Greasy Pole: Clashing In Clacton (2014)

The Greasy Pole Column from the October 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Jaywick is a village on the Essex coast with a stretch of golden sand. Built in 1928, it originally consisted of 'chalets' but these developed as permanent residences and the occasional holiday retreat for anyone who was in employment permanent enough for them to afford a week away to recover from That War followed by The Slump. For many it was as close to paradise as they were likely to get. But it is all different now, for Jaywick has fallen to the lower layers of poverty and decay. In 2011 a survey by the Department of Communities and Local Government stated that on the basis of poverty, crime, education, unemployment and housing it was the most deprived area in England. There is a lack of street lighting and pavements and what were parades of shops are now wastelands – empty and vandalised. It is part of the genteel Parliamentary constituency of Clacton, which was represented by the Conservative Douglas Carswell until August, when he changed to UKIP and stood down from Parliament with the stated intention of contesting the resulting by-election there.

Sofa Clique

Clacton was created as a parliamentary constituency for the 2010 election, when Carswell had a majority of 12,088. In common with a number of coastal towns, it has a higher proportion of retired people and a lesser number of those classified as 'non-white'. Votes there are cast defensively; local polls confirm support for Carswell's stand against British membership of the EU, for restricting the inflow of immigrants and longer prison sentences for repeat offenders... all of which add up to Clacton being a hopeful place for a UKIP candidate.  Among the polls the Conservative Home website predicted that Carswell would get some 56 per cent of the by-election vote as against only 24 per cent for the Tory candidate, for he promised to change things: 'Our politics is dominated by politicians. It's all about them, not the people they are supposed to answer to... First under Tony Blair, then Gordon Brown, now David Cameron, it's all about the priorities of whichever tiny clique happens to be sitting on the sofa in Downing Street. Different clique, same sofa . . . They seek every great office, yet believe in so little'.

Someone Special

Carswell is well experienced in this matter of aiming for a place on that sofa. He first contested an election in 2001, at none other than Sedgefield where Tony Blair was the Member. At the time, before Iraq and the infamous lies, there was something of a slump in the popularity of that Labour government and Carswell reduced Blair's majority by 7,500. And then in 2005, after a spell in David Cameron's office, he stood for Harwich and turned out the sitting Labour MP by 920 votes. In 2007 he was a joint- author of Direct Democracy an agenda for a new model party, which led The Spectator to include him among '...the brightest young Conservative thinkers'. In the Sunday Times in July 2008 he was hailed as '...one of the energetic young Tory modernisers elected to the Commons in 2005' and in the following year the Daily Telegraph named him as 'the Parliamentarian of the Year'. All of which, with his increasing majority in Clacton, entitled Carswell to regard himself as someone with real prospects. But every day, in so many ways, the arrogance of politicians with their bogus 'principles', their superficial 'energy', their 'modernising' is exposed to us. How does Carswell match up to this?

No Primary

After the 2010 election the Coalition agreement promised to introduce a system whereby the voters select candidates in primary elections. Carswell stated his support for this reform, in the so-called Contract With Britain. Which would have been more convincing if he had applied the system in his own case. But when he moved from the Tory Party to UKIP and resigned as an MP he said he would stand again without any mention of a primary election. Instead the matter was subject to the system he professes to despise; in fact it was even more closed – privately settled with Nigel Farage during a cosy meal in a discreet Mayfair restaurant. This took no account of the fact that there was already a selected UKIP candidate – Roger Lord, a local farmer who had been a member of UKIP since 1997. Lord complained bitterly about being elbowed aside, to the extent that he more or less removed himself from all political activity of whatever party.

Expenses

If there were ever any doubts about Carswell's resolve to make his name – and ensure himself a place further up the Greasy Pole – they would have been stilled by what the Daily Mail called his 'fearless' call for the Speaker of the House of Commons Michael Martin to be dismissed for his resistance to a more open system in the matter of the MPs' expenses. In May 2009 Carswell's motion of no confidence led to Martin resigning from the chair, pleading that this was 'for the sake of unity'. But Carswell himself was not backward in the scandal, for his campaign against MPs' sleaze (he complained that their standing had 'never been so low') did not prevent him being one of those imaginative claimants for 'expenses'. He began by designating a £1 million flat in London as his second home before flipping to a £335,000 house in Essex. This was followed by his claims for furniture and equipment which between 2007 and 2009 cost some £32,000. He claimed £429 for gardening and then, perhaps to reveal himself as someone with an eye for detail, 74p for a washing line from Tesco. But above all else was a £655 Maximus love seat 'in deep moss brushed cotton with extra fabric protector' for use when he moved in with his future wife.

We are fully accustomed to the sprouting of some smaller third party urging us to vote them into power because they are cleaner, more honest and reliable than the two big ones with their playing elections as a kind of gruesome Musical Chairs. We remember David Steel and his Liberals,  Roy Jenkins and his SDP. Now we have Farage and his strangely impulsive, self-incriminating lot. The signs are that come 9 November Carswell will be their first MP. But all the evidence says that he should not let this excite him into any further delusions. Which also goes for those who vote for him.

Ivan

Review. (1911)

Book Review from the January 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

"My Case," By Walter V. Osbourne, (Eveleigh Nash. Is. net.)

Ten years ago a judgement in a certain trade union case was given by the section of the House of Lords known as the "Law Lords" that became world famous as the Taff Vale case.

It was an action by the Taff Vale Railway Co. against the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants to recover damages in respect to injury arising from a strike of the railway men, and the judgement was in favour of the masters.

This case was one of the greatest factors in the building up of the Labour Representation Committee (now the Labour Party) and Richard Bell, then secretary of the A.S.R.S., was chairman of the Committee during 1902.

Time's irony has brought another Law Lords; decision against the A.S.R.S., but this time levelled at the Labour Party it was so instrumental in building up. And as if to complete the sarcasm of events, Lord Farwell is one of the judges in the last case, as he was in the first.

In the November issue of this journal were given the reasons this party agree with the Osbourne judgement—so-known from the name of the individual who brought the action.

The book under review tells us singularly little that the ordinary reader of the newspapers did not know, unless we except the appendix containing the judgement of the five Law Lords. But there is a good deal of what can only be described as cant, while one or two curious statements are made.

On page 5 we are told the author started "without organisation or funds, relying wholly upon the justice of the cause" (obvious cant) while on page 18 occurs this curious admission: "It now became evident that the matter must go to the Courts. In order to obtain some standing I came forward as candidate for Walthamstow Town Council, and was returned in April 1906."

The reader may wonder what this had to do with an action that Mr. Osbourne is continually telling us was a trade union matter. The following may increase this wonder—or dispel it.

