that matter, their resistance struggles must have to be freed from the infamy of remaining divided and subservient to various capitalist political parties. This they can achieve by organising themselves in fully integrated and independent trade unions of their own, by throwing away all kinds of blind faith and submissiveness regarding the wretched hierarchy of subscription-squeezer and flag-hoister "leaders". The working class movement is a movement of equals - organised by the workers and in the interest of the workers.

No "leader", supposedly having some unknown "god"-given or "intrinsic" trick-finding qualities given is necessary to lead the working-class movement. For a "trick" cannot throw profit overboard. Simply because private property lives to levy its tribute on labour.All workers are able, rather abler than the "leaders", to understand their own class-interests only if they are fully informed of their circumstances from local to global. And to be informed of what is happening around, and what has happened earlier, what they require is to meet in regular general assemblies, discuss and debate all that matters keeping ears and minds open and decide to take such steps as deemed useful. In case a strike is to be declared, they would need a strike committee to be formed of recallable delegates elected and mandated in the general assembly-thus retaining the ultimate control in their own hands. Where there are many rival trade union shops in a single factory or workplace operated by many capitalist political parties, a socialist worker can neither keep on supporting the one he is in, nor go on seeking membership of one after another or all at the same time, nor can he open his own "socialist" trade union instead. What he can, and should, do as an immediate perspective, is to try to form a "political group" with like-minded fellow workers and campaign for a class-wide democratic unity as stated above. Whenever an opportunity arrives the group must use the assemblies as a forum for political propaganda to expose the uselessness of "leaders" and show that the trade union movement is unable to solve the problems of crises, insecurity, poverty, unemployment, hunger and wars" - Manifesto of the World Socialist Party (India), March 1995.

A position that may find a sympathetic ear from those who think the Socialist Party has been too accepting of the trade union status quo.

Lest we forget

Obituary: Robert (Bob) Malone (2010)

Obituary from the May 2010 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have received the following sad news from our comrades in New Zealand.

 "It is with sadness that we have to report the death of Bob Malone. Bob was a worker and a socialist who understood the anti-social nature of the society in which we live and strived to change it with a worldwide civilised system, in which production will be for use and not for sale. Bob had a useful and productive life which is more than can be said of the residents of Buckingham Palace, the Kremlin or the White House. Bob was for many years a valued member of the WSP (NZ), and even when he ceased his membership of the WSP (NZ) in the 1990s, he still supported the World Socialist Movement to the very end. His enthusiasm and innovative ideas were welcome at the many Annual Conferences of the WSP (NZ), and he would always respect the right of others to have alternative views. Our condolences go out to his family."

(WSP, New Zealand)

  Bob originally came from Glasgow and indeed during a short spell while back in the UK was a member of Glasgow Branch. Bob was born in 1943 and served his apprenticeship as a glazier before immigrating to New Zealand in 1965. He was a well-read conscientious member and many subscribers to the WSM Forum on the website will be aware of his learned contributions there which were always straightforward and very friendly. Bob worked all his life in both Glasgow and Wellington and in the latter part of his life taught Glass Technology at a Wellington college. He was a amusing companion and right good company as many of his comrades can attest to. He will be sadly missed by comrades in two continents. Glasgow branch extend our deepest sympathy to his wife Moira and his children Sarah Jane and Robert. Thanks for everything Bob.

(Glasgow Branch)

Jimmy Reid's Speech

The late Jimmy Reid was a Communist Party member and then later a Scottish nationalist which distances him from the Socialist Party. However, that does not mean that everything he said was worthless. Here we can agree with much of what he says. 

"Alienation is the precise and correctly applied word for describing the major social problem in Britain today. People feel alienated by society. In some intellectual circles it is treated almost as a new phenomenon. It has, however, been with us for years. What I believe is true is that today it is more widespread, more pervasive than ever before. Let me right at the outset define what I mean by alienation. It is the cry of men who feel themselves the victims of blind economic forces beyond their control. It's the frustration of ordinary people excluded from the processes of decision-making. The feeling of despair and hopelessness that pervades people who feel with justification that they have no real say in shaping or determining their own destinies. 

