Holes – Particular and General

Uncategorised No Comments


‘ Evan was a cripple who looked after holes, or perhaps it would be truer to say he protected the public from holes. Before the war be had been a “digger of holes,” but having lost a leg in a hole on the Normandy beach, the local council had taken him back as a “hole minder.” During 25 years employment he had become thoroughly conversant with holes of various dimensions and purposes.



There had been occasions during a particularly lean period (due to Government economy) when there were no holes to hand out and Evan, divorced from a job, would complain bitterly. On such occasions be would say—when the Government was in a hole they pinched his. Of course, if he had given the matter more thought he would have realised that in work or out of it, holes and himself were inseparably bound together.




Like most specialists, Evan was an authority on the particular rather than the general. Taking any given hole, he could analyse it from a number of standpoints; its shape, cost, suitability, etc., etc., and more important than all, how long it was likely to remain (the “ life ” of a hole was especially important as his job depended on it). What he failed to see was the unending vista of “ holes ” with which society was riddled, each filled with countless millions of his class striving to clamber out of them. Evan was a strictly “practical” man not given to theorising and only concerned with the “ immediate hole.”


Having told you something of Evan’s difficulties, perhaps it would be advantageous to consider the question of “ holes ” more closely. The term “ hole ” is, of course, widely used in popular parlance to describe “ a condition of things,” so that when people talk of being “ in a hole ” we know what they mean.


The trouble is, that usually, they don’t know that the particular “hole” they have in mind is circumscribed by a much wider and deeper “ hole “—Capitalist Society, and that however much they strive, the workers never succeed in getting out of a “hole ” permanently.


Holes, big and small, that exist everywhere in Capitalist Society, are called by Economists, Government officials, and such like “experts,” “Crises” and no sooner is one filled in than another is created. Sometimes, despite the waste and time involved, crises do afford a short lived measure of sustenance for some but invariably it is at the expense of others. Eventually a “hole” comes along into which thousands tumble with wide spread ruin and loss of life such as when Capitalism goes to war.


And so we say, study the “hole” you are in together with the rest of society of which you are a part, get to understand the nature of “holes,” “crises.” and other impedimenta of Capitalism that frustrate, keeps you poor, and occasionally demands your life and limb. Having understood, take steps to fill them in. The tool for the job is waiting, it is labelled “Socialism.”’
W. Brain

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2023/09/holesparticular-and-general-1956.html



Socialist Sonnet No. 151

Uncategorised No Comments

What Choice to Be Had?

 

Conservatives are the honest party

As it’s not their intention to deceive,

But make a virtue from what they believe:

Capitalism’s the best that can be.

Labour, meanwhile, has carefully nursed

A leftish image when it arranges

Sops and reforms, although little changes,

That can be quickly and easily reversed.

Neither will hinder private wealth taking,

While pursuing general prosperity

Via perpetual austerity

For all those who must work at wealth making.

Whichever party might suffer defeat,

The choice will be between con or de ceit.

 

D. A.

Massacre in Peking 4 June 1989

Uncategorised No Comments

 

‘In the early hours of 4 June, soldiers of the Chinese army moved against the demonstrators who had been encamped since the end of April in Tiananmen Square in the centre of Peking. It had been widely expected that there would be a final confrontation between government forces and the students and others who had repulsed previous army attempts to uproot them. But few had anticipated that the army’s action would be so brutal, with tanks and flamethrowers being used on unarmed civilians. Onlookers were cut down indiscriminately with those who attempted to resist. Thousands perished; nobody will ever know how many, as charred and disfigured corpses were hurriedly disposed of and hospitals were overwhelmed by the injured and dying. In the annals of capitalist bloodletting, this day in Peking will hold a place of its own.


The events had begun peaceably enough with marches in commemoration of the former Party Secretary Hu Yaobang. a supposed “liberal”. They gradually grew, with more and more students boycotting classes, till there were demonstrations in many cities on 4 May, ‘the anniversary of the day in 1919 when students demonstrated against the dispositions of the Versailles Peace Conference, a date usually seen as the beginning of Chinese nationalism. Hu’s successor Zhao Ziyang expressed sympathy with the student’s demands for an end to corruption and for greater democracy (an aim never given much clearer formulation). “Hard-liners” in the government, such as Prime Minister Li Peng, insisted that just a handful of disruptive elements were stirring things up. This was exposed as nonsense when on 17 May over a million people marched through Peking. Li’s faction declared martial law (which had never been done in Peking before), but the first army units sent on to the streets of the capital were unwilling or unable to enforce it fully, as workers set up roadblocks and dissuaded soldiers from attacking them. Public transport virtually ceased, and many shops were closed. The power struggle within the ruling echelons of party and state seemed at first to favour Zhao, but he was apparently placed under house arrest as the hard-liners, led by Li and the power behind the throne Deng Xiaoping, seized the upper hand. Troops from outside Peking were drafted in, as the preparations for the final putsch were made. And the fateful day of 4 June arrived.


