An appreciation from Germany

We have received an election statement from the Wine and Cheese Appreciation Society of Greater London. Yes, but read on. This is the name of the London section of a German political group and their statement can be found here on the site of this group (it's the article beginning with quote from Douglas Adams).

It is a bit of an essay on political philosophy but it makes some good points about the role of state, government and elections under capitalism. For instance, on the populist demands to "Make the Rich Pay" put forward by left-of-Labour groups and others, they make the point that this assumes the continuation of the rich, who are to be allowed to continue exploiting us but whose profits will then be taxed to pay for social reforms:

Even fringe left-wing parties like Respect bow to the dictates of 'realism' and respect private property through their demands of "taxation on the big corporations and the wealthy to fund public services" – a demand which requires big corporations to make the kind of profits which can then be taxed.

They have singled out Respect but it applies equally to the Trotskyists of TUSC in this election and, of course, to our own independent Trotskyist opponent here in Vauxhall who says:

The Government gave £1 trillion to the banks. We want it back! Anticapitalists say take over the banks, who are making giant profits again, and raise taxes on the rich. Spend the money on a massive programme of public works -- creating three million jobs, a million new affordable homes and a national repair and improve programme for council flats and houses.

We think the Wine and Cheese society might be over-estimating the extent to which these leftist groups (or anyone else, for that matter) really believe this to be possible. It's probably more of a cynical ploy to try to win a following. Still, there's a need to analyse what they say as if they really meant it. In this vein the Appreciation Society go on:

Left-wing parties for instance claim that mass poverty was unnecessary and within capitalism the problem could be solved quickly once they were in power and could tax the rich appropriately. Thus poverty was not a necessity of the mode of production which the state fosters for its own sake. Instead poverty was an unnecessary result of the wrong people in management.

Good point. Hence their general conclusion about all political parties that "the common feature of all these political parties is their affirmation of the basic principles of the capitalist economy". However, in a footnote, we are exempted from this:

The Socialist Party of Great Britian is a notable exception to this rule. The SPGB "claims that there can be no state in a socialist society" and "that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership". The SPGB "seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism." (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/differences.html) Leaving aside for the moment of whether this is a good strategy or not, it is clear from their party programme that the SPGB does not affirm the basic principles of the capitalist economy.

It's nice to be appreciated.

The Ayatollahs' bomb

Yesterday was a busy day.

First, at 11.00 hrs we handed in the nomination papers (and the £500 deposit, in cash) at the Town Hall. Everything was in order.

Then, at 14.30 our candidate spoke at a hustings in the same Town Hall organised by the Lambeth Pensioners Action Group. After speeches by three men in suits but with different coloured ties representing the "main parties" and a contribution full of technical detail by the Green candidate, Danny's, in which he said that the professional politicians on the panel were either fools or knaves for promising to run capitalism in the interests of the working class, was the only one to get a round of applause. The Liberal (Chris Nicholson standing in Streatham) smiled at being called a fool or a knave. The Tory (Rahoul Bhansani also in Streatham) took umbrage. The audience of about 40 or so gave the Labour candidate for Streatham (Chukka Umunna) a hard time, ending up with him heckling them. The pensioners of Lambeth seem a clued-up and bolshie lot.

At 19.30, the Stop the War hustings, in the Brix, St. Matthews Church, opposite the Town Hall started, with Joe Healey (Greens), Chris Nicholson (Liberal, still wearing his suit and tie), Jeremy Drinkall (Workers Power/League for a Fifth International) and Danny Lambert. There were 50 or so in the audience. The Green and Liberal candidates, believing that "politics is the art of the possible", outlined various practical steps that in their view could be taken to lessen tensions by pursuing an ethical foreign policy. Drinkall, supported by a claque of student supporters, played the demagogue calling for the "immediate" this and the "immediate that" (including the immediate dissolution of the state of Israel). But the highlight of his contribution was his defence of the right of the Iranian regime to develop its own nuclear weapons.

Danny read from our 1914 anti-war manifesto and commented "same carnage, different century", pointing out that all the attempts since then to stop wars had failed because they'd left the root cause unchanged. Wars, he said, were caused by conflicts between capitalist interests over markets, sources of raw materials, trade routes, investment outlets and strategic points to protect or acquire these, so the only way to end wars and preparations for war was to get rid of capitalism. This only provoked Drinkall, in a bid to differentiate himself from us, into launching an attack on "the Socialist Party" for not supporting reforms. Danny had to explain that what we were opposed to was not reforms as such, but to the policy of reformism, of pursuing reforms, like he was doing.

After the meeting those leaving were handed a 6-page leaflet by two members of "the International Bolshevik Tendency" denouncing Workers Power as "fake Trotskyists" and reformists for departing from Trotsky's "transitional programme" and for supporting the re-election of the Labour government. Which all goes to show that there are nuttier Trotskyists than those who want to set up a Fifth International. Their paper called -- wait for it -- 1917 proclaimed "Spoil Your Ballot!"

The Green candidate was interviewed about the meeting by a local blogger who more than once refers to us as the "SWP". The blogger is a localist who thinks that national and world issues should not be discussed at a local election. Healey put him right on this, well explaining the impact world events had on the amount of money local councils were given to spend (and that as a result of the present capitalist crisis things were only going to get worse). In fact what we have always said too and why we make no apology for raising the issue of world capitalism or world socialism in the local elections.

The Big Issue

Bought a copy of The Big Issue outside Sainsbury's in Clapham High Street and found that it contained an article by David Harvey (in fact an extract from his new book The Enigma of Capital) which says some things we have long said:

Can capitalism survive the present trauma? Yes, of course. But at what cost? This question masks another. Can the capitalist class reproduce its power in the face of the raft of economic, social, political and geopolitical and environmental difficulties? Again, the answer is a resounding 'Yes it can'.
This will, however, require the mass of the people to give generously of the fruits of their labour to those in power, to surrender many of their rights and their hard-won asset values (in everything from housing to pension rights) and to suffer environmental degradations galore, to say nothing of serial reductions in their living standards which will mean starvation for many of those already struggling to survive at rock bottom.

and

Capitalism will never fall on its own. It will have to be pushed. The accumulation of capital will never cease. It will have to be stopped. The capitalist class will never willingly surrender its power. It will have to be dispossessed.

That's why we're contesting this election -- to urge people to organise politically to dispossess the capitalist class and establish a world society of common ownership, democratic control and production solely not profit.

It's not too late to buy this week's Big Issue. But, remember, the real big issue is whether capitalism should be allowed to continue or whether it should be replaced by socialism (not which political non-entity would make the best managing director of UKCapitalism plc).

Down Memory Lane: Clapham Manor Baths

On our way to the Manor Arms pub after distributing leaflets three of us noticed that Clapham Baths in Clapham Manor Street had been demolished and was now a mound of rubble. The place has a history. During the General Election in February 1950 it was the venue of a debate between the Socialist Party, represented by Harry Young, and a Mrs Curtis, who was the Liberal candidate for Clapham. Here's a part of the Socialist speaker's opening speech:

The chief characteristic of Capitalism is private ownership of the means of wealth production: Socialism implies common ownership. Therefore there can no penalisation of or discrimination against any person or groups of persons under Socialism. Today we have a class society—a community divided into groups, economically speaking. This division has nothing to do with biological characteristics. It is largely an accident of birth that makes one a capitalist. What determines his place in society is his economic position; and everything follows from that. Our habits, manners, speech, customs, ethics, all follow from this is division. According to a recent statement by Mr. Hall, the Secretary of the Treasury, "of the 550,000 people who die each year only 10% own more than £2,000, but these 10% between them own 90% of the total property."

It means that 10% of the people own 90% of the wealth, of this 10% many own vastly more than £2,000, some own £2 million. Therefore Class society means grinding inescapable poverty for the working class. People can be in a state of poverty without going short a meal or clothes. Therefore my second point is that we live in a class society and cannot escape from poverty.

The worker has only his ability to work to sell — the power of his muscle, sinews and brain. He therefore goes to work for wages, and receives only enough reproduce his labour power. The amount the worker receives is determined by what is required to reproduce his labour power, the surplus beyond which goes to the owner. It follows from this that the political interest of the working class is to overthrow the system which robs them. Everything else is idle nonsense, making no ultimate difference to their class position in society. This, therefore, is the reason we oppose all other political parties. They all stand for the same viewpoint—the Conservatives, Liberals, Labour Party and Communists—for a series of measures which they claim will eass the collar of poverty where it rubs too hard.

This system of society which we propose is entirely different from what we know today. After taking over the means of production the characteristics of Capitalism will disappear. Exchange will cease, for Socialism will replace sale by free distribution. Socialism will put into practice "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Labour Exchanges, Stock Exchanges, Banks, Insurance offices will all disappear. Force will cease. There will be no question of what to do with the man who won't work; most people want to work; most would be only too glad to do a sensible job of work. Socialism will succeed by the enthusiasm and determination of the socialists who have brought it into being to make it successful.

We stand for a system which will be world-wide, democratic, and based on a community of interest of the individual and society.