Many may not have rationalised it. May not even understand, may not be able to articulate it. But they feel it. It therefore conditions and colours their social attitudes. Alienation expresses itself in different ways in different people. It is to be found in what our courts often describe as the criminal antisocial behaviour of a section of the community. It is expressed by those young people who want to opt out of society, by drop-outs, the so-called maladjusted, those who seek to escape permanently from the reality of society through intoxicants and narcotics. Of course, it would be wrong to say it was the sole reason for these things. But it is a much greater factor in all of them than is generally recognised. 

Society and its prevailing sense of values leads to another form of alienation. It alienates some from humanity. It partially de-humanises some people, makes them insensitive, ruthless in their handling of fellow human beings, self-centred and grasping. The irony is, they are often considered normal and well-adjusted. It is my sincere contention that anyone who can be totally adjusted to our society is in greater need of psychiatric analysis and treatment than anyone else. They remind me of the character in the novel, Catch 22, the father of Major Major. He was a farmer in the American Mid-West. He hated suggestions for things like medi-care, social services, unemployment benefits or civil rights. He was, however, an enthusiast for the agricultural policies that paid farmers for not bringing their fields under cultivation. From the money he got for not growing alfalfa he bought more land in order not to grow alfalfa. He became rich. Pilgrims came from all over the state to sit at his feet and learn how to be a successful non-grower of alfalfa. His philosophy was simple. The poor didn't work hard enough and so they were poor. He believed that the good Lord gave him two strong hands to grab as much as he could for himself. He is a comic figure. But think – have you not met his like here in Britain? Here in Scotland? I have. 

It is easy and tempting to hate such people. However, it is wrong. They are as much products of society, and of a consequence of that society, human alienation, as the poor drop-out. They are losers. They have lost the essential elements of our common humanity. Man is a social being. Real fulfilment for any person lies in service to his fellow men and women. The big challenge to our civilisation is not Oz, a magazine I haven't seen, let alone read. Nor is it permissiveness, although I agree our society is too permissive. Any society which, for example, permits over one million people to be unemployed is far too permissive for my liking. Nor is it moral laxity in the narrow sense that this word is generally employed – although in a sense here we come nearer to the problem. It does involve morality, ethics, and our concept of human values. The challenge we face is that of rooting out anything and everything that distorts and devalues human relations. 

Let me give two examples from contemporary experience to illustrate the point. 

Recently on television I saw an advert. The scene is a banquet. A gentleman is on his feet proposing a toast. His speech is full of phrases like "this full-bodied specimen". Sitting beside him is a young, buxom woman. The image she projects is not pompous but foolish. She is visibly preening herself, believing that she is the object of the bloke's eulogy. Then he concludes – "and now I give...", then a brand name of what used to be described as Empire sherry. Then the laughter. Derisive and cruel laughter. The real point, of course, is this. In this charade, the viewers were obviously expected to identify not with the victim but with her tormentors. 

The other illustration is the widespread, implicit acceptance of the concept and term "the rat race". The picture it conjures up is one where we are scurrying around scrambling for position, trampling on others, back-stabbing, all in pursuit of personal success. Even genuinely intended, friendly advice can sometimes take the form of someone saying to you, "Listen, you look after number one." Or as they say in London, "Bang the bell, Jack, I'm on the bus." 

To the students [of Glasgow University] I address this appeal. Reject these attitudes. Reject the values and false morality that underlie these attitudes. A rat race is for rats. We're not rats. We're human beings. Reject the insidious pressures in society that would blunt your critical faculties to all that is happening around you, that would caution silence in the face of injustice lest you jeopardise your chances of promotion and self-advancement. This is how it starts, and before you know where you are, you're a fully paid-up member of the rat-pack. The price is too high. It entails the loss of your dignity and human spirit. Or as Christ put it, "What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?" 

Profit is the sole criterion used by the establishment to evaluate economic activity. From the rat race to lame ducks. The vocabulary in vogue is a give-away. It's more reminiscent of a human menagerie than human society. The power structures that have inevitably emerged from this approach threaten and undermine our hard-won democratic rights. The whole process is towards the centralisation and concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands. The facts are there for all who want to see. Giant monopoly companies and consortia dominate almost every branch of our economy. The men who wield effective control within these giants exercise a power over their fellow men which is frightening and is a negation of democracy. 

Government by the people for the people becomes meaningless unless it includes major economic decision-making by the people for the people. This is not simply an economic matter. In essence it is an ethical and moral question, for whoever takes the important economic decisions in society ipso facto determines the social priorities of that society. 

