POLITICAL ACTION AND THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT -THE SOCIALIST CASE FOR PARLIAMENTARY ACTION PREFACE This short pamphlet is published in order to explain the socialist position regarding the machinery of government. Socialists tend to receive many erroneous accusations from the capitalist left regarding this subject and we hope to prove our position to be correct and to generally clarify matters on this issue. R.Cumming August 2002 R.Cumming "Marxian Socialist Education Society' [email protected] Published by RCP Publication ©2002 Printed by RCP Printing Press IS PARLIAMENTARIANISM REFORMIST? It is a common error to label all those who wish to use Parliament as 'reformist'. This is particularly true amongst the capitalist left. As J.Conrad observes in a Communist Party Of Great Britain book: "Reformists, such as the then SPEW, on the other hand, regard parliament as something to treasure and protect"(Towards A Socialist Alliance Party, 2nd Edition, p69). Mr Conrad's party wishes to: "mobilize the masses to smash the state, parliament included"(ibid, p69). Mr Conrad is confusing. Because look what Mr W.Gallacher CPGB MP said: "Of course we believe in Parliamentary democracy" (Daily Worker, 6 March 1943). This was an open repudiation of the CPGB's former policy as written in 1932, the one which Mr Conrad holds: "Any Party which accepts parliamentary democracy, however revolutionary it's phrases, is an instrument of the capitalists." (CPGB, Report on The Crisis Policy Of The Labour Party, the TUC General Council and the ILP) So it is therefore appropriate for us to enquire, why has the CPGB changed positions twice? SPEW("Socialist Party" In England And Wales-a Trotzkyite grouping that is indeed reformist. This organisation is using the name of "Socialist Party" whilst another organisation voted by Conference Resolution to use this name in all of their propaganda in 1988, 9 years before the Militant Tendency renamed itself.)is not reformist because it wishes to use the state machinery to implement Socialism. SPEW is reformist because it supports reforms to capitalism. The whole accusation of'reformist' being labelled to all those who wish to use Parliament originates from 1918 when the Social-Democrat Party Of Germany captured the state but only used it for reforms. This was because, even if the leaders of this party were 'revolutionary'(which we doubt), the mass support that they had accrued was based upon their minimum programme of reforms. They could not implement Socialism if they had been mandated to implement reforms. The working class were still supporting capitalism. The Bolsheviks then make the assumption that because of this, all parliamentary action was 'reformist'. The fact that the working class were not revolutionary did not occur to them. Historically there are two types of'reformists'. There are the capitalist reformers, who wish to implement capitalism as smoothly as possible, and there are the gradualist parties who wish to implement Socialism, but implement it gradually through reforms without the need for social revolution. Reformism is a synonoym of gradualism. The capialist reformers originated inside Parliament. These were the Conservative Party(the 'Tories' as they actually called themselves) and the Liberal Party. The Labour Party was formerly gradualist. Indeed Keir Hardie himself said that he was for the eventual abolition of the wages system. But now they are happy to declare "the complete abolition of the market mechanism is not feasible in the society the Labour Party would wish to create"(quoted in Spectacular Times, Bigger Cages-Longer Chains, p5). This of course makes the Labour Party capitalist reformers. We oppose both. We oppose the former because they are pro-capitalist and we oppose the latter because socialism cannot be acheived through gradualism. This presumes that the employers are not going to do anything whatsoever to stop the implementation of their policies. We do not support reforms nor do we support the capitalist system. Indeed we have often been attacked by our opponents for refusing to support reformist movements. They claim that parliamentary action is 'reformist', in order that our left-wing opponents may claim that futilely organising demonstrations and calling explicitly for reforms is not reformist. Dare we say it, it is they, not we who are the reformists. PARLIAMENT, GOVERNMENT AND THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The Socialist Worker's Party oppose parliamentary action. In-a book written by A.Callinicos, they write that: "Parliament is supposedly 'sovereign'...the reality is quite different. In practice, the elected chamber of parliament, the House Of Commons has little effective control over what the government does. Parliament passes the legislation presented to it by the cabinet" (The Revolutionary Road To Socialism, 1984, p22). Parliament is not the Government. They are two different things. Parliament is those who are members of the House Of Commons and the House Of Lords, and the monarch. The Government is: "like the management of the country" (Parliament And Government, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1993, p4). This Government issued pamphlet writes that Mrs Margaret Thatcher: "then selected a team of Ministers to serve in her Government.(ibid, p5). For those who may recall, M.Thatcher was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. What is important to note is that the Prime Minister who is the 'leader' of the party that wins the largest number of seats in the General Election. So the leader of the winning party selects the Government. This pathetic excuse for opposition to parliamentary action is ridiculous. This does not mean that socialists cannot use the state machinery. Because socialism ! < can only be implemented when a majority of workers are class-conscious: they know what Socialism and and they desire it, we could with this majority support I using the Prime Minister select the Government. Before Bills reach The Commons, the Government department that sponsors the Bill has to consult the Civil Service. The Civil Service is permanant employment. Those of the Civil Service "have to be politically neutral so that they can serve under whichever party is in power"(How Laws Are Made, HMSO, 1993). It is to be observed that the Civil Service can only make suggestions to the Government. "The civil servants might suggest several alternative ways in which this could be done, but the actual decision will be left to the Minister"(ibid, p8). Who will the Minister be? He will be one who is selected by the Prime Minister, j who will be...a party member, The Government proposes legislation and Parliament debates it and votes on it. With what is in effect, a Government formed by the Party, and a majority of MP's in Parliament, we could carry out the measures that would be necessary without any difficulty at all. Our most learned opponent also quite conveniently overlooks the fact that there are also Private Members Bills, which are proposed by individual MP's. There is the First Reading which is simply informing the MP's of the Bill. The Second Reading follows, where the Minister explains the Bill. The House Of Commons votes for the Bill or against, if the former it is passed onto the Committee Stage, if the latter it falls. A Standing Committee is selected to examine the details of the Bill. All of the Committee members are MP's and the number of seats on the Committee is given roughly in proportion to the number of the seats in the House Of Commons(ibid, pl2). Considering that we would have a majority of members on the Committee, there should be no problem at all, and our opponents could not outvote us. There is then a Report Stage. This is when the Committee reports back to the Commons and informs the Commons of what was discusses and what conclusion was reached. The House Of