Neither capitalism nor the case for socialism have changed since then (except that the price level has risen and we wouldn't now refer to the worker as "he" and "his"). Even what the socialist speaker said in his concluding remarks also has a modern ring:

It is our contention that there is no great difference between the other parties. I quote from a news report the statement of Lord Samuel at the Liberal pre-election Conference that, if they polled sufficient votes "they might be called upon to undertake Ministerial responsibility." "We must accept this challenge" he said. When occasion demands the minor sham differences are sunk and they unite as supporters of the capitalist system.

For those interested in such things, the result of the election was: Gibson (Labour) 23,300; Lowndes (Tory) 22,094; Curtis (Liberal) 3,071(6.26%); Draper (Communist Party) 619 (1.26%). The turnout was 80.64%. Those were the days.

This Saturday : our election meeting

CAN POLITICIANS SAVE THE PLANET?

Election Forum:

Frank Simpkins covers the inability of politicians to solve any of the serious issues we face due to the constraints of capitalism. Are politicians able to change the economy, or does the economy change politicians?

Vincent Otter talks about the profit system's inevitable cycle of boom and bust and the 'credit crunch's' most recent demonstration of the crisis of capital. How does this affect politician's attempts to save our environment?

Glenn Morris considers the causes and consequences of global warming. Are politicians powerless in the face on impending catastrophe?

Danny Lambert describes the monstrous inefficiency of capitalism and investigates how we are conditioned to accept a false identity that makes us willing wage slaves who think we deserve no better.

Saturday 17 April, 6.00pm

The Socialist Party
52 Clapham High Street
London
SW4 7UN

All Welcome. Free entry. Discussion. Refreshments.

PS. Don't forget to watch the Three Stooges perform on TV this evening, otherwise you'll have nothing to talk about at work or in the pub tomorrow.

Oh dear

Somebody has seen our leaflet and by the look of it got it through their letter box. Of course we know it's Larkhall but, agreed, it does look bad that we missed that typo. But we do mention local matters. As you can see even from the crumpled version, we say:

What happens in any local council depends mainly on what happens in the country and even the world.

Our point is that most of the money local authorities have to spent comes from the central government (and has to be spent on what they say). But the amount the central government has to allocate depends on the state of the capitalist economy and that they can't overtax profits. So councils end up as little more than local offices of government ministries, implementing unpopular and anti-social measures. And of course it's going to get worse with all three main parties promising cuts worse than under Thatcher. Which is why it is quite in order to raise the issue of world socialism at a local election.

A HUSTING WE WILL GO

We have been invited to attend a hustings meeting on the 19th April , 7:30 at The Brix, St Mathew's Church organised by Lambeth Stop the War Coalition.
Confirmed speakers for the event are:

Rahoul Bansali - Conservative candidate Streatham
Jeremy Drinkall- Anti Capitalist (Workers Power) candidate Vauxhall
Joseph Healy- Green candidate Vauxhall
Chris Nicholson- Liberal Democrate candidate Streatham
Dan Lambert (yours truly) The Socialist Party Vauxhall

The Labour candiates: Kate Hoey, Chuka Umunna, Tessa Jowell have said they are unable to attend.

We have been asked to keep to the theme of British defence policy. That'll do because British defence policy is dedicated to maintaining and developing British capitalism, in a word profit, profit for a tiny parasitic minority.

Runners and riders

Camden have finally published the list of accepted nominations for the borough, including Kentish Town - you'll see I'm there now alongside thirteen other candidates - including one from the BNP.

So, I'll just take this opportunity to rehearse our argument against teh BNP.

I'm glad their standing, because it'll be an opportunity for them to expose their idiocy, and for them to be outvoted. As far as we're concerned, however, they are simply another capitalist party - albeit one that elevates stupidity to a point of principle.

The idea that there is some authentic "British" group that have an ancient right to a patch of land (one which only really had its borders settled in 1921, and then they're disputed a touch) is bogus. Our nature as human beings cries out more to us that any tie of nation - or do the BNP really stop and think about a person's nationality before going to help them if they see them collapse in the street?

The BNP are wire happy - they see the bars on the cage that stop us from going where we like with who we like and want to make them into the prettiest bars imaginable. They want BRITISH capitalism, which really isn't so different from any other variety.

Yes, their leaders inspire and prey upon inter-communal violence and persecution, seeing that as a quick way to win followers and gain political power, but they have been pressured by the logic of democracy to mute that game and play by the rules of the ballot box, and if they grew that pressure would grow to simply make them into the stupid wing of the conservative party writ large.

The best way to oppose them is to be for something, we're for socialism, and as the movement for socialism grows so their ideas will be marginalised further.

Activity report

Yesterday we had our first stall of the campaign outside our premises in Clapham High Street. There'll be one there every Saturday between now and the election and maybe in other places too (Stockwell, Brixton, the Southbank).

Lambeth Stop the War group had a stall further up the road, outside Sainsburys. We visited them to make sure we get an invitation to the hustings meeting they are organising a week on Monday in Brixton:

Lambeth Stop the War Election Hustings
A chance for you to ask candidates questions about Afghanistan, Civil Liberties, Palestine and the War on Terror generally
Monday 19th April
7:30pm - 9pm
The Brix, St Matthews Church, Brixton Hill, SW2 1JF

Meanwhile other comrades covered the trade union demonstration about defending the welfare state that was going on in Traflgar Square at the same time.

The party of the Rich

On our way to leaflet the Springfield estate (where one of us got bitten by a dog) we noticed that the Tories had been leafletting Clapham Town ward. Their leaflet contained a photo of one of their candidates squatting and pointing to a pothole which somebody should sent to glum councillors. Also amusing to see that it contained a version of the Liberals' it's-a-two-horse-race bar chart but with the Liberals trailing in third place.

We also found evidence that the Tories had been leafletting Clapham North tube station on behalf of their parliamentary candidate in Vauxhall, a young whizz-kid. He doesn't stand a chance but it's obligatory for would-be professional politicians to first contest a no-hope seat on behalf of their party in the hope of being given a better chance next time. According to his leaflet:

A Conservative Government will build economic recovery on investment and exports, not consumer borrowing and government debt.

As if governments can control the way capitalism works rather than having to react to what capitalism throws at them. Another empty promise not worth the paper it was printed on that deserved to end up where we found it: in the gutter.

Meanwhile the Tories' shadow chancellor Boy George has been sending personal letters to individuals in marginal constituencies in which he promises to "protect those on modest incomes", including by re-linking the state pension to inceases in average earnings (rather than consumer prices as now which has been rising more slowly). We'll see. Breaking this link was one of the cuts made by Thatcher in 1980 . . . and all three main parties are promising that the cuts they will introduce if elected will be worse than under Thatcher. Or maybe they are anticipating that prices will start rising more than earnings.

The Tories are only professing concern for those on modest incomes because they can't win unless they can gain votes outside their natural constituency of the rich. And they are, and always have been, the party of the rich. As comes through from time to time, as when Cameron calls on BA workers to cross picket lines and with employers currently lining up to support his (and their) party's promise to reduce a modest Labour tax that will hit their profits.

Not only are they the party of the rich. They are rich themselves. As Cameron re-assured a "gathering of top financiers" last December:

"My father was a stockbroker, my grandfather was a stockbroker, my great-grandfather was a stockbroker".

And he's married to an aristocrat. And of course he, like many in his shadow cabinet, is an Old Etonian. What the "new", "modern" Tory Party stands for is not simply government by politicians for the rich but government for the rich by the rich.

Any person on a "modest income", i.e most people, who even thinks of voting Tory is a mug.

What about a society with neither rich nor poor?

On Sunday we received an email from the Fairer Tax Campaign which said:

The Fairer Tax Campaign is a not-for-profit and non-partisan project that is in favour of national income tax reform.
We believe that Britain needs to become collectively fairer. The gap between the rich and the poor has continued to grow for decades, which has only served to create a divided society. This is unacceptable for a developed country with one of the largest economies in the world. More needs to be done to tackle the aforementioned disparity. Fairer income tax is part of the solution.
We propose that that the tax free personal allowance threshold be raised to £10,000 for anyone earning less than £18,000 a year. This will be subsidised by reducing the threshold for the 50% tax rate from £150,000 to £100,000. It will ensure that the rich pay more and the poor pay less.
Question 1: Do you agree in principle with the aforementioned policy?
Question 2: In a generic sense, do you believe that the rich should pay more tax and the poor should pay less tax?
Question 3: If you are elected as an MP, do you pledge to campaign for income tax reform at the next parliament?
We look forward to receiving your response.

We replied:

The Socialist Party is standing on a platform of socialism (common ownership, democratic control, production for use not profit, and distribution according to need not money) and nothing but. We are not advocating reform of capitalism. Your reform (trying to permanently redistribute income from the rich to the poor) has been tried many times and has always failed because it is undermined by the way the capitalist system works and has to work, as is explained in this article. It would be more effective to work for a society in which there will be neither rich nor poor.

As our reply was not published along with others on their website we asked why and received the following reply:

We can confirm that we did receive your email. However, as you can tell by our blog, we only upload answers of those politicians who broadly agree in principle, part or whole with the Fairer Tax Campaign (or progressive tax reform in general). So far, politicians from 11 different party affiliations have done so. It was clear from your response that you neither agreed with FTC in principle, part or whole. If we are mistaken, by all means send us a response to our questions that matches the criteria above and we will upload your answer. We can understand if you are unable to do so for ideological reasons. We hope that has been clarified and wish you all the best.

