Carnegisms. (1909)

From the January 1909 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have had to differ from the Daily Express on other occasions, so it will come as no surprise that its remarks on the articles by Messrs. Carnegie and Rockefeller in the Christmas number of The World’s Work should also meet with our disapproval. Its introductory sentence is ominous. “The fallacy of the State ownership of capital, one of the leading Socialist doctrines, is vigorously exposed by the world’s greatest millionaires.” The “leading Socialist doctrine” is, to quote the Declaration of Principles of the Socialist Party, “the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people.” That conversion involves, not the “State ownership of capital,” but the abolition of capital. Capital being the means of production used as the agent of exploitation, its conversion into the common property of society will remove its exploiting character, and stop its functioning as the means of robbing the workers of their produce, so that it ceases to be capital at all, and becomes simply the means of production.

Mr. Carnegie is quoted as saying “the State as sole owner of wealth, would use it just as the owners now use all but a fraction of it; that is, invest it in some of the multiform ways leading to the reward of labour.” Certainly, even under Socialism, a proportion of the wealth produced will need be used reproductively, i.e., as means of production, but the resulting wealth being the property of the owners of the means of producing it, the “reward of labour” will not then be wages, the smallest proportion the workers can be driven by competition and the fear of unemployment to accept, but the whole product of wealth-creating activity, which will go to the workers in its entirety.

“Imagine,” says Mr. Carnegie, “every man, woman and child in Britain receiving £70, which is one’s proportion of the national wealth if equally divided.” While it is perfectly in order to imagine any such distribution of wealth, it is absurd to suggest that it would embody “the leading Socialist doctrine.” The fallacy of the equal distribution of wealth is too hoary-headed for us to specifically deal with now, beyond again pointing out that, given the ownership and control by the wealth producers of the means of production, the enjoyment and consumption of that wealth rests in their own hands because the wealth is collectively theirs. Social ownership is something different from individual ownership, although, apparently, neither Mr. Carnegie nor the Daily Express can realise that difference. Social ownership does not mean £70 for each person, but it means that the material resources of society are open to each person, and, as Mr. Carnegie has pointed out that “all that the millionaires can get out of life is superior food, raiment and shelter,” so we may reply that the best of these primary necessaries will be at the disposal of those who produce them when the means of their production are owned by those who use them.

It is interesting, too, to learn that Mr. Carnegie’s view of co-partnership is that “it tends to bring a realising sense of the truth to both labour and capital that their interests, broadly considered,are mutual.” Also that “Mr. Rockefeller’s views coincide with Mr. Carnegie’s.” This should be sufficient to damn Sir Christopher Furness’ scheme.

“Up to the present time no scheme has yet presented itself which seems to afford a better method of handling capital than that of individual ownership.” This is Mr. Rockefeller’s. He seems to be gloriously oblivious of the economic evolution that has made the ownership of capital to be spread over the whole capitalist class by the formation and perfection of such factors as Joint Stock Cos., Syndicates, and Combines, which, while they help to draw the line between the capitalist class and the working class, are, nevertheless, a breaking down of individual ownership of capital and the building up of a collectivist form of capitalism, by consolidating the capitalists as a class, spreading the ownership over the whole class while centering the control in the hands of those magnates who manipulate the corporations.

The one refreshing point which strikes us is the recognition of the fact by Mr. Rockefeller, that State Capitalism is something different from Socialism, because we are told that in neither the one nor the other “do we find any promise . . . that wealth would be administered for the general good more effectively than under the present methods.”

The Capitalists’ “Directive Ability”. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Lessons from recent happenings.

The Need for the Parasite.

One of the stock arguments of the anti-Socialist is that the worker will be unable to control industry under Socialism, as, in order to enable affairs to run smoothly, men are required with some weird, mysterious and miracle-working power called “directive ability.” The “anties” contend that we could not get along without these powerful individuals, and that (grande finale) these men are the ones who to-day possess wealth and position, i.e., the Rockefellers, Liptons, Devonports, and so on.

Let us just test this contention with a few facts and see how the miracle-workers run this system.

During the last few months a case has been attracting much attention in the courts. In this case certain civilians (past or present employees of Liptons, Ltd.) and some Army officers have been accused under the Bribery and Corruption Acts. In the evidence it transpired that Liptons have been in the habit of giving inducements to Army officers to secure Army canteen contracts. One of the defendants, Col. Whitaker, had received £540 from a firm of brewers, who supplied the beer to Col. Whitaker’s regiment at Malta. The Colonel said that he received the greater part of the money for using his influence to secure a contract from a colonel of a regiment at Crete. It also turned in the evidence that a member of the Government, Lord Saye and Sele, had written advising Col. Whitaker to take a holiday and go to Crete to “smooth a ruffled bird” (Col. Bird) for a consideration !

In summing up the case the judge said : “I am bound to say that the evidence before the Court satisfies me that these defendants, employed by Lipton’s, in so far as they made payments for the bribery of persons capable of influencing contracts in favour of Lipton’s, were acting on a system which was known to the directorate, encouraged by the directorate, and persisted in by the directorate, after there had been consideration given as to whether to stop that system or not.” (“Times,” 28.5.14.)

Now is this the way the capitalists run the show ? Is this the way they pile up their fortunes ? Is this the line “Directive Ability” takes ? When the capitalists themselves are faced with these facts and called to account, what do they answer ? Just what Lipton would have answered : “We do not know anything about it ; we did not attend to the business. You must blame our managers.'”

Tarred with the Same Brush.

Those who have memories a little longer than the usual working-class memory will recollect that when the directors of the company con­cerned in the Putumayo rubber atrocities were brought before the commission, four of them admitted that they did not even know the lan­guage in which the business at board meetings was conducted !

Let us now turn to another recent instance of “Directive Ability.”

The coalfields of Colorado have lately been drenched with the blood of miners who struck against the conditions obtaining in the mines of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co. A condition of affairs was in operation out there similar to what existed in England before the factory legislation began. The miners were compelled to trade at the company’s store, paying 25 to 50 per cent. more than outside prices, to buy coal off the company, pay the company’s doctor, and live in the company’s shacks.

When the miners struck on September 3rd last wholesale evictions followed, and men, women, and children were turned into the streets with their few belongings, to go where they could in the rain and snow that kept falling through the next two days.

A Heroic (Rocke)feller.

During the strike the mine-owners, following their usual custom, imported as mine guards riff-raff of every description—armed thugs who could be depended upon to commit without hesitation the most cold-blooded of murders. “No authentic account,” says the “New York World” in a candid moment, “of anything that has happened in Mexico compares in cold-blooded brutality with what took place at Ludlow, Colorado. Dr. A. S. Harvey, a physician who testified at the inquest, said that while the “women and children lay in the safety pits which had been dug under the tents, the militiamen applied torches to the canvas and burned the structure over the heads of the terrified refugees. He declared that one ranch-house, in which dozens of women and children had taken refuge, was under fire from the militiamen the whole day.” The militia mounted machine guns and swept the strikers’ quarters with bullets. Over 200 lives were lost in this mine war.

We now come to the “directive ability” side of the matter. As a result of the allegation that the rioting was caused by agents provocateur, and that the troops acted with great brutality in charging and shooting down men, women, and children indiscriminately, a Congressional inquiry into the matter was ordered. When John D. Rockefeller, Jun., who is a director of the Trinidad Coal and Iron Co., was questioned he “blandly professed entire ignorance as to the details of the rioting and causes of the strike. He admitted that his father owned 40 per cent. of the company’s stock, but declared that neither of them interfered with the management of affairs, and they knew very little about the matter. ‘We have so many interests that it is impossible for us to supervise personally everything.'”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

An Obliging Conscience.

How they get out of it when anything is brought up against them ! Capitalists, say our opponents, supervise industry, therefore deserve their profits. Charge Rockefeller with the murder of the Colorado miners, however, and he immediately begins to squirm, and says he knows nothing about the matter. He does not “supervise personally” when the butcheries have to be accounted for, but only when the “swag” is divided.

