So They Say: Revolutionary Prophet (1976)

The So They Say Column from the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Revolutionary Prophet

It had to come. The logical counter to revolutionary Socialism has been launched—“revolutionary capitalism.” Its arrival in Britain was announced by Dr. Khalil Osman Mahmoud who styles himself the most successful private industrialist in the Middle East. In spite of the “revolutionary” label, he affectionately retains certain features of what we suppose must now be called old-fashioned capitalism. For example he made the announcement "from the headquarters of his company, Gulf International, above Christian Dior’s plush London establishment in the heart of Mayfair.” As a partner in Gulf International, he, and his “revolutionary” associates, decided some years ago to enlarge the empire and contacted the equally "revolutionary” Lonrho Group. Readers will recall that so revolutionary was this company that a Conservative Prime Minister (Mr. Heath), described certain of its practices as representing “the unacceptable face of capitalism,” however, that is one of the prices of success. The link was made with the Lonrho chief, Tiny Rowland after certain basic facts had been established.

We smelled this was a man who could produce. We watched him for three years before we did a single deal with him. Now we never stop buying Lonrho shares—34m. at last count.

Sunday Times, 15th August 76

At the beginning of September, Lonrho industrial shares were quoted on the stock market at 64p each which would value the shareholding in the region of £22m. The uninitiated may be excused for thinking that Dr. Osman—who incidentally is now a Lonrho director—is just an old-fashioned capitalist after all. Where does the revolution come in?

That Certain Smile

Oh, but it does. Following Lonrho’s acquisition of the bankrupt Brentford Nylon Group, Dr. Osman underwent a unique experience and visited the newly completed Newcastle nylon factory. He expanded on the object of his trip:

To bridge the gap between workers and management from the start and to show “revolutionary capitalism” in practice. Dr. Osman’s first visit was to the union office. “I had the day of my life. I met the workers and managers. It was the first time I had met the working people of Britain. I said to them Let us all pray for the man who built this factory but could not complete it.”

It seems sincerity pays off in the end. After prayers for the dearly departed, some philosophy.

“A businessman lives to get pleasure from the smile of his working people. I got it that day in Newcastle. I went back to London and next day I met with my colleagues. I told them, we can do lots more with this factory and with people like this. If a businessman is not interested in that smile, if he goes off and spends his time on the Riviera, he’s finished.”

This is something new: Up to now the owners have lived to get surplus value from their workers. Clearly the £22m. which Osman has so far accumulated off the backs of his workers has been more by accident than design. These workers may have been smiling, the owners are positively rubbing their hands together.

Busy Doing Nothing

An American professor of neurological surgery and psychology recently concluded after a year’s research that the size of a woman’s bust influences her chances of getting lifts while hitchhiking. Fascinating stuff, and more could be on the way. Messrs. Heidrick and Struggles, an American “headhunting” company is about to conduct a survey among selected British public companies to learn how part-time (sleeping) directors got on to their particular boards, and what work they do in the boardroom to earn their fees. One City editor expressed approval of the scheme, but felt that there may be some reluctance on the part of those surveyed.

Whether the part-timers are ready to answer such questions is another matter. A good many of the questionnaires sent out by Heidrick and Struggles will, I suspect, end up in the boardroom waste paper baskets.

London Evening Standard, 31st August 76

That makes sense at least. We could have told them that these chaps are far too busy doing other things, to bother with silly questionnaires—and about work of all things!

Party Tricks

It was hard to tell if the writer of the following letter, published in the Daily Telegraph on 28th August, did not have her tongue in her cheek. She directed some stinging facts against the “lefties.”

After reading your editorial comment about Mr. Auberon Waugh and the perpetuation of the “Tory twits” myth (Aug. 25), I feel it is a pity that it is not better known that by far the greater number of members of Mensa (the high IQ society) lean politically to the Conservatives. This also holds true of members of other countries, and in fact it seems the higher a person’s intelligence the more likely is he to hold so-called "Right-wing” views.

What has escaped her attention is that IQ tests examine the individual’s ability to do IQ tests—she refers to intelligence which is something else. However it matters not a jot whether “Tory twits” are better at such tests than “Labour loonies”. Both groups are ignorant, or profess to be, of the need for the working class internationally to take control of the means of wealth production and distribution. While Mensa’s members may “lean” in every direction but the right one, this should not dissuade members of the working class from doing some thinking on their own account.

Allies in Wonderland

The London Evening Standard of 31st August reported the comments of Joseph Kraft “one of Washington’s most widely read syndicated columnists” who described Ford’s opponent, Carter, as “inexperienced, even naive” in matters of foreign policy. Carter is “an amateur who treats foreign affairs as a kind of wonderland.” Telling points no doubt, until it is recalled that even Presidents have suffered from similar deficiencies. When the pound was ‘floated’ in 1972, the matter was brought to President Nixon’s attention.

Mr. Haldeman offered the President a report from one of his economic advisers outlining the effect of the British float on the world monetary system. Mr. Nixon brushed it aside saying: ‘It’s too complicated for me to get into.' Haldeman said that Dr. Arthur Burns, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, expected the British move to result in a five per cent devaluation of sterling against the dollar.

