The world can feed us all (1976)

From the October 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

Capitalist economists like to pretend that the world’s population cannot be fed with the resources available to it. The over-population myth is glibly trotted out to explain world-wide malnutrition whenever a Socialist points out that starvation is in fact due solely to the insane system of society which at present operates everywhere in the world—capitalism.

More of so-called over-population later, but let it be stated clearly and unequivocally now: The earth’s potential where food production is concerned is now more than adequate to satisfy the needs of all its inhabitants.

Moises Behar, chief of nutrition to the World Health Organisation in Geneva has recently made the following pertinent observation:

During the 1960s great efforts were made to improve economic development in the poor nations of the world. By speeding up economic growth, so it was argued, the poor social conditions that inevitably meant poor or inadequate nutrition for many people would be remedied. The gross national product was therefore considered the main criterion of progress.

The desired economic growth was achieved in many countries; in some instances, the targets set were exceeded. Unfortunately, most of the additional income went to those who were already affluent, without doing anything to help the poor. The same process was seen at the international level: rich nations became richer and poor nations relatively poorer.

In his article in the WHO Chronicle (1976, 30, 140), Behar takes the “Green Revolution” for his second example:

Extraordinary technological achievements enabled scientists to produce bigger and better crops of the most important cereals. Yet, once again, little thought was given to the fact that these new techniques could be applied efficiently only by farmers with adequate skills, knowledge and resources.

Thus the ‘Green Revolution’ failed to prove any significant improvement in economic capacity, availability of food or living conditions for most poor and malnourished people, even though grain production increased.

National economic growth and developments in technology are thus inadequate by themselves; they must operate within a suitable social structure, (our emphasis).

Nor is Behar impressed by international welfare organisations “which seek to alleviate malnutrition through supplementary feeding programmes. These only act as palliatives and, still worse, create a false impression that something has in fact been accomplished.” Not being a Socialist, Behar does not go on to advocate the “suitable social structure” which we do —world Socialism, production for use and not for profit only.

But to return to the mythical over-population bogey. It has become a cliche in Britain to speak of “this overcrowded island”. In fact, although the British Isles are far from being among the world’s more lightly-populated regions: “The whole population of the United Kingdom could be re-housed in the single county of Devon with a density of ten houses per acre (quite a generous piece of land for each family) and there would still be land to spare.” (J. P. Cole, Geography of World Affairs.)

It is also worth noting that if the world’s entire population were now placed in the United States the population density in that country would still be no more than that of Holland today. Remember this when the sensationalists talk of “standing room only” in fifty years time!

R. B. Gill

The "Free Health Scheme" Myth (1976)

From the September 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard 

It was all worked out so that sick people in Britain could be looked after and seek treatment undeterred by the financial disaster it previously entailed. So they were told — but it didn’t work out that way. In capitalist society you get nothing for nothing and the politicians (outright callous Tory or two-faced hypocritical Labour) make no bones about their ‘need’ to modify workers’ wages for (and limit the benefits of) a health scheme which fails to satisfy the “cheap healthy work force” expedient of those who planned it.

For let there be no mistake about the motive of those who devised the idea of a National Health Service, telling the world it was to ensure unfettered medical attention for all who needed it. It was (as many publications inadvertently disclose) to cut the cost to British capitalism in working hours lost to their businesses through workers’ sickness.

Now, these Capitalist interests are not happy with their own deal. They feel that British doctors are not doing their bit in the cheap maintenance of healthy wage slaves, but are spending too much capitalist money in the process by “overprescribing” for the sick who turn to them for help. A “free” health scheme (in fact it costs 20p per item on each prescription and there’s a lot of Parliamentary agitation to make it more) is all very well in the interests of the country’s employers — but if general practitioners take the thing too far they will have to be pulled into line. Thus Mr. Mike Thomas, Labour MP for Newcastle, has introduced a Bill demanding that registered medical practitioners be limited in the drugs they may prescribe to a small list and that their surgery treatment notes be made available to a panel who may have to “discuss” with them the treatment they arc making available to patients on the “National Health”.

Quote, from the doctors’ periodical Pulse 10.7.76: —

‘‘The Government may be forced into taking more radical action to reduce the level of prescribing, both within general practice and the hospital service in order to peg the rising drugs bill. Minister of State for Health, Dr. David Owen has called for ‘better prescribing overall’ and has reminded the profession, yet again, that it is now having to make economic decisions within the context of tightly reined resources. Unfortunately both Dr. Owen and Social Services Minister, Mr. David Ennals have reached that stage where they are issuing repeated warnings on the need for constraint in each sector of the Health Service, but no one knows precisely how the Government intends to cut back costs or what level of toughness it is prepared to use. The Department of Health circular issued last week, for example, was supposed to represent ‘Guidelines’ on the much-vaunted review of NHS management costs . . . Dodging the perfectly justifiable suggestions from one Tory questioner that there was need for a realistic uprating of prescription charges which still remain at their pre-inflation rate, Dr. Owen replied: “What is needed is better prescribing overall and a recognition by patients that not every ailment is cured by pills . . . The medical profession must recognize that it has to make economic decisions. At present the prescription Bill has no cash limit and is open-ended . . . But if the medical profession is not able to show some form of economic restraint in its budget, any Government would be forced to look at other measures ... At the moment we prefer to rely on education and we hope to keep the drugs bill within reasonable bounds by that method.’ ”

The article in Pulse continues:

The drugs bill to which Dr. Owen was referring amounted to £379 million during the last financial year in England. At £7.00 a year per person, was that not good value for money? Dr. Owen took this opportunity, replying to Labour back-bencher Dr. Maurice Miller, to confirm that the pharmaceutical industry was not guilty of drawing any excess profits — and that any blame for the escalating drugs bill lay with an over-demanding public and over-generous profession.

In other words, Dr. Owen has the gall to represent himself as unaware of how notorious drug firms are for their enormous profits, and upset by patient’s demands for adequate treatment and doctor’s desires to provide it!