"At the Walthamstow Council I had the good fortune to meet Councillor Wilkinson, a solicitor in the City of London, who agreed to take charge of the case." (Page 28.)

Mr. Osbourne was certainly a fortunate man, for on the same page we are told "For myself, I was entirely without resources, and had no knowledge of how or where to obtain money, but after six months of persistent effort I succeeded in raising £250," and on page 29, after describing how he had lost both his case and his money in the lower Courts, he says: "Owing, however, to the great generosity of my solicitor in trusting me to raise the money eventually. I was able to proceed with the case."

And we are told that, in the Court of Appeal "our Counsel realised that they were fighting, not only for the liberty of their fellow citizens, but for the very safety of our Constituion."

My word! and we had been unaware of the danger until Mr. Osbourne became the chosen instrument for our defence.

Throughout the book the term "Socialist" is applied to the Labour Party and its leaders. Yet Mr. Osbourne must know that the Socialist Party has denounced them as anti-Socialists and misleaders of the working class, because our Party had to fight the executive of the A.S.R.S. over the exposure of the latters' action in connection with the North Eastern Railway.

These misleaders have been very busy throwing out insinuations and sneers with reference to the source of the funds Mr. Osbourne obtained. They are, of course, fine judges of "curious sources" whence funds are obtained. But on page 58 Mr. Osbourne reprints a letter sent to the Morning Post and other papers (7th Oct. 1910), challenging the Trades Union Congress to appoint an independent investigator, but although at that moment busy abusing him, the Congress did not tale his challenge up. So far as the present reader has heard, they have not replied to his letter at all—a significant measure of the worth of their criticism.

Jack Fitzgerald

Editorial: Stalin - the God who fell (1961)

Editorial from the December 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

For Stalin, the final disgrace.

His simple grave now mocks the memory of the days when he was the great dictator, who could make Krushchev caper like a court jester.

It mocks, too, the memory of the fulsome praise that was heaped upon him when his pitiless rule was at its height. Here is part of a poem which was published in Pravda on August 28th, 1936:

O Great Stalin, O Leader of the Peoples,
Thou who didst give birth to man,
Thou who didst make fertile the earth,
Thou who dost rejuvenate the Centuries.
Thou who givest blossom to the spring . . . 

And this is Krushchev himself, speaking at the eighteenth Congress in 1938 on the extermination of Stalin's opponents:

. . . Our victory in defeating the fascist agents—all these despicable trotskyists, bukharinists and bourgeois nationalists—we owe above all to the personal effort of our great leader, comrade Stalin . . . Long live the towering genius of all humanity, the teacher and the guide who is leading us victoriously to Communism, our beloved comrade Stalin.

Now that the truth about the "beloved comrade" is officially acknowledged in Moscow, we can expect some more rewriting of history, just as it was when Stalin wanted to eliminate the memory of his enemies.

In England the Communist Party will be in confusion for some time. Always taking their line from Moscow, they were among Stalin's worshippers, and disregarded the facts about the Russian dictator which Socialists, and others, put before them. The latest change of policy will be hard to swallow, even for them.

In the Kremlin the power struggle continues. Perhaps Molotov and Voroshilov will go as others have gone before them. Perhaps Trotsky will be posthumously reinstated. perhaps the Soviet government will gratify the historians who see similarities between twentieth century Russia and seventeenth century England by treating Stalin's corpse as Cromwell's was, after the Restoration. We can be sure that whatever happens will be excused in the name of the "Socialist Fatherland."

The Russian workers will probably accept this, in the manner of workers all over the world. How much more hopeful if they turned the belated denunciation of Stalin to good account. For what guarantee is there that Stalin's successors will be any better than the man they are now denouncing? None whatsoever. Yet the whole argument for having leaders must be in the assumption that they are beneficial to society. If they can turn out as Stalin did, the argument for them is destroyed. There is a lesson here for Russian workers and for those in other countries.

Let us repeat what we have often said before. The Soviet Union is not a Socialist country. It is a dictatorial capitalist country. Stalin was a dictator. So are Krushchev and his henchmen. All Socialist oppose systems like that in Russia.

Capitalism, whoever happens to be its leaders, can only bring misery and fear to the majority of people. It is useless to change one set of leaders for another. The real need is for the working class to gain enough knowledge to bring about Socialism.

That will be a world without dictatorships and suppression. Socialism will be a world of freedom.

Cooking the Books: More . . . and More (2014)

The Cooking the Books column from the October 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

The pre-WWI US labour union boss Samuel Gompers was once asked what unions wanted. He replied with a single word – ‘more.’ It was a good answer since that’s basically what unions are about: more money, from employers, to enable their members to live a little better under capitalism. They don’t always get this and in slump conditions have to be satisfied with aiming to get ‘not so much less’.

It’s actually a better slogan than a ‘fair’ or a ‘decent’ wage since there’s nothing fair or decent about being forced by economic necessity, as most people are under capitalism, to sell their mental and physical energies to some employer for a wage or a salary. That’s wage slavery and it can never be fair however much more workers get paid.

On 18 October the TUC is organising a national demonstration in London under the slogan ‘Britain needs a pay rise’. It’s a silly slogan, designed presumably to show that unions don’t just have their members’ interest at heart but also that of the country. But ‘Britain’ is not a united community with a common interest. It’s a class-divided society in which the ‘national interest’ is the interest of the dominant capitalist class. They, not workers, are Britain.

So, what the TUC has ended up doing is trying to convince the capitalist class that it is in their interest to increase wages. This is not self-evident, otherwise they would already have done so without the TUC needing to ask them.

The TUC’s argument is that ‘getting money back into people’s pockets is essential to securing a strong recovery.’ This is to assume that the capitalist economy is driven by what workers buy. It isn’t. It’s driven by what capitalist firms invest with a view to profit. What workers can buy is a by-product of this since the more capitalist firms invest, the more workers are employed and so the more in total that workers can buy. As Marx put it, ‘if productive capital grows, the demand for labour grows. It therefore increases the price of labour-power, wages’ (Wage Labour and Capital, ch. VI).

In any event, what the TUC is concentrating on demanding is an end to too low pay. They want the minimum wage enforced more strictly and ‘higher wages from employers who can afford to pay’, explaining:

‘We know that in many low paid sectors employers could afford to pay more without making job losses. That’s why we need new ways for unions and employers to work together to set higher wages, so that workers and businesses both get a fair deal.’

It would be nice to think that this was just a ploy to get the employers concerned to pay more. Unfortunately the TUC probably believe it and do want a ‘fair deal’ for businesses as well as workers. A fair year’s profits for a fair day’s wage! In that respect they would agree with another of Gompers’ sayings, that ‘the worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit.’

