Letters: Oath; Not Amused; Pioneer
TAKING THE OATH
From what I understand, after reading the August issue of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB views Capitalism with implacable hostility, and that no compromise with such a dreadful system is possible. It appears that abolition of Capitalism and the implementation of Socialism is the sole object of the SPGB. Further you mean to achieve this desirable state of affairs democratically by means of the Ballot Box.
A condition for an elected MP to take his seat in the House is the swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign and his or her heirs. The dilemma of the first elected Socialist MP will be whether to refuse to take the Oath, in which case he will not be allowed to represent his Constituency, or to swallow his principles and swear allegiance to the popular face of Capitalism.
Why do you advocate membership of Trade Unions, albeit on a voluntary basis? I refer to the August issue of the Standard page 143 last paragraph. Surely it must be clear to everyone that Trade Unions are as much a part of Capitalism as the Board of ICI.
Firstly the TUC is not interested in doing away with the present system as the elevation of several Union leaders, over the years, to the Peerage is proof enough. After several years of covering the ruling class with buckets of manure they rush to don the robes and insignia of a clique they profess to despise.
Secondly most strikes and industrial disputes arise over pay claims. Now if, as you say, we are wage slaves then why ask the workers to support an organisation that merely thickens the chains? Your position on this issue seems to be that if the worker cannot have the whole loaf then a thicker slice will do. This is reform pure and simple towards which you are bitterly opposed. Your reasoning escapes me.
Lastly the closed shop gives the Unions the same power as the factory owner, namely depriving the worker ot his. livelihood. If the worker doesn’t like the deals cooked up between the boss and the Union reps then the threat of dismissal from the Union is more than enough to bring the disgruntled into line. I have seen this threat applied several times and it is most effective. If the bosses and the Trade Unions ever see the logic of their respective positions and combine then it will be a sad day for the working class. Both sides have the same aim—the efficient running of the Capitalist system. To think otherwise is merely to bring 1984 to reality. It is well on the way.
P STEED (Tyne and Wear)
REPLY
You correctly state that we are uncompromising in our opposition to attempts to reform capitalism, and that we view socialism as an immediate objective. Our case on trade unionism is not inconsistent with this.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the trade unions have a common origin in the class struggle. The former is the organised expression on the political field of the conscious recognition of the that struggle by workers. So long as capitalism remains it is necessary that workers combine democratically to offer the utmost resistance to worsening pay and conditions. Such action can achieve benefits or preserve living standards from being depressed, but it must be pointed out that this pressure on workers is inevitable. Industrial action in support of a wage claim is not an example of reformism but part of the class struggle, which exists independently of the will of particular groups in society.
It is true that the TUC is steeped in capitalist ideology and that the effectiveness of trade union action has been blunted by support for the Labour Party. It does not follow from this, however, that workers should cease to combine in unions against the employing class and accept wage cuts. (This is not a new phenomenon, incidentally — at the time of the General Strike we praised the solidarity of the workers and condemned the conniving treachery of TUC leaders.) The class struggle involves all workers, whether they are conscious of it or not; our task is to point out that they are only half participating and must organise politically for their emancipation.
The Socialist Party attitude to the closed shop was stated in the Socialist Standard you refer to: “whatever may seem to be the advantages of compulsory trade union membership imposed by the union or the employer, the interests of the working class are best served by seeking to expand union membership on a voluntary basis only”. The existence of the closed shop does not weaken our support for the principle of trade unionism.
If we are to refuse to take Oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. Socialists are not simply waging war against detailed grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to establish socialism we cannot stop at taking Oaths imposed upon us by the ruling class. The taking of Oaths has never prevented them being ignored when interests dictated it; if it did, the ruling class could keep on imposing conditions which they think socialists will refuse.
NOT AMUSED
Let’s be serious. . .
After reading SC’s wide-ranging expose of the entertainment industry (“We are not amused,” Socialist Standard, August 1979) I felt I was being a real traitor to the working class when, against my better judgement, I was conned by the Two Ronnies into emitting a tiny snigger.
