[page 13]
Free school meals hungry children—unemployment and families in poverty-all these are issues very close to us today. But they are not new, because our society has always had these problems and been unable to do anything about them in any meaningful way. The only advances have been made, not because of the efforts of a few good men, as the history books would have us belleve, but on the one hand because of the efforts of the organised working class, and on the other because of the needs of capitalism. Thus, all the efforts made by philanthropists to do away with the evil of child labour would have come to nothing if industry did not need educated workers more than the inefficient efforts of half-starved, exhausted children, and if there had not been developed machines and techniques to do the work better.
THE FAMILY & THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION Of course, socialists have always made propaganda on these issues and tried to draw lessons from them. Thus, one of the problems that arose as a result of ending child-labour was the question of how already Impoverished parents were supposed to support their children and provide for them through their years of compulsory schooling. The changes in the function of the family that had come about with the industrial revolution emphasised these problems. No longer was the family an economic unit, with every member contributing to the family's keep, from the toddlers onwards. Instead, the man was supposed to earn enough to support them all, and it is true that throughout the period after the Industrial Revolution, right through to our own day, the majority of women with young children have not taken paid employment. (There were areas, notably in the textile and pottery industries, where large numbers of such women worked, but even so less than 505). Of course, there has never been a time, except perhaps for a few years after the Second World War, when the spectre of unemployment did not haunt the majority of working men, and even in times of full employment the family man with an average wage has "To talk of Free Maintenance destroying family life ... is to talk of destroying something which is practically non-existent and which is to a great extent impossible under modern conditions. From The Daily Mirror, August 30, 1904 Even such family life as does exist is mainly harmful and not beneficial to those children who 'enjoy" it." had a hard time making ends meet. But our society persists in the opinion that it is the individual family's responsibility to support the children, and even the introduction of "free" education and other welfare services have not changed this basic fact. (Of course, in reality, it is the taxes paid by the workers that pay for all the "free" servicesa very good piece of research published in New Society showed that there has been a fairly good redistribution of income through taxation within the working class, but not between the classes). It is this role of the family (for more explanation, see last issue of Socialist Woman) that makes its maintenance so important to capitalist society at its present stage of development, and which must be attacked by socialists, who see the welfare and maintenance of the next generation as the role of society as a whole. It is not true to say, as many feminists such as Kate Millett in Sexual Polities have said, that socialists have neglected this question. In fact, as we shall be examining further in future issues, revolutionary socialists have always recognised the Importance of developing campaigns around women and the family, even if until recently they somewhat neglected the question of theory. But, for example, the question of woman suffrage was hotly debated in the Marxist movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century and led to splits in some cases, which does not suggest that it was considered of no importance, One of the organisations where woman suffrage was hotly debated was the Social Democratic Federation, later to become one of the founding sections of the British Communist Party in 1920 "FREE MAINTENANCE FOR SCHOOL CHILDREN" The SDF was also interested in the role of the family, both as an economic unit and as it particularly affected women. Over some 21 years or so, they conducted a campaign around the question of Free Maintenance for School-children. This was done on several levels. Thus, they appealed to common-sense on the questionable wisdom of FOR STARVING SCHOOL CHIDREN. Mr. M. M Hundman, the leader of the Socini r the demonstration in favour uf State maintenance for achool ch afternoon.
[page 14]
spending money on educating children literally too hungry to learn. They appealed to trade unionists by tying it up with the burning issues of the day, such as unemployment. In this last campaign, they wanted to make it clear that unemployment should not be seen as a personal affliction, brought on by the personal weaknesses and shortcomings of the unemployed men, but as an inherent part of the capitalist misorganisation of society, and one which that society should take responsibility for and seek to relleve. If jobs could not be provided, then the jobless should not be made to suffer.
