Monday 27 August 2018
Friday 30 June 2017
GENERAL ELECTION 1951 MANIFESTO of the SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN
This Dishonest Election.
You are being asked to decide by your votes whether a Tory or a Labour Government is your best guarantee of "better times" to come. In fact you are being cajoled and bamboozled into taking part in a monstrous act of political pretence. Whichever of these parties gains a majority there will be no "better times" for you. When the fight is over and you return to the unrelieved cares and hardships of your life as workers you will look back on this election as one of the most dishonest of modern times. The Party leaders know that crises are ahead in which the Party that wins will again mock you with the call to tighten your belts. All that you are going to decide by your votes is whether you are to have hard times and the menace of war under Tory Government or hard times and the menace of war under Labour Government.
The Trick Exposed.
The real purpose of the election has been admitted by two journals with opposing political leanings, the Liberal "Manchester Guardian" and the financial journal the "Economist."
They both say that it matters little which of the two parties wins, provided one or the other has a substantial majority. The "Manchester Guardian" writes:—"But whether the next Government is a Labour or a Conservative one it is earnestly to be hoped that it will be one with a coherent working majority. That, even more than the complexion of the Government, is what is important. ("Manchester Guardian," 21st September, 1951).
The "Economist" echoes these sentiments:—
"Whether the Conservative or the Labour Party can provide the better political leadership for these times is by comparison a minor issue." (" Economist," 22nd September. 1951).
Why is it so important to these two spokesmen of capitalist interests that the next Government should be a strong one? They give their reason. In the crises that are looming up at home and internationally British capitalism needs a Government that can act decisively and impose measures that will be unpopular.
The ''Manchester Guardian '' says :—
"... the Government has not been wholly ineffective. Now, however, it is entering a much more difficult period when some bold decisions and some unpopular economic measures are called for, decisions and measures which a weak Government could not carry through except with Opposition support, and that under the circumstances would not be forthcoming."
The "Economist'' likewise :—
"The difficulties facing the British people are now growing harsher. The firm and effective Government is required to meet them can come only from a party firmly established in power and able to look beyond immediate popularity when the need is for measures that will show their good results in two years' time rather than next month."
A third journal, the "Daily Mirror," though it gives preference to the Labour Party, makes a protest against the manifestoes of both the Tory and the Labour Party. It does so on the ground that both manifestoes imply "that economic troubles will be solved by choosing the right one of the two parties." In fact, says the "Mirror" (2nd October, 1951) "The troubles will remain when the election is over, and whatever Government emerges will have to be tough."
Pretending There is Something to Fight About.
There are no big differences between the Tory and Labour leaders except that they both want power. "It will be an election fought between only two parties and without any issues." (" Economist," 29th September, 1951).
Of course they have to pretend that they stand for fundamentally different things, but look at the facts.
They agree on rearmament, and on foreign policy the Party leaders were already consulting together on the Persian crisis before the election was announced. Lord Halifax, former British ambassador to the United States, was stating the truth when he said at Wisconsin, U.S.A., on 28th September:— "No matter who wins the General Election, British foreign policy will remain the same." ("Evening Standard," 29th September, 1951). Both parties stand for the continuation of conscription though for years the Labour Party when in opposition denounced it.
At one time the Labour Party aimed at extensive nationalisation. Now it is soliciting votes by letting it be known that there is to be no new nationalisation scheme in the near future. Nationalisation is only state capitalism and has proved so unpopular with the workers that the Conservatives are hoping to get working class votes by promising to denationalise iron and steel and road transport.
On housing the Labour Party boasts of its achievement of 200,000 a year and sneers at the impracticability of the Tories' vague undertaking to aim at a" target" of 300,000. But neither figure will meet the real need for millions of houses and both Parties agree in placing housing second in importance to re-armament.
On wages and prices both Parties hold out promises of keeping the one up and the other down. Every Government in the past 100 years has promised the same, and every worker knows that all Governments and all employers resist wage increases when prices rise and try to force down wages when prices fall.
Both Parties claim to be responsible for the so-called "Welfare State" and "full employment." The "Welfare State" is nothing but a glorified system of State relief necessary because the social system leaves the workers too poor to satisfy from their own resources the minimum requirements of life. "Full employment " has been possible during recent years only because of the world demand for materials and products to make good the destruction caused by the last war and preparation for the next. If they were honest the leaders of both Parties would admit that when world capitalism lapses into its next crisis there is no Government policy that can keep up the demand from abroad for the products of the export trades in this country.
Both Parties claim to be in favour of curtailing "excessive" profit but neither Party has any intention of doing what is really needed, abolishing the profit system. While Mr. Morgan Phillips, General Secretary of the Labour Party, accuses the Tory Party of pleading for "good profits," his colleague, Mr. Jay, Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government admits that his own Party has the same aim:—
"British Labour believes in a mixed economy, which means good profits for efficient firms in the sphere of private enterprise." ("Manchester Guardian," 22nd September, 1951).
Under Labour Government profits have mounted to record levels and both Parties call on you for still more of the "increased production" which has created these record profits.
Have no illusions about the sham fight between Tory and Labour. Both stand for the retention of capitalism.
Labour Party's Aim not Socialism.
The one vital issue that should concern the workers of Britain is the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This is not the aim of the Labour Party. State capitalism or nationalisation is not Socialism. The attempts to run capitalism under price controls and profit controls are not Socialism. In the Labour Party election manifesto of 1945 the false claim was made that the "Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it." Even this lip service to Socialism has now been dropped and replaced by meaningless references to the "welfare State" and the building of a "just society."
It suits the Tories at election time to pretend that the Labour Government's policies of price control and profit control are Socialism, but at least one opponent of the Labour Party has seen through this pretence:—
' The Labour Party has exhausted its inspiration and has not even the semblance of a body of Socialist doctrine to guide it." ("Manchester Guardian," 21st September, 1951).
