Economics (1980)

Book Review from the October 1980 issue of the Socialist Standard

Economics, Politics and the Age of Inflation, by Paul Mattick, Merlin Press. £2.40

It is a great pity that Mattick's style of writing is so long-winded and convoluted since he has a thorough knowledge of Marxist economics and is one of the few, along with us, to define socialism as a classless, moneyless, wageless, stateless society.

This book is a collection of six articles written between 1973 and 1978. The first three repeat the arguments of his book Marx and Keynes. Since this has already been reviewed by us (Western Socialist, No. 2 1972) there is no need to go over this ground again here, except to criticise Mattick's vague use of the word inflation. Sometimes he uses it to mean over-issuing money, sometimes to mean rising prices and sometimes even to mean the reasons which, in his opinion, have led governments to pursue inflationary money and price policies.

This, combined with his style, makes the first three articles difficult going. The next two on state capitalism are excellent, bringing out well the differences between state capitalism and socialism:

Under state-monopoly capitalism, as under capitalism in any other form, the task of the proletariat remains one and the same, namely, the abolition of capitalist relations through the elimination of wage labour in a classless society (pp. 89-90)
But according to socialist theory, the state is an instrument of class rule, and therefore in a classless socialist society it should become superfluous. Those central authorities still necessary would perform only technical and organisation, not state, functions and would remain dependent on the decisions of the producers (p. 98).

Mattick also denies that the Russian revolution was a socialist revolution and proclaims that "to abolish capitalism, the first task is to make Bolshevism a thing of the past once and for all" (p. 113). The final article is an interesting analysis of the depression in America that followed the 1929 Stock Exchange Crash.

Adam Buick

Marx on Colonialism (1970)

Book Review from the September 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard

Karl Marx on Colonialism and Modernization, by Shlomo Avineri. Doubleday, New York. 19s.

In recent years there has been a steady flow of English language re-issues of and commentaries on the works of Marx and Engels. This new work, edited by Shlomo Avineri, Senior Lecturer in Political Theory at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, covers a range not attempted before in a single volume. About 400 pages consist of articles by Marx (including some written by Engels at Marx's request) on China, India, the Middle East and North Africa, preceded by excerpts from The Poverty of Philosophy, the Communist Manifesto, The Critique of Political Economy, and Capital, and followed by some relevant letters written by Marx and Engels.

Some idea of the wide scope of the articles is indicated by the fact that it takes in the Chinese Opium wars, the Crimean War, Turkey, British rule in India, the Anglo-Persian war of 1857, the Indian Mutiny, French and Spanish colonialism in North Africa, the British intervention in Mexico. (Part only of this range was covered in Marx's Eastern Question, edited by Eleanor Marx Aveling and Edward Aveling which has just been republished by Frank Cass at £9.90). Most of the articles in this new book were originally published as despatches to the New York Daily Tribune between 1853 and 1862.

The articles were well-informed and hard-hitting and the readers of the New York paper will often have gained a better insight into what was going on than would readers of the English Press or English history books.

Here is the opening paragraph of an article published on March 10, 1862:

The Blue Book on the intervention in Mexico, just published, contains the most damning exposure of modern English diplomacy with its hypocritical cant, ferocity against the weak, crawling before the strong, and utter disregard of international law. I must reserve for another letter the task of forwarding, by a minute examination of the despatches exchanged between Downing Street and the British representatives of Mexico, the irrefragable proof that the present imbroglio is of English origin, that England took the initiative in bringing about the intervention, and did so on pretexts too flimsy and self-contradictory to even veil the real but unavowed motives of her proceedings. The infamy of the means employed in starting the intervention is only surpassed by the anile imbecility with which the British government affect to be surprised at and slink out of the execution of the nefarious scheme planned by themselves.

Marx dealt in several articles with the wars fought to force the Chinese to admit the massive importation of opium, to the profit of respectable English merchants. Marx quoted from an English writer about the harm done to the Chinese.

Why, the slave trade was merciful compared with the opium trade. We did not destroy the bodies of the Africans for it was our immediate interest to keep them alive; we did not debase their natures, corrupt their minds, nor destroy their souls. But the opium seller slays the body after he has corrupted, degraded and annihilated the moral being of the unhappy sinners . . . 

If you turn to England in the Nineteenth Century a popular history book by C. W. Oman, Oxford Professor of History, published in 1913, you will find nothing about the opium trade. Instead Oman tells us:

The second struggle in which we became involved was a quarrel with China in 1856. The Governor of Canton acting with the usual stupid arrogance and obstinacy of Chinese officials, had seized a vessel flying the English flag, and refused to apologise for his act. This led to an expedition against Canton and ultimately to open war.

Much has been written of the building of railways and irrigation works in India under British rule, but Marx pointed out that this was a later development only after great harm had been done by the British overlords.

An Oriental government never had more than three departments: finance (plunder at home), war (plunder at home and abroad), and public works (provision for reproduction). The British government in India has administered Nos. 1 and 2 in a rather philistine spirit and dropped No. 3 entirely, so that Indian agriculture is being ruined.
The ruling classes of Great Britain have had, till now, transitory interest in the progress of India. The aristocracy wanted to conquer it, the moneyocracy to plunder it, and the millocracy to undersell it. But now the tables are turned. The millocracy have discovered that the transformation of India into a reproductive country has become of vital importance to them, and that, to that end it is necessary above all, to gift her with the means of irrigation and of internal communication.

Shlomo Avineri's introduction to the book discusses the problem, of which Marx was aware, that "stagnant Asia" did not fit into his European-based conception of evolution through feudalism and capitalism to Socialism: hence Marx's concentration on the impact of European capitalism on Asian countries rather than on the possibility of their own self-development. However, Avineri does not face up to the fact that capitalism is now established not only in japan and India but, in its State capitalist variant, in Russia; with China following the Russian road.

He discusses Marx's view that the total income received by British capitalists from British rule in India was less then than the cost to the British government of the Indian administration, so that in effect colonial rule was no more than an indirect way of subsidising a section of the British propertied class at the expense of the rest. He supports Marx's view on this as against Lenin's.

Edgar Hardcastle

Russia's Tolpuddle Martyrs (1978)

From the May 1978 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Guardian of March 3 devoted a lot of space to a report about some stirrings among would-be Russian trade-unionists and to a leading article and a letter on the same subject. Obviously the paper considers the matter to be of some importance and—who knows?—for a change they may have got something right.

The cause of all this was that there is now emerging a new kind of dissident, namely ordinary workers demanding genuine trade-unions. The majority of dissidents up to now, it seems, have been 'intellectuals' of the Solzhenitsyn type demanding freedom to write and speak what they wish, this being of course a rather more nebulous aspect of democracy than the freedom to organise trade-unions with the power to strike for better conditions. The new tendency is certainly to be welcomed by socialists, even though apparently only a minute proportion of the Russian working class is at present involved. Nobody can deny the heroism of the dissidents who have taken on the might of possibly the most oppressive dictatorship in history and who, in many cases, have suffered grievously in the process.

Gangsters
In the early days of British capitalism, membership of trade-unions could be dangerous and heroic workers, like the Tolpuddle martyrs, suffered the British equivalent of banishment to Siberia, namely transportation to Australia. In 1978, however, more refined punishments are available to the ruling class and the heading of an article by Simon Hoggart—Insane to Complain—shows what happens to Russian workers who, sixty years after the fall of the Tsarist tyranny, are brave enough to complain about appalling conditions of work, including such "delights" as outrageously long periods of compulsory overtime and being forced to work in coal mines with a horrendous record of fatal accidents. The dictatorship over the proletariat now finds murderous psychiatrists to rule that workers who want to combine in order to fight against such conditions are, by definition, insane. And the treatment appropriate to such "insanity" is to be confined to prison hospitals, there to be forcibly treated with unending doses of mind-shattering drugs until the offenders change their minds about the condition of the proletariat in Leninist Russia. The whole thing is, of course, like some nightmare science-fiction, and it is clear that the gangsters, who have the nerve to call themselves socialists and communists, have decided not to wait till 1984 to bring about their Orwellian society.