The President: ‘Yeah. OK. Fine.’

Haldeman: Burns is concerned about speculation about the lira.

The President: ‘Well I don’t give a (expletive deleted) about the lira (unintelligible).’

The discussion turned briefly to legislative matters before the President asked Haldeman: ‘OK. What else have you got that’s amusing today?’ 

Transcript of White House tape recording of June 23rd, 1972. Reported in the Daily Telegraph.

Nixon of course could argue that he was far too involved in fooling the American people over his part in a burglary to pay much attention. Carter’s line of defence is clear therefore—he must tell his critics that he is far too involved in fooling Americans that he can make capitalism work.

Goldwater on Democracy

Following Gerald Ford’s success in obtaining the Republican Party’s nomination for presidential candidate, the Daily Mail of 20th August carried a centre page spread on the forthcoming us election. The headline read “Now every punch a dirty one” and the article predicts that the respective camps will be taking part in “a raucous and possibly unedifying campaign.” If the words of Senator Barry Goldwater are anything to go by, the Mail has understated it. Ford’s running mate, Robert Dole, caught his attention :

Senator Barry Goldwater, no pansy himself, says admiringly of Dole: “Thank God we finally have someone who will grab the other side by the hair and drag them down the hill.”

And having done so, will then declare himself for freedom, fair play and law and order.

Getting the Priorities Right

The government published a white paper toward the end of August in response to the 1974 all-Party Expenditure Committee’s suggestion that loans, rather than grants be made to postgraduate students. These currently number 33,000.

The Government do not consider it possible to achieve worthwhile public expenditure savings in the near future by a loans scheme which spread the repayments over a reasonable period.

Daily Telegraph, 25th August 76

Although they argue that the loan scheme could be “potentially damaging in terms of social equity,” they go on to say that they will “continue to bear in mind the possibility of achieving savings in the long run through such a change.” The “social equity” will be more resilient then, no doubt. For the time being, they are in agreement with the Expenditure Committee’s main recommendation that resources should be provided “Primarily in order to meet the country’s need for trained manpower.”

One of the other guidelines for expenditure on postgraduate education “the satisfaction of the demands from students (individual demands)” was considered to be “too haphazard.”

Alan D'Arcy

Presidential Circus (1976)

From the July 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Where mindless buffoonery is another name for statesmanship, just about anybody could qualify as President of the USA; or as top political henchman anywhere in the world.

It must throw serious doubt upon the sanity of anyone who is prepared to be a candidate for one of the dirtiest jobs on earth. A job which involves being ready to command the use of H-bombs and other nuclear weapons, and to preside over the annihilation of countless millions of people. American Presidents have already either used nuclear weapons or considered using them. Every post-war President has pursued policies for testing and stockpiling H-bombs. Wars involving so-called conventional weapons are commonplace throughout the world. The influence and interest of American capitalism are concerned more often than not.

The job also means having a string of glib excuses ever ready to trot out as to why poverty, unemployment, slumdom, and crime continue to blight the lives of most Americans in one form or another. During the Primaries, and indeed right up to election day, evasion and cynicism are essential to survival. Of course, whoever wins will have to be doubly evasive and cynical once in office. It is as though under the influence of mass-hypnosis a primitive ritual were taking place, and serious adult discussion of major social problems was a taboo to be breached only on pain of extinction. Never mind what it’s all about, win the nomination. The object is to get elected. If that means wearing a gormless grin and a Stetson hat for months on end, so be it. The art is to be as sensitively tuned as possible to the rumbling of band-wagons, and not to be caught on the wrong one at the wrong time.

Anything in the way of fundamental principles would be a gross liability. Popular prejudice and mass political ignorance must never be offended. Candidates must strike the proper balance between being patriotic, religious and anti-Communist. Vagueness is vital, so that no-one can ever quote you as saying anything for sure.

Ideally, candidates need to personify as many of the myths associated with capitalism as possible. Be enterprising, successful, rugged, ultra-American, strong yet flexible. Insofar as behind those myths lie the realities of capitalism, “enterprising” means wheeling and dealing. “Success” means climbing on the backs of others. “Rugged” means knowing how to survive in the rat-race. “Ultra-American” means appealing to nationalism to achieve political ambition. Being "strong” means standing up to the recurrent crises of capitalism and not appearing to be too confused by the conflicting advice of your aides. To be “flexible” means hypocrisy, bending with prevailing winds and pandering to popular opinion, to lie and deal and double deal. On the basis of those criteria, Richard Nixon was a first-rate President. Perhaps the real reason why he was pushed out was because too much of capitalism was too clearly reflected in him.

A great deal of reverence is vested in the office of the Presidency. The President is regarded as a kind of national father-figure. Image-building of this kind is important to the capitalist class as a whole, for while the office and the person of the President are highly respected by the working class a useful camouflage is provided for the “normal operation” of the system.

They could, no doubt fill the post by placing a simple notice in the want-ads, but then some joker may apply who does not support war, or who won’t agree to play ball with the wheeler-dealers. So the circus and the sickening ballyhoo are indispensable to the final outcome. Even the also-rans play their part in stoking up the drama in what might otherwise become the non-event of the year. The whole thing is astutely stage-managed so that only personalities are seen. The miserable continuity of capitalism slips by unnoticed. We are expected to respond with breathless anticipation to the world-wide commentary, as they jockey for position round the three-ring circus donated by courtesy of Rent, Interest and Profit.