The test is a simple one. The basis of capitalism is the ownership of accumulated wealth by a minority of the population, the capitalist class. After six years of Labour Government the Labour Party's own election programme admits that "half of Britain's wealth is still owned by one per cent, of the population." ("Daily Herald," 1st October, 1951).
In 1918 the Labour Party election manifesto "Labour and the New Social Order," placed it on record that "one-tenth of the population . . . owns nine-tenths of the riches of the United Kingdom." Thirty-one years later Mr. Glenvil Hall, Financial Secretary of the Labour Government, admitted that this was still true:—
" Of the 555,000 people who die each year only 10% own more than £2,000, but these 10%
between them own 90% of the total property.(House of Commons, 18th May, 1949).
Nothing could more clearly show the futility of tinkering with the reform of capitalism. Labourism has failed. Toryism is no better. Socialism is the only way out.
Socialism the Only Remedy.
Capitalism whether run by a Labour Government, a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or (as in Russia) by a Communist Government cannot solve your problems. Capitalism means endless poverty and insecurity for the working class. In addition its inescapable international rivalries are the cause of war which no League of Nations or United Nations can prevent. The only way out is to establish Socialism. This requires the conversion of the means of production and distribution from their present function of producing profit, to common ownership by the whole of society. Goods and services would then be produced solely to satisfy human needs, and by ridding society of the waste of armaments and of all the financial and other operations inseparable from capitalism human society would for the first time be easily able to provide all the needs and comforts of life.
The achievement of this great purpose waits only on the recognition of its necessity by you, the working-class and on your understanding of the democratic political action necessary to carry it through.
Do not be deterred by the magnitude of the problem or by the timid argument that world-wide agreement to achieve it is impracticable. The workers of all other countries are harassed by the same capitalist evils that make your lives a burden. They are no less anxious than you to find the way out. They are as able as you are to grasp the great truth that humanity can be saved only by the co-operation of the workers of all countries. Like you they abhor capitalism's wars and long for real peace that only Socialism can provide.
This Election and Those That Will Follow.
At present the number of Socialists in this and other countries is too small to determine the results of elections. In recent Parliamentary elections the Socialist Party of Great Britain has put up one or two candidates and, as we knew would be the result, they received the votes of only the very small number of Socialists in the constituencies chosen. On this occasion no Socialist Party candidates are in the field, but in all constituencies, if you have finally turned your back on the parties that put forward different methods of trying to run capitalism you will be able to register your vote for Socialism by writing "Socialism" across the ballot paper; This will serve to advertise the number of those who have realised that the use of the vote to support any other candidate no matter how he describes himself, is a vote for capitalism.
Study Socialism. Become Socialists. Resolve that you will help to make the Socialist Party strong enough to be the decisive factor at future elections.
The Executive Committee,
Socialist Party of Great Britain.
52 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.
October, 1951.
You are being asked to decide by your votes whether a Tory or a Labour Government is your best guarantee of "better times" to come. In fact you are being cajoled and bamboozled into taking part in a monstrous act of political pretence. Whichever of these parties gains a majority there will be no "better times" for you. When the fight is over and you return to the unrelieved cares and hardships of your life as workers you will look back on this election as one of the most dishonest of modern times. The Party leaders know that crises are ahead in which the Party that wins will again mock you with the call to tighten your belts. All that you are going to decide by your votes is whether you are to have hard times and the menace of war under Tory Government or hard times and the menace of war under Labour Government.
The Trick Exposed.
The real purpose of the election has been admitted by two journals with opposing political leanings, the Liberal "Manchester Guardian" and the financial journal the "Economist."
They both say that it matters little which of the two parties wins, provided one or the other has a substantial majority. The "Manchester Guardian" writes:—"But whether the next Government is a Labour or a Conservative one it is earnestly to be hoped that it will be one with a coherent working majority. That, even more than the complexion of the Government, is what is important. ("Manchester Guardian," 21st September, 1951).
The "Economist" echoes these sentiments:—
"Whether the Conservative or the Labour Party can provide the better political leadership for these times is by comparison a minor issue." (" Economist," 22nd September. 1951).
Why is it so important to these two spokesmen of capitalist interests that the next Government should be a strong one? They give their reason. In the crises that are looming up at home and internationally British capitalism needs a Government that can act decisively and impose measures that will be unpopular.
The ''Manchester Guardian '' says :—
"... the Government has not been wholly ineffective. Now, however, it is entering a much more difficult period when some bold decisions and some unpopular economic measures are called for, decisions and measures which a weak Government could not carry through except with Opposition support, and that under the circumstances would not be forthcoming."
The "Economist'' likewise :—
"The difficulties facing the British people are now growing harsher. The firm and effective Government is required to meet them can come only from a party firmly established in power and able to look beyond immediate popularity when the need is for measures that will show their good results in two years' time rather than next month."
A third journal, the "Daily Mirror," though it gives preference to the Labour Party, makes a protest against the manifestoes of both the Tory and the Labour Party. It does so on the ground that both manifestoes imply "that economic troubles will be solved by choosing the right one of the two parties." In fact, says the "Mirror" (2nd October, 1951) "The troubles will remain when the election is over, and whatever Government emerges will have to be tough."
Pretending There is Something to Fight About.
There are no big differences between the Tory and Labour leaders except that they both want power. "It will be an election fought between only two parties and without any issues." (" Economist," 29th September, 1951).
Of course they have to pretend that they stand for fundamentally different things, but look at the facts.
They agree on rearmament, and on foreign policy the Party leaders were already consulting together on the Persian crisis before the election was announced. Lord Halifax, former British ambassador to the United States, was stating the truth when he said at Wisconsin, U.S.A., on 28th September:— "No matter who wins the General Election, British foreign policy will remain the same." ("Evening Standard," 29th September, 1951). Both parties stand for the continuation of conscription though for years the Labour Party when in opposition denounced it.
At one time the Labour Party aimed at extensive nationalisation. Now it is soliciting votes by letting it be known that there is to be no new nationalisation scheme in the near future. Nationalisation is only state capitalism and has proved so unpopular with the workers that the Conservatives are hoping to get working class votes by promising to denationalise iron and steel and road transport.