The leading article in the same issue of The Guardian is headed "Russia's Cruel Union Farce" and rightly stresses the fact that the International Labour Organisation have actually always recognised the so-called trade-unions run by the Russian state as being of the same calibre as the trade-unions in countries like Britain. (It is true that trade-unionists here do not sufficiently avail themselves of their power and leave matters far too much to so-called leaders, but that of course is another subject.)

The ILO is a body under the auspices of the United Nations which has withheld recognition from state controlled trade-unions as in Franco Spain or Chile, but with the normal display of double standards which has been part of the scene for many years now, the same criteria have not been applied to Russia. Indeed, it may even be that there are some bemused people who imagine that somehow Russian workers are different from their counterparts in England, and do not have to resist exploitation. These are the same kind of people (and liberal papers like the Guardian fall neatly into this camp) who argue that African workers do not need the same kind of democracy as their European brothers. However, it is not likely that anyone would seek to show Russian workers are somehow different in kind from their brothers in the neighbouring workers' paradise, Poland. But some of the news that has come out of that country, over the last decade or so, has thrown a lurid light on the position of the working class in that ludicrously named People's Democracy.

Intolerable act
Some years ago, the then Bolshevik boss of Poland, Gomulka, decided on a dramatic rise in the prices of foodstuffs without any comparable rise in the workers' wages. This intolerable act resulted in serious riots, particularly among the dockers in Poland's Baltic ports, like Danzig (Gdansk). The tyrannical Polish "communist" party was quick to reply. It sent in the tanks and hundreds of dockers were killed. It is worth noting at this point that this same Gomulka was not a hardliner by reputation, but on the contrary was the leader who had come to power by defying Russia in 1956, showing that if you have a situation consisting of a dictatorship over the proletariat in any country, then repression is the order of the day, no matter who is in charge. Gomulka was superseded as a result of these events by the present boss Giereck, who had learned so little from them that only a year or two age he tried the same trick which resulted in, amongst other things, the workers of Warsaw tearing up the railway lines and those of the industrial town of Radom showing their loyalty to their communist government by burning down party headquarters. Unfortunately it is quite obvious that a lot more suffering of this nature in Russia, Poland, China (not to speak of Chile etc., of course) will be needed before the workers in these countries can at least get some semblance of trade unionism. And there is precious little that socialists in places like Britain can do, other than admire the necessary heroism of the oppressed workers in these other countries.

L. E. Weidberg

Those Aliens! (1907)

A Short Story from the February 1907 issue of the Socialist Standard

WILL: (to George, who is discovered reading the Daily Distress): Hello! looking for a loser?

GEORGE: No. I'm reading about those confounded aliens. Those foreign bakers are allowed to come over here and they immediately start agitations and strikes as though the country belonged to them. Taking the bread out of our mouths, I call it.

WILL: Why, you're a funny chap. You grumble if they work cheaply, and you grumble of they try to better their lot. I suppose the fact is you hate them, and they could do nothing to please you.

GEORGE: Who can help hating the beggars when they take our jobs away from us. Why don't they go back to their own country?

WILL: Look here, George, the foreign workman has no more a country of his own than you have: his native land, like yours, is the property of a master class and the worker has not even burial space of his own.

GEORGE: That's an old tale.

WILL: But can you deny its truth?

(George does not answer)

WILL: Do you know that the number of English who are abroad is much greater than the number of foreigners in England; so would you not be much worse off if all the English came back to compete with you in place of the foreigner? Your policy for every man to be compelled to remain in his native land is suicidal on that score alone.

(George scratches his head).

WILL: And are you aware that in history the unmixed races, those people who are cut off from the world as you would have us to be, remain primitive or become degenerate; while the mixed races, those roaming wide areas, are vigorous and progressive?

GEORGE: But why is it, then, that there are so many unemployed and pauperised in England of the alien is not the cause?

WILL: My dear fellow, they've got unemployed and paupers in every capitalist country: and they exist, not because of aliens, but because of capitalism.

GEORGE: I don't see that.

WILL: But you ought to. Let me make it plain. In the first place each western nation is divided broadly into two great groups or classes. One group owns the land, railways, mines, factories, machinery and buildings - in fact this class own all the means for producing wealth. The other group or class, on the contrary, do not own property, all they possess is their power to work which they must sell to the owners of the means of production, or else starve. The propertied, ruling section we call the capitalist class: the propertyless, enslaved section we call the working class. Is that clear?

GEORGE: Oh, yes. I know which is my lot!

WILL: Good! Now this capitalist class want to get as much labour as they can out of the workers with as little expenditure of wages as possible. Hence a conflict of interests. Hence the the capitalist class will employ Chinamen or even gorillas if they are cheaper and can work as well as their own countrymen. Hence the propertied class are ever seeking and introducing new inventions, machines and methods by means of which more can be produced with less spent in wages. You can now see, George, that the master class, being able to supply the markets and get their profits with the aid of proportionally fewer employees, cut down their wages bill and create the unemployed. Hardly a day passes without some new invention or process displacing some of the wage-earners. It is not the alien that causes the unemployed, but it is the ownership of the means of production by a class who use every improvement in them against the workers. The more wealth can be produced today, the fewer workers do the ruling class need to employ. The wealthier the country under capitalism the poorer and more miserable are the workers in proportion. Capitalism, by making the workers disinherited and outcast in Society, is the cause of unemployment and pauperism, whilst the despised alien is in reality simply a fellow sufferer and a brother.

GEORGE: But how would your Socialism alter that?

WILL: Socialism would alter it by making the working class the whole nation; by using the working class capture of the political power to turn all the means of production into the collective, democratically controlled, property of the people. Improvements in production, new inventions, or an increase in the number of workers would then, instead of, as now, throwing numbers of the working class out of work to starve, increase the wealth and decrease the toil of all. The workers will have come into their own and be no longer outcasts in the world their labour has created.

GEORGE: I see. A co-operative commonwealth. That certainly is worth working for.

WILL: It is, indeed, the only thing worth striving for. and I hope you'll join us: always remembering, though, that the foreign worker is really our brother, for our interests are the same, and our enemy is the same. We have not to fight one another, but to aid each other in conquering the common enemy, the capitalist class of all countries. With the ruling class, patriotism is the mask of self-interest: with the working class it is the brand of utter ignorance. Let us be international.

F. C. Watts 

Shop talk (1984)

A Short Story from the June 1984 issue of the Socialist Standard

In the town of Inverness a talking checkout machine was recently introduced in a blaze of glory by Your Caring, Sharing Co-op, which should be more accurately described as Their Profit Making Co-op. Computer technology is zooming ahead at such a fantastic pace that it is difficult to keep abreast of all the improvements. Clive Sinclair, the current whiz-kid of the computer market, has predicted that new robots will soon be on the go performing all sorts of mental acrobatics.

After the recent case of the supermarket check-out girl who was fired for intolerably bad temper towards the customers on Monday mornings, the logical desire for any supermarket owner is a machine which replaces workers (and therefore saves wages) while at the same time is constantly pleasant to the punters whom it is relieving of their cash. However, since even the most sophisticated machine is fallible, there is a prospect of one of these devices having a brainstorm: "Good morning madam, and what little delicacies do we have here?  . . . ah, yes, cold meat 75p . . . wholemeal bread 50p, better than that adulterated white stuff . . . smarm . . . nice little table-wine at £1.99 . . . sure to impress your husband's boss when he comes to dinner. (Not to mention the refuse collector when he clocks the fancy label) . . . please pay the girl at the till. Thank you and good day . . . Krrrrrkkkk . . . fizzle.

C'mon grandma, hurry it up, we haven't got all day. Let's get these pathetic morsels tallied so we can get onto the real spenders . . . right, two ounces of spam (Yeeugh!) 20p . . . a solitary carrot 5p . . . 1 lonely onion 5p . . . 1 small loaf 25p . . . my, we're really living high on the hog aren't we? . . . 1 tin of Crappo dog food 35p . . . wait a minute, I'll bet you don't even have a dog, you're eating the bloody stuff yourself right? . . . C'mon own up. Hey, stop that snivelling woman, pay up and get out. No, not through the plate-glass door, open it first. That's right, now step out and . . . Gotcha! Security man, grab that old bag, she's got a tin of sardines that she forgot . . . er . . . didn't pay for. Good! the arm up the back, now the quick frogmarch into the manager's office to wait for the police . . . hee . . . hee . . . heeeeeerrkkkk . . . 