Commons can consider the Bill and alter it. But with a majority in the Commons our opponents could not outvote us. The last stage in the Commons is the Third Reading. Here the Bill is either accepted or rejected. Then in truly bourgeois fashion, a Clerk of the Commons takes the Bill to the House Of Lords. There may be a problem with the House Of Lords, which is not elected and would quite probably be composed of those opposed to Socialism. It must be remembered that the House Of Lords cannot vote against legislation passed by the House Of Commons two years in a row. Consequently if the lower house(House Of Commons) passed a motion and the upper house(House Of Lords) rejected the motion, and the lower house passed the motion the following year, the upper house would not be at liberty to reject it. Another problem is the Monarch. The Monarch has to 'put her seal' to all acts passed. This process is called Royal Assent. It is to be observed that the Monarch in recent history has never rejected a Bill. It is to be considered however, what should we do if this inconvenience arises. The last time that a monarch rejected a Bill was in 1707. Her Majesty's Stationary Office, published a pamphlet by Ms E.Stones in 1993 that dismisses the Royal Assent as "a formality". In other words it is simply a titular role. It is widely assumed that were the Monarch to reject a Bill, the Bill would become an Act Of Parliament regardless. We will not need to let ourselves be stopped by one person. We would simply declare that the Queen's Assent is not required to pass a Bill, and considering that Socialists would have a vast majority of support in society throughout, there is surely no-one who believes that the Queen alone could stop us. A Government is only a Government when the majority of people obey it. As the majority of people will obey the Government they will be party members and would have decided what the Government was to do beforehand) we do not expect any difficulties here. It is often said that the employers could abolish Parliament. But this fails to realise that in modern society, it is essential that the system is run as smoothly as possible. In the advanced countries a constitution with delegated functions and a Parliament controlling the armed forces is indispensible to capitalism in the advanced industrial countries. For the employers to abolish Parliament would mean and end to the capitalist system itself. The reader should not misconstrue this chapter as saying that we wish to retain the Queen. What we are observing is that we can use the current leigslative process. The first act we will pass would be to destroy the bureaucratic functions of the state(i.e Monarchy and House Of Lords) THE MILITARY It is argued that the armed forces are loyal to the Queen. This is true in the formal sense, that they do swear loyalty to the Queen. But it is to noted that it is not the Queen, but the Government who instructs the armed forces. The armed forces are paid for by Parliament. The armed forces are paid out of taxation, which is paid out of the surplus value produced by workers. With working class control of political power, the exploitation of the workers will cease and there will be no surplus value. Generals only have the contingency power to give orders. This derives from executive power, controlled by Parliament. Our employers would not be able to 'pay handsomely' for the use of the armed forces because they will have been dispossessed. They will not have the means to hire the armed forces, and anything that the former employers may have will be in abundance, and the armed forces wouldn't need to work for the former employers because they would not be in the position of wage-slaves. It is to be remembered that when Socialists are a majority, they are a majority in all of society including the police and armed forces. The employers, being few in number are forced to hire workers to protect their system. The claim that the armed forces are only controlled by Parliament as long as the employers have control is absurd. Parliament in this country has existed long before capitalism. The fact that the employers spend vast sums on election campaigns proves how important control of Parliament is. The English Civil War of the late 17th Century shows how Parliament controls the armed forces. The King and the nobles had to use their own private armies to fight Parliament, which controlled the national army. Now our employers do not have private armies, they were made illegal after this period. So how they could start a counter-revolution we are not sure. They would be generals without an army. OUR OPPONENTS PATHETIC EXAMPLES "...in 1918-19, the Social Democratic Party in Germany, elected by massive workers' votes, allied themselves with the Imperial General Staff of the army to prevent the workers taking power" (The Revolutionary Road To Socialism, Mr A.Callinicos, April 1984, p26). We must look at the SDP in order to prove that this is an invalid example. It is true that the SDP was elected to power. It is true that they allied themselves with the Imperial General Staff. But what our opponent overlooks is that the SDP was not Socialist. The support they had accrued was through the use of a minimum program. The working class may have voted them into power, but this was because they had accepted the minimum program, not the maximum program. We can not deny that they were for Socialism, as the end result, but they regard "Socialism as a remote goal and nothing more."(J.Stalin, Anarchism Or Socialism, Moscow 1950, p7). They put off Socialism and they simply concentrate on reforms. Mr Stalin was right here. To quote Mr Stalin's 'opposite', Mr L.Trotzky: "Classical Social Democracy,...divided it's programme into two parts independent of each other: the minimum programme which limited itself to reforms...and the maximum programme which promised substitution of socialism for capitalism in the indefinite period...the word socialism is used only for holiday speechifying" (L.Trotzky, The Transitional Programme, Worker's Revolutionary Party, 1988, p4). Both Messrs Stalin and Trotzky were correct in this regard. The term socialism was used by the 'social democrats' not as an actual aim, but as 'holiday speechifying'. Now that we have explained this we can look at Mr Callinicos other examples. Just after our opponent talks about the German SDP, he mentions the Labour Party: "Far from being neutral...the state is an instrument of class rule...Reformism starts out trying to use this state. It ends up serving their interests...At one level this means passing laws to defend capitalist class interests:.. 1964-70 Labour Government...". (Callinicos, The Revolutionary Road To Socialism, p26) The fact that is an instrument of the ruling class does not presuppose that it cannot be"transformed from the instrument of fraud that it has been up till now into an instrument of emancipation" as Marx wrote in the Programme Of The French Worker's Party( 1879). (Marx, The First International and After, Penguin Edition 1974, p377). For the record this was a later contribution of Marx's, and was not written during Marx's early life, from which the SWP seems to prefer to quote to justify it's position. Our most learned opponent makes a very fatal error here. He forgets that the Labour Government tried to impose a wage freeze on workers and that Mr Wilson blamed workers for causing inflation, which the Socialist Worker's Party was actually fooled by. The SWP wrote that: wage increases "must have some effect on prices...Quite simply, business raises its prices when increases in cost threaten its profit margin". They even went to so far to write: "But Enoch Powell says it is all the fault of the government printing too much money. This is an illusion even shared by some of the left" (Socialist Worker, 4 August 1973). If the SWP were right and Marx was wrong, the employers would