Workers do need more but not just more money to live under capitalism. A lot more. The whole means of production in fact so that these can be used to turn out what people need instead of to make a profit for those who monopolise them. That will mean the end of the system of working for wages and its replacement by the application of the principle ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.’

Where the B.S.P. Sucks. (1916)

From the April 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

The British Socialist Party are once again to the fore with their insistent claim that from their inception they have fought the battle of the wage-earners, though how they have fought that battle still remains for them to prove. True, they tell us that members of their organisation are also prominent members of trade unions, and staunch supporters in every fight for higher wages; that they, as an organisation, have always supported every movement for higher wages and better conditions. But if this is what they call fighting the battle of the wage-earners, then they can claim to be no more belligerent towards capitalism than the trade unions themselves.

Every new hardship inflicted on the working class calls for strenuous denunciation by the British Socialist Party, and a palliative for the workers to pin their faith to, and waste their energies on. Conscription, national service, rising prices; these and many other things only serve to encourage the inventive faculties of the leaders of the British Socialist Party. They have a separate remedy for each and in most cases it is necessary for the vast majority of the working class to act together in order to apply the remedy.

For a party claiming to be Socialist to propose to educate and organise the workers, or at least a majority of the workers, to take some kind of action against the ruling class for anything short of Socialism, is fraudulent. By such an attitude the party's original object, indicated by their name, is negated; for they must either be revolutionary and work for "the day" or they must be merely a reform party and work to put off the Revolution. The B.S.P. denies this by stating that each reform will bring Socialism nearer, but merely stating such does not prove it.

The British Socialist Party, after explaining the terrors of a proposed national service law, says in conclusion:

"The Government officers would have to assign to each man or woman their several tasks. Thus there would be no equality. In practice, of course, it would be only the men and women of the manual working class who would be sent to the factories. It is not suggested that the capitalist employers should be conscripted and put to work on fixed rates of pay instead of profits."

"Thus there would be no equality," they say. Does this mean that equality would end and that henceforth society would be made up of inequalities? Is it to be understood that the. British Socialist Party mean that equality exists to-day and that national service would abolish it? I wait patiently for some evidence of this equality, which the British Socialist Party assume to be present in capitalist society, or failing that, some justification of their own existence, with the avowed object of establishing Socialism.

Where is the need for them if equality already exists to-day ?

But perhaps they mean that there would be no equality among the workers; which, of course, would be untrue, as the workers are already on an equal footing in the sense that they must all sell their labour-power. Under national service they would have fresh grounds of equality. They would all have their tasks assigned to them by government officials.

The last sentence in the above quotation is, however, the choicest, "It is not suggested that the capitalist employer should be conscripted and put to work on fixed rates of pay instead of profits." We have to remember, in order to appreciate this remark, that it is addressed to members of the working class, who believe implicitly in the necessity of "capitalist employers." The average working man accepts the capitalist's description of himself,—one who finds the capital and the brains, without which society could not exist. Believing this much he would naturally resent the British Socialist Party's attempted sarcasm. He would say, "We must have employers, if not where is the capital coming from to run industry?" And the B.S.P.'er would either be dumb or he would have to hark back to first principles. He would be compelled to explain the nature and history of capitalism, carefully defining nearly every word, answering innumerable questions, and debating everything debatable. In short, these words, to the average worker are nonsense, they can only be appreciated by one who has already apprehended the Socialist philosophy. Until the worker understands that the capitalist performs no useful function in society he will resent all suggestions that profits are not the legitimate rights of those who find the capital that sets him to work and enables him to earn wages.

"In practice of course it would be only the men and women of the manual working class who would be sent to the factories." "Of course." Who is it that works in the factories now? The same workers who believe in the necessity of capitalists, believe also in the necessity and the justice of their enforced labour. In short, they believe in capitalism; they have faith in the system because, poor and wretched as they are, without the opportunity of working for some capitalist they would quickly starve. This is the attitude of the average worker, to whom there is a difference between employers and degrees of poverty, that is about all. He has no conception whatever of the real meaning of Socialism. By what sort of logic, then, do the British Socialist Party reconcile their literature with their name ? A Socialist party should provide the working class with a genuine understanding of Socialism; it should give to the workers the conception they lack, before it can expect them to appreciate its sarcasm.

Our opponents further say:

"The proposals for the partial control of output and the limitation of profits in controlled establishments are altogether insufficient. The situation demanded and demands that private profit-making should be abolished, that the Government should take the production of munitions entirely out of private hands and carry on that production on a real national basis under national control."

Again, while Socialism alone is sufficient for the Socialist, why refer to a certain Government action as insufficient and assert that the situation demanded something more—which something more was not Socialism? Do the British Socialist Party mean to say that their proposal would amount—to use a hackneyed phrase —to an instalment of Socialism ? But we must not suppose anything. The members of the British Socialist Party ought to know that when the Government runs an industry it runs it in the interest of the class it represents, and that the workers employed by the Government have no more control over that industry than other workers, nor have they learned anything of Socialism as a result of their change of employers. "But the production of munitions of war, whilst important, is only one aspect of the national crisis." With the British Socialist Party, national sentiment evidently comes before international ideals. "Britain for the British" (capitalists) first, and what then ?

"The great increase in the cost of living since the war began is directly attributable to the private ownership and control of those commodities on which life depends." It would have been as well if the B.S.P. had informed their readers that the private ownership of the "commodities on which life depends" is a result of the private or class ownership of the means of wealth production. Failing to do this, those readers are left to infer that only the increase in prices is due to this private ownership. Why particularise about a mere modification when every social evil afflicting the working class is the result of the class ownership of the means of life, and could all be effaced by Socialism.

"The production and supply of food and fuel must no longer remain the monopoly of those who seek to make private gain out of public necessity, and to whom the satisfaction of national requirements is always secondary to the making of profits. The munitions of life, as well as the munitions of war, must be placed under complete national control, in the interests of the nation, now and after the war."

Here the B.S.P. spokesmen have forgotten one of the cardinal facts established by Socialism; that there are only two classes in society, and that public necessity and national requirements mean capitalist necessity and requirements. Both are capitalist phrases, used with suspicious frequency in the capitalist Press. The Socialist knows that they are used in this way in order to perpetuate among the workers the belief that social relations within the nation are in the main harmonious; that class division is natural, necessary and unavoidable ; and that territorial divisions are of vital importance, as indeed they are— to the capitalist class. The B.S.P. only repeat the false and hypocritical stock phrases of the master class. Pretending to be in antagonism to that class, their hypocrisy and fraud are even greater than those whose heresies they repeat.