When one of the committee very pertinently pointed out that Rockefeller found plenty of time for “social uplift” work and vice investigation, and asked him why he did not investigate the conditions in his own business, the canting, hypocritical scoundrel at once replied : “My conscience acquits me of any responsibility in the matter.”—(“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Rockefellers, by the way, seem to be rather accomplished hypocrites, and, incidentally, men after God’s own heart. The father of the aforementioned unctuous humbug, John D. Rockefeller, Sen., was referred to last June by Mr. Bustard, the pastor of the Euclid Avenue Baptist Church, Cleveland (of the congregation of which Rockefeller is one of the oldest members) as “one of the rose bushes in God’s garden.” The same reverend soft-soap and chloroform dispenser also paid a tribute to those faithful followers in the church who, like Mr. Rockefeller, “have for years lead religious lives and been steadfast in the Lord’s work.” Comment on this is needless.

Before leaving for his father’s Pocantico Hills Estate young Rockefeller “issued a statement, in which he admitted that his investigations into the riots had disclosed conditions more terrible than have yet occurred in that or any other State.”—(“Reynolds’s,” 3.5.14.) In his concluding statement before the commission, however, he disclosed his true capitalistic soul, and showed himself as the advocate of free and unfettered sweating. “He got rather angry when it was pointed out that the newspapers had given plenty of details as to the working conditions in Trinidad, and that a word from his father would have stopped the bloodshed and ended the strike. He declined to agree to submit to arbitration, and declared that the company would rather sacrifice the whole of its property in Colorado than recognize the miners’ union if it hampered the company’s freedom.”— (“Leader,” 7.4.14.)

The Company’s Freedom.

Well, what about “directive ability” now ? As a matter of fact, about the only directive ability the masters ever exercise is in employing managers, foremen, etc. to run their concerns for them while they are enjoying themselves, and if it large enough dividend is not regularly forthcoming they want to know the reason why ; if a sufficient reason is not given the official gets the sack. Owing to the contradictory nature of present society the workers are compelled to fight each other for jobs. The overlooker and manager are working men like the rest of us, dependent on their jobs for their livelihood and just as likely to get the sack at any moment. Their particular job consists in using every method they can to get the greatest possible amount of work out of their fellow-workers. Thus on the industrial field workers find themselves compelled to fight, not only their masters, but also each other in order to get a living. When the workers take over production then the “directive ability” of our fellow-workers (the absent bond-holding capitalist does no work in production at all), will be employed for the common good instead of, as to-day, for the misery of their fellows.

G. McClatchie

A Socialist Survey. (1914)

From the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

A correspondent writing to the “Daily Citizen” (4.6.14), gives information of a singular occurrence in a signal box on one of the main railways. The box was visited by a company of soldiers, who were admitted in batches of nine. They were accompanied by the district inspector and a plain clothes officer, who instructed them in the art of railway signalling and block working, much to the surprise and discomfort of the signalmen on duty.

Yet the “Daily Citizen” and its supporters are always howling for the nationalisation of the railways !

* * *

When the “Storstad” arrived at Montreal after her disastrous collision with the “Empress of Ireland,” she was at once seized by the sheriff and placed under arrest. When the writ was nailed to the mast Captain Andersen demanded to know: “By what authority do you board my vessel and arrest her?” The sheriff replied (probably because the “Storstad” was a “foreigner”) that his authority was “the authority of the British Empire.”

Under that authority, of course, anything could be “pinched.” That’s how Eugland became “great.”

* * *

Keir Hardie appears to believe that the emancipation of the workers is but of secondary importance. Capitalist measures should receive prior attention. He told his audience at a labour demonstration at Lesmahagow (Lanark) that the Labour Party were out to unite the working “classes,” but before this could be done the Home Rule question had to be got out of the way.

The Socialist Party, I might point out, are also out to unite the workers, but with this difference—they are out to unite them for Socialism. And of the various obstacles in the way of this unification they have had to encounter, one of the biggest is, not Home Rule, but—the Labour Party !

* * *

At a recent meeting of the Blackburn Board of Guardians it was stated that the sum spent in out-relief during 1913 was £2,000 less than that paid in respect of officials’ salaries. I am beginning to see why there is such a rush for these jobs.

* * *

Mr. Rockefeller’s millions appear to bring him endless trouble. He is now expecting to be called to give evidence before the Inter-State Commission which is investigating the affairs of the Newhaven Railroad, U.S.A. In one portion of the evidence a Mr. Millen, ex-president of this concern, said that enormous losses were made through financial trickery. He alleged that over £2,000,000 were juggled away by the late Mr. Pierpont Morgan.

We often read, in stories of the old buccaneering days of the Spanish Main, where pirates used to cheat each other out of their share of the plunder, and which invariably ended up in a fight and a lot of blood-spilling.

Similarly, to-day, the industrial pirates quarrel over their share of the booty. Whilst agreed that the manner of acquiring it is satisfactory (to them), yet, as soon as they begin to handle the loot they cheat each other mercilessly, and invariably wind up in a fight—not a bloody fight, but a legal one.

In this case blood is spilled in order to get the booty—not the blood of the pirates, but that of the toiling millions who are bludgeoned and battered into turning it over to them.

* * *

Many meetings have been held of late to protest against the employment of Chinese and other “foreigners” as seamen on board British ships. Yet one thing seems to have been left out of account. That is that “Sea Scouts” are now being shipped as deck hands on board British vessels. Possibly it is only to gain experience—but experience of what ? Is it the same experience that Boy Scouts are undergoing in connection with the military forces ?—experience that may be turned to account “should any danger threaten the Empire” from within or without ?

The scout law says : “A Scout must be loyal to his King, and to his officers, and to his parents, his country, and his employers. He must stick to them through thick and thin against anyone who is their enemy, or who even talks badly of them.” In other words the “Scouts” are there to be used as the tools of capitalism against the workers. That fact is obvious enough, at any rate. They are well organised on land ; now they are turning their attention to the sea, and the introduction of a few Scouts on board merchant ships also marks the introduction of the thin end of the wedge. Of course, there may be nothing in it, but I “hae ma doots.” It opens up possibilities.

* * *

The Rev. A. G. Waldron tells the “Daily Sketch” (12.6.14) that : “Modern Socialistic philosophy has had a bad effect on many people. They want everything done for them.” Which causes one to wonder what the reverend gent does for a living, that he can afford to talk like that. My experience of these professional medicine men is that they don’t do anything for a living. They live on the product of other people’s toil. To use this pulpit thumper’s own words, they “want everything done for them”—and thanks to the unmitigated foolishness of those workers whom “modern Socialistic philosophy” has not yet “spoiled,” they get “every­ thing done for them.”

Waldron also said that he had “tried the experiment of allowing questions to be asked after the sermon, but it was a failure. Only the fools asked questions in church.” I suppose every person who asked a question was considered a fool. Well, perhaps he was. Only fools and rogues are to be found in churches, and it is the height of a fool’s folly to question a rogue concerning his roguery.

* * *

How is this ? Have the workers of Tonypandy already forgotten the treatment they got at the hands of the capitalists’ butchers ? It would appear so, judging from a picture which was published in a recent issue of the “Daily News and Leader.”

It seems that the Prince and Princess of Teck had paid a visit to Tonypandy. Of course, they went about the mines, where their presence created great enthusiasm (which, by the way, is a very useful element, and quite necessary now-a-days to the capitalists’ game of bleeding the workers), so much so that, instead of going home, they lined up at the pit-mouth, all in their dirt and grime, just as they had come up out of the bowels of the earth, and sang with feeling and gusto, “Land of my Fathers.” This is distinctly good, only the wording of the hymn appeared to me to be inappropriate. It should have been “Land of my Masters.”