not resist in any way wage increases. But it is because they know that wage increases are a direct cut into profits that they resist them. The SWP however claim to be Marxist. There is a slight problem, however. Marx explained inflation: "If the quantity of paper money issued is, for instance, double what it ought to be, then in actual fact one pound has become the money name of about one-eighth of an ounce of gold instead of about one quarter of an ounce"(Capital, Vol.1 Allen & Unwin, pl08). Karl Kautsky explained this as well: "If the circulation of commodities in a country requires gold amounting to £5,000,000 and the State puts into circulation £10,000,000 in notes, the result would be that I should be able to buy, with two pound notes only as much as with a golden sovereign. In this case, the prices expressed in paper money are twice as high as the gold prices. Paper money is depreciated by its excessive issue." (Karl Kautsky, Economic Doctrines Of Karl Marx, NCLC Publishing Company Limited 1936, p42) At that time Britain had a system called the 'Gold Standard'. That meant that all paper money was convertible into gold on demand. An ounce of gold was worth £3 17s 10 l/2d(Capital, Vol.1, Penguin Edition, pi95). However, you had to convert a minimum of 75 pounds to gold at a time, which meant that workers couldn't convert their money. Back to the Labour Government of 1964-70. Our opponent forgets that Douglas Houghton, Labour MP on 25 April 1967 said:"Never has any previous Government done so much in so short a time to make modern capitalism work".(The Times, 25 April 1967). They were not trying to implement socialist policies at all. They were trying to make modern capitalism work as was in the words in the Rt.Hon D.Houghton. But from Mr Callinicos book, we can clearly see what he means by socialist policies: "Some successes were won...the 1932 Labour Party Conference defied the National Executive and voted for sweeping nationalisations"(p29). So according to our opponent nationalisation is a 'success'. We will hit two birds with one stone. Our opponents organisation has to fall back on Chile as a last resort. Mr Allende was elected into power, on a programme of nationalisation. It is true that he was forcibly deposed. But the fact of the matter remains that he was for nationalisation, not socialism. Many workers confuse nationalisation with being socialism. It is nothing of the sort. Nationalisation is the state acquisition of industry. The Socialist Worker's Party harp on about how the state is the tool of the employers but they still call for nationalisation. Nationalisation is not a 'socialist' policy. Mr H.Morrison observed that: "more Socialism was done by the Conservative Party, which opposed it, than by the Labour Party, which was in favour of it"(The Times, 12 February 1944). Mr Morrison was of course wrong when he said nationalisation was socialism, but the point is made that the Conservative Party have supported more nationalisation than the Labour Party. Engels observed that "The modern State...is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers-proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with"(Socialism Utopian and Scientific, Allen & Unwin, 1892, p71-2). Engels also said however that: "the proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property"(ibid). Does this justify the nationalisation policies of the capitalist Left in any way? No. Because directly after this sentence, Engels goes on to say "But in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State". But the capitalist left envisage the continued existence of the state after the state has taken over the means of production. The transformation of the means of Jf production into State property is a means of encroaching upon the capitalists after fj the workers had seized political power. After this there would be no capitalistic It mode of production. The employers have supported nationalisation. The first Act of nationalisation in this country(or rather the permission of it), was the 1844 Railways Act, which was proposed by the Conservative Party. Our employers write that nationalisation is simply capitalism in a different form: "Capitalism is mostly thought of as the private ownership of the means of production. The emphasis is on private. In practice, however, the developed countries of the world have seen an increasing move towards State ownership of the means of production, or State capitalism" (Management Today, December 1976, 'The Rise Of State Capitalism'). The Trade Union Congress was right when it wrote: "We do not believe that there is any fundamental difference so long as the wages system exists between the relationship of a private employer to his worekrs, and the relationship of a municipality or State to it's workers. In each case, the latter sell their labour-power and their capacity to sell it at a fair price depends on their capacity through their Trade Unions to refuse to work"(Daily Herald, 12 April 1924). This call for nationalisation is not just the call of the SWP. Most of the capitalist left also do it: "It is clear that the only way to fight against these intensifying attacks is to insist that the railways are renationalised"(News Line, Worker's Revolutionary' Party, January 9 2002). It is clear that they see privatisation as an attack. Which of course it is not, as we quoted the TUC earlier. "We will campaign against Labour's plan to wage war abroad and to privatise public services at home"(Scottish Socialist Party, All-Members Bulletin, May/June 2002). The CPGB, writes in their 'Draft Programme Of The Socialist Alliance' that: "There is nothing progressive or socialistic about nationalised industries" (J.Conrad, Towards A Socialist Alliance Party, pi50). This is countered by the fact that the CPGB supports the Socialist Alliance, which explicitly calls for nationalisation: "Oppose all forms of privatisation...renationalise the privatised utilities" (People Before Profit, SA 2001 election manifesto, p5). Of course Mr Conrad(real name: John Bridge) is correct when he writes that nationalisation is not progressive. But let us look at other things the CPGB has written before: They did write in 1929 that nationalisation was "State capitalism" and they described the Labour Party as the "third Capitalist Party"(Class Against Class, 1929, p8). This of course collaborates the present CPGB's position. But they later made a tactical u-turn and asked the Labour Government: "how is it that only one industry has been nationalised?" (Daily Worker, 13 October 1947). The left will change their 'mass line' in order to correspond with the general feeling of the masses at any particular point. It remains that nationalisation has always been state capitalism. It thus follows that the CPGB were committing an anti-working class act when they asked the Labour Government why only one industry has been nationalised. But this is to be expected from those who think that workers without the intervention of non-proletarians cannot grasp any concept beyond that of the pay packet: "Exclusively by their own efforts, the working class is able only to develop a trade-union consciousness"(Mr Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, 1902) and that:"Class political consciousness can be brought to workers only from without"(ibid, Progress 1983, p78). It will be observed that as Marxists we oppose this theory. Marx & Engels jointly condemned this attitude in a letter to the leaders of the German Social-Democratic Party on 17-18 September 1879: "When the International was formed, we expressly formulated the battle cry: the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself. We cannot ally ourselves, therefore, with people who openly declare that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves and must first be liberated from above by philanthropic big and petty bourgeois" (The First International And