Moreover, they are the Socialists (!) who propose to change human nature—we have heard of them often from members of the Anti-Socialist Union. They propose that a capitalist government and class should cease to take the fullest advantage of its control over the means of wealth production and its consequent domination of the working class. The B.S.P. have yet to learn that systems are more easily changed than classes can be persuaded to relinquish their power or, knowingly, act against their own interest.

"Fellow Citizens, in. the hour of Britain's greatest need capitalism has proved a hopeless failure, and it is to Social Democratic proposals that the community has been compelled to turn."

We have only to look for the changes that have been introduced during the period of the war, in order to discover what these ''Social Democratic" proposals are. State control of those industries necessary for the prosecution of the war. If this is all the B.S.P. have to offer as a solution for working-class problems, they are indeed bankrupt as a working-class party. These changes have effected nothing even for the workers engaged in those industries. On the contrary, according to the B.S.P.'s own showing, the Government control and interference has robbed these workers of rules and customs that it has taken them " generations of collective effort against the employing class to establish." So much for "Social Democratic" proposals.

Next they say "Every stage in the great national crisis through which we are now passing has demonstrated the collapse of competitive capitalism." Do they suggest non-competitive capitalism, and do they claim that social-democratic proposals would have this effect ? If so, they will find that all such ideas were exploded by Marx long before they were adopted by them or the "Fabian Society" before them.

"Every effective step that has been taken has shown the practicability and necessity of Socialism. That is the great lesson the nation should learn from the terrible experience of the last eleven months. The system of national control and ownership, already partly applied, must be continued and extended, -and on the ruins of capitalist civilisation must be established the foundations of the Socialist Commonwealth."

We have glanced at the "effective steps" and the "national control and ownership, already partly applied" and have seen how worthless they are, either as palliatives or as object-lessons for the workers as to the practicability of Socialism. The working-man with an average amount of common-sense needs no telling that nationalisation solves no problems for him. Whatever national control may mean in the minds of the B.S.P., the postal employees and the overworked munition workers know from experience that it does not mean control by them, or improved conditions for them. To continue and extend these "Social-Democratic" proposals is, consequently, only to drag more workers within the scope of national control, and make them directly subject to the State. In so far as this is done, "national service," which the B.S.P. denounce, becomes more of a reality. They say:

"Just as on the industrial field the British Socialist Party has demanded the complete State ownership, organisation, and control of the nation's industrial resources to meet the national emergency, so in existing circumstances IT RECOGNISES THAT THE MILITARY RESOURCES OF EVERY NATION MUST BE ORGANISED FOR PURPOSES OF NATIONAL DEFENCE. It has urged, in accordance with the decisions of International Socialist Congresses, the universal military training of every able-bodied male citizen in a democratic citizen army, free from military law in times of peace, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOME DEFENCE ALONE. Such a force could neither be used to deprive the working class of their popular liberties, nor to further the ambitions of capitalist imperialism."

As the army of every country is to be for home defence only, there can be no fear anywhere of aggression, consequently no need even for defensive armies. Why do the B.S.P. want armies? Under capitalism all nations organise fighting forces to make secure the domination of the ruling class; to clear the way for the commodities produced by the "industrial army," that they may be placed on the world's market for the benefit of the class that owns them, and, to intimidate and compel the "industrial army" to submit to exploitation. These are the uses of armed forces. Socialism, with its common ownership and democratic control of all the means of wealth production, would, by the abolition of class-ownership, destroy class domination, and armed forces would be unnecessary. Why do the B.S.P. want armies? Because they want capitalism, with its class domination, to remain. Hence the British Socialist Party are anti-Socialist. 

F. Foan

Party Notes. (1910)

From the May 1910 issue of the Socialist Standard

With the opening of the summer propaganda season, comrades are urged to redouble their efforts. The Party's success continues to inspire enthusiasm in its adherents and dismay among its detractors—this is as it should be. Let the battle be engaged all along the line. Raise the circulation of the Socialist Standard to 10,000 monthly before the season closes and justify your existence.

*   *   *

A branch of the Party has been formed at Woolwich and Socialists living in the neighbourhood should immediately get into communication with Geo. Ayres, 452, Woolwich Road, Charlton, who is acting as local secretary.

A branch has also been formed at Worthing, near Brighton, for details see Branch Directory.

Socialists residing in or around Surbiton are requested to communicate with Wm. Tolton, 50 Douglas Road, Surbiton, with a view to forming a branch there.

*   *   *

While speaking for the Social-Democratic Party at Nottingham recently a Mr. Carmichael of Battersea, London, was somewhat severely tackled by our comrades there. He then threw out a challenge to debate the claim of the S.P.G.B. to the confidence of the working class. Previous experience of S.D.P. bluster led our comrades to request Mr. Carmichael to put the challenge in writing—a thing he declined to do, asserting that he had already issued similar challenges to the S.P.G.B., and it had failed to take them up.

He further stated that if we wanted him we knew where to find him—he was so well known! Exactly, we do know where to find him; and this is to tell him that his statement given above is simply untrue. The only occasion known to us when Mr. Carmichael issued such a challenge was on Sunday, 27th September, 1908. It was at once accepted on behalf of the Party, and our representatives was appointed. Then followed a correspondence culminating on 21st of October in Mr. Carmichael writing that his branch had decided that unless admission was restricted to members of Socialist organisations they should take no part in arranging the meeting. There the matter rests. When Mr. Carmichael can get his party to endorse his publicly uttered challenges he will not have to wait long for our representative. With Mr. Carmichael, or anyone else, representing the S.D.P., we will willingly arrange a debate, but Mr. Carmichael representing Mr. Carmichael must be satisfied to occupy our platform on the ordinary conditions. At all our meetings opposition is welcomed by our Socialist Dreadnoughts. Were the stipulation of Mr. Carmichael's branch accepted there could of course be no debate, as it would rule Mr. Carmichael himself outside.

*   *   *

Writing of debates, the encounter between Mr. Percy Alden, M.P. and our comrade Anderson duly came off on the evening of April 1st, and proved a huge success from our point of view. The hall was crowded and many hundreds unfortunately were turned away, the doors having to be closed before the advertised time of opening the debate. The collection taken up was more than sufficient to cover all the expenses of the meeting. The debate was extensively reported in the capitalist Press, from which we quote the following. "The very spacious hall of the Earlsmead School, Tottenham, was densely crowded on Friday night, the attraction being a public debate on 'Is the Liberal Party deserving of the support of the Working Class?' Mr. Percy Alden, M.P. took the affirmative, and the opposer was Mr. A. Anderson, of the Socialist Party of Great Britain . . . No resolution was put to the meeting on the question debated, but the feeling of those present was obvious in the course of the speeches, Mr. Anderson coming in for considerable applause, and Mr. Alden's statements being greeted often with derision."