In the realms of personality, mediocrity is the order of the day. What the votes on polling-day really declare is not who shall be the next President of the USA; that is of little importance. They spell out loud and clear the readiness of American workers to go on accepting capitalism and their willingness to swallow the small-talk while the major social problems remain as glaring as ever. To reaffirm this fact and to take a sounding of any latent unrest is worth all the clowning and the expense to the ruling class. It assures them of the continuing “safety” of their system.

Anyone who thinks that Ford and Reagan (or any of the others) are not interchangeable should remember Johnson and Goldwater. Johnson campaigned as the man of peace who would pull out of Vietnam. Goldwater was for staying in and fighting it out. The American working class voted Johnson a landslide, but they got Goldwater anyway. It was not long before they were chanting “Hey, Hey, LBJ, how many kids you killed today?” When Reagan says he would send American troops to Rhodesia and Ford calls this “irresponsible” it does not mean Ford would not send troops to Rhodesia. It means that it is irresponsible to say such things during an election. Reagan said the troops would be for peace-keeping. Would they then leave their guns at home? What would-be President talks of sending soldiers anywhere to make war these days?

The whole situation has its parallel in every country throughout the world. Rival politicians jostle and manoeuvre to gain or hold on to power for the running of capitalism. The working class is taken in by a privileged minority who wield political power to preserve their domination of the means of wealth production and distribution. It is not that the American workers are more ignorant than their fellows elsewhere, just that their circus lasts longer.

Are we saying that elections are like circuses and should therefore not be taken seriously by the workers? On the contrary, it is because the real issue is not treated seriously that elections have all the farcical features of a circus. This does not discredit the democratic process of voting, it indicates the urgent need for workers to back their votes with class-consciousness. When they understand what is involved in changing society to the classless world of common-ownership, they will use their votes to sweep away the puppet politicians of capitalism.

Abraham Lincoln is often quoted as saying: “It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all the time.” Whoever is elected the next us President certainly will not be deterred from trying.

Harry Baldwin

News in Review: Faversham (1964)

The News in Review column from the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

POLITICS

Faversham

In one by election after another the Labour Party continues to notch up successes.

As each result is declared, both sides set their statisticians to work to show the voting figures in the most favourable light for them.

A Devizes sends the Tories into raptures—the dark night, they croon, is passing and brighter days are ahead. A Faversham puts the Labour Party back onto its hopeful feet, sets its mouth watering again at the prospect of power which, they think, is almost theirs.

A lot of this enthusiasm is inspired by the theory that nothing succeeds like success, that a big vote in one election begets an even bigger one at a later poll. That is why a party only rarely admits to having taken a beating in a fair and square fight. There is always some aspect of the poll which, selected and perhaps exaggerated, can take the edge off a defeat, and they play this up for all they are worth.

At Faversham the Tories showed their disappointment by dropping their beaten candidate, Mrs. Olsen. From the reports which came from the constituency, Mrs. Olsen did not seem to offer a very effective counter to the Labour candidate’s earnestly sympathetic appearance, which apparently impressed a lot of voters as sincere.

Mrs. Olsen tried to blow up Nationalisation as an issue, while Labour’s Mr. Boston was playing upon the elector’s preoccupation with food prices, rates and unemployment. In a constituency where the workless are something of a problem, the Labour line proved the better vote catcher.

In one of her statements, Mrs. Olsen revealed one of the prejudices (although perhaps she does not hold it herself) which affects a lot of the capitalist parties’ propaganda. Talking about Nationalisation, she said: “ It is worrying people . . . even housewives who are not supposed to be interested.”

Nobody has yet adequately explained why housewives—or any other women— should not be interested in political matters. This is one of the comfortable delusions which, as part of a wider ignorance and prejudice, helps to keep private property in existence. It is unfortunate that the delusion is as firmly held by many women as it is by most men.

And just like any other social prejudice, it has to go. The ending of the social distinction between the sexes will be one of the aspects of the humane world system in which the political parties which prey upon ignorance will be defunct.

ABROAD

Nehru

The death of Pandit Nehru provoked the customary valedictions from the world’s top statesmen, who are of course no more sincere in their expressed opinions about a man after he is dead than they are when he is alive.

At the Albert Hall meeting where tribute was paid to the dead leader, Sir Alex Douglas-Home said that Nehru was a man of contrasts. Indeed he was—in some ways which Sir Alec could not have had in mind.

Nehru was a professed man of peace who saw nothing wrong in the war over Kashmir, nor in the forcible occupation of Portuguese Goa; He was the accepted leader of what are called the non- committed nations, although he was committed up to his neck in the frontier dispute with China. He was the man who foreswore the production of nuclear weapons—as long as his country had no use for them.

When I asked what sort of conclusions his Government had reached when it studied the future of policy in Asia between a nuclear China and non-nuclear India, he replied with remarkable frankness and warmth that he was afraid that as a Government they had not given it much thought. (The Guardian, 23/10/61.)