On housing the Labour Party boasts of its achievement of 200,000 a year and sneers at the impracticability of the Tories' vague undertaking to aim at a" target" of 300,000. But neither figure will meet the real need for millions of houses and both Parties agree in placing housing second in importance to re-armament.
On wages and prices both Parties hold out promises of keeping the one up and the other down. Every Government in the past 100 years has promised the same, and every worker knows that all Governments and all employers resist wage increases when prices rise and try to force down wages when prices fall.
Both Parties claim to be responsible for the so-called "Welfare State" and "full employment." The "Welfare State" is nothing but a glorified system of State relief necessary because the social system leaves the workers too poor to satisfy from their own resources the minimum requirements of life. "Full employment " has been possible during recent years only because of the world demand for materials and products to make good the destruction caused by the last war and preparation for the next. If they were honest the leaders of both Parties would admit that when world capitalism lapses into its next crisis there is no Government policy that can keep up the demand from abroad for the products of the export trades in this country.
Both Parties claim to be in favour of curtailing "excessive" profit but neither Party has any intention of doing what is really needed, abolishing the profit system. While Mr. Morgan Phillips, General Secretary of the Labour Party, accuses the Tory Party of pleading for "good profits," his colleague, Mr. Jay, Financial Secretary to the Treasury in the Labour Government admits that his own Party has the same aim:—
"British Labour believes in a mixed economy, which means good profits for efficient firms in the sphere of private enterprise." ("Manchester Guardian," 22nd September, 1951).
Under Labour Government profits have mounted to record levels and both Parties call on you for still more of the "increased production" which has created these record profits.
Have no illusions about the sham fight between Tory and Labour. Both stand for the retention of capitalism.
Labour Party's Aim not Socialism.
The one vital issue that should concern the workers of Britain is the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This is not the aim of the Labour Party. State capitalism or nationalisation is not Socialism. The attempts to run capitalism under price controls and profit controls are not Socialism. In the Labour Party election manifesto of 1945 the false claim was made that the "Labour Party is a Socialist Party and proud of it." Even this lip service to Socialism has now been dropped and replaced by meaningless references to the "welfare State" and the building of a "just society."
It suits the Tories at election time to pretend that the Labour Government's policies of price control and profit control are Socialism, but at least one opponent of the Labour Party has seen through this pretence:—
' The Labour Party has exhausted its inspiration and has not even the semblance of a body of Socialist doctrine to guide it." ("Manchester Guardian," 21st September, 1951).
The test is a simple one. The basis of capitalism is the ownership of accumulated wealth by a minority of the population, the capitalist class. After six years of Labour Government the Labour Party's own election programme admits that "half of Britain's wealth is still owned by one per cent, of the population." ("Daily Herald," 1st October, 1951).
In 1918 the Labour Party election manifesto "Labour and the New Social Order," placed it on record that "one-tenth of the population . . . owns nine-tenths of the riches of the United Kingdom." Thirty-one years later Mr. Glenvil Hall, Financial Secretary of the Labour Government, admitted that this was still true:—
" Of the 555,000 people who die each year only 10% own more than £2,000, but these 10%
between them own 90% of the total property.(House of Commons, 18th May, 1949).
Nothing could more clearly show the futility of tinkering with the reform of capitalism. Labourism has failed. Toryism is no better. Socialism is the only way out.
Socialism the Only Remedy.
Capitalism whether run by a Labour Government, a Tory Government, a Liberal Government or (as in Russia) by a Communist Government cannot solve your problems. Capitalism means endless poverty and insecurity for the working class. In addition its inescapable international rivalries are the cause of war which no League of Nations or United Nations can prevent. The only way out is to establish Socialism. This requires the conversion of the means of production and distribution from their present function of producing profit, to common ownership by the whole of society. Goods and services would then be produced solely to satisfy human needs, and by ridding society of the waste of armaments and of all the financial and other operations inseparable from capitalism human society would for the first time be easily able to provide all the needs and comforts of life.
The achievement of this great purpose waits only on the recognition of its necessity by you, the working-class and on your understanding of the democratic political action necessary to carry it through.
Do not be deterred by the magnitude of the problem or by the timid argument that world-wide agreement to achieve it is impracticable. The workers of all other countries are harassed by the same capitalist evils that make your lives a burden. They are no less anxious than you to find the way out. They are as able as you are to grasp the great truth that humanity can be saved only by the co-operation of the workers of all countries. Like you they abhor capitalism's wars and long for real peace that only Socialism can provide.
This Election and Those That Will Follow.
At present the number of Socialists in this and other countries is too small to determine the results of elections. In recent Parliamentary elections the Socialist Party of Great Britain has put up one or two candidates and, as we knew would be the result, they received the votes of only the very small number of Socialists in the constituencies chosen. On this occasion no Socialist Party candidates are in the field, but in all constituencies, if you have finally turned your back on the parties that put forward different methods of trying to run capitalism you will be able to register your vote for Socialism by writing "Socialism" across the ballot paper; This will serve to advertise the number of those who have realised that the use of the vote to support any other candidate no matter how he describes himself, is a vote for capitalism.
Study Socialism. Become Socialists. Resolve that you will help to make the Socialist Party strong enough to be the decisive factor at future elections.
The Executive Committee,
Socialist Party of Great Britain.
52 Clapham High Street, London, S.W.4.
October, 1951.
Sunday 25 June 2017
2005
The Socialist Party is contesting this election as a part of our campaign to establish a new system of society:
One based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.
That is our sole object.
By common ownership we don't mean that everyone should have to share a toothbrush, but that in a society built upon our mutual effort, we should all benefit and have a say in how it is run.
We currently live in a system of society based on a tiny number of people owning the productive wealth of our world, organised and run by a handful of bosses for their benefit. Their profits come first, our needs come second.
In Vauxhall nearly half of all workers are employed in administering business as compared with only a quarter in social services and looking after ourselves (derived from 2001 Census).