From the Olympian heights of an executive suite, in an atmosphere where your success is judged by the extent to which you can maximise profits, the overwhelming tendency must be to see people as units of production, as indices in your accountants' books. To appreciate fully the inhumanity of this situation, you have to see the hurt and despair in the eyes of a man suddenly told he is redundant, without provision made for suitable alternative employment, with the prospect in the West of Scotland, if he is in his late forties or fifties, of spending the rest of his life in the Labour Exchange. Someone, somewhere has decided he is unwanted, unneeded, and is to be thrown on the industrial scrap heap. From the very depth of my being, I challenge the right of any man or any group of men, in business or in government, to tell a fellow human being that he or she is expendable. 

The concentration of power in the economic field is matched by the centralisation of decision-making in the political institutions of society. The power of Parliament has undoubtedly been eroded over past decades, with more and more authority being invested in the Executive. The power of local authorities has been and is being systematically undermined. The only justification I can see for local government is as a counter- balance to the centralised character of national government. 

Local government is to be restructured. What an opportunity, one would think, for de-centralising as much power as possible back to the local communities. Instead, the proposals are for centralising local government. It's once again a blue-print for bureaucracy, not democracy. If these proposals are implemented, in a few years when asked "Where do you come from?" I can reply: "The Western Region." It even sounds like a hospital board. 

It stretches from Oban to Girvan and eastwards to include most of the Glasgow conurbation. As in other matters, I must ask the politicians who favour these proposals – where and how in your calculations did you quantify the value of a community? Of community life? Of a sense of belonging? Of the feeling of identification? These are rhetorical questions. I know the answer. Such human considerations do not feature in their thought processes. 

Everything that is proposed from the establishment seems almost calculated to minimise the role of the people, to miniaturise man. I can understand how attractive this prospect must be to those at the top. Those of us who refuse to be pawns in their power game can be picked up by their bureaucratic tweezers and dropped in a filing cabinet under "M" for malcontent or maladjusted. When you think of some of the high flats around us, it can hardly be an accident that they are as near as one could get to an architectural representation of a filing cabinet. 

If modern technology requires greater and larger productive units, let's make our wealth-producing resources and potential subject to public control and to social accountability. Let's gear our society to social need, not personal greed. Given such creative re-orientation of society, there is no doubt in my mind that in a few years we could eradicate in our country the scourge of poverty, the underprivileged, slums, and insecurity. 

Even this is not enough. To measure social progress purely by material advance is not enough. Our aim must be the enrichment of the whole quality of life. It requires a social and cultural, or if you wish, a spiritual transformation of our country. A necessary part of this must be the restructuring of the institutions of government and, where necessary, the evolution of additional structures so as to involve the people in the decision-making processes of our society. The so-called experts will tell you that this would be cumbersome or marginally inefficient. I am prepared to sacrifice a margin of efficiency for the value of the people's participation. Anyway, in the longer term, I reject this argument. 

To unleash the latent potential of our people requires that we give them responsibility. The untapped resources of the North Sea are as nothing compared to the untapped resources of our people. I am convinced that the great mass of our people go through life without even a glimmer of what they could have contributed to their fellow human beings. This is a personal tragedy. It's a social crime. The flowering of each individual's personality and talents is the pre-condition for everyone's development. 

In this context education has a vital role to play. If automation and technology is accompanied as it must be with a full employment, then the leisure time available to man will be enormously increased. If that is so, then our whole concept of education must change. The whole object must be to equip and educate people for life, not solely for work or a profession. The creative use of leisure, in communion with and in service to our fellow human beings, can and must become an important element in self-fulfilment. 

Universities must be in the forefront of development, must meet social needs and not lag behind them. It is my earnest desire that this great University of Glasgow should be in the vanguard, initiating changes and setting the example for others to follow. Part of our educational process must be the involvement of all sections of the university on the governing bodies. The case for student representation is unanswerable. It is inevitable. 

