Marketing the Revolution (2002)

Book Review from the September 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

Marketing the Revolution by Michael Mosbacher (Social Affairs Unit, 2002.)

Before we can have socialism a majority of the world’s population will have to stop supporting capitalism and become pro-socialism. But what if the “anti-capitalist” movement proves to be a precursor, not of a fundamentally different form of society (socialism) but simply of another form of capitalism? If the “revolution” is de-fused, emasculated, diverted, usurped, hi-jacked, betrayed – if it is marketed by people who want, not socialism, but a reformed capitalism, then things will change a little but not much. Capitalism will have eaten “anti-capitalism” for breakfast.

According to Mosbacher, something like that is actually happening. Of course, he doesn’t put it quite like that. He writes for the Social Affairs Unit, a body that has good capitalism-supporting credentials. His main theme is that those who support the anti-capitalist movement (and in particular those who attack corporate brands) talk the language of capitalism because “it is the only game in town”. But arguably the most useful function his little book serves is to quote some dreadful statistics from The United Nations Human Development Report 2001 :

“. . . much of the world still lives in horrific poverty: in the developing world 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day . . . 2.8 billion live on less than $2 a day; 325 million children do not go to school; more than 8.5 million are illiterate; 11 million children under five die each year from preventable causes; nearly a billion people do not have access to improved water sources; and 2.4 billion lack access to basic sanitation” (p.71).

Mosbacher seeks to take the sting out of these awful figures by arguing that “the only countries in which we have seen large-scale poverty reduction in the 1990s are the ones that have become more open to foreign trade and investment”. He quotes some figures of poverty reduction which “may seem trivial to some in comparison with the overall scale of the problem . . .” Yes, they do.

Returning to the theme of marketing the revolution, the author lays into Naomi Klein’s No Logo. We, too, were under no illusions when we reviewed this best-selling book in our December 2000 issue: “Klein appears to believe that something worthwhile can be done within the system of capitalism.”

Mosbacher is scathing about the “success” that the anti-branding movement has achieved. He notes that Klein has been a star turn at international anti-corporate gatherings. Anti-capitalism and anti-branding are fashionable and popular but they aren’t daring, subversive, edgy. They take on board the culture, ethos, language and techniques of branding, and they use these to attack the brands themselves.

Mosbacher says the anti-capitalists have “no clear end-vision of where they want to be, except away from where we are.” But he likes being where we are, and doesn’t like or want revolution. For him, branding is a good thing: it “is an extremely useful invention in that it transmits a vast amount of information to the consumer in an instant.” So that’s all right, then.

Stan Parker

Cooking the Books: Structural imbalance (2022)

The Cooking the Books column from the August 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

Good Morning Britain (ITV 28 June) pitted Dave Ward, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union against Matthew Lesh of the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). Ward correctly identified Lesh as representing the bosses, the IEA being a free-marketeer thinktank funded by big business.

Lesh argued that a large increase in wages would lead to Royal Mail becoming uncompetitive and losing business to other parcel delivery firms paying lower wages. He also claimed that ‘there’s not enough profit margin for a 10 percent pay rise for all workers’.

He is right about capitalism running on profits but going concerns always have enough profit to pay something if workers are in a good bargaining position. When negotiating, unions take into account whether an employer can pay. They are not so stupid as to insist on a claim that would bankrupt an employer with the result that their members lose their jobs.

Trade union negotiations take place within a system where businesses have to make a profit and this places a limit on what unions can achieve for their members. Ward recognised this, saying that there was a ‘fundamental flaw in the system’ within which unions had to operate, a ‘deep structural imbalance of power and wealth’, a ‘structural problem of how the economy is run, how businesses operate that have got to change’.

This would seem to be an oblique reference to capitalism which is based on the owners of the places where wealth is produced and services provided being in a powerful position vis-à-vis the rest of the population. It means that the non-owners can only get a living by selling their labour-power to some employer. Employers hold the whip hand; their employees have to settle on terms which allow businesses to operate at a profit.