Because of this we have endless problems of poverty, poor services and all the issues politicians love to spend time telling you they can solve, if only given the chance.
We don't believe any politician can solve these problems, as long as the flawed basis of our society remains intact. In fact, we believe only you and your fellow workers can solve these problems.
We believe that it will take a revolution in how we organise our lives, a fundamental change. We want to see a society based on the fact that you know how to run your lives, know your needs and have the skills and capacity to organise with your fellows to satisfy them.
You know yourselves and your lives better than a handful of bosses ever can.
With democratic control of production we can ensure that looking after our communities becomes a priority, rather than something we do in our spare time.
We all share fundamental needs, for food, clothing, housing and culture, and we have the capacity to ensure access to these for all, without exception.
If you agree with this aim, then we ask you to get in touch with us, get involved and join in our campaign to bring about this change in society.
Together, we have the capacity to run our world for ourselves. We need to build a movement to effect that change, by organising deliberately to take control
of the political offices which rule our lives, and bring them into our collective democratic control.
Our candidate makes no promises, offers no pat solutions, only to be the means by which you can remake society for the common good.
Danny Lambert
The Socialist Party candidate.
One based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.
That is our sole object.
By common ownership we don't mean that everyone should have to share a toothbrush, but that in a society built upon our mutual effort, we should all benefit and have a say in how it is run.
We currently live in a system of society based on a tiny number of people owning the productive wealth of our world, organised and run by a handful of bosses for their benefit. Their profits come first, our needs come second.
In Vauxhall nearly half of all workers are employed in administering business as compared with only a quarter in social services and looking after ourselves (derived from 2001 Census).
Because of this we have endless problems of poverty, poor services and all the issues politicians love to spend time telling you they can solve, if only given the chance.
We don't believe any politician can solve these problems, as long as the flawed basis of our society remains intact. In fact, we believe only you and your fellow workers can solve these problems.
We believe that it will take a revolution in how we organise our lives, a fundamental change. We want to see a society based on the fact that you know how to run your lives, know your needs and have the skills and capacity to organise with your fellows to satisfy them.
You know yourselves and your lives better than a handful of bosses ever can.
With democratic control of production we can ensure that looking after our communities becomes a priority, rather than something we do in our spare time.
We all share fundamental needs, for food, clothing, housing and culture, and we have the capacity to ensure access to these for all, without exception.
If you agree with this aim, then we ask you to get in touch with us, get involved and join in our campaign to bring about this change in society.
Together, we have the capacity to run our world for ourselves. We need to build a movement to effect that change, by organising deliberately to take control
of the political offices which rule our lives, and bring them into our collective democratic control.
Our candidate makes no promises, offers no pat solutions, only to be the means by which you can remake society for the common good.
Danny Lambert
The Socialist Party candidate.
BEYOND THE EMPTY PROMISES (1997)
BEYOND THE EMPTY PROMISES
OUR QUESTIONS - YOUR ANSWERS
All the politicians will tell you that they have the answers. But their answers fail to solve the problems which face society. After decades of politicians' clever answers the society we live in is still in a mess, with mass poverty, social insecurity and environmental destruction getting worse, not better.
Socialists say that if the politicians' answers are worthless, perhaps they are answering the wrong questions. Instead of leaving it up to the politicians, why not ask yourself a few questions?
Do you live in a society which puts your needs, and those of millions like you, before the profits of the few?
Are we living in a society where making money for big business is more important than making life decent for the vast majority of us?
What does capitalism value more, hospitals or banks?
Given a choice between providing a cleaner environment for people to live in and making a fast buck out of polluting the earth we inhabit, which do you think those with power will opt for?
Any political party seeking to run capitalism puts PROFIT BEFORE NEEDS. That's the only way to run this system.
Politicians tell us that they're running things for our benefit, but capitalism can only be run in the interest of the small minority who own and control the means of producing and distributing goods and services.
But what about us — how much power do we have under the profit system?
Ask yourself a few more questions:
If you decided to give up your job (assuming you have one) and live without selling yourself for a wage or salary, how long could you exist on your assets?
If you or a close relative needs urgent health treatment of the best quality, how long will you have to wait compared to an idle millionaire who can demand the best possible treatment instantly?
Who has more power to control their lives, an eighteen-year-old fresh out of public school who's just inherited a few million pounds or a hardworking nurse, farmworker, fire-fighter or factory or office worker?
Even if you have a few quid in the bank, your own car, a video machine and an annual holiday abroad, isn't it true that the life you lead is becoming increasingly pressurised, with dangerous streets, drug epidemics and a mind-numbing media destroying the quality of everyday life?
Capitalism can only be run by treating the working-class majority, who produce all the goods and services, as second-class citizens. And most people know that they are living in a class-divided society; when asked, 81% of respondents in November 1995 told a Gallup opinion poll that they thought there was a class struggle in this country.
The politicians are out to represent the small class (less than 5% of the people in this country) who own and control most of the marketable wealth. They are asking you to vote so that the owning minority can stay in power.
But can anything different work better?
Try some more questions:
Would you prefer to live in a society where production was solely for use and not for sale on the market to make a profit?
If you knew that everyone else was prepared to do their bit to run society, would you prefer to cooperate with them according to your abilities rather than be a wage slave? If the abundant resources of this planet were freed from the shackles of the market and used to satisfy everyone, would there be starving children in the midst of food mountains or homeless youngsters sleeping in shop doorways in the midst of brick stockpiles or hospital wards standing empty or millions forced out of work?
Socialists say that there is a real alternative.
It has never been tried.
The twentieth century has been the epoch of wrong answers from politicians who have never seen further than capitalism.
The alternative of production for use, common ownership, democratic control, and free access for all to the available store of social wealth has yet to be tried. So why not give it a try—why not support The Alternative?
Now for the biggest questions of all:
Will you help to wipe the smug smiles off the arrogant faces of the politicians who think that all they need to do at election time is offer you false and unrealisable policies fora system which ignores your real needs?