After, Penguin Edition, 1974, p375). As Mr D Cohn-Bendit wrote: "The Leninist belief that the workers cannot spontaneously go beyond the level of trade union consciousness is tantamount to beheading the proletariat and insinuating the Party as the head" (Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative, p215). Mr Cohn-Bendit summed Lenin's attitude completely: "Lenin...argued that the proletariat is unable by itself to reach a 'scientific' understanding of society, that it tends to adopt the prevailing ie the bourgeois ideology. Hence it was the essential task of the party to rid the workers of this ideology by a process of political education from without"(ibid, p250). We are however leaving the subject in hand. The fact that it is not a socialist policy is explained: "We will nationalise the British National Oil Corporation so that the large profits from north sea oil will go to the people...We will nationalise all transport services" (November 9th Society-'Britain's Nazi Party', Organisation Book, p2-10). If National Socialists(who are opposed to Marxian Socialism) believe in nationalisation, then it is quite obvious that it is not a socialist policy. We should inform our readers that they call themselves 'Britain's Nazi Party', and that this is not our description of them. WHAT CAN THE FORMER EMPLOYERS DO ONCE WE HAVE POLITICAL POWER? "Well, according to the SWP they could first: shut down whole sections of industry, second: create unemployment, third: force up prices through speculation and hoarding, fourth: send money abroad and create a 'balance of payments' crises, and fifth: launch media campaigns blaming all this on a 'Socialist government' "(Socialist Studies, No.33). We believe that this was from How Marxism Works by Mr Chris Harman. It should be known that it is the working class who run capitalism top to bottom. Most of the police, army and civil service are workers. How the employers would be able to shut down whole sections of industry the SWP fails to explain, because they fail to realise that they won't own the industry at all: they will have been dispossessed. They cannot create unemployment if they don't control the means of production. That answers the S WP's second excuse. There would be no such thing as employment. There would be a free association of men and women and labour would be voluntary. The third and fourth excuses are pathetic. It shows that they envisage that money will continue to exist. It will not. Once we have secured the machinery of . government capitalism will be abolished. We are not for proposing gradual reforms to capitalism. : The fifth excuse. A Socialist government is a contradiction in terms. What we ] would have would be an administration of things. The state would have withered .......,, // away. The people would govern themselves. They may launch a media campaign jj if they wish: indeed we will let them use a printing press to print a daily paper of their own. But there will be many socialist papers that will be able to prove their theories wrong. The fact that the first four excuses have been refuted shows that there is nothing to blame on a 'socialist government'. A Socialist government would have a majority of the population supporting it. As Socialists do not seek to gain support for reforms but only for Socialism, the majority of the population would be class-conscious and would know that the employers 'barrage of propaganda' was simply an attempt to get workers to act against their interests. But the SWP doesn't have class-conscious socialists in mind. It has in mind a working class still supporting capitalism but that has been manipulated by the party that has won the election. The employers cannot do anything. It is Parliament that pays the army and the police. The employers have given all legislative and executive powers to Parliament. The SWP's excuses are just mere scaremongering. SWP's childish theory of revolution the workers are going to run at the police shouting 'get them'. The SWP's revolution is like something out of an Ealing Comedy. The army will rush down the street, armed to the hilt, to be met with some youngsters in short trousers armed with catapults, marbles and magnets. What a farce. It is no surprise to learn that the SWP's leadership is full of academics...Socialists find the SWP leadership little more than political children who have not grown up...If there was any spontaneous eruption on the streets against the forces of the state we can be assured that the SWP leadership will be safely attending a seminar on Gramsci at a provincial university to be followed by a tray of canapes and glass of smart white wine. No such bourgeois luxury for the workers facing batons, tear gas and mace. An Ealing comedy? More like a black comedy" (Socialist Studies No.39). This is a very well illustrated version of the SWP's conception of revolution. It points out the futility of it in a humourous way. THE PROBLEMS OF THE NON-PARLIAMENTARY ROAD The non-parliamentary road is advocated by the Socialist Worker's Party, and other left-capitalist groups(Bolsheviks who wish to create a new ruling class) as the means of taking power. We do find that we do not need to say much more. We will simply give a quote from Marx. Marx wrote that if the transition to socialism became violent in Britain: "it would not only be the fault of the ruling class, but also of the working class" (quoted in The First International And After, Penguin 1974, p55). These group overlook that it is the Government that controls the armed forces. They seem to think that we can organise into unions and occupy the factories without any reprisal from the employers. They argue that the state can never be captured by workers for the purpose of socialism. So the state will still be controlled by the employers, who will control the armed forces. They will be able to use the armed forces against the workers. The Socialist Party Of Great Britain gives an illustration of the SWP's conception of revolution: "The Socialist Worker's Party recently tried to get Mark Thomas, the standup comedian, to join the organisation. Apparently the SWP felt they lacked humour. Mr Thomas declined. And he gave this reason. Since the SWP were going to attack the armed forces of the state he wanted a 'gun'. They said he was being 'juvenile'. They thought the proper way to start a revolution was to cry out 'Socialist Worker' and bore the police to death...The SWP do not notice that at demonstrations and other similar events the police and soldiers are all 'tooled up' with weapons of violence not just now and then but always...According to the What is needed is not workers councils that have no executive control, but the working class to constitute:"itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to all of parties formed by the propertied classes"(ibid, p270). When Marx wrote this he did not envisage that there would be parties that would wish to run capitalism that were set up by workers. He was meaning all parties that do not represent the interests of workers should be opposed. This would include the Socialist Alliance and the Labour Party. "This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensible in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end - the abolition of classes"(ibid, p270). Certain organisations go further than is expected from the left: "Do you think we can vote communism in? Hell no! The bosses will fight us tooth and nail. The only way for the working class to take power is through armed, violent revolution. There is no way to sugar coat it" (Progressive Labor Party,Voting - The Big Con, 1996, pi5). We have explained how Socialists can use parliament for socialism. We understand that the bosses may very well try to 'fight us tooth and nail', but without political power they do not have a hope of overthrowing Socialism. They would be powerless against the armed forces, and any