Although Ward said ‘it is time to challenge some of the fundamentals of how the economy operates’ and called for ‘a new deal for working people, a new social settlement in the UK’, he was rather vague about what this would involve. The only thing he mentioned on the programme was fixing a maximum ratio between the pay of those at the top of a business and that of the workers, to which Lesh responded by making the (valid) point that, although the bosses were paid high salaries, they weren’t high enough to be used to pay much of a wage increase to those they employed.

In an article in the Morning Star (18 June) Ward was more forthcoming. Criticising the Labour Party for having ‘completely failed to set out any coherent vision to end inequality and division – and build real solidarity amongst working class people’, he called on the unions to get together with ‘local community organisations’ to demand ‘new democratic models of public ownership to deliver better housing, health care, social care, education and transport.’

These are not improvements that unions have the power to deliver. Governments can’t deliver them either, as the failure of reformist governments everywhere has shown. They have all ended up giving priority to profit-making and coming into conflict with workers and their unions. Capitalism is a profit-making system that simply cannot be run in the interest of wage-workers. ‘How businesses operate’ cannot be changed within it.

The only way to end the ‘structural imbalance of power and wealth’ within which unions – and reformist governments – have to operate is to make the means of wealth production the common property of the whole of society. Then production can be re-oriented to directly meeting people’s needs. If Ward had advocated socialism – as a trade unionist who was a socialist would have done – he could have wiped the floor with Lesh. Instead it was a stalemate with Ward having no answer to Lesh’s point about businesses having to be allowed to make a profit.

'Can we panic now, Captain Mainwaring?' (2021)

From the November 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the halcyon summer days of 1914 when all was right with the world and God was in his place in the British empire, dependent upon your social status in the scheme of things of course, the shock caused by the assassination of some minor Austrian prince was seen as an opportunity to bare Albion’s teeth to Johnny Foreigner, and everywhere the cry echoed down the expansive avenues and the meanest back alleys: ‘It will all be over by Christmas!’ Plus ça change, plus c’est la meme chose. Isn’t it just?

We all know Marx’s remark that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. Marx had in mind the tragedy of Napoleon’s regime and the later farcical reign of his nephew Napoleon III. Back in the 1960s, Herbert Marcuse remarked that the lesson of Nazism seemed to be the opposite way round: first as a farce (throughout the 1920s, Hitler and his gang were mostly taken as a bunch of marginal political clowns), then as a tragedy (when Hitler effectively took power). Unfortunately, Karl, old boy, history seems to be in a place whereby it’s repeating constantly, like a three-week-old pickled egg. It’s doesn’t feel the least bit humorous this time round.

Crystal balls are not de rigeur for writers in this journal, but, this from the Socialist Standard, December 2020, seems a little prescient: ‘Eat, drink’ depends on whether the supply chains are still intact and irrational locust behaviour hasn’t swept the shelves cleaner than vultures on a wildebeest carcass in the Serengeti. Be merry? The human spirit is always able to find something positive in the most dire of circumstances. Acceptance of a bad situation whilst saying, gosh it’s terrible but there’s nothing we can do about it, is not acceptable however. After one of the most dramatic years which continuing on may have profound negative societal changes in global society it is no longer good enough to complainingly accept what is being implemented. Contrary to what a Tory leader once said, there is an alternative’.

At present the supply chains seem to be under considerable strain and there are apocalyptic warnings that toys, electricals and luxury goods all the way from China may not be lining the shelves of those stores and outlets which rely on the Christmas period in a ‘normal’ year to provide them with a hefty addition to their annual turnover. Had they but known then, the Ypres Times would have been running op-eds on how much better off they all were stuck in the trenches at Christmas, rather than the terrible deprivation of not getting your overpriced disposable trash-trinkets delivered in time.

The Mail Online, September 2021 has: ‘Panic buying is back! Shoppers queue to fill up trolleys with toilet roll and other essentials after one in six couldn’t find what they wanted on the shelves as supermarket bosses are told to co-operate to save Christmas and petrol shortages continue’ and ‘Shelves empty across UK on sell-out Saturday as supply crisis leaves one in six Britons claiming they have been ‘unable to buy essential food’ – and a third start Christmas stockpiling – ahead of winter squeeze’.