Will you consider the socialist alternative, we are putting in this Election, to the profit system?
Will you help us to build a real socialist alternative to the policies of callous Toryism and their mirror reflection, New Labour?
Are you prepared to find out more about what socialists stand for and what you might do to stand alongside us?
(1997 General Election)
OUR QUESTIONS - YOUR ANSWERS
All the politicians will tell you that they have the answers. But their answers fail to solve the problems which face society. After decades of politicians' clever answers the society we live in is still in a mess, with mass poverty, social insecurity and environmental destruction getting worse, not better.
Socialists say that if the politicians' answers are worthless, perhaps they are answering the wrong questions. Instead of leaving it up to the politicians, why not ask yourself a few questions?
Do you live in a society which puts your needs, and those of millions like you, before the profits of the few?
Are we living in a society where making money for big business is more important than making life decent for the vast majority of us?
What does capitalism value more, hospitals or banks?
Given a choice between providing a cleaner environment for people to live in and making a fast buck out of polluting the earth we inhabit, which do you think those with power will opt for?
Any political party seeking to run capitalism puts PROFIT BEFORE NEEDS. That's the only way to run this system.
Politicians tell us that they're running things for our benefit, but capitalism can only be run in the interest of the small minority who own and control the means of producing and distributing goods and services.
But what about us — how much power do we have under the profit system?
Ask yourself a few more questions:
If you decided to give up your job (assuming you have one) and live without selling yourself for a wage or salary, how long could you exist on your assets?
If you or a close relative needs urgent health treatment of the best quality, how long will you have to wait compared to an idle millionaire who can demand the best possible treatment instantly?
Who has more power to control their lives, an eighteen-year-old fresh out of public school who's just inherited a few million pounds or a hardworking nurse, farmworker, fire-fighter or factory or office worker?
Even if you have a few quid in the bank, your own car, a video machine and an annual holiday abroad, isn't it true that the life you lead is becoming increasingly pressurised, with dangerous streets, drug epidemics and a mind-numbing media destroying the quality of everyday life?
Capitalism can only be run by treating the working-class majority, who produce all the goods and services, as second-class citizens. And most people know that they are living in a class-divided society; when asked, 81% of respondents in November 1995 told a Gallup opinion poll that they thought there was a class struggle in this country.
The politicians are out to represent the small class (less than 5% of the people in this country) who own and control most of the marketable wealth. They are asking you to vote so that the owning minority can stay in power.
But can anything different work better?
Try some more questions:
Would you prefer to live in a society where production was solely for use and not for sale on the market to make a profit?
If you knew that everyone else was prepared to do their bit to run society, would you prefer to cooperate with them according to your abilities rather than be a wage slave? If the abundant resources of this planet were freed from the shackles of the market and used to satisfy everyone, would there be starving children in the midst of food mountains or homeless youngsters sleeping in shop doorways in the midst of brick stockpiles or hospital wards standing empty or millions forced out of work?
Socialists say that there is a real alternative.
It has never been tried.
The twentieth century has been the epoch of wrong answers from politicians who have never seen further than capitalism.
The alternative of production for use, common ownership, democratic control, and free access for all to the available store of social wealth has yet to be tried. So why not give it a try—why not support The Alternative?
Now for the biggest questions of all:
Will you help to wipe the smug smiles off the arrogant faces of the politicians who think that all they need to do at election time is offer you false and unrealisable policies fora system which ignores your real needs?
Will you consider the socialist alternative, we are putting in this Election, to the profit system?
Will you help us to build a real socialist alternative to the policies of callous Toryism and their mirror reflection, New Labour?
Are you prepared to find out more about what socialists stand for and what you might do to stand alongside us?
(1997 General Election)
Vote for yourself - for a change! (1992)
Vote for yourself - for a change!
Most people think that whichever government is elected it will make no real difference to their lives.
Most people are right.
Most people think that political leaders are dishonest timewasters.
Most people are right about that.
Most people think that the world is in a mess: millions unemployed, homelessness and house repossessions, kids on the streets, a collapsing healt
Yes, society is in a hell of a mess.
Most people think that little can be done to change it.
They're wrong.
Society does not have to be like this. We live under a system where:
Production is for profit, not primarily for need.
The richest 10 per cent own over half of all personal marketable wealth.
The richest one per cent own three times as much as the poorest 50 per cent added together.
The economy is run to make the rich stay rich at the expense of the poor.
The world market can never be run in the interest of the majority of us who produce the wealth but do not possess the major resources. No tinkering with the profit system by any government can ever make it comfortable, secure and happy for the majority of us.
All of the politicians in this election are asking you to vote for them so that they can run capitalism - continue the mess -carry on putting profit before needs - piling on the misery.
What we need is a new way of running society based on:
・ The common ownership of all resources by the whole community, not just a rich minority.
・ Democratic control of the community by everyone, without distinction of age, race or sex, instead of rule by unelected company directors or state bureaucrats.
・ Production purely for use, not profit.
・ Free and equal access to all goods and services - an end to the market and to money.
Only The Socialist Party stands for that alternative: GENUINE socialism.
A vote for the Socialist candidate means that:
・ You reject the policies of the profit system.
・ You understand and want the real socialist alternative.
・ You do not need leaders to do your thinking and run society for you.
・ You are going to vote for yourself - for a change.
(1992 Election Manifesto, Holborn & St Pancras).
Most people think that whichever government is elected it will make no real difference to their lives.
Most people are right.
Most people think that political leaders are dishonest timewasters.
Most people are right about that.
Most people think that the world is in a mess: millions unemployed, homelessness and house repossessions, kids on the streets, a collapsing healt
Yes, society is in a hell of a mess.
Most people think that little can be done to change it.
They're wrong.
Society does not have to be like this. We live under a system where:
Production is for profit, not primarily for need.
The richest 10 per cent own over half of all personal marketable wealth.
The richest one per cent own three times as much as the poorest 50 per cent added together.
The economy is run to make the rich stay rich at the expense of the poor.