attempted counter*revolution would be easily stopped. GEOGRAPHICAL FRANCHISE OR WORKPLACE FRANCHISE? Mr Paul Foot thinks he has the answer: "Parliamentary democracy is based upon voting by geography: you vote according to where you live...The electoral map often follows (these) class divisions...electoral constituencies often include people of completely different class interests...Most MP's find they have to represent the interest of rich and poor, employer and employed, landlord and tenant. The conflicting interests often make effective representation impossible. Most MP's respond by concentrating on those of their constituents with the greatest clout-almost invariably the rich and their acolytes" (Mr P.Foot, Why You Should Join The Socialists!, 1993 Edition, p54-5). We thought that it would be better to quote from what seems to be like 'mass-line' propaganda(i.e the propaganda for the masses whom the SWP thinks cannot grasp any concept beyond that of the pay packet without bourgeois intervention). As the reader can see it is much more informal than the 'party-line' book of Mr A.Callinicos. Mr Foot seems to not be able to see past the Labour Party. The chapter this is from is about the alleged 'passive socialism' of the Labour Party. We do concede that there are conflicting interests within constituencies. It is called the class struggle, but we believe that the SWP have not much confidence in the intelligence of workers to mention this.But it must be asked, what is a socialist party in Parliament to do? We are there to abolish the wages system and abolish all class distinctions. We are not there to run capitalism. We will be there , to smash the bureaucratic functions of the state, take the means of production into state control, but at this point abolish the state as state. This is nothing to do with the Labour Party. In fear of being denounced as anarchists we must point out that the state is not abolished, it withers away. The period between the working class I seizing political power and when Socialism is introduced will be a very short I period what Marx called 'the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat'. So this is instantly dealt with when it is made clear what a socialist party taking political power is going to do. Mr Foot complains about the 'one person, one vote'. He says that "the mogul with one vote wields far greater power in the society, including the power to hire and fire the printworker, whose vote cannot save him from the sack"(ibid, p55). Well actually it can. If workers vote to abolish the wages system, the employers wont be employers any more. There wont be employment. There will be a free association of men and women and labour will be voluntary. We repeat that Mr Foot cannot see past the Labour Party, who has always intended to run capitalism. He also complains about how the infrequency of voting weakens 'the power from I below'. Under socialism, which will be immediately implemented once the I machinery of government has been secured, there will be no state and there will J be a system of mandated delegation. On p56, he claims that Parliament has no power to change society, which we have already refuted so we do not require to defend our position again. He gives plenty of examples from the Labour Party that if this were a large book, we would explain. But we do not have the space to do so, and we have already observed that the Labour Party was never socialist. It has to be said, Mr Foot by attacking the idea of a geographical franchise advocates workplace franchises. This logically follows. There is no middle ground. You either support one or the other. This is not quite true, you could denounce the use of parliament completely, but later in his book, Mr Foot attacks those who do so. A famous advocate of workplace franchises wrote: "(an) election will be held, on a occupational and not on a geographical franchise. Men and women will vote within their own industries with a real knowledge of the persons and subjects with which they are dealing. Women who are not in industry will vote as wives and mothers...Women will not be compelled to retire from industry, but the high wages of their husbands...will make it possible for them to do so if they wish..." Who was this? Was it Mr Lenin? Mr Trotzky? Or another SWP academic? No. It was Oswald Mosley, in Ten Points Of Fascist Policy, 1933, p8. The problems with this is that it disenfranchises the unemployed, and the employers. It will be difficult to define how many workplaces would be in a electoral seat. It would be an extremely complicated system, and if there was to be one representative for each workplace, this would lead to inequality. For each small business with LO employees, there would be a factory with 20,000 employees. Would they get the same level of representation? Or would they get 2000 times the number of representatives that the former received? The best franchise is the geographical franchise. It is much simpler to organise and means that everybody has an equal say in who is elected. We are observing what franchise would be better for socialists to use to gain political power. We need to know that we would be acting with the mandate of the majority of the population and consequently a geographical franchise is the only franchise that does not exclude anyone from voting. We would not however, in the event that Oswald Mosley's policy was carried out, call for a geographical franchise. THE SWP PRAISES WILLIAM MORRIS AS A REVOLUTIONARY AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS NO BASIS FOR ATTACKING US AS REFORMIST We thought we would include a section on this to simply antagonise relations between ourselves and the leadership of the Socialist Worker's Party. To put it very mildly, we are not very appraising of the SWP's political theory. This will be intended to prove that they have no basis for attacking us as reformist. They write that: "Nearly a hundred years ago, in 1886, the greatest British revolutionary, William Morris, pointed out the basic error made by the reformists: There are undoubtedly many who are genuine democrats who have it in their head that it is both possible and desirable to capture the constitutional Parliament and turn it into a real popular assembly, which, with the people behind it, might lead us peaceably and constitutionally into the great Revolution...(SWP's omission)Those who think we can deal with our present system in this piece-mean way very much underestimate thee tremendous organisation under which we live, and which appoints to each of us his place, and if we do not chance to fit it, grinds us down till we do..." They then after this quote, write: "they stand up as a brilliant prophecy of the failure of reformist socialism in the twentieth century" (The Revolutionary Road To Socialism, A.Callinicos, p25-26). What William Morris here was arguing against was the support of reforms. He was arguing against the use of the minimum programme. Like the Socialist Worker's Party, he erroneously assumed that all parliamentary action was reformist. We will give the SWP some more of Morris' writings that will show his alleged 'anti-reformist' stance. Remember, that according to the SWP, Morris was the greatest British revolutionary, which to us sounds like an appraisal. For the 1885 General Election, the Socialist League, the organisation which William Morris was a member of, published an election statement, in pamphlet form entitled To Whom Shall We Vote. The SWP would not find much to disagree with here. The Socialist League urged workers not to vote Socialist delegates to Parliament because they would be "lost in the crowds of rich men or be 'got at' by one party or another"(To Whom Shall We Vote, Socialist League, 1885, pi). They urged workers to "keep away from the poll altogether"(ibid, p5). Instead they urged workers to: "read Socialist books, papers and pamphlets; attend Socialist meetings; discuss the matter with Socialists and ask questions; tell their speakers your doubts and fears. Do not be ashamed to learn, do not be afraid to speak". "Let the good news spread! By ones and twos, by tens, by hundreds, by thousands join the Socialists, the great Brotherhood of Labour". Use direct action because "those who govern...