* * *

How terrifying is that oft-maligned and much misunderstood phrase, “the class war” ! How soon it will disturb the even temperament of a respectable congress ! For instance, the International Textile Workers held their congress during the second week in June at Blackpool. The congress was asked by the foreign delegates to say that the International Congress would only accept those unions for membership which stood by the principle of the class war. The English section, however, did not like the phrase, “because in England it had rather a bad repute, and was only connected with one small part of the Labour movement.” (This is where the Labour Party chuckles.)

In face of this refusal the Continental delegates were compelled to seek another expression, so they hit upon the phrase “organisations that combat the present capitalistic state of things.” This was accepted.

What surprised the Continental delegates, said one of them, was that, far from looking down upon the workmen, the English employers treated them on a fraternal footing, and with the ordinary politeness of human intercourse. That will explain the repugnance of the English section to the introduction of the class war principle. Naturally, if they are so pally with the bosses, the class war won’t exist for them.

Tom Sala

On Buying Out the Capitalist. (1907)

From the July 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

[From “The Concentration of Wealth” by Henry Laurence Call, a paper read before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Columbia College, New York, Dec. 1906.]

The purchase of public utilities from the corporations is, indeed, now generally advocated ; and we presume the same alternative will be proposed with regard to the trusts, when the people shall have become thoroughly aroused as to what they mean, as also to the futility, as well as the inadequacy, of all attempts to curb or smash them. But this acknowledges the right in these corporations to insist upon such terms as they please, or even absolutely to refuse to sell until their franchises and privileges shall have expired ; thus postponing indefinitely, and rendering practically null, any attempt at a real remedy. The proposition is, moreover, in any just estimate, deliciously ludicrous. The simplicity of the countryman who “locked the stable door after the horse was stolen,” was sage wisdom by comparison. It is as though that countryman, with the thief parading his stolen horse in his plain sight, should have hypnotised himself into the belief that the possession of that thief was evidence of property, and sacred ; and while still in that hypnotic state, should have proposed to mortgage his farm and future labour in order to purchase back his stolen property.

If, through the misconduct of their public servants, the people have been defrauded of the possession of their public highways, as also of industry itself, then their right to repossess themselves of these properties and franchises is the same as that of the individual to repossess himself of his property, whether lost or stolen. The deprivations and wrongs of the past can never be remedied ; and all the wealth that has thus far gone to supply the lavish and sinful waste of these arch plunderers of the industrial world may not be restored to the people ; but all the plundered wealth that yet remains, including the franchises and properties, is theirs to recover and possess.

To attempt such purchase would, indeed, entail upon industrial society an impossible burden.

It is stated that the income of John D. Rockefeller is 72,000,000 dollars per year. If this is true, then the wealth of that individual alone, judged by its earning power, is to-day not far from 2,500,000,000 dollars; and before any reform can be effected will undoubtedly be 3,000,000,000 dollars. Now, inasmuch as the net earnings of the whole (American) people are only 3,000,000,000 dollars per annum, it would require all the earnings of all the people of the nation for a whole year, to satisfy the demands of this one individual alone, in the event of such purchase. But he is only one of thousands of the enormously rich ; and the class, of which he is representative, possess practically ninety per cent. of the 106,000,000,000 dollars given as our national wealth. Not all the labour of all the people would, then, suffice ; . . . as well might a slave, all whose toil belongs to an absolute master, hope to purchase its freedom, as industrial society to undertake such purchase, and then hope even to lighten its debt burden.

Aside from the contradiction it implies, and the hardship it must entail, the purchase by society of these possessions would perpetuate an aristocracy of wealth, having no occupation but the search for pleasure and power, and quite as formidable then as now. It would take all the profits from production and industry, leaving the whole of industrial society in the future, as at present, but “hewers of wood and drawers of water” for these lords of the industrial world. It would convert this into an immense corruption fund, in the hands of an idle class trained to ambition and power. Many might be content with this perpetual mortgage upon the labour of the whole nation, and spend their incomes upon pleasure ; but who can doubt that the great lords of finance who now dominate the industrial world, would still thirst for power, and, conversant with all the corrupt methods of our politics, would use the same criminal methods to build up a newer power, as those employed to build up their present possessions and power ?

Besides, such half-way action, or compromise, would be as wrong and unjust as it would be impolitic. All these possessions have been created alone by the labour of industrial society ; and to it, and it alone, they justly belong.

If, therefore, these possessions have found their way into the hands of the present possessors through unjust laws, through bribery, corruption, fraud, and other criminal misconduct, which the people could not see or prevent, then the people cannot do less than demand a full return both of the properties and all the accumulated wealth therefrom. Their right to this wealth is exactly commensurate with their right to take possession of the properties themselves. The return of the goods of which they have been despoiled is quite as important and altogether as just, as the prevention of further spoliation. It is enough that they have been so long defrauded of their just possessions, and compelled to toil in the service, and at the dictation, of the wrongful appropriators ; without assuming this voluntary and dangerous additional burden of perpetual toil, in order to come into possession of their own again, or rather into what would be but a hollow mockery of that possession. This wealth, thus plundered from a nation’s toil, either belongs to these plunderers or to the society from which they have plundered it; and to one or the other it must go in the end. Industrial society must make its choice between the two horns of the dilemma ; it must be the judge of its own rights, as also the enforcer of its own decrees ; and from its decision there is no appeal, as no recourse from its action.

The corporation, then, in all its ramifications, industrial, financial, and public service, should be taken from under the control of private interests, and made co-operative in the workers, by them to be administered for the common good; it should be, in fact, a social, not a selfish institution.

A Socialist Survey. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Lloyd George’s Budget certainly got the welcome he knew it would get from the “Labour” movement. The only feature to be regretted, from their point of view, is the forgetfulness of the Chancellor to acknowledge its source. Apart from that, it is hailed as being “on the right lines,” “a step on the way,” etc. Although Mr. Lloyd George doesn’t see his way clear to “relieve the working classes of the amount of taxation which they were called upon to bear” (vide Mr. Philip Snowden), it yet was comforting to know that a beginning was to be made in the way of doing something to relieve the heavy burden on local rates!.

* * *

On somewhat similar lines is the election manifesto of Mr. Jas. Martin, Labour candidate for N.E. Derbyshire. He goes “straight for the abolition of food taxes.” He favours also the “nationalisation of the mines and railways, which would not only cheapen coal and travel, but [mark this] provide revenue for the Exchequer” !

As if that was not enough to stamp Mr. Martin as a full-blown Liberal, he proceeds to give us the full Liberal programme with all its trimmings. He believes in Free Trade, Home Rule, and Land Reform—in fact, all that a respectable Liberal stands for. Strangely enough, he is opposed by another Liberal candidate. This, I believe, is due to some misunderstanding which has caused a split in the “Progressive forces.” Mr. Martin’s candidature is endorsed by the Miners’ Federation and the Labour Party. Though he was standing with the assent of the Derbyshire Miners’ Association, yet a large proportion of delegates at the adoption of the orthodox Liberal were members of that body. I don’t blame them : they couldn’t tell t’other from which.

The Labour election agent, Mr. A. Peters, declares that the miners have spent £10,000 within the last few years in order to maintain their position in the county. Can you wonder ?

* * *

One thing stands out clear in the diverse reports that reach us concerning the trouble in Mexico. That is that both General Huerta and General Carranza have given assurances that oil wells shall be protected during the fighting. Why ? Because these wells are chiefly the cause of the trouble. Ask Rockefeller and the Standard Oil Trust. Ask any of the greedy sharks in this country whose eyes are glued on Mexico. Huerta, representing Mexican interests, wants to preserve the oil wells for Mexico; Carranza, representing British and American capitalists, wants them for his masters.

Mexico is one of the richest mineral countries in the world—that is why all the world wants it. When oil was discovered during the Diaz regime, it was not long before the far-off nostrils of the capitalist wolves scented it. Then commenced the trouble. Diaz wouldn’t “sell out,” so means were adopted to make him “get out.” His successor looks like traversing the same road. Thus are the “rights” of capital vindicated.