My conclusion is to re-affirm what I hope and certainly intend to be the spirit permeating this address. It's an affirmation of faith in humanity. All that is good in man's heritage involves recognition of our common humanity, an unashamed acknowledgement that man is good by nature. Burns expressed it in a poem that technically was not his best, yet captured the spirit. In "Why should we idly waste our prime...": 

"The golden age, we'll then revive, each man shall be a brother, 

In harmony we all shall live and till the earth together, 

In virtue trained, enlightened youth shall move each fellow creature, 

And time shall surely prove the truth that man is good by nature." 

It's my belief that all the factors to make a practical reality of such a world are maturing now. I would like to think that our generation took mankind some way along the road towards this goal. It's a goal worth fighting for. 

John Keracher and the Proletarian Party

 Founding member of the World Socialist Party of the United States, the late I. Rab, wrote this appraisal of John Keracher of the Proletarian Party of America,  a relatively unknown Scottish socialist.

Our differences with Keracher was whether parliament or soviets offered the best strategy for socialism. His major works can be archived at Marxists.org . 

About John Keracher

John Keracher was born in Scotland in 1880. He spent the early years of his adulthood in England, where he was exposed to the ideas of the Social Democratic Federation. Thus, his entry into the Detroit Local of the Socialist Parry of America in 1910, soon after his arrival in the United States in 1909, was a natural outgrowrh of his background.

As a human being, Keracher was full of lively wit and good nature; his calm manner went unruffled by obstreperous opponents, critics; and hecklers. I can readily attest from personal experience that to those seeking personal advice or enlightenment on socialism, he was like an oasis in the desert, a quenching cactus. He was uncompromising in his principles but refrained from ad hominem attacks, and confined himself to the issues as he saw them. He relied on the logic of his arguments to counter critics.

Throughout both periods of his career, as identified later, Keracher always retained the same admirable qualities - both with me and with others, alike when we agreed and when we disagreed. In addition, he was an outstanding organizer, lecturer, and writer; and one always willing to do his share of the "Jimmy Higgins" tasks.

This introduction to the 2nd edition of How the Gods Were Made describes his valuable participation in the American socialist movement until his death in Los Angeles in 1958.

Socialism and Religion

It is significant and encouraging that the demand for Keracher’s pamphlet How the Gods Were Made necessitates a new edition. Its great merit lies in its presentation, in clear and understandable language, of the evolution of the idea of God in its basic essentials as well as of its role in modern society.

For years there has raged a continuing controversy between two schools of socialist thought on the significance of religion. One school would avoid any discussion of religion as though it were a plague, insisting that religion is a private matter for every individual to decide for himself. It holds that any other view only antagonizes prospective socialists and keeps them from joining the socialist movement. The other school maintains that religion is a matter of social import, both practically and theoretically.

In How the Gods Were Made, Keracher demonstrates that religious beliefs, in any of their forms, are incompatible with an understanding of socialism, both as a science and as a movement.

The apologists for outworn religious superstitions emphasize that religion is, primarily, concerned with moral and ethical principles. But, despite these nebulous explanations, it cannot be denied that the essence of all religions is the service and worship of God or the supernatural. Actually, man made God in his own image, in spite of the contention of religionists that the reverse is the case. No longer can religion be justified on its own terms.

It is true that there are many gaps in our knowledge, but whenever we get answers they always prove to be physical, material ones. 

This applies to the social sciences, including morals and ethics, as well as all other branches of science. Science has made tremendous advances in the last hundred years. It might be said that as our knowledge and understanding have advanced, religion has retreated.

The growth during the ’60s and the ’70s of mysticism, new religions, "Jesus Freaks," etc. only reflects the sad plight of living in capitalist society and the resultant search for happiness by psychological adjustments to the immediate environment.

Keracher shows how religion diverts workers from realizing their primary class interest: to get rid of the wage-slavery of capitalism, and to inaugurate socialism, which is practical and necessary here and now. Quite relevant is the old ’Wobbly’ song:
"You will eat bye and bye, In that glorious land in the sky. Work and pray, live on hay, You’ll get pie in the sky when you die."

Socialists do not go out of their way to attack and kill gods. They are not professional Atheists but rather, atheists in the scientific sense. At one time in history, because of man’s lack of knowledge, religious explanations of natural phenomena were the only possible ones. Today, the Materialist Conception of History together with modern science points up the fallacies of religion, as Keracher amply demonstrates.

How did Keracher become involved with the necessity of exposing the dangerous illusions of religion? The answer is best found in his own introduction to this pamphlet. More generally, the following background describes the nature of his long political activity.