Health at a Price

Quoting from the doctors’ periodical General Practitioner, 16.7.76, on page 8 we read:

A blunt warning that the National Health Service must ‘live within its means’ was given by the Prime Minister last week. Only 24 hours after the Cabinet began a series of meetings to prepare for public spending cuts totalling about £1,000 million next year, Mr. Callaghan made it clear that the NHS would not escape the treasury act. He told members of the Royal College of Surgeons at a dinner in London that ‘difficult choices and unwelcome decisions’ lay ahead in many areas of public expenditure. Doctors would be faced in their everyday work with a difficult period of adjustment from a fairly rapid rise in the amount of resources available in recent years to more stringent conditions.

This, of course, is a typical politician’s mealy-mouthed way of avoiding saying that National Health Service patients will have to suffer neglect by being denied benefits once promised by the British capitalist class. But to add insult to injury, listen to the sheer two-faced double-talk the Labour Leader follows it up with. Quote: “At a time when the ordinary wage earner is voluntarily cutting his own standards, the health service too must live within its means.”

In other words, Mr. Callaghan feels that if workers are being deprived in one way it is only fair that they also be deprived in another! This is the depth to which opportunist politicians will sink and a measure of the contempt they have for their wage slaves’ discernment.

This is but one of the many degrading aspects of life under capitalism, where men can dictate how much medical attention and care their fellows are “entitled to.” In a Socialist society such inhuman parsimony would be impossible. There would be no leaders able to hoodwink anyone, and not just  health care but all goods and services would be free to every one.

R. B. Gill

About Socialism (1976)

From the August 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

After trying to explain Socialism to friends I often find them suddenly asking, “But how much would a manual worker get?” or something equally startling. I suppose it must be partly my fault for advocating “production for use” and “common ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution” etc., without always getting across even the major implications of such Socialist fundamentals. (It’s also partly the fault of Labour, Communist, Conservative and other political parties who intentionally propagate the idea that the nationalization in the UK and the capitalism in Russia have something to do with Socialism; and that wage-earners, money and armed forces etc. can or do exist in a Socialist society. Some of the members of these parties genuinely believe these ideas out of ignorance —others, better-read and “knowing the score” deliberately preserve the deception out of self-interest.)

And so, for the benefit of readers not long acquainted with the Socialist Standard or other Socialist literature, here are some of the physical implications of a Socialist society.

There will be no money. The necessities and good things of life will be produced by the community and owned by it, so no one will be in a position to sell anything to anybody. Each individual will take (literally) freely what he or she needs—no buying, no selling, no stealing—all impossible, and money superfluous. Each person will work because he or she is a human being to whom useful work is natural and each will eat, and enjoy leisure for the same reason. There will be no “If you don’t work you don’t eat” threats. The only “punishment” for consuming without producing will be the pity and possible “patronage” of one’s fellow beings. (Which is probably worse than it sounds!) Stealing having disappeared — so will prisons, policemen and armed forces. Likewise there will be no vested interests, power groups, nations or nationalism. The motive for war will cease to exist.

Because of the advanced state of material development the world has now reached, all this is within our reach, requiring but one more thing—the understanding of, and consequent desire for Socialism by a majority of the citizens of the world.

R. B. Gill

Good Thinking, Ma'am (1976)

From the June 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A new twist on the dangers of TV horror shows :

Mrs Mary Whitehouse's latest allegation against TV is that its coverage of modern warfare, “showing burning homes, dying soldiers and mutilated children”, could be sapping the national will to safeguard freedom. She has come up with this thought:

“We would now do well to ponder whether it will ever again be possible to fight a war, however just, in a democracy which has uncensored television, and colour television at that, in almost every home”.

Daily Mirror 8th April 1976 

R.B.Gill

She wouldn't censor war — only shows about it!

The Size of the cake (1975)

From the July 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

A popular and specious argument against Socialists is that — “if all the wealth in the world were shared out equally amongst the world’s population,” (a) all the individuals would still be poverty-stricken and (b) in a short time the “clever” people would be rich again and the “not-so-clever” would once more be poor. Both arguments reveal a total ignorance and misconception of the scientific Socialism as elucidated by Marx and propounded by the SPGB and its counterparts in other parts of the world.

To start with, Socialists never make the slightest suggestion that we shall “make people equal” by giving them equal amounts of the world’s wealth. We mean that they’ll take not an equal amount of that available, but an amount desired and needed by each one as an individual. Each will take freely according to his or her needs. Under these circumstances it is absurd to say that “after a while the clever will get a lot and the not-so-clever only a little.”

The argument about the “share of the cake” each would receive under present economic circumstances is equally irrelevant. There certainly is not enough to go round under capitalism, because its production is geared to what can be sold for profit and not what is needed by the world population. But just consider how big "the cake” could be were capitalism abolished and a sane, benevolent order of society substituted.

First, look at the teeming millions of the world's population who, at present, are completely unproductive, or, outright destructively employed. Armies of clerical workers adding up wages, profits, rents, interest on investments, or employed in advertizing, insurance, customs and excise, salesmanship, real estate, banking, stock exchange, shops, stores and supermarkets, or in millions in armies, navies, air and police forces, and many more besides — would be liberated from these useless and degrading occupations to do something creative and productive of their own choice and enjoyment.

Food and other wealth would not be destroyed on a gigantic scale the world over in order to preserve high prices, nor vast tracts of land laid waste in peace and war, as is the case under capitalism. Moreover, products made for use, rather than for sale, would be made to last rather than to wear out by the time the guarantee expires. Only the best and most durable would be produced, no effort being wasted on the manufacture of the cheap and nasty for “the poor people”.

We are aware of the fact that many inventions capable of enormous increases of wealth and energy are not made available to the community because patents have been bought by capitalists in order to suppress their potential rather than to utilize it. Just how many more wonders of science we are denied we do not know. It could be that we only see the “tip of the iceberg”.

Quite right, under capitalism there isn’t enough to go around. But the potential size of the cake is staggering in its super-abundance.

R. B. Gill

The N.H.S.—Was it worth it? (1975)

From the May 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

There are still many people who will tell you that the British NHS offers the best medical attention, for patients of all social strata, in the world. In fact, nearly all its original claims have proved to be miserably false.

When discussing the “welfare state” one still often hears the completely false claim that “nobody starves to death in Britain any more.” Thousands of people die here every year from lack of food, clothing, blankets and fuel. The respectable term for this starvation is ‘hypothermia”. Strictly translated this means “low heat” and indicates that the victims suffer from an insufficiency of calories to support their basic vital metabolic needs. They starve from lack of calories.