Smug respectability, sitting at home in England, wonders what it is all about. “Why the devil don’t these fellows set to work instead of fighting each other, and let us earn our dividends ? This sort of thing lowers the rate, don’t you know !”

* * *

Yes, we know. In Colorado, for instance, it is lowering the rate—of the population. They call it “Rockefeller’s war.” It is a typical industrial war—all one-sided. The capitalists have the full forces of the country at their disposal. The miners—only dogged determination and what few arms they are able to get hold of. Men, women, and children have been shot or sabred that shareholders may have their dividends. Women and children, have had to tramp the streets because their homes had been burned over their heads, in order that investors should have a “fair return” on their capital. And we are told there is no class war !

* * *

May Day in this country seems to have resolved itself into a sort of rounding-up of recalcitrant and other sheep, into the Labour fold. As usual, the Labour Party were out in full force. Everywhere the same note was struck—emphasis on the importance of joining a trade union, electing leaders, sending them to Parliament, but, above all, being “loyal” to them. You see, the more members the bigger the unions ; the bigger the unions the more “leaders” required, and incidentally, the more soft jobs for the professional spongers.

We, on the other hand, don’t believe in making a hullaballoo once every twelve months. Instead, we engage in a steady, persistent propaganda of Socialist principles on every day in the year. One can understand these job-hunters not liking us and our work. Whereas they believe in the retention of the capitalist system, we work for its abolition. Its abolition would put them out of business.

* * *

Old Age Pensions have proved a grand thing—for the capitalists. Recent returns relating to pauperism in England and Wales issued by the Local Government Board show that since 1909 there has been a decrease of more than 200,000. That this is due in a large measure to the introduction of Old Age Pensions is proved by the fact that in 1906 the number of paupers over 70 years of age was 229,474, whereas at the beginning of 1913 the number had fallen to 56,770.

This means that whilst formerly it just about 13s. 8d. per head to keep paupers inside a workhouse, they can now get them completely off their hands for the modest sum of five shillings. On this the pensioners have to subsist as best they can—usually with assistance from friends and relations, thus contributing directly to the further impoverishment of those who are already poor.

Old Age Pensions having fulfilled their mission of getting the aged people off the hands of the capitalists, the Poor Law authorities are now looking round for some device to rid themselves of those under 70. The Lambeth Board of Guardians have, so far, been the most successful. The experiment they tried was to send the inmates to look for work ! All they had to do was to go out and get a job, come back for the missus and kids, and—there you are ! Goodbye ! Simple, isn’t it ? At this rate there soon won’t be any Poor Law for Mr. Sidney Webb to worry about.

* * *

Here is an example of the effect the above system has upon people who try to remain outside the Poor Law. It was brought to light at a Westminster inquest recently, and showed the hopeless struggle of an aged couple who tried to live on 12s. a week, of which 4s. 6d. had to go for rent. The victim of this hellish system was Mary Ann Russell, aged 72, of Pimlico, who was found with her throat cut.

Her husband, a grey-haired labourer of 67, said he had been out of work for thirteen weeks, and his wife had been much depressed in consequence. Their income consisted of 7s. from his National Insurance payments (which expired the week after the inquest) and 5s. her Old Age Pension. They owed rent, and it was more than the old lady could face. “We lived very happily together, sir,” said the old man, with tears streaming down his face, “but it’s too much to bear.”

Tom Sala

The Rockefellers (1960)

From the July 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 11th of May there died in Tucson, Arizona, John D. Rockefeller, Jnr., son of that notable father, John D. Snr, a man well-known in the early American capitalist era as one of the Robber Barons, with a finger in many pies—coal, iron ore, but chiefly remembered for his control of Standard Oil (New Jersey). In fact, according to Victor Perle in his book American Imperialism, in 1949 Standard Oil handled one-fifth of the oil produced in the western hemisphere, and its marketing areas covered countries in which some 72 per cent. of the world’s population resided. The control of oil throughout the western world is in the hands of seven oil trusts, of which Rockefellers control three.

But the Rockefellers, according to the obituaries of “Junior,” were noted for their “beneficence." It is reputed that between them they gave away some £350 million, and were still able to leave, as reports have shown, £200 millions (senior) and £150 millions (junior). These are staggering sums of money. And “Junior’s” will make no mention of any settlement for his six children and their various offspring, so it must be presumed that they have been well provided for. Some readers may say, but at least they gave some away, for the Daily Telegraph, May 12th, reports that “He devoted himself to furthering the schemes for human betterment initiated by his father after establishing his fortune." What from our point of view is important, however, is to whom it was given and why. Part of the answer to the first point is contained in the Telegraph of the 12th. “Educational Organisations benefited the most.” It seems highly probable that Marxian economics and the Labour Theory of Value plays no significant part in these “Educational Organisations,” for remember, education as taught today is primarily to fit workers into the productive and administrative organisation of capitalism and not to teach them Socialism.

Next comes “Religion,” another barrier to working class emancipation. Then “Public Parks, Roads, and the restoration and historic structures and antiquities.” No doubt the workers of the slum dwellings of all the major cities in the U.S.A. will appreciate that they can walk in the parks and pray in a well-restored church. Lastly, “Great sums to youth.” How this was distributed was not mentioned, but it is unlikely that these funds were used to propagate Socialist ideas. They were obviously spent to eulogise and bolster the capitalist system.

So, as commendable as some people may think was his “beneficence,” it is interesting to note that the people from whom this wealth was expropriated, his own workers, received little or nothing of what was rightfully theirs. Why he gave away these vast sums of money is a matter of some conjecture. One reason surely was to avoid taxation, but possibly also to buy immortality.

Socialists hope that in the not too distant future, people will see these so-called philanthropists in their true light—of leeches who grow fat on the mental and physical energies of the working class. Although “Junior” is dead, the Rockefeller Empire will continue, for neither father, son nor children ever took part in the production of things for use. At least it will continue to flourish until workers decide to own and distribute the fruits of their labour themselves.

Johnny Edmonds

Oil: the greasy politics (1983)

From the June 1983 issue of the Socialist Standard

Oil has been used for a very long time. More than 5000 years ago, Sumerians, Assyrians and Babylonians took advantage of large seepages at Hit on the Euphrates. In the early centuries AD Arabs and Persians developed an interest in crude petroleum and its distillation into illuminants and it may be that this technique was carried to Western Europe from the 12th century onwards through the Arab influence in Spain. In North America the Indians used oil as a medicine and the early explorers found seepages in what are now the states of New York and Pennsylvania. Up to the start of the 19th century illumination in the United States and other industrially advanced countries was little better than that of the ancient Greeks and Romans. The increasing development of capitalist industry brought new needs for additional sources of oil. By the middle of the century kerosene or coal oil. derived by distillation of coal, was in common use and the need for yet cheaper and more convenient sources of lubricants and light grew more pressing. In 1859 in western Pennsylvania the first well specifically for oil was drilled. Before 1900 oil field discoveries in the United States covered 14 states and there were finds also in Europe and the Middle and Far East.

At the outset of the 20th century the use of refined petroleum and lubricants ceased to be of primary importance and the industry became a major supplier of energy. In 1980 oil and natural gas together supplied two-thirds of the world demand, with the use of approximately 80 million barrels a day. This does not mean that oil is a satisfactory fuel from an ecological viewpoint: it is a heavy pollutant and when it is burned many valuable chemicals are wasted. Such bad effects have to be really serious to figure in capitalist calculations, when cheapness, availability to the consumer and profitability to the producing interests are always the main considerations.

Reliable estimates about oil reserves and new resources are difficult to obtain because the relevant information is in the hands of the oil companies themselves. Where these firms are government owned, as is the general rule in so-called communist countries, such estimates can be state secrets. OAPEC have stated [1] that about half the known reserves in the Arab states have now been extracted. However, excluding unavailable figures for China, it was estimated in 1974 [2] that about 850,000 million barrels of oil remain to be found, 40 per cent behind the Iron Curtain. In the Soviet Union, Middle East, Canadian Arctic Islands as well as the unknown Chinese contribution these discoveries can be expected mainly on land; elsewhere the great majority will be offshore. There is still a lot of oil over which to fight.