And the next one please. Hmm, what have we here? cornflakes 55p . . . You know, a top nutrition expert called Michael Van Straten is on record as saying that there is almost as much nutrition in the box as there is in the cornflakes. Butter 50p . . . sausage 70p . . . have you ever seen how they make sausage? almost no limit to the fat content . . . wouldn't like to see your arteries . . . Frozen chicken £2.75 . . . wonder how much water's been injected into our ex-feathered friend to boost the weight, (and the price) . . . In fact, have you ever stopped to consider why it's necessary to have prices at all? Here we are living in a world which produces food, clothing, and shelter in such abundance that everyone could have the very best instead of all this third-rate rubbish. And the beauty of it is that the amount of time actually needed to produce this wealth could be reduced to a few hours a day with all the extra available people released from non-productive jobs such as there girls operating the tills, and the manager, rushing over to pull put . . . the plug!? . . . Don't touch the . . . . . . . "

Tone.

Greasy Pole: Liam Byrne Out Of The Shadows (2015)

The Greasy Pole column from the August 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

It will not be found on the notice boards in any of Iain Duncan Smith's Job Centres nor in the Situations Vacant column of the popular press but a needy job-seeker may be interested in the Labour Party's search for someone to perform the miracle of reviving their hopes as a validly contesting political party. One who has yet to expose all his talents for this is Liam Byrne who offers a CV which, although defiled by his failure to get things right, includes an impressive history of governmental jobs. Between 2010 and 2013 he was Shadow for four ministerial posts, including the prestigious Chief Secretary to the Treasury. And before then, between 2005 and 2010 he was in charge at eight ministries. Whatever stress he experienced in those jobs his reputation, with one or two embarrassing lapses, endured pretty well. In A Journey Tony Blair described him as one of the '...smart, young professionals' he was able to encourage into Parliament and onto the Greasy Pole. When Blair escaped from those nightmare days of Labour staggering towards the end, management of the dismal chaos known as the British economy passed to Alistair Darling and Byrne was promoted to Chief Secretary. In his account of those times – Back From The Brink – Darling cherished his memory of Byrne: 'I assumed at first that this was the latest No. 10 attempt to keep an eye on me. I was wrong. Very quickly, Liam became a staunch supporter of my argument against the simplistic “investment versus cuts” narrative. He worked hard to build a credible plan to cut the deficit'.

Immigrants

But overall Byrne's record is not unblemished. In November 2006 he oversaw a retrospective change in the Immigration Rules designed to ensure that those who had come here under the Higher Skills Migrant Programme were prevented from staying unless they could show that they had earned at least £32,000 a year and had a 'good knowledge' of English. This 'moving of the goalposts' was denounced by the Parliamentary Joint Commission on Human Rights as 'clearly incompatible' with the existing legislation and it was overturned on appeal. The whole affair would not have sat easily with Byrne's constituency of Birmingham Hodge Hill and its predominantly Asian inner city. The area is classified as having a 'high percentage' of people dependent on what Duncan Smith calls 'benefits' and a housing situation which rates it as one of the highest in West Midlands for 'Multiple Deprivation'. This grim picture did not deter Byrne from claiming the maximum MP's allowance while he moved from one luxury London flat to another – one of which cost £2400 a month in rent – while he looked for somewhere more permanent. During the summer recess he used hotels and claimed £400 a month for food and for service dinners.

Instructions

In 2006, when he became Minister of State at the Home Office Byrne decided that his staff - his civil servants – would need some firm and comprehensive instructions on the essential details of an efficient organisation. He composed an eleven-page document which he later took with him to other ministries. To begin with, his room should be cleared before he got there in the morning. All briefings should be in large 16 point font. 'Never put anything to me unless you understand it and can explain it to me in 60 seconds'. Among the rules are some which pointedly reveal much about the true function of government as required by the elements of capitalist society: 'Money is the root of all progress. Finances are a vital part of the initiation conversations'. And when it comes to an expression of the contempt in which the working people of capitalism are held he orders that 'Key messages must be set out in 'big speeches' and repeated at every, repeat every, opportunity'. Which brings us to the passage about the comforts and security which the minister needs: 'I am' he informs them 'addicted to coffee. I like a cappuccino when I come in, an espresso at 3 pm and soup at 12.30 – 1 pm.' One MP described it as 'a briefing note for slaves'. In defence a spokesman for Byrne countered that he is '...a highly efficient minister but has become more flexible since then. Some days, he has his soup at 1.30pm'.

No Money

In the coalition after the 2010 election Byrne was replaced at the Treasury by the Lib Dem David Laws. In a clumsy attempt to make light of Labour's rejection Byrne left a brief note: 'I'm afraid there is no money. Kind regards-and good luck'. But Laws was not amused and publicised the missive so that it was widely interpreted as derisive and contemptuous – which left Byrne 'haunted' by his mistake offering a 'friendly word' to his successor in their 'first day in one of the government's hardest jobs'. Among all this posturing a number of significant facts were neglected. Byrne was not the first Minister at the Treasury to act in that way and it had even become something of a tradition; for example the Tory Reginald Maudling told his successor James Callaghan that he was '...sorry to leave it in such a mess, old cock'. And David Laws lasted only 17 days at the Treasury after being exposed by the Parliamentary Standards and Privileges Committee as responsible for '...a series of serious breaches of the rules, over a considerable period of time'.

Changes

In January, anticipating the election, Byrne conducted a coach tour of supporters through Essex, where he grew up and which then threatened to be UKIP territory. His theme was clear: 'Ed (Miliband) has very firmly put young people at the core of our election campaign... right now (this country) needs young people's creativity and optimism as never before...' But then came the election and soon afterwards, on 14 June 2015 in The Sunday Times he was promoting a different line, in a different tone: '...we must be the party of older voters, not just the young... Labour faces a demographic timebomb unless we transform our standing with older voters... if the next Labour leader does not connect with older people – especially older women – then quite simply we will lose again... Let labour's changes begin'. How often have we suffered this same message from some desolate Labour politician, when their intention is to maintain this same callous way of life?

Ivan

Obituary: Charles Lestor (1953)

Obituary from the January 1953 issue of the Socialist Standard

I first met Charlie Lestor over 30 years ago. I was still a kid, he was a mature and impressive man. His effect on the eager audiences of the post 1914-18 war was electric.

He had just arrived in this country after 20 years in Canada and the U.S.A. His Canadian style, accent and rig made him remarkable enough; his address to the large audiences of unemployed ex-servicemen was extraordinary. When most of the I.L.P. and Communist "Unemployed organisers" devoted their attention to personal invective against individual ministers; or the usual temporary nostrums for increase of the dole, or (much more) prevention of its decrease. Lestor never failed, in my hearing, at least, to go straight to the root of the matter.

He just could not speak to an audience without dealing with the capitalist system. From that day to this, I have never wavered in the opinion that of all the speakers I have heard, Lestor, in those days, was out on his own as a powerful exponent of Marxian economics in a popular trenchant style.

In clipped and rugged American terms, without a word wasted, he would grip a large audience from the first phrase and proceed to build up a rigorously logical exposition of surplus value.

"There's no sentiment in Business," "that profit is wrung out of the hides and carcasses of the working-class," "those wages amount to just enough fried fish, chips and beer to keep you working."

These and similar phrases were as typical of Charlie Lestor as the shock of hair, the bushy eyebrows covering the twinkling eyes, and the missing index finger on the waving hand. Tanned by the prairie suns and the Yukon snows as at home in 'Frisco or Winnipeg as in Stepney or Hyde Park, he was a modern cosmopolite, a man of all countries and all trades.

"I'm the laziest cuss under the sun," he would blandly inform his audiences, omitting to mention his jobs as gold-miner, farm-hand, Blacksmith, printer and Editor of the largest Trade Union paper in Canada. Many will remember his broadcast in the B.B.C. programme of his part, as the-cook-who-could-not-cook in the record drive of many thousand head of cattle to Chicago from the West.