*   *   *

Another splendid piece of propaganda work was the occasion of the Celebration of the Commune of Paris. A largely attended and enthusiastic meeting was held in the Caledonian Road Baths, North London, on March 21st. The meeting reflected credit upon the activities of our Islington members.

Editorial: The Scottish Referendum (2014)

Editorial from the October 2014 issue of the Socialist Standard

Whatever the outcome, capitalism was going to continue and with it the problems it inevitably generates as a system that puts, and has to put, profits before meeting people’s needs. Whether this is done from London or from Edinburgh makes no difference. An independent Scotland would be capitalist just as much as if it remained part of the UK.

Nevertheless, from a purely political point of view, the Yes campaign was demanding a far-reaching change, well beyond the mere change of government or local council that’s usually at stake in elections. It was demanding the break-up of one of the longest-established capitalist states and one that had once been the dominant power in the world. So it was a decision that could be described as “historic” in the sense that if could have affected the future course of history. People in Scotland realised this. Which is why 8 out of 10 of the population aged 16 and over came out and voted.

As socialists, who advocate the use of the ballot box in the course of the socialist revolution, we are comforted by this as it bears out our contention that when there is perceived to be something really important at stake, people will vote.

To continue for a moment the analogy between the Yes campaign and the movement for socialism. The Yes campaign did represent a threat to the interests of the British ruling class. A breakaway by Scotland would weaken them in the struggle between states over economic issues that is built-in to the capitalist world system. Capitalist Britain would not only be diminished in size but also in diplomatic status and clout.

Some argue that, faced with a threat like this, a ruling class will resort to force as the British ruling class did when Ireland tried to break away in 1919. This time they pursued a different strategy. When it appeared that, despite their earlier calculations, the Yes side might actually win they bent over backwards to offer more powers to the Scottish parliament in a bid to buy off the movement.

We suggest that this is the more likely reaction of a ruling class to a growing socialist movement committed to using the ballot box and enjoying widespread support. Not that it would work. In fact it didn’t work in Scotland. Those supporting Yes refused (as the socialist movement would) to be bribed and change their intended vote. Those in the No camp continued in their resolve to vote No, largely no doubt because they felt that there was no point in taking the unnecessary risk and disruption that a Yes victory would involve.

That was understandable. The partisans of independence were painting an unbelievable picture of how life would be so much better if Scotland was no longer ruled from Westminster. A social democratic paradise was to be established in Scotland. Reformism, despite failing to do so on every previous occasion it has been tried, would somehow be able this time to make capitalism work for the benefit for wage and salary workers and their dependents. Socialists didn’t believe this either.

The trouble is that politics is now going to be as boring as before as the professional politicians, North and South of the border, wrangle over purely constitutional matters while capitalism and the problems it causes continue.

Material World: The Porn Business (2012)

The Material World Column from the February 2012 issue of the Socialist Standard

Chatsworth is a leafy district of Los Angeles, home to various Hollywood film stars. Many famous movies and TV series were shot in the area. It is also the centre of the porn business, with 200 production companies employing some 1,400 performers (and a few thousand other workers). Here too is the office of the trade magazine Adult Video News, which sponsors an annual convention in Las Vegas.

Most performers are poorly educated women aged 18 – 21. They are attracted by the pay, which seems good compared to other jobs open to them. Rates for a scene range from $200 for a blowjob up to $2,000 for a double anal or gang bang.

Much of the money goes to support drug habits. Ex-porn star Shelley Lubben, whose Pink Cross Foundation helps performers trying to get out of the business, explains why they need drugs: without them they would be unable to bear the abuse the work entails. “Guys are punching you in the face. You get ripped. Your insides can come out of you. It’s never ending.”

Besides drug addiction, another perk of the job is sexually transmitted diseases. Only some end up dying of AIDS, but few escape the discomfort of herpes, which is likewise incurable.

Explosive growth

Porn is very big business. Worldwide revenue in 2006 is estimated at $97 billion. Revenue in the US rose almost 2,000-fold between 1972 and 2006 – from $7 million to $13 billion. Market expansion through the internet has fuelled this explosive growth, though other media – videos, films, TV, magazines – have also done well.

With growth comes political clout. Like other capitalists, porn makers pay lobbyists to promote their interests. One is Bill Lyon, head of the so-called Free Speech Coalition, which represents 900 companies. Besides passing porn off as free speech, Lyon plugs its contribution to California’s economy: 12,000 jobs and $36 million annually in state tax revenue.

Porn versus religion?

Opponents of porn have different and often conflicting motives. Many condemn it in the name of religious morality. Yet the same people support conservative politicians who are totally beholden to corporate interests and hostile to any restrictions on business, including the porn industry.

Porn promoters use the religious anti-porn movement to portray all their opponents as puritanical and intolerant – a false stereotype designed to silence anyone who does not want to be regarded as a killjoy. It’s quite possible to be against porn while valuing erotica – the artistic celebration of sex as a source of joy and beauty.  

Besides the suffering of those used to produce it, porn can have a dehumanizing effect on its male consumers. It has been argued that it distorts their perceptions of women and undermines their ability to engage in satisfying real-life relationships. Especially serious is the impact on teenagers ­ the age group that views the most online porn. The average age at which American boys first download porn is now 11 years.

Opening up new markets

As many consumers become desensitized to milder kinds of porn, they seek out more extreme varieties in order to sustain the same level of stimulation. The remorseless drive of capital to expand also impels porn makers to break down taboos and open up new markets. So porn grows more extreme, violent and abusive.

One barrier to expansion is the illegality of using children’s bodies in porn. But it is a weak barrier. Even those porn makers who take care to remain within the letter of the law press hard against the barrier by using “childified women” – a concept introduced by sociologist Gail Dines (see her 2008 interview with Citizen magazine). Young women are made to look like children by wearing children’s clothes and braces on their teeth, holding lollipops and shaving their pubic hair. So while these porn makers don’t abuse children directly some would argue that they incite their customers to do so.

Porn goes mainstream

Despite its increasingly violent character, porn is becoming more acceptable socially and culturally. Characters in popular TV sitcoms joke about it.

This is because the porn industry is no longer a disreputable enterprise on the fringes of the business world. “Respectable” business has merged with the industry as major corporations, observing the high rates of return offered by porn, have invested in it in a big way. Porn has gone mainstream.

* Media and telecommunications companies rely heavily on profits from porn. They have acquired porn-making subsidiaries and offer cable subscribers hardcore porn channels.