He was—and this is the clue to an understanding of Nehru's career—the alleged Socialist who was busily building what he hoped would one day be a great capitalist nation.

It is at this point that we realise there was nothing of contrast in Nehru. He was presiding over the transformation from one type of property system to another in India and it is not unusual for this to be passed off as Socialist policy. Nor is there anything exceptional in the double-talk and double-think inseparable from this process.

Nehru's problems were massive. In his efforts to build capitalism in India he was confronted by a vast population seething with every kind of primitive mysticism and religious prejudice. These delusions do not mix with an economic and social structure based upon complex commodity manufacture; Nehru spent a lot of his life trying to break them down.

In the end, as we all know, the prejudices were not ready to admit defeat and Nehru, the great non-believer, was cremated in the same way as a great religious leader..

But he has made his niche as one of capitalism's innovators. His successors will carry on where he left off, trying to persuade the beggar in the dust that he will be better off as a member of an industrial proletariat, with chains of poverty which are thinner and lighter, but just as real and strong as those which bind him down today.

AT HOME

Epidemic

For the most part, modern society has a pretty tight grip on diseases like typhoid. Capitalism judges everything by its balance sheet and in this case it is preferable to make the initial investment in prevention of the disease rather than to be continually fighting epidemics of it. Sometimes the balance sheet comes up with the opposite conclusion and we all know what happens then. . . .

But the odd concern, in the hope of making a bit more quick money, will occasionally take a chance with the rules of public hygiene. This was the reason for the outbreak at Zermatt (which is now gingerly once more advertising its attractions as a holiday resort). It was also the reason for the lack of precautions in the corned beef factories in Argentina which were apparently responsible for Aberdeen's epidemic.

As in the case of Zermatt the facts are only slowly coming out and they are not pleasant. It now seems that the British government were aware of the risk in the corned beef over a year ago but, in the words of Scottish Minister Mr. Peter Noble, they considered it "not wise" to withdraw the stuff on “the scantiest evidence.”

Presumably the typhoid sufferers take a rather different view on the scantiness of the evidence and on the wisdom of clamping down on the suspect meat.

But when all this has been said, the basic fact remains. Typhoid is a disease of social negligence. Despite what the meat companies say, corned beef is not one of the world's prized delicacies; it is a typical working class food—substandard, mass produced, supermarket sold.

And once typhoid gets a grip it flourishes best in the most depressed living conditions—in the overcrowded rooms, in the shared lavatories and in the slum tenements which have no easy means of heating water for washing.

It is ironical that, in conformity with its profit motive, capitalism should spend so much in keeping diseases in check yet should sometimes be defeated by its very own economic conditions. But there is no irony in the fact that, when this happens, it is the same old working class who suffer.

BUSINESS

Rootes & Chrysler

It has been apparent for some time that Rootes were nervous about the magnitude of their gamble, on their baby car, the Imp, which has tied up so much capital in the factory at Linwood.

The link-up with the American owned Chrysler Corporation is probably a result of this, gamble—a method by which Rootes hope to strengthen their financial foundations to withstand any storm which may follow their Linwood investment,

Chrysler, whose fortunes have only recently been revived in the States, were looking around for just such an opportunity. Now some financial seers are predicting that before long Rootes will be entirely under American ownership and control, like Fords and Vauxhalls.

This is the sort of wicket on which the Labour Party thinks they can make a lot of runs. Their leading batsmen were soon hitting out. Mr. Callaghan wanted to know what steps were being taken to ensure that there would be no further dealing in Rootes shares to take control of the company outside the United Kingdom. Mr. Wilson went even further—he wanted guarantees about not only American but also “ German or other foreign ” interests.

This is the most blatant of playing up to nationalist prejudices. The Labour government of 1945 saw nothing wrong in this country accepting the American encroachments which went tinder the name of Marshall Aid.

The present Labour Party, at any rate while they are in opposition, attack foreign investment in this country as the invasions of money-mad international manipulators. But they also think that the opposite process—British investments and subsidiaries abroad—is an excellent idea, the fruits of good old British enterprise.

This doubtless goes down well enough with patriotic voters who once believed the Labour Party when they used to talk about being an internationalist organisation. Now all that nonsense has been dropped, which may mean a few more votes for Labour candidates.

The deal between Rootes and Chryslers was good business from the point of view of their profit accounts—which is the only viewpoint they are interested in. Capitalism is lubricated by such deals, and is powered by the motive for them.

And if the business deals are something to be expected, so is the dishonest reaction of political parties.

ABROAD

Goldwater

Whatever happens at the Republican Convention at San Francisco this month, Senator Goldwater has established himself as a serious force in American politics.

Once he was laughed at, for his quaint notions about Reds under the beds and his itching button-finger. The results of the Presidential primaries have shown that Goldwater’s neuroses are shared by millions of what are usually called normal, decent Americans.

Goldwater stands unashamedly for reaction. He stands for States Rights at a time when American capitalism is trying to resolve many of its problems by increasing pressure, and power, from the Federal centre. He stands against State insurance schemes just as their value to American capitalism is becoming so apparent He stands for an extreme—some would say fatally impetuous—foreign policy towards Russia at the moment when the American ruling class may be on the verge of allying itself with the Soviet Union in face of a possible longer term threat from China.