The world market can never be run in the interest of the majority of us who produce the wealth but do not possess the major resources. No tinkering with the profit system by any government can ever make it comfortable, secure and happy for the majority of us.
All of the politicians in this election are asking you to vote for them so that they can run capitalism - continue the mess -carry on putting profit before needs - piling on the misery.
What we need is a new way of running society based on:
・ The common ownership of all resources by the whole community, not just a rich minority.
・ Democratic control of the community by everyone, without distinction of age, race or sex, instead of rule by unelected company directors or state bureaucrats.
・ Production purely for use, not profit.
・ Free and equal access to all goods and services - an end to the market and to money.
Only The Socialist Party stands for that alternative: GENUINE socialism.
A vote for the Socialist candidate means that:
・ You reject the policies of the profit system.
・ You understand and want the real socialist alternative.
・ You do not need leaders to do your thinking and run society for you.
・ You are going to vote for yourself - for a change.
(1992 Election Manifesto, Holborn & St Pancras).
Why We Are Contesting (1964)
Why We Are Contesting
Whenever there is an election the ordinary person, the man in the street—the working class voter—becomes suddenly very popular. Any number of political parties are anxious to please him and to make him all manner of tempting promises, if he in his turn will agree to vote for their candidate. Election time, in other words, is the time when there is an enormous hunt for Votes—for your vote.
The bait which is used in this hunt is largely made up by promises. All the other parties offer this bait, and the generosity of their promises is usually in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their getting power. The Labour and Conservative Parties cannot be too extravagant; the Liberals can be a little more wild; the Communists can promise almost anything. And so on.
Most of the promises in this election are about things like modernisation, housing, education, pensions, wages and prices, war and peace. To read the literature of the other parties, it seems that all that has to be done to solve overnight all the problems connected with these issues is to vote for their candidate. They will all, it seems, bring British industry up to date, replace all the slums with new houses, give everyone a fair chance of the best education, increase pensions, keep prices stable while wages increase, banish war from the earth.
These promises sound very fine and in one election after another millions of working people vote for them. And presumably, when they do so, they think that they are contributing to the solution of our problems.
But let us stop and think about it.
Firstly, it is obvious that election promises are not a new thing. Political parties have been making them for as long as anyone can remember—and always about the same sort of problems.
Now what has been the result of all this?
The housing problem remains with us; despite repeated promises to deal with it, slums are developing faster than new houses are being built. For the workers, who depend on their wage to live, housing is still an aspect of their general poverty.
The sort of education we get is governed by the financial standing of our parents. Even if a working class lad wins his way to university he is only studying to become a different type of worker—one with a degree behind him.
Millions of old age pensioners are living on the tightrope of destitution—and it only needs something like a severe winter for many of them to loosen their precarious hold on life.
Prices continue to rise, as they have done steadily since the war. No government has yet given a free rein to the level of wages—they have all tried to restrain them. And whatever the respective level of prices and wages, we always find that our wage packet only just covers our food, clothing, entertainment and whatever else goes to keep us ticking over.
War is just as much a universal problem as ever. At the moment there are only comparatively minor incidents, punctuated by more serious clashes such as Cuba and Berlin. But over it all hangs the threat of another world conflict, this time fought out with nuclear weapons.
It is not accidental that the politicians make so many promises and that they have so little effect upon the ailments they are supposed to cure. The world is full of chronic problems, but this is not because political parties have not thought up reforms which are supposed to deal with them nor because their leaders are not clever or knowledgeable enough.
The fact is that the problems persist whichever party is in power—and this suggests that their roots go deep into the very nature of modern society.
We live today in a social system which is called capitalism, The basis of this system is the ownership by a section of the population of the means of producing and distributing wealth —of factories, mines, steamships, and so on. It follows from this that all the wealth which we produce today is turned out with the intention of realising a profit for the owning class. It is from this basis that the problems of modern society spring.
The class which does not own the means of wealth production—the working class—are condemned to a life of impoverished dependence upon their wages. This poverty expresses itself in inferior housing, clothes, education, and the like. In the end, it expresses itself in the pathetic destitution of the old age pensioner—a fate which no old capitalist ever faces.
The basis of capitalism throws up the continual battle over wages and working conditions with attendant industrial disputes. It gives rise, with its international economic rivalries, to the wars which have disfigured man's recent history.
Every other party in this election stands for capitalism, whatever they may call themselves. And whatever their protestations, they stand for a world of poverty, hunger, unrest and war. They stand for a world in which no human being is secure.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain, alone, stands for Socialism. We stand for a world in which everything which goes to make and distribute wealth will be owned by the people of the world. Because Socialism is the direct opposite of capitalism, it follows that when it is established the basic problems of capitalism will disappear. There will be no more war, no more poverty. Man will live a full, abundant life; we shall be free.
But Socialism cannot be brought about by promises. It needs a knowledgeable working class who understand and desire it. They alone can establish the new world order.
That is why we have a candidate in this constituency. He does not make you any promises; he does not try to convince you that he will do anything for you; he does not even seek your vote. What he—and the party which he represents—are offering you is the case for a new social system. We are seeking to spread the knowledge of Socialism and to give as many people as possible the opportunity of voting for a world of abundance, peace and freedom.
Whenever there is an election the ordinary person, the man in the street—the working class voter—becomes suddenly very popular. Any number of political parties are anxious to please him and to make him all manner of tempting promises, if he in his turn will agree to vote for their candidate. Election time, in other words, is the time when there is an enormous hunt for Votes—for your vote.
The bait which is used in this hunt is largely made up by promises. All the other parties offer this bait, and the generosity of their promises is usually in inverse proportion to the likelihood of their getting power. The Labour and Conservative Parties cannot be too extravagant; the Liberals can be a little more wild; the Communists can promise almost anything. And so on.