The sense of déjà vu cannot have long left the memory. As the Institute of Economic Affairs noted in sanguine tones, in the days when we didn’t even need to wait until Christmas because this would all be well over within three weeks: ‘No-one can have failed to notice the half-empty supermarket shelves and long queues for essentials. Loo rolls even rivalled flowers as the Mother’s Day gift of choice. Fortunately, this is one phase of the coronavirus crisis which should be over soon' (March 2020). Up to a point, Lord Copper, up to a point. The IEA didn’t borrow the services of Corporal Jones in order to tell us all ‘Don’t panic! Don’t panic!’ A stiff-upper-lipped ‘Keep calm and carry on’ seemed to be their advice. What have we here? Were they employing the economic tenets of Adam Smith or Malthus? Panic buying? Fine chaps, no problem! Carry on, as you were.

The IEA: ‘To be fair, panic buying is not necessarily irrational, for two reasons. The first is that the fear of empty shelves may be correct because it is self-fulfilling. Panic buying is similar. It would be best if no-one does it. But if you are worried that supplies might run out because other people will beat you to it, then it makes sense for you to rush to the shops too… However, there is also a second factor to consider here: even if there are plenty of goods in the pipeline and shops will soon be well stocked, some people may be unable to get to them. As the new coronavirus spreads, any household in the UK could be obliged to self-isolate for a period of several weeks, or even longer, at a moment’s notice. It may then make sense for every household to buy several weeks of essentials, just in case.’

Hang on there Jack, as the economists have it, ‘ceteris paribus,’ we’re not on an equal and fair playing field here are we? If you’ve the sufficient disposable income, the transport, the freezer space, the storage space for your six months or more supplies, plus the utter contempt for the plight of others less fortunate, then good for you Jack. That’s a rational capitalist economic decision. Foxtrot Uniform, I’m alright. This form of economic selfishness no doubt has opponents of socialism (who generally misunderstand what that is anyway) leaping about like the ten lords in the Christmas carol, waving their fingers and chanting in E flat Major, human nature! human nature! The Socialist Party’s demolition of this spurious straw man is amply demonstrated elsewhere. 2021 was certainly another year seeing profound negative societal changes in global society. And as amply demonstrated by us, there is an alternative.

Dave Coggan

Capitalism ‘bad’, socialism ‘good’ (2021)

Frank Luntz with sadness in his eyes.

From the August 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the beginning of July two openly pro-capitalist think tanks – the Tory-leaning Centre for Policy Studies (CPS) and the free-marketeer Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) – published the results of polls they had carried out on people’s opinion of capitalism. Both indicated that many people don’t think much of it.

The one for the CPS was compiled by US pollster, Frank Luntz:

‘ …Dr Frank Luntz is testing public opinion in Britain to find an alternative to ‘capitalism’, after 170 years of use, because he fears it is becoming a bad word ( … ) Capitalism itself is already a “bad word” in the US and is fast becoming so in the UK too. “It’s one of the key things I am trying to figure out: Does this country need an alternative to the word capitalism? I think it does”’ (Sunday Telegraph, 19 June).

In the event, he didn’t come up with an alternative, merely noting that ‘voters are almost as fed up with business as with politicians – presenting a huge challenge for supporters of capitalism and enterprise’. Those polled were asked to choose from a list four ‘words and phrases they thought of first when thinking about British companies’. The two most chosen were ‘Profits before People’ (47 percent) and ‘They put shareholders first, not ordinary people’ (44 percent). It is not clear why Luntz felt that these factually correct and easily verifiable statements represent a challenge to supporters of capitalism. Normally, its supporters are prepared to defend both as the best way of organising the production and distribution of wealth.

While the CPS poll was concerned with people’s attitude to ‘capitalism’ the IEA one was more concerned with their attitude to ‘socialism’. A representative sample of those aged between 16 and 34 were presented with a number of statements and asked whether they agreed with them or not, without the option of ‘don’t know’. 67 percent said ‘they would like to live in a socialist economic system’ and 75 percent agreed that ‘socialism is a good idea, but it has failed in the past because it has been badly done’. 78 percent blamed ‘capitalism for Britain’s housing crisis’ and 75 percent agreed ‘that climate change is a specifically capitalist problem’.