In the end our reply was published as a comment. By the look of those who have signed up this reformist bankwagon is not going anywhere anyway.

Kentish Town update

Sorry I've been quiet, I've been up in Kentish Town gathering signatures to contest the election there. I had to do this in between attending the Party's conference.

After knocking on about 300 doors (most of which were simply not answered) often in driving freezing winds, I got the ten signatures required. Most people I talked to simply weren't interested in politics - a good few said "No, sorry, I'm voting Labour" (the ward is a lib-dem/labour marginal in a tight council contest). One feller did start to discuss with me why it would be impossible to organise a complex economy without the market system, but I was so cold I didn't hang around long - I knew I could keep the counter argument going for about half an hour, and didn't reckon that would be fair on either of us.

At least, though, he instantly compared us to the diggers, which made me relatively happy.

I gave away a few copies 0f our Pamphlet 'Socialism as a practical alternative' to those who seemed interested in what we about.

I got my nomination papers in yesterday, and the returning officer asked for an additional coverign letter from our nomionating officer so I could use the party name - this despite the fact that I'd lugged the relevent form all the way down to Clapham to get it signed. Apparently, the form isn't enough, no, but an email that could be from anybody, really, is sufficient. Bureacracy, I tell's ya.

So, now for about 15 hours of leafletting, alongside any helping out I give in Lambeth, and joining in other campaigning events. Fun, fun fun.

The Day the Election was Called

This seemed a good day to start distributing the local election manifestos, so went to the westernmost part of Larkhall ward (and of Vauxhall and the borough of Lambeth) on the other side of Wandsworth Road. Went the extra 300 yards up the Wandsworth Road to drop one in at the John Buckle Bookshop at No 170, the headquarters of the "Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)", a Maoist outfit (can't remember whether they supported Albania or Mao's widow -- anyway they stand for state-capitalism not socialism). It wasn't open. It never seems to be. So couldn't find out what their line on the general election is. I think they may be calling for a vote for Kim Il Sung II of North Korea.

Picked up a copy of a paper for Portuguese-speakers in Britain, ie workers from Portugal, Brazil, Angola and Mozambique. When a story concerns one of these countries it is signaled by the country's flag. Noticed that the Angolan flag features the hammer-and-sicke. That should please the RCPB(ML). Or maybe not.

Just heard on the news that the actor Corin Redgrave died today. He stood against us for the Workers Revolutionary Party in the 1978 Lambeth Central by-election. He got 271 votes. We got 91. He didn't like us. The feeling was mutual but we mustn't speak ill of the dead, at least not on the day they died.

The future capitalism offers you

Apparently "Gordon" was in Larkhall on Tuesday, but they never told us he was coming. We were there too but at the other end of the ward.

His job is to preside over the running of capitalism in Britain for the benefit of British capitalists. But they have turned out to be an ungrateful lot, lining up behind the Tories to avoid a minor tax on their profits.

They say the government's proposed increase in National Insurance contributions from next year will be a "tax on jobs". But they are not concerned about jobs. And what hypocrites to pretend they are. They are in business not to provide jobs but to make profits, and if the two clash then jobs will be sacrificed to protect profits, as they've been doing since the autumn of 2008 with more to come. The proposed increase in NI contributions will increase their labour costs and so cut into profits. That's why they are squealing, allowing the Tories to present themselves as a better party of the rich than Labour. And Labour had been trying so hard.

But what about the rest of us, the non-rich? In the boring TV debate last Monday between the main parties' economics spokesmen

all three agreed the future cuts would be worse than those under Margaret Thatcher. (see here, for instance)

Sorry. but we have to ask this: Are you going to be one of the mugs that's going to vote for them?

Local manifesto arrives

12,000 copies of our manifesto for the London borough elections on 6 May arrived yesterday. Distribution will begin this Sunday -- by delegates down for our Annual Conference this Friday and Saturday at 52 Clapham High Street (all welcome -- there are no secret sessions). Here's what the leaflet says:

Socialists are working for a different and better world

This is a message to those who are fed up –

• Fed up with the failures of this dreary system
• Fed up with leaders and the false promises of career politicians
• Fed up with poor hospitals, poor schools, poor housing and an unhealthy environment
• Fed up with having to live on a wage that struggles to pay the endless bills
• Fed up with serving the profit system and seeing poverty amidst luxury

What happens in any local council depends mainly on what happens in the country and even in the world. That is why socialists are working for a different world. But it can't happen unless you join us. The job of making a better world must be the work of all of us.

The world we want is a one where we all work together. We can all do this. Co-operation is in our own interests and this is how a socialist community would be organised – through democracy and through working with each other.

To co-operate we need democratic control not only in our own area but by people everywhere. This means that all places of industry and manufacture, all the land, transport, the shops and means of distribution, should be owned in common by the whole community. With common ownership we would not produce goods for profit. The profit system exploits us. Without it we could easily produce enough quality things for everyone. We could all enjoy free access to what we need without the barriers of buying and selling.

Most politicians blame our problems on lack of money, but this is not true. Money doesn't build hospitals, schools decent housing and a healthy environment. The things that make a good community can only be created by the work of the people. We have an abundance of skills and energy. If we were free from having to work for the profits of employers we would be able to work for the needs of everyone.

The profit system is oppressive; it dominates our lives. It plagues us with bills. The rent and mortgage payments, the food bills, the rates, gas, electricity, water and telephone bills. Money is used to screw us for the profits of business. If we don't pay, we don't get the goods. Without the capitalist system, a socialist community would easily provide for all of its members..

The challenge now is to build a world-wide movement whose job will be to break with the failures of the past. It won't be for power or money or careers. It will work for the things that matter to people everywhere – peace, material security and the enjoyment of life through cooperation.

This is the challenge that could link all people in a common cause without distinction of nationality, race or culture.

We in the Socialist Party reject the view that things will always stay the same. We can change the world. Nothing could stop a majority of socialists building a new society run for the benefit of everyone. We all have the ability to work together in each other's interests. All it takes is the right ideas and a willingness to make it happen.

If you agree with this you can show it by voting for our candidates in this ward.

The socialist candidates are:
Ferndale ward (Lambeth): Daniel Lambert, John Lee, Jacqueline Shodeke
Larkhill ward (Lambeth): Oliver Bond, Adam Buick, Stanley Parker
Kentish Town ward (Camden): William Martin

GENERAL ELECTION: The Socialist Party is also contesting the Vauxhall constituency (Lambeth) in this election. The candidate is: Daniel Lambert.

Follow our election campaign at: http://spgb.blogspot.com/

More information and offers of help: contact our offices at 52 Clapham High St, SW4 7UN or by email to socialistparty@btconnect.com or by phone to 0207 622 3811. Website: www.worldsocialism.org/spgb

Local election nomination papers handed in

This morning handed in the nomination papers for our 6 candidates in the local elections in Lambeth. They've been accepted. So our candidates (Bond, Buick and Parker for Larkhall and Lambert, Lee and Shodeke for Ferndale) are now officially candidates and are no longer allowed to buy drinks for electors. Apparently the Greens are expected to stand a full list so there could be at least 15 candidates for the 3 seats in both wards.

On the way back from Brixton Town Hall noticed the offices of the local government workers' union UNISON so dropped a leaflet through their letter box and looked at their noticeboard. There were three notices.

One was a call for volunteers to go canvassing for the Labour Party in Barking to stop the BNP. Apparently there's a chance they might win control of the council there. As if it wasn't the inevitable failure of the mainstream reformist parties to make capitalism work for the workers that hadn't created conditions for the rise of the BNP.

The other was from the Union's LGBT section (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender, for the uninitiated). Not quite sure what that's got to do with trade unionism which is about what unites workers not what divides them but maybe it's just concerned with combatting prejudices.

The third was from Youth Fight for Jobs, which is a front for Militant. The leaders of UNISON don't like Militant and have recently taken over a branch in Greenwich which Militant had captured. Don't know what this was all about but in general it's a bad thing for union branches to be hi-jacked by vanguardist parties (which specialise in this) or any political party for that matter. They ought to be controlled democratically by their members irrespective of their political views.

BNP bullshit

Last Monday Nick Griffin of the far-right BNP debated the "Reverend" George Hargreaves of the far-right Christian Party on a Christian TV station. According to a report in Surrey Comet this is what he argued:

"We believe that nations are ordained by God and that they will be there at the end of times, so logically from that all nations have the right to ensure they survive and are not simply swamped by an endless flood from elsewhere."

If this is the sort of nonsense he is spouting just put him on TV every night and he'll soon be a laughing stock.

When, at what point in history, for instance, did God ordain the "nations" of the world and which was to live where? The so-called "British nation" of which Griffin seeks to be the champion is a product of history, not the creation of some god. If you go back only 2000 or so years most of the inhabitants of this island off the north-west coast of Europe were Celts, speaking a language akin to modern Welsh. They were eventually conquered by the Romans who came from Italy (but whose troops and settlers came from all round the Mediterranean and beyond). When the Romans left there was a "endless flood" of Angles and other Germanic-speakers into "Britain" (a word of Celtic origin) who eventually drove the Celtic-speakers to the Celtic fringe of Cornwall, Wales and Cumberland. Then came the Danes from Norway and Denmark. Then England (or Angle-land, as it was now called) was conquered by the French-speaking Normans. And the English-language evolved, a basically Germanic language with a large French vocabulary. It didn't stop there, with later migrations of Flemings and Hugenots.