For many years I lost touch, but immediately remade his acquaintance on joining the S.P.G.B. in 1939. Much water had flown under the Bridge, the years were beginning to take their toll. In the bitter weather of 1941 it was Charles Lestor who attended regularly at the Gloucester Place office of the Party, in a Balaclava hat, sometimes with frost on his eyebrows, to give instruction and counsel to young members in between air raid warnings. Subsequently I read through the minutes of those talks which covered a wide field of History, Economics and Current Affairs. Those fortunate enough to attend obtained a practical background of knowledge which affected their whole lives.

In 1945, the post of full-time propagandist fell vacant. At an age when most men ask nothing more than their carper-slippers Lestor applied and was appointed. As Central Organiser of the Party at the time I went over to see him in N.E. London, and made sure, as it was snowing heavily, that he had some reasonably warm equipment for the bitter trip to Glasgow that night.

He invited me to spend the day there, which passed discussing International politics, the Peace, Education, music and Omar Khayyam.

The years passed rapidly by, and many were the demands of the Party on Lestor's services. I cannot recall one occasion when these were refused or denied. Whether the meeting was large or small, far or near, early or late, he accepted as a matter of course.

As time marched on, it became apparent that even a man as vigorous, tough and energetic as Charlie Lestor could not beat Anno Domini indefinitely. Still the indomitable spirit refused to give up. In weather when he should have been indoors at home, he was regularly at Lincolns Inn and Tower Hill. The once powerful and strident tones which would ring out like a blast across a large audience, were sinking into an almost inaudible whisper.

Never did his sense of humour desert him, his remarks were now often punctuated by a quiet chuckle. He tended in later years, to an exaggerated optimism with regard to Socialist which other well-known Socialist speakers have also expressed.

During the Party's tenure of Rugby Chambers he once remarked to me "When you've stopped learning, you've stopped living." Surely that explains the astounding tenacity with which he stuck to his efforts as a Socialist propagandist, for so long.

He was always anxious and ready to try and learn. He had the Socialist's humility to knowledge. A busy life-time of effort on behalf on Socialism has assured for him the only sort of immortality which Socialists know, a permanent place in the memories of his fellow-warriors against Ignorance for Happiness.

Horatio

Propaganda in the Provinces: A Cycling Diary (1906)

From the November 1906 issue of the Socialist Standard

When I arranged to spend a week of my fortnight holiday in pushing the interests of the S.P.G.B. I expected to have either the redoubtable J. Kay or some other valiant and experienced comrade as a companion for my cycling tour, commencing August 11th; but some unkind strokes of Fate prevented that expectation being realised, and I had to sally forth alone.

I am asked to write an account of my tour, and to do it briefly, so in order to fulfill this condition, I am putting my experiences in diary form.

Saturday. Aug. 11. Had my first day's riding — 53 miles against a stiff wind. Reached Bedford at noon. Was unable to hold meeting here, no pitch being available tried to secure stall in the market for sale of literature but failed, so had to be content with looking up a few old friends  and disposing of a Manifesto or STANDARD where I could.

Sunday. Aug. 12. Reached Northampton at 11 a.m. and proceeded to the market Square. The local branch of the S.D.F. presently put in an appearance and started their meeting, during which I got amongst the audience with the literature, the result being that the people had parted with their spare coppers before Justice came on the scene, The speaker urged his hearers never to support Liberal or Tory candidates, and when question time came I asked him why the S.D.F. branches had frequently supported Liberal candidates and also why they had done it in Northampton. After a brief consultation the chairman dealt with the question, or rather made a long rambling statement in which he admitted that the S.D.F. in Northampton made a grave mistake, but defended the action taken in support of Naoroji in Lambeth and generally defended the go-as-you-please policy which has characterised the actions of his organisation during the last few years. The meeting was then closed (although I had intimated my intention of offering opposition) but fortunately the crowd remained, and I dealt as fully as time allowed with the differences between the S.D.F. and the S.P.G.B. Literature sales: — Manifestoes 13, Standards 25.

Monday. Aug. 13. After a delightful ride to Leicester, and an equally delightful rest when I arrived there, I opened out in the market-place at 7.45 under rather trying circumstances. I had a very vigorous evangelist in close proximity to my meeting, and a band playing sufficiently near to draw the usual market-place crowd. Socialist propaganda is badly needed here, in fact there did not seem to be any one present among my questioners who had got much further than Labourism (dependent or independent according to circumstances). One friend—whom I judged to be an I.L.P. man—seemed very wroth at my attack on the L.R.C. and his idol Ramsay MacDonald, and whilst we were engaged in a little argument as to whether J. R. M. is, or is not a Socialist, an incident occurred in which made myself and every one in the crowd (except my opponent) laugh very heartily. Along comes a young man who has not heard the discussion, but hears me use the sentence, "the only hope of the people lies in a social revolution"; working his way to the front of the meeting, he shouts, "We don't want you Socialists down here, we've got MacDonald!" After this I did not think it necessary to follow the matter further as it seemed that, whatever the local Labour party may claim, the "man in the street" does not look upon Mr. MacDonald as a representative of Socialism.

Several other questions were asked and answered mostly from the reform point of view and a fairly good meeting was brought to a close at 9.30. Literature sales: — Manifestoes 14; Standards 25.

Tuesday. Aug. 14. This was a blank day so far as propaganda was concerned, owing to the fact the my bag, which had been sent on, had not arrived at Loughborough where I had intended holding a meeting. No literature, no meeting.

Wednesday. Aug. 15. This was the first wet day of my tour, but the weather was fair when I reached Derby and hoisted my poster on to the statue railings in the market place. Here I met the Secretary of the Woolwich I.L.P., who was holiday-making like myself and also a prominent member of the local Socialist Party. Whilst in argument with them preparatory to commencing the meeting, the rain began to fall in torrents and continued for about twenty minutes. When it was fine enough to venture forth from shelter I found that someone had commandeered the box which I had at much difficulty secured as my platform, also at the same time, some papers which the box contained. This and the prospect of further rain made me decide to give up the meeting. Sales: — Manifestoes 6; Standards 3.

Thursday. Aug 16. Nottingham. Here the weather looked very threatening but about 7.30 it cleared up and was beautifully fine. I consulted a policeman as to the best place for holding my meeting, the market-place being quite covered with stalls. Robert was very polite and indicated the bottom of Derby Road as the best pitch. but added that I had better be careful as to what I said, as he had seen many a speaker upset the crowd and be glad to escape by hopping on to a tramcar. However, I held a meeting from 7.45 until 10.20. an hour being taken up with answering questions which were very numerous and varied in character, but fortunately were asked at the proper time and in decent order. This was one of the best audiences it has ever been my pleasure to address, and I am hoping to visit Nottingham again shortly (with a companion for preference). Literature sales: — Manifestoes 27; Standards 42.

Friday. Aug. 17th. I had promised to hold another meeting in Nottingham: but it rained hard the whole evening.

Saturday. Aug. 18th. Kettering. Weather improving, and had a delightful ride here from Nottingham. My experience here was not very gratifying, as I made two attempts to get a decent meeting in the market-place, but without success. The first time, the Band came along and effectually silenced me: on the second occasion, a smart glee-party came along and captured my crowd. I had one rather rude young fellow who several times interrupted me and who at length shouted, "You think you're clever, mister, but you only evolved from a monkey!" When I replied by asking him if he could give me any idea as to when the process of evolution from monkeyhood would commence in his case, he sobered down somewhat, and, in a few minutes, disappeared. Literature sales: — Manifestoes 6; Standards 7.

Sunday. Aug. 19th. Rode to Luton with the intention of holding a meeting at night; but literature had not turned up and two bands were busy in the town so the idea had to be given up.

From which it seems
The best laid schemes
Of F. E. D.
Oft gang agley.

My tour concluded with a delightful ride home via Hatfield, Hertford, Waltham, High Beech and Woodford.