Goldwater probably appeals to the uninformed and apathetic sentiments of those American workers who are impressed by his rugged frontiersman’s facade. (They presumably ignore the fact that the Senator is descended from a Jewish family, who were not among the now-romanticised pioneers.)

But in his present vein Goldwater does not offer the policies which United States capitalism needs if it is to hold its dominant world position. Said The Economist of June 6th last: “. . . he has not grasped the nature of the power his country wields in the nineteen-sixties.” Yet he could turn out no different from the other demagogues who have climbed to power on extreme propaganda and have then had their wilder notions tamed by the realities of office. Perhaps it is true that, as Governor Scranton—the one time hope of the anti-Goldwater brigade—said, the Senator is “not as conservative as he thinks.”

For the moment Goldwater is "committed to his present line and will, therefore, probably continue to thump it out if he gets the Republican nomination. If— and this is as massive an “if” as ever was postulated—he becomes President he may well alter his line to fit in with the requirements of American capitalism.

We are accustomed now to the policy reversals of so-called Left Wing politicians when they are catapulted into power. A President Goldwater, as a Right Winger doing the same thing, would make an interesting item for the scrap book.

Letters: Super-nurses (1998)

Letters to the Editors from the November 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

Super-nurses

Dear Editors,

Being a student nurse I had spent the day looking after nine seriously ill patients, together with a junior staff nurse and part-time nursing auxiliary. Most of the patients required help to perform the basic activities of living, some in the terminal stages of illness. Just dealing with the urinary and faecal incontinence was a full-time job,. With the best will in the world, we tried to get basic care completed and to a large degree we somehow managed, needing the ability to do three things at once. Or did we? Struggling to get basic care completed leaves no room for the so-called “holistic” approach required by the models of nursing. The gap between theory and practice is measured in light years.

After a mentally and physically exhausting day I arrive home to be told that Tony Blair is going to introduce the concept of the super nurse. The concept is flawed and ignores the real problems in the NHS. Nurses are not angels or super, just workers seeking meaningful work, doing a job that helps to care for people. a caring attitude that is exploited to get nurses to do as much as possible for as little as possible. The clinical grading system already means that a few nurses are paid higher rtes of pay than the average nurse and it is the higher grades that are now being made redundant at my present hospital, because the Hospital Trust is in the red. If any NHS Trusts can afford the super-nurse it will represent a desirable post for the few and help pit nurse against nurse in the competition of who can achieve the most unpaid overtime or least amount of sickness.

The UKCC code of conduct for nurses requires that they serve the interests of society, to do this nurses need socialism not super status.

M.T., 

Wessex

 

Nothing but the truth

Dear Editors,

Herewith is a short piece which I wrote when serving with the West Midlands Police in the early 80s. I have been prompted to send it to you as the result of reading the short story by Heather Ball in September’s issue of the Socialist Standard.

It was whilst serving with the police that I came to the conclusion that it is the values upon which society is based which creates world-wide dishonesty. The world revolves on dishonesty.

Before giving evidence at any judicial proceedings it is practice to take the Oath or make a sworn affirmation, thereby promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the name of God, Allah or any other mystical omnipotence that you have been conditioned to have faith in. a sworn affirmation amounts to much the same thing except that the “almighty” is not brought into it.

Having completed this solemn and apparently sincere ritual all that remains to be done, so you might think, is to relate your evidence to the Court as honestly as you can recall . . . but, it doesn’t end there. Having given evidence the witness is then invariably subjected to a verbal flailing form a highly trained advocate with the sole purpose of proving that the witness has, wholly or in part, told anything but the truth. This so called cross-examination has the full backing of the Court and effectively reduces the value of the Oath/affirmation to something akin to the scribblings to be found in most public toilets.

Regardless of any promise to tell the truth the fact remains that the honesty of a witness is not enhanced one jot in the eyes of the Court by taking the Oath. If any value at all was placed on this ritual then there would be no need for the demeaning Court scenes where highly educated and articulate lawyers seek to prove that some hapless (though possibly truthful) witness is telling porkies.

If you or I should be so naïve as to believe that all witnesses, some witnesses or just a few witnesses tell the truth or, are expected to tell the truth, despite having taken the Oath/affirmation, then the procedure in our Courts confirm beyond all reasonable doubt that such a belief is just wishful thinking. So why take the Oath? It certainly doesn’t do anything to elicit the truth and what is more no one expects it to . . . and so the Oath/affirmation is without value and meaningless. Additionally it reduces any concept you might have of God to something less than a scab on a donkey’s ear and the holy scripture might just as well be a pile of second-hand comics.

John Phazey, 

Sutton Coldfield

 

Goldwater

Dear Editors,

Dave Alton (September Socialist Standard) was far too lenient to Barry Goldwater.

In the first place, the word “libertarian” is a gross misnomer for those who advocate capitalism without a welfare state or government intervention in the economy, and we should not use it uncritically. What they actually stand for is slavery—wage slavery. As Dave says, “there can be no liberty to defend until humanity is liberated from capitalism”.