What are we to make of these results? Opinion polls are worth what they are worth and as Tory Lord Finklestein pointed out in his comments on the CPS one, ‘You can’t just ask consumers, and indeed voters, what motivates them, and trust what you get back’ (Times, 7 July). Those questioned are only being asked to give a fleeting opinion that commits them to nothing. And the questions can be framed to get the answer the pollster wants.

In these two particular polls, ‘capitalism’ was not defined. The tacit assumption of those who drew up the questionnaires (though not necessarily of those who answered the questions) was that capitalism meant production for profit by private capitalist enterprises. Capitalism is certainly a system of production for profit – in fact, the ‘Profit System’ might be the alternative name for it that Luntz is looking for – but ‘private enterprise’ is only one form of this. Capitalism can also take the form of state enterprises producing for the market with a view to profit. In both cases, the profit arises from the unpaid, surplus labour of the wage workers who are employed, whether by a private or a state enterprise, to produce what is to be sold.

The IEA didn’t define ‘socialism’ either, but the question about socialism ‘having failed in the past’ indicates that they think it is what existed in Russia – or, their current favourite, Venezuela. The concept of state capitalism is ruled out, even though the author of its report, Kristian Niemietz, had referred, in a previous report, to this concept and specifically to us:

‘… There are exceptions to this, such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain. They are not, and as far as I know, never were, apologists of Soviet-style socialism, which they describe as ‘state capitalism’. They are among the few socialists who have at least some idea of what they mean by ‘real’ socialism. They use that term to describe a hypothetical system in which working-class people own and control the economy’s productive resources directly, not via the state; a system in which public ownership is not mediated through a government bureaucracy’ (iea.org.uk/has-real-socialism-never-been-tried/).

Once again, it cannot be assumed that those who answered the question meant the same as those who asked it. Had the question been ‘Would you like to live in an economic system where all industries are state-owned?’ the result would have been very different. On the other hand, had the question been ‘Would you like to live in a system where the means of production are commonly owned and democratically controlled and the principle of from each according to ability, to each according to need applied?’ the result could well have been the same. But this wouldn’t mean that those answering ‘yes’ thought that such a system was achievable, only that it was desirable.

In an 80-page booklet analysing the results, Left Turn Ahead? Surveying attitudes of young people towards capitalism and socialism, Niemietz was more realistic as to what this meant:

‘The rejection of capitalism may never have huge real-world consequences. “We should ditch capitalism, and try a socialist alternative” may well be the political equivalent of “One day, I will learn a foreign language, run a marathon, and write a novel”. It may be an idea that is popular as an abstract aspiration, but less so as a concrete action plan’ (p.17).

Unfortunately, this is fair comment.

However, there will be some significance that, amongst younger people today, capitalism has become a ‘bad word’:

‘Young people associate “socialism” predominantly with positive terms, such as “workers”, “public”, “equal” and “fair”. (…) Capitalism, meanwhile, is predominantly associated with terms such as “exploitative”, “unfair”, “the rich” and “corporations”’ (p.7)

That can’t be a bad thing.

Adam Buick

Cooking the Books: Profiting from the pandemic (2021)

The Cooking the Books column from the January 2021 issue of the Socialist Standard

After the first Covid-19 vaccines were announced in November, Mark Littlewood, the director general of the free-marketeer Institute of Economic Affairs, lauded the profit motive for achieving this (Times, 16 November), even liking the suggestion that ‘it might be appropriate for us all to stand on our doorsteps at 8pm each Thursday and give a round of applause to big, profit-making pharmaceutical companies’.

Capitalist companies, as Littlewood well knows since it’s his job to justify this, only respond to the prospect of profit. The past record of pharma companies in particular shows this. They give priority to the medicines that bring in the most profit and neglect research into treatments and cures for conditions that are not so profitable, such as tropical diseases. This has been described as a typical example of ‘market failure’, i.e. of the failure of the market mechanism to meet human needs.

There is a huge market for a vaccine against Covid-19 in North America and Europe. This has been created by the state borrowing money to buy the vaccine. So, far from being independent of the state, the ‘big, profit-making pharmaceutical companies’ that Littlewood wants us to cheer for are hugely dependent on the market that states provide for their products. So much, then, for ‘free’ enterprise.