Next year I hope to do something rather more ambitious with the assistance of a good speaker. There is excellent scope for our propaganda in Leicester and Nottingham, and a "Party Outing" to Nottingham by one of the Sunday League trains is worth consideration from a propaganda point of view. Any members anxious to distinguish themselves in this way can at any time rely upon the presence and support of

F. E. Dawkins

"Overpopulation"—Bugaboo and Biological Scapegoat! (1980)

A chapter from Samuel Leight's 1980 book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War)

Many are under the impression that the world is overpopulated and that this condition results in a variety of social evils all of which are due to the prolific nature of men and women. People, and especially the very poor, are accused of indiscriminate procreation, and as a consequence creating poverty, shortages, unemployment and overcrowding. Workers are admonished to exercise discretion, use restraint, and practice birth control. On the surface it might appear to the unsophisticated and naive that the ruling class and their spokesmen are prompted by genuine compassion. Socialists, however, have learned to regard philanthropy, charity and advice with a jaundiced eye and to seek economic reasons when they receive ruling class counseling. 

Let us examine the facts, and trace the origins of the "over­population" bugaboo. In 1798 the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus, a professed English economist and member of the holy orders, published anonymously the first edition of "An Essay on the Principle of Population," with subsequent additions which finally became a book, the sixth edition of which was published in 1826. His thesis was based upon the premise that population tends to outrun the growth of production; that it develops, if unchecked, in a geometrical progression whilst the means of subsistence increases only in arithmetical progression. These two different ratios result in a condition of overpopulation, and consequently the quest for social happiness must forever be elusive because population will always tend to exceed the capacity to sustain it. He maintained that food supplies, although they could be increased by various methods, would nevertheless always fall behind population increases, which could double in comparatively short periods of time. He viewed contraception as a "vice", accepted the "misery" of the workers as inevitable, approved of workhouses for the poor, as long as they were reasonably uncomfortable and provided a hard existence for the occupants, and favored late marriage and "moral restraint". And he regarded wars, famines, disease and plagues as a divine balance in the scheme of things. 

It can easily be recognized that such an approach would have, and still does have, an overpowering appeal for the capitalist class. The blame is placed fairly and squarely on the poor for their own misery—the starved and destitute are responsible for their own starvation and destitution. They have taken the word of the Good Lord literally—they have gone forth and multiplied, but excessively! In addition these topsy-turvy notions provide a justification and excuse for war and other atrocities. After all, if our problems are caused by being overburdened with millions and millions of people, and if this overpopulation produces premature death and disease—war, famine and human destruction should be accepted as inescapable and unfortunate cures. This pernicious, anti-working class doctrine is accepted by some—incredulous as it may seem. 

In the summer of 1976 I was aboard a freighter heading for South Africa. I became involved with two of my fellow passengers on the subject of "overpopulation". Sam was a farmer from Ohio, and was blaming many of the current social problems on overpopulation, and Marc was a youngster of 18 who was agreeing with Sam in his moronic and morbid presentations. Finally, Sam made the statement that because of the tremendous problem of overpopulation, although it was regrettable to say, possibly Hitler's massacre of six million Jews was not such a tragedy after all. Poor Marc, who not only was Jewish but was fervently nationalistic towards Israel, became deathly white and looked as if he was ready to pass out. He wasn't getting seasick but he sure was sick of Sam! I chided him gently, but firmly, "You see, Marc, where this type of thinking must eventually take you." He understood, and I know that he will never forget the lesson or forgive his shipmate. 

The Malthusian theory of overpopulation represented a welcome change inasmuch as it diverted the attention of the workers away from the true cause of their problems, capitalism, shifting the blame from an economic base to a biological and sexual one. It is always a necessity for the ruling class of any era to find a scapegoat, and" overpopulation" can be just as useful as racism, opposing nationalities, or "indolent" workers. Different times are conducive to different lies—just so long as the truth of how capitalism really functions is never discovered! 

We readily admit that should human beings increase geo­metrically and indefinitely, a time would arrive when the food supply would be unable to sustain a population that had grown to numerical infinity. But this is an unacceptable, completely false hypothesis. There are no biological or natural laws that explain population growths. History will show that increases in population have not taken place with any formula of mathematical progression but, on the contrary, have varied from time to time, and the fluctuations are related to social, economic and material conditions. Population growths, therefore, cannot be regarded in a vacuum as a separate entity, operating automatically, independent of the dynamics of society. 

Malthus also does not take into account the human factor of the ability of man to use science, technology, and his own energies and ingenuity to master all his production and distribution challenges, whatever they might be. In addition when Malthus refers to "moral restraints" he concedes by implication that human beings can control their birth rate, and that the size of a family can become an elective choice of the individual, under certain given conditions, due to the existence of modern birth control techniques. This has been amply demonstrated in many countries during recent years when birth rates have dropped through the extensive use of artificial prevention. Of course birth control has been used as another red herring when it focuses attention on population as a cause unto itself, and ignores the limitations and restrictions that are inherent within capitalism, and result in food supplies being determined and conditioned by a market economy. If socialism would have been researched by the workers with as much diligence as has been displayed in the pursuit and relentless quest for new and improved birth control methods our movement would have greatly benefited. 

Incidentally, many of the comparatively recent innovations in birth control, whilst affording the manufacturers substantial profits, have proved to be injurious to health and have produced side effects that are undesirable and which can ominously threaten our future well-being. 

The term "overpopulation" in itself has no meaning or social significance unless it is related to specific conditions and has an applicable framework of reference. Countries are not over­-populated in relationship to land mass, but modern industrial cities have concentrations that are completely disproportionate to other areas. In 1975 the United States had an estimated 213 million, and more than 3 out of every 4 lived in cities or suburbs, which occupied only 1.5 per cent of the land.

As far as food supplies are concerned, there is no over-­population problem relative to society's capacity for producing an overabundance either today, or within the foreseeable future. The resources of the earth have never been fully utilized and it has been established that of the approximate 50 per cent of the globe's soil which can be cultivated only 10 per cent is being used. According to the United States Department of Agriculture there are about 25 million square miles of agricultural exploitable land, which means approximately 16 billion acres that could be cultivated. On this basis, with a present world population of approximately 4 billion, there would be available today about 4 acres per person. There are many large areas in Africa, South America and Australia that are still virgin lands awaiting development that possess the potential for sustaining millions.'

The sea represents an untapped larder rich in minerals and vegetables. It is a veritable treasure house of food supply and energy which can also be used as an additional means of irrigation through the conversion of sea water. Many modern ships today have their own distilling equipment which converts sea water to completely pure distilled water. 

The possibilities for potential food supplies are unlimited but even under the restricted and restrained economy of capitalism, producing not to satisfy human needs, but for a market and for profit, overabundance and overproduction have often been the problem and not the reverse. 

World grain production for the 1975-76 season was at a record high. United States wheat harvests achieved records. Wheat and rice production in China did likewise. The United States Food and Agricultural Organization in November, 1975 was about 2 to 3 per cent above 1974. Agriculture and food supplies are of course related to sources of energy and at present petroleum is a prime necessity for transportation. Recent newspaper articles in February, 1977, refer to an estimated 600 billion barrels of oil trapped in oil shale rocks in the Rocky Mountains awaiting development and equivalent to a 10-year supply of oil needs for the United States, and a disclosure that Mexican oil reserves top 60 billion barrels.

Apart from food, the working class have clearly demonstrated their unique ability to produce way in excess of what is needed for them to live on. The survival of the capitalist class should attest to the accuracy of this statement because they have been living on this surplus, in the lap of luxury, since the time of the Industrial Revolution. 

Poverty and deprivation are of course not caused by so-called "overpopulation", but on the contrary unhealthy and unwholesome conditions of poverty result most frequently in large families. Karl Marx aptly stated in Capital that "The size of the family is in reverse ratio to the height in wages." The miserable conditions produced by abject poverty give rise to overcrowding, lack of proper sanitation, and an apathetic attitude born of despair and hopelessness. Add to this a lack of proper education and malnutrition and human beings become incapable of properly organising their personal lives even on an elementary basis. The terrible poverty to be found in India, with millions living in the streets, is an example. If all these impoverished and destitute humans became childless and sterile overnight their misery would still endure, because they are propertyless, have no work, and have little or no access to food, clothing and shelter. To blame their condition, and the similar ·plight of millions of workers throughout the world, on "overpopulation", in a society capable of producing untold wealth and abundance, is to add a terrible insult to their social misfortunes. Even in countries where the populations are small relative to the large areas of land, such as Canada and Latin America, poverty and hunger are prevalent and conspicuous. 