Secondly, Dave claims that Goldwater’s opposition to welfare spending involved “detesting the concept of people becoming dependent upon the state”. Leaving aside the point that most capitalist who spout this stuff are more than happy to accept state subsidies for themselves when they’re available, the fact is that such campaigns are basically designed to cut taxes and so keep up profits. Goldwater of course wasn't opposed to workers being dependent on selling their labour power.

Paul Bennett, 

Manchester

Goodbye Goldwater s.o.b. (1998)

From the September 1998 issue of the Socialist Standard

I wish to acknowledge my debt to former senator Barry Goldwater, who died recently aged 89. When socialists write about other socialists it is hardly surprising to discover a general tenor of agreement. The rather more difficult trick is to find something in common with someone who appears completely antithetical. For me, Goldwater was just such a person.

Unlike the more usual mealy-mouthed politicians whose opinions are for sale to any multi-millionaire prepared to part with his loose change, the senator staunchly advocated an ideology to which he remained faithful, even though it denied him his ultimate goal, the presidency.

Of course, the libertarian conservatism Goldwater espoused is anathema to socialists. Yet, I maintain that even here there is a recognition of human worth and potential, even if this is seen as being achieved within the restraints of capitalism that deny it. These are basic human aspirations, however perversely expressed, that accord with the socialist case. Those aspirations are important for they are a step to human understanding. How many come to socialism because they perceive humanitarian need and then go on to develop the rational understanding that allows them to analyse the present and advocate the future?

As an enlightened (for the 1930s) employer he introduced a 5-day week, established medical and life insurance for his employees and a profit-sharing scheme. Of course, these are all devices paid for by the labour of those workers and I do not wish to suggest otherwise. However, it does indicate a trend of thought he confirmed on becoming a politician. He vigorously opposed welfare spending, detesting the concept of people becoming dependent upon the state. This is a line of thought socialists can appreciate. Consider the ideological damage done by the false identification of socialism with state charity. What he didn’t do, and this was true of all his politics and business practice, was think things through to their conclusion.

The vendors of various publications from the many stalls in the Leninist stable have very similar aspirations. It’s why so many, particularly young, idealists (and I use the word advisedly) join these misguided groups. They have accepted a basic Marxist analysis of capitalism, but failed to pursue what needs to be done to bring about change. Instead they opt for an advocacy of state capitalism.

Barry Goldwater simply wanted to drop the state from the formulation. It is true he did not profess any Marxist underpinning, but he was avowedly Libertarian. An ambition for freedom is a testimony to human potential. In truth, his ambition was as bound to be frustrated in this respect as was his tilt at the White House. Capitalist economics will have its own way and the radical Conservatism of Reagan (or Thatcher) had little or nothing to do with freedom, not even with free enterprise, no matter how much this was hailed as the official ideology. Trans-national corporations devour individual entrepreneurs as readily as whales swallow plankton.

So even in Barry Goldwater there were latent tendencies towards the betterment of humanity. At a Republican Convention he declared, “Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” A socialist would have to say that there can be no liberty to defend until humanity is liberated from capitalism, but for that to be achieved there can indeed be no “moderation in the pursuit of justice”. To really be libertarian you have to want freedom from exploitation for all and that is not achievable under an economic system that actually depends for its very existence on exploitation. Free capitalism is an oxymoron.

Bombing Russia

My personal debt to senator Goldwater dates back to the early 60s when I was but a wee nipper. He is the first politician who scared the blue blazes out of me. I don’t recall his words, but I do remember that during the 1964 presidential campaign he seemed intent on A-bombing Russia if he won. In the context of the then recent Cuban missile crisis and the pervading feeling that utter destruction was just four minutes away, that sort of thing can bother a little head in the darkest hours of the night. And there, perhaps, the first ill-formed thoughts began develop what would lead to a socialist conclusion. I was relieved when Johnson won: but there again, I did not live in Hanoi. It takes a while to learn it matters not a jot who wins elections, until, of course, everyone wins.

An editorial in the Daily Telegraph (30 May) marking Goldwater’s passing also offered inadvertent succour to those who advocate the socialist cause at a time when so few seem to be listening: “above all, Goldwater proved that electoral defeat need not entail ideological oblivion”. It went on: “what Goldwater did was tell an alternative narrative to the orthodoxies of mid-century America”. What the Telegraph was referring to was the senator’s pursuit of his anti-liberal establishment line throughout the 60s and early 70s.

A real alternative narrative is indeed required, one telling the true story of the twentieth century. The false dichotomy between East and West as if there had been some profound ideological or economic difference between them. Two large-scale wars and countless small ones and the unnumbered workers who’ve been sacrificed in their execution. The development of technology and productive potential that means no-one should be poor or hungry, for satisfaction of need could be the raison d’etre for industry, not profit. Then there would be true “free enterprise”, with everyone able to offer all they can according to their abilities. That is an alternative narrative worth relating.