An article in the November 8th 1974 issue of the periodical General Practitioner reads as follows:

Dr. Geoffrey Taylor, of Ilminster, near Taunton, retired Professor of Medicine in Lahore, India, and a leading campaigner in the nutrition and problems of old people, plans to ask local health officials and Somerset County Council to help him set up a team of volunteer street wardens.

These wardens, armed with room thermometers, will check the homes of old people to make sure the rooms they are living in have a temperature of at least 70°F. If necessary, they will block draughts, check insulation and advise the old people to live entirely in one room. “Very large numbers of old people suffer heart attacks as a result of extreme cold”, he said.

“About 700,000 have core temperatures of 95.5°F, and are on the verge of hypothermia in mild winters. In cold winters there must be three or four times that number. It is a question of action now. Our problem is getting volunteers”.

But the warden scheme is only a short-term answer. Dr. Taylor is hoping to persuade councils to back his long term scheme for district heating. He explained: "District heating uses waste material now thrown away to boil water which can heat homes.

Elderly invalids living alone are often victims of loneliness and depression. Rightly, they should have constant nursing attention and company. They often need frequent cleaning and changing and assistance with feeding and using the toilet. In the enormous numbers of homes that have no fixed bath or inside lavatory this is very difficult. Relatives with their own family responsibilities often just cannot properly cope with these cases. Yet there is a great shortage of hospitals for the frail and old — with waiting lists which will become even longer — since Mrs. Barbara Castle has intimated not only will there be no increased expenditure in this field but expenditure will have to be less for some years to come. An article in the General Practitioner of July 13th 1973, reads:

Strongly associated with chronic disability were low income, age, widowhood and living alone. More than a third of all persons living alone were chronically limited by disability and this proportion rose to 44% in the over sixties.

The proportion of chronic sick varied between 35% and 41% in families with a total income of £5 to £12.50 a week.

So much for the Welfare State. Did we really “never have it so good?”

It was once boasted that the NHS would provide free specialist treatment for all, and that the needy would not have to suffer ill health any more because of their poverty. But now, with waiting periods of months for specialist appointments and years for routine operations, this is an empty promise. When told of these waiting lists workers often ask how much it would cost to “go private” and so have their case dealt with much sooner. When told the probable fee, some struggle to find it and others turn away amazed and disappointed. Yet another example of the broken promises and boasts of the NHS was that patients would be able to receive treatment without having to pay the monstrous prices of drugs. Yet now, being handed a prescription, poor patients sometimes ask if one or more of the items prescribed for their health can be deleted because finding the extra 20p is beyond them.

The profits of drug manufacturers are enormous but they claim that these are necessary, to plough funds back into research for new drugs. But it is well-known that many drug companies manufacture and sell products introduced by other firms under different proprietary names. Their subsequent propaganda often points out that their product is more than just a pharmacological equivalent because, say, it is better absorbed or has less side effects. This one drug may be bought at different prices, in different make-up and under different proprietary names. Admittedly some companies spend a lot on research and introduction of completely new drugs. Nevertheless, far more of their returns are spent on advertizing their own brands in opposition to the pharmaceutical equivalents made by others. Figures vary, but it has been said that in certain cases five times as much is spent on advertising them as on research.

In a sane order of society research would be made finding the most efficacious and side-effect-free product and this alone would be manufactured and used. Such massive duplication with its attendant wastage would then be pointless.

R. B. Gill

The NHS — nothing for something ? (1977)

From the April 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The love or my life”, Barbara Castle called it, and her successors still try to tell British workers that they’re getting something for nothing.

But what are the facts? Dr. David Owen, until recently the Health Minister, says: “The NHS was launched on a fallacy. We were going to finance everything—cure the nation—and spending would drop. That fallacy has been exposed now we realise that no country, even if prepared to pay the taxes, can supply everything.”

“Supply everything”! What does it supply?

On the “free” health service a specialist consultation for a patient requested by a general practitioner has to wait for anything up to 10 months. In some places an appointment for a child with recurrent tonsillitis to see the ear, nose and throat surgeon may take 4-5 months and then, if the surgeon thinks removal of the tonsils is indicated—the wait for operation is measured not in months but in years. A middle-aged woman may have to wait as long as seven years to receive her hysterectomy.

And most of the hospitals where the operations are done are ramshackle, overcrowded and out of date. Beds are close together, operating rooms have damp-stained ceilings and peeling walls. Furniture is battered and linen thread-bare. Only 41 of Britain’s 2300 hospitals are less than 30 years old.

The sport at Oldham General Hospital among patients is taking bets on the number of cockroaches crossing the floor in a given time span. One local medical officer says: “This hospital is so permeated with the filth of the ages that the only answer is to raze it.”

One feels there should be an energetic programme to build new hospitals, but the reverse is the case. New hospitals are not being completed and existing ones being closed down. John Pilger in the Daily Mirror (25th Jan. 1977) tells us of the coming closure of the Connaught and Metropolitan Hospitals as part of the Government’s public spending cuts. Both hospitals' secretaries say that closure will mean “unimaginable suffering” for ill patients who will have to be sent home. Quote: “Mr. Peter Richardson, secretary of the Connaught, a 121-bed community hospital, which closes on Monday said last night, 'To close down now, in the middle of winter, is madness. We have a “yellow alert” at this hospital right at the moment and that means the beginning of an emergency. Many of our 100 patients are the elderly with chest infections, such as bronchial pneumonia’.”

Also from John Pilger, the Daily Mirror (26th Jan. 1977) quotes the surgeon at the impoverished Northampton hospital who pleaded: “How can I allay the fears of a woman who has to wait weeks and weeks for a breast cancer operation?” And at the Hackney General Hospital the casualty department was being forced to turn away children. The Daily Mirror continues: “Northampton and Hackney are typical of a great many British hospitals which have been starved of funds for years and are now being called upon to make cuts which are impossible without incalculable suffering and—as the doctors have said—deaths.”