(will) either use violence against you, which you will learn how to repel or quail before you and sit helpless, not knowing what to do, until the time shall come when you, well knowing what to do, will step in and claim your place, and become the new-born Society of the world"(ibid, p7). So the SWP, from their position of being against Parliament, are right to praise Morris as the 'greatest British revolutionary'. Or are they? f -v.-j,.-,^ ^^,—g^™™—J. Morris opposed the minimum programme and pointed out that: "1 say for us to make Socialist is the business at present, and at present 1 do not think we can have any other useful business"(Commonweal, 15 November 1890). And that: "It would be a waste of time for Socialists to expend their energy in furthering reforms which so far from bringing us nearer to Socialism would rather serve to bolster up the present state of things"(The Policy Of Abstention, 1887). A far cry from the SWP's position of explicitly supporting reforms and recruiting non-Socialists (it is inevitable when a party has a 'mass line' and a 'party line' like the SWP). But there is even more. It turns out that Morris himself later rejected non-parliamentary action. In an unpublished lecture on Communism he wrote: "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 the means of the ballot-box will, to saythe least of it, be little compared with what would be necessary to effect it by open revolt...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 so far as that" (May Morris, Supplementary Vol II, p350-351). A lecture of his in 1895 also repudiated his previous statement of anti- parliamentarianism: "Socialists hope so far to conquer public opinion, that at last a majority of Parliament shall be sent to sit in the house as avowed Socialists and the delegates of Socialist, and on that should follow what legislation might be necessary" (What We Have To Look For, 1895). Morris started out as a revolutionary anti-parliamentarian, but became a pro-parliamentarian and a reformist. Morris associated parliamentary action with supporting reforms and he forgot his earlier lectures saying that a Socialist party should not support reforms, by trying to get H.M.Hyndman elected to Parliament for Burnley on a programme of reforms. So in reality, Morris was a reformist. But the fact of the matter remains that in the eyes of the SWP, he is the 'greatest British revolutionary'. This therefore means that supporting the use of Parliament is not reformist as he supported Parliament and was considered by the SWP to be revolutionary. So now the Socialist Worker's Party cannot dare to call us reformist because we are for the conquering of political power using democratic institutions-because Morris who advocated the same was 'revolutionary' in the view of the SWP. MARX AND PARLIAMENTARY ACTION The Socialist Worker's Party do not tend to quote Marx on the use of parliamentary action, so we will have to quote from another organisation. Marxism, The State and Revolution is written by D.Wiltshire of the Worker's Revolutionary Party and we hope to clarify Marx and Engels position on the subject of parliament. This pamphlet starts off with a criticism of the 'New Times'(paper of the Democratic Left) for displaying an advertisement in their paper for the police force. Mr Wiltshire writes that: "That the transformation from a capitalist state to a workers state that is 'the proletariat organised as the ruling class', could take place other than through violent revolution was specifically and absolutely refuted in the Communist Manifesto" (Marxism The State And Revolution, Mr D.Wiltshire, News Line-WRP, p6). This is correct. But the reason for this is because there was no universal suffrage at this time. In order to find out Marx's position, we shall have to look at his later works. Mr N.Lenin, who the WRP claims to adhere to wrote that: "Marx's idea is that the working class must breakup, smash, the 'ready-made state machinery' and not confine itself to laying hold of it"(State and Revolution). This is nothing short of a lie. Marx wrote that: "If you look at the last chapter of my Eighteenth Brumaire, you will see that I declare the next attempt of the French Revolution to be not merely to hand over, from one set to another, the bureaucratic and military machine, as was the case up to now, but to shatter it" (Letter to Kugelmann, 12 April 1871). This is quite obvious. The proletariat seizes political power and destroys the bureaucratic and military functions of the state. We believe that Marx was a bit optimistic here. The proletariat would need to keep the military functions of the state in order to prevent a counter-revolution being successful. They would be destroyed when the state withers away. We must now look at Juvi Martov to help substantiate our claims: "According to LeninrMarx admitted a situation in which the people's revolution would not need to shatter the available ready state machinery. This was the case when the State machinery did not have the military and bureaucratic character typical of the Continent and could therefore be utilized by a real people's revolution" (Martov, The State And The Socialist Revolution, International Review 1938, p38). Juvi goes on: "The existence, within the framework of capitalism and in spite of the latter, of a democratic apparatus of self-administration, which the military and bureaucratic machine had not succeeded in crushing...In that case, according to Marx, the peoples revolution should simply take possession of that apparatus and perfect it...". "the working class can only gain supremacy under a political regime like the democratic republic. The latter is, indeed, the specific form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" (Engels, Critique Of The Draft Of The Erfurt Programme). But Mr Lenin writes that Engels wrote that: "the Democratic Republic comes nearest the dictatorship of the proletariat" (State and Revolution). The dictatorship of the proletariat can exist only under the Democratic Republic. It is not the nearest thing to. This was the reason Lenin gave for the destruction of the Constituent Assembly, when it was made clear that the Bolshevik Party did not have the majority of support. The majority supported the Social-Revolutionaries(370 seats), and the Bolsheviks only had 175 seats. Because the Bolsheviks could not rule under a democratic republic, they destroyed it and instituted the dictatorship of the Communist Party-not even all of the Communist Party, as in 1920 Zinoviev announced that the CC has decided to disenfranchise some sections of the party. He said that the CP ran the State machinery from top-to-bottom. The Leninists may claim that the Soviets were more democratic, this was not so: The capitalist state could be captured and used against the capitalists when the state had a democratic character. It cannot be denied that the British State has a democratic character. The working class can stop the representatives of the employers from retaining political power by refraining to vote them into political power. Engels pointed out that the state is: "an evil inherited by the proletariat whose worse sides the proletariat...will have at the earliest possible moment to lop off'(1891 Preface, Civil War In France). Isn't this obvious enough? The proletariat seizes political power and lops off the worst parts of the state. The worst parts being the bureaucratic and military functions of the state. If Engels was talking about 'worker's councils' and the rest of the nonsense that the left come out with, these would