Commenting on the campaign run against him by the Democrats, the senator is reported as saying, “In fact, if I hadn’t known Goldwater, I’d have voted against the s.o.b. myself.” Politicians misrepresenting other politicians, surely not? Anyway, you son-of-a-bitch farewell and thanks, thank you for all you inadvertently did in helping to create one more socialist and showing in yourself that the merest flicker of a flame of humanity continued to burn-even if you might have used it to set fire to the world, given the chance.

Dave Alton

For Carter and Ford—Read Capitalism (continued) (1976)

From the November 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Arch-reactionary Barry Goldwater, who was for all-out war in Vietnam in 1964 when Johnson was still regarded as a “dove”, is supporting Ford. This is taken as an indication of how far to the “right” Republican sentiments have moved. The lines of demarcation between so-called “liberal” and “conservative” are entirely imaginary. Those who fondly regard themselves as liberal regard Carter as a liberal, and the conservatives think he is one of them. The balancing trick of appearing to be all things to all men is the essence of the capitalist politician.

All the polls indicate that people vote on the candidate’s personality rather than his policies. They want to know how steady his finger would be on the button. . . .
(Sunday Times 22nd August 1976)

Since differences in their policies need to be searched for with a large magnifying glass, “personality” becomes the only means of telling t’other from the which. There is no conception as yet in the minds of the American working class, of a world without “the button”. This lack of any penetration beyond the reformist spectrum is something they share with their fellow sufferers throughout the world.

Running Walter

Carter’s running mate, Senator Walter Mondale, is reported as saying:

in the whole range of human problems I’ve dealt with in my 12 years in the Senate — hunger, housing, labour, Indian education, migrant workers, children, ageing — I keep getting back to one thing; the strength of the family.

A nice piece of side-stepping, but what about the problems? The choice of running mate is a shabby bit of expediency aimed at “balancing the ticket” (vote-catching). Mondale is rated a liberal, and this has focussed attention on spending. Are people opposed to spending as such or only to wasteful government spending? Do people want less government or better government? “The opinion polls show total ideological confusion”. (Guardian, 17th July 1976.) The opinion pollsters ask only a limited range of questions, designed to sound out what is popularly expected of capitalism. Workers are not asked to consider and discuss the nature and extent of waste under capitalism, or the desirability of a world run democratically, without government.

In 1967 Mondale made a speech supporting Johnson’s Vietnam policy. Four years later, he told an interviewer that it was

a painful speech . . .  I think the worst mistake I’ve made in public life is to be a slow learner on Vietnam. This has been the most tragic mistake this country has ever made . . .  and I share part of that blame, and the record is there, I’m not proud of it.

(Guardian, 17th July 1976)

Mondale supports capitalism but pukes at its most brutal outcome. Here is no condemnation of war, but a slow learner realizing a tragic mistake. Any capitalist politician in power, who refused to endorse a war involving “national interests” would be forced out. The Labour Party in Britain has spawned many “slow learners” about war, who have rallied to the flag when the time came.

The Black vote

Carter is wooing the votes of America’s black workers with promises to put “more than one” black in the cabinet. There are the traditional “black jobs” in the echelons of administration, and black Congressmen, but there has yet to be a black man in the government. The Democratic convention of 1964 in Atlantic City, which nominated Johnson, had an all-white segregationist delegation from Mississippi. This year a new image is being put over. Andrew Young, an influential black Congressman, is working to get Carter the black vote. If it were a solution of problems for people to be the same colour as those in power, then white workers would have had all their problems solved long ago. So would the black workers living under black dictatorships in Africa. Incidentally, it is fear of Russian “infiltration” in Africa that prompts Ford to send Kissinger to put pressure on the South African government to help bring about majority rule in Rhodesia. Kissinger is obviously thick-skinned enough to ignore America’s own brutal record of racism. America has its own style of apartheid and ghetto living. Though not backed by legislation, the effect is the same.

Issue

Senator Moss of Utah, who is chairman of the Senate Committee investigating alleged fraud and abuse in the Medicaid programme for the poor, sent out a team of snoopers who made more than two hundred visits during four months in eight cities. (Investigating fraud is a form of waste peculiar to capitalism.) They found that patients usually get substandard care whether they need attention or not. Cases were reported of patients in need of care going untreated and X-rays being taken without film in the machines. In Los Angeles a woman who handed in a mixture of a soapy water was told her “urine sample” was normal.

Medicaid was started in 1965 to provide medical facilities for 20,000,000 poor Americans. Eligibility varies from place to place. In New York, you need a family of four and an income of less than $5,000 a year. Some doctors are making more than $100,000 out of fiddles. More than half the delegates at the Republican convention were in the $30,000 income bracket.

Ford and Carter and (if capitalism remains) those who succeed them, will be promoting more reforms to sort out the mess produced by past reforms in the vain attempt to reduce the running expenses of capitalism. The poor and their problems will still be here.

Issue — What Issue?

The governor of California, Edmund (Jerry) Brown Junior, who was a rival candidate to Carter for the nomination, is to give Carter all the help he can. Governor Brown, a former Jesuit Seminarian, says that Catholic misgivings about Carter are “overblown and inaccurate”. Asked if he would run again in 1980 Brown said:

I’m not even sure I’ll run for Governor again. I may even retire to the monastery to figure out what this is all about.