* Over 95 percent of new Hollywood films are “adult movies”.

* Some big hotel chains now make up to 70 percent of their profits by feeding porn to TVs in guest rooms on a pay-per-view basis.

* The most profitable parts of General Motors are no longer its auto plants but the porn channels EchoStar and DirecTV, owned by GM subsidiary Hughes Technology.

Consumer goods manufacturers are also linked to the porn business through their use of “soft porn” in advertising cars, clothes, shoes, cosmetics, etc. Fashion modelling, in particular, has close links with the industry.

The political implications of this development are discussed by D.A. Clarke, a contributor to the volume Not for Sale: Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography (Spinifex Press). Now that the industry has gone mainstream, she argues, opposition to porn challenges the interests of capital as a whole. So anti-porn protestors would be up against formidable odds. If we want to decommercialize and humanize sex, we need to take the next step and build a broad popular movement to overthrow capitalism itself.

Stefan

Editorial: Remember Featherstone! (1905)

Editorial from the September 1905 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Britishers have proverbially short memories. Even when organised into Trade Unions they emblazon their regalias with such meaningless phrases as "Defence, not defiance," etc. If they were class conscious they would substitute the names of the battles they fought, even though lost, with the dominant class. But they are not class conscious, hence the easy and well paid jobs of their "leaders," the decoy ducks for the capitalist party. How many of the workers, how many of the miners even, remember Featherstone? Yet the circumstances were such that they should remain fresh in the minds of the people, and be told and retold to their children and to their children's children.

In September, 1893, the "brotherhood of capital and labour" was proved by one of the most foul and bloody murders perpetrated by the capitalist against his "brother" labour. In connection with the lockout of the Yorkshire miners, one of those outward and visible manifestations of that class war which Mr. Keir Hardie and his friends declare is only a "shibboleth" and only a "dogma by which the Marxists set such store," an excuse was found by the Christian capitalists to read the riot act, after which British troops (not Russian, remember) armed with Lee-Metford rifles and explosive bullets, fired upon the people, killing two miners who, at the Inquiry, were proved to have taken no part even in the demonstration, but were returning from choir-practice. The Liberals were in office at the time and Asquith, the cynical lawyer, was Home Secretary. Challenged at Glasgow on 17th October, 1893, he ghoulishly "accepted the full responsibility for everything that had been done" and in the debate which shortly afterwards ensued in the House of Commons, his chief defender was the renegade John Burns, whom some alleged Socialists still support. But we urge the workers to remember Featherstone and also to Remember the Traitor, John Burns.

Economic meltdown in Argentina (2002)

From the February 2002 issue of the Socialist Standard

We look at the economic background to the rioting and looting in Argentina, and the factors which led to the social crisis there

Argentina, the one time darling of the IMF, held up as an example of how a country should stringently adhere to structural adjustment programmes, is presently standing as a shining example of how the capitalist system cannot be made to work in the interest of the majority.

When Economy Minister Domingo Cavallo pegged the Argentinean peso to the dollar ten years ago – on a one-to-one basis – he envisaged that this would end hyperinflation. Three years ago, when neighbouring Brazil devalued its real, this seriously began to upset Argentina's foreign investments and exports, as buyers of Argentinian products found they could get the same next door and far cheaper.

Argentina is now in debt to the tune of $132 billion – attributable largely to far-reaching borrowing carried out during the second term of the Carlos Menem government, prior to the election of President Fernando de la Rua. The effect of the domestic and foreign borrowing was to send domestic interest rates spiralling upwards. As the debt increased, so did the interest rates, which had a knock on effect for many businesses reliant upon credit.

In the 1990s, Menem introduced mass privatisation as a way of increasing economic efficiency. This resulted in many workers being made redundant, with them being surplus to requirements and unprofitable to employ.

So, back in 1999, the Argentinean recession began, a product of Argentina's relative economic inefficiency and the measures taken to tackle it. The recession began increasing in ferocity as domestic demand declined and unemployment increased and, because the government's tax revenues started shrinking, Argentina's burden of debt became all the more heavier.

In November all of Argentina's economic woes came to a head when people, fearful their pesos would be devalued, began hurrying to the banks to exchange them for dollars whilst the one-to-one rate was still in existence. Cavallo, fearful the banks would be drained of money, issued a decree which limited withdrawals to $1000 per person per month. The effect of this was to create mistrust in the government and widespread uncertainty with people rioting and protesting on the streets, with looting reported in many cities.

One week before Christmas the riots had spread to Buenos Aries. The president declared a state of emergency and brought troops onto the streets. But his government offered no remedy for the economic crisis and this only brought larger numbers of protestors back on to the streets within 24 hours, the unemployed being joined by "middle class" professionals – all taking part in the looting. When thousands of protestors congregated in Congress Square, banging pots and pans, the resignation of the president, his economic minister and the entire cabinet was almost immediate. De la Rua was determined to make one impassioned speech before he left, but with an angry crowd having none of it, he was instantly whisked to safety by a helicopter.

Tensions rose. People poured in from outlying districts, blockading motorways and erecting barricades, destroying banks and multinationals, looting supermarkets and fighting with almost 40,000 police who had been drafted into the city. When the violence had subdued, 26 had been killed.

Many Argentineans blame de la Rua for the crisis, citing the fact that he was the president when the crisis was deteriorating more alarmingly – as if he could control the economy! As the economy was controlling him, he had little option but to cut public spending to service debt repayments. De la Rua, however, did enter office foolishly promising to kick-start the economy and end high level corruption yet by early 2000 he had introduced £650 million worth of spending cuts and forced through eight unpopular austerity plans, which included a 13 percent cut in state workers' wages. Just prior to the unrest, the government planned to further cut public spending from £34 billion to £27 billion in a further attempt to service the crushing loan repayments.

The current president is one Eduardo Duhalde, a former left-wing senator and once upon a time investigated for the corruption his predecessor promised to stamp out. At present he plans to freeze the prices charged by foreign-owned utilities companies and put a tax on foreign owned oil companies. To protect the better off from currency devaluation he has offered to convert dollar loans under $100,000 into pesos, at the one-to-one rate – placing a hefty burden on banks, not borrowers – and he has further promised that cash will be set aside for the unemployed. All of which amounts to a timely game plan to placate the more volatile sections of Argentinean society.

Meanwhile, IMF top brass are in Argentina demanding, on behalf of the US and Europe, that the country does not default on its loan obligations. Outside markets are watching events carefully aware of the fact that economic crisis have tended in the past to lead to military coups and all their implications and are now mindful of granting further loans to the region.