It is because oil is such a vital source of energy that it poses considerable problems for capitalist administrators. The interests of those who profit from its production are clearly to obtain as high a price as possible, just as those who are users of petroleum products strive to keep their costs as low as they can. In such circumstances the state usually has to intervene to regulate the conflict in the interests of the ruling class as a whole, as happens with other important industries. In general, capitalist governments have found oil interests very hard to handle. The industry is vastly profitable, it very soon took on a multinational character, and its products can now be carried quite easily all over the globe. To try and straightjacket the industry might lead to an interruption of supplies which, even temporarily, could have serious repercussions. Also in many states, particularly in the Middle East, it is the producers who are the dominant, indeed virtually the only, capitalist interest.

This apparent lack of interest has led observers such as Anthony Sampson to state [3] that capitalist governments have evaded the problem of the control of the oil companies. It is true, and not particularly surprising, that at certain times oil lobbies have by corrupt means gained undue influence over capitalist governments. Such was the case in the United States in the 1920s when the Teapot Dome Scandal rocked Washington and probably contributed to President Harding's death in office. However, capitalist politicians all over the world are nowadays at their wits end to find a way to regulate the situation. To take a cricketing analogy, Sampson's insinuation is rather like accusing bowlers of not trying to get Geoffrey Boycott out because statistics show that he is rarely dismissed. Sampson deserves credit for the diligence of his research, but unfortunately suffers from the reformist delusion that capitalism can be made to work in the interests of the whole population. He does however state that “any agreement over oil implies a first step towards some form of world government". We shall return to this later.

The first big manifestation of oil politics occurred in the United States in the closing years of the last century. Many of its features are still to be seen today world wide. John D. Rockefeller, using mainly borrowed money, established himself in the refinery business and by 1870 had brought Standard Oil into being. He then combined with some of his competitors to fund a Central Association with himself as president. Such a combination of capitalist concerns to pursue a joint interest is known as a cartel. This provoked the producing interests to try to form a cartel of their own. Rockefeller's cartel was boycotted, and an agreement was reached to stop new drilling and sell as a fixed price. However the temptation to undercut each other proved too much, the bottom fell out of the market and Rockefeller had won. He was contemptuous of the efforts of the producers, explaining [4]: "The dear people, if they had produced less oil, they would have got their full price”. This success led to a number of refiners selling out to Rockefeller, giving his trust a monopoly. His success and that of other trust barons, however, alarmed other capitalist interests and eventually led Theodore Roosevelt's administration to use anti-trust legislation against him. Standard took the fight to the Supreme Court who ruled in May 1911 that it must divest itself of all its subsidiaries.

This exposed the difficulties cartels have in sticking together in face of competition between individual members. If these capitalist interests cannot maintain such limited agreements, how can we expect joint action on a global scale to take steps towards world government? Yet Sampson sees this as a necessary condition to control the oil industry. The Rockefeller example shows the cartels and trusts in turn provoking counter attacks by the state in the interests of the majority of the ruling class, although this took longer to come about than would probably be the case today. The crushing defeat suffered by the producers at Rockefeller's hands is less typical.

The United States were fortunate at that time in having their own native oil supply. Underwater exploration had yet to materialise. Britain and other West European countries had no supply of oil and, as World War I approached, were only too well aware of their vulnerability. Where, for example, was the Royal Navy to obtain oil? Attention was directed towards the underdeveloped parts of the world where the vital fluid was to be found. Burmah Oil, formed to exploit discoveries in Burma, produced an offshoot, Anglo-Persian, based on newly acquired concessions in Iran (then called Persia). Only three months before war broke out the British government, prompted by Winston Churchill, acquired a 51 per cent stake in this company, later renamed British Petroleum (BP). Eventually the American firms, unable to meet increasing demand from home supplies, were also forced to look overseas. Saudi Arabia was to become an American sphere of influence with an organisation called Aramco, jointly owned by four oil companies, to run the concessions. These new relationships, so similar to those between imperialist nations and their colonies, contained the seeds of future trouble. As native ruling classes developed in these territories, leading eventually to the formation of their own governments, so complaints began about the profits which the oil companies were making at "their expense”. These nationalists looked for ways to obtain a larger slice of the cake. Attempts by Mexico in 1938 and by Iran under Dr. Mossadeq in 1951 to nationalise “their” oil industries were eventually defeated because competing customers were able to combine and enforce boycotts. However, nationalist feeling in the oil producing countries continued to gather momentum and the stage was set for the formation in 1960 of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)

OPEC would probably have formed itself in any case, but the act was triggered by price cutting by Exxon (ESSO), one of the giant companies popularly known as the “seven sisters". They reduced their posted price by 10 cents a barrel in August 1960. The other six “sisters", although none too happy, eventually felt compelled to follow suit. There was an oil glut at the time and, as happens periodically, Russia was threatening to flood the market at discount prices. This cut helped to unite the producing nations. One month later, on September 9, representatives of five of them, who were at that time collectively responsible for 80 per cent of the world’s oil exports, met in Baghdad and OPEC was formed. Eventually membership grew' to 13 — Algeria, Ecuador. Gabon, Indonesia. Iran, Iraq. Kuwait. Libya. Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela. From the start OPEC made it clear that they were, in the words of one delegate, "a cartel to confront a cartel”. [3] Their main object was to raise their revenues. The reaction of the oil companies was to encourage production outside OPEC, a situation which accelerated the coming of North Sea Oil.

OPEC's fortunes have fluctuated with the current state of the oil market, contrary to ideas that the industry is a "special case" somehow exempt from the normal operation of the forces of supply and demand. The oil glut persisted during the 1960s and OPEC was relatively ineffective. After an attempt by the Arab nations to impose an embargo following the Arab-Israel six-day war in 1967 had failed because the non-Arabs did not give their support, the Organisation of Arabian Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) was formed by the Arab states who nevertheless remained within OPEC. By the 1970s however things had changed. Demand for oil was running considerably ahead of previous forecasts, and the glut was subsiding. The Libyan crisis of 1970 was the first sign of this. Following the deposition of King Idris, Colonel Gadaffi's regime threatened 21 companies which held Libyan concessions that unless they raised the price paid to Libya he would sell oil to Moscow. There were now so many competitors in the field that the oilmen could no longer enforce the type of boycott which had toppled Mossadeq in 1951, and eventually they had to agree to a price increase of 76 cents a barrel.

In this situation many OPEC members negotiated “participation" agreements allowing them part ownership of the companies' concessions. By September 1973 the price of oil on the spot market rose above the posted price for the first time since the formation of OPEC. The following month the Yom Kippur war broke out between Israel and the Arab nations. In Kuwait later that month OPEC decided to raise prices by 70 per cent and simultaneously OAPEC announced an oil embargo involving a 5 per cent cut in production each month until Israel withdrew from the territories it had occupied in June 1967. By the time the dust had settled the price had quadrupled in just over two months. The general political uncertainty in the Middle East helped to keep prices up and during 1979-1980 the Khomeini take-over in Iran and the Iran-Iraq war caused some panic among the oil companies; prices nearly trebled during this period. In an attempt to form an effective counter cartel to confront OPEC, members of 21 oil importing nations agreed to form the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The current slump has meant that such price rises could not he maintained. Demand for oil inevitably fell off. Sales of smaller cars picked up appreciably in the United States. The development of sources outside OPEC meant that the latter’s share of the market was declining. OPEC’s combined oil revenues [5], which were $275 billion in 1980, had declined to an estimated $205 billion in 1982. In April 1980 Japanese oil industry executives refused to pay the National Iranian Oil Company $35 a barrel. Iran was now only exporting 1.5 million barrels a day as opposed to 4 million under the Shah. Differences which had always existed within OPEC came to the fore. The main one was between those nations led by Iran, which have large populations and need money quickly, and smaller nations who can take a more relaxed, long term view. The latter are led by Saudi Arabia, with estimated reserves twice those of Iran. The Saudi oil minister and spokesman — Sheik Yamani, suave and Harvard educated — became a world figure in the 1970s and for many typifies OPEC.