Most of the promises in this election are about things like modernisation, housing, education, pensions, wages and prices, war and peace. To read the literature of the other parties, it seems that all that has to be done to solve overnight all the problems connected with these issues is to vote for their candidate. They will all, it seems, bring British industry up to date, replace all the slums with new houses, give everyone a fair chance of the best education, increase pensions, keep prices stable while wages increase, banish war from the earth.
These promises sound very fine and in one election after another millions of working people vote for them. And presumably, when they do so, they think that they are contributing to the solution of our problems.
But let us stop and think about it.
Firstly, it is obvious that election promises are not a new thing. Political parties have been making them for as long as anyone can remember—and always about the same sort of problems.
Now what has been the result of all this?
The housing problem remains with us; despite repeated promises to deal with it, slums are developing faster than new houses are being built. For the workers, who depend on their wage to live, housing is still an aspect of their general poverty.
The sort of education we get is governed by the financial standing of our parents. Even if a working class lad wins his way to university he is only studying to become a different type of worker—one with a degree behind him.
Millions of old age pensioners are living on the tightrope of destitution—and it only needs something like a severe winter for many of them to loosen their precarious hold on life.
Prices continue to rise, as they have done steadily since the war. No government has yet given a free rein to the level of wages—they have all tried to restrain them. And whatever the respective level of prices and wages, we always find that our wage packet only just covers our food, clothing, entertainment and whatever else goes to keep us ticking over.
War is just as much a universal problem as ever. At the moment there are only comparatively minor incidents, punctuated by more serious clashes such as Cuba and Berlin. But over it all hangs the threat of another world conflict, this time fought out with nuclear weapons.
It is not accidental that the politicians make so many promises and that they have so little effect upon the ailments they are supposed to cure. The world is full of chronic problems, but this is not because political parties have not thought up reforms which are supposed to deal with them nor because their leaders are not clever or knowledgeable enough.
The fact is that the problems persist whichever party is in power—and this suggests that their roots go deep into the very nature of modern society.
We live today in a social system which is called capitalism, The basis of this system is the ownership by a section of the population of the means of producing and distributing wealth —of factories, mines, steamships, and so on. It follows from this that all the wealth which we produce today is turned out with the intention of realising a profit for the owning class. It is from this basis that the problems of modern society spring.
The class which does not own the means of wealth production—the working class—are condemned to a life of impoverished dependence upon their wages. This poverty expresses itself in inferior housing, clothes, education, and the like. In the end, it expresses itself in the pathetic destitution of the old age pensioner—a fate which no old capitalist ever faces.
The basis of capitalism throws up the continual battle over wages and working conditions with attendant industrial disputes. It gives rise, with its international economic rivalries, to the wars which have disfigured man's recent history.
Every other party in this election stands for capitalism, whatever they may call themselves. And whatever their protestations, they stand for a world of poverty, hunger, unrest and war. They stand for a world in which no human being is secure.
The Socialist Party of Great Britain, alone, stands for Socialism. We stand for a world in which everything which goes to make and distribute wealth will be owned by the people of the world. Because Socialism is the direct opposite of capitalism, it follows that when it is established the basic problems of capitalism will disappear. There will be no more war, no more poverty. Man will live a full, abundant life; we shall be free.
But Socialism cannot be brought about by promises. It needs a knowledgeable working class who understand and desire it. They alone can establish the new world order.
That is why we have a candidate in this constituency. He does not make you any promises; he does not try to convince you that he will do anything for you; he does not even seek your vote. What he—and the party which he represents—are offering you is the case for a new social system. We are seeking to spread the knowledge of Socialism and to give as many people as possible the opportunity of voting for a world of abundance, peace and freedom.
WHY WE ARE CONTESTING THIS ELECTION (1950)
WHY WE ARE CONTESTING THIS ELECTION
THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN IS PUTTING FORWARD CANDIDATES AT EAST HAM SOUTH AND PADDINGTON NORTH IN THIS GENERAL ELECTION. AN S.P.G.B. CANDIDATE CONTESTED PADDINGTON NORTH AT THE GENERAL ELECTION IN JULY 1945 AND AGAIN AT THE BY-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, 1946. ON THOSE TWO OCCASIONS THE ELECTORS DEMONSTRATED THEIR UNREADINESS TO CONSIDER SOCIALISM AS A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALISM; THEY GAVE THOUSANDS OF VOTES TO THE LABOUR AND TORY CANDIDATES AND REJECTED SOCIALISM WITH A FEW HUNDRED VOTES THEY CAST FOR THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE.
Some of our opponents, not knowing the Socialist movement, expected that the results of the two contests at Paddington North would convince the S.P.G.B. that it is useless to carry on the struggle for Socialism. They thought we had misjudged the situation and would disappear from the political scene when the position was made clear.
THE FUTURE LIES IN SOCIALISM
We made no miscalculation and the result did not surprise us. It did not even add to our disappointment. We have had long years of propaganda experience to teach us that the number of convinced Socialists in this country is very small at present.
Strange as it may seem to those who belong to the large and wealthy Labour and Conservative parties we of the Socialist Party are supremely confident of our eventual triumph. The future does not belong to Labourism or to Conservatism but to Socialism.
Why are we so confident? It is because the Socialist movement has two strong forces ceaselessly at work on its side. One is the pressure of capitalism on the working class. The other is the thinking capacity of the workers who have to endure this pressure. Conscious that these forces are slowly working for us we cannot be dismayed by the magnitude of the present difficulties. Sooner or later the working class will understand that for the sake of their well-being and for the very existence of the human race they must join us to end capitalism and establish Socialism.
TORY, LABOUR, LIBERAL, COMMUNIST — AND SOCIALIST
You are asked in the election to choose between a number of parties and programmes but only the S.P.G.B. asks you to vote for Socialism and nothing but Socialism.
The CONSERVATIVE movement — though "movement" is perhaps hardly the word to describe that monument of inertia—would, if it could, leave capitalism unchanged. The wealthy men who are influential in that Party are quite satisfied with things as they are—but they need workers' votes and the working class are so dissatisfied that the Conservatives have to make a show of changing things. They pretend to believe in change but change is the last thing they really want.