Government leaders kept studiously quiet just before and after the massacre; there were rumours that Deng was seriously ill. It looked as if a group of geriatric rulers had determined to preserve their own power at all costs, with little thought to the slaughter that would ensue, the prospect of a country in chaos, the watching TV cameras and the effect of China’s “open door” policy towards overseas investment. This was somehow different even from Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, for it involved Chinese troops killing Chinese workers. Even when Peking was captured by “Communist” armies in 1949, there was no shooting on the streets of the capital. Now the “People’s Liberation Army” was slaughtering those it was ostensibly supposed to protect.


State Capitalist Ruling Class
Not that such armed repression is anything new even in the recent history of China. The savage military attacks in Tibet are only the most blatant example of the government’s willingness to use violence to maintain its position. Many participants in earlier movements for “greater democracy” from the late seventies and early eighties are in prison or labour camp. The death penalty exists for a wide range of acts and is frequently applied. Nevertheless, the scale of the Tiananmen carnage has ensured that it will have an unprecedented impact on Chinese workers.


These workers have seen so many of the rulers getting rich quick as market oriented reforms open the way to corruption and black-market dealing. Only the bureaucrats have the opportunity to buy large quantities of goods at subsidised prices and sell them at massive profits on the open market. At the same time, the new economic arrangements have increased the sense of insecurity felt by so many. Yet, apart from the pervasive opposition to official corruption, there is no sign that the protestors were making economic demands. The call for a free press and other “rights” provided for in the constitution were the central issues for which workers fought with such dignity and heroism.


What crimes are committed in the name of liberty, exclaimed Madame Roland when on the way to be guillotined in the French Revolution. Even more horrendous are the crimes committed in the name of Socialism. The butchery in Peking is only the latest in a long series of acts of violence and brute force by state capitalist ruling classes against workers who dare to take the first tentative steps of resistance. Capitalism usually does not need to use such naked brutality to keep workers in their place, though is of course prepared to do so when necessary. But it is the courageous victims who will be remembered, not their vicious and barbaric murderers.’
Paul Bennett


From the Socialist Standard, July 1989


Which Electoral Strategy for Socialists?

Uncategorised No Comments

 The following is from the Socialist Standard, June 2024

‘The Socialist Party stood two candidates in the elections to the Greater London Assembly held on 2 May, the same day that the mayor of London was elected. We stood in the constituencies of Barnet & Camden and Lambeth & Southwark. The total electorate of these four London boroughs was 860,000, which meant that those who voted (about 340,000 did) would have seen our name and emblem on the ballot paper. Members and sympathisers distributed some 15,000 leaflets — not enough, but the bulletin sent to all 6 million electors in London stated that we were standing even though not what we were standing for.

The results were:

Barnet & Camden: Lab 70,749. Con 51,606. Green 18,405. LibDem 12,335. Reform UK 7,703. Socialist 1,639.

Lambeth & Southwark: Lab 84,768. Green 35,144. LibDem 22,030. Con 21,121. Reform UK 8,942. Socialist 2,082.

The Weekly Worker (9 May), commenting on the results, noted:

‘The London Assembly is elected by a complex combination of a party list system plus constituency candidates. The Morning Star’s Communist Party of Britain stood in the party list element, while candidates from the Socialist Party of Great Britain and TUSC stood in constituencies. (…) The CPB ranked 13th at 0.4% (10,915 votes) – an improvement on last time, when it obtained 0.3%. (…) On the left, the two SPGB candidates both came in last, with just one percent of the vote. Among the TUSC candidates, in City and East Lois Austin came in 7th (after an independent) with 4,710 (2%); April Jacqueline Ashley in Croydon and Sutton was 6th with 2,766 (0.7%); Andy Walker in Havering & Redbridge was 7th with 2,145 (1.3%); and Nancy Taaffe in North East was 6th with 5,595 (2.7%). These results show TUSC polling in the same range as the SPGB, though ahead of the CPB’.

In other words, TUSC (‘Trade Union and Socialist Alliance’), appealing to trade-union-conscious workers with a programme of attractive-sounding reforms (what used to be called ‘the minimum programme’), polled more or less the same as us standing on a straight platform of socialism — the common ownership and democratic control of the means of living with production directly to meet people’s needs, not profit —and nothing but (what used to be called ‘the maximum programme’).