The Saudi group need to retain trade into the next century. They were moderates on price in 1979-80 for fear that by going too high they might stimulate alternative energy projects which could drastically reduce their business. Now, while sharing the OPEC desire to avoid a price slump, they are restless about the restrictions on production required to underpin the price. In contrast the Iran-led group have claimed that the high price is good medicine for the importers because it forces them to practice conservation and look for other sources of energy [6]. Equally hypocritical is the claim by OAPEC [7] to be acting in the interests of non-oil Third World countries. The lie to this is given by figures showing [5] that OPEC’s current account surplus rose to around $110 billion in 1980. A fraction of this surplus was invested in less developed countries, but a large slice was added to bank deposits. The Saudi led group at OAPEC has always found difficulty in finding profitable investment channels for its massive oil income. Despite the trappings of wealth Saudi Arabia remains a backward area which still punishes petty "theft" by cutting off a hand, in a ceremony largely unchanged since the days of Mahomet.

The term “price war" has been used almost exclusively for periods of price cutting such as the present. The current round started in February, when posted prices in the United States were marked down by about $2.50 a barrel, and non-OPEC Russia and Egypt reduced export prices. The British National Oil Corporation, a government owned body set up to deal with British North Sea Oil. then cut its price by $3 to $30.50 a barrel. An OPEC meeting in January having failed to agree. Nigeria unilaterally reduced its price by $5.50 to $30 a barrel. This was the background to the London meeting of OPEC in March which eventually produced a fragile looking deal under which prices were cut by $5 a barrel and a production ceiling of 17.5 million barrels a day was set. The immediate outlook for OPEC is far from rosy. Its fortunes will clearly continue to follow market fluctuations and serious splits, perhaps withdrawals, are likely.

Many workers foolishly believed that the discoveries in the North Sea heralded a cheap oil bonanza for everyone in Britain. In fact there was no chance of the working class gaining any benefit. Even if prices did go down sharply, this would have effectively reduced the price of labour power and thus led to a corresponding reduction in wages. Only the owning capitalist class can benefit from North Sea Oil, and their reaction has been mixed. British industry’s need for cheap energy remains but the ruling class are now also in the oil exporting business. Rising oil prices were held responsible for an upward surge by sterling on the exchange markets, hitting other British exporters. This prompted the famous comment by British Leyland's Michael Edwardes that if North Sea oil caused such problems it might be better to "leave the bloody stuff where it is". On the other hand there are obvious benefits for the capitalist class in being self supporting in oil, even if only temporarily. At the moment 26 fields are operational in the North Sea [8]. Another 30 are discovered but future developments are uncertain owing to high operational costs and low recoverable resources. The general fall in oil prices is a further disincentive. It is expected that North Sea oil production will tailback after 1986.

Gross exchequer revenue from North Sea oil is about $7 billion. 6.4 per cent of total central government taxes. Capital intensive projects such as oil exploration and the development of alternative energy sources are based on certain assumptions about future prices and a slump can destroy their commercial viability. However, BNOC is under some pressure from customers who have not yet finally accepted their new price, hoping for further reduction. There are renewed reports [9-10] of Russian oil being dumped on the market. It looks as though the downward pressure will continue for a while yet, with an uncertain outlook for British North Sea oil.

E. C. Edge

REFERENCES
[1] Organisation of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC) Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 7. July 1982.
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica, 1974 Edition.
[3] Anthony Sampson: The Seven Sisters, Hodder and Stoughton 1974.
[4] Ida M Tarbell The History of the Standard Oil Company. New York, 1904. Vol.1.
[5] Unsigned article "The Implications of Cheaper Oil". Petroleum Economist, March 1983.
[6] Remarks by the Shah of Iran in 1973, quoted in Ref. 3. p259.
[7] Editorial in Ref. 1 entitled "Aid to the Developing World in Surplus Oil Market".
[8] Article by Alexander G. Kemp and David Rose (University of Aberdeen) in Petroleum Economist, March 1983.
[9] Rod Chapman (Energy correspondent), The Guardian. 9 March 1983.
[10] Roland Gribben (Business correspondent), The Daily Telegraph. 23 March 1983.

Open Secret (2016)

Book Review from the September 2016 issue of the Socialist Standard

'Wealth Secrets of the 1%', by Sam Wilkin. Sceptre £9.99

There’s no secret, really, is there? The one percent get their wealth by exploiting the rest of us, by paying us less in wages than the value of what we produce. This is not, however, the kind of thing that Sam Wilkin deals with here, since he is really concerned, not with how the capitalist class in general become rich, but with how and why some capitalists, in contrast to others, become very rich indeed. His answer is by ‘gaming the system’: by having the government introduce regulations that make competition difficult, and by making it more or less impossible for companies, especially banks, to lose money.

One chapter deals with the robber barons, the common term for a number of American capitalists who made vast fortunes in the last few decades of the nineteenth century: the likes of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Pierpont Morgan. As a comparison, Bill Gates’ wealth is less than one percent of US economic output, whereas John D Rockefeller’s net wealth was nearly two percent of US economic output at the time. The robber barons all despised competition, as it reduced their profits, and were able to acquire valuable patents and enforce vastly-profitable monopolies. For instance, Vanderbilt controlled all the railway lines into New York, while by means of a cartel Rockefeller owned nearly all of the oil-refining business. Morgan’s US Steel made tremendous profits by buying up other steel companies, eliminating competition and keeping prices high.

Wilkin also examines the methods used by Gates and Microsoft, focussing on the way they employed intellectual property ownership to gain a monopoly on some lucrative technologies. Microsoft did not create DOS, the operating system it originally made its money from; it just used its power and cunning to obtain a contract to sell DOS, helped by the fact that Gates’ father was a lawyer, so he had some background in legalese. As Wilkin says, there are two distinct issues: coming up with technological innovations and making money from these innovations are by no means the same thing. And profiting from a technology product has more to do with it being widely used than with it having the best features.

One point that emerges from the book is that there is no basis for claims that capitalism used to operate by means of a free market with unfettered competition, with this having been replaced by crony capitalism, where the state provides licences and protection for some companies. There has always been state interference with the workings of the capitalist economy, and competition has always been limited in various ways.

We mentioned earlier that Wilkin is not concerned with exploitation and the real origin of profit: those who produce the wealth receive little attention here. He does refer to the Homestead strike and lockout of 1892, at the works of Carnegie Steel, in which nine workers were killed by thugs employed by Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick. This is given the euphemistic description ‘an exceptionally heavy-handed crackdown on striking workers’. 

Paul Bennett

The global profit system (2011)

From the June 2011 issue of the Socialist Standard

Do you know the only thing that gives me pleasure? It's to see my dividends coming in.” So said John D Rockefeller founder of Standard Oil. 

Rockefeller's wealth was gained through the exploitation of worker labour power to turn a free resource, oil, into a commodity for sale on the market. That in a nutshell is how he kept those dividend payments rolling in. What applied then just as surely applies now.

Standard Oil’s rapacious business methods laid the foundations for today’s oil conglomerates. Throughout its existence Standard Oil was the target of disgruntled politicians and newspapers. Rockefeller’s PR people and lawyers were as busy then as their modern day counterparts. In 1880 the New York World wrote that it was “the most cruel, impudent, pitiless, and grasping monopoly that ever fastened upon a country” (John D. Rockefeller: Anointed With Oil, p.60). A decade later Rockefeller controlled 88 percent of the United States’ refined oil. In 1911 the Supreme Court found Standard Oil in breach of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Its trading practices were ruled illegal and it was ordered to be broken up into 34 new companies. Rockefeller still held a 25 percent stake in Standard Oil. This was transferred proportionately into shares in the new companies. Although Rockefeller’s direct control of the oil market was somewhat diminished, his personal fortune in 1920, which was estimated at $900,000,000, translated into plenty of influence. And a great deal of personal pleasure.