As both Carter and Ford are bible-belters, God is put in a difficult position rather like that of wartime, with both sides praying for victory. In his “infinite wisdom”, he has the consolation of knowing it will make no difference either way. Farcical though the whole thing is, it is too tragic to be funny.

As Socialists, we often observe when an election takes place in the UK that the “manifestos” of all parties other than the SPGB are so closely similar that if the names were blanked out they would be virtually indistinguishable. Although we have been dealing with the American Presidential election, capitalism and its absurdities are so similar all over the world, we could change the names and be dealing with almost any other country.

How much longer we will have to live in the suffocating atmosphere produced by a politically ignorant working class is the real question of our times. Socialists, however, have good grounds for optimism. Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of our opponents better than an election, and we have the only workable answer to their system of chaos and misery.

Socialism will be a classless world community, democratically administered without leaders, Presidents, or governments. Production will be geared to meeting human need, on the basis of free access. The privileged private or state property institutions of capitalism will make way for communal interest and cooperation. Money, wages and profits will be no more. Thus, every “issue” being bandied about during the Presidential election campaign will disappear, never to be seen again.

Harry Baldwin

Editorial: The American Conventions (1964)

Editorial from the July 1964 issue of the Socialist Standard

The two big American parties are now about to hold the Conventions—the Republicans at San Francisco this month, the Democrats at Atlantic City in August—which will select their candidates for the Presidential election in November.

The Conventions' job is to pick the man who will pull in the most votes for his party; as such, they are themselves part of the election campaign. They usually wear a public face of enthusiastic confidence, expressed in fatuously massive banners, frenzied parades around the hall and similar ballyhoo. But behind this facade, in guarded rooms, the reality is grimly faced and tense bargaining often goes on, as the delegations trade their support in exchange for pledges of political patronage.

The Democratic Convention promises to be a triumphantly straightforward affair, a formal endorsement of President Johnson as their man. Johnson has so far demonstrated that he has most of the faculties which capitalism's leaders normally require — physical toughness, political skill, ruthlessness, a flair for publicity and what we can very loosely call a little bit of luck.

Since he took over in November last, Johnson has built himself onto one of the biggest vote winners his party has ever had: the public opinion polls consistently give him the support of about three-quarters of the American electorate. If there were any argument about his nomination, this fact would clinch it. There is no reason to suppose that at Atlantic City next month the banners will wave, the button badges will be worn, the cheer leaders will carol, for anyone other than Lyndon B. Johnson.

The Republicans are in different straits. Not for over twenty years have they selected a candidate who did not stand for what are called "liberal" policies—a measure of state insurance, medical aid and so on. This was why nobody took Senator Barry Goldwater seriously when he was announced, some months ago, that he was in the race for the nomination.

But Goldwater, like Kennedy in 1960, has demonstrated that an initially doubtful candidate can break down the forces against him by proving his ability to attract votes in primary elections. While his opponents in the Republican Party have been divided among themselves, the Senator has been systematically amassing delegates' votes.

He goes to San Francisco as the favourites. Of the men who are expected to stand against him, Rockefeller has shown that he has not got the requisite voting pull. The big opposition to Goldwater may therefore come from one of the men who, although they have yet to intervene in any force, would probably dearly like the nomination: Nixon, Scranton, Lodge.

It will be a tough fight, for the Senator's bandwagon is now rolling briskly along. His policies may strike some people as inane and irresponsible but a great many others approve them. Goldwater's victory in California came after his famous indiscreet advocacy of the use of nuclear weapons in Indo-China - and even after he made things worse by appearing to be confused over exactly what he had said.

The industrial areas may dislike his opposition to unemployment and sickness insurance but millions of other Americans support him on this, because they think that such schemes undermine what they are pleased to call their self-reliance. Goldwater gives the impression that he would like to see the United States lose interest in Europe: this is an idea not unfavourably received by the American electorate. The Economist of 6th June last speculated: " . . . even President Johnson might be pressed to cover his right flank by saying things that created the same impression."

All this could mean that Goldwater is not such a vote-loser as some of his party think. At the moment, so certain does their defeat seem to be, that they have little to lose, and Goldwater has been the only man up to now who has shown that he knows how to get down to the grass roots of ignorance.

If he does get the nomination he will probably be supported, by the customary cynical balancing act, with a "liberal" candidate for the Vice-Presidency. This would be designed to take the edge of Goldwater's more wild views so that he could gather votes from a wider circle, in the same way that Johnson's Southern origins were supposed to compensate for Kennedy's New England brashness.

On this score again, the Democrats do not have the same problem as their opponents. Johnson is so much all things to all men, he fits in so well in the business of universal vote-gathering, that he has no electoral edge to take off. He needs nobody to balance him; the post of Vice-President is, therefore, probably at his disposal exclusively.

Whoever fights it out in November, the election will be the usual depressing affair. The American voters will give their verdict on all the familiar issues of reform and futility, ignoring the real issue—Capitalism or Socialism—which faces them all the time.

When the banners have been put away, when the ticker tape has been swept up, when the drum majorettes are resting their aching legs, and when the next President is settled in the White House, Capitalism will grind on, spreading confusion and despair on all sides.