Littlewood mentioned that AstraZeneca (the one which bungled their tests and then tried to fiddle the results before having to do more tests) has agreed to sell its vaccine on a not-for-profit basis, commenting that this was ‘a welcome reminder that major companies have myriad humanitarian and reputational considerations rather than always and forever focusing on the immediate, financial bottom line.’

He forgot to mention that this commitment only holds for the duration of the pandemic. AstraZeneca is anticipating (even hoping for and banking on) the Covid-19 virus surviving the pandemic and requiring annual vaccinations like the flu jab to keep it at bay, a demand they will be free to meet at a price that brings them a normal profit.

Littlewood also ignores that, far from there being ‘myriad’ humanitarian considerations for not going for an ‘immediate’ profit, the directors of a company are legally banned from taking into account humanitarian considerations. They cannot act as a charity as they have a legal duty to get the best return they can for the company’s shareholders. Not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, it is not permitted under company law.

‘Reputational considerations’ are another matter as a bad reputation – such as Big Pharma has – can affect sales, and so forgoing an immediate profit to counter this and going for a longer-term profit can be justified in terms of shareholder interest. As can other apparently humanitarian actions such as paying higher wages than others (to attract the best workers) or providing health care and other benefits (to develop a contented and more productive workforce).

What the rapid development of a Covid-19 vaccine does show is that society has the scientific knowledge and the technological capacity to solve a problem if enough resources are mobilised. This is the exception under capitalism (and normally only for military purposes), precisely because ‘no profit, no production’ (sometimes misleadingly called the ‘profit motive’) applies. In socialism mobilising resources to meet a need would be the rule as the common ownership of productive resources by society will allow the motive for production to become the natural one of directly satisfying people’s needs.

Party News (1981)

Party News from the June 1981 issue of the Socialist Standard

On 8 May at Guildford Branch there was a debate between E. Hardy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and Arthur Seldon of the Institute for Economic Affairs, on “the Inevitability of Capitalism". Mr. Seldon explained that we are doomed to wage-slavery for this generation and the next, and that we must therefore “make the best of it”. Our comrade Hardy pointed out that capitalism was merely an historical phase which, like feudalism in its day. had outlived its usefulness.

The world market system acts as a barrier to the satisfaction of human needs. When Hardy pointed out that the recommendations of the IEA, such as stopping inflation, reducing state intervention and having free trade, all existed in the nineteenth century and did not prevent mass unemployment, starvation and war, Seldon replied that in 1840, capitalism began to develop nicely for a while. That is. four years before Engels described the terrible poverty which existed then, and in many places still does, in his Condition of the Working Class in England.

Seldon gave two types of reason for the n "inevitability of capitalism”. First, instincts such as the “exchange" instinct and the "family" instinct. He gave no scientific proof that such instincts exist. On the contrary, most of us have nearly nothing we could exchange except our poverty and our work. Then he criticised state intervention, high taxation and other ideas which the Socialist Party has never defended.

Socialism is not increased state power, but the abolition of the state power. It is not high taxes, but the creation of wealth for direct use without any money system at all. This debate, which about fifty people attended, might not a seem like a great threat to the status quo. But it knocked one more nail into capitalism's coffin, by making an important point. Capitalism is not inevitable; its replacement by socialism is the start of mankind consciously controlling its own destiny. IEA members who want us to “make the best” of an insane system want us, like them, to hand over our brains, together with our work, to our bosses each week.

Clifford Slapper

Action Replay: What 'Workers' Revolution'? (2017)

The Action Replay column from the October 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

According to Mark Littlewood, the Director General of the market-worshipping Institute of Economic Affairs, in an article in the Times (14 August) headlined 'Highly-paid footballers are the purest example of a workers' revolution in action':

'If you remain attracted to the dictum that the workers should receive the “full fruits of their labour”, changes in the power structures of English football should be your stand-out example of the world you believe in.'

His argument is that developments in the football business over the last fifty years represent 'a substantial transfer of power away from the capitalist bosses and towards the employees upon whom their industry depends.'

He's being ironic of course as he is not in the least attracted by the idea that workers should receive the 'full fruits of their labour' or that there should be a transfer of power from capitalists to employees. He is having a dig at socialists. But is there anything in what he says?