Daniel Defoe wrote a poem about this which is still a good reply to nationalist myth-makers like Griffin.

As we have always said, the best way to deal with Griffin and his followers is not to ban them or kick their heads in but to put them on a platform and expose the nonsense they spout for what it is. Easy.

A bit of gossip

The Workers' Power group supports TUSC and is running a candidate in Vauxhall. Jeremy Drinkall, the candidate, told me that he has asked for TUSC support, and been told officially that TUSC will not support him because the Labour MP he is challenging, Kate Hoey, is in the RMT parliamentary group. (This although RMT is not in TUSC).

Martin Thomas on the site of another Trotskyist group who are also standing alone, without TUSC endorsement, in Camberwell & Peckham, and also saying Vote Labour elsewhere.

Taxi Rank

OK, things are ticking over - I've been to Camden council and I've got hold of the nomination papers for standing in Kentish Town: I'll pick up the electoral roll on the 29th and so will be hitting the streets looking for nominations pretty much straight away.

Until then - the thing overlooked by the media. Polly Toynbee comes close regarding the Byers/Despatches affair:

If a fish rots from the head, Labour's contamination with money was smelled from those earliest days of being "intensely relaxed about the filthy rich". But Tony Blair's behaviour since 2007 defies the ravings of his worst enemies. No conspiracy theorist guessed he would take money for Iraqi oil from a South Korean company – to add to £1m from the Kuwaiti royal family, an estimated £20m from anyone anywhere, £4m for his book, plus properties fit for a Brunei prince. That all this mammon is collected in the name of God is worthy of the faith-based business school of L Ron Hubbard: God can make you very rich indeed. Did Blair go to war in Iraq to get rich quick? Almost certainly not, but the cashflow from American adulation ever since will leave the slur on his tombstone.

This is nearly there, the point is that the desperate, petty, piddling corruption of the type Byers has been engaged in isn't the end of it. There are lucrative and legal and "honourable" ways to get rich post politics. Those in the loop know that there is always the way out into business. The capitalists aren't offering bribes, directly, but capitalism and the prospect of riches does offer an incentive to tow the capital line.

The point the media have missed is this: you cannot have democracy in an unequal society. End of. The lure of riches and reward will always draw power and decision making towards the owners of the world. You can regulate, adjudicate and officiate to buggery and back, and you still won't stop the allure of lucre. Beat that home: in a world where money talks louder than votes, you cannot have democracy.

What "mass immigration"?

Came across a UKIP hoarding poster which read "5000 people settle here every week. Stop mass immigration -- vote UKIP".

Of course what UKIP is doing is playing on some people's dislike of already settled immigrants. But most immigrants are just workers who've moved here in search of work and finding it. In fact many of what the BNP, UKIP's cruder rival for the anti-immigrant vote, call the "indigenous" population will be the descendants of one-time immigrants. Everybody with an Irish name for instance, and that's a lot.

The Socialist attitude is that all workers, irrespective of their first language or where they were born, share a common interest in uniting, as long as capitalism lasts, to get the best terms they can for the sale of their working skills and, more importantly, in getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with a world community without frontiers based on the common ownership and democratic control of the Earth's resources so that these can be usd for the benefit of the whole world population.

It's not clear whether UKIP will be standing in Vauxhall -- the poster was in neighbouring Battersea. Just checked who it is and it says:

From a military family, Christopher was brought up in this country and the middle east.

Hold on a minute. Middle East? So it's alright from his family to have settled there in connection with their work but not for families from other parts of the world to settle here.

The baby and the bathwater

We have received by email a leaflet about the election from Past Tense Publications who have published some interesting short pamphlets about labour and popular history in South London. Headed "ALL ELECTIONS ARE A JOKE. LET'S TREAT THEM WITH THE CONTEMPT THEY DESERVE" it argues that "all elections are a waste of time". It starts off well enough:

Politicians of all parties fill their pockets, you couldn’t tell their policies apart without a microscope, the power of the rich, the global corporations and financiers continues merrily whoever is elected; well-meaning do-gooders get elected, then become sucked in or ground down by he weight of the system. While the meaningless circus at Westminster rattles on, our lives are at the mercy of their economic upturns and downturns, grinding away at work just to survive. While the rich and their parliamentary puppets wine and dine, whoever gets in next time will slash the NHS and other services many of us need to get by, to balance the national debt – at our expense, again.

They recall what they see as a historical precedent:

"How things don’t change…
In the 18th century, the vast majority of the population were excluded from power by a corrupt political elite, who had the parliamentary processes all sown up in the interests of the rich, ie themselves and their mates (sound familiar?). The poor could see the electoral circus meant nothing to them.
In response some set out to take the piss out of the whole charade. In the South London village of Garratt (in modern Wandsworth), from the 1740s to the 1790s, mock elections were held for the fictional office of “Mayor of Garratt”. Huge crowds flocked to a rowdy and fantastic parade and drinking spree, centred on a fake contest, featuring ridiculous candidates making grandiose speeches, promising the mpossible if elected, and swearing oaths filled with sexual innuendo…"

And conclude with practical proposals to "Turn the joke back on them":

It may not change the world: but why don’t we revive the Garratt tradition, with a vengeance this time, everywhere? We could hold mock elections, in the streets, parks, or even inside the polling stations on election day (till they chuck us out!), at work, school or on the bus, we could stir up a huge non-stop mickey-take of the meaningless parliamentary smokescreen, disrupting, engaging with others, having a laugh, but showing we aren’t taken in? Why not elect your ranty mates, or whoever; maybe they could all turn up at the House of Commons on opening day and claim to be an Honourable Member too? Would your pet gerbil make a good MP?
We could also revive other fun practices from our history: like the Suffragettes’ were fond of following candidates they opposed around and disrupting all their elections speeches; which would be a laugh too, especially with megaphones or sound systems.
These are just two ideas – there’s a million more ways to trash the dash for cash. Let’s use our imaginations, go for it, and not get nicked!
Having fun together is more real than parliamentary puppet shows… The more chaos and disorder, the more disruption, the more open rejection of the empty lie of democracy, the more fun we’ll have the more potential for real change.

Clearly anarchist influence is strong amongst some of those associated with Past Tense publications. The full text can in fact already be found on anarchist websites, for instance, here.

Mildly amusing perhaps (though, to tell the truth, the members at our offices who read it thought it pathetic) but theoretically and practically wrong. Mocking politicians is alright to a certain extent (we do it ourselves) but it can give rise to the mistaken idea that is because of corrupt and self-seeking politicians that we suffer from the social problems we do. It's not. It's the fault of capitalism. Even if all politicians were saints they still couldn't make capitalism work in our interest.

Nor is it true that "All elections are a joke". While what the professional politics who currently dominate politics get up to at Westminister and the antics they engage in to get votes do deserve to be mocked, especially as the media give them so much publicity, there is a serious side to elections.

Elections are ultimately about who controls the government and who gets to make the laws. Ever since most electors have been wage and salary workers the capitalist class has needed to persuade workers into voting for politicians who will support their system. This is what elections are about: tricking workers into voting for pro-capitalist politicians. Past Tense are right to expose this, but wrong to conclude that this means we should never have anything to do with elections. The response should be, as Marx once put it, to transform universal suffrage "from the instrument of fraud that it has been up till now into an instrument of emancipation". Which is one of the points we are trying to make in contesting this and other elections.

Universal suffrage came into being partly as a result of pressure from below. Past Tense recognise this when they note that "from the 1760s the [Garratt] elections were associated with radical politics: demands for reform of the political system band protests against the economic hardships and lack of liberty for the labouring classes began to appear in the speeches". But what was "reform of the political system" if not the extension of the suffrage and its use to gain access to political power to try to improve the situation of "the labouring classes", such as the Chartists later campaigned for? And what did the Suffragettes want if not to extend the suffrage? Was this wrong? We say No, the extension of the vote to workers is a gain and is a crucial difference between today and the situation in 1700s. Certainly, at present the vote is not used wisely -- in fact it is used very unwisely -- but that doesn't mean that it can't be used when once workers have woken up to the fact that capitalism can never be made to work in their interests. To try to speed up this awareness is another reason why we contest elections.

The suggestion to take over "polling stations on election day", i.e. to try to disrupt the elections, is completely irresponsible but is probably just anarchist bombast. Our advice to them (since the Past Tense people seem a decent lot) is: don't be stupid, don't do it. If they really tried it, they'd be in dead trouble and would get nicked, ending up in prison to reflect on the refrain from the Crickets 1959 song "I fought the Law" ... "And the Law Won".

Another Vauxhall election blog

So that electors can be fully informed of the choice before them (and so they can see the difference between a real socialist and a Trotskyist reform-monger and would-be leader) here's the site of the candidate of the League for the Fifth International.