But “solutions” appear to be on the way—though not very pleasant ones for the working class. Apparently the time has come for them to pay (even more) for their “free” health service. A front page headline in Medical News, 19th Jan. 1977, announces: “£2 a Day Charges for Hospital Patients would raise £300 million.” Below we read: "BMA Council believes that the Royal Commission should consider approving hotel charges for hospital patients . . . Council is recommending daily charges for bed and board in hospital, and increases in prescription charges. It believes a flat rate weekly compulsory payment for health services to be paid into an independent NHS fund should also be looked at . . . Basically the Council was unanimous in feeling that a totally free NHS at the point of consumption led to the undervaluing of the health service. Charges would impose a more thoughtful attitude on the part of the public, and also among doctors, who sometimes have no idea what the treatment they prescribe is costing.” Says Medical News: “. . . the feeling was that quite serious illness could be treated at home by a GP, and the patient there had to pay for his accommodation and food, so there was no reason why the hospital patient should not do so.”

And on the front page of Medical News 26th Jan. 1977: "Doctors Warned to Monitor Prescribing Costs —or Else.” The article reads: “If doctors do not monitor their prescribing patterns in terms of both efficacy and cost more effectively, they may have controls imposed on them.

"This is the underlying message for doctors following a report into the work of the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) published last week.

“The main recommendation of the report is that the work of the PPA should be computerised to speed up the processing of prescriptions and also to provide a better flow of information on prescribing patterns and costs.”

Mr. Tricker told Medical News, amongst other things: “The report makes no recommendations on the control of prescribing, and I argue for self monitoring by the doctor. However, the report does raise the question of alternative forms of control by the state if doctors seem unable to control prescribing for themselves.” Various forms of controlling prescribing were considered. Two suggestions were the exclusion of certain drugs from free treatment under the NHS, or restricting doctors’ prescribing to the BNF (British National Formulary).

Another form of control would be to introduce a local drug expenditure based on the population of an area. Funds would be allocated by the DHSS. The budget could be monitored by the local medical and “local peer group interest could be brought to bear” on a doctor. (In other words—set general practitioners to compete with each other to supply the least and cheapest treatment.)

In Doctor (10th Feb. 1977), however, we read: “Mr Ennals (Social Services Secretary) was full of praise for the prescribing standards of GPS. They were unequalled in the world, with the cost of drugs per head of population being lower in this country than elsewhere in the EEC.

“ ‘But there may still be scope for further economy (in drug costs) without harm to patients,’ he added.” Thus we learn from the boasters of the best community health service in the world that although we’re doing it the cheapest—we might still do — “better?”!

And now there are new worries for those professing to have the welfare of the sick of Britain at heart. Quote: General Practitioner, 21st Jan. 1977: “Fears Mount on Doctor Surplus. The BMA is demanding an immediate inquiry into the threat of unemployment among doctors in the early 1980s. Fears that medical schools are producing too many graduates have been highlighted by the Hospital Junior Staffs Committee after a four year investigation. The BMA is to ask for an interim report on whether these fears are justified in its evidence to the Royal Commission. The juniors believe that unless medical school places are cut immediately by 1000 a year, there will soon be too few jobs for newly qualified doctors.”

And in Medical News, of 26th January, 1977, Cyril Clarke, the retiring president of the Royal College of Physicians, has urged Britain’s 26 medical schools to consider cutting back student intake to prevent the hardship of an unemployed “bulge” later.

“The situation, he said, could not wait for the Royal Commission. It was far too urgent.”

“We must not run into a school teacher situation,” said Sir Cyril. “We should not bank on too much NHS growth.”

So, while patients wait for months for appointments, years for operations and queue up for hours in outpatients’ departments to see junior doctors who are elsewhere and working 80 hours a week, the powers that be are at pains to decrease medical manpower. Tragically—like other unenlightened workers—some junior doctors think that this is a “solution”. They fear the threat more help from an increased number of colleagues would make to their industrial bargaining power. There is, of course, and will be for a long time to come, a dreadful shortage of doctors in real terms. Apart from the dearth in existing premises there is a desperate need for them to man many vital hospitals. The trouble is that those hospitals are either not being built, or not being completed or being closed down.

The situation is similar with trained nursing sisters. They find themselves redundant whilst their colleagues desperately try to cope with endless lines of patients.

It is a “teacher situation”. Students rallied to the call for more teachers to reduce the numbers in school classes. Result—most of them out of work and still we have overcrowded classes.

And it’s all because people aren’t working hard enough, isn’t it. Mr. Callaghan? They’re not getting their backs into it and paying their way. Why don’t you leave it to the Tories to tell the working class that the trouble is they don’t like work? They’ve had (a bit) more practice at it than you have!

All this rottenness doesn’t have to plague us. There are enough men and women who want, and have the ability to be—good doctors, nurses, teachers, hospital and school-builders and organizers, to make mankind healthy, happy and secure. Only the capitalist system, which the vast majority of workers support, maintains need amidst potential plenty in every sphere of human life. Why not vote that system out of existence?

R. B. Gill

Cold Comfort (1976)

From the February 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A doctor has sent the following two items to us. First, a cutting from the Daily Mirror of 22nd December 1975.

  A thousand babies are doomed to die this winter — because their parents can’t afford the cost of heating their homes. This “slaughter of the innocents” has already begun with the deaths of 212 babies aged less than a year. This is on top of the normal infant mortality rate. The babies are dying of infections caused by the cold — mainly bronchitis and pneumonia, says the charity Child Poverty Action Group, in a report out today. The charity’s director, Mr. Frank Field, said yesterday: “Infant deaths are swinging wildly up . . . Recent huge increases in fuel prices are to blame. Thousands of people can’t afford to heat their homes. Mass disconnections are taking place.”

Second, a letter to the doctor from Beecham Research Laboratories, headed “Hypothermia: A complimentary aid to diagnosis.”

   This potentially fatal condition needs to be identified promptly . . . Many authorities are now calling for the routine use of special wide-range thermometers that operate throughout the hyporthermis and pyrexic range (75°F-105°F). We are very pleased to be able to offer you one of these wide-range thermometers with our compliments, and we are sure it will prove to be of value to you in your practice.

   The elderly also number amongst the patients who are ‘at risk’ from infection. Many doctors have found Magnapen to be particularly well-suited to the treatment of the more worrying infections such as seen in patients with acute-on-chronic bronchitis, cellulitis and otitis media . . . Please sign and return the enclosed reply-paid card and we shall ensure that you receive a wide-range thermometer with additional data on both hypothermia and Magnapen.