These different election stances reflected the different approaches of us and them. TUSC is essentially a front organisation for one of the fragments of the old Militant Tendency that calls itself ‘Socialist Party of England and Wales’, or SPEW. As Leninists they consider that workers are capable only of acquiring a trade union consciousness (which on Lenin’s definition includes support for legislative and administrative measures to try to improve the lot of workers under capitalism). So, when they contest elections they see no point in advocating socialism as that would be to cast pearls before swine and so only propose reforms within capitalism. Even when they do talk of socialism they mean nationalisation (state capitalism).

We, on the other hand, argue that workers can understand socialism — can acquire a socialist consciousness, if you want to put it that way — in fact must as a condition for socialism being established. No vanguard can establish socialism on behalf of workers; it is something they must do for themselves. Socialism can only be established when and if a majority want and understand it. So, when we contest elections, we don’t offer to lead or do anything for workers; we put before them the straight case for socialism to, at this stage, as we put it in our election leaflet, allow them to ‘send a message to your neighbours and colleagues that you want a world of common ownership and democratic control’.

We know perfectly well how few workers currently want socialism and were standing to publicise further the case for replacing capitalism with socialism as the only lasting solution to the problems capitalism throws up for wage and salary workers and their dependents.

What the TUSC vote shows is that there would be no point in us combining advocating socialism with advocating reforms, as some have urged. This would not make any difference to the number of votes a socialist candidate would get. But it would confuse the issue by encouraging people to continue to think in terms of getting a better deal under capitalism rather than to get rid of it, to try to mend rather than end capitalism. Not that appealing just to trade-union consciousness got SPEW very far. Workers who want reforms evidently prefer to vote for reformist parties they consider to have a chance of being able to implement some. Meanwhile we will stick to advocating socialism and nothing but.’

Thought for food

Uncategorised No Comments

 

You’ve heard of ‘climate justice’ but what about ‘epistemic justice’? This is the idea put forward by international food experts that knowledge should be democratised so that global food systems can incorporate ‘traditional, Indigenous, and place-based knowledges into decision-making processes to address blind spots in current food system policies and actions’.

Nothing wrong with this proposal, except that it won’t work. Capitalist production is a secretive, competitive affair pursued only for profit. It’s not interested in being open, collaborative, democratic or even in feeding people. Its decision-making processes are a private matter. Its blind spots prefer to remain blind.

What else would you expect in a chaotic rollercoaster of boom & slump market fluctuations? 

Ditch capitalism first, then let’s talk.

https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/



Socialist Sonnet No. 150

Uncategorised No Comments

General Election

 

The prime minister’s been to the palace,

As the royal prerogative’s involved,

The monarch declared parliament dissolved.

And then there began the unseemly chase

For votes; promises made that can’t be kept

To enhance general prosperity,

While maintaining stringent austerity;

Just mark your cross and passively accept.

Even the best of intentions must fail,

Left, right or centre put on a good show,

But whoever wins most certainly knows

Capital’s priorities will prevail.

Then, when a new government’s been arranged,

Whether red, yellow or blue, nothing’s changed.

 

D. A.

Educating The Guardian about Socialism

Uncategorised No Comments

 

The Guardian, 29 May, posits the question, is Keir Starmer really a socialist?

The newspaper then gives an explanation, for readers who might not know. What socialism is. Cough.

‘Like many political philosophies, it means different things to different people. But broadly socialists believe all human beings are of equal worth and that society should be organised to reflect that. Fairness, equality, justice and the common good are the foundations of socialism. The wealth created by humans should be used to benefit everyone. Some socialists believe that key industries and sectors, such as utilities, transport and housing, should be owned by the state and run in the public interest rather than for private profit. Other socialists believe that all industries and sectors should be run this way.’

How did Socialism originate The Guardian asks?

‘It began as a reaction to capitalism, which really took off in the Industrial Revolution. People were concentrated into towns and cities to work long hours for low wages, often in dangerous conditions, in factories, mills, mines and other workplaces. The factory owners grew rich on the backs of the working class. Some people began to argue that the workers themselves should collectively own the factories and so on, either through workers’ co-operatives or through public/government ownership. Karl Marx was the most high-profile advocate of this.’

There are three phases of socialism. They are interrelated and interdependent and part of an unfolding process.

(1) Socialism first appears on the scene ideologically. It arose out of the material conditions of the earlier portion of the 19th Century. This is the birth of socialist science. It is materialistic. It recognizes that everything in existence is interrelated and in a constant process of change. (In a very real sense, it might even be said that socialism is the science that integrates all branches of science into a correlated whole.) Specifically, it indicates the general outlines and the process of social evolution and, more particularly, the nature of capitalism. It explains how the seed of the forthcoming society is fertilized within the womb of an old society.

(2) Then, socialism arises as a movement. It is not alone sufficient to understand the world. the task is to change it. Its very raison d’etre is to exert all its efforts to arouse the working class and all others to become socialists so that the vast majority becomes conscious of its interests, and proceeds to institute socialism. The socialist revolution cannot be rammed down the throats of “followers.” The socialist revolution is majority, conscious and political. It is and can only be democratic by its very inherent nature. It is not a new ruling class come to power with a subject class having to submit.