not have bureaucratic and military functions in the first place to lop off. "The representatives of the Social Revolutionary Party (the right wing and the centre) are excluded, and at the same time all Soviets of Workers, Soldiers, Peasants and Cossacks Deputies are recommendsed to expel from their midst all representatives of this fraction" (All-Russian Central Committee resolution, June 14 1918, quoted in Karl Kautsky, The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat, Chapter VII - The Soviet Republic). Mr.Litvinoff(London Bolshevik Ambassador) in reply to a Mr.Longuet in an interview of the former by the latter, said when Mr Longuet asked why the Bolsheviks didn't hold new elections: "...those who protested against the last Soviet elections, which were disastrous for them, would also oppose elections for a new Assembly, in which we should certainly have the majority" (Populaire, July 6 1918, quoted in ibid). Kautksy asks: "If Comrade Litvinoff and his friends are so sure of this, why do they not take steps to hold such elections...If these were held in the fullest freedom, and gave a Bolshevist majority, the existing Government would gain a far stronger moral basis at home and abroad...Why renounce this enormous advantage if one is so sure of a majority? Because general suffrage is not suitable to Russia at the present time". Why would it not be suitable? Because the Bolsheviks wouldn't have majority support. Kautsky alleges that the Bolsheviks suppressed Social-Revolutionary and Mensheviks in order to maintain Bolshevik majorities. Lenin in reply (The Dictatorship And The Betrayer Kautsky), does not even attempt to deny this. Socialist Appeal(a Trotzkyite group), thinks they can claim that the working class understood socialism and wanted it in 1917 Russia: "Growth of Consciousness The workers and soldiers came to the 'official' demonstration carrying placards with the slogans of the Bolsheviks"(The Meaning Of October, Mr Alan Woods, 'Growth Of Consciousness'). So what does this mean? That everyone on a demonstration carrying an SWP placard is a Trotzkyite? Of course not! That is absurd. All that one million people caning Bolshevik placards says is that one million people agree with the transitional demand. They agree with the "Smash All Tuition Fees" and all that nonsense. It does not mean that they agree with the Party's politics. The fact is that workers are drawn to Bolshevism by the transitional demands, they are not educated about revolution. The Bolsheviks got most of their support on the demands of "Peace, Land, Bread". It is possible to have a majority of support but not class-conscious support as the ILP illustrated: "Nationalisation by a Socialist majority with an acquiescent majority of non-Socialists involves the satisfaction of the sense of justice of the ordinary man" (Independent Labour Party, Report Submitted to Annual Conference, 1925, p5-6). If the Bolsheviks had a majority of support(which they didn't) the only way they would have accrued this support would have been through VOTE CATCHING FRAUDULENCE. Thus the support does not matter in any way. Mr D.Fernbach was quite right when he observed: "Marx held that the working class should always make use of the representative institutions of bougeois democracy, which as a majority of the population it could turn against the bourgeoisie itself.(The First International And After, 'Introduction', Penguin 1974, p54) Marx said in his Speech On The Hague Congress that: "heed must be paid to the institutions, customs and traditions of the various countries and we do not deny that there are countries, such as America and England, and if I was familiar with its institutions, I might include Holland, where the workers may attain their goal by peaceful means" (ibid, p324). There has been no alteration to the nature of the state in Britain that makes the capture of political power through Parliament impossible. Any major changes have actually confirmed Marx's position. This above statement was written in 1871-2. The 1884 Reform Act confirmed this because it meant that there was no possibility that the employers could outnumber the workers at the polls. This was the 3rd Reform Act, the one that made most workers into electors(about 70% of them). The 1st Reform Act enfranchised the industrialists and the 2nd Reform Act enfranchised a section of the working class, and meant that most electors were workers, but not that most workers were electors, which came in 1884. Marx repeated his point when he said in an interview with 'World', which appeared in the 18 July 1871 issue of this paper: "In England...the way to show political power lies open to the working class. Insurrection would be madness where peaceful agitation would more swiftly and surely do the work". (ibid, p395) VOTING FOR 'SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY' IS NOT AN OPTION The Socialist Worker's Party continuously tells workers to vote for the Labour Party, which they call 'social-democrat'. Social-democrat is a 19th Century expression for the term socialism. Socialists are social-democrats in the proper sense of the word. The Labour Party isn't, as it is pro-capitalist. What the SWP believe is that a Conservative victory at the polls will lead to the election of a Labour Government at the next election. This they do not want. What they want is to elect a Labour Government to 'expose them'. "...in all constituencies where we have no candidates we would urge the electors to vote for the Labour candidate and against the bourgeois candidate...the impending establishment of a government of the Hendersons will prove that I am right, will bring the masses over to my side" "•'-•f«?5-"^ys555jf5 (Mr N.Lenin, Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder, Novosti Prress Agency, 1970, p92-3). The 'Hendersons' were the Labour Party. What has happened in practice is the opposite. The Labour Party was elected into office in 1929. This was during the Great Depression. Unemployment rose from 1,164,000 in 1929 to 2,806,000 in 1931 when the Labour Government collapsed. What we saw was the rise of fascism. Five years later, the British Union Of Fascists had their "Great Fascist March" of thousands'of fascists. Those who told workers to vote Labour in 1929, were recruiting sargeants for fascism. The British National Party illustrates that the failure of the Labour Party leads to fascism: "This desertion...by Labour of the welfare of the working people means that huge spaces have opened up both to right of the Tory party, and to the left of Labour. The British National Party is simultaneously moving in to occupy both these political spaces!" (Voice Of Freedom, May 2002). We should of course make the observation that it is not the fault of the Labour Party, that it has 'abandoned' the working class. It has declared that it intends to run capitalism, and thus it realises that in fact it is capitalism that runs the Government. The Government is forced by the economic dictates of the marketplace, what it's policy will be. But the point has been shown that the failure of the Labour Party in government leads to fascism. The BNP had 3 councillors elected in the 2002 English Council Elections. They have never had as many as this in their history. Similarly, those who told workers to vote Labour in the 1974 General Election(either one), were recruiting sargeants for fascism. From 1977 onwards, the National Front raised it's share of the vote from a miniscule percentage to 10% of the vote. This proves our point. Any organisation that told workers to vote for Labour candidates at the 1929, 1974, 1997 or 2001 General Election was acting as an agent for the fascists. 1929 We made an error when we wrote that the CPGB called for a vote to Labour. 1929 was during the 'Third Period' where the CPGB called all other parties 'social- fascist'. They did not call for a vote to Labour and in their programme, Class Against Class called them "the Third Capitalist Party". We apologise for this error. 