The doctor’s note to us says: “It’s an ill wind, isn’t it?”

Swan song . . . (1977)

From the June 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

Swan song of Jack Jones, a union leader: "Let's all work like beavers!"

As a prominent Tory once said: "You make your leaders and we'll buy 'em."

R. B. Gill

Capitalist "Solutions" to Hypothermia (1976)

From the March 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

The popular lie, often put forward by champions of Britain’s welfare state, that “no one starves to death here any more” has currently been exposed as such by the recent high-lighting in the media of the condition known as hypothermia.

But hypothermia (or “low heat”) is nothing new. Old people have died by the thousand from lack of food, fuel and clothing for years under the welfare state. But only lately has there been significant publicity about it. From the Sunday Express 1st February 1976 we learn, “Soaring fuel costs which lead to thousands of old people economising on home heating were blamed yesterday for a massive rise in the number of elderly patients being taken to hospital suffering from effects of cold . . . One theory being put forward for the higher than ever toll is that pensioners, many living alone on small incomes, are frightened of using heating and lighting appliances because of the cost. So they sit at home without heating . . . Pensions, with the present price of electricity and food, don’t go very far”

From the Daily Mirror 2nd February 1976: “The tragedy spotlights the problem of hypothermia which claims an average of 45,000 lives in Britain each year . . . Ninety thousand old people have been given a twin death sentence—by the coldest weather for four years and rocketing fuel prices . . . The Department of Health and Social Security recommends a minimum temperature of 70 for homes. Yet a survey shows that 89 per cent of pensioners’ living-room temperatures were below the Government standard. And that was before the increased fuel prices.”

To the Socialist the answer to the problem would seem obvious. Food, fuel and clothing, like all other needs should be freely available (not only to the elderly) to all human beings.

But what are the capitalist solutions to the problem? Call in on elderly neighbours to find out if anyone is actually dying. (Milkmen are regarded as being useful here.)

Doctors can obtain special wide range thermometers so that if they find a cold, collapsed old patient in a cold house, lacking food, fuel and clothing they’ll be able to pinpoint the diagnosis.

And, so public-spirited is the Daily Mirror that on 7th February 1976 they devoted a front page to the problem. Indeed, the way they launched their “campaign” one almost got the impression they were offering to finance food, fuel and clothing themselves. But, in fact, what they came up with was a free “cut-out” sos sign for those dying of hypothermia to put in their windows for the milkman etc. to see. And listen to the further contributions of these philanthropic crusaders:- “If you know old people who live on their own, make sure they have a copy of the warning poster” (and the Daily Mirror supplied it free remember.) "If you see the Daily Mirror's SOS sign in a window, see what help you can give. Knock on the door and give all the help you can”.

But the altruistic Mirror also gives a good capitalistic reason for donating SOS signs to the dying. It quotes Mr. Hugh Faulkner, director of Help the Aged who “welcomes the Mirror's campaign.” “The plight of the old is frightening this winter. The winter weather has really hit us now. Food and fuel bills are higher than ever before and pensions have just not kept pace with inflation. Someone, sometime will eventually realise it is cheaper for the nation to keep old people warm and well fed in their own home than have them go to hospital.” (our italics). So please help “the nation” to do it cheaper, chaps!

Still the Mirror:- “Everyone can help to alleviate the suffering and misery which is piled on old people year by year”, (they don’t say by whom). Then, in thick type:- “Today, the Daily Mirror appeals to everyone to help the old to survive winter. Be a busybody and you could save a life.” Then a broad hint that the neighbours should come up with the necessary funds: - “Check that the old man or woman living down the road is all right. Make sure they are warm and have enough food. If not, get in touch with the local welfare services and run a few errands to stock up their food larder.” Other advice the beneficent Mirror gives free is:- “make sure there is an efficient heater. . . . and they need at least one hot meal a day and frequent snacks and hot drinks.”

Actually, another newspaper takes the prize. The Stoke-on-Trent Evening Sentinel comes up with this:- “A cheap thermometer to alert old people to the dangers of cold and hypothermia went on sale at Stafford today. The thermometer at 20p, is being marketed by an Essex firm as a non-profit making venture.”

Four chemists in the Stafford area have agreed to sell the thermometers which are blue and white. When the temperature falls to the blue zone—below 60 Fahrenheit—it indicates danger to the old people from cold. “This may not save lives but could alert people who may not realise they are in danger”, said Mrs. Jane York, the firm’s social representative. “The see-at-glance thermometer could also warn social workers and visitors of old people at risk,” explains Mrs. York.

What useful gifts—stick one of these on their wall and the pensioner dying of cold will be able to see exactly why.

It makes one marvel at the bitter irony and cynicism which can unconsciously be spewed out by people not wanting to face the obvious. Were it not so tragic it would be hilarious.

R. B. Gill

In Socialism: Who Will Do What? (1974)

From the December 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the introduction of Socialism millions of people will be released from currently useless, harmful and degrading jobs to undertake all kinds of useful work of their own choosing. There will be no shortage of labour in the form of interested minds and willing hands liberated from such occupations as the armed and police forces, the armies of insurance and other salesmen, accountants and income-tax workers, to mention just a few, necessary under capitalism.

It is interesting to speculate how the changed circumstances might affect occupations with the advent of Socialism. There would be no leaders in a Socialist society, since leadership implies the blind following by a majority of a minority and under Socialism the majority would be politically conscious and mature. The leaders of capitalism will be replaced by the delegates of Socialism. Those with a flair for administration might well become the servants of Socialism in the work of distributing wealth and organizing services in the interests of the world society.

Erstwhile accountants would no longer have to spend most of their time balancing the books of capitalism’s looting systems. Men and women good at figures would be required to calculate the needs of society and to make sure that the outputs of the various industries were always in good supply everywhere and that all resources were most efficiently used.

The degradation of “cheap lines” would not happen in a Socialist society; only the best would be produced, and for all. When people visited for instance a clothing store, no worry about money would be involved and the tailor would be able to offer his advice upon, and make to measure, the best man could produce.