The WSP and Keracher

Detroit became a boom town from the years 1910 to 1918. Because of the growing automobile and other industries, it attracted hosts of workers seeking "good-paying" jobs. An added stimulus was the advent of World War 1, with its cost-plus government contracts for heavy and light military supplies. Among the influx of workers to Detroit were Canadian socialists from across the border, who had been active in carrying on socialist work. They were soon followed by Canadian and British "slackers" running away from British conscription.

Contemporaneously, the Detroit Local, SPA, was involved in a bitter internal controversy between the large majority of "socialist" reformers and the small minority of socialist revolutionists opposing the principles and policies of the Michigan Socialist Party. Most conspicuous in this dispute was Comrade Keracher on the side of the Socialist Revolutionists.

Two other factors existed at this time: the publication by the Kerr Cooperative Publishers of (a) their International Socialist Review with its many Marxist articles and (b) the Marxian classics and other pamphlets. They served a useful purpose in stimulating the reading of meaningful socialist literature. Subsequently, when the Proletarian Party purchased the Kerr Company for the purpose of perpetuating the supply of socialist literature, Keracher, in turn, made an excellent administrator and a valuable contributor.

The combination of these circumstances led to the establishment of a noteworthy Marxian study class in Duffield Hall a highlight of the period. Comrades Moses Baritz and Adolph Kohn of the Socialist Party of Great Britain were the instructors, with Keracher paying a leading role in this class by enlarging it to include debates and lectures. The class proved invaluable in spreading an understanding of Marxian science and the validity of the principles of the SPGB.

In July 1916, 43 members of the study class, including 19 members of Local Detroit, SPA, of whom this writer was one, decided it was time to organize a genuine socialist party in the United States along the lines of the SPGB. The Workers’ Socialist Party of the United States resulted. Worthy of note is that Keracher defended the members of the new party who were being heatedly criticized for resigning by members of the Detroit Local, SPA.

By this time, Keracher had become state secretary of the Socialist Party of Michigan. He was deeply involved in advocating that the next state convention of that party supplant reforms to patch up capitalism with a plank for revolutionary socialism. He also urged that the Party’s position on religion be changed from being considered as a private matter to one of social concern. He and his supporters were successful in changing the constitution of the Socialist Party of Michigan to conform with basic socialist objectives. At the time, this was a bombshell!

Under these circumstances, it was understandable that he was unable to participate in the organization of The Workers’ Socialist Party. Whilst recognizing the need for a new genuine socialist party, he was unable to join it. Instead, conditions being what they were, he, together with the socialists remaining in the SPA in Michigan, organized an educational group within the Party to disseminate socialist ideas. Thus was born the Proletarian University, soon followed (in May, 1918) by its publication The Proletarian, which was in harmony with SPGB principles.

In the columns of The Proletarian could be found articles by Kohn (signed John O’London) and one by this writer titled "Letter to a Wage Slave." In addition The Proletarian published an official statement by the National Secretary of the Workers’ Socialist Party, Lawrence Beardsley, with its endorsement. At that time, the Workers’ Socialist Party was not in a position to have its own journal.

Keracher’s Politics

There were two Kerachers - the pre-Russian Revolution one and the post-Russian Revolution one. Beyond question, the pre-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Marxist. This cannot be said unqualifiedly of his post-Russian Revolution position.

On November 7,1917, came the startling news of the Russian Revolution. Distinct from the earlier Kerensky Revolution, it spoke the language of Marxism. It issued proclamations, the most stirring being the Appeal to socialists in Germany and elsewhere: "We have seized power in our country, take power in yours and come to our aid." It aroused emotional fervor and inspired the hope for international solidarity for the socialist revolution! However, despite the previous pledges of the Second International that, in the case of war, comrades on opposite sides would not fire on each other, but would shake hands across the lines with the greeting, COMRADE! — events proved that the professed "comrades" were patriotic nationalists, not socialists.

Had a genuine socialist movement been predominant in Europe, there might have been a different story to tell. In the absence of a socialist majority, a socialist revolution was impossible, both in Russia and the rest of the world. Certainly the material conditions in Russia were not ripe for socialism in 1917. Lenin himself put it very well: "Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us. If we were able to bring about in Russia State Capitalism, it would be a victory for us." (The Chief Task of Our Times).