The LABOUR PARTY does believe in change of a kind. It claims that you can change capitalism by cutting out the abuses and making it a more satisfactory scheme of things. It claims that you can have capitalism without war, capitalism without unemployment and capitalism without poverty. The Labour Party thus aims to achieve an impossibility, a sort of half-way house between Capitalism and Socialism. It was bound to fail disastrously.
They say they have done their best—and you can see the deplorable results.
The LIBERALS are a party of the past, they have no future and no claim to represent anything but capitalism. Their maximum hope is to provide a group of M.P.'s able to hold the balance between Labour and Conservative. They can be judged on their past record of Government. When in power for long years they never did anything to end the poverty and insecurity of working class life. Always—like the Conservatives—they sought to continue capitalism and to promote the interests of the capitalist class.
The COMMUNISTS are a group showing certain special but equally obnoxious features. They are not interested in Communism or Socialism any more than is the Labour Party. Their method of seeking influence among the workers is to outbid the Labour Party in the reforms of capitalism that they advocate. They take their cue always from Russia which they falsely represent as a country in which Socialism has been established. If they were to gain power they would seek to introduce here the same detestable system of State capitalism and dictatorship as exists in Russia.
"LABOUR" HAS FAILED — NOW FORWARD TO SOCIALISM
The Socialist movement really does seek change, the change from capitalism to Socialism. Capitalism must be abolished, for only by its abolition and its replacement by Socialism can the things that the working class need and desire become realities. Socialism versus Capitalism is the vital issue here and throughout the world.
Between Socialism and Capitalism there can be no compromise, no half-way house. Those who are not for Socialism are against it. The Socialist Party strikes a blow for a Socialist world. We are at the beginning of the fight. We shall 50 on till final victory.
THE SOCIALIST PARTY OF GREAT BRITAIN IS PUTTING FORWARD CANDIDATES AT EAST HAM SOUTH AND PADDINGTON NORTH IN THIS GENERAL ELECTION. AN S.P.G.B. CANDIDATE CONTESTED PADDINGTON NORTH AT THE GENERAL ELECTION IN JULY 1945 AND AGAIN AT THE BY-ELECTION IN NOVEMBER, 1946. ON THOSE TWO OCCASIONS THE ELECTORS DEMONSTRATED THEIR UNREADINESS TO CONSIDER SOCIALISM AS A PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE TO CAPITALISM; THEY GAVE THOUSANDS OF VOTES TO THE LABOUR AND TORY CANDIDATES AND REJECTED SOCIALISM WITH A FEW HUNDRED VOTES THEY CAST FOR THE SOCIALIST CANDIDATE.
Some of our opponents, not knowing the Socialist movement, expected that the results of the two contests at Paddington North would convince the S.P.G.B. that it is useless to carry on the struggle for Socialism. They thought we had misjudged the situation and would disappear from the political scene when the position was made clear.
THE FUTURE LIES IN SOCIALISM
We made no miscalculation and the result did not surprise us. It did not even add to our disappointment. We have had long years of propaganda experience to teach us that the number of convinced Socialists in this country is very small at present.
Strange as it may seem to those who belong to the large and wealthy Labour and Conservative parties we of the Socialist Party are supremely confident of our eventual triumph. The future does not belong to Labourism or to Conservatism but to Socialism.
Why are we so confident? It is because the Socialist movement has two strong forces ceaselessly at work on its side. One is the pressure of capitalism on the working class. The other is the thinking capacity of the workers who have to endure this pressure. Conscious that these forces are slowly working for us we cannot be dismayed by the magnitude of the present difficulties. Sooner or later the working class will understand that for the sake of their well-being and for the very existence of the human race they must join us to end capitalism and establish Socialism.
TORY, LABOUR, LIBERAL, COMMUNIST — AND SOCIALIST
You are asked in the election to choose between a number of parties and programmes but only the S.P.G.B. asks you to vote for Socialism and nothing but Socialism.
The CONSERVATIVE movement — though "movement" is perhaps hardly the word to describe that monument of inertia—would, if it could, leave capitalism unchanged. The wealthy men who are influential in that Party are quite satisfied with things as they are—but they need workers' votes and the working class are so dissatisfied that the Conservatives have to make a show of changing things. They pretend to believe in change but change is the last thing they really want.
The LABOUR PARTY does believe in change of a kind. It claims that you can change capitalism by cutting out the abuses and making it a more satisfactory scheme of things. It claims that you can have capitalism without war, capitalism without unemployment and capitalism without poverty. The Labour Party thus aims to achieve an impossibility, a sort of half-way house between Capitalism and Socialism. It was bound to fail disastrously.
They say they have done their best—and you can see the deplorable results.
The LIBERALS are a party of the past, they have no future and no claim to represent anything but capitalism. Their maximum hope is to provide a group of M.P.'s able to hold the balance between Labour and Conservative. They can be judged on their past record of Government. When in power for long years they never did anything to end the poverty and insecurity of working class life. Always—like the Conservatives—they sought to continue capitalism and to promote the interests of the capitalist class.
The COMMUNISTS are a group showing certain special but equally obnoxious features. They are not interested in Communism or Socialism any more than is the Labour Party. Their method of seeking influence among the workers is to outbid the Labour Party in the reforms of capitalism that they advocate. They take their cue always from Russia which they falsely represent as a country in which Socialism has been established. If they were to gain power they would seek to introduce here the same detestable system of State capitalism and dictatorship as exists in Russia.
"LABOUR" HAS FAILED — NOW FORWARD TO SOCIALISM
The Socialist movement really does seek change, the change from capitalism to Socialism. Capitalism must be abolished, for only by its abolition and its replacement by Socialism can the things that the working class need and desire become realities. Socialism versus Capitalism is the vital issue here and throughout the world.
Between Socialism and Capitalism there can be no compromise, no half-way house. Those who are not for Socialism are against it. The Socialist Party strikes a blow for a Socialist world. We are at the beginning of the fight. We shall 50 on till final victory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)