Artists and writers would no longer have to struggle along in poverty whilst being compelled by their calling to carry on at all costs. They would not only be free to express what they wished without fear of persecution, but also to spend all the time they needed to satisfy their own urge to communicate.

Currently a doctor’s calling involves him in ministering to the needs of the wealthy so that the latter might enjoy their wealth, and patching up the workers so that they can continue to supply it. Research workers seeking the cure for today’s incurable diseases have to tolerate the painfully slow progress of their efforts because of lack of funds, whilst watching enormous resources being expended in military and space research. Under Socialism all the achievements of medical science would be devoted to the enjoyment of good health by all.

Architects in Socialist society would find their scope infinitely extended. No more cheese-paring, no more graft and chicanery; a free and full horizon would be laid open to them to produce beautiful and functional buildings to meet the varying wishes and needs of people.

Workers in hotels and restaurants would choose their job because they enjoyed rendering that particular service. There would be no servility nor class distinction about this, no ingratiation, no bitterness caused by “inadequate tipping” and the worker would enjoy the same good living as the diner.

Just what would be the fate of those unfortunate individuals at present condemned to stand at the top of escalators punching holes in tickets is hard to speculate. Certainly they could do nothing so useless and degrading. Even the most simple contribution to creative work would enrich and alter the lives of so many so radically.

One could multiply indefinitely such examples of the fruitful and satisfying work open to men in a sane order of society.

Only Socialism can offer this.

R. B. Gill

Obituary: R. B. Gill (1978)

Obituary from the May 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have learnt of the death in a car accident of our Comrade Ray Gill, who last December emigrated to Australia. Doctor Gill joined the Party in 1974 and subsequently wrote a number of informative articles on the National Health Service for the Socialist Standard. Our Australian comrades will share our regret at his untimely loss.

Let's Get Our Terms Right (1976)

From the March 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

In this world of double-talk and double-think, most workers in every country unquestioningly accept the different terms chosen by their own particular governments to describe the self-same factions and events. It would be in the interests of such workers to scrutinize carefully all the terms spewed out by their respective bosses.

For instance, according to the commercial and strategic interests held by different capitalist groups, the latter, through governments, will refer to the same body of duped workers either as “patriots and freedom lighters’’ or as “terrorists and subversionaries”.

Moreover, depending upon where the conflicting interests of two opposing groups of bosses lie, they will describe the same invading armies as “liberators” or “imperialists” respectively.

In war, opposing governments (i.e. big business’ spokesmen) refer to the warring troops either as “our gallant lads” or “their screaming hordes”. And, of course, a retreat can be a “headlong rout” or a “strategic withdrawal” depending upon whose propaganda you choose to listen to.

But the biggest sell of all in the bosses’ repertoire of appeals to nationalism lies in the use of the term “our country” when, in fact, they mean the private ends of the bosses of “our country”.

The workers of all countries would be well-advised to make it a rule to prefix the words “business interests of”, whenever they hear or read pronouncements about “our country” or “the nation”. 

Thus, when being urged to be loyal to one’s country, remember what this actually means; i.e. “Be loyal to the business interests of one’s country.

“Make Britain great” means “make Britain’s tycoons’ profits great”.

“Fight for your country” means “fight for the business interests of your country”.

In times of war, inflation or depression, “Sacrifice your personal interests for the good of the country” should read, “Sacrifice your own interests for those of business”.

“Work harder for less returns (and even accept redundancy) to make a prosperous England” really translates “Help the English businessmen to grow fat at your expense”; and remember that at the time of “Britain’s” enormous prosperity as “the workshop of the world” during the Industrial Revolution, prosperity for the workers meant long hours of arduous toil for pittances. Even the "prosperous” children worked at the benches thirteen hours a day.

R. B. Gill

The Cosy Days are Over (1977)

From the January 1977 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The cosy days are over”, our Labour Leader told us at the Blackpool Conference. You must have blinked, mustn’t you? Ever since the last war (and before that) a procession of capitalist leaders has told us to accept less financial return for greater productive effort in order to bring about that prosperous, contented state which can only result from such an arrangement. Harder work, wage restraints, wage freezes, social contracts — it’s never stopped — for as long as anyone can remember. One would have expected the long-promised good times to appear at any moment. But what in fact happens? Mr. Callaghan suddenly tells you they’ve been and gone!

You must have blinked! When and what were those cosy days he’s now referring to? Surely not the “You never had it so good” days MacMillan told us about? MacMillan was a Tory, and a self-styled “socialist” like Callaghan would surely advise you not to listen to such capitalist claptrap. So listen to Mr. Callaghan’s capitalist claptrap instead: “Because we are socialists we have to be practical!”

He went on to reveal that by being practical he meant that investments and profits must come first. “Practical” socialism to Callaghan, Healey and Co. means keeping British capitalism going at all costs. Ask these “socialists” why we are in such a state of need and deprivation (“we” meaning the workers — the Callaghans and Thatchers of this world enjoy all the luxuries of life whatever the social climate) and they will tell you: “You are not paying your way. You are not producing enough to foot the bill for the things you need.” 

In fact, “not paying your way” consists of having worked yourselves out of a job. Hundreds of thousands of workers have been sacked because their bosses just can’t find profitable markets, and the same thing’s happened all over the world. But it doesn't bring the cosy days. You don't get to consume more, you don’t get longer holidays and shorter working hours: a million and a half get sacked and the rest are urged to work harder than ever! Just what have the workers to do to satisfy their “Red Flag”-singing champions? One heart-breaking aspect is that the world’s workers who produced the boom which produced the crisis don’t think of anything to beg for except more work! In Britain, they still accept the “socialist” announcement that cutting wages and public spending at the behest of the profit-makers is in their own interest — an assertion the Wilsons and Callaghans would have torn the Heaths and Thatchers to shreds over had the latter been in power. But “when you’re in you’re in — when you’re out you’re out.” When it is in “Labour” — backing profits against workers’ interests — doesn’t even say we must be “practical” despite being socialist; they have the gall to say it’s because they’re socialist!

And so our “egalitarian”, right-wing leftist leaders tell us to work even harder (if you can find a job) to save the situation; and accept less though prices of necessities inexorably rise. This, they’ll tell you, is your only salvation — for as long as you continue to listen.