The SDF recognised that the family was bound up with capitalist society and that its ultimate destruction depended on the destruction of capitalist society, H. Quelch wrote in The Social Democrat of 15th October 1904: *It would be absurd to suppose that the fundamental conditions of bourgeois society could be uprooted and yet the superstructure of that society remain intact in all its forms. Nevertheless, scientific Socialists, who accept the materialist conception of history and the theory of evolution as applied to human society, direct their attention mainly to the economic conditions, knowing full well that, as they change, other conditions must necessarily be modified. ... On the other hand, we are not prepared to withhold our support from any necessary work in consequence of any false sentiment of reverence, nor to refuse to accept such modifications of social relations as may be made necessary by changing economic conditions, simply for fear that those modifications may impair some sacred bourgeois institution .... *To talk of Free Maintenance destroying family life, therefore, is to talk of destroying something which is practically non-existent and which is to a great extent impossible under modern conditions. Even such family life as does exist is mainly harmful and not beneficial to those children who 'enjoy' it."
On August 28th 1904, the SDF held a demonstration in Trafalgar Square on the subject of Free Maintenance. They wanted free meals for all school-children at once, followed by the provision of free clothing and free housing for working-class families. Among the speakers were Hyndman, Quelch, and two women, Mrs. Bridge-Adams and Mrs. Despard, Many trade union banners were to be seen.
THE FAMILY & THE FIGHT FOR SOCIALISM Now, sixty-seven years later, we are seeing again the conditions against which the SDF fought coming into being again; unemployment, attacks on the welfare system, ete. Still the families of workers are housed in slums, one family to a room or two. In seeking to fight these conditions, we must do as the SDF did, and call on the trade unions to take the brunt of the fight. Only the organised working class has the strength required to tackle the task. And women, in and out of the trade union movement, know best what the results of poverty and unemployment are; they are the ones who have to "make ends meet", even after the ends have all but disappeared in the corridors of the Social Security office. Socialist Woman Groups should support Claimants Unions, who are trying to help such families, and seek to gain support from the trade unions for the unemployed. We must realise that it is the existence of the family structure, with its economic responsibilities, which is being upheld-not attacked, as the Communist Party says, confusing an attack on living standards, which is actually designed to push all its original responsibilities back onto the family, with an attack on the superstructure. (It is, of course, no accident that the family is seen as the basie unit in today's Russia). The early Communists were much clearer on the role of the family. Like them, we must recognise that it is the material conditions we have to change, so the need for a family (Le. the need to support women and children) disappears.
* Leonors Lloyd. "FAMILY GUIDE TO THE LAW"-Readers Digest, £5.50. While no socialist expects justice from an unjust society, and the fabric of the law itself is designed to preserve an unequal distribution of property and power, radical lawyers have been trying to demystify the law, so that its fundamental precepts are exposed, and at the same time to change own status and role. Some barristers and solicitors, concerned at being members of a professional elite which automatically sets them apart from the proletariat, are considering ways of putting the law into the hands of workers and tenants, blacks and left activists by explaining to them how the law deals with the kind of problems they face, and how they might conduct their own defence in court and before tribunals. In part, the aim is to help to create a feeling of confidence in dealing with the police, magistrates, and Judges - as well as with the legal protession itself - and towards this end some help has come from - of all people - the Reader's Digest, which nas publisned the It costa £5,50 from book shops or t4.50 direct from the Reader's Digest, 7-10 Old Bailey (very appropriate! London B04, but the Digest has always been plagued by nasty people who order books under a false name and never pay for them.
The Book is edited by Michael Zander, reader in law at the ISE and a Longstanding opponent of the restrictive practises in the business. He says: "Primarily we wanted to explain the basic legal framework, what an individual's rights are, and how he can use a lawyer and the legal system to best advantage." The book deals in part with the kind of situation which, although everyday occurrences, Trequently go unremedied because the individual is not aware of his rights: the tenant who leaves when he receives a notice to quit, not realising that evictlon is unlawful without a county court order; the consumer who finds that an item he has just bought is detective but fails to return it to the shop and demands nis money back, as he may well be entitled to do under the Misrepresentation Act of 1967: the worker who forgoes his entitlement to redundaney pay by unconditionally accepting an alternative job when then turns out to be unsatisfactory.
(Continued on p. 18)