There is, however, one outstanding feature common to all countries irrespective of their size and population. And that is the existence in each nation of a fortunate, privileged minority who never have to contend with problems of poverty or large families because they own and control the wealth of the world. They became rich through the efforts of the working class, and irrespective of their sexual or biological habits, and they will remain in this same economic position until their employees realize the true nature of the system that enslaves them. When this time arrives the age of scapegoats, red herrings and political baloney, no matter how it is sliced, will be at an end. And you can be certain that men and women who have finally obtained their emancipation and freedom, and have be come the common owners of the world's wealth, will also have the intelligence to control their numbers according to the desires and requirements of a socialist society. 

Samuel Leight

Paddington Branch Report. (1908)

From the June 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

Yes! we are still keeping the flag flying, surrounded though we may be with the cohorts of reaction. Their name is legion. No sooner does the I.L.P. get upon its thin and gnat-like legs, than a branch of the S.D.F. becomes a matter of immediate import.  A "Trades and Labour Council" follows as a matter of course, whilst upon its heels treads the Clarion Fellowship. We understand there are still some vacancies. The earnestness with which they deplore the "disruptive" tactics of the S.P.G.B. is only equalled by the eagerness they evince to establish further factions of what they call "our great and glorious movement." However, such is the environment in which we luxuriate.

There are, of course, the Tariff Reformers and the "Friends of Labour" but their activity seems more sporadic than that of the other capitalist parties just mentioned. We were successful recently in getting the Tariff Reformers to accept a challenge to a debate, but up to date cannot get a hall in which to hold it. One excellent hall we found, they averred was out of their district. True, we have had one generous offer, and that from the "Friends of Labour"—the Liberals—who mistook us for the S.D.F. We approached them for terms of hire of their own hall at Paddington. Back came their very "Liberal" offer. Could we have their hall in which to flatten out the Tariff Reformers? Certainly! have it and welcome. And the terms? Don't mention it; we'll give it you. And, what's more, we'll provide your chairman for you and do all the needful advertising.

There's generosity for you! When you want it laid on with a trowel apply to the Paddington Radical Club. Our reply was as follows:—

"For the first time, perhaps in your history, you are dealing with a Socialist party. We are as much opposed to the S.D.F. as we are to the Tariff Reformers, the Paddington Radical Club, or any other capitalist agency; and, further, we shall be happy to demonstrate the extent of our differences with you whenever you feel so graciously disposed as to accept the challenge we now formally tender.
"We, the Paddington Branch of the S.P.G.B., challenge you, the Paddington Radical Club, to debate "Socialism versus Liberalism" or 'Socialism versus Free Trade," or any similar proposition where the issue is perfectly clear.
"Regarding your offer to supply the hall, advertise the debate, and provide the chairman, it only appears to fail in one respect: you should have insisted also on providing our speaker for us. We can only conceive of a party entirely "destitute of political aptitude", such as the S.D.F., or a party in nothing but name, such as the I.L.P., giving the proposal serious consideration.
"Awaiting your early reply," etc.

W. T. Hopley.

The rest is silence.  

The Materialist Conception of History (1980)

A chapter from Samuel Leight's 1980 book, World Without Wages (Money, Poverty & War)

The socialist is politically opposed to the system in which he finds himself; this opposition arises from an analysis of capitalism, and the realization that socialism will solve the majority of the economic and social problems that exist today. We further claim that a policy of reformation will do nothing to alter the basis of capitalism, and therefore no major social evil can ever be removed by any reform or group of reforms.

Socialists attempt to survey the historic development of society, to ascertain how society has evolved, and to discover the prime causes that have been responsible for the changes that have taken place. It is indisputable that society has passed from one system to another, but the underlying dynamics for this is not initially obvious, and has been a matter for conjecture and controversy. The answer to this question is of paramount importance, because armed with the correct scientific approach to the historic development of mankind it is reasonable to suppose that this same method will enable us to properly examine the system under which we now live, and by so doing create first, the theoretical sound solution to current social problems, and second, the practical application of the theory.

The interpretation of history put forward by Karl Marx and supported by The World Socialist Party and its companion parties is referred to as The Materialist Conception Of History. The name itself implies that it is distinct from other approaches, and that there are contrary concepts.

The Materialist Conception Of History asserts as its fundamental proposition that it is the economic basis of any society, and the way in which production and distribution of wealth is organized, that is the main determining factor of the social structure of society, and the foundation on which the outlooks, ideas, conduct, social relationships, legal and political structures rest. Further, that these conditions are never static, but are continuously in the process of change and development; that they constitute the main element of historic change, and are the predominate dynamic influence responsible for social evolution. This social evolution has been reflected in different systems of society with different economic basis that have evolved one from the other.

Since the advent of private property history has been a record of class struggles, and the control of the state machine has always been of prime importance to the ruling class of any era. Man acts within his environment and is conditioned accordingly. He affects and makes history but only within the scope of the material conditions in which he lives. There is, therefore, an interplay between man and his surrounding material conditions that react one upon the other and out of which change and development occur. The Materialist Conception Of History does not preclude other influences upon historical development, such as geographical and climatic conditions, or, for example, traditional social hangovers from the past, but the economic factor constitutes the main determining and dominating condition—the way people associate together in order to produce a livelihood.

We can now compare this materialist approach to history with other concepts and recognize the fundamental differences.

The socialist discards the "Great Man Theory", although we have already acknowledged that man plays an active part in reacting to his existing circumstances. But to view history as the record of the deeds of so-called great men, leaders, kings, and emperors is to ignore the fact that these historic figures were the result of the prevailing material conditions and not vice versa. Such an approach perverts historic truth, but nevertheless is taught openly, or implied covertly within the educational system, affording the ruling class with a technique for preserving their power position, by encouraging nationalistic and patriotic ideas, and propagandizing youth to accept misconceptions of leadership, and the glorification of war with its legalized violence.

To the extent that one considers Divine Providence and God's will as the determining factor of historic development we find ourselves in the realm of mental fantasy, becoming divorced from reality. A true working class materialist approach to the world is sabotaged and never given an opportunity to mature.

While the Materialist Conception accepts the influence of ideas upon history we at the same time relate the ideas to the material conditions from which they have developed. Ideas themselves are the result of the action of the brain, which is the phenomena of thinking matter. These ideas originate from their material surroundings and are the mental products resulting from an evolving society. The universe exists apart from man's consciousness, and ideas as we understand them have only existed since the advent of man, through the function of his brain. The materialist approach recognizes that man's awareness of the universe is registered through his thinking faculties, but that the totality of things existed before man, and that man is a comparative recent arrival upon the scene.

The socialist rejects all metaphysical and supernatural approaches, and regards astrology, associated outlooks, and predictions as having no scientific value or supportable proof.

Members of the working class should discard in their entirety these false approaches to history, because not only do they do an injustice to intelligence, but they create yet another intellectual barrier to the comprehension of the socialist case.

It is unreasonable to presume that capitalism represents the final cycle in social development. We contend that socialism is the next logical progression and that capitalism has long age fulfilled its historic purpose and has outlived its usefulness. Man has journeyed through changing and different systems of society. To contend that he has reached the pinnacle of economic development with a system that has produced poverty amidst plenty, and economic insecurity along with production techniques that have virtually unlimited potential capacities, is to close one's mind to the future and to ignore the historic facts of the past. Society has never been static, it is always on the move, forever changing; every past system has evolved into another. The advent of socialism, for the first time in history, will mark the conscious social and political effort of a majority establishing a new system of society, and being at the same time fully aware of the meaning, implications, and social justifications for this revolutionary act. The social consciousness of man will have arrived, somewhat belatedly, at a new, inspiring plateau.