We were also out leafleting, for the local elections, yesterday but in the Stockwell Park area so didn't come across them (Oval is not one of the two wards we are contesting). Incindentally, if you take the wrong turning when you exit from the Oval tube station you end up in the nextdoor constituency of Bermondsey and Old Southwark.

Hope none of them did this and handed out their leaflets there as they are supposed to be telling people that side of Kennington Park Road to Vote Labour. In other words, their message to those living near the Oval tube would have been: if you live on one side of road Vote Labour, if you live on the other Don't Vote Labour. We'll try and get hold of one of their leaflets to see if this clears up the confusion.

Nul point

Our candidate for Vauxhall has been solicited for his views by yet another organisation. This time, not a single issue group but group which has 21 issues.

"Election candidates challenge!" read the email we got, "Endorse our pledges and we'll vote for you":

"The Instute of Ideas has published a list of '21 Pledges for Progress' ahead of the general election, and is challenging candidates of all parties to endorse them. The Institute of Ideas suggests voting for any candidate willing to back at least 15 of the pledges, whichever party they represent".

The 21 pledges can be found here. As can be seen, they are reform measures to be achieved within capitalism. Despite the fact that we could sympathise with some of the measures such as those concerning freedom of speech and association and the call for a more rational approach to nuclear power and GM crops (though we wouldn't trust them to be implemented properly under capitalism), and although feudal relics like the monarchy and the house of lords will diappear in socialism, we had to reply saying we couldn't endorse any of the "pledges" to gain votes.

This is because we are standing on a straight programme of socialism (the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production, with production solely for use, not sale and profit and distribution on the principle of "from each their ability to each their needs") as the only framework within which existing social problems can be lastingly tackled and only want the votes of those who want socialism rather than just particular reforms of capitalism.

So, we had to report that our score was 0 out of 21.

We know the Institute of Ideas of old. This has been formed by ex-leading "cadres" of the now defunct Leninist organisation, the "Revolutionary Communist Party". In fact, in the 1989 by-election in Vauxhall (which we gave a miss) they put up a candidate who got 177 votes. That candidate, Don Milligan, who has now abandoned Leninism, has written a recent piece about what life was like for the members of the RCP and the illusions they held. It can be found here. We imagine that this is still what life is still like inside the extant Leninist/Trotskyist organisation, the League for the Fifth International, which is planning to stand here. Which confirms why we ourselves have always opposed Leninism and said that those who want socialism should organise as an open, democratic party without leaders or leadership pretensions.

Solidarity

The world we live in. The Tories attack Unite for seeking solidarity from the American Teamsters Union (according to the BBC). Now, the international solidarity of the workers is a principle of trade unionism, so it is in fact a good thing that workers are seeking one anothers' support. Just look, though, at the vitriol being poured on the BA workers for daring to stand up for themselves. Compare with the flood of stories about government cuts being needed to restore 'confidence' in the economy (e.g. here). What they mean by confidence is giving in to the overall policy demands of financiers, who will withhold their economic resources until their demands are met.

We are in the grip of a sustained capital strike, and yet the press turn vicious on any attempt by workers to mount a strike to defend their own interests.

As a note, the Tories are attacking the link between Labour and Unite, because Unite as the biggest union in the country is basically shouldering the cost of the Labour Party now. Labour loyalist Luke Akehurst rebuts the allegations.

The point, though, is that the link is hurting both parties, the interests of political parties and trade unions are not the same. Further, by linking themselves to a party that will form government under capitalism, the unions are signing a paycheque to those who will have to implement capitalism's attacks against the workers.

We support, fully and utterly, the BA workers and Unite and the Teamsters in their efforts to stand up to their employer, a struggle we all share an interest in. We share, though, an even greater interest in getting rid of the wages system all together, and Unite the Union would do better to try and raise their aims to Unite the Workers, for socialism. Unite members in Lambeth and Camden can do this by voting for our candidates.

Green austerity

In his blog on Saturday the Green Party candidate for Vauxhall, Joseph Healey, inadvertently reminded people that in Ireland the Green Party is part of the coalition government and so is responible for imposing the increased austerity on the workers there demanded by the current world economic crisis. Green parties have assumed responsibility for governing capitalism not just in Ireland but also, though not at the moment, in Germany, France, Belgium and Italy.

As we have always said, the Green Party is just as much a party of capitalism as Labour, the Tories and the Liberals. They only want to try to give it a green tinge. Not that this can work except on a miniscule scale since capitalism's priority of priorities always must be allowing profits to be made.

This means that any party which takes on responsibility for running capitalism must sooner or later end up acting against the interests of the majority wage and salary working class, as Healey's counterparts in Ireland have found out (and accepted).

More Conservative than Thou

Out yesterday to get the last two signatories for the nomination papers for the local elections we came across a Labourite distributing leaflets door to door. She wasn't very friendly quizzing us as to why we were contesting and where. We told her we were contesting to put over the case of for a socialist society of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use not profit and added that, as far as we're concerned, Labour, Liberals and the Tories were all the same. We could almost see her mind ticking thinking "they might take votes from us and let the Lib Dems in". She seemed relieved when we told her we were only standing in two wards.

Her leaflet was revealing as it was using all the arguments against the Lib Dems that the Tories use against Labour. One item headed "Labour costs you less -- the Lib Dems cost you more!" denounced the "tax-addicted Lib Dems". The claim was that the Labour council had been able to freeze council tax (as if all councils don't in election years) by eliminating waste while "at the same time, frontline services have been protected". By coincidence the front page headline of the March 11 issue of the local free paper, the Post, lying in people's recycling bins, was "SOLICITOR TO FIGHT HOUSING WARDEN CUTS":

Lambeth council could face a legal fight after slashing its number of sheltered housing wardens by almost 25 per cent to save money. The Labour-run council cut the number of wardens who look after more than 1,000 elderly and vulnerable people living in sheltered housing schemes from 28 to 22 late last year.

Apparently Labour doesn't regard wardens for people in sheltered housing as a "front line service". Having said this, this sort of thing is par for the course under capitalism whichever party runs the council. And, by all accounts, it's going to get worse as whatever government emerges from the general election starves councils of funds and gives priority to repaying those capitalists who have recently lent the government money.

Another item "Lib Dems soft on crime" said of the Lib Dems:

They voted against Labour's Safer Neighbourhood Police Teams, tried to legalise hard drugs, and launched a bid to decriminalise kerb crawling putting women at risk from abusers.

Time was when the Labour Party used to support such liberal reforms. Not any more. They're more Conservative these days.

Blood sports and the old ruling class

It's started. Single-issue campaigning groups contacting candidates about their single issue. Yesterday the League Against Cruel Sports asked us to reply to this question:

If elected to Parliament and the opportunity arose, would you vote in favour of repeal of the Hunting Act?

We sent the following reply:

The good old English sport of sending hungry hunting hounds to chase aristocrats through the woods, catch them and rip them to pieces, has been slow to take off as a popular pastime. Despite claims that these predatory parasites are a foul rural presence, serving only to infect the countryside with their conceited greed and indolence, it has been hard to find dogs with sufficient brutality to enjoy the so-called sport. Those who favour such hunts claim that it is nothing more than a healthy rural tradition, misunderstood by town dwellers, and that ripping duchesses and viscounts to shreds is the most human way to rid nature of those who have only survived historically by plundering and murdering others. The Royal Society for the Protection of Useless Aristocrats has been long split on the issue, with one section accepting that such blood sport is "just a bit of harmless fun", while others prefer the idea of culling – or permanent quarantine in the House of Lords.

This laboured account would be funnier were it not for the harsh reality that rich, privileged, barbaric bullies, most of whom are brutalised at birth by hereditary right and public-school conditioning, do indeed defend their right to chase around the countryside with packs of hounds in order to savage and tear apart defenceless animals. Their callous defence is mounted in the name of sport. And because it is traditional for these parasitical killers to dress up in the costumes of their class and indulge their pleasure in watching deer, foxes and other animals being ripped apart, they respond with well-rehearsed cries of arrogant immunity to human behaviour when their ritualised sadism is opposed.

Their protest for the right to hunt and murder animals for fun is no more worthy of support than a campaign to reintroduce slavery or to bring back the deportation of criminals.

Daniel Lambert, Socialist Party candidate, Vauxhall

We understand that the MP for Vauxhall, Kate Hoey, takes a rather different attitude. But a word of caution: we are standing on a straight socialist programme and nothing else and only want people to vote for us if they want a world of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use not sale and profit. So, if (like any decent human being) you are against killing animals for pleasure but don't want socialism, please don't vote for us.

Why we contest elections

For those, particularly anarchists, who say we should have nothing to with elections, the new pamphlet What's Wrong with Using Parliament? we are bringing out explains why we disagree.

Anti (some) capitalists but not anti-capitalism

It seems that the League for the Fifth International have not received the endorsement of Bob Crow, Militant and the SWP who run the "Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition" and so will not be standing in Vauxhall in the coming General Election under that title. They now say will they be standing as "the Anticapitalists".

Their manifesto, however, suggests that they are only against some capitalists (the bankers) and are not against the wages-prices-profits system that is capitalism but think that if you soak the rich (especially the bankers) it can be made to serve the interests of the majority.