There has been much analysis of recent events in Argentina. The general mood is that the IMF is to blame, that its structural austerity programmes are socially and politically unsustainable and that its rule-book needs tearing up. What has not been said is that, like the Argentinean government, the IMF is simply a body trying to make capitalism work. And in this regard they cannot entirely be faulted, because as events in Argentina have revealed, capitalism is working perfectly well, for this is the only way it can work in an anarchic and chaotic manner, negligent and oblivious to the misery and suffering it creates. If a few get rich while millions lose out big style, then this is capitalism working as it only can work. If there is recession followed by boom followed by recession, then capitalism is working healthily. Argentina, therefore, is another example of capitalism functioning normally.

John Bissett

A Socialist International. (1916)

From the June 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the April No. of the "Western Clarion," the official organ of the Socialist Party of Canada, the following welcome note occurs :

"Our comrades in Great Britain are having a very strenuous time in face of the present crisis ; but they are nobly upholding the WORKING CLASS POSITION in spite of "Prussian Militarism," and jingoistic sneers.

It is times like these that draw the revolutionists of every country closer together for united action against the COMMON ENEMY ; and may we, in the near future, be united together with the revolutionists of other lands who have expressed the aims and principles of that part of our class, who, realising that they are slaves, express a desire to be free, in an INTERNATIONAL which, founded on the firm rock of PROLETARIAN SCIENCE, shall withstand all the storms that may assail it.”

And in the report of the Dominion Executive Committee of the Socialist Party of Canada, printed in the same journal, the further statement occurs:

"We are all heartily in accord with the attitude of the S.P.G.B., and hope that before long we will be affiliated with them in a new "International.''"

Comrades, a toast! Here's to the coming Socialist International!

ED. COM.

Strange ! The heroes of the British capitalist Press are the German Socialists who are opposing the war, while the British Socialists who are taking a similar course of action are traitors and skunks, according to that same Press. It is quite consistent with the hypocrisy that decorates one man for risking his life for a kitten, and another for butchering his fellow-man.

    o o o o o

Two hundred and fifty thousand men must be torn from their homes and families and driven into the Army in order to provide 200,000 officers with servants and grooms. Who said the workers are not slaves ? What, Henderson ? Military necessity ! Ha, ha !

How Capitalism Works (5) (1979)

From the May 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

How Capitalism Works (5): Keynes and Capitalism

An enterprise's rate of profit is the ratio of the amount of profits it makes, say in a year, to the money-value of its assets at the beginning of that year. The average rate of profit of the whole economy is the ratio of total profit to total capital. The rate of profit would tend to fall if over time the amount of the total capital tended to increase at a faster rate than the total amount of profits.

This fall tends to happen as a result of the increasing amount of old wealth that must be used as fixed equipment in producing new wealth (or, what amounts to more or less the same thing, to the increasing size of the means of production in relation to the amount of human labour needed to operate them). Because there are so many offsetting factors, this tendency for the average rate of profit to fall only becomes evident in the very long run and so could not explain the onset of a much shorter term occurrence like a slump.

What else, then, could cause the rate of profit to fall? The ratio would also be reduced if for some reason the amount of profits made on the same amount of capital were to fall. Since profits are what is left after part of the newly created wealth has been allocated for consumption by wage-earners, then they would fall if wages were to rise.

The law of wages tends to keep wages down to what the workforce must consume to reproduce itself and keep fit for work, but wages are a price and so subject to the influence of supply and demand. Wages are the price of the skills wage-earners sell to enterprises so the market demand for these skills depends on the amount and kind of work enterprises want done. As the economy expands and as more and more workers are employed, then the level of more or less full employment of the workforce will be reached. At this point the market demand for workers' skills will begin to exceed the market supply: wages will tend to rise, eating into profits. The rate of profit would then tend to fall.

Rising wages eating into profits is only one possible cause. Another would be a miscalculation by a group of enterprises about the size of the market they supplied. The resulting oversupply in that particular market, and the resulting cutback in production for it would have a cumulative effect on the profits of other groups of enterprises and so on the economy as a whole. The particular market oversupply would then, through affecting general profit prospects, have become a general market oversupply and lead to idle productive capacity.

Despite the regular occurrence of slumps the general trend has been for the amount of wealth in the world, especially means of production, to increase. This means that in practice enterprises have been able to find profitable investments. These they have found in two main areas. First, in meeting the market demand for new equipment which is continually being created as the competitive struggle for profits forces enterprises to innovate in order to reduce costs. Second. in meeting the market demand created by the extension of exchange relationships into more and more parts of the world.

Slumps, in this light, appear as temporary setbacks to economic growth from which the system always recovers. Slumps (during which total market demand falls short of existing productive capacity) are the opposite of booms (during which total market demand exceeds existing productive capacity). Booms and slumps are in fact two sides of the same coin: they are complementary phases of the business cycle and the course which long-term growth follows.

But can there not be steady growth? Although the decision-making structure of the exchange economy is chaotic, the structure of production itself is extremely systematic with each workplace being an inter-dependent part of a world-wide system. This is why decisions made by enterprises controlling one part of this system are bound to affect the profit prospects of enterprises controlling other, especially closely related parts. It is also why a miscalculation in one sector can have a cumulative effect on the whole economy.

Leaving aside any instability introduced by changes in the rate of profit, in order to avoid booms and slumps there would have to be balanced growth of all the sectors of the economy. Each sector would have to expand at a given rate determined by its place in the productive system. This would require a degree of central co-ordination quite impossible so long as control over the parts of the system is scattered among thousands and thousands of profit-seeking enterprises. The anarchy which results from this makes balanced growth quite impossible.

SAVING CAPITALISM?

The man generally credited with having "saved capitalism" is the English economist John Maynard Keynes whose main work appeared in i936, Writing in the middle of the great slump of that period, he could see that Say's Law, as the dogma that total market demand would always be equal to existing productive capacity, was wrong. He showed how, due to what amounted to hoarding of profits (which he called "liquidity preference"), there could be a lack of market demand. He went on to claim, however, that this could be permanent, that even in the long run existing productive capacity would not necessarily be fully used. This places Keynes in the camp of the lack-of-market-demand school of economists.

Keynes was saying in effect that there was no reason to believe that the system would always recover from a slump: the lack of market demand might be permanent and lead to a permanent slump, to state of stagnation. He believed that the tendency of the economic system was towards such a state of stagnation. As the amount of capital in the world increased, he argued, so the rate of profit would tend to fall, thereby discouraging investment. At the same time people would be choosing to spend a smaller and smaller part of their rising incomes on consumer goods, thereby discouraging consumption. But this would mean, he went on, a falling market demand since market demand is composed of investment (purchase of producer goods) and consumption (purchase of consumer goods).