Arising from Lenin’s emphasis on the importance of establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat during the transition period capitalism and communism which Lenin called "socialism," the Proletarian University became enthused with this doctrine and joined in the efforts to organize a communist party in the United States in support of the Bolshevik regime.

In contrast, the SPGB and its companion parties maintained that the material conditions in the highly developed capitalism of 1917 were ripe for socialism, except for the lack of socialists. Further, they contended that "socialism" and "communism" are synonymous.

Shortly after the Third International was organized on March 4, 1919, a referendum was initiated in the Socialist Party of America by the supporters of Soviet Russia calling for quitting the Second International and joining the Third International. This referendum was sponsored by three groups: the Left-Wing group, the Foreign Language Federation, and the Michigan group. The referendum was carried by a majority of ten to one. However, the Executive Committee of the SPA vetoed the referendum on the grounds that the result was "fraudulent."

According to Theodore Draper in his Roots of American Communism, soon after the veto of the referendum, "in April 1919 a call was issued for a national conference of the three groups to formulate a national declaration of principles and to conquer the Socialist Party of America for revolutionary socialism."

On May 24, 1919 the charter of the SPA-Michigan was the first to be revoked on the grounds that it had "amended its constitution to repudiate legislative reforms." In short order, both the Foreign Language Federation and the Left-Wing were expelled.

In the ensuing meetings of the three groups, differences between them made it difficult to organize a communist party to represent America in the Third International. The Michigan group could not fit in with any other group but was tolerated on a technicality. To its credit, it had refused to accept any office or to affirm any responsibility for the programs that were adopted. It was finally settled by orders from the Third International in Moscow, to the exclusion of these factions as groups, who should constitute the Communist Party in the United States.

In January 1920, the central committee of the Communist Party ordered that the Proletarian University become a party institution under its supervision. The Michigan group refused to accept this decision and chose to leave the Communist Party for good. In June 1920, the Proletarian Party was organized by Keracher and his comrades. Draper describes it as a "small, self-satisfied sect." Obviously he was no sympathizer of either the new Proletarian Party or of the SPGB and its companion parties. However, the factual accounts in his Roots of American Communism are historically accurate.

The post-Russian Revolution Keracher was a Leninist-Marxist, caught in the dilemma of two "socialisms" - Marxian socialism as a system of society, and Leninist "socialism" as a transitional dictatorship of the proletariat. Yet, when the chips were down, Keracher’s Marxist background interfered with any blind conformity to Soviet dogma.

The reader of How the Gods Were Made may be inspired to read other Keracher pamphlets, as well as other socialist literature. As of September 1, 1974, the Kerr Publishing Company has produced altogether eight Keracher pamphlets, of which three are now out of print. It is hoped that one of them, Economics for Beginners, may be reprinted in the near future. The three Keracher pamphlets now in supply are: The Head-Fixing Industry, Frederick Engles, and Crime, Its Causes and Consequences.

It is impossible to present fully the various facets of the socialist case in these necessarily brief pamphlets. They serve the important function of introducing the reader to socialist thought and encouraging further study in the classics.

Keracher was not only an organizer and propagandist for socialism, he was a pamphleteer in the tradition of Tom Paine. His clarion call to the working class was to get rid of the bedlam of outworn capitalism and to replace it with the sanity of socialism. His pamphlets attempt to disseminate socialist knowledge and understanding essential ingredients of the socialist revolution.

What Did You Get From The War?

 An article on the April issue of Readers Digest asks, ''Why Are Military Families On Food Stamps?'' Data from a 2017 annual Census Bureau survey shows that 16,000 active duty service members received food stamps that year. That number does not include the thousands of military families in the U.S. who are not eligible for food stamps because they make to much money to qualify yet rely on charities or loans from relatives to get by. A survey from Blue Star Families, a miltary-spouse support group, says 13 per cent of military families have trouble making ends meet. Obviously fighting for the interests of the capitalist class doesn't pay much. This writer lived in the U.K. in the fifties and frequently heard from those who fought in WW2 that all they got at the demob. centers were a suit, 10 pounds and a handshake. Some even returned their medals to the War Office. So much for the gratitude of the capitalist class, not that any display of gratitude would justify fighting to secure them markets and raw materials.
S.P.C.Members.