Another capitalist who was to derive plenty of pleasure from oil was William Knox Darcy. He was the son of an English solicitor who emigrated to Australia where he began to speculate in land. He became a partner in a syndicate in 1883 that uncovered a large deposit of gold at Mt Morgan. Darcy returned to England with a considerable fortune in his knapsack. His thirst for pleasure still unquenched he cast his eye east to Iran.

In 1901 Darcy negotiated a contract that gave him the rights to drill for mineral resources over a significantly large area of Iran. The contract was signed by the landowner, the Shahanshah, king of kings. Darcy handed over £20,000 cash. The rest of the deal involved £20,000 in stock and a 16 percent share in the net profits if any transpired. In 1908 oil on a significant scale was discovered. Darcy never once set foot on the Iranian soil that would give him and a small elite considerable pleasure in the years to come. Out of this deal the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed. In 1935 its name was changed to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC); its new owner was the British government.

At the core of all conflict under capitalism are markets and profits. Iranian instability haunted the owners of AIOC. That paltry 16 percent share stuck in the throats of Iranians. As was AIOC’s refusal to allow the Iranian government to check their books to see if that legendary British fair play was being practised. In 1951 the pro-AIOC Prime minister was overthrown. The Iranian parliament nationalised the oil fields. AIOC was ousted from Iran and it squealed its way through boycotts and high courts. In 1953 operation Ajax was initiated. The CIA and British government conspired with the King of Kings and the Iranian military to effect a coup. However AIOC had to forego its earlier monopoly and make do with only a 40 percent share of the spoils. American oil companies received 40 percent and the French 20 percent. The fountain of pleasure was re-activated.

In 1954 AIOC changed its name to the British Petroleum Company. Expansion from their base in the Middle East to Alaska followed in 1959. Adding substantially to the profits and the dividend cheques was their oil strike in the North Sea in 1965. Thatcher sold off the British government’s holding in BP, but not their interest in its fervent pursuit of profit. When the Kuwait Investment Authority, essentially the Kuwait government, saw an opportunity to gain control of BP through market manoeuvres, the Thatcher government didn’t hesitate to block their attempts; despite the free market rhetoric of its members.        

BP continued to grow through the capital generated from its exploitation of natural resources excavated by human labour power. Along the way those profits allowed BP to swallow up several of the offspring of Standard Oil. ExxonMobil and Chevron snapped up the rest of its most profitable siblings, and the trio came to form the backbone of the ‘Seven Sisters’ who in 1973 controlled 85 percent of the world's oil reserves.                    

BP nowadays ranks as the fourth largest company in the world measured by its 2009 revenues of $239 billion. It has acquired 22,400 service stations worldwide, and pumps 3.8 million gallons of oil in to the market place every day. Its profits, and thus its power, are culled from throughout the world. A source of pleasure for a few, but one of deep discontent to many.

The costs of doing business can often seem strange to the uninitiated. The Guardian (12 April 1976) reported that BP handed over £500,000 to a “slush fund which dispensed money to the ruling Italian political parties in return for favours over oil taxes and prices”. BP’s own documents showed that this type of payment was “calculated as a percentage of the money the company could expect to make as a result of favourable legislation”. Profits are all about maths. Is doing a thing one way more profitable than doing it another? That is the logic of capitalism, and consequently the logic of what follows.

In September 1999 a subsidiary of BP in Alaska paid a fine of $22 million for the illegal dumping of hazardous wastes from 1993-1995 on the Alaska North Slope. In August 2006 BP were forced to shut down their operations as over one million litres of oil had been spilt over the North Slope. The Guardian (1 July 2007) reported that “a US congressional committee has uncovered evidence of ‘draconian’ cost cuts at BP”, and demanded documents “suggesting that managers considered turning off the flow of anti-corrosion chemicals to save money”.

Maintenance and safety cuts were also linked to an explosion at BP’s Texas City refinery resulting in 15 deaths and injuries to 180 people. Refineries based in Texas City and Toledo U.S accounted for 97 percent of all flagrant safety violations (829 of 851). The Centre for Public Integrity reported on 16 May last year that “most of BP’s citations were classified as ‘egregious and wilful’ by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and reflect alleged violations of a rule designed to prevent catastrophic events at refineries”.

In April 2010 the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people and creating an oil slick that covered at least 2,500 square miles. BP, Halliburton and Transocean, the three companies that expected to carve up the profits have ended up blaming each other for the disaster. This is a common occurrence when thieves fall out. BP’s chief executive at the time has since left the company pocketing a £2 million severance deal, £100,000 a year as a payoff from a Russian joint venture with TNK-BP and a £600,000 per year pension. But the news isn’t all good though, along with Lord Browne of Madingley he’s been cited in a multi-million dollar lawsuit linked to the bribery of government officials in Kazakhstan.

The Guardian (2 February) reported that BP is under investigation in the US over its “alleged manipulation of the gas market”, and “in a separate case in 2006, BP paid $300m to settle charges that it had manipulated the propane market in the US”. Another report in the same issue that would have made Rockefeller proud of one of his heirs is that “the administrator of BP's $20bn (£12.3bn) Gulf spill compensation fund was accused last night by Mississippi's attorney general, Jim Hood, of sweeping deficiencies and violations of law”.

In South America BP has been equally busy pursuing dividend payments. They stood accused in the European Parliament in October 1996 of colluding with the Columbian army in gross human rights violations and of wilful destruction of the environment. Evidence supplied by a report commissioned by Colombia's President Samper’s human rights adviser alleged that “ BP passed photographs and videos of local protesters to the army, which human rights groups say led to killings, disappearances, torture and beatings” (corporatewatch.org). Likewise, a group of Colombian farmers won a multimillion pound settlement from BP after they were “ accused of benefiting from a regime of terror carried out by Colombian government paramilitaries to protect a 450-mile pipeline” (Independent, 22 July 2006).

Africa hasn’t escaped BP’s grasp either. In Southern Sudan BP have been linked to a civil war that it’s alleged has the central goal of depopulating the oil regions and the protection of pipelines. The people of the Niger Delta have been suffering from the oil cartel’s calculated exploitation of the land for the past 40 years. Its 606 oilfields supply 40 percent of all the crude that the US imports. Pollution from oil spills is endemic and dwarfs every other such disaster. As the Guardian reports “more oil is spilled from the Delta's network of terminals, pipes, pumping stations and oil platforms every year than has been lost in the Gulf of Mexico”.

Nnimo Bassey, Nigerian head of Friends of the Earth International said “There is an overwhelming sense that the big oil companies act as if they are beyond the law… It is clear that BP has been blocking progressive legislation, both in the US and here. In Nigeria, they have been living above the law. They are now clearly a danger to the planet. The dangers of this happening again and again are high. They must be taken to the international court of justice” (30 May 2010).

Many people believe that companies like BP are the problem. Well-meaning people like Bassey see court rulings, legislation and even the break-up of companies as a solution. So did well-meaning people during the reign of Standard Oil. Nothing changed then except some names. The problem is the global profit system. The, dog-eat-dog, unquenchable compulsion to acquire earnings and dividends. Pollution, corruption and death are the symptoms of a disease. The disease is capitalism. Only major surgery can cure the disease.

When will the naive finally realise that the problems faced by people and the environment cannot somehow, magically, be solved by methods that have failed abysmally for decades? How long do we, the overwhelming majority, sit on our hands while a tiny minority derive their pleasure at our expense?

Andy Matthews

Editorial: Rockefeller's roast. (1914)

Editorial from the July 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

For six months past the miners employed by the Rockefeller interests in Colorado have been out on strike against the truck system, and for the right to live where they pleased, and to be attended by their own doctors.

Starvation and misery, together with much brutality on the part of thugs, were endured stoically by the strikers, but they were eventually turned out of their "homes," owned by the Rockefeller Mining Company, and forced to erect tent colonies in the wilds.