This is what they say:

The Government gave £1 trillion to the banks. We want it back! Anticapitalists say take over the banks, who are making giant profits again, and raise taxes on the rich . . . Spend the money on a massive programme of public works -- creating three million jobs, a million affordable homes and a national repair and improve programme for council flats and houses.

So, the rich are still going to exist -- which means of course that capitalism is still going to exist -- but are to be taxed to pay for a massive public works programme. Either they believe that this is possible -- in which case they are not living on this planet. Or they know it's not possible but are just making promises they think will attract a following -- in which case they are no better than the career politicians in the main parties.

Their manifesto also says:

Labour has let ordinary people down, spending all our money on bankers and unpopular wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now Labour wants to make us pay the price with cuts to jobs, pay and services.

Calling the money the government spends "our money" when we never had it in the first place is bit fanciful, but presiding over cuts is what Labour, being the current managers of British capitalism PLC, are obliged to do more or less helplessly (as would any party that takes on the job of running capitalism). But then we are told elsewhere:

In constituencies where there are no anticapitalist, socialist or trade unionist candidates, Workers Power is calling for a Labour vote.

Since this will apply to the vast majority of constituencies this is in effect a call to re-elect the outgoing Labour government . . . "which now wants to make us pay the price with cuts to jobs, pay and services". Their only argument is that Labour is "the lesser evil" as the Tories would be worse. An argument that is music to the ears of the professional politicians in the Labour Party anxious to continue enjoying the fruits of power and who don't care why people vote Labour as long as they do.

It's not a valid argument since the problems we face are not caused by which party is in office but by the capitalist system whose operation they have to preside over and go along with. That's why changing governments changes nothing. It's capitalism that's the "evil" not which group of professional politicians forms the government.

What’s wrong with politics?

With a general election coming up soon what exactly will be on offer from the main contenders? No doubt more of the same but couched in terms intended to give us confidence that this time promises will be kept, regulations will be tightened and adhered to, unemployment will be tackled and reduced (figures can be manipulated). A minor change here, a cosmetic tweak there, but the status quo will endure regardless.

When reading or listening to the pre-election promises and then thinking back rationally to other, similar pledges by previous candidates and recalling the reality of U-turns, excuses and failure to deliver over the years, how could anyone doubt the absolute imperative of addressing the question of what’s gone wrong with politics with the utmost seriousness? If we simply moan and complain from our armchairs what will change? A compliant, too passive electorate is repeatedly defrauded.

At this time of impending election madness if you think you've been cheated over the years, you're right; capitalism is nothing but a racket. The proof of the failure of the world capitalist system to meet the needs and aspirations of the majority of the population of every country of the world is there for all to see, clear and manifest, if only they will open their eyes wide and acknowledge the overwhelming evidence.

Politics, the activities associated with how a country or an area is run, is something which should engage the interest and activity of every citizen worldwide as it bears directly on all aspects of life. The reason for contempt or indifference towards politics comes from a history of being excluded, the expectation of being excluded and the acceptance of being excluded. To be heard, to be considered, to be represented honestly we need to be involved in the decision-making processes, not to be told what is in our best interest by self-serving professional politicians. We need a system that works for us all, of which we're all an integral part, a system we're prepared to work to attain. What we need is socialism.

-- one of the articles in a socialist newsletter currently being delivered door-to-door in the Larkhill and Ferndale wards.

Our candidates

For Vauxhall, at the General Election, the Socialist candidate will be Danny Lambert.

In the local elections, in Lambeth, the candidates will be:
Ferndale ward: Danny Lambert, John Lee and Jacqueline Shodeke.
Larkhill ward: Oliver Bond, Adam Buick, Stan Parker.

The Socialist Party will also be contesting Kentish Town ward of Camden council, where the candidate will be Bill Martin.

Las Falklands

The recent drilling for oil near the Falklands has re-ignited the dispute between British capitalism and Argentine capitalism over which has legitimate sovereignty over the islands, a dispute which led to war in 1982.

At that time Michael Foot was the Leader of the Labour Party. He wholeheartedly support the war. This was how the May 1982 Socialist Standard reported the pro-war speech he delivered in the House of Commons on 30 March:

Of course the real star of the Labour benches was Michael Foot. Belying his reputation as a doddering, ineffectual bungler, the Labour leader lashed the government for their "betrayal of those who looked to it for protection" (he was not talking about workers struggling to live on social security). "We should not," he raged, "see foul, brutal aggression successful in our world." (He was not attacking the record of past Labour governments on Korea, Malaysia, Biafra, Vietnam . ..) Foot's speech was applauded by the MPs as a flag-waving, drum banging demand for war in which, of course, he would not personally be in the front line. It was, we remember, only a few months ago that he won an affectionate ovation at a Labour Party gathering by describing himself as "as inveterate peacemonger".

The League for the Fifth International (along with the other Trotskyist groups) also supported the war, but the other side. They, as they recall in a press statement issued today, supported General Galtieri sending thousands of Argentine conscripts to their death:

In 1982 Workers Power opposed Thatcher’s bloody war, and on the streets of London took a clear and unequivocal position for the defeat of Britain and the victory of Argentina.

They weren't personally going to be in the front line either.

We in the Socialist Party adopted the traditional socialist position:

THE FALKLANDS CRISIS
In face of the imminent threat of war over the potential wealth of the Falkland Islands the Socialist Party of Great Britain affirms:
1 That despite the wave of jingoistic hysteria in the press and its endorsement by Labour and Tory politicians alike, no working class interests in Britain, Argentina or the Falklands themselves can be served by war.
2 That neither the military junta in Buenos Aires nor the elected representatives of British capitalism, least of all the business interests of Coalite-Charringtons, can justify the shedding of a single drop of working class blood.
3 That the new-found outrage at the undemocratic and oppressive nature of the Argentine regime rings false coming from a government which was arming that regime until the eve of hostilities.
4 That the crucial role of Argentine capitalism in profitably making-up the notorious shortfall of agricultural production within the Russian Empire goes far to explain the support given to the junta by the local "Communist Party" and the muted criticism of it by the same circles who so vociferously denounce the similar dictatorship in Chile and its parallel suppression of trade unionism anc free speech.
We therefore reiterate that having no quarrel with the working class of any country, we extend to our fellow-workers of all lands the expression of goodwill and socialist fraternity and pledge ourselves to work for the overthrow of capitalism in all its guises and the establishment of socialism throughout the world, the only way to end war.
THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 13 April 1982

We don't like inequality...

...and by we, I mean all of us, according to researchers: "In the experiment, people who started out rich had a stronger reaction to other people getting money than to themselves getting money," Camerer explains. "In other words, their brains liked it when others got money more than they liked it when they themselves got money." that is, we appear to be 'hardwired' for equality and fairness. Of course, the next lot of researchers might cotnradict this, but it does show a trend in research that suggests that inequality is injurious to all, not jut those on the sharp end of the stick.

So, how about working towards an equal society? Start with helping our election campaigns - it's in your own interest.

Standing alone

For the record, here's a letter we had published in last week's Weekly Worker (25 February):

The Socialist Party will be standing a candidate in Vauxhall, London, in the coming general election, just as we did in 2005. We are standing on a straight socialist ticket, opposed to all the other candidates, including 'Workers Power' (or the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, if they get the endorsement).

We do not support the idea of a 'new workers' party' - ie, a Labour Party mark two. That's been tried in the last century and failed, and would fail again because it is built not on support for socialism, but on leadership and reforms of capitalism.

Further information is available at http://spgb.blogspot.com.

It seems that the Fifth Internationalites are having difficulty getting endorsement from Bob Crow and the others in TUSC. At least this is what this passage in an article about a more recent breakaway from the SWP suggests:

In the coming general election, let’s break resolutely with the Respect tradition of cross-class politics and mount an independent working class challenge. Workers Power is standing Jeremy Drinkall in Vauxhall on a clear and uncompromising Anticapitalist ticket. The Left Platform could do the same in other areas, and fight to get the endorsement of the Trade Unionist and Socialist coalition, without agreeing to limit your programme to what Bob Crow is prepared to allow.

Potholes and socialism

OK, lo and behold, I talk about potholes, and they become a national issue: from today's Today programme, '£8.5bn needed for road resurfacing.'

See, the problem is that big infrastructural budgets are the first casualty of any budget cutting - the accountability scale is longer than most politicians terms of office. Underfunding of roads will only begin revealing defects ten years down the line, and persistent underfunding, will simply lead to a long slow decline. This decline will be very expensive to reverse, so the relative underfunding will continue because the political rewards of such repairs will be slow in coming. It’s hard to point to something not being broken.

Depreciation, or amortisation, of capital stock is dealt with separately from current accounts. Essentially, the roads are paid for up front, normally through public debts. Local authorities take out 60 year mortgages to pay for infrastructure, so over that period, they have to pay the initial capital back plus interest. So, while it's depreciating, it's still being paid for in the first place.

Of course, if the debt lives longer than the time scale required to completely replace/renew the roads, then more debt will have to be piled on to carry out that work.

Socialism can't promise infinite riches, or that choices of priorities won't have to be made, but we can say that socialism would end the requirement to turn loans back into money - essentially ending the distinction between the current and capital accounts. All activity would have to be accounted for out of real currently available resources, rather than notional capitalisations.