Tragically, whilst they continue to support and promote the exploitation of the working class — they still receive the backing of the majority of that class. It is amazing that by the mere expedient of adopting the label “Labour” a capitalist party can still hoodwink those it has helped to exploit for seventy years.

It is less amazing, in view of the working-class support the professional politicians get, that the latter not only forget their prophecies and promises, but live with their consciences and do not even lose sleep over them.

No Government anywhere, Labour, Tory, Communist — you name it — has ever backed labour against capital. Not once has one said to the owners: “Give way to the workers’ claim.” The only thing to choose between such parties is that the Tories don’t sing “The Red Flag”. They all represent the ruling class Ask the British seamen. Did their Labour government support them in their struggle against their exploiters — or vice versa? And where did the TUC stand? Side by side with the pro-capitalist Government — four-square against the workers they claim to represent. Quote, Edward Heath, the Conservative Party Conference 1976: “Trade union leaders should take the credit for what they have done in income restraint.” And the government doesn’t even have to pay the union leaders to represent them against the workers — the workers do the paying for them. Remember the enormous signboards we saw after the second world war — “Hard work now means better living sooner”? Union funds went into those signboards. Then as now, workers contributed part of their wages in order to tell themselves to work harder!

So who have the workers to turn to in their fight against the class that live on them? Only themselves. They are in the vast majority and able at any time time to vote out the system that plagues us all. It may seem disheartening that they still won’t listen to the small voice of the SPGB and its companion parties who urge them to do so. But the voice will continue to be heard because it speaks historic fact and logic. In that cause there are no failures — only delayed success.

R. B. Gill

The 'Human Nature' Bogey (1975)

From the January 1975 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists, after long argument advocating Socialism, often find that their contestants make the “Human Nature” bogey their last-ditch stand. “That’s all very well,” they say, “but for Socialism to work you would have to change human nature and that is impossible.”

In fact, for Socialism to work, there is no need to change human nature at all; only human behaviour need change, and history is one long record of change in human behaviour.

What are the charges brought to the door of human nature?

One is that human beings are innately cruel: but just what is the evidence for this? Let us at once agree that history shows men and women behaving with almost incredible cruelty. In ancient Rome, a popular entertainment was seeing men torture each other to death or being torn to pieces by wild animals in the arena. Remember the gentle Roman matron who pointed out to her society friends, “Oh, look; that poor lion hasn’t got a Christian!”

More recently, people’s entertainment has been little less savage and “inhumane”. As recently as the late 1800s, the public hanging of criminals provided weekend entertainment for thousands. In the words of Dickens, “thousand upon thousand of upturned faces, so inexpressibly odious in their brutal mirth and callousness that a man had cause to feel ashamed of his human shape.” Hangings, burnings, beheadings, disembowelling and tortures were once among the entertainments of the citizens of London, as of townsfolk throughout the “civilized” world.

Many maintain that some people are inborn criminals and that whatever their early environment their innate dishonesty will out. However, the general types of behaviour that prevail today are the results of the social environment, including its heritage from the past, that is, Capitalism. Because of want or insecurity, or both, men steal and cheat and are capable of the most selfish, brutal and vicious acts. But many break the law simply because of need and the fact that most of the laws of the land relate to private property which would not exist under Socialism.

Harvard psychologists studied the correlations between happiness and criminality and concluded that the old Dutch proverb, “Happy people are never wicked”, had some basis in fact. They found that the majority of criminals came from unhappy homes. A ten-year study on frustration carried out at Yale University brought out that much hostility to others is brought about by our own happiness.

Another charge made against human nature is that it is basically hostile, aggressive and militant. Writers try to give, as the cause of war, man’s innate urge to fight and kill. Capitalists have the gall to put forward this explanation whilst using every method of persuasion, by the mass media of communication, to get men and women to join the armed forces, and when, as in war, advertisement is not sufficient, use conscription to coerce the “natural killers” into the forces on pain of imprisonment.

Again, an oft-repeated accusation against human nature is that man is basically lazy. And yet, where- ever there is a human need it is in man’s nature to meet it. “Creative” work is widely and readily tackled. Many a man, after a day of unrewarding (except for his daily bread) labour comes home and happily gets stuck into “do-it-yourself” carpentry etc. for the benefit of his wife and family. Under capitalism many people hate their jobs, not because they "dislike hard work”, but because they have to suffer boring, arduous toil. Satisfying work is as necessary to the healthy human as leisure. People want to achieve something and earn the approbation of their fellow man. Should there be eleven months’ holiday in a year and only one month of work, we should all be waiting impatiently for our month of work to come round.

At present many people hate their jobs: they are “square pegs in round holes” because of financial, status and snob values. Under Socialism, where security and comfort would be assured for all whatever their job, men would be able to choose freely their own occupation — something they would enjoy because they would be good at it — something rewarding and eliciting the appreciation of their fellows.

On the other hand, football-pool winners of enormous sums of money sometimes opt to carry on with their jobs. In such cases all the pleasures and privileges of the rich are not enough to destroy the urge to “do something useful”. Doctors often encounter, in their surgeries, the dodgers who try to avoid their work (even at the loss of income it costs them) and ask for certificates to draw National Insurance payments. But also, there are many workers who, after an all-too-short period of rest from their toil because of illness, ask for a clearance certificate to go back to work again, because they say they feel bored and useless staying at home.

At this point it is interesting to note the contents of a report put out by the Standing Conference of Voluntary Social Work Organisations in Staffordshire and published in the Evening Sentinel of 8th September 1973. It revealed that “10% of the population of the country are engaged in some form of voluntary work. Each volunteer devotes two hours a week in the service of those needing help in varying form and degree. The result is that an impressive 1,224,000 man-hours are devoted to the service each year.”

So much for laziness, even under capitalism!

Thus, it is foolish to think that man is innately lazy. To say otherwise is absurd as the picture of an explorer landing on a desert island where the trees were laden with delicious fruits, with the population lying under the trees starving, and when he asked why they didn’t climb the trees, replied “We’re too lazy.”

Some say that true human nature shows itself to be vicious and sordid in such places as prisons and concentration camps. But this is a false criterion by which to condemn human nature, because such circumstances are not natural and could not exist under Socialism. Of course sordid behaviour can result under conditions of distress. Suffering is not always ennobling as some would have us believe. But likewise, surroundings of hardship often do reveal the innate co-operativeness of people, even under capitalism. Men have given their lives to save others. This too is "human nature".