Waves of guilt led me to tear my favourite Picasso print from the wall. I made sure that The Onedin Line was switched off immediately I walked into the sitting-room. And I became really nasty when they tried to condition me with a spot of catchy reggae on the jukebox in my local pub.
In short, I realised what a naive and philistinic twit I have been all these years for deluding myself that we shall still be able to enjoy silly jokes, trendy art, TV serials, songs, dances and general merriment—even, dare I say it, fat ladies wobbling their bums-when socialism is established.
TOM PRICE, Daventry Northamptonshire
I am writing because I take very strong exception to an article in the August issue of your party journal, “We Are Not Amused” by SC. It is anti-working-class.
If SC wants to announce that entertainment is commercially based: that isn’t news. But he presents this profound information in the form of one long sneer at the working class. Anything they enjoy is mindless and only “someone else’s values” pushed at them by the capitalists. “Some kid themselves that they’re cultured”—of course, the workers are incapable of any culture of their own!
I’ve read and heard all this before, from middle-class “intellectuals” of whom SC obviously thinks he is one. He even puts in “bloody” and “bum” to show he knows how to talk down to ignorant workers who (between visiting strip clubs and watching “Crossroads”) might read the Socialist Standard.
“Someone else’s values”? Sorry, but I can’t see the difference between ITV’s and SC’s.
However, my question is; Are they endorsed by your party as the publishers of the Socialsit Standard.
J WOLVERIDGE LONDON E1
REPLY
One task of the Socialist Standard is to expose the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system. Many articles deal with what capitalism is, why it cannot run in the interest of the working class and what it must be replaced by. We also spend a considerable amount of space exposing the means through which mystifying ideas are expounded, such as the political parties, the churches, the schools and the universities. The intention of the article, We Are Not Amused (August 1979), was to demonstrate not only that ‘entertainment is commercially based’, but that its
“values are only put before a mass audience by courtesy of a class whose interest is hostile to yours, whose values will be hostile to yours”.
A number of commercial TV stations, theatres and newspapers are run at a loss and paid for from profits accumulated by capitalists from other industries. This occurs because the entertainment industry has valuable political, as well as simply commercial, advantages for its owners.
It is not necessary to be a “middle class intellectual” (whatever that may mean) to express the view that the working class does not possess a culture of its own. The ruling culture of any property society is that of the ruling class; The only meaningful culture for the subject class is that activity which leads to the erosion of the ruling ideology. Crossroads, The Two Ronnies and strip clubs do not constitute an independent working class culture. There can be anti-establishment entertainment (the article mentioned the satire programmes of the 1960s), but that is insufficient without a commitment to political action.
It is wrong to deduce from the article that jokes, art, TV serials, songs and dances will not exist in socialist society. The difference then will be that people will freely create these activities not buy and sell them.
On the matter of values, it is significant that ITV is currently involved in an expensive battle with its employees which largely relates to the control of programme output; we hold the view that the means of communication should be the common property of the people.
PIONEER
The “mystery” of the Party’s first Branch in Scotland, Fraserburgh (Socialist Standard, September) may be solved by the fact that a vigorous campaign was carried on between 1900-1908 in that area. This was the work of James Leatham (1865-1945), by trade a printer but most of his life a speaker and writer on behalf of Socialism. A biography Portrait of a Socialist Pioneer (People’s Press, Aberdeen) has been written by Bob Duncan, a history teacher. Leatham published the first Socialist journal in Scotland The Workers’ Herald. Later he printed and edited the Gateway in Yorkshire as well as Turiff (Scotland).
Leatham belonged to the Social Democratic Federation, I believe. He invited Keir Hardie, anarchist Peter Kropotkin and his hero, William Morris, to speak in Aberdeen where he was born and brought up. Due to his speeches and activities he was sacked with winter coming and a wife and bairn to keep. Later he set up a printer’s business in Aberdeen, where he produced the Workers’ Herald in 1891.
An amazing man indeed!
JOHN KEITH (Aberdeen)