(3) Finally, in the course of its evolution, capitalism has laid the groundwork for socialism, a classless, money-less, wage-less society. Socialism is “a society from which exploitation has been banished and in which the unfolding of each individual would be the condition for the freedom of all.”

The Socialist Standard, August 1954

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-rose-by-any-other-name-1954.html

Has Socialism been tried the newspaper asks? Put down your coffee before you read this. Wouldn’t want you to spit it out due to your uncontrollable laughter.

‘Yes. The Russian Revolution of 1917 heralded a communist regime that grew into the Soviet Union. Under Joseph Stalin it turned into a dictatorship that inflicted misery, hardship and death on millions of people. As well as in eastern Europe, socialism or communism has been tried in China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam and countries in Latin America and Africa. Few would say they have been a roaring success.’

• SOCIALISM HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED •

• WHEN IT IS TRIED IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED GLOBALLY •

• WORLD SOCIALISM CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT ABOUT DEMOCRATICALLY •

We begin with these three points because they are vital to any kind of an understanding of what we mean by socialism.

We reject the idea that socialism has been tried in countries sometimes referred to as socialist. These countries were based upon state capitalism. Look below at our definition of socialism and ask yourself if this in any way describes the police states of modern China and Cuba or the old regimes in Russia and eastern Europe.

We reject the idea of socialism in one country. National socialism equals non-socialism. The capitalist system is global and so must the system which will replace it.

We reject the idea that people can be led into socialism. Socialism will not be established by good leaders or battling armies, but by thinking men, women and children. There can be no socialism without socialists.

So what does Socialism mean then?

That’s a straight question, so here’s a straight answer.

Socialism means a global system of social organisation based on

COMMON OWNERSHIP: All the productive wealth of the world will belong to all the people of the world. No more transnational corporations or small businesses and therefore nobody will own the world. It will be possessed by all of its inhabitants.

DEMOCRATIC CONTROL BY ALL: Who will run socialist society? We all will. There will be no more government and governed. People will make decisions freely in their communities, in regions and globally. With the existing means of information technology and mass communication this is all possible.

PRODUCTION FOR USE: Instead of producing goods and services for sale and profit, the sole reason for production will be to satisfy needs and desires.

FREE ACCESS: A society in which everyone owns everything, decides everything and only produces anything because it is useful will be one in which all will have free access to what is produced. Money will cease to have any function. People will not work for wages or salaries, but to give what they can and take what they need.

It’s a great idea, but … But, what?

From the Socialist Standard, May 1995

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2017/03/what-socialism-means-1995.html

Following a history of the Labour Party the Guardian asks,

‘Is it still a socialist organisation?

That rather depends. Its famous clause IV – “To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry … [on] the basis of the common ownership of the means of production” – was ditched by Tony Blair in 1995. But socialism came roaring back under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership – which was welcomed by some but also blamed for putting off potential Labour voters. After Corbyn was dumped as leader, the national anthem was sung at Labour’s 2022 conference along with The Red Flag. But now Starmer, considered by many to have shifted the party back to the centre ground of UK politics, has said he is a socialist, a progressive and a leader who puts the country first.’

‘The Labour Party has no answers to basic working class problems because it is ignorant of their cause. Socialists are concerned with causation, with how capitalism works, what socialism means and how to create a new order of society. This requires a reasoned, analytical approach based upon the method of materialism. The SPGB urges our fellow workers to seriously consider this alternative approach to politics…In a few years Labour will be back in office repeating the anti-working class crimes that all Labour governments have committed to ensure the smooth running of capitalism. Come the next Labour government, whoever is Prime Minister, there will be Labour Lefties whining that principles have been betrayed; they will not have been, for Labour has no principles to betray.

From the Socialist Standard, November 1983

https://socialiststandardmyspace.blogspot.com/2013/12/labours-power-struggle.htm

The piece ends with the question,

‘So could we be heading for a socialist UK after the next election?

No. The Labour leadership shows little inclination to introduce radical policies, renationalise on any scale or boot the bosses out. Its hallmarks are political caution, economic stability and reassuring business leaders – not exactly a rerun of 1917. The expectations of many who describe themselves as socialists are low, and they may get even lower as the election campaign goes on.’

Got that one right at least. One out of seven correct ‘explanations’ Educate yourself Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/28/is-starmer-really-a-socialist-and-what-will-happen-if-labour-wins-election


Promoted by the Socialist Party of Great Britain, 52 Clapham High Street, London, SW4 7UN.

All content on this website CC BY-ND 4.0 with additional translation permissions

MENU

Navigation