Keynes' solution was for the State to intervene and take steps to encourage investment and consumption. Investment could be increased by the State increasing its spending, while consumption could be raised by taxing the incomes of the rich and giving some of it to the poor (on the principle that many poor people will spend more on consumer goods than a few rich people).

A theory of permanent slump was obviously attractive in the 1930s. But even then it was wrong. One way or another — by the planned physical destruction of "excess" productive capacity on a massive scale, if need be — capitalism can in time always recover from a slump. It was the war and then repairing the damage the war caused — not Keynesian policies — which ended the slump of the 1930s. Since then the world exchange economy has resumed its growth, still punctuated by booms and slumps, misleadingly called "stop-go" to give the illusion that these fluctuations are the result of deliberate government policies rather than the normal working of the unplannable exchange economy. The Keynesians have the cheek to claim that the very event which proved their stagnation thesis wrong — the post-war re-expansion of capitalism — was the result of the adoption of their policies. Keynes did not "save capitalism" since, in the absence of a successful movement to abolish it, the system was capable of "saving" itself.

That the profit-motivated exchange economy tends towards a permanent slump brought about by a chronic lack of market demand has long been a view popular among reformers of the system. Keynes seemed to have confirmed their views: they in turn, have tacitly accepted his views. For in explaining, as many of them do, capitalism's survival by State spending on armaments they are in effect conceding Keynes' claim that States can engineer the "full employment" of the workforce within their frontiers.

That States do in fact possess such a power is very much open to question. They do not intervene in the capitalist economy from outside but rather are themselves essential parts of it, and have to rely for every item of wealth they consume on what they can obtain from enterprises, non-State as well as State. This means that State spending is ultimately limited by the amount of profits made by enterprises, or rather by the amount of profits it can take from enterprises without thereby reducing their incentive to invest or damaging their competitive standing in the world market. For, as explained in a previous article, State spending is a charge on profits, a cost enterprises have to bear and one which, like all costs, they want kept to a minimum.

STATE SPENDING

It is true that over the years State spending, as a proportion of total market demand, has tended to increase. But this has not been the result of a conscious policy aimed at saving capitalism from collapse. Rather has it been due to enterprises handing over to the State the responsibility for carrying out certain and increasingly costly non-productive services like health and education and to the increasing cost of maintaining and equipping the armed forces (another essential service as far as enterprises are concerned).

A growing number of people directly employed by the State in non-productive work will have some effect on the working of the exchange economy because the kind of work the State employs these people to do is not so dependent on market conditions as work done for enterprises. So will the growing demand of the State for buildings and equipment (schools and hospitals as well as armaments) to carry out this work. But these developments would mean that a slump, insofar as it affects employment, might tend not to spread as far as it would if wage-earners were employed by enterprises rather than the State. On the other hand, States do have to cut their spending when enterprises are suffering from lowered profits and are curtailing production, precisely because profits are the ultimate source of the money which States spend. This happens even though, in Keynesian theory, they should rather be increasing their spending.

The idea behind the State spending during a slump is that the State should take over and spend the profits enterprises are hoarding. If States were to do this, then it is possible they might help to speed recovery by closing the gap between market demand and existing productive capacity. But States do not act in this way because to tax away the hoarded profits of enterprises during a slump would only make matters worse. Enterprises would be discouraged from investing even that part of their profits they had continued to. The increased State spending would then be offset by the decreased investment of enterprises.

States prefer to get the money to spend during a slump by printing it themselves. Actually they do not usually do it as directly as that. What they do is to increase the National Debt by borrowing more and then repaying part of the debt and the interest in newly-printed money (or rather money-tokens). This of course is a policy of currency depreciation or inflation. Keynes believed that the rise in prices caused by depreciating the currency in this way would encourage enterprises to invest rather than hoard their profits. Whether or not he was right, one result of Keynesian doctrines has been permanent inflation, it is no accident that prices have been rising in Britain since 1940, the year of the first Keynesian budget. For, although States have not adjusted their spending in accordance with Keynes' theories, they have chosen to finance some of it by a policy of inflation. This has certain internal political advantages (Keynes himself pointed out that it is easier to keep wage-earners' living standards down by raising prices more than money wages than by reducing money wages in line with falling prices), but has definite external disadvantages. Rising prices at home means increasing costs in relation to the world market, a fact which places another limit on the extent of State spending.

Even if the State were itself to take over direct responsibility for all investment by establishing a state capitalist economy within its frontiers, it could still not escape the dictates of the world market. The State enterprises set up in place of the old non-State ones would still have to take part in the world-wide competitive struggle for profits. State spending would still be limited by how successful these enterprises were in that struggle. And the State would still be compelled to keep the consumption of its wage-earners to a minimum, as the experience of States like Russia which have tried this policy has shown.

Rather than States being able to control the capitalist economy as Keynes taught, it is the other way round. States have to trim their policies to the changing conditions brought about by the world capitalist economy as it expands and contracts.

The world economy needs to keep millions of people, some permanently and some for shortish periods, out of non-productive as well as productive work. A pool of unemployed is needed for two reasons. First, so that competition among wage-earners for jobs will prevent wages from rising and eating into profits. Where unemployment has been relatively low, as it was until recently in some of the industrialised parts of the world, the States there have implicitly recognised this by adopting policies of planned wage restraint as a substitute. Secondly, enterprises need a reserve of unemployed workers they can call on to work for them during the periods when they are expanding production. The bulk (but by no means all of the world's unemployed) are located in the industrially backward parts of the world which have supplied large numbers of extra workers for enterprises in the industrially advanced parts. Hence the migration of the unemployed to Europe and North America.

THE CASE AGAINST CAPITALISM

The full charge sheet against the world exchange economy with regard to the way it forces people to use the world's resources can now be drawn up. It reads:

(1) That, although there has been a long-term expansion of productive capacity and oil output, this has been only a fraction as fast and as extensive and as safe as technology has made possible.
(2) That, although in the long run the existing capacity has been more or less fully used, this has been broken by regular periods of under-use.
(3) That, in agriculture and in industries faced with declining markets, there has been deliberate destruction of productive capacity and regular destruction of wealth.
(4) That millions and millions of human beings who could have contributed to producing useful things have been prevented from working at all.
(5) That millions and millions more human beings have been allowed to work but only to engage in wasteful exchange and coercive activities.
(6) That the existing productive capacity has been used to produce considerable amounts of waste.

These are all serious charges and all of them are proved. They point to the need for the world's people to recover control over the productive system by abolishing the exchange economy altogether and replace it by a society that will allow them to plan the production of wealth in their own interests and to allocate the products for their own individual and collective use.

Adam Buick