Further, there won't be the option for externalities - at present councils are not required to take account of the cost of the damage poorly maintained roads do to vehicle stock, but in a system of common ownership, we would have to balance the impact on inventories of vehicle repair versus road maintenance.

Saocialism isn't a magic wand, but it does offer the prospect of accountability and the mechanisms by which we can take proper control of our own communities and our social environment.

Capitalism: A Dirty Word

Three of us went last night to see Michael Moore's latest film Capitalism: A Love Story at the Ritzy Cinema in Brixton. It was less than half full with only 30 others there.

The film does contribute to helping make "capitalism" a dirty word, but that's about it. Capitalism is defined, as by its supporters, are "free enterprise", "profit" and "competition" and the worst excesses of the unregulated competitive pursuit of profits by private corporations are exposed. But the analysis is weak : that things weren't going too badly -- workers had steady jobs and were able to adopt a "middle class" lifestyle -- until Ronald Reagan was elected President in 1980 and financial deregulation was introduced and started a feeding frenzy by financial institutions that eventually led to the crash of 2008. It's basically an attack on Wall Street and the New York banks on behalf of blue-collar workers. Moore denounces "capitalism" as being against both the "American value" of democracy and the social teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. As a solution he offers worker-run co-operatives and a Europe-style "Welfare State" (which the film naively claims would have been introduced in America if Roosevelt hadn't died in 1945).

Still we mustn't be too churlish and it can't be a bad thing that capitalism is becoming a dirty word even in America. It deserves to be. Let's hope that the film encourages people to look further into what capitalism is and find out how it can never work, or be made to work, in the interest of the majority class of wage and salary workers. And that socialism, not welfare capitalism, is the way out. Hopefully the leaflet we handed out and left lying around will help towards this.

Glum Councillors

One of my favourite blogs is Glum Councillors a collection of stock photos of local councillors posed, pointing at graffitti, vandalism or potholes in the road. Much like the one here.

Now, this phenomena relates to a style of boss politics - vote for me and "I'll get things done for you." A kind of gift relation, we give our votes, they give us public service. Of course, really, fixing the roads is a technical matter for the highways officers, councillors are there to be political - to decide priorities, direction and style of a council. Most of the time they are simply there to oversee moneybeing handed down to them from Whitehall to spend on non-discretionary matters.

Once, I'm sure I've written about it here, when out campaigning, someone asked us 'What are you going to do about the potholes in the roads?' the comrade who was with me suggested giving the guy a shovel. That's not far off our attitude, not necessarilly dig it yourself, but you can organise yourselves, and if you have a problem, get it sorted, without asking the boss man to do it for you.

Doubtless I could (and probably will) write about roads, road transport and its condition, but the point I want to make here is anyone can go around saying 'I'll do my best for you' and promise to nag officials to do their jobs (Fib-Dems are very good at that) but we're not contesting elections for that reason - we think there is a political decision to be made about the type of society we are living in, and that is the platform we stand on.

Lies, Damned Lies and Lib Dems

Went down to Brixton Town Hall today to pick up the nomination papers and electoral registers for the two wards we'll be contesting in the local elections. Somebody gave me a leaflet. As it was in blue I assumed it was a Tory one but when you opened it it turned out to be a from the Liberals. Obviously aimed at Tories, it proclaimed "The Conservatives can't beat Labour here. Only the Lib Dems can".

What, the Liberals think they can win Vauxhall? If they did then the Cameron clone who is their Leader would be Prime Minister and Vince Cable (the only Liberal politician anyone knows) would be Chancellor and have to put his money were his mouth is. Vauxhall is one of the safest Labour seats in London where the Alternative Vote isn't needed as the Labour candidate got nearly 53% of the vote at the last general election. Then I realised that I'd strayed over the border into the neighbouring constituency of Streatham.

The Liberal leaflet contained the claim they use everywhere -- it's a two-horse race and we're in it with a good chance of winning. Here in central London they're appealing to Tories to vote Liberal to keep Labour out. Further out, to the South West, where there are three Liberal MPs (including Vince Cable) they're appealing to Labour supporters to vote Liberal to keep the Tories out. The leaflet had a bar graph showing Labour and Liberal neck and neck with the Tories trailing in third place with well under half the Liberal support. The caption said "The results from the last elections here, in 2009". The last elections, in 2009, were those for the European Parliament. Here are the actual figures for the whole of Lambeth (not just Streatham): Labour 15990 Liberal 11340 Tory 10537 Green 10394 Others 9339.

The lesson of this? Don't believe any statistics you read on Liberal leaflets. The chances are they are falsified.

There was a political point on the leaflet that needs taking up. It claimed "Everyone knows someone who's lost their job because of the way Labour have run the country". We hold no brief for Labour (obviously not) but this is not true. The government is not to blame. Everybody will know someone who's lost their job but it's because of the way capitalism works and would have worked whichever party was in power. Rival politicians would have us believe that if only their party had been in power things would have been different. Not true. What is responsible for the social ills we face is not which party is in office but the profit system we live under. The way out is not to change the politicians who form the government but to replace capitalism with socialism. To make this point is why we are contesting the elections.

Weapons of class war

My attention has just be drawn to this: Commander's Guide to Money as a Weapons System Handbook seemingly a genuine US military guide that says what we have been saying for years - money is a weapon.

At home and abroad it is a weapon in warfare, particularly class warfare by the rich against the poor. Looking through, some of the funds are for 'entertainment' and raising the prestige of the military.

So, as the strapline goes "Money is my most important ammunition in this war."
-MG David Petraeus, 101st Airborne Division Air Assault.

Focus on Vauxhall

OK, so that was the national stats, lets throw in what we know about London:

For October to December 2009:

The employment rate was 68.7 per cent and there were 3.71 million employed people.

The unemployment rate was 9.1 per cent and there were 373,000 unemployed people.

The inactivity rate was 24.2 per cent and there were 1,253,000 working age inactive people.

According to this constituency profile (which I will add to the sidebar) back in June 2009 Vauxhall had a nearly 4% greater unemployment rate than London (which was about 2% over the national average), so we could reasonably infer that Vauxhall will have greater than 12% unemployment, around 9 to 10 thousand unemployed.

What emerges from even these scant glances through the official statistics is the shocking normality of these conditions, that such widespread unemployment (and as we have seen from previous posts) poverty should nt be a burning priority, but an after thought to servicing the wishes of the insanely wealthy.

The Tories like to beat Labour with the "class war" stick. We, though, are calling for class war, for a struggle for the thousands and millions abused and held down by the wages working to organise themselves to abolish that condition.

The statistics speak

According to National Statistics' Labour Market Statistics Statistical Bulletin - February 2010 (PDF) there is an interesting employment picture in the UK.

The number of people in full-time employment fell by 37,000 on the quarter to reach 21.22 million, the smallest quarterly fall since the three months to July 2008. The number of people in part-time employment increased by 25,000 on the quarter to reach 7.67 million. There were 1.04 million employees and self-employed people working part-time because they could not find a full-time job. This is the highest figure since records for this series began in 1992 and it is up 37,000 on the quarter.

That is, on top of the 2.46 million actually without jobs, 663,000 of whom have been out of work for over a year. they are included in

The inactivity rate for October to December 2009 was 21.3 per cent, up 0.2 on the quarter but below the record high of 23.3 per cent recorded in 1983. The number of inactive people of working age increased by 72,000 over the quarter to reach a record high of 8.08 million. This increase in inactivity was largely driven by the number of students not in the labour market which has increased by 62,000 on the quarter to reach 2.26 million, the highest since comparable records began in 1993.

3.5 million people comprise the make-up of the reserve army of labour that is essential to capitalism, our system of society could not exist without thse 3.5 million. A great many more re hunkering down and taking themselves out of the jobs market as long as they can until things clear over.

Of course, these figures are dwrfed by the 21.22 million who are actually in full-time employment. But for every seven people who have a proper job, one person is un-or-underemployed. That would be true, if unemployment were scattered around, but we all know it concentrates, in communities like Lambeth, which have high levels of unemployment and low pay generally.

Last time

Here's a reminder of how we did last time we stood candidates for Lambeth Council, four years ago in May 2006.

The results for the two wards we are planning to contest this time can be found here for Ferndale and here for Larkhall.

Mute inglorious Milton.

According to the BBC, poverty is linked to poor language acquisitiion among poor children.

Children from the poorest homes are almost a year behind middle class pupils in language skills by the time they start school, research suggests.

Now, as of 2008, according to the Lambeth State of the Borough report:

The proportion of children and young people living in poverty is higher than average, as is infant mortality, teenage pregnancy, childhood obesity, primary and secondary school permanent exclusion levels and the proportion of 16-18 year olds who are not in education, employment or training.

Lets put this into perspective with some detail

Two in five (41%) London children live in poverty compared to 28% nationwide. This rises to 51% in Inner London. Borough level figures are not available, but Lambeth can be expected to exceed the Inner London figure. Just over a third (33.8%) of children in Lambeth live in families on key benefits compared to 24% in London; Lambeth ranks as the 11th highest in Great Britain and more children live ‘in care’ in Lambeth than across the capital and the rest of the country (110 per 10,000 children under 18 were looked after, compared to 70 in London and 55 in England).