1974 Communist Party Of Great Britain International Socialists(now Socialist Worker's Party) Worker's Fight(now Alliance For Worker's Liberty) International Marxist Group(now Socialist League) Workers Revolutionary Party Spartacist League Enoch Powell(Tory MP) also told workers to vote Labour 1997 Communist Party Of Britain Communist Party Of Scotland New Communist Party Of Britain Socialist Worker's Party Worker's Revolutionary Party 2001 same as 1997 The SWP for the 1970 General Election told us: "A Labour Government gives the revolutionary left the chance to argue it's policies to a far wider audience than when the Tories are in power...workers cannot turn to them(Labour-ed) as a 'left' alternative to the Tories".(Socialist Worker, 6 June 1970). A member of the editorial board of International Socialism(SWP theoretical journal) complained: "Your position amounts to this. Either we have hundreds of socialist candidates standing with a practically certain chance of defeating both Labour and Tory-or we have to vote Labour despite the capitalist nature of the Labour Party. Yet this argument ensures that the building of a real aolternative to fight elections can never be begun. Keep your editorial safely on file comrade. You will be bringing it out at the next election, and the next. You might as well change the headline to 'VOTE LABOUR UNTIL DOOMSDAY'."(Socialist Worker, 20 June 1970). Mr P.Sedgwick was correct. SVVP(IS) told workers to vote Labour in 1974 at both elections and in 1979 and in 1983 and in 1987 and in 1992 and in 1997 and in 2001 ...They seem to be telling workers to vote Labour until doomsday. It may not appear that the SWP told workers to vote Labour in 2001, because they are a part of the Socialist Alliance. But they did: "Our approach in the coming election should be 'vote Socialist where you can, vote Labour where you must'."(International Socialism, Spring 2001). Where 'you must' is the seats in which the SA did not stand. This meant over 400 seats-the vast majority of the seats. The Labour Party has never been socialist. It is pro-capitalist: "at the workplace,...our aim is partnership not conflict between employers and employees" (1997 Election Manifesto). It is clear however that Labour preferred the employers and "successful entrepreneurs"(ibid, p3). There are those who would say that because it is part of the 'worker's movement' we should support it against the Conservatives(see Worker's Action, Socialist Alliance: Way Forward Or Blind Alley?, March 2002). The 'worker's movement' is: "the independent self-conscious movement of the immense majority for the immense majority" (Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels). Note the term independent. It is independent from all parties of capitalism. The Labour Party's official and deliberate policy was of keeping the Liberal Party in office. Also note that it is the movement FOR the immense majority and not just OF. If it was just of, that would imply that we should support all working class political action, the logical extreme being to join Fascist organisations which originate in the working class. Being of the working class does not presuppose being for the working class. Most organisations of the working class are anti-working class and wish to retain capitalism. In the Marxian sense, the Labour Party is not part of the worker's movement. It is the movement of workers that represents the interests of workers that is the worker's movement. Marx did not not envisage workers forming organisations that would continue to run capitalism. The situation today could not have been foreseen by Marx. For a Socialist party to support non-socialist organisations would create confusion amongst workers. What is needed is for each worker to consciously choose between capitalism and socialism and for that the utmost clarity is required. We thus do not call for a vote to Labour or any other party. WHAT IS TO BE DONE? It is quite a simple matter. The fact that the SWP gives all these examples does not prove the futility of Parliamentary action. It proves the futility of reformism. What is needed is for workers to become socialists. Workers need to organise themselves into a political party to capture control of the state machinery and convert it into an instrument of emancipation. Do not be fooled by the Leninists and Trotzkyites who will try to convince our reader to reject parliamentary action. When they are pushed the most 'academic' thing they can say is "but it's the capitalist state" or "so you wish to use the capitalist state to get socialism" followed by a forced laugh. Remember Mr Lenin: "Anyone who attempts to acheive Socialism by any other route than that of political Democracy will inevitably arrive at the most absurd and reactionary deductions both economic and political" (Mr N.Lenin, The Two Tactics Of Socialist Democracy, 1906). We have shown that the working class can use Parliament in order to introduce socialism. We declare our intention of capturing the state machinery and using it for revolutionary purposes. We urge workers to reject all the parties who wish to run capitalism, even those who may call for socialism as a long term goal. As Stalin observed it Anarchism Or Socialism, it remains just that: a long term goal that they have no real intention of realising. This society cannot work in the interests of the majority becasue profit is inevitably given priority over human needs. It is a fundamental law of the system of commodity production. Dr Maan, director of the International Agricultural Aviation Centre at the Hague observed that: "The world's population...was expected to reach 6,000 million in the not very distant future. It had been calculated that the earth could support a population of 28,000 million if food production were organised on lines now knoewn to be practicable"(The Times, 24 September 1962). The world could support 28,000 million people in 1962. Now the world's population has increased from "a little over 2,000 mi!lion"(ibid) to over 6,000 million. The world could provide for in 1962, 14 times what was required, and almost 5 times what is required today. But production has surely increased since 1962. We do not urge workers to reform capitalism in any way-as we have proven this is a waste of efforts. We urge workers to use their energies constructively: to build a socialist movement to abolish capitalism, and to use their votes constructively: to abolish the wages system and not to vote for capitalism. "Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries unite!" (Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto, SPGB Edition 1948, p92). Why is there poverty? There is poverty because food and other means of life are destroyed because there is too much of a particular product and this lowers the value of the product on the market. "Over 300,000 coffee seedlings were uprooted and burned on a nursery near Nairobi today as the first step in the Agriculture Ministry's plan to restrict coffee production. Mr G.R.Medfoth, the Kenya Coffee Board's chief inspector, who supervised the burning, said about one million-or 20 per cent-of the plants in nurseries throughout the country were surplus and would be burned. Growers would get compensation" (The Times, 12 May 1967). This is because to produce them would be unprofitable. There is a lot of need, but not as much demand. Need is when something has use-value to a person whilst demand is whilst something has use-value, and when the person is able to afford to purchase it. Remember Sir George Chester words at the TUC Congress 1948: "Profit in the form of marginal surpluses was essential to the conduct of industry whether it be nationalised or in private hands"(Daily Herald, 10 September 1948). The only way to abolish poverty is to abolish the cause of it-capitalism.