Rockefeller was appealed to by the Miners' leaders to go to arbitration, but he was adamant against any alteration in the status quo.

Eventually one million dollars were voted for a Special State Militia, to be used against the miners; and according to the evidence of a Captain Carson, a large percentage of the "militia" were also hirelings of the Mining Company.

Machine guns were brought into play, and to make things look black against the miners, arms and ammunition were hidden in the vicinity of the latters' tents.

At the end of April there took place one of the bloodiest events in the annals of industrial warfare. The forces of "Law and Order," not content with allowing militia men to outrage the workers' daughters and beat all the workers they could find, were determined to wipe the strikers out of existence.

The Gatling guns were trained right on to the tents in Ludlow City whilst the women and children were asleep in bed. Explosive bullets were used and other means of civilised effort. The horrors of that day are almost indescribable, but the plain fact is that, with the dead and dying hopelessly intermingled, the soldiers made paper torches, dipped them in Standard Oil, and set light to all the tents.

A hundred men, women and children at least were either murdered by gun, suffocated by smoke, or literally burned to death.

The story of the charred bodies of a score of little mites is awful reading indeed, as is also the news that dozens of women in the Tent City were expectant mothers, one woman actually giving birth to a child whilst the conflict was raging.

The Coroner's Jury have "found" that the responsibility for the murder rests with the State Militia, but, of course, no further action has been taken.

These are the barest facts indeed in the callous murder of our fellow-workers in the land of the Almighty Dollar. It shows the most dull-witted worker how similar is the conduct of the class war by the masters all the world over. It vividly recalls the slaughter of the miners in the Lena Goldfields to mention one instance.

Rockefeller jun., before the Congressional Committee in New York, declared that his father owned 40 per cent. of the stock but took no part in the working—only in the plunder. He said that they had too many interests to know what went on, but if the miners attempted to restrict the Company's liberty they would shut down every mine in Colorado.

Such is the policy of No Compromise preached by the masters. Stop our liberty to roast some of the worker's children alive and we will starve the rest.

Rockefeller virtually owns the Cavalry Baptist Church in New York, and there were many demonstrators against him there. But here again armed force was used to brutally illtreat the defenders of "the lambs of God."

Our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the friends of our murdered fellows in Colorado. We urge upon them to learn well the blood-sealed lesson of class hatred taught them by the masters; let the toilers of America steep themselves in a knowledge of the class war, and act always with that for their guide. No Compromise; No Quarter, politically and economically, must be the burden of their song. Thus only will vengeance for the vampires' victims be secured.

Further Reading:

Witness at Ludlow by Sam Orner

A Witness At Ludlow (1965)

From the World Socialist Party of the United States website

Edit. Note: In The Western Socialist, No. 3-1965 there appeared an article entitled, The Ludlow Massacre (1913) - fifth in a series entitled, Gems From American History. The Ludlow article evoked the following letter from an old-timer member of the World Socialist Party who was a witness to some of the events described in his capacity as a soap-box propagandist for the Industrial Workers of the World at the time.

Our soap-boxing began in Albany, New York. Passenger trains furnished the transportation, provided we kept to the “decks” of the dining cars, rode the “blinds” or the water tank behind the coal cab. At likely towns we dropped off to hold open-air meetings.

West of Chicago, where trains did not take water on the fly, we took to the freights. Occasionally we rode the rods on the crack limiteds.

Salida, 7000 feet high in the Colorado Rockies, looked good, despite its thin mountain air made open-air speaking difficult. It was a division point on the old Denver and Rio Grande R.R. The railroad work shops, the cow camps and mining settlements would furnish the audiences.

We had placed the soap box in front of the well-lit, crowded corner saloon. Not long after we got started, the saloon doors opened and spewed forth a band of hard-looking ruffians, who immediately decided to wreck the meeting and to forever end our speaking careers. This was our Initial encounter with the Infamous Baldwin-Felts thugs These professional scabs and killers of union men and their families were In the employ of John D. Rockefeller to break the strike In his nearby Colorado Fuel and Mine Company properties in Trinidad and Ludlow.

(These same murderers were, at a later period, Included in the acclaim given by President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard to strikebreakers as the “nation’s heroes.”) At the same time, working men throughout the West were singing:

“Down with the Baldwins,
Up with the Union,
And we will rally Colorado,
We will rally once again,
Shouting the battle cry of Union.”

The saloon doors opened again soon after and out came a group of powerful-looking men: striking C.F. & I. strikers. They grasped the situation quickly and went promptly into action. Swinging fists routed the thugs. We were urged to proceed by our rescuers. We finished with a good literature sale and a fine collection. After some liquid refreshments with our new friends, we accepted their invitation to visit their camp in the hills.

* * * *

In addition to these thugs, the Colorado governor furnished the state militia’s services to pious J.D.R. Their objective was to destroy the tent colony established by the union, the United Mine Workers, after they had been dispossessed from the company-owned shacks.

Louis Tikas had left his native Greece to make a new home in what he thought was the land of freedom, par excellence. He soon found out the facts of life after he found employment in the nonunion mines of Ludlow. He helped organize and struck with his fellow miners against their unbearable working conditions.

After a day-long battle, he volunteered to carry a white flag to request a truce to remove their dead and wounded and to plead for some drinking water far the women and children. He was met halfway by the lieutenant in command of the militia (and of the Baldwin thugs). The brave lieutenant quickly pulled his revolver and shot down the unarmed miner, under a flag of truce.

Indignation swept through the country. Mass meetings, from coast to coast, addressed by liberals, clergymen, and other protesters against such callousness, demanded that the lieutenant be brought to trial. He was promptly court martialled by his superior officers and severely punished: a reduction of nine points in rank!

One dark night, the B-F thugs crept down on the camp, poured some of the Rockefeller kerosene over the tents and set them on fire. Forty-three of the sleeping miners and their families were severely burned. Thirteen, mostly children and women, were burned to a crisp. The capitalist Moloch needed its victims. Sanctimonious old J.D.R. made his peace with his God, shortly thereafter, by donating twenty million dollars to erect the Riverside Baptist Church on Riverside Avenue, New York City.
Two of our new-found friends had discovered the home where the leader of the thugs boarded. They induced a miner’s son to tell this “hero” that some young lady wished to see him on the outside. Munching a chicken bone, he stepped out. Two of the miners were flattened against the wall on either side of the doorway. As he stepped out, they took revenge for the death of their incinerated babies.
We stayed about a week. We had our first lessons in the use of a gun. The moaning and crying of our hostess, the mother of a baby killed in the fire, was heartrending. The family were concerned for our safety but they, themselves, were too “hot” for our safety. They did not want us involved if they were apprehended. We parted company with same of the bravest people we ever met. We left and went on to the Mormon capital, Salt Lake City, in time to get involved with the struggle to save Joe Hill. But that is another story.

* * * *

A year later, Congress authorized the Industrial Relations Committee to probe the wave of strikes and, in particular, bloody Ludlow. Under the chairmanship of that rare politician, fearless Frank Walsh, their objective findings have become a classic study of those times. Under the grueling cross examination of Walsh, John D. Rockefeller, under oath, testified that he had never been in Colorado. and had never seen his blood-soaked mines. Here was but another proof how necessary the owners are in the production of commodities.

My speaking partner, Harry Krietzer, who later became the advertising manager of the alleged “socialist” daily, “The Jewish Forward,” stepped up to John D., as he left the proceedings in Washington, surrounded by his body guards and that famous founder of the noble profession of public relations, Ivy Lee. Harry showed John D. a copy of the “Masses” and asked him to subscribe to see the workers’ side. He had to borrow a dollar from Ivy Lee.

Sam Orner

Further Reading:

Wiki's page on the Ludlow Massacre

Eyewitness to Murder: Recounting the Ludlow Massacre

Libcom's page on the Ludlow Massacre

Howard Zinn on the Ludlow Massacre