The writer has seen blood donors giving blood, not even knowing the recipient, for no more a selfish reason than the thought of being useful. (Ironically, some of the donors were "docked pay" by their employer — who later could well have been the recipient of a donation himself — for the time away from his factory spent at the blood bank.)

Surely, given a sane order of society, all goods and services could be supplied for the same gain as for blood donor — for use and the consequent approval. If selfishness is seeking happiness, then of course man is selfish. All he needs to learn is that the most effective and expedient way of being selfish for a gregarious animal such as man, is through Socialism.

R. B. Gill

Not Leaders — Delegates! (1976)

From the June 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

"But somebody will have to lead," say our opponents when told there will be no leaders in Socialism. What in fact they usually mean is that there will have to be administrators. Of course there will have to be administrators—who will obviously be people with a flair for organizing, and their job will be to help a Socialist world to run smoothly, ensuring that production and free distribution of the good things of life take place to the benefit of all. But they will not have power to dictate to, "manage", or give promises to the rest of the population as leaders do at present. They will be the agents—not the masters—of the people.

How can this be guaranteed? Simply through the knowledge and understanding of the majority of the world's inhabitants.

Under the present capitalist system different groups of owners and their hirelings with vested interests, select from their numbers their representatives (whom they consider will appear through the media the most sincere, altruistic and to have the interests of those they intend to exploit at heart) to go before the electorate. The latter returns some of them to power as leaders from where they perpetuate the capitalist system in a way which most effectively serves the financial interest of the group or groups they represent.

But they can only get away with this for as long as the working class—who make up the vast majority of the voters—do not understand what their game is and the social system which could replace it.

Even if such leaders wanted to introduce a socialist system after being elected—they couldn't; they haven't the mandate and the electorate would think they had gone mad if they tried to.

In Socialism there will be not leaders but delegates—the difference being that delegates carry out the instructions of—not give orders to—the people who voted for them. The moment a delegate fails to voice the wishes of a knowledgeable electorate but starts talking about something else—he's out!

And so, despite the frustrated cravings of those wanting the "quick way" to Socialism by the "right leaders", there is still no safeguard except the working class knowledge and understanding which makes them superfluous.

At present—nearly everyone prays for "good" leaders, but there is no such animal. Leaders just do what they are put there for by those business interests which nominated them.

There are no leaders in the Socialist Party of Great Britain and its companion parties in various parts of the world—there couldn't be and doesn't need to be, because all the members understand what they want and how to go about getting it. Any member could therefore serve as a delegate. And what we want is clearly published (see "Object and Principles") on every copy of our party literature.

R. B. Gill

Who Will Do The Dirty Work? (1974)

From the September 1974 issue of the Socialist Standard

"But who will do the dirty work" demand critics of Socialism. Well, it all depends on what one means by dirty work. Socialists look upon as dirty work that carried out by the armed forces of states and nations the world over. Killing, maiming, mutilation and brutality of infinite variety are part and parcel of the effects of capitalism the world over, and along with armed forces, would disappear in a Socialist world.

But such capitalist atrocities are not what the opponents of Socialism mean by dirty work. They are referring to menial, monotonous, poorly paid and unpleasant work.

Menial jobs in the sense of servants waiting upon masters would disappear under Socialism. No one need be servile in a society in which all the good things of life are freely available to everyone.

"But who will sweep the streets?" some demand. This old chestnut us well on the way out as, even under capitalism, many roads are cleaned by specially designed vehicles operated by the drivers. Most other "dirty" jobs could now be taken care of by vehicles or automatons in a similar way. But in any case these jobs cannot be described as lowly occupations. Who is to say who, amongst the manual, clerical and professional workers are the most useful or valuable to society when all are essential?

Public lavatory attendants are often cited as those having to do dirty work. But this is a job which some can and do take pride in. I have heard such attendants boasting of the spotless condition of "their" toilets. Indeed, on at least one occasion, one of those workers, interviewed on the air, staggered hardened radio interviewers by the obvious pride he took in his work.

Many jobs are thought to be unpleasant because of the poor levels of subsistence associated with them. Under Socialism there would be no poorly- (or well-) paid jobs. Work would be done because it would be necessary and because people would enjoy their part in it.

The navvy is often thought of as having a "dirty job" and he certainly gets dirty doing it (but then, so do professional footballers and nobody thinks of them as having to do "dirty work") but then there can be pride in the skill and strength needed to wield a fourteen-pound hammer, which explains why some people like watching navvies at work on a building site. There is a parallel between watching a navvy wield the hammer and watching a golfer wield a club. The latter isn't manual labour merely because the golf doesn't usually have to wield the club in order to earn a living (and might well arrive for the game in a Bentley!)

The jobs of nurses and doctors are glamourized with the business of sterility and asepsis—the scrubbing of hands, the dramatic life-saving operation, the laying of cooling hands on fevered brows, the taking of temperatures and the giving of "miracle" injections. In fact doctors and nurses get their hands far more unpleasantly dirty than people realize. Nursing can be a heavy, dirty job, especially mental and geriatric nursing, entailing cleaning and changing the clothes of incontinent patients. Yet nurses do it out of choice and, as most people realize, could hardly be pursuing their vocation for monetary reward!

As a medical student I hated the subject of pathology and couldn't imagine anyone wanting to carry out post-mortems or squinting down microscopes for a living. But practically all the pathologists I ever met brimmed with enthusiasm for their job.

It takes all types to make a world—fortunately for the Socialist.

Most medical students like and are keen about their calling, but not all. At least one would have settled for a "lowlier" lot in life. He told me he was darn sure he wouldn't go through six years of rigorous study to be a doctor if he could earn as much driving a cart.

Another medic who qualified without being dedicated was a square peg in a round hole, due to being the son of a wealthy family who wanted him to "do medicine". He just wasn't cut out for it and disliked it. He liked to get his hands dirty tinkering with motor cars and things mechanical in general. But his mother had a social status to preserve and simply "had to have a doctor in the family".

Thus, under Socialism there would be no clean or dirty work—only useful work due to society having within itself a ready hand wherever there is a human need.

R. B. Gill