Regressing to trace man's progress through organized society, we find a period wherein he lived in tribal groups, referred to as primitive communism. Everyone within the tribe had the right of access to whatever was owned by the tribe. In good times their simple needs were satisfied, and in periods of shortages there was hardship. Man lived by picking his food from the trees and vegetation, and by the killing of wild animals. Initially his tools were simple in construction. Fire was discovered, stone clubs and spears fashioned, the bow and arrow invented, and polished stone instruments were made. The art of pottery was developed, the taming and herding of animals, together with the use of bronze, and primitive agriculture and the cultivation of crops. Then, with the discovery of the process of smelting iron and the making of iron tools, together with the advances made in agriculture, man began producing in excess of the needs of the tribe. Private property made its appearance; with this there came a need for protection, and the authority of government.

A new society was developing which took the form of warrior chiefdoms that covered vast areas of the world, and which comprised the patriarchal warrior chief and the clansmen who owed allegiance to him. The main mode of production was agricultural. Chattel slave empires developed in Egypt, Babylon, Greece, and Rome. The economy was mainly agricultural, with some trading; the slaves formed an economic basis in society and were owned outright by their masters. The city-state came into being and was an instrument of power used by the ruling class, and these states later grew into empires.

From this society feudalism evolved. Manorial estates were established; instead of the warrior chief there was the lord of the manor, with serfs who were tied to the land, but unlike the chattel slaves were not physically owned by their master. The serfs tilled a small portion of the land for themselves for a part of the week, and the balance of the week worked for the lord on his estates. All their rights were subordinate to the feudal lord. Within this feudal system merchant capitalism began to grow and small home manufacturing was started. Steam was utilized, harnessed to tools, and production was revolutionized.

With colonial expansion, commerce and trade prospered and feudalism, with its aristocracy, came into conflict with the new emerging capitalist class. The Industrial Revolution of 1760 in England, in France in 1789, brought with it large scale manufacturing based upon wage labor, and the production of commodities for sale and profit in the market place. The handicraft, and the mode of individual production under feudalism, had undergone a transformation to social production based upon wage labor, with the private ownership of the means of production and distribution by a minority of the population—the new ruling class. Capitalism had arrived—and with it new forms of misery, inequality, and deprivation for the majority. To complete the picture, the 1917 Revolution in Russia marked the commencement of capitalism in the U.S.S.R. operated on a national basis through the state machine, with the so-called Communist Party in dictatorial control.

Socialists maintain that to properly understand the ideas of any period of social development it is essential to examine the economics of that era, and to realize that the prevailing ideas are co-related to the economic base.

With this approach as a political yardstick, and if it is understood that the capitalist system can only operate in the interests of the capitalist class, all overtures made by reformist and capitalist parties for continued support should be rejected. Social problems must be analyzed from a materialist standpoint and all promises made by so-called leaders regarded with profound skepticism. They function as agents representing the interests of the capitalist class—it can never be otherwise.

We have often been accused of possessing a cold approach towards humanity because of the connotation inaccurately applied to the term "materialism". But on the contrary, we state that in order to eliminate all the inhumanities of capitalism a materialist approach is mandatory. The application of materialism in the social sense means an investigation that leads unerringly to socialism as the logical next stage of man's organizational development.

Together with Karl Marx we say: "Our task is not only to understand the world but to change it!"

(This essay first appeared in 'World Without Wages (Money, Poverty and War!), a series of Tuscon Radio Broadcasts presented for the World Socialist Party of the United States by Samel Leight)

Samuel Leight

Action Replay: Women’s Football Team Earn Roar of Approval (2015)

The Action Replay Column from the August 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

England’s women’s football team, dubbed ‘Lionesses’ by the popular press, earned third place in the Women’s World Cup in Canada by overcoming Germany 1-0 with a penalty kick by Fara Williams in the 108th minute. The World Cup winners America defeated Japan in a 5-2 romp.

As the tournament progressed the team became better known with each performance as did the individual players. England’s first goal was scored by Fran Kirby who stopped playing football at 17 – she suffered depression after her mother’s death. Playing park football rekindled her love for the game. Karen Carney has also experienced depression and once had to be pulled from a car to attend training by Laura Basset the current centre half, then a team mate at Birmingham City.

Veteran midfielder Fara Williams became homeless as a teenager after being estranged from her family. She has spent years playing for England while living in hostels and on the streets. Extrovert striker Lianne Sanderson and former captain Casey Stoney (MBE) are two players who are role models in the gay community. Casey recently had twins with her partner Meg Harris.

The quality of the England team’s football has been mixed. But there has been very little diving, barely any dissent and no rolling around in fake agony which is commonplace in the men’s game – when Bassett was elbowed in the eye by a French player, she simply got up and played on.

Admiration for England’s male footballers is qualified by resentment of occasional boorish behaviour and massive wages. The women however are well behaved but relatively poorly paid. If they had won this competition their bonus would have been ￡35k each. Had the men won in Brazil last year they would have received ￡350k

Most female England players do reasonably well, considering they are subsidised by the men’s football.  They have a central contract with the English Football Association worth ￡20- ￡25k, plus club contracts that can reach ￡40,000. 

It appears that the shared experiences and the obvious empathy of England’s ‘Lionesses’ create a sense of wellbeing in the team squad. In contrast the macho approach in male football – not talking about their problems and seeking resolution in alcohol is a poor substitute for the openness in women’s football.

Kevin.

The withering away of the State: From Marx to Stalin (1946)

From the March 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialists from Marx and Engels onwards have always held that with the establishment of Socialism the State will disappear. The State, which exists where society is divided into an owning class and a propertyless class, and is a coercive institution through control of which the dominant class imposes its will on the subject class, would lose its function when society ceases to be divided into classes. The Marxian view was put by F. Engels in his "Socialism, Utopian and Scientific":—

"The first act by virtue of which the State really constitutes itself the representative of the whole of society—the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society—this is, ay the same time, its last independent act as a State. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not 'abolished.' It dies out."

—Sonnenschein edition, 1892, p. 76.

(The phrase "dies out" has sometimes been translated "withers away.")

Claiming to be Marxists the Communists have repeatedly tried to explain away the continued existence of the coercive State in Russia, long after the alleged establishment of "Socialism," when, according to the theory, it ought to have withered away. Before dealing with these "explanations," it may be useful to point out that Socialists are in such quandary. Socialism (which, of course, will be international—"Socialism in one country" in the midst of a capitalist world is a myth) will see the withering away of the State. Russia is not Socialist are therefore no Socialist imagines that the State could wither away there.

The earlier Communist line was to claim that the Russian State was withering away. Thus the Communist "Labour Monthly" (Sept., 1931) wrote:—

"There are, in fact, in the Soviet Union to-day . . . elements of this 'withering away' already perceptible . . ."

Some six months later Molotov, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, admitted that the class struggle in Russia had not ended, and of course the existence of a class struggle means that the State must still exist. He said:—

"Not only does the class struggle not end, but in some sections and at some periods it may and will become considerably sharpened."

— Labour Monthly, April, 1932.

The Labour Monthly went on to summarise Molotov's further observations. "The Thesis also considers the question of the 'withering away' of the State, but points out that while the establishment of the proletariat dictatorship has already transformed the State into a semi-State, the conditions of internal and external class-struggle demand a strengthening of the State in the immediate future . . ."

Now comes the last chapter of this tortuous attempt to explain away an inconvenient truth. Having said that the State is withering away, then that it is not a State but a semi-State (whatever that means), and that it was getting stronger before it could get weaker, we are now told that the whole theory has been thrown overboard.

The Times correspondent in Moscow sent to his paper (1 Feb, 1946) a report of a speech made at a Lenin Memorial meeting by Aleksandrov, chief of the propaganda department of the Russian Communist Party. Referring to the Stalinist theory of "Socialism in one country." he said:—

"There were two aspects of this policy. There were internal obstacles to be swept away and dangers from aboard to be met. To-day there was no force within the Soviet Union capable of preventing the further development of Socialism and its gradual transition to Communism. Vigilance against attack from without had necessitated the rejection of the Marxist theory of the withering away of the State, based on the assumption of international Socialism, and the adoption of the Stalin theory of building a strong State with a powerful army and its own military science capable of winning in war and of achieving the military and diplomatic consolidation of victory."

It will be noticed that whereas in the earlier explanation the State was said to be necessary in Russia because of the internal class struggle, the reason now given is vigilance against attack from without.