Over half of children in Lambeth are living in poverty. That's half who will be robbed of their potential to achive by the cumulative drag on life chances created by poverty. So much for Labour's pledge to end child poverty. They've barely dented it.

Local elections too

Even if the general election isn't on Thursday 6 May, there will be elections that day. In London all the borough councils will be elected, including Lambeth. The Socialist Party will be contesting two wards here: Ferndale ward and Larkhill ward. We have already leafleted the wards twice and will be doing so again in the near future.

Here is an article from one of our leaflets:

The Brixton Pound – What for?

In September a group of enthusiasts, supported by the Council, launched the Brixton Pound. These are vouchers that can be used, instead of pound coins and £5 and £10 notes, to buy from shops in Brixton – provided, that is, that the shop is prepared to accept them.

But what's the point (apart from helping local shopkeepers)? What difference does it make what coloured pieces of paper we have to use to get the things we need to live? The real problem is that in present-day, capitalist society we have to use money at all to obtain these, and that the amount of money we have will always be rationed by what we get as wages or as benefits. That restricts and distorts our lives.

But it doesn't have to be like this. If the waste and artificial shortages of capitalism were eliminated we could easily produce enough to go over to getting what we need on the basis of the principle from each according to our abilities to each according to our needs. In other words, free access to what we need without having to hand over coloured pieces of paper or to use cards or vouchers of any kind.

Maybe you think that this wouldn't work because (other) people would take too much. Soledad Brother George Jackson answered that one in one of his prison letters:

"Consider the people's store, after full automation, the implementation of the theory of economic advantage. You dig, no waste makers, no harnesses on production. There is no intermediary, no money. The store, it stocks everything that the body or home could possibly use. Why won't the people hoard, how is an operation like that possible, how could the storing place keep its stores if its stock (merchandise) is free?
Men hoard against want, need, don't they? Aren’t they taught that tomorrow holds terror, pile up a surplus against this terror, be greedy and possessive if you want to succeed in this insecure world? Nuts hidden away for tomorrow's winter.
Change the environment, educate the man, he'll change. The people's store will work as long as people know that it will be there, and have in abundance the things they need and want (really want); when they are positive that the common effort has and will always produce an abundance, they won’t bother to take home more than they need.
Water is free, do people drink more than they need?"

The person whose face appears on the Brixton ten-pound note – CLR James – also saw free access and "from each according to ability, to each according to need" as the ultimate goal. We see it as the immediate goal if we are ever going to get off the treadmill of having to work for money to buy the things we need to be able to go on working for money.

All Socialists Now?

It looks as if there will be two other candidates in Vauxhall claiming to be socialist.
1. Joseph Healey, "Green Party Parliamentary Candidate for Vauxhall at the next general election - the green, socialist alternative". We met at hustings for last year's European Parliament elections when he was on the Green Party's list. The Green Party as a party stands for small-scale capitalism.

2. Jeremy Drinkall, of Workers Power, "the British section of the League for the Fifth International", a Trotskyist grouping (what else with a name like that?). They are trying to get the endorsement of the "Trade Unionists and Socialists Coalition" set up by Militant (falsely calling themselves us) and the SWP, but are by no means certain to get it. What this ridiculously named Trotskyist sect stands for is of course state capitalism under a vanguard party (them)

Naturally we've challenged the both of them to debate.

Watch this space for the outcome.

Murder by poverty

Well, lefty blogs are awash with rumours today. But let's leave them to one side, and look at somethign much more improtant.

Something, noticeably, the BBC doesn't seem to find all that important, as they report on a study by Sir Michael Marmot. This report isn't on their websites front page (as write), nor on their politics page.

Look at the headline: "Poorest in England live 7 years less on average" It says it all, really. We are being robbed of years on Earth. Simple as that. The poor, and there are many of them in Lambeth, simply do not get the basic right to live as long as the wealthy. Look back on your last seven years, all that happened in it, all that happened to your familly. That is what they are robbing from you.

In typically capitalist money concern way, we get: "Professor Mike Kelly, of the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said: "Public health interventions are extremely good value when compared with the costs of clinical interventions." It would be cheaper, it seems to pay us better.

The BBC won't bang the drum, so we have to. Get out there, blog about this. This is the story of the year. The story of last year. The story of all years to come until we get rid of this unequal society.

Your vote counts

Well, electoral reform is back on the agenda.

Our view? In a nutshell: so long as the mechanics are in place so that a majority of workers can organise to effect socialism, then it doesn't matter precisely how you count the votes. So far as we're concerned, it is the movement of the vast majority in the interest of the vast majority that matters. Getting a technical victory by counting one more nose than the rest isn't what we're about.

What we remain more concerned about is the rights of minorities to try and become majorities, which are hampered by the mainstream media focusing on the existing parties and making it difficult for candidates to be heard on the stages where they need to be in order to make their case.

Where we stand

Well, I was going to kick off our campaign by, well, kicking off and giving some of our opponents a good slagging off. That is to come, though. Instead, let me try and tell you about Lambeth.

In the sidebar, you can see a link to Lambeth Statistics.

Here are some interesting facts about Lambeth (the borough where the Vauxhall Parliamentary Constituency lies).

Only 67% of Lambeth's working age residents were classified as employed in 2006/2007, compared with 69% across London and 74% nationally and in May 2007 17% were benefit claimants.

In 2007, there were around 10,000 businesses in Lambeth; but more than three-quarters of these had fewer than five employees (ABI 2007). In fact according to the 2007 Lambeth Economic Digest 99.65% of businesses in the borough are Small or Medium Enterprises (SMEs). Conversely, in the north of the borough there is a cluster of large firms, 48 of which employ more than 200 employees; among these are the national headquarters of IBM, Shell, and the ITV network. Nearly all employees employed in the borough work in the service industry (94%), with roles in public sector, education and health particularly prevalent.

There are around 270,000 people who live in Lambeth. There are 117,000 jobs (obviously, not everyone employed in the borough lives in the borough, and vice versa). Of the residents, 122,000 are in employment. 19,000 are self employed. 7% are retired. 13,000 are unemployed.

Median gross annual income is £32,000 - and they calculate that added value across the borough is £25,000. So, in this overwhelmingly working class borough, if (in an imaginary land) the workers secured the fruits of their labours by hand or by brain, they'd be living on an income of about £50K each. Of course, such a thing couldn't be achieved within the market system, but it is that base inequality of all that hardwork, and the massive gap between the efforts and the fruits that forms the ground we stand on. We hope the workers of Vauxhall will look at their situation, and decide enough is enough, and signal to their fellow workers the world over that they are prepared to do a something about it.

2010 Vauxhall Manifesto

Here we go again, kids, another year, another election. Our Executive Committee (which is directly elected from our membership), are charged by our rules to agree our election addresses.

They did this on Saturday just gone. Below is the platform on which we will be contesting the General Election:

Capitalism Must Go

These elections are taking place in the middle of the biggest economic and financial crisis since the 1930s. In a world that has the potential to produce enough food, clothes, housing and the other amenities of life for all, factories are closing down, workers are being laid off, unemployment is growing, houses are being repossessed and people are having to tighten their belts. And for once the main parties are being honest in offering more of the same, competing with each other as to which of them is going to impose the most “savage cuts”.

Capitalism in relatively "good" times is bad enough, but capitalism in an economic crisis makes it plain for all to see that it is not a system geared to meeting people's needs. It’s a system based on the pursuit of profits, where the harsh economic law of "no profit, no production" prevails. The headlong pursuit of profits has led to a situation where the owners can't make profits at the same rate as before. The class who own and control the places where wealth is produced have gone on strike – refusing to allow these workplaces to be used to produce what people need, some desperately. So, as in the 1930s, it’s poverty in the midst of potential plenty again. Cutbacks in production and services alongside unmet needs. Why should we put up with this? There is an alternative.

But that's the way capitalism works, and must work. The politicians in charge of the governments don't really know what to do, not that they can do much to change the situation anyway. They are just hoping that the panic measures they have taken will work. But the slump won’t end until conditions for profitable production have come about again, and that requires real wages to fall and unprofitable firms to go out of business. So, there's no way that bankruptcies, cut-backs and lay-offs are going to be avoided, whatever governments do or whichever party is in power.

What can be done? Nothing within the profit system. It can‘t be mended, so it must be ended. But this is something we must do ourselves.

The career politicians, with their empty promises and futile measures, can do nothing for us. We need to organise to bring in a new system where goods and services are produced to meet people's needs. But we can only produce what we need if we own and control the places where this is carried out. So these must be taken out of the hands of the rich individuals, private companies and states that now control them and become the common heritage of all, under our democratic control. In short, socialism in its original sense. This has nothing to do with the failed state capitalism that used to exist in Russia or with what still exists in China and Cuba.

THE SOCIALIST PARTY is putting up a candidate, here in Vauxhall, to give you a chance to show that you don't want capitalism but want instead a society of common ownership, democratic control and production just for use not profit, with goods and services available on the basis of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs".

If you agree, you can show this by voting for us. But more importantly get in touch with us to help working towards such a society after the election is over.

Stay tuned, as ever, for incisive comment and discussion of the ins and outs of an election campaign.