Everyone Is Screwed By Capitalism.

At a time of great wealth disparities, more than twice as many young Americans are saying that the existence of billionaires is bad for society as those who say it’s good. According to the Pew Research Center, 39 per cent of those younger than 30 say its bad, 16 per cent say its good and 45 per cent are indifferent. Many believe the rich have amassed their wealth through tax fraud and political bribery and through lobbying for policies which benefit them. This is refreshing to hear because it shows that less people buy into capitalist bullshit that the rich deserve their wealth because they worked hard and, ''Had what it takes''. The wealth disparities may not last much longer now the Plague, caused by the effects of capitalism, is wiping out investments. Whether one is a capitalist or worker, one is inevitability screwed by capitalism.
S.P.C. Members.

Political Islam: dead end for oppressed people

 In light of the many atrocities committed in the name of Allah this article from the archives of Discussion Bulletin by Karl Carlile of the Communist Global Group may be of use in explaining it a little bit of the cause. 

Islamists, have benefited for years from American largesse via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia when they fought against the USSR in Afghanistan. Moreover, the alliance between the USA and political Islam is a very old story whose origins go back to agreements reached between ultra-reactionary and racist wahhabite monarchy from Saudia Arabia and American oil companies. This alliance, very useful in the fight against pro-Russian Arab regimes and for keeping a vigilant watch over the area's oil fields, has never been recinded. For years, western leaders have found nothing to say against the Sheiks of the Saudi Arabia and their oppressive regime was never denounced. The American state cannot then plead not guilty.     The world's foremost military and economic power,  has played the part of sheriff only for its own interests and without paying any attention to the needs of local populations, who have paid for many decades the price of a regional order which has to guarantee capital accumulation forever on a world scale.

This situation contributed to the radicalization of certain parts of the Middle East mid Central Asian populations and took the form of a dissent more and more borrowing its weapons from Islamic ideology. The story is that this utterly backwards ideology - expression of the failure of the ruling classes of these areas to create the economic and social conditions for modem capitalism - far from supplying a well-fitted frame to the justified revolt of the oppressed people, traps them in an outdated fight, whose true goal is to subordinate the more mid more oppressed "faithful" to the whole of the "Muslim" ruling classes. What is there in common between the young unemployed in Gaza or Algiers and the billionaires from the Gulf or ruling classes from the area's states, except religious belonging? Obviously nothing. Islam is used here only to create a fake community between "Muslim" oppressors and oppressed which the area's proletariat never cease to pay for. Political Islamism, as a substitute for the class struggle, has also been chosen by minority fractions of inimigrant youth in Europe (France and Belgium particulary). Here, resentment has been fed by mass unemployment and racism and has been made use of by some religious groups. The real revolt has then been trapped in the reactionary ghetto of Islam, of the oumma (Faithfull community), which has contributed, along with the surrounding racism, to isolate these rebellious people from working class people of European extraction. In the end this plays the game of all those, from governments to bosses, who have an interest in dividing exploited people.

Many Muslims have been declaring that all Muslims must obey the declaration of a holy. This view that emanates from many Muslims flies in the face of the facts. Muslims have over the years violently attacked each other.

 In any anti-war movement we cannot take either the side.

 Muslim fundamentalism, and Islam in general, is a sectarian religious ideology and even political philosophy and practice. It essentially promotes the class interests of imperialism. Muslim and Christian fundamentalism are particularly sectarian. Muslim fundamentalism has been effectively promoting polarization between Eastern and Western workers at a time when the globalisation of the working class into a unified political reality is an urgent necessity. While attacking racism it sustains racism a multiplicity of ways because it is inherently racist.

  Muslim fundamentalism is contradictory. While actively sustained by imperialism it at the same time attacks imperialism its very source of nourishment. In many ways Muslim fundamentalism is similar to Stalinism. Stalinism is a counter revolutionary force that prevents the existence of communism. Consequently it serves imperialism's interests. Yet to maintain its unique role as a counter revolutionary form it has acted, at the same time, in a way that obstructs imperialism. This generates conflict between the two forces. The Cold War was just such a conflict.