Socialists don't stand for individual workers, or even groups of workers, getting the 'full fruits of their labour' even if this could be measured (which it can't). If this happened there would be nothing left for those who, for one reason or another (too young, too old, severely disabled), were unable to work. Marx himself pointed this out in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. Since production is collective today, socialists say that what is produced collectively should be owned collectively. We want a world where the 'fruits of labour' belong in common to society as a whole.

Most professional footballers are simply wage workers selling their particular skill to an employer. As with other workers, their wage reflects the cost of them maintaining the particular type of labour-power they are selling. There has been no substantial change in their position over the past fifty years, certainly no shift of power from their employers to them.

A small minority of professional footballers are, figuratively as well as literally, in a different league. Their very high degree of footballing skill sets them apart.  As such skills are in limited supply, the price paid to use them is determined by the demand for them. Those possessing them are in the same position as others owning something that cannot be reproduced, such as land in a desired location or a picture by a famous painter. As in these cases, the price they get is what people are prepared to pay. This price is not a wage but a monopoly income, or rent. It has nothing to do with the amount of work these footballers do.

The football clubs – or, rather, football businesses – they play for are prepared to pay a high price because they recoup a large part of it by selling the right to televise their matches, and of course because they need to have the best players to stay in the league whose matches bring in a revenue from being televised.

The change that has taken place in football is not a workers' revolution. The most that is true is that football, like other sports and entertainment, provides a way for some individuals from a poor background to escape from this and even to join the ranks of the capitalist class.

A workers' revolution is quite different. It aims to emancipate the whole working class, by making the means of production, currently owned by the capitalist class, the common property of society as a whole. The fruits of society's collective labour will then belong to society, to be shared out amongst all the members of society in accordance with their needs.

Cooking the Books: Never Been Tried (2017)

The Cooking the Books column from the April 2017 issue of the Socialist Standard

The right-wing think-tank, the Institute of Economic Affairs, published an article on its website on 17 February by Kristian Niemietz entitled 'Has “real” socialism never been tried?'.  It was aimed primarily at those who at the time claimed Russia was socialist but who now say it never was. We are specifically singled out as an exception:

'And yet there are exceptions to this, such as the Socialist Party of Great Britain (SPGB). They are not, and as far as I know, never were, apologists of Soviet-style socialism, which they describe as ‘state capitalism’. They are among the few socialists who have at least some idea of what they mean by ‘real’ socialism. They use that term to describe a hypothetical system in which working-class people own and control the economy’s productive resources directly, not via the state; a system in which public ownership is not mediated through a government bureaucracy.'

This is a passable, if not entirely adequate, definition of what we mean by 'socialism' but Niemietz went on:

'I have no idea how this should work in practice, but I suppose we could imagine some combination of public ownership with Swiss-style multi-level direct democracy. '

And then proceeded to criticise this:

'This would mean referenda on the production of razors, carpets, gloves, ink cartridges, curtains, hair straighteners, kettles, toasters, microwaves, baking trays, washing-up liquid, tiles, hand blenders, pizzas, and many, many other things. You would need literally thousands of referenda to organise an economy in this way. '

According to him, this wouldn't work and decisions would soon be left to experts who, he implies, would become a new ruling class.

We don't envisage the market being replaced by direct democracy. In socialism the means of production will be subject to overall democratic control and individual workplaces will be run democratically. There will also be an extension of democratic decision-making beyond the present boundary of local and national administration.

Referendums are not the only or, in most circumstances, the best way to decide matters democratically. They are appropriate only where there's a simple yes/no choice, whereas in most cases there is a whole range of compromise options and solutions. Such decisions don't have to be left to 'experts' but can be taken by democratically elected councils able to examine the matter in more detail before coming to a decision.

In any event, Niemietz has got it wrong in imagining that decisions as to how much of everything to produce would have to be decided by a vote. The amount of consumer goods, such as those he lists, to produce could be more or less self-regulating in accordance with the amounts people took from the distribution centres in conditions of free access. What they took over a given period would be a signal as to how much to reproduce, in the first instance to the bulk supplier and then down the line to the places where they are produced. In other words, much the same as the market is supposed to work and as stock control does today.

Only large-scale projects would need to be decided by some elected central council. So, no, there would not be a danger of voting fatigue in real 'real socialism'.