In conclusion, it is interesting to see that the Marxian view of the State as essentially a coercive institution is shared, though from an opposite angle, by Mr. Winston Churchill. General Spears, in the Sunday Express (28 Jan. 1945) quoted Mr. Churchill as saying: "You cannot have a State without some sort of a national army."

Edgar Hardcastle

Greece, Austerity, and Capitalism (2015)

From the August 2015 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Syriza won the elections in Greece in January on a 'No to Austerity' platform left-wing opponents of austerity throughout Europe were delighted. ‘If they can do it, so we can’, they chanted. Yes, but do what? Saying 'No' to austerity is one thing. Ending it is another.

Why there is austerity

Knowing how capitalism works, we were sceptical; maybe Syriza could mitigate austerity a little for some workers, but end it, no. 'Austerity' , i.e. cutting back on government spending, is a policy that all governments are obliged to apply when capitalism is in one of its periodic downturns, at least if they don't want to make the situation worse.

The capitalist economy is driven by business investment and businesses only invest with a view to making a profit. A slump is an expression of the fact that, for one reason or another, production on the previous scale is no longer profitable. The only way that capitalism can get out of a slump is if profitability is restored. The main way this comes about is through the devaluation of capital assets: some firms go under and their assets pass cheaply to rivals, which means that less profit needs to be made to achieve the previous rate of profit on capital invested.

Another factor increasing profitability is the fall in labour costs: with higher unemployment there is a downward pressure on wages. The government can help by reducing taxes on profits as businesses are only interested in after-tax profits. But, as in the end all taxation falls on profits and property by being passed on to them wherever it initially falls, it isn't just by decreasing direct taxes on profits that the government can help. It can also reduce taxation generally by cutting its own spending, including on 'welfare' and 'benefits' for workers, undoing past social reforms.

Besides the pressure to reduce taxation to help restore profitability, governments are under an additional pressure in a slump to cut their spending. With the fall in economic activity there is also a fall in their tax receipts.

All this is why governments can be legitimately said to be 'obliged' to pursue a policy of austerity in a slump. Of course governments have the power, both in law and in theory, to decide not to do this. But the consequence would be that they would make things worse, by prolonging and perhaps deepening the slump in economic activity.

More government spending no way out

Those who say that a government should refuse to impose austerity in a slump offer a seemingly plausible and common sense argument: as total purchasing power falls in a slump, increase government spending to compensate and that will get the economy growing again. Surely, reducing it only makes matters worse? If capitalism was a system driven by paying demand this might make sense. But it's not. It's driven by business investment for profit. It's the effect of increased government spending on this that's relevant. The key question is: where is the government to get the extra money to increase its spending from?

As governments don't produce anything themselves (except marginally if they happen to directly operate some profit-seeking business) there are only three possible sources: taxation, borrowing, or the printing press.

Since all taxation falls in the end on profits, increasing it will have an adverse effect on business investment for profit, which is what drives the capitalist economy.

Borrowing needn't have this effect, but the interest on the extra borrowing would have to come out of taxation (as would in the end repaying the loans).

Printing more money might give a temporary boost to production, but would eventually lead to a rise in prices, creating other economic problems such as making exports more expensive and so less competitive; imports would be cheaper so threatening the jobs too of workers employed by businesses producing for the home market.

So, however financed, government spending in a slump is not a way out of it. When tried, as with the Labour governments in Britain in the 60s and 70s and with Mitterrand in France in the early 80s, it hasn't worked. The economic situation got worse and the governments which tried it had to resort to austerity. Basically, both theory and practice demonstrate that there is no way in a slump in which a government can avoid imposing austerity without making things worse.

Greek debts

The Greek state was hit particularly hard by the crash of 2008 because, with the drop in economic activity that followed, its revenue from taxes fell while its debt – what it owed those who had lent it money by buying its bonds – increased as, like other states, it had to borrow money to bail out its banks.

Critics have blamed the scale of the problem on the profligacy of the Greek State, even on the Greek people in general, for borrowing and spending money recklessly. But it takes two to tango and in the period up to 2008 banks from other European countries were buying Greek government bonds as part of the general lending spree which nobody thought would end. If there were reckless spenders there were also reckless lenders. But the economic boom did end and it is this that has caused the Greek sovereign debt problem. In fact the various Greek bail-outs are aimed at bailing out the Greek government’s creditors as well as the Greek government.

Other European countries, whether or not they were in the Eurozone or even the EU (think Iceland), suffered from a similar problem, even if not on the same scale, and adopted austerity to try to deal with it.

The Eurozone is basically an agreement between the EU Member-States involved to maintain a fixed exchange rate between their currencies, all renamed the euro. To do this the member-states must pursue broadly similar economic and monetary policies. In a slump, austerity. This is imposed by capitalism but, because it has been made a condition for Eurozone countries to borrow money from other Eurozone countries, it appears to be imposed by the Eurozone. This has led – misled – some anti-austerity campaigners in Greece and elsewhere into blaming austerity on  being in the euro and not being in capitalism and into imagining that this could be avoided if their country exited the euro. This, for instance, is the position of Costas Lapavitsas, professor at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London who was elected a Syriza MP in January, as expressed in his frequent articles in the Guardian. 'Forget the euro, Greece needs a new currency' he commented on the Greek deal. This, he claimed 'would also allow the government to finally get started on a productive reconstruction of the economy' (13 July).

But it's a delusion. If Greece withdrew from the euro, it still could not escape austerity. It would just take a different political form and could even be worse. Tsipras and most of Syriza seem to have realised this or at least were not prepared to put it to the test and preferred to have it imposed from Berlin. And just where would the money to finance ‘a productive reconstruction of the economy’ come from? Maybe Lapavitsas is thinking of the same sort of state-capitalist siege economy as in Cuba (or formerly in Russia and East Europe), as if that avoids austerity.

Incompatible with capitalism

According to Nigel Farage the deal imposed on the Greece government 'shows that national democracy and membership of the Eurozone are incompatible' (Times, 14 July). Others, from the left as well as the right, have made the same point, but it's misleading. If Greece withdrew from the Eurozone – or if Britain withdrew from the EU – the trappings of 'national democracy' would be restored, but what its 'sovereign' government would be able to do would still be restricted by the pressures of capitalism in a slump. Austerity would still be the order of the day, only it would now be decided by an independent decision of a government exercising unrestricted sovereignty.

The Greek deal does show an incompatibility between democracy and capitalism. The Greek people voted 'No' to austerity twice – when they elected the Syriza government in January and when they voted OXI in the 5 July referendum – but it made no difference. They still got austerity. The people may propose, but capitalism disposes.

It's not just carrying out democratically-made decisions that is incompatible with capitalism. It's also meeting human needs. In April the Greek parliament appointed a Truth Committee on Public Debt (on which Trotskyist economists such as Eric Toussaint and Michel Husson were appointed, as if Syriza wasn't stuffed full of its own left-wing economists). In its preliminary report in June (http://cadtm.org/Preliminary-Report-of-the-Truth) it argued that most of the Greek debt was 'illegal, illegitimate and odious' and suggested that these were grounds for repudiating it which would hold up in court (which planet are they living on?). One section, on 'The impact of the “bailout programme” on human rights', argued that, because repaying and servicing it imposed savage cuts on people's education, health, housing and other basic needs, it infringed their 'human rights' under UN and other charters. This is an excessively legalistic way of putting it, but the general point is valid: austerity does mean that human needs are ignored and come to be met even less than normally.

Capitalism is incompatible with meeting basic human needs too. In fact, austerity is a prime example of the capitalist imperative to put Profits before People.

There is a lesson in Syriza’s abysmal failure to even mitigate austerity in Greece, let alone end it. It’s that as long as capitalism is in a slump it can’t be ended. All the articles by left-wing economists saying that it can are not worth the paper they are printed on. All the (quite legitimate) protests and demonstrations against austerity are misdirected when they call on governments to end austerity. This is an impossible demand. All this energy would be more effectively directed instead at replacing the capitalist system of class ownership and production for profit by a socialist system of common ownership, democratic control and production directly to meet people’s needs. Only then will austerity be ended forever. Only then will what people vote for be able to be carried out.

Adam Buick