 Muslim fundamentalism is a religious and political ideology and practice that is petty bourgeois. It serves the class interests of small capital. It is this that makes it reactionary. However the very fact that it serves the interests of small capital in the context of increasing capitalist globalisation is what lends it its acutely anachronistic image in the eyes of the Western working class. However it is its specific class character that gives it its appeal to the masses that exist outside of western capitalist society. Its representation of the interests of small capital means that it expresses a hostility to big capital. And what bigger capital than US imperialist capital -- the Great Satan. It is this hostility by small capital against big capital that gives its anti-imperialist appearance. It is this anti-imperialist appearance that lends its anti-oppressive appearance. Consequently the Muslim masses identify with it. 

Despite its anti-imperialist appearance it ultimately serves imperialism class interests --essentially it cannot exist independently of global capitalism. Muslim fundamentalism is a politics of the image. This is why it presents itself as pageantry -- religious rhetoric, images, long beards etc. This form of politics assumes a religious form because it is a politics of appearance.And what more suitable a form for such a contradictory politics than its disguising itself in religious -- the class image system.

Islamic fundamentalism's reactionary character does not necessarily mean that it is a force with a programme that makes no sense. It may be that Islamic fundamentalism as much as imperialism sees the strategic and economic global importance of Central Asia and the Middle East. This may be partly why these two regions are central to its actions. As with imperialism it too is seeking to maximise its influence and even control of these regions. Control of these regions will place Islamic fundamentalism in a vastly greater strategic position in its struggle with imperialism. Its commercial power will correspondingly increase because of its being the source of rich oil reserves. Its colonisation of these strategic regions means that it is well positioned to further deepen and broaden its ideological and geopolitical influence.

 To artificially collapse Islamic fundamentalism into a naive extremist medieval politics that can never really get anywhere is a little naive. Islamic fundamentalism may be perceived by the Western masses as extremist and even insane. To limit perception to the level of appearances is to miss the real point.    It is to ignore the fact that Islamic fundamentalism is anti-imperialist. It is anti-imperialist in the sense that it struggles to establish an economic and political space in which Islamic indigenous capital can develop --a pan Islamic state from the Caucasus to Arabia. Because of the strength of contemporary imperialism it is no longer possible to achieve an independent capitalist class within national boundaries Islamic fundamentalism struggle to promote a capitalist class that exists independently of imperialism from a regional platform as opposed to the context of the nation state. Islamic fundamentalism is not anti-capitalist. But it is anti-imperialist. It represents the class interests of non-imperialist capitalism. Islamic capitalism exists in an atrophied form. Being capital it strives to enlarge itself and break free from the stranglehold of imperialist capital. Given that US imperialism is the leading imperialist power it concentrates it fire on it. Its strategy is designed to split the other imperialist powers from US imperialims as a means of weakening imperialism and thereby defeating it. The Islamic bourgeoisie struggles to emancipate itself from imperialism by setting up the regional political conditions that facilitates its efforts to establish its independence. Because imperialism is so globally powerful and Islamic capitalism so relatively powerless it must resort to the most radical means to establish conditions that facilitate its independent economic development vis a vis imperialist capitalism. Because of the relative strength of the Islamic working class it is forced to cloak its bourgeois aims in the form of religion. This is the basis for the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism as a prominent force in Asia.

          Because of the strength of imperialism and the weakness of Islamic capitalism it is prepared to engage in extreme actions such as suicide bombings of one sort or another.  Because of the potential strength of the Asian working class and the relative weakness of the Islamic bourgeoisie it cannot seriously mobilise the working class without the danger of its own property interests being challenged. Consequently it is prepared to engage in extreme terror to promote its class interests while the working class is reduced to the role of passive audience that watches the stage show unfolding. Islamic capitalism ideologically assumes the form of Islamic fundamentalism. Islamic capitalism constitutes a brand of Islam so restrictive as to ensure that the threat from imperialist capital and the organised working class is ideologically precluded while its very fundamentalist nature is so strong as to ensure that the cohesive unity of its supporters is maintained in the face of overwhelming odds. It is also a religious ideology that transcends, by its nature, the bounds of the colonialist artificially imposed nation states to proclaim a pan-Islamic state. Islamic fundamentalism's anti-imperialism is not congenitally anti-imperialist. Only the working class can display an authentic anti-imperialism. Consequently Islamic fundamentalism while ostensibly anti-imperialist is ultimately pro-imperialist. This is its problem -- its contradiction.